There is a widespread belief that since everything is One, and all is spiritual and conscious, the physical universe must be being generated out of our consciousness. It is rather like a Star Trek holographic illusion that exists because we all agree it should exist. The Pyramids are in Egypt rather than Cleveland, Ohio, because we all agree at a higher level that they must be there. That is consensus reality.

The Nature of Consensus

The difficulty with consensus reality is that it must be occurring at such a high level that we don't know it's occurring. Certainly it isn't occurring at the physical level. In other words, we couldn't send out e-mails to everyone in Illinois asking everyone to believe all at once that Lake Michigan is filled with chocolate syrup and have it come to pass.

However, physical reality is One with God, and exists because God intends for it to exist. We are One with God, so at a higher level, we are part of the creation of reality. But the concept of consensus requires separation; separate entities agree on something, so there is consensus. That drives it down to the physical level because at the spiritual level, there is only Oneness.

The implications of people creating the physical world through consensus also result in the "you create your own reality" thinking. I have fundamental problems with that concept. That isn't to suggest that I don't believe it could be true. At the current time, it just doesn't resonate with my intuition.

Why?

1. I know "create your own reality" thinkers who are miserable and whose reality is anything but happy. They wouldn't create that if they could.

2. Second, the implication is that decay, entropy, death, and suffering are part of what we're creating and we could uncreate it if we chose to do so. We certainly would if we could, and of course, we can't.

3. Third, it results in the kinds of judgment that are rampant in Judeo-Christian thought. If you're righteous, you will enjoy bountiful blessings from God "full measure, shaken together, and running over." So we can create a pecking order by looking to see who is getting blessings. If you're not getting blessings, you must not be a true believer. Discussions about create your own reality have the implicit assumption that when you're spiritual enough, you've arrived and now you'll get what you want. In other words, you aren't in balance, so you're suffering.

4. Fourth, it focuses on the physical world. We're not going to derive contentment from being focused on the physical world. Bliss is a natural byproduct of focusing on the spiritual realm. We should be enjoying the sensuality of the physical world and the love of those around us, but that can't be the focus of our efforts. If we focus our efforts on creating a reality full of opulence and physical comforts, we will continually be frustrated. The physical world is the world of endings, entropy, and decay.

5. Fifth, it assigns responsibility for my life satisfaction and contentment to something outside of myself, some standard that I have to attain. I'm miserable because I haven't measured up yet. When I measure up, life will be wonderful. It's a lottery mentality. If I could just win the lottery, or if I could just be spiritual enough, my reality would be wonderful. I don't have to take responsibility for making myself miserable by the choices I'm making; I just have to become spiritual enough or win the lottery.

6. Finally, it has resulted in people teaching a create your own reality theology. Listening to them talk has all of the trappings of an Evangelical church service with a "believe me, I've got the right answers" mentality.

So, I have difficulty talking about consensus reality; rather, I prefer to talk simply the Oneness we all share and our personal responsibilities for ourselves and those around us.

Consensus in the Physical World

However, there is a significant consensus in the physical world that is influenced by the spiritual realm. It does have a widespread effect on our lives.

Let me begin with an illustration. There are some four-letter words in our language that are so taboo that I won't print them here. They refer to sexual and bodily functions. How is it possible that I follow the rules about these words, you follow the rules, and any stranger we meet anywhere in the nation will follow the same rules? We didn't go to class together to learn the rules. But we follow them nonetheless.

We have a consensus reality about the rules from our interconnectedness in the physical world. It is entirely a physical world phenomenon, however.

The fact is that these words are taboo in 2000 because they reflect a class prejudice from the 11th century. Prior to AD 1066, ancient Germanic tribes named Angles, Saxons, and Jutes lived in England. In 1066, William, Duke of Normandy, brought an army across the English channel from France and conquered England. The French became the aristocrats living in the manor houses on the hill. The conquered Anglo-Saxon peasants lived in huts removed from the manor houses and did all of the labor for the French aristocrats, such as raising livestock and raising crops.

The result was that the Anglo-Saxon's language (Anglish or English) was regarded as vulgar. The aristocratic French only spoke French. That's why the animals in the field that were tended by the Anglo-Saxon peasants are even today called by Anglo-Saxon names: cows, pigs, and chickens. But the meat on the aristocrats' tables is still called by the French words: beef, pork, and poultry.

The Anglo-Saxon words for sexual activity and bodily functions were considered vulgar and unspeakable by the aristocrats; it was part of their class prejudice. The French words, "sexual intercourse" and "defacation," are still acceptable today, but I can't write the Anglo-Saxon words for the same functions, even though the meanings are the same. It is purely a class prejudice we're carrying nearly 1,000 years later.

The Effects of This Consensus on Our Lives