The Pathwork Guide tells us that spiritual laws affect us in exactly the same way that a law, like the law of gravity, affects us. They determine exactly what we will experience on the physical plane in this life. Watch me and Kathleen Fisher discuss the spiritual law of responsibility in this short video. We hope will give you key insights from the lectures and inspire you to explore further—read Pathwork Lecture #181, and look for the spiritual law of responsibility operating in your own life!

The Pathwork Guide tells us that spiritual laws affect us in exactly the same way that a law, like the law of gravity, affects us. They determine exactly what we will experience on the physical plane in this life.

Watch me and Kathleen Fisher discuss the spiritual law of abundance in this short video.

We hope will give you key insights from the lectures and inspire you to explore further—read Pathwork Lecture #130 and look for the spiritual law of abundance operating in your own life!

By Paul Paquette, President of the International Pathwork Foundation

In the December 2020 edition of this newsletter, I wrote about the fact that the Board of the International Pathwork Foundation had invited helpers and other community leaders to discern how to respond to criticism of the Guide’s treatment of homosexuality, particularly lecture 53 where the Guide discusses homosexuality as a sickness. Based on feedback and discussion, a further meeting of the committee, and my reflections, I want to address this again today.

Let me say though that I am speaking for myself. I see my role as President of the Foundation as engaging in the topic under discussion and to share what I see, hear and feel. But as far as any action that might be taken in the name of the IPF, it’s my responsibility to support the finding of a consensus. It’s not my choosing; it’s the choosing of those that invest in the process – the process is of course the Pathwork. The objective of the Pathwork is to mold the inner creative life substance that we channel to act with love and care rather than hate and mistrust. The cornerstone to do this is to face oneself in all honesty (see lecture 181 the Meaning of the Human Struggle). This is said in many ways throughout the lectures as is the Guide’s intention which is to develop our inner authority to conscientiously make the loving choices.

The topic of how to handle criticism of the Guide’s commentary on homosexuality has become a lightning rod for many issues in our community.

On this issue there are people who:

• — are not concerned that homosexuals feel offended by the Guide’s commentary; and those who see systemic and cultural oppression based on questionable thinking;
• — cringe in anger if you suggest that Guide said something that is suspect or discriminatory; and those for whom questioning and even disagreeing with the Guide, when it comes from an honest self-examination and development of one’s positive inner authority, is the cornerstone of the Pathwork;
• — believe God’s plan for sexual relations is limited to heterosexual relations because that is how babies are made; and those who see that 95% of the expression of human sexuality is about relationship and or recreation, not reproduction, and it is in this expression that we should ask what God intends. Then related issues quickly emerge.

There are people who:

• — believe the Pathwork is Christian and those who believe it is non-denominational;
• — are dumbstruck that the Pathwork, which is largely non-denominational, suddenly becomes denominational and Jesus is held up as the most evolved spirit;
• — have a profound sense of Jesus and those who do not know of him or are confused about him;
• — wonder why it’s assumed the Guide is a “he” and those for whom the Guide is a “him.”

At our second meeting on this topic on February 18th, we did the Pathwork; we could have confronted and fought, but we were guided to hear, understand and empathize with each other. The pain felt by the LGBTQ community over being the target of the Guide’s comments, and that that language could be used to justify homophobia, was felt by all.This was a real gift since the issue was no longer academic. It is about real people following the impulse of their hearts to love and care, yet always having that diminished, disrespected, trivialized away. Also expressed was the fear for the future of the Pathwork and its relevance to younger generations if it can’t evolve as the culture is clearly evolving. Where is the good inner authority of the Pathwork community in 2021? Can we engage in a process that allows us to make a conscientious decision? The decision may be to do nothing or it may be to offer a lot more guidance to people questioning the Guide on this topic and on other topics also. But we need to hear each other and support each other to find and express what is truly honest for each person. Of course, we don’t turn a blind eye to criminal acts and acts of violence. But if it is someone expressing “in this way I am able to love and care,” we need to hear that and see the other as a brother, sister or non-binary sibling in this amazing spiritual community known as the Pathwork.

I honestly do not know how we will be proceeding but we will be proceeding with our process of listening to each other. I hope at some point that we can act in the way of offering more guidance and support to LGBTQ people, so they are able to benefit from the wisdom of the Guide which is present in so many areas. However, that is also something we all have to choose and support, and it may mean also offering support to those who are troubled by this—all is possible.

In the Pathwork lectures the Guide reminds us many times that the things the Guide is saying are not to taken as dogma but rather are to be discerned and wrestled with, to the point where we are to arrive at our own conscientious decision as to their truth and merit. 

In lecture 53 when the Guide refers to homosexuality as sickness, the Guide appears to leave no room for equivocation and the Guide appears to clearly believe that God’s plan unfolds in the union of a man and a woman. For people steeped in the Pathwork, who have wrestled with the many times and ways one is triggered by the lecture material, the statement may not be seriously problematic.  One might shrug and say: “just another occasion, dear Guide, where, with all due respect, I beg to differ.  You appear to base your argument on homosexuality being a result of stunted emotional development and you don’t address nature itself – that human bodies get sexually aroused by attractions determined by DNA, not choice.”  But for those who aren’t yet ready or prepared to confront the Guide and keep their own sense of integrity, this statement in lecture 53 that homosexuality is a sickness is confusing, hurtful, unfair, unnecessary even.  It has indeed caused some people to walk away from the Pathwork lectures. At the Foundation level we are wondering what we can do to help those people “not throw out the baby with the bath water;” what can we do to help people get over this proverbial “bump in their path” at this delicate moment.     

When I reflect on this as a gay man, I think of the human approach to the spiritual world.  At the most basic level we see people praying to an all-knowing and all powerful God who must be appeased by correct behaviour, in this case, the strict male/female coupling plan.  On the other end of the spectrum and as the Guide discusses, the spirit realm has many spheres and spirits are both good and evil in their intent, and God is simply that part of the spirit realm where good exists without evil, where love and caring in intent and action are all that a spirit expresses.   As the Guide points out, the earth realm provides us with a great opportunity to develop our capacity to choose love over evil.  So God’s plan is not to direct us as to whom we should love, but rather that we should love.  Hence my conclusion is that homosexual love has exactly the same possibility to be part of God’s plan as heterosexual love.   

This raises the very serious observation that the Guide may not always be right or right for us.  I have to imagine that if the Guide were commenting today the Guide would say that the comments were made in the context of the day.  First of all the assumption that people to whom the Guide was talking were biologically heterosexual in the DNA of their attractions.  Second, given the huge social pressures of those times in which no one questioned the discrimination against homosexuals, the comments were taken for granted, unchallenged and unexplored. One might say exactly the same way in which Jesus takes slavery for granted in the New Testament; slaves should obey their masters and masters should be good to their slaves.     

The reality is that our consciousness evolves over times.  The Guide said in several occasions there were things the Guide could not explain because of the human limitations of language in the instrument (i.e. Eva as medium).  Interestingly many in the younger generation are now questioning the very nature of male and female and in fact looking at non-binary expressions of being and essence.  I can understand this as I seek to avoid using a first-person singular pronoun for the Guide.  We often refer to the Guide as “he” and this automatically gives the Guide the pre-eminent status accorded the male by humans.  But the Guide is a spirit, how could the Guide be binary?  In fact, the Guide says the Guide is only a spokesperson for a group of spirits.  In modern parlance, the Guide if anything, in English is a “they”.   

At the Foundation we want to help keep the wisdom of the lectures available and accessible to everyone, but particularly the younger generations, who face a fast changing world.  We are assessing providing more guidance to interpretation and working with lectures through the use of a preface and footnote in a lecture.  This is not unlike what one sees in many spiritual traditions.  For example in Judaism there is the Torah but there is also the Midrashim.  The former is considered the original spiritual guidance and the latter is the interpretation given by esteemed teachers and commentators over the ensuing centuries.   

For me this introduces the exciting possibility where people wrestling with the Guide’s words can share the inner work that led them to make conscientious decisions of love in intent and action.   As we discern this change, our goal is to help keep the Pathwork relevant, valuable and current to the times. 

Paul Paquette, President, International Pathwork Foundation

The polarization of political debate today calls on all people of good will to see what can be done to forge common ground. That common ground is, for Pathworkers and other people of good will, based on spiritual principles.

Spiritual principles, at their most basic, are about the connectedness of all creation. We are inextricably connected, one to the other. The Pathwork makes no distinction between people of all races, or between men and women, when it comes to their value. The Pathwork has no place for discrimination based on the idea of racial or ethnic superiority. The Guide’s spiritual law of brotherhood (and sisterhood) underlines our responsibility to confront impulses of hate, separation, and mistrust. The idea that other races or ethnic groups are fundamentally different from us has no place in the Pathwork. The idea that one must preserve or protect one’s own ethnic or racial identity – the motivation behind the recent mass killing rampage in New Zealand – is a fundamental misconception.

In the clash of values between liberals and conservatives, the Pathwork also has a lot to say. The Pathwork, in the Guide’s lecture on political systems (Lecture 242), places democracy as the most spiritually advanced, because it gives primacy to the ability of the individual to pursue self-transformation. But the Guide also cautions that “the distortion of capitalistic democracy is again very obvious in that the abuse of power by the few stronger, more willful individuals may then impose disadvantages on those who are not willing to stand on their own two feet.”

This addresses a basic polarization between conservatives and liberals around the idea of self-responsibility. The Pathwork is uncompromising about the need for everyone to work as diligently as possible for self-development and self-transformation. We are also united in the belief that no one can legitimately blame anyone else or “life” for their difficulties. At the same time, just as the Guide says in the above quote, people can abuse power and hurt others – but those who are hurt bear responsibility for their state. This apparently paradoxical truth is a key Pathwork concept.

When a conservative says that “liberals want to give people free stuff,” and benefit those who don’t work for what they get, the Pathwork answers with the spiritual law of self-responsibility, and the fact that what one gets out of life is exactly what one puts into it. The Pathwork places responsibility on the individual to create a better world, and recognizes that society is the sum total of every individual’s positive or negative intent and action. To quote Lecture 12, “If only a small part of humankind sowed the seeds of peace, wars would not exist, in spite of a few unscrupulous politicians.”

The Pathwork is clearly not supportive of totalitarian systems that would take away the autonomy of the individual. Yet it also instructs us not to hurt each other and to help where we can. This is another apparent paradox – that help and support for others are an obligation we share, even while we respect everyone’s autonomy and the fact that they have created their life circumstances. Lecture 26 says: “To be able to open your heart to another brings spiritual help you could not receive by yourself,” and Lecture 18 says, “Your present freedom or lack of freedom depends entirely on your past deeds, thoughts, and inner reactions.”

— Alan Saly, Chair, Pathwork Press Committee

Reposted from http://www.speakingtree.in/blog/try-this-for-a-change

With so many global conflicts – over resources, territory and ideology plus increasing disputes about inequality, cronyism and climate change – it’s time we find ways to reconcile differences and discover solutions. Greater empathy, for real or imagined adversaries, is a good place to start.

Empathy is the ability to understand and be sensitive to someone else’s feelings and experiences by putting yourself in their shoes – seeing things from their perspective. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with their point of view. Simply reflect on the differences with equanimity and refrain from dismissive or divisive reactions.

Empathy strengthens constructive social behavior. By offering a non-judgmental, compassionate presence foes are more relaxed and less defensive. This allows for more respectful listening and increases the likelihood of a calm, reasoned response.

Empathetic communications enables the person speaking to engage with a deeper understanding of the other person’s needs. The conversation is transformed from confrontation to curiosity and connection. This makes it easier for the parties to cooperate with one another so problems can be solved and relationships enriched by diverse points of view.

Empathetic communication is a multi-step process. First is attentive listening. Then one reflects back what they heard. Third, is a reframing; state your understanding of their feelings about the situation. Fourth, focus on assuring them you recognize what they value or need.

The value or need should be expressed positively to show you grasp why they have such a need rather than suggesting that something is missing in their life. This four step process makes problem solving much easier; something I learned when I had a dispute with a neighbor. By standing in his shoes and acknowledging his wishes and then doing my best to meet what he wanted, he moderated his apprehension and allowed me to proceed with my legitimate plans. Our relationship was enhanced and I learned an important lesson: empathy has its rewards.

“Because a human being is endowed with empathy, he violates the natural order if he does not reach out to those who need care. Responding to this empathy, one is in harmony with the order of things, with dharma; otherwise, one is not.” Dayananda Saraswati

David Schwerin
www.consciousthinking.com