I received a free copy from Smith Publicity in exchange for an honest review.

From the information I received on this book, I had actually expected more of a how-to on combining meditation with a more profound spiritual outlook. Having studied various religions in college, it came as a surprise to me to find a book with heavy far Eastern religious ideals that referenced Christ from front to back. The author also shoots down the concept of magic but also speaks in pagan terms:

“It is not that Mother Gaia abandons her children, the humans. It is that her evolution will move into a realm where humans can only survive if they too ascend and evolve and shed their childish behavior.” 5%

Garlinger makes so many great observations of the human race, although often mixed with some over-the-top descriptions that border on absurd, like the following:

“As we speak, the trumpets of Heaven blast resoundingly in full appreciation of the triumphs of the human race. But none of the wondrous achievements in technology can lead us from the inexorable conclusion that humanity is bent on its own destruction.” 4%

He points out that the world is full of warring beliefs about the divine and the creator but the people arguing have no real idea of what they are talking about. People give up authority to those who claim to know of God but are in truth being deceived.

“Love is a key aspect of the collective consciousness into which you are all absorbed as infants and which then shapes your sense of what it means to be human: You must have a mate, and this mate must fill you with this romantic love. Without this, you are not quite right, you are flawed, you are missing something essential, and your life cannot ever be as good as it is for someone who finds this romantic love. Anybody who dares challenge that story in any way is deemed somehow an outcast and sent to the sidelines of society.” 18%

Garlinger makes a very good attempt at pointing out that love is not simply between partners. Love is in everything and everyone and not simply about romance. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with. If we recognize the love around us, we will come into a higher level of consciousness.

Another excellent point is that humans try to control literally everything. “You cannot exert control. You have to let go and let the lifestream lead you.” 21% these attempts breed anxiety and further separation from ascension. Additionally, ascension is not a group activity to be led by anyone. It is an independent act.

“Ascension does not require the participation of anybody else but you, and to accept everyone else where they are and not to convince them that they need to wake up is all that you need to accept right now. This does not mean you can’t try to help those who want to wake up, but understand that, like this text that works not intellectually, not linearly, you are not to try to persuade or cajole or convince through all manner of intellectual feats that others can and should wake up.” 34%.

While that's a nice sentiment, it seems this whole book is about how the reader is not at the right place and that the author is, in fact, trying to persuade us to do his bidding. If I should only be concerned with my own ascension, should he not be only concerned with his?

He goes on to discuss bigotry and racism and the judgment of groups of people. Not only do these things breed hatred, war, and dissension, they limit your ability to transcend to your true divine state. “None of it has any real truth to it; it is all the fiction that you create.” 53%

Pretty much the book ran smoothly until the author came out with some kind of off the wall ideas, like:

“Many of you have lived as stars from other realms and galaxies. You have then incarnated in this realm, in this body, many, many times, each time seeking to understand the vastness of all creation in and through this particular type of incarnation.” 56%

I suppose I'm just not used to Christ, reincarnation and being a star in a galaxy all coming from one mouth like they go together perfectly.

And with every religious and spiritual text comes the discussion of compassion. This will always be the major concept I disagree with.

“Compassion is not an act, nor is it an action: It is a relationship to an object or person in front of you, it is a measure of your relationship to the person’s deed, and not how you respond in action. We will get to action. Compassion is the measure of how much love you bring to the person who has acted in the way that has created problems or strife in the world, and so you can bring this person love, in and through compassion, or you can bring judgment. When you no longer bring judgment, you can only bring compassion. Compassion is not condoning, it is not saying what you did was right or wrong, it does not necessarily alleviate the other person [of responsibility]. No, compassion is love that comes and meets that energy, the misguided and misappropriated energy, and says there is another way to be.” 58%

Garlinger goes on to use Hitler as his example. I guess if you're going to make a statement, you might as well go big. How he can rationalize compassion for Hitler astounds me. So we should bring love to mass murderers, child molestors, and rapists in order to ascend? I wish you could see the face I'm making.

Blasphemy and charity were interesting discussions.

“Blasphemy is something that you all use as a means of keeping each other in check. It is a tool of religious domination. You speak about God as if you know God, and therefore you can decide what is appropriate and what isn’t. You believe that you understand God and that you can then determine the ways that God should and should not be talked about or discussed. You decide that this is okay, but that is not. Most of those decisions or choices about what is and is not blasphemy are not correct. They are not based in truth.” 70%

So it's blasphemy to speak as if we know God. If we say God thinks or feels a certain way about something it's wrong. So why can the author do it? Right after he defines blasphemy he goes on to say,

“God, or the Light, the Source of all being, the Creator, is not amused by your efforts to dictate to each other. Of course God can be “amused.” God can experience all emotions, just not in the way that you would experience them or interpret them, and therefore “amuse” you might misunderstand, as if God sits around on some throne waiting for his human subjects to entertain him like jesters in a court. No, no, that is not the image at all we mean to convey. God is amused in the sense that the Light is uplifting, that there is an uplifting that comes with any sort of amusement, of joy, of love that is spread.” 70%

Isn't that the author trying to “keep us in check”?

Now his explanation of charity is spot on:

“Charity is such a misunderstood topic among humans, who often regard it as being a reflection of their goodness or something they do out of obligation, as a commitment or a burden. It is not something done with joy and freedom. It is seen as a loss, a handing over of money to another cause, an essential obligation to look good and be seen as appropriately generous. In other words, charity becomes a means by which you buy and barter social acceptance among certain echelons of your society.” 90%

However, I do believe there are people who are charitable without trying to gain public favor or look good.

So kudos to Garlinger for going full steam ahead with his arguments. I applaud anyone who is willing to take a stand and respectfully present their ideas. However, the book does not flow from chapter to chapter; the author acts like a know it all who's better than his readers; and he presents some very touchy subjects. Maybe I'll never ascend because I refuse to offer compassion to people like Hitler. I'd be interested to know just how many other readers were completely blown away and/or thoroughly disgusted with this.

3 stars.