Exploring Sacred Energy

My Chorale PicSecretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, negotiators for their nations, the US and Iran respectively, had become friends. Their relationship was interfering with their work. The story as told by Robin Wright in the July issue of THE NEW YORKER, is one every adult American needs to read in order to understand the larger picture: that of the people of Iran who, after living in a “pariah nation” for decades “crave normalcy,” re-entry into the world community, and a relationship with the outside world — but on their own terms. In my previous post, I conveyed their story, noting that in ten to fifteen years, when the Iranian Nuclear Deal will expire, there will be a new generation at the helm of government in Iran. The old hard-liners of today will have aged or passed away. In this post I wish to tell the rest of the story of how the members of the negotiating teams found their new-found relationships and friendships getting in the way of their negotiations. It’s a story well worth the read. It’s all about human relations. Enjoy the read.

The final deadline was supposed to be June 30th. The negotiating teams worked throughout June to get the talks back on track. Kerry and Zarif returned to Vienna for the final round on June 28th, two days before the deadline. They missed it. The major powers had to extend it three times. Ministers from other countries flew in and out of Vienna as the U.S. and Iranian teams debated their differences.

The diplomacy was supposed to be transactional. But at moments it was transformational, for two countries at odds about so much else. For twenty months, the Americans and the Iranians ate separately, often in small, adjacent dining areas. ”At a certain point, it just started to feel strange that they had never actually shared a meal together,” Kerry’s aide said. Zarif invited Kerry and his team to lunch on July 4th in the Iranians’ dining room, where he had ordered Persian food. “It was ten times better than the food we ate on our side of the house,” the aide told me. “It was a moment where it was clear–we knew it, sort of, without remarking on it–that these relationships had really developed over time.” Kerry and Zarif commiserated about pressures at home. Kerry mentioned members of Congress who were complaining that local political ads already opposed any deal with Iran. Zarif told Kerry about an Iranian newspaper warning that he shouldn’t come home if he compromised too much with the Americans.

The chasm was still deep. “Even when we can be, you know, just conversational with each other, there can come a moment in the middle of that–I would say them, more–when we revert back to form,” the State Department official said. “It can all of a sudden come out of the blue, when I think they can realize they’ve gotten too familiar.”

The next meltdown was on July 5th. The Iranians regularly griped about the indignity of international sanctions tarnishing a historic civilization and causing unnecessary suffering. During one long-winded tirade by Zarif, Kerry cut him off: “You know, you’re not the only nation with pride.”Tensions increased that afternoon. When Kerry and Zarif started shouting at each other, a Kerry staffer slipped in to say that they could be heard down the corridors of the Palais Coburg.

The next night, with another deadline imminent, Kerry offered Zarif a package deal, to get beyond the inteminable issue-by-issue squabbles. In a meeting with the major powers, Iran accused them of pulling back from agreed terms. At one point, Zarif shouted, “Never threaten an Iranian!” (When news of the flap spread, #neverthreatenaniranian quickly became a popular Twitter hashtag.)

“Or a Russian!” Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, said, in an attempt to break the tension. Subsequent reporting implied that Russia sided with Iran, a long-standing ally. In fact, the Americans claimed, Lavrov regularly played a constructive role in calming the emotional Zarif.

The U.S. and Iran remained so far apart that Kerry told Zarif and the other foreign ministers that he was prepared to leave the next day. He would be available by phone if Zarif wanted to negotiate seriously. ”A lot of us felt, at that point, like we were in real trouble,” Kerry’s aide said. The next day, Zarif brought a point-by-point response to the proposal.

”It’s such a complex set of relationships,” the State Department official said. “We know each other. All of the mistrust that has been there for these decades remains. It’s not gone. It’s incredibly present all the time. But it fights against the fact that we’ve spent two years getting to know each other.”

Over the next week, negotiations sometimes drifted, as the parties nibbled away at differences. The terms to limit Iran’s nuclear program were wrapped up first. The most sensitive issues often had a link to Iran’s milltary, especially the powerful Revolutionary Guards. The final differences were sorted out in a meeting, shortly before midnight, on July 13th, with Kerry, Zarif, and Federica Mogherini, of the European Union. “They basically kicked everybody out who wasn’t a minister and figured out the end,” Kerry’s aide said.

The next morning, Iran and the six major powers met to formally confirm the terms. The final statement read, “With courage, political will, mutual respect, and leadership, we delivered on what the world was hoping for: a shared commitment to peace and to join hands in order to make our world safer.”

Afterward, each minister made remarks about the collaboration. Kerry, who spoke last, recalled going off to war as a young man, the traumatic experience of Vietnam, and his commitment, when he returned, to end that war. The diplomacy with Iran, he told his peers, was one time that he could prevent the horrors of war.

At the end of Kerry’s comments, his eyes welled up, his aide said. Others teared up, too, including the Iranians. Then everyone applauded.  Zarif went off to make a brief announcement with Mogherini, while Kerry watched, on an iPad, President Obama’s remarks from the White House about the potentially historic deal. When Zarif finished, he walked backstage and patted Kerry on the shoulder. They shook hands, the aide recounted. “And that’s how he said goodbye.”

Robin Wright ends her article — yes, the author is a woman, who alone could write an article such as this conveying the emotional climate that permeated these negotiations with so much insightful detail — with promising, though typically conservative patriarchal, comments from General Martin Dempsey.

“We will always have military options,” General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during the final days of diplomacy. “And a massive ordnance penetrator is one of them.” A new bomb to take out a future Iranian bomb.

“Everyone who believes that overnight this relationship is going to change is naive as hell,” the senior State Department official told me. “It’s not. It’s just too deep–particularly among Iranian government officials, many of whom were part of the revolution. So there may be a generational shift that has to take place everywhere. It’s going to take time. It’s going to take a lot of time.”♦

Yes, “a generational shift” is underway already, both here in America and in Iran and the rest of the world. The new generation calls for an end to wars. Enough is enough!

I don’t know about you, but I get choked up reading this report. I suppose it’s because I know that, left to ourselves, we the people would find a way to live in peace and harmony with one another. I long for that, as I’m sure we all do. Seeing these human beings torn between their own natural inner compulsion to relate to one another as people just like themselves, even as friends, and their nations’ political agendas, that had ironically brought them together in this crucible, just pierces my heart and brings tears to my eyes. O God, let it be so for the peoples of all nations! Let us relate to one another as members of one species with one common purpose: the creation of the beautiful and harmonious world on this beautiful harmonious planet. Let it be so. ♥ (See the video link below for Colin Powell’s interview on Meet The Press.)

Anthony Palombo, DC

Read my Health Light Newsletter online at LiftingTones.com. Current topic: Update on cell phone hazards.


“TEHRAN’S PROMISE  — The revolution’s midlife crisis and the nuclear deal.”

My Chorale PicTHE NEW YORKER this month features an excellent and well written article by Robin Wright on the Iranian Nuclear deal. I’m bringing it into my blog, and particularly into this series on human relations, because it’s about the personal relationship between Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, a relationship that, in my opinion, was made in heaven for the specific purpose of bringing about this Nuclear deal with Iran—and more. It opened a window to the world through which the promise of a new relationship between the people of Iran and the rest of the world can be clearly seen, even through the distracting and manipulative cloud of propaganda Washington Conservatives have been putting before the American people via the media.

The relationship between these two men had its beginnings back in 2003 when Zarif was Iran’s United Nations Ambassador.  Kerry and Zarif “played pivotal roles in getting the process (of the Nuclear deal) started, through back channels: in 2003, as Iran’s U.N. Ambassador, Zarif orchestrated a secret overture, nicknamed ‘the grand bargain.’” This initiative is what set things in motion and led to an unannounced trip in 2011 by John Kerry, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “to explore an offer by the Sultan Oman to host covert diplomacy. That led to five secret rounds of lower-level U.S.-Iran talks, in Muscat, in 2013.”

Here’s what really piqued my interest in this relationship.

The most serious diplomacy since Washington severed relations with Tehran, in 1980, began shortly after Kerry and Zarif were appointed as their nations’ top diplomats. Their first meeting, in September, 2013, was supposed to be a handshake and an exchange of pleasantries in a United Nations hallway. The idea was to “get out without causing any incidents and build from there,” a Kerry aide recounted. But, at the last minute, Kerry decided to pull Zarif into an empty office, near the Security Council chamber, for a substantive conversation.

“Kerry’s whole approach to diplomacy . . . is premised on the belief that personal relationships matter, because they enable you to get things done, even in very difficult situations,” the aide said. “It was Kerry’s belief that this was going to be a relationship that would really matter.” Zarif was willing. The two men talked, alone, for almost thirty minutes.

The rest of the story is now copy for the history books. “The Iran deal, announced on July 14th, capped a dozen years of secret overtures, false starts, clandestine meetings, and unpublished correspondence between Washington and Tehran.


A huge transition is underway in Iran between the old revolutionary leadership and the new generation. The article’s parallel and probably more significant theme is about the people of Iran, the next generation of young people who represent more than sixty percent of Iran’s eighty-million people, “A baby-boom generation, born after the revolution, (that) doesn’t share all of its priority.” Iran’s youth are not so enamored by the hard-liners’ religious fanaticism over an ideal Islamic state.  They are more interested in pursuing and engaging the rising tide of modern technologies flooding Iran via the internet. Wright offers a canny insight into the climate being generated by Iran’s public that “clearly wants reentry” into the larger world of commerce and culture they have been insulated against for decades by their revolutionary elders, the majority of which are “over the hill” in age and soon to be on their way out literally.  The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, himself turns seventy-six this month.

“The original generation of revolutionaries will disappear in the next ten years,” Saeed Laylaz, an economist and a former adviser to President Khatami, said. Laylaz, who was imprisoned for a year after the 2009 election, added, “The new assembly [the Assembly of Experts, a group of eighty-six theologians] will reflect the new generation.”

All of Khomeini’s grandchildren—there are fifteen—back reformers. . . .  Half a dozen of the grandchildren were educated in the West. Some of the grandchildren have considered running for parliament of the assembly. . . .  A loose coalition of reformers, moderates, and centrists hopes to flood the field with candidates, so that even if they are disqualified in large numbers many of them can still compete.

As Robin Wright describes the rising tide of liberal youthful energy,

“It’ a tsunami,” Said Rahmani, the C.E.O. of Sarava, Iran’s first venture capital fund, told me. “This generation is worldly. They’re educated. They work. They have spending power. They’re not dependent on anyone. They have a different range of thinking.”

These days, the energy—and the locus or charting Iran’s future—is less in heady debates about the ideal Islamic state than in a practical scramble to exploit twenty-first-century technology to change society. More than a third of the population uses the Internet. Giant billboards for a new smart-phone model were plastered across Tehran this summer: “NEXT IS NOW.”

Iran has its Amazon.com in Digikala, which accounts for more than eighty percent of online retail, valued recently at a hundred-and-fifty million dollars, started up by a set of thirty-six year old twins. Online commerce is increasingly defining market prices in Iran.


“America, particularly, haunts Iran,” Robin writes. “. . . After decades of living is a pariah nation, Iranians seem to crave normalcy—but on their own terms. Figuring out their relationship with the outside world is a big part of the transition. They have tried repeatedly and failed.”

The chant “DEATH TO AMERICA!” we hear so much talk about in the arguments against the Iranian Nuclear Deal in the halls of Congress and in Western media propaganda is limited only to Friday night Islamic prayer meetings. It is not the cry of the people.

“’Death to America’? This is politics and not related to people’s thinking,” Elnaz Mobahat, the owner of Manhattan Grill, one of Tehran’s chic new restaurants, told me. The place is adorned with American kitsch. One wall features photographs of sports stars, including Tiger Woods. “There are fourteen million people in greater Tehran, and maybe one hundred thousand attend Friday prayers,” she said. “Most people say we should talk to the Americans and solve our differences. We can both benefit. There are many investments opportunities in the oil and food industries.” She pointed to the ketchup bottles on every table. “Look, we use Heinz!”


John Kerry and Mohammed Karif brought to the negotiating table the raging undercurrents of their nations’ turbulent warring histories and deeply scarred collective psyches conditioned by a track record of dishonesty, deception and consequent mistrust and paranoia. They were thrust by the gods of fate into a crucible together to process the relationship between their respective nations and between Iran and Israel and all the other nations in the world. And that crucible served its purpose by giving space for the many factors that make up human relations to be brought forth and released under pressure into the cauldron of heated debate and negotiation. The Iranian Nuclear Deal was not made in peaceful interchanges. It was forged in fire.  Robin Wright tells how it went down in all of its emotional and frustrating details.

It got much harder over time. The world’s five other major powers—Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia—were technically equal players. But the United States increasingly took the lead in one-on-one meetings with the Iranians. More than a year after that first encounter, the chasm on core issues was still deep, despite an interim Joint Plan of Action, a confidence-building step that curtailed Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for modest sanctions relief. It did not address long-term limits or rewards.

As the original deadline for a final deal loomed, last November, Kerry and Zarif met in Oman. The senior State Department official described the meeting as “extremely contentious.”

Kerry’s aide said, “Both sides left thinking that we had just spent a lot of hours and a lot of time under very tense conditions and in very tense conversations that made little progress.” A deal looked doubtful. A few days later, the six powers agreed to extend the deadline until June 30th.

In February and again in March, Kerry was on the verge of backing away from the conversations entirely, US officials told me. On February 21st, as Kerry was scheduled to fly from London to Geneva, Wendy Sherman, the Under-Secretary of State and chief nuclear negotiator, called him to say, “We are nowhere.” Iran was backtracking. “I really don’t think you can come under these circumstances,” she said. Kerry instructed her to tell the Iranians that he would skip Geneva and fly home. The next morning, Iran was more forthcoming, and Kerry subsequently flew to Switzerland.

On March 27th, in Lausanne, tempers flared three nights before the deadline of a so-called Framework to define what each side would accept in a final deal. At the last minute, negotiating with the Americans, Iran took an important matter off the table. The five other major powers were supposed to show up within a day, but there was so much left unresolved that Kerry decided he might have to abort. He arranged to go to Zarif’s suite. At 10 P.M., they met alone. Kerry’s style is to coax rather than threaten. But this time, two US. officials told me, Kerry was blunt. He told Zarif that unless there was progress the sessions were “basically done.”The next day, the issue was back on the table. Six days later, the major powers and Iran
announced the outlines of a potential agreement.

“There were moments when you just had to push through,” Kerry’s aide said. The most confrontational exchange took place on May 30th. The talks were “brutal, just brutal,” the State Department official recalled. According to Kerry’s aide, “It was a lot of the two sides banging their heads against each other.” At one point, Zarif got up, walked around the room, and announced, “I have to leave.” He then sat on a chair against a wall and put his head in his hands.

Kerry, known for being unflappable, lost it, too. Toward the end of six difficult hours, he slammed his hand down on the conference table so hard that his pen flew across the table and hit one of the Iranians. “It stunned everyone, because it was so out of character,” the State Department official said.

Both sides left Geneva feeling deeply pessimistic. The next day, Kerry vented his frustration by taking a vigorous ride from Geneva into France on his racing bike, which he often brings on trips.  As he was starting up the challenging Col de la Colombiere, he rode into a curb and flew off the bike. His right femur was badly broken, and he had to be medevaced to Boston for surgery. After the news broke, one of the first e-mails he received was from Zarif, wishing him well.

Love and mutual respect held these two men together through thick and thin. Few if any in our halls of Congress know what took place at these negotiations. Nor do they seem to care. Who among them takes into account that in ten years when this deal expires the old hard-line leaders in Iran will have been replaced by the younger generation of reformers who want more than anything to be in a peaceful and fruitful working relationship with the other nations of the world, particularly with America? And I don’t think they want to annihilate Israel, nor develop nuclear bombs. We simply need to trust that the process that brought these two men together will help us forge a new relationship with Iran. An irresistible force was set in motion based on mutual love and respect. And love never fails.  It’s at the heart of all meaningful relationships.

I will share more from this important article in a couple of weeks. I hope you have enjoyed reading about this historical and significant development in the Middle East as much as I did. Until my next post,

Be love. Be loved

Anthony Palombo, DC

Read my HealthLight Newsletter online at LiftingTones.com.

I think what we see here is more about cosmic energies, driven by love, seeking a balance in human relationships and affairs and equal partnership in co-creating a beautiful world.

My Chorale PicIn my last post, I offered my perspective and take on the seemingly phenomenal explosion of same-sex relationships. Much of the “explosion,” however, seems to be more about public awareness due to social media than actual increase in terms of numbers. Homosexuality has likely been around since the separation between man and woman in the Garden of Eden. Biblical references abound in both Old and New Testament scriptures. I think what we see here is more about cosmic energies, driven by love, seeking a balance in human relationships and affairs and equal partnership in co-creating a beautiful world.

As I understand their nature, cosmic energies are both positive and negative, or masculine and feminine, and that is by divine design in order to foster Creation itself. It is the Law of Love at work. Positive energy is by nature radiant, a masculine characteristic, and negative energy is by nature responsive, a more feminine characteristic. Creation involves equal partnering between masculine and feminine energies.  It is governed by the Law of Balance, which Walter and Lao Russell wrote so eloquently about in their books I’ve been reviewing and referencing in this blog series. If that partnering is prevented between men and women — as is surely the case in today’s male-female relationships where the man lords it over the woman yet in a social order that denies women equal privilege, pay and participation in decision making and governance — then these cosmic energies, which obey only divine order and the cosmic laws of Creation, will rise up to partner in same-sex relationships. Ideally, these co-creative energies seek to partner in a balanced way in each individual human being, where they are equally operative, and will do so as the individual pursues and completes a spiritual path that leads to true Self awareness and activation.

Mind you, these individuals are “same-sex” only in physical appearance and not in spiritual or vibrational essence and reality. These energies have no persona, no respect of person. Nor do they have ego, either male or female.  In other words, they are not the person. They are cosmic energies, pure and simple, and they belong together bringing forth Creation as equal partners in a balanced relationship.

The problem arises out of our insistence on identifying with them. Our correct identity is as a Human Being. I am a Human Being incarnate in a male form. My wife is a Human Being incarnate in a female form. We were drawn together by Love, as are most couples. It has been our conscious choice to find a balance in our relationship and to learn what it means to partner in life. This “Work” is an ongoing process.

This balance is obvious between Walter and  Lao Russell when you read their writings. They worked at it and succeeded in achieving man-woman equality. Jesus and Mary Magdalene established the pattern of spiritual intimacy and equality that manifested itself in their mental and physical relationship. They were full partners in their shared ministry — and it was a shared ministry, as I will write about when I review Cynthia Bourgeault’s timely and provocative book The Meaning of MARY MAGDALENE — Discovering the Woman at the Heart of Christianity

But let’s read a little more from Lao’s chapter on Man-Woman Equality. At the end of this chapter, Lao takes an action step toward creating a movement in the USA that could change the status quo.

In her own words . . .

Portrait of Lao Russell

Portrait of Lao Russell

Our present unbalanced civilization is scientifically impossible to endure. It is fast disintegrating even now and its decay has accelerated very dangerously since 1900. It is so badly unbalanced in so many departments and institutions that any attempt to balance all of them simultaneously would not be effectual, besides which there is not time to do it that way. The most necessary and the most hopeful one of the unbalanced conditions is man-woman equalization.

This essential to world happiness could become a living flame which would illumine the whole world with a new light if every woman started immediately to “do something about it,” aided by every man who believed in it. Such a movement can succeed only if organized into strength of numbers. One alone can do but little but if everyone joined together in a multiple ONE UNIT of twenty millions or more before the next election, it might be quite possible to make the first great step in that direction by electing many women senators and congresswomen, and even the Vice President for the next Presidential term. Such a world innovation adopted in this country would arouse the whole world of women in other countries where such an innovation would be impossible at the present time. This country should lead the world in this respect as it has in so many respects.

The way to do this speedily and powerfully is for you and every woman everywhere, to call a few friends to gether and form themselves into a unit of the Man-Woman Equalization League. It must be started by
women but every man who is in sympathy with the movement should become an equal member of it. Every truly great man will immediately realize its import and become an enthusiastic working member of it. That UNITY is its very purpose

The League never got off the ground. However, one can go to the Foundation website and find there ways to participate in various programs and projects. I will end this excerpt with a few final words from Lao.

The appeal for this organization is so strong that its growth would become millions in one year if every woman would but realize that women have the power to save the world from another chaos by merely asserting themselves as equal inheritors of the earth and of the business of managing all earthly affairs equally with men. . . . 

When women once realize this saving power which is theirs, and the responsibility which is theirs, this movement will become the mighty crusade which it ought to be. . . .

It is hardly necessary to call your attention to the power which is vested in so many million votes.Unless something of this nature is initiated at once we shall go farther and farther into the chaos which a man-made world is so fast falling into. It is scientifically impossible for peace and happiness to come to such an unbalanced world as this is, where the physical values are so preponderant over spiritual values. We have either got to balance the FatherMother basis of Creation or perish over and over again until we dobalance it.

I therefore say to every woman who reads this book: Will you start today to dedicate yourself to this world service? And I also say to every man: Will you help woman to give birth to this man-woman equalization movement for world unification and peace, and become a member of the Man-Woman Equalization League?

I will leave you with this video interview of Lao Russell.

You can also view it at : Lao Russell Interview PM Magazine  https://youtu.be/mTCQf3iVssQ


Read my Health Light Newsletter online at http://LiftingTones.com

My Chorale Pic

In GOD WILL WORK WITH YOU BUT NOT FOR YOU, Lao Russell writes to the inequality between man and woman in high places where women’s spiritual nature would offer a depth of perspective that would help bring about a balanced approach to decisions that impact both men and women, such as decisions about war and environmental issues. It is not enough simply for men to see women as physical objects for his comfort and pleasure and for the purpose of procreation, child rearing and homemaking.

(Clearly, society’s view of homosexuality and lesbianism has undergone radical transformation since Lao wrote and published these words in 1955. This was just prior to the sexual revolution of the 60’s. Bear this in mind as you read this first paragraph.)

Lao Russell

Lao Russell

No great achievement of world import ever comes from countries where women are openly denied any approach to equality with men and they stand still for centuries. Physical interchange with women, unaccompanied with mental interchange, holds a nation to a physical level, just as it does with an individual. Neither individuals nor nations ever progress through physical interchange alone. Miscegenation ruined Greece. Thallic worship ruined many cities and countries while homosexuality, which resulted from such unbalanced conditions, created many a Sodom and Gomorrah.

My take on this view of homosexuality is, first of all, that it is outdated, but nevertheless based on historical and Biblical rocord. In the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, man had devolved to a lower animal nature, having lost sight and experience of his spiritual nature. Over the eons of time, man has evolved from his purely physical identity to a more integrated sense of identity.  In other words, physical man has given birth to Spiritual Man during the current phase of our evolution and awakening in consciousness to the multi-dimensional nature of the Whole Man. What we as a race of Human Beings are experiencing is the integration of the masculine and feminine energies in both men and women — along with the imbalances that appear in the evolutionary process. Let me elaborate on what I mean by imbalances.

Spiritual Man is both male and female, made in the image and likeness of the Creator.  Form notwithstanding, whatever sexual energy is dominant in an entity will determine the individual’s sexual orientation. There will be confusion and incongruencies in form until Spiritual Man fully emerges as a Light Being. These human bodies are temporary, substitute forms and they are giving way to the emergence of our original forms for incarnation. These were spiritual forms made of pure light. Evolution is leading to the restoration of our true state of being as co-creators with God on this physical plane. In the transitional phase, which we are currently undergoing and have been for some time, imbalances are experienced. This necessitates a non-judgmental state in our hearts and minds. We cannot judge what is emerging.

This was the original condition we were given in Eden if we were to have access to the Tree of Life: that we not judge the Creative Process that brings forth good out of evil–or evol, if you will.  The Tree of the knowledge of good and evol is the Creative Process, and that tree belongs to the Creator. We were told not to eat of its fruit lest we should die. Of course we disobeyed the Creator and ate of the “forbidden fruit”—which is simply judgement. The rest is history — or his story; the story of the rise and fall of the man-made, mind-made world. As I said, this is my take on these matters of very current concern, considering the recent Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage.

Lao writes with a woman’s understanding heart about the primary and pivotal imbalance in this man-made world.

Within the last fifty years, countries like Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran and Japan which gradually added to the status of woman by giving her greater dignity, progressed very rapidly from almost static levels. The countries which have risen to the highest levels in culture, invention, science, industry and engineering are the ones in which its women interchange mentally with men as well as physically. Middle Europe and the United States have given almost all of the world’s great
achievements to the world, while the Slavs, Mongols, Arabs, and other Asiatic and African nations have given practically none of it. Whatever scientific, engineering, industrial or inventive advancement has come to Slav countries has been subsidized from Anglo-Saxon countries.

The advancement of women to mental esteem has been encouraging but there has been too little of man-woman equality in high places, such as industry and government. In these important departments of life the world is still a man’s world, made by man for man, and in man’s image. It is not a peaceful world, or a united one in any of its many departments, and it never will be as long as it is a man’s man-made world. Until women become the acknowledged mental equal of man and share with him the executive management of industrial and national responsibilities, it will be impossible to have an enduring civilization of happy, peaceful, successful people.

An unbalanced civilization is as operatively impossible as it would be for a man to continually walk and work while even three degrees away from perpendicular. Wherever one sees world and national affairs being discussed and weighed for decisions which affect all peoples, both men and women, you see great rows of men occupying the seats of judgment as to how the world must act. Everyone is familiar with pictures of man-groups in such high places as Senate and Congressional gatherings, the great conferences of The United Nations, the international assemblies at world conferences, the English Parliament or the cabinet of the President of the United States. With but few exceptions here and there all these managers of world affairs are men, all engaged in making a man’s unbalanced world which is as divided against itself as Man and Woman are divided against each other in a home where man is “master in his own house.”

I am quite sure that present-day man has not given serious thought to this man-woman equality in high places—especially here in the United States where men revere their women so highly. I feel that those thinking ones who read this book and remembering the great import of their wives in their work will do all in their power to commence what could be the greatest movement the world has even known. This action would be the spiritual rebirth the world is seeking and which all thinking men have been desiring to come into being to save it.

Our present state of world affairs is not in harmony with God’s One Law. That means that the whole human race is endeavoring to build a civilization by working against God instead of working with Him. It is a defiance of God’s command which Nature will not tolerate. Man alone can never manifest His Creator. Every creation of God or man springs only from unity, not from separateness. Creation stems only from united Father-Mother-hood. Man can no more create an enduring civilization without woman than he can create a baby without woman.

All ideas of the Mind, as well as all created bodies which manifest Mind, must have a mother as well as a father. The great error of man in this respect lies not so much in selfishness and ego as it does to the hold-over of his pagan memory of woman’s value to him as being purely physical. Until man and woman can equalize their mental relations and work together for spiritual unity, a balanced civilization is impossible.

We have long heard the hackneyed phrase that woman’s place is in the home. To organize, beautify and manage a home requires a great deal of executive ability which women perform with great credit when they must do it alone, but gloriously so when mates work together. Women have been called upon in war emergency meassures and asked to fill places unfamiliar to them, places which none but men have ever filled. They not only did the work with equal skill and merit but very often with greater efficiency than men.

When women fought for equal suffrage, one of the most familiar criticisms used to ridicule the idea of women as voters was the claim that they would vote for the man who had nice curly hair rather than the one who had brains. Then there was the ridicule of woman as statesman or as industrial director. “What would a woman know about government? What would she do in a conference of trained diplomats?”

Looking upon the results of our all-men world conferences since the end of World War I is it not fair to ask if the present dreadful plight the world finds itself in could not have been avoided if the balancing influence of women’s spiritual nature had been present? Every man and woman must realize that it is not in woman’s nature to kill, for her purpose on earth is to give life, not take it.

That alone is crucial to the survival of the human race. Women would find a more civilized way of settling issues between nations than war. Indeed, there would likely be fewer issues to settle between world nations if the feminine nature of Mankind was given equal place at the table of governing bodies.  More on this in my next post.

Read my Health Light Newsletter online at LiftingTones.com. The current topic is “The Cholesterol Myths.”

My Chorale Pic

With the recent church shooting  in Charleston, South Carolina by a twenty-one-year-old man that abruptly ended nine lives, my thoughts turn to questioning the home life of this deeply troubled and misguided young man and the culture of racial prejudice into which he was born.

We’ve been considering The Law of Balance in this series on Human Relations. Here’s a case where that law has long been ignored in this young man’s family life, but more so in his social environment. Violence has its roots in the family unit and in our culture of hate and prejudice, particularly here in the South. Gun control is not where we need to go to fix this problem, and jailing or executing the shooter brings no healing to this wounded human being.  Only compassion and understanding will begin to heal him and eradicate prejudice and hate from our culture. He needs to be taken in by society and bathed in love, not shut out and disposed of by our penal system. That system needs a complete re-thinking and re-ordering. The church members were as quick to forgive this young man as they were open to welcome him into their congregation. That’s a huge step toward healing, both the traumatized congregation and the young man. That attitude needs to be reflected in society as a whole and somehow in our penal system.

*  *  *  *

In the previous post, I ended the excerpt from Lao Russell’s book, GOD WILL WORK WITH YOU BUT NOT FOR YOU, with this brief but poignant paragraph:

Man has always crucified love on the cross of his own self-glory by the killing of men; and women have always wept at the foot of the cross, as they wept when men crucified the Nazarene while all but one of His disciples who professed to love Him, deserted Him.

I then closed my post with thoughts that arose from reading what Lao had to say here concerning the crucified Nazarene, offering that there were actually three of His disciples who stood at the foot of the cross: Mary Magdalene, his wife and soul mate, his mother Mary, and John the Beloved with whom Jesus endowed His mantle of authority. I then suggested that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had fulfilled their mission and purpose on earth by restoring the union between Man and Woman, a union that had been fragmented since Adam blamed Eve for their disobedience. That failure on the part of Adam to accept responsibility for his action but rather place all the blame on Eve drove a wedge between them. It also separated them from the Creator, but only in consciousness and awareness.

With this severance of the unity between these two earthly partners in Creation and between Man and his Creator, the world as we knew it in the beginning began to change, as did our perception of the world. It became a hostile place to live where survival and the killing of animals and of one another became the way of existence on the planet. Man became the hunter and gatherer, as well as protector of his territory, and woman became the home maker. Love was lost in our fall from grace as fear darkened our hearts and clouded our vision. And that is how it has remained to this very day.

Lao continues to share her perspectives and understanding—which some of my readers may find antiquated. This was written, after all, in 1955.  Much has changed in our consciousness since then. I should hope so anyway.

All of this is quite natural. It could hardly be otherwise, for man in his unfolding (or evolving) remembered the fighter spirit of his primate days of taking, while not realizing that the woman spirit of giving was gradually awakening in him a keener desire for mental mating and the spiritual unity of the equal Father-Motherhood of balanced mating. The hardest lesson which man must learn during the long ages of his journey is that God made man and woman equal with one another in order that they should manifest divided love by equal interchange in their givings and regivings. God’s whole purpose for dividing His spiritual Self into pairs of fathers and mothers is to dramatize His Love nature by the romance of equal and opposite interchange of love. The romance of awakening love is far greater than either its mental or physical interchange. Every expression of mating is empty without the romance of love itself. Romance is love-awareness without which there can be no complete happiness in any mating.

The Cosmic drama of Creation is a romance which all mankind is perpetually transforming to comedy and tragedy as it eternally seeks romance without knowing the path which leads to it. Through the romance of balanced interchanging of love between fathers and mothers they find unity which alone gives to them the ecstasy of the divine nature of God.

Physical sex interchange has been first in the desires of mass-man. Mental sex interchange is rare, while romance starves in a world which would give all else for just one hour of it. That is the lesson of life which all must learn who search for the peace and happiness which will alone bring rest from world tensions. The world has never learned it because the senses of man have never let him know the real meaning of either love or romance.

The world of divided humans must some day know that God’s divided universe is an electrically sex-divided dramatization of CAUSE and EFFECT. The CAUSE is Mind-desire for expressing static idea through intechanging motion. The EFFECT is what happens because of that division and the necessity of interchanging. CAUSE is, therefore, oneand EFFECT is always two. The lesson of life is to learn how to so balance the interchanging between the two halves of every effect that all EFFECT is completely canceled out in complete sexlessness by their balanced unity.

God’s motive as Master-Playwright of His Cosmic drama is the love urge of the mating idea expressed physically by the uniting of bodies to void the physical tensions of the sex urge by balancing them, and thus reproduce other bodies. It is also for the purpose of expressing the love urge in its mental and spiritual expression by eliminating the mental tensions of separateness. This is accomplished by uniting spiritual mates for creating spiritual idea.

A mental sex relation is for the purpose of creating idea, while the physical sex relation is for the purpose of creating body forms of mentally conceived ideas.

That is why any woman and any man who have harmonious spiritual relations with each other, such as a mother and son, or good friends, or business partners, can multiply power in each other very much more. than any two men, or any two women could possibly do.

That is why any organization which consists solely of men, whether it be an industry, a club, or the cabinet of the President of the United States, or of other organizations composed of women only, necessarily creates unbalanced structures in which there can never be complete unity.

That is why this man-made world is so badly unbalanced and disunited. Its male qualities are so preponderant that it has made a civilization which operates like a flywheel whose shaft is badly offcenter. A woman-made world would be just as unbalanced. Its preponderance of female qualities would make it equally disunited.

If you look into the life history of any great man you will find a woman in it who had a tremendous influence upon the creative powers which accounted for his greatness. It may be more than one woman, such as his mother, and his wife, or sweetheart, or dearly loved friend. No matter who that woman, or those women were, the basis of their interchange with him must first be love mentally
expressed. A spiritual union between any man and woman is of ten-thousand times more value than love physically expressed without the spiritual.

The romance is in the awakening of love in one another, which is not a one-time event when our hormones are beginning to kick in. It’s has to be an ongoing event.  

Love is not objective, nor can it be possessed. The woman awakens love in the man, and the man awakens love in the woman. The romance of it is in the awakening, not in the consummation. It is the awakened ability to love which counts, and not the acquisition of the object which has awakened it, nor in any physical contact whatsoever. A woman may not even be aware that she is deeply loved, and the man who loves may never even exchange a word with her. Where love is spiritual it uplifts, exalts, enriches and ennobles.

Where sex is purely physical it debases and defiles. Millions have ruined themselves through physical sex expression which was not spiritually balanced. The roué [debauched person] is despised where the parent is honored. Whole civilizations have been utterly destroyed by the sex debauchery of incest and promiscuity. Wherever spiritual sex-mating is preponderant over the physical there is then the beauty and glory of the power which men and women can alone
know who have that unity which comes to those “whom God hath joined together.”

Any man and woman who are thus spiritually and physically balanced multiply their unified power by eight—not two. Two separate, disunited potentials are only two, but when two potentials act as one their power multi-plies in the ratio of the cube. In other words, when two completely united, balanced mates act as one they do not add their two powers together to equal two, they multiply
them in the ratio of gravitation mathematics, which are three dimensional.

There is no lesson so hard to learn, or of such great import, as the long lesson of learning how to interchange all spiritual and physical divisions of effect equally in order to unify them, and thus make two unbalanced conditions become one. A balanced life, home, business, community, nation or world of nations is possible only by learning that great lesson by the hard way of experience until it is put into practice.

An approximation of balance will not suffice for complete happiness. A man who still insists upon being “master in his own home,” cannot have a happy home, even though he provides for his family generously and is a model husband in every other respect. With such a condition contentment is possible but romance is utterly stifled. A residue of unbalance still remains which makes it impossible to cancel out all actions and reactions by balancing them as a businessman balances his books constantly. A business could not succeed if a daily deficit made it impossible to balance its books, nor can a family succeed in being all that a family should where a constant tension exists which cannot be utterly voided.

The wife would try to assure herself she was happy by seeing the good points in her husband. Something would constantly be happening which would not happen if the home was a balanced one. A daughter might marry against her better judgment because of the tension which could not be eliminated, or a son might leave home where he otherwise would not. Unity cannot exist where tensions hold two apart. They will always be two until residual tensions are balanced. The two will then be ONE.

In countries where their women are forced to accept infidelities as a matter of course there can never be the happy home life enjoyed by those nations where infidelities are the exception and not the rule. Under such conditions unity is utterly impossible, because romance is impossible.

I will leave it there and leave you to ponder, and perhaps comment on, what you have read. We will continue along this vein in the next couple of posts.

Check out my Health Light Newsletter at LiftingTones.com.


My Chorale Pic

Let’s talk about the relationship between man and woman. I will open the consideration with an excerpt from Lao Russell from her beautiful book “GOD WILL WORK WITH YOU BUT NOT FOR  YOU.”  It follows quite naturally her husband’s article in my previous post on the Law of Balance. Mind you, this was written in 1955, and it is still current with world conditions of today. Enjoy her simplicity and clarity.

Man-Woman Equality

This chapter is addressed to the many advanced thinkers who are fully aware of the great world danger which civilization is now facing.

All such mystic thinkers also know that civilization need not fall if we but know how to unite mankind into one Being with but the one purpose of manifesting the love principle of Nature, instead of the fear and hate principle which he now manifests.

God’s universe is balanced. That is why it is unified and continuous. That is why it will endure forever and cannot fall.

Man’s universe is badly unbalanced. That is why it is disunited and transient. That is why it must repeatedly fall.

When grave danger confronts anyone, or the world, one wants to know what to do about it. If he does not know what to do to save himself he is helpless to avoid the danger.

World thinkers can save civilization if they know more about God’s ways and processes which alone can save man if applied in time. The great cause of world unbalance is the disunity caused by the practice of inequality in God’s divided pairs which He created equal. These inequalities are many. They could not be balanced in centuries–and that would be too late.

The principle inequality which is again destroying civilization is the man-woman inequality. That is the prime cause of world failure which underlies all other causes. That cause could be remedied in time to unite the whole world as one if world thinkers, both men and women, would do something about it now, right now before the next election takes place, and not twenty years from now.

The world resists change. It insists upon continuing the same old mistakes until the resultant suffering becomes too heavy. It has got to change, however, in respect to its man-woman equality or be self-condemned to another state of chaos.

The world cannot change unless individuals change. Each man must equalize woman spiritually in his own life, in his home, his business and his government. Until woman is thus exalted the tensions of inequality will destroy every civilization which man attempts to build alone.

Every woman should insist upon mental equality with men in all governing and managerial capacities, and when competent women are nominated for high office, I am confident men would feel it their duty and pleasure to vote for them to begin equalization of international affairs. I say this because each time I have mentioned this man-woman idea to a great man he has wholeheartedly and enthusiastically been in accordance with this principle.

It will always be impossible for humans to build an enduring civilization until it equalizes its man-woman Mind power. If world thinkers would but realize that, they would be aroused to action in beginning to bring equalization into being. God created this world for men and women, not for men alone, nor for women alone. He created them equally as mates just as He created all pairs and all forces equally. This is an electrically sex-divided universe. The two electrical workers which create this universe are male and female. Each are equal. One does as much as the other in creating every particle of matter in the universe. Without that electrical equality in expressed force we would have a very wobbly, and dangerously unbalanced universe of badly distorted forms.

We will continue to have a badly distorted, disunited and wobbly civilization until men and women world thinkers begin to equalize the two sexes so that there can be a marriage of unity in the world which will produce balance in world actions instead of distortions.

Motherless children vitally need a mother. No matter how sincerely or eagerly a father tries to become both mother and father, he is never able to fulfill both necessities.

This motherless world likewise needs a mother. The father is trying to fulfill both offices but the more he tries to function as both, the greater is the disaster to the world family.

Lao continues in an historical vein to describe how we have evolved from primitive man.  In that era, the hunter-gatherer was the male’s identity and role, while the female’s identity was centered around food preparation and clothing fabrication from skins. Survival was the prime concern that shaped the life-style of this primitive emerging civilization. This inevitably led to killing of other tribesmen when survival was at stake, leaving the women to “weep at the foot of the cross,” as Lao put it in Biblical context, referring of course to the crucifixion of Jesus, a custom that has survived to this day of war-mongering men who kill one another to preserve their own version of “freedom,” again leaving women to weep at the side of their men’s coffins.

In time, she goes on to say, man eventually began to “discover woman as a mental mate and took her to wife and consulted with her, but condescendingly.” This recognition alone elevated the whole status of civilization to higher levels. She then made this significant observation:

The country which gave the greater recognition to the matehood idea of man and woman progressed rapidly beyond those countries which glorified man and suppressed their women. Likewise, every individual man who learned to love a woman because of her mental matehood with him, as well as her physical, progressed beyond all men who looked upon her as woman alone.

This level of recognition, Lao points out, merely gained women a concession and not an equal right alongside men. Even in winning the right to vote, it was nothing more than the right to vote for man.  Men remained master and lord, the one who must be obeyed.

Pagan man made man the master of women, and ruler of the world. Even the pagan God concept was male-and still is. God, the Father, has never been the generally accepted Father-Mother of His equally divided fathers and mothers of Creation. Man the conqueror, the killer of man for the possessions of man, the pirate and trader in slaves, the exploiter and builder of empires, built this world in his own carnal image. He built it for man and glorified himself as the killer of the sons of man, while women wept.

Man has always crucified love on the cross of his own self-glory by the killing of men; and women have always wept at the foot of the cross, as they wept when men crucified the Nazarene while all but one of His disciples who professed to love Him, deserted Him.


There were actually three who stood at the foot of the cross: Jesus’s soul mate and wife Mary Magdalene, John the Beloved upon whose shoulders the Master place His mantle of authority, and Mary the mother of Jesus. It is significantly telling that there were two women and only one man.  John the Beloved was more than just any man.  He was a well integrated Man with both masculine and feminine energies balanced in his humanity. And Mary Magdalene was more than just any woman.  She also was an integrated human being with her masculine energies just as available to her as her feminine, which is why Peter and some of the other male apostles didn’t like her. She was the Apostle of apostles, the only one of his disciples who knew Jesus at his core being.  There was no separation between them, even after he ascended to his Father. Wherever Mary went Jesus went. Whenever she spoke Jesus spoke.

I truly believe, as author Cynthia Bourgeault goes to great and profound ends to present in her timely and important book The Meaning of MARY MAGDALENE — discovering the woman at the heart of Christianity, that this reuniting of man and woman was the sole purpose of their mutual and timely visitation, and at a most critical and pivotal moment in the history of Mankind.

The Great Redemption and Reparation has been accomplished. The broken relationship between man and woman has been repaired. Mankind has been redeemed from its state of separation and war between the sexes.  What’s keeping us from enjoying our salvation and getting on with life as it was intended and designed to be from the beginning and restored to its natural divine order and beauty by Jesus and Mary Magdalene?

Now there’s a book every Christian needs to read . . . would be restored to sanity by reading.  For the state of Christianity today is one of utter insanity and impotence. Little wonder people are leaving their father’s religion behind.


It’s time we took a closer look at the state of our humanity.  We are a race divided, and we will not withstand the apocalyptic changes that are afoot for all of Mankind. And by apocalyptic I mean what the word implies literally: REVELATION.  All things both good and evil are even now being revealed via social networking and the blessed internet. What a timely gift that is proving to be! Check out this video by THRIVE about the current state of the global economy and the banking system. It’s all collapsing around itself. The man-made currency system, made for men by men, is bankrupt and in utter failure . . . and  I don’t mean to insinuate that women have not been involved and behind those men pushing them on to make more money for greater security and wealth. No, both sexes bear equal responsibility for this deplorable state of our economy and our world . . . and our days are numbered.  Brace yourselves for a revelation of the truth.  For even as an old world is collapsing, a new and true world is emerging. The media just doesn’t find that news profitable.

Because of the timely and crucial nature of the topic in this chapter in Lao Russell’s book, I intend to share the bulk of the remaining chapter in the next couple of posts.  I will publish them a week apart.  Thank you for reading and following my blogs. I would love to share your own thoughts on these matters. Write me.

 “The Law of Balance is the Law of Love upon which the universe is founded.” (Walter Russell)

My Chorale PicI’ve been away from my blogging for a few weeks due to preparations for a workshop that had to be cancelled for close family health reasons. I hope you enjoyed my last posts on this blog and on my Health Light Newsletter on the theme of balancing and harmonizing the chakras and endocrine energy fields. If you haven’t had an opportunity to read those posts, they are still available in the archives.

In this post we will continue our consideration of human relations, sharing some of the wisdom of Walter and Lao Russell. In Part 1, we started addressing the question: What is Love? In this post I will focus the consideration on balance, the essential ingredient of all successful, creative, and, therefore, healthy relationships.

Reading Walter and Lao’s books – THE MESSAGE OF THE DIVINE ILIAD and GOD WILL WORK WITH YOU BUT NOT FOR YOU respectively – I was profoundly touched by this couple’s powerfully creative and fruitful relationship.  They were truly in Love together.  I would like to take this opportunity to share with my readers excerpts from these books that will give you a feel for the cosmic basis of their relationship. I hope you will enjoy reading them as much as I do. Rarely does one find clear expressions of universal truths in timeless words. I love that about Walter and Lao’s writings.

Walter Russell

Walter Russell


THE LAW OF BALANCE is the Law of Love upon which the universe is founded. This law is given to man for his coming renaissance of greater comprehension. It is, of all laws, the inclusive and the most simple. It consists of but three words. These three words are the very foundation of all our material existence, all phenomena of matter or interchange between humans, economically, socially and spiritually.

I will read to you from THE DIVINE ILIAD:

“Great art is simple. My universe is great art, for it is simple.

“Great art is balanced. My universe is consummate art, for it is balanced simplicity.

“My universe is one in which many things have majestic measure; and again another many have measure too fine for sensing.

“Yet I have not one law for majestic things, and another law for things which are beyond the sensing.

“I have but one law for all My opposed pairs of creating things; and that law needs but one word to spell it out, so hear Me when I say that the one word of My one law is 


And if man needs two words to aid him in his knowing of the workings of that law, those words are

                                BALANCED INTERCHANGE.

If man still needs more words to aid his knowing of My one law, give to him another one, and let those three words be


Balance is the foundation of all human relations, of the universe itself. The stars of heaven move in obedience to it. They cannot do otherwise. Cosmic disaster of untold dimension would follow such disobedience. The starry universe is so absolute in its balance that the movement of a dewdrop on anyone planet necessitates the readjustment of the orbits of all the stars of heaven to that microcosmic event. Because of that law all happenings are universal. Any action anywhere is extended for repetition everywhere. All motion is as omnipresent as the Light of God is omnipresent. All effect is universal.

God is balance. From the stillness of His balance in the unconditioned One Light, He extends His balance to the conditioned universe of motion as two opposite unbalanced conditions of two lights which seek balance through each other.


Oppositely-conditioned pairs in Nature seek balance through each other by repeatedly giving all that each has to give to the other in rhythmic sequences. In Nature this process continues perpetually because in Nature all givings of one are perpetually balanced by equal regivings of the other. Nature never takes that which is not given.

This universe is founded upon love as manifested in the giving of one opposite to the other for regiving. The earth gives its forests to the heavens and the heavens give them back again to earth for equal regiving. Every dewdrop given by the heavens is equally regiven to the heavens by the earth.

Equal interchange between opposite conditions manifests the love principle of balance upon which God’s universal body is founded. Whatever is true of God’s universal body is true of man’s body. It is the equality of balance between the giving and regiving of Nature which makes its transactions perpetual. The lack of the love principle of rhythmic balanced interchange in the transactions of men is the reason for the ills of the body and for the disasters which make continuance of relations between men impossible.

The seller of goods is also a buyer. If the seller gives less to his customers than the value of what he charges, he deprives his customer of the ability to regive that which the seller needs to again become a seller. By sacrificing the good-will which is the foundation of continuance in any business, the love principle has been subtracted from the transaction in the measure of inequality of interchange.

Neither man nor nation can continue an interchange of relations upon a harmonious basis of multiplying power when the universal love principle is violated. The law of balance is absolute. He who breaks that law will be equally broken by it.

If each of the two conditions which forms the basis for every transaction between pairs of opposites in Nature can be kept in balance with the other, the resultant effect is good. When they are out of balance with each other, the resultant effect is bad.

Good and bad — sin and evil — measure the degree in which all pairs of oppositely-conditioned effects of motion are either in balance with each other or out of it. In all our human relations we, ourselves, make our own good and bad, or evils and sins, by our desires and decisions to act either in or out of balance with Universal Law.

There is no sin or evil in Nature, for Nature observes the law of balance. Every unbalanced effect in Nature is balanced by its opposite unbalanced effect.

The play of Creation consists of dividing all ideas into two opposite parts. What each half does in relation to the other half constitutes the play. Such divisions into halves are male and female—buyer and seller—positive and negative—compression and expansion, and countless other divisions of ideas into unbalanced pairs for the purpose of expressing those ideas.

Whatever these opposed pairs do in any transaction results in an effect. All human relations are thus divided, and transactions between humans results in either good or bad effects which we call happiness or misery in accordance with whether the transaction is balanced or unbalanced. Man can make whichever he chooses. He can make happiness, success, wealth, friendship and health only by obeying the law. He can never find them by disobeying the law.

For aeons mankind has been breaking the law in an endeavor to find happiness, wealth and power. Civilization has been built by the unbalanced power of might-over-right. Nations have enriched themselves by impoverishing other nations, expecting to find happiness by giving misery—expecting to attain power by depriving others of power. Without any exception, those who have broken the law have been equally broken by the law. This war-broken world of today is the result of yesterday’s breaking of the law.


It is a challenge to be consciously aware — “mindful” is the word these days — of what I am doing day in and day out. For example, we go to the grocery store so frequently that it has become part of our routine in life. So routine is this activity that it can almost be done without thinking. I simply read my grocery list, collect what I need into my cart and check out at the cashier’s counter. I bring my groceries home, put them away and take them out later to prepare a meal. I sit down to eat my meal then rise to wash my dishes and clean up the kitchen. All this I can do, have done, without giving a single thought to all that has gone before, all the people who make my daily meals at all possible.

For example, there’s the farmer who grew the vegetables — which come from our own garden this time of year, “Thank you Mother God and the good earth and worms and microorganisms!” — the packager who shipped them to the super market, the truck driver who drove all night to get the produce to the grocer, the grocer himself who provided the store and stocked it with groceries. Then there’s the stock boy who placed the apples and oranges on display, the company who made the grocery cart for me to gather my groceries and cart them up to the cashier. Then there’s the cashier who checks me out and collects my payment, and the bagging boy who puts my groceries into bags so that I can carry them home. Then there’s the ” butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker,” along with the workers who packaged the bread, the meat and the candlesticks — all of this done for my convenience, to make my life enjoyable and less stressful. And we could go on to include the transportation system — our automobiles and the petroleum needed to run them — but I’ll stop there.  It’s called “Community.” How many people am I consciously aware of who are in some small and large way involved in just my daily meals? Well, if I am consciously aware of them, whoever they are, when I give my money to the cashier for my groceries, then that act of paying for what has been given to me can take on a much larger meaning that isn’t otherwise in my consciousness when I am acting mindlessly out of habit and routine, and maybe complaining about the rising cost of things. How much more fun there is in being mindful!  And thankful!

Sometimes I think of all this and a deep sense of appreciation whelms up in my heart.  It can’t help but whelm up. My payment, then, becomes a means of giving so that the grocer and so many others can continue giving — never mind whether or not they are mindful of the Law of Balance and of their participation in it or lack thereof.  If I am, then they are too, because what I do here is done everywhere. We are one Body of humanity! Let me be conscious for the whole Body.

Our needs are not that great. Our wants are what get us into trouble with the Law of Balance.

I practiced for fourteen years back in the 1960-70’s, along with other colleagues, without a fee for our services. It was called the “GPC Cooperative Fee System.”  The acronym stood for “God–Patient–Chiropractor.” The rationale was that God gives life freely to the patient and the chiropractor alike, so what right does the chiropractor have to charge a fee for helping his patients increase their experience of life?  That’s what true healthcare does, or is at least supposed to do: increase the expression of life in human beings. What price could we honestly place on that?! Health and life are priceless. So we didn’t charge for it, and God came through in providing for our needs. (And when you stop to think about it honestly, our needs are not that great. Our wants are what get us into trouble with the Law of Balance. Think about it. )

We practiced this way in order to align ourselves with the Universal Law of Giving and Receiving. In order to awaken my patients to the this law, I would often say “The patient just leaving the office paid for your services today. You can pay for the person following you, if you like.” Well, it wasn’t true, at least not in a conscious sense. But it was the fact, nevertheless, that we were able to continue giving our services to others because the ones who went before gave to us financially so that we could keep the clinic open and buy groceries in order to sustain our bodies.  Those were the best years of my entire career as a healthcare practitioner. We had so much fun waking people up to the truth and spirit of the Law of Balance. It was also an education in how little value people in general placed on our services and, more to the point, were willing to invest in the health and wellness of their own house of being.  Far more value is placed on the kind of automobile one drives, and keeping it in good running condition, and the quality and comfort of one’s domicile. We averaged around $9 per office visit — but we saw and blessed between fifty and a hundred patients every day!  Just thought I would cap this post off with a little story of my own. We are missing out on a marvelously rewarding experience mindlessly giving just to get something for ourselves from others. We can’t actually do that, you know, for there are no “others.” There’s only the One I am.

Until my next post, in which I will share some of Lao Russell’s wise words on personal relationships, I wish you well.

Anthony Palombo, D.C.

Read my Health Light Newsletter online at LiftingTones.com.  The theme is balancing our energy fields. Very interesting reading.

Tag Cloud


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 670 other followers