1

The Practical Side

Of Heaven




The Outlawed Logic/Logos
Teaching of Jesus









William C. Kiefert
February 2, 2001

Email: williamkiefert@aol.com

First Edition (May 23, 2003)

2




BOOK JACKET OR PREFACE

True Gnostic Christianity is an objective body of knowledge that Jesus taught.
It is not a mystery religion or heretical cult. Gnostic Christianity teaches a non-
judgmental process of reasoning. This new process is justified by a natural principle
that Jesus revealed and science now supports. Combining non-judgmental reasoning with
the current judgmental process, expands our consciousness of reality. In this enlightened
consciousness we are personally empowered to resolve all problems and as Paul said,
live the good life as from the beginning He [God] had meant us to live it. (Eph 2:10)

The principle that Jesus revealed is, like Newtons Theory of Gravity, true for
everyone, everywhere, and for all time. One does not have to hold a particular doctrine,
believe a particular religion or philosophy, or have a particular spiritual orientation to
profit from Jesus theory. We need only understand the theory to benefit from its
wisdom, for it can change the character of our thoughts and, in turn, our consciousness of
reality. Simply said, the goal of Gnostic Christianity is to make the reasoning mind an
instrument of our spiritual natureglobally.

Evidence that Jesus taught a process of reasoning that could expand
consciousness surfaces in Jn 8:31-32 jbv, where he says, If you make my word your
homeyou will learn the truth and the truth will set you free [word or will of God is the
English translation of the Greek term logos, which refers to the logic or reasoning of
God]. And in Rm 12:2 (rsv) Paul said do not be conformed to this world but be
transformed by the renewal of your mind

The Gnosis, or reasoning process, that Gnostic Christianity introduces, does not
contradict Jesus spiritually-centered public teachings. It documents what scholars refer
to as Jesus oral or logos/logic tradition, which he taught in private (Mk 4:33-34). These
teachings elevate our reasoning mind to that of the will/reasoning of God. In this
renewed mind, our reasoning supports spiritual values. This is the truth that can set us
free. For when mind and spirit seek the same ends (syzygy) doing on earth as it is in
heaven will no longer be an idealistic goal, it will be a practical reality (Matt 6:10).




3



Table of Contents
Page

6 Introduction

10 Chapter One (Purpose)
10 Statement of Purpose
12 Transcending Civilization
12 Spirituality Alone is Not Enough
14 Evidence of Jesus Logos/Logic Teachings
15 Why Are Jesus Gnostic Teachings Missing?
16 Biblical Authenticity
16 My Writing Style
18 Methodology
18 Summary

20 Chapter Two (Logic)
20 What is Logic and Reason?
21 What is Logic & How Does it Affect Us?
22 Where Does Logic Come From?
23 Is Traditional Logic Credible?
24 The Need for a New Logic
26 What is the Assumption Upon Which Logic Rests?
28 The Three Basic Laws of Logic
37 Four Reasons Why an Additional System of Logical Laws is
Required
38 Does Humanity Have More Than One Nature?
43 Can Civilization Survive Another 3,000 Years of Judgmental Logic?
45 The Need for an Additional System of Logic
48 Nonjudgmental Logic
49 The Three Basic Laws of Nonjudgmental Logic
57 Summary of Judgmental & Nonjudgmental Logic

59 Chapter Three (Introduction to Stages of Consciousness
59 The Relationship Between Morality & Rational Development
61 Familiar Five Stage Models
62 Contemporary Models of Five Stages of Human Development
66 Brief Overview of Characteristics of the Five Stages of
Consciousness
68 Detailed Examples of the Characteristics of Five Stages of
Consciousness
68 Stage I
70 Stage II
76 Pinpointing the Cause of Stage II Reasoning
82 Entering Stage III

4



84 Chapter Four (Stage Three of Consciousness)
84 Stage III of Consciousness in our Everyday Lives
88 The Dilemma of Stage III
89 Why Does Stage II Reasoning Persist in Stage III?
90 Informal Use of Nonjudgmental Logic in Stage III
91 Nonjudgmental LogicThe Right Arm of the Golden Rule
94 Nonjudgmental Logic & Comprehending the Truth of Reality
96 Practicing Nonjudgmental Logic
97 Towards the End of Judgmental Reasoning & Stage III

99 Chapter Five (Stage Four of Rational Consciousness)
99 The Nonjudgmental Rational Consciousness of Stage IV
100 The Message from Near Death Experiences
100 Happiness & Morality in Stage IV
101 The Criterion for a Successful Life in Stage IV
102 Harmonizing Difference Through Nonjudgmental Logic
102 The Meaning of Metaphors, Myths & Parables in Stage IV
103 Nonjudgment & Love as the Nature of Reality in Stage IV
104 Is Nonjudgmental Logic the Key to a Heaven on Earth?

107 Chapter Six (Stage Five of Rational Consciousness)

110 Chapter Seven (What is True Gnostic Christianity)
110 True Gnostic Christianity
111 The Goal of Gnostic Christianity
112 Biblical Authenticity
117 What is Enlightenment in Gnostic Christianity?
118 Why is Enlightenment a Missing Goal in Orthodox Christianity?
119 How Gnostic Christians Define our Psychological Nature
123 Higher Consciousness Through Knowledge
124 Uniqueness of the Gnostic Model
125 Harmonizing Flesh & Spirit
127 Is the Mind of God within Man?

130 Chapter Eight (What is Gnosis?)
130 What Are the Gnosis/Knowledge Teachings of Jesus?
131 What is the Relationship Between The Sin & the Prevailing Theory
of Nature?
132 What Did Henos Anthropos Mean in the First Century?
136 Review of Platos Theory of Nature
140 Evidence of Anthropos in Ancient Texts
145 How Scientific Literature Reflects Anthropos
148 Exploring Jesus Theory of Nature
150 Nonjudgmental Logic
153 Evidence of Anthropoi

5


162 Evidence of Henos Anthropos & Anthropoi in the Greek Term
Stoichiea

172 Chapter Nine (Five Stages of Consciousness In Gnosticism)
172 ABCs of Five Stages of Consciousness
176 Biblical References to the Five Stages of Consciousness
178 Detailed Examples of Five Stages of Consciousness
178 Stage I of Consciousness
179 Stage II of Consciousness
186 Stage III of Consciousness
194 Stage IV of Consciousness
211 True Happiness
213 Stage V of Consciousness

222 Chapter Ten
222 How Gnostic Christianity Solves Biblical Mysteries
273 Gnostic Christianitys Response to 9-11

274 Chapter Eleven Conclusion

278 Glossary

291 About the Author

293 Footnotes






6




Introduction

You cannot overcome a problem in the same
consciousness that created it.

It has often been said that civilization will improve only if we change our ideas
about one another, but people differ as to what ideas need to be changed. The Gnostic
Christian view is that it is not peoples ideas that need to be changed, but rather reasoning
itself, the process by which we relate our ideas according to a system of logical laws.
Simply put, what needs to be brought up to date is not what we think, but rather the
laws of logic that act as standards of our thinking. We cannot expect to be moral if we
believe we are reasonable when we are not. For example, just as a keyboard without all
its keys cannot convey everything we might want to say, neither can reasoning, based on
an unfinished system of logical laws, encompass every facet of reality.

Contemporary physics has taught us that the system of logical laws that we have
used for the last twenty-five hundred years is incomplete. The old system rests on a
principle that is outdated; and we find ourselves in uncharted waters without a compass
or map. If the old ways of reasoning are unable to understand the new physics, have we
failed to consider that they may also be incapable of comprehending human beings?
After all, were much more complicated than physics sub-atomic particles! Two
thousand five hundred plus years of experience has taught us that civilized ways of
reason have been ineffectual in reconciling disputes and resolving crises in human affairs.
Can we any longer trust such reasoning? We need to reason/relate ideas differently. We
need an additional system of logical laws to understand facets of reality that our present
system does not encompass. Gnostic Christianity provides a system of nonjudgmental
logic which can satisfy that need.

Specifically, Gnostic Christianity argues that the basic principle, which justifies
our present system of logical laws, does not represent all of reality. Today, science
supports this argument. This calls into question the reliability of how we relate ideas /
reason because laws of logic determine correct reasoning.


Everyone Is Affected By Jesus Knowledge Teachings

Would Jesus recognize his teachings in traditional accounts of his ministry and
why should anyone but Christians even care? Jesus would recognize some of his
teachings in traditional accounts of his life. He would, however, be heartsick because he
stood for something that is utterly missing in those accounts.

What is missing in records of Jesus teachings is fundamentally important to
everyoneChristian or not. Jesus revealed a natural principle that justifies a
nonjudgmental system of logic that goes hand in hand with our present judgmental

7


system. Limited to our present system of logic, we will remain predisposed to reason
judgmentally, when in spirit, we know this is wrong. When we learn Jesus
nonjudgmental system of logic, we elevate our reasoning mind to the same level as our
spiritual nature. This harmonizes our reasoning with our Spirit. This is the key to higher
consciousness and doing on earth as it is in heaven, just as Jesus said we could. (Matt
2:10) For example, just as musical notes convey songs and melodies, so does
nonjudgmental logic convey spiritual principles. With musical notes, we move from a
few flute and leer players to the sound of symphonies. With nonjudgmental logic, we
move from a time in which spiritual thinking is in conflict with reason, to a time when
everyone sees themselves in others and the world.

Note: Spiritual/nonjudgmental thinking means putting ideas together in terms of
oneness, diversity, both/and, and complimentarity. By judgmental thinking, Gnostic
Christians mean reasoning in terms of separation, absolutes, either/or, and
inferior/superior.

In review, we can also think of Jesus nonjudgmental system of logical laws as
upgraded intellectual software. For just as upgraded software expands the potentials of a
computer to process data in new ways, so does Jesus system of logic add new powers to
the mind, which expand our consciousness of reality. In this expanded consciousness
(enlightenment) we perceive reality in heightened or godlike ways.

We can also think of Jesus nonjudgmental system of logic as a new system of
mathematics. For just as Einsteinian mathematics provides the key to entering
dimensions of our physical world that traditional laws of mathematics cannot penetrate,
so does Jesus system of logic facilitate a quantum leap into mental space that our present
judgmental system of logic cannot access. In simple terms, Jesus revealed a way to
elevate our reasoning mind to the same level as our spiritual values.


To Understand Jesus We Must Understand
How He Used the Greek Term Logos


The key to understanding Jesus is to know how he uses the Greek term logos.
Jesus does not use logos in the sense of the statement or the word of God recorded in
the Bible. Logos, for Jesus, refers to divine logic/reason of God, in man. This definition
is Hellenized Judaisms adaptation of the Greek concept of logos as world soul
1

meaning the mind of God.

If one thinks in OT terms, one would prefer to translate logos by word; if one
thinks in the Greek terms, as the apologists [Gnostics] did on the whole, then one would
translate logos into reason.
2
The logos stood for more than spoken words. The extent
of the concept was that behind spoken words were thoughts. Thoughts were mind. Mind
had affinity with reason. Reason was the structure of orderly actionthat ultimate reality
was reasonable, was in fact reason itself.
3
And because human beings have the capacity

8


to reason, it was believed by Jesus and Gnostic Christians that our destiny is to make
contact with divine reason and, like God, discern ultimate truths,
4
See Inter 547A.

Logos also means mans ability to
recognize reality; we would call it
theoretical reason. It is mans ability to
reason.
5


Did Jesus discover a way to awaken unused portions of our mind?

I offer compelling evidence that Jesus revealed a fact about the nature of reality
that justifies new method of nonjudgmental reasoning, which will be in harmony with
spiritual principles. This is the foundational teaching of Gnostic Christianity.

One way I substantiate my claim that Jesus taught a new method of reasoning is
by linking it to biblical passages. In 1Thes 2:16 rsv, for example, Paul thanked God that,
The word [again, meaning the logos/logic or reasoning] of God you heard from us
[Gnostics] you accepted it not as the word [logic] of men but as what it really is, the word
[logic] of God, .. and Pauls reminder of Gods statement to Jeremiah that he will put his
(Gods) laws within their [meaning our] minds (Heb 8:10).

Note: God, in true Gnostic Christianity, is a metaphor for life-affirming
principles. In 1Jn 4:6, for example, John said, God is love.

Scientists demonstrate that meditation and prayer can activate areas of the brain in
which feelings of bliss, well-being and oneness are processed. This suggests the brain is
capable of processing both analytical and spiritual ideas. Could it be that nature intends
our spiritual thinking to be as clear and concise as our analytical thinking? Perhaps we
have not yet learned how to use those areas of the brain, dedicated to spiritual thinking, to
their fullest potential.

Jesus was unique among social revolutionaries. He did not blame existing
religious, economic or political institutions for human suffering. The revolution he saw
was a far deeper one, without which other reforms could only be superficial and
transitory. If he could convince the world that judgmental reasoning was not the only
method of reasoning and that nonjudgmental reasoning is the common ground of higher
consciousness, Utopia would come of itself. All the ill effects of judgmental reasoning
and the consequent need for lawwould disappear. Compared to the revolution in
consciousness that nonjudgmental reasoning makes possible, all others are little more
than examples of one system replacing another and exploiting in turn. If we learn this
lesson, our future will no longer repeat the past.
6


In summary, Jesus presented his Gnostic or logos/logic teachings two thousand
years ago. Few accepted those teachings. Most preferred his public teachings to the
theory of nature and system of nonjudgmental logic he taught in private. In the third
millennium, a majority will accept Jesus private teachings, because quantum physics

9


supports his theory, making it factually undeniable. In effect, the support that todays
physics gives Jesus theory of nature will make that theory as important globally as is the
prevailing theory.

If we can learn how to relate ideas/reason judgmentally, we can learn to
relate ideas/reason nonjudgmentally. We have learned to reason judgmentally because
the prevailing theory was the only theory. Jesus theory, however, gives us the
opportunity to learn how to reason nonjudgmentally.


Call To Action

Everyone has talents and resources. Combined and used to their best advantage,
we could collectively use those talents to create a higher form of civilization.

I consider reasoning nonjudgmentally the fourth R of education. Isnt learning
how to reason nonjudgmentally/lovingly as important to our childrens future as reading,
writing, and arithmetic? My personal goal is to introduce both the prevailing and Jesus
theory of nature, and rules of reasoning based on both, into our childrens classrooms
through judicial actions.

Jesus theory of nature is scientifically demons ratable, and therefore, arguable in
court. My goal is to inspire that one person who could, like Clarence Darrow at the
Scopes trial, argue that Jesus theory of nature, like Darwins, must be taught in
classrooms globally. Hopefully others will be inspired to use their talents, in their way,
to make reasoning lovingly a way of life globally.

I do not ask you to believe my research. All I ask is that you judge it on the basis
of its scientific, historical, linguistic, and logical merits. The issue here is, whether my
research represents Jesus logos teachings, or is demonstrably false. And second, if my
research is true, is it the same truth that John says will make you free? (8:32) I believe
it is and in the third millennium, life will be based on that truth, creating the heaven on
earth that Jesus promised us in his Lords Prayer.

We are but one thought away from learning a truly new path to heaven on earth in
the third millennium. Jesus system of nonjudgmental logic is that path. The future will
be determined by our choice to act, or not, on that thought.







10





Chapter One

Statement of Purpose


The danger facing humanity requires getting beyond the
usual mind or self sense. Political action, social programs,
humanitarian work and so forth are good, but not enough.
Only transformed consciousness can transform the world.
The ultimate action then, is no action at all except to
change consciousness.
7


To understand Jesus, we must understand how he used the Greek term logos.

Logos also means mans ability to recognize reality; we
would call it theoretical reason. It is mans ability to
reason.
8


The key to understanding Jesus is to know how he uses the Greek term logos.
Jesus does not use logos in the sense of the statement or the word of God recorded in
the Bible. Logos, for Jesus, refers to divine logic/reason of God, in man. This definition
is Hellenized Judaisms adaptation of the Greek concept of logos as world soul,
9

meaning the mind of God.

If one thinks in OT terms, one would prefer to translate logos by word; if one
thinks in the Greek terms, as the apologists [Gnostics] did on the whole, then one would
translate logos into reason.
10
The logos stood for more than spoken words. The
extent of the concept was that behind spoken words were thoughts. Thoughts were mind.
Mind had affinity with reason. Reason was the structure of orderly actionthat ultimate
reality was reasonable, was in fact reason itself.
11
And because human beings have the
capacity to reason, it was believed by Jesus and Gnostic Christians that our destiny is to
make contact with divine reason and, like God, discern ultimate truths,
12
See Inter
547A.

Plato had set a theme by picturing the Ideas of God as the patterns on which all
things were formed; the Stoics had combined these Ideas into the Logos of Spermatikos
or fertilizing wisdom of God; the Neo-Pythagoreans had made the Ideas a divine person;
and Philo had turned them into the Logos or Reason of God, a second divine principle,
through which God created, and communicated with, the world. If we retain the famous
exordium of the Fourth Gospel with all this in mind, and retain the Logos of the Greek
original in place of the translation Word, we perceive at once that John has joined the
philosophers.


11


In the beginning was the Logos [divine reason]; the Logos
was with God, and the Logos was GodAll things were
made by the Logos; without him nothing was made that
was made. It was by him that all things came into
existence So the Logos became flesh and blood [the
power of reason in man], and dwelt amongst us. Jn 1:1-14

Most think that it is everything from grandiose to blasphemous to believe that
human beings can be like God. The Gospel of John, however, teaches the opposite. The
Logos/reason of God is in us, and that our purpose is to, like Jesus, elevate our reasoning
to the level of Gods Logos. This does not mean raising our present process of reasoning
to a higher level. Rather, it means to recognize the need to create an additional process,
which when added to the present, emulates the logos/reason of God. Understanding this
makes it easy to understand Jesus. Namely Jesus was rejected and put to death for his
teaching that all mankind has the power to reason like God. In fact, like him, all are one
with God.

True Gnostic Christianity, like Jesus, teaches that we can expand our
consciousness by elevating the rational element of consciousness to the same level as the
logos, meaning the logic or reasoning of God. This goal is achieved when we understand
a new theory of human nature that Jesus revealed. That theory justifies a nonjudgmental
system of logic that empowers us to reason in ways that are comparable to that of the
logos or reasoning of God. With that godlike potential for reasoning, we will expand the
context in which we think and become conscious in a nonjudgmental, loving, and
Godlike way. This is what Paul means by we [meaning Gnostic Christians] are those
who have the mind of Christ. (1Co 2:16 jbv) In 1Thes 2:16 rsv, Paul thanked God that
the word [again, from the Greek term logos meaning logic or reasoning of God] which
you heard from us [Gnostics] you accepted it not as the word [or traditional logic] of
men, but as it really is, the word [logic] of God, ..

Note: God, in Gnostic Christianity, is a metaphor for life-affirming principles. In
1Jn 4:6, for example, he says God is love.

In Gnostic Christian thought, the gnosis, knowledge in English, that Jesus teaches
is a new theory of human nature that is, like Newtons Theory of Gravity, true for
everyone, everywhere, and for all time. One does not have to hold a particular doctrine,
believe a particular religion or philosophy, or have a particular spiritual orientation to
profit from Jesus theory. We need only understand the theory to benefit from its
wisdom, for it can change the character of our thoughts and, in turn, our consciousness of
reality. We stand on the edge of a revolution in consciousness, as momentous as any in
history. Gnosis/knowledge of Jesus Gnostic teachings, which are founded on his theory
of nature, is the key to that revolution.

Let me be clearGnostic Christianity is not a mystery religion or cult. Paul says
this in 2Cor 2:13, There are no hidden meanings in our letters beside what you can read
for yourself and understand. Jesus says the same in Jn 18:20, I have always taught in

12


the synagogue and temple where all the Jews meet together: I have said nothing in
secret.

Gnostic Christianity openly teaches Jesus system of logic to anyone willing to
take the time to learn. In practice, Jesus system of nonjudgmental logic is the means to
harmonize our weekday reasoning with Sunday morning sermons.


Transcending Civilization

History repeats itself because no religious, spiritual, or philosophical ism has
successfully convinced enough people in one generation to reason morally and lovingly.
Most know that our good depends on the well being of others and our stewardship of
nature. But most still selfishly rationalize that our needs and those of our family and
social groups we belong to come before others and our environment. Retirement
portfolios and short term profits, for example, all too often out-weigh our concern for
others, future generations, and nature. We agree that it takes a village to raise a child, but
we leave the care taking of that village to others.

Jesus Gnostic teachings are not miraculous or a quick fix. The unique quality of
Jesus nonjudgmental system of logic is that the principle of nature, on which his system
rests, has been proven to be correct by the new sciences. This makes his system of
reasoning universally true, and therefore teachable, on a global scale. This is important
because traditionally many moral values, such as the Golden Rule, are religious, and
therefore, subjective, which makes teaching them, on a global scale, difficult, and often
illegal.

Jesus system of nonjudgmental logic is factual and objective, which makes
teaching it possible and even an intellectual requirement. Not to teach both judgmental
and nonjudgmental logic limits the ability of all children to be fully conscious, and
therefore, their ability to be fully human. The point is that if all logic was taught
globally, enough people in a few generations would learn to reason nonjudgmentally.
This could swing the pendulum of power from selfish reasoning to reasoning that
nurtures love and sharing. This is the practical way to higher civilization.


Spirituality Alone is Not Enough

There is an old clich that the truth is something no one wants to hear. When
Jesus said, If you learn Gods reasoning you will learn the truth and that truth will set
you free, he is saying that our spiritual and moral freedom is achieved through reasoning
that goes hand- in-hand with feelings, not through intuition, miracles, spiritual feelings, or
religious rituals alone. For example, we can be inspired by sermons, be awed by psychic
phenomena and feelings, and be lifted to states of bliss and ecstasy by powers of
meditation, rituals, and music. But is this loving one another? Is the act of a thousand
Monks experiencing bliss more loving than the simple act of feeding a starving child?

13


The answer to this question is a truth we may not want to hear.

Until we learn how to integrate moral principles into our everyday rational world,
spiritual values and feelings of bliss will continue to be thought of as paranormal,
paradoxical, psychic, spiritual, or intuitive experiences. The point is that, if we learn
how to reason as lovingly as God, what we now consider paranormal experiences would
be thought of as normal experiences.

Proverbs 23:7 tells us that as a man thinks so he is. Jesus took the next step.
He taught that the way to think in God- like ways was to learn nonjudgmental logicthe
reasoning of God. When we do, we will think in terms of the love, oneness, abundance
and joy that religion teaches as a natural product of our thoughts.

In school, for example, I believed my parents and teachers when they told me how
important learning mathematics was. I never truly understood, however, why until
mathematics helped me understand how electricity works, which was important to me as
an electrician. Similarly, we can listen to sermons, be awed by psyche phenomenon and
healing, and be lifted to states of bliss and ecstasy by the powers of rit ual and music. But
until we learn how to make the principles sermons teach and the feelings bliss invoke part
of our everyday thought process, those principles and feelings will be considered outside
of human possibility, and therefore, extraordinary, spiritual, or intuitive events. The fact
is that if we learn how to reason like God, we would not only spiritually understand that
we are Gods work of art and meant to live the good life, as Paul says in Eph 1:15, we
would also physically and psychologically experience it in our everyday lives.

Jesus recognized that religion and spirituality give us insights into our spiritual
nature, which make us feel good and give us hope. But according to Jesus, the true hope
of the world is to learn the word, meaning the reasoning of God. It is by supporting our
religious and spiritual insight with the knowledgegnosisof this god- like reasoning
that sets us free.

The unique quality of Jesus' nonjudgmental system of logic is that the principle of
nature, on which his system of logic rests, has been proven to be correct by modern
science. This makes his system of reasoning universally true, and therefore teachable, on
a global scale. When universally taught, the pendulum of power could at last swing away
from a civilization based on judgmental logic that supports selfish reasoning, to a new
civilization based on nonjudgmental logic that supports spiritual values. In practice, this
is the equivalent of being in mind, body, and spirit, one with God. When all are one, the
world would be revolutionized.

"Paul's gospel was not presented simply as the answer to the religious quest of his
hearers, but as the God-given announcement of an event whose meaning challenges those
quests, at least in the terms in which they were pursuedthe gospel challenged the
prevailing understandings of God, the human condition, and the means of dealing with it;
the gospel called for a reconstruction of those understandings."
13
Simply said, Jesus
offers us a way to elevate our conscious ness to the save level as his. This empowers us to

14


deal with our problems in new and more loving ways.

Note: Jesus' theory of nature creates an additional role for religion. Remembering
that Jesus' knowledge teachings were disseminated throughout the world through the
religious institutions of his day, we can hope for the same now. Religious institutions
cross political borders, and therefore, are still the best-qualified institutions to convey
Jesus' teaching on a worldwide scale. Hopefully, religious leaders will agree, that
teaching both Aristotle's and some form of nonjudgmental logic in their schools, is to
their benefit. Together, both systems teach our children how to reason in loving ways,
which supports the highest religious goals.

When Jesus said, "let the little children come to mefor it is to such as these that
the Kingdom of Heaven belongs," (Mark 10:14) he was stating the obvious. If we taught
our children to reason lovingly from kindergarten on, in but a few generations, "doing on
earth as it is in heaven" could become our children's reality, just as Jesus promised.
Terrorism, hate, prejudice, and war would no longer exist because their common
denominator, judgmental reasoning, would no longer be used.

We can continue teaching religious values from only a mystical perspective, or
we can intellectually support those values by teaching our children to reason lovingly. A
truly better future for our children depends upon what we teach them now. Hopefully,
religious leaders will consider Jesus' knowledge teachings an intellectual instrument that
can ally reason and religion to the benefit of both.

Without the exercise and development of intellect man would still be in the
Stone Age but unless homo sapiens develops a greater humility concerning both the
imperfect nature of his knowledge and the need for transcendental moral guidance, he
could easily return to the Stone Age."
14


Jesus' logos teachings are not miraculous or a quick fix. They are, however, a
rational, and therefore, practical, blueprint to a nonjudgmental/loving way of life-
globally.

The point is that Jesus parables, metaphors and sayings in his public teachings,
like Esops Fables, convey intellectual principles in subjective ways. His private logos
teachings explain the intellectual principles behind those parables in ways we can make
them part of our everyday life.

The story of Santa Claus, for example, is a parable about the joy of giving. The
story of the bogeyman is a parable about dangers children are not intellectually capable of
understanding. And, as we will soon discover, Satan, in Gnostic Christianity, is a
metaphor for our present judgmental system of logic through which evil enters the world.


Evidence of Jesus Logos/Logic Teachings


15


The logos teachings that Jesus taught in private are mentioned in Mark 4:10-12
and 4:33-34; Matthew 13:10-11 and 13:34; and Luke 8:9-10. These teachings are also
referred to in the Apologetics (letters early Christians sent to Roman authorities), in the
Polemics (in house arguments between Gnostic and Orthodox Christians over correct
interpretations of Jesus ministry), and in firsthand accounts of historians and
philosophers of the time, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Gnostic Gospels.

In Mk 4:33-34 jbv, for example, Mark said: Using many parableshe [Jesus]
spoke the word* [meaning the logic or reasoning of God]so far as they [the general
public] were capable of understanding it. He would not speak to them except in parables,
but explained everything to his disciples when they were alone. Mention of the secrets
of Mankind
15
and Josephues reference to a Fourth Philosophy
16
capable of multiple
interpretations
17
refer to the secret of one mankind/henos anthropos mentioned in Rm
5:12 and the four pillars of the church, four mankinds/anthropoi mentioned in
Revelations. (Fully explain later).

Today, scholars refer to Jesus private teachings as his logos, logic or oral
tradition. Mystics refer to those teachings as Jesus lost, esoteric, or secret teachings.
The important thing to remember about Jesus public and private teachings is that both
are his. Jesus public teachings inspire us through spiritual awe and intuitive insight to
love one another. His private/logos teachings provide us with factual foundations for a
nonjudgmental system of logic that makes it reasonable and practical to relate ideas and
feelings in loving ways.


Why Are Jesus Gnostic Teachings Missing?

At great cost to all of us, Jesus private/Gnostic teachings were outlawed with
the Roman Emperor Constantines decision to make Christianity the state religion. For
along with that decision came his command that all Christian bishops choose between
Jesus public/Orthodox and private/Gnostic teachings. In this way Constantine could
unite the empire under one official church doctrine. His command was carried out at the
Council of Nicaea (325 AD) in the document Christians call the Nicene Creed and its
shorter version, the Apostles Creed. In effect, the Nicene Creed, which reflects Jesus
public teachings, became the one official doctrine of Orthodox Christianity, and in turn,
made his private Gnostic teachings an outlawed heresy.

Soon after the Council, an imperial edict ordered that all books by Arius [the
principal advocate of Jesus Gnostic teachings at Nicaea], and others like him, should be
burned, and made concealment of such a book punishable by death.
18
Bishop Eusebius
(260-340), Constantines court historian, restructured all Biblical literature to coincide
with the councils decision. In 325, Eusebius issued an Ecclesiastical history [in which
time was portrayed as] the battleground of God and Satan, and all events as advancing the
triumph of Christ.
19
From that time on, Eusebius Ecclesiastical history acted as the
official supernatural model for future interpretations of Jesus ministry. The intellectual
character of Gnosticism was in conflict with Eusebius supernatural model and was

16


outlawed. The Middle Ages had begun.
20


The Emperor is long dead. We no longer need to live in the dark ignorance of
Constantines shadow. We can now examine for ourselves every aspect of Jesus
outlawed Gnostic teachings, and bring back into our lives that part of Jesus ministry
which Constantine stole from us.

This is not an easy mission for it is, as it was for Jesus, a difficult idea to teach.
Now, like then, most priests and scribes, meaning theologians, intellectuals, and
academics, were so convinced of their own beliefs that they could not grasp Jesus
teachings. When asked why he taught in parables, Jesus said, The reason I talk to them
in parables is that they look without seeing and listen without hearing or understanding,
(Matt 13:13) Those who saw so dimly could only be further blinded by the light of full
revelation, (Mk 1:34+). Jesus, therefore, does not reveal with complete clarity the true
nature of the Messianic kingdom, which is unostentatious [natural]. Instead he filters the
light [or ideas he presents] through symbols, the resulting half- light is nevertheless a
grace from God, an invitation to ask for something better, and accept something greater.
(Note C 13:13 jbv)


Biblical Authenticity

We cannot accept, without question, the traditional historical accounts of Jesus
teachings to be totally accurate. There are no firsthand accounts of Jesus ministry.
What we have is limited to interpretations of his ministry based on the doctrines of the
Council of Nicaea. We must not overlook the fact that todays dictionaries and accepted
translations of Greek words, and even thesauruses, also reflect the Judaeo-Christian
worldview, which is a product of that same council, and not necessarily that of 1
st
century
philosophy or Gnostic Christians. The word pagan in Websters Dictionary, for
example, is said to mean a person without religion. This definition is consistent with
Judaism or Christianity, which consider their God, and therefore their religion, the only
true religion. But this definition does not represent pagans, who worshiped God in other
ways.


My Writing Style

One book could not contain enough pages to satisfy a complete discussion on the
many questions and ideas this book gives rise to. I am not a scholar, nor claim to be one.
It is my hope to bring to the attention of both scholars and lay people new evidence that
the Bible has more to offer than we had originally thought.

Everyone has God- given talents. I believe that, at this time in my life, my talents
are in philosophy, but not in the academic sense. I present ideas like a charging bull.
This is not politically correct. Tiptoeing around with ideas, like a well-trained ballerina,
is the safe way. To me, however, this is like dancing around bushes that clearly deserve

17


to be cut down.

Most academics have the good habit of explaining one idea after another to prove
their point. This is like describing a four- legged animal that moos, gives milk and eats
grass, which proves it must be a cow. This is deductive reasoning, meaning going from
the part to the whole.

I am, however, one of those people who never read directions. I look at the
picture of the object I am going to assemble, and then put the parts together. This is like
saying an animal is a cow because it has four legs, moos, and gives milk. This is
inductive reasoning or going from the whole to the part. Scientists, for example, start
with the whole, or a hypothesis, and then provide evidence, piece by piece, to support it.

When not aware of my method of argument, many jump to the conclusion that I
am making pretentious, sweeping, and unsupported assumptionsand prematurely reject
my hypotheses. This is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I hope that, by explaining my method, most will understand that my statements
are not pretentious, just conclusions with supporting evidence to follow. I realize that
this is like closing the barn door after the horse is out, but this is my philosophical style.

In defense of my style, I would like to quote E. P. Sanders who notices that Paul
had this same style, Pauls thought did not run from plight to solution, but rather from
solution to plight.
21
Perhaps this is why Paul is so frequently misunderstood.
Respectfully, I hope this critique on my philosophical style will encourage fewer
rejections of Paul and me.

I also believe that writers should state what they mean to earn respect. Words like
maybe, might, probably, Im inclined to think, seems to be, assuming, and
other ambiguous words like these are diplomatic, but in fact say, I dont know or Im not
willing to risk the possible consequences of stating my beliefs. In either case, if one is
not sure of what he means, he should not make statements at all. If he does, they do
nothing to advance new knowledge, but in fact, stand in the way of it. And for those with
knowledge they are afraid to state, I say the world needs you. Stand up for what you
know is true. Working together in truth is the path to true freedom.

I say what I mean, even though it may be politically incorrect. I believe that most
will respect me as an independent thinker and judge what I say on its meritsnot on
preconceived ideas or beliefs.

I have a lot to say. Some may question it, and thats fine. I intend to bring as
many ideas into the light of reason as I can. And then let the reader separate ideas that
are pearls from those that are shell.




18




Methodology

Trying to explain an additional system of logic, and at the same time, a viewpoint
of Jesus teachings from an entirely new perspective, could be overwhelming. Like
myself a short time ago, Im sure few readers are aware of what logic is or how Jesus
ministry could be connected to it. To complicate matters even more, I have to introduce
five stages in the development of consciousness because the authors of the New
Testament explained Jesus logic teachings in the context of those stages.

The good news is that many concepts that underlie Jesus logic teachings have
parallels in contemporary schools of philosophical and psychological thought.
Hopefully, those parallels will create a bridge of familiarity between true Gnostic
Christianity and contemporary theology, philosophy, and psychology. This bridge should
make it easier for us to go back and forth in time for we will be able to relate Jesus logos
teachings to contemporary ideas. We will, for example, understand that Pauls call for us
to be transformed by the renewal of your mind in Rm 12-2, has parallels in Protestant
theologian Paul Tillichs call for encompassing reason
22
and biologist Jonas Salks call
for a philosophy of both and to qualify the present either/or.
23


We will also better understand that when Paul refers to the foreknown, those in
the image of Jesus, the called, the justified, and the glorified in Rms 8:29-30, he
is referring to five distinct stages in the development of human consciousness. These
stages have parallels in psychologist, Abraham Maslows Five Stage Model of a
Hierarchy of Human Needs; Jesuit Priest Pierre Teihard de Chardins Five Historical
Stages of Development, and the Hindu Saint, Sri Aurobindos Five Stage Model of
Spiritual Growth.

And finally, to save time, I will use an asterisk (*) after terms I qualify in the
Glossary. I use quotes from the first edition of the Jerusalem Bible, unless stated
otherwise. I will also [bracket] personal narratives that I insert into quotes. This will
ensure that the reader can clearly distinguish between the original quote and how I feel
this quote could relate to Gnostic Christianity.


Summary

The goal of Jesus logos teachings is to harmonize mind and spirit through
nonjudgmental reasoningglobally. The goal of true Gnostic Christians is to lift the
clouds of ignorance that veil that mission. This is not an easy mission for it is, as it was
for Jesus and Paul, a difficult idea to teach. 2Peter 3:16 tells us this when it says Pauls
teachings are hard to understand. And now, like then, most priests * and scribes *,
meaning theologians and academics, are so convinced of their own beliefs they stand in
the way of Jesus logos teachings. For example, when asked why he taught his logos
teachings in private, Jesus said the reason I talk to them in parables is that they look

19


without seeing and listen without hearing or understanding. Mat 13:10-13

Jesus presented his logos teachings two thousand years ago. Few accepted those
teachings. Most preferred his parables and sayings to the more complicated theory of
nature that he taught in private. In the third millennium, the majority will accept Jesus
private teachings because contemporary physics support his theory, which makes it
factually undeniable. In effect, the support that contemporary physics gives Jesus logos
teachings will make nonjudgmental logic the norm globally.

Let us begin by exploring civilized mans system of logic in contemporary terms,
how it subliminally affects our thoughts, and why an additional system of logic is needed.
I call this additional system nonjudgmental or soft logic. Second, I will present
contemporary five stage models in the development of consciousness that we can later
relate to Pauls model in Rm 8:29-30 and elsewhere.

20




Chapter Two

What Is Logic And Reason?


Thy will be done as it is in heaven. These words seem like a contradiction to
our ears.

Why is it so hard to imagine that a heaven on Earth might be practical? Why does
it seem incongruous for something practical to have anything to do with love and
kindness and harmony between people? Do we not feel torn between what we feel is
good and right, on the one hand, and what we think is practical, sensible, and logical, on
the other. Somehow we think that we must be either spiritual and idealistic or rational
and practical. We can't really be both! And that's why heaven seems so impractical, and
practical things seem so far removed from any ideal world which we can envision or
imagine.

What would it take for a heaven on earth to become a reality? Why don't we ask
those who have clinically died and miraculously been given a second chance at life?
After all, they are our closest connection to "heaven." Pioneers who have researched the
near-death experience, like Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, tell us that those who have been
resuscitated and returned from "the other side" generally agree that what is really
important in life is, first, to love unconditionally, or as I would say, nonjudgmentally or
spiritually, and, second, to be of service to others. Moreover, it is important to be the best
that we can be, which means to develop our talents and gifts, our special abilities and
capacities to the highest degree of which we are capable. And, finally, it is important to
encourage and aid others in the development of their talents and capacities. Just imagine
what a world it would be if we lived according to these simple principles, if we did what
really mattered! The change in our consciousness and behavior would usher in a new era,
a kingdom of heaven on earth.

Said another way, reasoning defines the process of relating ideas, not the subject
matter being related or the conclusions we reach. From this we can conclude that even
though humans are born with the capacity to relate ideas, how we learn to relate ideas
plays a major role in the outcome of our reasoning process. I believe that learning how to
relate ideas/reason in nonjudgmental ways is the key to elevating our reasoning to the
same level as our spiritual principles. When we reason nonjudgmentally, we are not
reasoning according to accepted rules of logicwe are reasoning morally or spiritually
without knowing it.

In effect, whereas traditionally, religion teaches us to quiet or rise above the mind,
the new laws of logic that Gnostic Christianity proposes teach the mind how to reason in
terms of spiritual principles. If, for example, we think of consciousness as a computer in
which all thoughts are processed, we can compare nonjudgmental logic to a new software

21


program. Just as adding a new program expands the potentials of a computer, so does
nonjudgmental logic add to consciousness a new way to process ideas. This empowers
us to be conscious of spiritual dimensions of reality in rational ways. This new system of
logic and subsequent process of reasoning is nonjudgmental logic.


What is Logic and How Does It Affect Us?

Our logical laws lead us to think that one alternative must be superior to all
others: let us call this hierarchical thinking. Logic leads us to conclude that if one
alternative is right, then all the others must be wrong: l et us refer to this as drawing
either/or conclusions. Finally, our logic directs us to conclude that one alternative must
be the best, indeed, for everyone: let's call this judgmental reasoning or hard logic.
Hierarchical, judgmental, either/or conclusions are incompatible with nonjudgmental
values of acceptance, tolerance, non-discrimination, and love.

An additional system of logical laws could enable us to reason in a
complementary way and so arrive at non-judgmental conclusions which would support
those values which are required for any ethical social order. Judgmental thinking has
been recognized by other authors as a source of the social problems, and some thinkers
have gone so far as to lay the blame specifically on our present laws of logic. What is
original about this book is that it explains how our laws of logic came to be hierarchical,
either/or, and judgmental. But Gnostic Christians go even further. They propose an
additional system of logic which will be the basis for reasoning that is harmonious with
our spiritual nature. Simply said, our system of logically laws is unfinished. Our present
system is appropriate to use in scientific, but not in social dimensions of life. Gnostic
Christians propose an additional system of nonjudgmental laws of logic that better
represent our social values.

Note: Gnostic Christianity does not deny the usefulness of our present system of
logical laws in the areas of science: it promotes the development of an additional system
that would be appropriate to use in our social affairs.

The culprit, then, is that our present process of reasoning predisposes us to think
that it is reasonable, and therefore, acceptable to ignore the needs of other people. Don't
we have enough to do just to take care of our own needs? Isn't dealing with our own
problems sufficiently burdensome? It's reasonable to pay attention to ourselves first. It
seems logical to care about our families more than our neighbors and certainly more than
strangers. How do we arrive at these conclusions? They are the result of reasoning in
terms of either/or and us-versus-them: either we help ourselves and our family, or we
help others; either we look out for ourselves, or no one else will; either you are with us,
or you're against us; either you believe what we believe, or you're wrong. Such thinking
divides the world into two opposing camps: Capitalist vs. Communist, Democrat vs.
Republican, Catholic vs. Protestant, Jew vs. Gentile, black vs. people of a lighter color
skin, heterosexuals vs. homosexuals. Whether the categories be religious, economic,
political, racial, sexual, or gender-related, when we think in terms of us- versus-them, we

22


turn those who disagree with us into opponents, or even enemies. Cooperation seems to
be capitulation; compromise appears to be selling out; and "all-or- nothing" and "winner-
take-all" attitudes dominate the battlefield. The result can be prejudice and intolerance;
and it does not take long for these to escalate into hatred, contempt, even violence, and
eventually war. And all because of the way we process ideas or reason!

Thus, regardless of what our religions teach us about loving our neighbors and
even our enemies, and no matter what our hearts may feel, to our minds it is logical,
reasonable, sensible, and certainly practical to do quite the opposite. If there is a problem
in doing what we feel deep inside is right, it is because we are unable to reconcile our
feelings with our reason, our hearts with our heads! The great Protestant theologian Paul
Tillich called for an "encompassing" reasoning to supplement our "technical" reasoning.
We need to reason in such a way as to encompass conflicting alternatives in situations of
human disagreement. Ordinarily, our thinking leads us to reject any opposing view.
Quite simply, we're right, and if anyone disagrees with us, then they're wrong. But where
human beings are involved, we need to do better than this. We must not alienate or reject
others just because they are different or hold different views. Human relationships call
for reconciliation, which will allow us to include rather than to exclude. In short, we
need a logic for our hearts. We need nonjudgmental logic.


Where Does Logic Come From?

Logic, as we now know it, is unfinished. Traditional logic is well suited to
science, but not humanity. Three centuries before Christ, the Greek philosopher Aristotle
(384-322 BC) and the Indian philosopher Gautama formalized systems of logic that,
before them, were taken for granted as logical ways to relate ideas. To this day, we use
those systems of logic as standards for correctly relating ideas/reasoning. Whether we
are aware of them or not, like laws of grammar that act as standards of communicating,
Aristotle's and Gautamas laws of logic act as standards of what is considered reasonable
and what is notglobally. But what is reasonable is not always moral in every situation.

Since Aristotle, the western world has followed the logical principles of
Aristotelian philosophy
24
as outlined in his book The Organon. A similar system of
logical laws in the East is the Nyaya System of the third century BC. Nyaya means a
way of leading the mind to a conclusion.
25
Its most famous text is the Nyaya sutra
ascribed without surety to GautamaHis achievement was to give India an organon of
investigation and thought.Gautama is the Aristotle of India.
26


Aristotle's and Gautamas logic divides the world into classes of opposites and
contradictories. This logic works fine for computers and mathematics and Newtonian
science. But it is a failure when it comes to enabling us to resolve disputes between
fellow human beings. We do not have a logic which encompasses, in circumstances
where we come into conflict with one another, opposite views. We need such a logic! In
fact, we have always needed such a logic, which employs categories of both/and to
express our deepest feelings and the most profound truths of our philosophies, our

23


theologies, and now even our sciences. We need both traditional logic and a both/and
system of logic.

Christians, for example, believe that Jesus is both man and God. Religious
believers, generally, believe that God is both immanent in the world and also
transcendent beyond it, both eternal but capable of acting in historical time, both
omnipotent and yet permitting us free will to go against His will, both omniscient but
leaving open a future which He does not know or determine, both in Heaven and yet
nearer to us than our own soul! The either/or categories of Aristotelian logic make such
statements contradictory and literally nonsense. Indeed, some Twentieth Century
philosophers have claimed that any such "metaphysical" claims are "cognitively
meaningless and factually nonsensical." But these claims are precisely what religious
believers, from virtually every tradition, wish to maintain as true. It is clear that
Aristotelian logic is incapable of making logical or rational sense out of such claims.
That logic and reasoning stand in apparent opposition to "truths" of the heart and the soul.

Is Traditional Logic Credible?

Lovers understand the limitations of either/or categories to express what their
hearts know and their emotions and feelings desire to convey. It is not true that lovers are
either one with their beloved or separate from them. Lovers feel both "one" with their
beloved, and yet they know, too, that each is a separate individual. Christians claim that
we are "one in Christ," and mystics assert that we are "one in God," yet we obviously
have separate physical bodies occupying distinct and unique places in space and time.

In his conception of quantum physics and in the formulation of his Uncertainty
Principle, Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) must have reasoned in both/and categories in
order to reach his conclusion that particles could exist without having a definite knowable
velocity and position simultaneously. Ordinarily, what physicists call "particles" will
have definite positions and velocities which can be known at the same time. The
Heisenberg "particles," however, do not meet the strict criteria of having definite
knowable simultaneous positions and velocities, and yet they are still "particles." With
light, the situation is even more bizarre: physicists think of light as both a wave and a
particle. But a particle is not a wave, nor is a wave a particle, yet light somehow is both.
The either/or categories of Aristotelian logic fail to comprehend this situation adequately.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) had to give up either/or thinking when he formulated
his theory of relativity: the same object, moving at a high percentage of the speed of
light, would change its length and mass. For example, Object A at rest has a particular
length and mass. However, at 9/10 the speed of light, Object A has a different length and
mass, but it is still the same object. To think that length and mass, and time too, change
with velocity is a revolutionary concept, which does not fit the idea that Object A has
either one or another definite length and mass.

Do these ideas make sense? Don't they seem contradictory? Yes, if judged by the
standards of Aristotelian logic; yet maybe also profoundly true! How can that which is

24


contradictory be true? Maybe they are not contradictory if judged by another logic.
Maybe there is another way of reasoning. If so, this other reasoning might enable us to
harmonize our hearts and minds, our feelings and intellect, our spirit and our reason. If
we could adopt a new reasoning, the world might become unrecognizably different.


The Need for a New Logic

We need for the world to be different. We cannot go on as we have been.
Reasoning which divides the world into opposing camps leads to hatred and fighting
throughout the world, from internal conflicts between religious groups, as in Ireland and
Bosnia, to tribal genocide in Rwanda. The attitude of us-versus-them is responsible for
bombing in the streets and airports, the downing of airplanes, and the killing and injuring
of people at the Olympics. 911 is also the consequence of this reasoning, and so is our
response to it. Whether it be crime in our streets or war between nations, we cannot
continue down this path to destruction. Social conditions may be approaching a critical
threshold.

Scientists use the word "critical" to refer to a turning point or place of transition.
There are critical angles in optics, for example, where total reflection occurs, critical
temperatures at which liquids become vapors, and critical points at which fluids merge
into gases. Have we reached a critical time in human history? Our times seem to call out
desperately for a change, a transition into a new way of thinking. As psychologist Alfred
Adler has written, There is a Law that man should love his neighbor as himself. In a
few hundred years it should be as natural to mankind as breathing or the upright gait; but
if he does not learn it he must perish.

Our future depends upon harmonizing our heart and our reason: actions of
kindness, compassion, and brotherly love must become rational and logical if they are to
be deemed practical. Quite simply, heaven on earth requires a new rationality, based on
new ways of thinking that can harmonize the morality of our hearts and the practicality of
our reason. If we adopted this new rationality, civilization may be born anew, on the
grounds of oneness, love, harmony, and peace between individuals and between peoples
and nations of our world. But for this we need to reason differently, on the basis of a new
logic, a logic of love, or as Gnostic Christians call it, nonjudgmental logic. How to
achieve this new process of reasoning is what this book is about.

Christians look forward to "the rapture" and to Armageddon, the last days when
Christ will return. Perhaps the return of Christ will take place in the hearts and minds of
people everywhere, in the form of a renewed mind that Paul talks of in Rm 12:2.

Gnostic Christians, like some Indians, believe that there will be what Christians
call the Armageddon, an end time . . . . Not an end in a physical sense, but an end in a
way thinking. It will be a transformation from abuse and domination of nature and
people to a way of harmony, kindness, sharing --a natural way, an Indian way."
27



25


Let us now see where the old logic and ways of reasoning have failed us. Let us
see what we have missed in life because of civilized mans inadequate and inappropriate
process of reasoning. In short, let us lay the groundwork for a heaven on earth by
expanding our system of logical laws.


Traditional Logic and its Fallacies

We are not born with culture, we create it. We have not found solutions for
problems that have haunted civilization since its birth because we have looked for those
solutions in the same consciousness which created the problems. To solve our problems,
we need to be conscious of them in truly new ways.

There have been those thinkers who have argued that our judgmental way of
reasoning is a major cause of our moral crisis. Some critics have gone even further and
pointed out that judgmental reasoning is the consequence of the character of the laws of
the very logic we use in our thinking. Just as mathematical laws determine mathematical
answers, so too, do laws of logic determine what we take to be reasonable answers. Let
us see how our laws of logic lie at the root of our moral crisis by first examining what
justifies them.

At the very basis of our laws of logic, there stands an axiom, meaning an
assumption or standard, we take for granted. Suppose we reasoned with a logic which
rested upon a standard which was inappropriate when applied to people. Then no matter
how well we thought we reasoned about human beings, we would, in fact, be making
irrational decisions and choices. It would be like using a map of Los Angeles to find our
way around Chicago. No matter how carefully we followed the map, we would find
ourselves lost in Chicago! Likewise, if our reasoning was inappropriate to use socially,
we may, without even realizing it, be making irrational decisions and choices that lead to
inhumane actions!

The situation would be even worse if millions of people failed to realize that their
reasoning was not appropriate for every situation. For when they reasoned
inappropriately, millions of people would not only act irrationally; but they would
incorrectly think that they were doing the rational thing! The fact that millions do it
would only make it an insane world!

The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make those vices
virtues. The fact that they share so many errors does not make those errors to be truths.
And the fact that millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not
make these people sane.
28


So, we must ask, what is the fundamental standard underlying our laws of logic?
For the assumption not only causes problems in terms of human relations, but on the
positive side, it allows us to do something very important intellectually. It enables us to
generalize. The problem arises when we generalize to a negative conclusion. "All

26


Liberals are stupid." "All conservatives are insensitive and uncaring." "Blue-collar
workers don't read Shakespeare." "People on welfare aren't worth a damn." It is
generalizations like these, which not only are patently untrue, but also reduce the
individual to mere membership in a class whose stereotypical traits may not apply.
Generalities make thinking easy; but particularly regarding people, generalities turn
people into mere "things" to be dismissed or hated, without requiring that one get to
know even a single member of the group. When we use the clich, "Some of my best
friends are . . . ," we implicitly acknowledge that we have generalized too hastily. We
have realized that not everyone is alike. But it is precisely the assumption that everyone
should be alike which lies at the basis of hate and prejudice. How this assumption came
to be the basis of our logic is now the story we must tell. The origins of the story go back
to ancient Greece, some three hundred years before Jesus, and even further back in the
East.


What is the Assumption Upon Which Logic Rests?

Many consider Platos Theory of Noncontradiction, the axiom [or basic
assumption beneath] all logic
29
; namely the same thing clearly cannot act or be acted
upon in the same part or in the same relation to the same thing at the same time, in
contrary ways: and therefore whenever this contradiction occurs in things apparently the
same, we know that they are really not the same but different.
30


Platos theory seems self-evident, but shortly we will see that it is not. The
important thing here is to recognize the Aristotle used Platos Theory of
Noncontradiction (some call it his Theory of Forms) to justify his system of logic. To
this day we use Aristotles system of logic as the standard for correctly relating ideas or
reasoning.

Note: I use the term class in its philosophical sense of categories or classes of
like objects or ideas not social classes.

Platos theory of noncontradiction is one of the first written examples of the basic
axiom upon which all logic rests. The similarity of Gautamas system of logic
demonstrates it, too, rests on a standard similar to Platos. Let us now examine Platos
Theory of Forms/nature.

Take the seemingly trivial philosophical question: What justifies our using the
same word to refer to different objects? For example, we use the word dog to refer to
many animals, which we classify together, and the word bird to refer to animals in
another class. How can one word refer to different things?

The answer that Plato (428-347 B.C.) offered was that things referred to by a
single term all had something in common. Precisely what they had in common is not
easy to say. In fact, no definitive explanation of what any class has in common has ever
been agreed upon. Nevertheless, we unwittingly accept that every class of objects and

27


ideas do have something in common. Many, for example, believe that human nature is
corrupt. How could so many believe this if they did not assume a human nature that can
be corrupted? Also, how could anyone make a statement about human nature, without
first defining it, if they did not take it for granted that everyone had some common idea of
what that nature was.

Let us assume, however, that this commonality in, say, dogs and birds, can be
expressed as dogness or birdness. It is, in part, the shape or the form which the
things have: dogs have a different shape or form than birds. In effect, a form is like a
mold or pattern which gives each thing in the world its shape and nature. It is, also, our
idea of what they essentially are: when we think of dogs, we have a different idea in
mind than when we think of birds.

Plato made this idea the basis of his theory of forms or nature by assuming that
every class or category of objects and ideas is represented by one specific form, essence,
or nature. And that one form represents the nature of the whole class. The form or nature
of Dogness, for example, is what makes something a dog; the nature of Birdness is what
makes something a bird; and so on. All dogs share in Dogness, as all birds share in
Birdness.

The nature of each class is the standard by which each class is measured. Plato
thought of these natures or essences as ideal, eternal, and unchanging. Therefore, he
argued, they must exist in a realm beyond the physical world, because everything in the
physical world changes. And these forms must exist in a way which can be apprehended
by the mind.

Aristotle basically agreed with Plato that there was a single nature for each class.
He denied, however, that these natures existed in a supernatural realm. Rather, he held
that each individual thing had inherently the nature or form which made it the particular
individual that it was. A dog was a dog, for example, not because it shared some
transcendent nature with all other dogs, but because it had within it the nature of a dog.
But regardless of where these natures or forms were thought to exist, the consequence of
this theory is to assume that all members of a particular class share the same nature. As
we shall now see, this assumption underlies the very structure of our logic, and it
becomes the basis of our thinking and reasoning process.

When Aristotle and Gautama formulated their systems of logic, the assumption
that all classes are reducible to a single nature lay at the basis of their thinking.
Implicitly, that assumption, silently but surely, provided the justification for the three
basic laws of thought.

For example, the credibility of the three present basic laws of thought -- the laws
of identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle, are justified only if every class has
one nature, as the prevailing principle assumes. If a class, say X, has more than one
nature, we could not be sure that X is X, as the law of identity claims, or that X is
X and not non-X, or anything in between, as stated by the laws of noncontradiction and

28


excluded middle.

Let me begin by explaining how the prevailing theory of nature, through our basic
laws of logic, subject us to judgmental reasoning. After which, I will argue that the
prevailing theory does not fit all classes, offer a theory that does, and propose additional
laws of logic that justify nonjudgmental reasoning.

By judgmental reasoning, I mean relating ideas in terms of absolutes, either/or,
and superior/inferior.

By nonjudgmental reasoning, I mean relating ideas in terms of inclusiveness,
both/and, and equality. Note: I may interchange spiritual, social, paradoxical, and
quantum reasoning with the term nonjudgmental reasoning. In principle, all of these
types of reasoning are nonjudgmental.


The Three Basic Laws of Logic and How They Affect Reasoning

The three basic laws of logic are:

The Law of Identity.
The Law of Non-Contradiction.
The Law of Excluded Middle.


The law of identity institutionalizes the prevailing theory of nature stating that
every member of a class, say class X, has the same nature as every other member of that
class. From this we can conclude that every member of that class is, by nature, X, and
only X. In symbolic terms, this simply means that X is X.

As obvious as X is X may appear, its consequences are not. The law of identity
justifies generalizations, and therefore, the concept that reasoning in terms of
absolutes and certainty is logical. If everyone agrees that X is X and only X, it is
reasonable to generalize, and be absolutely certain, that every X is X.

Generalizations that describe single nature classes are necessary and good. How
could scientists conduct experiments if they could not be certain of weights and
measures?

Problems arise when we try to generalize about classes with more than one nature.
Light, for example, is problematic in terms of the law of identity. According to this law,
light is either a wave or a particle. Yet the new sciences demonstrate that light is both a
wave and a particle.

Even greater problems arise when we think it reasonable to generalize that one
standard of human nature applies to all humans. This leads to judgmental reasoning that

29


can be destructive. For example, if one generalizes that the standard of human nature is a
white, heterosexual, Protestant, male, and some do, then one can reason that blacks,
homosexuals, Catholics, and women are inferior or even nonhumans. It is exactly this
kind of judgmental reasoning that justified the genocide of American Indians, Jews, and
Albanians; racism and bigotry in all its forms; and persecut ion by any name.

The law of identity also supports generalizations like there is only one best idea,
belief or standard that correctly describes every class. This concept justifies those who
think that their religion, country or economic system is the best. Most of us have felt
threatened, and some have even been put in concentration camps, by those who reason
that their beliefs and standards are best for everyone.


Language Problems Created by the Law of Identity

A wise man once said, language exists on the surface of our consciousness. The
great human struggles are played out in silence and in the inability to express
ourselves.
31
Let us now explore why this may be so.

The law of identity makes it logically impossible to communicate the idea that
some classes can be more than one thing at the same time. For example, we can say that
light is both a wave and a particle, or humanity is both human and godlike, but our
language cannot convey what this means. According to the law of identity, X is X.
Therefore, the plural form of X implies more than one X. This excludes being able to
communicate the idea that light (X) is both wave (X) and particle (Y), or that humanity is
both black and white. According to the law of identity, light is either a wave or a
particle, and humans are either black or white.

It is difficulty to use the term humans because our language cannot convey the
idea of more than one human nature. When X is X, the plural form of human
humansimplies many human beings that share a common nature, not many humans
with diverse natures. This excludes being able to logically communicate the idea that
human diversity is natural because the law of identity allows for only one definition of
human nature. The uncomfortable feeling that occurs when trying to say human natureS
or humanitieS demonstrates that our present system of logic does not have the capacity to
encompass diversity within classes.


How the Law of Identity Undermines Free Will

The law of identity makes free will impossible to practice when free will is
defined as freely choosing between rational alternatives.

The noted psychologist, Erich Fromm, believed that free will is contingent on
freely choosing between rational alternatives. According to Fromm, mans freedom lies
in his potential to choose between the real existing possibilities. Freedom, in this sense,

30


can be defined not as acting in the awareness of necessity [animals do that], but acting on
the bases of alternatives and their consequences.
32


Free will, then, cannot exist as long as the law of identity is applied to all classes.
According to this law, there can be only one correct choice in every category of choices.
This makes free will an exercise in finding that one correct choice, not choosing between
rational alternatives.

In classes with one nature, like the shortest distance between two points, for
example, only one rational option exists, a straight line between the two points. Because
this answer, and only this answer, describes the class, we can claim to have found the
correct answer, but not to have practiced free will. To practice free will, we need rational
alternatives. The law of identity denies us these alternatives by limiting each class to one
definition.


How the Law of Identity Pits Science Against Religion

The seemingly irreconcilable conflict between science and religion is rooted in
the law of identity. For if every class is limited to one best definition, we are limited to
thinking that truth has only one description. And because science recognizes only those
truths based on objective facts that are universally accepted, and religion accepts truths
based on personal and subjective experience, we cannot expect that truth will be
described by both in the same way. We cannot, therefore, expect science to be
compatible with religion as long as the law of identity limits truth to one definition. The
conflict between creationists and evolutionists exemplify one of many seemingly
irreconcilable conflicts between subjective and objective truths.

We can go so far as to say that the law of identity generates almost every
irreconcilable conflict. We can, for example, recognize that this law underlies the
conflict between mind and heart, left and right brain, flesh and spirit, yang and yin, Adam
and Eve, maleness and femaleness, and science and religion. For here, again, the first
term in each category relies on objective facts, and the second, subjective facts.
Therefore, we cannot expect both to define truth, wisdom, or reality in the one way that
the law of identity requires.

In effect, irreconcilable conflicts are, in principle, a manifestation of the law of
identity because it allows only one standard or definition of truth for every category or
class of truth. This excludes any real possibility of reconciling two sides of any conflict
that measure truth by different standards. Compromises may be reached between
members of each of these categories, but never one solution that is totally right for both.
Conflict resolution will never be equitable as long as what we believe is reasonable is
limited to the law of identity.


Law of Non-Contradiction

31



What justifies the dualistic reasoning that divides and separates us from others,
the world, and God? What justifies the dogmatic reasoning of radicals? What justified
the beliefs of Nazis or the actions of Serbian Christians and Muslims towards each other?
It is the law of non-contradiction, for it makes the concept of relating all
ideas/reasoning in terms of either/or, yes/no, us/them, and I/it appear logical.

The law of non-contradiction states that each member of a class is not only
identical to every other member in that class, or that X is X, as the law of identity states,
but also that the nature of a class cannot be what it is not, say X and non-X.
Symbolically, the law of non-contradiction states that X is not non-X.

According to the law of non-contradiction, it is reasonable to assert that a given
quality either belongs, or does not belong, to a given class. For if there is a single nature
that represents a class, everything in that class must exemplify that one nature. In effect,
the law of non-contradiction divides everything into two categories. One category that
encompasses that which exemplifies the nature of the class, and a second category that
does not.

Dividing the world into these two categories lays the foundation for dualistic
reasoningrelating ideas in terms of either/or, yes/no, us/them, black/white, right/wrong,
and I/it.

Dualistic reasoning can be good. Computer technology relies on yes/no thinking.
And science in the traditional sense relies on either/or reasoning. For instance, either 16
ounces is a pound or it is not.

Dualistic reasoning can, however, be problematic. It justifies the concept that we
are separate and distinct from all else by teaching us to reason that we are either
individuals or nature -- not that we can be both individuals and one with others and
nature. This undermines the concept of new thought teachers that both individuality and
universal oneness are irreducible principles.

It is true that the feeling of separation at times vanishes and we experience
oneness. Our concept of separation blurs, for example, when we are in love or empathize
with others or nature. Nonetheless, the law of non-contradiction, and the either/or
reasoning it demands, so dominates us that even these flashes of oneness quickly fade
and we soon feel separation again.

Some Aborigines, it seems, think of themselves as one with nature. The reason
why this may be true is that they do not relate ideas according to the law of non-
contradiction. They perceive themselves to be both individuals and one with nature.

The fact that some Aborigines feel one with nature, whereas we feel separate,
implies that how we relate to others and the world is learned and is not an innate quality
of human nature. As long as we accept the law of non-contradiction, separation will

32


dominate our thoughts, and oneness will be limited to moments of love and occasional
experiences of bliss.

The Jewish mystic, Martin Buber, in his book, I And Thou, recognizes that we
perceive our relationships to others in terms of separation, rather than in terms of
oneness, or in terms of I-It, rather than I-Thou.. Buber says, There is no I taken in
itself, but only the I of the primary word, I-Thou, and the I of the primary word, I-IT.
When a man says I, he refers to one or the other of these. When a primary word is
spoken, the speaker enters the world and takes his stand in it.
33
(14)

This sensitive mystic understood that each individual relates to others in one of
two ways. Either he meets others and loses his sense of separation in relationship with
them, in which they are no longer an other, but rather a Thou. Or he is aware of his
and their difference and their separateness, in which case they are experienced as an It.
To be a Thou is to be accepted nonjudgmentally, with affection, care, even love, for a
Thou is embraced by the I as one with itself. To be an It on the other hand, is to be
perceived as a separate thing, rather than one with the self. In the I It relationship,
the other becomes an object rather than a subject; an It rather than a Thou.
According to Buber, there are only two ways to be in the world: in a relationship of I-
Thou or in a relationship of I-It. There can be no I apart from one of these
relationships. Either the I is relating to a person, an object, an animal, a tree, a car, or a
sunset and is aware that the I is separate from whom or what it is engaged with (I-It), or
the I is lost in the wonder of oneness with whatever or whomever it is engaged with (I-
Thou).

Martin Buber is suggesting something very profound. Subconsciously our
reasoning leads us to think of the I as separate and distinct from the person or object
encountered. What he doesnt say is what causes our reasoning to separate us. I propose
that it is our acceptance of the law of non-contradiction that justifies our relating to others
in terms of I/it.

The law of non-contradiction covertly supports the separation of spiritually and
intellectually dominant individuals and organizations. Stereotypically, those of us with
intellectual personalities value facts and experience over the intuitions and subjectivity of
those with a spiritual or artistic personality. Intellectuals, for example, consider reason
the path to a better world. Some spiritual groups, however, teach that the mind must be
quieted before one can grasp the truth. The result is that the intellectually dominant
individuals and organizations separate themselves from spiritual individuals and
organizations. In effect, the law of non-contradiction supports those who minimize views
and beliefs that differ from their own.

Not only does the law of non-contradiction separate us from one another, it comes
between many religious people and their God. Jesus, in John (17:21), for example,
teaches that we are meant to be one with the father. When we read this, we may feel
we understand what Jesus means, but our minds cannot truly comprehend it. The reason
is that by simply saying the word God, we separate ourselves from God, because the law

33


of non-contradiction has trained the mind to reason that we are either humans or Gods,
not capable of being both individuals and one with God. All one needs to do to
experience this ingrained training is to say the word God, and the image that comes to
mind is one of God out there, and we, here, i.e. separate and distinct entities. As long as
the law of non-contradiction dominates our reasoningexcept for occasional flashes of
bliss, love and empathythe acknowledgement of oneness with God, nature, and others
will be the exception, and the feeling of separation will be the rule.

When applying the law of non-contradiction to human beings, we can also
recognize that this law is the major source of personal and social problems. This law, and
the reasoning it produces, was behind the persecution of communist sympathizers by
the Committee on un-American Activities. It was the either/or reasoning of that
committee which led to labeling everyone as either communist or noncommunist. This
same dogmatic either/or reasoning is what justified the burning of heretics in the
Inquisition and witches at Salem.

When applied to human beings, the law of non-contradiction also provides
justification for intolerance to those who are different. In other words, when we use
either/or categories to identify ourselves in terms of gender, nationality, race, religion,
political preference, sexual orientation or economic status, we place ourselves in
opposition to others. It is important to note that merely differentiating ourselves from
others would not create a problem if we did not also believe that there was just one right
or best way for human beings to be. If we accepted differences as natural, and did not add
the negative judgment that ones own group was the right one, or at least better than all
others, then we would not find ourselves in conflict with each other. But we do. Why we
do is the legacy of reasoning according to the law of non-contradiction.


The Law of Non-contradiction and Language Problems

The law of non-contradiction limits our ability to communicate in caring ways
because it allows only one correct definition for each class of words. This tends to pit
classes of words, like cooperation, against other classes, like individuality, so that they
clash like swords.
34


We see the consequences of these clashes when a friendly conversation turns into
a shouting match. For when a listeners ideas differ from what is being said, he or she
often feels challenged. This challenge, however, does not necessarily come from the
speaker. Rather, it more often comes from a third source the subliminal notion of the
listener that he can be right only if the speaker is wrong. This notion is the product of the
either/or reasoning that is justified by the law of non-contradiction.

The clich, never discuss politics and religion with relatives, illustrates that the
either/or characteristics that the law of non-contradiction breeds into our language play a
determining role in how we are understood. Having to explain that we didnt mean what
others thought we said illustrates that the law of non-contradiction adds meanings to what

34


we say that are foreign to what we mean. It can be said that the law of non-contradiction
puts our language system in control of how we are understood.


The Law of Excluded Middle

The third law that institutionalized the prevailing principle is the law of excluded
middle. This law states that not only is X, X, and that X is not non-X, it adds that X is X
and nothing in between. For example, we cannot say that the flying horse, Pegasus, is a
horse, because Pegasus is in between a horse and a bird.

According to this law, every quality either belongs, or does not belong, to a given
nature. There is no logical compromise, or exception, and no middle alternative. It is
this law which accounts for Aristotelian logics hierarchical nature. For if there is a
single nature for every class, that which has more of that essential quality will be judged
superior to that which possesses less. Based on the law of excluded middle, the concept
of the hierarchy of values is established.

Like the laws of identity and non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle is
appropriate to apply to single nature classes. For example, it would be confusing to call
unicorns horses. Even though they do have similar characteristics, unicorns are different
from horses.

As long as a class is considered uniform, no particular problems arise with regard
to what we observe of it. But we human beings typically define ourselves in terms of
sexual, political, national, religious, economic, racial, and social differences. If human
nature is defined in one exclusive waywhich is precisely what happens when we
identify in hierarchical termsthe implication is drawn that if those who are different
from us are wrong, bad, or somehow inferior, then we must be right, good, and superior.

Hierarchical reasoning leads us to conclude that there is but one best in every
category, which divides and alienates us from our fellow human beings. In practice, this
concept justifies reasoning that bigger is better, my religion is the true religion; and
if America isnt No. 1, who is; and most every other claim that something is superior to
all others.

Low self-esteem is also rooted in hierarchical reasoning. When we judge
ourselves in relation to others, we may feel inferior to them because we are heavier or not
wearing designer clothes. The whole idea of judging ourselves as inferior to others is
created by the concept that one quality in every class is superior to all others.

Pride, negativity, social status, prestige, and elitist thinking, like low self-esteem,
are also the result of hierarchical thinking. Ideas such as keeping up with the Joneses
and you can never have too much money; and eminent domain, privilege, super heroes,
super markets, and even heaven (as commonly interpreted) would be nonsensical without
the concept of superiority. All hierarchical reasoning is justified by the law of excluded

35


middle.


The Law of Excluded Middle and Language Problems

The law of excluded middle, like the law of identity and non-contradiction, also
limits our ability to communicate nonjudgmentally.

Most words are meaningless unless they can be related to another term. Up, for
example, is meaningless unless we can relate it to its counterpart, down. Recognizing
this opens us to the real possibility that the law of excluded middle covertly adds
hierarchical characteristics to the words we use. When we use words like males,
capitalists, or straights, for example, many of us subliminally relate these terms to their
unspoken counterparts according the law of excluded middle. Consequently, some males
may feel superior to women, some straights superior to gays, some Christians superior to
non-believers, some capitalists superior to communists, and vice versa. The point is that
the law of excluded middle subliminally leads us to relate to others in hierarchical ways.
There is no natural reason for such hierarchical thinking. It is the law of excluded middle
that makes relating ideas in terms of hierarchies reasonable.

In principle, then, bigotry in all its forms is the manifestation of the law of
excluded middle. Said another way, the law of excluded middle is the prerequisite of the
concept of superiority, which in turn, makes difference a problem when, in reality,
difference is simply difference.


Evidence of the Inadequacy of the Prevailing Theory of Nature

There is much debate that new systems of logic are needed because of discoveries
made in the new sciences. The basic argument is that civilized laws of logic are true only
if the assumed principle, namely that all classes have a single essence or nature, is true.

Simply said, the new sciences demonstrate that some classes do have more than
one nature. Light, for example, has the nature of both a wave and a particle. Such
classes warrant the new principle that some classes have more than one nature. This
principle justifies the need for an additional system of logic that Gnostic Christians call
nonjudgmental logic. In practice it would be appropriate to use the traditional system of
logic when considering single nature classes, and nonjudgmental logic when multiple
nature classes are concerned.

Said another way, our present system of logic is logical only if the
principle it is based on is correct. The new sciences objectively demonstrate that some
classes have more than one nature. This fact not only challenges the credibility of using
our present system of logic in all cases, it establishes the need for an additional system of
logic to be used in cases where classes have more than one nature. This knowledge is
fundamentally important.

36




The assumption that there is a single nature for every class has met challenges
from both recent philosophy and science. Contemporary physics has made discoveries
which challenge our traditional understanding of the nature of the world. These
discoveries also seem to imply that it is a mistake to continue to reason that a single
nature can adequately characterize every class of phenomena.

In the case of light, two different and apparently mutually exclusive forms may,
under certain conditions, correctly describe the same phenomenon: light as a particle,
light as a wave. Waves and particles are very different kinds of things. For example,
particles have clear and sharp boundaries; they exist at one place at one time. Waves, to
the contrary, are without sharp boundaries; they spread out through their medium and
hence are never at one particular point or place. Particles are like balls, while waves are
like ripples on a pond or ocean waves crashing against the shore. A wave ideally spreads
out to infinity, whereas a particle collapses to a dimensionless point. Waves are divisible;
particles are not. So a particle is not a wave, nor is a wave a particle, yet light behaves
like both! "Microphenomena, as discovered in this century, have required the
combination of two descriptive vocabularies which our predecessors had so defined that
they were incompatible with each other."
35
In short, there is not a single nature of light.
Both the nature of particles and waves are equally necessary to appropriately describe the
phenomenon of light, according to the generally accepted view known as the
"Copenhagen interpretation." This is "the view that fundamental micro nature is
indivisibly bipartite--the wave-particle duality. If in our scientific analysis one of these
aspects were subordinate to the other, the result would be not only an unbalanced picture
of elementary particles but also a factually false one."
36


A May 1996 article in Science News
37
reported an experiment done on a cold
beryllium atom which vibrated harmonically, producing what is said to be "a
superposition of two 'coherent-state wave packets.'" In layman's language, this means
that the atom vibrates in such a way as to produce the appearance of being in two
different places simultaneously. "For a brief period, the atom appears to exist in two
places," said physicist Christopher Monroe of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, in Boulder, Colorado. It exists both here and there, in two places at once.
This is strange, and stranger still, if we attempt to put it into the framework of
Aristotelian either/or logic.

It would seem that a similar analysis could be made of the notion of time in
contemporary physics. Relativity theory suggests that, depending upon one's relative
perspective or frame of reference, an event can be said to occur before, later than, or
simultaneously with another event. Logically speaking, if an event happens before
another, it cannot happen at the same time or later than the event in question. Similarly,
if an event happens at the same time as another event, it cannot happen before or after
that event. But according to relativity theory, depending upon the framework from which
one is observing, the same event may be judged to have occurred before, after, or at the
same time. As in the case of light, conflicting forms of description are equally

37


appropriate, given one's perspective.

The important point to notice here is that we are becoming aware that it is a
mistake to attempt to reduce some things to a single best description. It is clear that not
everything can be correctly comprehended by one description of its nature. In
contemporary physics, for example, scientists use both the traditional Newtonian as well
as quantum measurements, even though the models for Newtonian physics and quantum
mechanics are completely different. Their underlying assumptions may even be said to
contradict one another.

Nobel Laureate in Physics, Wolfgang Pauli, used the phrase the irrationality of
reality to indicate that reality may include a non-rational element. Since the
enlightenment, the laws of nature have been seen as an expression of the rational
features of reality. In fact, the existence of such laws is what makes the rational
description of phenomenon possible. It is characteristic of Western thought to see such
rationality as an indispensable property of reality; every thought that is real is supposed to
be rational [i.e., fit our laws of logic]. Pauli, however, attacks this basic belief calling it
the repression of the irrational [the] lesson of atomic physics forces us to
abandon our fundamental belief in the rationality of reality the irrationality of reality
must be considered an essential property of reality.
38
Smith, as summarized by Griffin,
like Pauli, holds that a position cannot be fully accurate unless it is inconsistent, unless
its doctrines are not coherently conceivable.
39



Four Reasons Why An Additional System
of Logical Laws is Required

In opposition to those who would claim that the findings of the new sciences do
not bring to mind any object or idea that cannot be understood in the
context/consciousness of traditional logic. I offer the following.

First, let me argue that Plato never intended his theory of contradiction to be used
as a standard of logic. He used this theory to justify his claim that the soul* (which, to
him, meant our psychological self
40
) consisted of three elements that correspond to the
reasoning mind, intuitive mind, and a discerning self he called the child of the good.
41

which mediates between the first two. His use of the Theory of Noncontradiction was to
prove the existence of a discerning self or in contemporary terms, an inner or ego self.
By demonstrating that we have both a rational and intuitive understanding about an
experience, by necessity a power higher than either is required to mediate between the
two.
42
More simply stated, just as elements are by definition only that element, similarly
the reasoning mind can only reason and the intuitive mind can only intuit. Therefore,
neither has the ability, within itself, to comprehend the other. By necessity, then, it takes
a discerning or god-self that can hold both rational and intuitive thoughts in mind at the
same time to mediate between the two.

In effect, Platos Theory of Noncontradiction is the criteria upon which he

38


justifies reason and intuition as different elements of consciousness, and in turn that, by
necessity, there is a third element in the soul or psychological self that is superior to
boththe child of the good, meaning divine presence within.

My point is that even though it would seem that Platos Theory of
Noncontradiction excludes the possibility of the same attribute, both being and not being,
in the same relations of time and circumstance, the same thingthis is patently false. To
the contrary, what his theory establishes is that there is a discerning self, or as Plato says,
child of the good, who mediates between the rational and the intuitive elements of
consciousness.

Second, one could argue that if any one thing appeared to have more than one
attribute at the same time, we could carefully reduce those attributes into separate classes,
then address each class with existing laws of logic.

I do not argue against this. I want to expand on it. I propose that when we first
observe a class that appears to have more than one attribute/nature, we have two options
of how to understand what we see. We can accept, say in the case of light, that light is a
class that has two attributes, both wave and particle at the same timewhich, of course,
sounds absurd. Or we can say that light is reducible into two classes, either wave or
particle, which agrees with logic.

The question is, if light is a class that has more than one nature, would it be
logical to think we are considering light in the same way, and in the same relation, if we
considered it in terms of being either a wave or a particle, depending upon particular
circumstances? Clearly not. Our understanding of Platos Theory of Noncontradiction
excludes the possibility that classes with more than one nature can be judged by the
same logic we use to judge classes that have one nature. This is like judging apples by
oranges.

Some might claim that if we reduced every object or idea to their basic elements,
we could then consider each element separately according to our present system of logic.
But how could this explain that a person traveling at half the speed of light can entertain,
at the same time, that time was elapsing at different rates for himself and someone
moving at a different speed. Clearly his idea of time consists of two different times
elapsing at different rates at the same time. This clearly refutes the reductionists claim.

I propose the obvious, we need to expand our present system of logic so it can
encompass both single and multiple nature classes. Then, and only then, will we be truly
equipped to explore every potential of both the rational and what is now considered the
irrational dimensions of reality. Doing this, we will be using all of our mental potentials.
This equates to being fully human, or in spiritual terms, enlightened.

Third, for those who would still argue that our present logic is sufficient if
carefully applied, I would ask them how would they correlate classes that exhibit more
than one attribute with our present concept of plurality. For as it stands, we have no way

39


to define what a plurality of different natures within the same class means. And if we
cannot define what we mean, we have no objective way to consider the diversity of
natures in multiple-nature classes.

We would, for example, have to create a way to generalize without the need to
classify each member of multiple nature classes by a different name. A classification
system that could do that is difficult to imagine. Some multiple nature classes, like
humanity, include billions of different natures. In effect, until we can create a language
system that can generalize without sacrificing the unique qualities of each nature within
multiple nature classes, an additional system of logical laws is required to fill the gap
between our present system of logic and our expanding understanding of nature.

Fourth, I would also argue that because logic is a prerequisite to language, we
have to understand what something is before we can describe it. The problem of not
being able to express what we feel, exemplifies that traditional logic does not provide a
way to understand all of reality. If it did, we would not so often be at a loss for words to
explain ourselves. This, too, supports my case that additional rules of logic are, by
necessity, required.

How many times has it been said that I cant tell you how much I love you or
words cannot convey what I mean. The inability of language to convey these thoughts
can be seen as the inadequacy of logic to fully describe reality. This also supports my
case that new rules of logic are required if we hope to comprehend all that nature offers.

There will be many who will resist the idea that there are dimensions of reality
our present logic cannot explain. This resistance has little basis except habit. As our life
evolves, we experience, even if we dont recognize it, new dimensions of reality almost
daily. In adolescence, for example, we thought that the world revolved around us.
However, as adults, we know this is not true. What now makes us think that what we
think as adults includes every dimension of reality?

In summary, those who think that our present system of logic is sufficient fail to
grasp that our present system of logic does not encompass all of reality. For example,
they are denying that Physicists like Christopher Monroe, are seeing what they are
seeing. I propose we accept the new facts science is demonstrating and use the either/or
limits of traditional logic in Newtonian science, but consider it inappropriate to use in
social affairs and to understand the new physics.


Does Humanity Have More Than One Nature?

I will take time here to argue that humanity is a class that has more than one
nature. It is important to do this because later we will see that Jesus used this same
argument to justify nonjudgmental logic. The point is that Jesus system of
nonjudgmental logic is based on the credibility that some classesnamely humanity
have more than one nature. This makes nonjudgmental logic not only desirable, but a

40


logical necessity. Think about it. How could anyone prove that humanity has but one
nature? Human nature is a subjective concept, not an object that can be analyzed.

Plato wrote in the Republic that "we are accustomed to posit a single form for
each group of many things to which we give the same name."
43
This implies that human
beings share a single nature. We want to challenge this assumption. Later we will see
that this same challenge justifies Jesus logic teachings.

In The Sane Society, Erich Fromm points out that mankind is infinitely malleable:
he can live free or slave, rich or starving, in peace or in war, exploiting or cooperating.
"There is hardly a psychic state in which man cannot live, and hardly anything which
cannot be done with him, or for which he cannot be used. All these considerations need
to justify the assumption that there is no such thing as a nature common to all men . . . ."
44


Fromm has stated the obvious. For if there is one human nature, why then are
people so different? Why is religion so important to some of us, and yet it plays an
insignificant, even non-existent role in the lives of others? Why do some of us find
science so thrilling to study, and others are completely uninterested in studying biology
or physics, for example? As children, why did some of us want chemistry sets and begin
to experiment at an early age, whereas others, even in high school, were unimpressed by
the fact that water is made from one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms? Why do some of
us hold such firm political convictions, and others of us are totally uninterested in
politics? These questions would not be hard to answer if we accepted that humanity
consisted of many human natures.

Years ago, C. P. Snow noted that two distinct "cultures" exist in our society:
science, on the one hand, and the humanities, on the other. Snow lamented the fact that
very often those of us in the sciences know and care little about the humanities, and those
of us in humanities know and care little about the sciences. The fact is that the sciences
and the humanities generally require an entirely different kind of mentality. That
requirement suggests that humanity does consist of at least two human natures.

Researchers have found that the human brain has two distinct hemispheres each of
which harbors different functions. Roger Sperry, Joseph Bogen, and Michael Gazzaniga
have discovered in their research that it is as though there are two separate minds within a
person. There are two quite different ways, then, in which we experience the world.
45


The left hemisphere is associated with language and speech, mathematics and
verbal memory, and a sense of time: with the "verbal, analytic, reductive-into-parts,
sequential, rational, time-oriented and discontinuous."
46
The right hemisphere, on the
other hand, is associated with visual, tactile, and spatial organization, depth perception,
and general patterns: with the "non-verbal, holistic, synthetic, visuo-spatial, intuitive,
timeless and diffuse."
47
The brain, then, functions in two distinct ways, according to its
two distinct, though connected, hemispheres or natures. In an unpublished paper,
metaphysician Diana Beth Gaedig summarized the functions of these hemispheres as
follows:

41




HEMISPHERES LEFT RIGHT

Information thinking feeling
sensing intuition

Remembering words images
numbers patterns
parts wholes
names faces

Expressing verbal gut feeling
talking dreams, gestures
counting drawing, singing
writing doodling

Thinking analytical visionary
linear spatial
logical free association
sequential simultaneous
deductive inductive


We tend to experience the world in one of two ways, according to which of the
two hemispheres we are using. We think in different ways, depending upon which
hemisphere is dominant. Studies by Jacob Getzels and Philip Jackson in the late Fifties
indicated that there were two types of thinking: convergence and divergence. In
convergence, which is associated with the left hemisphere, reasoning tends to be linear,
vertical, and one-dimensional. This is the scientific temperament, which values the
convergence on the stated problem to find the answer through logical, observational,
experimental, and mathematical methods.
48
In divergence, on the other hand, reasoning
tends to be more creative, integrative, lateral, and multi-dimensional. Divergence
involves the process whereby questions are originated and possibilities are imagined.
Problems are not so much solved, as they are with convergers, as reformulated and
elaborated; and new ideas are played with imaginatively through processes such as
brainstorming or free association.

Depending upon which hemisphere is dominant for us, we will display different
psychological natures or dispositions as well as preference for different disciplines.
Those of us predisposed to divergence tend to gravitate toward English, history, the arts,
philosophy, the social sciences, and modern languages. The intuitive, feeling, and
insightful function of the consciousness is more dominant in these fields. On the other
hand, those of us predisposed to convergency tend to prefer the hard sciences and the
highly inflected or structured classical languages.
49
The former often possess general
knowledge; the latter, specialized information.

42



Edward De Bono draws a similar distinction; his terms are "lateral" and "vertical"
thinking. By "vertical thinking" De Bono means reasoning from a paradigm or standard.
What is considered a fact must fit the accepted schema. This is characteristic of thinking,
which conforms to the accepted standard, whether the standard be scientific, religious,
ethical, or political. Vertical thinking is "thinking on one plane."
50
It is limited by its
passive tendency to attempt to fit everything into the established model or paradigm. A
certain rigidity and conformity exists in vertical thinking.
51
Lateral thinking, on the other
hand, suspends these limiting structures and entertains the possibilities of alternatives.

In all fields, people differ. In science, there are those great scientists who make
discoveries within the given paradigm, and there are those who alter the paradigm. Even
in science, there are those scientists who are more willing to accept their own subjective
judgment than are others of their colleagues. Einstein, for example, was so moved by the
beauty of the simplicity of the mathematics, which he used to describe the universe, that
he believed in its truth because of its beauty and simplicity. He accepted subjective
criteria by which to assess the truth of his theories, rather than merely the objective
criteria. This shows his trust in his own authority. He even remarked that if the universe
didn't fit his mathematics, so much worse for the universe!

In his Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein took issue with the idea that
there was a single nature shared by all members of a class, which he likened to members
of a family. There are obvious resemblances between children and parents; biologically,
the children share the genes of their parents. But this does not mean that they necessarily
share something more fundamental, some essence or nature in the Platonic or Aristotelian
sense.

In music, some musicians play and compose within the given parameters; others
extend them. Bach operated largely within the musical standards, whereas Beethoven
broke with the standards of his day. We admire Picasso in art, Newton and Einstein in
physics, and Darwin in biology, for going beyond the accepted frameworks of their day.
Those who break with tradition, whether scientific or artistic, religious or economic, are
operating from a different authority, often from their own subjective authority. But it
takes a certain nature or temperament to do this. Some of us have it; others do not. Even
here, we are by nature essentially different.

Psychologist Carl Jung distinguished four functions which differ in their strength
and prominence in people. I have found from experience that the basic psychological
functions . . . prove to be thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition. If one of these
functions habitually predominates, a corresponding type results.
52


Jung represents modern psychology's tendency to divide human nature into four
distinct types. Ancient writers did the same. Plato, in the Third Book of his Republic
(414B-417B), suggested that citizens be told the fiction that different metals ran in their
veins, making them different. Plato followed Hesiod's lead in choosing gold, silver,
bronze, and iron. The ancient Greek physician, Galen, proposed dividing human beings

43


into four types according to the predominant "humors" or psychological natures:
melancholic, phlegmatic, sanguine, and choleric. Behaviorist H. J. Eysenck divides
human beings into four types, according to whether they are predominantly introverts or
extroverts.
53
The Briggs-Myers personality tests make similar four-fold classifications. It
is not necessary, however, to accept any particular way of dividing human beings into
types or natures in order to accept the fact that humanity consists of many human natures.


Humanity Has More Than One Nature

Human beings, then, are essentially different. They differ in their types, as Jung
and others would assert, or in their natures, as Gnostic Christians would maintain.
Human nature cannot be defined by a single form, as Plato thought. Humanity consists
of many forms or natures.

In effect, our knowledge of the world has led us, arguably, to go beyond Plato's
theory that a single nature alone is adequate to appropriately describe a given class.
Some things, like light, time, subatomic phenomena, and human nature have more than
one nature which correctly describes the class. In going beyond the metaphysics of
Plato, we also go beyond the logic of Aristotle, which is no longer reasonable in every
case!

Note: Unlike scientific arguments, which objectively demonstrate that some
classes have more than one nature, Jesus argument that humanity has more than one
nature is not demonstrateable. We must not overlook the fact, however, that the common
opinion that there is but one human nature is also not demonstrateable. Therefore, if
anyone is to prove that humanity has only one nature, they would have to present an
objective argument to demonstrate their claim, and no one, including Plato, has.

My point is that, until someone can turn human nature into an object we can
analyze, we cannot take Platos theory as a fact. There are many arguments that
humanity has more than one nature, some of which I have illustrated above. But none
that I know of argue that humanity has but one nature. The truth of Platos Theory of
Noncontradiction and Theory of Forms, and ultimately that judgmental logic is sufficient
in all cases, wait for confirming arguments from those who believe that all humanity has
one nature.


Can Civilization Survive Another Three Thousand
Years of Judgmental Logic?

Judgmental laws of logic are at work in our everyday lives on a scale that dwarfs
the effects of even laws of mathematics. The effects of mathematical laws, for example,
are in most every manmade product, from the family car to the ink used to print these
words. Our laws of logic, however, act as the standards for what we think is reasonable
or pure nonsense, morally, socially, sexually, politically, economically, and even

44


mathematically. Without laws of logic, civilization would not exist.

Philosopher Francis Bacon and many others, however, have recognized that our
present laws of logic are judgmental and can, therefore, harm rather than help us.

The logic now in use serves rather to fix and give stability to the errors which
have their foundation in commonly received notions, than to help to search out the truth.
So it does more harm than good.
54


The new sciences have also revealed that our logic cannot describe certain natural
phenomena. To understand all the facts of nature, we need, as scientist Wolfgang Pauli
said, a new conception of reality, one which accepts the irrationality of rationality.
55

Or, as I would say, a new conception of reality not limited to traditional laws of logic.


The Failure of Either/Or Reasoning In Our Everyday Lives

There are families who are devastated today because their children have AIDS.
They contracted this disease through blood transfusions. And these children are not
alone. Many adults, too, now bear the effects of contaminated blood. Years ago the
companies which processed and sold blood were aware of the presence of the hepatitis
virus in their blood supply. But since it could take as long as thirty or forty years for
hepatitis to kill its victims, the blood companies made the decision that the risk was not
worth the cost of sterilizing the blood. Little did they know that in their blood supply was
also the dreaded AIDS virus. Had the companies sterilized the blood, the AIDS virus
would have been killed along with the hepatitis virus. But the blood companies decided
that it would cut too deeply into their profits to do the procedure.

Those who were responsible for the decision of the blood companies reasoned in
a typical way. They weighed their cost against their clients' risk: they asked what was to
their own benefit, versus what would be in their clients' interest. Put in the mode of
either/or logic, the decision in favor of their own benefit was virtually guaranteed from
the outset.

A similar situation is occurring as you read these words. The tobacco industry is
facing lawsuits from a number of states, which are suing to recover the cost of medical
treatment for their citizens dying of cancer from smoking. The tobacco companies are
fighting the states. Their reasoning is easy to understand: our interests versus their
interests. We want to sell our cigarettes, but without having to take responsibility for the
consequences of the effects of our product: cancer. That's their problem, not ours.

To this date, the tobacco industry has never lost in court. But the tobacco
companies pay six hundred million dollars every year to their lawyers! Just imagine if
that money were spent to provide heath care for those dying of cigarette-related cancer!
But that would require a different logic and different reasoning. It would require the
companies to think in terms of both themselves and their customers, rather than either

45


themselves or their customers. It would require a logic of love rather than a logic of
conflict and confrontation. What is obviously the humane and ethical thing to do cannot
even be a logical or rational option unless we change the logic by which we reason!

Take a moment to analyze this situation. Bankers, manufacturers, farmers and
union leaders all reason in terms of either/or. The tobacco industry, for example, places
its own customers in an adversarial role. Those who purchase the very product of the
tobacco industry are considered the opponent! This is also the logic of other industries
and businesses, such as insurance companies. How many of us have bought insurance
and paid high premiums year after year, and then, when we needed to make a claim for
damage, discovered that our insurance company treated us, its very own clients, as the
enemy! It tried to pay as little as possible, to stall as long as possible, or even get out of
paying altogether! This, of course, is natural and normal. It is just "good business"! But
it is morally bankrupt and ethically wrong! Yet it goes on every day! It seems right and
good because it is supported by sound reasoning--on the basis of an adversarial, either/or,
confrontational logic! For our moral and spiritual health, we need to think differently.
We need another logic, nonjudgmental logic!


The Need for an Additional System of Logic

Those of us who make decisions in companies and industries like those mentioned
above think of ourselves as good, "God- fearing" people. But does it really make sense to
think that we can love God, if we do not love, or even care about, our neighbors? In his
first letter, the apostle John expresses the relationship between loving God and loving our
fellow man. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that
loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother
also. (I John 4:20-21)

Martin Buber, in The Eclipse of God, describes what happens when we fail to
love one another. We treat one another as a thing, an object, an It. To use poetic
language, we might image ourselves as blocking out Love. Buber uses the metaphor of
"an eclipse of God" to describe the condition. What do we mean when we speak of an
eclipse of God which is even now taking place? Through this metaphor we make the
tremendous assumption that we can glance up to God with our "mind's eye," or rather
being's eye, as with our bodily eye to the sun, and that something can step between our
existence and His as between the earth and the sun.
56
In our age the I-It relation,
gigantically swollen, has usurped, practically uncontested, the mastery and the rule. The
I of this relation, an I that possesses all, succeeds with all, this I that is unable to say
Thou, unable to meet a being essentially, is lord of the hour . . . . It steps in between and
shuts us from the light of heaven.
57


Those who reason in terms of a logic of either/or, us- versus-them, me-versus-you,
feel justified in placing contaminated blood on the market for consumption. Rather than
acting in love for the benefit of others and the good of the whole, they do only what is

46


perceived to be in their own interest.

Many philosophers, psychologists, and theologians also recognize that our present
rules for correct reasoning are questionable. Protestant theologian Paul Tillich (1886-
1965) recognized that Aristotelian reasoningwhich he called technical. [is] a kind
of meansends rationality that gives yes/no answers to either/or questions. It abolishes
contradiction, cuts through anomaly, and permits vague anxieties to be replaced by
definite fears which can supposedly be mastered. But, [for Tillich] the ethical, social, and
existential issues of ultimate concern require a totally different kind of reasoning, a kind
that encompasses several alternatives, and which answers not in terms of either/or, but of
both/and. [He calls this reasoning] encompassing reason.
58
For example, we need to be
both individuals and yet part of the society to which we belong; both rational and yet
capable of deep feeling and passion; both loving and strong willed; and both innocent and
yet capable of exercising power. When we use technical reason, where encompassing
reason is more appropriate, we turn complex, multifaceted, and multi-dimensional issues
into simplistic either/or choices, both of which may have negative consequences.

Biologist Jonas Salk expressed the need for a philosophy of reason which
encompassed and reconciled both opposing alternatives of the Aristotelian either/or
dichotomy. We urgently need a philosophy of bothand to qualify the present
either/or. Once it was either our survival, or that of other species and natural elements,
so we conquered, multiplied and subdued. Now we face an ego whose intellect, reason,
objectivity, morality, differences, competitive nature, power and win or lose psychology
desperately needs a being whose intuition, feeling, subjectivity, realism, ability to
differentiate, cooperate, and influence and reconciling powers can contain it.
59


Anthropologist Ruth Benedicts synergistic thinking goes beyond the either/or
dichotomy in Aristotelian logic. Synergism is the capacity of two forces, persons, or
structures of information to optimize one another and achieve mutual enhancement.
60

Synergism holds in union and harmony what normally is taken to be opposite and
irreconcilable.

From all comparative material, the conclusion emerges that societies, where non-
aggression is conspicuous, have social orders in which the individual by the same act and
at the same time serves his own advantage and that of the group. . . not because people
are unselfish and put social obligations above personal desires, but when social
arrangements make these identical.
61


Erich Fromm also called for synergistic thinking. Fromm characterizes the
productive personality as loving, caring, respectful, responsible and knowledgeable, and
capable of holding in balance two opposing poles. On the other hand, masochistic loyalty
and sadistic authority, destructive assertiveness and indifferent fairness are what
characterize the non-productive personality in dealing with others.
62


Abraham Maslow offers a similar analysis in terms of what he calls self-
actualizing persons. Those of us who are not self-actualized find ourselves reasoning in

47


the dichotomy of either/or choices. Self- actualized persons are those whose reasoning
transcends this dichotomy.

Most Eastern religions question the credibility of the reasoning mind. They teach
that reasoning is less reliable as a guide to reality and truth than the direct perception
and feeling of an individual properly prepared for spiritual receptiveness and subtlety by
ascetic practices and years of obedient tutelage; that the purpose of knowledge and
philosophy is not control of the world so much as release from it;
63


Those who criticize Aristotelian logic, then, are clear that humanity needs to learn
how to transcend judgmental logic: to learn how to reconcile conflicting positive
alternatives, to develop the capacity to encompass these alternatives in a dynamic whole
and to build consensus rather than dissension. Stopping problems before they begin is
the ultimate form of conflict resolution. Learning to apply either/or logic only when
considering single nature classes is the means to this end. Creating a new system of
both/andnonjudgmental logicwhich applies to multiple nature classes is the means to
a new beginning. As psychologist Erich Fromm said, Only when man succeeds in
developing his reason and love further than he has done so far, only when he can build a
world based on human solidarity and justice, only when he can feel rooted in the
experience of universal brotherliness, will he have found a new, human form of
rootedness, will he have transformed the world into a truly human home.
64


As mentioned above, our knowledge of the world has led us to argue beyond
Platos theory that a single nature alone is adequate to appropriately describe all classes
of things and ideas. Some classes, like light, time, subatomic phenomenon and human
nature, have more than one nature and therefore, cannot be correctly described by a single
description. In going beyond the metaphysics of Plato, we also go beyond the logic of
Aristotle, which is not reasonable in every case. Philosophy, psychology, and modern
physics draw our attention to the fact that Platos theory of nature is no longer
appropriate in all cases. And because our present system of logic is based on Platos
theory, we need to question the validity of reasoning based on those laws of logic and the
language in which we convey that reasoning. It is incorrect to presume that any rational
[Aristotilian] description will ever be able to reach reality itself. (ZYGON Magazine,
Vol. 25, No. 4, 1990)

In summary, as long as we are limited to Aristotles and Gautamas judgmental
rules of logic, we will too often be torn between what is morally wrong but rationally
right.

I have demonstrated that the judgmental character of our reasoning comes from
our laws of logic. Accepting this, we can imagine that it is not the reasoning mind, as a
whole, which is to blame for the human condition. But rather, the judgmental reasoning,
which dominates the civilized world with its judgmental rules of logic, is to blame. It is
these rules, the only rules of logic we havenot the nature of the reasoning mind
which causes the disharmony between mind and spirit. It is also reasoning according
to traditional rules of logic that makes the mind, according to Eastern thought, less

48


reliable than spiritual discernment. From this we can conclude that additional
nonjudgmental rules of logic, warranted by the principle that some classes have more
than one nature, can expand the possibilities of the reasoning mind to mirror spiritual
principles. And, in turn, these rules would empower the mind to be harmonious with
spiritual values and capable of accurately describing reality and truth.

I offer new nonjudgmental rules for correct reasoning, which I call
nonjudgmental logic. This logic supports oneness, limitlessness, and unconditional
acceptance, or as some might call it, paradoxical, spiritual, heart felt, or quantum
thinking. Let us now explore the potentials of this logic.


Nonjudgmental Logic

At first, nonjudgmental logic may appear paradoxical, by which I mean, contrary
to common belief, unbelievable, or even absurd, but may, in fact, be true. This can be
expected. The sense of absurdity that nonjudgmental logic invokes comes from
subconsciously judging it on the basis of traditional logic, which is contrary to
nonjudgmental logic. The same sense of absurdity is probably felt when we try to
understand Einsteinian physics and quantum mechanics by judging them on the basis of
judgmental logic. If we used nonjudgmental logic, on the other hand, we might be able
to understand, because nonjudgmental logic, unlike existing logic, is compatible with the
new Sciences.

Judging nonjudgmental logic, and our new sciences, by traditional logic, then, can
be compared to judging apples on the basis of oranges. We must judge this new logic
and the new Physics on their own merits, not existing systems of logic. Nobel
Prizewinner, Wolfgang Pauli, recognized the need for a new system of logic when he
said, What must be regarded as irrational today may be described by rational theories in
the future.
65


The fact is that if we judge nonjudgmental logic within the rules of our present
system of logic, we cannot understand nonjudgmental logic. In order to understand it, we
have to get past judging it in terms of judgmental logic. This may not be easy because
we tend to think that how we reason is inborn. But, this is not true. If it were, all humans
would reason in the same way and we dont. Most civilized beings, for example,
judge that they are individuals in nature. Many Aborigines, originally at least, considered
themselves and nature as one.

How we reason, then, is determined by our experiences, not our heredity.
Therefore, we can logically assume that how we now judge may not be the only way to
judge. And this being true, what we now judge to be reality may not be the whole of
reality.

Note: Some argue that we would not need an additional system of logic if we
applied traditional rules to specific natures within multiple nature classes. I agree that

49


this could work, but not until we create a classification system that recognizes the
difference between single and multiple nature classes, and creates a language system to
convey the idea of multiple natures within a class that is unique from our present concept
of plurality. For as it stands, we have no way to define what a plurality of different
natures within the same class means. And if we cannot define what we mean, we have no
objective way to consider the diversity of natures in multiple-nature classes.

We would, for example, have to create a way to generalize without the need to
classify each member of multiple nature classes by a different name. A classification
system that could do that is difficult to imagine. Some multiple nature classes, like
humanities, include numerous different natures. In effect, until we can create a language
system that can generalize without sacrificing the unique qualities of each nature within
multiple nature classes, an additional system of logical laws is required to fill the gap
between our present system of logic and our expanding understanding of nature.

The following is my attempt to explain nonjudgmental logic. Much license must
be granted me because I am trying to explain nonjudgmental logic in the context of
traditional logic, which is inherently contradictory to it.


The Three Basic Laws of Nonjudgmental Logic

The three new laws of logic I propose are:

The Law of Diversity.
The Law of Complementarity.
The Law of Included Middle.

Note: Nonjudgmental laws of logic may appear to suggest that every action or
choice is of equal value. This is not true. Nonjudgmental laws of logic do not condone
relativism, they recognize only as many truths per class as there are natures within that
class.

Nonjudgmental logic also rests on the ecological principle that life affirms life.
Therefore, only life-affirming acts are judged to be natural, moral and acceptable. Dr.
Albert Schweitzer characterized morality in this way, the fundamental principle of
morality [is] that good consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that
destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil.
66



The Law of Diversity

The law of diversity states that members of a class with multiple natures need not
be identical. In symbolic terms, this means that in multiple nature classes, class A, for
example, can be A or B or C, depending upon how many members/natures are in the
class.

50



The law of diversity draws our attention to the fact that there are classes whose
members within that class have different natures, and therefore may not be said to be
identical to one another. For example, according to the law of identity, all human beings
have nature A. According to the law of diversity, however, some humans have nature A,
while others have B, C, or D. People are different, and honoring that difference would
lead to tolerance, and ultimately unconditional acceptance and love.

Remember that the law of identityX is Xleads to prejudicial generalizations
based on the fact that all humans are by nature identical. We can then understand that
the law of diversity leads to unconditional acceptance of others because it is based on the
principle that some classes, here humanity, have more than one nature, which in turn,
justifies reasoning that many human natures are natural.

Understanding that diversity is natural calls into question the concept of
generalizing about all classes, and in turn, prejudice itself. Prejudice arises when we
improperly apply the law of identity and make generalizations about our country, our
race, our religion, and them. If, however, we apply the law of diversity to multiple
nature classes, like humanity, we would accept each person for who they are, rather than
on the basis of generalizations about the nature of humanity. In practice, we would
understand that bigotry of any type is illogical and evidence of immature reasoning.
Imagine Hitler trying to sell his bigotry to an audience that judged everyone by their
merits rather than generalizations about race. Hitler would have been treated like the
disturbed child that he was, not like a hero- figure worthy of being followed. And the
same goes for racists, religious fanatics, political extremists, and all who would force
their opinion on others.

The point is that prejudice flourishes under the law of identity, but pales when
exposed to the light of reason emanating from the law of diversity. Simply said, the law
of diversity teaches not only acceptance of difference, but logical, and therefore,
genuine respect for difference. In the everyday world, the law of diversity would
cleanse the heart and mind of prejudicial reasoning, because it teaches us that prejudice is
the consequence of reasoning according to the law of identity, when it is appropriate to
use the law of diversity.


The Law of Diversity and Science

We must not overlook the benefits the law of diversity has for science. Data from
Einsteinian physics and quantum mechanics cannot be understood within our present
system of logic, but could be understood in the context of the law of diversity and
language based on that law. Einsteinian and quantum data demonstrate that some classes
like time, light, and mass have more than one nature. This is contradictory to the law of
identity because it is based on the prevailing principle that every class has a single nature.

The law of diversity, however, recognizes that some classes, like light, can have

51


more than one nature. Recognizing this coincides with what Einsteinian and quantum
physics demonstratenamely that some classes have more than one nature. In practice,
then, the law of diversity not only teaches us that bigotry is irrational, it provides us with
a new logical context in which we can understand the new sciences, and perhaps even
sciences that we have not yet imagined. Could what we now call the paranormal be one
of these unknown sciences?


Expanding Language Through the Law of Diversity

The law of diversity lays the foundation for a new way to understand pluralities.
When the law of identity is applied to single nature classes, a plurality is understood as
two or more members of a class that have the same nature. In other words, the plural
form of X is XX or XXX

When we apply the law of diversity to classes that have more than one nature,
however, we can understand that a plurality in these classes can refer to two or more
members that do have the same nature, as well as two or more members that have
different natures. Here the plural form of X can be XXX, as well as XYZ.

This may be confusing, and rightly so. Our language now has no way to
differentiate between single and multiple nature classes. We could, however, indicate
that we are considering multiple nature classes by adding the capital letter S to terms that
represent these classes, like lightS, timeS, humanS, and even pluralityS.

In practice, adding a capital S to multiple nature classes recognizes that terms like
maleS, femaleS, whiteS, blackS, redS and yellowS apply to all human beings, not as the
law of identity states that the word human applies to only those of us who share the
same gender or racial characteristics.


Free Will Through the Law of Diversity

The law of diversity is the key to free will because it justifies as many rational
alternatives in multiple nature classes as there are natures in those classes. Empowering
us to freely choose between rational alternatives, the law of diversity can be considered
imperative to our exercise of free will.

In practice, when we apply the law of diversity to multiple nature classeS, like
raceS and religionS, we would be able to choose between rational alternatives. For
multiple nature classes have as many rational definitions as they have natures. The best
politicsS, then, could be pure communism, democracy, monarchy, and anarchy.

And here is the best part. When we recognize multiple nature classes, we
recognize that our choice is one of many rational alternatives, not the only correct one. In
effect, the concept that only one description best fits the nature of the whole class will no

52


longer justify those who reason that their race, religion or politics is superior to all others
or that their reasoning is absolutely the best, and therefore, appropriate for everyone.
Such reasoning will be considered illogical, pretentious, arrogant, ignorant, and
dangerous.

The Law of Diversity empowers us to rationally choose to celebrate our
differences and marvel in the uniqueness which is both ours and our neighbors. In such a
world, appreciation of difference would become a source of delight. When we adopt a
reasoning, which can accept others in their difference, and ultimately for their difference,
we will have come a long way in treating one another with love. Then, we will have
moved closer to making heaven a practical reality for ourselves as individuals, for our
nation, and for the world.

The law of diversity, in principle, then, can be considered the gate to free will,
being truly open and sincerely respectful of the truths of others. We will understand, in
mind and spirit, and therefore own, what Neils Bohr, the physicist, discovered, namely
that the opposite of a most profound truth may well be another most profound truth.
67



The Law of Complementarity

The law of complementarity, my term, states that members within a class with
multiple natures may be different. In symbolic terms this means that A may be both A
and non-A at the same time.

The law of complementarity would make it explicit that when classes are made up
of members who are different, yet are members of the same class, it would be logically
incorrect to assert that this class has either one nature or another. Rather, it would be
logical to assert that the class consists of both nature A and nature non-A. For example,
since males and females make up the class of humans, it would be illogical to assert that
either one or the other exemplifies the class. It would be logical, however, to assert that
both males and females exemplify humanity. The law of non-contradiction could no
longer be used to justify dualistic either/or rationalizations if the law of complementarity
was employed when considering multiple nature classes. Justified by the law of
complementarity, relating ideas in terms of both/and would be the logical option.

According to the Law of Non-contradiction, for example, a person was either
judged a patriot, or a dissenter: for the nature of patriotism, according to Platos theory,
has no place in it for dissension. In the context of the Law of Complementarity, however,
a dissenter can be judged both a patriot and dissenter. According to the Law of Non-
contradiction, patriotism would be a class with multiple natures, and therefore, both
constructive dissension, as well as rallying behind the flag, could be considered patriotic.
The point is that the Law of Complementarity makes it logical to think in terms of
both/and, which makes both a dissenter and a patriot good citizens.

In the new physics, we find it necessary to accept emerging facts even though

53


they seem paradoxical and contradictory. Nonjudgmental logic can help us understand
some of those problems of inconsistency. These laws expand our definition of logical to
include both/and reasoning when classes with multiple natures are involved. In practice,
the Law of Complementarity creates a context in which we can understand the newly
emerging facts in the context of a logic that is naturally compatible with those facts. For
example, the Law of Complementarity creates a logical context in which we can
understand that light is both a wave and a particle. If the rational temperament of the
mind were expanded by the Law of Complementarity, then both/and reasoning would
inevitably expand our perception of what is reasonable and what is not. We could leave
the confusion that physics flounders in through both/and reasoningand move into
dimensions of reality we now think of as science fiction.

When applied, the law of complementarity would make it logical to relate to
others in terms of both/and, oneness, and I/thou. This new law would create the
additional logical context in which we could rationally comprehend our inter-
connectedness, as well as the discoveries in the new sciences, such as light being both a
wave and a particle.


Spirituality through the Law of Complementarity

In the first century, Holy meant complete or perfected. Spirit, from the Greek
word soul, meant the conscious self.
68
Together holy and spirit can refer to those who
have achieved psychological perfection. In first century Greek, Holy Spirit refers to
those who have rediscovered their capacity to reason like the gods. For our destiny as
rational beings was, in classical Greek philosophy, to make contact with divine reason,
and like God, discern ultimate truths.
69


In metaphorical terms, using both/and, or nonjudgmental, logic elevates our
capacity to reason to Godly levels. In this higher state of consciousness we will
comprehend that life in us is both unique to us and, at the same time, shared with all
others. Through nonjudgmental logic, we can understand that just as lightS is a multiple
nature class, and therefore, both wave and particle, the lifeS we share makes us both
individuals and one with all others.

The law of complementarity, then, can renew the mind in such a way that we
could access our potentials to perceive ourselves, others, and the world as one. Oneness,
in this sense, is more than acceptance of others. It is our total absorption into others. It is
total empathy, compassion, joy, respect, and pride in both others and ourselves in others.
As mystics say, we are all one poured into different cups.

I believe the Ten Profound Theories in the Buddhist Doctrine of the World of
Totalistic Harmony, Mutually Relating and Penetrating recognize oneness through
both/and reasoning. For example, (1) The Profound Theory of Correlation teaches that
all things co-exist, simultaneously arising. They co-exist, furthermore, not only in
relation to space, but also in relation to time; for past, present, and future, include each
other. Distinct as they are, and separate as they seem to be in time, all beings are united

54


to make one entityfrom the universal point of view. (2) The Profound Theory of
Perfect Freedom according to which all beings, great and small, commune with one
another without obstruction; so that the power of each partakes of that of all and so is
limitless. Even in a hare there are innumerable golden lions. One act, however small,
includes all acts. (5) The profound theory of complementary, according to which both
the hidden and the manifest constitute the whole by mutual reinforcement. If one is
inside, the other will be outside, or vice versa. By complementary they constitute a
unit. (10) The profound theory of completion of common virtue, according to which a
leader and his following, the chief and his retinue, work together harmoniously and
brightly; for, according to the one-in-all and the all- in-one principle, they really form
one complete whole.
70


In a consciousness of oneness the walls of separation built by either/or reasoning
will disappear. In this consciousness we will know that by enhancing others and the
world, we are enhancing ourselves. We will recognize ourselves in others, and therefore
treat them like ourselves. We will no longer rationalize the suffering of others for we
will suffer with them. As Buddhists say, there is no other. The concept of separation
is a delusion created by either/or reasoning. Both/and reasoning, based on the law of
complementarity, is the key to recognizing that we are one. In John, 17:21-22, Jesus
prays, Father, may they be one in us, as you are in me, and I am in you, I have given
them the [way to the] glory you gave to me, that they may be one, as we are one. In Eph
4:26 Paul says, we are all parts of one another. The idea of doing on earth as it is in
heaven is truly possible when we see ourselves in othersoneness. (See 1Cor 12:12)

In the consciousness of oneness, we will be in mind, body and spirit, one with the
all. We will no longer divide the world into spiritual or rational domains. Spiritual is
rational when we reason in terms of both/and. This is living the Golden Rule; this is
nonjudgmental logic.

In a consciousness of oneness, we will reach our highest potential. Psychic
phenomena, the strength of a mother to lift a truck to save her child, the presence of an
observer interrupting cause and effect, and perhaps those first moments when Peter
walked across water towards Jesus (Matt 14:29, 30) are examples of some of the
potentials of fully developed human beings. We can even imagine that ancient Egyptians
were in a consciousness of oneness with nature, which empowered them, through their
thoughts, to move the stones they used to build pyramids.

We might also suspect that abstract ideas, like the beauty of a rose and the awe of
a sunrise, may be natures way of talking to us. It is said that Aborigines talk to animals
and the woods. Could it be that we, too, could communicate with nature through her
abstract qualities of beauty and awe?

We need to rethink the idea of paranormal in terms that it is little more than
using nonjudgmental logic without being consciously aware of it.

I believe the greatest gift of the new sciences is that they demonstrate that what

55


has been considered paranormal, can now be considered thought-determined. The whole
idea that reality is a consequence of external cause and effect is questionable. Science
demonstrates that reality can be influenced by simply being observed. I believe this is
what Bishop John Shelby Spong referred to when he said in sub-atomic physics;
predictability [cause and effect] was battered, and the mechanical world of Newton
opened to such things as the impact of the observer and the recognition of an inter-
relatedness in all life.
71
From this it follows that if our thoughts can influence the chain
of cause and effect events that we call reality, we can imagine that our thoughts have the
potential to determine all of reality. I believe the law of complementarity empowers us to
understand, and therefore develop, those potentials.

In a consciousness of oneness, we can access our potentials to create the nature of
reality as we experience it. To keep this in perspective, we can imagine that we have
begun already to affect reality. When, for example, pain leaves us after we take what we
think is medicine, but is in fact a placebo, we can understand that our thoughts, rather
than the medicine, affected our cure. The same thing holds true for modern technology
that depends on mathematics that includes negative numbers. Can a number that is less
than nothing substantiate our technology? Or have we, through our thoughts, affected the
outcome of technology by creating the negative numbers technology requires? Beliefs,
positive thinking, prayers and meditation are also known to profoundly affect our
everyday lives and experiences. So, our thoughts do play a role in the creation of our
reality. Nonjudgmental logic gives us a practical way to understand how we can create
our reality on a daily basis.

Some may ask, But how could our thoughts be considered the creative force
behind reality if two individuals decided to affect reality in contradictory ways? My
answer is that we have both a personal mind and oneness of mind. Here the potential to
affect our reality comes from our personal mind. The potential to affect that part of reality
we have in common comes from our oneness of mind. This supports what new thought
teachers affirm, that both individuality and universal oneness are irreducible principles.


Language Benefits with the Law of Complementarity

The law of complementarity also provides the means to communicate in more
loving ways. Historically, for example, we had no way to refer to others as being one
with us, or as Buber says, in I/THOU relationships with us. When using the law of
complementarity, however, I/THOU relationships become the norm, for this law justifies
reasoning in terms of oneness.

In I/Thou relationships, it is by focusing primarily on the relationship and relating
one to another that we can transcend our sense of self as I and other as IT. An example
of this experience occurs in deep and genuine loving when the lover becomes one with
the beloved, and the beloved becomes one with the lover.

The I of the I/It relationships, on the other hand, experiences the other as an object

56


separate from itself. In such an experience, a loving relationship becomes impossible.
For the very awareness of the other as other, makes a relationship of unconditional love
with another impossible.

Bubers I/Thou relationship emphasizes the sense of oneness that we experience
when we relate to another as part of a whole which includes us. I/It, on the other hand,
signals a relationship of opposition in which the self is aware of its difference, and in this
sense, the otherness and the alienation from the other. Only in the first relationship do we
genuinely meet; only then can we genuinely express and experience the oneness of
unconditional love. This consciousness would be normal and spontaneous if we used the
law of complementarity. When people say, no one is free until every one is free, they
are placing themselves in I/Thou relationships with others. This makes the freedom and
well being of others inseparable from their own.


Law of Included Middle

The law of included middle states that members of a class with multiple natures
may not only be one thing or another, they can also be things in between. Symbolically,
the law of included middle states that A can be both A, non-A, and things in between.

The law of included middle provides an alternative to relating all ideas in
hierarchies. According to the law of excluded middle, there can only be one nature per
class that best fits everyone. In effect, members of a class possessing a higher degree of
that nature would be considered superior to those members possessing less.

According to the law of included middle, however, the very concepts of
superiority versus inferiority, better versus worse, and every other hierarchical
relationship between members within a class with multiple natures, would give way to
equality and inclusiveness. For, there could be as many variations within multiple nature
classes as there are natures.

In a world based on the law of included middle, we would no longer be judged
according to one standard of the perfect man, woman, color, sexual orientation, or I.Q.
We would be appreciated on the basis of our own nature. For example, according to the
law of included middle, beauty would not be limited to certain shapes, looks, or color. In
practice, then, there would be no such thing as an ugly human being. The ideas of too fat,
too tall, too black, too dumb, too this and that and every other thing, would no longer
exist. We would be appreciated for who we are, not judged by standards that do not
exemplify our nature.

The law of included middle, then, has the potential to transform our concept that
difference is a problem into the idea that difference is simply difference.

Humility, brotherhood, love, and sharing are the emotional expressions of
accepting difference as natural. The transformative power of the law of included middle

57


could produce a new rationality in which difference would be honored, not feared.

The law of included middle empowers us to rationally celebrate our differences
and marvel in the uniqueness that is both our neighbors and ours. In such a world,
appreciation of difference would become a source of delight. When we adopt a reasoning
which can accept others in their difference, and ultimately for their difference, we will
have come a long way in treating one another with love.


Summary of Judgmental and Nonjudgmental Logic

The power of prayer, meditation, spiritual knowledge, science and our own
experiences demonstrate that our thoughts have, within them, the power to create our
everyday reality. Prayers, meditation, hypnotism, and the paranormal introduce us to
latent creative powers within us. Nonjudgmental logic is the key to unlock those
potentials so that everyone might use them on an everyday basis.

In the past, we have not been able to harmonize the judgmental nature of our
reasoning mind with the nonjudgmental nature of spiritual values. Even the wisdom of
the wisest of us is more often than not at odds with our spiritual values.

Ancient Greek philosophers refer to this dilemma as the paradox of two minds in
one head. Others refer to this dilemma as the conflict between mind and heart, spirit and
flesh, and/or religion and reason.

Nonjudgmental logic overcomes the discord between mind and spirit. It expands
our potentials of reasoning by adding a nonjudgmental method of relating ideas that is in
harmony with spiritual values. Traditionally, spiritual values could not be rationalized in
the context of the judgmental rules for correct reasoning. Nonjudgmental logic, however,
creates a nonjudgmental method of reasoning that supports spiritual values.

Science takes precedence over spiritual enterprises because Science is based on
judgmental logic. Recognizing nonjudgmental logic places spiritual truths on the same
level as scientific facts. As long as traditional logic is the sacred cow of civilized man,
spirituality will continue to be thought of as hocus-pocus. When traditional logic goes
hand- in-hand with nonjudgmental, we can anticipate that not only will the hidden
dimensions of reality that the new Sciences open to us be better understood, we will also
accept that spiritual experiences are logically, and therefore, scientifically explainable.
No longer will spiritual organizations be marginalized by the Scientific community
each will consider the other an equal in mankinds search for himself.

Nonjudgmental logic can be considered the common ground for solving personal
and world problems. The need to feed the children, free the oppressed, save the whales,
stop the misuse of nuclear materials, and the abuse of political power would disappear if
the fears and selfishness that judgmental reasoning breeds gave way to the unconditional
love and caring nonjudgmental logic justifies. The point is that if organizations created

58


to make the world a better place recognized that judgmental reasoning was the underlying
cause of our problems, they would want to work with us, and each other, to solve this one
problemthereby solving all the rest.

Nonjudgmental logic is not a quick fix for personal and world problems. We
need to come to a consensus that some classes do have more than one natureand agree
to create the necessary rules of logic to support that principle. After which, we need to
teach these new rules to our children on a global scale. I consider nonjudgmental
reasoning the 4
th
R of education. Is not learning how to reason nonjudgmentally/lovingly
as important to our childrens happiness as is reading, writing and arithmetic?

We stand on the edge of a revolution in consciousness as momentous as any in
history. We are but one thought away from that revolutionnamely, recognizing that
nonjudgmental logic is warranted by the principle that some classes have more than one
nature. I believe this one thought is the most important idea for this millennium. How
we address this thought will determine the nature of our philosophies of life, and in turn,
the character of the future.


59




Chapter Three

Five Stage Models in the Development of Consciousness


Let us now sample contemporary five stage models in the development of
consciousness. This will create a common ground for understanding the five stages of
consciousness in the New Testament and how nonjudgmental logic is the key to reaching
stage four.


The Relationship Between Morality and Rational Development

Our psychic processes are made up, to a large extent, of reflection, doubts,
experiments, all of which are almost completely foreign to the unconscious, instinctive
mind of primitive man. It is the growth of consciousness which we must thank for the
existence of problems; they are the Danaan gift of civilization. It is just man's turning
away from instinct--his opposing himself to instinct--that creates consciousness. Instinct
is nature and seeks to perpetuate nature, whereas consciousness can only seek culture or
its denial.
72


Our human development has been commonly analyzed in terms of five stages. At
each of these stages, a different human nature emerges. What is "natural" for us at Stage
I is not "natural" when we are at Stage III, for example. And the converse is equally true:
what is "natural" for us at Stage IV is hardly "natural" when we are at lower stages of
development. Those of us who have developed into the higher stages, however, can and
do occasionally slip back into the reasoning and morality of the lower stages. This is
unfortunate, but it will continue to occur, until society reinforces the values of the higher
stages of human development. Let us now turn to a more detailed description of the first
two stages of our model of rational growth and the moral consciousness which is
associated with them.

Development is a natural process through which we all progress. Biologist
Stephen Jay Gould explains the biological principle, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny":
in our embryonic development, "the embryo repeats the physical stages of remote
ancestors."
73
In physiological terms, our instinctual and emotional responses are
associated with the limbic system and particularly with the amygdala, which is the seat of
disgust and delight, anger and fear. Fear, then, has a biological basis and purpose: it
warns the organism that its behavior may lead to harm.

It is our physiological nature which provides the basis for the consciousness of
Stage One: survival and self-preservation needs, which Maslow and others identify, lie at
its core. At this stage we are hardly recognizable except for our physical shape: Teilhard
de Chardin calls this stage a "mentoid," and Kohlberg and Wilber use terms like

60


"preconventional" and "archaic" respectively to describe this state of human awareness.
For it is not the function of our physiological nature and its survival mind of fear, in
particular, to provide basis for human consciousness. Millions of years ago, the
neocortex evolved, and we humans developed the capacity for learning, remembering,
and loving. These higher capacities are far better motives for uniquely human thought
and action than fear. But these capacities are not yet present in the consciousness of
those in Stage I.

What is true of biological evolution is likewise true of our rational and moral
development: we as individual human beings repeat the stages through which our species
homo sapiens has traversed. As Swiss philosopher and psychologist Jean Piaget explains,
There are inborn components of reason, but they are not static: they themselves evolve
in a definite way during ontogeny as the child assimilates external reality to its changing
internal structures. Reason itself evolves in response to increased experience with the
external world.
74


Some people develop more rapidly than others, others advance more slowly, but
most of us unfold according to what seems to be Nature's timetable. "Everything in its
season," as the expression goes. What is true of flowers is also true of us: we grow and
blossom when our time is right. Like fruit on a vine or tree, we ripen morally and
rationally after sufficient time in the sunshine of life.

So it is neither appropriate to blame those whose moral development lags behind
the majority, nor to lavish with praise those whose moral sensitivity is more advanced.
We are all fellow-journeyers traveling together toward the same goal, however we
conceive that goal: heaven, union with God, enlightenment, salvation, cosmic
consciousness, satori, nirvana, or moksha. It is a sad commentary on our world, however,
that many people do not receive the support from their society in their growth. There is,
therefore, a need to change society in order to provide conditions which support, rather
than hinder, normal moral and rational development. For without a supportive
environment in which we can mature, an ethical kingdom of heaven on earth will be a
distant and impractical dream.

Only when man succeeds in developing his reason and
love further than he has done so far, only when he can build
a world based on human solidarity and justice, only when
he can feel rooted in the experience of universal
brotherliness, will he have found a new, human form of
rootedness, will he have transformed the world into a truly
human home. --Erich Fromm
75


Heaven will become a practical reality when we consider it rational and logical to
be moral: in other words, when acting on our moral values becomes a reasonable thing
for us to do. Generally, "moral values" mean what most of us would accept as kindness,
caring, and consideration for others, ideally even compassion toward others, and what the
New Testament calls agape or "brotherly love." All these values are "moral" in the

61


broad sense that they affirm life. As mentioned earlier, Albert Schweitzer characterized
morality in this way: "the fundamental principle of morality . . . [is] that good consists in
maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting
life are evil.
76


What we often overlook in our analyses of morality is its intimate connection with
reasoning. Gnostic Christianity teaches that moral development is both proportional to
and dependent upon rational development. By "rational development" I do not mean the
mere ability to think with a certain degree of clarity. More than this is required. For at
later stages, rational development involves becoming conscious of how we think and
conscious of the laws or rules, in accordance with which, the process of reasoning occurs.
Ultimately, this will entail understanding the laws of thought, known as "logic." Let me
now survey familiar five-stage models of rational development. This survey will reveal
that each of the five stages have clear and defining characteristics.

It must be emphasized that the development from lower stages to higher ones is
not a function of intelligence or education. There are many people with Ph.D. degrees in
science, M.B.A. degrees in business and finance, Th.D. degrees in theology, who still
view the world in terms of the dualistic categories of Stage II. Education, or the lack of
education, is not necessarily a relevant marker or significant indicator of the stages of our
moral and rational development.


Familiar Five Stage Models

The use of a stage model is widespread among Western psychologists and other
writers on human development. A stage model analyzes growth in terms of "an invariant
sequence of discrete and increasingly complex developmental stages, whereby no stage
can be passed over and each higher stage implies or presupposes the previous stages. This
does not exclude regressions, overlaps, arrested developments and the like."
77
This
suggests that higher stages cannot be understood in terms of the lower ones, but the lower
stages can be clarified in terms of higher ones. It is possible for someone, under
economic and political pressures, and certainly under conditions of war and similar stress,
to slip back into an earlier stage.

Some writers have analyzed the stages of human development in terms of history,
morality, spirituality, and a hierarchy of needs. Our system is different. We will
characterize human growth in terms of five stages of rational development. Virtually
absent in the infant, the capacity to reason reaches only rudimentary levels in the earliest
period of life. An early expression of reason may be found in our ability to make rational
but conscienceless choices. A further development is when conscience is added to our
reasoning. In a still later stage, reason will develop the capacity to completely transcend
judgmental either/or thinking and attain the capacity for non-judgment, acceptance, love,
peace, wisdom. In the final stage of reason, we might be called "fully human" or
"enlightened."


62



Contemporary Models of Five Stages of Human Development


Analyses of human development in stages of consciousness can be found in the
writings of prominent contemporary thinkers. Let us first review some of these
contemporary models, which we can then relate to Pauls model.

It is appropriate to point out that at each stage of humanity's development, a new
and different "nature" emerges. This will be obvious even to the casual observer. A
human being whose basic focus is meeting physiological needs will seem quite different
from a human being concerned with gaining love or self-esteem. Certainly, the human
being obsessed with security will express human nature in a fundamentally different way
from one seeking self-realization. Human nature is not static. It reflects the level of
consciousness we attain. Nature intends that we all reach our full potential of
consciousness. The wide range of human thinking, however, demonstrates that some of
us have evolved more than others.

Note: Experience teaches that Nature intends us to grow through each of the five
stages. Therefore no one stage is superior to the other, any more than college graduates
are superior to third graders because they know more. Life experiences and choices are
the major determinants in expanding our consciousness, not natural abilities, privilege, or
education. This is extremely important. If we believe human nature cannot be trusted,
our social institutions will reflect this belief. If we believe that human nature is good, we
will build social institutions that see good as a meaningful goal.

The growth of consciousness can be seen as a form of intellectual metamorphosis.
Just as a caterpillar is transformed through metamorphoses into a butterfly, so is our
consciousness transformed, from one stage to the next, by the right experiences at the
right time. And just as a caterpillar cannot be considered less noble than a butterfly,
lower stages of consciousness cannot be considered inferior to higher ones. Actually the
higher one would be less likely to judge in terms of superior/inferior.

In Abraham Maslows Hierarchy of Needs, he recognizes that an individual stage
cannot be used to judge a persons worth. The peak of the earlier stage must be passed
before the next and higher need emerges to dominate the organism [individual]. This
[five step] sequence characterizes not only growth from childhood to maturity, but the
growth of cultures from subsistence to free expression. For this reason an individual
stage cannot be used as an automatic value judgment on personal worth, but is rather
indicative of a benign social environment[note] Sudden emotional or physical
deprivation will cause lower needs to reawaken.
78


This is an important point to keep in mind as we briefly review some analyses of
human development. My argument is that civilized man is locked into Stages II and III
because we have not yet learned how to reason nonjudgmentally. Nonjudgmental logic is
the key that frees us to reason nonjudgmentally / lovingly.

63



Abraham Maslow characterizes the stages of human development in terms of the
progressive satisfaction of a "hierarchy of needs": first, physiological "survival" needs
such as food, drink, and exercise; second, "safety" needs such as security, order, and
protection; third, the social need of "belonging," such as acceptance and love; fourth,
personal enhancement or "esteem needs" such as self- respect, status, and prestige; and
finally, the pinnacle of needs relating to self-actualization, self- realization, higher
personal growth, and holistic fulfillment.
79


In his Hero With a Thousand Faces, the distinguished mythologist Joseph
Campbell traces humankind's developmental journey. We might summarize this journey
in terms of five historical stages of progressive civilization: first, primitive hunting
people; second, tribes sharing together in the wilderness; third, the emergence of
conscience and the idea of moral law; fourth, the awareness of social interdependence;
and finally, the realization that there is a divine existence which indwells all of humanity.

Jesuit priest, and accomplished paleontologist, Teilhard de Chardin, in his The
Phenomena of Man, similarly suggests five historical stages of development. First is the
pre-human hominid, which he terms "mentoid." This is followed, by a second self-
conscious and reflective homo sapiens, whose emergence marked the beginning of
civilization.
80
The third stage is characterized by the development of highly
individualized persons, whose development in large numbers may be linked with the
period of the Renaissance. According to de Chardin, we are currently in the fourth stage,
the age of transformation,
81
characterized not only by our awareness of our evolutionary
development,
82
but also a desire to integrate self with others and nature.
83
Beyond us lies
a fifth stage, the "convergence" or "mega-synthesis" of hyper-personal consciousness,
oriented toward God, the Omega Point.
84
Teilhard uses the term "hominisation" to
designate the process by which the proto-human evolves into the more human, toward
what may be called "ultra- hominisation," the future stage in which humanity transcends
its current state.
85


Still another model is offered by Lawrence Kohlberg in his analysis of moral
development. The first, or "preconventional" stage, exists before social awareness;
obedience to morality is instilled by punishment, and "good" is whatever brings about the
desired result. The morality of the second stage is determined by the "conventions" of a
society; the individual's interpersonal relations are guided by the rules or conventions of
the particular society. The morality of the third stage has its legalistic basis in a social
contract. The morality of the fourth stage transcends both particular societal conventions,
and even the theory of a social contract, and instead, is grounded in "universal ethical
principles."
86
A fifth and spiritual stage of moral development is only hinted at in
Kohlberg's early writing.

Ken Wilber adopts a similar pattern of spiritual development in his book, A
Sociable God. In order to maintain the parallel with the writers mentioned above, we will
condense his eight categories into five stages. Wilber calls the first stage the "archaic,"
by which he means that consciousness is concerned with survival and self-preservation.

64


There is a certain "magical" or superstitious aspect to consciousness at this level,
suggesting a lack of shared reality. The second stage is that of "mythic/membership"
where the individual's identity is defined by, and thus is not separate from, the group. It
is only in the third stage that rational, self- reflective, and individualistic consciousness
truly develops. In Wilber's fourth stage, a new "inter- individualistic" consciousness
emerges, with a capacity for intimacy as well as personal autonomy, and an awareness of
a universal community. The final stages are characterized by the development of (a)
psychic capacity for cosmic consciousness, (b) intuitive capacity for illumination, and (c)
ultimately transcendence of the subject-object duality.
87


The Hindu saint, Sri Aurobindo, also offers a similar pattern for spiritual
development. One of his analyses is couched in terms of the origin of standards of
conduct.
88
The first and lowest moral standards arise from personal needs and desires
associated with physical and vital necessities. Secondly, emotional and mental cravings
and imaginations provide the source of morality. Only in the third stage does moral
consciousness develop to respond to law and the good of the collective consciousness of
the group, which at this stage takes precedence over individual needs and desires. The
fourth origin of morality is an ideal ethic: here thought overcomes instinct, and one is
called upon to recognize that the needs of the individual are invalid if they conflict with
the moral law. There is still a fifth source of morality, when finally the Divine Law
becomes the standard and supreme law, and moves the human spirit toward its own
concealed perfection.
89


What is remarkable about these various analyses is their similarity. We human
beings begin almost as a "seed" of what we shall later become, and we shall develop
beyond where we currently find ourselves. Along the way, we increase our awareness of
both our individuality and our interrelatedness, as we are called toward a higher goal.
Accordingly, we are not yet what we are! We have yet to evolve or develop into the full
potential the human spirit is capable of becoming.

Similar models are outlined below:


In Hinduism

Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Stage V

Student House-holder Forest
Dweller
Renunciant Moksha
Student House-holder Hermit Sannyas Moksha
Shanta Dasya Sakhya Vatsalya Madhura




65


In Buddhisms Five Noble Truths

Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Stage V

Recognize All
Life as
Suffering
Recognize the
Cause of
Suffering is
Desire/Judgm
ent
Recognize
Narvana Can
Be Achieved
Recognize the
Eight-Fold
Path Leads to
Narvana
Narvana
Unmanifest Manifest Unenlightened Enlightened Immortal



The Five Nafs of Sufism Islams Mystical Core

Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Stage V

The
Commanding
Nafs
The
Accusatory
Nafs
The Inspired
Nafs
The Tranquil
Nafs
The Perfected
Nafs



Abraham Maslows Psychological Model

Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Stage V

Physiological
Needs
Safety Needs Belonging
Needs
Esteem Needs Self-
Actualization



Freud Psychological Model

Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Stage V

Oral Stage Anal Stage Phallic Stage Latency
Period
Genital Stage
Conditioned
Reflexes
Habits Personal
Traits
Selves Total
Personality

66




See Appendix for additional models.

We can imagine from the functional equivalency of the above models that we
keep rediscovering the concept of stages in the development of consciousness, but fail to
benefit from these models. If we did, we would understand that our present perception of
our political, religious, social, and economic reality is more the product of lower stages of
consciousnessthan higher.

Psychologist Erich Fromm suggests we may not have yet reached our highest
potentials of consciousness. It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of
people share certain ideas or feelings proves the validity of those ideas and feelings.
Nothing is further from the truth. Consensual validation as such, has no bearing
whatsoever on reason or mental health. Just as there is a folie a deux, there is a folie
a millions! The fact that millions of people share the same vices, do not make those
vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors, do not make the errors truths, the
fact that millions share the same forms of mental pathologic [consciousness], does not
make these people sane.
90


Let me now briefly characterize each of the five stages in the development of
rational consciousness. Afterwhich, I will give detailed examples of each stage.


Brief Overview of the Characteristics of the Five Stages of Consciousness

Stage I is the instinctual, virtually pre-rational stage of human consciousness. It
is desire for survival, for Life, not rationality, which pulses through our veins and
provides the key for understanding this level of consciousness. Life itself marks our
entry into Stage I.

We can equate Stage I in consciousness to our pre-rational consciousness in
infancy.

Stage II is marked by the development of our ability to reason. At this stage our
reasoning is largely confined to either/or and hierarchical judgments: distinctions are
drawn between good and bad, self- interest and the desire of others; and the good of our
own group is judged superior to the interests of others.

We can equate Stage II in reasoning to the black and white thinking of pre-
schoolers. Reward and punishment, not conscience, determines how we act in this stage.
Sadly, the dogmatic and conscienceless acts of judgmental adults suggests that age is not
a major factor in the development of consciousness.

A new step in our rational development occurs at Stage III, with the realization
that there are external constraints in terms of moral laws or sanctions, which we should

67


heed. In Stage II, we would obey the social norms out of fear of punishment or fear of
the loss of social status and its benefits. In Stage III, however, we would increasingly
conform to law from a sense of conscience. Lawgivers like Moses, Solon, and Confucius
were more than teachers of wisdom. Their formulation of a written code of ethics
marked a turning point in the development of human consciousness; for these codes
established objective ethical criteria (laws) for right and wrong and, in turn, our
obligation to do the right and avoid the wrong. It was in the response to such laws that
we see the origins of conscience.

We can equate Stage III to being a responsible adult. But as responsible adults
we are often hard pressed to do what we know in our heart is right because we are limited
to the same rules of logic that dominate Stage II reasoning. In Stage III our conscience
leads us to do right, but our judgmental method of reasoning can lead us to rationalize
doing wrong.

Stage IV

What the moral law and conscience require may not be judged rational or logical
or practical. Conscience and reason can conflict. This is why spiritual values seem so
impractical, and being practical, seems so far removed from being spiritual. But conflict
provides the impetus to find a solution, the incentive to harmonize morality and
rationality. This initiates the next stage of both moral and rational development.

When we reach Stage IV, we will put into practice the life-affirming values of
compassion and love that are justified by our own rationally-developed consciousness.
No longer will morality stand opposed to reason; but in these individuals, whom
Abraham Maslow calls "self- actualizing persons," the conflict between morality and
reason, or heart and head, disappears.
91
As truly mature persons we will do what is life-
affirming because both our method of reasoning, and the moral feelings that reasoning
engenders will dispose us to act in that way. We will act autonomously and
spontaneously, rather than in accordance with accepted societal conventions, cultural
norms, external moral laws, or ethical principles. Rather, with what we may call
"renewed [or enlightened] minds," we will be motivated by love. Our new consciousness
provides the means of solving our moral dilemmas and of making heaven a practical
possibility on earth.

We can equate reasoning in Stage IV to the enlightened thinking of the Buddha,
Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., (Postman) and many others who place the
well being of others over their own. (Newspaper Example post office worker)

Stage V: We can only imagine what utopian paradise might lie beyond the
renewed consciousness of Stage IV. Perhaps Stage V will be a synergistic community, in
which the collective consciousness of individuals of Stage IV, becomes more than the
sum of its parts. If so, then Stage V would represent a community in which peace, love,
harmony, and brotherhood would abound. The envisioned kingdom of heaven on earth,
or in todays terms, Eutopia, hint at what Stage V consciousness might be. I have no way

68


to understand the reasoning process of Stage V. I can only draw on the metaphors, like
Godlike, co-creator with God, and doing the greater things that Jesus said we could
do.


Review

The rule of thumb for determining the stages of rational and moral development
is, the more our care and commitment becomes inclusive, the higher stage we have
reached. When we are at Stage I, or slip back into this level of thinking, we care little
about others; our concern is primarily with ourselves. Kindness, compassion, and love
are not yet qualities of our minds. On the contrary, as exemplars of the highest levels of
Stage IV, the Buddha and Jesus are the very embodiment of compassion and love. Most
of us fall somewhere in between. Our mission as human beings is to continue the
development of our rational process and our comprehension of the laws of thought upon
which our reasoning ultimately depends. My purpose is to demonstrate that with our
rational development will come a corresponding advancement in our moral character.
When all reach our maximum potentials for reasoning, we will reason morally and create
a utopic world here on earth.


Detailed Examples of the Characteristics of Five Stages of Consciousness

Stage I of Consciousness

We might liken Stage I to our "infancy." At this stage human consciousness is
instinctual. We are propelled along life's path by physiological needs for food and drink,
security and protection. It is our concern for survival and safety which characterize this
"first subsistence level."
92
We would be conditioned only by those periodic
psychological needs, which involve the stabilization of body functions and doing what is
needed to preserve the species.

Historically, Stage I begins in mankinds prehistoric era and ends in
approximately 3,000 BC. The non-rational consciousness in Stage I came to an end at
the time of what scholars call the Dorian conquest
93
Cave paintings are evidence of the
existence of pre-conscious cultures, but smashed skulls in those caves suggest life inside
was limited, crude, immoral, and mindless. Stage I can be considered mankinds first
step towards being human.

Just as the infant is not aware of its separation from the mother, so, too, in our
earliest stages, we would have existed in a kind of dream- like unity, unaware of any clear
and distinct dichotomy between ourselves and the environment. This animal- like twilight
of innocence has been depicted in myths, such as the Garden of Eden, before Adam and
Eve ate, symbolically, of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, before the dawning of
self-consciousness. Just as the story depicts Adam and Eve as unaware of their
difference and even their nakedness, so at Stage I we would lack a sense of otherness.

69



In Stage I, our mind has yet to awaken to its inherent rational powers. We would
lack any sense of self- identity. In this pre-rational past, humankind was nature, forest,
clan, tribe. In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul talks about a type of man destined to
become rational.
94
Plato wrote of what Jowett calls "an age before logic."
95
Julian James
theorized that, in ancient bicameral cultures, mankind "did not have any ego whatever."
96

Even in American Indian lore we find stories of an imagined pre-conscious past. The
Winnebago Indians, for example, believed that, in the beginning, creatures were without
any particular form: they were more or less neutral and could transform themselves into
either an animal or a man.
97


Obviously, if no rational consciousness exists at Stage I, neither does moral
awareness. An animal can be disciplined, through punishments and rewards, to act in the
desired way; but an animal has no moral awareness. Punishing a dog for climbing on the
sofa, or a cat for clawing the fabric of a chair, will condition the animal to behave as we
want. Similarly, smacking the hand of an infant when it reaches for a breakable object on
the coffee table or a hot item on the stove will alter the action and produce the desired
behavior; but, again, we do not think of the infant as being "moral" or "immoral."

Any sense of "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "bad, at this stage, is tantamount to
our awareness that some actions lead to punishment and others to rewards. "Right" and
"good" actions are those for which we are rewarded and which lead to the satisfaction of
our desires. "Wrong" and "bad" actions are those which result in punishment and pain.
Appropriately, Kohlberg called this the "obedience and punishment orientation."

Thus, what is "right" would be whatever satisfied our immediate need. Erik
Erikson described this stage as the sensory. If we were to get hooked on drugs, we may
revert back to this pre-rational and pre- moral consciousness, where attaining the "high" or
"kick" is not only of paramount importance but often the only thing which matters. For
whatever is required to satisfy this need, whether stealing, prostitution, or even murder,
becomes secondary to the immediate gratification and satisfaction of the momentary
desire.

Fortunately for society, most of us develop beyond this stage, once we advance
beyond infancy. But some of us do not. There are adults who care only about their own
basic needs. While this is understandable under extreme conditions such as being under
fire in wartime or being stranded in a desert, this behavior by adults living under normal
circumstances presents major problems for society. It is not uncommon, however, for
swindlers and con artists, petty thieves and drug-dealers, to exhibit this undeveloped level
of rational and moral awareness.

I shall never forget a television interview with a man imprisoned for brutally
beating a pregnant woman in an attempt to steal her car. Asked why he had hit her, even
in her belly, he replied, simply and without remorse, that she hadn't given him the keys to
her car! The fact that she was a defenseless woman and pregnant at the time made no
apparent difference in his consciousness. He was aware only of one thing, his desire for

70


her car. Nothing else mattered. He simply wanted what he wanted; and when his desire
was thwarted, he reacted with angry violence. This person is not unique. He is like those
who prey, without conscience, on weaker people. Their one and only concern is
satisfying their own desires.

"I want what I want when I want it." The infant cries when it wants to be fed or
held, when it is wet and wants to be changed. It doesn't matter to the infant--it does not
register in the twilight of the infant's consciousness-- whether it is the middle of the night,
whether Mommy is in the bathroom, whether others are busily engaged in their own
important activities. The infant is oblivious to all that. It knows only its own needs,
wants, and desires. Nothing else matters. Nothing is more important than its own
immediate gratification. The same is true for those of us who have not developed beyond
this stage in our rational and moral growth or who have, for one reason or another, fallen
back into this stage of consciousness.

Stage II

Stage II marks a significant advance in our moral awareness and rationality. The
base consciousness of Stage I develops into self-consciousness at Stage II; here
rationality makes its first appearance. This stage is characterized in terms of a sense of
belonging and acceptance (Maslow) and shared tribal values (Joseph Campbell), which
mark the emergence of civilization (de Chardin). As individuals we would relate to
others in our society by agreed- upon rules, regulations, or "conventions" (Kohlberg); and
it is as a member within this "mythic" society that we would find our identity (Wilber).
Each analysis recognizes that a growing self-consciousness is dawning.

It is important for a child to leave its parents and to venture into the world on its
own, lest it forever remain tied to its mother's apron strings. So, too, we must leave the
state of innocence, impulse, and instinct, and venture into the world of self-conscious
reason to forge out our individuality. According to my interpretation of Romans 8:29,
this is what it means to be "firstborn": to be "in the image" of God, the second stage in a
long process, whose goal is perfection.

It is in Stage II, then, where we become increasingly aware of our identity as a
separate ego. Self- identity requires the awareness of otherness, which is provided by the
environment and our social group. Hence, our ego, which develops at Stage II, is a social
fabrication. At this stage we are aware only of an empirical social ego which is
confronted with a choice between basic instincts and impulsive drives, on the one hand,
and the rational and moral demands of their group, on the other. Until very late in the
stages of human psychological development, our identity is structured in terms of this
self.

This is Kohlberg's "conventional level": moral values are determined by
performing the correct roles within the conventional order. We are a "good" boy or girl if
we conform to our culture's stereotype. This can be provided by the larger society or by
smaller "societies" within a culture. In the latter case, for example, we can be a good

71


gang member and still find ourselves at odds with the laws of society at large. The larger
the society with which we identify, the more "moral" we will appear in the eyes of that
society. Eventually, we learn to do what maintains the general authority and social order.

Emerging as it does from Stage I consciousness, which is conditioned by needs
for security, order, and protection, our Stage II mentality is typically a "law and order"
one. Stability is provided by the social grouping, such as the family or tribe. Hence, our
developing ego would identify itself with these groups, which would determine the egos
values and character.

Naturally, how we understand our experiences will be determined by the way in
which they are interpreted, according to the culturally-accepted norms, whether parochial
and clannish, or more generally, societal and cultural. The self develops through its
membership in a group, whether a gang or cult, a school class or church, a softball team
or a dancing class, a family, a state, or a nation.


Stage II of Consciousness in our Everyday Lives

The categories of either belonging or not belonging are central to our thinking and
reasoning in Stage Two. In Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of needs," this stage is
identified by such social needs as acceptance, love, and belonging. It is well-known that
many adolescents join gangs to be accepted, to gain a sense of belonging, and to receive
the attention and love which they may not have found in normal places. Similar
observations may be made about many who join cults or "radical" groups whose agenda
involves differentiating themselves clearly from "outsiders." This membership has a
positive aspect for the individual, by providing an important sense of identity.

Social problems arise, however, when we derive our identity in opposition to
other groups, sometimes in what may seem to be very childish and silly ways. The
negative pole of Stage II consciousness is its us- versus-them mentality: "if you're not one
of us, then you're against us." Just think of gang warfare and hate groups!

Many of us were shocked and horrified, and others were indignant and outraged
when the contents of the Mark Fuhrman tapes came to light. But we hear in those
recordings an all-too-common consciousness of our Stage II thinking. We must
understand that there are those of us who have not developed beyond this stage. Our
society is partly to blame for this lack of rational and moral progression. But our society
can ill afford to have such people in our law enforcement agencies, whether the Los
Angeles Police Department or our hometown Police Department.

What justified the Nazi concentration camps and the extermination of millions of
Jews? What justifies "ethnic cleansing," whenever or wherever it occurs? What justifies
the raping of women of different ethnic backgrounds and the murdering of women,
children, and the elderly in former Yugoslavia? Or the shelling of civilians in so-called
United Nations "safe havens"? We might even ask, embarrassingly, what justified the

72


United States' dropping atomic bombs on the non- military cities of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, or the Allied bombing which reduced the beautiful city of Dresden to rubble?
If these actions cannot be explained simply in terms of our primitive emotions of anger
and revenge, then they may find an explanation in terms of us- versus-them reasoning, by
which virtually any action to protect us against them is justified.

What is the rational mechanism for discrimination and hatred? When we are in
Stage II, we are absolutely convinced that we are right. It follows that we will be
positively certain that those who disagree with us are wrong. Anyone who disagrees
becomes the enemy. Just consider those who become the targets of prejudice. Many of
us label the homeless and people on welfare as "lazy," "good-for-nothings." Criminals
are called "thugs," "scumbags," and "trash." Domestic enemies are spoken of as
"weirdos" and "kooks"; and foreign enemies are often degraded in monosyllables like
"gooks," "Japs," and "Reds." Propaganda aids in this process: it rationalizes our fears
which, in turn, neutralizes our resistance to hate. We have to depersonalize our enemies
in order to hate them. Once others are no longer considered persons, then it is easy for us
to dehumanize them. Then we can perform any sort of inhumanity or inhumane action on
them without guilt, shame, or remorse. This is the rational mechanism at work in
discrimination, prejudice, and hate. What is important to realize is that the source of this
rational process or mechanism lies in our us-versus-them mentality which judges others
in terms of their difference from our own group.

The persecution of Jews throughout their history, for example, is not difficult to
rationalize in these terms. Orthodox Jews have always distinguished themselves from
Gentiles by their adherence to strict dietary laws, making it virtually impossible for them
to eat with non-Jews; by their language, which isolates them from society as a whole; by
their dress, which makes them as conspicuously different as people with deformities or
different skin color.

People are visibly different by virtue of skin pigmentation; but those who insist on
a further divisive identity, such as "Afro-Americans" for instance, fuel, in the minds of
the non-black Americans of Stage II, the fires of prejudice, by insisting on distinguishing
themselves from just plain "Americans." Immigrants who never learn to speak the
language of the country in which they have taken residence, stand out by this
inconcealable fact and become, thereby, the targets for discrimination and prejudice, fear
and hatred, and even acts of violence. There are obvious ways to make ourselves
different, and thereby, give ourselves an identity. The problems occur when our identity
is in opposition to another group, and when it is determined by being against the whole,
of which we are a part. Seeds of prejudice and conflict will have been sown, particularly
in the reasoning minds of those of us at this stage of rational and moral development.

We witness this consciousness in the male-dominated societies which repress
their women; in intolerant religious groups which use scripture to justify their opposition
to any group which does not hold exactly their views; in separatist groups, whether white
supremacists or black "nationalists;" and in "hate groups" which despise others for racial,
sexual, religious, or political reasons. An us-versus-them consciousness underlies the

73


reasoning of gang members, paramilitary groups, isolationists and nationalists who can
see no further than their own borders, and those who hate others out of economic jealousy
or contempt. It is the us-versus-them reasoning of Stage II, not our differences, that
perpetuate the human condition on a global scale. This claim may be strong, but it can be
seen as a fact by simply writing the word Jew on the left side of a piece of paper and the
word Moslem on the right. Draw a line in between the two and wait to see if the term
Jew considers itself opposed to the term Moslem. Of course words and ideas in of
themselves have no power. It is how we put ideas together that create problems
between us. It is the process of reason we use that is the real mechanism behind us-
versus-them reasoning in Stage II.

Is it any wonder that this reasoning lies at the basis of most of our individual,
social, and world problems? Is it at all surprising that dividing our world into two
opposing camps causes conflict? It doesn't take a genius to realize that if we identify
ourselves in terms which place us against others, we will be natural targets for prejudice
and discrimination, even hate and violence, and will be the more likely perpetrators of
such attitudes and behavior.

Nationalism at its worst is the product of the us-versus-them characteristic of
Stage II consciousness.

We find this nationalistic reasoning active and alive in politics across time and
place. Caesar Augustus, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, radical fundamentalists, terrorists,
governments that terrorize, and advocates of ethnic cleansing, all exemplify the dark side
of nationalismthe us-versus-them characteristic of Stage II consciousness.

Fear and hatred, jealousy and anger, contempt and ridicule are the negative
motives of the thought and action of those of us in this stage of consciousness. Radio and
television talk shows, with few exceptions, would cease to exist, were it not for the large
numbers of us who share this unadvanced stage of moral and rational growth. Whether
we have simply not developed beyond that stage or whether we have allowed ourselves to
fall back into it, too many of us exhibit Stage II mentality, making the world as far from a
moral community as it is possible to conceive. The secret to solving the world's moral
crisis is for us to learn how to advance through these lower levels of consciousness
quickly. The first step is to guide and assist those at these undeveloped stages into higher
stages of rational and moral development. And for those who have advanced beyond
Stage II, they must constantly be on their guard, lest they fall victim to the lure of easy
either/or solutions and reasoning.

If Stage I may be thought of as mankind's rational infancy, Stage II may be
likened to its adolescence. Just think of typical adolescent behavior. Adolescents are
absolutely certain that their views are right. Thus they tend to be intolerant of
differences. This is an appropriate temporary phase through which human beings
naturally pass in our psychological, moral, and rational development. Adolescent
thinking and behavior are, indeed, appropriate for adolescents--but only adolescents!


74


So when these characteristics continue to persist in young adults, and even older
adults, we are justified in thinking that the normal process of growth and development
has been arrested. What may be relatively harmless in adolescence becomes utterly
obnoxious in adults, and in adolescents, who display adult criminal behavior.

When we think with a mind of Stage II, we view the world as a "dog-eat-dog" or
"rat- race" type of place. This is how we experience the world, and quite naturally,
believe the world to be. Consequently, we can be selfish and closed- minded, racist,
greedy, unforgiving, and judgmental.

We can also be fiercely dedicated to our families and friends, our careers and
companies, our church, country, and nation. In this sense, when we reason with the
mentality of Stage II, we may appear to be "good" people in the traditional sense. We
may, for instance, be loving and devoted parents, hard workers, dedicated church- goers,
deeply religious believers, l oyal members of our political party, faithful friends, and
generally honest and decent people. But as our own reasoning is still characterized by an
us- versus-them attitude, our reasoning will continue to draw conclusions in terms of
opposition and conflict. A long road of further moral and rational development lies
ahead if the kingdom of heaven is to become a practical reality in the here and now.

Be aware that even though my examples of reasoning in Stage II consciousness
mostly reflect my experience, similar examples can be experienced globally. Stage II
consciousness is now, and has been throughout the history of civilization, the motivating
force behind greed, power struggles, and political and religious wars. To rid the world of
these immoralities, we need to realize that they are products of Stage II consciousness.

Think about those people who create fear, wars and hate. Whether they are
ancient or modern, Chinese, American, Catholic, Jew, or Moslem, they all have
something in common, the either/or, us/them, and dog-eat-dog characteristics of Stage II
thinking. I propose that we must rise above Stage II reasoning on a global scale before
we can expect a humane heaven on earth. For Stage II thinking is the causative agent that
has created, and will continue to create, every political and religious evil. Love is the
answer, but not the judgmental and conditional love of Stage II.

In order for us to understand this stage of development and to comprehend its
moral and rational character, we need to further explore its reasoning and the laws of
logic that underlie this reasoning. It is to this that we now turn.


Influences of Judgmental Logic in Stage Two

A shot rings out. The young man on his way to deliver a pizza lies dying. He is
wearing a red shirt, the uniform of a national pizza chain. Unfortunately, he has driven
into the area of the city, controlled by a gang whose color is blue. Gang violence claims
yet another victim.


75


Gang members murder one another in drive-by shootings; convicted rapists,
released early from overcrowded prisons, rape again; teenagers are shot to death in drug
deals gone sour. Muslim terrorists, mistaking Greek tourists for Israelis, kill eighteen
outside a hotel in Cairo. On the same day, in a nearby part of the Middle East, in
response to two Katyusha rockets launched by Hezbollah guerrillas, Israel attacks their
positions, only to "misfire" and have the ordnance land on a Fijian U. N. camp in
southern Lebanon, killing one hundred local civilians who had crowded there in search of
safety. More political executions take place in South America and the Far East; African
tribal warfare begins again another round of slaughter; and in prisons throughout the
world, dissidents await another day of torture.

Anger, hatred, and violence are the direct consequences of Stage II reasoning,
which uses either/or categories to divide the world into us-versus-them. This simplistic
division into black or white leaves no room for grays, and certainly not for yellows or
reds, blues or greens. Either you're a member of my gang, or you're my enemy! Either
you share my religious beliefs, or you're a pagan or an infidel. Either you think the way I
do, or you're a fool and deserve ridicule, contempt, possibly even death! Most children
and many adolescents have not developed beyond this stage of thinking. Unfortunately,
too many never mature in their reasoning, even throughout adulthood. Others of us fall
back into this thinking from time to time. However, when we develop rationally beyond
this stage, however, or when we momentarily rise above it, we realize that this reasoning
is childish and unethical. For, surely, something is wrong with reasoning which leads to
the atrocities and immoral behavior which are in evidence everywhere throughout our
world.

Status and authority are magnets for those of us in Stage II consciousness. The
hearings of the House on Un-American Activity, for example, were orchestrated by
ambitious people with Stage II consciousness. To those in Stage III, the proceedings
were an embarrassment. Those who may have attended a meeting of the Communist
Party in the late Thirties and early Forties found themselves, in 1952, hauled before the
Committee where they were verbally humiliated, pressured to betray friendships, and
abused in the name of justice. Subsequently, many lost their livelihoods, their homes,
their friends, and sometimes their families. Those on the "blacklist" found it virtually
impossible to get a job, even a decade or more after the accusations. Either/or reasoning
allows no exceptions for different times and places, different motives and influences. It
assigns guilt by association, even momentary and incidental association. This Stage II
consciousness is responsible for fostering hate and fear and for harming those who fall
victim to its negative classifications. It is interesting to note that Richard Nixon won
national attention, and perhaps his Presidency, for his role in the House hearings on Un-
American Activity. I wish this were the only example of Stage II consciousness in high
places. Sadly, there are countless others.

It is important to realize that many who think in this way are unaware of what
they are doing. They are still immature emotionally, morally, and mentally. They should
evoke not only our sympathy and compassion, but also our willingness to help them
through this stage of their development.

76



Typical of the reasoning in Stage II is the tendency to over-generalize, to lump
everyone together in one class. When people lose their individuality to generalization,
they are easier to hate for their differences. When our thinking divides the world into
opposing camps, it is virtually impossible for us to feel tolerance, compassion, and love.
If there is to be a practical side to heaven, those in Stage II must be assisted to pass
quickly through it, and those who have passed this stage must guard against slipping back
into its reasoning.

Imagine any situation of conflict. It could be between Irish Catholics and Irish
Protestants, between the Israelis and the Palestinians, between advocates of pro- life and
those of pro-choice, between members of rival gangs, or different religions, or even
nations. How would our world change if our reasoning led us to treat both sides with
respect? How would we treat others if we honored their right to think for themselves,
even their right to be wrong or different? And how much different would our world be
if our logic led us to conclude that both conflicting views might possibly be right? In
our new reasoning, we would still recognize differences and alternatives, but our
reasoning would not predispose us to judge one necessarily as superior or inferior to
another, but simply as different. In short, we can draw distinctions between differences
without judging those differences in such a way as to lead to prejudice, conflict, hate,
fear, and hostility.

This is not to suggest that every action or choice is of equal value if it is life-
negating and harms others. Certainly, criminal activity, for example, is not equivalent to
moral action. But where there is a genuine conflict of ethical choices, in which more than
one right action is possible, we need a logic which makes it reasonable to adopt a stance
of non-judgment, tolerance, and acceptance.


Pinpointing the Cause of Stage II Reasoning

It is because we have reasoned in accordance with laws of logic that are based
on the assumption that there is a single human nature, that we have made differences
between people a problem. For according to either/or reasoning, we can be right only if
opposing views are wrong. If we had nonjudgmental logic, this would not necessarily be
true. If we accepted that it is natural for people to have different predispositions,
temperaments, and preferences, difference would no longer lead to conflict because we
would expect people to be different! And expectation would lead to acceptance, for we
could accept that what was good for one human nature need not necessarily be good for
another. If we could accept that we human beings are essentially different, we would be
more inclined to accept our difference as part of the natural order.

Since different human natures coexist, then the class of human beings is not the
homogeneous class which the assumption underlying Aristotle's and Gautamas logic
would have us assume. Applying Aristotelian logic to human beings is not only the
source of the problems which we see personally, socially, and internationally, but more

77


than that, it is simply mistaken.

Many Reject Judgmental Reasoning

There are many people in our society today whose consciences are leading them
to give up the kind of either/or reasoning which is so prominent in Stage II
consciousness. Let us look at one illustration of this fact.

On February 23, 1993, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) was
involved in two important events.

On that Sunday outside Waco, Tex., in a colossal law-enforcement blunder, an
ATF Special Response Team raided the compound of a little-known religious cult called
the Branch Davidians, in an attempt to arrest its leader, David Koresh, for alleged
firearms violations. This ill-conceived and ill- fated assault resulted in the deaths of four
ATF agents and six Branch Davidians, during the ensuing shootout.

Meanwhile, that same Sunday in New York City, an ATF explosives expert,
along with a New York police officer, was lowered at enormous peril into the bowels of
the world Trade Center--into the shattered underground garage where a huge bomb had
exploded two days earlier, killing six people and injuring more than 1000 others. And
there the AFT agent found a shard of steel with part of the vehicle identification number
of a rented van that turned out to have transported the bomb. . . . The discovery of this
crucial evidence led to the arrest and conviction of the Islamic fundamentalists who had
plotted and carried out the terrorist attack.

Of these two events, it is the first which became fixed in the memory of the
public. Reactions to this event predictably were drawn along two lines, each representing
different stages, Stages II and III. Those of us using Stage II thinking, accepted as right
and condoned as lawful, the incident and the subsequent fiery conflagration of the
Waco compound, in which eighty peoplemen, women, and childrenwere incinerated
to death. Our reasoning was that these people broke the law. We may also have
regarded them as religious kooks. In any case, we certainly would not have identified
with them!

But those of us who were ready to make the transition to Stage III, or were
already in this stage, would have found the behavior of the law enforcement officers
disturbing. We would have felt their actions morally appalling and utterly unacceptable.
For we would have reasoned that, regardless of what law was allegedly broken, the FBI
and ATF acted in ways which a moral and civilized society could not allow, much less
condone. By their actions, a large number of American citizens were awakened to a
sense of moral indignation and outrage at the kind of reasoning which sanctioned these
actions in the first place.

I recognize that our reasoning, not difference, is behind most of our problems.


78


Although many of us were poised to move into a higher stage of rational and
moral development, the ATF will not. The director of the ATF, John Magaw, appointed
in October 1993, decided that his agencys personnel measured up to the agencys
standard of quality. He reinstated the two field commanders at Waco, Phillip Chojnacki
and Chuck Sarabyn, after they had been dismissed. But the telling factor was that the
proposed changes in the agency concerned not the consciousness of the agents, but rather
technical and structural problems. When I look at Waco in total, the problem wasnt the
people. It was structure, and it was training, Magaw said.
98


From the point of view of those ready to make the transition to Stage Three, the
problem was the people! It was the us- versus-them consciousness of the agents and
agency. No amount of up-dated intelligence, better communication systems, and day-to-
day monitoring by ATF headquarters will change consciousness. The same either/or
Stage II mentality would continue to permeate this federal agency.

The fact that the images of Waco still burn negatively in the minds of many of us
suggests that we are aware of the harm which comes from the level of morality associated
with either/or thinking. Paradoxically, the negativity of Waco can generate positive
results if those of us in Stage II became uncomfortable with thinking in either/or
categories and with the kind of morality associated with this kind of thinking. We may
cone to realize that something was radically wrong with the reasoning by which many
people in positions of responsibility and leadership in government agencies made their
decisions. Armed with this realization, we may make the transition to Stage III.

There is no novelty to me in the reflection that, from my earliest years, I have
accepted many false opinions as true, and that what I have concluded from such badly
assured premises could not but be highly doubtful and uncertain. -- Rene Descartes
99


The luxury of arrogance is reserved for the young, the immature, and the ignorant.
It is a well-known and true I that the more we know, the more we realize we dont know.
Those of us with the greatest knowledge are usually most aware of the limitations of our
knowledge and of the vast domains which lie beyond our experience. The wisest of us,
like Socrates, recognize that our knowledge is but a fragment of the whole fabric of truth
and that our human wisdom is nothing.
100


We are definitely not wise when we are still in Stage II of our rational and moral
development. Thinking in exclusive either/or categories makes us rigid and dogmatic,
often extremist in our views, uncompromising with regard to our opinions, blind to any
good and ignorant of any truth of a contradictory or opposite view, and arrogant in our
certainty. It may be out of a desire to help that we try to run other peoples lives, but that
desire is a perverse love. It is certainly out of a distorted perception of ourselves that we
think that we know what is best for everyone. For it is arrogant to presume to know
what is best for others, or what is the whole truth in religion, politics, or whatever we
presume to know. It is presumptuous to think that there is only one right way, or one true
belief, and that it is, of course, ours.


79


Thinking like this is evidence of lacking what Bertrand Russell called the
tincture of philosophy:

The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through
life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common
sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation [or
his religion], and from convictions which have grown up in
his mind without the co-operation or consent of his
deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to
become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no
questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuous ly
rejected.
101


In short, such a person lacks humility. The quality of being able to see both sides
of an argument, of valuing opposing views and opinions and even allowing that they may
contain some grain of truth, the politeness and gentleness of those who can see good and
truth in more than their own position, the realization of their own limitation, and the
uncertainty which naturally accompanies this understanding: these qualities are lacking
in those of us who are still in Stage II consciousness.

When we are at this level of our rational and moral growth, we would find it
difficult to appreciate the wisdom of John Stuart Mill. The English philosopher
maintained that to suppress views with which we disagree is to assume our own
infallibility. Moreover, we would tend to be so foolish as to deny the possibility that
views different from our own could contain even a portion of truth. Mill wrote: since
the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is
only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of
being supplied. But entertaining adverse views is not something we would welcome at
Stage II. And Mills view that unless an opinion is tested, it will be held as a prejudice,
with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds, would fall on deaf ears. In
fact, it is true that unless we are willing to challenge our belief, its very meaning will be
lost or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character or conduct.
102


Only when we appreciate opposition and conflict for their value of bringing out
the truth and good of each side have we moved beyond opposition and conflict. When
we reach Stage III, we will feel a certain humility in the face of opposing opinions. For
then we would discern, whether dimly or clearly, a third factor in the conflict between
warring sides: the whole of which the two conflicting sides are but parts or facets. One
reason why we would be able to rise above the conflict is that we ourselves might put the
issue differently, or draw lines of contrast differently from where the combatants have
taken their stand. Ours would not be a consciousness of either/or, of black or white, or
right or wrong, or good or bad, but rather a consciousness of conciliation and
compromise, negotiation and diplomacy. For we would be willing to respect both sides
and to acknowledge that neither might have the full and final truth. When good, well-
meaning, and intelligent people disagree, the likelihood is very strong that both sides
comprehend something important and true. Not to realize that fact is to be blinded by our

80


own arrogance.

When we are willing to respect both sides of a conflict, we are ready to make the
transition from Stage II to Stage III. The difficulty of moving beyond our cherished
beliefs must not be underestimated. It is not easy for anyone to forsake a familiar
position, to entertain an unfamiliar one, to give up what has provided stability and
certitude in ones life. But development, both intellectual and moral, requires that we do
it. M. Scott Peck explains, In the short run it is more comfortable . . . to stay where we
are, to keep using the same microcosmic map, to avoid suffering the death of cherished
notions. The road of spiritual growth, however, lies in the opposite direction. We begin
by distrusting what we already believe, by actively seeking the threatening and
unfamiliar, by deliberately challenging the validity of what we have previously been
taught and hold dear. The path to morality lies through questioning everything.
103



Expanding Moral Awareness

In the either/or consciousness of Stage II, it makes moral sense for us to take care
of our own. Strangers, those of different beliefs or persuasions, races and religions, are
not likely to be given the care and concernand certainly not the lovewhich we extend
to members of our own group. Of course, if we can convert them and make them like us,
then we would treat them differently. From this we can understand why racial prejudice
is so difficult to overcome! People can change their religious and political beliefs, their
economic status, even their national loyalties. But they cant change the color of their
skin!

As we develop beyond the limited consciousness of Stage II, we come to realize
that it is not enough merely to take care of our own. To be sure, we need to care for our
own family and to support our friends; but as we grow in love and wisdom, we
understand that we also need to care for those who do not share our views or even our
values. Implicit in this dawning awareness is a mind which thinks in both/and categories
rather than in either/or ones. The new reasoning justifies compassion and love, in which
both our group and other groups are perceived as members of one unit, encompassing
ever-widening circles, until finally all are embraced under the umbrella of the whole of
humanity. But this is a long and arduous process of moral growth, not a position arrived
at overnight.


A Logic of Responsibility

Either/or thinking divides the world into perpetrator and victim. When we think
their way, we are most prone to view ourselves as victims, whether of the social or
political order, of some racial prejudice or economic discrimination, or of some more
specific acts of crime. Our reasoning makes it difficult to accept responsibility for what
happens to us. For either we are responsible for whatever happened, or others are to
blame. The path of least resistance is to blame others!

81



We become much more willing to accept responsibility when we reach Stage III.
For we learn that the world is not so simply divided into those who are fully to blame and
those who are completely innocent. To the contrary, we realize that both must share a
degree of responsibility. To encompass it, such thinking requires a new logic of
both/and. Let us take a typical example.

You made me angry! The words fall easily from our lips if we are not careful.
The assumption is that others are to blame for our anger, that we wouldnt get angry if
circumstances or others didnt make us angry. But the truth lies in a more subtle analysis.
It is either/or reasoning that underlies our expectations or desires. Twenty- five hundred
years ago, the Buddha came to that realization. After stating in his First Noble Truth that
all conditioned existence is suffering, i.e. life is a bitch, he laid down in his Second Noble
Truth that the cause of that suffering is our desires. What he took for granted, but I
emphasize however, is that it is desires based on either/or, not both/and, reasoning that
leads to suffering. The Buddhas 8-fold path was to help us transcend either/or reasoning
and in its place, think in the paradoxical manner of both/and reasoning. Sadly, the
Buddhas teaching of growing into higher reasoning or enlightenment evolved into giving
up reasoning as a path to higher consciousness.

I will show that we cannot give up reasoning. On the contrary, we must grow in
our reasoning beyond Stage II to Stage IIII, in which we realize the inadequacy of
either/or as a fundamental way to think and to understand the world. Compassion
requires that we think in both/and categories, and responsibility involves our taking the
blame for how we respond to others and to situations and circumstances.


Transcending Fear

Fear is the consequence of either/or thinking. The reason is not hard to discover.
If the world is divided into yours and mine, ours and theirs, right and wrong, good and
bad, fear naturally arises lest we lose ours or do the wrong thing. Wed rather not risk
than be wrong! Risk involves taking chances; and with any chance, we run the risk of
failure.

Look out for Number One and If you dont take care of yourself, nobody else
will are typical statements made from a consciousness of fear. The fear is of not having
enough. If I help you, will I have enough for myself? Either/or reasoning divides the
world into me and everybody else. In the moral development of Stage III, we transcend
this duality and come to the realization that, in some vague and perhaps mysterious sense,
we are all one: members in the Family of Humanity.

Fear and lack of love are betrayed in our dualistic and prejudicial vocabulary.
Good people at Stage II typically distinguish themselves from those whom they label
punks, scum, trash, or some other uncomplimentary term. When we evolve to
Stage III, we would tend to find such labels quite offensive.

82



Fear is the opposite of genuine love, but not the love which is contrasted with
hate. What in Stage II is called love is often not worthy of the name. Isnt it strange
for a person to kill another out of their love? I love you so much that I wont let
anybody else have you! Stage II love i s usually nothing more than possessive fear.
Either youre mine or youre nobodys! The insecurity in this thinking gives rise to
jealousy, possessiveness, fear of loss, and ego-hurt. When we really love, we want what
is best for our beloved, whether it be to leave us or to stay. It is no longer either our
desire or theirs. Rather, our desire is for the good of the beloved, where our good
becomes identical to what is best for the one we love.


Entering Stage III

It is the appearance of conscience which marks our graduation to Stage III. Those
still at Stage I, and even Stage II, could run a sweat shop and import illegal aliens to work
twelve to eighteen hours a day, seven days a week, and pay them only a dollar or two an
hour. The conscience of people at Stage III would be bothered by such a situation. It
would create a real moral dilemma for them. The key is that they would recognize that
these aliens are, like themselves, human beings, with civil rights, with needs and feelings,
hopes and dreams. Taking advantage of others for our own benefit would bother the
conscience of those at Stage III. At Stage I we wouldnt think twice about it; even at
Stage II we would be able to do it without feeling the disapproving pangs of conscience!
(Lie Detector Analogy)

Throughout society we witness the pervasive negative consequences of either/or
reasoning. Why is no-fault insurance not readily available? Because there is a group
which makes its living from litigation in these cases. It is they who have the political
power to do what is in their own best interest, at the cost of what may be good for the rest
of society. What lies at the root of the problem with health care? Insurance companies,
doctors, drug companies, and HMO companies, are looking out for their own interests,
which often oppose the interests of patients and society as a whole. Those who do it
without conscience, however, differ from those who agonize over the morality of putting
their own interests over the good of the whole.

The contrast between the consciousness of Stages II and III may be illustrated by
reactions to an account of a 71 year-old California grandmother who attempted to rob a
gas station. She needed money to pay back taxes so that she would not lose her home. If
we reasoned like those in Stage II, we would think that she was a criminal and should be
locked up and the key thrown away. But if we have developed to Stage III, we might
respond differently. We might send money! Hundreds of people actually did send
checks to this woman so that she would not lose her home! Obviously, their thinking was
able to transcend the either-criminal-or- not-criminal reasoning and rise to the level of
compassion for someone who was desperate, and perhaps stupid enough to attempt such a
robbery. This reasoning was quite different from the judgmental thinking characteristic
of Stage II, which would have caused the grandmother more harm and increased her

83


suffering. Those at Stage III reasoned in such a way as to be moved by compassion to
help, by improving her financial condition.

As we can discern from this actual example, the attitude which emerges from the
either/or reasoning of Stage II is absolutistic. No allowances are made for differences
between an elderly person about to lose her home and a teenager who robs for sport or to
get money for drugs. Robbery is robbery! Such a statement is true by the Law of
Identity, of course, but it fails to take into account factors which make one robbery
different from another. It is important at the early stages of our rational growth to think
in terms of absolute rights and wrongs. But later, thinking in terms of absolutes can
hinder our rational and moral development.

We can wonder what affect such absolutistic, either/or thinking might have on
children. When our children enter school, they are often bright-eyed and generally eager
to learn. They are creative and, if given the opportunity to express different ways of
solving problems, will invent unusual solutions. Certainly, they are creative when it
comes to telling stories. But in a repressive atmosphere of either/or thinking, the sparks
of their creativity are quickly quenched; and for many students, the light of adventure,
exploration, and the expression of creativity die forever. It is little wonder when the
teacher insists that theres only one way to do something, or only one right answer. Fear
of learning quickly replaces the love of learning in the minds of our young aspiring
pupils!

The transition to Stage III comes, first, when we develop a conscience; second,
when we become aware that the demands of moral law take precedence over our own
selfish desires and personal aims; and, third, when we realize that the good of the larger
whole is more important than our own good or that of our group.


84



Chapter Four

Stage III in Rational Consciousness


Stage III may be likened to the "young adult" stage of humanity: here we learn to
heed external constraints, in the form of moral laws or ethical sanctions, which temper
the self. Having passed through the lowest stage where we obeyed out of fear; and later,
in Stage II, where we conformed to the conventions of our group in order to gain
acceptance, a sense of belonging, and love; in Stage III we obey the moral laws of society
because of our conscience or our moral conviction that it is right to do so. Joseph
Campbell characterizes this stage as the awakening of conscience. As I use the term,
"conscience" refers to the inner "voice" of what may be called the True-Self or soul,
which now for the first time makes itself heard, and its moral nature known, in our
conscious response to moral laws. Hence, respect for the moral law is the keynote of this
stage of life.


Stage III of Consciousness in our Everyday Lives

In Stage Three, we find ourselves still faced with the moral dilemma of being
either moral or immoral, either in the right or in the wrong, either good or bad, either
obeying or disobeying the law. Either/or judgmental reasoning continues to remain a
characteristic of this stage of our rational development. But the difference between this
stage and Stage II lies in the universal ethical standards, the moral laws which we accept
and which replace the mere mores, the customs and habits, rules and conventions of
whatever group to which we gave adherence in Stage II. Whereas we develop a social
awareness of right and wrong, good and evil, at Stage II, it is our conscience associated
with universal ethical standards or moral laws which is the new condition which marks
our third stage of moral and rational development. Conscience calls us to do what is right
and good in the broader context of society and, eventually, in the world as a whole. In
my interpretation of Romans 8:30, this is what it means to be "called."

Admittedly, it is not easy to distinguish our reasoning in Stage III from Stage II
with any absolute clarity. We must ask what is it that we understand at Stage III that we
would not at Stage II. For one thing, we would experience a growing awareness that
there is a whole to which both sides of an either/or conflict belong. We would realize
that when we act in our own self- interest against the general good of our group, we are in
Stage I. When we act on our group's behalf against the welfare of the whole, we
exemplify Stage II consciousness. Whether we work for a drug company which
withholds a drug because the company can make more money by selling another drug, or
which charges exorbitant amounts for its products; or whether we are a member of the
fishing or logging industries which are more interested in maintaining their jobs and
profit margin than preserving natural resources for future generations; or whether we
control newspapers, television stations, or Hollywood studios which care more about

85


making money than producing films which refuse to pander to the prurient interest of
viewers--in each case, when our self- interest stands in opposition to the good of the
whole, we are still mired in the mentality of Stage II.

At Stage III, conscience is added to our consciousness. Conscience is an inner
voice which overrides dualistic either/or reasoning. When we reach this stage, we are
aware that we are more than either a rational or an emotional being. When tension arises
between what reason dictates and what the heart desires, it is conscience which points the
way. Later, in Stage IV, we will come to the realization that head and heart are meant to
be harmonious expressions of our soul. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.

Whereas in Stage II reasoning we would advocate building more prisons, locking
up criminals, and throwing away the key, in Stage III we would find that reasoning too
simplistic and hence ignorant and mean-spirited. We would question why people become
criminals. Because they are bad, our Stage II mentality would whisper. But what leads
them to become bad? That is not an issue for Stage II thinking, but it is very much a
concern when we enter Stage III. For we might think, "There but by the Grace of God go
I." At Stage III it is not a matter of being either good or bad, but rather of looking at
those conditions and factors which lead a person to choose the bad. We would attempt to
discover a third factor, namely the causes of undesirable and unsocial behavior in order to
attack the problem at its source. It is not that we would be opposed to prisons; but we
would insist that they be what their old name implied: penitentiaries, where criminals
became penitent for their crimes and reformed in both their attitude and their behavior.
Retribution is Stage II thinking; rehabilitation is a Stage III requirement for any system of
justice.

What is true of Stage II and III thinking about incarcerating criminals is equally
true of race issues and problems of poverty, among others. Stage II thinking limits these
issues simply to minorities or the poor; but Stage III reasoning makes them broader
societal issues, human issues. After all, those of other races and people who are poor are
members with us in society. All of us, whatever our nationality, race, or religion, are
members one with another in the family of humanity. Not to recognize this as a fact is
not to comprehend what is necessary to move from Stage II to Stage III. Now even when
we reach Stage III in our understanding, we do not necessarily or always, or perhaps even
usually, act accordingly. This is one of the defining differences between Stage III and
Stage IV.

At Stage II we would generally desire to convert others to our point of view; by
Stage III we realize that it is wiser to change our expectation than to attempt to change
the world. Isn't it wiser to wear shoes than to demand that everywhere we walk be
carpeted? There begins to dawn, in the consciousness of Stage III, that what we cannot
accept in others may be what we are uncomfortable accepting in ourselves! The
psychological mechanism of projection would generally be dismissed by Stage II
thinking.

At Stage II we divide and exclude; at Stage III we prefer dialogue and inclusion.

86


At Stage II we think of ourselves alone as right; at Stage III we seek to find what is right
and good in the views of others with whom we disagree. Stage II thinking will choose
one of a pair of options: either censorship or the First Amendment right of free speech;
either pro- life or pro-choice. By Stage III we will tend to find these issues far more
complicated: we may be for freedom of speech, but wonder at the wisdom of defending
hate speech, flag burning, or pornography as a legitimate extension of First Amendment
rights. We may be for the freedom of the woman to choose, but against abortion, though
not to the extent of passing a law prohibiting it. We may love our country and espouse
patriotism; but when our patriotism leads to disrespect for the homeland of others, it has
crossed the boundary of what is acceptable in Stage III.

In Stage II, we share an attitude with children: either you give me what I want, or
you don't love me. By Stage III we realize that love may require withholding from others
what they desire.

It is Stage II reasoning to think that the government takes from those who work
hard and deserve their money, and gives to the lazy and undeserving poor. Stage II
thinking would even go so far as to call it "stealing," for the government to tax its more
affluent citizens to provide welfare for the less affluent members of society. "Either my
money is mine, or it isn't. If the government takes what is rightfully mine, that's
stealing." By Stage III we would consider taxes as a way in which the good of society as
a whole is accomplished by the redistribution of unequal wealth: taking from those of us
who can most afford to support the good of society, and giving aid and benefits to those
of us who are most in economic need. In Stage II, we have no problem with opulence
and wealth. In Stage III, we would not condemn wealth, only wealth along side poverty.
(Gandhi Quote.)

We can see, in attitudes toward foreign aid, differences between Stages II and III.
In Stage II we might reason that foreign aid is taking money away from our own nation,
where it could better be spent on domestic problems. By Stage III we may be persuaded
by this argument, but we would also be aware that we all belong to one human family
which includes everyone. For the good of the larger whole, or for the good of united
nations, it is only right for the more wealthy nations to share their enormous and unequal
wealth with those nations which are poorer and considerably less fortunate. Some people
might consider it communistic to give, according to our ability, to others, according to
their needs. It certainly is communalist, in the sense that we belong to one large
community. That communal spirit has been embraced by the early Christians, by the
Pythagorean and Essene communities, and by thinkers throughout the world at various
times in various places. St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the sentiment in these words:
Man should not consider his material possessions his own, but common to all, so
as to share them without hesitation when others are in need.
104



There are no simple yes-or-no, right-or-wrong answers to those of us in Stage III.
Thinking which demands yes-or-no responses is unsophisticated. Take a question
regarding possessions, for example. Aren't possessions good? This very way of putting
the question forces an inappropriate yes/no response. It may be good to have

87


possessions, if they have been legitimately purchased; but it may be bad, if they were ill-
gotten. But it is easy for kids to be deceived by the effects: wearing fine clothes and
jewelry, and driving expensive cars, can certainly be attained by selling drugs. But is it
good to have these possessions when they have been gained through illegal means? And
we have also to consider how good or right it is to have many possessions when others
have none. How loving or rationally appropriate is it to have closets full of clothes and
food when others are naked and starving? So what looks like a simple question rarely
turns out to be.

The world is simply not that simple, and by Stage III we realize this. Isn't
competition good? Competition may be good, if practiced morally; bad, if done
immorally through misleading advertising, price-fixing, stealing technology from others,
counterfeiting, and so on. Is winning so important that it justifies cheating to gain a
victory? Some athletes would seem to think so. Students who cheat must believe it. But
any victory so gained must be both sweet and bitter!

One difference between Stages II and III is the degree to which moral bearings are
derived from groups rather than from broad moral laws and universal ethical principles.
A Stage II mentality can justify gang violence and even such atrocities as were
perpetrated by the German people upon their Jewish neighbors. If we decide what is
good simply by the standards of our group or peers, then all sorts of evil can be justified
on the grounds that "everyone is doing it." When morality is simply a matter of adhering
to the values of our particular group, it loses its moorings and becomes relative.

The issue turns on the matter of identity. Where our identity is made in terms of a
small group within the larger whole, we may have honor within our group and dishonor
within the larger society. There is honor even among thieves! But it is the obedience to
ethical principles and the moral law, which gives us dignity. At Stage III, our conscience
respects the moral law which stands above any particular norms.

As we progress through the first three stages of rational development, we grow
morally as well. In the third stage of our growth, conscience calls us to overcome the
opposition between ourselves and others, instinct and duty, reason and morality. In
today's world, much power rests with those who are still in the initial stages of
development. It is my hope that this book will contribute to rational and moral
advancement.

In the Buddhist tradition, those who commit their lives to the rational, moral, and
spiritual development of their fellow human beings are called Boddhisattvas. They vow
not to graduate from this "school of life" until all human beings have achieved the
fullness of consciousness, the mind of love and peace and joy and wisdom.

Our world is in crisis because our egos in Stages II and III have been misguided
by poor reasoning and misdirected toward self-serving activities instead of service to
others. Like the Prodigal Son who has left his Father's house, we are wandering
aimlessly in the world, wasting our fortunes. But we are also evolving and growing. If

88


we missed the mark in the past, we can be redeemed through a renewed mind and
renewed reasoning.

Where we have built our personal and social lives on the quicksand of either/or
thinking, in Stages II and III, we need to reconstruct them on the bedrock of love and
oneness. Just as we cannot build a house without the proper tools, so too we cannot build
abundant lives without the proper reasoning. The tools of Aristotelian logic have not
served us well; the tools of nonjudgmental logic will help us build a world which is home
to everyone.

When we reason in ways which justify unkind and unloving actions, we are like a
mathematician whose calculator has a broken function key. No matter how carefully we
perform on a broken calculator, we are likely to get the wrong answer. Similarly, no
matter how logical or reasonable our thinking is, if that thinking is based on a broken
logic, we will be led astray in our conclusions. When reasoning about human affairs, we
need to lay aside Aristotle's either/or logic and substitute the both/and reasoning of
nonjudgmental logic.

Why have we believed that it is reasonable to act in ways which are immoral?
Thomas Paine wrote that "a man's moral condition is utterly hopeless as long as he
believes he is virtuous when he is not." Why has no one pointed out that to act in
immoral ways is irrational? The answer is that, without nonjudgmental logic, it seemed
rational to do immoral acts. What seemed practical, from the point of reason, conflicted
with what we knew in our hearts was right. Now, with nonjudgmental logic, we know
that it is neither rational nor logical to do what is immoral. In fact, quite the contrary is
true: it is irrational and illogical.

Love is the answer to our moral crisis, to our society's problems, to world conflict
and wars between nations. Love has always been known to be the answer! But without
nonjudgmental logic and its three laws, love was never the rational answer. In Stage IV it
is. To be loving makes rational sense. Now love is the logical answer, too.

A kingdom of heaven on earth is impossible without a kingdom of heaven in our
hearts and minds. Love resides naturally in our hearts; but we need to give our minds the
laws of reasoning which will enable heart and head of everyone in Stage V to join in the
harmony of love.


The Dilemma of Stage III

By the end of Stage III, we know better than to place ourselves in opposition to
others. Our conscience would bother us when we are asked to place the interest of our
own group over another. Thus, whenever we make either/or judgments concerning
people, our conscience awakens us to the fact that such judgments are very often not in
harmony with the values of love, acceptance, forgiveness, and integration.
Consciousness in Stage III is conditioned by what Maslow calls "belonging needs," such

89


as sociability, acceptance, and the need for love. This stage is characterized by "social
interdependency" according to Joseph Campbell. As we progress through this stage, we
naturally want to relate to one another in acceptance and love.

What is the role of conflict and opposition in our rational and moral growth? It
provides us with an opportunity to expand our love. Those of us who try not to judge,
who attempt to avoid conflict by reconciliation and seeing both sides of an issue, who
make every effort to discern the unity within opposites, and who do our best not to make
enemies, exhibit love. But those of us who disrespect others and their beliefs, who judge,
and who regularly choose one alternative in opposition to another, have a great need to
expand our love.

If we do not judge and draw distinctions of opposition, we find no rational
justification for hating. Hence we have no enemies. If we have enemies, then we have
judged those unworthy of our care, concern, and brotherly love. We will have failed to
see the truth of our unity with them or the goodness which dwells within the heart of
everyone. A faulty vision and an undeveloped capacity to reason leave us at the lower
stages of moral growth.


Why Does Stage II Reasoning Persist in Stage III?

Why would those of us who have reached Stage III continue to think in either/or
categories? We feel trapped into thinking in terms of opposition and conflicting
alternatives, even though we naturally feel the need to transcend the duality. If our minds
are stuck in this duality of opposition, it is because we know no other way. Our hearts
and minds yearn to avoid conflict. But how? The secret to transcending the harmful
consequences of either/or reasoning lies precisely in learning how to reason in terms of
both/and categories.

In the third Stage of rational and moral development, we become aware of the
soul or spiritual self, whose nature is love. The voice of conscience calls us to override
either/or judgmental reasoning. But until another logic is available, our reasoning will be
constrained within the confines of either/or logic.

We stand today at the crossroads between stages. We are fortunate that many
people in today's world are already in Stage III. We might not think this if we listen to
talk-radio, or the talk shows on television, or read the tabloid newspapers. But much of
the news is geared to the spectacular. Reporting the negative, bizarre, and ugly is what
sells newspapers and radio and television time. But such stories are not really
representative of the majority. Crime, personal abuses, activities of hate groups,
incidents of rampant discrimination, and acts of violence and rage really constitute but a
small fraction of our experience. Our real hope lies in those of us already in Stage III
making the transition to Stage IV.

Nearly two thousands years have passed since Jesus inaugurated the rational path

90


to Stage IV and initiated it by being its Exemplar. Of course, many of us are in Stage II,
and a smaller number still linger in Stage I. But it would seem that an increasing number
of us are ready for entrance into the next higher stage of development, the stage of the
fully mature rational adult.

Once it was either our survival, or that of other species and natural elements, so
we conquered, multiplied, and subdued. Now we face our ego whose intellect, reason,
objectivity, morality, differences, competitive nature, power and 'win or lose' psychology
desperately needs a being whose intuition, feeling, subjectivity, realism, ability to
differentiate, cooperate, and influence, and reconciling powers can contain it. Not self-
expression or self-restraint, not exponential growth or plateau, not inner or outer nature,
but all of these in the finest fit we can devise.
105


Experience should have taught us that trying to change our thinking by rejecting
the mind, or simply saying "no" to immoral rationalization is, at most, a stop-gap
solution, never a permanent one. Immorality will never fully be overcome until we all
overcome our habit of judgmental reasoning.

It is my hope that many people are ready to enter a higher stage of rational
development. Stage III generally prevails today. In Stage III we mean well and have a
moral conscience, but have been held back because we continue to reason on the basis of
either/or categories, on the basis of a logic of conflict and separation. The key to entering
into the next stage of rational development lies in the recognition that harmonizing reason
and morality cannot be accomplished until we engage in new reasoning based on a
renewed mind. It is to an analysis of this renewed mind that we now turn.


Informal Use of Nonjudgmental Logic in Stage III

According to the logical concept of truth, only one of two contraries can be true,
but in the reality of life as one lives it, they are inseparable . . . . The unity of contraries
is the mystery at the innermost core of dialogue. --Martin Buber
106


Love requires a renewed mind which transcends the categories of self and others.
Such a mind can no longer operate solely on a logic of opposition and separation, but
must discover a new logic which allows for categories of both individuality and oneness
with others. In such a logic, the categories of both/and would replace the categories of
either/or. Nonjudgmental logic is such a logic.


The Story of Three Workers

A story is told about Christopher Wren (1632-1723), the renowned English
architect, one of whose many accomplishments was the rebuilding of St. Paul's Cathedral
in London. One day while inspecting the work on the great cathedral, he stopped to
speak with some of the workers. "What are you making?" he asked one workman. "A

91


shilling a week," was the reply. "And what are you making?" Wren asked another
worker. "A wall of the cathedral, sir," answered the mason. Finally, the architect asked a
third worker, "What are you making?" "A cathedral, sir, where people can come to
worship God in the holiness of beauty," was his response.

Three workers, each working on the cathedral, but each coming to the job with
totally different consciousnesses. The first worker, who was working for money, is
illustrative of Stage II. He was not aware of the larger whole to which his work
contributed. The second worker, on the other hand, was aware that his work was part of a
larger whole, yet he showed no understanding of why. He instinctually knew his work
was part of something larger and was satisfied with that. This is the mindset of Stage III.
Only the third worker was conscious of the purpose of his work and its relationship to the
community of which he was a part. We can imagine his working with love and care and
an attitude of service to others as he fulfilled himself through his meaningful vocation.
This worker may be taken as approaching the consciousness of Stage IV. Imagine a
world in which employers and employees were linked together in loving service to others
and for the fulfillment of participating in meaningful and fulfilling work.

In Stage III, some may unknowingly be using nonjudgmental logic, but think of it
as spiritual thinking. In the new physics, theology, and religion, for example, we find it
necessary to accept paradoxical and seemingly contradictory claims, to embrace
seemingly incompatible ideas as complementary, to refrain from judging as contradictory
those alternatives which are merely diverse and different, and to accept, as naturally
complementary, forms and concepts which are ordinarily judged irreconcilable. If the
rational temperament of mind required of these disciplines became generally employed in
relations between people on a global scale, in a few generations non-Aristotelian, non-
judgmental reasoning would inevitably change our conception of what is rational as well
as our conception of politics, business and religion.

Humility, brotherhood, love, and sharing are the emotional expressions of
both/and reasoning. The transformative power of the both/and character of
nonjudgmental logic would produce a new rationality in which what was life-affirming
and moral would, at the same time, be logical and reasonable.

Nonjudgmental logic would enable us to choose rationally to celebrate our
differences and marvel in the uniqueness which is both ours and our neighbor's. In such a
world, appreciation of difference would become a source of delight rather than fear, of
uniting with others rather than confronting them, of cooperation rather than competition.
Fear, confrontation, and competition lead to anger and judgment, rather than love and
acceptance. When we adopt a reasoning which can accept others in their difference and
ultimately for their difference, we will have come a long way toward treating one another
with love. Then we would have moved closer to making heaven a practical reality for
ourselves as individuals, for our nation, and for the world.


Nonjudgmental LogicThe Right Arm of the Golden Rule

92



Virtually every system of morality has at its core what is called "The Golden
Rule": "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In its lowest common
demoninator, it is stated in a negative form: "Do not do unto others what you would not
want them to do to you." When a child hits another child, we might say, "Would you like
to be hit? Would you like him to do that to you?" The idea is to instill in the
consciousness of the child how it would feel to experience what it is that the child has
himself done. It is important to give the child feedback: unless the child experiences the
effects of its own actions, it does not know what it is that it has done.

The universe would seem to be constructed so as to provide such a feedback for
us. In physics, Newton's Third Law describes the condition that for every action there is
an equal and opposite reaction. In economics, we know that we get what we pay for. In
any enterprise of effort, we realize that we get out what we put into it. And if we have
developed to a certain level of moral maturity, we know the truth of the words of
Galatians 6:7, that we shall reap whatever we sow. Thus, the wisest thing that we can
share with a child is the understanding of not doing to others what the child does not want
to experience himself! As the Russian mystic and spiritual teacher Gurdjieff wrote, If
you help others, you will be helped, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps in one hundred years, but
you will be helped. Nature must pay off the debt . . . . It is a mathematical law and all life
is mathematics.
107


Those human beings who have yet to begin their moral growth, who do not even
understand the negative Golden Rule, act on quite a different rule: Do unto others before
they can do unto you! This is amoral thinking which occurs prior to the dawning of
moral awareness. But empathy, the "bedrock" of morality, develops naturally during the
first years of life. For once we become aware that others have feelings, too, and develop
the empathetic capacity to assume the viewpoint of others, we can learn to apply the
negative Golden Rule. It extends our consciousness to include the effects of our actions
on others, an important realization in moral growth. However, our level of moral
awareness is limited, if we think primarily of ourselves. Being selfishly concerned that
others not act toward us in certain ways, we would refrain from acting in those ways
toward others.

In Stage IV, we give to others without expecting anything in return, the giving
itself constitutes a wonderful receiving! An either/or logic makes no sense of this: either
we give or we receive; but we cannot both receive and give at the same time by the same
act. The use of nonjudgmental logic in Stage IV, however, makes both giving and
receiving one. When we give of our lives, of our joy and our interest, of our knowledge
and our emotions, we are giving what is uniquely and most deeply ours to give. By
giving knowledge, the teacher learns. By facilitating healing, the doctor is healed! The
artist creates, and so is empowered by creativity. In giving we receive in abundance the
enhancement of our own life. This is a secret of happiness: we are happiest when we are
giving to others, for we receive the joy of fulfillment, meaning, and service. Sai Baba has
written that "No joy can equal the joy of serving others."
108
Gerald Jampolsky, author of
Teach Only Love, says that "Through our willingness to help others we can learn to be

93


happy rather than depressed."
109
Perhaps the Buddha put it most comprehensively:
Giving brings happiness at every stage of its expression. We experience joy by forming
the intention to be generous; we experience joy in the actual act of giving something; and
we experience joy in remembering the fact that we have given.
110


In doing for others selflessly and in loving others as deeply as we are capable, we
receive the greatest benefit of all.
111
Truly it is more blessed to give than to receive!
And yet to give is both to give and to receive! In Stage IV, we use nonjudgmental logic
and therefore understand that giving is receiving because we see ourselves in others.

As we approach the ultimate, or perhaps penultimate, stage of moral awareness,
we will act in recognition of our oneness with all humanity. Then we cannot fail to act
on the injunction to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. According to the
logic of either/or, we and others are different. The Golden Rule, which teaches us to do
unto others as we would have them do unto us, makes only limited sense in these terms.
For at a deeper level of moral, metaphysical, and spiritual understanding, this dichotomy
between ourselves and others is false. I am you, and you are me; and what we do to
others, we ultimately do to ourselves. Such a comprehension can come only in terms of a
different logic, a logic with its basis in both/and categories, nonjudgmental logic.


Loving

It is common to think that loving requires the duality of lover and beloved. How
else can we love unless there is another to be the object of our love? How else can we be
loved unless there is another from whom to receive love? Unless there are two, love is
impossible. So our normal judgmental thinking goes.

But this reasoning is based upon a logic of either/or; and if we have ever loved,
we sense the falseness of this logic. In the most intimate of loving, we become one with
our beloved. "And the two shall be as one," as the song says. In marriage according to
the Christian tradition, it is said that the two spiritually become "one flesh."
Psychologically, if we have "lost ourselves" in love, we know that it is only in losing
ourselves that we can love. Ironically, in Stage IV, we lose ourselves, and yet retain
ourselves. As Erich Fromm explains, in his beautiful little book, The Art of Loving,
Mature love is union under the condition of preserving one's integrity, one's
individuality. Love is an active power in man; a power which breaks through the walls
which separate man from his fellow men, which unites him with others; love makes him
overcome the sense of isolation and separateness, yet it permits him to be himself, to
retain his integrity. In love the paradox occurs that two beings become one and yet
remain two.
112


It is not true that there must be two to love! Rather, there must be two- in-one, or
two- in-the-unity-of-Love. For where there are two human beings, separate and alone,
there can be desire and lust, but love is not present! Here we feel the inadequacy of
either/or categories to express our most profound feelings. Only nonjudgment al logic can

94


convey being one in love.


"Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself"

When we try to grasp love by Aristotelian reasoning, we will inevitably get our
analysis wrong. Dualistic logic distorts love. Take Freud's analysis, for example. Freud
thought that love could be turned toward either ourselves or others: this makes love of
ourselves and love of others opposites, and it equates self- love and selfishness. But as
Fromm cogently argues, it is a logical fallacy to think that love for others and love for
ourselves are mutually exclusive. For "if it is a virtue to love my neighbor as a human
being, it must be a virtue--and not a vice--to love myself, since I am a human being
too."
113
Thus it is contradictory to exclude ourselves from the class of human beings. By
including ourselves in the whole which is humanity, as we would do when we think in
terms of both/and logic, when we love humanity, we necessarily love ourselves. As
Fromm explains: The idea expressed in the Biblical "Love thy neighbor as thyself!"
implies that respect for one's own integrity and uniqueness, love for and understanding of
one's own self, cannot be separated from respect and love and understanding for another
individual. The love for my own self is inseparably connected with the love for any other
being.
114


Brotherly love, or what is called agape in the New Testament, is, according to
Fromm, the basis of all genuine love.
115
Its characteristics are care, respect,
responsibility, knowledge.
116
It is this love which is the basis of the injunction to love
one's neighbor as oneself. "Brotherly love is love for all human beings; it is characterized
by its very lack of exclusiveness. If I have developed the capacity for love, then I cannot
help loving my brothers. In brotherly love there is the experience of union with all men,
of human solidarity, of human at-oneness. Brotherly love is based on the experience that
we are all one."
117



Nonjudgmental Logic and Comprehending the
Truth of Reality

If a consciousness grounded in a logic of either/or is incapable of understanding
love and the highest dictates of morality, how much more will it be incapable of grasping
truth? Here we must distinguish truth from knowledge, for certainly we must
acknowledge the success of either/or thinking in science and technology. By truth I
mean the apprehension of Reality or the Real. If there is a universe, one single Reality,
then any true statement of its ultimate nature must not isolate merely one of its features to
the exclusion of others. Any division of the Real into exclusive categories will
necessarily be unsatisfactory. For what can be said about the All must include
everything. Thus a logic of both/and is necessary. Duality reflects the nature of our
reasoning, then, not the nature of Reality.

In the East, this realization is common. The opening line of the famous Tao Te

95


Ching begins with the words: "The Tao which can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." In
other words, whatever is true about the highest reality (the Tao) cannot be put into words
which dualistic rational thought can comprehend. For one reason, what can be said about
the Tao must be said in terms of both this and that, and neither this nor that. In our
ordinary either/or reasoning, this is mind-boggling. Only a logic of both/and, or
nonjudgmental logic, allows us to make even an attempt in this direction. In the
"paradoxical" logic of Brahman and Taoist thought, it is understood, as Fromm puts it,
that "opposition is a category of man's mind [when limited to present systems of logic],
not in itself an element of reality."
118
We have already seen that this statement is true of
Buber's conceptions of I-Thou and I-It, Fromm's analysis of love, and Eckhart's mystical
understanding of self and others.

In the Orient, thought or reason is not taken as the avenue into truth.
Paradoxically, reason can lead to the realization of its own impotency! The way to truth
is through action and experience of the oneness which is. This has powerful implications
for my thesis, namely that either/or thinking and categorizing everyone as the same, lead
to reasoning which results in prejudice, hatred, and violence. As Fromm nicely puts it,
"If right thought is not the ultimate truth, and not the way to salvation, there is no reason
to fight others, whose thinking has arrived at different formulations." It is more
important to be kind to those who disagree with us than to convert them and more moral
to love them than to attempt to get them to accept our beliefs. Yet, mistakenly, there are
many who believe in God, even though they don't live godly lives, who think themselves
superior to those who don't believe in God but who do live godly lives. St. Teresa of
Avila said: "It is not necessary to know much, but to love much." Leonardo di Vinci
said: "The greater the man, the deeper his love." Kindness is higher than knowledge, and
love is deeper than truth; and it is wisdom to realize the truth of the superiority of love.
As Theodore Isaac Rubin has written: "Kindness is more important than wisdom, and the
recognition of this is the beginning of wisdom."
119


Mahatma Gandhi realized that, for all his striving for God and Truth, and for all
the many hours of meditation and contemplation, he had but "faint glimpses of the
Absolute Truth, God."
120
As he admitted, "it follows that what may be truth for one may
be untruth for another." Then he added: Truth resides in every human heart, and one has
to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has the right to
coerce others to act according to his own view of truth.
121


The famous ancient sacred injunction, written over the door of Apollo's temple at
Delphi was "Know Thyself." Love is a deeper way of knowing and less limited than
either/or reasoning. Either/or reasoning enables us to know about another; it enables us
to glimpse, but always from a judgmental perspective. Love, on the other hand, enables
us to know each other from a nonjudgmental perspective. Erich Fromm writes that "Love
is the active penetration of the other person, in which my desire to know is stilled by
union. In the act of fusion I know you, I know myself, I know everybody."
122
Love is
action; in the action which results in union, oneness, fusion, where the knower and the
known become one, there is no outside from which one looks or views upon the other,
hence, no error is possible. Only love can truly know. But to love, one must not judge.

96



What can be our experience in a state of non-judgment? Trees, sky, flowers, dogs
and cats, and fellow human beings--all may appear as expressions of Divine Love to
those of us in Stage Four. Love may overwhelm our consciousness when we put aside a
mind of division, duality, opposition, and judgment. In this state of love, we experience
the magical logic of both/and: the ordinary is the extraordinary, and the extraordinary is
the ordinary; the natural appears as supernatural, and the supernatural as natural. There is
no longer a division between heaven and earth. The two become as one. As Thomas
Merton once wrote: There is in all things an inexhaustible sweetness and purity, a
silence which that is a fountain of action and joy. It rises up in wordless gentleness and
flows out to me from unseen roots of all created being.

The naturalness of this consciousness of Love is the message of the great sacred
teachings in every tradition. It is there for our experiencing. But it arises from non-
judgment in the mind and love in the heart. When mind and heart are united, heaven will
become a practical possibility.


Practicing Nonjudgmental Logic

We see in the actions of two political leaders and statesmen, one American, one
Indian, the logic of love in action. In the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and in
Mahatma K. Gandhi, the both/and reasoning underlying love is evident. Both were faced
with injustice; but neither responded with violence or aggression toward those who
perpetuated that injustice. For to do so would have been unloving. How, then, can we
"fight" without fighting and "oppose" without turning our opponent into our "enemy,"
against whom even unloving actions are justified. The answer lies in a new reasoning, in
a new logic of both/and, in both resistance and non-resistance: peaceful resistance, non-
violent civil disobedience, standing against injustice but not unjustly. We both respect
the law and disrespect the law at the same time. As King explains in his famous "Letter
from the Birmingham Jail": One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly, .
. . . I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and
willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community
over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.

King had read Gandhi's writings, in which the Indian statesman had developed the
concept of satyagraha or soul- force. The nature of the soul is love. In Yoga, the soul is
called the anandamaya kosha: the body (kosha) through which reality appears (maya) as
ananda (joy, peace, bliss, love, ecstasy). So satyagraha could be called "love- force" as
well as "soul- force." To act from our spiritual nature is to act from our soul, from love,
to act in the realization of the unity of life, which binds together all human beings as
brothers and sisters in the family of humanity.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King echoed these ideas in his analysis of nonviolent
resistance. First, it must be emphasized that nonviolent resistance is . . . passive
physically, but strongly active spiritually. It is not passive nonresistance to evil, it is

97


active nonviolent resistance to evil. A second basic fact that characterizes nonviolence is
that it does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and
understanding.... Noncooperation or boycotts . . . are merely means to awaken a sense of
moral shame in the opponent . . . . A third characteristic of this method is that the attack
is directed against the forces of evil rather than against the person who happens to be
doing the evil. It is evil that the nonviolent resister seeks to defeat, not the person
victimized by evil . . . . A fourth point that characterizes nonviolent resistance is a
willingness to accept suffering without retaliation . . . . The nonviolent resister is willing
to accept violence if necessary, but never to inflict it.... A fifth point concerning
nonviolent resistance is that it avoids not only external physical violence but also internal
violence of spirit. The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he
also refuses to hate him. At the center of nonviolence stands the principle of love. . . .
Love in this connection means understanding, redemptive good will.... Agape is
disinterested love. It is love in which the individual seeks not his own good, but the good
of his neighbor. Agape . . . makes no distinction between friend and enemy; it is directed
toward both. In the final analysis, agape means a recognition of the fact that all life is
interrelated . . . . Love, agape, is the only cement that can hold this broken community
together. When I am commanded to love, I am commanded to restore community, to
resist injustice, and to meet the needs of my brothers.
123



Towards the End of Judgmental Reasoning
and Stage III

A natural relationship exists between moral maturation and logical reasoning.
The ever upwardly-spiraling process which generates higher rational consciousness is
accompanied by moral virtues such as unconditional acceptance, brotherly love (agape),
non-judgment, peace, good will, compassion, and joy. As our awareness expands, the
logic used in reasoning will either further or hinder that growth. Acceptance of the
both/and categories and the three laws of nonjudgmental logic will increase the
understanding of the logical principles in which opposites can be affirmed and in which
both sides of an argument can be criticized for their weaknesses as well as appreciated for
their truths. As the great physicist and one of the originators of the modern quantum
theory, Niels Bohr has said, The opposite of a most profound truth may well be another
most profound truth.
124


This expansion of consciousness to include opposites which are different, yet
valued as parts of a single whole, is essential to morality. Like schizophrenics, we
believe that reality is how we perceive it. In truth, what we experience as "reality" is a
fabrication of our concepts of categories and of our reasoning and the logic on which it is
based. With an inclusive logic like nonjudgmental logic rather than an exclusive logic
like Aristotle's, we could include everyone into the class of "us." If everyone were
considered "family," there would be no opponents or enemies to fight! Instead of
producing instruments and weapons to destroy the lives of many, we could use the time
and resources to improve the lives of all.


98


In Stage III, logic is unfinished: we are still developing rationally and therefore
morally. Our lives will continue to impart a moral delusion as long as we think
judgmentally. Why should we be willing to settle for a delusion when we can live life
abundantly? Many spiritual leaders, for example, recognize that our reasoning leads us
astray. But, failing to realize that it is judgmental, not nonjudgmental, reasoning that is to
blame, some of those leaders would have us stop thinking altogether!

At present we find ourselves in a hostile and immoral world because of the way
we reason, and most of us are completely unaware of this fact. All of us, including
intellectuals, political leaders, business executives, and others in the highest positions of
authority think that it is rational to do what is morally wrong. We think it natural to pit
our own benefit against the good of others because our reasoning is based on judgmental
rules of logic. While these decisions are logical, they are hardly loving.

We forget, for example, that millions of personal judgmental decisions
cumulatively lead to World War IInot Hitlers one decision to invade Poland, Gen
Tojos decision to bomb Pearl Harbor, or President Roosevelts decision to declare war.
Millions of Germans use judgmental reasoning to justify rationalizations that Hitler
meant well. The Japanese rationalize that Tojos decision was justified. And we use
judgmental reasoning to justify that we were innocent victims of fascism and Japanese
Imperialism. The fact is that it is not only the leaders who create problems, but also the
millions of little people who follow those leaders.

Later we will realize that when Jesus said we are all sinners, in the first century
Greek, he was saying we all err in our reasoning.

It is through either/or reasoning that we make judgment an essential part of our
thinking process. Through judging we block any insight into our unity with all humanity.
At the same time, we block love. When we do this, it is as though we experience an
"eclipse of God," to use Buber's terms, or "darkness at noon," to quote Koestler.
Nietzsche wrote in the last century about "the death of God." But Peter Kreeft tells us
that although Nietzsche was describing an actual event in western culture, he
misdescribed it. "It is not the death of God but the death of seeing His image in the
human soul."
125
We must learn, then, not only not to judge, but to be willing to exchange
our judgmental logic of opposition and conflict for nonjudgmental logic.

99




Chapter Five

The Nonjudgmental Rational Consciousness
of Stage IV


How shall we describe those in the rational consciousness of Stage IV? We might
call them, by Abraham Maslow's term, "self-actualizers." Perhaps we might describe
their consciousness as "integrated" or "transpersonal." We might choose a term like
"sage" or "enlightened" from one of the world's philosophical or religious traditions. It is
a problem, for whatever word we use, some of our fellow human beings might take
offense with its overtones. And I certainly mean no offense. So, let me use the term
"reborn" in the broadest of contexts, from Homer's epic Odyssey to Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-
Ross' research on near-death experiences; from Jesus' admonition to Lazarus to Buddha's
enlightenment experience; from the universal story of the human journey portrayed in
Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces to the universal experience of falling in
love known by lovers around the world. In each of these contexts, there is a renewal of
mind, a rejuvenation of life, an experience of being psychologically "reborn."

In the Eleventh Book of his magnificent epic poem, The Odyssey, Homer tells the
story of Odysseus and his men leaving the isle of the witch Circe, and traveling into the
underworld. You may recall how, in the Tenth Book, Homer had described Circe's
bewitching act: she had turned men into pigs, wolves, and lions. The symbols should be
obvious. Our pig- like desires and lusts of greedy self- gratification, and our dog-eat-dog
striving to get ahead at any cost, recall our conscienceless and judgmental reasoning in
Stage II, while our lion- like enchantment with being "king of the beasts" represents
reason tempered by conscience in Stage III.

Richard Bach, in our times, echoes the same message in his Jonathan Livingston
Seagull. Sullivan is speaking to Jonathan. Do you have any idea how may lives we
must have gone through before we even got the first idea that there is more to life than
eating, or fighting, or power in the Flock? A thousand lives, Jon, ten thousand!
126


Imagine coming to the end of your life. Mythology universally tells us of a
judgment, a review of life, at the time of death. Those who have experienced drowning
may have seen their lives pass before them in review. Sometimes during an accident, or
an operation, or in a Dickens "Christmas Carol"- like dream, or maybe another kind of
"near-death experience," people experience their lives pass before them; and they
witness, as both participant and judge, what they have done and left undone, and the
consequences of their decisions. Some of those who have had these experiences tell us
that they "saw" the effects, both negative and positive, of their actions. For those "lucky"
enough to have been given this glimpse, life may change significantly, as it did for
Dickens Scrooge. What may have been important before, now pales in insignificance.
"Life's too short!" they'll say. "It's just not important." To those who have passed

100


through lower stages to reach Stage IV, it is as though they had been reborn.


The Message from Near-Death Experiences

We have already mentioned America's first and foremost expert on near-death
experience, Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. An immigrant to the United States, who initially
was unable to get a regular position in her field of medicine, Dr. Kubler-Ross fortuitously
found herself working with the dying. At the time, she did not believe in life-after-death,
but her experiences with her patients changed her mind. For in case after case, first with
a few and then with thousands, Dr. Kubler-Ross discovered evidence, not only of an
afterlife, but of a profound message for this life, which an experience with the "other
side" can bring. What is that message told over and over again by those who have
clinically died and been resuscitated? As we have already discovered, it is that there are
only four activities which make life worth living:

1. Serving and helping others

2. Loving unconditionally

3. Being "all that one can be" by developing one's talents and capacities,
abilities and special gifts, and

4. Encouraging that same development in others; and, in so far as one is
able, facilitating that development. In Stage IV, we not only believe in
these life-giving and moral activitieswe practice them, and in turn,
live meaningful and fulfilling lives.


Happiness and Morality in Stage IV

Decades before research on near-death experience afforded us these insights,
Ralph Waldo Trine (1866-1936) had written: True happiness . . . must come, if it
come at all, indirectly, or by the service, the love and the happiness we give to others. . . .
Life is not, we may say, for mere passing pleasure, but for the highest unfoldment that
one can attain to, the noblest character that one can grow and for the greatest service that
one can render to all mankind. In this, however, we will find the greatest pleasure, for in
this the only real pleasure lies.
127


Our intuition leads us to hold the universal belief that, ultimately, moral actions
will be rewarded and immoral ones punished. This intuition may explain the fantastic
ideas of heaven and hell which are found in religions throughout the world. The same
intuition may explain, psychologically, our belief that what we do will come back to us.
As St. Paul put it in his letter to the Galatians, "whatsoever a man soweth, that also shall
he reap."
128
It would seem reasonable that morality would ultimately bring happiness.
Conversely, it would seem reasonable that genuine happiness would be possible only for

101


those who are moral.

The very notion that those who are moral will be rewarded by going to heaven is
embedded in this reasoning. The great scholar and humanitarian Albert Schweitzer was
absolutely clear that happiness was achieved through moral actions: The only ones
among you who will be really happy are those who have sought and found how to serve. .
. . The purpose of human life is to serve and show compassion and the will to help
others. And Albert Einstein agreed: I don't know what your destiny will be, but one
thing I know: the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who will have
sought and found how to serve.

The Eighth Insight of James Redfield's The Celestine Prophecy concerns the
energy of love. Energizing others is the best thing we can do for ourselves. By
appreciating others and focusing our positive attention on them, we send them the energy
of love and uplift them. The more that love flows to them, the more it flows to us! Thus
by loving, we are loved; by giving love, we receive love. If we think of any experience
in which we genuinely loved another, we will realize how we ourselves were empowered
with love. The more we love, the more cosmic energy of Love flows to us. The best
thing that we can do for ourselves, therefore, is to love and appreciate others. The more
energy of love we give to others, the more aware they become, and the more that
awareness can help us gain insights and answers.
129


This, then, is how we live after being reborn into a consciousness of nonjudgment.
We can be reborn only after we die--are "crucified" the Christian tradition would say--to
our selfish animal nature of the lower stages of rational consciousness. Thus we are born
anew into our true moral or God- nature, one of all loving and nonjudgment. Both
Western esoteric and Oriental traditions teach that we humans share the three lower
energy-centers or "chakras" with the animal kingdom: the sexual center; the spleen, or
life-energy center; and the solar plexus, the fight-or-flight center of consciousness, which
the ancients called "the animal mind." Our unique human nature and consciousness
begins at the fourth chakra, or "heart-center," whose energy is love. This fourth chakra
represents Stage IV in the development of rational consciousness.

It is unconditional love, supported by nonjudgmental logic in Stage IV, which sets
us apart from our animal- like natures in Stages I through III. It is nonjudgment and
unconditional love, which marks the difference between a mature human being and an
adolescent in lower stages of consciousness. Unconditional love for others is expressed
as universal brotherly affection (agape), unconditional acceptance, selfless service,
compassion, and the desire to help others maximize their full potential. Unconditional
love for ourselves includes these qualities too: acceptance of ourselves, "warts and all,"
as the expression goes; compassion for ourselves; the willingness to forgive our faults
and failings; and the desire to manifest all the talents and potentials which are our special
lot in life. At the root of both love of others and love of ourselves is non-judgment, made
possible ultimately by nonjudgmental logic.

The Criterion for a Successful Life in Stage IV

102



How would someone at Stage IV judge a successful life. It would not be in terms
of the criteria of the lower stages: the ability to gratify our desires; "getting ahead," being
famous or well-known; attaining a position of power or a comfortable retirement. Albert
Einstein wrote, The ideals which have lighted my way . . . have been Kindness, Beauty,
and Truth. The true subjects of human efforts--possessions, outward success, luxury--
have always seemed to me contemptible.
130



Harmonizing Difference Through Nonjudgmental Logic

We have seen that the differences between self and others, God and man, sacred
and profane, ordinary and extraordinary are the result of thinking in categories of
either/or. To be "reborn" in Stage IV means harmonizing the dichotomies in a way in
which both are affirmed and neither is denied. The higher logic of nonjudgmental sees
them in a synergic relation. Abraham Maslow found that self-actualizing persons
possessed "a rare capacity to resolve value dichotomies." In Motivation and Personality,
he wrote, The age-old opposition between heart and head . . . was seen to disappear
where they became synergic rather than antagonistic . . . the dichotomy between
selfishness and unselfishness disappears . . . . Our subjects are simultaneously very
spiritual, and very pagan and sensual. Duty cannot be contrasted with pleasure nor work
with play when duty is pleasure. . . . Similar findings have been reached for kindness-
ruthlessness, concreteness-abstractness, acceptance-rebellion, self-society, adjustment-
maladjustment . . . serious-humorous, Dionysian-Apollonian, introverted-extraverted,
intense-casual . . . mystic-realist, active-passive, masculine- feminine, lust- love, and Eros-
Agape . . . <all> coalesce into an organismic unity and into a non-Aristotelian
[nonjudgmental] interpenetration ... and a thousand philosophical dilemmas are
discovered to have more than two horns, or paradoxically, no horns at all.
131


If we examine these dichotomies, we can understand that by using nonjudgmental
logic both sides of the either/or can be affirmed, rather than choosing but one of the
alternatives. Wherever thinking leads us into opposition and conflict, we need to
reconsider our reasoning and rethink in nonjudgmental categories of both/and.
Hampden-Turner writes, "The capacity to hold finitude and transcendence in balance
distinguishes the growth of the productive personality from the regression of the non-
productive."
132


In The Sane Society, Erich Fromm writes, The necessity to find ever- new
solutions for the contradictions in his existence, to find ever- higher forms of unity with
nature, his fellow man and himself, is the source of all psychic forces which motivate
man, all of his passions, affects and anxieties.
133
The solution Gnostic Christianity offers
is nonjudgmental logic.


The Meaning of Metaphors, Myths, and Parables in Stage IV


103


The ancients conveyed their most important truths about life in symbol form, by
metaphor, myth, and parable. This was the method of the major religious traditions. We
may feel intuitively drawn to their imagery and symbols, but we may consider the myths
to be primitive and false. If we are still thinking in judgmental categories of either/or, we
will reason that the myths are either true or false. Many contemporary religious believers
think of them as "pagan" and not worthy of respect; contemporary non-believers may
simply dismiss them because they are "religious" or "spiritual." But if we have learned to
think in terms of nonjudgmental logic, we can understand that these myths, metaphors,
and parables were not only about some "other worldly" and imagined reality but also
contained insights about our everyday, mundane, worldly existence.

How can we relate to stories of gods and goddesses, when we know about the
forces of Nature and her laws? To our sophisticated and educated minds, even a loving
God in heaven, a cosmic spiritual Father, may seem a childish belief. If we are wise,
however, we will not be offended by these stories, but instead we will demythologize the
content, which can teach us something about how to live our lives wisely. Certainly,
some of the myths and metaphors concealed insights into the nature of love, the
importance of forgiveness and non-judgment, the journey of life through stages of
development, and the joy and peace which enrich any life. The "truth" of the religious
myths and metaphors does not lie in their literal or historical accuracy, but in the wisdom
which they share. Our task in Stage IV is to share those truths and reinterpret them for
our own generation. Nonjudgmental logic is the tool that can accomplish this task.

Love, supported by nonjudgmental logic, really is the answer. One of the truths,
which we can learn from ancient myths and metaphors, is that the nature of reality is
love. How deeply do we need this message, in our present state of logic, religion, and
philosophy, where we find ourselves so often alienated from one another. It may help us
to remember again those stories, rich in imagery, and share their truth with our children.

There are ancient traditions which make Love the very substance of the universe
or the universe an expression of Love. The Greek theologian Hesiod, in his Theogony,
describes the birth of Aphrodite from the violent act of Kronos against his father
Ouranos. Chronos is the Greek word for "time," and in the Greek is almost identical to
Kronos. Ouranos referred to "the heavens," and Aphrodite was the goddess of Love.
What this myth was telling us was that the first act of Creation in time is Love, that Love
is the fundamental energy with which Creation is accomplished. More profoundly,
everything which is created is of the nature of Love and is the expression of Love. The
prelude to the Gospel of John restates this same truth.


Nonjudgment and Love is the Nature of Reality in Stage IV

In one of the fragments which we have of his writings, the ancient pre-Socratic
philosopher Parmenides wrote, "First of all the Gods she devised Eros (Love)." I have an
updated and more contemporary version of this same truth in Teilhard de Chardin's The
Phenomenon of Man. The paleontologist asserts that Love is the nature of cosmic

104


energy, which exists not only on the human level but also on the molecular and atomic
level. If love eventually finds expression in humankind, Teilhard argues, its existence
must be assumed in the lowest levels of creation. The Christian tradition teaches that
"God is Love." It is reasonable to conclude that if God is Creator, then everything which
exists must be an expression of His nature, Love.

Poet William Wordsworth once penned the words:

The best portions of a good man's life,
His little, nameless, unremembered acts,
Of kindness and love.

We remind ourselves again of those patients of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, who told
her of their near-death experience and how loving unconditionally and helping others
were essential for a meaningful life. We do not need to have our own near-death
experience, or to die, to begin to act on this wisdom. We need only heed the wisdom of
Etienne De Grellet. I shall pass through this world but once. If, therefore, there be any
kindness I can show, or any good thing I can do, let me do it now ... for I shall not pass
this way again.

How wise these words! And equally how wise the words of a young girl, Anne
Frank, who lived her short life hiding in the attic, in perpetual fear of being captured:
"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve
the world." William Wordsworth would have agreed with her:

We need not attempt great works. It is enough, as Mother Teresa of Calcutta has
said, that we do "small things with great love."


Is Nonjudgmental Logic the Key to a Heaven on Earth?

Is a kingdom of heaven possible on earth? Can we really create a world of love
and compassion? Can kindness and brotherly love become universal qualities in human
societies around the world? Psychologist Alfred Adler believed it was possible for all of
us to create reality, and so do I. Why? Because nonjudgmental logic makes it possible
for anyone to reason nonjudgmentally. And when everyone does, the collective
dynamics of this new consciousness will change the world beyond our most idealistic
dreams.

From the earliest times to the present, the answer is the same. The ancient
Egyptian teachings of the "Hermetic" tradition taught a very simple and basic message in
a three word dictum, "Energy follows thought." For those whose minds are disciplined,
what is thought comes to be. For, as Napoleon Hill said, in his famous Think and Grow
Rich, "thoughts are things." It is through our thoughts that we direct mental energy into
this realm of existence. Rare, indeed, are those whose power has developed to the level
of a Satya Sai Baba, who would seem to be able to materialize sacred ash, rings and

105


candy, and whatever he imagines. But train your mind, intensely even for an afternoon,
to think and believe that you can walk across a bed of hot coals, and you can. Nearly
every weekend across the United States, some group is learning to do just that! We see
the power of mind to alter the behavior of those who have been hypnotized. We are all
hypnotized by our beliefs! Or as the Buddha taught, life is a delusion. Nonjudgmental
reasoning dispels illusion and empowers the mind to see the world as it really is.

In James Redfield's The Celestine Prophecy, the Third Insight has to do with a
new understanding of the nature of the physical world. Energy responds to thought. The
most straightforward statements about the power of the mind to create our personal world
come from Seth's teaching in Jane Robert's The Nature of Personal Reality. "We create
our personal reality through our conscious beliefs about ourselves, others, and the world.
We are gods couched in creaturehood." "External events, circumstances and conditions
are meant as a kind of living feedback. Altering the state of the psyche automatically
alters the physical circumstances. There is no other valid way of changing physical
events." "There is nothing in your external experience that did not originate with you."
"You are in physical experience to learn and understand that your energy, translated into
feelings, thoughts and emotion, causes all experiences. There are no exceptions. "

James Redfield, Jane Roberts, Deepak Chopra, Wayne Dyer, and many others
teach that the mind has the power to create reality. They teach meditation, rejecting
carnal thought and recognition of the spirit as ways to give the mind that power. Their
way is subjective. It inspires some, but not enough to change the course of civilization.
Nonjudgmental logic is an objective way to awaken the power to create reality in the
minds of everyone.

For example, the traditional, subjective paths of developing the power of the mind
are like a trial and error method of finding a light switch in a darkened maze. A few
persist long enough to find the switch, but most give up that search early on.
Nonjudgmental logic, however, is like a flash light whose light directs anyone to the
switch so they can turn it on.

The power of magic is the power of the mind to manipulate energy. The power of
mental healing and the ability to bring what we want into manifestation are possible
because energy is the nature of reality. Matter is energy: E = mc2. In experiments with
subatomic particles, scientists appear to disturb particles by looking at them. Quantum
Mechanics explains that observation alters reality. Strange as it may seem, subatomic
particles seem to respond to being observed!

In Stage IV we can create a heaven on earth. Proverbs 23:7 tells us that as a man
"thinketh in his heart, so is he." We are what we think! So our world will be what we
think and believe it can be. We have only to realize that by our thinking, we are creating
our world. If we use nonjudgmental logic, our reasoning will become more loving and
caring, and our reality will take on that love. Heaven on earth is not an impossible
dream.


106


In Stage IV we spontaneously reason nonjudgmentally. This empowers us to
reason in terms of love, acceptance, harmony with others, balance within oneself, and
peace. The practical way to a heaven on earth is through nonjudgmental reasoning,
which makes kindness, love, and concern for others practical, acceptable and reasonable.

Our natural goal is to achieve unity with ourselves, our fellow human beings,
Nature, and God. To do this, we will be guided by nonjudgmental reasoning to accept
human diversity. We will have the ability to reason in terms of complementarity, in
which both alternatives of an either/or judgment can be affirmed. We will naturally be
loving, life-affirming, and balanced. We will have reached our peak potentials of moral
and rational development. Remember that, as Maslow has rightly said, the self-
actualized man is not man with something added to him, but rather the natural man with
nothing taken away. It is either/or reasoning which robs us of our natural compassion
and love which finally reappears when we reach Stage IV. When nonjudgmental logic
becomes commonplace throughout the world, we will have entered Stage V. Then a
higher civilization will become possible, and heaven will become a practical reality.


107



Chapter Six

Stage V in Rational Consciousness


Stage V begins when all adults have achieved Stage IV consciousness.
Consciousness in Stage V is an amplified form of consciousness, meaning a new form of
consciousness that expands the collective energy of all consciousness into one infinite
form of consciousness. In this amplified consciousness the collective energy of infinite
consciousness remembers its ultimate powers of life, death, creation and love. It is
nirvana; it is being both fully human and fully God.

Ruth Benedict, anthropologist and poet, would call a Stage V community a
synergistic world order.
134
Synergistic refers to the collective consciousness of a group
being greater than the sum of their individual consciousnesses.

In Stage V, every adult will use nonjudgmental logic; consequently, oneness,
inclusiveness, and equality will be the norm globally. In this worldview, serving others
will be both rational and practical because everyone will see themselves in others. And
when you are one with others, you serve yourself when you serve others.

Everyone will recognize that his or her natural talents are indispensable elements
of society. Therefore, everyone will try in every way to perfect their talents and help
others to do the same. In the end everyone will benefit, for work is a pleasure when we
work together at what each likes to do and is talented at.

Imagine a world where everyone cared about one another as they did themselves,
and therefore, worked for the good of the whole. We could all live the good live because
we would spend all our time and resources on life-affirming enterprises, not on tanks,
bombers, banks and penitentiaries.

Ruth Benedict is credited with introducing the idea of synergy into social science.
She made an exhaustive comparative study of American Indian communities and felt
intuitively that some communities had something vital, secure, and likeable, while others
gave her the shivers. She tried every scientific way to account for that difference, but
could not. Finally, she trusted the poet in herself, and called it, synergy. (301) From
all comparative material, the conclusion emerges that those tribes, which are lieable and
secure, have social orders in which the individualby the same act and at the same
timeserves his own advantage and that of the group not because people are unselfish
and put social obligations above personal desires, but when social arrangements make
these identical. (301)

Some might argue that if everything were good, good would be meaningless
because bad is required to appreciate the good. This is an opinion justified by judgmental
reasoning. Everything about synergistic thought supports the exact opposite: the more

108


good, the more good and nothing else. I can only wonder why anyone would insist that
bad is essential to good, other than it is the common opinion?

Perhaps the best way to describe Stage V in the development of consciousness is
to equate familiar terms others have used to define what they consider the ultimate state
of human existence. This might better convey my intuitive feelings about Stage V.
Some of these terms are:

1. The Glory, Oneness, Holistic,
2. Doing on Earth as it is in Heaven,
3. All there is is love,
4. Synchronistic Event,
5. The attitude at Woodstock,
6. M.L. King, Jr.s Dream Come True,
7. Fulfillment, Self Actualization,
8. Devine Existence Endwells in all of humanity,
9. Altra-Hominisation,
10. Transcendence of subject-object duality, and
11. Perfection.

Let me summarize the Five Stages in contemporary Five Stage Models in the
Development of Consciousness. Afterwhich I will relate the logos/logic teachings of
Jesus to the principles of nonjudgmental logic and five stages in the development of our
rational consciousness.

A rule of thumb for determining a stage of consciousness is that the further ones
care and commitment extends to others, the higher the stage of consciousness. When we
are in Stage I, we will care little about others. Kindness and compassion and love are not
yet qualities of our minds. In Stage II our kindness and compassion is limited to our
family and others like us. In Stage II, we care because caring benefits us or those close to
us.

In Stage III our care extends to all others. Our commitment to them is still,
however, limited. In Stage IV our kindness and compassion and commitment extends
outward to all others. In Stage IV, we care because we are enlightened to the oneness of
all and therefore are totally committed and withhold nothing. In Stage V everyone is
enlightened, and a heaven on earth , meaning a utopic life in the here and now, begins.

Note: Theoretically, stages start and stop according to the introduction of
consciousness-raising ideas. In practice however, the consciousness-raising idea is first
conceived by one person and then spreads to others. The dissemination process is not all
inclusive, for some do not hear, or want to learn, new ideas. We can therefore expect
historical overlapping of stages. Self-consciousness for example, was not instantly
experienced by all prehistoric beings. It took thousands of years for the majority of us to
progress to self-consciousness. A few still have not. It may be safe to assume that the
majority of us today have reached Stage III, even though many still remain in Stage II.

109



We can also expect that we are not as fully developed in the beginning of a stage
as we are when we are ready to move into the next. We may, for example, move in and
out of self-consciousness in the beginning of Stage II, but grow into full self-
consciousness by the end of this stage. Stage II begins with the egocentric dogmatic
me/me of toddlers and is supposed to end when adolescents learn to share. But, dogmatic
and egocentric grownups exemplify adults who have not grown up and continue to
reason as children. When we first hear our conscience in Stage III it leads us to do nice
things for others. By the end of Stage III, we are considered idealists and do- gooders
unless we listen to others who recommend that we need to think me first and backslide
into Stage II of consciousness with them. In Stages IV and V we think in terms of
oneness, and therefore, see ourselves in others and live according to the golden rule.


110




Chapter Seven

True Gnostic Christianity


Gnosticismfrom the Greek word gnosis, refers to objective and factual
knowledge. Since 325 AD, however, Gnostic Christianity has generally been considered
a cult religion with secret and mystical teachings. I offer an interpretation of Gnostic
Christianity that is different. I have learned that Gnostic Christianity was not a mystical
cult at all. Rather, it is, like its name implies, a system of knowledge based on a theory of
nature that Jesus revealed. By understanding this theory, anyone who can think can learn
to become more conscious and, therefore, enjoy a heightened experience of life. Some
call this heightened experience of life higher consciousness, or enlightenment. Jesus
called it righteousness, meaning right minded, knowing how to reason lovingly, like
God.
135


Gnostic Christianity earned its name by teaching that, just as our parents and
society helped us outgrow our childhood consciousness and become adults, so does
knowledgegnosisabout Jesus theory of nature help us grow through adult
consciousness and into the right-mindedness of the perfected consciousness of Stage IV.

Gnostics believed that becoming a Christian meant perfecting ones spiritual* or in
todays terms, ones psychological nature. The Gnostic Christian Valentinus urged
[Orthodox] Christians (140-160 AD) to go beyond the elementary steps of faith, baptism,
and moral reform to spiritual [psychological] illumination. His followers claim,
moreover, to have received from him access to the secret teachings of Paul, the deeper
mysteries that Paul reserved from his public teachings and taught only a few chosen
disciples in secret. Other Gnostics claim to know the secret teachings of Jesus himself
teachings only hinted at, they said, in the New Testament gospels, but revealed more
fully in such secret teachings as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalane,
and the Dialog of the Savior.
136
)

Such writings, suppressed and lost for nearly 1600 years were discovered
unexpectedly in the Egyptian desert near the town of Nag Hammadi . This
extraordinary find disclosed, in fact, more than 50 texts that date back to the first
centuries of the Christian era, including a collection of early Christian gospels and other
writings attributed to Jesus and his disciples . Whether these writingsor which of
themcontain authentic teachings of Jesus and his disciples we do not know, anymore
than we know with certainty which sayings or teachings in the New Testament are
authentic. What the discovery certainly does offer, however, is extraordinary insights
into the early Christian movement. For the first time, we can read first hand works later
condemned and destroyed by the [Orthodox] Bishops as hieratical. Now, for the first
time, the heretics can speak to us in their own words for church leaders of the second
century, including Ignatius, Justian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement, had attacked the

111


Gnostic Christians, condemned their teachings, and attempted to drive them out of the
church.
137



The Goal of Gnostic Christianity

In review, the key to understanding Jesus is to know how he uses the Greek term
logos. Jesus does not use logos in the sense of the statement or the word of God
recorded in the Bible. Logos, for Jesus, refers to divine logic/reason of God, in man.
This definition is Hellenized Judaisms adaptation of the Greek concept of logos as
world soul
138
meaning the mind of God.

If one thinks in OT terms, one would prefer to translate logos by word; if one
thinks in the Greek terms, as the apologists [Gnostics] did on the whole, then one would
translate logos into reason.
139
The logos stood for more than spoken words. The
extent of the concept was that behind spoken words were thoughts. Thoughts were mind.
Mind had affinity with reason. Reason was the structure of orderly actionthat ultimate
reality was reasonable, was in fact reason itself. (249) And because human beings have
the capacity to reason, it was believed by Jesus and Gnostic Christians that our destiny is
to make contact with divine reason and, like God, discern ultimate truths, (249) See
Inter 547A.
Logos also means mans ability to
recognize reality; we would call it
theoretical reason. It is mans ability to
reason. (250)

The goal of Gnostic Christianity is to raise consciousness by elevating the rational
element of consciousness to the same level as the logos, again meaning the logic or
reasoning of God. This goal is achieved when we understand a new theory of human
nature that Jesus revealed because that theory justifies nonjudgmental rules of logic that
empower us to reason in ways that are comparable to that of the logos of God. With that
godlike potential for reasoning, we will expand the context in which we think and
become conscious in a nonjudgmental and loving, godlike way. This is what Paul means
by We [meaning Gnostic Christians] are those who have the mind [logos] of Christ.
(1Co 2:16 jbv)

Paul makes is clear that we are meant to the live the good live in Eph 2:10, We
are Gods work of art, created in Christ Jesus [meaning through the Messianic/Christ or
logos teachings] to live the good life as from the beginning he [God] meant us to live.
Here Paul states that our purpose is to live the good life that a loving father/mother God
would want his children to have. Matt 6:10, for example, promises thy will be done as it
is in heaven.

Pauls optimism about living the good life is more than hope. It is founded on
factual knowledge/gnosis that anyone can learn, namely Jesus Christ or Messianic
teachings about the logos/logic of God. May he [Jesus, through his logos teachings]

112


enlighten the eyes of the mind so that you can see what hope his call holds for you, what
rich glories he has promised the saints will inherit. (1:18)

For Gnostic Christians, love is the answerrationally and spiritually. Rationally,
because Jesus logos teachings empower our mind to know that love is the answer, and
spiritually, because Gods Spirit, ages ago, instilled this truth in us. In practice, our
power to reason catches up to our spiritual values through Jesus logos teachings.

The distinction between believing and knowing is the difference between
imagining and experiencing. We can, for example, imagine what it would be to pilot a
plane. To fly a plane, however, would be a far different experience. Similarly, we can
believe love is the answer, but if we support that belief with factual knowledge, we would
in mind and spirit know that love is the answer.

Religion has for millenniums perpetuated the belief that love is the answer.
Gnostic Christianity goes the next step. It supports that belief with knowledge based on
facts about our process of reasoning that Jesus logos teachings reveal. These facts
empower us to intellectually know what before we could only believe. When we know
something and believe it, we own it.

Knowledge, then, has consequences. The gnosis/knowledge Gnostic Christianity
offers is Jesus logos/logic teachings. These teachings enlighten our reasoning mind to
the truth of our beliefs. We then become, in mind, body, and spirit, in harmony with our
spiritual nature. We will have found our way home, and in doing so, will live the good
life God intended. To paraphrase a Gnostic Christian, As I awoke, I remembered I was
the child of the King.


Biblical Authenticity

The question of the authenticity of biblical meaning will not be found in one
interpretation. Rather, we must go beyond thinking that there is only one meaning in the
Bible. We must begin considering how seemingly contradictory understandings of the
Bible can be harmonized. I will not argue, as so many have already done, that the Bible
has been edited and attributed to writers who did not write it. No firsthand evidence is
available, therefore, until such evidence is found, no one can be absolutely certain of
anything biblical, including myself.

My view is that conflicting interpretations are not the consequence of misdirected
men; they are the result of good men understanding the intensions of Jesus differently at
different times. Jesus, for example, taught in parables when in public, but when in
private, he taught differently.

Scholars have long recognized that Jesus taught something in public that was
different from what he taught in private. Jesus used parables/metaphors in public that
intuitively conveyed his theory of nature. But it was in private that he revealed the

113


meaning behind those metaphors. Jesus himself refers to those metaphors in JN 16-2, I
have been telling you this in metaphors, the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak
to you in metaphors; but tell you about the Father [Gods logos or logic] in plain words.

Jesus logos teachings, which Gnostic Christians maintain were his private
teachings, were easier to convey to small groups because those teaching are difficult to
understand within traditional systems of logic. In more intimate groups, he had time to
explain his system of nonjudgmental logic in ways that made it understandable. We can
see parallels between Jesus trying to teach the logos/logic of God in the context of
judgmental logic, and Albert Einstein trying to explain relativity in the context of the
same judgmental system of logic.

Paul rejects carnal wisdom [meaning wisdom based on traditional rules of logic]
as a means of presenting his message (2
nd
COR 1:12).
140


Scholars recognize that Paul taught in two ways at once.
141
We know this to be
true because of the Gnostic Christian, Valentinus [160 AD?]. He taught that only those
who receive initiation into this secret oral tradition [of Jesus] are capable of
understanding the true meaning of the scripture which includes Pauls own letters.
Irenaeus [130-202 AD, the Orthodox Bishop of Lyons] statement that the Valentinians
derived their insights from unwritten sources also documents that Jesus taught one
thing in public, the Kergrma*, meaning Orthodox teachings, and another in private, the
oral or logos/logic teaching of Jesus.
142
(See 61 Critical Comm 166) (1 VOL 12-22B)

I propose what I call the synergistic method of biblical interpretation. By
synergistic, I mean having the characteristic of producing simultaneous action of
separate agencies which, together, have greater total effect than the sum of their
individual effects. (Websters Dict) To use this method, we simply acknowledge what
Jesus said in MK 4:10-12, 4:33-34; Mat 13:10-11, 13:34; and LK 8:9-10namely that he
taught something in private that he did not teach in public. Next, we create a chart
showing in one column what he taught in public, which later evolved into modern
Christianity, and in a second column, what he taught in private, the logos/logic teachings
of Gnostic Christianity, which became an outlawed heresy at the Council of Nicaea.

I will not go into detail about each event, nor will I mention numerous other
events that relate to his public or private teachings. Hopefully, scholars will develop the
synergistic method and find it dissolves long-standing animosity between conservative
and liberal scholars. Here I will simply recognize a few important events, their dates, and
their advocates to show that the intention of these men was to support what they
understood to be the correct teaching of Jesus. In fact, some advocates supported Jesus
public teachings, while others supported his private/Gnostic teachings without being
aware of it.

In the study of heresies; newly available evidence indicates that two contrasting
traditions in Christianity emerged from the late first century through the second. Each
claims to be authentic, Christian, and Pauline: but one reads Paul antignostically, the

114


other gnostically. Correspondingly, we discover two conflicting images of Paul: on the
one hand, the antignostic Paul familiar from church tradition, and, on the other, the
Gnostic Paul, teacher of wisdom to Gnostic initiates! The Pastoral Letters take up the
former tradition, interpreting Paul as the antagonist of false teachers who set forth
myths and endless genealogies seducing the gullible with the lure of falsely so-called
gnosis. Irenaeus and Tertullian continue this tradition. Assuming the authenticity of the
Pastorals (both in terms of authorship and of interpretation of Paul as antignostic
polemicist), they claim Paul as their ally against the Gnostics. Valentinian exegetes,
adhering to the latter tradition, either bypass or reject the Pastorals, and cite as Pauline
only the following: Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, and Hebrews (a list that corresponds exactly to the earliest
known Pauline collection attested from Alexandria). These exegetes offer to teach the
same secret wisdom that Paul taught to the initiates: evidence of their exegesis occurs
in such texts as the Epistle to Rheginos, the Prayer of the Apostle Paul, and The
Interpretation of the Gnosis.
143


Much of what passes for historical interpretation of Paul and for objective
analysis of his letters can be traced on to the second-century heresiologists. For just as
Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen (apparently embarrassed by the gnostic terminology
Paul often uses) each set forth detailedand explicitly antignosticexegesis of his
letters, so certain contemporary scholars follow their example.
144


To question the assumptions of NT and historical scholars concerning the apostle
Paulas in the opening of this discussionis essential for the purpose of this study.
Only by suspending the familiar image of the antignostic Paul can we recognize how
the Valentinians (and other Gnostics), making an opposite assumption, could read and
interpret the Pauline epistles.
145


The chart begins with Jesus teaching one thing in public and another in private.
Let us now follow, in column one, his private teachings, and in column two, his public
teachings.

115




JESUS PRIVATE TEACHINGS JESUS PUBLIC TEACHINGS
(51-70 AD) Authentic epistles of Paul,
1Peter, and the Gospel of John emphasized
the logos teachings of Jesus. In 2Pt 3:15-16,
Peter mentions Jesus logos teachings as the
wisdom* given [Paul and that] There are
some things in them hard to understand.
(70-80 AD) The Gospels of Matthew, Mark
and Luke emphasized the public Jesus and the
Jewish idea of him as the Messiah, the Lord
and Priest King who restores Israels
sovereignty. Gnostic Christians consider
those who teach that Jesus is the Jewish
Messiah, Jewdisers (Rm ?).
(70-100 AD) Gnostic Christians like Justin
Martry, wrote the Apologistics to Roman
officials explaining that Christianity is
the true philosophy, better than anything the
Greeks produced. He used the term logos
(word) for Christ and explained that this
[Christ, meaning the word or logic of God]
meant both the word [logic] of revelation
from God and true reason in philosophy.#
Charles M. Laymon, The Interpreters One Volume
Commentary on the Bible, p. 1047.#
(70-100) The Messianic movement was
adopted by the Docetists who argued against
the Jewdisers and Apologists, who denied
Christs divinity, the Docetists denied his
humanity.# Ibid., p. 1048.# The Docetists
claim of Jesus divinity answers the question
of how Jesus could be the Messiah if he died.
Their answer washe was divine, and did
indeed die, but would return. (See St. Pete
Times Article on Messianic Judaism in
Appendix)
(100-200 AD) By the beginning of the
second century, Gnostic Christians began
writing the Polemics (meaning explanations
or arguments). Gnostic Christians argued
their points and Orthodox Christians theirs.
In this period, the Catholic Epistles were
written to support the Gnostic viewpoint and
the Pastoral Epistles to support the Orthodox
view. In 140 AD, Marcion created the first
NT . [The writings] he chose were related
to Paul whom he regarded as the only Apostle
who rightly understood the Gospel.# Ibid., p.
1222.# The disputes between Gnostic and
Orthodox Christians grew in number and
intensity until 325 AD.
(180-190 AD) The pastoral Epistles 1
st
& 2
nd

Timothy and Titus (not authored by Paul) are
written in response to the Catholic Epistles.
The pastoral Epistles encouraged church
organization, obedience to rulers and
authorities. [and] respect to customs of the
timee.g. the subordination of womenand
with respect to morals.# Ibid., p. 882.# The
author of the pastorals might be
characterized as the champion of Orthodoxy
in contrast to the dynamic religion of the
Spirits which was characterized by Paul.#
Ibid.#

116


(325 AD) The end of two separate forms of
Christianity came at the counsel of Nicaea in
325 AD. Here the public teachings of Jesus
were adopted as the official doctrines of the
Church, which made the private, Gnostic
teachings of Jesus an official heresy. Arius of
Baucalus, Egypt, a Gnostic Christian, argued
at the Council that Jesus was similar to God
at birth, because like us, he was born into
sina lower stage of consciousness. Arius
argued Jesus became God-like when he
discovered why judgmental logic dominated
civilized reasoning and how to overcome it.
The one letter i (iota) in between the two os
in the Greek word for similarHomoiousion
became the symbol of difference between
Gnostics and Orthodox Christians at the
Council of Nicaea. Athenasius, the
representative of Orthodox Christianity at the
Council, championed the argument that Jesus
was Homoousion, with no i in between the
middle oo, which means he was the same
as God from birth. The difference of one iota
or letter i opened the door to the middle
ages and the separation of God and man, and
closed the door for all of us to be God-like as
is Jesus, which is the goal of Gnostic
Christianity. The supporters of Arius agreed
to sign [the Nicaean Creed] if they might add
one iota, changing Homoousion to
Homoiousion. [At first, 17 bishops, then 5,
and] finally only 2 refused to sign this
formula. These 2 with the unrepentant Arius,
were anathematized [considered arch
heretics] and exiled by the Emperor. An
imperial edict ordered that all books by Arius
should be burned, and made concealment of
such a book punishable by death.# Will
Durant, Caesar and Christ, p. 660.#
(200-240 AD) It is wildly held that
Marcions collection [of New Testament
literature] provided the impetus for Orthodox
Christianity to form its collection of scripture
employing a fanciful numerology for
support, he [Irenaeus] declared that there can
only be 4 Gospels # Charles L. Laymon, The
Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the
Bible, p. 1222.# His NT excluded Paul.

(325 AD) Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of
Caesarea, was commissioned by Emporer
Constantine to harmonize all Christian
literature with the one now official church
doctrine adopted at the Council of Nicaea.

(367 AD) The NT as we know it is organized
in 367 by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria
and opponent of the Gnostic Arius, at the
Council of Nicaea. It must be noted that no
attempt to make the NT the soul inspired
writing was made in the Church in the West
until early Calvanists . Augustine found it
necessary to warn that it was not canonical
[meaning official] . It is evident, therefore,
[that] the NT cannon was not regarded or
defined as the exclusively inspired writings in
the Church.# Ibid., p. 1224.# It can also be
noted that Herman von Soden printed
evidence on 45000 NT variants.# Ibid., p.
1231.#



The important thing is that both columns in the synergistic method of NT
interpretation reflect the sincere beliefs of those who champion both sides. To say one is
more authentic than the other is to say that Jesus did not teach both publicly and
privately. If we are to attach blame for indiscretions, we must blame both sides.
Hopefully, however, we will no longer limit our understanding of Jesus to either his

117


public or private teachings. If we accept only his public teachings, we will be limited to
what is called the historical method of biblical interpretation, which excludes Jesus
private logos or Gnostic teachings.


What is Enlightenment in Gnostic Christianity?

JN 1:9 The word [meaning the logic or reasoning of God] is the true light that
enlightens all men.

Gnostics, like the Buddha, considered enlightenment the perfection of human
thinking. When he was asked, for exampleare you a god? The Buddha replied, no.
Are you an angel? he again responded, no. Then what are you they asked? The Buddha
replied, I am awake.
146


What does the Buddha mean when he says I am awake? Does he mean hes up
and ready to go to work? Is he referring to a supernatural state of bliss? Buddha did not
consider enlightenment a mystical act; he even tried to avoid theistic terms in order to
communicate better[and] to avoid deep cultural conditions that.blocks
understanding. [What he means by Enlightenment].
147


Enlightenment then, is simply a change in our perception of reality, not a change
in reality. As the Rishis of ancient India said; knowledge is structured in consciousness.
The difference before and after enlightenment, therefore, is in you, not in reality. The
limitation is in youyour consciousnessand when that limitation is transcended, you
perceive existence differently, and therefore relate to it in a new way. Your sense of
identity changes.

The point is that great literature, like fables, has different levels of meaning. On
one level, we might interpret higher states of consciousness as a mystical reality granted
us by divine grace. In Buddhist and the Gnostic teachings of Jesus however,
righteousness/right mindedness or enlightenment is not a mystical gift, it is the
manifestation of our fullest potentials of consciousness. In Buddhism our highest
potentials of consciousness are achieved through his eight- fold path. In Gnostic
Christianity our highest state of consciousness is achieved through understanding Jesus
secret teaching. In effect, higher consciousness was for Jesus, what Narvana was for the
Buddha, and what self-actualization was for Maslow, the awakening of our highest
potentials of consciousness.

Today, many theologians support the concept that enlightenment is a renewal or
reforming of consciousness, or as some scientists suggest, a function of biology, not a
supernatural gift.

Thaddeus Solas, author of The Lazy Mans Guide to Enlightenment, states:
Enlightenment is an experience of expanding our consciousness beyond its present
limits. We could also say that perfect enlightenment is realization that we have no limits

118


at all And to paraphrase still another contemporary source, Maharshi the guru of ex
Harvard professor of psychology, Ram Dass, enlightenment is never casting anyone out
of your hearti.e., living in infinite and unconditional love, the way God loves.
148


John White, author and philosopher says, We are ultimately God in a self-
imposed drama in which a part of God forgets itself, believes itself to be lost and is,
therefore, motivated to seek reunion with the whole, the one without a second. The
process in which we become lost and forget our God nature is involution; the fall from
grace and bliss, the process in which we find ourselves and remember our true creation, is
evolution, the consciousness returned to God-head
149


How does enlightenment feel? Enlightenment is liberation; freedom. But so long
as one person is not free, no one is free [For the enlightened person] the illusion of
separate self melts away. There is a marvelous release from all coercive scheming,
manipulation, and defensiveness people go throughor rather e-go throughto protect
their illusionary self- image from the truth of existence. Self-pity, righteousness, anger,
lust, envy, sleuth, and so forth, evaporateWhat is left has a human form to ordinary
perception. It eats, sleeps, walks, and functions as other human beingsbut the personal
has changed into the universal by the recognition of ones total union with the infinite.
Energy and intelligence are free to make heavy work light and to be creative in tasks and
in relationshipslife become simple and intuitive. The world becomes wonderful, the
ordinaryextraordinaryThere may be unpleasant and difficult circumstances but there
is no aversion to them and no suffering from them.
150



Why is Enlightenment a Missing Goal
in Orthodox Christianity?

Enlightenment is mentioned in the New Testament. Generally, however, it is
glossed over or substituted with words that infer divine benevolence. In the Jerusalem
Bible version Jn. 1:9, for example, John says, The word [logic of God] was the true light
that enlightens all men. In the King James Version, 1:9 reads, that [light which John
the Baptist spoke of] was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the
world. The point is that the JBV, like John, teaches that the word or logic of God was
the true light or idea that, when understood, enlightens all men. Reading from the King
James Version, however, the term word or logic of God is replaced by that which
appears to refer back to the light John the Baptist speaks of. In the KJV, then, we are
encouraged to believe that the light John speaks of is what lighteth every man, but does
not clearly relate that light to the logos/logic of God.

Gnostic interpretations of 1:9 parallel the second of two alternative translations in
note f of the JBV, He (the word [meaning the logos/logic of God]) was the true light that
enlightens every man who comes into the world.

In effect, whereas Maslow talks of reaching self-actualization by progressively
satisfying a hierarchy of needs, and Ken Wilbur talks of reaching cosmic consciousness

119


through spiritual development, John in the JBV teaches us that enlightenment is
obtained through understanding the logic/word of God. The KJV blurs this point.

As quoted above, in Eph 1:18, we again find out that enlightenment is biblical.
For here Paul says, may Jesus Christ or knowledge/Gnostic teachings enlighten the
eyes of your mind, meaning the ego or the conscious self, so it may experience, in the
here and now, the glories of God. Here both the JBV and KJV mention enlightenment.

Heb 6:4 mentions enlightenment as something that cannot be left behind and
therefore cannot be renewed. This infers that enlightenment is an intellectual knowing
because unlike beliefs which can give way to new beliefs, once we learn something is a
fact, we cannot unlearn it. The point Paul is trying to make is that once we know the
truth (enlightenment) we act accordingly. For example, as unenlightened beings, our
reasoning is not perfect, and therefore, we can, in good conscious, rationalize away what
we believe is right. Once enlightened, however, we are responsible for our actions. To
act wrongly, then, is the greatest sin of all, the sin of omission, for once enlightened to act
otherwise is deliberately going against what we know to be true.

Gnostic Christians use other terms for enlightenment, like righteousness, the mind
of Christ, and the Body of Christ, when the body is thought of as the whole of the
psychological self. But I am getting ahead of myself. I need to explore how Gnostic
Christians define the psychological self before talking about it.

The important thing here is to break the old habit of understanding enlightenment
as a mystical transformation, rather than learning it is a higher state of human perception.

Why, then, is enlightenment a missing goal in Orthodox Christianity? Here,
human nature is thought of as imperfect, even depraved, and therefore without hope of
enlightenment. In Gnostic Christianity, however, humanity is thought of as being
deprived of the potentials of the nonjudgmental reasoning that Jesus teaches. Learning
Jesus teachings overcomes the problem. And enlightenment becomes a real, practical,
and achievable possibility.

To paraphrase Maslow, the enlightened man is not someone with something
special added to him, but someone with nothing taken away. Gnostic Christianity,
through Jesus system of nonjudgmental logic, gives us what using only our present
system of logical laws takes awaythe ability to reason lovingly.

The main business of life is becoming fully conscious human beings or
enlightened. If Jesus goal was to elevate consciousness to a higher God- like state or
enlightenment, we can anticipate that he had a way of defining what consciousness is.
Let me now explore the Gnostic Christian definition of consciousness and how elements
in it grow on our journey through life.


How Gnostic Christians Define Our Psychological Nature

120



Trying to understand our psychological nature without defining our terms, like
ego, mind, and spirit, is like trying to read a book without knowing the alphabet.

Here, my intention is to introduce terms that Gnostic Christians used so we will
more easily understand how Gnostics, like Paul, actually used them.

Let me first present an overview of five important terms Gnostics used to define
mankinds psychological nature: Soma and soul, the whole of human psychological
attributes; Sarx/flesh, the rational or, for discussion sake, left brain attributes; spirit (small
case), our intuitive or right brain attributes; eye, or the ego; and Spirit (upper case), our
true self, the indwelling Spirit of God.


Soul/Soma

The Greek terms soul, soma, psyche, and sometimes the Latin translation of
soul, spirit, define the whole or body of the psychological self in the first century.

The psychology of Plato extends no further than the division of the soul [the
psychological self] into the rational [left brain] irascible [discerning principle] and
concupiscent [right brain] elementsThe chief difficulty in this early analysis of the
mind
151


The NT employs the GK psyche translated in English by soul; in many passages
where it means the self or the person.Love: genuine love, is from the whole psyche
[soul] (MT 22:37) One should do the will [logos or logic] of God from the psyche
(EPH 6:6; COL 3:23). The psyche [or soul] in the NT is still the totality of the
[psychological] self as a living and conscious subject, and it is the totality of the self [the
psychological self] which is saved [perfected] for eternal life [the glory of Stage V].
152


Gnostics also refer to the whole of consciousness as soma, generally translated,
body. In the dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie S.J., the body becomes an
important psychological and theological concept only in Paul . In some context it again
appears to be nearly synonymous with self (Rm 6:12F; 8:10 ?; 1 CO 6:18F), but body
and soul both used for self, have different emphasizes. The body is the totality [of the
psychological self] rather than the conscious self, ..

Leander Keck, Dean of the Yale Divinity School, supports Father McKenzies
definition of body. For Paul, the critical meaning of body is the actual self, what we
might call the psychosomatic entity that I am.Greek soma refers to the actual self and
not merely the physical body.
153


This translation surfaces in polemics (arguments) about bodily resurrection that
took place in the early Church between Gnostic Christians, like Paul, and Orthodox
Christians like Irenaus. For Paul, there is no resurrection of the dead.Paul makes it

121


clear that he understands resurrection to be the transformation, not resuscitation.
154

Resurrection, for Gnostics, meant that the body or the psychological self has become
fully conscious that it and the logos of God are one.

Simply said, soul, soma, psyche, and body all can refer to the totality of the
psychological self. It is the psychological self that God intends us to perfect. About the
possibility of there being a higher state of consciousness, Professor Julian Jaynes said, It
would be wrong to think that whatever the neurology of consciousness now may be, it is
set for all time[expecting consciousness to question its own limits] is like asking a
flash light in a dark room to search around for something that does not have any light
shining upon it. The flashlight, since there is light in every direction it turns, would have
to conclude that there is light everywhere. And so consciousness [as we now define it]
can seem to pervade all mentality when actually it does not. (1) In Pauls Letter to the
Romans, he says, God confers life upon it [the body or psychological self] through his
in dwelling spirit (Rm 8:11)!.. It is in this perfected or renewed mind (Rm 12:2) that
we live life fully.


Sarx / Flesh

Gnostics use the Greek word SARX to define the objective or rational mind. In
English Bibles, however, sarx is translated flesh.

Sarx is the Greek word for the Hebrew term nepes. The nepes is occasionally the
subject of mental and volitional processes [like]knowingchoosingrefusingThe
NT employes the GK psyche [for nepes].
155
Nepes in (pr 14:30; 4:22; ps 16:9F; Ec
5:5) means the conscious self . [nepes/flesh] is not identical with the body [the
psychological self] . It is clear from the context of Gal [3:3] that the flesh here does
not signify what are now called carnal vices, the will [or mindfulness] of the flesh is
a vacillating and indecisive will (2 Co 1:17). By a paradox Paul can speak of the mind
of flesh (Col 2:18) which is a proud mind . [in 1Co 2:16 he refers to the mind of flesh
as the mind of Christ] In the NT as in the OT, the flesh must not be considered as
synonymous with the body nor in any philosophical sense as the material component of
the body.
156
(See Tremmel, Page 56))

Rm 8:9 clearly says: you are not in the flesh, you are in the spirit. It is the
spirit [right brain] as a sphere of [psychological] power which has suggested that its
opposite flesh [left brain], is also a [psychological] sphere of power. So flesh
characterizes the empirical [or reasoning mind] in light of spirit [the intuitive mind].
157

The point is that, in Gnostic Christianity, the Greek term sarx, flesh in English, refers to
the empirical or rational element of the psychological self.


spirit / Intuitive Self

Gnostics use the Greek term spirit (lower case) to define the intuitive or

122


subjective mind. In practice, the spiritual or intuitive mind encompasses thoughts we are
conscious of but cannot rationally explain; like knowing that everything is one,
timelessness, and the sense of bliss and peace. Other terms for spiritual or intuitive
thoughts are subjective, emotional, subliminal, intuitive, a-priori, intangible,
unconditional, insight, right brain, sixth sense, and feelings. Freuds model refers to
these thoughts as id thoughts, William James called them intuitive thoughts, T.
Harris calls them child thoughts, and Jaynes calls them right hemisphere thoughts.


Eye of the Soul

Gnostics think of the eye of the soul or psychological self as the subject or
center of all conscious thought. We become self-conscious when the EYE, which is the
light of the body [or center of] intention (Mt 6:22; Lk 11:34) illuminates the entire
body . [in the Old Testament the eye is] the subject of psychic functions. The fixing of
the eye signifies both attention and intention, whether favorable or unfavorable. The eye
is also the organ of judgment and decision.
158
Simply said, the eye or light of the body
is the I or ego through which we know ourselves and the world around us. The ego/I is
passive. It can be both good (favorable) or bad (unfavorable). The eye/ego, then, is the
subject of all conscious thoughts. Gnostics would also say, the eye of the soul/ego is
synonymous with consciousness.

Note: Even though the eye is the seat of concupiscence [strong desires] together
with the flesh
159
eye is seldom mentioned in the New Testament.

In psychology today, the eye of the soul would be thought of as the ego, or as
Julian Jaynes says, the center of authorization, and as William James model states, the
spiritual self or will of consciousness.

Gnostic Christians consider the eye/ego the voice of the psychological self /soul.
Gnostic Christians explain the ego as an invention of creation to see itself. In a practical
sense, the ego conveys what we experience to our true or God self.

We can equate the ego to the beauty of a rose. Just as beauty is an abstract quality
of the rose, ego is an abstract quality of our Spiritual (upper case) nature.

The eye/ego is passiveit evolves according to what it experiences. Given the
right experiences, like a Caterpillar evolves into a butterfly, the ego evolves, through five
developmental stages, into the mirror image of our Spiritual/God nature.

The important thing we will learn about Gnostic thought is it teaches that when
the ego is awakened, it empowers us to be aware of ourselves, i.e, become self-conscious.
In turn, self-consciousness marks the emergence of our ability to reason, for reasoning is
a complex chain of inter-related ideas that begins with, and always refers back to the ego,
the center of all conscious thoughts.


123


Reasoning, then, is the process of relating ideas, the eye/ego of self-consciousness
is the subject to which all ideas relate. Without an ego, for example, we would, like
animals, be instinctual and non-rational. Animals make choices, but without an ego, they
are not aware of them. Their choices are therefore, reactions, not choices. On the other
hand, because we have an ego, we can make rational choices. Our ego is the chooser or
subject that makes the choice of how to relate ideas/reason. Important note: The more
inclusive our potential for reasoning (sarx) is, the more choices ego has. In Stage II, for
example, we/ego are logically limited to either/or reasoning, and are therefore, dogmatic,
dualistic thinkers. In Stage III, we/ego are still logically limited to either/or reasoning,
but chose to reject logic in favor of feelings. In Stage III, Gnostics call this rejection
spiritual thinking. In Stage IV, the ego reaches perfection. Here the reasoning mind
(sarx) encompasses nonjudgmental laws of logicwhich in turn, empowers the ego to
experience reality in more exclusive ways. This is explained again below.

See Platos concept of the longer waysome metaphysic of the future which
will not be satisfied with arguing from the principle of [non] contradiction.
160



Spirit / The God-Self

Spirit, upper case, refers most often to Holy Spirits, meaning psychologically
perfected individuals, and occasionally, to Gods Spirit, which indwells in us. In effect,
spiritual, lower case, refers to the intuitive or right brain aspects of the psychological self.
Spirit, upper case, refers to that principle within us that has the ability to discern both
rational (left brain) and intuitive (right brain) thoughts. Gnostic Christians refer to this
principle as Gods indwelling Spirit or our true God-self. In lower stages of
consciousness, we may be intuitively, but not rationally, aware of Gods Holy Spirit in
us. It is in Stage IV that we recognize that we, and Spirit, are one.

I think it is important to mention that what we often think of as Spiritual (upper
case) thoughts, Gnostic Christians consider right brain thoughts. Right brain thoughts are
subjective, and can therefore entertain nonjudgmental (subjective) thoughts of the Spirit,
like oneness, both/and, and a-porori thoughts. Whereas left brain thoughts are incapable
of entertaining subjective thoughts when limited to judgmental laws of logic.

Gnostic Christians teach that our inner self/Spirit introduces original and creative
thoughts to our rational mind (left brain) through our spiritual (right brain) mind. Using
the intuitive mind as a medium is appropriate because the intuitive mind is open to
thoughts the rational mind (sarx) would consider illogical when limited to judgmental
rules of logic. In effect, when the reasoning mind (sarx) is limited to judgmental logic, it
lags behind the intuitive/spiritual mind. When we learn nonjudgmental rules of logic,
things of the Spirit, like oneness, both/and, and the a-porori thoughts will become
understandable/reasonable, and therefore, acceptable to the reasoning mind. We will be
one in mind and spirit.

Having said all this, let us now explore how Gnostic Christians use these terms.

124




Higher Consciousness Through Knowledge

By consciousness, Gnostics mean the psychological context in which all
conscious thoughts take place. The distinction between the context in which we think
and the subject matter or content of our thoughts is important to understand. For even
though we may experience new ideas or beliefs, unless the context of consciousness in
which we think has reached its full potentials, we could be conscious of those ideas and
beliefs in imperfect ways. For example, if we imagine consciousness as being like a
cookie-mold and ideas and intuitions as dough, it is easy to see that just as the shape of
the cookie- mold determines the character of the cookie, so does the container or context
in which we think determine the character of our thoughts. If we have a square cookie-
mold, all cookies we make will be square regardless of the dough we use. Similarly, if
the context in which we think is judgmental, our thoughts will tend to be judgmental
regardless of our beliefs, ideas, or intuitions.

It is almost certain that when Paul wrote of knowing Christ according to the
flesh the phrase according to the flesh modifies the verb not the noun[this suggests
that] Paul writes about a way of knowing not about the known.
161


The Greek word kosmos, traditionally translated world in Rm 12:2 rsv, can also
mean the whole universe or how we or our ego is consciousness of the world. When
Paul says in 12:2 do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal
of your mind He is saying, do not be conformed to the limits of our present
consciousness [ego], but be transformed by the renewal of our reasoning mind. When he
states Do not model yourselves on the behavior of the world around you, but let your
behavior change modeled by your new mind. This is the only way to discover the will
[or logos/logic] of God and know what is good, what it is that God wants, what is the
perfect thing to do. (JB) In Philippians 2:15 Paul again emphasizes our capacity to
renew our minds by stating, let this mind be in you which is also in Christ Jesus. When
that mind/ego is in you, you will be conscious of the world as is Jesus.

The gospel of Phillip recognizes different levels of consciousness by stating that
the moral significance of any act depends on the situation, intentions, and level of
consciousness of the participants.
162


The distinction between the context in which we think and thoughts we have in
mind is fundamentally important. If the form of consciousness/ego can change, we can
assume that our whole perception of reality can also change. And because how we are
conscious, determines our character, if we can renew our consciousness/ego, we have the
potentials to grow from imperfection to perfection.


Uniqueness of the Gnostic Model


125


A unique feature of the Gnostic Christian model of our psychological nature is
that consciousness/ego is considered the subject to which all thoughts, rational and
spiritual, relate. In the Gnostic Christian model, ego is the passive subject of both
reasoning (sarkic/flesh thought) and intuitions (spiritual thoughts). It is limits within the
reasoning mind (sarx/flesh) that Gnostic Christians are concerned with, not the mind
(soul) as a whole. Paul knows that if what we reason is harmonious with our spiritual
values, we will support those values, not rationalize them away.

The uniqueness of Jesus Christ teachings, then, is that we consider the reasoning
mind and ego as perfectible. Most others teach us to quiet the ego in order to escape the
mind. Jesus teaches that we must elevate the mind to the same level as the logos/mind of
God.

In lower stages of consciousness, for example, the reasoning mind/flesh reasons
judgmentally, and therefore, rationalizes away what intuitively, or in spirit, we know is
right. In Stage IV we are empowered by Jesus Christ teachings to reason judgmentally
or nonjudgmentally. This empowers us or ego to be conscious in more inclusive ways.
This is why Paul focuses on the conflict between flesh/reason and spirit, not ego, the eye
of the soul.

Again, Paul considers the flesh a vacillating element of consciousness, which in
lower stages is stupid (Rm 1:22), but in higher stages is the mind of Christ (1Co
2:16).

Paul teaches that the reasoning mind, or sarx/flesh, is incompatible with spirit, but
only in lower stages of consciousness. And second, that Jesus logos teachings explain
why the flesh/reasoning is limited in lower stages and how to overcome that problem.
Namely, that in lower stages of consciousness, we are limited by the prevailing theory of
nature to rules of logic that subject us to judgmental reasoning. The theory of nature that
Jesus revealed justifies an additional system of logical laws, and in turn, nonjudgmental
reasoning. Learn this, and higher consciousness is yours.


Harmonizing Flesh and Spirit

Gnostic Christianitys psychological model offers a solution for the age-old
riddle, how can there be two minds in one head that disagree? Zeno (490-430 BC) a
classical Greek Philosopher, brought this problem to our attention in the myth of the race
between the athlete, Achilles, and a tortoise. Zeno argued that even though we intuitively
know a trained athlete can outrun a tortoise, from certain mathematical assumptions, one
can [rationally] derive [a contradictory] conclusion.
163


William James recognized that there are two selfs or mes. The everyday ego
self he defines as me and the I or me he considers the real me or spiritual self.

Paul, like James, makes the distinction between the two selfs inside us, our ego

126


self and our God-self in RM 7:18-20.
164


For though I [ego] have the will to do what is in me, the performance is
not, with the result that instead of doing the good I want to do, I carry out
the very I do not want. When I, [again, meaning the ego self] act against
my will, [meaning his spiritual or intuitive self] then it is not my true
[God] self doing it, but sin which lives in me. In fact, this seems to be the
rule, that every time I want to do good, it is something evil that comes to
hand. In my inmost self [or God nature] I dearly love Gods law, but I see
that my body [my psychological self] follows a different law [judgmental
logic] that battles against the [nonjudgment logic or] law which my
[higher sense of] reason dictates. This [judgmental system of logic] is
what makes me a prisoner of that [judgmental] law of sin which lives
inside my body. The reason therefore why those who are in Christ Jesus
[meaning those who understand Jesus Messianc/logos teachings] are not
condemned, is that the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus [logos
teachings] have set you free from [the judgmental reasoning of] the law of
sin and death.

How often, for example, have we felt the desire to feed the hungry and save the
children, but instead, we rationalize that we cant look out for everyone and in the end, do
little or nothing at all for others. Gnostics say that the desire to help those in need comes
from our God self. The I/ego which rationalizes doing nothing is our ego self in lower
stages of consciousness limited to judgmental reasoning.

Gnostics also say that because the reasoning mind/ego can become one with the
God self, this solves the problem of two contradictory minds in one head. For quite
simply, when mind and spirit are in perfect harmony, mind and spirit are one.

This is consistent with the Gnostic concept that the eye/ego in lower stages of
consciousness is an abstraction of the God self searching for itself. When our eye/ego
finds its true God nature, we realize we are one with all. Technically speaking, we can
distinguish human from divine Spirit, one cannot actually isolate one from the other in
order to be sure that one is talking about one and not the other. Consequently, the more
one emphasizes the workings of the divine Spirit, the more one emphasizes also ones
collaboration with it. Paul appears to be the first Christian theologian to recognize
this.
165


In short, Paul uses Rm 7:18-20 to exemplify that in lower stages of consciousness,
the law, meaning the Ten Commandments, is necessary because the eye or ego is
dominated by judgmental reasoning. In lower stages of consciousness, the reasoning
mind acts against our spiritual mind.

In higher stages of consciousness, however, external laws are no longer needed.
The flesh/reasoning mind, and in turn, eye/ego has, through Jesus logos teachings,
learned to reason nonjudgmentally, which in principle, corresponds to reasoning in the

127


spirit of the law. This leads us to do the law because we value the law in both mind and
spirit.

Having access to both judgmental and nonjudgmental reasoning, then, is what
lifts the flesh/reasoning mind to the same level as our spiritual nature. In this renewed
mind, we, or ego, perceive reality in loving ways that parallel our highest spiritual and
moral principleswhich God personifies. Paul verifies this in Rm 12:2 RSV when he
said, Do not be conformed to this world [consciousness] rather, be transferred by the
renewal of your [reasoning/sarx] mind (Insert Col 2:16-20)

In review, the Greek term soma is translated body. Traditionally, soma is taken
to mean the carnal body. To Gnostic Christians, however, soma/body refers to the
psychological self as a whole. The eye of the body is the ego. Sarx or flesh in
traditional interpretations refers to mans lower or carnal nature. In Gnostic Christian
thought, however, sarx/flesh refers to the reasoning mind, spirit refers to the intuitive
mind, and Spirit refers to divine Spirit. Traditionally, the divine Spirit is considered
distinct from the human Spirit, although it can dwell in us; whereas for Gnostics, the
Spirit of God not only dwells in us, it is us. In Jesus words, you too are Gods all of
you (Jn 14:12)

Let me now demonstrate that Gnostic Christians believe that it is Gods divine
plan (Rm 8:29-30) to elevate our reasoning to the same level as Gods, and Jesus was
the first person who taught the world how to do it.


Is the Mind of God Within Man?

In the Gnostic Christian worldview, it is believed that the mind of man is an
unfinished model of the logosor consciousness of God. The goal of Gnostic Christians
is to reclaim our inheritance of that perfect God- like mind.

Jesus says it best: Be therefore perfect even as your Father who is in heaven is
perfect. (Matthew: 5:48)

History overflows with spiritual literature, suggesting that life could be
wondrous if we were but fully conscience. Jeremiah envisioned a new Jerusalem when
the Lord puts his laws within the heart [minds] of us all. (Jeremiah 31-33). The Buddha
taught that all civilization, including our highest religions rest on delusion (Ref.
WISE). If we but followed Buddhas eight- fold path to higher consciousness, delusion
would fade and nirvana would follow, on a global scale.

Platos famous cave analogy demonstrates that we are beguiled by a lie in the
soul [meaning an error in the psychological self]
166
that leads us to believe that reality as
we presently perceive it is complete when it is not. Plato believed that a lie or error in
consciousness is far more pernicious than a lie in the mouth, for the sinner believes his
own lies [perception of reality]. And therefore blinds him to his deeper good.

128



The cent ral theme of Jesus Gnostic teaching is that a flaw in the reasoning mind
in Stages I through III, distorts most ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. Jesus knowledge
teachings reveal how to perfect our reasoning so that it mirrors the logos or reasoning
mind of God. Simply said, Jesus revealed that our reasoning is by nature meant to be
perfect and that discovering how to reach that perfection is essential to being fully
human. Paul writes of this to the Ephesians 4:3, Your mind must be renewed by a
spiritual* [or in todays terms, psychological] revolution so that you can put on a new self
[ego/eye] that has been created in Gods ways in the goodness and holiness of truth.
And Jesus confirms this in Matt 5:48 by stating, you must be perfect just as your
heavenly father is perfect.

Jesus does not envision God as a bearded old man sitting on a cloud. God, for
Jesus, is love. The logos or reason of God in man empowers us to express Gods love.
John confirms this in First John 1:16 by saying God is love and anyone who lives in
love lives in God. The fatherly image of God that Paul uses is the personification of
principles like love, nurture, and protection

The concept that God is the personification of natural principles, like love and
mathematical principles, was familiar to most early (30 to 450 AD) Christians. For
example, God for Origen [a 2
nd
century Gnostic church father] is not Yahweh, he is the
first principle of all things.
167
(CC615) God, in Philo Judeus [1
st
century Jewish
philosopher] is the essential being of the world, incorporeal, eternal, indescribable; reason
can know his existence, but can ascribe no quality to him, since every quality is a
limitation. To conceive him as having human form is a concession to the sensuous
imagination of man. There is no time, no place, no state where God is absent.
168


Contemporary science seems to be rediscovering the idea that we are by nature
god- like by realizing that simply by our presence we can alter cause and effect. This idea
has gained new strength from the development of modern physicsthis development, in
turn, has clearly brought to light a beautiful, logical, structure in physical realitystrong
evidence of a rational origin of existence that is superior to human intelligence. On the
other hand, human intelligence seems to be related to this superior intelligence because
we are increasingly able to unveil the beautiful secrets of nature. In religious language,
this is expressed in the metaphor that humans are created in gods image.
169


The term sons of God is used throughout the Bible. This term appears in
Genesis 6:2-4, Job 1:6:21, 38:7, Hoseah, 1:20, John 1:12, Romans 8:14-19, Philippians,
2:15, First John 3:1-2, and elsewhere. The context in which the sons and daughters of
God appear suggest Jesus is not the only Son of God but rather that all can becomeand
that many have already becomechildren of God. The terms Holy Spirit, saints*,
pneumatics* and the righteous* are terms that define the sons/daughters of God, i.e.,
those in their highest state of consciousness through Jesus Christ/logic teachings.

What can be inferred when the term children of God is used is that all of us can
reason like God just like we can reason like our parents. In other words, our son and

129


daughter like relationship to God is a metaphor for the similarity between our reasoning
mind in Stage IV and the logos or reasoning mind of God.

The idea that we are by nature capable of being like the gods is far reaching. It
implies that we are by nature perfect, but have not yet reached our highest potentials.
Paul clearly states in Ephesians 2:10 that we are Gods work of art, created in Christ
Jesus to live the good life as from the beginning He [God] had meant us to live.

In the popular worldview of Jesus time, then, humanity was not thought of as
hopelessly depraved or fallen. Humanity was thought of as growing towards its God- like
nature. The Bible says we have the potential to be like gods. In Genesis 8:22 for example,
Yahweh (God) said, See the man has become like one of us with his knowledge of good
and evil. In Psalms 82:6 God says, You too are gods, sons of the most high, all of
you. In First Corinthians 3:17 Paul reminds us that The temple of God is sacred and
you are that temple. In John 14:12 Jesus says, I tell you solemnly, whoever believes*
[from the Greek word pistus meaning a solid or rational understanding] will perform the
same works as I do myself, he will perform even greater works. In John 10:34-35, Jesus
himself argues that it is not blasphemous as the high priests claim for anyone to think
they could be like God. Is it not written [argues Jesus that the scripture says] you too
are gods, all of youand scripture cannot be rejected.


130




Chapter Eight

What Are the Gnosis/Knowledge Teachings of Jesus?


Gnostic, from the Greek term gnosis, means factual knowledge, specifically
knowledge about the logos/logic of God. Gnostic Christianity is not about Jesus public
teachings; it is about the gnosis, or practical knowledge, that Jesus taught in private.

The private teachings of Jesus are mentioned in Mark 4:10-12, 4:33-34; Matthew
13:10-11, 13:34; and Luke 8:9-10.

In Mk 4:33-34 jbv, for example, Mark said: Using many parableshe [Jesus]
spoke the word* [again, meaning the logic or reasoning of God]so far as they [the
general public] were capable of understanding it. He would not speak to them except in
parables, but explained everything to his disciples when they were alone. In Rm 1:9-14,
Paul explains that pneumatic truth [Jesus logos/logic teachings] cannot be
communicated by means of written documents but only through oral communication.
For this reason, the apostle says we [Gnostics] speak wisdom [Jesus Christ or logic
teachings] among the initiates (teleioi [perfect], 1Cor 2:16) and to them only in secret,
since most people remain incapable of receiving it.

Scholars refer to Jesus private teachings as his logos, logic or oral tradition.
Mystics refer to those teachings as Jesus lost or secret teachings. The important thing to
remember about Jesus public and private teachings is that both are his. Jesus used his
public teachings to inspire us, through mystical awe and spiritual insight, to love one
another. He used his private/Gnostic teachings to provide us with the foundations for a
nonjudgmental system of logic that makes it reasonable for us to relate ideas in ways we
now think of as spiritual and loving.

Again, reasoning defines the process of relating ideas, not the subject matter being
related or the conclusions we reach. From this we can conclude that even though humans
are born with the capacity to relate ideas, how we learn to relate ideas plays a major role
in the outcome of our reasoning process. Learning a new system of logic that
empowers us to relate ideas/reason in more loving ways is the knowledge or gnosis
that Jesus teaches.

Traditionally, most theologians focus on spiritual principles, like nonjudgment,
oneness and unconditional love, which Jesus taught in public. Gnostic Christians,
however, focus on what Jesus taught in private namely, how to create a more loving
method of reasoning that can integrate nonjudgmental or spiritual principles into our
everyday lives. To do this, Jesus revealed that our present system of logical laws are
justified by a false principle (the sin, Jn 1:30), a more inclusive principle, and a system of
nonjudgmental laws of logic. This system of logic was Jesus free gift to us. By using

131


this system, we can reason nonjudgmentally/lovingly, like him. I call this new method
of reasoning nonjudgmental logic.


What is the Relationship Between The Sin (Jn 1:30)
and the Prevailing Theory of Nature?

What is sin in the New Testament? The best place to answer this question is in
Pauls letters to the Romans 8:3 and 5:12. The King James version of Romans 8:3, reads:

God through Jesus condemned sin [Gk. hamartia] in the
flesh [Gk. sarx].

In the Gnostic interpretation of 8:3, sin, [hamartia] means an intellectual error,
and flesh/sarx refers to the reasoning mind.

Let us now read Romans 8:3 in view of these 1st century meanings of hamartia
(sin) and sarx, (flesh), for here is the first step to understanding how Jesus overcomes sin.

God through Jesus condemned sin [meaning an
intellectual error/hamartia] in the flesh [meaning the
reasoning mind].

In the Gnostic interpretation of 8:3 Paul is stating that there is a specific sin, in the
sense of an intellectual error, in our reasoning mind (sarx) that distorts our process of
reasoning. In 1 COR 5:16, Paul echoes the Gnostic interpretation of 8:3 by saying that
From now onwards [meaning since Jesus] we do not judge anyone by the standards
of the flesh [meaning according to an intellectual error that corrupts our present
reasoning process].

The Interpreters One Volume Commentary of the Bible recognizes that in Rm 8:3
it is now sin, not sinful man (VS. 1) who is the prisoner being sentenced. Sins
dominance is broken. It [the sin] is condemned in the flesh .

The point is that the authors of the commentary realize that it is a particular
sin/errorin the flesh or reasoning mindrather than sinful man that is being
condemned, but they do not elaborate.

What is this sin in our reasoning mind (the flesh)? This is a very important
question because the answer defines the purpose of Jesus ministryfor his mission is to
overcome sin.


How Does Jesus Define Sin?

Romans 5:12 reveals what the sin is that Jesus ministry overcomes. 5:12 is the

132


most important passage in the Christian bible. It explains that sin came into the world
through henos anthropos. The Greek term, henos anthropos, authentically translated,
means one mankind, but is traditionally translated as one man.


KJV Rm 5:12

In the King James version of Romans 5:12, Paul says, wherefore as by one man
[henos anthropos] sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon
all men, for that all have sinned.

This interpretation encourages us to think the one man is Adam, (in whom all
sinned) as Augustine said it did in 419 AD.

Most recent interpreters agree with the RSV; Paul did not teach in Adams fall,
we sinned all, but rather that ever since Adam, everyone sins. Paul shows no interest in
the question of how original sin (not his phrase) spreadit is sin [in the sense of a
single error] that interests him, not particular sins or wrong-doings.
170


Who or what does one mankind/henos anthropos refer to if not to Adam and
original sin? This question has long perplexed scholars. Answering this question is
central to understanding Jesus ministry.


What Did Henos Anthropos Mean in the First Century?

Many argue that henos anthropos in 5:12 refers to one man, namely Adam. The
idea that henos anthropos refers to one mannamely Adam in whom all sinned, began
with St. Augustines translation of 5:12. That translation is nowhere substantiated by any
biblical text. As you will notice, it is absent from modern bible translations for that very
reason.

If Paul meant Adam, why did he say henos anthropos/one mankind. Also, if Paul
meant to say one man, he would have used the Greek term for one man, henos aner, not
henos anthropos. And if we think about it, if Jesus died to free us from Adams sin, why
doesnt he mention it? In effect, the idea that evil entered the world through the one man,
Adam, survives not because of its biblical authenticity, but rather because tradition
reinforces it.


Arguments Against St. Augustines Interpretation of 5:12

Recent scholarship suggests that an alternative translation of Romans 5:12 and 8:3
probably existed before the 4
th
century. The traditional interpretation based on
Augustines identification of anthropos with Adam, gives the passage the meaning of
original sin: the existence of evil in the world as a consequence of Adams eating of the

133


fruit from the forbidden tree of knowledge. This supports Augustinian view that mankind
is essentially depraved, or, in theological terms, fallen. But this idea was not shared by
many Christian theologians before Augustine, or even during his lifetime.

Augustines theorywas a radical departure from previous Christian doctrine,
and many Christians found it pernicious. Many traditional theory that this of theory
original sinthe idea that Adams sin is directly transmitted to his progeny repudiated
the twin foundations of the Christian faith: the goodness of mans creation and the
freedom of the human will.
171


Noted scholars both ancient and modern have questioned the authenticity of
Augustines interpretation of 5:12 and his doctrine of original sin upon which it is based.
In Clarkes Concise Bible Commentary, (BS-491-C-625) the author states that Romans
5:12 through 21 is the basis of the doctrine of original sin But, the doctrine of original
sin is in no way developed there.

In Nelsons Bible Commentary the author states that Paul does not go quite the
length [in 5:12] in affirming that in Adams sin all his posterity also sinned. (27)

The idea that the concept of original sin cannot be justified based on Romans
5:12, is even more clearly stated by Charles Gore, Henry Leighton Goudge, and Alfred
Guillaume, in A New Commentary On Holy Scripture.

St. Paul knows nothing of original righteousness in the sense of an exalted
degree of positive sanctity supposed to be possessed by our first parents; he does not use
the word fall (which as a technical term is patristic, not scriptural): he does not speak of
original sin (a phrase coined by Augustine), nor does he imply that all Adams
descendents are by virtue of their birth implicated in his guilt; he says nothing as to the
mode whereby the disastrous consequences of Adams sin are transmitted, though this
language is, perhaps, most easily intelligible if we suppose that physical heredity was in
his mind. That the doctrine did not play as important a part in his [Pauls] intellectual
scheme as in later western theology, may be inferred from the fact that in chapter one and
two of this epistle he explains the universal wickedness of humanity, Jew and Gentile, as
the result of free choice, without making any illusion to the sin of Adam or its effectsIt
must always be remembered that the gloomy doctrine of St. Augustine is not found in
scripture and has never secured the explicit alliance of the Church as a whole; the only
concept of the fall to which historical as such can be deemed to be committed is the very
general and undefined one set forth in this passage.

Augustine was aware that many of his Christian contemporaries would not have
found his views completely acceptable. It may be that Adams sin brought suffering and
death into the world but could it be maintained that Adam condemned all humanity to sin
and punishment? Augustine insisted thatthe sin of that one man Adam, brought
upon humanity, not only universal death, but also universal and inevitable sinthat the
whole human race inherited from Adam a nature irreversibly damaged by sin.
172



134


If Jesus did save us from sin, I suggest Augustines doctrine of original sin gives
it back. Nevertheless, Augustines interpretation and his doctrine of original sinwon
the day against his rival Pelagius. Indeed it became an official doctrine in western
Christianity. Mankinds free will once so widely regarded as the heart of the Christian
gospel, became a heretical doctrine. Augustines theory of Adams fall, now
movedinto the center of western history. (32)

What earlier apologists had celebrated as Gods greatest gift to mankindfree
will, liberty, autonomy, self governmentAugustine characterized in surprisingly
negative terms. Adam had received freedom as his birthright, but nevertheless, as
Augustine tells it, the first man conceived a desire for freedom and his desire became,
in Augustines eyes, the root of sin, betraying nothing less than contempt for God. The
desire to master the will far from expressing what Origen, Clement, and Chrysostom,
considered the true nature of rational beings, became for Augustine the great and fatal
temptation: the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is personal control over
ones own will. (33)

The absence of the doctrine of original sin in the Greek orthodox church also
suggests that the theory of original sin was Augustines invention. The split between the
Greek and Roman Catholic church occurred in the 4th century. This accounts for
Augustines idea of original sin being absent in the Greek Orthodox Church. Original sin
was not a church doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church until the 5th century. (Ref.
AE 126).

The Gnostic alternative to Augustines doctrine of original sin is fundamentally
important and revolutionary. If we are taught from childhood that everyone is depraved,
how can we expect to trust, let alone love one another? If we are taught to believe that
God means us to be perfect like him, perfection would be our goal, not salvation.

Imagine two islands, one populated by people who from birth believe they cannot
trust one another, and a second island populated by people who from birth believed in the
goodness of one another. It would be reasonable to see that people on the first island
would soon take for granted that suspicion, fear, hatred, conflict, violence and war are
natural, normal, and justifiable on the basis that human nature is innately flawed. What
else could be expected of a world full of people with depraved natures? Are not our own
suspicions and fears about others and ourselves based primarily on a belief that human
nature cannot be trusted? What hope of respecting ourselves, much less loving our
neighbor, can we have if we believe that human nature is depraved?

On a second island, however, we can surely imagine people living lives of peace
and abundance, for, if we trust one another and freely respond to others with love, what
need would there be to spend time or natural resources building armies or erecting walls
between sexes, races, and nations? Indeed, what would be more natural than the use of
our time and energy in support of one another for the benefit of all.

Why did the Roman Catholic church and subsequently, Western Christianity,

135


adopt Augustines paradoxical, some even say preposterous views? Some historians
suggest that such beliefs validates the church authority, for if the human condition is a
disease, Catholic Christianity [and all others who accept original sin], acting as the Good
Physician, offers the spiritual medication and the discipline that alone can cure itFor
what Augustine says, in simplest terms, is this: human beings cannot be trusted to govern
themselves because our very natureindeed, all of naturehas become corrupt
because of Adams sinAugustines theory of depravityand correspondingly, the
political means to control itreplaced the previous ideology of human freedom. (AE
145)

If we reason that the doctrine of original sin has survived because of a lack of an
alternative to Augustines interpretation of Romans 5:12, the Gnostic interpretation of
5:12 provides just such an alternative. John L. McKenzie, S.J., states that the novel
element of the New Testament conception of sin is the presentation of Jesus as the
conqueror of sinin the old Testament, only God can deliver man from sin, in the New
Testament Jesus does deliver man from sin.
173


The importance of understanding Romans 5:12, is clear for if, as McKenzie says,
Jesus does deliver us from sin, we need know what that sin is. Understanding the
purpose of Jesus ministry, then, demands our understanding of what Paul means by one
mankind/henos anthropos; Paul claimed reasoning based on henos anthropos is what let
sin into the world. Above, we have briefly explored Augustines idea of original sin, let
us now explore in depth what henos anthropos means to Gnostic Christians and how it let
sin into the world.


Rm 5:12 Reveals the Cause of Sin
Thinking in Terms of Henos Anthropos

In the Gnostic interpretation of 5:12, the word world is replaced by
consciousness. The Greek word cosmos can mean either the universe, planet earth, or
our consciousness of the world. Gnostics translate the word henos anthropos as one
mankind not as traditional bible translations do, as one man. The difference between
using the translations of cosmos as consciousness and henos anthropos as one mankind is
pivotal to understanding Jesus ministry. Using these translations, Romans 5:12 reads:
Evil entered into the consciousness (cosmos) of all men through the false theory that
there is but one mankind (henos anthropos).

The point is that, in 8:3, Jesus revealed, through Paul, that an intellectual error
exists in the reasoning mind (flesh). In 5:12 Paul states that one- mankind (henos
anthropos) is that intellectual error (Sin). It is because of that errornot Adamthat we
are predisposed to sinning. The next important thing, then, is to understand what henos
anthropos/one man kind refers to. The answer for Gnostics was simple. Henos
anthropos refers to Platos theory of nature that every class, including humanity, has one
nature. It is this theory that justifies judgmental laws of logic and judgmental reasoning.


136


Let us now explore how Paul uses the term henos anthropos in reference to the
prevailing, meaning Platos, theory of nature. After which, we will explore Jesus new
theory of nature and its consciousness raising potentials.


Review of Platos Theory of Nature

How can we refer to a number of different objects by the same name? We can,
for example, classify all inorganic stone-like objects with one simple word: rocks, and all
rational mammals as human beings. And why not? Human beings are human beings,
and who would question that? Jesus did, and we should, too. When we assume we can
call different objects by the same name, we have inadvertently accepted Platos theory of
nature, which Jesus considered was at the root of evil. Namely, that we can call different
objects or ideas by the same name, because we accept that every class of objects and
ideas has a particular form, or nature, that exemplifies everything in that class. More
simply said: the prevailing theory (Platos Theory) of nature states that every class has
a single nature.

As we have already discovered, when we accept without question the theory that
every class has a single nature, problems are soon to follow. For this theory justifies
judgmental reasoning.

Paul acknowledges Platos theory that there is but one nature in every class in
Romans 5:12. In 5:12 Paul answers the question why mankind suffered before the law:
meaning the time from Adam to Moses. Before the law was given, it would be unjust of
God to punish anyone, for without the law, how could anyone held responsible for
offences against it. Pauls reply is that sin entered the world through henos anthropos/
one mankind. And because the faulty theory of nature to which henos anthropos refers
existed around the world even before the law was given [meaning the period between
Adam and Moses]death* spread to all humans. In effect, Paul was making the point
that death reigned even before the law because the theory that every class, including
mankind, which henos anthropos represents, was accepted long before the law was given.

The point is that the theory that every class has a single nature, in a formal form
or not, can be considered the root of evil because it justifies judgmental reasoning.
Ingrained in culture, it is that theory that makes judgmental reasoning acceptable
throughout the world. Aristotles (384-322 BC) laws of identity, noncontradiction and
excluded middle in the West, and similar laws in the Nayaya system in the East, justify
judgmental reasoning.

We can be sure that Jesus was aware of the global significance of judgmental
rules of logic. In Gal 3:22 kjv, Paul says we are all under sin. Sin, from the Greek
word hamartia, means an intellectual error in judgment [reason].
174
What Paul is
telling us is that sin is global because our reasoning is determined by judgmental rules of
logic which are based on the prevailing theory of nature.


137


Rules of logic are intended to help us correctly relate ideas. Like rules of
grammar that teach us how to communicate coherently, rules of logic should teach us
how to relate ideas in reasonable and loving ways. Many have recognized, however, that
our traditional and only rules for correct reasoning are judgmental in character. This kind
of reasoning is incompatible with the nonjudgmental characteristics of spiritual
principles.

Paul confirms that judgmental rules of logic work against spiritual principles
when he said in Romans 7:22-23 jbv in my innermost self I dearly love Gods
[nonjudgmental/spiritual] law, but I can see that my body follows a different law
[judgmental law] that battles against the [nonjudgmental] law which my
[innermost/spiritual] reason dictates. (Rm 7:25 jbv).

Like others, Jesus recognized that our present rules for correct reasoning are
inherently judgmental. Unlike others, however, Jesus went the next step. He revealed
why those rules were judgmental, namely because they are justified by our acceptance of
Platos theory of nature. He also recognized that this theory is not true for all classes
specifically, human nature. This calls into question the use of rules based on this theory
in human affairs as humanity is a class with many natures.

The point is that Jesus was the first to recognize that Platos theory of nature, and
subsequently rules for correct reasoning based on it, is the source of judgmental
characteristics in our method of reasoning. It is through our thoughts that these
characteristics produce the judgmental nature of our reality. Without the prevailing
theory and subsequent rules for correct reasoning, evil would disappear of its own
accordfor judgment is the common denominator of every evil thought.

Learning Platos theory of nature must have seemed a waste of time to many in
the early church. The anti-Gnostic author of Second Timothy (not Paul), for example,
states that in his opinion arguments over the meaning of henos anthropos is pointless
philosophical discussion. Jesus, Paul, and then and Gnostic Christians knew otherwise.
In the face of ridicule and chastisement, they taught that civilized mans consciousness of
the world is distorted because we accept that each class has a single nature. Paul knew
that judgmental rules of logic, and therefore, judgmental reasoning was based on Platos
theory. Learning about Platos theory, then, is anything but pointless philosophical
discussion. Nevertheless, the importance Jesus and Paul attached to Platos theory must
have sounded ridiculous to Jews and Gentiles alike. Paul writes, the cross (starus) was a
stumbling block for Jews and foolishness for Gentiles.

Jesus, however, did not give his life to teach foolish things. Jesus and his Gnostic
followers knew what no one else then, and very few now know, that Platos theory that
every class has a single nature, is the foundation upon which all judgmental laws of logic
are based. This qualifies Platos theory, then, as the root of evil. For when we accept
that every class has but one nature, it justifies believing that one standard exemplifies the
nature of the entire class; which, in turn, makes it logical to judge every member of a
class by a single standard. Said another way, Platos theory of nature is the foundation

138


upon which all judgmental laws of logic are based. If there is but one nature per class,
we can judge the entire class according to that one nature. Without his theory, there
would be no justification for judgmental reasoning.

Judging some classes of objects and ideas by a single standard, like meters, hours,
or the boiling point of water is not a problem; every meter exactly fits the nature of what
we classify as a meter; all hours conform to the nature of what we classify as an hour; and
all water boils at what we classify as the nature of the boiling point of water. Trouble
begins however when we try to limit our definition of mankind to one nature, for when
we do, we open the door to anyones opinion of what that nature is. For example, many
believe the ideal human is a white, male, heterosexual. This is the logic many use to
justify male dominated societies, racism, and bigotry. Concepts of the ideal man or
woman trigger feelings of superiority in some, and inadequacy in others.

When Paul wrote that many considered his teaching foolishthey surely had not
taken the time to judge Jesus theory about henos anthropos/one mankind by its merits. If
they did, they would have understood that when Jesus or Paul said sin entered the world
because it is culturally acceptable to think that there is but one human nature (henos
anthropos) he was saying something very important. Namely, that there is a common
denominator, or as Paul calls it, a root of evil at the bottom of the human condition.
Specifically, all civilized beings accept that there is but one human nature, henos
anthropos. Paul knew if everyone agreed that there is but one human nature, some would
believe it was reasonable to use their definition of human nature as a standard by which
to judge everyone. This leads to self-righteousness, bigotry, racism, and other evils.

The inhumane treatment that plagues history is the manifestation of the belief that
one definition of what human nature is logically applies to everyone. Crusaders for
example, believed Christianity was the true religion for everyone. They thought it was
reasonable to kill Muslims if they would not convert to Christianity. And vice versa.
Some Irish Catholics think it is reasonable to kill Irish Protestants because their beliefs do
not fit their standard of religion, and vice verse. Slavery was reasonable to many. Even
Presidents of the United States, thought of blacks as non- humans which justified making
them into slaves. The Aztecs, Incas, and American Indians also failed in the eyes of many
to reach the true standard of human nature and were killed without remorse. The, too,
were considered non- humans.

The point is that evil exists because most accept there is one human nature (henos
anthropos), and therefore, that we can judge all humans by the same standard. And
worse, our laws of logic based on that theory institutionalized that belief. Think about it:
We blame Hitler for killing six million Jews when he did not. He was able to convince
others to kill for him because of the culturally engrained notion that there is but one
human nature, which he considered that of Germans.

Hitler believed, for example, that blond Arians exemplified the ideal human
being. Jews, being Semitic, could therefore be considered sub human. At some
subliminal level, the theory that there is but one human nature and therefore only one

139


standard of human nature justifies the prejudicial reasoning that the Hitlers of the world
use to move others to do what they would not do on their own accord. If we did not
believe that we can judge everyone by a single standard, there would be no basis for
prejudice and racism.

Jesus was a social reformer like no other. Others believe they can make the world
a better place through their religious or spiritual beliefs, political philosophy,
environmental policies, or personal guidance. Jesus, on the other hand, offered a totally
new way to make the world a better place. He revealed that the basic tool we use to build
civilizationnamely our system of logic are incapable of producing a better world. As
long as our system of logic is founded on Platos theory of nature alone, it can be
considered the very thing that makes building a better world impossible. For those laws
ingrained in culture is what justify the notion that it is reasonable to judge one another.
Without that notion, the world would be a better place, because loving one another
depends on not judging one another. Judge not, that ye be not judged. (Matt. 7:1 KJV).

When Jesus called the wisdom of the world a folly, he was warning us that even
the wisest of us are limited to a system of logic that does not encompass all the facts of
life. Paul often speaks of the folly of wisdom based solely on Platos theory of nature
and in his letter to the Galatians, 3:22 he recognizes this by saying sin [intellectual error]
is the master everywhere. Every one of us is capable of believing that we are being
reasonable when we may not be so. The good news is that, if we are deluded by our own
reasoning, we cannot be condemned for it. It is only when we understand the logos of
God that we become responsible. Until then, there are no bad guys or evil institutions,
only misdirected people and social institutions in need of remodeling.

In his book The Republic, Plato compares the system to a beast and wisdom to
being able to prosper because we know how to use the system (the beast) to our own
advantage. Plato depicts even the wisest of us as blindly buying into the system, when, in
actuality, the system/culture is like an ill- tempered beast who lacks feeling even for those
who feed it. Like the fable of the king with no clothes, Platos metaphor of the beast
illustrates that even the wisest of us are blind to the fact that the judgmental system we
serve, in the end, destroys us all.

In the following metaphor of the beast, remember that those who feed the beast
refer to all of us, who in good conscience serve the beastly energies of our
materialistically based culture, not our own moral values. Those who feed the beast
include, as Paul says, even the wisest and most respected of us. We are all subject to the
system. The beast is the judgmental reasoning that justifies the system, which, in the
end, devours us all.


Platos Myth About the Beast

All those mercenary [or materialistic] individuals whom the many call sophists,
[philosophers]do, in fact, teach nothing but the opinion of the many, that is to say, the

140


opinions of their assemblies [the system] and this is their wisdom. We might compare
them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is
fed by him [here, Plato is setting up the analogy between those of us who are considered
wise and successful because we know how to become successful by using the system,
to a man who thinks he is successful because he knows how to tend to the demands of the
beast]. He would learn how to approach and handle him, and also at what times and from
what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries,
and by what sounds, when another utters them is he soothed or infuriated; and you
suppose further, that when by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in
all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art which he
proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or
passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honorable or dishonorable, or good or
evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance of the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good
he pronounces to be that in which the beast [the system] delights, and evil to be that
which he dislikes; and he can give no account of them except that the just and noble are
necessary, having never himself seen, and having no power of explaining to others the
nature of either or the difference between them which is immense.
175


I think of the Stock Market as a beast similar in temperament to the beast
described above. Perhaps other things we think are so important, like bank accounts,
insurance policies and retirement plans, are also beasts that drain our lifes energies
leaving little time for family and love. How wise are we when we feed the beast and
forget our family?

Mystics have long suggested that life as we live it is an illusion. Gnostics would
say that illusion inappropriately suggests the paranormal. A better word according to
Gnostics is delusion. What we see and call reality is not illusionary; it exists. It is not,
however, all of reality; our present systems of logic deludes us into thinking it is. In
effect, reality can only be considered an image of what it is.

Jesus taught that our consciousness of reality is the sum of our perceptions of it. If
our perception of reality is limited to one system of logic when there are two, we can
understand that our perception of reality is limited. By expanding our system of logical
laws, we are empowered to perceive all of reality, clearly. In this renewed consciousness
we will, as the Buddha said, have become awakened.


Evidence of Anthropos in Ancient Texts

In his book, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, Robert Eisenman reveals the
important role that The Secrets of Mankind played in the Essene community alongside
the Dead Sea. In the Essene scroll, The Birth of Noah, the author portrays Noah as a
wisdom figure who understands the secrets of mankind [and that] His understanding
will spread to all peoples, and He [and anyone else through him] will know the secret to
all living things.
176



141


In The Birth of Noah scroll understanding the secrets of mankind is the key to
understanding all living things. Little information is provided by the scrolls as to what
the secret of mankind is. Eisenman suggests the secrets of mankind pertain to a
mystic journeythe new or heavenly Jerusalem [and] walking in perfection, [and]
perfect holiness or the perfection of holiness also known to Paul in Second
Corinthians 7:1.
177


Noah, in Gnostic Christianity, is a metaphor for humanity. In the metaphor
Noah/mankind discovers that we reason judgmentally when we think of
humanity/mankind in terms of a single nature. This knowledge renews the mind so that
all can know the rest of the secrets of life. The mystic journey talked about in this
scroll, describes the five stages of consciousness whose goal is to discover the perfect
God-like nature the perfection of holiness of Stage IV. The new or heavenly
Jerusalem, in the Book of Noah, then, is a metaphor for the glory of Stage V in which
everyone knows the secrets of life, and therefore lives lovingly through nonjudgmental
thinking. Gnostics say that the secrets of mankind is no secretit refers to judgmental
reasoning based on one mankind/henos anthropos. The phrase secrets of mankind was
used by those who did not grasp what henos anthropos stood for. They mistakenly
thought of henos anthropos as insider or secret knowledge. Gnostic Christians, like
Jesus, have no secrets, and in fact, take pride in teaching everything they know to
everyone who will listen.

The secrets of mankind is also ment ioned by Paul in RM 2:16 as the good
news I preach.

Another example of the 1
st
century idea of henos anthropos, one mankind and
anthropoi, many mankindsappears in Philos denunciation of the dissension and strife
produced by those who advocate the souls multiple origin, [anthropoi] rather than
agreeing in harmony to a single origin. [henos anthropos].
178


Philos support of a single soul, rather than multiple souls confirms the
existence of philosophies based on both one human nature and multiple human natures.
He sought to reconcile Judaism with Greek philosophy,
179
(GOOD 70) which was then,
and still is today, based on one nature per class/henos anthropos.

Still another example that illustrates the conflicting theories of nature arises in the
Gnostic gospel The Sophia of Jesus Christ. In this gospel, the author, presumably Jesus,
refutes the classical Greek assumption (Platos Theory of Nature) that humanity has
multiple natures/anthropoi.

The passages intention in Sophia of Jesus Christ is to refute those who think their
origins are from a single human being.
180


The above quotes are examples that the secrets of mankind in ancient texts refer
to henos anthropos and its plural form, anthropoi.


142


The parable of the mustard seed that grows into the huge mustard tree, can also be
equated with Platos theory of henos anthropos/one nature and Jesus theory about
anthropoi/multiple human natures, for just as the small mustard seed grows into a tree, so
does understanding the difference between Platos theory and Jesus theory of nature
grow into the Kingdom of Heaven.


Evidence of Anthropos in the Intellectual Nature
of Jesus Christ Teachings

Until the person is able to abstract and define rationally the idea of good, and
unless he can run the gauntlet of all objection and is ready to disprove them, not by
appeals to opinion, but by absolute truth, never faltering at any step of the argument
unless he can do all this, you would say he knows neither the idea of good nor any other
good; he apprehends only a shadow, if anything at all, which is given by opinion and not
by science, dreaming and slumbering this life, before he is well awake here, he arrives in
the world below, and has his final quietus [sleep].
181


In 1Thes 5:21, Paul insists that we test everything (rsv); prove all things
(kjv); and think before you do anything. (jbv) This demonstrates the intellectual
character in Jesus Christ teachings. There is no way to test, prove, or think about the
truth of a belief any more than that of an opinion.

The presence of biblical passages that claim that perfection is more likely reached
through reason than through ritual alone, sounds heretical. Yet there are biblical
references that claim rational paths to spirituality are more effective than ritualistic paths.

Gnostics use the below references to support their claims that Jesus knowledge
teachings reveal a logical path to a higher form of consciousness (Stage IV).

In Romans 1: 16-17, for example, Paul says he is not ashamed of the good news
he teaches; namely that it is the power of Gods word, meaning the logos or reasoning of
God that saves all those who have faith [meaning a rational understanding based on
both judgmental and nonjudgmental laws of logic]. since this is what reveals the justice
of God to us: it shows us how [pistus] faith leads to [pistus] faith. Gnostics translate
pistus as reasoning. Using this translation, Jesus teaches that the justice of God,
meaning Gods fulfillment of his promise to Israel comes through reason. The scripture
says, the upright man finds life through faith. [From the Gk. Word pistus, meaning
reasonable, not God.] Paul has HAB 2:4 in mind when he says in Rm. 1:16-17 that his
gospels teach, pistus through pistus. The word pistus is however generally translated
faith or consider, which makes little sense. What does faith through faith, or consider
through consider mean? When pistus is translated as reason confusion disappears.
Paul is saying: I am not ashamed of the gospel I teach; it is about how God fulfilled his
promise of a good life through reason (pistus.) He adds, for in my Gospel, the reason of
the God self within, is accessed through the reason (pistus) [of the ego self.] In effect,
Paul teaches that the reasoning self/ego, of Stage III, is the means to access the higher

143


reasoning of the God self in Stage IV. It is in that higher reason that we live the good life
God promised Israel, the Glory of Stage V.

Gnostic literature reflects the idea that higher reason is reached through lower,
when Sophia is considered the personification of reason. Because Gnostics taught that
Sophia possesses within herself the means of legitimization [rectification] and therefore
justification by her salvific function [i.e., reason is its own savior].
182


Another reference to Jesus objective path to righteousness/ right thinking
surfaces in Rm. 1:17 when we remember that stauros, meaning an equilateral cross (+),
symbolize four human natures (anthropoi), not the pole (sklopes) Jesus was crucified on.
Why does Paul withhold the wisdom of logos from his public preachings? The
Valentinians [Gnostics] explain in 1:18 that the logos of the crossthe secret that
reveals how the cross symbolizes Sophias (reasons) fall and restorationseems only
foolish to those who are perishing that is, to psychics, [Stage 3]. Psychics accept only
what they can see with their own eyes; they need to witness works of power [meaning
mystical phenomenon like visions, levitation, and inner light]. The Savior recognizing
this, says to them, unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe [understand].
(John: 4:48) Heracleon, a Gnostic Christian also recognizes that many psychics consider
Jesus knowledge teachings foolish. As Heracleon says they must be persuaded to
believe through sense perception, and not through logos. [reason] .

In the LXX, [meaning the ancient Greek version of the bible/the Septuagint]
where faithfulness is rendered faith, Paul finds the doctrine of justification by faith
[reason]. (HAB Second Chapter, 4
th
verse, note E). Realizing that it was common in the
1
st
century to think of the will or logos of God as faithfulness (right minded and upright
thinking) led Gnostics like Paul to argue that the knowledge teachings Jesus revealed
about henos anthropos and anthropoi brought faithfulness (right- minded and upright
thinking) to the human mind. The point is that Paul was trying to convince religious and
political leaders that his gospel rationally fulfilled biblical prophecies, for it makes the
higher reason of God (faithfulness) accessible through rational arguments just as HAB
prophesized. This irritated many, for then, like now, most believe that only rituals or
divine intervention not human reason enables mankind to reach religious goals.

Do not misunderstand: Gnostics did not argue that traditional approaches did not
work. They argued that unlike traditional approaches, which are subjective and require
regular maintenance through prayer, meditation, and weekly services, the rational
approach that Jesus offered through knowledge once and for all (Hebrew 7-28) not
only made the word/reason of God available to anyone who sought it, it also could
permanently put the word/reason of God within the mind of all man. For once you know
it to be a fact that something is true, you cannot deny it. The sin of omission, for
example, is the worst sin of all, for the sinner denies what he knows to be true and is,
therefore, morally responsible.

Pauls references to Abrahams subservience to King Melchizedek in Genesis
4:17-20 exemplifies Pauls argument that the covenant of the law is not as effective a

144


path to higher consciousness as is objectivity and reason. Abrahams Levitical
priesthood symbolizes the ritualistic approach to religion. King Melchizedek symbolizes
a path of objectivity and reason through righteousness/right mindedness, which equates to
the logos/teachings of Jesus. Paul teaches that King Melchizedek, and therefore, Jesus
objective path was superior to Abrahams ritualistic path because King Melchizedek
blessed and received tithes from Abraham. Pauls argument that when we internalize the
law within the mind, we become the law and, therefore, do it spontaneously. Having the
law within is a more effective way to do the law because, as experience teaches us,
external laws do not keep us from sinning. The earlier commandment is thus abolished
(Paul states) because it is neither effective nor useful, since the law cannot make any one
perfect [reach Stage IV] but now this commandment is replaced by something betterthe
hope [based on knowledge] that brings us nearer to God [the logos within]. Heb 7:18-19

Paul supports his argument that Jesus intellectual way to access the divine within
us is more effective then the law or rituals in Hebrews 10:11-15. All priests [says Paul]
stand at their duty day after day offering over and over again the same sacrifices which
are quite incapable of taking sins away. He, [Jesus] on the other hand, has offered one
single sacrifice, [his knowledge teachings] for sin,..by virtue of that one single offering,
he has achieved the eternal perfection of all

Orthodox Christians teach that Jesus life was the one single sacrifice he offered
the world. But this does not fit the context of the above passages. In 10:16-18, for
example, Paul supports 10:11-15 by linking those passages to JR 31:31-35 where the
Lord states that I will put my laws into their hearts and will write them on their
mind Paul is arguing that Jesus knowledge teachings, not ritualistic religion,
harmonizes the ego with the divine within us and we live accordingly. No longer are the
laws, sacrifices, and rituals necessary because our God self and our ego self in Stage IV
are of the same mind. In principle, Jesus knowledge teachings internalize religious
values. This makes external laws and religious rituals unnecessary.

Paul nevertheless instructs Gnostics in Stage IV (First Corinthians 10:32) to
participate in the Stage III rituals of psychics*, for all are members of the ecclesia of
God the Valentinians, [Gnostics] attempt to put Pauls advice into practice. Irenaeus
[an Orthodox church father] substantiates that pneumatics [those in Stage IV] have a
different perception of Jesus when he indicates that while Gnostics participate willingly
in the communion celebration with the psychic church they reserve the pneumatic
eucharistic celebration for private meetings among initiates.
183


Paul found it difficult to convince others of his intellectually orientated gospel.
Few then, like now, cared about the philosophical distinction between theories of nature,
especially when no scientific evidence was supportive of multiple nature classes. Change
is hard enough, but letting go of beliefs or covenants that have sustained us for
millenniums is almost impossible, for they hold our world together. Nonetheless the
truth according to Paul was that to resolve our problems, we need to be psychologically
reborn* (meaning grow into the even higher form of consciousness of Stage IV) before
we can escape the limits of reasoning lower forms of consciousness perpetuate. To

145


paraphrase the entrepreneur and philanthropist, Sir John Mark Templeton, you can never
solve a problem on the same consciousness that created it. The point is that Jesus
knowledge teachings can move us beyond the present level of consciousness so we might
better solve our problems in a higher level of consciousness.


How Scientific Literature Reflects Anthropos

The new sciences of relativity and quantum mechanics also confirm Jesus theory
that some classes have more than one nature. For example, light has the nature of both a
particle and a wave and time is both relative and chronological. And now scientific
experiments document that atoms act differently when observed. This suggests that our
thoughts can alter the course of cause and effect. If casual observation can alter the
course of cause and effect, we can imagine that, in the higher consciousness that Jesus
teaches, we could purposely alter our reality. Perhaps we already intercede in the normal
course of reality when a mother lifts a truck to save her child, when we use mental
telepathy, hypnotism, and parapsychology. Are these not examples of mind over matter?

Many aspects of our life today support the theory that our thoughts create reality.
The new sciences demonstrate this. For example, subatomic physics indicate that reality
is determined by the thoughts of the observer. Also, the mother who can lift a truck to
save her child, mental telepathy, hypnosis, and psychosomatic illness are examples of the
potential of the mind to create reality. I believe that, through nonjudgmental logic, the
unused portions of the mind would be awakened and we could recreate civilization.

Many believe that only spiritual insight and ritual are capable of describing reality
or leading us to wisdom and truth. I agree that spiritual insight and ritual were the only
paths to wisdom and truth--but only so long as our present rules of logic remain the only
accepted standard of how we relate ideas. If we learn the new method of
reasoning/nonjudgmental logic that Jesus theory of nature justifies, our minds will
expand, and we will, from within mind, body and spirit, live according to spiritual
principles. Pauls words be transformed by the renewal of your mind (Rm 12:2 rsv),
we [meaning Gnostic Christians] are those who have the mind of Christ (1
st
Cor 2:16
jbv) and men made perfect (Heb 12:23 rsv) are his way of recognizing those who have,
through nonjudgmental logic, learned wisdom and truth.

Jesus was unique among social revolutionaries. He did not blame existing
religious, economic or political institutions for human suffering. The revolution he saw
was a far deeper one, without which other reforms could only be superficial and
transitory. If he could convince the world that judgmental reasoning was not the only
method of reasoning and that nonjudgmental reasoning is the common ground of higher
consciousness, Utopia would come of itself. All the ill effects of judgmental reasoning
and the consequent need for lawwould disappear. Compared to the revolution in
consciousness that Jesus theory of nature makes possible, all others are little more than
examples of one system replacing another and exploiting in turn. If we learn this lesson,
our future will no longer repeat the past; we will create the heaven on earth that Jesus

146


promised we could.


Jesus Theory of Nature

Jesus revelation that Platos theory of nature limits humanity to judgmental
reasoning is the first step to an additional process of nonjudgmental reasoning, and in
turn, a transformation in consciousness. Let us now explore the second and final step
towards higher consciousness, understanding that Jesus theory of nature reveals that
mankind has many natures. This theory is the key to our highest form of
consciousness.

The theory of nature that Jesus revealed is the consciousness raising idea that
admits us to Stage IV of consciousness because it lays the foundation for a system of
nonjudgmental laws of logic, which in turn, justifies nonjudgmental reasoning.
Reasoning nonjudgmentally brings our mind into harmony with our Spiritual self:
empowering us to think about most everything in totally new ways. This expanded form
of consciousness is the first real change in consciousness since Moses gave the law,
which birthed in us our conscience. Just as the law and subsequently conscience marked
our entrance into Stage III of consciousnessJesus theory of nature is the key to a
transformation of consciousness which marks our entrance into the right thinking or
rightness of Stage IV.

The point is that Jesus used the term anthropoi to alert us to the fact that if there
were more than one human nature/anthropoi, there would be many standards, not one, by
which to characterize human beings. Jesus theory establishes the need for
nonjudgmental laws of logic which, in turn, create the foundation for a nonjudgmental
method of reasoning. Nonjudgmental logic is the door through which the concepts of
oneness, unconditional love and equality become reasonable as well as spiritual.

Anthropoi is perhaps not the best term to use when trying to convey the concept
of many human natures. As stated above, the plural form of a word infers many with the
same nature. This is not what Jesus means by anthropoi. By anthropoi he means that
humanity has more than oneor multiplenatures. When Jesus uses the term
anthropoi, he means mankinds, humanities, or many human natures. Those who do not
understand Jesus theory think he is referring to a group of men when he uses the term
Anthropoi. In effect, Jesus had trouble conveying his theory of nature because he was
trying to say something that our present system of language cannot convey. When he uses
the term Anthropoi, he means many examples of a class that has different natures.

Quantum Physicists experience the same difficulty explaining their theories that
Jesus had explaining his. What Jesus was saying about humanity, scientists are now
saying about time, space, light, and mass. Jesus, for example, was trying to say that
humanity as a class does not have a single nature it: it has four distinct natures. Likewise
scientists are trying to say that light does not have a single nature, light can be both a
wave and/or a particle. In effect, scientists are having the same problem explaining their

147


discoveries, as Jesus did his revelation, because traditional systems of language and logic
do not encompass todays physics any more than they do Jesus theory of nature. Paul
himself rejects carnal wisdom [reasoning in Stage II and III] as a means of presenting
his message (2 Co. 1:12). The wisdom of this world [Stages II and III] makes its
possessors think themselves wise when they are foolish. (Rm. 1:22).
184


In Jesus time, and still today, Platos theory of was difficult to refute. Traditional
systems of logic are based on Platos theory, and therefore, support its values. This left
Jesus, and today us, with the complex problem of understanding Jesus theory of nature
in the context of a system of logic that is not only incapable of expressing it, it also
encourages the exact opposite. For example, Jesus claimed he, like us, are both men and
gods. In our present context of logic this is nonsensical, we are either humans or gods.
Nevertheless the only way that Jesus had to demonstrate that Platos theory of nature was
flawed, was, as Paul said, through the very logic that is hostile to Jesus revelation. An
example of this appears in John 8:37-44 when Jesus said:

Nothing I say penetrates into youyou want to kill me
when I tell you the truthdo you know why you cannot
take in what I say? It is because you do not understand my
language.

Much ancient prophecy predicts a change in our consciousness of reality.
Jeremiah and Isaiah, for example, prophesized a time when the mind/logos of God would
be within the mind and hearts of all mankind.

The Buddha, like Jeremiah and Isaiah, taught that we are like semi-conscious
sleepwalkersliving a delusion. The Buddha was the first to argue that the human
condition (suffering) was a consequence of atmas/ego crippled by judgmental reasoning,
or in his term, desire.

The Buddha went on. He revealed his eight- fold path as an objective way to
awaken the mind to the fullness of reality. His eight-fold path proposed that if we retrain
our minds to think rightly, do rightly, socialize rightly, do meaningful work, and so on,
we would no longer walk habitual paths to suffering and delusion. We will be given a
new path to Nirvana. Simply said, the Buddha, like modern behaviorist psychology,
proposes that we can get beyond destructive habits through the creation of life-affirming
habits. Said still another way, the Buddhas eight- fold path breaks the hold that
judgmental reasoning/desire in Stage II and Stage III have on the ego/Atma by elevating
the ego/Atma through positive thinking. This is enlightenment. This is what the Buddha
meant when he said that he was not a god, but simply an awakened man.

Not long after the Buddha revealed the novel concept of awakening the mind,
Plato formalized his theory of nature and Aristotle built his system of logical laws on it.
Three hundred years later, Jesus used the Buddhas idea of awakening the mind in a new
way.


148


Jesus revealed that consciousness is proportional to our ability to comprehend it.
He pointed out that Platos theory of nature does not represent humanity; humanity is a
class that has more than one nature. He then argued that the Buddhas eight- fold path is
not the only objective path to enlightenment. Jesus argued that if we created an
additional system of logical laws based on his theory that humanity has many natures
(anthropoi), we would awaken to dimensions of reality we cannot now comprehend in
the context of Aristotles logic.

Jesus theory of nature, then, is a consciousness raising idea that can elevate the
ego/consciousness to the same moral level as our spiritual values. We can imagine that
today is the day ancient prophets dreamed when god would be within the hearts and
minds of man, that the Buddha provided a personal way to access our highest form of
consciousness. Jesus Christ teachings are today a scientific path to put the heart and
mind of God in man.

The tree of life is guarded but not forbidden to us. It symbolizes Gods patient
wait for our expected return to the garden of Eden/Narvana. Jesus parable of the return
of the prodigal son can be interpreted as mankinds journey through his lower stages of
consciousness of selfishness and greed until he finds his way home to Gods plentiful
Garden of Eden. Paul taught that we are Gods perfect works of art and are meant to live
the good life. (Eph 2:10) Jesus theory of nature provides the key to that garden. Let us
now use that key to find our way home.


Exploring Jesus Theory of Nature

Above we have explained that Platos theory is the foundation of all judgmental
standards. Let us now explore how Jesus theory of nature is the foundation of all
nonjudgmental standards.

Jesus theory of nature states that humanity has many human natures
(anthropoi). Today science also demonstrates that some other classes also have more
than one nature. Hereafter, I may use the more contemporary phrase some classes have
more than one nature. By saying some classes have more than one nature, it
encompasses both single and multiple nature classes.

Jesus theory of nature establishes a foundation for a nonjudgmental system of
logic, and therefore, nonjudgmental reasoning. The reason this is true is that, if a class
has more than one nature, as humanity does, it would be illogical to judge the whole class
by a single standard. For there would be as many standards for that class as there are
different natures in the class. For example, if a class, say light, has both the nature of a
wave and a particle, we could not judge the nature of light according to the nature of
waves because light also exhibits the nature of particles. The point is that we cannot
judge light, or any other multiple nature class, by a single standard. We have to judge
classes with multiple natures by as many standards as there are natures within the class.


149


In classes that have more than one nature, then, say humanity, we would have to
learn to judge each individual according to the unique standards of their nature, not
according to any single standard that could be assumed defines the nature of humanity as
a whole.

For example, when we relate to others according to a definition of humanity that
applies to the whole class, we have, in principal, reasoned judgmentally. For when
reasoning about a specific individual by standards we assume apply to the whole class,
we judge everyone in terms of that single standard. This equates to perceiving our
relationship to others in terms of the judgmental laws of identity, non-contradiction and
excluded middle.

A second way we can relate to others is by applying unique definitions of nature
to specific individuals. In principle, this is not judgmental reasoning. Here, we perceive
our relationships to others based on standards of their own nature, not one that fits all
human beings. This is nonjudgmental reasoning and is, in effect, a new form of
consciousness.

Jesus theory of nature can free the heart and mind from bigotry of all types
because it provides the mind with a logical explanation as to why bigotry is illogical,
namely because you cannot judge human nature by any one standard. Racists, for
example, convince some that white supremacy is reasonable because in the back of all of
our minds is Platos theory that all humans can be judged by a single standard. If Jesus
theory of nature were universally accepted, racism would sound illogical. Everyone
would know that you cannot judge human nature by a single standard (henos anthropos)
because there are many human natures (anthropoi). Jesus theory of nature, then,
empowers us to understand that differences between us are not meant to be related in
terms of absolutes, either/or, or hierarchies, but rather as simply different.

Jesus disdain for judgmental reasoning is voiced in John 9:39-41 when he says
it is for [the understanding of] judgment that I have come into this world, so that those
without sight [without understanding] may see, and those with sight turn blind [meaning
that those who think they understand but really dont, will recognize their own
blindness]. Jesus even promised that when he was with the father, he will ask him to
send an advocate and when he comes, he will show the world how wrong it was about sin
and about who was right about judgmentI have said these things to you; but the
advocatewhom the father will send him my name, will teach you everything [again]
and remind you of all I have said to you. (16)

In Matthew 7:18, and Luke 6:37, Jesus warns against the arrogance of thinking
we have the right to judge others. He makes our judgment of others the measure of our
understanding of his teachings. Those of us in Stages II and III who do not understand his
teachings have no hesitation in judging others. Those who understand recognize
difference, but do not judge it.

Gnostics cite this passage to estimate the stage of consciousness a person is in. If

150


we are very judgmental, we exemplify the reasoning of Stage II. If we are somewhat
judgmental we are in Stage III. The average person exemplifies the modestly judgmental.
If we judge no one, we are in Stage IV. Examples of people in Stage Four are Martin
Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Ghandi, Einstein, and the truly spiritual.

In John 8:14-15, Jesus is referring to nonjudgmental reasoning based on a new
standard of nonjudgment when he claims that the Pharisees do not know how to
understand him because they judge him by human [meaning traditional] standards,
whereas he reasons according to nonjudgmental standards and, therefore, judges no
one. By this, Jesus is saying that he came into the world to explain that judgmental
reasoning (meaning reasoning in terms of absolutes, either/or, and hierarchies) is at the
root of all evil.

As obvious as Jesus theory of nature appears, until Jesus introduced it, civilized
man was limited to judge every class by a single standard because no other option
existed. Jesus theory of nature creates the logical foundations for nonjudgmental
reasoning, just as Platos theory of nature creates the logical foundation for judgmental
reasoning.


Nonjudgmental Logic

As explained above, nonjudgmental logic may at first sound illogical and even
absurd. This is expected and even supports the credibility of nonjudgmental logic for the
sense of absurdity we feel comes from subconsciously judging nonjudgmental logic on
the basis of Aristotles. Judging nonjudgmental logic by Aristotles is like trying to judge
apples on the basis of oranges. It is illogical to judge one system of logic by another that
is inherently contradictory to it.

The sense of absurdity nonjudgmental logic engenders can be seen as evidence of
its truth. Jesus and John the Baptist fate in Luke 7:18-35; and Mathew 11:11-19
exemplifies that most rejected the Sophia/wisdom they represented as absurd. Their
rejection is actually to be expected
185
because Jesus and John taught a wisdom/logic
that clashed with that of their persecutors.

In First Corinthians 1:17-31, Paul makes the distinction between human
wisdommeaning conventional knowledge based on Platos theory of a single human
natureand a higher form of reason based on the cross/stauros, meaning a four pointed
or equilateral cross, which represents four human natures.

For Christ did not send me to baptize [said Paul] but to preach the good news
and not to preach that in terms ofhuman wisdom (Note F) in which the crucifixion of
Christ [meaning Jesus Christ/Messianic teachings] cannot be expressed. The language
may be illogical to those who are not on the way to salvation, but those of us who are on
the way see it [Gods wisdom as symbolized by the cross] as Gods power to saveTake
yourselves for instance, brothers, at the time when you were called; how many of you

151


were wise in the ordinary [judgmental] sense of the word and [yet]were influential
people, or came from noble families?

It was to shame what is strong [the status quo] that he chose what is weak
[absurd] by human reckoning [reasoning]; those whom the world thinks common and
contemptible [meaning those who teach stauros and anthropoi] are the ones that God has
chosenthose who are nothing at all to show up those who are everything. [Those who
by conventional standards are considered wise and successful.] The human race [II and
III] has nothing to boast about to God, but you, [in Stage IV] God has made members of
Christ Jesus and by Gods doing He [the logos] has become our wisdom...

We have a wisdom to offer those who have reached maturity [Stage IV]: not a
philosophy of our age, it is true,..the hidden wisdom of God [nonjudgmental reasoning]
which we teach in our mysteries, [Jesus Christ Messianic teachings] is the wisdom that
God predestined to be for our glory before the ages [time] began. It is a wisdom that
none of the masters of this age have every known.[We Gnostics teach] things beyond
the [judgmental] mind of man.[because] we are those who have the mind of God.
186


After having looked beyond the obvious, it is clear that Jesus and his Gnostic
followers were not teaching pointless philosophies. They had a purpose. The purpose was
to show us that the basic building tool of civilization, logic, is demonstrably inadequate
because it is founded only on Platos theory of nature. To be truly civilized, we need
both judgmental and nonjudgmental rules of logic.

The negative effects of our inadequate logic can be felt almost everywhere,
because everyonephilosophers, theologians, psychologists, politicians, economists, and
our families, build reality with that logic. No wonder the world is so full of confusion,
hate, fear, and folly, everyoneeven the wisest of us reasons and speaks judgmentally
because we use Aristotles system of logic in our everyday life. We hear judgmental
reasoning in terrorists, radical fundamentalists and white supremacists. We even hear
judgmental thinking coming from pulpits, presidents, professors, and boardrooms. The
wisdom of this world [Stages II and III] makes its possessors think themselves wise when
they are foolish. (RM 1:22)

According to the logical concept of truth, only one of two
contraries can be true, but in realities of life, as one lives it,
they are inseparableThe unity of contraries is the mystery
at the innermost of dialogue.
187


Nonjudgmental logic, together with judgmental logic, form a complete system of
logic. To accomplish this interface Gnostic Christians propose three nonjudgmental laws.
These three laws of nonjudgmental logic are based on Jesus theory of nature, just as
Aristotles three basic laws of thought are based on Platos. We can surmise that both
Aristotles and the Gnostic Christian system of logical laws are correct, when we apply
Aristotles laws to single nature classes [henos anthropos] and Gnostic laws to classes
that have more than one nature [anthropoi].

152




The Three Basic Laws of Nonjudgmental Logic

The three basic laws here are identical to those on pages A through B. I restate
them for the purpose of continuity and space for future examples. I also add more
examples of how nonjudgmental laws of logic can influence our thinking.

The law of diversity.
The law of complementarity.
The law of included middle.

The Law of Diversity

The law of diversity formalizes Jesus theory of nature by stating that members of
a class that have multiple natures need not be identical. In symbolic terms, this means
that in multiple nature classes, class A, for example, A can be A or B or C depending
upon how many members/natures are in the class.

In First Corinthians 15:28 Paul says God may be all in
all. In Col. 3:9-11 RSV, Paul praises oneness as the
Solution to bigotry. You have put off the old nature [Stage
3] with its practices and have put on the new nature [Stage
4] which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of
its creator. Here there cannot be Greek and Jew,
circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, [a
laborer] slave, freeman, but Christ [or because of Jesus
Christ teachings, oneness] is all and in all.

The Law of Complementarity

The law of complementarity formalizes Jesus theory of nature by stating that
members within a class with multiple natures may be different. In symbolic terms this
means that A may be both A and not-A.

Law of Included Middle

Nonjudgmental logics law of included middle formalizes Jesus theory of nature
by stating that members of a class with multiple natures may not only be one thing or
another, they can also be things in between. Symbolically, the law of included middle
states that A can be both A, non-A, and things in between.

Collectively, nonjudgmental laws of logic have the potential to change our
perception of difference. They formalize, and therefore institutionalize, diversity through
unconditional acceptance, complementarity through both/and reasoning, and equality
through inclusiveness.

153



Nonjudgmental reasoning is a momentous step upwards into unused potentials of
consciousness. Even though we are born with the potential to relate ideas
nonjudgmentally, Jesus theory of nature, and nonjudgmental logic awakens that potential
and makes it usable. In the past, nonjudgmental reasoning was called spiritual and
subjective and therefore easy to rationalize away. In the future, the spiritual qualities of
nonjudgmental reasoning will be considered logical and therefore imperative to
understanding reality in rational ways. (See JN 8:43)

In summary, Jesus theory of nature can renew consciousness because it justifies
nonjudgmental logics laws of logic, which, in turn, institutionalizes reasoning that
supports diversity, complementarity, and equality. Said another way, Jesus theory of
nature, through nonjudgmental logic, elevates the reasoning of the ego to the level of our
spiritual nature. According to Gnostics, this is what Jesus meant by enlightenment.


Evidence of Anthropoi in the New Testament

Jesus theory of nature is not as obvious as Pauls revelation in Rm 5:12. We
might even have to say that Jesus theory of nature is hidden from us except for the very
unusual Greek word anthropoi/mankindswhich, in the first century Greek, is the
plural form of henos anthropos/one mankind.

Jesus theory of nature is implicit in the plural form of the Greek word
anthropos/mankindnamely anthropoiwhich, for Paul, meant mankinds or many
human natures (Rm 3:5, 2:16, 1Co 2:5). Simply stated, when Paul used the term
anthropoi, he is challenging the use of the prevailing theory as the sole foundation for our
rules of logic. The term anthropoi implies that there are many human natures, not one
(henos anthropos), as the prevailing theory assumes.


Evidence of Anthropoi in Romans 3:5-6

Scholars are confused by Romans 3:5-6 and suggest that these passages appear to
have been hastily put together and suggest further that it would be wise not to interpret
them too rigorously.
188
The very fact that verses that include the term anthropoi confuse
interpreters demonstrates they do not know what Paul meant by it. Gnostics say that the
confusion scholars encounter is not because Paul wrote too hastily. Confusion arises
because of later attempts to make these passages conform to supernatural church
doctrines when here these passages refer to objective doctrines. Let me now show how
the term anthropoi in 3:5-6 conveys its original objective character.

What advantage, then, has a Jew? What is the value of circumcision? None?
Paul answered, not so. The law has and still does apply to psychics, (those in Stage III)
but not to pneumatics, (those in Stage IV). The reason the law applies only to psychics is
because it is written in the judgmental form of reason (wrath) that we use in Stages II and

154


III. Whereas those who inwardly comprehend the knowledge Jesus reveals about
anthropoi, meaning those in Stage IV, are exempt from the law. Knowledge has
consequences. The consequences of Jesus knowledge teachings within us is a new
attitude or form of consciousness that coincides with the law. In effect, knowledge about
anthropoi places the law within the person and therefore replaces the need for external
laws. Does this mean we are free to do evil if we think it is good? Some slanderers have
accused us of this, but they are justly condemned. For when the law is written within the
heart (mind) you do it naturally. All that external laws do is tell us what is sinful which
too often is not reason enough not to do the law.

Gods justice (nonjudgmental reasoning) was made known through the law. It is
the same justice (reasoning) of God that comes through knowledge (faith). But Jew and
pagan sinned, meaning had an intellectual error in consciousness, and, therefore, forfeited
Gods glory, that is to say, Gods presence in human beings. But both are now justified
through the free gift of Jesus teachings of anthropoi.

Paul supports this in Rm. 2:14 and Note C when he says that pagans who have
never heard of the law but are led by reason to do what the law commands, may not
actually possess the law, but they can be said to be the law. Therefore, as Jews are
not meant to be saved by the law but guided by it to salvation, so the natural law of Jesus
theory of nature can guide any human being from within their own minds to
spontaneously do the law.

So what becomes of our boasts? [our pride in Judaism, Pauls asks]? There is
no room for them [Paul replies]. The law has done its job; it has guided us as a father
guides its child. But when the law is written within our own minds and hearts, we no
longer need guidance, for we have become like the father. In the past, our sins went
unpunished, because he held our hand[meaning] a quasi- forgiveness [or passing over
until we grow up]. But now God guides us positively, meaning objectively, through
the knowledge about anthropoi that Jesus teaches.


Evidence of Anthropoi
In Romans 5:12-21

The term anthropoi along with the term henos anthropos originally appeared in
Romans 5:12-21. According to my Gnostic Christians, those references were edited out
by Bishop Eusebius, court historian to Emperor Constantine, in order to bring the
Christian bible into accord with the decrees of the Council of Nicea (228 AD), and later
again re-edited by Augustine (in 419 AD) to fit his doctrine of original sin.

Gnostic Christians substitute anthropoi/mankinds for henos anthropos/one
mankind when interpreting 5:12-21. Based on the more natural flow of ideas this
produces, we can assume anthropoi/mankinds, rather than henos anthropos/one mankind,
is often the more appropriate term. These passages represent the third instance of Pauls
use of the term anthropoi in regard to Jesus theory of nature.

155



(Rm 5:12-14) Evil entered into the consciousness (world) of all men through one
intellectually misleading concept (sin) that was birthed in the minds of early rational
beings: namely that there is but one mankind (henos anthropos-one nature per class).
That is why evil reigned from Adam to Moses (Stage II) just as it did from Moses to
Jesus (Stage III): even though those in Stage II had not yet been given the law to break.

(Rm 5:15-17) Since Jesus, we can change our disposition to sin. For Adam (here
the symbol of those of us in Stage II and III) merely prefigured the one to come. In
Stage IV, however, Jesus revelation about anthropoi is the free gift that overcomes our
disposition to evil. For if the faulty concept of henos anthropos brought evil (death) into
the world, Jesus free gift of the concept of anthropoi brings righteousness (right or
nonjudgmental reasoning) which in turn marks the birth of a new type of mankind (Stage
IV). Adam/civilized man is merely a stage (I through III) in the development of
consciousness that prefigures the Christ consciousness of Jesus (Stage IV). This is what
Paul means in Colossians 3:9-11 and Ephesians 4:20-26 when he refers to a new and old
self. The old self is those of us in Stages II and III, and the new self is those of us in
Stage IV.

In Colossians 3: 9-11, for example, Paul refers to those in Stage IV as those who
have stripped off your old behavior with [the reasoning available to you] your old self,
and you have put on a new self which will progress towards a true knowledge [about the
logos/logic of God] the more it is renewed in the image [the logos of] its creator.

The human race that was to have been the image of God, Genesis 1:26, lost its
way trying to locate the knowledge of good and evil outside and apart from the will
[logos/logic] of God, and became the slave of sin and sinful urges, Romans 5:12 +. This
is the old self (man) that must die, Romans 6:6; Ephesians 4:22; the new self is reborn
in Christ [through the knowledge of Jesus teachings] Ephesians 2:15+, who is the true
image of God, Romans 8:29. In this way the human race can both recover its original
purity and reach true moral certitude, 1:9; Hebrew 5:14. Note E (Col. 3:10-11). In that
[new] image there is no room for distinction. The new creation [eon, meaning Stage IV
of civilization] will not be divided into races and religions and cultures and social class in
the way the present creation [civilization as we now know it] has been since the fall [of
reason]: the whole world will be reunited in Christ [in the nonjudgmental reasoning of the
Christ message]. Note F 3:11.

Ephesians 2:15 explains that the Christ message of Jesus breaks down the barriers
of hostility between cultures because it explains that problematic differences are the
consequence of judgmental reasoning, not of the lack of desire to get along. This
[Christs message] was to create one single New Man. This new man is a prototype of
the new humanity that God [first ] recreated (Corinthians 2:17) in the person of Christ,
the second Adam, (First Corinthians 15:45), after killing the sinfully corrupt race of the
first Adam (Stage II and III) in the crucifixion [meaning through the understanding that
the stauros/equilateral cross + referred to Jesus theory of four human natures/
anthropoi]. (Note N 2:15)

156




Evidence of Anthropoi
In 1
st
Corinthians 2:1-5

Another example of anthropoi in the New Testament surfaces in 1
st
Corinthians
2:1-5. Here Paul is walking a fence between those of us in lower stages of consciousness
who seek out paranormal demonstrations that reveal Gods word/logos; and those in
Stage IV who have learned through logic based on anthropoi what Gods word/logos is.
Let us see why.

In Stages II and III God is thought of as divine and interacts with man through
supernatural events. In Stages II and III, then, we expect God to interact with us only
through supernatural powers and demonstrations like miracles, healings, psychic powers,
spiritual awareness and moments of meditative bliss. In Stage IVs form of consciousness
however, we consider ourselves sons and daughters of God because through Jesus
teachings about anthropoi we have internalized the logos (nonjudgmental mind of God).
As Paul says, we have the mind of Christ within us. Hence what we considered
supernatural powers in Stages II and III are, in Stage IV, considered the natural
expressions of those who have internalized the logos/logic of God within themselves. In
First Corinthians 2:1-5, Paul explains that he teaches us in two ways. To those of us in
Stages II and III, (hylics and psychics) he refrains from speaking in objective terms, such
as anthropoi, because they understand religion in terms of supernatural powers.

When people are ready, Paul said to a Gnostic friend, IIs and IIIs will, like you
did when you were ready, seek the wisdom [Sophia] of men, [anthropoi.] What Paul is
telling a fellow Gnostic is that when IIIs become ready, they too, will seek to understand
the wisdom (Sophia) that knowledge about anthropoi (mankinds) reveals.

Paul went on, I will, like I did when I first came to you, not preach the
superiority of discourse [logical argument] or wisdom. For I decided long ago to teach
nothing among you [at first] except Jesus [as the Messiah/Christ]. You were then not yet
ready for thepersuasive words of wisdom [that I later taught you for you were still
more moved by] demonstrations of the spiritand in the powers of God [than] in the
wisdom [Sophia] of men [anthropoi].
189



Evidence of Anthropoi
In 1Corinthians 2:6-8

In First Corinthians 2:6-8 Paul clearly acknowledges that he speaks wisdom
among the initiates [the mature or telio, meaning perfect of Stage IV] but not the wisdom
of this age [which is based on henos anthropos] or of the Archions [leaders of this age
which use that wisdom like everyone elses is also based on henos anthropos]

Gnostics claim that in these words Paul acknowledges and authorizes the secret

157


oral tradition [Jesus knowledge teachings] which they themselves have received. For
although he decided to preach only Christ-crucified among the psychicsthe apostle
[Paul] reveals that among the initiates [Stage IV] we do speak wisdom. For the Apostle
knows that the truth about anthropoi cannot be communicated by means of written
documents [because traditional systems of language and logic are incapable of conveying
Jesus knowledge teachings]; it must be spokenorally communicatedto those who
are ready to hear it[Gnostics] cite this passage to explain that for this reason no one
who only reads the written scriptures (i.e. the letters of Paul) without having received this
oral tradition. can understand the deeper [Gnostic] meaning. [of Jesus teaching about
anthropoi]. (GP 57). For the psychic[those of us in Stage III] does not receive the
things of the spirit [meaning the psychological implications of Jesus Christ teachings] of
God: they are foolish to him [psychics], and he cannot know them, because they are
pneumatically [objectively, rather than subjectively] discerned. The pneumatic, [the
psychologically perfect individual in Stage IV]on the other hand discerns all things,
but himself is discerned [understood] by no one [IIs and IIIs][for then, as Paul says]
we have the mind of Christ!


Anthropoi in 1COR 15:20-22

Remembering that henos anthropos (1Co 15:20-22) does not refer to Adam as
Augustine claimed, we can then only wonder what Paul means by these passages. If,
however, the words henos anthropos in verse 21 is substituted with anthropoi, the original
Gnostic meaning emerges: namely, that Jesus used the term anthropoi to symbolize his
theory of nature that there is more than one human nature. Let us see by reconstruct
15:20-22 by substituting henos anthropos with anthropoi.

But the messiah has in effect been raised from the dead, (i.e. raised from Stages
II and III). He was the first to awaken (first fruit) from the sleep of ignorance
(judgmental reasoning). Evil (death) came in through henos anthropos (one mankind)
(22) and in the same way new life has come through anthropoi (Jesus theory of nature).
Just as everyone has lived with evil since Adam, so all men after Jesus can be brought
back to life through his knowledge teachings. But in their proper order, Jesus first,
because he was the first to reach understanding/gnosis, and then the rest of us when we
feel the presence of Jesus teachings in us. When all feel that presence [persona-or
Second Coming as many interpret it] it will mark the end of evil in the world and with it
all forces hostile to the sovereignty of God (Stage V) (Note G).

Again the sense of authenticity, clarity, and continuity that using the term
anthropoi brings to 1
st
Corinthians 15:20-22 supports my claims that Jesus messianic
teachings use the term anthropoi to symbolize His theory that humanities is a class with
many natures.

Four Human Natures (Anthropoi) in Ancient Text

The idea of many human natures can also be found in the ancient Greek concept

158


of four psychological natures sanguine, phlegmatic, melancholic, and choleric. Plato in
the third book of The Republic suggested that citizens be told that different metals ran in
their veins, and it is those metals which make men different. Plato followed Hesiods lead
in choosing gold, silver, bronze, and iron. Psychology today supports Galens and
Platos concept of four psychological types or natures. Carl Jung, for example,
represents modern psychologys division into four distinct types of human nature which
differ in their strength and predominance.

I have found from experience that the basic psychological
functions prove to be thinking, feeling, sensation, and
intuition. If one of these functions habitually predominates,
a corresponding type results.
190


Jesus also pointed out that it was reasonable to think that there is more than one
human nature based on the diversity of human talents. Jesus argued that talents indicate
different psychological natures (anthropoi). If there is but one human nature, it is
reasonable to assume that all humans could be born with the same talent and that is
obviously false.

References to talent occur often in the Christian bible but are traditionally taken
for granted and called gifts. But Pauls intention (in Romans, First Corinthian and
Ephesians) is to show how talents not only exemplify four different human natures, but
that collectively, those talents provide the skills necessary to build a perfect world. Jesus
taught, for example, that just as nature provided instinct to wild creatures to insure their
survival, so does nature provide all the talents (gifts) necessary for the human family to
flourish. Just as winning teams are the product of pooled talents, so does nature intend
for us to combine our talents to make our world a livable place. Those with green
thumbs and a love for growing things are by nature meant to be farmers and florists.
Those who love music and painting are meant to make life and the world beautiful.
Entrepreneurs are meant to manage, tradesman build, and mothers, mother. Others who
like to build muscle could move us when we wanted to go from one place to another, and
philosophers such as Jesus could be recognized, not crucified, for the good their thoughts
brings to the community.

Paul acknowledged unique talents when teaching that by using our talent in the
spirit of teamwork, rather than individual gain, everyone could live better lives. Just as
teamwork enhances the talents of individual players, so would everyone working at what
they are talented in, make work a pleasure and in turn, the world a happier and more
abundant place. First Peter 4:10 supports the idea of working together for the good of all,
each one of you has received a special grace [talent], so, like good stewards responsible
for all the different graces of God, put yourself at service to others. This is affirmed by
Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross finding that those who had near death experiences consider
serving others the paramount path to happiness.

In First Corinthians 12:1-30, Paul is addressing a cynics question of why anyone
would share equally in what are considered rare talents with those who have more

159


common talents? Pauls answer was that in natures plan, talents are given in the quantity
they are needed to guarantee prosperity for allnot according to the supposed laws of
supply and demand. Paul argues this point by reminding his audience that just as a
human body, though it is made up of many parts, is a single unit because all these parts,
though many, make one body, so it is with Christ [Jesus Christ teachings] In the One
Spirit, we are all baptized [become one with others] Nor is the one body to be
identified with any one of its many parts. If a foot were to say, I am not a hand and so I
do not belong to the body would that mean that it stopped being a part of the body? If an
ear were to say, I am not an eye, and so I do not belong to the body, would that mean it
was not part of the body? If your whole body was just an eye, how would you hear
anything? If it was just an ear, how would you smell anything? Instead of that, God put
all the separate parts, [talents] into the same body [community] on purpose. If all parts
were the same [exhibited the same talents] how could it be a body [how could a
community be complete]? As it is, the parts [talents] are many, but the body [like a
community] is one. The eye [professionals] cannot say to the hand [tradesman] I do not
need you, nor can the head [entrepreneurs] say to the feet, [laborers] I do not need
you. What is more, [Paul goes on by joking about the rectum] it is precisely the parts of
the body that seem to be the weakest which are the indispensable ones; and it is the least
honorable parts of the body, [the rectum] that we clothe with the greatest care. God has
arranged the body so that more dignity are given to the parts that are without it, and so
that there might not be disagreements inside the body, but that each part may be equally
concerned for all the others. If one part [people] is hurt, all parts are hurt with it. If one
part [person] is given special honor, all parts [people] enjoy [and benefit by] it.

In these passages Paul not only relates anthropoi to unique human talent he is
saying something very important that we generally overlook. Talents, like parts of our
body, should be considered special and shared with the community (body of Christ): not
taken for granted. Even rectums, as Paul points out, are equally valuable.

In Ephesians, 4:11-16; 5:10-14, Paul implies anthropoi when he refers to special
talents as a God- given gift, that some should be apostles [what Gnostics call type D of
human nature]; some profits, [type C] some evangelists [type B] and some pastors and
teachers [type A] so that the saints [those of us who are in Stage IV] together make a
unity in the work of serviceuntil we become the perfect man [of Stage V]

Now you together are Christs body [a community based
on oneness] but each of you is a different part; of it.

Think about it. Do we not feel our best when we care for our loved ones, and are
appreciated for it? How great it would be if we cared about everyone and they cared
about us. It would be worth working for. In Ephesians 5:10-14 Paul says try to discover
what the Lord wants of you [what your talents are meant foranyone]exposed to the
light [knowledge of God-given talents] will be illuminated and anything
illuminated[passes that light on]. That is why it is said [Isaiah 26, 19, 61]

Wake from your sleep, rise from the dead,..and you

160


will touch Christ [Note D].


Evidence of Anthropoi
At The Council of Nicea

The idea that all of us can reach the same level of consciousness as Jesus was
argued at Council of Nicea by Arius of Barcalis argument that Jesus grew into his higher
God consciousness. The consequences of Arius argument are incalculable. If Jesus grew
into God consciousness he was obviously not born with it. He was at birth like us,
intellectually only an image or similar (Gk. homoiousia) to God. It was not until his
discovery grew him into his God consciousness (Stage IV) that he became the same as
consubstantial (Gk. homoousia) as God.

Arius argument that Jesus was similar (homoiosuia) to God at birth and later
became the same (homoousia) as God so disrupted the Orthodox Christian community,
that Constantine, the Christian Roman emperor, organized the first ecumenical council at
Bithynian Nicea to end this theological debate and unify the church under one official
doctrine.

Not long into the proceedings, Constantine told the bishops and priests that he did
not think it mattered if Jesus was merely homoousia (like God) or homoiousia (the same
as God) at birth. For orthodox Christians, however, the question of Jesus being like God
or the same as God was critical both theologically and politically. If Jesus was not God,
across time the whole structure of orthodox Christian doctrine would crack. That crack
could in the end destroy the unity and authority of the Church.

Orthodox speakers argued that if Jesus were not the same as God from birth on,
he would not be the perfect sacrifice for our sins. If Jesus was a human changed into a
God, he could change back into a man, i.e., go from virtue to vice. This would, of course,
disqualify him as a perfect sacrifice. Arius, however, argued the Gnostic viewpoint that
Jesus taught that everyone, like himself, had by birth the power to grow from lower
stages of consciousness and into their God/logos consciousness just like him. Had not
Jesus himself said that whoever believes in me will perform the same works as I dohe
will perform even greater works. John 14:11

When the vote to decide whether Jesus was born human like us (homoiosia) or
whether he was born in the same (homoousia) nature as God, the latter prevailed. The
Nicean creed institutionalized the vote which become the singular doctrine of
Christianity. Jesus was born God and died God. In effect, the absence of the one letter I
(iota) in homoosiais what made Gnosticism a hearsay.


The Double Meaning of Crux
As Evidence of Anthropoi


161


The Greek term stauros, used only by Jesus and Paul, referred to an equilateral
cross + . Stauros + was a logo that symbolized Jesus theory of four (hence the
symbology of the cross) human natures/anthropoi. The Greek term skelops referred to a
wooden pole that criminals were crucified upon. By the 5
th
century the Latin term crux
took the place of both stauros and skelops, and became, in the 7
th
century, the traditional
cross upon which Jesus hangs, crucified.

As to the crucifix, i.e., a cross with the body of Christ nailed on it, this
representation does not make its appearance until the 7
th
century.
191
Early Christians
generally avoided representing the body of Christ on a cross,..in fact, until the 4
th
century
even the simple cross [ + ] rarely appeared in public.
192
Gnostics like Valentinus claimed
the cross [stauros ] symbolized Sophias fall and restoration [for the cross symbolized
multiple human natures/anthropoi and, therefore, the fall [in our lower stages of
consciousness] and restoration of wisdom in Stage IV].
193


In this light we can surmise that Jesus and Pauls use of the term stauros + was a
logo that symbolized four psychological natures/anthropoi. And that the wooden pole
(skelops), is the crux/cross upon which Jesus was crucified.


Evidence of Anthropoi in the
Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic Gospels, and Mythology

References to the many, the fourth philosophy and King Melchizedek in
the book Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered also refer to henos anthropos and anthropoi. For
example, we can deduce that references to teaching the many
194
may refer to teachings
about many human natures/anthropoi, not masses of people. This is not too liberal an
interpretation in view that what is mistakenly called the zealot movement
195
is called
by Josephus the fourth philosophythat was capable of multiple interpretations.
196

Gnostics say Josephus is not referring to a fourth philosophy, but a philosophy based on
four human natures/anthropoi. This interpretation is supported by the fact that in the
nonjudgmental reasoning that anthropoi engenders multiple interpretations just as
Josephus wrote could be expected of the the fourth philosophy.

The use of the phrase multiple wisdoms used often in biblical and inter-
testimental literature can also be seen as references to anthropoi. Multiple wisdoms
suggest different modes of perception, hence different psychological natures.

The phrase secrets of mankind which appears often in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the
Gnostic Gospels and other inter-testimental literature can also be considered glossed over
references to henos anthropos and anthropoi. Generally the presence of this phrase is
quickly passed over by scholars, leaving us to figure out what the secrets of mankind are.
But if we do try to discover what the secrets are, we will quickly realize that this phrase
has nothing to do with secrets. For the secrets of mankind infer something all mankind
knows which makes it a non-secret. How can something be secret if everyone (mankind)
knows about it? And why would anyone think Jesus taught something in secret? Jesus

162


himself said, I have spoken openly for all the world to hear;I have said nothing in
secret. (Jn 18:20)

What the authors of these ancient scrolls and gospels are referring to when they
used the phrase secrets of mankind was the knowledge teachings about henos
anthropos/ one mankind and anthropoi/mankinds that Jesus taught privately, but not
secretly.

Behind the passages in LK 7:18-35; Mathew 11:2-19 is the question of Sophias
[wisdoms] legitimization in the face of [her] unpromising historical record. The
conclusion of Soph. Jes. Chr. [the Gnostic Gospel, Sophia of Jesus Christ] thus addresses
the same issuein this description, the vindication of Sophia is accomplished because of
her intrinsic connection with the light world [rational thought]. That is, Sophia [wisdom]
possesses, within herself, the means of legitimization and therefore justification by her
[own] salvific [reasoning] function. Thus, in the passage from Soph. Jes. Chr. under
discussion, the preoccupation is not with Sophias culpability, but rather with her
vindication. Hence the passages repeated stress on the drops deliverance [reasons
vindication] that it might bare fruitbe perfected, and not again be defective but be
joined through me [Jesus, the redeemer of wisdom]
197


The concept of one mankind/henos anthropos, and in turn Jesus theory of nature
based on mankinds/anthropoi, is also hidden in mythology. In the myth of Psyche, for
example, the contemptible being refers to one mankind/henos anthropos in Rm. 5:12.
See Number 75 of Solving Biblical Mysteries.

The point of all these references to anthropoi is to show that even though the
terms henos anthropos and anthropoi have been systematically erased, given new names,
mistranslated and avoided, their presence in between the lines of Christian literature
cannot logically, historically, or linguistically discounted. Henos anthropos and
anthropoi are what stauros/the equilateral cross symbolizes, what the secrets of
mankind and the vindication of Sophia represents.


Evidence of Henos Anthropos and Anthropoi
in the Greek Term, Stoichiea.

Use of the Greek term stoichiea can also be linked to henos anthropos and
anthropoi. Stoichiea (used seven times by Paul) refers to natural principles, like gravity
and motion, but also principles of mathematics and logic.

In the classical Greek of the 1
st
century, stoichiea meant a premise or fundamental
proposition. The point is that, when Paul used the term stoichiea, he is referring to a
basic principle that is fundamental to our process of reasoningnamely, Platos theory of
a single nature (henos anthropos) and Jesus theory of multiple natures (anthropoi).

In the 1
st
century, the term stoichiea was used in accord with the classical Greek

163


idea that the universe is governed by the power of natural ruling principles (daemons)
that maintain order in the universe, namely principles of gravity, mathematics, science,
and logic.

To create the world by giving form to matter and to
establish relations with man, God used a host of
intermediary beings, called angels by Jews, demons by
Greeks, and ideas, by Plato. These, say Philo, may
popularly be conceived as persons (personifications)
through really they exist only in the divine mind as
thoughts and powers of God. Together these powers
constitute what the Stoics call the logos or divine reason,
creating and guiding the world.
198


In Greek mythology, natural principles were personified as gods. Venus, for
example, personified love and Sophia personified wisdom. In time, however, those
personifications became more real to many, than the original concept that
stoichiea/deamons referred to natural principles of the universe. The consequence was
that since the 6
th
Century, the term stoichiea/deamon took on a new meaning.
Stoichiea/deamon came to mean demons, like Satan, rather than natural principals.

An example in the shift of meaning of the term stoichiea from a natural principle
to deamons may be of special interest to women. This shift can be seen as the underlying
reason for gender discrimination.

To Gnostic Christians the Greek goddess Sophia personifies theoretical as
distinguished from practical wisdom; specifically, in Aristotle, knowledge of first [or
natural] principles,..
199
. Wisdom, personified by Sophia, is referred to in Hebrew
philosophy by Ecclesiastes (7:25-26); as the woman who makes the sinner her captive.
Sophia/wisdom, in her lower Stages II and III, is called the whore of Babylon by John
in Revelation. And in the Gnostic Gospel, The Sophia of Jesus Christ, Jesus refers to
Sophia/wisdom in lower stages, as a deficient female [and that through him, she,
meaning wisdom, might] ..be perfected [meaning awakened to her potentials for divine
reason through Jesus Gnostic teachings].
200


In the 3
rd
century, however, the influential church father Tertullian mistakes
defective and fallen wisdom [personified by the female goddess Sophia] for women,
and daemons [stoichiea/false principles] for Satan in the garden of Eden. He then applies
his mistake by addressing womenas the gate by which demons enter.
201
His mistake,
thereafter, plays a major role in the justification for male supremacy over women in the
Church. For with Tertullian Christian literature [originally in Greek] in the west became
Latin and Latin literature became Christian.
202


Gnostic church fathers argued that the term daemons referred to ruling principles
of the universe (stoichiea), not supernatural beings. Origen, for example, dismissed as
legends stories as that of Satan taking Jesus up to a high mountain and offering him the

164


kingdoms of the worldthe literal meaning of scripture, [argued Origen], overlay two
deeper layers of meaningthe moral and scripturalto which only the esoteric* and
educated few [meaning Gnostic Christians] could penetrate.
203


Gnostic Church fathers, however, were unsuccessful in their efforts to convey
their interpretation of stoichiea to the general public. This failure to understand stoichiea
as natural principles, namely Platos and Jesus theory of nature, rather than demons,
caused confusion and divisions within the Church. By 187 AD the early Church father
Irenaeous listed twenty varieties of Christianity By 384 AD Epiphanius [a Christian
author], counted 80 varieties of Christianity.
204


Examples of the wide range of New Testament interpretations of the Greek term
stoichiea follows; demons who the heathensheld to be in control; elements in the sense
of elementary teachings; Stars of the Church; superstitions of evil spirits; powers of the
present age; ABCs of Christian Doctrine milk or baby food; (30) rudiments of Christian
Thinking; (KHAV) cosmic deity elemental spirit of the universe; spiritual powers; weak
and beggarly spirits; (RSV) inferior beings; plainfirst principlesin the Oracles of
God; deep and sublime mysteries; and, finally, spirits which animate stars.

Let us now examine how Paul used the term stoichiea in reference to Jesus
theory of multiple natures/anthropoi. I will paraphrase the seven verses in which the term
stoichiea is used from the perspective of Gnostic Christians.


Stoichiea in Colossians 2:184

In Colossians 2:18-20 Paul sets the stage for an objective understanding of
stoichiea by saying do not be taken in by people who like groveling to angels and
worshipping them;people like that are always going on about some vision [meaning a
paranormal or psychic insight] they have had; inflating themselves to a false importance
with their worldly [meaning Stage Three] out look. A man of this sort is not united in the
headIt is the head that adds strength and holds the whole body together,dietary and
cultic practices are only superstitious worries about material things and the spirits that
are supposed to control themthis [meaning Jesus Christ teaching] is the only way in
which itthe mindcan reach its full growth in God.


RSV Interpretation of Colossians, 2:20

If with Christ you die to the elemental spirits [stoichieas] of the universe why do
you live as if you still belong to this world?

A typical commentary of 2:20 that leads us to understand stoichiea as
supernatural beings is: For Christians the errant doctrines being sponsored in
Colossians, ought to hold no appeal, for they have died to the elemental sprits of the
universe [stoichiea] thus the cosmic hierarchy of beings which play an essential role in

165


the false teachingsis to be disregarded; they have been conquered in Christ.
205



Gnostic Interpretation of Colossian 2:20

If with Christs knowledge teachings you were separated (died) from the carnal
dictates of the false principles (stoichiea), which leads to judgmental reasonings, why do
you still live in such judgmental ways?

From the Gnostic perspective of Colossians 2:8, Paul warns the Colossians
against back-sliding. In 2:20 Paul is clearly perplexed by the Colossians because even
after they have understood the principles of Jesus knowledge teachings and were
therefore free from judgmental reasoning, why would they want to return to the barren
lives such reasoning fostered?

Pauls faith in the ability of Jesus knowledge teachings to empower us to reach
perfection is tested in 2:20-29. His passion, however, is not.

The mystery, [meaning Jesus knowledge teachings] is
your hope of glory; this is the Christ [teachings], we
proclaim this is the wisdom in which we thoroughly train
everyone to make them perfect in Christ.


The RSV Interpretation
Of Colossians 2-8

See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy
and empty deceit according to the human tradition,
according to the elemental spirits of the universe,
[stoichiea] and not according to Christ.

Again, traditional supernatural assessments of stoichiea in COL 2:8 assume that
elemental spirits in the sense of demons, are trying to counteract the Christ teachings. In
one commentary, stoichiea is regarded as demonic powers
206
and in another stoichiea is
referred to as a term used in Asiaminor, signifying the deamons [of] heathens.
207


The Gnostic Interpretation of Colossians 2:8

See to it that no one makes a prey of you by traditional philosophies. They are
empty and self deceptive because they are based on traditional logic which is justified by
the principle of henos anthropos (stoichiea). This is not in accord with the logic of Jesus
messianic (Christ) teachings which are justified by the principle of anthropoi.

From the Gnostic perspective the revised standard version correctly translates
stoichiea as elemental spirits of the universe. Most think of Jesus ministry in a

166


supernatural context, and are, therefore, inclined to think of elemental spirits as demons.
However, what Paul means by elemental spirits (stoichiea) is intellectual principles.

In 2:8 Paul is writing to the Colossians warning them not to make the easy slide
backwards into worldly/traditional philosophies based on false principles, but rather live
lovingly by philosophies based on Jesus theory of multiple natures/anthropoi.

Mistrust of philosophical paths to enlightenment is incorrectly justified by
misinterpretations of Colossians 2:8. Many reject philosophical solutions for human
suffering because they believe 2:8 condemns philosophy as a whole. According to
Gnostics, however, 2:8 teaches us to distinguish between philosophies based on
traditional logic and philosophies based on nonjudgmental logic. Pauls condemnation of
philosophy does not condemn philosophy as a whole, only human, meaning traditional
philosophy that is based solely on Platos theory of nature, and subsequently, Aristotilian
logic.


RSV Interpretation
Of Galatians 4:1-7

I mean that the heir as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is
owner of the estate: but he is under the guardians and trustees until the date set by the
father. So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the
universe [stoichiea]. But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his son, born of
woman, born under the law, to redeem those that were under the law. So that we might
receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the spirit of his son
into our hearts crying aba! Father! So through God you are no longer a slave but a
son, and if a son, than an heir.


The Gnostic Interpretation
of Galatians 4:1-7

4:1-7 exemplifies how Jesus teachings had changed our
relationship with God from a parent child relationship to a
relationship of equality between a father and his adult
children. A child is subject to the trustees of his fathers
estate though he is the rightful owner of that estate, except
for the benevolence of his fathers trustees; he is no better
off than a slave. So it is with us Jews, in our immature
thinking, we were slaves to the false stoichiea/henos
anthropos.

But when our time came, God sent his son, who revealed to us that a false
principle/stoichiea corrupted our reasoning process. With that information, we can now
overcome the limits of the false stoichiea/principal and, in turn, elevate our consciousness

167


to that of equality with the father. In this renewed consciousness, our child- like
relationship with God changes to one of equality with God, i.e. servant to heir. You
Gentiles are also children of God and He hears your innermost self crying out to Him,
Father Father, help us to understand so that we can be free. Hearing you, God shared
his wisdom about elemental principals/stoichiea with you through Jesus so that you like
us Jews can also enjoy as heirs and equals of God rather than merely subjects to Him.

In effect, even though we call ourselves adults, God considers us children in
lower stages of consciousness. For he knows, even if we do not, that as so called normal
adults, we have not yet reached our full potentials of consciousness. We become
mature/perfect adults in Gods eyes when we reach Stage IV of consciousness. It is in
Stage IV when God first considers us his equal and heir.


RSV Interpretation of Galatians 4:8-9

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that were
not gods; but now that you have come to be known by him, how can you turn back to the
weak and beggarly elemental spirits [stoichiea] whose slaves you want to be once more?

Some commentarists and theologians deal with Pauls statement that stoichiea is
not gods by completely ignoring it. Others suggest that here stoichiea should not be seen
as demons, but as inferior beings.
208
But they do not define what they mean by inferior
beings.

The Gnostic Translation of Galatians 4:8-9

Formerly, when you were without knowledge of God, (meaning in Stages I
through III) your reasoning was in bondage to what you now know to be the intellectual
principal/stoichiea of henos anthroposnot pawns of Gods or demons, as you formally
believed. Knowing this, how can you now turn back to that beggarly principle (stoichiea)
whose slave you want to be once more?

Paul is explaining to the Galatians that Gods and demons do not control their
liveshow they think determines how they live. When they think in terms of logic based
on stoichiea/henos anthropos, it creates problems in their reasoning. If they chose to
think in the terms of logic based on the stoichiea/anthroipoi, however, it will lead you to
happiness through God-like reasoning.


RSVs and the Gnostic Translation
of Hebrew 5:11-13 are Identical

About this [relationship between Jesus and the Melchizedek priesthood in GEN
14:17-20] we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of
hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you

168


again the first principles [stoichiea] of Gods word [logos]. You need milk, not solid
food; for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word [logic] of righteousness, for
he is a child [in Stages II and III]. But solid food is for the mature [the perfect in Stage
IV], for those who have their facilties [mind] trained by practice to distinguish good from
evil.

Most commentaries agree that in Hebrews 5:11-13, stoichiea refers to basic
teachings of the church; the ABCs of Christian Doctrine
209
, elementary principles
which form the basis of Christian faith and practice in the 1
st
century,
210
The first
principles of the oracles of God (KDV); or a deep and sublime mystery.
211
In effect,
most commentaries view 5:11-13 as an example of Pauls frustration with the Hebrews
lack of understanding of even his most basic teachings about stoichiea. Commentaries,
however, seem uncertain as to what exactly Paul means by basic teachings. What Paul
means when he calls King Melchizedek the king of righteousness/right thinking. (RM
2:7) And, finally, why Paul relates the priesthood of King Melchizedek to Jesus
priesthood?

Few commentaries expand on what basic teachings/stoichiea Paul is speaking of
in 5:11-13. A few commentaries mention the Melchizedek priesthood, but admit their
confusion about Pauls references to it. For example the order of Melchizedek,[is] one
of perplexity to us. It apparently perplexes people in the 1
st
century too, for the author
[Paul] acknowledges that he has much to say on the subject and great difficulty in
making it clear.
212


The Gnostic interpretation of 5:11-13 is the same as our RSV translation. The
difference between the two is that Gnostics understand that Paul means exactly what
stoichiea meant in the 1
st
century. Specifically the first principals. In this case, the
principals of henos anthropros/anthroipoi.

Gnostics understand that Paul relates Jesus teachings to the priesthood of King
Melchizedek because both represent rightousness/right thinking. Gnostics add that Paul
considers Melchizedeks, and therefore Jessus, intellectual path to rightousness superior
to the ritualistic path represented by the Levitical priesthood of Abraham. For
Melchidezak blessed Abraham and received tithes from him. Since the greater blesses
the lessor [Paul argues] Abraham concurred in the superiority of Melchidezak. Levi,
whose decedents extract tithes from the people of Isreal in accordance with the Mosaic
law, actually offered tithes to Melchidezak in the person of his great grandfather,
Abraham.
213
(Gen 14:7-20)

Jesus confirms this in Jn 4:22 and Note F by teaching that, you [meaning those
who use rituals and teach mysteries] worship what you do not know; we [Gnostic
Christians] worship what we do know [gnosis]. True worshipers will worship the
father in spirit [subjectively] and in truth [objectively] . Because it [both the reasoning
mind and spiritual mind] is the only worship that meets the conditions revealed by God
through Jesus [Gods helper or paraclete].


169


Paul bolsters his argument that intellectual knowledge is the most effective path to
reasoning like God through four illustrations. (in 7:15-28) Jesus has become priest, not
into the priestly [levitican] tribe, but by virtue of a life which has overcome death
[meaning overcoming unfulfilled lives]. Jesus high priesthood is established by his
fulfillment of a priestly mission and confirmed by the prophetic word in palms 110:4.
Thus, the career of Jesus and the testimony of the scripture converge, on the conclusion
that he is Gods high priest, not in the order of Levi, but in that of Melchidezak The
second illustration is an appeal to experience. The law [of Moses] was weak and useless
and failed to bring about perfection: Therefore, it has been sent aside [argues Paul]. In
its place a better hope is introduced [through the stoichiea of henos anthropoi that Jesus
teaches] which enables man to come into divine presence [come to emulate the logos of
God].
214


Third, Paul illustrates that an oath of God stands behind Jesus priesthood.
Another distinctive mark of the new covenant is that an oath (of God) accompanied its
establishment. Priests in the Levitican order took their office without an oath. The high
priest of the new covenant was addressed with an oath. Through the prophetic scriptures
PS 110:4, God assured him [Jesus] that his appointment was firm and unchangeable.
God is not going to change his mind [Paul concluded]. Jesus is, therefore, the surety of a
better covenant because behind him and his mission stands the determination of God
himself, who has bound himself with an oath and thereby firmly established his promise
to men GEN 7:20-22

In HEB 10:1-12, Paul gives an example of how the law of Moses failed and how
the presence of the divine mind within us once and for all overcomes that failure. Paul
argues that the law of the old covenant is but a shadow of the good things to come. The
law cannot make perfect those who approach God through its institutions. Its sacrifices
are continually offered year after year, servicing thus as a reminder of sin, but making no
permanent purification [change in us]. The work of the priest in the old covenant is
ineffectual, for he needs constantly to repeat his offerings. But the work of Christ
[meaning the logos teachings of Jesus] is perfect and complete,
215
and therefore once
and for all 9:26 overcome sin.

And fourth, and most important, is that the Christ/knowledge teachings of Jesus
are forever effectual regardless of his presence, for they are based on natural facts, and
therefore, true across time. In effect, Pauls fourth argument is that the ineffectiveness of
the priesthood of the old covenant is that it depends on the personality of the priest.
Jesus logos teachings, on the other hand, are objective, in the same sense as scientific
fact are objective. Therefore, his teachings can stand on their own merits, which makes
them teachable globally. This is why Jesus Christ teachings, not Jesus the person, is
what takes away the sin of the world (JN 1:29) . And not only ours, but the whole
worlds (1Jn 2:2).

Historically, even the greatest of ideas lose their vitality after the death of their
creator. John Stewart Mills idea of moral capitalism, for example, has failed in the
practice of modern capitalism. Karl Marx ideal of prosperity for all through teamwork is

170


fading around the world. And the Beatles song that love is the answer has never been the
answer at political conventions, winning is. The important thing about Jesus knowledge
teachings about stoichiea is that they are based on objective facts and, therefore, can be
used by anyone, anywhere, without further help of Jesus, to build a clear path to the
divine within all of us.

Bringing all the above together, it seems clear that Paul is pointing out to the
Hebrews that Jesus mission is to build a bridge between the human mind and the divine
mind/logos. Paul demonstrates this by showing that Jesus is a priest in the order of the
priesthood of King Melchidezak and that his teachings alone overcome evil once and for
all.


RSV Interpretation
of Second Peter 3:10-13

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, [in the
night] and then the heavens will pass away with a loud
noise, and the elements [stoichiea] will be dissolved by fire
and the earth and the works upon it will be burned up.
Since all these things are thus dissolved, what sort of
persons ought you be in lives of holiness and goodness
waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God,
because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved
and the elements [stoichiea] will melt with fire but
according to His promise we wait for new heavens and a
new earth in which righteousness dwells.

The New Testament scholar Spitta (followed by Kiihl and Von Soden) maintains
that what Peter means by stoichiea here is not the stars but the spirits which were
regarded as inhabiting and intimating them.
216



The Gnostic interpretation
of Second Peter 3:10-13

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens
[meaning stages I through III] shall pass away with a great noise, and the principles of
logic based on anthropos (stoichiea) shall be purified and the earth and the works that are
therein shall be brought into the light of reason by the principle of anthropoi (stoichiea)
that Jesus revealed.

Traditionally, Peters use of the term fire is associated with fire and brimstone in
hellish pits. Many scholars, however, agree that the Greek word traditionally translated
burned up originally meant to purify not destroy or brought to the light of reason.
These translations support the Gnostic interpretation of stoichiea because when purged

171


and uncovered is substituted for fire and burned up, we can conclude that stoichiea,
mentioned in 3:10-13, is the discovery of the consciousness raising idea of henos
anthropos/anthropoi which purges the mind of judgmental reasoning.


172



Chapter Nine

Jesus Five Stage Model of Consciousness
And How His Theory of Nature Provides the Key
To Stage IV


Gnostic Christians believe that it is Gods divine plan (Rm 8:29-30) that we
learn how to elevate our reasoning to the same level as Gods through five stages of
rational development. And that Jesus was the person who taught the world how to do
this.

ABC's of 5 Stages of Consciousness

It is important to remember that, by "consciousness", I mean, the psychological
context in which all thoughts take place.

Jesus taught that we are all children of God and, therefore, have within us the
potential to be perfect and loving, like God. As the Bible says in Gen 1:27 rsv, we are
created in the "image of God." This means we are psychologically, not physically, like
God.

Jesus himself supports the notion of our potential to be perfect and godlike in Jn
10:34-35 jbv. Here he says that it is not blasphemous, as the high priests claim, for
anyone to think that he or she can be like God-"is it not written [argues Jesus that psalms
82:6 rsv says] 'you are godsall of you'and the scripture cannot be rejected."

"Jesus is truly normal-that is to say, standard - human being. To become like him
is to belong (if one may say so) to his family rather than that of Adam the First, is not to
become freakish and abnormal; it is to discover what being human really is."
217


Understanding that Jesus' goal is to expand consciousness, we must ask, "Is
consciousness, as I now experience it, merely a stepping stone to a perfected stage of
consciousness?" The answer is that the nonjudgmental rules of logic which Jesus'
Gnostic teachings provide are the key to the fourth and perfected psychological stage in a
model of five developmental stages of consciousness.

Paul's five stages in the development of consciousness appear in Romans (8:29-30
kjv).
"For whom he [God] did foreknow, he also did predestinate
to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be
the first born [enlightened man] among many [rational, but
unenlightened] brethren. Moreover, whom he did
predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called,
them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also

173


glorified. "

An introduction to Paul's model follows.

Stage I of Consciousness: The "foreknown" refers to prehistoric beings who were not
rationally conscious, but were predestined to develop the potential to reason. Mindless
behavior characterizes Stage I. Jude 10 refers to those in this stage as "irrational animals."
Biblically, Stage I begins when God creates mankind and ends when Adam eats from the
tree of forbidden fruit.

The key to Stage I is life. Our pre-rational consciousness in infancy exemplifies this
stage.

Stage II of Consciousness: Stage II refers to the first stage of rational beings, those of us
who are in the "image" of Jesus, meaning rational like Jesus, but do not have a
conscience. Narrow- mindedness, intolerance, mean-spiritedness, and prejudicial behavior
identify this beginning stage of rational consciousness. Paul uses the terms "base mind"
(Rm 1:28 rsv) and "senseless mind" (1:21) for those in Stage II.

Biblically, Stage II begins when Adam chooses to eat the forbidden fruit, and ends when
Moses gives the law. The term "lawless" in 2Pt 2:8 rsv and 1Tm 1:9 refers to a
conscience- less behavior characterized by those in Stage II.

The key to Stage II is our awakening to self-consciousness through its agent, the "I", or
ego, of the reasoning mind. Black and white thinking and actions determined by reward
and punishment, not conscience, are typical of our childhood and exemplify this stage.

Stage III of Consciousness: Stage III refers to the "called", who are rational beings with
an awakened conscience.

Biblically, Stage III begins when Moses gives the law, which establishes the ethical basis
of right and wrong. This awakens our conscience, the inner voice that calls us to do the
law. However, we still have the tendency to rationalize what we know is wrong. For that
reason, James, in 1:8, refers to those in Stage III as "double- minded." Nevertheless,
openness, acceptance, and inclusive behavior generally exemplify Stage III.

In Eph 5:14, Paul calls us to "wake up from your sleep [the belief that we are fully
consciousness when we are not], rise from the dead [leading unfulfilling lives], and you
will touch Christ [you will find your god- like potentials of higher reasoning]."

The key to Stage III is the introduction of laws, and in turn, our conscience, which is
awakened by our moral responsibility to the law. The developing conscience of early
Stage III can equate to our adolescence. And the reaching for perfection of later Stage III
can equate to our responsible, but not fully mature, adulthood.

Stage IV of Consciousness: Stage IV refers to "the justified," those of us who are

174


righteous or right- minded. Paul speaks of this in Eph 4:21-26, "You must give up your
old way of life; you must put aside your old self, which gets corrupted by following
illusory desires [that we rationalize in lower Stages of consciousness]. Your mind must
be renewed by a spiritual [psychological] revolutionso that you can put on a new life
that has been created in God's way, in the goodness and holiness [perfection] of the truth
[of Jesus' logic teachings]. So from now on there must be no more lies: you must speak
the truth to one another, since we are all parts of one another."

Seeing ourselves in others, sharing unconditionally, and always acting in accord with our
conscience characterizes the right-thinking of those in Stage IV. Human nature, at this
stage, is perfect, loving, and godlike.

Biblically, Stage IV begins when Jesus reveals his Gnostic teachings and ends when
everyone reasons accordingly.

The key to Stage IV consciousness is to understand the prevailing theory of nature and
the new theory of nature that Jesus reveals in his Gnostic teachings. Understanding both
theories allies our reasoning mind with our heart. We, therefore, do the law from within
both the head and the heart. Paul refers to those in Stage IV as "men made perfect" (Heb
12:23) and to those who have the "mind of Christ." (1Co 2:16) We can equate this stage
to our fully mature and enlightened adulthood.

Stage V of Consciousness: Paul refers to Stage V as the "glory." In the glory,
nonjudgmental reasoning will be universal because public and parochial schools will
teach Jesus' theory of nature. Theologians of all persuasions will recognize that if our
children learn to reason lovingly, they will live the love, peace and joy that religion
preaches. Educators will teach Jesus' theory of nature because it is a natural principle that
supports brotherly love. We have always known that love is the answer. Jesus' Gnostic
teachings make love the rational thing to do.

In Stage V, all will have learned to reason lovingly. We will no longer think it reasonable
to look out for ourselves as others suffer. We will see ourselves as one with all others and
therefore treat them as ourselves. This is the key that fulfills Jesus' promise that "thy will
be done on earth as it is in heaven." This ushers in the Kingdom of God-the glory of
Stage V.

In simple terms, Gnostic Christians identify the Five Stages of Consciousness according
to the following principles.

1 Stage I refers to non-rational beings.
2 Stage II refers to rational beings without a conscience.
3 Stage III refers to rational beings with a conscience.
4 Stage IV refers to the expanded consciousness (enlightenment) achieved by
using both judgmental and nonjudgmental laws of logic.
5 Stage V refers to a synergistic form of consciousness in which the whole is
more than the sum of the parts.

175



Jesus parable of the sower (Mark 4:13-20) conveys how his teachings are
received according to the stage of consciousness of the receiver. What the sower is
sowing is the Word, meaning the logos/mind of God. As soon as those on the edge of the
path (those in Stage I) hear about the word/logos, they let Satan [the personification of
evil] come and carry it away. Similarly, those who receive the seed on patches of rock
[those in Stage II] hear the Word [Jesus logos/logic teachings] and at first, welcome it
with joy. But because they have no root in them, they do not last;.. When the first test or
persecution on account of the word comes, they fall away at once. For they have no
moral conscience to persist. Then there are others, [those in Stage III], who receive the
seed in thorns, [meaning in a judgmental environment]. They have heard the word, but
the worries of this world, the lure of riches, and all other passions come in to choke the
word, and so it produces nothing. And then, there are those who have received the seed in
rich soil [those in Stage IV]. They hear the word and accept it and yield a harvest, 30 and
60 and a 100 fold. [Mark 4:13-20]

The key concept, upon which Jesus anchored his knowledge teachings, is that
each of us is meant to grow through five forms/states of consciousness and each form is
initiated by a consciousness-raising idea. Paul refers to growing our consciousness in CO
2:2: it is to bind you together in love and to stir your minds, so that your understanding
may come to full development, until you really know Gods secret [Stage IV of
consciousness] in which all the jewels of wisdom and knowledge are hidden.

As mentioned above, contemporary psychological and spiritual models of five
stages in the development of consciousness are abundant. Because these contemporary
models may be, in principle, parallel to Jesus knowledge teachings about five stages of
consciousness, let us keep them in mind as we explore the five stages of consciousness in
Gnostic thought.

It is also important to remember that at each stage of our development, a new and
different self or ego emerges. The nature of the ego of a person, whose basic focus is
meeting their physiological needs, will seem quite different from the ego of a person
concerned with gaining love or self-esteem. The person obsessed with security will have
an ego that is fundamentally different from a person seeking self- realization. So, the ego
a person manifests depends upon his/her psychological stage of development.

Again, the fact is that many recognize that we human beings begin almost as a
seed of what we shall later become and that we shall develop beyond where we currently
find ourselves. Along the way we increase our awareness of our individuality and our
inter-relatedness with others as we are called towards a higher goal. Accordingly, we are
not yet what we are. We have yet to evolve or develop into the full potential the human
spirit is capable of becoming. As the poet says,

Withdraw into yourself and look. If you do not find
yourself beautiful yet, act as does the creator of a
statuehe cuts away here, he smoothes there, he makes

176


this line lighter, the other purer until a lovely face has
grown upon his work. So do you also: cut away all that is
excessive, straighten all that is crookedand never cease
chiseling your statue untilyou see the perfect goodness
established in the stainless shrine.
218



Biblical References To The
Five Stages Of Consciousness

In the gospel of Philip, the moral significance of any act depends on the
situation, intentions, and level of consciousness of the participants.
219


It would be odd if western sacred literature did not hint at the five stages disclosed
by the contemporary thinkers above. A clear example of these stages may be found in
Pauls letters to the Romans, 8:28-30.

For those God fore-knew [Stage I], he also predestined to be conformed into the
likeness of his Son [Stage II], that He might be the first born, among many brothers, and
those He predestined, he also called [Stage III]; those he called, he also justified [Stage
IV]; those he justified, he also glorified [Stage V].

According to Biblical scholarship, such as Peakes commentary 8: 29-30, this
verse means that God has a plan for the perfection of man. In Peakes words, Christs
task is to bring man into son-shipand service of God, to be a senior member of a new
human family in which all are brothers and sisters [the justified of Stage II]. The
formation of these men and women begins with Gods call to them [Stage III]. As they
respond, they come into their right relation to God [Stage IV], and that means that
something of the divine glory becomes theirs [Stage V].
220


In their biblical commentary on Romans 8:20-30, Gore and his fellow editors,
offer a developmental model similar to Peakes. Gore states that, The history of the
individual Christian is here conceived as a line (so to speak) stretching from eternity
through time through eternity. In this line, five crucial points stand out. One, Gods
prevision or fixing His regard on the yet unborn soul* [non-rational beings in Stage I who
are] predestined [to become rational beings in Stage II] Three, His call,
presumably conveyed by bringing the predestined within hearing of the Gospel [Stage
III]; Four, His acquittal, or absolution of the soul, bestowed in consideration of its
acceptance of the Gospel [Stage IV]; Five, His glorification of the messianic kingdom
[Stage V].
221


Paul focuses in on the three most relevant stages of consciousness in Heb. 4:6-10,
Stages II, III, and Four, when he insists that today is the decisive timedays signify
three distinct stages in the process of spiritual [here meaning psychological growth]
The first day signify the hylic stage of immersion in materiality [Stage II]; the second
day represents the psychic stage of conversion [Stage III]; the third day, the pneumatic

177


day signifies enlightenment or resurrection [Stage IV].
222


Paul writes in his letter to the Romans in 8:19 that the whole creation is eagerly
awaiting the revelation of the sons of God. The sons of God [Stage IV] are those who are
moved by the spirit (or Spirit,) whether the Holy Spirit or mans own inner spiritual
human spirit, mans higher moral and religious self.
223


We can discern these same five stages of consciousness in the Gnostic Gospel of
Eugnostos the Blessed. The unbegotten refers to the fore-known (prehistoric non-
rational beings of Stage I). The self-begotten refers to the first self-conscience rational
beings who were rational but conscious- less (Stage II). The genetor refers to rational
beings with a conscience who are called to go beyond reason and love unconditionally
(Stage III). The Photogentor refers to Jesus as the first or prototype of someone who has
internalized the high reasoning/logos of God (Stage IV). He then teaches this higher
form of reasoning to others. This is the key to the enlightened mind of the Pangentor,
those who have reached Stage IV of consciousness. When all reach Stage IV, the alpha-
omega consciousness of the Archigentor (Stage V) is achieved.
224


Note: Rm 8-23 the whole creation groans (yearns) in birth pangs (Stages I III)
for a better time (Stage IV). See 2Co 5:1-2) Creation will one day be delivered Is
65:16 set straight Jer God within do what I do not want something is missing, set
right, and day of adoption.

Evidently Gnostic Christians encountered much resistance to their teachings about
the wisdom of a higher logic/logos. The Valentinians explain (1Cor 1:18) that the
logos of the cross, the secret doctrine that reveals how the cross symbolizes Sophias
(wisdoms) [logics] fall and restorationseems only foolish to those who are perishing;
that is to psychics [those of us in Stages II and III of consciousness] Yet the psychics
who regard the divine logos [unconditional logic] as foolishness only show how foolish
they are themselves. Paul explained in Rm 1:25 that the psychics have become fools,
dominated by [Gnostic Christians who understand unconditional logic], the foolish
demiurge, [meaning foolish ideas about the nature of God, they] vowed to destroy the
wisdom of the wise and set aside the understanding of those who understand (1:19).
[Gnostic Christians] The wise, the pneumatics, [Gnostic Christians in Stage IV who
understand the wisdom of higher logic], have no place in the present age: for them the
wisdom [logic] of this age, is itself mere foolishness (1:20).
225


Gnostic Christians goal is to become spiritually mature [meaning
psychologically perfect], to go beyondelementary instructions towards higher levels of
understanding. And this higher awareness they call Gnosis, which means knowledge or
insight. Valentinus urged Christians to go beyond the elementary steps of faith,
baptism, and moral reform to spiritual illumination [psychological understanding]. His
followers claimed moreover, to have received from his access to the secret teachings of
Paul, the deeper mysteries that Paul reserved from his public teachings
226


Jesus taught that we are all children of God and, therefore, have within us the

178


potential to be perfect and loving, like God. As the Bible says in Gen 1:27 rsv, we are
created in the image of God. This means we are psychologically, not physically, like
God. Jesus is truly normalthat is to say a standard human being. To become like him
is to belongto his family [Stage IV] rather than that of Adam the first [Stages II and
III], is not to become freakish and abnormal; it is to discover what being [fully] human
really is.
227


As mentioned above, Jesus himself supports the notion of our potential to be
perfect and godlike in Jn 10:34-35 jbv. Here he says that it is not blasphemous, as the
high priests claim, for anyone to think that he or she can be like Godis it not written
[argues Jesus that psalms 82:6 rsv says] you are godsall of youand the scripture
cannot be rejected.


Detailed Examples of
Five Stages of Consciousness

If it is Gods plan that we are meant to be psychologically like him, is
consciousness, as we now experience it, merely a stepping-stone to a perfected stage of
consciousness? The answer is yes. What we now consider being a normal adult
consciousness equates to Stages II and III of consciousness. The nonjudgmental rules of
logic that Jesus Gnostic teachings provide are the key to the fourth and perfected
psychological stage in a model of five developmental stages of consciousness. Let us
now explore in detail how Gnostic Christians interpret 8:29-30 and how that
interpretation makes the possibility of our perfection achievable.


The Gnostic Interpretation of Rm 8:29-30

Stage I of Consciousness: Again, in the Gnostic analysis of Romans 8:29-30,
the foreknown refers to humanitys prehistoric and non-rational past. This is Stage I.

The consciousness-raising idea that initiates Stage I is life itself. In scripture,
Stage I begins when God creates preconscious man and ends when Adam becomes the
first self-conscious rational being. The foreknown are the pre-rational, instinctual beings,
destined to develop into the likeness of God, as exemplified by the nonjudgmental
character of Jesus.

Governed by instinct, those in Stage I live without being fully conscious of life.
They have no concept of guilt, deception, evil, justice, philosophy, history, or the future.
Here God is thunder, lightning, and fertility.

Perhaps the Nephilim in Gen. 6:4 were preconscious beings who lived primitive
and immoral lives in what the Bible describes as Sheol/Hell. According to Gnostics,
the nabi were remnants of pre-rational beings who existed at the time in which the
oldest books of the bible were written. In those books, Yahweh calls for the nabis

179


extinction. The nature of existence in Sheol was heathen, and non- moral, and could in
no sense form a basis on which to form an ethical and spiritual doctrinethus, the first
stage waseminently distinctive in character, but this only with a view to a higher
reconstruction. For whilst Yawhehism was destroying the false life in Sheol [the
preconscious cultures of Stage I beings], it was steadily developing in the individual the
consciousness of a new life.
228


We can connect this change in consciousness with what historians call the
Dorian Invasions.

In his book, The Republic, the philosopher, Plato, speaks of a time before reason
when innocence reigned. In his book, The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of
the Bicameral Mind, Professor Julien Jaynes argues convincingly that most cultures
before 1500 BC were dominantly right brain * orientated, and therefore, not self-
conscious as we are. Feminine goddesses, rather than masculine gods, exemplify ancient
right brain culture. Perhaps we still share memories of those times in our collective
consciousness.

Some of us long for a return to the past. We imagine it as an innocent and gentle
time. But we forget that in the selfless consciousness of right-brained or preconscious
man, we were unaware of what we experienced. We had no sense of self to relate our
experiences to. An example of what can be termed selfless, right-brained, or
preconscious consciousness can occur when driving our car without being aware of it
because our mind was focused elsewhere. Other examples are, when we cannot
remember what we did because we were intoxicated or on drugs, and when we quiet the
ego or mind self during meditation.

Biblical terms for those in Stage I are ancient world in 1Peter 2:4, irrational
animals, 1Peter 2:12; before the foundations of the world, Eph. 1:4; men in their
dreaming, 2Peter 22. Gnostic Christians use terms like unbegotten, meaning those not
yet born to reason, and pro-pator, meaning the forefathers of rational man.

Stage II of Consciousness: Stage II refers to the first stage of rational beings,
those of us who are in the image of Jesus, meaning rational like Jesus, but do not have
a conscience. Mean-spiritedness, narrow- mindedness, intolerance, and prejudicial
behavior identify this stage. The term lawless in 2Pt 2:8 rsv and 1Tm 1:9 refers to the
conscience- less behavior of those in Stage II. Paul also uses the terms base mind (Rm
1:28 rsv) and senseless mind (1:21). At this stage, human nature cannot be trusted.

In Stage II, for example, many of us make decisions in companies and industries
whose products work against the good of all, yet we think of ourselves as good, God-
fearing people. And many of the rest of us, given the chance to earn high incomes, would
do the same. This is conscience- less reasoning. In his first letter, the apostle John
expresses the relationship between loving God and loving ones fellow man.

If a man say I love God, and hateth [and cheats] his

180


brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom
he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?
(First John 4:20-21, KJV)

Biblically, Stage II begins when Adam chooses to eat the forbidden fruit, and
ends when Moses gives the law. The key to Stage II is our awakening to self-
consciousness through its agent, the I, or ego, of the reasoning mind.

In Gnostic thought, the second stage applies to the first born, who are in the
likeness of his son, meaning the first rational beings who are
psychologically/spiritually like Jesus. By the likeness and first born, Paul means
self-conscious and rational like Jesus. By in the image of Jesus, Paul means that in
Stage II, even though we have learned to reason, the development of our reason has not
yet reached the perfection of Jesus. Our reason is like, or in the image of, Jesus, but not
as fully developed in its capacity to love unconditionally as is his.

Gnostics read the story of Adam and Eve asrelating to the discovery of the
authentic spiritual self (Eve) [meaning the true psychological self that is still] hidden
within the soul (Adam) [meaning in Stage I of consciousness]
229


The consciousness-raising idea that initiates Stage II is the idea of self-
consciousness, in other words, the discovery that the I is separate from all else. It is this
idea of self, which in turn, empowers us to reason, for it is the self to which all rational
thoughts relate.

Remember, by reasoning, I mean the process of relating two or more ideas or
premises in a way that they produce a conclusion not stated in the premise. If an animal,
for example, moos (premise one) and gives milk (premise two), we can conclude that it is
a cow. Reasoning then has to do with the process of relating ideas, not the subject matter
being related or the reasonableness of our conclusion.

Similarly we can come to a wide range of conclusions, depending on what stage
of consciousness we are in. Ideas, in and of themselves, do not reach conclusions.
People reach conclusions according to how they relate ideas.

For Gnostics, Stage II begins with Adams decision to eat the apple from the tree
of knowledge of good and evil and ends when Moses gives the law.

Adams decision to eat the apple symbolizes the birth of self-consciousness, and,
in turn, our ability to reason. For in his first act of choosing, Adam makes the distinction
between himself (the subject or I who chooses) and his choices (It.) In making that
distinction Adam, meaning mankind, became self-conscious.

The author of the Adam and Eve story reinforces that this story symbolizes the
birth of self-consciousness by adding that it was after Adam ate the apple that he realized
he was naked. This indicates that, before his choice, Adam was not yet self-conscious,

181


he was still in the instinctual stage of consciousness. (Stage I). The connection between
being naked and being ashamed of our bodies is the product of Augustines interpretation
of Rm 5:12, not the author of Genesis.

John Miltons poem, Paradise Lost, exemplifies Adams choosing self-
consciousness and reason [Stage II] over the selflessness of instinct in the Garden of
Eden [Stage I], for it suggests Adams awakening to self-consciousness.

Some tears they drop, but wipe them soon. The world was
all before them, theirs to choose.
230


Note: Technically speaking, Adam had three options when he became aware of
the distinction between himself and his choices. One, he could see himself as distinct
from all else, which is the underlying cause of civilized mans consciousness of
separation. Two, he could see himself as part of the subject of his choices, which is the
underlying cause of aboriginal mans consciousness of being a part of nature. And
three, he could perceive himself as both separate from and yet one with nature. This
perception is the goal of Gnosticism.

Choice, however, is not without responsibility and even terror. Self-consciousness
is not only a blessing, but also a curse. Jung has suggested that when the unconscious,
instinctive mind of primitive man evolved into the conscious reflecting mind, the
resulting orphaned and isolated mental states were all too often the negative ones of
doubt and fear. Abandoned by nature as we evolved into self-consciousness, we could
have experienced the dawn of conscious awareness as a curse, as the Biblical story of The
Fall depicts. For our reasoning, or self- conscious, mind would now find itself separated
from all else, and therefore, alone.

In Stage II, then, rationality makes its first appearance. This stage is characterized
in terms of a sense of security and order (Maslow), shared tribal values (Joseph
Campbell), self conscious and reflective homo-sapien (Chardin). As individuals we
would relate to others in Stage II in our society by rules, regulations, or conventions of a
particular society (Kohlberg). Also, the individuals identity is defined byand thus
not separate fromthe group (Wilber). Each analysis recognizes that a growing self-
consciousness that identifies with the clan or tribe, or religious, political, or racial group
is dawning in Stage II.

It is a positive step to become aware of ourselves as distinct from others, to
individuate, to use the psychologist Carl Jungs termto become our own person.
Distinction from others involves becoming aware of others as different from ourselves.
The sense of separation means the loss of that innocence or ignorance symbolized by
Adam and Eve before they tasted the forbidden fruit in the garden. But this is a positive
step in a developing rational consciousness.

Man, who lives in the Garden of Eden, in complete
harmony with nature, but without awareness of himself,

182


begins his history by the first acts of freedom, disobedience
to a command. Concomitantly, he becomes aware of
himself, of his separateness, of his helplessness; he is
expelled from paradise and two angels with fiery swords
prevent his return.
231



Self Identity In Stage II

Self- identity in Stage II, then, is a product of our experience, which is provided by
the environment and our social group. Hence, the ego self which develops at Stage II is,
by and large, a social fabrication. At this stage, we imagine ourselves as confronted with
a choice between basic instincts and impulsive drives, on the one hand, and the rational
and moral demands of our group, on the other. Until very late in this stage of
development our identity is structured in terms of this dualism.

Note: This dualism surfaces in clearly defined distinctions between ourselves and
others, our race and others, our religion and others, our country and others, and on and
on.

This is Kohlbergs conventional level: moral values are determined by
performing the correct roles within the conventional order. In Stage II, we learn to do
what maintains the general authority and social order of our group. Our mentality in this
Stage is typically a law and order one. Stability is provided by the social group within
which we align ourselves. Hence, our developing ego would identify with these groups
and they would become the determining source of our values and character. Being a
conservative, for example, often implies maintaining the values of our particular
church, political party or special interest group. In effect, the ego self in Stage II
develops through its experience in a groupsuch as a family, church, political
community, gang, or cult.

The categories of either belonging, or not belonging, are central to our thinking
and reasoning in Stage II. In Maslows hierarchy of needs this stage is identified by
such social needs as security, order, and protection i.e., law and order and conformity.
Some of us in Stage II, for example, judge that homosexuality is immoral, because it does
not conform to the interests of our group. A conformity like this does not take into
account that Jesus says we should not judge.

Social problems arise when we derive our identity in opposition to other groups,
sometimes in a way that may be very childish and even destructive. The negative side of
Stage II is the us versus them mentality endemic to the clan; if youre not one of us,
then youre against us. Dogmatic us versus them and vengeful thinking can exemplify
our mean-spirited mentality in Stage II.

Like small children, in Stage II we are absolutely convinced that we are right. It
follows that we will be positively certain that those who disagree with us are wrong.

183


Anyone who disagrees becomes they, or even the enemy. What is important to realize
is that the source of this mechanism lies in the us versus them, either/or, dogmatic
consciousness of Stage II, which judges others in terms of their difference from our own
group.


Historical Examples of Stage II of Consciousness
that Persist Today

In Stage II, our social institutions are based on logic justified by Platos theory of
nature. This does not work any better than trying to build a home with dental tools. For,
just as building a home requires the proper tools, so does building equitable social
philosophies require both Aristotelian and nonjudgmental logic, not a monopoly of one or
the other. The perfect example of Aristotelian logic distorting even the best of intentions
is religious wars. For even though religions are the shepherds of love and peace, they can
become oppressive when practiced in the context of Aristotles judgmental laws of logic.
It is our habit, of trying to love in a field of Aristotelian logic, that pits the one true God
of Islam, against the one true God of Judaism, against the one true God of Christianity,
and on and on, not our true, innermost sentiments.

Another good illustration of how Aristotelian logic interferes with the
accomplishment of worthy goals surfaces in our political arenas. Democracy, monarchy,
theocracy, and communism, for example, are all supposed to represent the will of the
people. However, all too often, hierarchical reasoning concerning power and money
turns most states into oligarchies, governments controlled by privilege, based on
wealth. In practical terms, oligarchies are governments that are controlled by special
interest groups.

In Stage II and into Stage III, we tend to think of the past as the good old days,
when greed and lust for power came in second to honor and chivalry. History, however,
documents that even though attire and technology have changed, political institutions
today are carbon copies of those in ancient Greece and Rome.

In Platos book, The Republic, for example, he writes what is all too often the
case today. His account of oligarchical states is worth noting because its familiarity
proves how little political life has changed over the last two thousand years. According
to Plato, wealth in an oligarchy is controlled by a select few, riches and rich men are
honoredvirtue and virtuousness are dishonored.
232


Money is [generally] the ruler of success, and a leader is elected because he is
rich not because he is a better pilot.
233
To keep their power leaders of oligarchies side
with the rich and the poor get poorer. The poor, however, cannot rebel because their
means of subsistence is controlled by special interests they cannot influence, period.
Sometimes forced to sell all that he has, the poor dwell in the city of which he is no
longer a part, being neither tradesman, nor artisan, nor horseman, nor hoplite, but only
poor helpless creatures [and] where there are paupers, there are thieves and other

184


criminals. [And I would add street gangs]
234


Stage II people in an oligarchical state are money makers who resemble one
another in their toiling and raving ways, [they think] only how lesser sums of money
can be turned into larger ones. The oligarchical man keeps up a fair outside but he has
only an enforced virtue and will cheat when he can.
235
He will not spend money in
search of glory [virtue]; so afraid is he of awakening his expensive appetites and inviting
them to help in the struggle; in true oligarchical fashion he fights [injustice] only with a
small part of his resources, and the result commonly is that he loses the prize and saves
his money[the oligarchical man] then, will be at war with himself: he will be two men,
and not one.
236


Oligarchies fall in Stage II and III because the goal of oligarchical men is to
become as rich as possible, a desire which is insatiable[a desire which in the end leads
to their downfall because acting as if] their power rests on their wealth [they] refuse to
curtail by law the extravagance of the spendthrift because they gain [through interest]
by their ruin: they take interest from them and thus increase their own wealth and
importanceThere can be no doubt that the love of wealth and the spirit of moderation
cannot exist together in citizens of the same state to any considerable extent, one or the
other will be disregarded.
237
Those who favor moderation will be reduced to poverty as
those who have wealth increase their power through interest. Men of business stooping
as they walk, and pretending not even to see those whom they have already ruined, insert
their sting [interest] into someone who is not on guard against them and recovery
[through interest] the parent sum many times overand so [over time] they make drone
and pauper abound in the state.
238


In Pauls time, politics and economics were little changed from Platos, even
though classical Greece had fallen and Rome had risen.

The Roman Empire had become an oligarchical state in Jesus lifetime. The
human dramas played out then would seem familiar to todays. Unfortunately, those
dramas, and Jesus involvement in them, are so distorted, by myths and supernatural
accounts of history, that the everyday political life of Jesus and his Gnostic followers are
all but lost.

The political environment in which Jesus lived was anything but supernatural.
What was considered important in Jesus time is still considered important today.
Materialism, military industrial complexes, bankers, unions, business, politics, and
princely powers and corrupt world leaders (Ref Eph. 6:12) were major concerns.
Bankers proliferated and prospered, they paid interest on deposits, cashed checks, met
bills for their clients, lent and borrowed money, made or managed investments, and
fattened on such relentless usury [interest] that cut throat and money lender became one
word.
239


It is apparent that Jesus did not share in the hierarchical standards of the Stage II
values of his time. Jesus, like Paul, considered interest-bearing capital a ruinous

185


institution that sooner or later funneled all wealth into the hands of a few at the cost of the
dignity of the rest. Is not money loaned for interest by and far the largest form of
welfare? Money does not work, yet when loaned for interest, it gets paid for doing
nothing. For Gnostic Christians, loaning money for interest was not condoned. It was
considered a parasitic practice.

No one [Jesus says in Mt. 6:21-34] can be the slave of two masters: either he will
hate the first and love the second, or treat the first with respect and the second with scorn.
You cannot be the slave both of God and moneyfor where your treasure is, there will
your heart be alsoso do not worry about tomorrow: tomorrow will take care of itself.
Yet to this day, most Christians worry more about building retirement funds for
tomorrow than sharing with others today.

In Stage II, Aristotelian logic distorts the best of intentions of all economic
systems. Who would deny that history overflows with examples of class struggles in
which, over time, the victors become as corrupt as the losers.

Capitalism, for example, is based on the idea that humans are competitive by
nature, and therefore, they will attain the highest of their goals through competitive
economic systems. Thats no problem, if we think of our highest goals in terms of better
ways to enhance the well-being of humanity. In Stages II and III, however, we think in
terms of individual profit. Similarly, the basis of communism is teamwork and sharing.
Again, theres no problem with this idea, except that most of us are in Stages II and III,
which makes us more concerned with ourselves than the team.

The basic flaw in capitalism, communism, socialism, or whatever well-
intentioned economic philosophy, is not in the philosophies themselves, but rather in the
consciousness of those who apply the philosophies. Karl Marx (1818-1883), for
example, was a well- intentioned political philosopher who gave birth to modern
communism. But, when Joseph Stalin, in a lower stage of consciousness than Marx,
applied Marx philosophy, Marx ideals were lost and communism became synonymous
with terror. The same holds true in religion. The universal love that Jeremiah, Jesus, and
Mohammad taught has been historically undermined by zealots, inquisitors, radical
fundamentalists, and terrorists.

The shortcomings of religion, politics, and economics in Stage II can be seen as a
product of Aristotelian laws of logic. As was said before, ideas do not relate themselves.
People relate ideas/reason. When we relate ideas solely on the basis of Aristotles laws of
logic, as we do in Stage II, we build social institutions, that sooner or later, separate us,
destroy us, bankrupt us, and worst of all, lead us to think we are virtuous, when we are
not.

Speaking of the system in a derogatory way can be equated to the affinity for
judgmentalness that the Aristotelian system of logic builds into our social institutions.
We can equate judgmentalness in contemporary philosophical systems to the beast in
Platos book, The Republic, as well as to the beast in the book of Revelations. Both

186


examples are personifications of judgmental reasoning which, without our awareness,
controls our lives. The evil aspects of materialism, consumerism, colonialism, fascism,
Protestantism, Hinduism, and all other isms are not the real problem. The real problem
is the built- in inclination to judgment that lurks in our institutions like an ill-tempered
beast, wait ing to devour us when we let down our guard of love.

Philosophy must redefine itself when it realizes that its basic tool, reason based on
Aristotelian logic, cannot be considered a qualified instrument with which to do
philosophy. Without this knowledge, society is at the mercy of chance, because we
would not know that how we now think and speak may be counterproductive to the very
things we love. We need to move into a new era of philosophy based on both
Aristotelian and nonjudgmental logic. Then, we will have all the tools necessary to
recreate civilization in such a way that we will feel safe and at home.

It is important to remember that, in Stage II and III, we cannot live humanely
within philosophical institutions built with Aristotelian logic. For when we use only
Aristotles system of logic, our philosophies of religion and politics are mined with
judgmental reasoning. Our repetitive history of wars, racism, sexism, and hypocrisy
demonstrates that even the wisest and most noble of philosophies will turn into
judgmental institutions as long as we use the traditional tools of logic. For even though
our social institutions are built to facilitate human need, they are built with the tools of
judgmental logic, which build into them an affinity for judgment. This can undermine
the stated purpose of even the most well- intended institutions. Trying to build humane
social institutions with Aristotelian logic is like trying to cool down in a pot of boiling
water. It cannot be done. To cool down, we need to put out the fire beneath the pot. To
put out that fire, we need both Aristotelian and nonjudgmental logic.

Paul refers to those in Stage II of consciousness as lawless men (Second Peter:
2:9), worldly people (Jude 10), peddlers of Gods word (Second Corinthian 2:15), the
anti-Christmeaning those opposed to Jesus knowledge teachings (First John 2:18),
blind and short-sighted (Second Peter 1:9), disguised [hypocritical] servants of
righteousness (Second Corinthian 11:5), and in Gnostic terms as hylicsmeaning
emerged in materialism
240
, self-begottenmeaning awakened to self- consciousness,
and sarkicmeaning materialistically driven.

Stage III of Consciousness: Stage III refers to the called, meaning rational
beings with an awakened conscience. Human nature, at this stage, is reaching for
perfection.

Biblically, Stage III begins when Moses gives the law, which establishes the
ethical basis of right and wrong. This awakens our conscience, the inner voice that calls
us to do the law. In Stage II, we are rational, but conscience-less. In Stage III we are
rational and have a developed conscience. In this stage, however, we still have the
tendency to rationalize what we know is wrong. For that reason, James, in 1:8, refers to
those in Stage III as double-minded. Nevertheless, openness, acceptance, and inclusive
behavior generally exemplify Stage III.

187



The key to Stage III is the introduction of laws, and in turn, our conscience, which
is awakened by our moral responsibility to the law.

Stage III ends Biblically when Jesus reveals his Gnostic teachings.

Paul refers to those in Stage III in the development of consciousness as the
called, meaning those who are called by their conscience to be nonjudgmental and
loving. In Stage III these values are imminent spiritually, but intellectually, they are
often rationalized away.

In Pauls biblical model of five forms of consciousness, Stage III begins when
Moses gives the law to Israel and ends when Jesus revealed his theory of nature to the
world. Paul refers to those in Stage III as the called, for it is in this stage that the law
awakens in us our moral conscience, which ever after asks us to do good.

Lawgivers like Moses, Confucius, and the Greek philosopher Salon, were, for
Paul, more than teachers of wisdom. Their formation of a written code of ethics marked
a turning point in the development of consciousness. Those codes established ethical
criteria for right and wrong. It was in response to such laws that we can find the origin of
consciousness and its call to act in life- affirming ways.

In Stage II we are lawless and therefore not morally responsible for we have no
laws to be responsible to. In Stage III we have knowledge of moral laws and are therefore
responsible to them. By moral, Gnostics mean life-affirming, or, as Dr. Albert
Schwietzer said the fundamental principle of morality [is] that good consists in
maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting
life are evil.
241


It is in our third stage in the development of consciousness that we become aware
of our inner God-self, whose nature is love. We have discovered our God-self in Stage III
for our conscience is the voice of our God-self.

The consciousness-raising idea that initiates Stage III, then, is written laws, for
they reform the consciousness of Stage II by adding a conscience. In effect, the law
transforms our rational, but conscience- less form of consciousness, into the moral form of
consciousness of Stage III.

In Stage III we are no longer driven by dogmatic and judgmental reasoning. Our
conscience tempers our judgments. We still judge, but in a context of compassion,
empathy, and openness to others. It is in Stage III where we begin to value diversity and
even equal but opposite virtues. As Neal Bohr, father of quantum mechanics, has
confirmed, the opposite of a most profound truth may well be another most profound
truth.

In Stage III we longer reason in black or white terms as in Stage II. Our

188


conscience moves us to favor gray areas where unconditional love and compassion
reside. Jung would agree because he believes conscience [in Stage III] is the internal
perception of the rejection of a rational choice. In Stages IV and V our reasoning and
conscience are harmonious. That inner harmony is the inner peace that most of us
pursue, but too often look for in all the wrong places. Plato says it best. We all seek the
good, but know not the nature of it.

Most of us, stuck in Stage III form of consciousness, are not yet aware of Jesus
theory of nature, which is the consciousness-raising idea that admits us to Stage IV. We
remain, therefore, caught up in the dilemma of not being able to reconcile what we know
to be the Good with what our reason tells us is the practical and logical thing to do.

Paul refers to those of us who are stuck in Stage III of consciousness as double-
minded men [who are]unstable in all his ways. (Jn 1:8 kjv)

The Greek philosopher, Zeno, tells a tale of Achilles race with a turtle, to
demonstrate the odd truth that two minds, the rational and intuitive, often oppose one
another, even though they occupy the same head. This illustrates double- mindedness
two minds in one headbecause we intuitively know that the athlete Achilles can outrun
a turtle, yet we can, through mathematics, logically prove that Achilles can never catch
up with the turtle.

What Zeno is trying to explain is the dilemma that the ego-self is often in conflict
with the intuitive self. And if we can understand the cause of this conflict, we can
identify the root of evil, for evil lurks in our ability to rationalize away what we
intuitively know is right.

The key to reconciling the two minds is the key to Stage IV. This reconciliation
brings the ego into harmony with the intuitive self, and in turn, the god-self because in
Stage III the intuitive self is synonymous with the god-self.

Stage III may be likened to the young adult stage of humanity. Wilber
characterizes this stage as when individual consciousness truly develops. Sri
Aurobindo says moral consciousness develops [and]takes precedence over individual
needs and desires in this stage. It is in Stage III, then, that the conscience makes itself
heard, and its moral nature known, through our self-conscious ego/mind.

Ideological systems in Stage III would have us believe that our "salvation" lies in
believing some doctrine, whether political, religious, or economic. But in the great and
universal myths of judgment, from Egyptian to Christian, we are judged not for our
beliefs, but for our actions.

In Jesus' story of the Judgment
242
, the sheep are divided from the goats on the
basis of one very simple criterion: did they treat others as they would have treated him?
Did they give food to the hungry, did they take the stranger in, did they clothe the naked,
and visit the sick and imprisoned? "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of

189


these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
243
The sheep did, the goats did not. Those
who will "inherit the kingdom," will be those who draw no distinction between man and
God, between the ordinary person and Jesus. For to set the profane apart from the sacred,
to distinguish the "mere" human being from the Lord, is to engage in judgment based on
the categories of either/or. In contrast, those of us who will be worthy of inheriting the
kingdom must see in our fellow man both the human and the divine. Nonjudgmental
logic is the way to this both/and reasoning. As Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita: "I am
the Self, seated in the hearts of all creatures."
244
"The true yogi observes Me in all beings,
and also sees every being in Me. Indeed, the self-realized man sees Me everywhere."
245



Characteristics of Stage III

Characteristically, in Stage III we care for most everyone, but spend our time and
money primarily on our families and ourselves. In Stage III we might demonstrate
against abortion, but fail to demonstrate our concern for millions of starving children.
We all too often voice our care, but give only enough to appease our conscience. The
result is, to paraphrase Plato, we save our wallets but lose the prize. Admittedly, it is not
easy to clearly distinguish our reasoning in Stage III from that in Stage II. We must ask:
what is it that we understand at Stage III that we do not at Stage II? For one thing, we
would experience a growing awareness that there is a whole to which both sides of an
either/or conflict belong. We would realize that when we act without consideration for
the general good of others, we are in Stage I. When we act on our groups behalf against
the welfare of the whole, we exemplify Stage II consciousness. In Stage III we begin to
realize that we are part of the whole, but still find it hard to commit totally to the well-
being of those outside our group.

In Stage II God is often personified as a vindictive father; in Stage III he is
generally personified as a loving father. This is why in Stages II or III of consciousness
we tend to look for some divine fatherly imageor superheroto make everything right
for us.

Jesus used the parable of The Good Samaritan
246
to illustrate the difference
between the consciousness of Stage II and the lower levels of Stage III, on the one hand,
and the later levels of Stage III and of Stage IV on the other. In his story, a priest and
Levite walked by a man who had been robbed, wounded, and stripped naked and left to
die on a road. The Levite, who represents a conscious less person in Stage II, did not stop
to render aid. The wounded man was not a Levite, and therefore not his problem. The
Priest, who represents a person with a consciousness in Stage III, felt bad about the
wounded man, but feared more for himself and moved on. But the Samaritan, who
represents a person who sees himself in others (Stage IV), stopped and offered assistance.
Jesus was illustrating how we must become neighbors to one another without regard to
our differences. Love Thy Neighbor means that no one may be excluded from ones care
and concern. Brotherly love (agape) is to be extended to all people, even our enemies. In
Stage III we understand this, in Stage IV we live it.


190



Dilemma of Stage III

A Need For a New Nonjudgmental Logic.

A caution to everybody; consider the Auk: becoming
extinct because he forgot how to fly, and only could walk.
Consider man, who may well become extinct because he
forgot how to walk and learned how to fly before he
thinked.
247


Why would those of us who have reached Stage III, continue to think in immoral
ways? It is because we are logically limited to judgmental reasoning. The secret of how
to transcend judgmental reasoning lies precisely in reasoning in terms of both/and, or
what can be called nonjudgmental categories of reasoning. Jesus theory of nature lays
the foundation for this type of reasoning. But again, I am getting ahead of myself. Let
me continue setting the stage upon which Jesus theory will be presented.

Nearly two thousand years have passed since Jesus inaugurated the entrance into
this fourth stage, and initiated it by being its exemplar. Of course, many of us are still in
Stage II, and a smaller number of us still linger in Stage I. But it would seem that an
increasing number of us are ready to enter into the next higher stage of development, the
stage of the perfected adult who has reached his or her full potential for being fully
humanStage IV of consciousness.

Experience has taught us that trying to change our thinking by rejecting the mind,
or simply saying no to immoral rationalization, is at most, a stopgap solution, but never a
permanent one. Immoral judgments will never be fully overcome until we overcome our
ancient affair with judgmental either/or reasoning.

Gnostics believe that civilized man is ready to enter Stage IV. In Stage III we
mean well, and have a moral conscience, but have been held back because our
judgmental process of reason leads us to conflict and opposition. The key to entering into
Stage IV lies in our recognition that we must ally our ego-self with the God-self through
Jesus knowledge teachings.

Paul recognizes the conflict between his reasoning mind/ego and his heartfelt
feelings, or spiritual values. This dilemma demonstrates the age-old paradox of two
opposing minds in one head. In RM 7: 18-23, Paul states, I can will what is right, but I
cannot do it, for I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Paul
continues, I delight in the law of God, in my innermost [God] self but I see in my
members [meaning the ego/reasoning mind] another law [judgmental law] at war with the
[nonjudgmental] law of my [God-self] mind. Here, Paul is setting the stage upon which
Jesus theory of nature will play out its role as the reconciliator between the ego-self and
the God-self.


191


I stress the word reconcile, because unlike other doctrines that prescribe methods
to quiet or escape the ego, Jesus theory of nature is meant to elevate the ego to the same
level as the God-self. In actuality, Jesus theory of nature helps the ego catch up with the
God-self, making mind/ego values harmonious with the values of the God-self. This is
what Paul is referring to in Romans 12:2 when he says, be not conformed to this world
[meaning our consciousness of the world]; but be transformed by the renewing of your
mind [the ego-self] This cannot be overemphasized. Its meaning underlies the
relevance of the intellectual understanding of Jesus ministry, and is paramount to
Gnostic thought.

Recently discovered Gnostic gospels teach that ordinary consciousness/ego can be
harmonized with the God-self. For example:

Only when ones psyche, or ordinary consciousness [of
Stages II and III becomes integrated with ones spiritual
nature [which happens in Stage IV]one can achieve
internal harmony and wholeness.
248


Gnostics claim that the renewal of the mind/ego that Paul refers to is the
fulfillment of the prophesy of Gods promise of a new covenant. Understanding that
biblical idiom differs from modern idiom in considering the heart as the seat of
intelligenceheart is used in the bible where in English we should use mind or will to
say in the heart means simply to think (Romans 10:6), to reckon in the heart is to plan
(Genesis 6:5, Proverbs 6:18-19). When Yahweh gives Solomon breath of heart (First
Kings 5:9) this signifies not magnanimity, but intelligence
249


Recognizing that heart signifies the objective mind rather than our feelings, I
will quote Jeremiah 31:31-33 to show how Yahweh promises Jeremiah that he will
elevate the heart, meaning mind, so it will objectively know the Lord, the God-self
within.

Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will
make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the
House of Judah, not like [Israels covenant with the law]
I will put my law within them and I will write it upon their
hearts; [within their reasoning minds]

Mt 22:14 (rsv) states that Many are called [in Stage III] but few are chosen
[meaning few reach Stage IV]. This passage suggests the resistance that those of us in
Stage III have towards giving up old beliefs for new ideas. For example, most find it
difficult to give up the ideas of a hereafter, better karma, superheroes, or a quick fix
through supernatural intervention, for the idea that Jesus Gnostic teachings could change
the world by changing the consciousness of all individualsone at a time!

The story of a drowned man entering heaven makes the point that we need look
no further than everyday miracles for Gods intervention. A man is in danger of drowning

192


but turns away rescuers in a boat, and later in a helicopter. After drowning, the angry
man approaches St. Peter at heavens gate and demands to know why God let him drown.
I prayed and waited, but God never came, to which Peter answered, Yes He did, but
you didnt recognize Him. God was the man in the row boat and the pilot of the
helicopter you turned away.

The point is that God is manifest in natural events (such as rescuers in row boats),
not just in dazzling displays of divine intervention, the latter of which we seldom see, the
former of which we have the opportunity to experience everyday. When we have
evolved to Stage IV, we will see the divine in others and the world.

Biblical idioms for those of us in Stage III are found in Pauls terms, such as
double-minded men (James 1:18); those under the law (Colossians 3:5 and 3:19); hearers
(Hebrews 4:2); babes in Christ (First Corinthians 3:2); old covenant (James 3:4); third
heaven [meaning Stage III] (James 12:2); unsteady souls (Second Peter 2:14); and The
Called (Romans 8:29-30).

Gnostics used the term psychic, meaning worldly but capable of
conversion
250
, and sarkic, meaning of the flesh, for those of us in Stage III. In the
beginning of Stage III we remain judgmental and materialistic, but to a lesser degree than
we were in Stage II. We can safely say that those of us in Stage III are the well intended
who want to make the world a better place. Unlike IVs, however, whose care is
unconditional, we still spend most of our time and resources on personal agendas.
Actually, most of us in Stage III help only to the extent that we appease our conscience,
which in the end, saves us our wallet but costs us our prize.

We stand today at the crossroads between Stages III and IV of consciousness.
Our real hope is that enough of us have already made it through Stage III and are ready to
make the transition to Stage IV. Jesus theory of nature is the key to that transition.

Jesus was the first to reach Stage IV through his own knowledge teachings. Those
teachings influenced thousands of people in the first three hundred years after Jesus. By
400 AD, however, his knowledge teachings were considered heretical, and sentenced to a
silence that has not been broken until today.


Toward a new Civilization

We already know the truth. What we cant seem to do is live it.

If nonjudgmental logic were taught to children on a global scale, it could lay a
foundation for an entirely new form of civilization. The first step in the transition to a
new stage, for the self individually, and for civilization collectively, is to recognize that
the underlying source of our problems is hierarchical, either/or, and judgmental
reasoning. I have argued that this reasoning is the consequence of Plato's theory of
Forms and Aristotle's three logical laws of Identity, Excluded Middle, and Contradiction,

193


which evolved from Plato's theory.

After we recognize the source of our problem, the second step is to devise a
solution. My solution is the theory that some classes have more than one nature, which in
turn, justifies a nonjudgmental system of logical laws. With these laws, it would be
logical and rational to assume that opposing opinions, values, and conflicting actions,
when they are life-affirming, could be right. With the formulation of these new laws, it
should be possible to transcend the judgmental reasoning inherent in Aristotelian logic's
either/or categories, which have become the paradigm of logical and rational thought.

We can call on the gods to save us, we can pray for enlightenment, or we can use
the power of reason, in conjunction with our spiritual understandings, to achieve that
change in consciousness which would usher in a higher form of civilization.

Nonjudgment will help us to see through the intoxication of individuality, pride,
honor, and success, to envision the whole in which we each are a part. We need to weave
a more durable and unifying cultural pattern of philosophy and religion, science and
technology, music and poetry, wisdom and truth. When we can listen and learn from our
fellow human brothers and sisters, we will have taken the first step toward loving
unconditionally. For in this openness we can accept the ideas and values of others on
their own merits, especially the most imaginative and original perspectives of truth, from
which we will be able to weave new cultural nets, with which to catch visions, of that
which we cannot now even dream.

Jesus was serious when, in the Sermon on the Mount, he said: "Be ye therefore
perfect."
251
We have the potential for perfectibility. The earliest Christians and fathers
of the Church would not have accepted Augustine's dogma of original sin.
252
It is not
through Adam that all sinned, as the great saint of Hippo believed. Sin is an error in
our consciousness due to our reasoning process. We can change that way of thinking:
we can reason in nonjudging ways. When we cease to judge our fellow human beings,
when we stop holding them up to our imagined standard, we can instead embrace them in
friendship and brotherhood and love. This is the reasoning which morality is seeking;
this is the reasoning which will make a kingdom of heaven possible.

Most of the problems which arise in our world are the result of our perspective.
We must give up the perspective of human nature as greedy and selfish. Certainly, some
human beings are like that, but these are the "little children" in the lower stages of
rational growth, not mankind's more representative examples. Our perspective must
allow us to see in one another and ourselves the image of the Divine. Paul's letter to the
Ephesians tells us that we are God's work of art and are pre-ordained to live the good
life.
253
Never has civilization been more ready or more able to achieve that good life.
We have the means for universal education, the technology to meet our needs, and the
philosophy of nonjudgment and the logic of love to make this possible. This philosophy
is not new. It was taught by the great masters of religion and philosophy, such as the
Buddha, the Christ, Krishna, Mohammed, Lao Tse, Confucius, Plato, Pythagoras, and the
prophets of Israel.

194



Can our society survive its current crises? Most of us believe that radical changes
are needed to make society civilized and moral. There are those in religious circles who
are talking about Armageddon. Can our political and economic systems survive the
onslaught of crime and corruption? We look back with nostalgia to the good old days.
But they, too, were an illusion, for, greed was every bit as much in evidence; poverty still
claimed its victims; and every institution was subject to moral decay. Albert Schweitzer
called for a "renewal of civilization" and a world view which would set us on "the right
path." "The modern man is still without any correct feeling for the full significance of the
fact that he is living with an unsatisfactory philosophy, or without any at all."
254


Humanity is ready for a satisfactory philosophy and for the promise of a good life.
We are tired of the hate which produces ethnic cleansing, and the wars, like that in
Cambodia, which left millions homeless and sixty thousand maimed. We are equally
tired of relinquishing our streets to drug gangs, Washington to special interest groups,
and the Golden Rule to terrorists. We want a change.

Judgmental reasoning in our churches, educational systems, economic systems,
and societal policies are evidenced by the large number of us who still remain at the
lower stages of moral and rational development. For example, 87% of Americans are
willing to do to the terrorists what they did to us.

Now is the time for the inauguration of a new way of life. The possibility of a
new world- view is at hand. Jeremiah, the Buddha, Mohammad, Gandhi and Martin
Luther King, Jr. taught us that love was the only answer. Why not build a new world
order based on love and brotherhood, and nonjudgmental reasoning and acceptance of
differences? The choice is ours whether or not to form a new civilization on life-
affirming principles. We can choose to journey toward higher stages of moral and
rational development, toward Stage IV, where we can all join together in a kingdom of
heaven on earth.

Stage IV of Consciousness: Stage IV refers to the justified, meaning those of
us who are righteous or right-minded. Seeing ourselves in others, unconditional sharing,
and always acting in accord with our conscience exemplify the right-thinking of those in
Stage IV. Human nature, at this stage, is perfect, godlike, and loving.

Stage IV in Pauls five-stage model of consciousness began when Jesus revealed
that the root of evil was the prevailing theory of nature, and that His theory of nature was
the remedy for that evil. Jesus taught that the era of the justified would end when
nonjudgmental reasoning or righteousness was the norm globally, for then the glory, or
Stage V, meaning doing on earth as it is in heaven, would become a reality.

The key concepts that initiate Stage IVs state of consciousness are knowledge of
how the prevailing theory of nature justifies judgmental reasoning and how Jesus theory
of nature justifies nonjudgmental reasoning.


195


Knowledge has consequences. The consequence of the knowledge Jesus Gnostic
teachings reveal is a new way of thinking. Jesus said, marvel not that ye must be born
again, (John 3:7 kjv). By born again, Jesus means reborn intellectually into the
renewed form of Stage IV consciousness. In other words, He was referring to the rebirth
of consciousness/mind, not physical rebirth.

In Charles Dickens novel, The Christmas Story, Scrooges discovery of his
capacity to love, and the joy it brought, intuitively exemplifies baptism, or awakening to
our God-nature. Gnostics define baptism as that moment in which we comprehend Jesus
knowledge teachings and our consciousness is renewed/reformed. Water sprinkled on the
forehead at Gnostic Christian baptisms symbolizes purifying the consciousness by
washing away the judgmental reasoning that clouds our minds in the lower stages. The
bright halo that crowns Christian saints symbolizes the presence of enlightened minds.
Jesus was the first to be baptized into higher consciousness through his knowledge
teachings. In effect, Jesus was the first fruits, or in Gnostic terms, protogenitor, meaning
new type of human being, that nature intends all of us to become.


Learning From the Past

Every revolution was first the private thought in one man's
mind and when that same thought occurs to another man, it
is the key to that era. Every reform was once a private
opinion, and when it shall be private again it will solve the
problem of the age. -- Emerson


Let us remember those who went before us on that search and who passed on to
us their best and most noble ideals. We must think of progress as separating the pearls of
truth and wisdom from the useless shells which conceal their beauty. Albert Einstein
once said: I remind myself that my inner and outer life depend on the labors of other
men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the measure as I
have received and am still receiving.
255


Progress in Stage IV means learning the logos, or Reason of God, and using it.
This godlike logic is the structure of truth which ties the cosmos together. We can reflect
that truth more clearly in our rationality through nonjudgmental logic/reasoning, the fruits
of which are clarity of vision, love, and brotherhood among all human beings. In Stage
IV we recognize that the values of others are as sacred to us as to them. When all
acknowledge that people are essentially different and at different stages of moral and
rational development, we shall be able to set charity in our hearts and nonjudgment in our
minds. For if we are to love, we must follow the injunction, Judge not. In Stage IV we
know the truth, that a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth is possible when all follow the
command to judge not. Here, those who know the truth, wait as they teach others to
catch up.


196


The key to understanding Stage IV is found in John 1:1-20, if we understand that
logos means the word, or will, or creative mind of God, not Jesus personally. John
considered Jesus the first of a new type of human being who had learned how to reason
like God. In fact, John is saying that Jesus began at Stage I of consciousness, as we all do,
then grew into Stage IV. He started out the son of man, and then became the Son of God
manifesting his growth. John also points out that anyone can become Godlike, just as
Jesus did, through Jesus theory of nature.

Jesus was the logos incarnate, the logos [word] functioning as man.
256
Most
think this means that Jesus was God functioning on earth. However, Johns intention was
that the logos/reason of God was within Jesus, meaning Jesus reasoned like God. John,
like other Gnostic Christians, understood that Jesus had learned the way to bring his
innate Godlike potentials of reasoning into everyday life. And that anyone who
understood Jesus teachings could, like him, do the same thing, or, as Trimmel says,
make contact with divine reason.
257


Let me support this by quoting the respected scholar Marcus Borges translation
of the opening passage of the Gospel of John. Note: Borge will substitute the Greek
word, logos, where the English translation reads word.

In the beginning was the logos [the creative mind of God] and the logos was
with God, and the logos was God. He [the logos] was in the beginning with God, all
things came into being through him and without him not one thing came into being that
had come into being. In him was life, and the life was the light of all peopleHe [again
the logos] was in the world, and the world came into being through him: Yet the
world did not know him.
258


It is important in these opening verses of the Gospel not to think of word, or
logos, as referring to Jesus, if we mean Jesus of Nazareth. Reading them as Jesus is
subconsciously encouraged by later Christian doctrine on the Trinity and by the use of
masculine pronouns in the Greek original and English translations. But masculine
pronouns are used because logos is a masculine noun in Greek, not because the reference
of he indicates Jesus. John is not saying in the beginning was Jesus as if John thought
Jesus of Nazareth was present at creation, rather that which became incarnate in Jesus
namely, the logos was present at creationit was the logos (not Jesus) that was with God
and that was God.
259
(Also see note M in the Jerusalem bible.)

The point Borges makes is that John is telling us that the logos/reasoning of God
created all things and was the true light or intelligencebut, in Stages II and III, we do
not understand it.

In verses 12-14, John teaches that the logos gave all who accepted it the power to
become children of God. This is what John means by the word was made flesh. In
other words, the logos/reasoning mind of God was made compatible with the flesh,
meaning our reasoning mind, the ego self. In verses 16 and 17, John gives credit to
Jesus fullness [meaning perfect understanding of the logos] for our opportunity to

197


access the logos within us. For though the law was given to Moses, grace and truth
[comprehension of the logos of God within us] have come through [Jesus Christ
message]No one [before Jesus] has ever seen [the logos of] God; it is the only son
[Jesus] who is nearest to the Fathers heart [mind/logos] who has been made Him [the
logos] known [to us].

According to Gnostics, the Trinity coincides with Johns teaching that it was
Jesus who made the logos/logic of God known. In early Gnostic Christian
understanding, Father symbolizes God in Stages II and III. The son Jesus made the
truth that God was within us, known to us. With that knowledge, we, like Jesus, become a
holy Spirit,a perfect and fully realized being, (Stage IV). The traditional Trinitarian
concept of God was revealed only in the 4
th
and 5
th
centuries AD and hence is not
explicitly and formally a biblical belief.
260


In effect, Jesus knowledge teachings bridged the gap between a transcendent and
external God and an eminent and internal God. In Stage II, for example, we personify
God, Yahweh, as a vengeful father. In Stage III, we personify Him as a loving father.
Jesus teaches the truth that the logos, or mind of God, is within us, and is us.
Understanding and practicing those teachings, then, is what awakens our consciousness
to its full potential of perception, making us psychologically, the perfect beings or holy
spirits of Stage IV.

The Jesuit priest, John L. McKinnsey, states that in between the flesh [meaning
the reasoning mind] and the holy [meaning the perfected mind]there is an impassable
gulfimpassable that is, by manbut bridged by Jesus, the Son, who renders it possible
for men to be adopted sons.
261
The point that McKinnsey makes is that Jesus bridges the
gap between the reason of man and the reason of God, and anyone, who comprehends
Jesus teachings, can do the same.

Gnostics conclude from these opening paragraphs of the Gospel of John that Jesus
discovered an objective method to pattern his mind after the logos/reasoning mind of
God. Through his Gnostic teachings, Jesus empowered us to do the same. In effect, the
popular world- view of Jesus timethat mankind was meant to be like Godwas,
according to John, turned into a practical reality by Jesus Gnostic teachings. The point
is, these teachings free us from the prison of self-deception that judgmental reasoning
creates. In our new-found freedom we leave behind the Stage II and III illusions of
separation, contradiction, and ignorance (sin), to enter a field of oneness and infinite
wisdom.


The Return to the Garden

As we trace the development of rational and moral consciousness, we have
discovered that each stage contains the seeds which give birth to the next stage. Let us
relate these stages to the familiar myth of the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve, before
they fell to temptation, symbolize the irrational and instinctive consciousness of Stage I

198


innocence. Their choosing to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
symbolizes the rational and egotistical self-consciousness of Stage II.

Choice awakens an awareness of both responsibility and morality, which, along
with self- identity, are the prerequisites of judgmental reasoning. In the awareness that
judgment is unnatural, conscience emerges, particularly in response to the law in Stage
III. And it is conscience that leads eventually to our realization of the inadequacy of
reasoning in terms of either/or categories. This knowledge impels our minds toward the
understanding that it is the way we think and reason which keeps us from inhabiting the
Garden. With fear and trembling, we set out on the journey to discover the solution to
the riddle of evil. In our desire to transcend the rational and moral limitations imposed
by either/or logic, we are initiated into a new logic, nonjudgmental logic, the logic of
Stage IV.

The Tree of Life now stands before us in the Garden of Eden, holding out the
promise of unity with one another, which was lost through the first choice to eat of the
fruit of the Tree of good and evil. Like the prodigal son, returning to his Father after he
realized his errant ways, so we too awaken to our true nature, after traversing through the
lower stages of life.


Characteristics of Stage IV

Stage IV comes, neither as a miraculous gift of grace, nor with a bolt of lightning
from the gods. It is the hard-won prize of our heroic journey of return, discovering
within ourselves both our essential nature of Love and a system of nonjudgmental
reasoning which makes doing on earth as it is in heaven achievable.

In Stage IV, we will have learned nonjudgmental logic, and therefore, embody
within us its qualities. Those qualities include nonjudgment and love, non-
discrimination and unconditional acceptance, tolerance, humility, generosity, forgiveness,
self-realization, and agape and the brotherhood of man. In the words of St. Paul, we are
to "put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness,
lowliness, meekness, and patience, . . . forgiving each other.
262
These are not superhuman
qualities added to us, but our birthright, when we come into the fullness of our nature by
reasoning lovingly. As Maslow says, I think of the self-actualizing man not as an
ordinary man with something added but rather as an ordinary man with nothing taken
away.
263


What would our lives be like if we had not eaten from the Tree of duality, which
brings opposition and conflict into our world? What would we be if we had never
experienced a sense of separation and alienation from the Divine, Nature, our fellow
human beings, and our own inner self? Indeed, what would it be like to eat from the Tree
of Life? Writers who describe the developmental path of human progress give us a
glimpse into the answer. Maslow talks about self-esteem, self-respect, and self-
realization. We might add that the "self" in each instance is that inner nature whose

199


expression is love. Joseph Campbell says that we are destined to move into an awareness
of social interdependence and, ultimately, the realization that there is a divine indwelling
presence in each of us. These ideas are echoed by Teilhard de Chardin, for whom the
desire to integrate ourselves with others and with Nature marks the transition into a new
stage which culminates in a spiritual consciousness. Both Kohlberg and Sri Aurobindo
point to a stage where universal principles replace mere law; but Aurobindo adds that a
further stage is reached when the Divine Law, the law of love, moves humanity toward
its perfected end. In Stage IV we realize that nonjudgmental logic is the natural law of
love, and therefore, Divine Law.

We learn through Jesus theory of nature how to access our potentials to process
ideas/reason in Godlike ways. Utilizing that process can be considered enlightenment for
it awakens our mind to its capacity for both judgmental and nonjudgmental reasoning,
which, in turn, harmonizes our ego-self with our God-self.

In the renewed mind/consciousness of Stage IV we understand that we are both an
individual/ego and our God-self. The ego is still the ego in Stage IV, but here it is
harmonious in thought with the God-self; and therefore one with it. And because our
God-self is one with all, we/ego are also one with all. (Eph 4:26 All are one with
Christ, no distinction between free man and slave Stendle 27)

In John 14:20 Jesus himself recognizes our oneness with God, and him, by saying
on that day [when you are in a consciousness of oneness] you will understand that I am
in my Father and you in me and I in you.

In our new experience ofor awakening toa consciousness of oneness, we
experience what was formerly considered other in profoundly new ways. In our new
consciousness our senses are flooded with oneness. The sense of separation and other is
replaced by joy, peace, and brotherly love that we cannot, in lower stages of
consciousness, imagine. This is what is meant by making contact with divine reason. This
is what Jesus and other Gnostic Christians wanted to make available to us. Their passion
was for freedom and life, both theirs and ours. In their minds, they are one with us and,
therefore, could be truly free only when everyone of us is also free.

In Stage IV of consciousness we do not become repentant and pious, we celebrate
being fully alive. The term, Holy Spirit, applies to being fully alive at Stage IV, because
holy means complete or perfected. Spirit, from the Greek word, pneumatic, or soul,
refers to the psychological self. Together, holy and spirit, means that we are
psychologically perfect because we have regained our capacity to reason like the gods.
We have reached our destiny as human beings, which are to make contact with divine
reason, and like God, discern ultimate truths.
264
This is higher consciousness.

Again, Jesus says in JN 8:31-32 if you make my word/logos [reason] your home
you will learn the [ultimate] truth, and the truth will set you free.

The Greek term, cosmos, can be translated in many ways. Cosmos can mean the

200


universe, the world, or our consciousness of the world. When we believe that we need to
give up the world (in the sense of giving up living comfortable and fun- filled lives), we
have misinterpreted scripture. When Jesus said, the truth will set you free, he meant
just that. He was not talking about giving up all the nice things of the world. He meant
giving up our lower stages of consciousness (cosmos) in order that we can have more
abundant lives. Instead of cutting ourselves off from the good life, we can live the good
life by advancing to Stage IV. In Gal 5:16-24, for example, Paul lists self-
indulgencefornication, gross indecencyfeuds, wrangling, jealousy, bad temper and
quarrels as things we give up when we reach higher consciousness. He promises us
love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control
when we reach Stage IV.

In First Corinthians 13:9-12, Paul explains how the transition from our present
consciousness of the world to the higher consciousness of Stage IV changes our
perceptions of the world. Once perfection comes (i.e. when we have reached Stage IV)
all imperfect things will disappear. When I (meaning the ego) was a child, [Stages II and
III] I used to talk like a child, and think like a child, and argue like a child, but now I am
a man [in Stage IV] all childish ways are put behind me. Now, [in the consciousness of
Stages II and III] we are seeing a dim reflection in a mirror, [a distorted view of life]; but
then [when reaching Stage IV] we shall be seeing face to face the knowledge that I have
now [in the psychic--Stage III] is imperfect; but then [in the pneumatic--Stage IV] I shall
know as fully as I am known by God
265
In Rm 7:23 Basilides explains that being of
pneumatic nature [those in Stage IV] do by nature the law.
266


Biblical terms that refer to those in Stage IV are the justified (Romans 8:30),
Sons of God (8:14-19), Body of Christ (First Corinthians 12:22), mature (2-6),
sealed (Second Corinthians 1:22), Men of sincerity (2:17), Ambassadors of Christ
(5:20), heirs of God through Christ (Galatians 4:7), Partakers of the holy Spirit
(Hebrew 6:4), Perfect (James 1:4), Complete (1:4), Lacking nothing (1:4), Doers
of the Word (1:22), Share the Divine Nature (1:4), Renewed in the spirits of your
minds (Ephesians 4:23), Equality with God (Philippians 2:6), and angels. (Jude
2:11).

Gnostic terms for those in Stage IV are pneumatikoi, which means
psychologically complete individuals, pangenitor, meaning the first universal man, and
Bythos, meaning the will, logos, of our life force in Stage IV.

I would add that many of the modern day references to higher consciousness,
enlightenment, and satori exemplify characteristics of Stage IV, learned through Jesus
Gnostic teachings.

We can only imagine a world in which Hindus would truly see Krishna in the
heart of everyone; Buddhists and Muslims would respect everyone as they would revere
the Buddha and the Prophet respectively; and Christians would treat others as they would
treat Jesus. Not once or twice, but three times, Jesus asked his disciple, Peter, "Simon,
son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" Three times Peter answered that he did. And three times

201


Jesus repeated the same words, which were among his last recorded, in the Gospel of
John, "Feed my sheep." What a world it would be if we all fed the sheep of the world!
What a world it would be if we all came to the realization that the divine dwells not only
in some distant heavenly realm, but also here and now, in our neighbor and in ourselves.
"The kingdom of God is within you,"
267
Jesus said. And so it is for those reborn with a
renewed mind.


Baptism of the Spirit

In the story of Jesus' baptism, it is said that the heavens opened, a dove appeared,
and a voice said: "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." It is unusual to
find any story in the New Testament in all four of the gospels, the three synoptic gospels
and the gospel of John. But this story was apparently so important that it was told by the
writers of all four gospels.
268
What was the immediate consequence of the experience?
"Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness where he was tempted by the devil."
269


It is instructive to consider just what those temptations were. The first taunted
Jesus with the gratification of a pig (Stage I): the temptation was to use his power to turn
stones into bread to assuage his hunger. The second catered to the wolf of honor and
success (Stage II). He was tempted to throw himself from the pinnacle of the temple in
order to win the crowd's adulation for his miraculous powers. The third temptation
promised Jesus the power of the kingdoms of the world, if he would but worship and give
himself to satanic power (Stage III). In every case, Jesus resisted the temptations to
bewitch his power of good, and so in the wilderness he completed the rebirth begun in the
waters of Jordan some forty days earlier. Thereafter, he emerged and began his ministry
of teaching, healing, and sharing his doctrines of nonjudgment and love (Stage IV).

What Jesus did is what is required of the reborn in Stage IV. For what he did, we
can do. As he himself admitted: "I do nothing of myself."
270
"The Father that dwelleth in
me, he doeth the works."
271
For Jesus and those of us who have come to his realization,
there is no separation between the Father and the son. The Father and son, the divine and
human, are one: "I and my Father are one."
272
If we realize this truth, then what we call
"the power of God" is our power, too. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on
me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do."
273
As
A Course in Miracles teaches, there is no separation between us, as sons, and the Divine,
as Father.
274
But in our minds, we erect barriers to that power of truth and love, and so
we keep that power from manifesting in our lives. What A Course in Miracles leaves out,
is that those barriers are the consequence of either/or reasoning.

The barriers which keep the natural power of love from working its miraculous
wonders are a misguided and misdirected ego in Stages II and III and its world of desires,
fears, wants, needs, expectations, and those actions which spring from those motives. It
is the either/or thinking which creates the consciousness of a separate, needy, and fearful
self, which stands in opposition to others. It is this mind, which feels itself isolated and
alienated from others, which creates the illusory reality, which the Hindus called maya. It

202


generates the worlds of sorrow, which the Buddhists call samsara. It is the misguided
and mistaken consciousness of this ego, which must "die" in order that the ever-present
inner nature of love may express itself unimpeded. Crucifixion and resurrection
symbolize this truth in many religious traditions, including Christianity. This "death" is
the ultimate requirement of those who are reborn in Stage IV.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a kernel of wheat fall
into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it
bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose
it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto
life eternal. (John 12:24-25)

The paradox is that by dying, we live. "Dying" means, at the very least, a change
in consciousness, a change of mind, a new way of thinking and reasoning. By dying to
the consciousness of the old self and its needs, we awaken to the consciousness of
another self, the fulfillment of whose desires brings abundant life. When we are reborn,
we do not live a lackluster life devoid of feeling and desires. On the contrary, we live life
abundant in creativity and joy.

Stage IV begins when Jesus reveals his Gnostic teachings and ends when
everyone reasons accordingly. This Stage in consciousness can be considered a staging
ground in which those of us who have reached this stage wait for those in lower stages to
catch up. Stage IVs wait willingly because they know that all are one, so no one is free
until everyone is free.

In review, the key to Stage IV of consciousness is to understand the prevailing
theory of nature and the new theory of nature that Jesus reveals in his Gnostic teachings.
Understanding both theories allies our reasoning mind with our heart. We, therefore, do
the law from within both head and heart. Paul refers to those in Stage IV as men made
perfect (Heb 12:23) and those who have the mind of Christ. (1 Co 2:16)


Practical Applications of Jesus Gnostic Teachings
In Stage IV

There is a saying that everything is a philosophy and if you think that is a joke,
that is your philosophy. What this means is that most everything we think or do is of or
according to a philosophy or a philosopher. (ref. Dictionary.) Capitalism, communism,
monarchy, deism, atheism, spiritualism, Christianity, Islam, pacifism, everybody should
mind their own business, and the sky is falling are all philosophies.

Jesus knowledge teachings are also a philosophy, one that can improve our lives
in two fundamentally important ways.

First, Jesus Gnostic teachings call into question the validity of all philosophies
that involve multiple nature classes, which include all religious, political, social,

203


economic, and psychological systems. For example, Jesus teachings demonstrate that
reason, as we now know it, is a belief system, in the same sense as religions are. Like
religion, reason is based on assumed standards. Religion is an assumption because it is
based on the authority of scriptures that not everyone agrees with. Likewise, reason is
questionable because it is based solely on Aristotles laws of logic, and their validity has
been called into question by modern science.

Second, Jesus knowledge teachings provide the logical foundations to reinvent
philosophy in ways that serve us better. Again, Jesus theory of nature questions the
validity of all philosophies that involve classes with multiple natures. Since humanity is
a multiple-nature class, most traditional philosophical and religious systems are
questionable. They are structured according to logic based solely on Platos theory,
which does not fit multiple nature classes. We need to move into a new era of
civilization that is based on both Aristotles judgmental and Jesus nonjudgmental logic.
Then we will have all the tools necessary to recreate civilization in such a way that we
will feel comfortable and fulfilled.

In First Corinthians 1:19-31, Paul points out that philosophy based on Platos
theory of nature, meaning all conventional philosophy, is misdirected, and therefore,
must be re-evaluated. This means that the very way we now think and speak may be the
very thing that keeps up from doing what benefits us the most.

The language of the cross, [meaning Jesus knowledge teachings, symbolized by
the equilateral cross] may be illogical to those who are not on their way to salvation
[those in Stages 2 and 3], but those of us [in Stage IV] who are on the way see it, [what
the stauros symbolizes] as Gods power to save. As scripture says, I shall destroy the
wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing all the learning of the learned. Where are the
philosophies now, [that in their beginnings held such promise]? Do you not see how
God [through Jesus knowledge teachings] has shown up the foolishness of human
wisdom. [philosophy].

Only faith [understanding Jesus knowledge teachings]
can guarantee the blessings that we hope for, or prove the
existence of realities that at present [in Stage II and III]
remain unseen. (Heb 11:1)

The human race [those of us in Stages II and III], has nothing to boast about to
God, but you [those in Stages 4], God has made members of Christ Jesus and by Gods
doing, he [meaning the logos or nonjudgmental logic of God], has become our
wisdom (1Co 3:18-23)

Note: Even though it may be true that all of us have been misdirected by our own
judgmental reasoning, we must not condemn ourselves for it. Nor should we fear the
changes that must come. Instead, we need to understand that judgmental reasoning
represents a lower stage in the natural growth of our capacity for consciousness.
Understanding this will empower us to seek new higher goals of consciousness.

204



In summary, Jesus theory of nature empowers us to grow beyond conventional
wisdom and into the God- like wisdom of nonjudgmental reasoning. We cannot
overcome our problems in the same consciousness that created them. Jesus theory of
nature is the key to a new form of consciousness that can truly overcome the problems
our present consciousness creates. In the new consciousness, truly new philosophies
can be developed that will redefine the values and goals of civilization, not merely
rearrange existing ones to satisfy changing centers of power. (Forgiveness)

Ecclesiastes taught that there was nothing new under the sun. Alfred North
Whitehead said, All western philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.
275

Both will remain right as long as we limit ourselves to the wisdom of conventional
philosophy. But if we choose to grow our consciousness into the god- like consciousness
of Jesus teachings, we can anticipate a wealth of new philosophy that could bring truly
new ideas into the sunlight of a brighter day.

for Jesus, the purpose of God is not found in the
creation of planets or galaxies of stars, not in building great
cities or empires, nor in the organization of vast
institutions, but rather in the steady growth of human
character, in the development of those inner spiritual
qualities which are expressed in fair dealings, unselfish
love, devotion to truth, kindness, mercy, and good will.
276



Reinventing Civilization in Stage IV
(See 1Jn 2:3 God shows no partiality Rm 2:11)

Let us now imagine how we can reinvent philosophy and, in turn, civilization
from the perspective of Stage IV consciousness.

1. The most important realization in Stage IV is that we can teach our children how
to reason in loving ways. Traditionally, we have taught only Aristotelian logic. Jesus
teachings provide the means to introduce our children to nonjudgmental standards of
logic. Learning nonjudgmental standards will expand their ability to think beyond what
we were taught was reasonable. For they will be able to reason both judgmentally and
nonjudgmentally, which is synonymous with reasoning lovingly.

If we plant the most virile seed in sour soil it withers. Like seeds in sour soil, our
children wither in an atmosphere of judgment. We can give them an atmosphere of
nonjudgment that will ensure their most basic rightto be fully conscious and, therefore,
fully human. Our most sacred obligation is to give them that right.

Adding a fourth r, reasoning nonjudgmentally, to the existing three rs of
education, will ensure our children their right to learn how to reason in nonjudgmental
ways. It will also teach them that such reasoning is as important as reading, writing and

205


arithmetic. Moreover, it is the rational thing to do. (BB 80-A)

It has often been suggested that we use only a small portion of our brain. We
might ask, Is our phenomenal ability to absorb enormous quantities of facts when we are
children, indicative of an innate ability to reason nonjudgmentally that gets turned off
early on? Only after about age seven, does our capacity for exponential learning fade.
Does this suggest that our youthful capacity to absorb huge amounts of information is lost
because the use of nonjudgmental reasoning by our children is discouraged? Again,
Maslow states that the self-actualized man is not someone with something special
added, but someone with nothing taken away. It is very possible that self-actualization
is uncommon because culture teaches only judgmental logic, which in turn, takes away
our right to reason nonjudgmentally.

Jesus theory of nature may also explain why it seems like the older we get, the
more rigid our thinking can become. I suspect that as we become older it becomes harder
and harder to make sense out of accumulating information based on false standards that
we believe are true. For example, trying to maintain a positive attitude in a world based
on false standards is like trying to construct a house of more and more cards on a storm-
tossed boat. The more information we accumulate, the more frustrated we get. Soon,
black or white thinking becomes easier than trying to harmonize what we experience with
what we feel in our hearts.

2. In Stage IV, our psychological nature is not taken as a given, but rather something
that changes depending on how we choose to think. The reason for this is that
consciousness is the form or context in which we think, and consciousness-raising ideas
restructure the character or form of consciousness. Therefore, we can assume that
consciousness is not the same for us throughout our life, but rather it changes according
to the consciousness-raising ideas that we learn. With the above in mind, then, we can
imagine that our ability for higher consciousness is limited only by our openness to new
ideas. The difference before and after enlightenment is in younot reality. The
limitation is in youyour consciousnessand when that limitation is transcended, you
perceive existence differently, and therefore relate to it in a new way.
277
The author of
proverbs 23:7 (KJV) agrees with this by stating for as he thinkest in his heart [mind], so
is he.

Gnostic Christians believe that if we awaken our highest potentials of
consciousness, we will have acquired the ability to create the nature of our reality. To
keep this in perspective, we can imagine that we have begun already to affect reality.
For example, when pain leaves us after we take what we think is medicine, but is in fact a
placebo, we can understand that our thoughts, rather than the medicine, affected our cure.
The same holds true for modern technology that depends on mathematics that include
negative numbers. Does a number of something that is less than nothing really
substantiate our technology? Or have we affected the outcome of technology by creating
the negative numbers technology requires? The point is that our thoughts may already be
affecting the nature of reality. Jesus Gnostic teachings give us the power to recreate
reality because his teachings open to us a practical way to understand how we can affect

206


our reality. As the Rishis say, reality is unchanging. [Only our] perception of reality
changes.
278


Some may ask, but how could our thoughts be considered the creative force
behind reality if two individuals decided to affect reality in contradictory ways?
Gnostics would answer that this question applies only to our lower stages of
consciousness. In Stages IV and V, we will have the potentials of both individual minds
and oneness of mind. The ability to affect personal reality is within the individual mind,
while the potential to affect that part of reality that we have in common is within our
oneness of mind.

3. Stage IV encourages a new philosophy of medicine, in which most illnesses are
considered psychosomatic. If we learn how to think in new ways about ourselves, we
may well be able to cure ourselves, or, better yet, not create illness in the first place.
Western medicine has its place, but we should not exclude the powerful medicine of a
healthy attitude that Stage IV reasoning supports.

4. In Stage IV, religion will take on new roles because Jesus Gnostic teachings
overcome the basic premise upon which most religions rest. Let me explain. The
underlying reason for the existence of religion is to provide us with a way to deal with
evil. In Christianity, evil is attributed to original sin. In Islam, Eastern Christianity and
Judaism, evil is attributed to an unexplained impulse to evil. In new age thought, it is
error consciousness. And in eastern religion, it is bad karma. Jesus knowledge
teachings however, reveal that our predisposition to evil exists because we use Platos
theory of nature as a basis for our systems of logic. In turn, it is that theory which creates
our impulse to evil, bad karma, and erroneous thinking.

Jesus theory, alongside Platos, however, overcomes our impulse to evil by
overcoming the inappropriate use of judgmental reasoning. This new reasoning fulfills
the traditional role of religion, which is predicated on the idea that we need to be saved
from our evil nature. By using both Jesus and Platos theories of nature, we can grow our
consciousness beyond our historical predisposition to evil and add a godlike
nonjudgmental dimension. This, in turn, makes dealing with evil unnecessary, because
evil does not exist in Stage IV consciousness.

We can conclude that Jesus was not the messiah of Jewish prophesies of a savior
to restore Israel. Jesus was really the messiah for all mankind. His Gnostic/Messianic
teachings can make every one of us a king or queen in the kingdom of heaven on earth
that he promisedthe glory of Stage V. Paul verifies this by saying Jesus condemned
sin in the flesh [reasoning mind], in order that the just requirement of the law might be
fulfilled (Rm 8:3-4 rsv)

5. Jesus Gnostic teachings solve the problem of evil in a world created by a loving God
by revealing that we are by nature perfect creations. Evil enters the world because we
have chosen to judge according to a single standard (henos anthropos); which in turn
leads us to rationalize evil through judgmental reasoning. Jesus Gnostic teachings teach

207


that we are not naturally depraved, but rather that it is our own cultural affair with
judging by a single standard that has deprived us of our natural ability to love
unconditionallynot any intention of a loving God.

6. Forgiveness is the prerequisite of unconditional love. In Stage IV of consciousness,
forgiveness is natural. In lower stages of consciousness, forgiveness is a charitable act,
which requires that we compromise our feelings.

In Stage IV, forgiveness is as natural as understanding that we cannot blame a
caterpillar for not being a butterfly. Just as a caterpillar cannot be expected to fly, nor
can we be angry at ourselves or others for doing things in lower stages of consciousness
that would not be done in higher ones. Forgiveness in Stage IV, then, does not require us
to compromise our feelings, but rather to understand that those who would do us harm do
so only because the know no better. In effect, in Stage IV we distinguish between how
one acts and the person. This empowers us to direct our feelings against the former and
forgive the latter.

7. Stage IV of consciousness is a practical path to overcoming substance abuse. Alcohol
and drugs is the escape hatch through which we avoid the agony of low self-esteem and
internalized anger that underlies drug addiction.

Some can relieve the pain of low self-esteem through the belief in a higher power.
But for those who cant believe, a second path exists. On this path, we recognize that low
self-esteem and anger is the consequence of the frustration of trying to live a reality
which is unnatural to our nature. Jesus theory of nature is the key to understanding the
frustration of trying to live a reality which is unnatural to our nature. His theory that
humanity is a class that has more than one nature alerts us to the fact that what may be
right for some, may be totally wrong for others.

Jesus theory of nature demonstrates that there should be as many realities as
there are different natures. Clichs like get real, abnormal, and even the term
reality itself infers we accept that one reality fits everyone. This belief sets a trap of no
escape for those who do not fit reality, and leads some to try to escape it through drugs.

We can liken the plight of a hummingbird caught up in a bird world that thinks all
birds have one nature, say that of a Capistrano swallowto that of a person with an
artistic and creative nature caught up in a world in which organization and conformity
were considered the norm. For just as the hummingbird would think it should be like the
swallow and get to the mission of Capistrano on time, the hummingbird would failand
worse, never understand why. So would a free-spirited person caught up in a
conservative world seldom feel successful and not know why. Not unless he realized his
feelings were natural to him, even though not to what others consider reality.

My point is that, not until we realize that low self-esteem and anger are the
product of living in a reality (Stage II and III of consciousness) that does not recognize
that humanity has more than one nature, we have no logical option to understand that

208


what can be right for some can be totally wrong for others.

8. From the perspective of Stage IV of consciousness, the well-being of children
would be the prime mover of politics. Historically, military spending, self-serving
politicians and business leaders come before our children and over-crowded schools. In
the higher consciousness that Jesus Gnostic teachings provide, loving homes, equal
opportunity, recognition of parents and communities, and other supportive measures
would be seen as imperative to the well-being of children. The end result would be a
world filled with loving people living at the highest of their potentialsinsuring that
following generations could do the same.

9. In Stage IV of consciousness, we would replace our representative form of
government with a computer- managed town hall democracy. In this type of democracy,
citizens could meet in local town halls, community centers, or cyberspace, to discuss the
issues; then vote from the privacy of their own homes through computers. Aristotle said
man is a political animal. Modern technology makes it possible for each of us to
participate directly in political discussions. In a computerized democracy, we would
personally exercise our right to vote, not give politicians the right to vote for us.

Jesus teachings about stages of consciousness empower us to better select public
servants. When we understand reasoning relative to stages of consciousness, we would
not stand idly by while demagogues took over the world. We would recognize such
tyrants as sick adults stuck in the lowest stages of consciousness and would treat them
accordinglynot support them.

10. Stage IV consciousness solves the problem of evil in a world created by a loving
God. It explains that we are by nature perfect creations. Evil entered the perfect world
because we chose to reason according to judgmental rules of logic based on the theory
that every class has a single nature. Said another way, Jesus Gnostic teachings reveal
that we are not naturally depraved, but rather deprived, of our natural inheritance of
perfection, because of our affair with judgmental reasoning, not because of any intention
of our creator.

11. In Stage IV of consciousness, the well-being of children would be the prime
mover of politics. Historically, military spending, self- serving politicians and business
leaders came before our children and their over-crowded schools. In the higher
consciousness that Jesus Gnostic teachings provide, loving homes, equal opportunity,
recognition of parents and communities, and other supportive measures would be seen as
imperative to the well-being of children, and, therefore, would be a top political priority.
The end result would be homes, communities, and a world in which all children would
flourish.

12. In Stage IV, we would replace our representative form of government with a
computer- managed town hall democracy. In this type of democracy, citizens could meet
in local town halls, community centers, or cyberspace, to discuss the issues, and then vote
from the privacy of their own homes through computers. Aristotle said, Man is a

209


political animal. Modern technology makes it possible for each of us to participate
directly in political discussions. In a computerized democracy, politicians would
organize, but not vote for us. As informed citizens, we would vote for ourselves.

13. Nationalism, in Stage IV, would not support selfish interests of individuals or
corporations within a state. Rather, it would preserve the unique differences between
states, and those differences would be celebrated and honored. Nationalism would no
longer be an excuse for those of us in lower stages of consciousness to exploit others.
Instead, each nation would consider itself the caretaker of the resources that nature
bestowed on it. Nations would take pride in their ability to contribute what they possess.
They would also consider themselves a showcase of their unique culture, rather than
trying to impose their culture on others.

14. In Stage IV consciousness, life-affirming actions would become the natural
actions. People would be motivated from within to actively participate in life-affirming
enterprises because they would know that it was in their, as well as everyones, best
interest to do so. Work would become pleasure. (Mathew 6:31 Do Not Worry About
Tomorrow)

In industry, benefits of investing in only quality products would be huge.
Everyone would have the best, safest, and most durable products because, in the end,
quality is more life-affirming than the bottom line. For example, in the automobile
industry, it would be less expensive to build safe cars than to pay the liabilities incurred
by driving unsafe vehicles, not to mention the costs of pain, suffering, and long-term
disabilities.

If we invested only in life-affirming enterprises, we would no longer be
threatened by human need. Only a small portion of the natural resources we now
consume would be required to meet authentic human needs. Who really needs tanks and
terrifying bombs, high-rise bank buildings, insurance companies, financial engineering,
and all the roads, cars and workers needed to support them? Those workers could,
instead, ease the burden of those engaged in enterprises beneficial to genuine human
needs.

15. Nature, in Stage IV, would be considered a legal entity in the same sense as
corporations are considered legal entities. As a legal entity, no one could exploit nature
without due process, just as no one can exploit corporations. The role of private
ownership of natural resources would change, from that of exploiter, to that of caretaker.

16. Overpopulation, in Stage IV, would not be a problem. It is well documented that
population is inversely proportional to economic security. Families with the lowest, or
no income, have more children than families who are financially secure. So, if everyone
were financially secure, everyone would have fewer children, which would bring an end
to overpopulation.

It is estimated that if all world assets were equally divided, everyone would have

210


$4 million dollars. And this does not even take into account that the air we breath and the
water we drink are priceless.

17. In Stage IV of consciousness, love would take its rightful place as the motive
force behind life. In the past, we were taught that that force was the survival of the
fittest. We need to replace this outdated theory, as science has, with the kinship theory. In
the kinship theory, the survival of the family gene is the motive force of life. In a
practical sense, then, we can say that love is the motive force of life because love ensures
the survival of humanitys family gene.

18. In Stage IV, it is clear that Aristotelian logic alone is not the context in which the
reconciliation of conventional science and religion is possible. The either/or categories of
Aristotelian logic are unable to make sense out of quantum phenomena or religion, but
both make sense in nonjudgmental logic. Light can be both a wave and a particle, and we
can be both human and God within nonjudgmental logic. The fact is that it is impossible
to reconcile conventional science with religion because both exist in a different
dimension of reality. Conventional science exists in the either/or dimension, and religion
and quantum phenomena exist in the both/and dimension. From this perspective, the
question changes from how might we reconcile science and religion to why would we
want to? Each represents a different dimension of reality. And just as we accept the
qualities of both apples and oranges as different examples of fruit, so can we accept the
qualities of both science and religion as examples of different realities.

19. Stage IV in consciousness can be likened to that time in which the meanings
behind parables become reality. When we interpret the bible in the consciousness of
Stage IV, we can understand that biblical parables convey Jesus knowledge teachings.
In effect, parables are the intuitive foundations for a mature rational understanding of
Stage IV. In John 16:25, Jesus himself says I have been telling you all this in metaphors
(parables) the hour is coming [Stage IV] when I will no longer speak to you in
metaphors; but tell you about the Father [logic] in plain words.

We can, for example, intuitively understand the story of Adam and Eve as an
accurate explanation of the birth of man, and subsequent evil. Or, we can rationally
understand the story as a symbol of how the act of choosing the forbidden fruit gave birth
to self-consciousness, and in turn, judgmental reasoning, which brought evil into the
world. We can also think that the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, about God putting
his logos within our hearts and minds, refer to the enlightenment that Jesus knowledge
teachings make possible in Stage IV.

Pauls belief that Jesus ministry fulfilled prophecies, parables, and myths, about
the logos entering into the hearts and minds of man, surfaces in Ephesians 1:18, when he
says, May the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, give you a spirit of
wisdom and perception of what is revealed to bring you to full knowledge of himMay
he enlighten the eyes of your mind so that you can see what hope his call holds for you,
what rich glories he has promised the saints [meaning those in Stage IV] will inherit.


211


Prophecies, myths, and parables, then, do have deeper meanings. Jesus Gnostic
teachings reveal the meanings that his parables convey intuitively. In Stages II and III,
the feelings we get from those myths motivate us to act according to the intuitive
meanings of the myths. In Stage IV, we develop an intellectual understanding of the
meaning behind the myths. That understanding has consequences, because it empowers
us to live our life in accordance with that understanding.


TRUE HAPPINESS

Stage IV consciousness understands that self- interest is better served when
everyone has access to every advantage possible. In the both/and categories of Stage IV,
we become one with others. In this I/thou relations hip, we understand that as we serve
others, we ourselves are compensated. Ralph Waldo Emerson knew this truth when he
said, it is one of the beautiful compensations of life that no man can sincerely try to help
another without helping himself.
279
.going to 1994A to 95.

Ralph Waldo Trine (1866-1936wrote,

True happinessmust come, if it come at all, indirectly,
or by service, the love and happiness we give to others
life is not, we may say, for mere passing pleasure, but for
the highest unfoldment that one can obtain to, the noblest
character that one can grow and for the greatest service that
one can render to all mankind. In this, we will find the
greatest pleasure, for in this the only real pleasure lies.
280


Americas first and foremost expert on near death experiences, Dr. Elizabeth
Kubler-Ross, revealed the four cardinal values those having near death experiences
conveyed to her. They are: one, serving and helping others; two, loving unconditionally;
three, being all that one can be by developing all ones talents and capacities, abilities and
special gifts; four, encouraging that same development in others; and, in so far as one is
able, facilitate that development.
281


As Paul put it in his letters to the Galatians 6:7, whatsoever a man soweth, that
also shall he reap. It would seem reasonable that morality would ultimately bring
happiness. Conversely, it would seem reasonable that genuine happiness would be
possible only for those who give of themselves to others. This does not mean being a
doormat. Rather, it means enjoying our support of the growth and pleasures of others.
Parenthood, working for the family, working at a meaningful job, planting a field of corn,
or helping someone reach their goal exemplifies what I mean by giving of oneself.

The great scholar and humanitarian, Albert Schweitzer, was absolutely clear that
happiness was inseparable from life-affirming acts.

The purpose of human life is to serve and show

212


Compassion and the will to help others.
282


And Albert Einstein agreed:

I dont know what your destiny will be, but one thing I
know: the only ones among you who will be really happy
are those who have sought and found how to serve.
283


The eighth insight of James Redfields book, The Celestine Prophecy, concerns
the energy of love. Energizing others is the best thing we can do for ourselves. By
appreciating others, and focusing our positive attention on them, we send them the energy
of love and uplift them. The more that love flows to them, the more it flows to us. Thus
by loving, we are loved; by giving love, we receive love. If we think of any experience in
which we genuinely loved another, we will realize how we ourselves were empowered
with love. The more we love, the more cosmic energy of love flows in us. The best thing
that we can do for ourselves, therefore, is to love and appreciate others. The more energy
of love we give to others, the more aware they become, and the more that awareness can
help us gain insights and answers.
284


Like Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Schweitzer, Einstein, and Redfield, Jesus taught
that by serving others we serve ourselves. According to Jesus, for example, those who
enter the Kingdom of God (Stage V) would be those who served others by giving
fooddrink to others and by welcoming strangers and clothing the poor. For
when you do this to the least of the brethren, Jesus said, you did it to me. (Mt 25:35-
46) So always treat others as you would have them treat you, [said Jesus 7:12 for] that
is the meaning of the law and of the prophets.

In Stage IV we know that the differences between self and others, God and man,
sacred and profane, mundane and extraordinary are the result of thinking in categories of
either/or. Being reborn in Stage IV means struggling constantly to harmonize these
dichotomies in a way in which both are affirmed and neither is denied. Nonjudgmental
logic affirms this harmony. Abraham Maslow found that self-actualizing persons
possessed a rare capacity to resolve value dichotomies.
285
In his book, Motivation and
Personality, he writes:

The age-old opposition between heart and headwas seen
to disappear where they become synergic rather than
antagonistic. The dichotomy between selfishness and
unselfishness disappearsour subjects are simultaneously
very spiritual and very pagan and sensual. Duty cannot be
contrasted with pleasure nor work with play when duty is
pleasureSimilar findings have been reached for kindness-
ruthlessness, concreteness-abstractness, acceptance-rebel-
lion, self-society, adjus tment-maladjustment, serious-
humorous, dionysian-apollonian, introverted-extroverted,
intense-casual, mystic-realistic, active-passive, masculine-

213


feminine, lust-love, and eros-agape[all] coalesce into an
orgasmic unity and into a non-Aristotelian inter-
interpenetrationand a thousand philosophical Dilemmas
are discovered to have more than two horns, Or
paradoxically, no horns at all.
286


Wherever thinking leads us into opposition and conflict, we need to rethink
opposition in terms of categories of both/and. Hampton- Turner writes: The capacity to
hold finite and transcendence in balance distinguishes the growth of productive
personality from the regression of the nonproductive.
287


In The Sane Society, Eric Fromm wrote,

The necessity to find ever-new solutions for the contra-
dictions in his existence, to find ever-higher forms of unity
with nature, his fellow man and himself, is the source of all
psychic forces which motivates man, all of his passions,
affects and anxieties.
288


In Stage IV the individual will be in harmony with his fellow man, nature and
God. This is a person who is guided in his reasoning by an acceptance of human diversity
and ability to reason in terms of nonjudgmental logic in which both alternatives of an
either/or judgment can be affirmed. Such a person will be naturally loving, life-affirming,
and balanced. This is a natural consequence of moral and rational development in Stage
IV. It is either/or reasoning in lower stages of consciousness that robs us of our natural
compassion and love. But that compassion reappears in Stages IV and V. When
individuals in Stage IV form communities, a new civilization will be possible and heaven
will become a practical reality right here on earth, just as Jesus promised it would.

Jesus theory of nature can be seen as a consciousness-raising concept that admits
us to Stage IV, because it establishes a foundation upon which we might build
nonjudgmental systems of logic, language, and free will. By definition, parables are
meaningless unless they have meaning. In Stages II and III, we have an intuitive
understanding of parables. In Stage IV, we have a rational understanding, with a
practical application to everyday life. This, in turn, brings into our field of consciousness
an objective way to experience aspects of reality that Stages I through III consciousnesses
cannot comprehend.


Stage V
The Glory

Paul refers to Stage V as the glory. In the glory, nonjudgmental reasoning will
be universal because public and parochial schools will teach Jesus theory of nature.
Theologians of all persuasions will recognize that if our children learn to reason lovingly,
they will live the love, peace and joy that religion preaches. Educators will teach Jesus

214


theory of nature because it is a natural principle that supports brotherly love. We have
always known that love is the answer. Jesus Gnostic teachings make love the rational
thing to do.

In Stage V, all will have learned to reason lovingly. We will no longer think it
reasonable to look out for ourselves as others suffer. We will see ourselves as one with
all others, and therefore treat others as ourselves. This is the key that fulfills Jesus
promise that thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. This ushers in the Kingdom of
Godthe glory of Stage V.

In Pauls five stage model of consciousness, Stage V, the glory, begins when
every adult reaches his or her highest stage of consciousness. Stage V will never end.
Just as the ending of later interpretations of the Lords Prayer suggests, it will go on
forever.

The consciousness-raising idea that initiates Stage V is the knowledge, gained
through the understanding of Jesus theory of nature, that all are one. When all realize
that all are one, the whole world will work towards the good of all, because everyone will
see themselves in all others, and therefore, it will no longer be necessary to have
institutions of any kind that are meant to protect us and our property from others. All will
be one and supportive of the others. This will be the new civilization in the third
millennium.

When the Christian philosopher, Justine, wrotehe boosted that they [Gnostic
Christians] were people who had completely changed their attitudeswe, who used to
take pleasure in immorality, now embrace chastity [meaning refraining from practices of
Roman culture] alone; we who valued above everything else the acquisition of wealth
and possessions, now bring what we have into common ownership, and share with those
in need; we, who hated and destroyed one another, refusing to live with those of a
different race, now live intimately with them.
289


In Stage V, the glorified (perfected) live the good life as Paul in Ephesians 2:10
said God intends us to do. No one can say exactly what living in the glory, or Kingdom
of God, will be, any more than anyone in Stage III can describe living in Stage IV. But
we can imagine and experience it through the intuitive knowledge that poetry and
metaphors inspire. The beautiful images of the glory as green pastures still
waterspaths of righteousness, in Psalms 23:2, a time when all will beat their swords
into plowshares, and spears into pruning hooks; (and) nations shall not lift up sword
against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore, IS 2:4B, and the Promised Land,
intuitively inspire visions of what the glory will be. In John 1:50, John writes that Jesus
said, We shall do greater things than he. Other New Testament authors define the glory
as, doing on earth as it is in heaven, enjoying the freedom and glory as children of
God (Romans, 8:21), The Kingdom of God (14-17), crown of glory, (First Peter
5:4), partakers of the glory (5:31), holy temple (Ephesians 2:21), glory and
dominion (Hebrews 4:11), throne of grace (4:16), assembly of first born (12:23),
and kingdom that cannot be shaken (12:28).

215



Our world is in crisis because our egos in Stages II and III have been misguided
by poor reasoning and misdirected toward self-serving activities instead of service to
others. Like the Prodigal Son who has left his Father's house, we are wandering
aimlessly in the world, wasting our fortunes. But we are also evolving and growing. If
we missed the mark in the past, we can be redeemed through a renewed mind and
renewed reasoning.

Where we have built our personal and social lives on the quicksand of either/or
thinking, in Stages II and III, we need to reconstruct them on the bedrock of love and
oneness. Just as we cannot build a house without the proper tools, so too we cannot build
abundant lives without the proper reasoning. The tools of Aristotelian logic have not
served us well. The tools of nonjudgmental logic will help us build a world, which is
home to everyone.

When we reason in ways which justify unkind and unloving actions, we are like a
mathematician whose calculator has a broken function key. No matter how carefully we
perform on a broken calculator, we are likely to get the wrong answer. Similarly, no
matter how logical or reasonable our thinking is, if that thinking is based on a broken
logic, we will be led astray in our conclusions. When reasoning about human affairs, we
need to lay aside Aristotle's either/or logic and substitute the both/and reasoning of
nonjudgmental logic.

Why have we believed that it is reasonable to act in ways which are immoral?
Thomas Paine wrote "a man's moral condition is utterly hopeless as long as he believes
he is virtuous when he is not."
290
Why has no one pointed out that to act in immoral
ways is irrational? The answer is that, without nonjudgmental logic, it seemed rational to
do immoral acts. What seemed practical, from the point of reason, conflicted with what
we knew in our hearts was right. Now, with nonjudgmental logic, we know that it is
neither rational nor logical to do what is immoral. In fact, quite the contrary is true. It is
irrational and illogical.

Love is the answer to our moral crisis, society's problems, world conflict and wars
between nations. Love has always been known to be the answer! But without
nonjudgmental logic and its three laws, love was never the rational answer. In Stage IV
it is. To be loving makes rational sense. Now love is the logical answer, too.

A kingdom of heaven on earth is impossible without a kingdom of heaven in our
hearts and minds. Love resides naturally in our hearts; but we need to give our minds the
laws of reasoning, which will enable everyones heart and head to join in the harmony of
love in Stage V.


Five Stages of Consciousness
In Pauls Writings


216


Having explored the characteristics of five stages of consciousness, let us now
look at biblical examples of Pauls model.

In his letters to the Ephesians (2:1-6), Paul writes, and you were dead [living
barren lives in Stage I]We [Jews] were among them [the dead of Stage I] too in the
pastbut God loved us with so much love He was generous with his mercy [and]made
Israel in His image [rational-Stage II]. He brought us to life [gave us a conscience-Stage
III]and raised us up [made us righteous-Stage IV] with Christ and gave us a place with
Him in heaven[meaning the glory of Stage V]. (2:6E)

In Ephesians 2:11-17, Paul adapts the idea of the free gift of reconciliation in the
context of five stages of consciousness.

2-11. Do not forget, then that there was a time when you
[Gentiles] were excluded from membership from Israel,
aliens have no part in the covenant with their promise; you
were immersed in this world without hope and without
God. [Stage I] But now you have been brought close by the
blood of Christ, [meaning the essence or principles of
Jesus Christ message] for he is the peace between us and
has made the two of us into one and has broken down the
barrier which used to keep them [Jew and Gentile]
apart[He broke down the barriers between us through the
nonjudgmental reasoning he created through his theory
of] one single new man [henos anthropos].Paul then
concludes so you [Gentiles] are no longer aliens or foreign
visitors: You are citizens like all the saints and part of
Gods household. [Stage IV] all grow into one holy
temple in the Lord. [Stage V]. Ephesians 2: 19-21.

Some final examples of Pauls use of five stages of consciousness as a format of
his letters surfaces in Romans 3:20-33.

No one can be justified [raised to Stage IV] in sight of
God by keeping the law: All the law does is tell us [in
Stage II and III] what is sinfulSo what becomes of our
boasts [about Moses laws, someone asks?] There is no
room for it, [Paul answers] for it merely regulates behavior.
What sort of law excludes them The sort of law that tells
us what to do [but does not explain why we should do it]?
On the contrary, it [Jesus knowledge teachings] is the law
of faith [meaning inward understanding] As we [Paul
and Gnostic followers] see it, a man is justified [reaches
Stage IV] by faith [meaning his own understanding] and
not by doing something the law tells him to doDo we
mean that faith [again, meaning our understanding] makes

217


the law pointless? Not at all: We [Gnostics] are giving the
law its true value. [We commend the law for achieving its
goal, protecting people from one another until God puts his
law within their own minds just as Jeremiah says he will.

It is apparent that Paul is having trouble convincing his Jewish listeners that he is
not ridiculing Moses law, when he says that these laws are not necessary. On the
contrary, he means that Moses laws have done their job and it is now time to reap the
rewardsthe new covenant God promised Israelthe glory of Stage V. Paul tries to
explain by showing how the biblical stories about the foreknown (Stage I), Abraham
(Stage II), and Moses (Stage III) document his claim that mankind has been evolving
through stages of consciousness, and Jesus teachings apply to those in Stage IV. Here
we no longer need external laws because we have internalized the laws and have
therefore become of the same mind as the principle behind the laws of religious
institutions. [I hope religious people will recognize this truth today. Earth cannot afford
another two thousand years of judgmental reasoning.]

Paul again argues this in Romans 2:13-15, when he says, it is not listening to the
law but keeping it that will make people holy in the sight of God. For instance, pagans
who never heard of the law, but are led by reason to do what the law commands, may not
actually possess the law, but they can be said to be the law. They can point to the
substance of the law engraved on their hearts.

What Paul had written in the above passage is illustrated by him in the Old
Testament story of the one-sided covenant between Abraham and Yahweh, in which
Abrahams child- like submission was traded for Yahwehs promise to take care of each
and every Jew. This story illustrates parental- like benevolence rather than mutual
benefit.

Romans 4:1-3. If Abraham was justified as a reward for
doing something he would really have something to boast
about, though not in Gods sight, because Scripture says;
Abraham put his faith [from the old Testament word
meaning here mere trust] and this [childlike trust] faith
[rather than actions] was considered [by God] as justifying
him.

Paul is pointing out that the covenant between Abraham and Yahweh can be seen
as one-sided in favor of Abraham since Abrahams contribution to the bargain was little
more than blind trust. This one-sided bargain indicates that Yahweh was dealing with
Abraham as if he were a child, an approach, which Paul argued, illustrated that the era in
which Abraham lived was set apart from following eras by its childlike (Stage II)
thinking.

In Romans 7:1-84, Paul addresses the problem of the purpose of the law, if the
law did not eliminate suffering, after it was given to Moses (the beginning of Stage III).

218


The Jews, Pauls audience, complained that they did not seem to fare any better with the
law (Stage III) than they did without it (Stage II). Paul explains that before the law
(Stage II), God loved Israel as a father loves his child (Romans 4:1-31). But, under the
law, God guides Israel from a distance, which allows Israel to learn self-reliance. In
practice, living under the law is a step up from the childhood dependence of Stages I and
II, into the more responsible level of consciousness expected of mature people (Stage III).
This is a timely answer because living under the law is a threshold to having the law
within. (Stage IV).

Paul might have quoted Jeremiah 31:33 to support his claim that Jesus fulfilled
the law by putting it within us, not by rejecting it.

See, the days are comingit is Yahweh who speakswhen I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel (and the house of Judah,) but not a covenant like the
one I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of
the land of Egypt. They broke that covenant of mine, so I had to show them who was the
master [by making their lives hard]. It is Yahweh who speaks. No this is the covenant I
will make with the house of Israel when those days arrive, [Stage IV]it is Yahweh who
speaksDeep within them I will plant my law [logos,] writing it on their hearts
[mind/ego self] then I will be their God and they shall be my people. There will be no
further need for neighbor to try to teach neighbor, brother to say brother Learn to know
Yahweh!. No, they will all know me [from within], the least no less than the greatestit
is Yahweh who speakssince I will forgive their inequity and never call their sin [selfish
reasoning] to mind.

In Romans 7:1-5, Paul now approaches a subject which has been on his mind for
some time: The emancipation of [the Jew and later] the Gentiles from the law [which is
equivalent to saying, breaking the covenant of the law] (Note:7, 1A). Even though Paul
is teaching that the law has fulfilled its duty, many listeners still think he is criticizing the
law or even asking them to reject it, which would be blasphemous. To Jews, giving up
the law would be like giving up their way of life.

Paul supports his argument by saying that although it was uncomfortable to
imagine setting aside Moses covenant (Stage III); it was permissible on the same
grounds as a widow is free to remarry.

A married woman for instance, has a legal obligation to
her husband while he is alive, but all these obligations
come to an end if her husband diesthat is why you, my
brothers, who through the body [or consciousness] of
Christ are now dead to external laws because Jesus
teachings put the law within youYou can now give
yourselves to another husband [covenant]We are now
[meaning in Stage IV] rid of the external law[because
we] serve [God] in a new spiritual way [meaning from
within our own sense of reason.] Page 82

219



Paul then explains the purpose of the law: Romans
7:7Does it not follow that the law itself is sin? Of course
not, [Paul answers]. What I mean is that I should not have
known what sin was except for the law. I should not, for
instance, have known what it means to covet, if the Lord
had not said, You shall not covet. But it was His
commandment that sin took advantage of to produce all
sorts of covetness in me, for where there is no law, [Stage
II] sin is dead. [Because we have no sense of wrong until
there are laws against it...] The law that forbids them
[immoral acts] cannot prevent them: Indeed they seem to
thrive on prohibition. We may say that without the law sin
could not exist. 46

The above biblical passages exemplify how Paul used five stages in the
development of consciousness as a context for his teachings.

In review, Pauls model of five stages of consciousness begins in the prehistoric
past when creation breathes life into man. In his first stage, man, the foreknown, is driven
by his instincts. Stage II, which Paul defines as those in the image of God, begins with
self or self-consciousness. Self-consciousness adds a rational dimension to consciousness
because the idea of self provides a center to which all rational thoughts relate. According
to Paul, Stage II began when Adamhere meaning rational manfirst discovered his
capacity to make choices and subsequently, his capacity to reason. For Paul, Stage II
ended when Moses gave the law to Israel. (Stage IIs form of consciousness is defined
by Paul as lawless and worldly. Gnostics use terms such as the hylic stage, meaning,
immersed in materialism.)
291


The called (Stage III) begins when Moses gives the law to Israel and ends
when Jesus reveals the cause of evil. The consciousness-raising idea that admits us to
Stage III is the concept of written laws. Paul refers to those in Stage III as The called, for
it is in this stage of consciousness that the law awakens in us, our moral consciousness,
which forever calls us to do good.

Paul also uses the term double- minded men (JM 1:6-7 KJV) to exemplify Stage
III individuals who waveith like a wave[and are] unstable in all his ways. In Stage
III, we are called to do good by our conscience, but too often, rationalize away our good
intentions. Gnostics use the term psychic for this stage and consider it a stage of
conversion
292


Stage IV of consciousness, the righteous, begins when Jesus reveals that
judgmental reasoning is the consequence of the prevailing theory of nature. He provides
a remedy, an additional theory of nature that creates the foundation for nonjudgmental
processes of reasoning. Nonjudgmental reasoning reforms consciousness because it
empowers the understanding of reality in an entirely new way. In effect, the knowledge

220


of a misused theory of nature and a new theory of nature is the consciousness-raising idea
that admits us to Stage IVs form of consciousness and its hallmarkenlightenment.

Hearing and comprehending Jesus theory of nature initiates a revolution of
consciousness that can be thought of as the second coming of Jesus. For even though we
are not hearing about Jesus theory of nature from him in person, we might imagine that
if we understand his thoughts, and feel his love through his teachings, it is reasonable to
think that he is within us, and therefore, is with us again.

Stage V in Pauls five stage model of consciousness, the glory, will begin when
every adult reaches his or her highest state of consciousness. Actually, civilized man has
been stuck in the lower three stages since Moses, about 800BC. The knowledge that
Jesus revealed about the prevailing theory of nature, and his new theory, frees us to move
forward into the nonjudgmental realm of Stage V consciousness.

In Stage V, we see ourselves as one with others and the world. We are like
elements in the formula of lifewithout the notion of a difference between life and
ourselves. For in Stage V, the notion of separation, propagated by judgmental either/or
reasoning, completely gives way to the feeling of oneness, supported by unconditional
both/and reasoning. In both/and reasoning, we are both elements in life, and life itself
we are one.

The momentous understanding in Gnostic Christianitys model of consciousness
is that it allows for changes in the nature of consciousness/ego. Most religious doctrines
assume that the ego is hopelessly trapped in a nature of sin or bad karma. But,
Gnosticism teaches that sin and bad karma are a consequence of the ego-self in the first
three stages of consciousness, caught up in judgmental reasoning that is justified by the
prevailing theory of nature. In our highest levels of consciousness, Stages IV and V, or
call it enlightenment, that same ego has grown beyond sin and bad karma through Jesus
knowledge teachings and the new form of nonjudgmental reasoning that it justifies.
Gnostics teach that enlightenment is not a dazzling display of psychic phenomena or
paranormal powers, nor is it a vision that transports one to a high celestial realm. It is not
sitting immobile in trance while experiencing an inner world of fascinating colors and
sounds or alternatively, a complete blankness of mind. Enlightenment can include that,
but it also infinitely transcends all that.
293


Enlight enment is a state of being, in which the mind, body, and spirit are in
harmony, with the nonjudgmental energy of Gods love. We awaken to that harmony
with Jesus theory of nature. As an anonymous Gnostic once said, as I awoke, I
remembered, I was the son/daughter of the king.

The Buddha also taught that enlightenment is normal, not a psychic phenomenon
or supernatural experience. When he was asked, for example, Are you an angel?, his
reply was No. What are you then? The Buddha simply replied, I am awake.

221



Let us now see how understanding nonjudgmental logic and the five stages of
consciousness provide new avenues to finding solutions to the mysteries of religion.


222


Chapter Ten

How Gnostic Christianity Solves Biblical Mysteries
& Gnostic Christianitys Response to 9-11



1. Who is Adam?
2. What is the answer to the already not yet problem.
3. What are angels?
4. What is Baptism?
5. What does the metaphor of the beast represent?
6. Is Belief Biblical?
7. What does born again mean?
8. What did celibacy mean in the first century?
9. Christ
9A. Who is the anti-Christ?
9B. What is the Blood of Christ?
9C. What is the Body of Christ?
9D. What does Christ mean?
9E. What is Christ Consciousness?
9F. Is Christ the only Way?
10. Is there common good over individuality?
11. What are the two meanings of the cross?
12. What does death mean?
13. Who is the great deceiver?
14. Who is the demiurge?
15. What are Demons?
16. What is meant by the double-edged sword?
17. What does Jesus mean by a mans enemies will be those of his own judgment?
18. What is Enlightenment?
19. What is eternal life?
20. Evil
20A. What is Evil?
20B. How can there be evil in a world created by an all-loving God?
21. What is the Eye of the Soul?
22. Faith
22A. What is Faith?
22B. What does faith through faith mean?
23. What does flesh mean?
24. What is the logical path to forgiveness?
25. What are the four pillars of the Church in Revelation?
26. Do we have free will?
27. Is Gnostic Christianity a bridge between Islam and Christianity?
28. What does Gnosticism mean?
29. What does Gospel mean?
30. What is Grace?
31. How do Greek and Christian philosophy correspond?
32. How do Greek and Gnostic terms correspond?
33. What does Glory mean?
34. What does to Hear mean?
35. What does heart mean?
36. What is heaven?
37. What is hell?

223


38. Why are so many founding fathers of the church considered heretics in the modern
church?
39. Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?
40. What is kerygma?
41. What is the Kingdom of God?
42. What does the Law mean?
43. Who are the Lawless Men?
44. What is the Logos of God?
45. What does Paul me an by Lord?
46. What is Love?
47. What does mature mean?
48. Why is King Melchizedek Important to Paul?
49. Does mercy infer pity?
50. Is Jesus the true Jewish Messiah?
51. Why does most New Testament Literature date back only to the third century?
52. What does obedience mean?
53. What do Jesus parables mean?
54. Who is the paraclete?
55. Why are the priests and scribes antagonists of Jesus?
56. Who is psyche?
57. What is resurrection?
58. What is righteousness?
59. Salvation
59A. Is faith or works the path to salvation?
59B. What is salvation?
60. Who is Satan?
61. What is the second coming?
62. Is sex discrimination Biblical?
63. What is sin?
64. Are we all sinners by birth?
65. What does 666 represent?
66. What does soma/body mean?
67. Who are the sons of God?
68. Who are the sons of man?
69. Who is Sophia?
70. What is the Soul?
71. What is the Spirit?
72. Spiritual
72A. What does holy mean?
72B. What does Holy Spirit mean?
72C. What is Oneness?
72D. What is being spiritual?
73. What is syzygy?
74. What does Paul mean by thorn in the flesh?
75. What is the trinity?
76. What is truth?
77. Is usury (the lending of money for interest) Christian?
78. Who is the whore of Babylon in Revelations?
79. What does wisdom mean?
80. What is the wisdom of the wise?
81. What is the Word?
82. What does world mean?
83. What is the true meaning of wrath?




224




1. Who is Adam?

The Hebrew word Adham is properly a common noun denoting mankind or
human being.
294


Philo of Alexandria (30 BC to 50AD) adds to this the statement that mankind
[Adam] was made in the image of god, must not be understood in a material sense; it
means that the mind in man corresponds to god. (199). In the book of the Secrets of
Enoch, Adam is like a second angel endowed with divine wisdom. (199)

2. What is the answer to the already not yet problem.

(See 2Tm 2:17-19 Int-P 910G, BB 170, GP 127 All At Once Jn 4:23)

What is known by biblical scholars as the already not yet problem reveals that
some New Testament authors claim the kingdom of heaven is not yet here. Others claim
that the kingdom has already begun.

The double aspect of the Kingdom as present reality and future reality is
apparent in the parables of the Kingdom.
295
For example, Jesus was asked by the
Pharisees: (Luke 17:20-21)when is the Kingdom of God to come? Jesus answered in
the sense of something already present and active, (note JBV) namely, that the
Kingdom of God is among you. In John 15:3 Jesus says that you are already made
clean by [understanding] the word [logos teachings] which I have spoken.

In Second Timothy 2:19, however, its author, not Paul, refutes both Hymenaeus
and Philetus [both Gnostic Christians who]claim that the resurrection has already taken
place. Have nothing to do with the pointless philosophic discussions and antagonistic
beliefs of the knowledge [of Hymenaeus and Philetus] which is not knowledge at all [1
Timothy 6:12]. (Explain)

Gnostic Christians believed that the Kingdom of God [Stage IV] had already
begun in the person of Jesus and that the Kingdom of God, Stage IV, would expand
globally through Jesus knowledge teaching, one person at a time. When everyone
internalized Jesus knowledge teachings, a new age of consciousness, the glory, would
beginor State IV. On the other hand, orthodox Christians believed that the Kingdom of
Heaven was not yet here, it would come through divine intervention upon Jesus retur n.

Stage IVs form of consciousness can be thought of as the ground where those
who have already reached Stage IV of consciousness through Jesus knowledge teachings
wait for those in lower stages to catch up. In other words the Kingdom of God on earth,
the glory, begins with Jesus, but does not reach its fullest potentials until everyone
reaches Stage IV. This is why the divinely inspired become teachers for, as mentioned
above, they know no one is free until everyone is free.


225


Theodotus [a Gnostic Christian] teaches that the elect [those in Stage IV] cannot
enter into the pleroma [Stage V] until their physic counter parts [those of us in Stage III]
are raised to join in union with them so that they may receive access to God together.
Until that time, he says, the elect themselves are constrained to wait for the sake of the
physics.
296


Hearing Jesus theory of nature can be thought of as his Second Coming. For even
though we are not hearing about Jesus theory of nature from him in person, we might
imagine that if we understand his thoughts and feel his love through his teachings, it is
reasonable to think he is within us and therefore with us.

3. What are angels?

Angel, from the Greek word angelos, as used in the Old Testament, meant
messenger. In the New Testament, Angel can mean a heavenly* spirit*
297
. In view of
the first century meanings of heavenly* and spirit*, we can understand that this phrase
refers to a person in Stage IV of consciousness. In the New Testament, as in the old, the
Angel is sometimes no more than another word for a divine communication or divine
operation personified.
298
(See Holy Spirit.)


4. What is Baptism?

Traditionally Baptism symbolizes acceptance of God. For Gnostic Christians,
Baptism means to be born as children of choice and knowledge. (213) In early
Gnosticism, Baptism represents that instant when an initiate first understands Jesus
knowledge teachings. This understanding surfaces in Jn 3:7, unless one is born
anewor from above [preferred to born again]he cannot see [comprehend] the
kingdom of God.

In 1 Pt 3:21, Peter writes that Baptism in Christ is not a mystical experience of
conscious identification or absorption into Christ but rather [an] objective
transference into a [new] domain of power [meaning growing
psychologically/spiritually* into Stage IV].
299


Baptism is called death and an end of the old lifebut the power of
transformation, and Baptism is not that of the body, but of the soul [mind in
Greek]they die to the cosmos, but live in God [Stage IV of consciousness].
300


Paul teaches that in baptism the believer dies, is buried, and is raised from the
dead.
301
Gnostics claim that psychic believers (Stage III) fail to see that Paul is not
speaking here literally of a future bodily resurrection. [Life in the hereafter is taken for
granted by Gnostic Christians.] Instead he is speaking symbolically of the process of
receiving gnosis [knowledge of how to participate in the perfect reason Jesus teaches].
Whoever receives this pneumatic baptism [Christ-consciousness] receives gnosis of who
we were [in Stages II and III], what we have become [in Stage IV]whence we come
[living barren lives] from what we have been redeemed [judgmental reasoning]; what

226


birth [meaning born anew into Christ-consciousness] is.
302
In other words, Baptism
symbolically represents the transformation from judgmental to Christ-consciousness.


5. What does the metaphor of the beast represent?

The beast symbolizes the self-perpetuating, materialistic energy beneath the
present world order. The Beast was originally a metaphor used by Plato to illustrate that
we are blind to the fact that a judgmental and materialistic energy, that we think of as the
system, controls us rather than we control it. In The Republic, Plato depicts us as blindly
buying into the system as though it was a privilege when, in actuality, the underlying
energy of the system is like an ill tempered beast which lacks real feelings even for those
who serve it. Like the fable of the king with no clothes, Platos metaphor of the beast
illustrates that people are blind to the fact that the system they serve in Stages I through III
is what causes their suffering.

6. I s Belief Biblical?

Belief is a concept foreign to early New Testament authors. Belief is an
unfortunate attempt to make the Greek noun, pistus/faith, into its verb. For example, we
cannot say she faiths
303
so translators say, she believes. Believes, however, is a
poor selection of a verb for faith because it misleads its user into thinking blind belief,
rather than a solid understanding, as the Greek term pistus/faith implies, is all that is
necessary to be Christian.
304



7. What does born again mean?

Born Anew (Jn 3:3 rsv) and Born from above (3:3 jbv) are closer to the first
century Greek than born again (3:3 kjv). In Gnostic Christianity, Jesus words truly,
truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the Kingdom of God (3:3 rsv)
meant that unless ones reasoning mind/flesh is born anew in Christ consciousness (Stage
IV), he cannot comprehend the possibility of a kingdom of God here on earth. If the jbv
of 3:3, born from above is preferred, it, too, infers that the reasoning mind must be
elevated to the same level as that of God. The kjv of 3:3, however, encourages us to
understand that we must be reborn, in a mystical sense, through belief in Jesus. In effect,
the kjv supports Orthodox Christianitys belief that Jesus is Lord and Savior, whereas the
rsv and jbv support the idea that Jesus logos/logic teachings renew our minds.


8. What did celibacy mean in the first century?

Celibacy, for Gnostic Christians, meant abstaining from participation in the
judgmental enterprises of lower stages of consciousness, such as rejecting Roman social
life
305
, not abstaining from sexual intercourse.
306


The elect understands sexuality as a symbol of the mystery of syzygy [meaning

227


the allying or the yoking of the ego self with the god self]: to practice this mystery is to
participate in the divine marriage [the union of the ego self with the god self in Stage
IV];..
307


(Jn 1:41)

The point is that celibacy calls for Christians to abstain from Stages II and III
reasoning, not to give up their sexuality.

9. Christ

9A. Who is the anti-Christ?

Christ is the Greek translation of the Hebrew term Messiah. The anti-Christ does
not mean a demonic character; it simply refers to those of us who do not agree with
Jesus Messianic or Christ (logos) teachings.

9B. What is the Blood of Christ?

The blood of Christ refers to the essence, or life- giving properties, of Jesus
knowledge teachings.

9C. What is the Body of Christ?

For Gnostic Christians, the body of Christ refers to the higher state of
consciousness Jesus Messianic/Christ message engenders. Jesus is the first fruits or
prototype of this higher consciousnessChrist-consciousness. Jesus Christ teachings
put the body of Christ-consciousness in reach of us all.

The body of Christ can also refer to a large number/body of people who are in the
consciousness or body of Christ, i.e. in Stage IV.

9D. What does Christ mean?

Most think of Christ as Jesus last name. Christ, however, is the Greek term for
Messiah. Jesus, the Christ, is Jesus, the Messiah. Since Christ means Messiah, the
formation expresses a drastic transformation of Jewish expectation.
308
See Awakening,
193.)

In the Gnostic church, the term Christ refers to the Messianic or Christ message
that Jesus of Nazareth taught; i.e. Jesus logos teachings. When Paul called the Christ,
the wisdom of God in 1Co 1:24, he assumes that the Corinthians know that the divine
Sophia [wisdom] has been reinterpreted as Christ, but does not discuss the idea.Christ
[for Justin and Paul was understood] as the divine logos (word), virtually interchangeable
with Sophia [wisdom].
309


228



In 1Th 5:18, Paul said, the saving will [logic] of God is in Christ Jesusthis use
of the phrase emphasizesthe cooperation of the Father as initiator and prime cause with
the Son as agent/instrument.
310
What can be assumed here is that Jesus brings the will
(logic) of God to man in his Christ/Messianic teachings. (See Jn, Chapter 1)

To be in Christ is to be a new creature [person] (2Co 5:17)God has reconciled
man with himself through Christ [i.e., through Jesus Messianic/Christ teachings].
Christ is not an external principle of law or doctrine, but a life and a state in which an
only in which the fullness of Christian grace and virtue[and] the love of Godis
possible. Hencethis phrase in Christ appears to designate the element or atmosphere
in which the Christian lives and acts; In Col 1:16f in Christ designates Christ [the
logos/logic of God in man] the instrument of the Father in creation and the preservation
of the entire universe.
311


In short, Gnostic Christians think of Christ not as Jesus, but rather as Jesus wisdom,
logos, Sophia, or simply, Messianic teachings.

9E. What is Christ Consciousness?

To be in Christ-consciousness is to understand and live Jesus Christ/logos teachings.
To be in Christ-consciousness is to be in Stage IV. (See Holy Spirit.)

9F. I s Christ the only way?
Experience teaches us that good intentions, religion, spirituality and meditation
alone give us hope and can make us feel good. They have not, however, in the last three
millenniums, fundamentally changed civilization. Sinfulness abounds today, just as it did
three thousand years ago.

The logos teachings of Jesus have never been tested, and therefore, unlike
anything else, could be the only way to overcome sin, globally.

Gnostic Christians believe that Jesus logos teaching is the way to overcome the
prerequisite of evil, judgmental reasoning, and therefore, is a practical path to a higher
civilization in the new millennium.

The fact is that history teaches that religion and believing in Jesus is good, but not
enough. We must also make religious principles and Jesus logos teachings a global
reality. Love is the answer and his logos teachings are the only untested way to a higher
civilization based on reasoning lovingly.

10. I s there common good over individuality.

(CC 537, AE 59, Lk 6:36, Rm 4:16, Rm 8:28)

11. What are the two meanings of the cross?

229



Cross, for Gnostics, had a twofold purpose. First, it represented Jesus love,
symbolizing his willingness to sacrifice his life for us; and second, it was a symbol or logo
for Jesus theory that humanity/anthropoi is a class that has four natures.

The rationale behind the double meaning of the term cross, for Gnostics rests on
the evidence that in the oldest New Testament text, there were two distinctly different
Greek words that were later translated into the one Latin term crux/cross. The first Greek
term is sklops. It refers to a stake or pole
312
criminals were crucified on. The
second term is stauros. It refers to an equilateral cross (+ +)
313
.

Among the Chinese, the equilateral cross inscribed within a square [+] stands for
the earth. According to Samuel Real (Indian Antiquary, 1880, P 67) there is found in
China even the dictum God fashioned the earth in the form of a cross. It is courious to
meet with an analogous symbolism in a Church Father. The aspect of the cross, writes
Jerome (com. In Marcum), what is it [the cross +] but the form of the world in its four
directions..?
314


In effect, given the historical fact that the theological symbolism of the cross
[stauros] appears in the New Testament only in the sayings of Jesus and the writings of
Paul
315
, we can assume that Jesus and Paul meant something different by stauros than
what they and others meant by sklops.

I propose that when the term sklops, a stake or pole, is used, it refers to Jesus
crucifixion. When Jesus and Paul used the term stauros, they were referring to the
equilateral cross/stauros, which was a logo that symbolized classes with more than one
nature, i.e. four human natures/anthropoi. See the four pillars of the church, the four
corners of the world, and the four rivers (Rev 22:14).

Why does Paul withhold the wisdom of logos (1Co 1:17) from his public
teachings?

The Valentinians explain [1 Co 1:18] that the logos [logic]
of the crossthe secret doctrine reveals how the cross
symbolizes Sophias (wisdoms) fall and restoration--seems
only foolishness to those who are perishingthat is, to
psychics [those of us in Stage III].
316


Psychics believe only what they see with their own eyes:
they need to witness works of power. The Savior,
recognizing this, says to them, unless you see signs and
wonders, you will not believe (Jn 4:48), showing (as
Heraleon explains) they must be persuaded to believe
through sense perception, and not through logos [the logic
of the cross/stauros].
317


In other words (Jn 4:48), psychics must be persuaded through sense perception

230


[miracles and rituals], and not through logos [logic].
318


Strangely enough, the early Christians, in spite of the
importance they attach to the cross, refrain from
reproducing it in the riconography. During the first three
centuries (with possibly a single exception, that of the
equilateral cross (+ +)assigned to the end of the second and
at the beginning of the third century) the cross of Christ is
invariably dissimulated under the form ofa trident (), an
anchora ship with rigging, or under forms already
employed by other cults.
319


As to the crucifix, i.e., a cross with the body of Christ nailed on it,
this representation does not make its appearance until the seventh
century.
320


The early Christians generally avoided representing the body of
Christ on the cross, for the first evidence of such representation
comes from the fifth century. In fact, until the fourth century, even
the simply cross [stauros] rarely appeared in public.
321
The
official or public use of the cross as a symbol of our redemption
begins with [Emperor] Constantine.
322
In the early Church, the
cross [stauros] symbolizes Sophias [wisdom] fall and
restoration.
323


12. What Does Death Mean?

In the early church, death referred to living barren, or unfulfilled lives, not
physical death. This interpretation is consistent with Jesus own words in Mt 22:33, Mk
12:27, and Lk 20:38, when he says God is not the god of the dead [in other words, those
of us in Stages II and III who do not understand the Christ message], but of the living
[those of us in Stage IV who are doers of the word and practice Jesus Christ message].

According to Gnostics, then, resurrection of the dead is the recognition of the
truth.
324
For Gnostics, death and ignorance of participation in the logos of God are
synonymous.


13. Who is the great deceiver?



14. Who is the demiurge?

Demiurge literally refers to the intermediate God of those of us in Stages II and
III of consciousness: Yahweh, Jehovah, Alla, and today, the father God of Christians. In

231


2 Co 4:4 Paul calls the demiurge the god of this cosmos* [meaning the god of those of us
in Stages II and III of consciousness].
325


In Stage IV, God is no longer considered separate from us, God is one within us.
To keep from sounding too grandiose, Gnostics use phrases and terms like God is love,
I am, creation, or the all. In other words, the Demiurge in Stage III is a supernatural
and extraordinary God. In Stage IV, all are the Spirit of God, and therefore, it is natural to
live love everyday in, what then becomes, ordinary ways. This is what Paul means when
he says, I thank my God (Rm 1:8) for their [those of us in Stage IV] faith, He refers not
to the Demiurge as his God, but to the God whom I worship in my spirit.
326



15. What are Demons?

Demons, daemons, in the original New Testament Greek, refer to ideas or
natural principles that underly civilization, like gravity and magnetism. Daemons, spirits
in Latin, were often personified as gods. Venus, for example, personified love; Sophia,
theoretical knowledge
327
; Apollo, intellect; and Neptune, the power in the oceans.

By the fifth century, the relationship of daemons and spirits was overshadowed by
the belief that demons and spirits, in a supernatural sense, ruled the world. Medieval art,
and especially poetry like Dantes Infernal, completed the change in definition of
daemons, from ideas to supernatural imagery, depicting hell fires and demons.


16. What is meant by the double-edged sword?


17. What does J esus mean by a mans enemies will be those of his own household?
(Mat 10:34-39)

Jesus realized that those who teach his logos teachings will find rejection
everywhere, even from within their own families. His aim is not to provoke dissension,
but this becomes inevitable as a result of the strict alternative he offers. (Mat 10:34
JBV, Note M) Namely, a true follower of Jesus, like him, will forgo the present to insure
that enlightenment will be the inheritance of all future generations.


18. What is Enlightenment?

Enlightenment means being a holy spirit* in Stage IV.


19. What is eternal life?

Aiov, the Greek word translated as eternal life, means an age, especially a
prevailing paradigm. To Gnostics, aiov refers to life in the age of the glory (Stage V), as

232


well as eternal life in the sense of infinite time in a hereafter. The philosophical concept
of eternity is not clearly expressed in either the Old Testament or New Testament.
328


Eternal life, in the sense of higher stages of consciousness, surfaces in Rm 6:22-23.
But now that you have been set free from sin, the return you get is sanctification
[admittance into Stage IV] and its end, eternal life [participation in Stage Vthe glory].
For the wages of sin is death [living a barren life], but the free gift of god is eternal life
[Stage V of consciousness]. Therefore, brethren, be more zealous to confirm your call
[Stage III] and election [Stage IV] for if you do this you will never fall [back slide into
lower stages again]: so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal
kingdom of our Lord [Stage V]. (2 Pt 1:11)

In 3:17-18, Peter uses the term Arov in reference to Stage V. Beware least you be
carried away with the error of lawless men [in Stage II] and lose your stability. But grow
in grace and knowledge of our lordto him be the glory both now [Stage IV] and to the
day of eternity [Stage V].

20. Evil

20A. What is Evil?

Evil in the New Testament can denote three thingsmisleading standards
(stoichiea) like henos anthropos; wrong disposition in the sense of a materialistic world-
view; and dehumanizing acts. For Paul, evil is not associated with demons in the sense of
supernatural beings. He clearly supports this in Gal 4:8-9 when he says, stoichieas
[daemons*] are not gods.

20B. How can there be evil in a world created by an all-loving God?

21. What is the Eye (or Ego) of the Soul?

Eye, in the Old Testament, refers to psychic functionsthe eye is also the
organ of judgment and decision. The eye which is the light* of the body* is the
intention (Mt 6:22; Lk 11:34), which illuminates the entire body.
329


The Eye can be thought of as a conveyor, upon which all thoughts and feelings we
are conscious of, are transported to our God self. The key words here are all conscious
thoughts. For unlike most psychological models, the eye, or what today may be referred
to as the ego, is like a passive conduit which directs all thoughts we are conscious of to
our true God self, the indwelling spirit of God. In Stages II and III of consciousness, as
in other models, the eye/ego dominantly conveys judgmental thoughts. In Stages IV and
V, unlike other models, the eye/ego conveys both judgmental and nonjudgmental
thoughts to the God self.

Gnostics think of the eye of the soul or psychological self as the subject or
center of all conscious thought. We become self-conscious when the EYE, which is the

233


light of the body [or center of] intention (Mt 6:22; Lk 11:34) illuminates the entire
body . [in the Old Testament the eye is] the subject of psychic functions. The fixing of
the eye signifies both attention and intention, whether favorable or unfavorable. The eye
is also the organ of judgment and decision. (Dic 258) Simply said, the eye or light of
the body is the I or ego through which we know ourselves and the world around us.
The eye/ego, then, is the subject of all conscious thoughts. Gnostics would say, the eye
of the soul/ego is synonymous with consciousness.

Note: Even though the eye is the seat of concupiscence [strong desires] together
with the flesh (Dic 258) eye is seldom mentioned in the New Testament.

In psychology today, the eye of the soul would be thought of as the ego, or as
Julian Jaynes says, the center of authorization, and as William James model states, the
spiritual self or will of consciousness.

Gnostic Christians consider the eye/ego the voice of the psychological self /soul.
Gnostic Christians explain the ego as an invention of creation to see itself. In a practical
sense, the ego conveys what we experience to our true or God self.

We can equate the ego to the beauty of a rose. Just as beauty is an abstract quality
of the rose, ego is an abstract quality of our Spiritual (upper case) nature.

The eye/ego is passiveit evolves according to what it experiences. Given the
right experiences, like a Caterpillar evolves into a butterfly, the ego evolves, in five
developmental stages, into the mirror image of our Spiritual (upper case)/God nature.

The important thing we will learn about Gnostic thought is it teaches that when
the ego is awakened, it empowers us to be aware of ourselves, i.e, become self-conscious.
In turn, self-consciousness marks the emergence of our ability to reason, for reasoning is
a complex chain of inter-related ideas that begins with, and always refers back to the ego,
the center of all conscious thoughts.

Reasoning, then, is the process of relating ideas, the eye/ego of self-consciousness
is the subject to which all ideas relate. Without an ego, for example, we would, like
animals, be instinctual and non-rational. Animals make choices, but without an ego, they
are not aware of them. Their choices are therefore, reactions, not choices. On the other
hand, because we have an ego, we can make rational choices. Our ego is the chooser or
subject that makes the choice of how to relate ideas/reason. Important note: The more
inclusive our potential for reasoning (sarx) is, the more choices ego has. In Stage II, for
example, we/ego are logically limited to either/or reasoning, and are therefore, dogmatic,
dualistic thinkers. In Stage III, we/ego are still logically limited to either/or reasoning,
but chose to reject logic in favor of feelings. In Stage III, Gnostics call this rejection
spiritual thinking. In Stage IV, the ego reaches perfection. Here the reasoning mind
(sarx) encompasses nonjudgmental laws of logicwhich in turn, empowers the ego to
experience reality in more exclusive ways. This is explained again below.


234


See Platos concept of the longer waysome metaphysic of the future which
will not be satisfied with arguing from the principle of [non] contradiction. Rep 195


22. Faith

22A. What is Faith?

The Old Testament Hebrew terms, munaah and emet, are generally translated into
the Greek term pistus/faith in English. None of these terms, however, means belief in the
modern sense of faith, rather they mean sure or true, trustworthy or dependable, to be
firm or solidthe term [emet] nowhere signifies the subjective act of belief.
330


In the New Testament, pistus refers to a rational understanding rather than belief.
When Paul uses the word pistus, he means not just judgmental/traditional reasoning
(human reasoning), he means both judgmental and nonjudgmental reasoning. Pauls use
of the word pistus/faith implies an intellectual awakening; both the NEVs awakened
by the message and the RSVs faith comes from what is heard. This accent on hearing,
as an event, which awakens faith, is central to Paul. It is not reducible to hearing
sermons, nor simple oral communications, though it embraces bothhearing [from the
Greek word Akoe] implies that the gospel must be articulated [understood]. (229) See
Jm 1:25, Titus 3:4.

Faith for Paul is more than believing in Jesus, it is comprehending and practicing
what Jesus taught. However, because we have no verbal form for faith [we cannot, for
example, say she faiths] but must shift to believe. But believe also creates difficulties,
for its opposite is to disbelieve and sometimes doubt. Moreover, because belief is often
associated with beliefs it is easy to slip into understanding faith primarily as believing
beliefs. While pistus has a specific object, the primary response Paul sought was not
consent to trust [belief] of his statements [it was to an understanding of his knowledge
teachings]
331


22B. What does faith through faith mean?

Having introduced himself and recognized his readers, Paul sets the stage for the
purpose of his visit in Rm 1:16-17. Specifically, Paul intends to justify his pride in the
good news of Jesus Christ message. I am not ashamed [said Paul] of the good news; it
is the power [logos/logic] of God serving all who have faith [in the logos of God]Jews
first, but Greeks [like yourself?] as wellsince this is what reveals the justice of God to
us [meaning the fulfillment of Gods promise to put his law within the minds of all
humanity]: it shows how faith leads to faith [or by Gnostic translation, how reason points
the way to the higher reasoning/logos of God], or as Scriptures says: the upright man
finds life through faith.

23. What does flesh mean?


235


Flesh is the English translation of the Greek word, sarx, and the Hebrew word,
nepes. When Paul uses the term, nepes or sarx, he means the reasoning mind. Scholars
recognize that when Paul uses the term sarx, he is referring to the conscious-
selfselfpersonseat of carnal appetitesthe subject of mental and volitional
processes.
332


Since the Council of Nicaea, sarx/flesh became associated with mankinds lower
or carnal nature. This meaning can be expected when sarx is understood in a
supernatural context. Before the Council of Nicaea, however, sarx was understood by
Gnostics as the reasoning mind in lower stages.

Rm 1:22, Paul refers to the flesh as a senseless mind. In Col 2:18, he speaks of
mind of the flesh [sarx] which is a proud mind. On the other hand, when he speaks of
the flesh/ego in higher stages, he does so in complimentary terms. In 1 Cor 6:18, for
example, he speaks of flesh as a noble thing.
333
In 1 Co 2:26, Paul goes on to say we
[meaning Gnostic Christians] have the mind [flesh] of Christ. In effect, to translate
nepes or sarx into flesh in the sense of carnal depravity, does not convey Pauls
intentions.

For Paul, then, the will of the flesh [meaning the reasoning mind] is a vacillating
and indecisive will
334
in lower stages of consciousness. In higher stages, Paul compares
the flesh to the mind of God. We see this in 1Co 3:1-3 when Paul says he was not able
to speak to you as pneumatics [meaning spiritual persons in Stage IV] but as sarkics
[meaning those in Stage III who reason judgmentally],..immature in Christ. I feed you
milk, not meat, for you were not yet able (to take it). Nor are you nowyou are still
sarkic. For where there is strife and envy among you, are you not sarkic?
335


24. What is the logical path to forgiveness?


25. What are the four pillars of the Church in Revelation?


26. Do we have free will?

AvreEouoria, the moral freedom to rule oneself, is virtually synonymous with
the Gospel.
336
(AE 95-105-98-90)

The question of free will surfaces in Pauls letter to the Romans, 9:10-18.
Origen indicates that this passage has become the locus classicus of controversy
between heterodox [which refers to Gnostics], and the orthodox [interpretation of
Jesus ministry]. He [Origen] considers the basic issue to be a question of free will.
337


In RM 9:10-18, Paul states when Rebecca had conceived though they were not
yet born, and had not done anything, good or bad, thought that Gods purpose in election
might remain, not from works, but from him who calls, she was told the elder shall serve

236


the younger. As it is written Jacob I love, but Esau I hated.therefore, it does not
depend upon human will or effort, but upon God who shows mercy He has mercy on
whom He wills, and He hardens the heart of whomever He wills.

To the casual reader, 9:10-18 would suggest that God alone determines our
relationship to others. This negates free will. But to Origen, Esau refers to the
orthodox, meaning those in Stage II and III, that lack free will. But by heterodox,
Origen refers to those in Stage IV who understand Jesus theory of nature which, in turn,
empowers them with free will.

Paul explains in Rm 10:10, that by believing [understanding] from the heart
[mind] you are made righteous, . which means when you understand with your mind
Jesus theory of nature, you will be a right minded, someone who Paul considers capable
of expressing his or her free will.

In 1Cor 2:16, for example, Paul says we [meaning the Gnostics or heterodox
Christians in Stage IV] are those who have the mind of Christ. This surely gives them
the power of free will.

In effect, if there is only one logical way to be or think, we could choose freely,
but at the same time, be unable to choose between rational alternatives because the use of
Platos theory of nature limits our choices to one best answer in each category of ideas,
which is no choice at all. When our world- view is based solely on Platos theory of
nature, free will must be redefined as freely looking for a predetermined answer, which
cannot be free will, which is freely choosing between rational alternatives. Being without
free will is demeaning because free will is the hallmark of what being fully human is
about. Jesus Christ teachings, however, makes free will the right of those who
understand his theory.

The acorn becomes an oak by means of automatic growth;
no commitment is necessary. The kitten similarly becomes
a cat on the basis of instinct. Nature and being are identical
in creatures like them. But a man or a woman becomes
fully human only by his or her choices. And his, or her,
commitment to them.
338


(Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. Jn 16:33)

27. I s Gnostic Christianity a bridge between I slam and Christianity?

28. What does Gnosticism mean?

Gnosticism, from the Greek term, Gnosis, infers a cognitive, as opposed to
intuitive, way of understanding the world.

Gnosticism the Alexandrian [Egypt] theologians [like Orgen and Clement] were

237


not independent philosophers, but members of the Christian Church. Therefore, they
participated in a state of faith which is presupposed by all knowledge. However, the state
of faith is insufficient since it is understood only as assent and obedience. A real
participation demands something more, a drive toward knowledge or gnosis. The
Christian is the perfect Gnostic. Gnosis is a cognitive faith, a faith which develops its
contents cognitively. It is a scientific explanation of the tradition of faith. Scientific
here is not used in the sense of the natural sciences, but in the methodological sense.
Everybody is on the way of this development, only a few reach its aim.
339


There are two classes of Christians: (1) The many simple ones, who accept on
authority the biblical message and the teachings of the church without understanding
them fully. They take the myths literally. As Origen said, they prefer the healing
miracles to the story of Jesus going with his three apostles to the mount of
transfiguration, which is an allegorical or metaphorical expression for those who go
beyond the literal meaning to a transformed interpretation of it. Origen referred to the
attitude of the primitive believers as mere faith. This represents a lower degree of
Christian perfection. All Christians begin at this level. (2) There are those to whom the
charisma of gnosis, the grace of knowledge, is given. In this way the converted, educated
Greek becomes the perfect Christian, but he always does it on the basis of faith. This
concept of faith is different from the meaning of faith in Protestantism. Here, faith means
the acceptance of doctrines, whereas in Protestantism faith is acceptance of the reuniting
grace of God. For Origen the first step is the acceptance of authority; the second is the
autonomous rational understanding of the biblical message. The second step does not do
away with the first step, but is possible only on the basis of it.
342


29. What does Gospel mean?

The Greek word evangelion designates good news. It is interesting to note that
Paul often speaks of our [meaning the Gnostic] gospel or my gospel (Rm 2:16; 1 Co
15:1). Unlike others, Pauls gospel emphasized the cross* (stauros), meaning Jesus
knowledge/Gnostic teachings. Others, such as Mathew, Mark and Peter, emphasized
Jesus role as the Jewish Messiah, and his crucifixion on the cross (skelops).

Pauls gospel [as opposed to the synoptic gospel] was not
presented simply as an answer to a religious quest of his
hearers, but as a God-given announcement of an event
whose meaning challenges those quests, at least the terms
in which they were pursued. Paul characterized his gospel
of the cross [stauros] a folly to those who are perishing
[those of us in lower stages of consciousness]. The
gospel challenged the prevailing understandings of God,
the human condition, and the means of dealing with it; the
gospel called for a reconstruction [total re-evaluation] of
prevailing ideas.
343


30. What is Grace?


238


Grace, from the Greek word charis literally means highly favored
344
, not an
act of benevolence of God toward man. When Paul uses the word grace, he uses it in
appreciation of God for allowing Jesus to teach us the principles of his/Gods logos/mind.
In effect, grace implies God giving us the right to comprehend and participate in his will
(logos/logic). Wisdom can also be considered grace.
345


31. How do Greek and Christian philosophy correspond?

(Cave analogy Kech 127, The Good of PlatoThe BeastJn 12:2)

Many scholars have brought to our attention an ancient debate (300 BC to 300
AD) about how to reconcile Greek philosophy with Jewish and Christian philosophy.
Few, however, clearly explain the details of this debate.

I propose that those debates centered on the limits of using only Aristotelian
(judgmental) logic. The logos/logic of God, which is both judgmental and
nonjudgmental, is true wisdom/logic.

You will notice many references to human nature in Greek philosophy. This can
be expected because the credibility of judgmental logic, then, like now, rested on the
theory of nature that all classes, including humanity, have one nature. Nonjudgmental
logic rests on the theory of nature that some classes, like human nature, have more than
one nature. The difference between the two divided philosophers into two factionsone
that believed there is one human nature and one that believed there is more than one
human nature. This same division exists today.

Let me now demonstrate my proposal by beginning with references to the author
of the OT book, The Wisdom of Solomon, who tries to reconcile the Jewish idea of
wisdom with its Greek counterpart, Sophia, through Gnostic Christians who argued that
Jesus logos teachings agreed with, but improved upon, Greek philosophy.

The author of The Wisdom of Solomon, became the first to achieve some kind of
rapprochement [meaning the renewal of friendly relations] between those two great
culturesthe Greek and the Hebrew. Philo Judaeus would later follow in his footsteps,
and so would the Alexandrian [Egypt] church fathers, Clement and Origen, and to a
greater or lesser degree, most of the great thinkers of the Christian church. In the NT
itself, one can see the movement taking place, particularly in the letters of Paul.346
(181)

What is this great movement? It is attempts at the reconciliation of the Jewish
concept of wisdom/logos with that of Greek philosophy. The remarkable description of
wisdom in [Ws ch 7] vss, 22-23, is made up of terms borrowed in large part from Greek,
especially Stoic, philosophy. Obviously, the author wishes to show that whatever word
might be used to describe such Greek philosophical concepts as the logos, or world soul,
might also be used to characterize the biblical concept of wisdom.
347



239


Jesus Christ/logos teachings bring a new element to the debate between Jewish
and Greek philosophy. For all the reasons given above, Jesus contribution of
nonjudgmental logic, when added to Aristotles judgmental system of logic, will expand
our consciousness. And we will, because of our renewed thought process, process ideas
with the same wisdom/logos as does God.

Justin Martyr, for example, maintained that Christianity is the true philosophy
better than anything the Greeks produced. He used the Greek term logos (word) for
Christ and explained that this meant both the word [logic] of [Jesus] revelation and true
reason in philosophy. Thus he sought to bring together the truth of Christian revelation
[meaning Jesus logic teachings] and the wisdom of Greek philosophy [meaning
Aristotelian logic].
348


It seems obvious that many did not agree that adding nonjudgmental logic to
Aristotles system of logic was essential to practicing true wisdom. Arguments against
the foundations of Jesus logos teachingsthe theory of nature that humanity consists of
more than one human naturedemonstrated their disagreement with Jesus teachings.

For example, Philos denunciation of the dissension and strife produced by those
[Gnostic Christians] who advocate the souls multiple origin [anthropoi] rather than
agreeing in harmony to a single origin [henos anthropos]
349


Another example, Celsus, a Greek intellectual, criticized Christianity (180 AD) by
denying the process of conversion with the proposition that human nature cannot be
changed,..
350
This criticism suggests Celsus believed that there is one human nature, not
multiple human natures, as proposed in Jesus logos teachings.

Also, the author of the Gnostic Gospel, The Sophia of Jesus Christ, presumably
Jesus, argued the opposite of Philo and Celsus. The passages intension in the [Gnostic
Gospel] Soph. Jes. Chr. is to refute those who would think that their origins are from a
single being [henos anthropos].
351


32. How do Greek and Gnostic terms correspond?

32A. Anthropoi: Anthropoi or mankinds is the plural form of Anthropos or mankind.
Biblically, Anthropoi refers to Jesus theory of nature that humanity, or mankinds
(Anthropoi), has many natures. Typically, however, Anthropoi is translated many men.

32B. Aroma: The aroma, or fragrance of gnosis (2Cor. 2:14) to Gnostics implies the
sweetness of participation in the kingdom of heaven (Stage IV) that knowledge/gnosis of
Jesus teachings bring. In effect, the term aroma in the New Testament refers to Jesus
knowledge teaching and how sweet it is.

32C. Awakening: Awakening, to Gnostics, means remembering what we always
knew, but somehow forgot. Specifically, remembering we are meant to think like God
and being able to do so again because we understand the Christ message.
352



240


32D. Hylic: The Greek word hylic refers to those of us in Stage II of consciousness, a
stage of immersion in materiality.
353
See GP 19-21

32E. Henos Anthropos: For Gnostic Christians, the Greek phrase henos anthropos
means one mankind and when used in Rm 5:12, refers to Platos theory of nature that
each class, specifically mankind, has a single nature.

This meaning was taught privately by Jesus to those who were ready to hear it. By the
fourth century, however, Orthodox Church Fathers thought of henos anthropos as
mysterious Gnostic teachings about the secrets of mankind. How can anything be a
secret if all mankind knows it? To this day, however, this meaningless interpretation is
perpetuated and even encouraged.

32F. Light: Light refers to moral reasoning in Stage IV and V, which leads to a higher
experience of reality.

Light is the element of moral good (Jn 3:20)gift of
understandingvisionbecause the Christian has received
the divine light [nonjudgmental reasoning] through Christ,
the Christian himself becomes the light of the world.
354

If you see rightly, then your whole life is illuminated
thereby [by nonjudgmental reasoning]; if not, you remain
in the dark [a practitioner of judgmental reasoning].
355


Light can be understood as the eyes* of your understanding (Eph 1:18).

32G. Pneumatic: Generally translated spiritual, pneumatic originally referred to
those of us who have reached the psychological perfection of Stage IV. See Holy Spirit.


33. What does Glory mean?

Glory, from the Hebrew word kaboud, in the Old Testament sense, is the
manifestation of Yahwehs promise to Israel. Glory represents success and
esteem
356
. In the New Testament, Glory receives new and original elaborations.
Christians have the hope of sharing in the glory [Stage V] of God (Rm 5:2). The glory
confirms perfect freedom for the Christian (8:21), and a transition of the Christian into
glory terminates the process of foreknowledge, predestination, and justification (Rm
8:30).
357
Actually, the glory represents Stage V in which ones success is measured in
brotherly love and personal high self- esteem.

34. What does to Hear mean?

Hear, from the Greek word, akoe, means to comprehend and internalize what is
being said, rather than just believing or hearing what is said. For Paul, to hear is to be
able to rationally articulate what is being said.

241



35. What does heart mean?

If any single organ is to be conceived as the seed of consciousness, it is the heart,
which is most frequently mentioned as the agent of thought and decision..
358
Biblical
idiom differs from modern idiom in considering the heart as the seat of intelligenceand
decisionheart is used in the Bible where in English we should use mind or will.
359

To say heart, means simply to think (Rm 10:6). To reckon in the heart (Gn 6:5; PR
6:18; 16:9) is to reason. Wisdom, discernment, and knowledge are seeded in the
heartwhen Yahweh gives Solomon breath of heart (1 Co 5:9) this signifies not
magnanimity but intelligence; so also one who is lacking in heart is not cowardly but
short of witto steal ones heart is not to win his affections, but to deceive himto be
stubborn is to be heavy or hard of heartthus a man is what his heart [reasoning/ego
mind] is, and heart is used to designate the character
360
Understanding and heart are
synonymous. In Hebrew the heart means the center of thought, not as in Western
tradition, of the feelings.
361


Jeremiah, for example, prophesized that the new covenant will not be written on
tablets of stone (externally recorded) but rather on the heart, meaning within the mind.
See Eph 1:18 Note S. Jeremiah sees the terms of the new covenant written not on tables
of stone, i.e., promulgated externally, but written upon the heart, i.e., understood by the
mind of each member of the restored Israel (31:22f).
362


36. What is heaven?

In the Old and New Testament, the phrase heavens and earth signifies, as a
rule, simply the visible universe.
363
The heavens can be considered a natural
phenomena and not [always] as the dwelling of the deity.
364
(See Mat 10:29)

For Paul the heavens, which in the Old Testament are invisible and unattainable
by man (with the exception of the Elijah episode) become in the New Testament the
place of dwelling and reward for the Christian [the glory of Stage V].
365


37. What is hell?

Hell is our separation from Gods word/logos, which leads us to reason
judgmentally, and, in turn, live barren lives. Hell is the fire that burns in our conscience,
the fire of despair because of our separation from God.
366
Fire symbolizes ignorance of
God.
367
In effect, for Paul, hell is living in Stages II and III of consciousness, for here
our judgmental reasoning separates us from God and the understanding that we can reason
like him/her.

The concept of spending eternity in a fiery pit (hell) can be considered a scare
tactic to keep those of us in lower stages of consciousness out of harms way until we
reach Stage IV.


242


The biblical term sheol is generally translated hell. I believe sheol was an area in
which prehistoric Stage I beings still lived when the oldest books of the Bible were
written. This caveman- like culture epitomized total ignorance of God because they were
not yet rational, and therefore, unable to conceive of God. In effect, sheol was the home
of surviving remnants of our non-rational ancestors.


38. Why are so many founding fathers of the church considered heretics in the modern
church?

The reason why so many founding fathers of the church, like Valentinus, Origen,
and Marcion, were later considered heretics is simple. Until the Council of Nicaea, (325
AD), Gnosticism was considered Christianity. After that Council, Gnosticism, and
therefore its advocates, were considered heretics.

39. Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?

The condemnation of homosexuality is not authentic to early Christianity for two
reasons. First, I will show that the supposed denunciation of homosexuality in Rm 1:26
is not valid because this interpretation does not fit the biblical context in which it appears
(Rm 1:1 thru 2:11). Second, I will demonstrate that what Paul is denouncing is the
unnatural separation of pneumatics (Gnostic Christians in Stage IV who emphasize Jesus
logos/logic teaching) and psychics (Jewish Christians in Stages II and III who emphasize
Jesus role as the Jewish Messiah). My point is that what Paul meant by pneumatics and
psychics is lost after the Council of Nicaea. From that time on, the unnatural separation
of pneumatics (Gnostic Christians) and psychics (Jewish Christians) is thought of as
males, separating themselves from females, and vise versai.e., that homosexuality is
unnatural. To document my argument, let us first review 1:1 thru 2:11 to see how 1:26-
27 does not fit the context about which Paul is speaking.

Paul begins Chapter 1:1-8 by introducing himself as a servant of Jesus Christ
message, who is specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago
through his prophets. In Jer 31:33, for example, Yahweh (God) promised Jeremiah that
deep within them I will put my law, writing it on their hearts [minds]. In other words,
Paul links Jesus logos teachings to Gods promise to Jeremiah that he will write his law
within the minds and hearts of mankind.

Paul then explains that because of the spirit of holiness that was in him [meaning
Jesus psychological perfection], he was proclaimed son of GodThrough him we
[Gnostic Christians] received grace and our apostolic mission to preach the faith
[meaning a rational way to internalize Gods law] to all Pagan nationsyou are one of
these nations, and by his call belong to Jesus Christ.

What is important to notice in 1:7 is that Paul considers himself a servant of
Jesus Christ or Messianic message which God promised in the OT. He is not teaching
his readers to believe in Jesus, but rather to believe Jesus messianic/logos teachings.


243


It is also important to notice that Paul recognizes his readers are not Jewish
Christians, but Pagans/Greeks, who by their own path, discovered Gnosticism. This
seems clear because Paul refers to his readers as one of these [pagan] nations, and [by
Gods Call rather than by Jewish birth] mirror Jesus Christ/logos teachings. These
Greeks, or Gnostics, were not, however, accepted by Christians.

The rift between Paul, his followers, and Jewish Christians, like Peter, is well
known. In 1 Co 1:10-16, for example, Paul appeals to factions in the Church to make up
the differences between you, and instead of disagreeing among yourselves, be united
again in your belief and practice. From what Chloes people have been telling me,..it is
clear that there are serious differences among you. What I mean are all those slogans that
you have like: I am for Paul; I am for Apollos; I am for Cephas [Petros in Greek, Peter
in English],..

In 1:9-15, Paul recognizes the good works of his readers and hopes his meeting
with them will be mutually rewarding. For even though they have a common
understanding of Jesus Christ/logos teachings, Paul hopes his understanding of those
teachings will expand theirs and vise versa. Paul finishes by saying that he feels
obligated to bring his message to Greeks, barbarians, the educated and just as much
the uneducated and that is what makes him want to bring the good news to you in
Rome.

Having introduced himself and recognized his readers, Paul restates the purpose
of his visit in 1:16-17. Specifically, he intends to justify his pride in the good news of
Jesus Christ message. I am not ashamed [said Paul] of the good news; it is the power
[logos/logic] of God serving all who have faith [in the logos of God]Jews first, but
Greeks [like yourself] as well--. since this is what reveals the justice of God to us
[meaning the fulfillment of Yahwehs promise to Jeremiah to put his law within the
minds of all humanity]: it shows how faith leads to faith [meaning, how reason points the
way to higher reasoning/logos of God].

In 1:18-25, Paul explains that human suffering comes from men who keep truth
imprisoned in their wickedness. Paul is saying that suffering in the world, including
Jewish Christians in Rome, is a consequence of their lack of virtue and depraved ways.
And that they should know better, for Gods power and deityhowever invisiblehave
been there for the mind to see in things he has made. That is why such people are
without excuse:. they [even] made nonsense out of [using reason] logic [to reach the
higher reasoning logic/logos of God] and their empty minds were darkenedthe more
they called themselves philosophers, the more stupid they grew, until they exchanged the
glory of the immortal God [meaning the perfection of the logos of God within
man]for the image of mortal man [i.e. the demiurge, meaning the fatherly image of
the God of the OT],

In 1:24-25 rsv, Paul explains that the consequence of not having the logos of God
within them, meaning exchanging Christ-consciousness for error-consciousness, divine
truth for a lie, not only allows them to rationalize lusts of their hearts [minds, and]the

244


dishonoring of their bodies* (meaning being disrespectful of their psychological well-
being) among themselves, and even worshiping a God they created (the demiurge),
instead of the creator (the logos/will of God).

Evidence that my argument, that the condemnation of homosexuality is not
biblical, rests on the fact that 1:26-27 does not fit the context of what comes before it.

In 1:18-25, for example, Paul is explaining his missionto exchange ideas about
Jesus logic teachings with Greek/Christian Gnostics. He also explains that those who
should know better (Jewish Christians in Romethe Judaizers) have been abandoned by
God because they continue to reason judgmentally. This leads them to rationalize their
greed (lusts of the mind) and dishonor their bodies* by trying to convince one another
that Jesus ministry was that of Lord* and Jewish Messiah, not that of a teacher of a
nonjudgmental system of logic, the logos of God. All this has nothing to do with
homosexuality, the supposed theme of 1:26-27. Perhaps these verses were added because
1:28-32 better follows 1:1-25 then 1:26-27.

In reference to 1:18-25, Paul says, in 1:28-32, In other words, since they [Jewish
Christians] refuse to see it was rational to acknowledge God [let reason lead us to the
higher reason/logos of God], God left them to their own irrational ideas and to their
monstrous behavior. And so they are all steeped in all sorts of depravity, rottenness,
greed and malice, and addicted to envy, murder, wrangling, treachery and spite. Libelers,
slanderers, enemies of God, rude, arrogant, and boastful, enterprising in sin, rebellious to
parents, without brains, honor, love or pity. They know what Gods verdict is: that those
who behave like this deserve to die [live meaningless lives], and yet they do it; and
worse, encourage others to do the same.

It is clear in 1:1-25 that Paul is concerned with the greed and hypocrisy of those
who should know better (the Judaizers) and their rejection of Pauls readers
Greek/Gnostic Christians who agreed with Jesus logos teachings. As the Jerusalem
Bible notes, Paul is concerned with religious error,..[which] results in moral and social
ills. Though Paul rejects and condemns [greed and hypocrisy in Jewish and] pagan
society, he does not condemn individuals
368
(1:24 note P jbv)

From this I conclude that the condemnation of homosexuality in 1:26-27 does not
fit the context. I will next argue, Pauls concern in these verses is for the unnatural
separation of Jewish and Gnostic Christians, not homosexuality.

My second argument that the condemnation of homosexuality is not biblical,
relies on demonstrating that 1:12 thru 2:11 is concerned with the separation of Gnostic
Christians (pneumatics, later misinterpreted as males) and Jewish Christians (psychics,
later misinterpreted as females).

Changing the theme of 1:26-27 from Pauls condemnation of homosexuality to
his condemnation of the Gnostic and Jewish Christians restores the textual integrity of
these verses.

245



Pauls references to those who keep the truth imprisoned (1:19), those who
knew Godmade nonsense out of [Gods logos] logic (1:21).refuse to see it was
rational to acknowledge God (1:28).and what is worse, encourage others to do the
same (1:32) suggest a schism between Pauls readers and Jewish Christians, like
Cephas, who knew about Jesus logos teachings, but favored Jesus role as Lord and
Jewish Messiah. (See GP 17)
369


Pauls concern for the ongoing animosity between Gnostic and Jewish Christians
surfaces in 2:1-11. Here he reminds his readers that no matter who you are, if you pass
judgment you have no excuse. In judging others you condemn yourself, since you
behave no differently.

The point is that, in 1:18-32, Paul is acknowledging the separation of Jewish and
Gnostic Christians. In 2:1-11, Paul is reprimanding Gnostic Christians for their
resistance to Jewish Christians. In effect, in these verses, Paul is arguing that it is as
unnatural for Gnostic Christians (pneumatics) to separate themselves from Jewish
Christians (psychics) as the vise versa.

Let me now reinterpret 1:26-27 from the perspective that Jewish Christians
(psychics) are without full understanding of Jesus logos teachings. This is why they
reject Gnostic Christians (pneumatics). If they truly understood, they would not be so
unreceptive to us. It is as unnatural for Jewish Christians (psychics/later translated
females) to socialize (have intercourse) only with Jewish Christians as it is for Gnostic
Christians (pneumatics/later translated males) to socialize only with other Gnostic
Christians. In doing so, everyone loses.

Gnostic scholar, Elaine Pagels, offers a similar interpretation of 1:26-27. She
suggests that Paul reveals that the Father has yielded his creation into
sufferingswhich forms the elements of cosmic existence. In the process, those who
become psychic having fallen victim to errorwere separated from the pneumatics,
who, being divinely chosen, remain secretly related to the Father. Originally, these two
were part of the same being: they belong together, but now they have been separated,
their natural relationship disrupted, and both suffer from this alienation. According to
Theodotus, this is the mystery hidden in the story of Adam and Eve. Although
originally, they were one being (cf. Gen 1:26), Eves separation from Adam typifies the
psychics separation from the pneumatic elect (as females separated from the
males).
370


Reading Romans 1 as Pauls symbolic description of the present situation of the
Christian community, the Valentinians [Gnostic Christians] could account for their own
relationshipas allegedly pneumatic Christiansto those they consider the psychic
majority [Jewish, and later, Orthodox Christains]. Irenaeus [an Orthodox Church Father]
describes their dilemma: why, they [Gnostic Christians] ask, do psychic Christians
accuse us of malice, lies, arrogance, and heresy? Why do they attempt to exclude us
from common worship, and their [Orthodox] Bishops urge others to shun us as offspring

246


of Satanwhen we ourselves confess the same creed and hold the same doctrines they
do?
371
(See GP 54, 1Cor1:10-12)

Pauls letterspneumatically interpretedcould offer them great insight onto
the situation. By means of allegorical exegesis, they read in Romans 1 how the psychics,
misled by error (plane, 1:27), having rejected the truth of God (1:25-26), have become
blinded to the truth (1:20-25), and now worship the demiurge instead of the Father (1:25).
In the process they have forced an unnatural separation between psychics and pneumatics
(females/males; 1:26-27) within the [Christian] community.
372



40. What is the kerygma?

The Greek word kerygma is traditionally taken to mean the message of Jesus.
To Gnostics, however, the kerygma refers to Pauls teachings to the psychic Christians of
Stages, II and III, whereas his logos teachings are what he teaches to pneumaticsthose
in Stage IV. 1 Co 1:10-12 exemplifies the schism that Gnostics saw between pneumatic
Christians who followed the secret teachings of Paul [Jesus Gnostic/knowledge
teachings]and the psychic Christians who followed Peter, the founder of the psychic
church.
373



41. What is the Kingdom of God?

The meaning of the phrase, the kingdom of God, is biblically obscure.
Understanding Jesus teachings in the context of the five stages of consciousness removes
the cloud that obscures what he meant by the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is
the fifth stagethe glorya time when all will have reached Stage IV of consciousness.


42. What does the Law mean?

The term law can be used in two ways: one, in reference to Mosaic law, and
two, in the sense of the Greek word Nons, meaning the principles behind order in the
universe, namely the logos, or divine will/word, of god.

Much of the discord between early Christians and Jews can be linked to the
Jewish misunderstanding that Christians believed they were exempt from the law. What
Christians really believed was that Mosaic law represents an external standard necessary
to constrain the passions of those of us in the first three stages of consciousness. But
Gnostic Christians in Stage IV were inwardly motivated to follow the law because their
process of reason mirrored that of the divine mind which is behind Mosaic law. In other
words, those in the higher consciousness of Stage IV no longer need the laws of Moses
because they reason from within their own minds according to the principles behind the
moral laws.

Paul argues this in Rm 2:13, 2:15, when he says its not listening to the law, but

247


keeping it, that will make people holy in the sight of God. For instance, pagans who
never heard of the law, but are led by reason to do what the law commands, may not
actually possess the law, but they can be said to be the law. They can point to the
substance of the law engraved on their hearts* [meaning in their minds].

43. Who are the Lawless Men?
Lawless men refers to those who lived in the lawless era between the first
rational man, Adam, and the introduction of the principles of law of Moses.

Lawless men in the New Testament, also refers to the immoral and conscienceless
attitude we have when in Stage II in the development of our consciousness. It does not
refer to people who defy laws, although these two are likely to overlap.

44. What is the Logos of God?

Logos is the Greek word for the logical or reasoning mind of god.
Interchangeable translations of logos are spirit, will, word, wisdom, and Sophia. Sophia
is the functional equivalent of logos/word. In Hellenized JudiasmSophia,
wisdom.was understood to be virtually interchangeable with Gods will and word
[logos/logic].
374


If one thinks in OT terms, one would prefer to translate logos by word; if one
thinks in the Greek terms, as the apologists [Gnostics] did on the whole, then one would
translate logos into reason.
375
The logos stood for more than spoken words. The
extent of the concept was that behind spoken words were thoughts. Thoughts were mind.
Mind had affinity with reason. Reason was the structure of orderly actionthat ultimate
reality was reasonable, was in fact reason itself.
376
And because human beings have the
capacity to reason, it was believed by Jesus and Gnostic Christians that our destiny is to
make contact with divine reason and, like God, discern ultimate truths,
377
See Inter
547A.

Logos also means mans ability to recognize reality; we
would call it theoretical reason. It is mans ability to
reason.
378


45. Why does Paul mean by Lord?

Paul uses the term Lord to designate Yahweh, as God designates the
father.
379
This explains why in Rm 1:5-7, Paul uses two phrases for blessing first the
pneumatics [Stage IV]with grace from God our father and then the psychics [Stage
III] with peace from the Lord.
380
In effect, Paul uses the term Lord/Demiurge to
indicate the Old Testament vindictive image of God held by those of us in Stages II and
III, and God the father to indicate the Gnostic idea of an all loving God.

46. What is Love?


248


Love is defined by three Greek wordseros, philia, and agape. Eros
signifies the passion of sexual desire and does not appear in the New Testament. Philein
and philia designate primarily the love of friendship. Agape and agapan, less frequent
in the profane Greek, are possibly chosen for that reason to designate the unique and
original Christian idea of love in the New Testament. The Christian is rooted and
grounded in [agape] love [this] love is his diet of conduct [in Stage IV]it is the bond
which unites all virtues.
381


Agape (1Co 13A) has no possessiveness and is not for a desire for satisfaction;
it wants to satisfy the other. [Christians]become not only Gods chosen onesbut
Gods sonsthis love is attributed to Godit is identical with Gods nature.
382
In
effect, agape love identifies the new relationship we feel toward others and the world
when we reach the consciousness of oneness in Stage IV. This consciousness mirrors the
nature of Gods logos/love.

47. What does mature mean?

The term mature is the translation of the Greek word telieos. Mature, however,
is a misdirected interpretation of telieos. Telieos means more than mature; it means
having reached perfection. The rsv of Eph 4:14, for example, translates telieos as
mature manhood, whereas the same translation of telieos in the jbv reads until we
become the perfect man. The distinction between mature and perfect is important.
Mature merely infers adulthood. Perfect/telieos means we have learned to reason
perfectly like God. Actually, telieos symbolizes those who have reached Stage IV of
consciousness.

48. Why isKing Melchizedek important to Paul?
For Paul and Gnostic Christians, King Melchizedek represents an intellectual path
to righteousness, (right-mindedness) that Abraham recognized as more effective than the
ritualistic path he represented. Paul mentions this because he teaches that Jesus is the
Messiah, for he brings to humanity the missing link to right- mindedness, the counterpart
of ritualistic religion, the logos/logic of God.

About this [relationship between Jesus and the Melchizedek priesthood in GEN
14:17-20] we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of
hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you
again the first principles [stoichiea] of Gods word [logos]. You need milk, not solid
food; for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word [logic] of righteousness, for
he is a child [in Stages II and III]. But solid food is for the mature [the perfect in Stage
IV], for those who have their faculties [mind] trained by practice to distinguish good
from evil.

Most commentaries agree that in Hebrews 5:11-13, stoichiea refers to basic
teachings of the church; the ABCs of Christian Doctrine.
383
, elementary principles
which form the basis of Christian faith and practice in the 1
st
century,
384
The first
principles of the oracles of God (KDV); or a deep and sublime mystery.
385
In effect,

249


most commentaries view 5:11-13 as an example of Pauls frustration with the Hebrews
lack of understanding of even his most basic teachings about stoichiea. Commentaries,
however, seem uncertain as to what exactly Paul means by basic teachings; what he
means when he calls King Melchizedek the king of righteousness/right- mindedness
(RM 2:7); and, finally, when he relates the priesthood of King Melchizedek to Jesus
priesthood.

Not many commentaries expand on what basic teachings/stoichiea Paul is
speaking of in 5:11-13. Only a few commentaries mention the priesthood, but admit their
confusion about Pauls references to it. For example the order of Melchizedek,[is] one
of perplexity to us. It apparently perplexes people in the 1
st
century too, for the author
[Paul] acknowledges that he has much to say on the subject and great difficulty in
making it clear.
386


The Gnostic interpretation of 5:11-13 is the same as our RSV translation. The
difference between the two is that Gnostics understand that Paul means exactly what
stoichiea meant in the 1
st
century, specifically, the first principles. In this case, it is the
principles of henos anthropros/anthroipoi.

Gnostics understand that Paul relates Jesus teachings to the priesthood of King
Melchizedek because both represent righteousness/right- mindedness. Gnostics add that
Paul considers Melchizedeks, and therefore Jesus, intellectual path to righteousness
superior to the ritualistic path represented by the Levitical priesthood of Abraham. For
Melchizedek blessed Abraham and received tithes from him. Since the greater blesses
the lesser [Paul argues] Abraham concurred in the superiority of Melchizedek. Levi,
whose decedents extract tithes from the people of Israel in accordance with the Mosaic
law, actually offered tithes to Melchizedek in the person of his great grandfather,
Abraham.
387
Gen 14:7-20. See GP 150-151.

Jesus confirms this in Jn 4:22 and Note F by teaching that, you [meaning those
who use rituals and teach mysteries] worship what you do not know; we [Gnostic
Christians] worship what we do know [gnosis]. True worshipers will worship the
father in spirit [psycologically] and in truth [objectively] . Because it [both the
reasoning mind and spiritual mind] is the only worship that meets the conditions revealed
by God through Jesus [Gods helper or paraclete].

Paul bolsters his argument that intellectual knowledge is the most effective path to
reasoning like God, through three illustrations. In Heb 7:15-28, Jesus became a priest,
not because of his acceptance into the priestly [Levitican] tribe, but by virtue of a life
which has overcome death [meaning overcoming unfulfilled life]. Jesus high priesthood
is established by his fulfillment of a priestly mission and confirmed by the prophetic
word in psalms 110:4. Thus, the career of Jesus and the testimony of the scripture
converge, on the conclusion that he is Gods high priest, not in the order of Levi, but in
that of Melchizedek .The second illustration is an appeal to experience. The law [of
Moses] was weak and useless and failed to bring about perfection. Therefore, it has been
set aside [argues Paul]. In its place, a better hope is introduced [through the stoichiea of
henos anthropoi that Jesus teaches] which enables man to come into divine presence

250


[come to emulate the logos of God].
388


Third, Paul illustrates that an oath of God stands behind Jesus priesthood.
Another distinctive mark of the new covenant is that an oath (of God) accompanied its
establishment. Priests in the Levitican order took their office without an oath. The high
priest of the new covenant was addressed with an oath. Through the prophetic scriptures
PS 110:4, God assured him [Jesus] that his appointment was firm and unchangeable.
God is not going to change his mind [Paul concluded]. Jesus is, therefore, the surety of a
better covenant because behind him and his mission stands the determination of God
himself, who has bound himself with an oath and thereby firmly established his promise
to men GEN 7:20-22


49. Does mercy infer pity?

The Greek word eleos is generally thought to mean pity. In the first century,
however, eleos meant an increased sense of commitment to others, due to a new capacity
for deeper love (agape) for all others. This deeper love is the result of internalizing
Jesus knowledge teachings.

The proof of the love of ones neighborhood is the demonstration of eleos (Lk
10:1-37) and in this parable eleos is the rendering of assistance to one in needeleos is a
component of the wisdom from above; in contrast to worldly wisdom it shows itself in
good deeds (Jm 3:17)it [eleos/mercy] is chiefly manifested in the readiness to do good
and to forgive, and mercy appears to be too narrow a rendition. The New Testament
eleos between men is transformed by the New Testament conception of love which is a
revolutionary development in the New Testament and places a deeper motivation behind
eleos than we find in the Old Testament.
389



50. Is J esus the true J ewish Messiah?

Messiah is a Jewish title given to one who would restore Israel to her previous
glory under David and Solomon. Gnostics consider Jesus the Messiah (Christ in Greek)
because his teachings can elevate the entire world, including Israel, to glory (Stage V).
This exceeds the glory of even David and Solomon. Simply said, Israel expected the
Messiah to be a powerful Priest KingJesus taught we could all be Kings. (Ps 82:2)

How one interprets the purpose of the Messiah determines if one can or cannot
think of Jesus as the true Messiah. In the broadest sense, I divide Messianism into two
categoriesRoyal Messianism
390
and Universal Messianism.

Royal Messianism Messianism, or what some may refer to as royal
Messianism
391
, looks for a Messiah in the sense of a politically powerful and charismatic
Priest King who will bring independence, peace, stability and prosperity to Israel. In
Royal Messianism, the Messiah is the medium through which Yahweh saves Israel.


251


With the establishment of the Monarchy (CF King) the Messianic tradition takes
on the form of the Israelite Monarchy, and the King himself, David and his dynasty,
become the dominant element in [Royal] Messianism David is the one to whom
tribute is due the King also appears as the agent of prosperity [successive Kings
are] theoretically a new David and is the charismatic leader of Israel, the man through
whom Yahweh saves Israel.
392
Contemporary Zionism may be the beneficiary of Royal
Messianism.

It should be clear that Royal Messianism could not accept a crucified Jesus or his
politically ineffectual following as their Messiahhe failed to restore the independence
and prosperity to Israel. As Paul says in 1Co 1:24, here we are preaching a crucified
Christ [Messiah]; to the Jews an obstacle they cannot get over,.. It should be no wonder
that, to this day, Royal Messianism, the most popular form of Messianism, rejects Jesus
as the true Messiah.

Universal Messianism or Jewish Gnosticism, my terms, and later, Gnostic
Christianity, refers to Jews who understood and followed Jesus Christ or Gnostic
teachings. In Universal Messianism, Jesus is considered the true Messiah of Israel.
Jesus, like Jeremiah, taught that Yahweh, the God of fatherly love, was the one, and
therefore, universal God of all. The destiny of Israel is to attain perfect union with
Yahweh through unqualified submission to his will [logos]; only then will it attain peace
and salvation, and the reign of Yahweh, thus established in Israel will be extended to all
men. In Is1:1ff; Mi 4:1ff, Zion is the center from which the word [logos] of Yahweh
will reach all men and inaugurate [not just in Israel but globally] universal peace. The
second part of Is describes the restoration of Israel (40-48) and of Zion (49-52; 54:55; 60-
62) as the center to which the nation shall come in submission to Yahweh. In Je. 30-31,
the restoration of Israel and Jerusalem is dominated by the idea of moral regeneration of
the people and by the new covenant which is written on the heart [on the mind] not on
tablets.
393
The point is that, in Royal Messianism, God chooses to give Israel
preferential treatment. In Universal Messianism, God honors Israel by using it to reveal
his logos/logic to all mankind.

To paraphrase Jesus in Matt 5:17, I have not come to abolish the law [meaning
existing religious, spiritual and philosophical systems] I have come to perfect them.
Jesus is speaking not of carrying into effect every single injunction of the old law, but of
bestowing on that law a new and definitive form of raising it to a higher place . In the
unfolding of the divine plan [for the perfection of man]. (Matt 5:17 Note F JBV)
394


Universal Messianism embraces the concept that the Messiah resolves the
conflict between man and evil, looking at humanity at large and not merely at Israel.
395

. It is faith in the power and will [logos] of Yahweh to save and takes form as Israel
learns more clearly what that power [logos] is and how it is exercised, how it is the
moving force of history, and what it is to be saved.
396


Jewish Gnostics like Valentinus disclose to the initiate the hidden logos of
Pauls teaching, separating it from the metaphors that serve to conceal it from uninitiated

252


readers / For as Paul indicates in Rm 2:28, those called Jews inwardly, Jews in
secret, the true Israel are (Theodotus says) the pneumatic elect [of Stage IV]. They
alone worship the one God (Rm 3:29), the unengendered Father. But because their
affinity with the Father is hidden, a secret from those who are Jews outwardly (the
psychics [in Stage III]) and from the demiurgic god (the god of the Jews, Rm 3:29),
Paul more often calls the elect [meaning Jews in Stage IV] in his parable the
uncircumcised, the Gentiles, or the Greeks.
397


Jesus was accepted as the true Messiah by his many Jewish and early Christian
followers. For them his teachings fulfill the Messianic requirement of peace and
prosperity that was guaranteed when the love of God is in all menbeginning with Israel
and then the rest of the world.

Pauls gospel was not presented simply as the answer to the religious quest of his
hearers, but as the God- given announcement of an event whose meanings challenges
those quests, at least in the terms in which they were pursuedthe gospel challenged the
prevailing understandings of God, the human condition, and the means of dealing with it;
the gospel called for a reconstruction of those understandings.
398
.

Note: Jesus theory of nature casts a new role for religion. Remembering that
Jesus knowledge teachings were disseminated throughout the world through the
religious institutions of his day we can hope for the same now. Religious institutions
cross political borders and are, therefore, still the best qualified of institutions to convey
Jesus teaching on a worldwide scale. Hopefully, religious leaders will agree that
teaching both Aristotles and some form of nonjudgmental logic in their schools is to
their benefit. Together, both systems teach our children how to reason in loving ways,
which are supportive of our highest religious goals.

When Jesus said let the little children come to mefor it is to such as these that
the Kingdom of Heaven belongs, (Mark 10:14) he was stating the obviousif we taught
our children to reason lovingly from kindergarten on, in but a few generations doing on
earth as it is in heaven could become our childrens reality, just as Jesus promised.

We can continue teaching religious values from only a mystical perspective or we
can intellectually support those values by teaching our children to reason lovingly. A
truly better future for our children depends upon what we teach them now. Hopefully,
religious leaders will consider Jesus knowledge teachings as an intellectual instrument
that can ally reason and religion to the benefit of both.

Without the exercise and development of intellect man would still be in the
Stone Age but unless homo sapiens develop a greater humility concerning both the
imperfect nature of his knowledge and the need for transcendental moral guidance, he
could easily return to the Stone Age.
399


Is Jesus the Jewish Messiah? Yes, if you are in accord with Universal
Messianism. No, if you think in terms of Zionist Messianism.

253



I believe love is the answer and that Universal Messianism could be an
ecumenical bridge of love between Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the world.


51. Why does most New Testament Literature date back only to the third century only?


52. What does obedience mean?

The traditional translation of the Hebrew word shama is obedience, in the sense
of blind obedience. Shama, however, means to be persuaded, to be open to new
knowledge, not simply to obey orders. For example, being open to God comes before
being open to man is a more authentic translation of Acts 5:29 than obedience to God
comes before obedience to man.


53. What do J esus parables mean?


54. Who is the paraclete?

Parakleloes means a person called to the side of one in need of assistance,
particularly in legal processes, but it does not signify a professional advocate (which Lt
Advocatus does mean). Hence the generally accepted meaning of Paraclete is helper .
One who speaks on behalf of another, or intercessor. Jesus Himself is called the
Paraclete before the Father (1Jn 2:1) . Jn 14:16, 2:6; 15:26; 16:7.
400


Paul also can be considered a Paraclete of Jesus Christ teachings. Theodotus [a
Gnostic Christian in the early Church] explains that Paul became the Apostle of the
resurrection in the image of the Paraclete. He preached the saviour in each of two
ways. For the sake of psychics [Stage III] according to the flesh [for the sake of
pneumatics, or the spiritual, in Stage IV] according to the spirit, Theodotus
explains, the Apostle knew that each knows the Lord in his own way; all do not know
him alike.
401


Jn 14:27 implies that Jesus himself is the primary or first Paraclete (helper) who
teaches the logos of God the Fatherbut there will be another who can be described
only by his mission, to teach the spirit of truth. He will teach the disciples all truth and
bring their minds what Jesus has told them (14:26; 16:13); he [the Paraclete] will bare
witness to Jesus (15:26); he will demonstrate the error of the world concerning sin,
righteousness and judgment (16:6-11); He will give glory to Jesus (16:14).
402


Jesus knew that because truth is unchanging, others will discover the truth of his
logic teachings, and will, like him, teach it anew to those who have forgotten or never
had the chance to hear it. For like Jesus, anyone who truly understands his logos

254


teachings knows that he is one with all, and free to unconditionally love, only when
everyone is free. I believe John was the first to comprehend fully the depths of Jesus
logos teachingsthen Paul, Valentinus, Marcion, Orgin, Gnostic Christians, Mohammad,
now me, and hopefully, you.


55. Why are the priests and scribes antagonists of J esus?

We can attribute the animosity Priests (meaning theologians and clergy) and
scribes (meaning intellectuals and academics) afforded Jesus to close- mindedness,
educational conditioning, and even economic self- interest. But the better explanation is
that, then, like now, Stages II and III of consciousness dominated society. Priests and
scribes, and everyone else in Stage II, would have judged that Jesus logos teachings
were contradictory to accepted ideas, and therefore, threatening.

Most in Stage III would listen to Jesus logos teaching, find it interesting, but in
the end, it would be too revolutionary to actually follow. Those IIIs closest to being
IVs would see the truth of Jesus logos teachings and become, like him, members of
Stage IV. Nevertheless, because most Priests and scribes were in Stage II and III of
consciousness, they would focus on minuscule errors in context at the expense of the
beauty and truth of the content of Jesus logos teachings. The anti-Christ is good people
in Stages II and III that oppose Jesus logos teachings.

Jesus parable of the sower is a metaphor for how individuals in Stages II, III, and
IV of consciousness would react to Jesus sowing the seeds of his logos teachings.
(Insert Parable to demonstrate how each of the three individuals who came upon the
robbed man understood their responsibility to him.)


56. Who is psyche?

Psyche refers to the seat of desire
403
, meaning the ego self of those of us in
Stage III. Paul, for example, uses the term psychics to represent those of us in Stage III
who use worldly, or human reasoning, as opposed to the enlightened reasoning of Stage
IV.

The judgmental character of the ego self in Stage III is symbolized by the Greek
and Roman mythological maiden, Psyche. In the myth, the hope of the god self (Venus)
is excited by Psyches (the ego self in lower stages) great potentials. Determined to
elevate the ego to its own level, Venus moves Cupid (our intuitive self) to inspire Psyche
to see that its love for a contemptible being (henos anthropos/one mankind) is unnatural.
Venus determination is rewarded when Psyche finds its error through Cupids help.
After which, Psyche, like Cupid, becomes incorruptible, meaning godlike or perfect
404
,
because the ego self/psyche now reasons, like Cupid, at the same level as Venus, the god
self..

What this myth tells us is that our ego mind is flawed in our psychic/Stage III

255


consciousness. But Stage III is only a temporary stage in the development of
consciousness. For when we grow from Stage III to Stage IV, the ego/psyche becomes
psychologically perfect and godlike, like Venus.


57. What is resurrection?

Resurrection implies intellectual renewal made possible by understanding Jesus
Christ message. The old anthropos [henos anthropos] must be put off (Col 3:9-10)
in order to put on the new pneumatic anthropos [anthropoi]. In this light, resurrection
means the transition of our judgmental ego-self in Stage III, to our nonjudgmental ego-
self of Stage IV. This transition is made possible by understanding Jesus knowledge
teachings.

In answering the question, how are the dead raised? and with what kind of
body do they come? Paul makes clear that he understands resurrection to be
transformation, not resuscitation. (This is true of the NT as a whole) The heart of Pauls
contention is we shall all be changed [1Co 15] (VV 51-52).
405


In 1 Co 15:35-40 Paul castigates as fools those who ask how the dead are
rising or what body they come. Such literal- minded questions betray the naive belief
in bodily resurrection (156) Resurrection, according to Paul in Rm 8:10-11, is when
the logos/mind of God dwells in you. Simply said, resurrection is reaching Stage IV
because here you awaken to your true perfect god-self.

Gnostics claimed that it was the psychic [Stage III]
Christians whose understanding [of resurrection] was
merely literalisticPaul alone, they claim, as apostle of
the resurrection taught the pneumatic [Gnostic/knowledge]
doctrine of resurrection.
406


Resurrection, in the above sense, does not rule out life after death, only that we
can do the same thing in the here and now that is done in heaven.


58. What is righteousness?

The term righteousness means right-mindedness, as well as walking in
perfection
407
Right- minded implies understanding rightly, and reasoning in the same
nonjudgmental way that God reasons.

Righteousness and Stage IV are synonymous. Righteousness is rightness
408

Right-mindedness may sound elitist. It is, however, exactly the opposite.
Righteousness/right- minded is nonjudgmental thinking and, therefore, when we reach
Stage IV, we never judge ourselves as better than anyone else. As Jesus says in Jn 8:15,
I judge no one.


256



59. Salvation

59A. I s faith or works the path to salvation?

The biblical term works can be divided into two categories. 1) Human
endeavors viewed as useless, materialistic acts of false pride (Stages I, II, and III); and 2)
works which are motivated by universal love (Stages IV and V). The useless works of
pride, the works of darkness (Rm 13:12; Afh 5:11), works of the flesh (Gal 5:19),
wicked works (Jn 3:19), and so on., infer the ineffectiveness of attempts by worldly man,
those of us in lower stages, to truly affect the fundamental quality of their lives. The
works of the righteous, those of us in Stage IV, however, is effective because it emanates
from a higher form of consciousness. (Titus 3:4)

The controversy of either faith or works as the road to salvation boils (?) because
of the misunderstanding of pistus/faith and ignorance of the five stages of consciousness
in the New Testament.

Some reason that belief in Jesus is the road to salvation because the Bible says
that salvation comes only through faith/pistus in him (Rm 10:10). But when pistus is
understood as a solid, rational understanding, we can recognize that what Paul means
here is that we are reconciled with Gods logos when we understand what Jesus alone
teaches. In effect, the controversy between faith and works is the consequence of not
realizing that when Paul talks about works in a derogatory sense, he is referring to our
works in lower stages of consciousness. Once we reach Stage IV, faith/understanding of
Jesus knowledge teachings changes the nature of our work, for now it is based on love.
Realizing that understanding/faith is the key to Stage IV, and subsequently its good
works, reveals that no controversy exists between faith and works. Rather, what Paul is
saying, is that only faith/understanding of Jesus knowledge teachings leads to Stage IV
where we do Gods work.

On the antithesis of faith and worksit is a principle of New Testament
theology that the works of man are totally ineffective to achieve righteousnessonce one
has received faith [understanding], however, the works of our faith are demanded (Gal ?;
1 Tm 1:3; 2 Tm 1:11; Jm 1:25; 2:47); these are deeds done in accordance with the
Christian standards of righteousness and from the motive of faith and love.
409


It is idle to call him Lord, without doing the things he says (Lk 6:46); indeed to
answer His call may involve the sacrifice of all that we processes (Lk 14:33).
410


In Pauline writings, work is accepted as a necessary part of human responsibility
(Eph 4:20; 1 Tm 4:11; 2 Tm 3:10-12)
411
Be ye doers of the word and not hearers
only. (Jm 1:22) For Gnostics, good works from the heart, then, is the point of New
Testament theology.

For Jesus, the purpose of God is not found in the creation
of planets or galaxy of stars, not in building of great cities

257


or empires, nor in organization of vast institutions, but
rather in the steady growth of human character, in the
development of those inner spiritual qualities which are
expressed in fair dealings, unselfish love, devotion to truth,
kindness, mercy, and good willI tell you truly [said
Jesus], so as you do to one of my brothers, even the least of
them, you did it to me.
412


In actuality, we become true Christians when we understand Jesus knowledge
teaching and act in accordance with it. Simply believing in something accomplishes
nothing. If a thousand Monks, for example, could believe hard enough to levitate, what
good would it do for even one child who has nothing to eat?


59B. What is salvation?

Salvation is the translation of the Greek word soteria. This word has its roots in
the concept of coming to a new understanding of God through mental effort, not through
Gods benevolence.

In the first century, soteria is synonymous with coming to the knowledge of the
truth (1 Tm 2:4), not being saved. The term rectification better encompasses the
meaning of soteria than does salvation, for the word soteria, traditionally translated
savior, is a first century title that refers to a healer who rectifies a problem, rather than a
transcendental being who saves the world.

In effect, soteria authentically meant rectification in the sense of getting things
right, rather than being saved from something we have no control over.

Traditionally, salvation is associated with a cataclysmic ending of the world.
Gnostics, however, view the end time as an end of the materialistic world order, Stage III,
and a beginning of the glory, Stage IV.


60. Who is Satan?

Satan is a personification of what early Church fathers considered evil: like
judgmentalness, materialism, lust, greed, relentlessness, usury, and the merchandising of
Jesus teachings. Satan is the power of materiality.
413


The relationship of Satan with sin appears late in the Old Testament, he [Satan]
is an accuser, a heavenly officer [of God], whose function it is to question and to test the
genuinity of human virtue.
414
The appearance of Satan as a tempter (the devil is like
Gods prosecuting attorney in the book of Job), however, does not affect the Old
Testament belief that man is, himself, the responsible agent of his sin.

Satan, in the sense of a demonic personification of evil, can be seen as scare

258


tactics to keep those in lower stages of consciousness out of harms way until they
understood the Christ message. We can liken parents using stories of the bogyman to
scare children into obeying rules when they are too young to understand the purpose of
the rules, to those who would use Satan to scare themselves and others into doing good
until they wanted to do it on their own accord.

It is apparent in 2Co 11:13 that Paul is having trouble with those who claim to be
Christian Apostles, but to Paul they were anti-Christs, who would use Jesus for their own
personal gain, i.e. ministers of Satan.
415


The scriptural doctrine of Satan is nowhere systematically developed [in the
New Testament]...the source of evil is found in the flesh* and its passions, in self- love
and ignorance, rather than supernatural personalities.
416
In short, Satan is a
personification of evil, not a real character.

Exorcism can be seen as a concentrated effort to purge the consciousness of false
standards, not to extract demons. See Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satin, Pgs. 34 and 38,
Vantage Books.

Fallen angels are those who have reached Stage IV, but are too weak in their
commitment and understanding of Jesus Christ teachings. They do not carry it into their
daily lives. The term backsliders is synonymous with fallen angels.


61. What is the second coming?

The second coming, from the Greek word parousia, refers to reaching Stage IV.
Tradition teaches that when the resurrection comes, the world will be destroyed. This
belief, however, rests on the mistranslation of the Greek word allasso to mean destroyed
when, in the first century, it meant to alter or change. In this light, the world will not
come to an end. Only the world as we now know it will end. We can be assured of this
interpretation by several passages in the Bible that refer to the world to come, Stage V
(Mt 12:32 and Mk 10:30). The glory is the renewed earth that Peter talks about in 2 Pt
13:3 when he says according to his promise for new heavens and a new earth wherein
dwell righteousness. (A110, Matt 24, Lk 17:22-37, 21:33, 24:30; 1Thes 4:17, rev 1:7,
4:14)

Some [American] Indians believe there will be what
Christians call the Armageddon, and in time, he [Sunny
Smart, 36 year old member of the Bad River Band of
Chippewa Indians] says, not an end in the physical sense,
but an end in the way of thinking. It will be a
transformation from abuse and domination of nature and
people, to a way of harmony, kindness, sharinga natural
way, an Indian way.
417



259


The American Indian understanding of the Armageddon is the Gnostic
understanding of the Second Coming. Gnostics refer to that Second Coming as the glory
of Stage V, in which the Christ consciousness [enlightenment] is manifested in all people,
not the physical return of Christ. (Note: The Jesus Seminars conclusion on the Second
Coming.)

Jesus talks about the Second Coming of his Gnostic teachings in Jn 14:15-26;
15:26; and 16:7-15 jbv. Here Jesus tells his disciples not to be concerned after he leaves
them. For he will ask the Father to send an advocate of his/Jesus teachings to insure that
his teachings survive his person. Therefore, the Second Coming that Jesus talks about in
John is that of an advocate who, like himself, will teach the world how to create the
Kingdom of God here on Earth.

Some confuse the Paraclete with the second coming of Christ. The word
paraclete (parakletos in Greek) meant comforter or advocate. In [the gospel of] John,
Paraclete was the synonym for Holy Spirit. John placed emphasis on the Paraclete rather
than on the parousia (the Second Coming of Christ).
418
We must not assume, however,
that the word Holy Spirit refers to God. The holiness of God is rarely mentioned in the
NTit is to the church and its members that the term is more frequently applied
419
In
John, then, the Holy Spirit can refer to someone who Jesus said the Father will send in
my name [and he, meaning the advocate, will],.. teach you everything; and remind you of
all I have saidhe will show the world how wrong it was, about sin, and about who was
right, and about judgment [reason]:..

In effect, Jesus was the first to reveal the logos/logic of God to the world. Paul
and others who advocate Jesus logos teachings are also paracletes. For John, there is no
second coming of Jesus in the person. The second coming of Jesus is when his Paraclete
(helper) reminds the world of Jesus Christ/logos teachings.


62. I s sex discrimination Biblical?

The doctrine of the inferiority of women in the Christian church is rooted in the
early Orthodox church fathers misunderstanding of the role of the Greek Goddess of
wisdom/logos, Sophia.

To Gnostic Christians, the Greek goddess, Sophia, personifies theoretical as
distinguished from practical wisdom; specifically, in Aristotle, knowledge of first [or
natural] principles,.. (190). Wisdom, personified by Sophia, is referred to in Hebrew
philosophy by Ecclesiastes (7:25-26); as the woman who makes the sinner her captive.
Sophia/wisdom, in her lower Stages, II and III, is called the whore of Babylon by John
in Revelation. And in the Gnostic Gospel, The Sophia of Jesus Christ, Jesus refers to
Sophia/wisdom in lower stages, as a deficiency of the female [and that through him, she,
meaning wisdom, might] ..be perfected [meaning awakened to her potentials for divine
reason through Jesus Gnostic teachings].
420



260


In the 3
rd
century, however, the influential church father, Tertullian, mistakes the
personification of the defective and fallen wisdom of the female goddess Sophia for
women. He and others since him interpret this as a defect of femaleness and apply this
mistake by addressing womenas the gate by which demons enter.
421


Tertullians mistake, thereafter, plays a major role in the justification for male
supremacy over women in the Church. For Tertullian is credited with translating
Christian literature into Latin, which prior to him was written in Greek. The consequence
was that Christian literature in the West became Latin and Latin literature [Tertullians]
became Christian.
422


The lower status of women in the Christian societies is blamed on Paul, but this is
not the view of the true Paul, but rather that of those who wrote in Pauls name. The
Pastoral Epistles, not authentic to Paul, establishes the supremacy of males over females.
Another example of plagiarism appears in 1Cor 14:33b-36, which forbids women to
speak in church worship. Not only does this contradict 1Cor 11:5, which assumes
women do pray in church, but also with post-Pauline, author of Tim 2:11-12. So Paul has
been blamed for a view he did not have.
423


Subtle contradicting viewpoints about the value of women surface in the King
James and Jerusalem Bible translations of Rm 16:1-2. In the kjv, phoebe, a woman, is
considered a servant of the church. In the jbv, she is recognized as a deaconess of the
church at Cenchreae. We can assume that the kjv reflects the orthodox view of Paul
whereas the jbv reflects the Gnostic point of view. I would add, because the point of
Christianity is nonjudgment, anything that is judgmental, like the ranking of men over
women, is not Christian, and therefore, not Paul.


63. What is sin?
Sin, from the Greek word hamatia, refers to an intellectual error that causes us
to miss the mark of understanding Gods will, the logos/logic of God.
424


In the Old Testament, sin is straying away from the right patha liefollysin
is, indeed, a breakdown of societynonactionsin is the denial of lifethese narratives
affirm clearly the freedom and responsibility of the individual.
425


No word in the Old Testament means precisely theological sin [in the modern
sense].
426
Perhaps the Jewish notion of an impulse to evil
427
is the closest the Old
Testament comes to the modern idea of sin.

In the early New Testament, sin itself, as distinct from sinfulness, was designated
by the Greek words hamartia and hamartoma. Traditionally, these terms become
theological terms; the Christian concept of sin [however] does not appear in the classical
Greek use of these words.
428
In the classical Greek, harmartia means to miss the mark.
This signifies not merely an intellectual error in judgment [reasoning], but a failure to
obtain a goal [rightmindedness].
429


261



New Testament authors took the Old Testament definitions of sin for granted, but
were not explicit about them. They do, however, expand on the Old Testament and
classical Greek understanding of sin.

In the first century, for example:

Sin [is considered] a single act.
430


Sin [is]a state or condition
431


Sin is lawlessness

Paul does not mean, and explicitly rejects, the idea that men share in some
way a personal act of the ancestor
432


Paul argues that the seed of sin is a power in the flesh. Sin is a kind of
pseudo- law [Platos theory] in opposition to the law of Moses. It enslaves
man so that he is unable to do what is right even when he wishes to do
so;
433


Sin is not indeed inevitable if man can resist it. Paul does not affirm
failure so much as he affirms perpetual conflict between law of reason [in
Stage IV] and the law of the flesh [which distorts reasoning in Stages II and
III]. In this conflict, man need not be defeated, but neither can he achieve
victory except through Jesus Christ [Jesus knowledge teaching];
434


The novel element of the New Testament concept of sin is the
presentation of Jesus as the conqueror of sin. In the Old Testament, only
God can deliver man from sin; in the New Testament, God does deliver
man from sin.
435
In the new age [Stage IV]Christians are not made
incapable of sinning (Gal 6:1); rather sin no longer is the determinative
domain.
436


St. Augustine can be considered to be the first church father to discover the
concept of original sin in Christian literature, i.e., the idea that human nature is, by nature,
depraved. Before Augustines discovery (419 AD), however, most church fathers, such as
Gregoy of Mussa, St. John of Crystostom, Bishop Julien of Eclanum, and Pelagius, saw
human beings as the living image of God and believed we acted sinfully only if we were
deprived of Jesus knowledge teachings.

Augustine [however] would eventually transform
traditional Christian teachings on freedom, on sexuality,
and on sin and redemption for all future generations of
Christians. Where earlier generations had once found
Genesis 1-3 the affirmation of human freedom to choose

262


good or evil, Augustine found in the same text a story of
human bondage. This cataclysmic transformation in
Christian thought from an ideology of moral freedom to
one of universal corruption coincided [with] the
evolution of the Christian movement from a persecuted sect
to the religion of the Emperor himself.
437


Augustine saw man as depraved pawns of Satan. Lust is an usurper, defying the
power of the will, and tyrannizing the human sexual organs.
438
A definition of mankind is
consistent with his own acknowledged experiences of sexuality as being, in his own words
and from his own experience, illicit, guilt provoking, and insatiable.
439


Who can control this [libido] when its appetite is aroused?
No one! In the next movement of this appetite, then, it has
no mode that responds to the decisions of the will. What
married man chooses that the appetite be aroused, except
when needed? What honest celibate choose that the
appetite ever be aroused? Yet, what he wishes, [to be
sexually aroused], he cannot accomplishIn the very
moment of the appetite, it has not mode corresponding to
the decision of the will.
440


Augustine, in his own words, admitted he was at a loss to understand the Christian
teaching of free will. Later he would claim, of course, that in denying the power of the
will he was only repeating what Paul had said long before: I do not do what I will, but do
the very thing I hateI can will what is right, but I cannot do it. Augustine had no idea
that Paul was talking about the ego in lower stages of consciousness.
441


Augustine does not accept full responsibility for his own actions; he projects his
failures onto Adam. Augustine insists that, since he has suffered much of this against
his own willI was not, therefore the cause of it, but the sin that dwells in me; from the
punishment of that more voluntary sin, because I was the son of Adam.
442
To Augustine,
if Adam once had free will, he himself had never received itwhat other apologists
[church fathers] had celebrated as Gods greatest gift to human kind free will, liberty,
autonomy, self- government Augustine characterizes in surprisingly negative terms.
Adam had received freedom as his birth right, but nonetheless, as Augustine tells it, the
first man conceived a desire for freedom and his desire became, in Augustines eyes, the
root of sin, betraying nothing less than contempt for God.
443


For most Christians, the story of Adam and Eve was to
warn everyone who heard it not to misuse their divinely
given capacity for free choice.
444


St. John of Crysostom indeed warns the faint-hearted not to blame Adam for their
own transgressions.
445



263


Christians from Julian to Origen, plus modern scholarship such as Peter Gordays
confirm the impression that Augustine effectively invented this interpretation of Pauls
words, by daring to apply them to baptized Christians.
446
Many contemporaries of
Augustine argue that Christians recovered from sin through baptism, i.e., understanding
Jesus knowledge teachings. Augustines argument [that Adam introduced sin, Rm 5:12]
has persuaded the majority of Western Catholic and Protestant theologians to agree with
him; and many Western Christians have taken his interpretation of this passage for
granted. But as Peter Gorday has shown, when we actually compare Augustines
interpretation with those of theologians as diverse as Origin, John Chrysotom, and
Pelagius, we can see that Augustine found in Rm 7 what others had not seen therea
sexualized interpretation of sin and a revolution from the flesh based on his own
idiosyncratic belief that we contact the disease of sin through the process of conception
447

. Julian accused him [Augustine] of having invented this view of original sin.
448


64. Are we all sinners by birth?


65. What does 666 represent?

More usually the number [666] is regarded as an example of germatria, i.e., the
practice of giving letters of a word or name the numerical equivalentpossible in either
Hebrew or Greek, since both use the letters of their alphabets as numbers. The most
attractive of many solutions put forward is that the name of the Greek form Neron
Caesar, which when transliterated in Hebrew characters adds up to 666. If the Latin
spelling Nero is used, the sum of the Hebrew transliteration is 616, which might account
for variant in some Greek Mss
449
(See Rev 13:18 rsv footnote)


66. What does soma/body mean?

Body, from the Greek term soma, was used by Gnostic Christians to define the
whole of human consciousness, meaning the psychological self. Body/ consciousness, as
a whole, consists of the reasoning mind (sarx/flesh), the intuitive mind (spirit), and the
indwelling Spirit of God, and the eye, or in todays term, the ego. The eye/ego is an
abstraction of the indwelling spirit of God that empowers us with self-consciousness.

Paul can use the word body in the sense of personality or self. (219) In
Paul the term body is nearly synonymous with the self (Rm 6:12; 8:10; 1 Co 6:18), but
body and soul [spirit] both used for self have different emphasis. The body is the totality
[of the psychological self] rather than the conscious self [the eye or ego].
450


The Greek term, soul, and its Latin equivalent, spirit, can also refer to
consciousness as a whole.

Defining the body as the whole psychological self is important to understanding
that Jesus logos/logic teachings empowers the body/consciousness with Godlike
reasoning. Pauls conviction that unless man rises as a body [the whole psychological

264


self] he does not live at all; for the body is the totality of concrete human existence, and it
must experience what appears impossible, a transformation [from Stage III to Stage IV]
which without destroying it, gives it the qualities of the heavenly man [of Stage IV].
451


The concept of bodily resurrection leads us to think of Pauls use of the term
body in a physical sense. But here, like above, when Paul uses the term body along
with his concept of resurrection, his intentions have to do with reaching psychological
perfection through Jesus knowledge teachings, not being physically reborn.


67. Who are the sons of God?

Sons of God refers to those of us in Stage IV. Jesus was the first to be
considered a Son of God, since he was the first to discover how to emulate Gods will.
For this reason, he was considered the prototype of the perfect human being in Stage IV.
Those after him, who accepted his newfound knowledge, were also considered
Sons/Daughters of God. In truth, Jesus discovered the way to his, and our, highest
potentials. For this reason, Jesus can be considered the first truly normal, that is to say
standard [perfected] human being. To become like him, to belongto his family rather
than that of Adam, the First is not to become freakish and abnormal; it is to discover what
being human really is.
452



68. Who are the sons of man?

Sons of man refer to those of us in Stages II and III who have not yet internalized
Jesus knowledge teachings and, therefore, live at the consciousness level of Stages II and
III.


69. Who is Sophia?
Sophia is the Greek goddess who originally personified theoretical as
distinguished from practical wisdom; specifically in Aristotle, knowledge of first
principals [like henos anthropos and anthropoi].
453
In everyday conversation, however,
Sophia is considered wisdom as we would define it in Stages I through III. Gnostics refer
to Sophia in these lower stages as the drop
454
, whore
456
, and in the Gnostic gospel, the
Sophia of Jesus Christ, as a deficiency of the female
457
. In Stage IV, Sophia is defined
by Gnostics as divine Sophia and perfected.

Paul speaks of Sophia among the perfect [the higher form
of reasoning of pneumatics in Stage IV], not a Sophia of
this age [the lower form of reasoning in psychic and hylic
Stages II and III, but rather], a Sophia [wisdom
/reasoning] of God [formally] hidden in mystery. (1 Co
2:6-7) Thus, there is a present Sophia [reasoning in Stages
II and III] and a divine Sophia [reasoning in Stage IV].

265


The rulers of this age, Paul argues, knew Sophia [of Stages
II and III] but not ChristSophia (2-8) [higher reasoning
of Stage IV].
458



70. What is the Soul/Soma?

The Greek terms soul, soma, psyche, and sometimes the Latin translation of
soul, spirit, define the whole or body of the psychological self in the first century.

The psychology of Plato extends no further than the division of the soul [the
psychological self] into the rational [left brain] irascible [discerning principle] and
concupiscent [right brain] elementsThe chief difficulty in this early analysis of the
mind PR 194

The NT employs the GK psyche translated in English by soul; in many passages
where it means the self or the person.Love: genuine love, is from the whole psyche
[soul] (MT 22:37) One should do the will [logos or logic] of God from the psyche
(EPH 6:6; COL 3:23). The psyche [or soul] in the NT is still the totality of the
[psychological] self as a living and conscious subject, and it is the totality of the self [the
psychological self] which is saved [perfected] for eternal life [the glory of Stage V].
(Dic 838-839)

Gnostics also refer to the whole of consciousness as soma, generally translated,
body. In the dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie S.J., the body becomes an
important psychological and theological concept only in Paul . In some context it again
appears to be nearly synonymous with self (Rm 6:12F; 8:10 ?; 1 CO 6:18F), but body
and soul both used for self, have different emphasizes. The body is the totality [of the
psychological self] rather than the conscious self, ..

Leander Keck, Dean of the Yale Divinity School, supports Father McKenzies
definition of body. For Paul, the critical meaning of body is the actual self, what we
might call the psychosomatic entity that I am.Greek soma refers to the actual self and
not merely the physical body. (Keck 108)

This translation surfaces in polemics (arguments) about bodily resurrection that
took place in the early Church between Gnostic Christians, like Paul, and Orthodox
Christians like Irenaus. For Paul, there is no resurrection of the dead.Paul makes it
clear that he understands resurrection to be the transformation, not resuscitation. (Keck
109) Resurrection, for Gnostics, meant that the body or the psychological self has
become fully conscious that it and the logos of God are one.

Simply said, soul, soma, psyche, and body all can refer to the totality of the
psychological self. It is the psychological self that God intends us to perfect. About the
possibility of there being a higher state of consciousness, Professor Julian Jaynes said, It
would be wrong to think that whatever the neurology of consciousness now may be, it is

266


set for all time[expecting consciousness to question its own limits] is like asking a
flash light in a dark room to search around for something that does not have any light
shining upon it. The flashlight, since there is light in every direction it turns, would have
to conclude that there is light everywhere. And so consciousness [as we now define it]
can seem to pervade all mentality when actually it does not. (1) In Pauls Letter to the
Romans, he says, God confers life upon it [the body or psychological self] through his
in dwelling spirit (Rm 8:11)!.. It is in this perfected or renewed mind (Rm 12:2) that
we live life fully.


71. What is the Spirit?
Spirit is the Latin translation of the Greek word soul. In the original Greek text
of the New Testament, none of which survived, both spirit and soul were thought of in
their classical Greek sense of the totality of mans psychological self. The term
soma/body is often used in place of spirit and soul in surviving NT texts.

The spirit is not obviously or explicitly concerned with a
divine personal being in Paulat times Paul seems nearly
to identify the spirit as the conscious self and [at the same
time] the spirit as the heavenly level of being into which
the Christian is transformed.
459


Gnostic Christians realize that when Paul uses the term spirit in the personal
sense, he is referring to the intuitive mind. When he speaks of the Spirit in a heavenly
sense, he is referring to our God self, meaning the indwelling spirit of God. By spirit
(pneuma) Paul sometimes means the highest element in a human being. This he
distinguishes from the flesh, the lower element. The NT can suggest a deep affinity
between the human spirit and the Spirit of Godthere are many texts where it is hard to
tell whether it is the natural or supernatural spirit that is referred to, the personal or the
indwelling spirit
460
(Rm 1:9 Note G). The difficulty in distinguishing between Pauls
use of spirit in the natural and supernatural sense is that in Stage IV, he makes no
distinction. The supernatural/extraordinary is the natural/ordinary because both are one.

Today, soul and spirit are no longer thought of in the classical Greek sense that
Paul wrote in, but in the sense of a divine energy within us, which Gnostics would call
the god-self.

The change in meaning of spirit/soul from the totality of our psychological nature
to our god-self leads to grave misunderstandings of Pauls intentions, when he contrasts
the spirit and the flesh (sarx). When Paul is contrasting the spirit and flesh, he is pointing
out that our ego/reasoning mind (sarx or flesh) in Stages II and III often opposes the
spirit/intuitive mind. He is not indicating that the flesh/mans reasoning mind is
inherently opposed to the spirit of God.

Recently discovered Gnostic gospels teach that ordinary consciousness/ego can be
perfected and harmonized with the god-self.

267



When ones psyche, or ordinary consciousness, becomes
integrated with ones spiritual naturewhen the Adam
[the ego self] becomes complete again [harmonized with
the intuitive self/,god-self], one can achieve internal
harmony and wholeness.
461


spirit (small case), the Intuitive Self

Gnostics use the Greek term spirit (lower case) to define the intuitive or
subjective mind. In practice, the spiritual or intuitive mind encompasses thoughts we are
conscious of but cannot rationally explain; like knowing that everything is one,
timelessness, and the sense of bliss and peace. Other terms for spiritual or intuitive
thoughts are subjective, emotional, subliminal, intuitive, a-priori, intangible,
unconditional, insight, right brain, sixth sense, and feelings. Freuds model refers to
these thoughts as id thoughts, William James called them intuitive thoughts, T.
Harris calls them child thoughts, and Jaynes calls them right hemisphere thoughts



72. Spiritual

72A. What does holy mean?

Holy is a term derived from the Hebrew Kds. (245) Kds describes someone or
something that stands out. Holy also implies perfection. We know that that the term
Holy is not reserved for transcendent beings and realms because Holy often refers to
Holy Ground, Holy Churches, and so on.


72B. What does Holy Spirit mean?

The term holy spirit applies not only to the divine, but also to those of us whose
reasoning has reached the perfection of the logos of God (Stage IV). Angels, sons of
God, saints, the chosen, the elect, and pneumatics can be spiritual individuals. Gnostic
Christians use the term holy spirits to refer to those in the Christ-consciousness of Stage
IV.

The indwelling of the spirit in the Christian makes him a
holy temple[holy also] indicates the sacred character of
persons or objects belonging to God;..
462



72C. What is Oneness?

Oneness is more than acceptanceit is total absorption into others. It is
complete empathy, compassion, respect, and pride in others. (Eph 4:26)

268




72D. What is being spiritual?

Becoming a Christian meant discerning ones spiritual nature
discovering, as one teacher put it, who we are, and what we have become, where
we were whither we are hastening; from what we are being released; what birth
is, and what is rebirth.
463


Gnostics know these answers. They are the indwelling spirit of God. What
we have become are holy spirits in Stage IV. We were judgmental thinkers in
Stages II and III. We are hastening towards the glory of Stage V. We are
released from judgment, desire and fear. Birth is recognizing the truth of Jesus
logos teachings, and rebirth is living Jesus logos teachings daily.

The Greek word, pneumatic/spiritual, refers to being in Stage IV, or Christ-
consciousness. Being spiritual means more than teaching, talking, or singing about
oneness with others. It means living as if the well-being of others is as important
to you as is your own. This means using all we have to the best advantage of all.
Or as Jesus said, he who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and
he who has food, let him do likewise. (Lk 3:11.) In principle, this means that the
truly spiritual person owns and consumes only what he needs. He willingly invests
his over-abundance in ways that will elevate the well-being of others to his own
level.

If a man was rich enough in this worlds goods saw one of his brothers
was in need, but closed his heart to him, how could the love of God be living in
him? My children [meaning Gnostic Christians] our love is not to be just words or
mere talk, but something real and active; only by this can we be certain that we are
children of the truth and be able to quieten our conscience in his [Gods]
presence. (1Jn 3:17-20.) This applies to Kings, Queens, Popes, Priests, teachers,
lawyers, businessmen, bankers, entertainers, land owners, athletes, tradesmen,
laborers, and everyone else. Gnostics are not against money or wealth, only
against its misuse in the presence of need. (Matt 6:22)

A truly spiritual person will not squander his money on life styles that
exceed his needs and be in good conscience doing so. He will live in harmony
with the spirit of nature, not in accord with the selfish life styles we accept as
moral. Simply said, when we are truly spiritual, we see ourselves in others, and
therefore, want the same for others as we want for ourselves.


73. What is syzygy?

The term syzygy is rooted in the Greek concept of yoking or pulling together of
mind and heart. Gnostics use this word in relation to the reasoning/ego mind in Stage IV
working in accord with the Godself. Unfortunately, syzygy is often interpreted in terms

269


of endogenous gods. See Elaine Pagels, Gnostic Paul, P 124-127.


74. What does Paul mean by thorn in the flesh? (2Cor 12:7)

The thorn in the flesh that Paul speaks of in 2Cor, refers to his ongoing sense of
heavy- heartedness, brought on by insults and persecutions from the very people he is
trying to help. He accepts this persecution and rejection as a small price to pay compared
to the honor he feels that God selected him to spread the word/logic of Jesus
Christ/logos teachings. He jokes that if everyone loved what he said, his pride would
become so inflated it would hinder his ability to effectively spread the word.


75. What is the trinity?

The Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as understood in the traditional
sense, was reached only in the fourth and fifth centuries AD and hence not explicitly and
formally a biblical belief.
464
In Gnostic terms, the trinity defines how God interacts with
mankind in the various stages in the developmental of our consciousness. Specifically:

In Stage I, II, and III, God the Father acts as a benevolent parent who
protects his children against their own immaturity by subjecting them to
external laws.

God interacts a second time with man by sending his son, Jesus, to teach
us of a way to renew our reasoning/ego minds so we might become
perfect, i.e., progress from Stage III to Stage IV.

God interacts a third time with mankind when we internalize the logos/the
Holy Spirit of God within us. In other words, our ego/reasoning mind is
elevated by our knowledge of Jesus teaching to the same level as the
logos/reasoning mind of God, which makes us a holy spirit/perfected
soul.

The Trinitarian implicationsof Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost in accompanying mans salvation is mentioned in
order [Eph 1:3-14].
465


The notions of Father, Son, and Spirit are revealed that we
may know God better; and theologians should explore their
ideas.
466


The notion of the trinity fits well with the Gnostics concept of three stages in the
development of consciousness. There are three classes of human beings. The
pneumatikoi [Stage IV in which we are considered holy spirits]; the psychikoi [Stage III
which the son/Jesus calls us through his knowledge teachings]; and the sarkikoi [Stage II

270


where the fatherly image of God protects us]. The sarkikoi are lost; pheumatikoi are
saved; but the middle group, the psychikoi, can go either way.
467



76. What is truth?

Truth, in the New Testament, can mean three things:

First, truth, from the Greek word alethes, means reality as intellectually
apprehended.
468
In other words, truth can mean our perception of reality as we
understand it.

Second, truth can refer to heavenly archetypes,
469
which here means natural
principle, such as henos anthropos and anthropoi. For example, the truth which
Jesus presents is something which can be known (in the Heb sense of knowledge) and
it liberates [grows us from Stages III to IV] (Jn 8:32). Jesus prays that his disciples
may be sanctified in truth, which is the word [logos/logic](Jn 17:17). (261) This
means Jesus prays that his disciples will understand the principles of his knowledge
teachings, and therefore, reason in the same way as does God.

Third, the truth can mean the real and genuine.
470



77. I s usury (the lending of money for interest) Christian?

Lending monies for interest/usury is forbidden by Jesus in Lk 6:35. Lend without
any hope of return, said Jesus, and you will have a great reward. Lukes presentation
of a love which reaches out to those who do not love youhas no parallel; it declares that
the disciple [followers of Jesus] must lend without expecting to be repaid. That no bank
could operate on such principals is obvious, but the demand of love conforms to no
ordinary standards.
471
. In effect, Jesus expands Gods Old Testament law of not to lend
on interest to your brother [which excludes Gentiles], whether the loan be of money, food,
or anything else that may earn interest (Lev 25-37, Deut 23-21, and Ex 22,24,25) to
include all lending for interest. We can assume from the above, and from the economic
crisis of AD 33, that Jesus believed that usury, in the end, bankrupts whole nations, which
makes paupers out of willing workers. Paul, like Jesus, is opposed to lending money for
interest for in Rm 13:8, he says owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he
who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. (1Co 15:51-53, 6:10)

As far back as classical Greece, usury was considered ruinous to countries and
individuals.

The famous panic of AD 33 illustrates the development
and complex interdependence of banks and commerce in
the [Roman] empire. [Caesar] Augustus had coined and
spends money lavishly, on the theory that its increased

271


circulation, low interest rates, and raising prices would
stimulate business. They did; but as the process could not
go on forever, a reaction set in that created a run on the
banks, the economy collapsed, and a depression set in.
472



78. Who is the whore of Babylon in Revelations?


79. What does wisdom mean?

Wisdom can be understood in two ways:

First, the wisdom of the world, meaning our wisdom in Stages I through III. Paul
rejects such wisdom as carnal wisdom in 2 Co 1:12.

The wisdom [reasoning] of this world [Stages II and III]
makes its possessors think themselves wise when they are
foolish. See Rm 1:22.
473


Second, the wisdom of God (1Co 1:24) means the nonjudgmental reasoning
exemplified in Stages of IV and V of consciousness. For Paul, Christ represents the
wisdom of God (1Co 1:24) for the Christ refers to Jesus messianic teachings which
leads to nonjudgmental/godlike wisdom. In 1Co 1:24, Paul calls Christ [Jesus
Gnostic teachings] the wisdom of God. (264)


80. What is the wisdom of the wise?


81. What is the Word?

Word is the English translation of the Greek word logos. Like will, word refers
to the creative and reasoning mind of God. As Paul says in 1 Th 2:13, what Jesus teaches
is not the word [logos/judgmental reasoning] of man, but the word
[logos/nonjudgmental reasoning] of God.
474
See Logos.

In the 1
st
Century Greek philosophy, Word, the English translation of logos, is A
term denoting either reason or one of the expressions of reason or order in words and
things; such as word, discourse, definition, formula, principle, mathematical ratio. In its
most important sense in philosophy, it refers to cosmic reason which gives order and
intelligibility to the world. In this sense, the doctrine first appears in Heraclitus [536-
437BC] who affirms the reality of a logos [orderliness/reason] analogous to the reason in
man that regulates all psychological processes and is a source of all human law. The
conception is developed more fully by the Stoics [philosophers], who conceive of the
world as a living unity, perfect in the adaptation of its parts to one another and to the

272


whole, and animated by an immanent and purposive reason. As the creative source of
this cosmic unity and perfection the world-reason is called the seminal reason (logos
spermatikos),..In Philo of Alexandria [30 BC- 50 AD], in whom Hebrew models of
thought mingle with Greek concepts, the logos [word/will] becomes the immaterial
instrument, and even at times the personal agency, through which the creative activity of
the transcendent God is exerted upon the world.
476


In Gnostic Christianity, Jesus was the first to discover what the word/reasoning of
God was and how to personally use it. His free gift was teaching anyone, who would
listen, how to activate their own immanent potentials for god- like reasoning, i.e., awaken
the word/logos of reasoning of God within us.


82. What does world mean?

World, from the Greek word cosmos, can mean three things:

First, the universe as a whole.
Second, the world around us.
Third, our consciousness of the world.

For example, when Paul talks about the heavens and this world, he is describing
places and planets. But when we understand that Paul uses the term cosmos to mean
consciousness, our perception of what Paul teaches changes immensely. For when he
uses phrases like the wisdom of this world, we can then understand that he means the
wisdom of our present consciousnessnot worldly wisdom.


83. What is the true meaning of wrath?

The New Testament term wrath refers to judgmental reasoning. Unfortunately,
many interpretations of Rm 5:8, in which wrath appears, improperly add the phrase of
God, which, in turn, leads us to believe that Gods wrath is some sort of punishment
rather than the judgmental reasoning of Stages II and III. For example, terms like
children of wrath refer to those of us in Stages II and IIInot those being punished by
God.

The problem is not the disposition of God, but the
condition of humanity.
477




273



Gnostic Christianitys Response to 9-11

Hate repaid with hate is twice the hate. Return hate with love is the Gnostic
Christian response to 9-11. Nonviolence exemplifies this response. Mahatma Gandhi
and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. applied the principle of nonviolence and changed the
course of life for millions. Wars have killed billions. If we practiced what Jesus and
Paul taught after WWI (the war to end all wars), WWII would not have happened. If we
practiced what Jesus, Paul, Gandhi, and King taught after 911, terrorism would have been
defeated by love.

Love is the answer. Nonviolence is its weapon. Peace and abundance is loves
reward.

In their own words, Jesus and Pauls response to 911 is:

Jesus in Matt 5:38-42 (JBV)
'You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you:
offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right
cheek, offer him the other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic,
let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles
with him. Give to anyone who asks, and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away.'

Paul in Rm 12:14-21(JBV)
Bless those who persecute you: never curse them, bless them. Rejoice with those who
rejoice and be sad those in sorrow. Treat everyone with equal kindness; never be
condescending but make real friends with the poor. Do not allow yourself to become self-
satisfied. Never repay evil with evil but let everyone see that you are interested only in
the highest ideals. Do all you can to live at peace with everyone. Never try to get
revenge; leave that, my friends, to God's anger. As scripture says: Vengeance is mine-I
will pay them back, the Lord promises. But there is more: If your enemy is hungry, you
should give him food, and if he is thirsty, let him drink. Thus you heap red-hot coals on
his head. Resist evil and conquer it with good.

Paul in Phil 2:1-6 (JBV)
If our life in Christ means anything to you, if love can persuade at all, or the Spirit that
we have in common, or any tenderness and sympathy, then be united in your convictions
and united in your love, with a common purpose and a common mind. That is the one
thing which would make me completely happy. There must be no competition among
you, no conceit; but everybody is to be self- effacing. Always consider the other person to
be better than yourself, so that nobody thinks of his own interests first, but everybody
thinks of other people's interests instead. In your minds you must be the same as Christ
Jesus: His state was divine, yet he did not cling to his equality with God.


274




Chapter Eleven

Conclusion


Love is the answer. Nonjudgmental laws of logic make that answer practical,
workable, and achievableglobally.

The problem is not our lack of spirituality; it is the misuse of reasoning. In the
past we have turned towards spirituality and away from reason to find solutions for
personal and world problems. What we did not understand was that it was our
judgmental system of logic that was undermining our spiritual values. Understanding
nonjudgmental logic empowers us to elevate reason to the same level our spiritual
valueswhich makes living those values possible.

In the past, we have not been able to harmonize the judgmental nature of our
reasoning mind with the nonjudgmental nature of spiritual values. Even the wisdom of
the wisest of us is, more often than not, at odds with our spiritual values.

Ancient Greek philosophers refer to this dilemma as the paradox of two minds in
one head. Others refer to this dilemma as the conflict between mind and heart, spirit and
flesh, and/or religion and reason.

Nonjudgmental logic overcomes the discord between mind and spirit. It expands
our potentials of reasoning by adding to it a nonjudgmental method of reasoning that is in
harmony with spiritual values. Traditionally, spiritual values could not be rationalized in
the context of judgmental rules for correct reasoning. Nonjudgmental logic, however,
creates a nonjudgmental method of reasoning that supports spiritual values.

Nonj udgmental logic can be considered the common ground for solving personal
and world problems. The need to feed the children, free the oppressed, save the whales,
and stop the misuse of nuclear materials and political power would disappear if the fears
and selfishness that judgmental reasoning breeds gave way to the unconditional love and
caring nonjudgmental logic justifies. The point is that if organizations created to make
the world a better place recognized that judgmental reasoning was the common
denominator of our problems, they could work together to solve this one problem
thereby solving all the rest.

Nonjudgmental logic is not a quick fix for personal and world problems. We need
to debate the theory that some classes have more than one natureand create new rules
of logic and language based on that theory. After which, we need to teach these new
rules to our children on a global scale. I consider nonjudgmental reasoning the 4
th
R of
education. Is not learning how to reason nonjudgmentally/lovingly as important to our
childrens happiness as is reading, writing and arithmetic?

275



In our educational system, we must ask whether we want to perpetuate our
judgmental values. Do we want to teach ways of thinking which break the natural
instincts of our children to love? Our children need not be taught that fear, hate, and
prejudice are not natural reactions to situations in the world, but rather are emotional
manifestations of judgmental reasoning. To realize this truth is to gain control of our
emotions; to replace that thinking is to free ourselves from those negative expressions.
We can, as the Director of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, Leonard Bernstein,
said so eloquently, live the will to love. Let us give all children the vision of a world in
which all the walls between us would come tumbling down and we would stand together
as did so many at the Berlin Wall, singing the great, Ode to Joy of Beethovens 9
th

Symphony. We have sung about love long enough. It is time to live it.

A practical suggestion would be to teach our children the higher expressions of
human nature, of Stages IV and V, not the lower, of Stages II and III: teach our goodness,
not our depravity. This would offer them the goal of a future rooted in love and would
provide them with a chance to develop into human beings fully capable of loving and
being loved unconditionally. It is their rightful future. It is the promise of their religious
heritage. It is the hope of every life-affirming philosophy. It is the free gift of Jesus
Gnostic teachings.

I issue a call to action to my readers, for each of us, in his or her own way, to
include the principles of nonjudgmental logic and, in turn, unconditional love in the
school curriculum. This could be taught in the context of conflict resolution, in both
public and church schools throughout the world, for it is in accord with the teachings of
brotherly love and kindness which should be acceptable to both the religious and non-
religious. Just imagine what would happen if a logic with both/and categories were
considered a subject as important as the three Rs. It cannot be over- emphasized that
learning to reason lovingly is more important than reading, writing, and arithmetic.
Moreover, it is the rational thing to do.

Critics have long lamented the fact that our moral development has not kept up
with scientific achievements and technological advancements. But how could we be
expected to grow morally, if we were never taught a logical basis for tolerance,
acceptance, love, appreciation of difference, and openness to views different from our
own. We have failed to integrate the principles of unconditional love and brotherhood
into our lives because our traditional system of logic and, therefore, our reasoning do not
support those principles.

A new frontier in civilization is as close as the nearest kindergarten class! If we
want a better life for our children, we will need to make a commitment to educate them in
the principles of reasoning lovingly. If we begin to teach nonjudgmental logic now, our
children will, in but a few generations, live in a world populated by people who will have
learned to reason lovingly.

Perhaps the child of the future will be born out of a

276


balance of both unconditional and conditional love and thus
into a world of total acceptance. This would mark a
quantum change in human consciousness.
478


It is not unrealistic to hope that nonjudgmental logic can create a global
revolution in consciousness. Who would have believed that computers would create a
new world in one generation? Who would have believed it possible for knowledge to be
globally and instantaneously available to all on the Internet? If computers could change
the world in one generation, is it less reasonable to hope that nonjudgmental logic could
be known to all in a very short time?

Our century has known 250 wars. We squander our resources on armies,
terrorism, and instruments of destruction. Every minute the nations of the world spend
nearly $150,000,000 on instruments of war! In a world peace, just imagine what would
be possible if that money were spent for the enhancement of families, education, health,
the environment, retirement and recreation. But until we get past the judgmental
reasoning of Stages II and III, we will continue to toil for that which will bring about our
own destruction rather than pleasure.

Jesus presented his Gnostic teachings two thousand years ago. Few accepted
those teachings. Most preferred his more popular public teachings to the theory of nature
that he taught in private. In the third millennium, the majority will accept Jesus private
teachings because contemporary physics supports his theory which makes it factually
undeniable. In effect, the support that contemporary physics gives Jesus theory of nature
will make that theory as important globally as is the prevailing theory.

Jesus Gnostic teachings provide us with a method of reasoning that could make
loving relations a practical reality. It would cost nothing, but a change in the way we
think about one another and the world. Nothing more is required than recognizing that
nonjudgmental laws of logic are as natural as those of physics, chemistry, and biology.

Love is the answer to the crisises which grip our cities, our nation, our world,
and our hearts. Love is the answer to our crisis. We have always known that. But
without a logic of nonjudgment, love was never the rational answer. Now love is the
logical answer because nonjudgmental logic makes love the reasonable thing to do.

Let us return to the idyllic garden of paradise. The tree of life is not forbidden,
only guarded against those of us who do not yet understand how to enter its gate. Jesus
knowledge teachings open that gate. We are now ready to complete our journey of the
development of consciousness into that garden. The kingdom of heaven is not an
impossible dream in an unattainable realm, but a state of consciousness closer to us than
our own breath! It has always been there for our taking: not by scaling the gates of
heaven or through supernatural intervention, but by the slow, steady development of our
hearts and minds. The kingdom of heaven is within us. Through Jesus Gnostic
teachings that heaven on earth will come forth from us.


277


We stand on the edge of a revolution in consciousness as momentous as any in
history. We are but one thought away from that revolutionnamely, recognizing that
nonjudgmental logic is warranted by the theory that some classes have more than one
nature. I believe this one thought is the most important idea for this millennium.

In the third millennium, we will develop nonjudgmental logic based on that
theory. It will be used to harmonize our spiritual values with the reality of our everyday
rational world. No longer will we rationalize away what we know in our heart is right.
We will, from within both mind and spirit, take our rightful place as co-creators with
God, and make life a heaven on earth in the here and now.

Love is the answer. The third millennium can, with nonjudgmental logic, reflect
that answer. The future will be determined by our choice to act, or not, from love.

If we can learn how to relate ideas/reason judgmentally, we can learn to relate
ideas/reason nonjudgmentally. We have learned to reason judgmentally because the
prevailing theory was the only theory. Jesus theory, however, gives us the opportunity
to learn how to reason nonjudgmentally. My goal is to introduce both the prevailing and
Jesus theory of nature, and rules of reasoning based on both, into our childrens
classrooms on a global scale. I consider reasoning nonjudgmentally the fourth R of
education. Isnt learning how to reason nonjudgmentally/lovingly as important to our
childrens future as reading, writing and arithmetic?

If we can learn how to relate ideas/reason judgmentally, we can learn to
relate ideas/reason nonjudgmentally. We have learned to reason judgmentally because
the prevailing theory was the only theory. Jesus theory, however, gives us the
opportunity to learn how to reason nonjudgmentally. The goal of true Gnostic
Christianity is to introduce both the prevailing and Jesus theory of nature and the rules of
reasoning based on them, into our childrens classrooms on a global scale. Gnostics
consider reasoning nonjudgmentally the fourth R of education. Isnt learning how to
reason nonjudgmentally/lovingly as important to our childrens future as reading, writing
and arithmetic? Jesus, for example, said bring the children on to me, not because he
thought he could be a better parent than their own. He knew if children learned
nonjudgmental logic from kindergarten on, as adults they would no longer be limited to
judgmental reasoning alone, they would be empowered to reason lovingly.

We are but one thought away from heaven on earth in the third millennium.
Jesus Gnostic teachings are that thought. The future will be determined by our choice
to act, or not, on that thought.


278



Glossary


Adam: The Hebrew word 'Adham' is properly a common noun denoted 'mankind' or 'human being'."
479


Agape: Spontaneous, unconditional love.

Anthropoi: Anthropoi or mankinds is the plural form of Anthropos or mankind. Biblically, Anthropoi
refers to Jesus' theory of nature that humanity, or mankinds (Anthropoi), has many natures. Typically,
however, Anthropoi is translated "many men".

Antichrist: Christ is the Greek translation of the Hebrew term Messiah. The Antichrist does not mean a
demonic character; it simply refers to those of us who do not agree with Jesus' Messianic or Christ (logos)
teachings.

Angels: Angel, from the Greek word angelos, as used in the Old Testament, meant "messenger". In the
New Testament, Angel signifies "a heavenly* spirit*."
480
In view of the first century meanings of
heavenly* and spirit*, we can understand that this phrase refers to a person in Stage IV of consciousness.
(See Holy Spirit.)

Aroma: The aroma, or "fragrance of gnosis" (2Cor. 2:14), to Gnostics implies the sweetness of
participation in the kingdom of heaven (Stage IV) that knowledge/gnosis of Jesus' teachings brings. In
effect, the term aroma in the New Testament, refers to Jesus' knowledge teaching and how sweet it is.

Awakening: 'Awakening', to Gnostics, means remembering what we always knew, but somehow forgot.
Specifically, remembering "we are meant to think like God and being able to do so again because we
understand the Christ message".

Baptism: Traditionally Baptism symbolizes acceptance of God. For Gnostic Christians, Baptism means to
be born "as children of choice and knowledge".
481
In early Gnosticism, Baptism represents that instant
when an initiate first understands Jesus' knowledge teachings that ah ah moment when an idea moves you
from your present paradigm (perception of the world) to a fundamentally different paradigm. This shift in
paradigm occurs, for example, when we give up childish ideas for the benefits and responsibilities of being
adults. This understanding of baptism surfaces in Jn 3:7, "unless one is born anewor from above
[preferred to born again]he cannot see [comprehend] the kingdom of God." See The Encyclopedia of
Religion, (Macmillan and Free Press) p 163 under Cross.

Belief: 'Belief' is a concept foreign to early New Testament authors. 'Belief' is an unfortunate attempt to
make the Greek noun, pistis/faith, into a verb. For example, we cannot say "she faiths
482
, so translators
say, "she believes." 'Believes', however, is a poor selection of a verb for faith because it misleads its user
into thinking blind belief, rather than a solid understanding, as the Greek term pistis/faith implies, is all that
is necessary to be Christian.
483


The Beast: The 'beast' symbolizes a self-perpetuating, materialistic force beneath our present world order.
Today we might use the clich, "the system", in place of The Beast. The Beast was originally a metaphor
used by Plato to illustrate that we are blind to the fact that a judgmental and materialistic energy, or "the
system", controls us, rather than we controlling it. Today we might use the cliche "the system" in place of
the beast.

Body: 'Body', from the Greek term soma, was used by Gnostic Christians to define the whole of human
consciousness, meaning the psychological self. Body/consciousness, as a whole, consists of the reasoning
mind (sarx/flesh), the intuitive mind (spirit), the indwelling Spirit of God, and the eye, or in today's term,
the ego. The eye/ego is an abstraction of the indwelling spirit of God that empowers us with self-
consciousness.

279



Body of Christ: For Gnostic Christians, the 'body of Christ' refers to the higher state of consciousness
Jesus' Messianic/Christ message engenders. Jesus is the first fruits, or prototype, of this higher
consciousness-Christ-consciousness. Jesus' Christ teachings put the body of Christ-consciousness in reach
of us all.

The body of Christ can also refer to a large number/body of people who are in the consciousness or body of
Christ, i.e. in Stage Four.

Blood of Christ: The 'blood of Christ' refers to the essence, or life -giving propert ies, of Jesus' knowledge
teachings.

Born Again: "Born Anew" (Jn 3:3 rsv) and "Born from above" (3:3 jbv) are closer to the first century
Greek than "born again" (3:3 kjv). In Gnostic Christianity, Jesus' words "truly, truly, I say to you, unless
one is born anew, he cannot see the Kingdom of God" (3:3 rsv) meant that unless one's reasoning
mind/flesh is born anew into Christ-consciousness (Stage IV), he cannot comprehend the possibility of a
kingdom of God here on earth.

Celibacy: 'Celibacy', for Gnostic Christians, meant abstaining from participation in the judgmental
enterprises of the lower stages of consciousness, such as "rejecting the Roman social life"
484
, not abstaining
from sexual intercourse.
485


Christ: Most think of 'Christ' as Jesus' last name. Christ, however, is the Greek term for Messiah. Jesus, the
Christ, is Jesus, the Messiah. "Since Christ means Messiah, the formation expresses a drastic
transformation of Jewish expectation."
486


In the Gnostic church, the term Christ refers to the Messianic, or Christ, message that Jesus of Nazareth
taught; i.e. Jesus' logos teachings. When Paul called the "Christ, the 'wisdom of God' in 1Co 1:24, he
assumes that the Corinthians know that the divine Sophia [wisdom] has been reinterpreted as Christ, but
does not discuss the idea.Christ [for Paul and Justin was understood] as the divine logos (word [logic]),
virtually interchangeable with Sophia [wisdom]."
487


In 1Th 5:18, Paul said, "the saving will [logic] of God is in Christ Jesusthis use of the phrase
emphasizesthe cooperation of the Father as initiator and prime cause with the Son as
agent/instrument."
488
What can be assumed here is that Jesus brings the will (logic) of God to man in his
Christ/Messianic teachings. See Jn, Chapter 1.

In short, Gnostic Christians think of Christ not as Jesus, but rather as Jesus' wisdom, logos, Sophia, or
simply, Messianic teachings.

Christ-Consciousness: To be in 'Christ-consciousness' is to understand and live Jesus' Christ/logos
teachings. To be in 'Christ-consciousness' is to be in Stage Four. (See Holy Spirit.)

Cross: Cross, for Gnostics, had a twofold purpose. First, it represented Jesus' love by symbolizing his
willingness to sacrifice his life for us; and second, it was a symbol, or logo, for Jesus' theory that
humanity/anthropoi is a class that has four natures.

Death: In the early church, 'death' referred to living barren, or unfulfilled lives, not physical death. This
interpretation is consistent with Jesus' own words in Mt 22:33, Mk 12:27, and Lk 20:38, when he says
"God is not the god of the dead [in other words, those of us in Stages II and III who do not understand the
Christ message], but of the living [those of us in Stage IV who are doers of the word and practice Jesus'
Christ message]."

According to Gnostics, then, "resurrection of the dead is the recognition of the truth".
489
For Gnostics,
'death' and ignorance of participation in the logos of God are synonymous.


280


Demons: 'Demons', daemons, in the original New Testament Greek, refer to ideas or natural principles that
underly civilization, like gravity and magnetism. Daemons, spirits in Latin, were often personified as gods.
Venus, for example, personified love; Sophia, "theoretical knowledge" (162); Apollo, intellect; and
Neptune, the power in the oceans.

Demiurge: 'Demiurge' literally refers to the intermediate God of those of us in Stages II and III of
consciousness: Yahweh, Jehovah, Alla, and today, the father God of Christians. In 2 Co 4:4 Paul calls the
demiurge "the god of this cosmos* [meaning the god of those of us in Stages II and III of consciousness]."
490


In Stage IV, God is no longer considered separate from us, God is within us. To keep from sounding too
grandiose, Gnostics use phrases and terms like 'God is love', 'I am', 'creation', or 'the all'. In other words, the
Demiurge in Stage Three is a supernatural and extraordinary God. In Stage Four, all are the Spirit of God,
and therefore, it is natural to live love everyday in, what then becomes, ordinary ways. This is what Paul
means when he says, "'I thank my God' (Rm 1:8) for their [those of us in Stage Four] faith. He refers not to
the Demiurge as 'his God', but to the God 'whom I worship in my spirit."
491


Enlightenment: 'Enlightenment' means being a holy spirit* in Stage IV.

Eternal Life : Aiov, the Greek word translated as 'eternal life', means an age, especially a prevailing
paradigm. To Gnostics, aiov refers to life in the age of the glory (Stage V), as well as eternal life in the
sense of infinite time in a hereafter. "The philosophical concept of eternity is not clearly expressed in either
the Old Testament or New Testament."
492


Evil: 'Evil' in the New Testament can denote three things-misleading standards (stoichiea) like henos
anthropos; wrong disposition in the sense of a materialistic world-view; and dehumanizing acts. For Paul,
evil is not associated with demons in the sense of supernatural beings. He clearly supports this in Gal 4:8-9
when he says, "stoichieas [daemons*] are not gods."

Ego: See Eye.

Eye: 'Eye', in the Old Testament, refers to psychic functions. "The eye is also the organ of judgment and
decision. The eye which is the light* of the body* is the intention (Mt 6:22; Lk 11:34), which illuminates
the entire body."
493


The Eye can be thought of as a conveyor upon which all thoughts and feelings we are conscious of, are
transported to our god-self. The key words here are "all" conscious thoughts. For unlike most psychological
models, the eye, or what today may be referred to as the ego, is like a passive conduit which directs all
thoughts we are conscious of to our true god-self, the indwelling spirit of God. In Stages II and III of
consciousness, as in other models, the eye/ego takes on judgmental characteristics. In Stages IV and V,
unlike other models, the eye/ego mirrors the perfect nonjudgmental nature of the god-self.

Gnostics think of the eye of the soul or psychological self as the subject or center of all conscious
thought. We become self-conscious when the EYE, which is the light of the body [or center of]
intention (Mt 6:22; Lk 11:34) illuminates the entire body . [in the Old Testament the eye is] the
subject of psychic functions. The fixing of the eye signifies both attention and intention, whether favorable
or unfavorable. The eye is also the organ of judgment and decision.
494
Simply said, the eye or light of
the body is the I or ego through which we know ourselves and the world around us. The eye/ego, then, is
the subject of all conscious thoughts. Gnostics would say, the eye of the soul/ego is synonymous with
consciousness.

Note: Even though the eye is the seat of concupiscence [strong desires] together with the flesh

495
eye is seldom mentioned in the New Testament.

In psychology today, the eye of the soul would be thought of as the ego, or as Julian Jaynes

281


says, the center of authorization, and as William James model states, the spiritual self or will of
consciousness.

Gnostic Christians consider the eye/ego the voice of the psychological self /soul. Gnostic Christians
explain the ego as an invention of creation to see itself. In a practical sense, the ego conveys what we
experience to our true or God self.

We can equate the ego to the beauty of a rose. Just as beauty is an abstract quality of the rose, ego is an
abstract quality of our Spiritual (upper case) nature.

The eye/ego is passiveit evolves according to what it experiences. Given the right experiences, like a
Caterpillar evolves into a butterfly, the ego evolves, in five developmental stages, into the mirror image of
our Spiritual (upper case)/God nature.

The important thing we will learn about Gnostic thought is it teaches that when the ego is awakened, it
empowers us to be aware of ourselves, i.e, become self-conscious. In turn, self-consciousness marks the
emergence of our ability to reason, for reasoning is a complex chain of inter-related ideas that begins with,
and always refers back to the ego, the center of all conscious thoughts.

Reasoning, then, is the process of relating ideas, the eye/ego of self-consciousness is the subject to which
all ideas relate. Without an ego, for example, we would, like animals, be instinctual and non-rational.
Animals make choices, but without an ego, they are not aware of them. Their choices are therefore,
reactions, not choices. On the other hand, because we have an ego, we can make rational choices. Our ego
is the chooser or subject that makes the choice of how to relate ideas/reason. Important note: The more
inclusive our potential for reasoning (sarx) is, the more choices ego has. In Stage II, for example, we/ego
are logically limited to either/or reasoning, and are therefore, dogmatic, dualistic thinkers. In Stage III,
we/ego are still logically limited to either/or reasoning, but chose to reject logic in favor of feelings. In
Stage III, Gnostics call this rejection spiritual thinking. In Stage IV, the ego reaches perfection. Here the
reasoning mind (sarx) encompasses nonjudgmental laws of logicwhich in turn, empowers the ego to
experience reality in more exclusive ways. This is explained again below.

See Platos concept of the longer waysome metaphysic of the future which will not be satisfied with
arguing from the principle of [non] contradiction.
496


Faith: The Old Testament Hebrew terms, munaah and emet, are generally translated into the Greek term
pistus/faith in English. None of these terms, however, means belief in the modern sense of faith, rather they
mean "sure or true, trustworthy or dependable, to be firm or solidthe term [emet] nowhere signifies the
subjective act of belief."
497


In the New Testament, pistus refers to a rational understanding rather than belief. Paul's use of the word
pistus/faith implies an intellectual awakening; "both the NEV's 'awakened by the message' and the RSV's
'faith comes from what is heard.' This accent on hearing, as an event, which awakens faith, is central to
Paul. It is not reducible to hearing sermons, nor simple oral communications, though it embraces
bothhearing [from the Greek word Akoe] implies that the gospel must be articulated [understood]."
498

See Jm 1:25, Titus 3:4.

Faith for Paul is more than believing in Jesus, it is comprehending and practicing what Jesus taught.
However, because "we have no verbal form for 'faith' [we cannot, for example, say she faiths] but must
shift to 'believe'. But 'believe' also creates difficulties, for its opposite is to disbelieve and sometimes doubt.
Moreover, because 'belief is often associated with beliefs' it is easy to slip into understanding faith
primarily as believing beliefs. While pistus has a specific object, the primary response Paul sought was not
consent to trust [belief] of his statements [it was to an understanding of his knowledge teachings]"
499


Flesh: 'Flesh' is the English translation of the Greek word, sarx, and the Hebrew word, nepes. When Paul
uses the term nepes or sarx, he means the reasoning mind. Scholars recognize that when Paul uses the term

282


sarx, he is referring to "the conscious-selfselfpersonseat of carnal appetitesthe subject of mental
and volitional processes. "
500


Gnostics use the Greek word SARX to define the objective or rational mind. In English Bibles, however,
sarx is translated flesh.

Sarx is the Greek word for the Hebrew term nepes. The nepes is occasionally the subject of mental and
volitional processes [like]knowingchoosingrefusingThe NT employes the GK psyche [for
nepes].
501
Nepes in (pr 14:30; 4:22; ps 16:9F; Ec 5:5) means the conscious self . [nepes/flesh] is not
identical with the body [the psychological self] . It is clear from the context of Gal [3:3] that the flesh
here does not signify what are now called carnal vices, the will [or mindfulness] of the flesh is a
vacillating and indecisive will (2 Co 1:17). By a paradox Paul can speak of the mind of flesh (Col 2:18)
which is a proud mind . [in 1Co 2:16 he refers to the mind of flesh as the mind of Christ] In the NT as
in the OT, the flesh must not be considered as synonymous with the body nor in any philosophical sense as
the material component of the body.
502
(See Tremmel, Page 56)

Rm 8:9 clearly says: you are not in the flesh, you are in the spirit. It is the spirit [right brain] as a sphere
of [psychological] power which has suggested that its opposite flesh [left brain], is also a [psychological]
sphere of power. So flesh characterizes the empirical [or reasoning mind] in light of spirit [the intuitive
mind].
503
The point is that, in Gnostic Christianity, the Greek term sarx, flesh in English, refers to the
empirical or rational element of the psychological self.

Gnosticism: Gnosticism, from the Greek term Gnosis, refers to a cognitive, as opposed to an intuitive,
understanding of religion.

Gospel: The Greek word evangelion designates "good news". It is interesting to note that Paul often speaks
of "our [meaning the Gnostic] gospel" or "my gospel" (Rm 2:16; 1 Co 15:1). Unlike others, Paul's gospel
emphasized the cross* (stauros), meaning Jesus' knowledge/Gnostic teachings. Others, such as Mathew,
Mark and Peter, emphasized Jesus' role as the Jewish Messiah, and his crucifixion on the cross (skelops).

"Paul's gospel [as opposed to the synoptic gospel] was not presented simply as an answer
to a religious quest of his hearers, but as a God-given announcement of an event whose
meaning challenges those quests, at least the terms in which they were pursued. Paul
characterized his gospel of the cross [stauros] a 'folly to those who are perishing' [those of
us in lower stages of consciousness]. The gospel challenged the prevailing
understandings of God, the human condition, and the means of dealing with it; the gospel
called for a reconstruction [total re-evaluation] of prevailing ideas."
504


Grace: 'Grace', from the Greek word, charis, literally means "highly favored"
505
, not an act of benevolence
of God toward man. When Paul uses the word 'grace', he uses it in appreciation of God for allowing Jesus
to teach us the principles of his/God's logos/mind. In effect, grace implies God giving us the right to
comprehend and participate in his will (logos/logic). Wisdom can also be considered Grace.
506


Glory: 'Glory', from the Hebrew word kaboud, in the Old Testament sense, is the manifestation of
Yahweh's promise to Israel. Glory represents "success" and "esteem"
507
. In the New Testament, Glory
receives new and original elaborations. "Christians have the hope of sharing in the glory [Stage V] of God
(Rm 5:2). The glory confirms perfect freedom for the Christian (8:21), and a transit ion of the Christian into
glory terminates the process of foreknowledge, predestination, and justification (Rm 8:30)."
508
Actually,
the glory represents Stage V in which one's success is measured in brotherly love and personal high self-
esteem.

Hear: 'Hear', from the Greek word akoe, means to comprehend and internalize what is being said, rather
than just believing or hearing what is said. For Paul, to hear is to be able to articulate what is being said in
rational terms.

Heart: "If any single organ is to be conceived as the seed of consciousness, it is the heart, which is most

283


frequently mentioned as the agent of thought and decision."
509
. "Biblical idiom differs from modern idiom
in considering the heart as the seat of intelligenceand decisionheart is used in the Bible where in
English we should use mind or will."
510
. "To say heart, means simply to think (Rm 10:6). To reckon in the
heart (Gn 6:5; PR 6:18; 16:9) is to reason. Wisdom, discernment, and knowledge are seeded in the
heartwhen Yahweh gives Solomon breath of heart (1 Co 5:9) this signifies not magnanimity but
intelligence; so also one who is lacking in heart is not cowardly but short of witto steal one's heart is not
to win his affections, but to deceive himto be stubborn is to be heavy or hard of heartthus a man is
what his heart [reasoning/ego mind] is, and heart is used to designate the character"
511
Understanding
and heart are synonymous. In Hebrew "the heart means the center of thought, not as in Western tradition, of
the feelings."
512


Jeremiah, for example, prophesized that the new covenant will not be written on tablets of stone (externally
recorded) but rather on the heart, meaning within the mind. (See Eph 1:18 Note S)

Heaven: In the Old and New Testament, "the phrase 'heavens and earth' signifies, as a rule, simply the
visible universe)."
513
The heavens can be considered "a natural phenomena and not [always] as the
dwelling of the deity."
514
See Mat 10:29.

For Paul, "the heavens, which in the Old Testament are invisible and unattainable by man (with the
exception of the Elijah episode) become in the New Testament the place of dwelling and reward for the
Christian [the glory of Stage V]."
515


Hell: 'Hell' is our separation from God's word/logos, which leads us to reason judgmentally, and, in turn,
live barren lives. "Hell is the fire that burns in our conscience, the fire of despair because of our separation
from God."
516
"Fire symbolizes ignorance of God."
517
In effect, for Paul, hell is living in Stages II and III
of consciousness, for here our judgmental reasoning creates the follies and chaos in the world.

Holy: "'Holy' is a term derived from the Hebrew Kds"
518
. Kds describes someone or something that stands
out. Holy also implies perfection. We know that that the t erm Holy is not reserved for transcendent beings
and realms because Holy often refers to Holy Ground, Holy Churches, and so on.

Holy Spirit: The term 'holy spirit' applies not only to the divine, but also to those of us whose reasoning
has reached the perfection of the logos of God (Stage Four). Angels, sons of God, saints, the chosen, the
elect, and pneumatics can be called Holy Spirits. Gnostic Christians use the term holy spirits to refer to
those in the Christ-consciousness of Stage IV.

"The indwelling of the spirit in the Christian makes him a holy temple[holy also]
indicates the sacred character of persons or objects belonging to God;..
519


Hylic: The Greek word 'hylic' refers to those of us in Stage Two of consciousness, a stage of "immersion in
materiality."
520


Henos Anthropos: For Gnostic Christians, the Greek phrase 'henos anthropos' means one mankind and
when used in Rm 5:12, refers to Plato's theory of nature that each class, specifically mankind, has a single
nature.

Judgmental: To relate/judge ideas in terms of absolutes, either / or, and hierarchical relationships. To
judge in the above context, is to judge by "human standards" and "according to worldly wisdom." To judge
by human standards is what Jesus' knowledge teachings reveal is at the root of the human condition. Jesus
recognizes that judgmental reasoning underlies that condition by stating, "I judge no one." (Jn 8:15)

Kerygma: The Greek word 'kerygma' is traditionally taken to mean the message of Jesus. To Gnostics,
however, the kerygma refers to Paul's teachings to the psychic Christians of Stages II and III, whereas his
logos teachings are what he teaches to pneumatics-those in Stage IV. 1 Co 1:10-12 exemplifies the schism
that Gnostics saw "between pneumatic Christians who followed the secret teachings of Paul [Jesus'
Gnostic/knowledge teachings]and the psychic Christians who followed Peter, the founder of the psychic

284


church."

Kingdom of God: The meaning of the phrase, the 'kingdom of God', is biblically obscure. Understanding
Jesus' teachings in the context of the five stages of consciousness removes the cloud that obscures what he
meant by the 'kingdom of God'. The kingdom of God is the fifth stage-the glory-a time when all will have
reached Stage IV of consciousness.

The Law: The term 'law' can be used in two ways: one, in reference to Mosaic law, and two, in the sense of
the Greek word Nons, meaning the principle behind order in the universe, namely the logos, or divine
will/word, of god.

Lawless Men: 'Lawless men' refers to those who lived in the lawless era between the first rational man,
Adam, and the introduction of the principles of the law of Moses.

Light: 'Light' refers to the moral reasoning of Stages IV and V, which leads to a higher experience of
reality.
"Light is the element of moral good (Jn 3:20)gift of understandingvisionbecause
the Christian has received the divine light [nonjudgmental reasoning] through Christ, the
Christian himself becomes the light of the world."
521
"If you see rightly, then your
whole life is illuminated thereby [by nonjudgmental reasoning]; if not, you remain in the
dark [a practitioner of judgmental reasoning]".
522


Light can be understood as the "eyes* of your understanding" (Eph 1:18).

Lend: Lending monies for interest/usury is forbidden by Jesus in Lk 6:35.

Logos: 'Logos' is the Greek word for the logical or reasoning mind of God. Interchangeable translations of
logos are will, word, wisdom, and Sophia. "Wisdom was understood to be virtually interchangeable with
God's will and word."
523
"It is legitimate to substitute Sophia [wisdom] for logos,.."
524


Logos also means mans ability to recognize reality; we would call it
theoretical reason. It is mans ability to reason.
525


The key to understanding Jesus is to know how he uses the Greek term logos. Jesus does not use logos in
the sense of the statement or the word of God recorded in the Bible. Logos, for Jesus, refers to divine
logic/reason of God, in man. This definition is Hellenized Judaisms adaptation of the Greek concept of
logos as word sent
526
meaning the mind of God.

If one thinks in OT terms, one would prefer to translate logos by word; if one thinks in the Greek terms, as
the apologists [Gnostics] did on the whole, then one would translate logos into reason.
527
The logos
stood for more than spoken words. The extent of the concept was that behind spoken words were thoughts.
Thoughts were mind. Mind had affinity with reason. Reason was the structure of orderly actionthat
ultimate reality was reasonable, was in fact reason itself.
528
And because human beings have the capacity
to reason, it was believed by Jesus and Gnostic Christians that our destiny is to make contact with divine
reason and, like God, discern ultimate truths,
529
See Inter 547A.

The author of The Wisdom of Solomon, became the first to achieve some kind of rapprochement
[meaning the renewal of friendly relations] between those two great culturesthe Greek and the Hebrew.
Philo Jedaeus would later follow in his footsteps, and so would the Alexandrian [Egypt] church fathers,
Clement and Origen, and to a greater or lesser degree, most of the great thinkers of the Christian church
In the NT itself, one can see the movement taking place, particularly in the letters of Paul
530


What is this great movement? It is attempts at the reconciliation of the Jewish concept of wisdom/logos
with that of the Logos in Greek philosophy. The remarkable description of wisdom in [Ws ch7] vss, 22-
23, is made up of terms [of ws] borrowed in large part from Greek, especially Stoic, philosophy. [Stoics
thought of the word as emanated by Logos as an intelligent principle.
531
Obviously, the author wishes to

285


show that whatever word might be used to describe such Greek philosophical concepts as the logos, or
world soul, might also be used to characterize the biblical concept of wisdom.
532


Jesus Christ/logos teachings bring a new element to the debate between Jewish and Greek philosophy. For
all the reasons given above, Jesus contribution of nonjudgmental logic, when added to Aristotles
judgmental system of logic, will expand our consciousness. And we will, because of our renewed thought
process, process ideas with the same wisdom/logos as does God.

Justin Martyr, for example, maintained that Christianity is the true philosophy better than anything the
Greeks produced. He used the Greek term logos (word) for Christ and explained that this meant both the
word [logic] of [Jesus] revelation and true reason in philosophy. Thus he sought to bring together the truth
of Christian revelation [meaning Jesus logic teachings] and the wisdom of Greek philosophy [meaning
Aristotelian logic].
533


Plato had set the theme by picturing the Ideas of God as the patterns on which all things were formed; the
Stoics had combined these Ideas into the Logos of Spermatikos or fertilizing wisdom of God; the Neo-
Pythagoreans had made the Ideas a divine person; and Philo had turned them into the Logos or Reason of
God, a second divine principle, through which God created, and communicated with, the world. If we
retain the famous exordium of the Fourth Gospel with all this in mind, and retain the Logos of the Greek
original in place of the translation Word, we perceive at once that John has joined the philosophers.

In the beginning was the Logos [divine reason]; the Logos was with God, and the
Logos was GodAll things were made by the Logos; without him nothing was made
that was made. It was by him that all things came into existence So the Logos
became flesh and blood [the power of reason in man], and dwelt amongst us.

Most think that it is everything from grandiose to blasphemous to believe that human beings can be like
God. The Gospel of John, however, teaches the opposite. The Logos/reason of God is in us, and that our
purpose is to, like Jesus, elevate our reasoning to the level of Gods Logos. Understanding this makes it
easy to understand what the Gospel of John is really about. Namely the story of Jesus being rejected and
put to death for his teaching that all mankind has the power to reason like God. In fact, like him, all are one
with God.

Lord: "Paul uses the term 'Lord' to designate Yahweh, as 'God' designates the father."
534
This explains why
in Rm 1:5-7, Paul uses two phrases for blessing "first the pneumatics [Stage Four]with 'grace' from 'God
our father' and then the psychics [Stage Three] with 'peace' from 'the Lord'."
535
In effect, Paul uses the term
Lord and/or Demiurge to indicate the Old Testament patriarchical image of Go d held by those of us in
Stage III, and God the father to indicate the Gnostic idea of our divine father's consciousness (logos) within
us.

Love : 'Love' is defined by three Greek words-eros, philia, and agape'. "Eros signifies the passion of sexual
desire and does not appear in the New Testament. Philein and philia designate primarily the love of
friendship. Agape' and agapan, less frequent in the profane Greek, are possibly chosen for that reason to
designate the unique and original Christian idea of love in the New Testament. The Christian is rooted and
grounded in [agape] love [this] love is his diet of conduct [in Stage IV]it is the bond which unites all
virtues".
536


Agape "has no possessiveness and is not for a desire for satisfaction; it wants to satisfy the other.
[Christians]become not only God's chosen onesbut God's sonsthis love is attributed to Godit is
identical with God's nature." (1 Co 13A). In effect, agape love identifies the new relationship we feel
toward others and the world when we reach the consciousness of oneness in Stage IV. This consciousness
mirrors the nature of God's logos/love.
537


Mercy: The Greek word eleos is generally thought to mean pity. In the first century, however, eleos meant
an increased sense of commitment to others, due to a new capacity for deeper love (agape) for all others.

286


This deeper love is the result of internalizing Jesus' knowledge teachings.

Mature: The term 'mature' is the translation of the Greek word telieos. Mature, however, is a misdirected
interpretation of telieos. Telieos means more than mature; it means having reached perfection. The rsv of
Eph 4:14, for example, translates telieos as "mature manhood", whereas the same translation of telieos in
the jbv reads, "until we become the perfect man". The distinction between 'mature' and 'perfect' is
important. Mature merely infers adulthood. Perfect/telieos means we have learned to reason perfectly like
God. Actually, telieos symbolizes those who have reached Stage IV of consciousness.

Messiah: 'Messiah' is a Jewish title given to one who would restore Israel to her previous glory under
David and Solomon. Gnostics consider Jesus the Messiah (Christ in Greek) because his teachings can
elevate all the world, including Israel, to glory (Stage V). This exceeds the glory of even David and
Solomon. Simply said, Israel expected the Messiah to be a powerful Priest King-Jesus taught we could all
be Kings. (Ps 82:2)

Nonjudgmental : To relate ideas in the context of diversity, both/and relationships, and equality.

Orthodox: 'Orthodox' means straight thinkers.
538


Obedience: The traditional translation of the Hebrew word "shama" is obedience, in the sense of blind
obedience. Shama, however, means to be persuaded, to be open to new knowledge, not simply obeying
orders. For example, "being open to God comes before being open to man" is a more authentic translation
of Acts 5:29 than "obedience to God comes before obedience to man."

Oneness: 'Oneness' is more than acceptance-it is total absorption into others. It is complete empathy,
compassion, respect, and pride in others. (Eph 4:26)

One Man: See henos anthropos.

Parables: In today's terms, parables could be considered metaphors, i.e. describing something in terms of
something else.

Psyche: 'Psyche' refers to "the seat of desire"
539
, meaning the ego-self of those of us in Stage III. Paul, for
example, uses the term 'psychics' to represent those of us in Stage III who use worldly, or human reasoning,
as opposed to the enlightened reasoning of Stage IV.

Pneumatic: Generally translated 'spiritual', 'pneumatic' originally referred to those of us who have reached
the psychological perfection of Stage IV. See Holy Spirit.

Repentance: Repentance "from the Greek word metanola implies a change in mind." (Mat 3:1 note b JBV)

Resurrection: Resurrection implies intellectual renewal made possible by understanding Jesus' Christ
message. "The 'old anthropos' [henos anthropos] must be 'put off' (Col 3:9-10) in order to 'put on' the new
pneumatic anthropos [anthropoi]." In this light, resurrection means the transition of our judgmental ego-self
in Stage III, to our nonjudgmental ego-self of Stage IV. This transition is made possible by understanding
Jesus' knowledge teachings. See Keck 109-59-35 and GP 84-85.

Righteousness: The term 'righteousness' means 'right-mindedness', as well as 'walking in perfection" (256).
Right-mindedness implies understanding rightly, and reasoning in the same nonjudgmental way that God
reasons.

Salvation: Salvation is the translation of the Greek word 'soteria'. This word has its roots in the concept of
coming to a new understanding of God through mental effort, not through God's benevolence.

In the first century, soteria is synonymous with "coming to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tm 2:4), not
being saved. The term 'rectification' better encompasses the meaning of soteria than does salvation, for the

287


word soteria, traditionally translated savior, is a first century title that refers to a healer who rectifies a
problem, rather than a transcendental being who saves the world.

Satan: 'Satan' is a personification of what early Church fathers considered evil: like judgmentalness,
materialism, lust, greed, relentlessness, usury, and the merchandising of Jesus' teachings. Satan is "the
power of materiality."
540


Scribe: Refers to academics and intellectuals.

Second Coming: The 'second coming', from the Greek word parousia, refers to reaching Stage IV.
Tradition teaches that when the resurrection comes, the world will be destroyed. This belief, however, rests
on the mistranslation of the Greek word allasso, to mean to destroy when, in the first century, it meant to
alter or change. In this light, the world will not come to an end. Only the world, as we now know it, will
end. We can be assured of this interpretation by several passages in the Bible that refer to the "world to
come", Stage V (Mt 12:32 and Mk 10:30). The glory is the renewed earth that Peter talks about in 2 Pt 13:3
when he says "according to his promise for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwell righteousness."
(A110, Matt 24, Lk 17:22-37, 21:33, 24:30; 1Thes 4:17, rev 1:7, 4:14)

Secret/Esoteric Tradition: The 'secret tradition' mentioned in Mt 13:10 has historically been recognized as
a mysterious body of knowledge. Orthodox Chris tians think of the esoteric tradition as heretical, whereas
Gnostics claim it is Paul's "doctrine of the 'mystery of Sophia' [1 Co 2:6]which may have included the
myth of Sophia's fall and redemption."
541
In effect, what to Orthodox Christians was considered a cultist
myth about the goddess Sophia, is for Gnostics, a philosophy which teaches that wisdom in its present form
is imperfect, but through Jesus' knowledge teachings, can reach perfection.

Sin: 'Sin', from the Greek word hamartia, refers to an "intellectual error" that causes us to miss the mark of
understanding, God's logos/logic.
542


Sons of God: 'Sons of Gods' refers to individuals in Stage IV.

Sons of Man: 'Sons of man' refer to those of us in Stages II and III who have not yet internalized Jesus'
knowledge teachings and, therefore, live at the consciousness level of Stages II and III.

Sophia: 'Sophia' is the Greek goddess who originally personified "theoretical as distinguished from
practical wisdom; specifically in Aristotle, knowledge of first principals [like henos anthropos and
anthropoi]." (162) In everyday conversation, however, Sophia is considered wisdom as we would define it
in Stages I through III. Gnostics refer to Sophia in these lower stages as the "drop"
543
, "whore"
544
, and in
the Gnostic gospel, the Sophia of Jesus Christ, as the "deficiency of the female"
545
. In Stage IV, Sophia is
defined by Gnostics as "divine Sophia", i.e., perfected reasoning.

Soul: In first century Greek, the term 'soul' meant the totality of mind, which, in Plato's book, The
Republic, consists of three elements: the visible, the intelligible, and the good that mediated between the
first two. We can equate the three elements of the Greek model of the soul to the reasoning mind, intuitive
mind, and indwelling Spirit in the Gnostic Mind Model, Page X. Paul used the term 'body' in place of 'soul'.
(See Spirit, the Greek translation of Soul.)

The Greek terms soul, soma, psyche, and sometimes the Latin translation of soul, spirit, define the whole
or body of the psychological self in the first century.

The psychology of Plato extends no further than the division of the soul [the psychological self] into the
rational [left brain] irascible [discerning principle] and concupiscent [right brain] elementsThe chief
difficulty in this early analysis of the mind
546


The NT employs the GK psyche translated in English by soul; in many passages where it means the self or
the person.Love: genuine love, is from the whole psyche [soul] (MT 22:37) One should do the will
[logos or logic] of God from the psyche (EPH 6:6; COL 3:23). The psyche [or soul] in the NT is still the

288


totality of the [psychological] self as a living and conscious subject, and it is the totality of the self [the
psychological self] which is saved [perfected] for eternal life [the glory of Stage V].
547


Gnostics also refer to the whole of consciousness as soma, generally translated, body. In the dictionary of
the Bible by John L. McKenzie S.J., the body becomes an important psychological and theological
concept only in Paul . In some context it again appears to be nearly synonymous with self (Rm 6:12F;
8:10 ?; 1 CO 6:18F), but body and soul both used for self, have different emphasizes. The body is the
totality [of the psychological self] rather than the conscious self, ..

Leander Keck, Dean of the Yale Divinity School, supports Father McKenzies definition of body. For
Paul, the critical meaning of body is the actual self, what we might call the psychosomatic entity that I
am.Greek soma refers to the actual self and not merely the physical body.
548


This translation surfaces in polemics (arguments) about bodily resurrection that took place in the early
Church between Gnostic Christians, like Paul, and Orthodox Christians like Irenaus. For Paul, there is no
resurrection of the dead.Paul makes it clear that he understands resurrection to be the transformation, not
resuscitation.
549
Resurrection, for Gnostics, meant that the body or the psychological self has become fully
conscious that it and the logos of God are one.

Simply said, soul, soma, psyche, and body all can refer to the totality of the psychological self. It is the
psychological self that God intends us to perfect. About the possibility of there being a higher state of
consciousness, Professor Julian Jaynes said, It would be wrong to think that whatever the neurology of
consciousness now may be, it is set for all time[expecting consciousness to question its own limits] is
like asking a flash light in a dark room to search around for something that does not have any light shining
upon it. The flashlight, since there is light in every direction it turns, would have to conclude that there is
light everywhere. And so consciousness [as we now define it ] can seem to pervade all mentality when
actually it does not. (1) In Pauls Letter to the Romans, he says, God confers life upon it [the body or
psychological self] through his in dwelling spirit (Rm 8:11)!.. It is in this perfected or renewed mind
(Rm 12:2) that we live life fully.


Spirit (Upper Case): 'Spirit' is the Latin translation of the Greek word 'soul'. In the original Greek text of
the New Testament, none of which survived, both 'spirit' and 'soul' were thought of in their classical Greek
sense of the totality of man's psychological self. The term 'soma'/body is often used in place of spirit and
soul in surviving NT texts.

"The spirit is not obviously an explicitly concerned as a divine personal being in Paulat
times Paul seems nearly to identify the spirit as the conscious self and [at other times] the
spirit as the heavenly level of being into which the Christian is transformed."
550


Spirit, upper case, refers most often to Holy Spirits, meaning psychologically perfected individuals, and
occasionally, to Gods Spirit, which indwells in us. In effect, spiritual, lower case, refers to the intuitive or
right brain aspects of the psychological self. Spirit, upper case, refers to that principle within us that has
the ability to discern both rational (left brain) and intuitive (right brain) thoughts. Gnostic Christians refer
to this principle as Gods indwelling Spirit or our true God-self. In lower stages of consciousness, we may
be intuitively, but not rationally, aware of Gods Holy Spirit in us. It is in Stage Four that we recognize
that we, and Spirit, are one.

I think it is important to mention that what we often think of as Spiritual (upper case) thoughts, Gnostic
Christians consider right brain thoughts. Right brain thoughts are subjective, and can therefore entertain
nonjudgmental (subjective) thoughts of the Spirit, like oneness, both/and, and a-porori thoughts. Whereas
left brain thoughts are incapable of entertaining subjective thoughts.

Gnostic Christians teach that our inner self/Spirit introduces original and creative thoughts to our rational
mind (left brain) through our spiritual (right brain) mind. Using the intuitive mind as a medium is

289


appropriate because the intuitive mind is open to thoughts the rational mind (sarx) would consider illogical
when limited to judgmental rules of logic. In effect, when the reasoning mind (sarx) is limited to
judgmental logic, it lags behind the intuitive/spiritual mind. When we learn nonjudgmental rules of logic,
things of the Spirit, like oneness, both/and, and the a-porori thoughts will become understandable /
reasonable, and therefore, acceptable to the reasoning mind. We will be one in mind and spirit.

Spirit (Lower Case): Gnostics use the Greek term spirit (lower case) to define the intuitive or subjective
mind. In practice, the spiritual or intuitive mind encompasses thoughts we are conscious of but cannot
rationally explain; like knowing that everything is one, timelessness, and the sense of bliss and peace.
Other terms for spiritual or intuitive thoughts are subjective, emotional, subliminal, intuitive, a-priori,
intangible, unconditional, insight, right brain, sixth sense, and feelings. Freuds model refers to these
thoughts as id thoughts, William James called them intuitive thoughts, T. Harris calls them child
thoughts, and Jaynes calls them right hemisphere thoughts.

Spiritual: The Greek word, pneumatic, refers to being in Stage IV, or Christ- consciousness. Being
spiritual means more than teaching, t alking, or singing about oneness with others. It means living as if the
well-being of others is as important to you as is your own. This means using all we have to the best
advantage of all. Or as Jesus said, "he who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who
has food, let him do likewise." (Lk 3:11). In principle, this means that the truly spiritual person owns and
consumes only what he needs. He willingly invests his over-abundance in ways that will elevate the well-
being of others to his own level.

Syzygy: The term 'syzygy' is rooted in the Greek concept of yoking or pulling together. Gnostics use this
word in relation to the reasoning/ego mind in Stage IV working in accord with the god-self. Unfortunately,
syzygy is often interpreted in terms of endogenous gods.

Trinity: "The Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as understood in the traditional sense, was reached
only in the fourth and fifth centuries AD and hence not explicitly and formally a biblical belief."
551
In
Gnostic terms, the trinity defines how God interacts with mankind in the various stages in the
developmental of our consciousness. Specifically:

1 In Stage I, II, and III, God the Father acts as a benevolent parent who protects his children against
their own immaturity by subjecting them to external laws.

2 God interacts a second time with man by sending his son, Jesus, to teach us of a way to renew our
reasoning/ego minds so we might become perfect, i.e., progress from Stage III to Stage IV.

3 God interacts a third time with mankind when we internalize the logos/the Holy Spirit of God
within us. In other words, our ego/reasoning mind is elevated by our knowledge of Jesus' teaching
to the same level as the logos/reasoning mind of God, which makes us a 'holy spirit'/perfected
soul.

Truth: 'Truth', in the New Testament, can mean three things:

1 First, truth, from the Greek word alethes, means "reality as intellectually apprehended."
552
In
other words, truth can mean our perception of reality as we understand it.

2 Second, truth can refer to "heavenly archetype types"
553
, which here means natural principle, such
as henos anthropos and anthropoi. For example, the "truth which Jesus presents is something
which can be known (in the Heb sense of knowledge) and it liberates [grows us from Stages III to
IV] (Jn 8:32)." "Jesus prays that his disciples may be sanctified in truth, which is the word
[logos/logic](261)." This means Jesus prays that his disciples will understand the principles of
his knowledge teachings, and therefore, reason in the same way as does God.

3 Third, the truth can mean "the real and genuine."
554



290


Will: See Logos and Word.

Word: Word is the English translation of the Greek word logos. Like will, word refers to the creative and
reasoning mind of God. As Paul says in 1 Th 2:13, what Jesus teaches "is not the word [logos/judgmental
reasoning] of man, but the word [logos/nonjudgmental reasoning] of God." See Logos.

Works: The biblical term 'works' can be divided into two categories. 1) Human endeavors viewed as
useless, materialistic acts of false pride (Stages I, II, and III); and 2) works which are motivated by
universal love (Stages IV and V). The useless works of pride, "the works of darkness (Rm 13:12; Afh
5:11), works of the flesh (Gal 5:19), wicked works (Jn 3:19), and so on., infer the ineffectiveness of
attempts by worldly man, those of us in lower stages, to truly affect the fundamental quality of their lives.
The works of the righteous, those of us in Stage IV, however, is effective because it emanates from a higher
form of consciousness. (Titus 3:4)

World: 'World', from the Greek word cosmos, can mean three things:

1 First, the universe as a whole.

2 Second, the world around us.

3 Third, our consciousness of the world.

Wisdom: 'Wisdom' can be understood in two ways:

1 First, the wisdom of the world means our wisdom in Stages I through III. Paul rejects such
wisdom as carnal wisdom in 2 Co 1:12.

"The wisdom of this world makes its possessors think themselves wise when they are foolish".
(263) See Rm 1:22.

2 Second, the wisdom of God (1 Co 1:24) means the nonjudgmental reasoning exemplified in Stages
of IV and V of consciousness. For Paul, Christ represents the "wisdom of God" (1 Co 1:24), for
the Christ refers to Jesus' messianic teachings, which lead to nonjudgmental/godlike wisdom.

Wrath: The New Testament term 'wrath' refers to judgmental reasoning. Unfortunately, many
interpretations of Rm 5:8, in which 'wrath' appears, improperly add the phrase "of God", which, in turn,
leads us to believe that God's wrath is some sort of punishment rather than the judgmental reasoning of
Stages II and III. For example, terms like 'children of wrath' refer to those of us in Stages II and III-not
those being punished by God.

Christ dealt with sin, not God's wrath.
555




291



About the Author

William C. Kiefert


Born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Father of five children and also proud of a sixth
who calls me Dad. Presently lives on a 28 sailboat in Clearwater Beach, Florida.

Personal Statement :
I believe I have uncovered the original teachings that Jesus said his advocate will
show the world, in the Gospel of Jn 14:15-26, 15:26, and 16:7-15 jbv.

The word paracelete (parakletos in Greek) meant comforter or advocate. In
[the gospel of] John, Paraclete was the synonym for Holy Spirit. John placed emphasis
on the Paraclete rather than on the parousia (the Second Coming of Christ). We must
not assume, however, that the term Holy Spirit refers to God. The holiness of God is
rarely mentioned in the NTit is to the church and its members that the term is more
frequently applied In John, then, the Holy Spirit can refer to someone who Jesus said
the Father will send in my name [and he, meaning the advocate, will]teach you
everything; and remind you of all I have saidhe will show the world how wrong it was,
about sin, and about who was right, and about judgment [reason]

Why do I feel justified in assuming the role of Gods advocate for Jesus
teachings? Over twenty years ago, success came to me. I had everything except inner
peace. Since then I have learned that each of us has an equally important purpose in life.
Some are called to be mothers, some doctors, farmers, teachers, or plumbers. Although I
never heard the booming voice of God calling me, I heard his call in the most unexpected
way. I felt the need to study philosophy, psychology, and theology.

Following my call, I found peace by listening to an inner voice that guided me on
a path from one historic or scientific fact to another until it ended when I discovered
Jesus Gnostic teachings. I then realized I could be the advocate of God that Jesus said
the father will send in [his/Jesus]name in Jn 14:26. For my studies revealed
information that confirms that the world is wrong about the cause of sin, about who
was right, and about judgment [judgmental reasoning], just as Jesus says his advocate
will in Jn 16:7-9.

Do I claim to be special? No. I claim to be an advocate of Jesus Gnostic/private
teachings, just as every Christian Sunday School Teacher is an advocate of Jesus
orthodox/public teachings. Everyones advocacy is equally important. In the circle of
life, the talents of each are indispensable to the well-being of the whole. (See Cor 12:12-
30)

I do not ask you to believe my research. All I ask is that you judge it on the basis
of its historical, linguistic, and logical merits. The issue here is whether my research is

292


true to outlawed Gnostic teachings, or demonstrably false. And second, if my research is
factual, does i t demonstrate the truth that John says will make you free? (8:32) I
believe it is, and that in the third millennium, life will be based on that truthand
become the heaven on earth that Jesus promises us in his Lords Prayer.

Academic Accomplishments :
Earned 97 college credits in Religion, Philosophy, Psychology, and Humanities at
Universities of Wisconsin and South Florida. Audited numerous courses at Universities
of South Florida and Florida State. Attended many private religious and philosophical
seminars.

Twenty- five years of self-directed research in Philosophy, Psychology, early
Christianity, and the similarities between first century Greek Philosophical terms and
Biblical terms at Universities of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Florida State, South Florida,
Marquette and numerous Public Libraries.

Authored numerous articles, such as The ABCs of Higher Consciousness and
Social Logic and the following unpublished books:

1996 - The Practical Side of Heaven
2001 - The Practical Side of Heaven, True Gnostic Christianity

Appeared in the following newspaper articles:

Couple Builds Panelized Homes, The Home Section of the Milwaukee Journal
(November 3, 1974)
Hes Chartered Many A Course in Search of New Challenges, St. Pete Times
(February 8, 1988)

Vocational Accomplishments:
Earned Master Electricians Certificate and Class A Electrical Contractors
License in Wisconsin and later in Florida. Owner and President of Master Electric Inc.

Earned Class B Carpenter Contractors License in Wisconsin. Owner and
President of Custom Component Homes Inc.

Earned USCG 100 Ton Captains License and Master Shipbuilders Certificate.
Fished Commercially.


293






Footnotes




1
Charles M. Laymon, The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible, Nashville:
Abengdon) , p. 546b.

2
Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, (Harper & Row, 1967), p.31.

3
William Colloley Trimmel, The Twenty-Seven Books that Changed the World, CBS College Publishing,
1981, p. 207.

4
Ibid., p. 207.

5
Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, p. 8.

6
Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, (New York: Simon and Schuster), p. 566.

7
John White, What Is Enlightenment, (The Aquarian Press, 1984), p. XX.

8
Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, p .8.

9
Charles M. Laymon, The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible, p. 547b.

10
Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, p. 31.

11
William Colloley Trimmel, The Twenty-Seven Books That Changed The World, p. 207.

12
Abid., p. 207.

13
Leander E. Keck, Paul and His Letters, (Fortress Press, 1979), p. 37.

14
Oskar Gruenwald, Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol.11, No. , 1990, Christianity and Science,
Institute for Interdisciplinary Research.

15
Robert H. Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, Element Publishing, p. 36.

16
Abid., p. 184.

17
Abid., p. 158.

18
Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, p. 660.

19
Obid., p. 663.

20
Obid., p. 661.

21
Leander E. Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 107.


294



22
Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, Macmillan Publishing Co., First Collier Books Edition,
1981, p. 59.

23
Ibid., p. 160.

24
Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving, Harper Colophon Books, Harper & Row, p. 72-3.

25
Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage, Simon and Schuster, p. 535.

26
Ibid., p. 536.

27
Milwaukee Wisconsin, Journal Newspaper, Wisconsin Magazine, July 23, 1989, p. 28.

28
Erich Fromm, The Sane Society, Fawcett Premier Books, New York, 1965, p. 23.

29
Will Durant, The Life of Greece, (New York: Simon and Schuster), p. 527.

30
Plato, The Republic, translated out of the Greek by Benjamin Jowett with his introduction, analyses and
summary, (New York: The Heritage Press, 1944), p. 219.

31
K. V. Tanuikainem, Quantum Physics, Philosophy, and the Image of God: Insights from Wolfgang
Pauli, article from Zygon, Vol. 25 No. 4, Dec. 1990, p. 397.

32
Erich Fromm, The Heart of Man, Harper & Row, 1971, p. 184.

33
Martin Buber, I and Thou, Charles Scribners Sons, New York, 1958, p. 44.

34
Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, p. 140.

35
Norwood Russell Hanson, Quantum Mechanics, Philosophical Implications of, in The Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards, New York, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1967, Vol. 7, p. 48.

36
Ibid., p. 43.

37
R. Lipkin, Schrodingers Cat: Two Atoms in One? Science News, Vol. 149, May 25, 1996, p. 325.

38
K. V. Tanuikainem, Zygon Magazine, Vol. 25, No. 4 , Dec. 1990.

39
Primordial Truth and Post Modern Theology, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1989, p.
195.

40
Plato, The Republic, p. 194.

41
Ibid., p. 338.

42
Ibid., p. 225.

43
Ibid., p. 596.

44
Erich Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 18.

45
It is true that with normal people here are connecting links between the two hemispheres. Our initial
knowledge of the differences between the functions of the hemisphere came from research with accident
victims whose neural tissue connecting the two hemispheres had been damaged. From analysis of these
subjects, scientists learned that the hemispheres process information differently.

295




46
Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, p. 88.

47
Ibid.

48
Ibid., p. 104.

49
Ibid.

50
Ibid., p. 110.

51
Ibid., p. 111.

52
Psychological Types: The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Vol. 6, ed. Sir Herbert Read, Michael
Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire, Princeton University Press, 1974, p. 6.

53
Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, p. 78.

54
Novum Organum, XII.

55
K. V. Tanuikaninem, Quantum Physics, Philosophy, and the Image of God: Insights from Wolfgang
Pauli, p. 392.

56
Martin Buber, I and Thou.

57
Ibid.

58
Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, p. 59.

59
Jonas Salk, quoted by Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, p. 124.

60
Ibid, p. 148.

61
Ibid.

62
Ibid., p. 48.

63
Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage, p. 535.

64
Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, p. 59.

65
K. V. Tanuikaninem, Quantum Physics, Philosophy, and the Image of God: Insights from Wolfgang
Pauli, p. 397.

66
Albert Schweitzer, The Philosophy of Civilization, Tallahassee: University Press of Florida, 1981, p.79.

67
Niels Bohr, Discover, The News Magazine of Science, Vol. 4, No. 12, Dec., 1983, p. 53.

68
John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc.,
1965), p. 844.

69
William Colloley Trimmel, The Twenty-Seven Books That Changed The World, p. 207.

70
Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God: Oriental Mythology, (Pengiun Books, The Viking Press, 1962), p.
485.

296




71
John Shelby Spong, Why Christianity Must Change or Die, (Harper, San Francisco, 1998), p. 39.

72
Carl G. Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
Bollingen Series XX, Second Edition, 1975), p. 388.

73
Steven Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, (Campbridge, Mass.: The Belnap Press of Harvard
University, 1977), pp. 135-136, quoted in Archie J. Bahm, Epistemology (Albuquerque: World Books,
1955), p. 148.

74
Quoted by Gould, op. cit., p. 146, in Bahm, op. cit., p. 148.

75
Erich Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 61.

76
Charles Albert Schweitzer, The Philosophy of Civilization, p. 79

77
Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, p. 159.

78
Ibid., p. 118.

79
Motivations and Personality, p. 37.

80
Teihard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, (New York: Harper and Row, Colophon Books, 1975), p.
165.

81
Ibid., p. 213.

82
Ibid., p. 224.

83
Ibid., p. 19.

84
Ibid., pp. 250, 258-63.

85
Ibid., p. 13. From the Introduction by Huxley.

86
Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, p. 136.

87
Ibid., p. 37.

88
Ken Wilber, Jack Engler, and Daniel P. Brown, Transformations of Consciousness, (Boston:
Shambhala, New Science Library, 1986), p. 6.

89
Sri Aurobindo, The Synthesis of Yoga, (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1971), from the Chapter
entitled Standards of Conduct and Spiritual Freedom, excerpts from which were quoted in Collaboration,
VI, No. 3, (Spring, 1980), pp. 2-5.

90
Erich Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 38.

91
Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, p. 150.

92
Clare W. Graves, Human Nature Prepares for a Momentous Leap, The Futuriest, (April, 1974).

93
Will Durant, The Life of Greece, pp. 62-64.

94
Romans 5:20-30.

297




95
Plato: The Republic, p. 194.

96
Julian James, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976), p.73.

97
Erich Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 2.

98
Can John Magaw Save the ATF?, by Peter Maas, in The Tampa Tribune, The Tampa Times Parade
(May 19, 1996), p. 5.

99
Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, First Meditation: Concerning Things That Can Be
Doubted, (Indianapolis: Library of Liberal Arts, 1960), p. 17.

100
Plato, Apology 23.

101
Bertrand Russell, The Value of Philosophy, in an excerpted essay from his Problems of Philosophy,
(London: Oxford University Press, 1912) in Basic Problems of Philosophy, ed. by Daniel J. Bronstein,
Yervant H. Krikorian, and Philip P. Wiener (Prentice Hall, 1964), p. 624.

102
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Chapter Two, (On the Liberty of Thought and Discussion.

103
M. Scot Peck, The Road Less Traveled, (New York: Simon and Schuster: A Touchstone Book, 1978),
p. 193.

104
Random Acts of Kindness Calendar (Center City, Minnesota: Hazelden, 1995). Quotation for
August 18, 1996.

105
Jonas Salk in Maps of the Mind, p. 160.

106
Martin Buber, quoted in Maps of the Mind, p. 124.

107
Random Acts of Kindness Calendar, Quotation for Friday, June 7, 1976.

108
Random Acts of Kindness Calendar, June 18, 1996.

109
Random Acts of Kindness Calendar, June 23, 1996.

110
Spirit Rock Meditation Center Letter, Woodacre, Ca., August 7, 1996.

111
Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving, pp. 19-21.

112
Ibid., p. 17.

113
Ibid., p. 49.

114
Ibid.

115
Ibid., p. 39.

116
Ibid.

117
Ibid.

118
Ibid., p. 64.

298




119
Random Acts of Kindness Calendar, June 2, 1996.

120
Mohandas K. Gandhi, All Men Are Brothers, ed. Krishna Kripalani, (Paris: United Nations
Educational, Schientific, and Cultural Oranization, 1958), p. 66.

121
Ibid., p. 71.

122
Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving, op. cit., p. 25.

123
Martin Luther King, Stride Toward Freedom, in A Martin Luther King Treasury, (Yonkers, NY:
Educational Heritage, 1964) pp. 71-73, quoted in Manuel Velaszuez, Philosophy, A Text with Readings,
(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1994), 5th edition, p. 591.

124
Gary Taubes, Einsteins Dream, Discover: The News Magazine of Science, (December, 1983), p. 53.

125
Peter Kreeft, Darkness at Noon: The Eclipse of the Permanent Things, in Permanent Things, ed. By
Andrew A Tadie and Michael H. Macdonald, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1995), p. 199.

126
Richard Bach, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, (New York: Avon Books, 1973), p. 62.

127
Ralph Waldo Trine, What All the Worlds Aseeking, 1896, quoted in John Marks Templeton, The
Humble Approach, (New York: Continuum Publishing Company, 1995), p. 109.

128
Galatians 6:7.

129
James Redfield, The Celestine Prophecy, (New York: Warner Books, Inc., 1993).

130
Random Acts of Kindness Calendar, August 2, 1996.

131
Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, p. 150.

132
Ibid.

133
Eric From, The Sane Society, p. 50.

134
Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, p. 148.

135
Leander E. Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 119.

136
Elaine Pagels, Adam Eve, and the Serpent , (New York: Random House, 1988), pp. 61-62.

137
Ibid.

138
Charles M. Laymon, The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible, (Nashville: Abingdon
Press), p. 547b.

139
Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, (Harper & Row, 1967), p.31.

140
John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1965), p.
932.

141
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), pp. 5-6.


299



142
Ibid.

143
Ibid., p. 5.

144
Ibid., p. 9

145
Ibid.

146
John White, What Is Enlightenment, p. 26.

147
Ibid., p. x111.

148
Ibid., p. x611.

149
Ibid., p.

150
Ibid., p. XX.

151
Plato, The Republic, p. 223.

152
John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 838-39.

153
Leander E. Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 108.

154
Ibid., p. 109.

155
John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 836-42.

156
Ibid., pp. 280-82.

157
Leander E. Keck, Paul and His Letters, pp. 106-7.

158
John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible, p. 258.

159
Ibid.

160
Plato, The Republic, p. 195.

161
Leander E. Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 41.

162
Elaine Pagels, Adam Eve, and the Serpent , p. 71.

163
Bertrand Russell, Wisdom of the West, (Cresent Books, Inc.), p. 40.

164
Leander E. Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 127.

165
Ibid., p. 100.

166
John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible, p. 818.

167
Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, p. 615.

168
Marianne Williamson, A Return to Love, (Harper Perennial), p. 17.

169
K. V. Tanuikainem, Zygon Magazine, p. 402.

300




170
Leander E. Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 125.

171
Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, p. 36.

172
Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, p.

173
John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible, p.

174
Ibid., p. 817.

175
Plato, The Republic, p. 319.

176
R. Eisennan & M. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, (Element Publishing, 1992), pp. 33-36.

177
Ibid.

178
Deirdre J. Good, Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature, (Society of Biblical
Literature, Monograph Series BT 1390:G65, 1987), pp. 36 & 70.

179
Ibid.

180
Ibid.

181
Plato, The Republic, p. 388.

182
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 138.

183
Ibid., p. 74.

184
John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible, p. 932.

185
Deirdre J. Good, Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature, p. 51.

186
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 29.

187
Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, p. 124.

188
Charles M. Laymon, The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible, p. 961b.

189
Elain Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 119, 57.

190
Psychological Types: The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Vol. 6, ed. Sir Herbert Read, Michael
Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire, (Princeton University Press, 1974), p. 6.

191
James Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, EN19, 559, p. 203.

192
Dr. William Smith and Professor Cheetham, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, (London: John
Murry).

193
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 142, 54.

194
R. Eisennan & M. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, p. 215.

195
Ibid., p. 148.

301




196
Ibid., p. 158.

197
Deirdre J. Good, Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature, pp. 50-51.

198
Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, p. 501.

199
Dogobert D. Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy, under Sophia.

200
Deirdre J. Good, Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature, p. 52.

201
Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, p. 613.

202
Ibid., p. 612.

203
Ibid., p. 614.

204
Ibid., p. 616.

205
Author Unknown.

206
Author Unknown.

207
Author Unknown.

208
Matt Henrys Commentary (220.6H523C), p. 336.

209
Abingdon Bible Commentary, p. 1307.

210
Author Unknown.

211
Matt Henrys Commentary (220.6 H523 C), p. 664.

212
Charles M. Laymon, The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible, p. 905b.

213
Ibid., p. 906.

214
Ibid., pp. 906-7.

215
Ibid., p. 911.

216
Ibid., p. ?

217
Charles M. Laymon, Laymons Bible Commentary, Rm. 5:1-2, (Library #220.7 L454V21), p. 37.

218
Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, p. 610.

219
Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, p. 71.

220
Peaks Commentary on the Bible, (Nelson Publishing), Library #220.7 B56 C3, pp. 746-7.

221
Charles Gores, Bishop of Oxford, A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, (New York: Macmillan
Company), p. 472.

222
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 146.

302




223
Author Unknown.

224
Deirdre J. Good, Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature, p. 22.

225
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 146.

226
Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, pp. 59-61.

227
Charles M. Laymon, Laymons Bible Commentary, p. 37.

228
Paul Badham, Christian Beliefs About Life After Death, (Harper & Row, 1976), p. 5.

229
Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, p. XXIV.

230
Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, p. 24.

231
Eric Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 2.

232
Benjamin Jowett, Plato, the Republic, p. 428.

233
Ibid., p. 428.

234
Ibid., p. 430.

235
Ibid., p. 433.

236
Ibid., pp. 433-34.

237
Ibid., p. 434.

238
Ibid., p. 435.

239
Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, p. 88.

240
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 146.

241
Albert Schweitzer, The Philosophy of Civilization, p. 79.

242
Matthew 25:33-46.

243
Matthew 25:40.

244
Bhagavad Gita 10:21.

245
Ibid., 6:29.

246
Luke 10:30-37.

247
Ogden Nash?

248
Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, p. 68.

249
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 344.


303



250
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 146.

251
Matthew 5:48.

252
In process.

253
In process.

254
Albert Schweitzer, The Philosophy of Civilization, p. XII.

255
Random Acts of Kindness Calendar. Quote for June 8, 1996.

256
William Colloley Trimmel, The Twenty-Seven Books that Changed the World, p. 207.

257
Ibid.

258
Marcus J. Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Ti me, (Harper, San Francisco, 1995), p. 107.

259
Ibid.

260
John McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible, p. 899.

261
Ibid. p. 900.


262
Colosians 3:12-13 (RSV)

263
James Fadiman and Robert Frager, Personality and Personal Growth (New York: Harper & Row),
p.329.

264
William Colloley Trimmel, The Twenty-Seven Books that Changed the World, p. 207.

265
1Co. 13:9-12.

266
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 19.

267
Luke 17:21

268
Mat. 3:17, Mark 1:11, Lk 3:22, and John 1:32.

269
Mat. 4:1; Mark 1:12; Lk. 4:1

270
Jn. 8:28.

271
Jn. 14:10.

272
Jn. 10:30.

273
Jn. 14:12.

274
A Course In Miracles: Manual for Teachers (Foundation for Inner Peace, 1977), p. 61.

275
John Bartlett, Familiar Quotes, (Little Brown and Co.), p. 697.

276
Phyllis, Goshin, Lymp, The Great Ideas of the Bible, p. 93.

304




277
John Wise, What is Enlightenment?, p. XVII.

278
Ibid, p. XVIII.

279
Ralph Waldo Emerson.

280
Ralph Waldo Trine, What All the Worlds A seaking, 1896, quoted in John Marks Templeton, The
Humble Approach (New York, Continuum Publishing Company, 1995), p. 109.

281
Dr. Elizabeth Cubler-Ross, Life After Death?

282
Albert Schweitzer, The Philosophy of Civilization, p. ?

283
Albert Einstein.

284
James Redfield, The Celestine Prophecy, (New York: Warner Books, Inc., 1993).

285
Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, p. 150.

286
Charles Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind, p. 150.

287
Ibid., p. 48.

288
Ibid., p. 50.

289
Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, p. 59.

290
Thomas Paine, On Liberty?

291
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 146.

292
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 146.

293
John Wise, What is Enlightenment, Introduction.

294
James Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, (Confirmation-Drama), pp. 84-86.

295
John L. McKenzie, S.J. The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 481.

296
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 36.

297
Teihard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, (New York: Harper and Row, Colophon Books, 1975 p.
165.

298
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 32.

299
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 57.

300
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 44.

301
Ibid., p. 29.

302
Ibid., pp. 29-30.


305



303
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, pp. 52-53.

304
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, pp. 52-53.

305 Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, p. XXV.


306
Ibid., p.78.

307
Ibid., p.125.

308
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, pp.45 & 34.

309
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, pp. 45 & 34.

310
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 436.

311
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 344.

312
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Under Cross), p. 760.

313
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, Vol. 4, p. 324.

314
Ibid., p.326. Also, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, Dr. William Smith and Prof. Cheetham,
(Library # BR95-S6-V1) pp. 496A and 497A.

315
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p.162.

316
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 55.

317
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 55.

318
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 55.

319
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 328.

320
Ibid., p.329.

321
New Catholic Encyclopedia, (Library # BX841-N44-1967-V4), p. 473.

322
Dr. William Smith and Professor Cheetham, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, (London: John
Murry), p. 494.

323
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 58.

324
Ibid., p. 107.

325
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p.119.

326
Ibid., p.142.

327
Dogobert D. Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 295.

328
Ibid., p. 267.

329
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of t he Bible, p. 258.

306




330
Ibid., p. 267.

331
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 52.

332
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 837.

333
William Colloley Trimmel, The Twenty-Seven Books that Changed the World, p. 56.

334
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, P. 218.

335
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 59.

336
Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, p.99.

337
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 30.

338
Ibid., p. 147.

339
Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, pp. 56 & 58-9.

342
Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, pp. 56 & 58-9.

343
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 37.

344
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 313.

345 Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 13.

346 Ibid., pp. 54 & 55.

347
Charles M. Laymon, The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible, p.547B

348
Ibid., p. 1047.

349
Deirdre J. Good, Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature, p. 70.

350
Charles M. Laymon, The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible, p. 1047.

351
Deirdre J. Good, Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature, p. 36.

352
Ibid., p. 51.

353
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 146.

354
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 511.

355
Charles L. Laymon, The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible, Mat. 6:22-23.

356
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 313.

357
Ibid., p. 314.

358
Ibid., p. 538.


307



359
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 343.

360
Ibid., pp. 243-44.

361
J. H. Davies, Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible, A Letter to Hebrews,
(Cambridge University Press, 1967), p.81.

362
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The dictionary of the Bible, p. 344.

363
Ibid., p. 344.

364
Ibid., p. 344.

365
Ibid., p. 344.

366
Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, (Harper & Row, 1967). P. XXVII, p. 64.

367
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 61.

368
Rm. 1:24, Note P, JBV.

369
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p.17.

370
Ibid., p. 17.

371
Ibid., p. 17.

372
Ibid., p. 18.

373
Ibid., pp.54-55.

374
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 43.

375
Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, p. 31.

376
William Colloley Trimmel, The Twenty-Seven Books that Changed the World, p.207.

377
Ibid., p. 207.

378
Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, p. 8.

379
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 15.

380
Ibid., p. 15.

381
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 221-22.

382
Ibid., pp. 221-22.

383
Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Library # 220.6 064C, p. 1163.

384
Abingdon Bible commentary, Library # 220.7, E36, p. 1307.

385
Matt Henrys Commentary, Library # 220.6 H523 C, p.664 & 1916.


308



386
Charles M. Laymon, The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible, p.905.

387
Ibid., p. 906.

388
Ibid., pp. 906-7.

389
Ibid., p. 567.

390
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 570.

391
Ibid., p. 570.

392
Ibid., p. 570.

393
Ibid., p. 571.

394
Matt 5:17 Note F JBV.

395
Ibid., p. 571.

396
Ibid., p. 571.

397
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 7.

398
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, (Fortress Press), p.37.

399
Oskar Gruenwald, Institute for Interdisciplinary Research, Ref. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Vol. 11. No. , 1990, Christianity and Science.

400
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 636.

401
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 14.

402
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 637.

403
Ibid, p. 834.

404
Websters 20
th
Century, 2
nd
Edition Dictionary.

405
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 109.

406
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 85.

407
R. Eisennan & M. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, (Element Books Limited, 1992), p. 33.

408
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 119.

409
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 142.

410
Charles Gore, Bishop of Oxford, New Commentary on Holy Scripture, (New York: Macmillan
Company), p. 427.

411
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 142.

412
Phyllis, Goshin, Lymp, The Great Ideas of the Bible, p. 93.

309




413
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 67.

414
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p.774.

415
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Ferdmans), Library #BS440 J6 1956. See Satan.

416
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p.774.

417
Article, Milwaukee Journal Newspaper, This Week section, p. 28, Date ??.

418
William Colloley Trimmel, The Twenty-Seven Books that Changed the World, p. 204.

419
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 366-67.

420
Deirdre J. Good, Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature, p. 52.

421
Will Durant, Caesar and Christ. p. 613.

422
Ibid., p. 612.

423
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 15.

424
John L. McKenzie, The Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 817-21.

425
Ibid., pp. 817-21.

426
Ibid., pp. 817-21.

427
Charles M. Layman, The Interpreters One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, (Abengdon, Nashville), p.
781.

428
John L. McKenzie, The Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 817-21.

429
Ibid., pp. 817-21.

430
Ibid., pp. 817-21.

431
Ibid., pp. 817-21.

432
Ibid., pp. 817-21.

433
Ibid., pp. 817-21.

434
Ibid., pp. 817-21.

435
Ibid., pp. 817-21

436
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 124.

437
Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, p. 97.

438
Ibid., p. 112.

439
Ibid., p. 141.

310




440
Ibid., p. 141.

441
Ibid., p. 143.

442
Ibid., p. 107.

443
Ibid., p. 107.

444
Ibid., p. 108.

445
Ibid., p. 108.

446
Ibid., p. 106.

447
Ibid., p. 143.

448
Ibid., p. 143.

449
Charles M. Laymon, The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible, p. 961b.

450
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 100.

451
Ibid., p. 101.

452
Laymons Bible Commentary, p. ??.

453
Dagobert D. Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy, (Little Adams, 1980), p. 295.

454
Deirdre J. Good, Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature, (Society of Biblical
Literature, Monograph Series), Library # BT1390:G65 1987, P. 52.

456
Ibid., p. 43.

457
Ibid., p. 52.

458
In process.

459
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 884.

460
Rm 1:19 Note G.

461
Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and t he Serpent, p. 68.

462
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 365-67.

463
Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, p. 59.

464
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 899.

465
Charles Gore, Bishop of Oxford, New Commentary on Holy Scripture, p. 540.

466
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 900.

467
Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, p. 36.

311




468
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 901-02.

469
Ibid., pp. 901-02.

470
Ibid., pp. 901-02.

471
Charles M. Laymon, Interpretures One Volume Commentary on the Bible, Lk. 6:32-36.

472
Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, pp. 614-15.

473
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 932.

474
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 10.

476
Dogobert D. Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 183.

477
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 35.

478
Paul Brenner, MD., Life is a Shared Creation, (DeVarss & Company, 1981), p. 39.

479
James Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, (Confirmation-Drama), pp. 84-86.

480
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 32.

481
Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent , p. 62.

482
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, pp. 52-53.

483
Ibid., pp. 52-52.

484
Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent , p. XXV.

485
Ibid., p. 78.

486
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, pp. 45 & 34.

487
Ibid., pp. 45 & 34.

488
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 436.

489
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 107.

490
Ibid., p. 119.

491
Ibid., p. 142.

492
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 247.

493
Ibid., p. 258.

494
Ibid.

495
Ibid., p. 258.


312



496
Plato, The Republic, p. 195.

497
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 267.

498
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 52.

499
Ibid., p. 52.

500
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 837.

501
Ibid., pp. 836-842.

502
Ibid., pp. 280-282.

503
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, pp. 106-107.

504
R. Eisennan & M. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, p. 33.

505
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 313.

506
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 13.

507
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 313.

508
Ibid., p. 314.

509
Ibid., p. 538.

510
Ibid., pp. 243-44.

511
Ibid.

512
J. H. Davies, Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible, A Letter to Hebrews,
(Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 81.

513
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 344.

514
Ibid.

515
Ibid.

516
Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought , p. 64.

517
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 61.

518
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 365-67.

519
Ibid.

520
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, pp. 19-21.

521
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 511.

522
Charles L. Laymon, The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible, Matt. 6:22-23.


313



523
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 43.

524
Ibid.

525
Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, p. 8.

526
Charles M. Laymon, The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible, p. 547b.

527
Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought , p. 31.

528
William Colloley Trimmel, The Twenty-Seven Books that Changed the World, p. 207.

529
Ibid.

530
Charles M. Laymon, The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible, p. 546a.

531
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 941.

532
Charles M. Laymon, The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible, p. 546a.

533
Ibid., p. 1047.

534
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 15.

535
Ibid.

536
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 221-22.

537
Ibid.

538
Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent , p. 57.

539
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 221-22.

540
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 67.

541
Ibid., p. 271.

542
John L. McKenzie, The Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 817-21.

543
Deirdre J. Good, Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature, (Society of Biblical
Literature, Monograph Series), Library #BT1390:G65, 1987, p. 52.

544
Ibid., p. 43.

545
Ibid., p. 52.

546
Plato, The Republic, p. 223.

547
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 838-839.

548
Leander E. Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 108.

549
Ibid., p. 109.


314



550
John L. McKenzie, S.J., The Dictionary of the Bible, p. 884.

551
Ibid., p. 899.

552
Ibid., pp. 901-02.

553
Ibid.

554
Ibid.

555
Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters, p. 135. Rm 8:3, R7.