Edited 9/14 Scroll for several pertinent comments, which I’ll update periodically:
1) To saying I didn’t answer his question(s): If someone tells me, ‘Your position is this, now answer me this about your position,’ but what they said is NOT my position, it’s not a valid or honest question. And if you think it is, you fell into a trap, and are arguing a straw man, which I have found to be par for the course with these people đ.
2) To Witsit being wrong/liar: Notice you said, “Lastly, just because someone has said something wrong in the past, it does not invalidate every future thing they say.” Yet Witsit’s position, as I clipped Witsit saying in the debate ironically, is that since the scientists were a little off on the eclipse prediction that they can’t really predict it, are waiting till the Moon gets close, and are just liars. I played that clip at 32:44. And then at 33:25 of this debate Witsit says that he totally stands behind that statement. Therefore, the sounder logic that you are applying to them does not apply with them. Witsit and every flat Earther I’ve ever seen or interacted with have this all or nothing thing to dismiss evidence, for instance, ‘Government has lied, therefore NASA lies since they are part of the government, and SpaceX and whoever else lies because they got government funding or work with government personnel on this or that, therefore all space pics are fake!’ They don’t follow the reasoning you present, so putting such reasoning on them is erroneous. If the scientists being wrong by meters on an over hundred-kilometer shadow makes them liars, as I clipped Witsit saying, then yes, Witsit being wrong about ANYTHING makes him a liar, too. This is something I meant to discuss, which is why I played that clip. However, Iâll talk about this in more detail on MCToonâs channel tonight. And if Witsit changes his point and later says you don’t have to be 100% right on everything, and him failing at having that model and prediction ready doesnât mean we can just discount everything he says, then per his shucking and jiving comment he’s changing and he’s a liar! Either way, he’s a liar, according to himself. And with predictions of for instance the conjunction of Mercury, and the model for it that I challenged him on, he’s 100% wrong, not just a fraction of a percent wrong. He couldn’t do it AT ALL. Thus, it seems you’re letting the obfuscation of the shuckers and jivers like Witsit (according to his own characterization, which I clipped) derail you, which seems to be their intent… I’m a budding scientists. We understand sometimes we’re wrong or make mistakes. It’s Witsit who says if you change, you’re a liar. If you make an error, in so many steps you are a liar. You reap what you sow, seems appropriate.
3) To saying I addressed the person and not the topic: Witsit offered no evidence in his opening. He said a bunch of stuff and provided no references for what he said and referred to. If you think I’m wrong about that please timestamp in his opening where he did. I’ll be checking this thread. Therefore, to suggest there is any topic for me to address from his side is nonsensical. He presented nothing, literally – at least by scientific standards. All he presented is his word, and therefore it’s fair to address his word as there is nothing else to address – as I said during the debate. I am aware that the deluded who follow him believe him just rambling on, and declaring things to be so, is enough. In the wider world by far it’s not enough.
4) Bad paraphrase: “The debate was about relativity and Witsit knows it and talked about it and you don’t know relativity”: The debate was about geocentrism versus heliocentrism. Apparently you’re so upset or so looking for a gotcha that you forgot how to read or something or forgot that that was mentioned during the debate. Moreover, since Witsit doesn’t understand higher math – demonstratably, and according to him (watch the show on MCToon tonight), and I passed all my higher level college math, and I took a survey course that included relativity, that should mean that I understand it better than him.
5) You referenced fairly enough what you meant without needing timestamps:
“your world view was challenged, thats the core of debating, you brushed off many times questions of Witsit ; “its just words” ect. , because you got triggered pretty fast, thats not correct reasoning, you actually treated the debate more as a lecture, to reassure the status quo.”
His opening was literally just words. When I say all he presented was words that is just a simple statement of fact. Witsit presented no experiments or evidence or data. No references for the stuff he said others said. That’s by definition just words. That’s not a challenge to a world view, at least when discussing something objectively true or false. My presentation, that presented actual evidence and experiments and data, that’s a legitimate challenge to a world view. And every source that wasn’t my own work or voice was referenced. I gave an example for you of properly representing a position. It seems you’ve been indoctrinated into thinking the wrong way is the right way.
“For example you said that Witsit thinks every scientist was wrong for hundreds/thousands of years instead of answering, thats fallacious when it comes to logic reasoning and he rightfully pointed out some fallacies himself – at least do it for the audience man, im pretty disappointed when it comes to these “debating styles” of people, many guys(also on this channel) do this, especially when they got the mainstream position, hope that clears things up and you didnt meant that you need timestamps or something like that”
To say that the universe is geocentric, and the Earth is flat, when we – meaning the scientific community insofar as I’m barely a part of it yet but still – hold the solar system to be heliocentric and Earth a globe as just one planet in one solar system at the outskirts of one galaxy – to say it’s flat and geocentric is to say all scientists who say that the Earth is a globe and so forth are wrong. This should not be difficult. It clearly follows. If I say it’s raining outside, and you say not it’s not raining, then it means you’re saying I’m wrong. This shouldn’t be hard to follow. Also, if you’re referring to the fact that I didn’t answer Witsit’s trick questions, I stated very clearly that if someone tells me, âYour position is this, now answer me this about your position,â but what they said is NOT my position, itâs not a valid or honest question. And if you think it is, you fell into a trap, and are arguing a straw man, which I have found to be par for the course with these people. Perhaps get him to be honest and ask an honest question. I doubt you’ll get that. Watch earlier on when I guess he mistakenly asked an honest question about how I know the Earth goes around the Sun or similar. Then he interrupted me answering to change the question and ask and lie and say he asked it the same. It’s all in the recording. 34:16
6) To people saying âYou didnât address any of Witsits pointsâ: The issue here is that you’ve fallen for Austin Witsit’s deception. I’m not sure if he’s as delusional as he displays, are if heâs outright deceiving you all for whatever reason, but either way it’s clear that you all eat it right up. Witsit didn’t make any points. He just rehashed misrepresentations of famous scientists, and declared things to be the way he says they are, and latched onto whatever string he could possibly get away with grabbing onto to spin it like there is some issue with the science when one isnât there. I caught most but missed some. I recall him only once or twice asking an honest question but those must have been unintended on his part, as one time he interrupted me answering to lie and say he’ll ask the question again. But then he asked a different question apparently designed again to try to lead me into some manipulated quasi-idea of what we understand so he can trip me up on a strawman type deal and pretend he got me. I called that out directly, and I didnât go for it. Again and again, he tried erroneously telling me what my model is like, âthis is your paradigm, you believe this, now answer me thisâ. I didnât go for it. He couldnât get me with the fake questions; therefore, he deceived you all into believing I didnât answer his questions. So, it seems people like him have their deception over people like you so completely.
If they get us on a trick question, then itâs âAha Witsit won, and the Earth is flat or geocentricâ or whatever heâs feeding you all at the time. And if I donât fall for that con then itâs, âOh he didnât answer any questions!,â even though he didnât ask many honest questions. Itâs amazing. By the way, I did answer that original albeit apparently unintended honest question more than once in the debate, as it was the same question of evidencing a heliocentric solar system. I can recall another one can say honest question he asked â it seems to be asked more as a gotcha. He asked me to name one technology from the space field that we use in everyday life, as I said that we use technology developed in the space sciences. It seems he only asked as a gotcha, as he seemed salty that I could answer it. Perhaps there are other honest questions that I canât recall. But each honest question I caught I answered. And the dishonest ones I clearly pointed out that I am not going to believe what he tells me my model or position is. Perhaps if you step back and try LISTENING for yourself and THINKING for yourself rather than just believing and parroting what popular flat Earth people and other flat Earth people say and/or encourage you all to say and think. Itâs ironic that so many of the bad thinking habits you all accuse scientists of you all do in spades.
I presented several pieces of evidence and observations that anyone can verify for themselves. You can get pictures of the Sun. You can get spectra of the Sun. You can see that the Sun and therefore other stars are not just âlights in the skyâ or âelectromagnetic something behind a screenâ or whatever other nonsense these ignorant, deceptive, or delusion people have people such as yourself believe. You can honestly test, evaluate and confirm gravity and related equations. You can do some research (not just watching flat Earth videos and memes as Iâve found globe deniers mean you say âresearch,â but really learning valid information) about the history of our understanding of the solar system. Witsit is the one who avoided simple questions, like predicting a specific positioning of Mars. This is simple for people who really understand how the solar system works, evidenced by the fact that we have predictions for centuries. First, Witsit tried to derail me from the question, and then when that didnât work, he put up some out of left field link that he seemed to just google on the spot to pretend he knows what he’s talking about. You’ve been fooled.
7) “In this entire debate, can anyone find a single instance in which Witsit spoke, then Darryl spoke, and what Darryl said beared any logical resemblance to what Witsit just said or asked?”: The debate is right there. If someone can’t answer that for themsleves it seems the person is either a liar or an idiot. I guess I’m not compelled to find those timestamps in either case.
8) “You couldn’t give Witsit a specific reference of quotes he took out of context!!”: It’s very simple. One way of putting it is: Witsit said all my quotes of him, even quotes I GOT FROM A CONVERSATION I DIRECTLY HAD WITH HIM EARLIER THIS YEAR, he said they are all out of context. So therefore, quotes he takes of scientists, who he has never talked to or even seen since some have been dead for centuries, are clearly out of context, especially since the service he wants those words to do contradict the resulting physics and technologies and laws and cosmology we have today. Doubled by the fact that, as I showed more than once, he doesn’t understand the basic math necessary to even APPROACH these subjects properly. It’s amazing that you harp on this. It’s clear that flat Earth and all it’s subsets of globe denial deminish the ability of you all to think and reason – if you had that capacity to begin with.
P.S. This is typical of flat Earth, that you have one set of rules where you can just dismiss anything you don’t like or that shows you wrong, and no justification given is ever accepted anyway. But when it comes to something you like or thinks makes you right no such rules are needed and are ignored for what you want to believe.
9) ââYou leave out the m (mass) you prove my pointâ .⊠which is true.â:
Youâve been fooled. Witsit has fooled you, and whether itâs just his ignorance or delusion or heâs purposely stringing you all along for money or attention or whatever. Youâve been fooled. Iâll stream a video this week to detail on this (9/4).
Featured image composite âPlagiarismâ contributed by Chuck Morgan (http://nuwaupianism.com); incorporating Pyramid Energy and El Maguraj book cover images both scanned for informational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr (https://personal.darryleberryjr.com).
Introduction
I was a member of the Holy Tabernacle Ministries for a few years, a cult started by a man named York – or Malachi Z York as I new him at the time, but also going by many other names. I spent time so-called “propagating the doctrine,â i.e., teaching classes. Eventually I moved to Georgia to be close to purported holy land of the organization, called âthe land,â “Kadesh,” or eventually “Tama Re,” primarily to escape the purported celestial catastrophe of the year 2000. But soon I learned it was all a sham. Pun intended.
“Malachi” York was good about identifying the faults in other religions. However, when I applied the same logic to his âteachingsâ I began to find the same flaws… and more! Here are a few things Iâve found, observed, and experienced. References are cited in the text and in a reference list at the end of the article.
Ask the Nuwaupians / Nuwaubians, Are the Four Friends, Dean Hardy, Mary Hardy, Marjorie Killick, and Kenneth Killick, Some Of The Masters Who Guide Malachi Yorkâs Pen?
The book Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man was first published in July of 1987. This was well beforeMalachi York âauthoredâ the book El Maguraj in the 1990âs. In this article I will show that Malachi Yorkâs claim of authorship of El Maguraj is a farce. I will show that the book El Maguraj is plagiarized from the book Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man by the Four Friends: Dean Hardy, Mary Hardy, Marjorie Killick, and Kenneth Killick. Furthermore, with the help of diligent research by Chuck Morgan (https://nuwaupianism.com), Iâll show that Yorkâs basis for “spiritual alignment” presented in El Maguraj was plagiarized from The Book of Knowledge: Keys of Enoch by Dr. James J. Hurtak. There seems to be no end to the extent to which York would plagiarize someone elseâs work.
Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man by Four Friends Dean Hardy, Mary Hardy, Marjorie Killick, and Kenneth Killick book cover. Scanned for educational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr.Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man by Four Friends Dean Hardy, Mary Hardy, Marjorie Killick, and Kenneth Killick copyright page. Scanned for educational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr.
To establish the point of Malachi Z York’s plagiarism further, Pyramid Energy is itself a combination of two previously published works by this group of authors (Hardy, D., Hardy, M., Killick, M., & Killick, K., 1987, pp. II-IV). The previous two books are Pyramid Energy and the Second Coming by Dean & Mary Hardy and Marjorie & Kenneth Killick, published in 1981, and Pyramid Energy Explained by Mary Hardy, Dean Hardy, Kenneth Killick, Jim Keating, and Three Initiates, published in 1979. To repeat: these two even earlier books are combined by these authors into the single publication Pyramid Energy, all published before Yorkâs El Maguraj.
The El Maguraj book was the first instance of plagiarism I became aware of in Yorkâs writings and teachings. I first saw El Maguraj when I was a disciple living in a Holy Tabernacle Ministries community in New Orleans, Louisiana. I remember El Maguraj being published in the 1990âs. But it wasnât until a few years after I left the community â due in part to finding inconsistencies in Yorkâs teachings â that while researching pyramids I found his plagiarism of the book Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man.
I began to share what I had found. But surprisingly, I communicated with Nuwaubians who began to deny York wrote all the books. Even though beforehand they happily promulgated the (false) idea that York is divine, by claiming that he authored hundreds and hundreds of books (personal conversations, 2002-2019). So to combat this denial, first I want to clearly establish that York is claiming authorship of El Maguraj â so there is no question that he is guilty of this plagiarism.
We can see on the cover of El Maguraj one of Yorkâs pseudonyms; where authorsâ names are commonly placed on book covers: Pharaoh: Amunnubi Ruakhptah.
El Maguraj by Pharaoh: Amunnubi Ruakhptah book cover. Scanned for educational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr (https://personal.darryleberryjr.com).
On the first page of El Maguraj is a full color image of York, further showing him to be the âauthorâ of the book. Heâs in full regalia, with an apron and fez, and staff and chalice. Tassels on his shoulder, and so forth.
El Maguraj by Pharaoh: Amunnubi Ruakhptah first page. Scanned for educational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr (https://personal.darryleberryjr.com).
On the cover page of El Maguraj it says âAUTHORED BY: THE SUPREME GRAND MASTER NAYYHA: MALACHIZODOK YORK-EL.â So, there is no question that York is claiming authorship of the book El Maguraj. This point will be revisited and amplified later in this article.
El Maguraj by Pharaoh: Amunnubi Ruakhptah title page. Scanned for educational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr (https://personal.darryleberryjr.com).
The El Maguraj book details a prayer/pilgrimage that is carried out while walking a path around a small black pyramid formerly on the former Nuwaubian land.
The reasoning was that we needed to undergo this ritual to become âaligned,â to survive the energy of the soon-coming alignment of planets that would occur in May of the year 2000 A.D (personal conversations, 1997-1999). I remember devotees of York thinking this was a very serious matter â those who didnât get aligned would end up physically damaged by the energies coming through the planet, and perhaps beyond repair (personal conversations, 1997-1999).
To wit, Chuck Morgan (http://nuwaupianism.com), another former Nuwaupian, has put forth that the very concept of needing alignment dealt with a supposed âionized fieldâ around our blood cells (Morgan, 2017). Morgan informs us that this âionized fieldâ idea, and its attending âproton-electron-protonâ versus âelectron-proton-electronâ idea, were both plagiarized from Dr. James Hurtak and his The Book of Knowledge: The Keys of Enoch (Morgan, 2017).
Composite image âPlagiarismâ contributed by Chuck Morgan (http://nuwaupianism.com); incorporating The Book of Knowledge and The Holy Tablets book cover images scanned for informational purposes by Chuck Morgan (https://nuwaupianism.com).
The original: â(15) The ionized field around the blood cell loses its proton-electron-proton relationship to a new electron-proton-electron field as the life form is moved into the next phase of the electromagnetic spectrum. The former proton orientation is dropped and a new re-combination process results.â (Hurtak, 1999, as cited in Morgan, 2017).
Yorkâs plagiarism: â(171) The ionized field around the blood cells, loses its proton-electron-proton relationship to a new electron-proton-electron field as the life form is moved into the next phase of the electromagnetic spectrum.â (York, n.d., as cited in Morgan, 2017).
The original: â(17) In other words, man will be able to participate in higher evolutionary worlds because his hemoglobin chain will shift with his phylogenetic tree to a new system of balance whereby singular group, and vacuum to allow for a quantum relocation. The combination of these three types of waves will allow the organic form of life to pass through the old molecular density into a new molecular density as a âholistic systemâ. (Hurtak, 1999, as cited in Morgan, 2017).
Yorkâs plagiarism: â(172) In other words, Enosites will be able to participate in higher evolutionary worlds because his hemoglobin chain will shift with his phylogenetic tree, to a new system of balance whereby a singular, group.â (York, n.d., as cited in Morgan, 2017).
And Yorkâs plagiarism on these matters continues even into his supposedly holy secret order organizations, such as his “Ancient Egiptian Order” and its writings (Morgan, 2017):
âHuman beings must realize first of all, what type of environment we are in. Right now, we are living in a more PROTON ELECTRON PROTON ATMOSPHERE, were you have more POSITRONS within the atmosphere. The Holy Tablets Chapter 6 Tablet 15: 147-197, teaches you that you are going into a NEW ATMOSPHERE, as the planet is shifting into a, ELECTRON PROTON ELECTRON ATMOSPHERE, which simply means, Humims will have to use more of their minds than there physical bodiesâŠâ (York, n.d., as cited in Morgan, 2017).
Notice that York says, âThe Holy Tablets⊠teaches youâ (York, n.d., as cited in Morgan, 2017), citing himself, as if he really is the source of the information (Morgan, 2017). But not only is the information itself a sham (pun intended) due to it being plagiarized. Iâve since learned from Chuck Morgan that it was clear that the black pyramid itself (central to the ritual) wasnât truly some special thing â even among the Nuwaubians living on “the land” (NoopooH, 2017, 1:46:45):
âHonestly the black pyramid was only fixed up when they were gonna have people coming through to take that fake pilgrimage. For the most part it was a place where you just had a bunch of storage stuff stored in it like books, tools, work tools. Sometimes people had sex in it. They used the loudspeaker to play music or the OM chant. And later on to play Christian songs and Jesus chants. But it was pretty much used as a storage unit. Every year during the Saviorâs day of course they fixed it up to make it look good. I remember when we cleaned it out. He had a lot of junk in there. He had a lot of books stored up in there. You know we just had to clean the stuff out because the Saviorâs Day was coming around, so he had to make it look like it was a Holy of Holies⊠It was a front. It was Christmas time to him. But it was Saviorâs Day, or Saviorâs Week. It went from day to week, where he made the bulk of his money. You know he can do nearly a million dollars during that whole week, or more, cuz of the books being sold, all the things people donated, all kinda stuff.â (Chuck Morganâs eye witness testimony on the black pyramid on the Nuwaubian land.) (NoopooH, 2017, 1:46:45).
So, whatever their reasons for doing so, itâs clear that Yorkâs deception was an undertaking perpetuated and maintained by many. Perhaps itâs the so-called Stockholm syndrome, where for instance a kidnap victim starts to identify with and even join their kidnapper (Lambert, 2019). Whatever the case, itâs an interesting situation.
On page 14 of El Maguraj there is an image of a pyramid with a double helix rising from it. (And notice the alteration in the bottom image as if energy is coming from the smaller pyramids there were on the cult’s grounds.)
El Maguraj by Pharaoh: Amunnubi Ruakhptah page 14 scanned for educational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr (https://personal.darryleberryjr.com).
I found this âdouble helixâ image to be directly plagiarized from the Introduction on page X (10) of the aforementioned Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man.
Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man by Four Friends Dean Hardy, Mary Hardy, Marjorie Killick, and Kenneth Killick page 10 scanned for educational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr (https://personal.darryleberryjr.com).
And the explanation for Malachi Yorkâs plagiarized âDouble Helixâ image is plagiarized by York as well. In âYorkâsâ El Maguraj on page 15 we see:
El Maguraj by Pharaoh: Amunnubi Ruakhptah page 15. Scanned for educational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr (https://personal.darryleberryjr.com).
ââŠA Word Taken From Neteru, Ptahite Egyptian For Beings Of The Skies, Who Had The Real Truth Of The Knowledge Of The Pyramid And How They Deal With Tachyon Energy. The Pyramid Refocuses Light Into Its Sub-Atomic Particles Which We Call Tachyon Energy. The Term Tachyon Energy Is Used Because It Is The Best Term That Describes This Energy. The Word Tachyon Is Defined In The American Heritage Dictionary As: A Hypothetical Subatomic Particle That Travels Faster Than The Speed Of Light, Which Comes From The Root Tachy, Meaning: Rapid; Accelerated; Tachymeter. [Greek Takhu-, From Takhus, Swift.] To Tack On Means âTo Stick Onâ, Tachyon Energy Is The Glue Of The Universe. It Is The Bond Between The Spiritual And Physical Realms Of Reality.â (York-El, n.d., p. 15)
Yet in the previously published Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man, (which again was published as two separate books even prior to that), on the page 1 we see:
Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man by Four Friends Dean Hardy, Mary Hardy, Marjorie Killick, and Kenneth Killick page 1 scanned for educational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr (https://personal.darryleberryjr.com).
âThe nature of this knowledge deals with TACHION ENERGY. We have discovered that the pyramid refocuses light into its sub-atomic particles which we call tachion energy. We use the term tachion energy because this is the term that best describes this energy. To âtack onâ means to âstick to.â Tachion energy is the glue of the universe. It is the bond between the spiritual and physical realms of reality.â (Hardy, D., Hardy, M., Killick, M., & Killick, K., 1987, p. 1)
Then in Yorkâs El Maguraj the plagiarism continues, for example on page 15 and through page 16. We see:
El Maguraj by Pharaoh: Amunnubi Ruakhptah page 16. Scanned for educational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr (https://personal.darryleberryjr.com).
âIf You Were To Look At The Rain Dance Of The Hopi Of The Native Americans Called (American Indians), Who Got It From Their True Father, The Dogon Tribe Of Mali, Africa, Their Original Descendants, Who Got IT From Beings They Called Nommos, Who The Hopis Call Kachina. You Would Find The Same Clocking Action Of The Tachyon Pairs Is Used In Their Rain Dance And The Dances Of The Whirling Dervishes, Or More Of North Africa The Sufi. The Hopi Native American Indians Would Use This Action to Build (SCW) Standing Columnar Waves. By Building These Standing Waves, We, The American Indians, Could Cause Rain. A Secret They Got From Us Their Ancestors From Nuwba In America, Called Olmecs, Through The Deity Hapi Of Egypt, North America, Same As Hopi, The Son Of Horus. The Dogon Of Mali, And The Yoruba Of Nigeria, Africa And Many Others All Use This Principle.â (York-El, n.d., pp. 15-16)
When we go Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man, on page 42 we see:
Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man by Four Friends Dean Hardy, Mary Hardy, Marjorie Killick, and Kenneth Killick page 42 scanned for educational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr (https://personal.darryleberryjr.com).
âInterestingly enough, if one were to look at the rain dance of the Hopi Indians he would find the same clocking action of the tachion pairs is used in their rain dance. The Indians would use this action to build standing columnar waves. By building these standing waves the Indians could cause rain. The results of the dancing is a charged column. We see the same standing wave column appear in a typical thunder storm or in the electrical process used to produce a capacitor. The clocking motion of the dance pattern is similar to the motion clocking of the electromagnetic fields of the atom. What happens over the dancing Indians is that a band of energy is formed.â (Hardy, D., Hardy, M., Killick, M., & Killick, K., 1987, p.42)
Notice that York also copied the image and diagram depicting the Indian rain dance configuration directly from the previously published Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man. (Hardy, D., Hardy, M., Killick, M., & Killick, K., 1987, p.42)
And if you continue through both books, youâll find still further plagiarisms by Malachi York. Both of images and text. For instance, on page 21 of El Maguraj and page 165 of Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man.
El Maguraj by Pharaoh: Amunnubi Ruakhptah page 21 scanned for educational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr (https://personal.darryleberryjr.com).El Maguraj by Pharaoh: Amunnubi Ruakhptah page 22 scanned for educational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr (https://personal.darryleberryjr.com).
âIn Ancient Khamite (Egyptian) Drawings You Find Pictures Of Men Holding Coils. These Coils Were Tuned To The Reverse Flow Of Vortex Energy Generated Between Sites. A And B Are Tuned To The South Pole Vortex. The Stone Was Struck By The Rod And Tuned To The South Pole Field. Two South Pole Fields Repel Each Other. The Block Would Then Float Down The Walkway.â (York-El, n.d., pp. 21-22)
Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man by Four Friends Dean Hardy, Mary Hardy, Marjorie Killick, and Kenneth Killick page 165 scanned for educational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr (https://personal.darryleberryjr.com).
âIn the Egyptian Museum are found statues of men holding coils. These coils were tuned to the reverse flow of vortex energy generated between sites. A and B are tuned to the south pole vortex. The stone was struck by the rod and tuned to the south pole field. Two south pole fields repel each other: The block would then float down the walkway. In this fashion, using levitation, the temples and pyramids were built.â (Hardy, D., Hardy, M., Killick, M., & Killick, K., 1987, p. 165)
Itâs clear that throughout the El Maguraj book, Malachi York â or those under his control, as Iâve learned from someone while I was living in Georgia that he had teams of people helping him put together these books (personal conversation, 2000) â either plagiarized directly himself and took credit for it, or people under his control did so and he had his name put on the book and he thus assumed or pretended authorship of the work. Either he alone is guilty of plagiarism from these four authors and Dr. Hurtak, or York and those who helped him are guilty of plagiarism. And itâs clear that York knew very well what plagiarism is (Morgan, 2017).
Even in the El Maguraj book as quoted and imaged earlier, York references a word being âTaken Fromâ the Egyptians (York-El, n.d., p. 15). But furthermore, as Chuck Morgan shows (2017), York makes several direct references to what plagiarism is throughout his writings:
ââŠthe Torah was before the Qurâan and Jerusalem is mentioned in there as Shalom, and they translate it from the 3 letters what, sha-laa-ma as peace. Now, being you STOLE the word, PLAGIARIZED itâŠâ (York, n.d., as cited in Morgan, 2017)
ââŠWhile on the subject of PLAGIARISM, the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20:1-19 were taken from the ancient Egyptian Book of The Dead, âDeclaration of Innocents Before The Neteru Tribunal.â While Jews have recorded in their Bible that Egyptians were Pagans, they were busy STEALING THEIR CULTURE.â (York, n.d., as cited in Morgan, 2017)
Just like the pastor who rails against homosexuality, while behind the scenes being busy fielding male prostitutes, York is denouncing the plagiarism of others, all the while diligently carrying out his own plagiarisms of otherâs works. To quote Chuck Morgan on the matter:
âSo based on Malachi Yorkâs views on PLAGIARISM, itâs the act of âstealingâ from someone else, be it the writers of the bible, the Qurâan, The United States Constitution, or the theft of any body of work, and using it as your own. This is the same definition used world wide, from politicians to College students, plagiarism is simply intellectual thievery. Now that we have Yorkâs interpretations and explanations of Plagiarism, letâs see the standard and universally accepted definitions of plagiarism.â (Morgan, 2017)
âTo steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as oneâs own⊠to use (anotherâs production) without crediting the source⊠to commit literary theft⊠to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.â (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, n.d., as cited in Morgan, 2017)
âIn other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone elseâs work and lying about it afterward.â (Morgan, 2017)
And letâs see who these Four Friends are that York so diligently plagiarized from:
Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man by Four Friends Dean Hardy, Mary Hardy, Marjorie Killick, and Kenneth Killick page 5 scanned for educational purposes by Darryl E Berry Jr (https://personal.darryleberryjr.com).
This is an image of the Dean family in Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of God, the Science of Man. âWhite people.â This is important because the Nuwaupian group was a religiously racist organization. Therefore these authors were people who, by their complexion and the continental origin of their ancestors, York oft said are “devils” and shouldnât be trusted. Furthermore, when someone would find information to refute or that contradicts Yorkâs teachings, Nuwaubians might say, âYouâre going to the white manâs teachings,â or, âThatâs the devilâs teachings, learn from your own.â Therefore members were discouraged by their fellow cult members from reading other peopleâs books. Itâs reminiscent of Scientology and other cults. (See for instance âLeah Riminiâs Scientology and the Aftermathâ series and other testimonies, writings, and works on Scientology.) And just like L Ron Hubbard of Scientology, Nuwaubiansâ âMaster Teacherâ Malachi York consistently plagiarized – moreover, from the people he himself called âwhite devils.â (See Chuck Morganâs www.Nuwaupianism.com for more.) Ironically, York preached “don’t believe me, check it out” – however, that was clearly just something said and not practiced.
Image of a Dean E. Hardy magazine article/advertisement clipping of pyramid blueprints contributed by Chuck Morgan (http://nuwaupianism.com) .
It is clear to any honest and critically thinking person that a great divine being with â76 trillion years of knowledgeâ (Morgan, 2014) would not need to plagiarize even one sentence (Morgan, 2017, final three paragraphs), and especially not from âthe devilâ. Furthermore, it’s clear to any sufficiently informed person that racism is nonsensical and baseless. Moreover, certainly a divine ancient being supposedly from an advanced extraterrestrial race instrumental in building of the ancient pyramids wouldnât need to learn about pyramid energies and building pyramids from a contemporary Earthling!
It is of note that I have never found any follower of York, whether in the tabernacle community or not, to question that Malachi York wrote all the books UNTIL York’s plagiarism was found. Before that it was always very clear among Yorkâs followers that York was the âMaster Teacher,â and a divine extraterrestrial angelic being, who was Malachi in The Bible… and a Yamasee Indian… and a Pharaoh… and a Rizqiyian (meaning someone from a planet called âRizqâ in the 19th galaxy called âIllyuwnâ)… among other ludicrous and often contradictory things (personal communications, 1997 through 2019; Mark Lamont Hill on HOK, 2021). Someone who had 720 degree of knowledge, and also channels knowledge, all with neither implicit or explicit reference to mere earthly beings â and definitely not âthe devilâ (personal communications, 1997 through 2019). York was the “Master Teacher,” the only and direct or indirect (channeled) source of the information (personal communications, 1997 through 2019). But suddenly talk of him not being the author and not claiming authorship comes up when plagiarism is found (personal communications, 2019)! Thus for those who choose such dishonesty and/or lack of critical thinking, I thoroughly establish that Malachi York claims authorship of the plagiarized work El Maguraj.
I remember when living in the community, the lady of the house (it was a married couple and I who ran that store and lived in that community) was so in awe of this new name “Amunnubi Ruakhptah”. But now it seems that he would just change names and identities to whatever he felt would keep him in power or would give some type of advantage or allure, like when he tried to get Native American status by claiming to be a Chief Yamasee Indian. Even in an earlier quote from El Maguraj it says, âWe, The American Indians.â Or later, when he tried to claim to be a diplomat of Liberia. (See online videos of Chuck Morgan and Wudjau for more on this.)
As a writer myself I know it takes time to produce a quality book. I have published three books of my own as of this writing. (See www.darryleberryjr.com.) The first edition of one of my books, the one on forgiving flat Earth believers, was rushed. And I could see the difference. Thus, in order to produce so many books – or perhaps any books at all, since clearly he is a fraud – I can see why he resorted to plagiarism. As Chuck Morgan shared with us (quoted earlier), book sales were a major income source for Malachi York (NoopooH, 2017, 1:46:45). And in order even to put out material fast enough â or, again, even to put out material at all, since clearly Malachi York is a fraud â Malachi York apparently had to resort to plagiarism. This outcome was apparently better than directly undermining his own teaching by honestly referencing âthe devil,â when heâs supposed to be virtually if not literally all-knowing.
York’s plagiarism extends not only to his writing, but to his actual teaching or instruction. I thought even with the plagiarism at least he has a good memory, or a sharp mind. But in addition to having people help him plagiarize written works, he had people prepping him to give talks and sound like âThe Master Teacherâ:
âBeing in the publications department, [I saw that Malachi York] would take a book and he would just plagiarize it, but he would also just make up shit⊠A lot of the doctrine was made up, it was plagiarized. He would add things in⊠So when people go about his religion they need to read for themselves and look for the actual books⊠He would actually have a team of us there to help concoct the story to make it match [things he said before]. And if he ever got in a class and there were sisters who before he got up and sounded like âthe master teacher,â it was us who was making note cards for him to remember what he was saying. And if he said something and he was stooped on a question, he would get mad that the sisters didnât prepare him to answer those questions. So when people talk about a doctrine I donât even really want to hear it because itâs mostly bullshitâ (Niki Lopez on Dagger Squad 2:08:52).
I myself once asked him an honest question but then saw him fumbling trying to recall the answer, and then admitting he couldn’t recall it. Nevertheless, here is the book El Maguraj having people to go to the Nuwaubian land on a purportedly life or death, salvation-necessary pilgrimage decreed by a supposedly divine being. I remember the other guy in the tabernacle speaking specifically of peopleâs âbrains being friedâ if they didnât get aligned via the pilgrimage (personal communication, 1999). This “pilgrimage” brought more consumers to buy more books, and buy food while there, and to make donations. Therefore, the con of York supposedly being a master teacher is apparent.
My experience, observations, and the more and more I learn from others who were in the organization, show that York is a good entertainer and con man. He falls far short of a divine being – and even whatâs considered a good and decent regular human being. Some, still deluded by his deceptions, believe he did much for âblack peopleâ. Some of his plagiarized information was helpful. However, I find that his net impact is a detriment to people’s lives – including my own. Thankfully, he reached only a relatively small number of people. And now he’s in prison, persuant to various abuses he enacted upon children in the Nuwaubian community. His detriment to âblack peopleâ – or any people who give him any kind of credence or support – is apparent to me, and to more of his previous followers as time goes on.
Marc Lamont Hill on House of Konsciousness. (2021, July 8). Exclusive Marc Lamont Hill Interview “I Walked In On Dr Malachi Z. York And Seen 2 Little Boys “ [Video]. Youtube. https://youtu.be/GEZYhCW9NZk
Morgan, C. (2014, July 27). ââŠI have 76 trillion years of informationâŠâ [Video]. Youtube. https://youtu.be/uK13KXXP4Cw
York-El, M. (n.d.). El Maguraj. The Holy Tabernacle Ministries.
**
*If republishing this article on your website, please publish the complete article and then follow after âThe End.â with an active hyperlink as follows:
Personal Identity, Ecsomatics, A Course in Miracles, Buddhism, Science, Philosophy
By Darryl E Berry Jr
Published: 6/13/20 | Updated: 7/14/20
As a kid I began having out-of-body experiences â what were once predominately called âastral travelsâ or âastral projectionsâ, and what are becoming in fashion to call âecsomatic experiencesâ. Most of my experiences early on were spontaneous. And a common occurrence was floating towards the ceiling, and hovering there, my nose inches from the plaster as my physical body slept on the bed below. I was apparently in an amazing nonphysical form that can move through walls and ceilings with an inherent glow that lights my surroundings. It could move about the physical world invisibly â as well as visit various otherworldly or nonphysical dimensions. I could perceive and interact with other people also out of their bodies, as well as various nonhuman entities and otherworldly beings. Amongst my early experiences:
“Multiple Bodied We. One brief but enormous experience was to become conscious hovering in the out-of-body state near the ceiling on the opposite side of my bedroom as a point or field of consciousness. I (as point of consciousness) could see over my bed a nonphysical body floating near the ceiling. On the bed I could see my physical body. I concluded that we travel in (at least) three different forms: 1) integrated into the physical body, 2) as a nonphysical body, and 3) as a point or field of consciousness apart from both the physical and nonphysical bodies. It seems that the consciousness-nonphysical body combo can leave the physical body, and the point or field of consciousness can leave both the physical and nonphysical bodies” (Berry, Travel, 31).
Premise, Question: My experience is that I⊠âIâ⊠am the point or field of awareness that was hovering in the corner, watching my nonphysical body hovering, and also watching my physical body slumbering, like watching my car in the parking lot, or my bicycle in the living room. So that is my position. Based upon this experience â and others since â I posit that the âIâ, the animating, incarnating âIâ, is a point or field of consciousness. And here comes the question â in academia is this position considered a philosophical claim or a scientific observation if not hypothesis? When I think if philosophy, or the âlove of wisdomâ (Hoofard, Intro, 03:00-04:10), I think of pure idea engagement. One might have a philosophy of this or that, and even live by it. But itâs not based upon evidence or experimentation. It may be based upon logic and reason. But what makes a claim philosophical rather than scientific; for instance, Buddhaâs claims and position based upon experiences and perceptions through higher states of consciousness (Haecker, 16)?? What I conclude thus far is that the position of the originator is scientific if not simply experiential, e.g., the Buddhaâs claims based upon direct experience, and my position based upon direct experience. But generation after generation others add, subtract, embellish, codify, and out comes a philosophy or religion (or both). Or something else??
Another of my experiences:
“The Desert World. I was around 7 years old when I spent a week in The Desert World. I became aware in a world totally unlike the world we physically live in. The entire world was apparently a desert, with sand dunes visible beyond the meagre nearby manmade structures. I worked selling wares and pottery items on an outside table covered by canopy. When not working I lived in a small sand-colored dome and had my own room to one side of the dome, though I donât remember any adults or parental figures. Initially I was surprised and taken aback at this place. It seemed like a dream I couldnât awaken from. But after a few days there I thought that this waking physical world was the dream. My waking physical life seemed like some crazy dream so ludicrous to have believed. Things we take for granted, including much of the technology we have, seemed so farfetched and fanciful from my newly acquired perspective of the desert world⊠After about the seventh night of sleep in the desert world I woke up there, and then I woke up again here. I thought several days had gone by here as well and was frantic to find my parents and let them know I was OK. When I found them, they seemed like nothing happened. School was in an hour. This all happened in one night! But it took several days of living here in this physical waking world to see the desert world as the ‘dream,’ and this world as ‘real'” (Berry, Travel, 27-28).
For instance, I went to school the next morning (in this world), and I knew where I regularly sat, and I remembered everyoneâs names and our relationships. I remembered the subjects we covered. All these things came back or were there when I thought of them. But it was like remembering someone elseâs life and living it temporarily â like remembering the life of a television character. This world felt strange and remote â like a dream that I couldnât wake from â for a few days. I can see that when I could no longer remember this reality while living the desert world perspective, I was no longer this person in a very substantial way. This world was a forgotten dream, and that world was reality. I could also say that I was still the same person in another sense, e.g., my attitudes and dispositions and such. Just in a different world, with a different past (both the world and I), and a different lifestyle. But I can/could still recognize the same sense of âIâ.
Considering John Lockeâs notion that identity is tied with memory (Hoofard, Buddhism (B), 4:30-4:51; 26:00-28:28), from this experience I can see some veracity in that position. Yes, a person born in America would be a different person than if that same person were born in Syria, or Africa, or Spain, or Morocco. Their language would be different, and likely even their likes and dislikes to an exceptionally large extent â informed as we are by those around us. Foods that taste good to us might taste strange to them, with taste buds and eating habits trained to different spices and dishes. Who they think of as family, and country, would be different. Likely also, values and notions of right and wrong, normal and odd, would be quite different. Their religion â something people seem to cherish greatly â would likely be different.
But from the same experience I can see or recognize that there is something endemic to both experiences â both the desert world memory perspective and this world memory perspective. Even having completely forgotten this world, and having identified completely with the desert world, but looking more closely at the state of self I experienced in both, I can still recognize an essence of âIâ that was there before the desert world, existed in the desert world, and remains afterwards.
This experience â and others of mine â at the least suggests that thereâs some facet or core of identity that remains despite a complete or partial, intentional or accidental, shift or transplant of memory identification or disidentification (CrashCourse, 5:04-8:26), apparently able to access at least some degree of identity or memory even across lifetimes. Could this be the consciousness that I referred to in my first experience, and is it the infamous âsoulâ or âatmanâ of various Eastern and Western religions and philosophies (Haecker, 4)? My hypothesis, if I can call it that, is yes. And again, I ask: From the perspective of a professional philosopher, is this a scientific hypothesis or a philosophical claim??
Experience:
“Perhaps the most profound metaphysical experience thus far was experiencing the entire universe disappearing. Thatâs right. I was applying [A Course in Miraclesâ] thought system to a cherished idol of mine, and when I really established the unreality of the idol, I must have starkly destabilized an underpinning of my identity. The world disappeared and for a âtimeâ there was only being, and then a discernable âIâ re-arose. âIâ was able to perceive from afar the individual self that I apparently am now, and I and all the activity around it (the world, the universe) seemed as meaningless activity. And according to [A Course in Miracles] the entire universe is an illusion, projected by one universal mind that in the end doesnât exist either. The stark fear at realizing that this individual self that seems so real and so âmeâ is in truth âmeaningless activityâ along with all the world â along with a quiet recognition that the mind perceiving it all is meaningless too â condensed me back into an experience of being an individualized âme,â in a body, within a seemingly boundless external universe” (Berry, Classes, Introduction).
So, what is to be made of this experience? It seems quite like experiences had by great sages such as SiddharthaGautama the Buddha (Hoofard, Buddhism (A), 25:15-27:23) â apparently except that instead of maintaining some manner of identification with this universal perspective, whatever level of âIâ tucked tail and ran back to individual âIâ perspective (and sometimes with greater fervor than before âIâ focusedly decided to undo my individual self). So, when Professor Haecker points out that âwhen, in a deep state of consciousness, Buddha âlookedâ at himself, he did not see Atman. Instead he saw what he came to call ANATMAN, literally âNot-Atmanââ (Haecker, 16-17), I can relate. From the perspective of the universal mind that is dreaming the universe, the individual consciousness that seems so real when weâre identified with it is instead recognized as an illusory projection. The atman is not real; the âIâ is not real. The incarnating, animating field of consciousness is not real. And so is everything else in and of the universe not real, whatever the frequency or dimension. To me the realization is quite frightening â clearly, I have some growing to do. But this claim doesnât to me seem to be a philosophical claim, but simply an observable fact â if one can manage to observe from the perspective of universal mind. But again, as a professional philosopher, I ask you: Is that seen as a philosophical claim? Or being that itâs a position based upon direct experience, does it then become a scientific observation if not a scientific hypothesis? My interest is in bringing these things more into a scientific light. Or being that these are all âsubjectiveâ observations do they fall outside of the standard scientific definition of an observation â even despite at least some corroboration?
Works Cited
âArguments Against Personal Identity: Crash Course Philosophy #20â. YouTube upload, CrashCourse, 11 Apr. 2016, https://youtu.be/17WiQ_tNld4
Berry Jr., Darryl E. Classes on A Course in Miracles: Contemporary Pure Non-Dualism, 1st ed., (Version 3 2019), Darryl E Berry Jr / Next Density Center, 2016, p. 27-28, 31.
Berry Jr., Darryl E. Travel Far: A Beginner’s Guide to the Out-of-Body Experience, Including First-Hand Accounts and Comprehensive Theory and Methods, 1st ed., (V4 2020), Darryl E Berry Jr / Next Density, 2015, p. 27-28, 31.
Haecker, Dorothy A. Adventures in Philosophy: A Study of Ideas That Change the World, edited by Peter Van Dusen, 4th ed., Dorothy A. Haecker, 2020, pp. 4, 16, 17.
Schucman, Dr. Helen. A Course in Miracles (ACIM), 3rd ed., Foundation for Inner Peace, 2007, Text Chapter 6. Section I. Paragraphs 11 & 13; Text Chapter 21. Introduction. Paragraph 1; Text Chapter 27. Section VIII. Paragraph 9.
This article may be re-posted provided: 1) re-posted in full, 2) full attribution, including active link to this webpage (if on a website), and 3) prior notification of and confirmation from Darryl E Berry Jr. Contact me at debj@darryleberryjr.com.
A scenario was presented at the end of the recorded lecture âKarma & Suffering (B)â in which a child, who is dying of thirst, happens upon the meager water cache of a small family that happens to be away at the time (Hoofard, 45:30-47:20). The question is â given that according to Hinduism, karma will punish the child for stealing the water and causing harm to the family â if itâs too difficult for the child to make the honest choice is it then unjust for karma to punish him further, i.e., with an even worse and more difficult next lifetime (Hoofard, 49:25-33)?
“If anyone ever got to that point where we could not reasonably expect them to choose the right thing because they’re in such a devastating circumstance⊠that means the next time they are probably going to come back in an even worse situation. And if this situation was too much to ask and expect them to do the right thing the next situation is going to be even worse. We can’t expect them do the right one there. It’s like you’re circling the drain getting lower and lower and lower. How can you ever pull out of it” (Hoofard, 48:10-37)?
Hoofard goes on to mention a charge Iâve seen levied against Christians in relation to Christianity many a times â that this hypothetical thirsting Sudanese boy might never have even heard of karma and doing good in this lifetime to ensure better karma next lifetime (Hoofard, 49:00-18). Just as someone from any culture prior to about two millennia ago might not have heard about the man we often refer to as Jesus Christ. How can they even consider getting âsaved,â right?
Philosophically speaking â regarding the idea of subsequent lives being harder and thus even more difficult regarding the karmically established trials one must face â I suggest that over time the being and will gets stronger. The first analogy that comes to mind is weightlifting. The first day a bodybuilder trains they might not be able to lift 300 pounds of weight. But starting where they are, they build up and get stronger. But alas, they still can start somewhere â with a lighter weight. The child could either steal water or not, whether some or all of it. And the scenario presented is, itâs too hard for him not to steal water. Even if he steals a lighter amount of water thereâs still more karmic debt, and a slightly worse life (unless balanced out by other deeds in that life, perhaps; an alternative Iâll discuss).
Perhaps we can refer instead to something more relevant, like pullups. I remember times when Iâve tried to do a pullup but couldnât. But I kept trying and after so many days I could, and then could do multiple. And the same thing with people doing pushups. I propose that, given the above scenario, philosophically speaking, the atman would become âstrongerâ in a sense in future lives, and thus more able to choose a more karmically sound response. This (or something just as practical) would have to be the case; otherwise, only those who ever had only good karma â or at least above a certain amount of bad karma â would ever be able to achieve moksha. And conversely, everyone with bad karma of a certain degree, and thus experiencing an exceedingly difficult lifetime, would inevitably have worse and worse karma and thus worse and worse lives. I present an argument to illustrate:
If making karmically sound choices leads to good karma and better life conditions,
And if not making karmically sound choices leads to bad karma and worse life conditions,
And if good karma leads one to exit samsara via moksha,
And if bad karma leads one to even more difficult life experiences,
If life experiences of a certain difficulty make it impossible to make karmically sound choices,
Then those with a certain difficulty of life experiences will inevitably remain stuck in samsara.
But to the contrary, it seems that Hinduism philosophy entails that everyone can and eventually will reach Brahman: âFrom BRAHMAN our soul has come and to BRAHMAN it will ultimately return, in a reunion called MOKSHAâ (Haecker, 10). Therefore, it must be possible for everyone to respond karmically soundly to their life situations. That means however difficult those live situations are, and if not this lifetime then next lifetime. It must ultimately be possible for everyone, regardless of how bad karma gets, and thus how difficult life circumstances get, to make karmically sound choices and thus generate good karma, and eventually achieve moksha or liberation from samsara.
I must state that my perspective is no doubt influenced by my adherence to (to the extent I can) and my experiences through (a few of which being quite profound) the teachings of A Course in Miracles (ACIM), which state that:
“You are not persecuted, nor was I. You are not asked to repeat my experiences because the Holy Spirit, Whom we share, makes this unnecessary. To use my experiences constructively, however, you must still follow my example in how to perceive them. My brothers and yours are constantly engaged in justifying the unjustifiable. My one lesson, which I must teach as I learned it, is that no perception that is out of accord with the judgment of the Holy Spirit can be justified. I undertook to show this was true in an extreme case, merely because it would serve as a good teaching aid to those whose temptation to give in to anger and assault would not be so extreme. I will with God that none of His Sons should suffer⊠The message of the crucifixion is perfectly clear: Teach only love, for that is what you are.” (ACIM, T-6. I. 11, 13).
Regarding the proposed situation, it would mean that someone fully embodying these principles, even in the face of physical death, would respond with love. This section of the course specifically mentions anger, but the principle applies equally to fear, and greed, and scarcity.
A Course in Miracles doesnât address what actions to take in the world, but simply informs us that no scenario would or even could ever cause us to respond fearfully. The world from the courseâs perspective is our own illusory projection (ACIM T-21.in.1, T-18.I.4). And thus, being our effect, the world has no influence upon us regardless of how well we make it seem to be the contrary.
“In gentle laughter does the Holy Spirit perceive the cause, and looks not to effects. How else could He correct your error, who have overlooked the cause entirely? He bids you bring each terrible effect to Him that you may look together on its foolish cause and laugh with Him a while. You judge effects, but He has judged their cause. And by His judgment are effects removed. Perhaps you come in tears. But hear Him say, âMy brother, holy Son of God, behold your idle dream, in which this could occur.â And you will leave the holy instant with your laughter and your brotherâs joined with His.” (ACIM, T-27.VIII.9)
This of course seems a tall order from our everyday perspective â that is, looking past the apparent experience of being moments from dying of thirst. But given that the phenomenal world is an illusory effect, then recognizing its lack of affect upon our inner peace simply becomes a matter of choice. And having made that choice, neither fear nor pain of death would remain to drive any action or inaction. The inner choice for peace doesnât address whether the child would or wouldnât steal the water. Itâs simply that having made that choice, only inner peace would remain, and thus whatever choice is made wouldnât be a fear-based decision. Karma doesnât exist as such from the courseâs perspective, as the focus is on our thinking rather than our actions. The course recognizes that different and even apparently disparate actions can equally be expressions of peace and love given the scenario.
What someone totally in peace and love would do in that scenario I canât exactly say. For one â while I do have my moments â Iâm not perfectly in peace and love. And two, Iâve never been in that situation. And again, the course doesnât specify actions. Perhaps the person would die. Perhaps steal the water. Perhaps wait until the family returns, and â if still alive when they do â ask to share the water and work together to find more. Or ask to work to replace whatever he had already drank to stay alive. But whatever decision is made would still be from a place of inner peace and fearlessness and love.
That would be a âperception that is in accord with the judgment of the Holy Spirit,â to paraphrase a verse from the first quoted ACIM section. Such a perception is an interpretation or choice made from a place of inner peace and love. Such a choice, using Hinduism terminology, would be a karma free or karma alleviating or good karma yielding choice; and that again is however it looks or plays out in the world. The point is that, however bad the scenario, from the courseâs perspective at least, itâs never so bad that itâs ultimately impossible for what could be in Hinduism termed a karmically good choice to be made. And as quoted from Haecker, it seems the precepts of Hinduism would agree (10).
And to the point I touched upon briefly: Surely, that incident in the life of the child, however few years he may have lived, isnât the only incident heâs lived, nor the only choice heâs had to make. Whoâs to say how many karmically good choices he made until that point? It seems entirely possible that that choice â if he fearfully or greedily stole the water â could have been the only karmically bad choice he made that entire lifetime. Itâs entirely possible, as I understand the Hinduism karma concept, that he could still be balanced more towards good karma overall that lifetime, and end up with a better life scenario next lifetime â even if he steals the water with the worst of intentions. The thought then comes, can people then just do some good stuff to balance out the bad stuff theyâre planning to do? In my understanding thus far, it seems that having such a karmically bad intention for karmically good actions negates the good karma of those actions. But Iâm no expert on Hinduism.
Haecker, Dorothy A. Adventures in Philosophy: A Study of Ideas That Change the World, edited by Peter Van Dusen, 4th ed., Dorothy A. Haecker, 2020, p. 10.
Schucman, Dr. Helen. A Course in Miracles (ACIM), 3rd ed., Foundation for Inner Peace, 2007, Text Chapter 6. Section I. Paragraphs 11 & 13; Text Chapter 21. Introduction. Paragraph 1; Text Chapter 27. Section VIII. Paragraph 9.
This article may be re-posted provided: 1) re-posted in full, 2) full attribution, including active link to this webpage (if on a website), and 3) prior notification of and confirmation from Darryl E Berry Jr. Contact me at debj@darryleberryjr.com.
Marx | Modern Communistic Society | Government | Money | Berryism
By Darryl E Berry Jr
July 4, 2020 Updated
I remember a time when I was in great uproar about society, and government, and police, and so forth.
The exploitation, and murder, and infringement of liberty, and slavery by other names. Finally, I realized that itâs apparently just one percent of âthemâ and ninety-nine percent of âusâ â or so the narrative goes.
Perhaps the disparity is even greater nowadays. Perhaps a bit in the other direction counting their henchmen. But it became clear to me that we can simply stop participating. We can make a world free of government and free of money, as I worded it. And we can do this any time weâre ready to â all of us, including âthemâ.
The people who would frequent my social media page, joining in complaining about government and police and âthe eliteâ and so forth, I began to ask them: âAre you ready to unite and make a world free of government, and free of money?â Surprisingly, some said we need government. It just needs to be tweaked some. Others said theyâre not ready, or they donât want to, and thatâs that. Some said âthe peopleâ arenât ready. They have growing to do, awareness to gather. Surely. Others simply didnât respond. And then I saw the problem of an unjust, tyrant-ruled, population-exploiting society for what it really is. The problem is not the one percent. The problem is the ninety-nine percent.
Professor Hoofard touched upon it in passing, during a hypothetical via a recounting of the Marxist position of revolt: âThe 1% can’t hold off the whole 99% all by themselvesâ (Hoofard, A, 65:25). So, itâs clear then why that hasnât happened yet. Because the ninety-nine percent donât want it to. The âslaves by other namesâ as I call us, we want to be slaves, for whatever reason. Fear. Laziness. I remember years before this, talking to someone about money and such. This person wanted the monetary system to remain in place because they hoped to one day be on the top. Theyâre at the bottom now, a peon now, âbut one day.â They donât mind the slavery because they hope to be a slave master. Iâve been there before. Insanity.
Iâm reminded of what Raghunath Cappo said:
“[I thought] I’m not greedy, I’m not angry. I’m in a band. I have no money. If you’ve ever been in a band it costs money to buy a guitar. Got a guitar, cost money to buy strings. Got strings, cost money to buy an amp. So, it’s just a money pit to be in a band. And you get paid 50 bucks or whatever. So, Iâm thinking, not me. But as my band got more successful, I realized man, there is money out there that I want. And I remember I got offered money for the first time being a band. Wow! I can get money. âI should get you know; I wrote these songs I should get more of that money.â You get in a fight with the drummer. âNo, I should get that money.â âWe should split it four ways.â âNo way I did so much more I booked everything.â And I realized wow, I wasn’t not greedy, I just had no money. I’m covered with greed. People hate the greedy, hate the rich, hate the 1%, you got to see what would happen if you were in that position” (Cappo, 37:36-38:28).
Karl Marx makes some good points with what he had. He didnât have the benefit of thinkers like Jacque Fresco and Larken Rose and Malcolm X or Bashar the Extraterrestrial and Sasha the Pleiadian or works such as A Course in Miracles. Iâll focus on just a few Marxist points herein.
Several core points he gets wrong because of incorrect fundamental premises. If Karl Marxâs position is that âeconomy determines humanityâ (Haecker, 69), then who or what pray tell makes economies? Human beings make economies. But itâs easy to see how he can have this so backwards. Heâs a staunch materialist (Haecker, 66-67). So, it stands to reason that heâd put the cart before the horse in other areas as well.
Social systems donât make people be the way they are. People, due to the way they are, make and abide and tolerate social systems. Otherwise, what social system created or made humanity in the first place? Iâve yet to see any evolutionist show an illustration of first a dollar bill or a coin, and then a monkey, and then a humanoid, and then a human being, in the progression of evolution. And this âcart before the horseâ materialist position helps to cement what he thinks the solution must be.
He apparently has this grand image of the people needing to revolt against their rulers and overthrow them (Haecker, 71). But itâs just one percent of the population. Thereâs virtually no one to overthrow. If we simply stopped participating in government, and stopped participating in money; if we were sane enough to simply stop funneling our efforts and resources into a self-sabotaging system, to instead work together with openness and honesty and respect for liberty and freedom, then the system of exploitation would be over.
Professor Hoofard presents an interesting portrait. There are two people with collective ownership of one hundred thousand dollars, each having their own view of its use, and being unable to use any of it without permission from the other (Hoofard, B, 1:05:35). And in another version, both have divided the money evenly among themselves, but one builds their wealth and the other squanders what they had (Hoofard, B, 1:09:35). In the former scenario they are equal but not free to utilize the money as they wish, and in the latter, they are free but end up unequal â and the supposed difficulty is apparently amplified with more people involved (Hoofard, B, 1:05:44).
In both scenarios both are insane. Like how Marx must view humanity, albeit apparently unconsciously. A monumental fight is imagined between ninety-nine percent of the population and one percent of the population. For some magical reason, in order to be free, the people making all the goods, producing all the products, providing all the services, are imagined to somehow need to overthrow or overcome or convince one percent of the population who are contributing nothing of value to society. Itâs so laughable to me. Those producing could simply produce for each other freely, and the one percent can then either join in peace and freedom and liberty and equality or starve.
Given the previous scenarios amplified to a sane society of people, everyone would simply recognize that âmoneyâ is just wasted resources â wasted trees/paper and metals, or waster computer space or memory and wasted electricity â and simply discontinue utilizing money altogether and work together to make abundance for everyone. The Berryist recognizes that thereâs more wealth than money as it is. Quite literally. We have so much more wealth than money that we must make up money within made-up money so there could even seem to be enough money to buy all the things we have available. Without credit people simply wouldnât be able to buy things. Thereâs literally more goods and services than money in existence â and with production and quality increasing exponentially, perhaps even possibleto be put into existence.
Credit is not money. Itâs just imagined money. Numbers on the screen that we treat as if itâs money. And money isnât even truly valuable anyway. Whatâs the difference between a hundred-dollar bill and a one-dollar bill? We decide that one can buy one hundred of those things, but the other can buy only one. Itâs completely arbitrary. But in our insanity people believe that money makes the world go around. If you were to airbrush out money and everyone kept doing what they were doing the world goes on fine.
Marx apparently said, âMoney plays the largest part in determining the course of history.â That may in fact be how it looks, how it plays out in the world, i.e. how we make it look or play out. But again, who makes the money? Who decides to give it any value or credence whatsoever? We do. And thus, by our belief and psychological investment, who chooses to give value to the tool of exploitation and destruction that the makers of the tool (the 1%) simply make up out of thin air anyway? We do.
The Berryist can see that since we in fact have much more stuff than our money can even keep up with, that we can easily do away with money and have more than enough goods and labor and services and work for everyone. Perhaps everyone will be working only 2 hours a week, or 4 hours a week, if that â in the sense of mundane, upkeep tasks. With full utilization of machinery, we could probably eliminate manual labor entirely. Jacque Fresco saw that. Leaving us with ample time available to learn, and grow, and produce art, and science, and discover, and play. But thatâs for people sane enough to see it and make it a reality. Letâs go back to our 40-hour plus work weeks for scraps.
Iâve spoken with people who have lived off the trash thrown away by grocery stores. And thatâs not counting all thatâs bought, as well as whatâs still on the shelves, and in transit. All the food thrown away after big banquets and events. Itâs clear that thereâs enough wealth for everyone â wealth in the form of resources enough for everyone to have whatever they wanted without money being involved at all if we cooperated and utilized it all wisely.
Mark Blaug shares in his article on economics an image illustrating the flow of goods/services and labor and money in a capitalist economy (Blaug). Productive services are going into businesses, so providers can be paid money by business, just so the services and products can be bought back from businesses, with the money being given back to businesses. Itâs hilarious. The entire right side of the equation â the business side and all money â could simply be eliminated, and people could just work together as human beings.
Contrary to Marx (Marx & Equality (B), 44:00-51:00), the worker bee ninety-nine percent canât be exploited by the one percept but that we choose to be. The so-called one percent are just the insane few of the insane whole who made it to a certain position in society. Be we can look next door, or in our families, or to our schoolmates growing up, or our parents or other family members, and find the same exploiters. They simply arenât in a position that people think they are âthe one percentâ and thus funnel almost all their labor to them.
Contrary to Marxism (Marx & Equality (A), 1:05:00-40), neither force nor overthrow is necessary to end the system of exploitation. Simply a cessation of participation and a choice to work together otherwise. But we donât want to. Weâre not sane enough yet; again, weâre just the exploiters who happened to not end up in the big exploiterâs seat. If you must force someone to be free, theyâre not sane (Marx & Equality (A), 1:06:00-59). Thus, the majority are greedy slaves for the greedy and immature and selfish few of us who happened into a position to capitalize off the greed and selfishness and immaturity of everyone else. Everyone, enjoy.
This article may be re-posted provided: 1) re-posted in full, 2) full attribution, including active link to this webpage (if on a website), and 3) prior notification of and confirmation from Darryl E Berry Jr. Contact me at debj@darryleberryjr.com.
The topic is whether a human being is only âstuffâ or if there is something beyond the physical components of a human being (Hoofard, 5:40-6:10). The question is: âDo you think that humans have minds/souls distinct from their bodies? Thoroughly explain why or why notâ (Hoofard, 1:09:00-1:09:45).
Given my previous writings you may already know where Iâm going with this. The question is easily solved for me. Iâve had experiences of being separate from my physical body, as a nonphysical entity that in my experience enters or enmeshes with the physical body during our waking physical states. It/we survive death, and live multiple lifetimes. To me it is an observable and experienceable fact that we have minds or souls or consciousness or what have you, that are vital to yet distinct from our physical bodies.
**
First, Iâll share an experience of mine. This is an account of my first out-of-body experience:
My First Exit. My introduction to the out-of-body experience occurred quite spontaneously. I hadnât read anything on the subject, nor seen or heard anything about it. I simply experienced getting up from bed but leaving my physical body behind! One night, when I was 4 or 5 years old, I suddenly felt very heavy and lethargic, and went to lie down in bed. It was earlier than my bedtime, yet later than afternoon â around dusk. I was so lethargic by the time I got to my bed that I had to just plop myself down and pull the covers over me. After some time, I started feeling better, and got up to tell my mother. But I found that my hand went through the doorknob as I tried to open my bedroom door. I looked back to see a lump on the bed under the sheets that I concluded was my physical body. I walked through the door and through the intervening walls into the kitchen, to contact my mother. I tried to yell for help, but no sound came from my mouth. I was able to observe her actions in the kitchen and confirmed her actions later. A few years ago, wanting to confirm my memory of this incident, I asked my mother if she recalled this. She confirmed me as a kid running up to her, telling her of having been âout of my bodyâ (Berry, 19).
This experience, among others, showed me that we exist separate from our physical bodies.
It is of note that I wasnât introduced to this topic intellectually. It was totally new to me. And no one around me â at least to my awareness â had any awareness of or interest in the topic or experience. This to me supported my experience as being valid and real, rather than something Iâd dreamt up because of something told to me, or something Iâd read or seen.
**
To me the experience would be enough. But I understand further reasons may be warranted. And perhaps I should be much more demanding of myself and have a host of reasons for my position. Some might point out that thereâs a discernable difference between the physical body/brain and the consciousness/mind, in that I can conceive of the mind/consciousness surviving without the body, but not the brain surviving without the body (Hoofard, Discussions). Simply that itâs conceivable for the one (mind), but not the other (brain), demonstrates some difference between the two (Hoofard, Discussions). Or some might argue that there is some aspect of experiential learning, or qualia, that is different than what can be learned by data acquisition alone (Hoofard, Discussions). Thus, there is some quality or state that is beyond purely physical material; something uniquely a part of awareness or experience itself (Hoofard, Discussions). Yet the philosophical argument that I am most partial to is the idea that consciousness hasnât been demonstrated to be caused by the physical brain or by physical matter.
My understanding is that the physical brain is not fully understood. So yes, it can be said that some consciousness-making dynamic in the brain is yet to be discovered. And that is the point! Itâs yet to be discovered. Thus, itâs also conceivable that gross physical matter simply cannot and does not make or produce consciousness, and that there is some nonphysical aspect to the human being that is consciousness. This notion is supported by my experiences. Unless someone can definitively show that matter can and does produce consciousness, and/or that the physical brain can and does produce consciousness, then it seems unreasonable to discount the notion that consciousness could be something beyond the physical brain or physical body.
**
A rebuttal to experiences like mine that seems common among academics is that the experiences are brain generated illusions â or other type of hallucination â and that there is no indication that the experiences are anything other than that.
I believe that people have these memories of these [out-of-body experiences when near death]. Itâs just about the interpretation⊠All we have is a story constructed after the fact⊠any weird kind of experience you could imagine, if you accept this level of evidence then you have to believe every paranormal claim out there. Because we have that level of evidence for thousands of stories that are conflicting and mutually exclusive, often culturally dependent. Itâs simply not acceptable. And we know, we know for a fact that the brain could absolutely manufacture those memories and come to absolutely believe a story like that thatâs definitely not true (Debates, Novella, 1:03:32-1:04:21).
This is a good point. How can we know if the experience is real at all? Or whether the experience is some brain generated hallucination?
**
Even earlier on I approached these experiences more from a scientistâs perspective â insomuch as I could. I understood to some extent the ideas of falsifiability, and experimentation, and evidence. And it seemed reasonable and logical that:
If the out-of-body experience is a real experience of leaving the physical body in a nonphysical state,
And if others can generate this state as well,
—————————————————————
Then two people who are in this state should be able to meet and interact and validate the interaction later.
And this is exactly what I endeavored to do. I enacted a blind experiment with my friend Louis:
Iâd decided to visit him and to make it so I could validate the experience. I didnât tell him I was planning to meet him. And before going OBE I imagined myself in a long white robe, with a golden band around the chest/ torso area of the robe. I went OBE and had a groggy experience of meeting and communicating with him in the nonphysical. The next day we talked on the phone as usual, and I didnât mention the experience at all. Louis volunteered that he saw me in the OBE state, that I was wearing a big white shirt with a gold ring around it, and that when we talked, I seemed drunk (Berry, 33).
I want to stress that in this experiment I did not inform my friend that I was going to visit him in the out-of-body state. I just knew he frequently traveled out-of-body, so Iâd likely be able to find him. Not only did I not tell him that I would visit him to test the experience, but I also didnât tell him that Iâd alter my appearance in a strange way, with the big white shirt with a gold band around its center.
So, unless scientists can explain or demonstrate how his brain could somehow hallucinate exactly what I intended to do in the out-of-body state; correlating exactly with the hallucination my brain had of the interaction; and with his brain having no foreknowledge of it at all, then this seems to be evidence that the experience is real.
As quoted earlier, Dr Novella has said: âI believe that people have these memories of these experiences.â So, given that my account is not a fabrication but a valid memory, then how is this explained as a brain generated hallucination? Or if my friendâs account is a fabrication, how did he manage to fabricate the experience exactly when he had no foreknowledge of what I intended to do â including the aspects of my appearance and state of awareness? And when I have my own valid memory of the interaction; with both our accounts matching exactly?
Iâve learned that I still have much more work to do â as far as developing and exploring the out-of-body state; and as far as establishing veridical evidence for the out-of-body experience. And Iâm actively engaged in doing so! For example, Iâve founded a research organization named Darryl E Berry Jrâs Next Density Center (DEBJ-NDC) where Iâm currently training people to out-of-body travel. Iâm organizing a team of conscious out-of-body explorers. And weâll complete the aforementioned â among other things! But this experience with my friend is certainly a great start towards adding evidence to the validity of the out-of-body state and to the reality of the independence of mind or consciousness.
Works Cited
IntelligenceSquared Debates. âDeath Is Not Finalâ. Steven Novella quote, YouTube upload, 21 June 2020, https://youtu.be/h0YtL5eiBYw.
Hoofard, Nathan Michael. Personal discussions, 1 July 2020.
Hoofard, Nathan Michael. âThe Mind Brain Problemâ. YouTube upload, 21 June 2020, https://youtu.be/IU8KlcTWrVQ.
This article may be re-posted provided: 1) re-posted in full, 2) full attribution, including active link to this webpage (if on a website), and 3) prior notification of and confirmation from Darryl E Berry Jr. Contact me at debj@darryleberryjr.com.
In my paper titled âThe (Non-Existent) Problem of Evilâ (I’ll post that as an article soon) I stated in part:
“Whatever is not love, whatever is in absence of love, every single expression, whatever form that takes, ismurder. This is because the world is entirely illusory (Miracles, P-xi). Two illusory things are equally illusory. So, from the perspective of its source in our mind â the murderousness or lack of love behind it â calling someone an unflattering name, or trying to undermine someone, or carting them off to the gas chambers, are all the same thing.”
The key to this passage, which I might not have made clear before, is the thought behind the illusion. When I say, âfrom the perspective of its source in our mind.â Thatâs the key phrase and must be included in any linear or logical telling of the argument in order to be complete. And perhaps I didnât explain that point strongly enough.
Yes, the entire world is illusory. And yes, at the worldâs level, both an apparently kind act and an apparently unkind act are equally illusory. Thatâs at the worldâs level. Then thereâs the mind level. This is what I referred to in this quote as âthe perspective of its source in our mindâ. Though illusory as well, the mind level is the level that projects this level. There is where the thoughts of fear/murder and love are shown to have you can say qualitatively different beginnings and endings because of the nature of those thoughts at that level.
“Illusion makes illusion. Except one. Forgiveness is illusion that is answer to the rest. Forgiveness sweeps all other dreams away, and though it is itself a dream, it breeds no others. All illusions save this one must multiply a thousandfold. But this is where illusions end. Forgiveness is the end of dreams, because it is a dream of waking. It is not itself the truth. Yet does it point to where the truth must be, and gives direction with the certainty of God Himself. It is a dream in which the Son of God awakens to his Self and to his Father, knowing They are One.” (Miracles, From Workbook Lesson 198).
So, for instance, I can shake someoneâs hand, and with a smile on my face. But in my mind â even consciously â I can utterly hate this person. And maybe Iâm just trying to save face or manipulate this person into getting into the car with me so I can rob him or murder him, or what have you. I had someone try to do something like that to me in New Orleans (instead of a car it would have been a ferry boat). Another time I mistook someone for someone I knew. The resemblance was remarkable. At first, he was open about not knowing me. Then suddenly this smile came on his face. âOh yeah. I know you! How are you? Where do you live??â But I could still see the deception behind his fake smile, just enough. I just walked off. But on the surface, maybe someone looking from further way, would have thought he was being friendly with me. This is a worldly level appearance of love, but with the mind level actuality of fear/murderousness.
On other hand, I could punch someone in the face, whoâs trying to rob me for instance. Not out of hate or malice. But to stop myself from getting robbed â and to stop that person from robbing me. This might be considered setting âlimits on your ability to miscreateâ (Miracles, T-2.III.3). How many times have we done something wrong, or said something wrong, and regretted it later? Thatâs the result of murderousness. Guilt. Because âyour hate is really self-hatredâ (Renard, 176). And thatâs why âevery criminal secretly hopes to get caught and to be punishedâ (Renard, 176). So, stopping someone from doing a horrendous act â even if it takes apparent violence to do so â can be an act of love. And what if you started singing kumbaya instead and the would-be robber ended up killing you, and then had to deal with the guilt of apparently wanting to rob, and then robbing and murdering. They might have an easier time just forgiving the attempted robbery. So, weâre dealing with two levels.
So yes, the world is 100% illusory, and the mind dreaming it is 100% illusory. This is speaking at the ultimate level. What we could call the Level One perspective. Whatâs real is 100% eternal, changeless, whole, and one. It has nothing to do with this universe at all, nor the mind dreaming the universe. In a sense itâs the Reality we awaken to when weâre done with the dream world. And what is not real is 100% illusory. And when I say âillusoryâ I mean doesnât really exist at all on any level in any way, shape, form, field, dimension, frequency, or what have you. I know of course it doesnât seem that way. I donât expect this to be intellectually satisfying; but itâs what A Course in Miracles teaches, and what I perceived/experienced briefly as universal mind.
And from our perspective supposedly here the world seems quite real. This is Level Two perspective. The perspective from which we seem to be here in the world. And there are two ways of looking at the illusion from this level. Thereâs a way of looking at the illusion that can reinforce the belief and experience of illusion, AND thereâs another way of looking at the illusion that can gradually break us from the investment in illusion and allow us to awaken to Reality. Both are perspectives in an illusory mind, dreaming itself to be in an illusory world. But as quoted earlier, the perspective or interpretation of love or forgiveness is an illusion that dispels our believe in illusion.
Youâd be right to say that acts of love (by this I mean expressions in the world representative of caring, concern, friendliness, etc.) and murder (by this I mean expressions in the world indicative of hatred, spite, violence even to the point of actual murder) are equalin the sense of being that both are equally illusory. But it doesnât stop there. The vital component at this level (Level Two) iswhich thought is activating the action from the level of the mind (also Level Two and illusory). Love or murder. In this sense âloveâ can be interpreted as the investment in the perspective of oneness. In this sense âmurderâ can be interpreted as the investment in the illusion of separation.
If someone broke into your home at night to rob and kill you, and in self-defense you killed them. That killing could still be an act of love â love for oneself, and the last resort to not get murdered. And it can be carried out without hate and malice toward the would-be robber/murderer. And it would even be not considered a crime in our court system. At the same time, a person could very angrily in self-defense kill the would-be robber/murdered, and still not have committed a worldly crime, but still later feel guilty because of it. Because of the thought that they chose in the carrying out of the act. The fact that we have an internal experience that is quite different depending upon which thought we choose (love or fear/murder) illustrates their qualitative differences.
If the action or inaction is activated based upon the fear/murderousness in the mind â regardless the form that act/inaction takes the world, because the world is 100% illusory, and thus all worldly forms are equal â then it will inevitably reinforce guilt, and the belief in separation, and perpetuate illusion. Even an apparently âkindâ or âgenerousâ act. Weâve been there. Done some apparently âkindâ thing for selfish reasons and felt guilty because of it; or even some overtly unkind thing out of spite or revenge â and felt bad or guilty later, even though it seemed so justified at the time. But conversely, worldly actions/inactions activated by the love in the mind â again, regardless of the form it takes â will inevitably, because of the thought activating the act, bring inner peace. And the choice for that thought will also forward the full recognition of the illusion and the awakening from the dream. Regardless of the form that thought takes in the world as far as its expression.
The âinvestment in the perspective of onenessâ can take the form of a smile, a handshake, a punch, a kick, or a lawsuit, etcetera. The investment in the illusion of separation can take the form of a smile, a handshake, a punch, a kick, or a lawsuit, etcetera. But the internal results will always be diametrically different. One results in inner peace and the recognition of wholeness/oneness (love) â and ultimately the awakening from the dream of separation. And the other results in fear, pain (physical and/or psychological), guilt, anger, malice, etc. â as well as continued belief in and immersion in the world of illusion.
Now letâs talk about determinism, and how âothersâ factor in, in a world of complete illusion. The âdreamer of the dreamâ (Miracles, Chapter 27, Section VII) aspect of the Level Two perspective represents the dreaming mind that is projecting the universe. The level of mind I briefly got in touch with. The dreaming mind is projecting or âdreamingâ this level. And thus, this level reflects the dreamer. This is mirrored at the individual level, in that the dreams we have at night reflect the characteristics of the dreamer (us). Psychologists â in my current, limited understanding of psychology â donât dismiss nocturnal dreams as just illusions and figments of the imagination and then ignore them. No. Though they are fragments of the imagination, the mind is dreaming them for a reason. They bear the characteristics of the dreamer. And they can be examined to learn about turmoil and hang-ups that the conscious mind is going through â and may not even be aware of.
So back to âdreamer of the dreamâ level that we are reflections of: Just like at this individual level our nocturnal dreams are reflections of us, we are all projections of and thus reflections of the dreamer of the universal dream. Thus, when I see fear and hatred in my mind, thatâs a reflection of whatâs in the mind of the dreamer. When I see fear and hatred in your mind, being that youâre equally being dreamt by the dreamer, thatâs a reflection of whatâs in the dreamerâs mind too. But when I see a being of perfect peace and love â Yâshua, or Mother Teresa, for example â then guess what? That must mean that love and peace are somewhere within the mind of the dreamer, too. They are equally projections of the dreaming mind. And that also means that love and peace must be present in MY mind, too. Iâm also a projection of the same dreamer.
Thus, A Course in Miracles while recognizing the world as illusory, is hardly dismissive of the world. In fact, we pay quite close attention to the world as course students. To see how Iâm judging and condemning the world â recognizing that the hatred Iâm projecting onto you is really my own self-hatred. Iâm not saying I or anyone else does this perfectly all the time. But this is part of the practice. And by forgiving you Iâm really forgiving myself. Theyâre a projection of the dreamer of the dream (ultimately you), just as I am. So by forgiving us both (the âIâ and the âotherâ at this level), I really forgive the dreamer (ultimately you). And when you learn that you âthe dreamerâ is in fact innocent of separation, youâre free to awaken (rather than running back to the illusion, tail tucked, out of guilt and fear of having supposedly sinned against Oneness by supposedly separating). And thatâs anything thatâs not love is murder. The choice for separation reflects or represents that initial moment when we supposedly separated from Oneness, supposedly fracturing it into non-existence (oneness and separation/duality canât co-exist).
Because the world is the effect â itâs being dreamt by a universal dreaming mind â everything is in fact already written. Every single action and inaction are already written. But thereâs not just one experience chain:
“The whole business is just a recording playing itself out⊠even though itâs a closed system, there are different scenarios open to you in each lifetime. Making a different choice that doesnât involve the Holy Spirit [choice for love] within the dream wonât undo your unconscious guilt and get you out of the system, but it can result in a temporarily different experience. Itâs like a multiple choice script.” (Renard, 186)
Imagine one of those novels where at the end of a chapter itâs like, âIf the hero saves the day now go to page 133, but if the hero fails right now go to page 152.â Both of those paths are already written, but we do have some say so in WHICH path weâll end up in. But itâs all already written, already laid out the moment the dreaming mind projected the universe in one instant. Itâs all happened all at once, and weâre just going through the motions like watching a movie for the second time and hoping for a different result.
So, in that sense its ultimate determinism. Itâs all already written. But on another level, itâs not âotherâ determinism, because we are the dreamer who wrote the dream. We wrote it in such a way to act out separation and perpetuate fear/murderousness and the guilt it reinforces, and the separation that that reinforces. This protects us from recognizing the reality of oneness, by making the world very real to us. Thus we protect our illusory existence. But the pain of that become unbearable. And then making a choice for love/forgiveness becomes more sought after. And this is a choice that heals the mind of guilt and pain and dis-ease. With such a choice we can potentially experience an alternate ending (already written but newly chosen) with less pain. OR, we might have the same ending or âworseâ from the level of the world â remember, Yâshua was crucified â but our inner peace wonât be affected. Because again, every outcome at the worldâs level is equal, all being equally 100% illusory. But by choosing love/peace at the level of the mind, weâll feel peace and wholeness and innocence regardless of how it plays out at the worldâs (illusory) level.
Works Cited
A Course in Miracles (ACIM), 3rd ed., Foundation for Inner Peace, 2007.
Renard, Gary R. The Disappearance of the Universe: Straight Talk About Illusions, Past Lives, Religion, Sex, Politics, and the Miracles of Forgiveness, Hay House, Inc., 2003.
This article may be re-posted provided: 1) re-posted in full, 2) full attribution, including active link to this webpage (if on a website), and 3) prior notification of and confirmation from Darryl E Berry Jr. Contact me at debj@darryleberryjr.com.
Objective Moral Law | Divine Command Theory | God | A Course in Miracles | Mind
Thereâs a question in religious and philosophical circles that goes as follows: âDo you think that there could be objective moral law, that is to say moral law independent of human opinion, if there is no God? And the answer is yes, â on both accounts. There can be and is objective moral law independent of human opinion. And God doesnât exist â at least not in whatever ilk of religious sense of God.
**
Iâm a student of a teaching called A Course in Miracles (sometimes called simply âthe courseâ throughout). And through this teaching Iâve learned a great deal. And when I say âlearned a great dealâ I donât just mean intellectual learning from reading. I mean learning in the sense of the experiences Iâve gained and perspectives Iâve partaken in through its application. As brief and fleeting as some of my spiritual experiences have been, the validity of the experience remains inviolate.
One of the things Iâve learned through the course is that we ultimately have two parts to our mind (A Course in Miracles, Ch. 12). We have whatâs called the wrong mind, or the ego, which is the part of our mind based upon and predicated on fear. Identifying with this part of the mind has us hate, and scorn, and believe in and experience scarcity and lack, and see and perceive separation and competition and division. The other part of our mind is called the right mind, or the âHoly Spirit,â which is the part of our mind based upon and predicated on love. Identifying with this part of the mind has us forgive, and extend compassion, and believe in and experience wholeness and abundance, and see and perceive oneness and shared interests and sameness.
What is called enlightenment or total spiritual awakening can be described as completely relinquishing the ego perspective and wholly identifying with the right-minded perspective. And this right mind is completely beyond the perspective of the individual. One identified with the right mind is not a human being, not a man nor a woman, but a pure manifestation of love and inner peace. Both this aspect of our mind, and the one totally identified with this aspect of mind, are totally beyond human opinion and frailty and distortion.
Another experience I have had through applying A Course in Miracles, via tapping into the perspective of the right mind, is briefly experiencing the perspective of the universal mind that is dreaming the universe. Itâs clear that there is no universal God that created us all and will welcome us into Heaven. No God of any religion exists. There is simply an insane mind dreaming a meaningless dream, and upon its awakening this entire universe or multi-verse or what have you âwill disappear into the nothingness out of which [it] was madeâ (A Course in Miracles).
This means that any moral law or choice not made from the perspective of the right mind is human opinion. And any moral law or choice that is made from the right mind is objective, i.e., completely free of and beyond human opinion. Therefore, Jesus was such a great man. He wasnât some special son of some all-powerful being running about the universe. Heâd simply achieved what all of us can and ultimately will achieve: enlightenment. And thus, he was the embodiment of the right mind. âHis Love, like Godâs, was total, impersonal, non-selective and all-embracing. He treated everyone equally, from rabbi to prostitute. He was not a body. He was no longer a human beingâ (Renard, 41). And God â an in-universe God â being nonexistent, is never involved in any of this. And to explain these last statements, the course does mention the word âGodâ quite frequently. But itâs a word used symbolically to refer to âRealityâ â what is beyond all form, and perception, and change. It alone is whatâs real and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the illusory universe of duality and form. As the course refers to God, Itâs not a being that created the universe, but an unblemished and perfect and ultimately indescribable Reality having nothing whatsoever to do with the illusory universe. In a sense itâs what we finally recognize after weâve woken from the dream of nothingness; like waking from a dream a night.
**
I imagine some non-religious folk might object quite like I might object to religious folksâ positions. I might challenge the religious to provide proof of God before trying to engage me in some banter about a non-existent God being involved in some moral dilemma. Non-religious skeptics might challenge me to provide proof of the Holy Spirit, or of the right mind. Both the religious and non-religious might challenge me to prove that â whether or not it really exists â this âright mindâ is or can be really some higher or separate part of mind, i.e., distinct enough from the individual personality to be distinct from personal opinion.
**
I really donât know if itâs possible to prove to someone the existence of the right mind. I donât know if itâs measurable, even by the most advanced technology possible in the universe. But I know itâs possible to prove it to oneself. And I am certain that we have all experienced it at one point or other in our lives. My learning informs me that that everyoneâs mind is composed of the right and wrong mind, and however identified someone is with the wrong mind still the right mind is there and informs them at least a bit at some point in their life (Renard, 399). And Iâve learned from experience that if one finds a pure spiritual path like A Course in Miracles and applies it, to the extent that one applies it the awareness of and gradual identification with the right mind is accentuated.
And similarly, I donât think I can prove to anyone else that this or that person is really listening to the right mind, or is an embodiment of the right mind, and not just deluding themselves or fooling others. And apparently, itâs easy enough to delude ourselves that we are more advanced in that regard than we are. Iâve been through my periods of âspiritual specialnessâ. And Iâve spoken to several people over the years who had convinced themselves they were embodying or âspeaking for the Holy Spirit,â when it was clear they were mired in fear in whatever form it entailed at the time. And sometimes itâs been recognized by that one directly.
The good thing is, we donât have to find someone who is or believe that anyone is enlightened. We can simply work on becoming enlightened ourselves. And by and by weâll become more and more able to âhearâ and embody that voice for ourselves. And until then, itâs clear that the world has been slowly but surely moving towards higher standards of morality through the everyday maneuverings of progress. We can use reason and logic and everyday experience to better purify our moral landscape. For instance thereâs apparently less slavery in the world â at least overt slavery â than there was in decades prior. At least in theory (or propaganda) our societies are moving towards greater and greater respect for freedom and liberty and life. The good news is that nothing in or of the world can affect the mind, which is ultimately outside of the world and in fact dreaming the world. Thus, weâre always empowered to get in touch with the level of mind and choose the right mind and experience its truth for ourselves.
A Course in Miracles (ACIM), 3rd ed., Foundation for Inner Peace, 2007, Excerpted from Text Chapter 10, Section IV, Paragraph 1; Text Chapter 12, Section I, Paragraph 9-10.
Renard, Gary R. The Disappearance of the Universe: Straight Talk About Illusions, Past Lives, Religion, Sex, Politics, and the Miracles of Forgiveness, Quoting ascended masters Arten and Pursah, Hay House, Inc., 2003, pp. 5-6, 41.
This article may be re-posted provided: 1) re-posted in full, 2) full attribution, including active link to this webpage (if on a website), and 3) prior notification of and confirmation from Darryl E Berry Jr. Contact me at debj@darryleberryjr.com.
