On Being – Chapter VII – We Are One Body (Part II)


The Christian Trinity Is Only ½ the Picture

The Prime Emanation, God, is all inclusive. Everything that was, is, and will be; all that is good, and all that is evil, is in God. Nothing that exists, exists apart from or outside of God. Active within and throughout the Prime Emanation are the Mind and Substance of God. The non-egoic and egoic streams of consciousness are present, but are inactive until the Mind of God directs Its attention toward one or the other. If God is all things, then the Christian Trinity cannot represent all of God, since their Holy Trinity does not include all of God’s aforementioned “alter – egos.” The Holy Trinity must therefore be accompanied by some sort of unholy trinity. Taken together, these two manifest God’s full potential.

God is not male, nor is God female. God is the potential for both. God is both. God is not only Life, but death as well.  We need to rethink the trinity model in order to reconcile it with facts such as these.

‘Gender’ applies not only to human physiology, but to human spirituality as well. An affinity for ego is an attribute of the Masculine spirit; non-egoic affinity is an attribute of the Feminine. Human females and males are a combination of both spiritual modes, and to varying degrees. There are women egoic to the point of being more spiritually male than some men, and there are men non-egoic to the point of being spiritually more feminine than some women.

The Holy Trinity:

The Holy Trinity manifests in the non-egoic universe. It becomes active the moment the Mind of God frames Its consciousness non-egoically. From this moment, the universe becomes 3rd Emanation incarnate through the Big Bang – Plato’s Idea/ Philo’s Logos made manifest.


The Christ = Life /The Life Force – the Logos (St. John’s Word).

The Mother = Producer and Nurturer of Life (in collaboration with the Father, Life is manifest in the 3rd Emanation in all its forms). This is the universal Feminine Spirit (aka the Sacred Feminine).

The Holy Spirit = The motive of Life and of all Creation: Love.

This describes the Holy Trinity, the way I imagine it. It is the basis of all life and the inevitable outcome of God’s non-ego. A world reconciled with the Holy Trinity is a world of collaboration, tolerance, peace, sharing, joy, and self-actualization. It would be a world where everyone is given to thinking in terms of what they can do for others; rather than what others can do for them.


The Unholy Trinity

The unholy trinity presides over the egoic universe. It becomes active the moment God’s Mind frames Its consciousness in egos. It is a secondary phenomenon. The unholy trinity is able to manifest its destructive purpose only if something exists for it to destroy. It must be preceded by Creation; by God first choosing non-ego.

The antichrist – Death/destructive force; Death made manifest; destruction made manifest; deafness to the Word/blindness to the Light of the world (and of Creation).

The father (not what is understood by the Christian “God, the Father”) – the destructive act/the progenitor of death (in conjunction with the antichrist, death is imposed upon the material aspect of all living things). Collaboration with the Universal Mother to ‘birth’ the 3rd Emanation; but in the process, the seed of death and destruction, followed by renewal, is also planted.

The unholy spirit is hatred, separation, polarization; the source of us and them. It is the spirit associated with ego.

This describes the unholy trinity. It is the basis of death and destruction. The world that promotes the unholy trinity, is a world bound by ego. It is a world of violence, coercion, mistrust, fear, economic polarization, and unfairness; a world where appearance is routinely promoted over reality. A world of chronic insufficiency; a world where you are never left with enough time in order to properly attend the needs of your loved ones and community. It is a world where people for the most part think in terms of what the world can do for them, rather than what they can do for the world.

I believe the voice of the Christ has been heard through Abraham, Moses, the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, the Mahatma, John Lennon, Mother Teresa, and so many others. The Christ communicated through the music of John Lennon and Led Zeppelin, among others, in my own time. The Christ has presented the same message through different individuals; each to their own people, in a format appropriate to their time and culture. Wars among religions are, at their root, wars between cultural egos, since it is the same Speaker, delivering the same Message, upon which each of the Faiths is based. Only their outward trappings differ. There cannot be any one Faith claiming authority over any other. Only God, the One we worship, has the right to tell us how we should talk to Him, and what we should give. We would not tell someone what they should do to help our neighbour, or how they should talk to him; we would let the neighbour do their own talking. How is it that we are often so ready to accept the voices of others as being the Voice of God? So long as the adherents of each Faith remain true to their own Faith, and to their inner voice, they will remain true to God and to their life’s purpose.

The following is a graphical rendering of the Emanations model. It illustrates how the 3rd Emanation world relates to the 2nd Emanation trinities. The Prime Emanation, God, is understood to encapsulate all that is depicted in the diagram:




In this model, the Holy Trinity is in the superior region of the 2nd Emanation (“superior” because it is creative). Birth must precede death; without life preceding it, there would be no such thing as death (the reverse is not true). Creation – the 2nd Emanation Region of Light is therefore superior to the 2nd Emanation region of darkness.

Good trumps evil because Goodness is an attribute of non-egoic consciousness. Good is reconciled with things as they truly are, and seeks to make things better. Evil, on the other hand, is an attribute of ego, which tends to see things as it wants them to be.

There are two types of death: physical death (an attribute of the 3rd Emanation in which ‘life’ is transient), and spiritual death. Spiritual death does not often coincide with physical death. Jesus survived physical death because of his goodness, as did Mohammed(PBUH), Abraham, Isaiah, the Buddha, Gandhi, Lennon, and mom, to name but a few.

A Course In Miracles

A chance café-encounter with a teacher of A Course In Miracles revealed a fundamental difference between us on the question, “Is the Divine aware of the duality of Good and evil?”

The teacher believes, true to the book, that the Divine cannot know evil. The Divine can only know love, because that is what God is -love.

I cannot ascribe to the teacher’s belief. To say the Divine, God, is unaware of anything, offends reason and the notion of Divine omniscience; however this is not my main argument. For that, I will use the Emanations model…

The Grid connects everything across time and space. This not only allows for prayers to be heard and answered, it also means the energy each node (each soul) puts up on the Grid is “felt” by every other node on the Grid. Our souls are connected in much the same way as laptops on a Wi-Fi network. The Grid is part of the Divine. The Divine will sense the passage of egoic energies within it like we might, an intestinal cramp.

I may go on ad nauseum presenting arguments against the notion of Divine ignorance. I believe The Course In Miracles, albeit a fine book, is also proof-positive of how any philosophical framework becomes ridiculous when taken to the extreme.

Now that I have dropped the gauntlet, what is my answer to this? The answer is not so convoluted as the question, or as the book which purports to answer this question.

Each one of us may recall a time when we have been wronged. Certain people may have said things about us, that are both terrible and false. The fact that people are speaking and propagating falsehoods about another soul compounds the evil they do. We are aware of the hurtful untruth being spoken about us by others; but we are also aware of the truth, and no lie can change it: we and God know what we have done and not done, said and not said, felt and not felt. We are therefore aware of truth and untruth, of good and evil – of the duality – and so is God.

At the same time, we ourselves are not people given to lying about or doing evil to others. We cannot feel good about manipulating people, in any fashion, just to achieve our own ends. We can only feel good about ourselves, act true to ourselves, be true to ourselves. We are compelled to speak the truth as we believe it, and to care about the situations of others -including those we don’t even know. We do not feel anything good when we criticize and condemn. We cannot feel good when on the attack, even when it is in response to our being treated unjustly and unfairly. We would certainly not lie about others, and we would not return evil for evil.

Returning evil for evil is patently egoic. We, God, the universe, are much, much better than this.

Our awareness of the duality bears no relevance in determining how we interact with others. External events bear no relevance in determining the kind of people we are, and how we behave toward others – these are for us to determine on our own. To allow an external influence, any external influence, to co-opt our thinking and behaviour, is to give away the precious gift of free will.

Because we have chosen not to allow the ‘dark side’ of this duality to steal the gift that God has given us, does not mean we are oblivious to the dark side’s existence. It simply means that we choose to operate on only one side of an existential duality. We choose to extend love and goodness as much as we can. We aspire to a general state of unconditional giving, unconditional receiving, and unconditional forgiveness. It means that we are aware of the duality, that we will be vigilant, but that we will remain true to our purpose and ourselves.

The choice to not return evil for evil, is the product of enlightenment, not ignorance.

Many people should agree that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, and the Mahatma were sent by God, or, at the very least, thoroughly embraced God’s Message, then translated it for their respective peoples and times. All of these people were reacting to the great disparities they were observing, between the Will of God and the status quo -poverty and oppression topping the list. All of these Great Souls were reacting to, and attempting to resolve, the very duality this teacher claims God is not aware of.

The Divine is aware of duality, but It extends only love. Evil manifests because other souls choose to be egoic and open the door to it. The disparity in existence between the world of God and the world as it is, the Love of God is busily addressing .

Do not confuse God’s operative strategy, extending Love – for ignorance. God is aware; however God is not a reactionary – ego is. The Divine is aware of both Good and evil. God chooses to spend as much time as possible operating on the non-ego side of the duality.

It is the product of the choice God makes, which the ‘Teacher’ and authors of A Course In Miracles have confused for God’s inability to know evil.


I met with this teacher of A Course in Miracles a second time.  The subject of our discussion was wisdom. Is it something that can be learned, or is it something innate – you either have it or you don’t? As you may appreciate there is much to discuss here. I believe we agreed on wisdom being the capacity for discernment, say, between true and false, right and wrong, good and evil.

The capacity to discern is prerequisite to our effectively using free will. If we cannot discern, we cannot properly choose. If we cannot discern between right and wrong, how can we expect to make the right choice?

Is Wisdom innate, or can it be learned? We know people who seem gifted with ‘street smarts.’ These people can tell a con from someone who is upfront and guileless. We also know people whom we might call naïve -by all appearances, bereft of street smarts. The reality, however, is that both have wisdom; it is simply that the naïve person resists acknowledging what they are, in their ‘heart of hearts,’ already ‘wise to.’

The naïve person suppresses knowledge of anything that would warrant action on their part that they would find undesirable. It could mean, for example, that a person for whom the ‘naïve-one’ has developed feelings, is in fact not the right person for them. By rights, they are obliged to end the relationship. But more afraid of being alone than they are of being hurt in the new relationship, the naïve person chooses to maintain the illusion of hope. Acknowledgment, in their mind, equates with being alone again. They are alone, whether they admit to it or not. In the meantime, while their soul energy is consumed with egoic fantasy, they are missing opportunities to find the right person.

Wisdom is truly innate. The emergence of wisdom within the individual is nothing other than the conscious choice to use it. Wisdom is an attribute of non-egoic consciousness. Non-egoic consciousness is active everywhere on the Grid, and is everywhere impeded and resisted by ego. To access the total wisdom of non-egoic consciousness in the universe, we need only extend our minds beyond ego. With respect to the mind’s inputs, ego acts like a dam on a river – regulating consciousness as befits its purpose. Of course, ego lacks the wherewithal to make proactive and informed management decisions; it will not fare any better than a child at the controls of the hydroelectric dam would. The best course to follow, for the purpose of this metaphor, if not for the river, is to remove the dam altogether; allowing the flow of non-egoic consciousness to come to us unresisted.

Wisdom is an attribute of consciousness which leads to all positive energy-generating choices. It is an attribute of the open, extended mind; a mind which is free.

If we are conscious, truly conscious, then we have wisdom.

Is Violence Ever Justified?

Jesus asked God to forgive those who were about to crucify him. I cannot believe, however, that Jesus would have been so tolerant of violence if it were being done to others. If Jesus was willing to die for others, he would have at anytime, anywhere, placed himself between an attacker and an innocent victim. He might have physically engaged the attacker – up to the point of neutralizing the aggression – to save the victim. Does anyone think he would have stood by, while a Roman soldier murders a young Hebrew child; and do nothing but ask God to forgive the Roman soldier for murder?

If we may assume Jesus would have tried to save the child by physically interfering with the assault, I will go on to say that violence, if wholly intended to save vulnerable people from harm, and there being no other recourse, is justified. Only then.

Two wrongs don’t make a right; but in ego’s world, they make justice. I used to bastardize the aphorism in that way. I was referring to the concept of dispensing justice. No matter what the  context, violence is still violence, and it is still wrong. That is why capital punishment is wrong. It remains incumbent upon all souls to find a better way to protect the innocent from violence, and to offer opportunities for atonement to the perpetrators. Atonement is not forgiveness -a process which plays itself out entirely between the victim, the perpetrator, and God.


Leave a Reply