Larry Mullins

May 10, 2011

Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly and Billy Graham: Hell is not Real

Filed under: psychology,religion,values — Tags: , , , , , , — LarryMullins @ 10:09 am

Dear Mr. O’Reilly and Peverend Graham:

Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly and Billy Graham: Hell is not Real


Dear Mr. O’Reilly and Reverend Graham:

Hell is a state of nonbeing. This state is the opposite of reality.

When I was a kid one of my Catholic friends assured me that hell is a real place where evil people go. The nuns told him. “It’s like when you burn your finger,” my friend said. “You know how bad that feels? But it’s like your whole body is burning forever and ever.” Even as an immature child I could not believe God would do such a thing to one of his wayward creatures.

Mr. O’Reilly, you had a minister on your program who tried to explain to you that hell is not a material place where evil people go. But you interrupted him so much that he never really got to explain what he meant. You seemed to believe that if there is no material hell then Hitler, and Stalin, and Osama ben Laden are in heaven. But nobody believes that. And Reverend Graham, you wrote in your newspaper column that hell is “very real.” Then you quoted the Bible as saying that people in hell are: “shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power.” I agree with this, and isn’t “being shut out from the presence of the Lord” like being shut out from the most real of all realities?

You see, God is “the most inescapable of all presences, the most real of all facts, the most living of all truths, the most loving of all friends, the most divine of all values.” Being all these things, he is also “the most certain of all universe experience.” How can one be totally denied of this reality unless one ceases to be? The reality of being is the greatest gift the Creator has given us. The situation of total nonbeing is tantamount to annihilation.

St. Augustine had an ingenious way of explaining this. He would ask his students, “Would you rather have a beautiful pearl or a mouse?” The answer was always the same, of course, because we would all rather have the valuable pearl than the mouse. Then he would ask, “Would you rather be a beautiful pearl or a mouse?” The answer changed at that point. A mouse, limited as it is, has more being, more power to act than a lifeless pearl. Absolute nonbeing is OK for a pearl. But for a human being, it is an unthinkable disaster. And this state of nonbeing is the fate of those who choose to resolutely and finally deny the ultimate reality of God. We are punished by our sins, not for them.

The more we distance from God, the less real we become. The more we express those things that are true, beautiful and good, the more real we become. Those who embrace evil and iniquity move toward cosmic insanity, the threshold of the ultimate hell. Who are these lost souls? Jesus taught us, “by their fruits shall you know them.” Yet he also said regarding individuals: “Judge not.” So, we can certainly judge the act, but better not to speculate upon the fate of the sinner; leave that judgment to God.

Eventually, if in the wisdom of God a soul is unsalvageable, it becomes as if it had never been. This is not revenge. It is rather that the personality (the keeper of the soul) has chosen not to be.




October 9, 2010

Creativity: The Ultimate Secret revealed

For many years I have made a living as an illustrator, graphic artist and by creative writing. I have taught many classes on creativity. I have told a few people the ultimate secret of creativity, but never published it until now.

When people would ask me, “How do you draw a picture?” I always responded with a question. “What is your telephone number?” A bit puzzled, people always responded with their number. I then would always say the same thing: “What was it that looked for that number, and where did it find it?” Of course, they can’t answer. The truth is, no scientist, philosopher or theologian can answer that question. We have no idea how the mind works. We do not know where the drive to create comes from, nor how it successfully manifests.

We do know that there are two stages to creativity: the inspiration, the gift, or the idea, is the first stage. Everyone gets inspirations. Lots of them. It is my belief that the most lofty of these ideas come from God, or more precisely, the Universe Mother Spirit. There is no problem with finding noble inspirations, normal human minds are invaded by them constantly. It is the second stage of creativity where most of us stumble. As T. S. Elliott put it, “Between the idea and the reality … falls the shadow.”

The ultimate secret, the difference between a creative artist and the average person is very simple. The creative artist shows up. Every single day. At the easel, the writing desk, the kitchen, the nursery, or the classroom. They show up, and they struggle to actualize worthy ideas into realities. I have no idea how the creative process works. I only know that if I show up, most days a miracle will occur. My role in this process is solely to cooperate with the mysterious flow and strive to follow guidance I am given. Some days I fail utterly. But some days are glorious, and even though I am only a small bit player in the whole process, I love it. because I know that, for some reason, the great Creator has endowed us with the power to allow the creative process to work, or to stop it cold by simply not showing up. Showing up is an important victory for me.

I can offer one other “secret” that works for me. It is based upon the advice Jesus once gave to a messenger who was to carry an important message. Jesus told him to carry his message fearlessly, joyfully. Because “… this night an unseen messenger will run by your side.” So, I greet each day thankful for a special angel who, along with other unseen friends, I imagine is at my side assisting me in my efforts.

To some, I realize these notions may seem especially over the top, perhaps even crazy. I remind them of the admonition of Zorba the Greek: “A man [or a woman, of course] needs a little madness, or else he never dares cut the rope and be free.”

Dare to cut the rope.

Larry Mullins

September 5, 2010

Stephen Hawking’s Valiant Flub

The Wall Street Journal recently printed an excerpt from Stephen Hawking’s book “The Grand Design” (Why God Did Not Create the Universe). Hawking is a great scientist, but his excerpt proves only that he is no philosopher. Just as science has its rules, so does philosophy.

Hawking states: “As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing.” The mystery of matter apparently emerging from “nothing” on the quantum level cannot be answered by science, and yet it should not be ignored. It is a question for the philosopher (who has yet to answer it).

There are three disciplines that broadly lay claim to truth: science, religion and philosophy. It is generally conceded that philosophy occupies a place between science and religion, and should seek to mediate between the two. Philosophy then could establish a synthesis by means of an integration of scientific fact and spiritual insight.

Unfortunately, such a tri-part solution as this is denied the expert-specialist because Aristotle confined all disciplines into logic-tight compartments. They do not communicate.

However, uncommon sense permits lay persons to avoid being defenseless against the a priori assumptions of compartmentalized science, philosophy and religion. In this light, the theologian might suggest that matter seems to “disappear” and “reappear” from nothing on the quantum level for a reason. Perhaps the laws of time, space and matter seem invalid on the sub-atomic level because we are looking into the impenetrable mind of God, from whence all matter emerges.

Students of the Urantia Papers recognize this as yet undetectable source as the Unqualified Absolute, the unimaginably immense reservoir of the material cosmos.

Larry Mullins

January 4, 2010

Should Values be the Exclusive Domain of Religion?

From the Preface of The MetaValues Breakthrough:

Abraham Maslow believed that values should not be the exclusive domain of religionists. He advocated a science of values. Yet he also grasped that MetaValues transcend the disciplines of science, theology, and philosophy. Unlike Rand or Hitchens, Maslow understood that science does not have all the answers. Science can tell us much about material reality, or what is. Science can even suggest possibilities, what could be. But the poet or the religionist offers a vision for us of what ought to be. And science without values builds bigger bombs and more efficient gas chambers. Dr. Maslow fought hard to break down the barriers between science and religion:
“I [have] pointed out that both orthodox science and orthodox religion have been institutionalized and frozen into a mutually excluding dichotomy. This separation into Aristotelian a and not-a has been almost perfect … Every question, every answer, every method, every jurisdiction, every task has been assigned to either one or the other, with practically no overlaps. One consequence is that they are both pathologized, split into sickness, ripped apart into a crippled half-science and a crippled half-religion.”
Unfortunately, Maslow was never able to distill his ideas for mainstream readers; he wrote almost exclusively for his peers. The world is the poorer for this, because Maslow uncovered truths about the human condition that are tremendously uplifting and inspiring—and are easily within the understanding of nearly every person on the planet. With this book, nearly four decades after Maslow’s death, individuals at last have a program that shows them how to put these truths to work in their lives.

From Chapter Eight of The MetaValues Breakthrough:
Dr. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has now been around so long that it is a yawner for most students in Psychology 101. Although important progress has been made by many pioneers, the great new frontier of the human mind -the summit of the pyramid- has not yet been fully explored. There is no recognized science of values. And the vast majority of humankind still actualize only a small fraction of their potentials. The time has come to propose a new model of humankind that is based upon Maslow’s metamotivation theory- a model that better embraces the farther reaches of what a human being could become.

Larry Mullins

July 28, 2009


Good day Anil. Let me preface my remarks with a disclaimer. I know Western thinkers generally embrace models such as Maslow’s pyramid. However, when discussing a model, such as the pyramid, we must keep in mind that it is an imaginary concept that we are imposing upon reality. It makes us more comfortable, but it does not really exist.

On the other hand, when discussing immensely complex issues such as human motivation it is helpful to have an idea what conceptual model of the human psyche a particular individual subscribes to. My understanding of one Eastern view is that the essence of a mortal (forgive the brevity and crudeness) could be viewed as concentric circles, with the spiritual essence of the individual in the center, and increasingly grosser levels of matter enveloping it. Freud used a different, more simplistic idea of the ID, the EGO and the SUPER EGO, with no concession to a spiritual component. Maslow himself was a professed atheist, yet he hinted at transcendent qualities in the mortal being, while insisting that such qualities as the highest values were somehow biological in nature. I find neither Maslow or Freud’s models satisfactory, in that they fail to explain transcendent qualities in mortals that appear to impinge upon the materialistic situational field, especially in critical moments. Maslow and Freud also fail to explain the continuity of consciousness that we all experience and sense to be valid. The Eastern model comes close to explaining both phenomenon, but still seemed to fall a bit short.

Victor Frankl offered a much more viable option than any of the three above, in my judgment. He explained his model at length in the book he wrote immediately after his concentration camp experience, “The Unconscious God.” Later this book was republished a few years ago as “Man’s Search for Ultimate Meaning.” (Not to be confused with his “Man’s Search for Meaning.” They are very different.) Frankl believed in two spiritual components are essential parts of mortal being, two “irreducible essences.” One was very similar to the Eastern spiritual essence … the changeless, personal “I am” that is uniquely us, yet part of the ultimate whole. Yet, Frankl declared that this immortal essence “should not be a judge unto itself.” He suggested that a second spiritual essence, objective, impersonal, and transcendent was necessary to guide the mortal. In this way he brushed aside ethical “rules” and declared the second ultimate essence capable of operating infallibly to provide mortal guidance in the present. I found this hybrid model (that is dual components of spiritual influence, one personal and the other objective and impersonal) in only one other place, “The Urantia Book.” This huge and challenging tome claims to be a revelation that synthesizes science, religion and philosophy. I find many useful ideas in it.

With these caveats in mind, I will attempt to offer you a response to your questions.

QUESTION: 1. How does his theory explain Victor Frankl’s case who chose to live at the top of the Maslow’s pyramid even when his most basic needs were not being fulfilled in the Nazi concentration camps. Galileo, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, were poor to the extent that their most basic needs were not being fulfilled when they produced some finest works in their fields contributions that can at least fit in the middle of the pyramid, if not at the highest levels. (By the way does he ever talk about the pyramid in his book. Some people say the concept of pyramid was added later)

Maslow’s model does not really explain instances of spiritual transcendence that makes possible virtual miracles of the human spirit. Unlike many people, I believe the self-actualizing process may engage on any level of the pyramid. I find the pyramid helpful in explaining immature behavior, but once we enter the self-actualizing process material cause and effect is less and less significant. The self-actualizer becomes lost in his or her quest. Ironically, we become more and more our real self as we become less and less concerned with its welfare. Maslow presented his pyramid about In 1943, in a paper that featured his Hierarchy of Human Needs. This would turn out to be the one piece of his work that nearly all his academic peers in psychology enthusiastically embraced. Yet, in my judgment, his later work was much more important.

QUESTION 2. Does a person shift to the next level of hierarchy when his needs in the current level get satisfied substantially or satisfied at least to the most basic level. In case it is substantial, what makes a human decide how much is substantial? How does he know that level has been achieved? Isn’t it something within him that decides it? If that is so how much control he wields in manipulating that feeling?

The different levels are defused, not clearly defined. Moreover, except for very basic needs, an individual does not consciously decide to move to another level. as one moves up the pyramid the “needs” become more like “urges.” If we are hungry, we clearly know it. But if we perceive we are not sufficiently respected, the urge is very subjective. How do we decide the situation of a lack of respect? It may be true, or it may be an immature feeling that is not justified. Therefore, we can hardly consciously decide that this emotional need has been satisfied in the manner a big hamburger satisfies our hunger. Indeed, it is “something in him” (as you say) that may enlighten his perspective of self-worth and appreciation. Virtually every distasteful thing a person does is when he strives to be loved and appreciated long after he should be striving to love and appreciate others.

QUESTION 3. Do we really need to go through these levels first hand or can we by pass them through our mental imagination?

In my judgment we cannot self-actualize in a vacuum. While it is possible to exercise integrity and excellence (truth and beauty) to some degree alone, it is very difficult to manifest goodness without a human relationship of some kind. Imagination is of immense importance to spiritual growth, but nothing can replace the reality of personal experience of human relationships. Personality relationships are ends in themselves, and transcend all other realities we can know as humans.

QUESTION 4. Don’t our actions often stem from the confluence of many needs–a
combination of needs from many levels?

Yes, I agree. And probably the most significant is the presence of a spiritual component in the mortal being.

QUESTION 5. Maslow’s theory tells us how most of us would respond in a certain situation but could we take “what people are likely to do in a certain situation” as “what they ought to be doing”? Our needs should be decided by what most of people may be doing at a certain level of human consciousness or should we see our needs in the context of a possible purpose we have been brought on earth?

In his later writings Dr. Maslow expressed the existence of two components that determine the behavior of self-actualizers. These remarkable human being are the flowers of humankind, only one percent of the population. The first component or attitude Maslow detected was the fact that all self-actualizers are committed to a mission (or purpose, as you describe it) larger and more important than self. The second component (which I call his lost discovery) was the self-actualizers passionate love for. and expression of, the MetaValues of truth, beauty and goodness, which in synthesis manifest as love. Self-actualizers become channels for the ultimate values and express them in their lives. Although Maslow believed MetaValues are biologically based, while I believe they come from our Creator.

I hope this is helpful.

Larry Mullins

June 17, 2009


Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — LarryMullins @ 4:58 pm

Francis Hesselbein, chair of the Leader to Leader Institute, has observed that “No less than the clergy, ethical, principled business leaders are being called.” The MetaValues Breakthrough goes further than this, declaring that leaders of all kinds are being “called.” Perhaps more important, the rank and file of America’s workforce are also being called. At issue is a confrontation of values. The outcome of this struggle may well determine the course of civilization for the next thousand years. The MetaValues Breakthrough is nothing less than a blueprint to engage the genius of the people to set into motion the actualization of those things that “ought to be” —all that is potentially Good, Beautiful, and True.

June 1, 2009

Maslow’s Lost Discoveries about Values & Self-Actualizing

My new book, “The MetaValues Breakthrough” releases today. It is unlike any book you have ever read. “The MetaValues Breakthrough” challenges the conventional wisdom that self-actualizers are rare people with a special gift that lifts them to the top one percent of achievers. Instead, “The MetaValues Breakthrough” shows how each of us was born with a precious gift, but only a very few succeed in unwrapping that gift.  “The MetaValues Breakthrough” provides a step-by-step program that will help you immediately begin the process of  unwrapping your unique gift and discovering new levels of peace, prosperity and happiness. Check out the free videos at to learn more. Order your copy of  “The MetaValues Breakthrough” by Morgan James Publishers at,, or at your favorite book source.

Larry Mullins

May 2, 2009

A Renaissance of Spiritual Values

Filed under: Basics of MetaValues — Tags: , , , , , — LarryMullins @ 3:48 pm

“Plato, Abraham Maslow, Werner Heisenberg, Buckminster Fuller, and Stephen Covey were all correct: MetaValues are realities. They are active agents that dramatically influence human and organizational behavior. They are exceptionless universe principles that are discovered, not invented. They have the potential to set into motion a new renaissance of spiritual progress.”

Plato defined them as Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. Abraham Maslow designated them as Being Values, or later, as B values. Heisenberg declared that quantum science agreed with Plato: noble values and ideas are timeless, and are more real than the material world. To Buckminster Fuller they were exceptionless universe principles and Stephen Covey chose to call MetaValue principles the laws of the universe.

Statue of Plato

The immense philosophical diversity of all these remarkable intellects is somehow rooted in MetaValues. This is not surprising, in that a basic philosophical principle holds that there is a unity of truth. What is true in one discipline must also be true in another discipline, although no discipline has all the answers. And no individual  can assume to be an authority on Truth, Beauty and Goodness. Conversation is needed, and the debate must be continuous and eternal as we evolve toward an immensity beyond the grasp of mortal mind.

Spiritual visionaries are wise when they consider those findings of science that are legitimately proven, and reasonably challenge those that are not. And science should weigh those insights and values of religion that propose a better way to live. Science should, as Abraham Maslow suggested, investigate the domain of values. Science without values is as likely to build better weapons of mass destruction as it is medical instruments to save lives. And, philosophy should seek to discover means and methods to progress civilization from the way things are toward the way things ought to be. All three disciplines are legitimate tools for the modern MetaThinker.

Laypersons are also entitled to a voice in the cosmic conversation about what is true, beautiful and good. For we are all gifted with a reality response that protects us from being helpless victims of the a priori assumptions of scientists, philosophers and religionists. It does not matter whether one believes that MetaValues are biological in nature, as did Maslow; or gifts that originate in the Creator, as I believe. The important thing is that a universal conversation about all that is true, beautiful and good could lead us toward a revolutionary breakthrough in human consciousness.

bright_shine_heat_222751_lIt is principally for “ordinary” people that I wrote my new book. The MetaValues Breakthrough discloses the discovery that the supreme realities, Truth, Beauty, and Goodness are shared by all normal, maturing minds. Indeed, Plato, Abraham Maslow, Werner Heisenberg, Buckminster Fuller, and Stephen Covey were all correct: MetaValues are realities. They are active agents that dramatically influence human and organizational behavior. They are, indeed, exceptionless universe principles that are discovered, not invented. MetaValues have the potential to set into motion the dawning of a spiritual renaissance of historic magnitude.

The MetaValues Breakthrough offers proven techniques to connect with MetaValues and elevate your life and the lives of those around you. It is based upon twenty years of research. The MetaValues Breakthrough is not a self-help book. It is a MetaValues-help book, unlike any book you have ever read.

Order now on,, or your favorite book source.

To learn more about The MetaValues Breakthrough or join the MetaValues community:

Visit the MetaValues website