Gary Pollard
This week’s article will be the last in the series. It seemed good to me to do one pillar a week for this series, but this one makes five articles. That’s a bit much for one video, and takes on the spirit of something I cannot stand: debunking. That’s not my intent with this series. As has hopefully been clear, my goal is not to debunk the video (The ancients decoded reality) in its entirety, but to correct the observations where Christianity is concerned, and the implication that Christianity is no better or worse than any other world religion. I’ve stated (ad nauseam) that the overall content is excellent, there is much to be gained from his observations. But without a sound framework, it would be very easy for a believer or seeker to conclude that Christianity is just one entree on the menu. We briefly looked at the problem of Christianity’s historical approach to the symbolism and esoterism in scripture, and the need for a framework that doesn’t merely reduce the symbolism to a prosaic or literalist or unidimensional interpretation. Today we will look at the remaining pillars in Mr. Hughes’ video.
The third universal observation is: Your mind is not a camera, it is a projector. To support this, he cites many of the same ancient texts.
- What you think, you become (Dhammapada)
- The all is mind (Hermetic texts)
- The world you perceive is shaped by the mind’s illusions (Hindu Vedanta)
- The universe arises from consciousness (Upanishads)
- Reality is the moving image of eternity (Plato)
He looks to quantum physics, relying on the assumptions we’ve made concerning this poorly-understood field. He notes that observation changes the behavior of physical particles. The essence of his argument is that “two people can look at the exact same moment and come away with something different.” And, “We think they’re interpretations, but what they are is filters that reshape reality before reality reaches you.” He has some good observations here — “…the moment we stop letting fear hijack the projector, we start seeing reality pretty clearly for the first time.” His point being that fear robs us of our peace and willingness to surrender control. The problem is that there’s not really any way to confirm or deny this one, so it must be placed in the category of speculation. In my personal opinion, evidence seems to point to consciousness as being non-local. God gives each person the level of consciousness he deems appropriate, that consciousness returns to him at death, and will be “installed” in whatever kind of body we’ll enjoy at the resurrection. But this is difficult to definitively prove, and I defer again to John: Loved ones, we are children of God now, but what we will be has not yet been made clear to us. We know that when he is revealed we will be just like him, and that we will see him just as he is now. Even the inspired writers didn’t exactly understand the nature of the new body, only that our new bodies would necessarily have expanded consciousness. We cannot see him now, but we will see him when he is revealed to the world.
The fourth observation is one we will partially disagree with: The enemy is not the world, the enemy is the ego. He says, “The only real enemy is the ego. Not demons, not bad luck, not other people, not the world.” This conclusion is a false dichotomy, and does not require much refutation for most Christians. “Friendship with the world is enmity towards God.” “Our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers and powers of darkness.” To support one aspect of his point, though, we can point to James. He says that our tendency to sin comes from within ourselves — we fall prey to our own desires and become trapped in sin. So yes, our ego is an enemy, but not to the exclusion of the world and its influence or the unseen powers and their influences. The rest of his point is a discussion of the ego and its role in the psychological and social pathologies we deal with, and seems to be helpful overall.
The fifth and final observation: Everything is connected. “We see this in ancient temples and modern physics laboratories. Everything’s connected, everything’s one system, everything influences everything, that’s how everything it gets.”
He points to the famous observation from the Hermetic texts, “As above, so below.” The Kabbalah, “All creation emerges from a single tree of life.” Again, quantum physics, “No particle is truly separate, every particle has some entanglement,” and many others. His point seems to be summarized by the following: “Nothing stands alone, so every action ripples, every emotion radiates, every intention vibrates through the whole. You are not some separate node in the universe, you’re a node in the cosmic brain firing inside of infinity. And your life is not happening to you, it is happening with you, through you, and as you.”
The only aspect of this that we can confidently correct is the phrase, “You are not some separate node in the universe…” Scripture does teach that all things (and all consciousness) come from one Source. But this point is incompatible with Christianity in that each person faces their own judgment. Since he points to the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, we must point out that they also believed in individual judgment. Yes, we all come from one source and exist within one framework sustained by one All-Father. But this does not diminish the individuality each person has — why else would murder be considered wrong? If we’re all just “nodes in a cosmic brain”, what makes individual life special if consciousness is not anchored to unique identities within individual bodies? I would also point out that “as above so below” and other similar sentiments have more to do with the fact that things happening in the heavens have their counterparts on the earth. This does not necessarily support his supposition.
In summary, most of his observations and conclusions are excellent overall, and would be beneficial to implement for anyone looking self-improvement in this life. However, many of his conclusions where Christianity is concerned are flawed. If this is implemented as a self-improvement tool, excellent. But to be adopted as an overall worldview or system of religion (which is functionally what this becomes) is not something a Christian can do and still be called “Christian.”
The Preacher Pollard Blog 