Book of Life: Ascension and the Divine World Order
Sharp, Michael. 2004. Book of Life: Ascension and the Divine World Order. Avatar Publications.
Rating:
1
Summary:
In my travails across the internet, I happened upon an individual who considers himself a “mystic”. By mystic he means he communicates with god. But by “god” (as you’ll see in the review) he doesn’t mean Jehovah or Elohim or Allah or any of the other monotheistic versions of god. By “god” he means the underlying consciousness and/or energy that makes up all of us (i.e., we are all part of god); in his theology, that god is called “Immortal Spirit.”
Anyway, I read some of the stuff he had available on his website and, in light of my comments on that stuff, he sent me a copy of one of his books to review. Because I am interested in what he has to say on multiple levels, the review will approach the book from multiple perspectives. For instance, I’ve attempted to take the theology the book lays out seriously at some points in the review as some of my critiques are internal to the theology outlined in the text. I consider these “internal critiques”. I have also pointed out where I completely disagree with the theology as a skeptic or disagree with something the author says. These are more along the lines of “external critiques”. Finally, I have also touched upon elements of the belief system explained in this book that I believe illustrate how it is a social construction or how it can be analyzed from a sociological perspective. I will try to separate out these perspectives where possible.
Let me begin by explaining the theology that is presented in the text. I don’t share this belief, so understand that throughout this section I am not making definitive claims but simply stating what the book says.
The manifest purpose of the book is as a guide to “ascension.” Ascension refers to the movement up a hierarchical ladder of dimensions that are denoted by the vibrational state of matter (p. 20). In other words, higher dimensions equate to higher levels of energy. The world as it stands right now is in the lowest level, but is undergoing an ascension to a higher state. The primary goal of humanity is to attain ascension.
But, why attain ascension? Well, in order to understand why this is important, you have to understand the author’s perspective on matter and Immortal Spirit. Matter is made up of energy and is completely responsive to the will of Immortal Spirit (see page 11). Immortal Spirit is synonymous for the author with “god”, but keep in mind that it is not some entity that is separate from you or me; according to this perspective, we are all part of Immortal Spirit, at least, our spiritual component is, our body is not. Our bodies are vessels or vehicles, or as the author puts it, “Advanced life forms (humans, dolphins, etc.) are essentially physical vehicles for Immortal Spirit. You can think of them like the cars you drive. You enter them when you are awake and you use them to drive your consciousness around in. With highly advanced bodily systems, Spirit is essentially able to enter into physicality and experience it from the inside out” (p. 63). Thus, this approach maintains a notion of dualism – spirit and physical body.
How does this tie in to “ascension”? According to the author, raising matter up through the dimensional levels results in “creative intent [being] more easily manifested” (p. 18). In other words, keeping in mind that energy is responsive to the will of conscious beings, the author claims that in the highest dimensions energy is completely responsive to the will of Immortal Spirit (us). In the lower dimensions, it remains responsive, but that responsiveness has a higher energy cost. Thus, the goal of ascension is to arrive at a state where conscious beings can more easily manipulate matter. Why? I have no idea.
Moving on… This theology also includes a version of history. According to the author, three incarnations of humans have taken place. The first two failed, and we are currently in the third. The first one was called “Lumeria,” the descendants of which still exist as indigenous people around the world (see my comments on this below). This failed. The second incarnation was Atlantis; this one was completely destroyed by an asteroid (though Lumerian descendants somehow survived that impact). The third one is the current one. But in order to make this incarnation succeed at ascending, we, as Immortal Spirit (remember, we are all considered part of Immortal Spirit) decided we needed to create an alien race called “Grays” to oppress us for millennia until we were ready to ascend. At an unspecified period in the past, the Grays realized they needed to concern themselves with their own ascension and stopped oppressing humanity. However, human elites (the rich and powerful, though they are otherwise unspecified) rose up to fill the void left by the Grays and have been oppressing humanity ever since, preventing ascension in the process. Previous religious leaders (though unspecified they would likely include Buddha, Christ, and other well-known religious leaders) taught about ascension, but the elite corrupted those teachings so they could instead use them for control (p. 108; think Marx’s analysis of religion – opiate of the masses). Despite the continued oppression of humanity by the elite, it is only a matter of time before the ascension takes place and a utopia where peace abounds is ushered in. Coinciding with the ascension is some point in time when a “last globally visible wakeup call” (p. 150) will be issued. If you reject this call, the author claims you will take your own live “in abject Atlantean terror” (p. 150).
On a more individualistic level, each person has the responsibility to ascend for him/herself and participate in the ascension process with everyone else. Personal ascension involves: becoming aware of your spiritual guides (kind of like guardian angels), becoming aware of ascension, and clearing your karma (see p. 154), which is the build-up of past negative energy caused by either yourself or the share of Atlantis’s negative energy you agreed to clear before coming to earth in a body (the Atlantean’s were destroyed because they were turning energy negative instead of turning it positive; humans have to clean that energy up; see the quote from p. 87 below). Clearing energy involves taking negative energy into your chakras (yes, those points on the human/spiritual body) and pushing it back out with a positive spin on it. I get the impression this is kind of a metaphorical/figurative thing that you imagine (and the real clearing has to do with being a nice person), but given the way the book reads, it could have been meant literally.
My summary above is basically the bulk of what is covered in the book, at least, theology wise it is. The book also includes advice on a number of other topics, some of which will be addressed in my comments below.
Review:
Flaws in the Theology:
As I’ve already noted, I don’t share this worldview. That said, I believe the worldview can be critiqued internally.
First of all, I don’t believe the justifications for ascension make sense. The author claims that we ascend so we can more easily manipulate matter. I ask, why? What good does that do us? I don’t believe the author has laid out a good answer to that question in this book. In addition to not justifying ascension, there is no description of the ascended state of being. If this place is going to be a utopia, what will it be like? Suggestions like “everyone will live in harmony with an improved quality of life” are too vague, especially if the author has seen that utopia. If he’s seen what the ascended world looks like, why not tell us?
My second critique builds on the first. It does not make sense to me why we need bodies in the first place or why we chose to incarnate at this dimensional level if we are part of Immortal Spirit. If all matter is just different levels of energy (p. 36), why do the spirits – assuming they are also energy – need bodies? The author attempts to address this at two points (see pp. 64 and 88). First he claims, “Immortal Spirit standing outside of physical creation (outside the space/time tube) is limited in its ability to perceive and understand physicality. If you are a Spirit and you are not in body, all you see is a tube of multi-colored energetic mush. You can manipulate the energy in the tube but your understanding of the dynamics inside are limited because you cannot see what a Spirit in body sees” (p. 64). This reminds me of Josh McDowell’s explanation for why God had to incarnate – apparently god could not speak man’s language as a god, but he could become a man (see “Evidence That Demands A Verdict”). Apparently McDowell’s god is not all powerful, like he claims. And, neither is Immortal Spirit. For some unknown and unexplained reason, Immortal Spirit, which the author earlier argued could see everything in the space/time tube because it could be tapped into for prophecy, now can’t. What’s more, I don’t understand how having a body of a lower-level of energy would provide insight to the all-powerful spirit? This seems to me like a poor justification for incarnation.
The second justification is so energy can be re-polarized or transmuted (from negative to positive), “[W]hy do we not allow our higher selves (our souls, the angels, the archangels, the ascended masters, etc.) to collect all that energy and spin it away with love and light while we gaze in bliss at the space/time tube? Why do we insist on entering the body, falling into amnesia, and doing it the hard way. The reason is simple. Outside of the body, we only experience love. It is the physical body with its neurons, synapses, and senses that provides us with the rich emotional experience we have come to treasure. While we are not in body, we cannot feel all the energy that has been manifested on this earth. We can see the energy and its color and spin, of course, and we can adjust the energetic balance (and even “reboot” the area if we wish), however, outside of the body, we are helpless to change a particular energetic stamp. We can only change what has been done by the body while in the body” (p. 88). Again, the limitations placed on Immortal Spirit seem absolutely arbitrary. Immortal Spirit can create incarnations of man, hurl asteroids at planets, and manipulate all sorts of things. But, apparently, it cannot clean up negative energy. Why?
Without a better reason for why Immortal Spirit takes a body in the first place, I came up with my own version: we, as Immortal Spirit, are participating in a form of willful sadomasochism. We are intentionally punishing ourselves for an unknown reason since, as Immortal Spirit, we could have incarnated at the highest dimension to begin with – we were already there! What’s more, with very few exceptions, it seems that everyone will eventually ascend. If there is no “trial” or “period of probation” in this life (unlike Christianity), then there really is no point to this existence. While I don’t buy into any theology, I appreciate theologies that have clear(er) arguments for why things happen. This theology has not built a compelling case for incarnation or for ascension. Claiming god has arbitrary limitations just doesn’t cut it.
Another problem with the theology involves the manipulation of energy. The author argues that energy is required to drive ascension, “The question before us is this. How do we draw the energy we need to push physical creation past the quantum boundary point and into ascension? The answer is quite simple. We do this by turning up the polarity of the creation energy” (p. 22). While the author may have some understanding of polarities of energy I don’t have, he did not make that understanding clear. From what I could gather, he seems to indicate both that energy is neither created nor destroyed and that some how mentally polarizing it creates energy. Well, that doesn’t make sense to me. Not only is he claiming energy is not created then created, but he then fails to explain how polarizing energy “creates” energy. Polarizing doesn’t create, it polarizes. What’s more, polarizing energy doesn’t allow you to control, per se, it just changes the state (in some unknown, psychological way). I have to admit, I have no idea what the author means by “polarizing energy”. It simply makes no sense to me whatsoever. The author tries to clarify this understanding by claiming one polarity is “yang” energy and the other is “yin” (see pp. 44-54). That’s fine and all, but it still didn’t clarify what was being explained. After reading the whole book, I admit I have no idea how to manage or control the polarity of energy.
Two other points in the theology that are left unaddressed are worth noting. First, on page 112, the author talks about how Earth is somehow special, “On this particular planet, and because of its sacred place in creation…” However, the author never mentions why the Earth is special or what this particular planet’s special place in creation is. Also, the author mentions “The Source” at several points (e.g., p. 11) but never explains what it is. What is “The Source”? Given this is the author’s first attempt to create a logically sound theology, I guess he deserves some leeway. Even so, there are significant gaps that still need to be addressed.
Point-of-View:
Another issue I found quite odd in this book was the changing point-of-view (POV). This oddity begins with the introduction. It starts out in the first person singular but switches to the first person plural mid-way through without an explanation. The first few pages maintain this first person plural POV in which the author includes himself with the reader. However, on page 13, this changes, “Before we go into the details of creation, let us first discuss in more detail the last level of the Tree of Life represented by Malkuth – the physical world you live in now.” The phrasing here implies the author does not live in Malkuth. And, as you can see, the first part of the sentence is first person plural with the reader included. But the second part excludes the reader, even though the author is still talking in the plural. These changes in POV culminate when the author begins to side with Immortal Spirit, “This need to spiritually castrate all of you left us with a peculiar problem. We needed you to enter the body and do your work, but we needed to prevent you from accessing your full power so that we could avoid another Atlantean excess” (p. 92). I don’t want to imply motive here, but the impression, whether intentional or not, is that the author of this book is doing one of two things: (1) He is claiming to belong to a different dimension of existence where he lives with Immortal Spirit and communes with it as though he and it share one voice, or (2) The author is claiming to speak directly for Immortal Spirit. I don’t know what the author intended, but it is awkward and should be adjusted so it is universal throughout the book. Either the author is a man who is leading the reader by the hand through this information, or he is a mystic, who speaks as though he was Immortal Spirit. He can be both, but he should explain himself. Otherwise it will likely confuse the reader!
Along with the changing POV goes a personal pet-peeve. The author is fond of saying things like, “By now your understanding of time will have developed to the point where you can easily see that there is no such thing as a past life” (p. 41). I don’t like books where the author assumes the reader has grasped something. What if they haven’t? I don’t like that approach; it assumes something that is not necessarily accurate.
Reading this as a skeptic:
I move now from my internal critique to my perspective as a skeptic. I am an atheist who values the scientific/empirical worldview and adheres to that perspective whenever possible. As such, I require substantial proof of claims before I am willing to accept them. This is obviously a problem for this book. In fact, it’s a big enough problem that the author addresses (read: criticizes) my empiricist perspective directly, “The general spread of empiricism was a great advance over the superstition cultivated by the ancient church and state. However, we often take empiricism too far and when we do it can be used, just like we use superstition, to control the population and dismiss knowledge that is threatening to the status quo. This is what happens when scientists, philosophers, or debunkers try to dismiss spiritual experience as nothing more than a fantasy or a biological epiphenomenon. The problem here is that they extend the empiricist prescription that we provide evidence for our knowing to mean, If I don’t see it, I don’t believe it exists. This position is seductive to anyone without authentic spiritual experience. However, it is based on an erroneous interpretation of empiricist philosophy. Empiricists have never said that a phenomenon must be visible to be real. If they did, then we would have to dismiss gravity as a real and verifiable phenomenon because not a single individual anywhere has ever seen gravity. Obviously, we know gravity exists because of its effects on the natural world. In the same way, we know that spiritual experience is valid because we can see its affects on us and those around us. Unless the skeptic is willing to dismiss the experiences of the vast majority of individuals on this planet as nothing more than idiotic ramblings or the product of rank superstition (something any true empiricist would be loathe to do), then the case for Spirit has been made several centuries ago” (p. 124). This criticism misses the mark on a number of fronts. First, empiricists do not claim you have to visibly see something to believe it. So there is no reason to argue that. Empiricists accept any type of sense experience (see, hear, taste, touch, smell) in addition to compiled evidence in the form of interpersonal agreement on thoughts and beliefs (e.g., surveys). Let me explain. Sociologists are certainly willing to accept that a large number of United Statesians believe in angels and UFOs. There is substantial evidence to indicate this is true, e.g., plenty of surveys indicate as much. But just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t mean it is true. Let me give just one example. A lot of people believed there were Weapons of Mass Destruction prior to the invasion of Iraq. Just because a lot of people believed it does not make it true, as later investigation verified. Thus, a true empiricist is willing to accept a compilation of beliefs as just that, a compilation of beliefs. Until those beliefs are illustrated with sensory evidence, the empiricist will only recognize that a lot of people believe. Thus, to criticize empiricists for not believing the “spirituality” and “religiosity” claims of numerous people is missing the entire point of empiricism. Empiricists certainly do not deny that a lot of people believe in god, angels, demons, devils, and so forth. But empiricists are quick to point out that the biggest predictor of such belief is whether your parents believed in these things. If there was only one universal religion that had universal agreement in every theological tenet, it would be much harder to argue that religion and spirituality are something other than social constructions. But because religions are relative to cultures and nations, it is obvious that these things are socially constructed.
Addressing the author’s claims specifically, there are so many varieties of New Age belief that to claim they are all “authentic” and “real” is to miss the point entirely. There is no evidence that pyramids have special power. There is no evidence that crystals can heal you. Even if you grant that we have no way of measuring the power such devices might give off because it is “other-dimensional”, you can do what the author suggests and examine the influence of such beliefs on people. As it turns out, empiricists have done this (see any issue of Skeptic magazine) and there is still no evidence for such claims. In short, I do not believe the author has any ground to criticize skeptics. Until he can illustrate the “benefit” of believing in the stuff he does and show how it works universally, there is no reason to accept any of his claims. After all, the burden of proof is on the person making the extreme claim.
This leads me into one of my biggest criticisms of the book as a skeptic. In at least two places, the author claims that ascension and energy control can lead to super-human powers, “Each chakra is powerful on its own but when lined up in a straight line, fully open, and grounded they give you God like powers over physicality” (p. 69; see also p. 9). This is an easy claim to debunk. Show me the super-human or “God like powers over physicality”. If the author can show me those in a controlled, laboratory setting of my choosing, I will be willing to consider his claims. But until I see him move a mountain, or even a cup of coffee using the powers of his spirit/chakra/mind or whatever, I am going to continue in my skepticism.
In addition to the misguided general criticism of skepticism, the author makes several specific claims that are unsubstantiated by the existing evidence. For instance, he claims that in the Lemurian creation, “The ecosystems were perfectly in tune, the animals lived in harmony with nature, and the beauty and variety of life was simply stunning” (p. 58). My problem with this claim is that it flies in the face of current understandings of how nature works. Nature may seem “harmonic” in the sense that things are in balance, but that doesn’t mean they are peaceful; far from it. Nature is in balance because of conflict. Of course, you might get the impression that the author isn’t claiming that nature is peaceful. But, in fact, he is making such a claim about some non-existent halcyon days, “The Lemurians existed in peace, harmony, and abundance. Lemuria was much like the Garden of Eden is reported to have been. There was no fear, little anger, and no hatred. The civilizations of Lemuria were the glorious crowning jewels of physical creation” (p. 59). The problem with such a claim is that it does not mesh with anthropology, history, biology, or any other branch of science. Humans have never lived in some peaceful, harmonic state. There is always competition over resources at one level or another. There are no past halcyon days when everything was utopian-like and everyone was happy. That is simply a myth, and a deceitful and harmful one at that. While I may not agree with everything Howard Bloom said in his book “The Lucifer Principle”, one thing he did make clear is that it is part of our genetic heritage to compete over resources, both with other humans and with other living things. There may be a solution to that problem, but as of yet, humanity has not discovered it. It did not exist in the past and there is no foreseeable implementation of such a cure.
To be fair, the author does admit to there having been conflict in Lemurian society (see p. 61). However, according to the author, “the conflict was always minor and there was always the assumption that the other participant in the conflict was a valuable member of the family of Spirit. Lemurians understand that “I am another yourself.” As a result, conflict was never entered with the intent of destroying another person and certainly never with intent of destroying an entire tribe. The destruction of even a single individual would have been unthinkable and as difficult as cutting off your own hand” (p. 61). Again, this does not mesh with any archaeological evidence we have of tribal groups or pre-historic humans.
Another claim that struck me as extremely misguided was the following, “Indigenous populations are all genetically connected to the original Lemurian cultures” (p. 60). For those unfamiliar with this “Lemurian” culture, I would suggest checking out the Wikipedia article on Lemuria, it clearly explains that this was a 19th century land-mass theory that has since been refuted. Even so, all humans are “indigenous” to one region or another. Europeans are, by definition, indigenous to Europe. Now, just because they moved to the New World doesn’t mean they are no longer “indigenous” Europeans. All humans can trace their genetic lineage to one or another “indigenous” group, ultimately going all the way back to our universally shared African ancestry. To claim otherwise is simply to belie a complete misunderstanding of genetic and archaeological evidence.
The author also claims that the ascension began in 2003, “Now, ascension and awaking occur in 2003 and it is during that year we jump the track and begin what many have called the seventh creation” (p. 46). Well, ever since I learned of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ fiascoes of the late 19th and early 20th century in which they predicted the return of Christ, didn’t witness it physically, and then relabeled it a “spiritual” return, I have been unwilling to accept as evidence of a Second Coming anything but an actual, physical, cataclysmic event.
Finally, my last criticism in this review of the book from a skeptic’s perspective involves another element of empiricism, as the author is openly advocating overlooking such evidence, “For now, those who are interested can look for clues to the lost civilizations in our remembrances of Atlantis and Lemuria. These remembrances you can find in your own hearts and in the visions and imaginings of the more intuitive or artistic among you” (p. 53). Basically the author is saying that people should not pay attention to the physical evidence (or lack thereof), but instead to the feelings in your heart. Religions, which are based on a lack of evidence and rely on faith, use the same “method” of arriving at “truth” or “belief.” This is obviously a flawed method. For a clear example of this tactic, I refer the reader to The Book of Mormon, specifically three verses in the very last chapter of the book: Moroni 10:3-5. In those verses the reader is encouraged to pray to find out whether the book is true rather than examine the content logically and compare it with existing archaeological evidence concerning the civilizations of the New World. Feelings are not a means of arriving at truth; if they were, there would only be one religion on the planet today.
Social Construction of a New Religious Movement:
I now turn to a few examples of how this book and the theology it expounds are similar to other religions, illustrating the development of the theology is explainable through natural means. My original approach to the book was to view it as something new and novel, without building on existing religious or spiritual belief systems. By the end of the book, I realized that was a mistaken approach. The book, if anything, is actually aiming to be a unifier of New Age beliefs. This can be seen in the numerous references to beliefs and ideas that are popular among adherents of New Age groups. For example, the book claims, “Nostradamus was a special spiritual emissary who came with a sort of progress report on conditions and an appeal to get things under control” (p. 48). Nostradamus is popular among certain groups of people, despite the fact that he is only “100% accurate at predicting things after they happen,” at least, when his prophecies are re-interpreted in light of events (see Wikipedia entry on Nostradamus). Referencing Nostradamus in a positive light is going to lead believers in Nostradamus’s prophecies to be more receptive of this book.
In this fashion, the author attempts to “tie-in” numerous New Age and other religious beliefs. Some of the other beliefs the author ties in to his new theology include: the existence of alien races that have influenced life on Earth (a.k.a. “Grays”; see p. 97; welcome Raelians); worldwide conspiracies of the rich and wealthy (p. 103; though the author does not claim they are Jews, which is a pleasant turn away from white supremacist movements); a variation of “Original Sin” the author calls “Original Spin” (p. 82; this has to do with negative energy); millenialism (pp. 46-47; described as an era of “love, prosperity, and peace”); the “Good News” or “gospel” (p. 107; this is generally a reference to Christ’s message, [or should I say Paul's?]); “clearing” karma, which is awfully similar to L. Ron Hubbard’s idea of “clears” and “clearing” (see p. 153; welcome Scientologists); and “starseeds” or emissaries/prophets preparing the way for the Battle of Armageddon (p. 111).
The author also develops several ideas that are, in both concept and practice, similar or identical to those of other religious groups. For instance, he claims that science and technology were developed by emissaries of Immortal Spirit to facilitate ascension (see p. 130). This is no different from the Mormon claim that god inspired the development of new technologies to facilitate the spread of Mormonism. Both the author and Mormons then turn on technology by claiming that “evil people” abuse technology. For Mormons, it is abuse through immorality that is the problem (e.g., distribution of pornography), for the author, it is abuse through the continued oppression of people by the elite that is the problem. In both instances they are attributing development to god, as though it is the driving force behind every good thing but not the bad things that happen.
The author also encourages spreading the message of ascension, “You can lighten significantly your own karmic load (and the load of others) by engaging in collective cleanup work. You can do this by simply helping others and being of service… Soon you have an army of people running through a brightly lit room helping others light their candles. It is a very beautiful sight to see” (p. 157). As is the case with any theology or religion that wants to see growth or the spread of its message, it is required of the adherents to share their new knowledge with others.
Finally, the author, in what I am assuming is intended to be a reassurance to those who accept this message, claims that the movement toward ascension is succeeding, “For now you should understand that although the energetic cleanup has been a tough slog, we have won the day” (p. 91). I have always found statements like these in religions to be a little humorous because they almost always contradict another essential component of the theology – an existing problem, in this case, the oppression of the masses by the elite and the lack of awareness of ascension. Essentially the author is claiming two contradictory things: (1) The people of the world are unaware of ascension and are being horribly oppressed by the elite. (2) But at the same time, the ascension is going forward. As a sociologist, I see such declarations as having clear functions. The negative claim, that the world is a mess, is an attempt to draw upon people’s fear and encourage a need for the message proposed. The positive claim is a reassurance that as long as people stick with the religion, things will get better. The real beauty here is that regardless of what happens in society, be it good or bad, the religion can claim that it is right. If two countries go to war, it’s elite oppression. If a government passes legislation instituting universal health care, it’s because the world is ascending. In other words, regardless of what happens, the religion can claim it knows why and has the answer.
Conclusion:
Overall, this is an extremely problematic book. I found it very confusing. I spent most of my time trying to figure out either what was meant, whether it was made up whole-cloth, or whether it was somehow tied-in to science or religion or some thing else. The frustration here is that, for me at least, the scientific worldview is clear. It may be complicated, but it is also limited in scope and with time, can be understood. Why replace it? And why replace it with an approach that is not clear. This approach has holes, relies on non-falsifiable claims, embraces known hoaxes (e.g., crop circles), and is simply unclear. When you have to rely on so many metaphors that the bulk of the book is metaphors, I begin to wonder whether there is much substantive information at all.
I finally concluded that the book is along the lines of a “unification theory” for New Age thought (similar to what Joseph Smith attempted with Protestantism by writing The Book of Mormon). If marketed as such, I don’t see the problem, because people who embrace New Age will be the only people who are interested in embracing this book. But to claim it is anything more than a compendium of New Age thought in one book is to exaggerate the book’s contribution.
