Absolutely Human


Moving our focus away from God and over to humans, how is The Absolute expressed within our being?   If we are created in the image of God, we must declare this absoluteness to some extent.

Man in image and likeness of God, a priori, is now a power absolute unto himself only, but in terms of one, “I,” enfolding a measure of ALL, or unity. Man’s unconscious, not manifest in life, is seat of the Father living in his being to which he returns in death and through which he is returned to life. But the Father living in man’s being does not mean that the sum of mankind spells God. Creation itself, all manifestation as well as all unmanifest, is needed to spell God.

In other words, although man is the measure all things, mankind alone does not spell the fullness of God. It takes all of creation in addition to all that is unmanifest in creation to approach what we define as God. This is all well and good, but what about the image of our absoluteness which is our God-inheritance? Harold continues…

But man is made of all the powers of God, and because the Absolute, God, a priori, destroyed Himself-as-Absolute in giving of His life to man after He had brought forth His creation, man inherits a tendency toward self-destruction. This is to say, he expresses the need to exercise and know this God-power. Although he clings to life fiercely, the instinct to survive is by no means unopposed in him. Day after day he shows himself willing to risk death for reasons great and small. The suicide rate speaks for itself. Death is the absolute man expresses, but something within tells him that he cannot express death absolutely because life persists on the other side of this veil.

Because part of the absolute power of which man was made is evil, man must express his evil, even as God has expressed His evil so that only good, the constructive potential, remains in His being. But man cannot express the whole of his destructive potential in one act because this would be an absolute expression of power, entailing the absolute destruction of the manifest energy which he is. Evil-doing is now the limited aspect of absolute power man expresses. This is to say, he cannot express evil absolutely, finally, and thus destroy it – in parable, Jesus tells him this (Luke 11: 24-26). It would appear, then, that man must reconcile, recast, or regenerate his evil into something of value in life, laying down evil’s destructive potential a measure at a time in each of the many lives he lives.


And thus the need for reincarnation. In our next post, we will step aside from the Shining Stranger to inquire into what might happen to us between death and a new birth. Or as Preston Harold says above, when we fully enter into our “unconscious…the seat of the Father living in our being to which we return in death and through which we are returned to life.” Until then, peace.

The Cure for Absolutism


Preston Harold asks how The Absolute can rid itself of its absolutism:

The Cain and Abel drama presents the clue that in bringing creation as man knows it into being, the Absolute expended itself as such, having done with this evil by laying down its absolute power – which is to say, absolute power cannot now be expressed by man or God: Cain attempted to exercise ALL power, to express the absolute, to decree finality, but Abel’s blood cried out from the ground, and in dealing with Cain, the Lord did not exercise ALL power, express the absolute, or decree finality. The question becomes: how does the absolute dispose of itself?

He goes on to say that the answer is found in the words of Jesus quoted from the Gospel of John in our previous post. Jesus’ words, Harold tells us, give us the answer that

God is not now absolute. God is now power thrice stated, or twice divided – The Absolute thereby becoming Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son-energy is manifest. The Father-energy is unapparent. The Holy Spirit is transparent – is energy-as-such entirely spent in physical terms, as it yet remains in being, absolute unto itself only. In divesting Himself of His absolute power, God divested Himself of destructive potential, or the evil inherent in the absolute – divested life of the power to express the absolute or to express power absolutely or finally. Death, or the ultimate, is finished through God’s laying down His absolute life and power, through His not-being in manifestation. Because death is finished in God’s act, death is not finality for man – life is. That life can be absolutely destroyed is the lie, gives lie to the murderer.

So it is the idea that God is still one power, yet three times expressed, that rids us of the idea of absolutism when we say, “God is one.” Harold expresses this beautifully here. We can also see this idea of God’s power expressed multiply in the Hindu idea of different aspects of the one God, Brahman: Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.

  hindu trinity

We will continue exploring more thoughts on the absolute and how it applies to man made in the image of God in our next installment. Until then, peace…

Two Sides of the Absolute


Jesus showed us both sides of the coin of truth, presenting on one side the loving Father image and on the other, the murderous primeval image within mankind. Jesus contrasts the teaching He receives from His Father with the teachings the Pharisees receive from their father. Jesus and the Pharisees converse:

“You are doing the works of your own father.”

Then they said to him, “We are not illegitimate children; the only father we have is God himself.”

“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I come from God. I have not come of my own; God sent me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you are unable to hear my word. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”


Preston Harold elaborates: 

Here, Jesus takes man back to the first murderer, to the evasive Cain, traces of whose blood runs in the veins of Homo sapiens. But from whence did this blood come? Whatever man expresses or is must have its root in God, for if he received his being, his good from the hand of God, so too he received from the same source, the only source, his evil.

So God is the cause of moral evil? No, but He does bear ultimate responsibility, for it is His creation after all! In what way does God bear responsibility?

What makes of the murderer a liar, or vice versa, and how could this stem from God? The answer rests in the concept of The Absolute. Before creation was, God must be seen as The Absolute. The Absolute (however) is now seen to be evil.

In the words of Meir Ben-Horin:

The twentieth century has seen the Absolute as the Terror. Henceforth the loyalties of enlightened mankind will go out to the religions that can help them to overcome the absolute and thus to achieve a fuller manifestation of the promise that inheres in existence, in intelligence and in love.

Any form of fundamentalism cannot be this religion, as can be observed especially in radical Islam where Allah is taken to be terrorismabsolutely absolute. This Allah is a complete dictator, and those who serve him certainly believe that they are doing “the will of their father” in serving him and his commands absolutely. This absolutism is certainly one way to understand God, although the fruits don’t seem to serve creation in a faithful way. In the next post we will look at the possible cure for the “God as Absolute” delusion. Until then, peace…

A Contradiction and a Reconciliation


Jesus said, “For as the Father raises the dead and makes them live, so the Son makes anyone live whom he chooses. Indeed the Father passes judgment on no one; he has committed the judgment which determines life or death entirely to the Son, that all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father.” John 5: 21-23

Of this Preston Harold says,

Here, Jesus declares that the judgment of God on man is: life. The Father “Makes them live.” Yet, he says that the Son determines who shall live.

How can this contradiction be reconciled? If all are to live according to the Father, then why does the Son get to say “no” to the Father’s judgment and decide for himself who will live? Are they at odds with one another? Harold begins to explain:

The concept offered by this study is that the judgment of God is not to be made, but has been made, and that each person has been committed to eternal life. The only judgment God could in justice render is His own self-judgment, for He is man’s Creator. In justice, then, God cannot, does not judge man. He has committed man to life everlasting.

Okay, so there is Harold’s ruling from the Father’s point of view. Now he will explain what it means for the Son to determine who will live:

Jesus indicates that the God-cell in man, his Authority-Ego, judges his own world of selves, “himself,” or ego-group. Thus, Jesus says that the Son makes anyone live whom he chooses. The interpretation of these words offered by this study is that in the conscious domain man constantly creates images of others and refashions his own self-images. In sum, these create his personality. Within the whole of him they are as the sands of the sea. Through rebirth (reincarnation), the Son within each person makes any one of these images live whom he chooses. That is, one’s Authority-Ego determines which of the faces that compose his personality are to be carried on in the unconscious domain and which are to return to life in the conscious domain. (Parenthesis mine)


What can we conclude from this insight of Harold’s? He will tell us himself…

Thus, only “ vestiges” of former egos return to consciousness…Those of the ego-group which have loved and been loved, those which have learned, those which have been tried and found true are of the “other fold” within. Those which have erred and those untried, ignorant, or found wanting are returned to consciousness to experience good and evil that they may become conscious of life as it operates in truth and reality. To those in the conscious domain, the superego ministers.

I hope you have enjoyed this post; it was most enlightening for me! Until next time, peace…

Reincarnation Ruminations


Before we continue with Harold’s thread on reincarnation, I thought it might be a good idea to make a quick general overview of some thoughts on subject.

Reincarnation is the doctrine that a person’s soul or spirit returns to life in a new physical body after it dies. A central tenet of religions of the East, in the West (read the Abrahamic faiths) it has mostly been rejected as an official doctrine in favor of the doctrine of an eternal afterlife in a heaven or hell, and/or a final ontological resurrection. One of the main differences in these doctrines between East and West seems to hinge upon each culture’s overall understanding of time. In the East, time is mainly viewed as cyclical, wherein the same patterns are repeated over and over, whereas the West views time as predominantly linear, a historical process with no real “do overs” and which culminates in a final end. But what if this East/West dichotomy isn’t an either/or issue but rather a both/and one? Where would that lead us?

In his “Covenant of the Heart” Valentin Tomberg, a traditional Roman Catholic, writes from the both/and perspective: 

The view that repeated earthly lives are possible belongs to the realm of freely acceptable or rejectable opinions. In particular, Jesus Christ himself basically indicated this view by saying to his disciples regarding John: “And if ye will receive it, he is Elijah who was to come (Matt. 11,13). “If ye will receive it”: nothing can clearly and surely express the fact that the reappearance of Elijah in John – and with it the entire complex of reincarnation – does not belong to the essential truths of salvation, but to the sphere of freely acceptable or rejectable opinions. Correspondingly, the antithesis of reincarnation – that there exists only one single life on earth – also belongs to the realm of opinions freely open for acceptance or rejection…. For a Christian who is wholly oriented toward the ideal of resurrection and who at the same time is convinced (through experience) of repeated earthly lives, reincarnation signifies the possibility granted by divine goodness and mercy for every human being to tread the whole path of earthly experience in fulfillment of the earthly task until its completion, i.e. until resurrection. Reincarnation means to him a step-by-step preparation for resurrection as an overcoming of death…. For just as the ideal state of eternal remembrance (unforgetting) is preceded by a rhythmic alternation of forgetting and remembrance – and as the ideal state of full awakening of consciousness is preceded by rhythmic alternation of sleeping and waking – so for the Christian who is convinced of reincarnation, the ideal state of deathlessness (resurrection) is preceded by the rhythmic alternation of death and birth.


What do YOU think? We’ll continue whith Preston Harold’s thoughts in our next post. Until then, peace.

Born Again


Dr. Rolf Alexander says, “if we accept the idea that the development of consciousness is the great purpose behind evolution, then the scrapping of each individual human mind at death of the physical body would be a most wasteful, tedious, and unnecessary process…. At every stage in the development of the embryo, there is evidence that a phase of the mind directing the construction detaches itself from the process and moves ‘upstairs,’ as it were, to initiate new construction on a higher level.”

Preston Harold says this “moving upstairs” is what the Authority-Ego appears to do also after birth is accomplished. Speaking as it’s symbol, Jesus says, “I go to prepare a place for you…I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am you may be also.” –John 14:3-4

Harold states:

Jesus’ acceptance of the principle of reincarnation is simple, final, and basically interwoven into His message – He says, “Ye must be born again.” If Jesus is true, this statement must be true as regards conscious rebirth in life and rebirth into life after death.

 When Nicodemus asks Jesus concerning rebirth “how can these things be?” (John 3:3-9) Harold says…

Jesus will not elaborate. He never allows the principle of rebirth to become involved in the fantasy attending it – such as the transmigration concept of human soul entering animal flesh – or with the concept that the chain of births leads finally to escaping the world. To Nicodemus, Jesus simply says that eternal life is the goal. Being reborn “from above” indicates a process to insure the growth and enrichment of consciousness or life through bringing to this domain the treasure of the unconscious. He says: “If I have told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” The concept of rebirth into life is touched upon when Jesus says to the thief on the cross next to His, “Verily I say unto you, today you shall be with me in paradise.” Paradise, Eden, is the womb of life as Scriptures depict it.


I suppose when discussing the idea of reincarnation, one must ask him or herself the question of whether or not they agree with the statement made by Dr. Alexander at the beginning of this post: “Do I accept the idea that the development of consciousness is the great purpose behind evolution, or the ultimate meaning of the universe and my existence?” If one cannot agree with this statement, the idea of reincarnation may seem to be completely unnecessary or futile. As we continue discussing it, though, I would humbly ask you accept the idea for argument’s sake, as it is certainly necessary to Harold’s overall thought process in The Shining Stranger. We continue our reincarnation ruminations in the next post. Until then, peace…

Original Sin?

To begin Chapter 5, “Original Sin and Saving Grace,” Preston Harold does a brief recap of the Noah story and it’s meaning:

If one accepts the Noah legend as the “tell” describing the physical birth process of man, placement of the story of the flood in the Genesis chain of legends after the Eden legend indicates that man has lived before, so that his physical birth bespeaks a re-creation of himself wherein a son-self takes the place of the father-self which subsides, as Noah does, although a part of the psyche may glimpse it (represented by Ham). And placement of the Cain-Abel legend before the flood legend indicates that man has sinned in a prior expression of himself in conscious embodiment. The Noah legend indicates man is aware of his unclean forces. (parenthesis mine)

Based on this recap, he then tells us his interpretation of “original sin:”

Thus, man comes into new conscious embodiment bearing his own sin, “original” only in the sense that he, himself, committed it. His anxiety is that of an adult amnesia victim: he does not know what he has done, who he is, how he came to lose his prior consciousness, and if he presents himself to the authorities he must face the fact that he could have committed any crime, although in his new consciousness he is utterly innocent of it. Because man never recovers from infant amnesia, he fears to face his inner, knowing Authority. But the Noah legend indicates that man comes into each new birth to start life afresh with his clean forces represented sevenfold, (Genesis 7:2) although his unclean forces are still present…

Amnesiacs Convention.

For Harold original sin is a consequence of forgotten past deeds that “missed the mark,” performed in previous lives but forgotten in present embodiment. Therefore, Harold says that overall these Genesis legends point towards the reality of reincarnation. Beginning with our next post we will enquire into the witnesses of scripture, Jesus, and traditional views regarding the validity and possibility of reincarnation. Until then, peace.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 79 other followers