Day: April 20, 2016

Oct 9, 2015

The Point of Focus

A subject that may just cause me more reflection than any other is the great divide between the left and the right. The interesting thing is that this division occurs in all divisions of intelligence and known spiritual progression.

I say “known” because at some point up the spiral left and right have to merge into a unified whole and seen with oneness through eyes of understanding.

Forget about the unknown for now and let us look at this division as it exists among us humans. This division exists most prominently in the political field, though one may see it expressing itself to some degree in all matters of thought.

It is curious indeed that when there is an argument as to who is right and who is wrong that we just cannot go to some informed and intelligent individual and just ask. That doesn’t work because there are intelligent and informed individuals on both sides of most every political argument.

Yes, it is interesting that if we wanted to know if a certain complex mathematical equation is correct all we would have to do is find an expert and he could tell us. If we wanted to know how to set a bone a doctor could tell us. If we wanted to know how a rocket engine works a rocket scientist could tell us.

On the other hand, if we want to know if Obamacare is a good thing, if gun control is beneficial or if abortion should be allowed there is no authority, high or low, who can give an answer that settles the conflict.

We can take most any divisive issue and watch two intelligent people from the two sides debate and after the facts are presented no one changes his mind, or rarely so.

Why is this?

The answer more than anything is the point of focus.

Both the left and the right share a lot of the same goals and ideals, but have a totally different focus on how to achieve them. For instance, both sides want world peace, but the right puts focus on peace through strength and the left on peace though being nice.

Both sides want to help the poor, but the right wants to help them become self sufficient and help them to help themselves whereas the left wants to give them money, usually other people’s money.

We see a pattern here. Both sides see the problems that exist, but the right focuses on analyzing the problem and then creating a step-by-step long term solution that may be difficult, but a permanent fix.

The left focuses on the here and now and wants quick and easy results. We can be nice to the bad guy now, but it takes time and effort to create a good defense.

If we give the poor an immediate handout the problem is solved for today, but to help them become self-sufficient takes time and effort.

If you abort a fetus the problem of inconvenience is immediately solved. Keeping the baby may require a lifetime of commitment.

There’s the easy way and the hard way to achieve a goal. Unfortunately, the easy way often turns out to be the hard way in the long run. It is easy right now for us as a nation to borrow trillions more dollars to fund programs we like, but when we find that we have to deal with that debt we then realize that the easy path was not so easy after all.

DK puts focus on the practical approach:

I am acting upon the assumption that all have lived long enough and battled sufficiently with deterrent forces of life to have enabled them to develop a fairly true sense of values. I assume they are endeavouring to live as those who know something of the true eternal values of the soul. They are not to be kept back by any happenings to the personality or by the pressure of time and circumstance, by age or physical disability. They have wisely learnt that enthusiastic rushing forward and a violent energetic progress has its drawbacks, and that a steady, regular, persistent endeavour will carry them further in the long run. Spasmodic spurts of effort and temporary pressure peter out into disappointment and a weighty sense of failure. It is the tortoise and not the hare that arrives first at the goal, though both achieve eventually…

Intention and effort are considered by us of prime importance, and are the two main requisites for all disciples, initiates and masters, plus the power of persistence.

Treatise on White Magic, Page 54

***

Here DK talks about the unity that will be required that must be applied to create a Molecule

You must not imagine that the particular line of work on which you may be engaged is the factor of main interest. It is not primarily the unfoldment of the intuition, or of the power to heal, or of telepathic efficiency which is of importance. That which counts with the Hierarchy as the Ashrams function is the establishing subjectively of such a potent group interplay and group relation that an emerging world unity can be seen in embryo. A joint power to be telepathic or a group capacity to intuit truth is of value and somewhat novel. It is the functioning of groups who have the ability to work as a unity, whose ideals are one, whose personalities are merged into one forward swing, whose rhythm is one and whose unity is so firmly established that naught can produce in the group the purely human characteristics of separation, of personal isolation and selfish seeking, that is new. Unselfish people are not rare. Unselfish groups are very rare. Pure detached devotion in a human being is not rare but to find it in a group is rare indeed. The submergence of personal interests in the good of the family or in that of another person is often to be found, for the beauty of the human heart has manifested itself down the ages. To find such an attitude in a group of people and to see such a point of view maintained with an unbroken rhythm and demonstrating spontaneously and naturally—this will be the glory of the New Age.

Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 1, Page 22-23

Copyright 2015 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Oct 3, 2015

Helping the Poor

Let us start by acknowledging this one point. The rank and file of both the left and the right want to help the poor. The problem is that they have different ideas as to how this should be accomplished.

The person of the left may respond to this and say something like:

“The right are hard hearted and couldn’t care less if the poor starved to death.

One on the right may also accuse:

“The lefty only wants to give tax dollars to the poor to buy votes. If the majority of the poor voted for the right then he wouldn’t give a hoot about them.”

There are threads of truth in both accusations. There are a handful on the right who are against any form of assistance, though these rarely get elected to office. Some feel that the poor are just lazy and if they would be willing to work then they wouldn’t be poor.

Also, on the left there are those who mainly want to help them because they vote for their side. Unlike the right, many of these do get elected to public office so this gives them a big political advantage.

But among the rank and file of the left and the right are good-hearted people of compassion who are willing to go to same degree of sacrifice to assist the poor.

If both the left and the right would just tone down their accusative spirit a little and admit that most of the general public on both sides have compassion and want to help others, then a lot of the conflict would subside and maybe something positive could get accomplished.

If this is true then why does there seem to be a huge difference in the two sides?

The difference is not in the desire to help, but how to help and how much assistance should be given.

The right is prepared to spend some of other people’s money (tax dollars) to help supply basic needs such as food, shelter and some medical. Most would like to see those assisted to make some type of contribution to assist themselves and to encouraged to take steps to become financially solvent on their own.

The left generally wants to assist way beyond food and housing and extend this to complete medical, dental, education, and hundreds of assistance programs that go beyond basic needs.

This is where the conflict comes in. The right wants to keep expenditures of our tax dollars to a minimum for public assistance and fill in the gaps with free will charities while the left never reaches a level of assistance that satisfies them. When they pass one level then they move to another costly level that they begin to promote.

For instance, as soon as they passed Medicare, they began to promote additional expenditures that led to Obamacare. Now they have Obamacare they want single payer universal care. Then, if that is achieved, some other expenditure will be desired.

These two approaches are in great opposition to each other. The only peaceful way to resolve them is to place all such ideas before those who will foot the monetary bill and let the majority of them decide how much they want to assist and then use that donation supported by the majority while ceasing to borrow our grandchildren’s money for our pet programs.

One positive step both sides can make in the present, without the need of great political change, is to just see the good in each other’s hearts. The vast majority of both sides have compassion for the down and out and realize that if the right circumstances happened that they could be in need also.

If both sides start with this good will assumption in each other and cease bitter accusations to the contrary then perhaps we, as a society, can make a little progress toward achieving practical solutions and live in greater harmony.

I speak here as one who has been through some very difficult financial times in my life.

My dad was a big drinker, party guy and gambler and even when he made reasonable money my mom seldom had enough for groceries. Then at the age of 12 it finally looked like we were heading toward abundance when a major fluke caused us to lose everything. We had no money to pay rent or buy food and had to move into a shack with maybe 200 feet of living space located in my sisters prune orchard in Letha, Idaho.

Then, to make matters worse my Dad took off to Central America in search for gold and we never received any financial support from him again. We were completely on our own with no help from anyone except the shack supplied by my sister and my brother-in-law.

As far as I could discern my younger sister and I were the poorest kids by far that went to our school. None of the other kids had to live in a shack. Living in the shack didn’t seem too bad, but the difficult part was the embarrassment we suffered if someone found out where we lived and they felt sorry for us. Being felt sorry for was much more difficult than the poor circumstances.

As far as feeling poor, even though I didn’t have advantageous circumstances and no government help I never felt poor. I hated the word and refused to identify with it. Both my mother and I made the best of our situation and sought out whatever work was available. For me it was generally orchard work and picking fruit. I was a fast fruit picker and made good money at it and bought all my clothes, school supplies and personal needs. I also did a lot of hunting and fishing and we often dined on pheasant, duck, bluegill, crappie and bass that I brought home.

We lived in that shack for about a year and after that we moved into an old house and gradually became more secure largely through the shear will power of my mother. Through my high school years my mother and I picked fruit in the summer and she worked for near minimum wage in a potato plant in the off season.

The funny thing is I made pretty good money picking fruit and always bought expensive clothes for myself and kind of felt sorry for other kids who depended on their parents and had to wear the cheap stuff. I wondered why they didn’t get an orchard job, which was available to anyone who applied.

Any way, some have accused me of being out of touch with the poor, but I understand what it is like to grow up in difficult circumstances. Then there are other circumstances I could tell you about. For instance, I had a string of unbelievably bad luck where I worked for about a dozen companies a row that went out of business causing me to lose my job again and again. One of them had been in business for 150 years.

I understand difficult financial circumstances, but I also understand that you do not have to have the victim mentality and that it is more humiliating to be pitied as a victim than to be one – at least for me it was.

After all I have went through my basic philosophy toward those in need boils down to this. Help them when they cannot help themselves and do all in our power to help them to help themselves. The worst memories of the scarcity of my youth had nothing to do with the lack of material things, but the pity I sometimes encountered. That was much worse.

Anyone who wants to examine my plan that will assist those in need without bankrupting the nation go HERE.

For the full plan one can check out the link there to my book, Molecular Politics.

Copyright 2015 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Oct 2, 2015

True Spirituality

Even though at least 90% of what we discuss here revolves around the accepted norms of spirituality some have accused us for not being a spiritual group for a number of reasons. Among them are:

(1) They do not agree with our conclusions.

(2) We are not pious enough.

(3) We do not discuss their favorite subject enough for them. Meditation is a recent example.

(4) We do not tell members what to do.

(5) We sometimes discuss subjects that are not seen as spiritual in nature, such as science and politics.

This last point has been brought up several times lately in an attempt to convince us we are not a spiritual group.

The criteria for what is spiritual is revealed by the answer to this simple question.

What is it that takes us toward spirit and what is it that takes us away?

The answer is very simple. Truth takes us toward it and falsehood takes us away from it.

For instance, those who saw truth in the words of Jesus and accepted them moved closer to God while those who rejected them moved away.

Truth leading to spirit not only applies to spiritual teachings, but any endeavor.

For instance, those who accepted the actual truth revealed though Galileo moved closer to spirit while those who rejected moved further away.

Those who accepted true principles that established freedom for the human spirit at the foundation of the United States moved closer to spirit while those who rejected moved further away.

In politics today, those who accept the principle of freedom and reject excessive force will move closer to spirit than those who endorse force to further their political desires.

The quest for maximum freedom is perhaps the most spiritual endeavor that is possible to undertake. After all, what is always stated to be necessary to free us from the wheel of rebirth?

In every teaching it is the attainment of liberation through the acquisition of greater freedom.

He who believes that freedom is only important in some inner spiritual reality is fooling himself. The inner and the outer are intertwined and interconnected. You cannot have maximum freedom on the inside without freedom on the outside. Correspondingly, you cannot find all truth in the inner world if you cannot see what is true in the outer world. If one is deceived by those in the outer world who distort then he will be deceived by thoughtforms or spirits in the inner who also distort. It takes the power of spiritual discernment to see truth no matter where it is, inner or outer, political or religious.

The basic division in politics boils down to the true and false application of the Principle of Freedom. Even the guy who is willing to enslave his brother to get his way will claim he is the true advocate of freedom. For instance, the South, who fought to keep their slaves claimed to be the ones on the side of freedom.

Seeing the true path to freedom is a very spiritual ideal indeed and most make some mistakes in their judgments as the true vision is obtained as a result of many accurate decisions. He who can clear away the fog and see the true next step to take in the direction of maximum freedom is on the real spiritual path.

The seeker will often come to a fork in the road. There are arguments for either one as representing the one of greater freedom. The eyes of the emotional based personality have difficulty in discerning so it goes with its bias.

Even so, it is true that one choice will represent greater freedom than the other and that choice takes one in the true spiritual direction.

To consistently see that true choice requires one to raise above the emotional plane, penetrate the veil of illusion and see reality as it truly is.

He who can do this is indeed a pilgrim on the true spiritual path and is moving toward liberation.

***

Richard questions whether our individual identify As you move forward you do not lose your identity, but merely that which you identify with.

For instance, the atheist believes that all he is is represented by his physical body. Later he learns that he is not his body and no longer identifies with it. Even so, he remains an individual entity.

As he moves forward he changes that with which he identifies. He moves from his emotions to his mind and finally the causal or soul body itself. He realizes that he is none of these things, but he is still an individual existence within the mind of God.

Thus shall it be worlds without end.

Copyright 2015 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Sept 29, 2015

Foolish Virgins

Clay:

I did argue with exactly what you said You said

JJ

I pointed out several areas where you argued with what I did not say and you have not commented or corrected the error.

As far as quoting the foolish and wise virgins all you have done is quote a line from the scripture and distort my meaning but did not argue with my points on it which were.

The principle is that if we are limited in what we have and need a certain amount to accomplish a goal then it is not wise to share so much (either voluntarily or involuntarily) that the goal cannot be reached. In this case neither the one with the oil or the one receiving will have enough, as pointed out by Jesus.

I used this to point out the need to control immigration. With completely open borders and no controls a wealthy country can be overrun to the point where all are diminished. Where we share our abundance wisely through controlled immigration then all will have enough.

I used the same principle talking about social programs, of which helping the down and out is just a small part of such spending. If we throw money at everything social that sounds good then pretty soon our oil will be depleted…

Wait.

That has just about happened as we are over 18 trillion in debt with no way to pay it back. We have to borrow the money to pay the interest.

If we do not control our social spending we are in danger of running too low on oil and going bust to the point where we all become poor.

Not a good thing.

I never said that all the poor are in that condition because they are foolish. The word foolish to those who were have-nots was a choice of words by Jesus, nit me, though I think most of us have lost money and have been in bad financial circumstances because of foolish decisions. It seems like you related to us some foolish financial losses you have experienced.

If you want to argue with me about why people are poor then you need to argue with what I say which is.

People are poor for a number of different reasons.

Some are born into very difficult circumstances.

Some are poor by choice because they want to do a minimal amount of work to get by.

Some have experienced temporary losses through poor choice or bad judgment, but will soon be back on their feet.

Some just make foolish decisions, contrary to good judgment and will not get ahead until they change their ways.

There are a number of reasons various people are rich and poor and to read into my writings that either is just due to one thing is to read my writings with no desire to understand.

Oct 1, 2015

Truth

Richard:

Just tell me what made you spiritual

JJ

Truth

Richard

and define what you mean by that word?

JJ

That which IS – when emotional interference and illusion are stripped away.

When we discuss politics it is always around the very spiritual Principle of Freedom. The quest for TRUE maximum freedom and liberation is the most spiritual of endeavors.

Richard:

So JJ when you say that the science of global warming is not truth, as I recall that you have, you think that is spiritual?

JJ

Which science are you talking about? There are all kinds of different conclusions reached by scientists about global warming. Actual science in any department has to rely on truth.. How the science is interpreted is subject to a lot of illusion and a political agenda. Any interpretation I have of global warming or any other area of interest based based on true facts as far as they are available. You cannot find one thing I have said about global warming that uses any false data.

Truth is spiritual wherever it is found. There is no such thing as spirituality without truth.

Copyright 2015 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE