Reality by the Numbers; Why the universe is mathematical

I did not arrive at sacred geometry as a novelty or a curiosity. I arrived there the same way I have arrived at most of the insights that have stayed with me—by following a thread that kept showing up no matter where I turned. The deeper I explored Logos, consciousness, information, and the intelligibility of reality, the more I realized that form itself was speaking. Not loudly. Not dogmatically. But persistently. Sacred geometry, for me, was not an add-on to faith. It was a quiet confirmation that reality is ordered, meaningful, and participatory all the way down.

My journey with Logos began, as so many things do, with the question of coherence. Why does reality make sense at all? Why is the universe intelligible to the human mind? Why does mathematics describe nature with such uncanny precision? These questions led me backward historically—to Heraclitus, to the Stoics, to Philo, and ultimately to John’s Gospel. What I found was not a fragmented trail of ideas, but a single stream flowing through time: the intuition that reality is structured by an ordering intelligence, and that human consciousness participates in that order.

Sacred geometry sits naturally within that stream. It is not mystical decoration or hidden symbolism reserved for the initiated. At its core, it is simply geometry experienced with reverence. It is the recognition that form, proportion, and relationship are not accidental byproducts of matter, but expressions of an underlying intelligibility. Geometry is number extended into space, and number, properly understood, is not quantity alone but ratio—relationship, balance, harmony. Sacred geometry is what happens when we notice that those relationships repeat themselves across scales, from galaxies to shells to the architecture of the human body.

Long before Logos was named, this intuition was already present. Pythagoras famously said that all things are number, but what he meant was not digits floating in the cosmos. He meant that reality is relational, ordered, and harmonious. Musical intervals obey ratios. Planetary motion follows patterns. Nature is not chaotic improvisation; it is structured expression. This realization was never meant to replace God. It was meant to honor the coherence of creation. To say “all is number” was another way of saying “creation has grammar.”

Plato deepened this insight by suggesting that geometry reveals something eternal beneath changing appearances. Forms endure even as matter flows. Proportion remains even as expressions vary. Geometry, for Plato, was not merely practical knowledge; it was contemplative. It trained the mind to recognize order beyond surface change. This is why geometry was considered preparatory for philosophy and wisdom. It attuned the soul to intelligibility itself.

Heraclitus, though less geometric and more poetic, pointed to the same truth. Everything flows, yet nothing collapses into chaos. The river changes, but it remains a river. Fire transforms, but it follows law. Logos, for Heraclitus, was the hidden order that makes becoming coherent. Sacred geometry answers the implicit question Heraclitus raises: what holds becoming together? The answer is pattern. Not rigid stasis, but structured flow.

The Stoics took this further and made Logos cosmic. For them, the universe itself was alive with reason. Logos was the rational fire shaping matter from within. Nature was not something opposed to God; it was the expression of divine reason. Human rationality, in this view, was not separate from cosmic order but a participation in it. To live virtuously was not to obey external commands but to align with the structure of reality. Geometry, symmetry, and proportion were not abstractions; they were how Logos shaped the world.

Philo of Alexandria stands at a crucial junction in this journey. As a Jewish thinker immersed in Greek philosophy, he wrestled with how a transcendent God could create and sustain an intelligible world. His answer was Logos. Logos became the mediating principle—the divine reason through which God orders creation. Geometry, in this framework, was not God itself but the intelligible blueprint of creation. God is beyond comprehension, but God is not beyond expression. Creation reflects divine wisdom through order, measure, and proportion.

By the time we reach the Gospel of John, the Logos tradition is already rich and well-established. When John writes, “In the beginning was the Logos,” he is not inventing a concept; he is gathering centuries of insight into a single, radical claim. Logos is not only the ordering principle of reality—it can be lived. Embodied. Revealed in a human life fully aligned with it. Jesus does not negate the Logos tradition; he fulfills it relationally. He shows what it looks like when human consciousness is no longer divided from divine order.

This is where sacred geometry finds its rightful place in my spiritual journey. Geometry shows me that order exists. Christ shows me how to inhabit that order with love. Geometry reveals structure; Jesus reveals heart. Sacred geometry does not tell me how to be saved, nor does it demand my allegiance. It simply reminds me that creation is coherent, that meaning is woven into form, and that intelligibility is not imposed by religion but discovered through attention.

I do not worship geometry. I do not treat shapes as talismans or numbers as destiny. That is where sacred geometry becomes distorted and loses its grounding. When geometry is used as power, control, or secret knowledge, it becomes superstition. But when it is approached as contemplative recognition—as a way of seeing the order that already is—it becomes reverent rather than manipulative.

As a follower of Jesus, this matters deeply to me. My faith has never been about narrowing reality into a fragile belief system that must be protected from inquiry. It has been about widening my awareness of God’s presence everywhere. If all things came into being through the Logos, then form itself carries meaning. Paying attention to that meaning is not rebellion against Christ; it is reverence for the Logos he embodied.

Sacred geometry does not compete with grace. Grace does not abolish structure; it redeems our relationship to it. Grace frees us from fear, not from intelligibility. The more I have leaned into this understanding, the more integrated my spirituality has become. Science, philosophy, mathematics, and faith no longer feel like rival camps. They feel like different dialects describing the same underlying reality.

In the end, sacred geometry is not something I believe in. It is something I notice. It keeps me grounded in the sense that reality is not arbitrary, that love is not floating on top of chaos, and that meaning is not a human invention projected onto an indifferent universe. Creation has grammar. Logos is that grammar. Geometry is its handwriting. And Jesus shows me how to read it with compassion rather than control.

My journey has not been about replacing faith with pattern, but about seeing pattern as one more way faith is already present.

Reality By the Numbers: A Jesus follower looks at numerology

 

I did not come to numerology looking for something to replace Jesus. I came to it the same way I have come to most things on my spiritual journey—by paying attention. By noticing patterns that refused to go away. By asking why certain structures repeat themselves across nature, scripture, consciousness, and lived experience. And most of all, by refusing to believe that God, who is infinite, could only speak through one narrow religious vocabulary.

Numerology, at its core, is not fortune-telling. It is not superstition. It is not an attempt to manipulate reality. It is an attempt to listen to structure. To recognize that creation is ordered, patterned, rhythmic, and intelligible. Scripture itself testifies to this long before modern science ever did. “You have ordered all things by measure and number and weight.” That is not New Age language. That is biblical language.

If reality were chaotic at its foundation, numbers would be meaningless. But reality is not chaotic. It is coherent. It is lawful. It is relational. And numbers are simply the language we use to describe those relationships. When I say numerology makes sense, I am not claiming that numbers are magical objects floating in the universe. I am saying that number reflects order, and order reflects intention. And intention points toward Mind.

God does not create randomly. God creates meaningfully. And meaning always has structure.

From the beginning, the biblical story is numeric. Creation unfolds in rhythm—days, cycles, repetitions. Covenants are marked by numbers. Israel is structured numerically. Jesus chooses twelve. Revelation is saturated with symbolic number. These numbers are not there to satisfy curiosity; they are there to communicate pattern. Number, in scripture, is not trivia. It is theology expressed structurally rather than propositionally.

This makes sense if God is Logos.

If the Logos is the divine ordering principle through which all things come into being, then creation itself must be intelligible. Not merely poetic, but structured. Not merely emotional, but patterned. Logos is not just spoken Word; it is rational coherence. It is meaning made manifest. It is the architecture of reality.

When I say Christ is the Logos, I am not saying Jesus came to cancel structure. I am saying he came to reveal it from within. Jesus did not oppose order; he opposed lifeless religion. He did not dismantle meaning; he restored it to love. He did not reject the law; he fulfilled it by embodying its intent rather than enforcing its letter.

Numerology, rightly understood, is not about control. It is about recognition.

It is recognizing that just as music is governed by ratios, harmony, and frequency, so human experience unfolds within patterned expressions of being. No one thinks music dishonors God because it obeys mathematical ratios. On the contrary, music reveals beauty precisely because it is ordered. Numerology is closer to music theory than it is to magic. It listens for resonance. It pays attention to themes. It notices recurring motifs.

And if consciousness is fundamental—as I believe it is—then experience itself will reflect pattern. Consciousness does not express randomly; it expresses meaningfully. Each life becomes a particular expression of the infinite. That expression, like a musical phrase, has a shape.

Numbers do not determine us. They describe us.

This is where many Christians get nervous. They assume that acknowledging structure undermines freedom, or that pattern negates grace. But grace does not abolish structure; it redeems it. Grace does not erase identity; it awakens it. Grace does not flatten creation into sameness; it honors diversity without hierarchy.

If God delights in diversity, then why would it trouble us that lives unfold differently? Why would it offend faith to say that people express the divine through different emphases—leadership, compassion, contemplation, creativity, service? We already say this when we talk about spiritual gifts. Numerology simply approaches the same truth through symbolic mathematics rather than ecclesiastical language.

And here is the key point: numerology does not replace discernment; it invites it. It does not tell me what to do; it helps me understand how I tend to be. It does not override the Spirit; it gives me language to recognize how the Spirit already moves within me.

As a follower of Jesus, my authority is not a system. It is love. If something leads me toward greater compassion, humility, self-awareness, and freedom from fear, I do not dismiss it simply because it did not come with an ecclesiastical stamp. Jesus himself refused that logic.

What matters is fruit.

Numerology has helped me see myself more honestly, not more proudly. It has helped me understand my tendencies, my blind spots, my strengths, and my growth edges. It has not told me who to worship. It has not asked for my allegiance. It has simply mirrored patterns I already lived but did not yet have language for.

That is not idolatry. That is insight.

The fear that numerology competes with God assumes a fragile God. I do not believe in a fragile God. I believe in a God whose truth is vast enough to appear in many forms without being threatened by them. A God who speaks through nature, through reason, through pattern, through symbol, through silence. A God who does not panic when humans notice how creation is ordered.

Jesus did not come to narrow our vision. He came to awaken it.

When I engage numerology, I do so prayerfully, humbly, and non-absolutistically. I do not let numbers define my worth or dictate my choices. I let them illuminate tendencies so I can live more consciously, love more generously, and participate more fully in the life of God.

That is not divination. That is discernment.

And ultimately, numerology makes sense because reality makes sense. Because creation is intelligible. Because Logos precedes language. Because God is not chaos but living order. And because Jesus did not come to sever us from the structure of creation, but to reconcile us to its meaning.

If all things were made through the Logos, then paying attention to the patterns of creation is not rebellion—it is reverence.

And if love remains the measure, then nothing that deepens understanding, compassion, and humility stands outside the way of Christ.

 

Giving is Love in Motion

Giving, when stripped of fear and obligation, is simply love in motion. It is not a religious requirement, not a spiritual tax, and certainly not a transaction designed to keep God appeased or blessings flowing. Giving, at its truest level, is the natural movement of love once it has been received, believed, and allowed to soften the heart. Love does not stagnate. It circulates. It moves. And when it moves through human lives, it often takes the form of generosity.

Much of what has gone wrong around giving in religious spaces comes from beginning in the wrong place. Too often, giving is introduced before grace is experienced. It is framed as duty before it is framed as delight, as obligation before it is framed as participation. When fear becomes the engine—fear of lack, fear of divine disapproval, fear of falling behind—giving becomes distorted. It becomes heavy. It becomes anxious. And instead of expressing love, it quietly erodes trust, both in God and in ourselves.

Grace changes the starting point entirely. Grace announces that nothing is missing, nothing is withheld, and nothing must be earned. It tells us that we already belong, already matter, already participate in the life of God. When this settles into the soul, something remarkable happens: the clenched fist loosens. The nervous calculation relaxes. We no longer give to secure ourselves. We give because we are secure.

Jesus never invited people into generosity through threat or pressure. He revealed abundance by embodying it. He gave himself freely—his time, his attention, his compassion, his presence—without keeping score. He trusted that when people encountered love unconditioned by fear, they would begin to live differently. He did not demand generosity; he awakened it. And that distinction matters more than we often realize.

In this light, giving is not about losing something; it is about allowing love to keep moving. Love that stops flowing turns inward and becomes anxiety. Love that flows outward becomes joy. This is why generosity, when it is healthy, feels expansive rather than draining. It aligns us with the deeper truth that life itself is shared, relational, and communal. We are not isolated containers meant to hoard resources. We are conduits, participants in a larger circulation of care, creativity, and compassion.

The old language of sacrifice has often obscured this reality. Sacrifice implies loss, pain, and deprivation. But love does not require self-erasure to be meaningful. Love expresses itself through alignment, not self-punishment. Giving that arises from grace feels more like resonance than sacrifice. It feels like supporting what is already nourishing us, what is already helping us awaken, heal, and grow.

This is why rigid formulas around giving, including absolutized tithing rules, often miss the heart of the matter. Structure can be helpful, but structure without freedom becomes control. Generosity is not measured by percentages but by openness. Some will give financially. Others will give time, wisdom, creativity, encouragement, or presence. All of it matters. All of it counts. Love is not interested in uniformity; it is interested in sincerity.

Encouraging people to give, then, is not about pressure or persuasion. It is about trust. Trusting that when people experience genuine value, genuine care, and genuine spiritual nourishment, generosity will arise naturally. People invest in what brings life. They support what helps them become more whole. They give where love has already taken root.

This approach removes manipulation from the equation. There is no need to threaten people with loss or entice them with exaggerated promises of return. Instead, the invitation is simple and honest: if this work adds value to your life, if it helps you awaken, heal, or grow, consider supporting it so it can continue and be available to others. That kind of invitation honors autonomy. It respects conscience. It allows generosity to remain an expression of freedom rather than compliance.

Ironically, this gentler approach often leads to deeper and more sustainable generosity. When people are trusted, they tend to rise to that trust. When fear is removed, joy has room to emerge. And when joy enters giving, generosity becomes less sporadic and more rhythmic, less reactive and more intentional.

At its core, giving is not about funding institutions or sustaining systems, though it certainly does that. Giving is about participating in the flow of love that is already moving through the world. It is about saying yes to connection, yes to shared purpose, yes to the idea that what has been freely received can be freely shared.

Love does not need to be coerced to move. It only needs to be recognized. And once recognized, it rarely stays still.

A Life of Grace and Love

When Paul says, “Sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace,” he is not offering a moral strategy or a religious pep talk. He is announcing a change in reality. Dominion is about rule, power, governance—about what actually has authority over the inner life. Paul is saying that something fundamental has shifted in how human beings relate to God, to themselves, and to the forces that once held them captive. This is not about trying harder to be better people. It is about waking up to the fact that the old system of control no longer applies.

To be “under law” is to live inside a framework of measurement. Law constantly evaluates, compares, exposes, and condemns. Even when it points toward what is good, it does so from the outside. It tells you what you should be without giving you the inner capacity to become it. Over time, law shapes a consciousness of lack—never enough, never quite there, always falling short or trying to prove worth. Paul understood that law, however holy or well-intentioned, cannot transform the human heart. In fact, it often strengthens the very thing it tries to restrain, because it keeps the ego locked in fear, striving, and self-preoccupation.

Grace, by contrast, is not a softer version of law. It is an entirely different atmosphere of being. Grace does not begin with behavior; it begins with belonging. It does not threaten; it assures. It does not motivate through fear of punishment or hope of reward; it transforms by revealing that we are already held, already loved, already included. Under grace, identity comes first, and behavior follows naturally—not through pressure, but through rest.

This is why Paul can say that sin no longer has dominion. Sin, at its deepest level, is not merely bad actions. It is a state of alienation, a consciousness shaped by fear, shame, and separation. Sin rules where fear rules. Sin gains power where the self is fragmented, anxious, and trying to secure itself through performance or rebellion. When grace enters, that entire ecosystem collapses. Sin loses its authority not because it is wrestled into submission, but because the conditions that sustained it are removed.

This is where the words of the author of First Epistle of John 4 bring the picture into sharp focus: “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment.” That sentence alone dismantles much of what passes for Christianity. Fear and punishment belong together. They arise from the same soil. And where fear governs the soul, sin will always have leverage. Fear produces either paralysis or compulsion. It drives people to hide, perform, rebel, or numb themselves. It never produces freedom.

Perfect love does not manage fear—it expels it. Love and fear cannot coexist as ruling principles. When fear is cast out, sin has nothing left to work with. Its threats no longer land. Its accusations lose their bite. Its compulsions weaken. Love does not say, “Behave, or else.” Love says, “You are safe.” And from safety flows honesty, healing, and change.

This is why grace is not permissiveness, despite how often it is caricatured. Grace is not God looking the other way. Grace is God stepping so close that fear dissolves. Grace does not ignore sin; it renders it powerless by addressing its root. When fear of punishment is gone, the nervous system relaxes. When shame is lifted, the self no longer needs to defend or disguise itself. When belonging is assured, the heart opens. Transformation becomes organic rather than forced.

Paul’s insight aligns perfectly with this Johannine vision of love. Law governs through fear of consequence. Grace governs through the assurance of love. Law says, “Do this so you may live.” Grace says, “You live—now learn how to be who you already are.” One system produces reformation at best, and burnout at worst. The other produces transformation, because it works from the inside out.

What is so often missed is that grace does not make sin irrelevant; it makes sin unnecessary. When the soul is no longer trying to earn worth or avoid rejection, destructive patterns lose their purpose. Sin is exposed not as wicked pleasure, but as a misguided survival strategy. Grace replaces survival with trust. Love replaces fear. Rest replaces striving.

This is why Paul’s declaration is not naïve optimism. It is spiritual realism. Sin cannot rule where fear has been evicted. And fear cannot survive where perfect love is known—not as an idea, not as doctrine, but as lived experience. The tragedy of much religious teaching is that it tries to drive out sin by intensifying fear, which only strengthens sin’s grip. Paul and John both point us in the opposite direction: freedom comes through love.

And none of this negates the ethical teaching of Jesus. It fulfills it. Grace does not abolish love of neighbor, compassion, forgiveness, humility, or self-giving—it creates the inner space where those things can arise naturally. Jesus’ ethics were never meant to be enforced through fear or guilt; they were meant to flow from a transformed heart. The more grace and love one truly experiences and believes in, the more Christlike one becomes—not by imitation, but by participation. This is not a condemning vision of the spiritual life; it is a liberating one. Love takes the throne, fear steps aside, and what once had to be commanded becomes simply who we are.

Follow this blog for all of the updates

A Hermeneutic of Compassion

I want to assure you I am not assuming ignorance here. I offer this definition of hermeneutics so that any unfamiliar with the term will not have to look it up. “A hermeneutic is simply the lens through which we interpret meaning—especially in texts that carry weight, authority, or sacred significance. It acknowledges that no one reads neutrally; we all bring assumptions, experiences, and values to what we read. A hermeneutic asks how we interpret before arguing what we believe. In matters of scripture, it determines whether a text becomes a source of wisdom and transformation—or a tool of fear and control.”

I no longer believe fear is a reliable guide to truth—especially spiritual truth. If God is truly the source of life, then God cannot be fundamentally opposed to love, mercy, or human flourishing. Any image of God that relies on fear to shape behavior deserves careful reexamination. Fear may control behavior for a time, but it does not transform the heart.

Sacred texts were never meant to be read as legal transcripts dictated from heaven. They are records of human encounters with the divine—filtered through history, culture, trauma, hope, and awakening. Treating every line as equally prescriptive flattens what was meant to be lived, wrestled with, and discerned. Depth is not disrespect; it is a sign of spiritual maturity.

Within these sacred writings exist laws meant to restrain harm, stories meant to carry wisdom, and warnings shaped by moments of crisis. But woven quietly through them are moments of genuine mystical insight—visions of unity, compassion, and divine nearness. These moments were never meant to be overshadowed by fear-based interpretation. They are the heart of the text, not its margins.

When God is framed primarily as judge, ethics become about compliance and conformity. When God is understood as a benevolent source, ethics flow naturally from identity. People care for one another not because they are threatened, but because harm no longer makes sense. Relationship accomplishes what rules never could.

I do not believe God is interested in a legal or constitutional relationship with humanity. Love does not operate by contracts, and grace is not a reward for correct belief or perfect behavior. A truly gracious source does not need constant surveillance to remain sovereign. Trust, not fear, is the foundation of genuine transformation.

The problem was never that sacred texts exist. The problem is how we were taught to read them—without layers, without context, and without compassion. Symbol became statute, poetry became policy, and mystery became control. In that process, something essential was lost.

A compassionate reading does not discard difficult passages; it situates them. It asks what fear, survival, or historical pressure shaped them. It distinguishes between eternal wisdom and temporary scaffolding. Discernment is not rebellion—it is responsibility.

I believe the highest revelation is not law but love, not sacrifice but mercy, not obedience but transformation. Any interpretation that hardens the heart or justifies harm has missed the point, regardless of how religious it sounds. Truth that diminishes compassion is not truth fully seen. The divine does not contradict itself.

Sacred texts were meant to be companions on the journey, not weapons in cultural or theological battles. They invite reflection, humility, and inner change—not domination or exclusion. When read through compassion, they regain their power to heal. When read through fear, they lose their soul.

The ultimate test of any spiritual interpretation is not how strictly it enforces belief, but what kind of humans it produces. Does it make us kinder, more patient, more generous, more aware of our shared origin? If it does, it is moving toward the divine—regardless of tradition or label.

Don't miss out, be sure to follow this blog for the latest updates,

Jesus Without Fences: You can have a high Christology and still embrace eclectic spirituality

For me, eclectic and syncretistic spirituality is not a rejection of Jesus—it is the most honest way I can remain faithful to him without shrinking either my mind or my soul. It is the only path that allows my lived experience, my intellectual integrity, and my spiritual intuition to stand together without pretending they do not see one another. By this stage of my life, especially as I look toward 2026 as a year of reflection, balance, and integration, I can no longer inhabit a faith that demands selective blindness. Eclecticism is not confusion; it is coherence earned through decades of questioning, wrestling, and lived experience. Syncretism, for me, is not dilution—it is depth. It is the recognition that truth does not fracture simply because it appears through different languages, cultures, or symbolic systems. If consciousness itself is the ground of reality, then wisdom will inevitably surface wherever consciousness reflects upon itself honestly. I am not assembling a spiritual collage for novelty’s sake; I am recognizing patterns that repeat across traditions because they arise from the same source.

This approach fits the Jesus narrative precisely because Jesus himself operated as an awakener, not a system-builder. His message was not about protecting doctrinal borders but about opening eyes, restoring dignity, and reorienting consciousness toward love. He spoke in paradox, poetry, symbol, and story—not creeds. He refused to collapse God into an institution or reduce holiness to compliance. When he spoke of the Kingdom, it was not a future reward for correct belief but a present reality breaking in when perception shifts. That is the heart of my spirituality: awakening from forgetfulness into remembrance. In that sense, Jesus stands comfortably alongside the Tao’s effortless flow, the Hermetic insight of correspondence, and the mystical intuition that reality is far more unified than our categories allow. None of these diminish him; they illuminate the role he actually played. Jesus did not come to replace all wisdom with himself; he came to embody it.

Eclectic spirituality allows me to honor both material existence and spiritual depth without declaring war on either. I no longer see spirit and matter as enemies locked in a cosmic tug-of-war. They are poles of the same continuum—different densities of one reality. This is why strict orthodoxy eventually became untenable for me. It demanded that I demonize curiosity, distrust experience, and fear mystery. Yet Jesus consistently moved toward the margins, toward complexity, toward those whose lives did not fit neatly into religious boxes. He healed bodies, not just souls. He affirmed the goodness of embodied life even while pointing beyond it. An eclectic framework allows me to hold incarnation seriously—not as a temporary test to escape, but as a meaningful arena where consciousness learns, loves, suffers, and grows. That, to me, is far more faithful to the Jesus story than any theology that treats the world as a disposable failure.

Syncretism also aligns with my understanding of grace—not as a transaction, but as an atmosphere. Grace is not something earned by correct doctrine; it is the unconditional ground that allows transformation to occur. When Paul spoke of rest, peace, and transformation flowing from mercy, he was not outlining a belief checklist; he was describing a shift in orientation. Eclectic spirituality keeps me rooted in that rest. It resists the anxiety that comes from trying to defend a single system as absolute. Instead, it allows trust—trust that truth is not fragile, that love does not require gatekeepers, and that God is not threatened by honest exploration. Jesus lived from that trust. He did not fear contamination from other ideas, cultures, or people. He trusted love to do its work.

At this stage of my journey, eclecticism is also an act of humility. It acknowledges that no single tradition, including Christianity, has exhausted the mystery it points toward. If the Whole is never fully knowable by the parts, then all theology is provisional. That does not make it meaningless; it makes it participatory. Knowing becomes a relationship, not a conquest. This resonates deeply with my sense that consciousness evolves through experience, through polarity, through exploration. Jesus did not offer final answers; he invited people into a way of seeing. “Follow me” was not an invitation to certainty but to transformation. Eclectic spirituality allows me to keep following without pretending I have arrived.

Finally, this path fits who I am becoming. As I move further into reflection rather than construction, integration rather than defense, I feel less need to argue and more need to understand. Eclectic and syncretistic spirituality gives me a framework spacious enough to hold paradox, grief, joy, mystery, and awe without forcing resolution. It allows Jesus to remain central—not as an idolized exception, but as a living pattern of awakened humanity. He becomes not the boundary of truth, but its clearest expression. For me, that is not drifting away from Christianity; it is moving closer to its mystical heart. It is choosing balance over dogma, love over fear, and awakening over allegiance. And at this point in my journey, I can say with integrity that no other path fits as completely, as honestly, or as faithfully as this one.

Don't miss out, be sure to follow this blog for the latest updates.

Toward a Balanced Awaking - 2026

As I look toward 2026, I feel less compelled to chase new ideas and more compelled to bring coherence to the ones that have been walking with me for years. What keeps returning—quietly, insistently—is the realization that consciousness and materiality are not rivals. They are not enemies locked in some ancient tug-of-war. They are expressions of the same Reality, encountered at different depths, densities, and degrees of freedom. My work now feels less like invention and more like integration.

Hermetic thought gave me one of the earliest lenses for this integration. In The Kybalion, reality is described in terms of planes—physical, mental, and spiritual—not as separate worlds but as ascending degrees of the same life. The insight that has stayed with me is that these divisions are “more or less artificial.” Matter shades into mind; mind shades into spirit. There is no hard boundary where one ends and the other begins. What changes is not substance, but expression. Spirit is not what replaces matter; it is matter remembered at a higher level of coherence.

The Tao offers the same wisdom without metaphysical scaffolding. When I return to Tao Te Ching, I am reminded that reality flows best when it is not forced into false separations. The Tao does not privilege the invisible over the visible, or the mystical over the ordinary. It moves through rivers and valleys as easily as through silence and insight. Yin and yang are not opposites competing for dominance; they are complementary movements within one living process. Strength without softness becomes brittle. Spirit without form becomes ungrounded. The Tao does not ask us to escape the world—it asks us to move with it.

Christian mysticism, at its best, has always known this as well. Long before doctrine hardened into systems of fear and reward, the mystics spoke of a God who is both within all things and beyond all things. Meister Eckhart’s insistence that “the eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me” still rings true—not as theology to defend, but as experience to be lived. The Incarnation itself is the great refusal of spiritual escapism. God does not save the world by bypassing matter, but by inhabiting it fully. Flesh is not the problem; forgetfulness is.

What I am weighing in this season is the idea that abstract infinite potential and infinite lived experience are simply the two poles of the same mystery. At one end is the All—containing everything, yet never exhausted by what it contains. At the other end is experience—finite, textured, embodied, sometimes painful, sometimes luminous. Conscious agents like us are not mistakes in this system. We are the means by which potential becomes experience. Without limitation, nothing can be felt. Without form, nothing can be known as this rather than that.

This is why I no longer believe the goal is transcendence in the sense of departure. Enlightenment, salvation, awakening—whatever word we use—cannot mean abandoning the material for the spiritual. That move only recreates the split in reverse. Balance, as I now understand it, is learning to stand consciously in both poles at once. To honor the body without idolizing it. To honor spirit without floating away from life. To see work, money, relationships, suffering, and joy as part of the same sacred field in which prayer, silence, and insight arise.

There is, of course, a mystery here that cannot be solved. The All is always more than the sum of its manifestations. No part—no soul, no consciousness, no enlightened state—can ever fully comprehend the Whole in a final way. That is not a defect in the system. It is what keeps experience alive. Knowing is participatory, not totalizing. We know the Whole by expressing it, not by enclosing it.

This perspective also reshapes how I understand spiritual experiences—especially encounters with unseen presences that feel helpful or hostile. I no longer rush to literalize them into cosmic beings, nor do I dismiss them as meaningless projections. Experience is real. Interpretation remains open. What feels “malicious” is often consciousness under extreme constriction—fear, fragmentation, resistance. What feels “helpful” is consciousness moving toward coherence and integration. Nothing exists outside the All; therefore nothing ultimately exists beyond the possibility of integration.

So my direction for 2026 is not escape, conquest, or certainty. It is balance. A spirituality that can sit at a kitchen table, pay bills, feel grief, and still recognize the sacred shimmering through ordinary life. A material engagement that does not forget its depth or reduce reality to dead mechanism. I want a path where spirit and matter remain in dialogue—where neither is lost, neither is idolized, and both are allowed to teach me how to live more fully awake.

If there is a prayer in all of this, it is simple:
May I never lose the mystery by trying to solve it.
May I never lose the world by trying to transcend it.

Don't miss out, be sure to follow this blog for the latest updates.