"Truth" and Power vs. Force


July 8, 2006
Just an ordinary day

Dear friend,

I am not “enlightened” by any stretch of the imagination or conventional meaning of the word. I am not a “guru”. I am an ordinary, average, decent human being whom you probably wouldn’t even notice if you passed me on the street. Being worshipped as an enlightened “guru” – that’s the ultimate ego-trip. So I’m an “angel” or messenger . . . so what? There are many times when I have wished that I didn’t know . . . . . but I do; and that’s just the way it goes.

I am however very honest; and rigorous honesty is one of the “prerequisites” for working a “successful” program. I have learned a little bit about how to live by spiritual principles: Love, truth, compassion, forgiveness, humility, principle, intelligence, kindness, gratitude, acceptance, consideration, respect, generosity; etc. Of course there are days that immediately after getting out of bed and putting my feet on the floor I start to think I haven’t learned anything . . . and those are very interesting days. I don’t have all the answers. I don’t need to. But I do have a good life, and today I appreciate it very much. Peace of mind is it’s own reward.

Some biographical information: I was born on my parents fourth wedding anniversary at 8:30 a.m. November 17, 1951 in Edmonton, Alberta. My mother is Metis (half Cree Indian and half French Canadian.) My father is German-Russian immigrant. In the mid 1800's his grandparents emigrated from Germany to White Russia. In 1905 his parents emigrated from White Russia to the Lancer-Preeceville area of south-western Saskatchewan.

After the war, my father stayed with the military and was posted to various positions in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. He met my mother in Hay River, N.W.T. When I was born, we lived in Dawson City, Y.T. My first brother is the first child born in the hospital in Whitehorse, Y.T.

As an aside, Chapter 11 of the Book of Daniel refers to a "king of the north" (Dawson City is pretty far north). Some Biblical scholars have formed a connection with Daniel 7, 8 and 11 with the Book of Revelation. (especially see this website which I think is particularly well done and thought provoking: www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/) Interestingly enough, I have a daughter, I solve riddles (i.e. the hidden meaning of the Book of Revelation if indeed that is what I have done) and I have a vision . . . .

We moved outside to Edmonton when I was four. Then things got really crazy as you will see if you read my story. We moved to Saskatoon when I was 10 so my father could be closer to his sales territory (the Province of Saskatchewan). Then things got even crazier. My little sister was born Dec. 26, 1962 and was kidnapped, raped and murdered in June of 1974. I had left home when I was 18 and lived in Vancouver at the time after attending the University of Saskatchewan for 2 1/2 years. I quit university after failing an exam. I was working a full-time job in the evenings and walking six miles home very night. I was physically sick, mentally tired and spiritually exhausted. Something had to give.

In July of 2004, through a series of interesting coincidences; I became aware of Dr. Hawkins book Power versus Force, the Hidden Determinants of Human Behaviour. To me, the implications of this book are astounding: It seems as though we now have a reliable guide to any decisions, based in the present moment, that we want to turn over to God for an "answer". It seems to me that this might be a good suggestion to follow for those who are interested or who will be involved in what might be a very rigorous process over the next few years.

I had some specific questions that were puzzling me and that had puzzled me for a long time. After reading Dr. Hawkins' book I realized I had a way to "answer them". (Given how and when this all manifested in my life, I must have been "ready" for it). Subsequently I decided to do my own testing following the procedures outlined in his book as follows:

I wrote down the questions on some pieces of paper, folded them up and put them down on top of my desk at work and mixed them up. Then I asked my friend Jim to help me. I read the instructions in Appendix B and we had a bit of fun getting oriented. We took off our glasses and our watches and started the process, picking up the folded questions randomly. Jim held the folded questions over his solar plexus as I tested him. I noted the results on the back of the card. I put the cards back on the desk, mixed them up randomly and then he did the same to me.

The results were as follows; and please note that these results are not random: The probability of these being random results is "2 raised to the power of 11" or 1 in 2048. According to Dr. Hawkins; should you be so open-minded; you can replicate them yourself . . . . I am interested in your results:

The level of truth of my story is > 200 Y/N; consistently yes
The level of truth of my story is > 400 Y/N; consistently yes
The level of truth of my story is > 500 Y/N; consistently yes
The level of truth of my story is > 600 Y/N; consistently yes
The level of truth of my story is > 700 Y/N; consistently yes
The level of truth of my story is > 800 Y/N; consistently yes
The level of truth of my story is > 900 Y/N; consistently yes
The level of truth of my story is 1000 Y/N; consistently no
Brian Leslie Engler is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ; Y/N; consistently no
Brian Leslie Engler is the incarnation of God; Y/N; consistently no
Brian Leslie Engler is the boy standing with one foot on land and the other in the sea referred to in the Book of Revelation; Y/N; consistently yes.

Maybe the last question should be changed to read the same as the others, that is; The level of truth of my story is > 1000 Y/N. If you read Dr. Hawkins' book, you will see that the scale is infinitely logarithmic and for practical purposes maximizes at 1,000. Wouldn't that be interesting if it were "off the scale"? I am somewhat skeptical of some of the things Dr. Hawkins states; although the technique itself seems valid.

For instance: Dr. Hawkins quite dogmatically asserts that the maximum level is 1000; this assertion is inconsistent with his own statement; on page 52 of his book, that "consciousness itself is unlimited; going on to infinity."

On page 272 he states that Christianity calibrates at a level of truth of 498 (Quite frankly, I'm very surprised it's that high). And then he states later on that the practises of "most major persuasions" which he identifies as Roman Catholocism, Anglicanism, Christian Science and many small denominations such as the Quakers calibrate in the high 500's. I don't get it. The Christian sects he specifically identifies together form well over 2/3 of the Christian religion. The last statistics I remember seeing said there were about a billion Christians on the face of the earth. Doing the math tells me that there "should be" at least about 667,000,000 people at a level of consciousness of 498.

Roman Catholocism is based on the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. I have very hard time believing that the Catechism calibrates at a level of truth in the high 500's. In addition there is all the other dogma, doctrine, theology . . . . and ideology.

If the sects he identifies calibrate in the high 500's, and if they represent as many people as they claim to, how can we still have wars? Just wondering.

In the Glossary on page 314 he defines Creation. He states specifically "A continuous process without beginning or end through which the manifest universe of form and matter is produced by repetition, starting from three points . . . in Christianity, these are represented by the Trinity (God, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Ghost).

If it is a continuous process without beginning or end, how can it "start"? Doesn't the word “start” imply a beginning? This would seem to represent a contradiction in terms. Furthermore, how could God be reduced to a "point", a place or a locality? The Holy Ghost is also a "point"? And it isn't "Jesus Christ", it's Jesus the Christ; "the Christ" being a term used to denote Jesus' unique degree of spiritual attainment. "Christ" was not Jesus' surname. See: St. Mark 8, 27-30, St. Luke 9, 18-21 and there is also a similar dialogue in Matthew but I don't know the reference.

I conclude, and it seems very clear to me, that not to differentiate the distinction between "Jesus" the man or personality, and "the Christ", the unique degree of spiritual attainment that he, Jesus (the man) attained, is a deliberate misuse of terminology by the Church. This observation has very strong and far-reaching implications.

Besides all that, Jesus the Christ himself said, " . . . The Lord our God is one Lord . . ." (see St. Mark 12, 29 - 31). Either he meant what he said, or he didn't. I like to think that he did.

I think to be more correct Dr. Hawkins should say in his definition that, “ . . . in "Roman Catholocism" these are represented by the Trinity . . .” (rather than in Christianity). Protestantism (a branch of Christianity itself divided into different sects) claims that "Jesus" is God. And then of course there is the "God" of the Book of Revelation. It seems to me that the world in general, and Christianity in particular, is very confused about "God". And yet, doesn't one large country that we both know of say on it's money, "In God We Trust"? . . . . Interesting.

Ultimately of course, there is no "rational" explanation for Creation. Creation is a function of mind, and mind is just God and Nature's way of manifesting itself. Furthermore, the more scientists examine matter (and you would be even more aware of this than I am) the more they are discovering that there is "nothing" there.

When I was in school the smallest unit of anything was the atom. Now we are down to sub-atomic particles that arise and pass away at the rate of '10 raised to the power of 23' times per second. At least that's the last I remember. Maybe it's changed already.

If I were a scientist I'd be much more interested in the "space" they arise in. What's that? Other than God? But that's not "rational", is it? These are a few of my “criticisms” of his statements.

However, using the techniques he describes and outlines, I have done some more testing and from the results I obtained (going up in increasing increments of 10 – which reduces the probablility of these results being random to “2 to the 18th power” or 1 in 524,288) the level of truth of my story is at least 980.

I stopped because I got scared. The level was getting too high. So, I don't really know where it calibrates. Perhaps you could find out? Or maybe it doesn't even really matter. (However, if you do calibrate it I would certainly be interested in your results – just as an independent confirmation.)

Additionally, (as I remember it; and I could be mistaken) the very first edition of his book that I acquired; which I gave to my daughter; calibrated at a level of truth of 750. The version I have now calibrates at 810. The last time I checked (following the basic practise of "always check your sources") the most recent version of his book apparently "calibrated" at 850. This seems odd to me: What changed?

Also, for your information, according to Dr. Hawkins, on page 272 - 274 of his book, the Lamsa translation of the Holy Bible (which I have) calibrates at 750. The King James Version calibrates at 640. The Lamsa edition is translated out of the original Aramaic language that Jesus spoke. From the historical record of the Introduction; which establishes the integrity and authority of this translation as being the most authoritative (truest) version of the Bible available; this would be the "english" version; if the Bible could be written today in the common vernacular.

Obviously the idioms and slang of Jesus' day have been more accurately preserved; and can be more clearly understood in the Lamsa translation: For instance, the phrase "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" is more accurately translated as "It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle"; once one realizes that "camel" was Aramaic slang for "rope".

The King James Version is translated out of the Greek language; so is already at least one "translation", degree of distortion, or careless translator away from being "original" or "authentic". The one simple example above illustrates what I am trying to say; the Lamsa translation is the closest scholars will ever come to the "original source".

I just wanted to provide this for "background information". In spite of these apparent inconsistencies and contradictions I strongly recommend Dr. Hawkins book to anyone who is interested.

I have also noticed that Dr. Hawkins website is directly linked to “Ramtha”. Why would that be? It’s pretty obvious that you don’t need Ramtha if one uses the techniques as outlined and described in Dr. Hawkins’ book.

Finally: While Dr. Hawkins describes what I understand as “God” as “ABC” I really do admire his work; even though he has requested me never to contact him again by asking that I take him off my mailing list. I haven’t heard from either the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury; and quite frankly I don’t expect to; but the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama was gracious enough to thank me for my correspondence specifically regarding the doctrine of original sin and the Garden of Eden . . . . . for whatever it’s worth.

I would like to leave you with these thoughts for further consideration.

May the Spirit of the God of my understanding; infinite, divine, inexpressible, incomprehensible, intangible, immutable, caring creative love, truth, compassion, forgiveness, humility, principle and intelligence be with “You” and guide “You” and support “You” in your journey through life; always.

I am most sincerely yours,

(you know who)