Month: October 2020

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Road to Enlightenment

October 30, 2020 Joseph Dewey

Road to Enlightenment

A reader complained that all we are doing here is talking and showing no action. He thinks we should be starting a meditation class or something more involving.

I thought I would respond to this since it is a stumbling block to some members who come along now and then. Some do wish we would teach self help lessons, more meditation techniques, more step by step instructions on a number of items that would perhaps bring enlightenment or higher spiritual contacts. Others wish we would dig up ancient teachings, explore the great pyramid, life in Atlantis, Planet X, the fifth dimension etc. Still others wish to see some of the world changes hinted at in my writings and want things to happen yesterday.

People come and go for a number of reasons. So the group will not be disappointed or expect that which the group will not deliver I thought I would cover the direction and purpose of the teachings I give to you.

The purpose of the books I have written and will write, the Keys articles I have written and will continue to post is this.

To touch upon the language of light, or the soul, through the presentation of higher principles, thus causing the student to elevate his mind and heart from attention on data to the principle behind the data. It is to elevate the student from attention on the little self and its progress to the principles underlying a greater whole of which he is a part. It is to bring the student through contemplation to soul contact which is subtle contact with his greater group which greater light eclipses the lesser light of self and creates a desire for participation in a greater group life. It is for the Gathering of Lights. Enlightened people can only be gathered by shining forth a homing beacon of light in words of light. Light cleaves to light and recognizes itself in others who are prepared.

The writings are to prepare the minds of men and women for the Molecular Relationship which can only be initiated by a those who are capable of group soul contact. These must be able to put aside minor personality differences as see as one though the eyes of the soul.

The writings are to stimulate the impulse to serve something higher than oneself, losing thought of self. He who loses self for the sake of Christ will obtain eternal joy in the kingdom of God.

The writings are to plant the seeds of change. Some of these seeds will sprout in the near future others will come forth later, but if the word is good then it is eternal and will never die but will bring forth fruit in its time and none can prevent the manifestation.

The writings are direction to aid in the manifestation of true world peace which is the destiny of humanity on this planet.. There is great need for stability at this time. Suffering humanity cries out for relief as we relax in our comfortable situations. We have an obligation to follow the highest we know in changing the world for the better. But this must be done with wisdom, for many good-hearted people in the past have done more harm than good with their good intentions and have paved the way for the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Instead we seek to prepare the way for the Master of Masters, the Christ.

The purpose of the writings is to present new principles and ideas which have never been fully realized before and to take the old which was partially understood and add the missing ingredients that lead to full understanding.

What the teachings given here are not:

(1) The teachings here are not a repeat or rehash of teachings given elsewhere. When other useful teachings are found we will reference them, but attempt not to present them as if they are origial or unique to the Keys.

(2) Although I have received many comments of how the teachings and the Song of the 144,000 have helped individuals in their personal lives the teachings are not designed as self help aids. They are designed to lead the student to the soul and when he arrives there he will have all the help he needs.

(3) Although meditation may be discussed periodically I do not have plans to initiate classes on the subject. There are already plenty of classes available on the internet and through numerous organizations which teach many aspects of it. I have plenty of material yet to write that has not yet been given to humanity that is much more important to get on paper than to replicate meditation techniques readily available to all.

I do, however, seek to activate the principle of contemplation in the student which is a higher form of meditation than taught in most classes. He who can contemplate and receive a flash of light that allows vision of a principle has achieved more than one who has a visitation of a spiritual being or attained bliss though negated thought.

(4) The purpose of the teachings are not to resurrect data from the past but to reorient the eye of the seeker to the future. When the principles of the future are comprehended the data from the past will fall in place.

The criticism mentioned at the beginning of this post indicated that we should be teaching meditation techniques to raise consciousness. Meditation techniques are useful if wisely applied, but by themselves will do little to raise consciousness. Consciousness must be raised through the understanding and application of principles, taking them from spirit and applying them in the real world of matter. Who had the highest consciousness, Winston Churchill or Peter the Hermit? Abraham Lincoln or the Maharishi? The monk seeking enlightenment for himself, or the servant seeking to share light with others?

True enlightenment is found, not by retreating into the self, but by taking the highest you know and radiating it in the service of others. When the disciple becomes a light unto others he then becomes a light unto himself. He buries not his light under a bushel but lets it shine upon a hill until all partake equally of the glowing flame.

Oct 30, 2002

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

To Rebel or Not

October 29, 2020 Joseph Dewey

To Rebel or Not

Is a statement true or false independent of who says it? If Hitler says that 2+2=4 is it still as true as if Jesus said it?

Yes it is.

As The Course in Miracles says: “The truth is true and nothing else is true.”

When a deceiver like a Goering or Hitler, makes a statement that seems to be true we need to look beyond the black and white of the statement and look at other considerations. Is the speaker using this fact to mislead his audience? What was his real motive in making the statement? In what context was the statement made?

By asking these questions we may discover the deceit which is veiled by the truth.

Chapter thirteen of “The Lost Key of the Buddha” tells us that if a law of a nation or group is supported by a majority of the people that it is wise to obey that law, even if it runs contrary to a founding document.

But what if an individual does not like the law, or if it goes contrary to his belief system? Should he then roll over and play dead? If not, what should he do?

Answer: If he does not like the law, he should still obey it if the law has majority support, but he should work to change the law. This will be difficult if the law is indeed supported by the majority. When this obstacle is in the way the person must work with the majority by educating them. If the idea of what the law should be is truly beneficial, then educating the people and changing the law is a real possibility.

On the other hand, if the ideas and concepts would truly not improve things when implemented then it would be difficult indeed to sway the majority, even with education. Unfortunately, more often than not this is the case. There are a lot of minorities who think they have all the answers and it is only by the grace of God that they have no power to implement them. For this we should be thankful.

Those who are in the minority and believe they have a good idea must consider what I call the War in Heaven Principle.

According to scriptures and legend Satan was once an angel of light who had ideas contrary to the majority of the inhabitants of heaven. He was successful in convincing one third of the hosts of heaven to rebel against God and his supporters. This resulted in the great War in Heaven with Satan and his hosts losing the battle with the majority and being cast out of heaven. Then the scriptures go on to tell us that this disgruntled minority who followed him still refuses to yield to the majority will and continues to make war on God’s servants on the earth. We are told that these lashing out attacks are fruitless because the devil’s “time is short” and failure will be the only result.

Now, what do we learn from this account? Several things. First that in order to even wage a good rebellion, as Satan did, we must have a good enough argument to attract the attention and respect of a third of the people.

Secondly, the majority (two thirds) of those who heard both sides of the argument chose the higher ground, or that which was the highest good in the eyes of God.

Thirdly, even though Satan had gathered an army of one third of the inhabitants of heaven, he still did not prevail. The majority still won even though the third were very determined.

Fourth, if Satan would have been smart he would have continued his subterfuge until he had close to majority support before launching a war.. Or better still maybe he could have altered his philosophy a bit to capture the ears of that additional one sixth he needed to prevail.

Now there are exceptions to all things but all things being equal we have four general rules here to which all people who desire change should pay attention:

(1) It takes a third to launch a good rebellion. (2) The informed majority choose the good (3) The majority usually prevails (4) You must have ideas that attract the ear of the majority to win the battle.

Now in the United States and a number of other countries throughout the world the greatest desire for rebellion comes because of the tax systems. Who knows? Maybe this was part of Satan’s gripe. Maybe he thought that God was taxing too much of everyone’s time and dedication, that they should have more time to do what they want. Maybe there’s something to the saying “The idle mind is the devil’s workshop.” Maybe he promised his angels more free time to do as they pleased.

Whatever the case, taxpayers justifiably feel they are overtaxed and want relief. Even though a majority of taxpayers feel they pay too much we must take into consideration that 36% of the people of the United States pay no Federal Income Tax whatsoever. Most of these people receive more from the government than they take in thus giving them little incentive to reform the system

Let us say then that you had a plan for either tax rebellion or tax reform and 50% of the taxpayers were with you. How many would really be with you? One half of the federal taxpayers is only 32% of the people, so even here one would not have the devil’s third.

But as far as a tax rebellion goes, a taxpayer would have to risk his freedom to participate and how many are willing to do this? Very few, especially when the rebels are in such a minority.

So what is the real situation that the tax reformers or tax rebels are in?

Those who are concerned enough to work toward some type of tax reform are far from the 32% and the number willing to rebel and risk liberty are far less.

What does this tell us?

It tells us that there is no plan for major tax reform or rebellion out there that captures the imagination of enough people to even make a dent in the system as presently constituted.

Thus means that tax reformers and rebels must face this certain stark fact. Unless there is a major change to the system or the approach toward reform that nothing will change.

If the reformer has no chance of changing anything, then why risk life and limb for nothing? If you are willing to take some risks for a good principle then why not pick a battle where real progress can be made? Either that or come up with a creative plan for tax reform that has greater appeal than those of the past.

The tax reformer is generally not taking great risk as it is fairly acceptable within the system to work through the system for improvement.

The tax rebel is a different case. Even though he has the advantage of not paying taxes there are many other disadvantages. Among them are:

(1) He is a direct threat to the system and even if he presents a technically legal case for his cause, it is difficult to fight City Hall. If the powers-that-be want him bad enough they’ll figure out a way to get him.

(2) He has to work outside the system and if he wants to hire employees it will be difficult to find honest ones since many of the criminal element also work outside the system.

(3) It will be difficult to create any type of major business, for if he did, this would attract the attention of authorities forcing it into the system or leading to its destruction.

That said let us examine the moral arguments as to whether to pay taxes or rebel against the system.

Reasons to not pay graduated income taxes: (1) It can be shown to be unconstitutional and some argue that the 16th amendment was not correctly ratified and even if it was it contradicts previous amendments.

Comment: The problem with this argument was given in chapter thirteen wherein we are told that every group or nation always drifts from the principles of its founding documents. This drift is usually not for the better if we look at the founding document as positive, but may be good if the founding document is flawed. Overall this drift creates periodical points of tension, or windows of opportunity. When these windows appear then, at that time, real change can be wrought. When there is no window the best thing a person can do is prepare for the coming day of opportunity.

Another problem with this reason is there are thousands of laws on the books which could be argued as being unconstitutional. They are so pervasive that any person of common sense can see that he cannot defy them all.

A third point is that the Constitution is a foundation of law, not God breathed morality. Some Constitutionalists act as if the document was given by God himself and if it is not followed to the absolute letter that the offender will go to political hellfire and damnation.

While I believe the basic principles in the Constitution were inspired they are not infallible and were more pertinent, in some aspects, to the time which was created than our present time. Even so, many of its basic tenants are applicable to people of all times.

It is interesting that the Founding Fathers did not look on the Constitution with the awe that many current Constitutionalists do. The Founders thought they did a good job, but not a perfect job and some expressed the hope that future generations would improve upon it. They probably would be rolling over in their graves, however, if they were able to see some of the current lack of respect for the document.

The Constitution then is a legal, not a religious document and must always be honored for its practical usefulness. Ideally the law of the land should be strictly based upon it, but in the real world this has never been the case and probably will never be.

The will of the majority is an even stronger force for the manifestation of law than a founding document. No matter what a founding document or a current law says, the will of the people can change it, override it, or go contrary to it.

The teacher who can enlighten and mold the will of the majority is more powerful than any law or set of laws.

(2) The second reason given to not pay tax is that taxation is not a moral principle. It is wrong the state to impose certain types of taxes upon it’s citizens. In a way it is stealing from one group of people and giving to another.

What is often not taken into consideration here is that the Constitution, which most tax protesters believe in, gives the Congress “power to lay and collect taxes..” (Article I, section 8) Even though the original Constitution implies that individuals should not be taxed directly, a tax is still a tax which takes from one group and gives to another. If we support taxation, even as it is outlined in the Constitution, then we must support taking money by force of law from one group and giving it to another.

The fact is most people would support taxation if the tax was a fair amount that did not increase the burden on the taxpayer with greater rapidity each year with no end in sight. People feel they are stolen from when an unfair amount is taken from them and given to causes and people not approved by the taxpayer. If the taxpayer was taxed a fair amount and he felt he received some benefit from the tax money then he would not feel like he was stolen from. It would then be seen as the cost of citizenship from which he receives a benefit. The concept of a fair tax should be seen as something similar to paying dues to belonging to a health club. You pay and you receive a just benefit. But when we are overtaxed it is like paying many times what the health club is worth, and this creates a feeling of injustice in the taxpayer, as if he is being held up by bank robbers.

(3) The third reason given for not paying taxes is the citizen may not like how the tax money is spent. Perhaps he receives little or no personal benefit from it.

I can identify with this since about the only benefit I receive from taxes collected from federal income taxation is from our military keeping us secure as a nation.

On the other hand, the complaint of how the tax money has been spent has always been with us, even from the days of the Founding Fathers. If everyone who had a gripe of how the money is spent did not pay taxes then neither the United States nor any other country could have raised enough money to create a secure nation.

Even the law abiding taxpayer can look at these three reasons and identify somewhat with the tax rebel. No one likes paying taxes, especially income taxes, but most accept them as a bitter pill or necessary evil.

The prime question we now want to examine is this. While it is true that there are many personal reasons that many of us would like to escape taxation what is the truth of the matter from a spiritual viewpoint?

To understand the true principle by which we should be governed the seeker must understand that the nation of which he is a citizen is a living entity and each individual corresponds to a cell within the greater body.

Since I live in the United States, we’ll use this for an example as we examine the Law of Correspondences.

The prime ingredient that makes everything work and gives energy to the human body is oxygen. What is the correspondent to oxygen in a nation? Yes, its money.

What part of the body taxes or pulls oxygen from the rest of the body?

It is the brain. Brain cells require ten times as much oxygen as regular cells and overall the head requires 20-25% of the entire oxygen supply circulating through the entire body.

Where is the head center of the United States? This is verified by DK to be Washington DC. Does the head of government require more money than the rest of the country?

Yes, it does.

If we count all taxes by all government in the country (symbolizing the full head center) we find that our tax rate is around 50%. Now what would happen to a human body if such a surplus of oxygen went to the head at the expense of the rest of the body?

The answer is that the lower body would become ill and weakened whereas the head with a surplus of oxygen would become light-headed and giddy causing its judgment to be weak and its vision blurry.

Higher and lower correspondences are never exact, but always point in the direction of truth. Whereas the brain cells need ten times the oxygen as regular cells it does seem true that government bureaucrats do control at least ten times the money of the average citizen.

The fact that the brain needs 20-25% of the entire oxygen supply of the body is interesting to contemplate. Is this then the maximum figure at which the rest of the body should be taxed? It would be nice if this were the case, but if we figure in all taxes the amount is double that indicating that by using this direct analogy we are taxed at about double the amount we should be.

There is one more item to consider and that is the head weighs about 7% of the weight of the body. Thus 7% of the body’s oxygen supply belongs to the head if there was an equal sharing. This tells us that the head really taxes the rest of the body between 13-17% more than it is entitled to as standard wages so to speak. Therefore if we use a precise correspondence it would stand to reason that the government should be able to get along fine with maximum tax from all sources of 13-17%.

Most taxpayers would be happy with this maximum, but as I said the higher and lower correspondences are rarely exact. The amount could be a little more or somewhat less.

Perhaps the Bible gives us a clue as to what the ideal tax should be. In ancient Israel God commended his people to pay ten percent of their income and this amount was used to pay for all governing and spiritual matters.

13-17% would be great compared to what we have today, but 10% would be even better. With a low tax such as this many who have an abundance would donate additional money to good causes which would indeed bring the average surplus given to rise to the 13-17% level.

As I previously stated each person within a country corresponds to a cell within the whole body. Each cell within the body takes the oxygen it needs for its well being and passes the surplus on for the others to use with a large quantity of it going to the head.

The person who refuses to pay tax to the Federal Government would correspond to a cell who may share some with fellow cells, but refuses to let any oxygen passing through him to go to the head. His reasons may sound just. He may say, “the head requires more than it needs,” or “the head is not taking oxygen by lawful means.” He may thus feel justified in refusing to cooperate.

The criticism from the rebellious cell may be correct but it does not negate the fact that the head is the decision-maker for the body and has power to command the body to move in any direction it pleases. The head is influenced by the heart, the feelings, the appetites, and the needs of the rest of the body, but none of these other parts have power to make final decisions. The heart and the other parts can influence the head, but this does not negate the fact that the ultimate power of decision for the whole of the body is dominated by the head. Even though the head has power to make decisions contrary to majority influence it rarely does because of the consistent exertion of this majority.

If the majority of the body is cold the head does have power to refuse to put on a jacket, but will rarely do so. As a general principle the majority rules.

It is within the functioning of the body for a cell or other parts to think contrary to the head. For instance, the head may want to read, but the heart may want to make love. If therefore, lovemaking is to be the order of the day, the heart must convince the head to go along with its wishes. But if the head wishes to merely read it does not have to convince the heart of anything. It can ignore the heart and just read (silly head).

A single cell can defy the wishes of the head and refuse to cooperate by yielding the required oxygen. This affects the head very little for it just takes what it wants from the surrounding cells. If a small number of cells rebel the head will let the natural law of the body deal with them, but if a larger number rebel then the head will feel a drain on its strength and make a decision to apply pressure on the rebel cells. If the pressure does not work then eventually the head will seek to flush the rebel cells out of the body.

Now the rebel cells like the body as a whole and do not wish to leave, but feel the head is out of order. Some declare themselves free from all association with the head or body while attempting to stay within the body and sharing life with the body. Many rebel cells do not support the decisions made by the head.

As time goes on the rebel cells become more detached from the head as well as many other parts of the body and the head becomes angrier with the rebels. In frustration the head exclaims: “Do you rebels not realize that if all followed your direction that our brain would die and this would be followed by the death of the whole body?” Is that what you want?”

“No,” said a rebel cell. “I want the body to be healthier than ever. I want you to change your ways and draw minimal oxygen according to the law as we read it.”

“But I decide the law,” said the head. “Many cells grumble about the amount they have to give but the pull on me is strong from many who receive the surplus I order to be circulated to the various parts of the body. If I only took a minimal supply of oxygen as you request, then many parts of the body would feel deprived and there would be rebellion and sickness within the body.”

“But there is already sickness within the body,” said the rebel.

“But if we had a quick change as you suggest the body would be under such distress that it may die. Besides, I like things the way they are. I pass much of the surplus into my favorite parts of the body and they praise me for it. I see no benefit in changing.”

“But you must change?”

“Will you change and support the life of the body?” asked the head.

“No. I must stand by my principles,” said the rebel.

“And I must stand by mine” said the head. “Meanwhile, I receive no value from you and ask you to leave. There is a gentle wind coming up. Hop on it and catch a ride to another body more suited to your taste.”

“There is none more suited to my taste. This is my home and this is where I wish to stay,” said the rebel.

“So. You admit that this is your most desirable body to call your home, yet you will not support decisions I make which govern the whole of the body. This makes you a life within a life and a law unto yourself. It is as if you are here, but not here. I listen to the cells who send me oxygen, but I shall not listen to you and will tell other cells to ignore you also. I will seek to make life so discomforting to you that you will leave.”

“So be it,” said the rebel.

“So be it,” said the head.

Conclusion: Both the head and the rebels have their arguments, but the few rebel cells are no match for the head who has the power of decision for the body. Even though the head may be selfish, bullheaded and in error in a number of matters it is still the head and without the support of the cells the body dies.

If the rebels wish to change the mind of the head they must use the principle of cooperation rather than rebellion. If they pay the demands of the head they can then have greater power to attract the attention of the cooperating cells and teach them the correct principles whereby the head should govern. When the majority of the body begin to make demands on the head it will then listen and decide accordingly.

And what should the cells do if they cooperate and teach yet nothing seems to change?

In this case, they should leave the old body and assist in the creation of a new body that functions on fair principles. When this occurs the new body will have such health and vitality that the previous body will come to it and inquire: “Tell me my friend the secret of your great health?”

When this time comes the new body will share and the old will listen and learn.

Oct 15, 2002

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Path of Safety

October 28, 2020 Joseph Dewey

The Path of Safety

Let us examine the next statement which has created difficulty for some “In the rule of the majority lies the path of safety.”

It is interesting that Thomas Jefferson said something very close to this.

“If we are faithful to our country, if we acquiesce, with good will, in the decisions of the majority, and the nation moves in mass in the same direction, although it may not be that which every individual thinks best, WE HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM ANY QUARTER.” –Thomas Jefferson to Virginia Baptists, 1808. ME 16:321

The reasoning behind this should be obvious. Even though some minority decisions may be better than the majority, many minority decisions are very dangerous and can lead to tyranny. As pointed out, Hitler was placed in power with a minority vote.

All decisions governing a group have to be supported by a majority or minority. There are only these two choices. If we look at those seeking power in the world we may ask who is in these two camps.

First we have the majority (in 2002) who support equal rights, economic opportunity, a balanced budget, reasonable laws, protection of children, free speech, the right to vote and many other common sense “safe” directions.

What does the minority believe or want?

All kinds of dangerous things.

Some want to take away property rights, some want a communist government, some want rights taken away from minorities, some do not want you to have free political speech, some even want a return to slavery, some want a dictatorship with their pick of the dictator, etc.

A few in the minority want admirable things but an alarming number of them have desires that would destroy our way of life or the progress we have made.

So we have two choices. Decisions reflecting the will of a minority or of the majority.

There’s a third choice you say? The will of an enlightened minority.

The trouble with this thinking is that each minority think they are enlightened and even if they have a good idea they would have to enforce it against the will of the majority either by force or deceit. This type of means is more destructive than the good end they may seek.

Some have read this statement of safety in the majority and have inferred that it is referring to some kind of direct democracy, but this is not the case. If one studies the rest of Chapter 13 in The Lost Key of the Buddha he will see no reference to direct democracy. Instead he will find a discussion of the use of the will of the majority as an explanation of this statement..

The quintessential meaning was represented in this statement: John replied, “The disciple is not to roll over, (when change seems difficult) but if he wishes to make positive change he must examine the will of the majority and work with it, not against it.”

In other words, the path of safety for the one who works for progress is to discern the will of the majority and work with it.

How does he work with it?

Every salesman is taught this principle. The company may have a product of fairly high cost that the majority would never buy if it was just put on a shelf in the stores. On the other hand, the company feels that the majority would want the product if they understood all its benefits and advantages. So what do they do to overcome the inertia of the people?

The management sits down and comes up with a sales presentation. In doing so they list all the benefits that the average person would approve of and all the negatives of which the majority disapprove.

The first part of the sales presentation demonstrates all the benefits and the second part covers the objections. If the salesman then has convincing benefits and can neutralize objections he can wind up selling the consumer a $1000 vacuum cleaner when the customer was only considering spending $150.

Every family needs a good vacuum cleaner, but if the product was more specialized, like a telescope, the salesman would not be able to sell that to the majority no matter how good the quality and price.

The point of the book is that the disciple must become a good salesman if he wants to make change. If he wants to change the whole country or group he must discern where the will of the people is and work with it by presenting ideas that appeal to the majority. For instance, everyone wants lower taxes (or no taxes if possible) but just does not think the country can afford them. This compares to the guy who wants the $1000 vacuum cleaner, but doesn’t think he can afford it. In both cases the product is desirable to the majority, but they need to be sold on a plan that makes the dream possible.

On the other hand, if he has an idea or product that does not appeal to the majority (like the telescope) then it is impossible to sell it to the average person. The product may be good and useful to some, but not all. Thus the disciple must also recognize his limitations and work with them.

For instance, the book pointed out that in the days of Jesus the freeing of the slaves was a good idea, (like the telescope example) but the majority were so against it that any attempt to sell it to them would have resulted in a catastrophe. Thus, not even Jesus worked in this direction, but instead taught the principle of Love. This was a more practical direction because the majority were yearning for a greater expression of Love after a famine of it caused by the black and white laws they were under.

To understand in full how the rule of the majority is the path of safety, perhaps it is helpful to expand on the word “rule.” As stated, the phrase does not imply a direct democracy, but the rule of the majority here is to be taken to mean that the will of the majority is part of a natural law as realized by Thomas Jefferson.

Let me present this natural law of Majority Rule as follows: All evolution and progress toward the dominating good is moved forward by a small minority working intelligently through the will of the majority. This will of the majority is discerned and becomes a rule behind all laws and standards generally accepted by the whole. This is the path of safety, in other words, the path that insures positive forward movement for the whole of the group. When the will of the majority is not incorporated by the minority in power, the path of danger and tyranny is approached.

Let us take an example as far as a nation’s defense is concerned.

I believe the majority will is as follows:

We need enough military strength to insure that an enemy cannot overthrow or conquer us.

Then there are two general directions of minority views:

(1) We must unilaterally disarm to set an example. Then others will disarm. No one will bother us if we do not bother them.

(2) We must arm ourselves to the hilt and nuke the bastards if they give us any problem.

I ask, which is the path of safety here, the majority will or a minority one?

We could go through many different subjects and ask this question and the answer will be the same. In each case following, the will of the majority will show a path of safety for the whole.

One thing that caused the problem of misunderstanding here is that some look at this statement (In the rule of the majority lies the path of safety) and think to themselves:

This is not true because the majority seem to support bigger government and that leads to possible tyranny.

The majority elect power mongers to Congress who I think are dangerous.

The majority buy from big corporations which create a frightening balance of power.

The majority are often ignorant which is also dangerous.

No one said the majority is perfect or, as innovators, we are not supposed to guide them to higher ground. The point is that when you compare majority will to minority will nine times out of ten the path of safety is to work with the majority rule.

Working with the majority is also safer for the leader, for the majority is much less likely to destroy their guides than the minorities.

Here’s another quote from chapter thirteen:

“This principle of majority rule can also be interpreted in relation to the principle of harmlessness. When two paths lay before the disciple he should always seek the more harmless of the two, which is another way of saying the most beneficial.”

The more harmless of the two paths will have the greatest appeal to the majority if the results of the two paths are clearly presented.

This agrees with the following statement by DK:

“Those who seek to see the establishment of goodwill and understanding are in the majority but are – as I pointed out in earlier writings – relatively futile to control the situation as yet or to force their leaders to follow the mass will-to-good.” Externalization of the Hierarchy Pg 128

The majority seek the path of goodwill. Our job as teachers is to show it to them.

Here is another good quote:

“Let it not be forgotten that the objective of all true governmental control is right synthesis, leading to right national and interior group activity. The problem resolves itself into a dual one. First of all, we have the problem of the type of authority which should be recognised by the peoples; and secondly, we have the problem of the methods which should be employed, so that the chosen authoritative measures will proceed either by the method of enforced control, or would be of such a nature that they will evoke a generously rendered and recognised cooperation. Between these two ways of working, MANY CHANGES CAN BE RUNG, THOUGH THE SYSTEM OF COOPERATION, WILLINGLY RENDERED BY AN INTELLIGENT MAJORITY, HAS NEVER YET BEEN SEEN. BUT WE ARE MOVING TOWARDS SUCH A CONDITION of world consciousness and are on our way towards experimenting with it.” Externalization of the Hierarchy Pg 51

Even though pure democracy was not the intended meaning in my book, DK points out to us that it has never really been tried, but it is possible to make it work.

DK also states: “Government by a true democracy. This again will be made possible through a right use of the systems of education and by a steady training of the people to recognize the finer values, the more correct point of view, the higher idealism, and the spirit of synthesis and of cooperative unity. Cooperative unity differs from an enforced unity in that the subjective spirit and the objective form are functioning towards one recognized end. Today, such a thing as a true democracy is unknown, and the mass of the people in the democratic countries are as much at the mercy of the politicians and of the financial forces as are the people under the rule of dictatorships, enlightened or unenlightened.” Externalization of the Hierarchy Pg 52

Thomas Jefferson agrees: “I know no SAFE depositary of the ultimate powers of the society BUT THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” –Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278

Let me close with another quote from DK which expresses my optimism:

“Let your imagination run wild for a moment, picturing the condition of the world when the majority of human beings are occupied with the good of others and not with their own selfish goals. Such a play of imaginative thought is good and constructive and will aid in bringing out into manifestation that new world and that new type of humanity which the future will inevitably demonstrate. On this I shall not enlarge; the practice of goodwill will lay the foundation for this new type of sensitivity.” Discipleship in the New Age Vol. II Pg 298

Indeed. Let our imaginations run wild with visions of wonder and hope for mankind and it will only be a matter of time before the majority will follow. Why? Because the majority desire the dominating good and will follow when the path is seen. Only clouds of ignorance hides the benevolent will or rule of the majority.

Oct 13, 2002

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Three Groups

October 27, 2020 Joseph Dewey

The Three Groups

I’ve been doing some additional thinking about the discussion of tyranny and have concluded there are three groups who look at it in differing ways.

The first group is the far left. This group sees tyrannies as large corporations, especially those who cut down trees, drill for oil, pollute or do animal testing. Like Lenin they see the whole capitalist system as a tyranny.

Another tyranny they see are the fundamentalist Christian and Jewish religions. Militant Islam doesn’t seem to bother them nor do the eastern religions or the new age movement, but any fundamentalist Christian who wants a voice in government is seen by them as tyrannical more than any communist leader. These people rarely complain about the real tyrants such as Saddam Hussein and Castro, but will often see a C.E.O. as much worse.

The second group is the far right. This group includes some fundamentalist Christians, patriot groups, tax protesters, strong Constitutionalists, Aryan Nations, Identity Movements, Militia groups and some Libertarians. Libertarians have beliefs on both sides of the isle and some view tyrannies with a mixture of views from both of the extremes.

Whereas the main enemy of the Left is large corporations the big tyrant of the Right is government, especially big government – although big corporations are seen as an enemy to many also. Tyranny is often seen as anything that takes us away from the Constitution. Also they disdain unjust laws and corrupt and ruthless authorities. Another thing that bothers many are changes that society undergoes as it either progresses or retrogresses.

I would guess that there’s a little over 10% of the people on the far left and another 10% on the right.

This leaves somewhere around 80% in the middle third group who have a more orthodox view of defining that which may tyrannize people.

There are fine intelligent people on both sides and by some measures a few of my views would be in that 10% extreme. Be aware that I am not identifying these categories as a negative judgment or saying that all in the 10% extreme react alike, but seek to clarify a communication barrier that exists between groups.

The trouble occurs when these three groups get together and communicate. They will often have a much different view, not only what a tyranny is, but about many other definitions as well.

If you mention “tyranny” to the far left “big oil” or some other large corporation may loom in his imagination more than any cruel dictator.

If you mention “tyranny” to the far right then our own big government is likely to come to his mind with more force than Iraq or North Korea.

The point I am making here is that these three groups will have frustration and difficulty in communicating and understanding each other unless they attempt three things:

(1) Understand where the other person is coming from in his thinking.

(2) Understand how the other group defines their terms.

(3) Use your terms, not from your minority viewpoint, but attempt to discuss in terms the other group understands.

In writing of more controversial subjects I will, usually define my terms and attempt to reach the consciousness of the great unwashed in the middle 80% with subtle expansions incorporated to speak to the two groups on the left and the right.

Overall, my writings are an attempt to reach every seeker in all groups and synthesize them into a fourth group who understands principles through the soul.

Reader Comment: I find it very difficult to understand how you chose to lump Libertarians with groups like Identity and Aryan Nations.

JJ It should have been obvious that the only way they were lumped together is because they both have views far right of center. I think we are all aware that Libertarians generally do not teach racism or violent overthrow.

I was hoping it was obvious that I was not stereotyping, but speaking as a general rule there are certain groups considered right and others left. Some on the left do not want to admit they are on the left, but, most on the right or far right will be happy to state that is where they are. I’ve heard a number say something like “Rush Limbaugh is a liberal compared to me.”

I have had discussions with a number of Aryan Nations people and sympathizers; I have read their literature and when discussing tyranny in government and America there is little difference in the disagreements that come up when compared to a good argument with a Libertarian or Patriot. About the only significant difference is that the Aryan is eager for some armed conflict or race war to take place.

I speak not in black and white, but in general principles and by general rules. From my experience I see these three groups and there is great difficulty in each communicating their point of view to the other.

I hope I made it clear that I was only referring to the fact that some Libertarians are seen to have views on the far right. I also pointed out earlier that some of my views are far from center, but that does not make me a racist or a militant.

Multiple definitions used in one argument are a sign that the conversation is drifting in and out of any main point or theme and is confusing.

Oct 12, 2002

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Resolving Arguments

October 25, 2020 Joseph Dewey

Resolving Arguments

A major cause and effect of discord in relationships is arguing. Most arguments are caused by a lack of communication. A good marriage counselor can sit between almost any two people having an argument, explain in different words what the other party means, and the argument will usually cease because the other’s point of view is then understood. As long as both parties are receptive to communication this can be done.

Arguments have two basic causes:

The two have a different interpretation of various words used in the argument. This different interpretation has not been communicated.
The two are seeing from different levels of vision. No two levels of vision are exactly the same, but a real problem occurs when one of the arguers sees only on the emotional level and the other sees on the mental. The mental person must step down to the feeling world to reach agreement with the emotional person. It is very seldom one can get a person who is polarized in the emotions to follow a course of pure logic.

One would be surprised at how many times cause #1 occurs. Usually when this happens, both parties actually believe the same way, but have a different use of words. Here’s an example:

JOHN: Every time someone communicates, he is teaching in one way or another.

MARY: Do you mean that any time someone says anything, he is teaching?

JOHN: Yes.

MARY: That cannot be right. I have had many people speak things to me that did not teach me anything. In fact, many things were completely untrue.

JOHN: Even if the communication is untrue, there is some fact conveyed.

MARY: Let’s take an example. I take a bite of a steak and I say “This is delicious”, but you take a bite and don’t like it. How does your communication teach me anything? It is only right for you because I think the steak is good.

JOHN: Nevertheless, I related to you the FACT that that is my opinion. My opinion may not be true in your eyes, but it is a fact that it is my opinion and I taught you what I think.

MARY: But your opinion was nothing useable so I was not taught anything.

JOHN: It doesn’t matter whether you use it or not. I still taught you my opinion.

MARY: You did not teach me anything. Your opinion wasn’t even true from my point of view.

The problem here is that John and Mary are using a different definition of the word “teach”. John thinks that to teach is to relate any fact so it is understood, whether it is useful or not to the other person. Mary thinks that there is no teaching accomplished unless the person receiving the communication receives data he can use in his life.

Even though John’s opinion may not be true to Mary, it is still a fact that it is his opinion. He related the true fact of the way the steak tasted to him. In relating this fact to Mary, he was teaching by his definition.

By Mary’s definition, he was not teaching because she didn’t care what he thought of the steak. It was not useable knowledge to her.

The two will argue till doomsday and never reach agreement on this point until they agree on a common definition of the word “teach”. If they go to the dictionary and use the most accepted definition and abide by it, then they will find that they agree with each other after all. Perhaps they could arrive with two different terms to define what they felt about teaching. For instance, to teach would be the communication of any fact, useful or not, but an “effective teacher” would fit Mary’s idea of one who communicates useful information. Once they have defined their terms, they have no need to disagree unless one party is just plain stubborn.

Perhaps we can now see the truth of the following rule: “If two people agree on their definitions, and communicate on a logical basis, they will always reach some point of agreement.”

The second cause of arguments is that of seeing from different levels of vision. Some arguments from this category are over such things as capital punishment, religion, abortion, equal rights, racism, etc. If two people are arguing over an emotionally charged subject, then one may know that one or both members in the discussion is emotionally polarized. If both members stay on the plane of the mind, they can stay calm even in discussing such emotional subjects.

Thus, we have two basic types of arguments in this second category: a) Emotional verses emotional, and 2) Emotional verses logical.

Here we have an example of emotional verses emotional:

DON: All men are created equal. Blacks are just as good as you or I.

RON: I never met a black I liked. They are all lazy and want to live off the white man. They ought to be sent back to Africa.

DON: You’re a racist pig if I ever met one.

Ron then takes a punch at Don.

Notice that neither of the two men use any intelligent reasoning. Now we will examine an emotional verses a logical argument:

DON: All men are created equal. Blacks are just as good as you or I.

JOHN: It depends on what you mean by equal. In reality, no two people are alike. DON: You sound like a racist to me.

JOHN: A true racist is someone who does not believe in equal rights for the different races. I do believe in equal rights so how do you get the idea that I am a racist?

DON: You do not believe that blacks are equal.

JOHN: I said that I don’t believe that any two people are equal, or exactly alike. By that I don’t mean that they are not Equal In RIGHTS. I’m talking about ability and personality. You didn’t seem to be listening. You and I are not exactly equal, or alike. For instance, I can run faster than you, and, at present, there is nothing you can do about it.

DON: Do you believe that the black is equal to the white?

JOHN: He should be equal in rights, but in other ways one race will differ from another. For instance, I think that blacks are better basketball players than whites on the average, but, on the other hand, fewer of them are good hockey players.

DON: It sounds to me like you’re a racist. JOHN: It sounds to me that we had better pin down your definition of a racist so we can talk intelligently.

Notice that Don thought John was a racist because he did not speak from the same feeling level as he did. John was exasperated because he was trying to speak logically to an emotionally polarized person. If Don could shift his angle of vision to the world of reason he would see that John does not LOOK at other races as being not as good as his own. Instead he is trying to examine differences in a logical manner.

There is one other cause of disagreements and this is illusion. Illusions are caused by wrong core beliefs in a person’s thinking. All beliefs that branch off this core belief may seem completely logical and sound if the core belief is unexamined. But when the core belief is seen in the light of the mind, the illusionary nature of the branch beliefs are readily seen.

If one person believes that man is basically evil and another believes he is essentially good, then the two will disagree again and again on the branch beliefs. To reach harmony, they must both trace their branch beliefs back to the core belief and examine them under the light of reason. Only high mental thinkers will be able to do this. Emotionally charged people can never trace their beliefs back beyond the point of where their mind currently has its attention.

We can begin to see that true communication is difficult to achieve, but when it is we will be amazed at how simple, yet joyous it is.

Oct 7, 2002

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Socrates and Tyranny

October 24, 2020October 24, 2020 Joseph Dewey

Socrates and Tyranny

This statement from my book, “The Lost Key of the Buddha,” caused quite a bit of feedback from the group:

“Tyranny by the majority is almost non existent,” he said. “In almost every example you can give me of tyranny there is a very small group involved who is causing it, not the majority. In the rule of the majority lies the path of safety.”

Some seemed to feel that a tyranny by the majority is a common thing whereas I maintain that it is rare. Instead there is generally a small minority seeking power for themselves who are at the helm. I challenged he group to give me an example of a tyranny by the majority and one put forth was the execution of Socrates in Democratic Athens.

First we must note that there has never been a true democracy in recorded history. Athens was perhaps the closest to a real democracy in ancient times but consider this.

Greater Athens had about 250,000-300,000 people. Only a male head of a citizen family could vote. Citizen families may have amounted to 100,000 people and out of these some 30,000 were the adult male citizens entitled to vote in the assembly. In addition to this those qualified to vote were required to vote.

Most people of today would not view a government where only about 10% of its residents having the power to vote as much of a democracy.

Even with its flaws, however, Athens grew to be the most prosperous and free society in the ancient world. After the government was destroyed by Sparta, the principle of democracy lived on and provided much inspiration for the Founding Fathers of the United States.

Overall, Athens was probably the least tyrannical of states in ancient history. Because of their lack of tyranny creativity flourished and this was one of the few times in ancient history that writers, actors and philosophers such as Socrates were allowed to teach controversial philosophies without restriction from the state. There was some intolerance as there always is in any state, but overall the freedom was an anomaly for that age. On the other hand, the neighboring city state of Sparta was ruled tyrannically with an iron hand, similar to a Nazi type of government. For instance, young male children were taken away from parents and raised by the state, indoctrinated to be warriors.

As intelligent as Socrates was it is amazing that he erred so greatly on some of his views on authority. For instance, he taught the superiority of the Spartan government ruled by strong tyrannical authority and the weakness of the government of Athens by weak authority. He felt the people were too stupid to govern themselves and states should be run by kings and dictators, “those who know how to rule,” as he expressed it. Now he felt these kings and dictators should be the wise and intelligent, but failed to present a plan that would insure that a Hitler or Stalin would not slip in now and then.

Now here is the interesting point. Where did Socrates choose to live – Athens or Sparta?

He chose citizenship in Athens because the democracy for which he had contempt allowed him to teach, move and live how he pleased. He avoided Sparta like the plague even though he taught that Athens needed to be like them. Doesn’t this remind you of some of the intellectuals in this age? Many college professors in America teach that we need to be more like many of the tyrannies existing in the world, but do they move there? Of course not.

Socrates’ basic premise of government, according to Xenophon’s “Memorabilia,” was “that it is the business of the ruler to give orders and of the ruled to obey.”

Athens tolerated Socrates undermining the government until he became a threat to the overthrow of the democracy. He gathered young people of aristocratic birth around him and several of them betrayed Athens to its enemy state of Sparta causing Athens to lose its democracy for a time and suffer tyranny. Athens began to look upon Socrates as treasonous toward democracy, as one actively teaching principles that could violently overthrow their government for good. They encouraged him to leave the area and go to Sparta or some other state, since he was so critical of Athens, yet he refused and insisted on staying and teaching the sons of the governors the superiority of dictator kings over democracy. Finally Athens arrested him and charged him with treason wording the charge as “corrupting the youth.”

Even after he was arrested it was made known unto him that he would be allowed to escape if he would just leave, but he refused. The democratic council reluctantly tried him and found him guilty by a slim majority of 281 guilty and 220 not guilty. Even after the trial it was made known to him that he would be allowed to escape if he would just go, but he refused. He wound up executing himself by drinking poison. Why did he do this? It is quite possible that he was determined to be a martyr and thought that the Athenians would wimp out and refuse to do it themselves. Perhaps he thought he would be expelled from Athens and actually have to live in a neighboring state that he taught as being better than democracy. Perhaps he finally realized that death was better than living in Sparta.

Overall, it cannot be said that the democracy in Athens represented any kind of tyranny by the standards of that age. If Socrates had lived in neighboring Sparta or most any other state of that age and was seen as posing a threat to the government he would have been immediately executed without a trial. As it was, he lived and taught controversial teachings in Athens to the ripe old age of 70 until he was slain by his own hand. This gave him great status as a martyr, but also gave power to his teaching of authoritarian rule that helped lead to the extinction of the freest most noble society of ancient times.

Today many label governing policies by the opposition party as tyranny, but such are generally more inconveniences than related to the real tyrannies of the past.

King George, Hitler and Stalin, for instance, are commonly called tyrants because they exercised absolute and unjust power over their subjects. If the subjects defied them they were tortured, jailed or put to death. Cruel and unusual punishments were the rule of the day.

The statement “Tyranny by the majority is almost non existent,” means that in this present time in the free world the majority do not accept absolute and cruel authority that suffocates the free will of humankind. An individual can often be corrupted with power and turn into a cruel tyrant, but it is rare indeed for over 50% of the population to desire such a thing, even if we go back in history searching for examples.

A reader mentioned past injustices such as: “censorship of talk in regards to things like sexual mores, or even scientific theories like evolution.”

Censorship of sexual mores is certainly not a current problem nor has it been a tyranny in recent times and I would even doubt that it was supported by the majority at any time in my lifetime. I know when I was young all but the most religious desired less censorship.

Censorship of scientific theories in this century would not qualify as tyranny in my book, but there was some unjust use of authority. I would also doubt that a majority supported such censorship. They certainly do not today and the present time was the issue under discussion in the chapter. The only time the majority go along with something unjust is when they have been fed with censored information.

Comment: “Not too many years ago, in fact in living memory of many on this list, a majority of Americans appear to have favored various forms of persecution and discrimination against homosexuals.”

I would seriously doubt that in our lifetime that the majority actually supported persecution of gays, some discrimination, perhaps, but discrimination is far from tyranny. I have been discriminated against many times in my life, but this falls far short of an experience with real tyranny.

Again, if we move to present time I think most would admit that the majority are against discrimination or especially persecution of gays or any other minority.

I believe that the civil disobedience became effective right about the time that the majority opinion favored justice for the minorities and without this majority support the revolution of the sixties could not have taken place.

Now let us go back to the statement causing the problem: “Tyranny by the majority IS almost non existent.”

It seems to me that the disagreement with this is based on either a miscommunication on my part or a misunderstanding on the part of readers, but I can find no example that contradicts it.

The point to keep in mind is no claim is made that the majority is perfect, just as no human or group of humans is perfect, but imperfect actions or beliefs of the majority in this present time are a far cry from tyrannical dictators past and present. Perhaps one should ask this question. Would you rather cast your fate to the whims of a dictator such as Hitler, Stalin or Castro or to the graces of the common people making up the majority? Abraham Lincoln indeed showed much trust toward the majority when he said “God must have loved the common people, for he made so many of them.” There are a lot of them and this great majority, though imperfect, seeks to do what is right and does not desire tyranny.

Comment: We read stories of law enforcement and various authorities overstepping their bounds. Would that be tyrannical?

The fact that abuses occur, of which the majority is unaware, does not mean that the majority supports them. In order for the majority to support any form of abuse it first has to know what the abuse is.

On the other hand, if the majority is deceived then the true will of the majority is not expressed. For instance, if a jury is convinced an innocent man committed a crime and they convict him – this does not mean that the jury “wills” that innocent people go to prison. The point made in the book is that the majority generally will desire that which is right and not knowingly support terror or abuse of others – but a power crazed dictator and his inner circle will not care about the suffering of people.

If a person is lobbied or pressured a certain direction he is still responsible for the direction he takes. If he is deceived through misinformation then his good will may be misdirected and the deception can prevent the true will of the majority from being expressed.

An important point to consider is that there are laws in existence that almost everyone as an individual will have a gripe against. I really do not like some of the speed limits out there. On my way to the office there is a long stretch where the speed limit is 20 MPH where it could be 40MPH and I have received several tickets traveling it. Now let us suppose I was not careful and received so many tickets they took my driver’s license away. Many people in this situation would cry “tyranny” because of the inconvenience.

The fact is that if we water down the definition of tyranny to abuses of police in enforcing the law then there is tyranny everywhere in every country. Many burglars and bank robbers think their treatment is tyrannical after they are justly arrested.

Perhaps we can put things in perspective by applying tyranny to a marriage. In marriage A, the couple has a good relationship with few complaints. The only problem is that the female smokes and the male is demanding that she not smoke. Finally he gets so upset that he starts stealing her cigarettes and throwing them away. She is upset and cries tyrant.

In marriage B the male seeks to control all aspects of his spouses life. He controls her money supply, where she can go, the friends she can have and how much she can see them. He controls the indoctrination of the children and forbids her to see her mother. She has to ask permission for the simplest of things.

In marriage A you have an imperfect marriage situation, but not a tyrannical one even though the wife may attempt to make a case for it. But in marriage B you have a true tyranny and the wife is just in rebelling and dissolving the marriage over the situation.

The free (relatively speaking) countries of the world are like Marriage A in relation to the true tyrannies past and present. Some of their citizens cry tyranny, but overall there is not enough abuse to label it so.

Marriage B is like the Old Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Nazi Germany etc. These are true tyrannies and the majority of the civilized world today are indeed against such a suffocation of freedom.

The reason the wording IS was used in the quote is that if we used past standards and primitive cultures in examining this principle it would seem to be incorrect. This is why the discussion went into the issue of slavery in ancient times and shows how it generally wasn’t considered tyranny back then and Jesus did not even speak out against it, but used the example of “good and faithful slaves” in many of his teachings.

On the other hand, in a future time many of the things we think to be acceptable today may seem to be a tyranny to the people of the future and the majority of these people of the future will be against tyranny, however it was defined.

Actually, the principle is elaborated quite clearly in the book of Mormon ass follows:

“Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.

“Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law–to do your business by the voice of the people.

“And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.” Mosiah 29:25-27

There are abuses of freedom in all countries and even in this country clear from its beginnings there have been problems. Are we to say that we have lived in a tyrannical country since its beginning? If the United States is a tyranny then why would only a very few call it so?

The vast majority would not call the United States, Canada, France England or many other nations tyrannies for this reason. When we think tyranny, as most people understand it, we think of a society where the oppression is great enough to touch every person who lives there and cause him to live in fear of unjust authority to some extent.

Take me and my wife, for example. Not once have either one of us in all these decades had even one experience with tyranny of the state. I’ve never worried about authorities unjustly seizing my cash, banging on my door because of my strange beliefs… I have never had to concern myself with the restriction of speech because of the state. I had a problem with the church in this, but not the state. Basically, we like most of the people we know, live our life without fear of these things while being vigilant to do our part to see that these freedoms remain.

Believe me, if I were to live in a tyrannical regime, a controversial person like me would have to go underground and perhaps live in hiding. That is not to say that tyranny cannot happen here, for we must ever be eternally vigilant.

A tyrannical country would have to have a degree of oppression that would make the majority live in fear of the state and that is not the case here. Some live in fear, but the majority do not live in any degree of fear as is the case of a true tyranny.

Overall tyranny is a matter of degree. The best of the nations have their imperfections and all have individuals and groups with tyrannical minds, but overall these more civilized nations cold be called flawed nations seeking to find their soul.

Oct 2, 2002

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Food of the Gods

October 23, 2020 Joseph Dewey

Food of the Gods

Question: “If humans raise, breed and eat animals, do the gods raise, breed and eat humans?”

JJ: Actually, the answer is yes and is clearly stated by DK himself. In the sixth rule for Disciples and Initiates he states: “The fifth (Christ and the Masters) feeds on the fourth” (the human kingdom).

He encourages vegetarianism for humans, but calls it a “lesser rule in time and space,” that cannot hold back group evolution.

Some think that it is not an advantage for animals to be in the presence of humans because we kill so many for food, but it is important that we understand a principle here. A lower kingdom always seeks the presence and abilities of the higher kingdom even though the path of learning is painful.

For instance, many of the human kingdom have endured all kinds of death and torture to please his gods in the kingdom above it.

The price for many animals to tread this path higher presence is that humans will take their lives and eat them. Some think that this is not right while not realizing that the Masters in the Kingdom of God, a step above human, demand much more from their pets (disciples) than we demand from the animals.

Instead of killing us and eating our bodies they demand that the disciples willingly offer not only their lives, but themselves to torture, if necessary, to accomplish their agenda. For instance, all the apostles of Jesus and millions of followers suffered horrible deaths and torture of their own free will.

Very few humans would ever allow an animal to go through some of the things that humans have been directed to do to bring the kingdom of God to man.

The end result is worth the effort for both the Masters and the disciples, but as the disciple becomes one with the soul his consciousness blends with the Master through the Oneness Principle and this provides an increase in energy (food) for the kingdom of God.

PETS-R-US

A reader was somewhat offended that I compared the human/master relationship as a higher correspondent to human/pet saying the way they interact and treated is much different.

Of course the Master disciple relationship is much different than a human pet relationship but there are similarities.

Remember there are always similarities in a higher correspondences, but differences too.

As a human is higher than his pet so is the Master Higher than the disciple.

As a human has a different relationship with another human of similar consciousness than he does with his pets, even so does a Master have quite a bit different relationship with another Master than he does with a disciple.

The correspondence between the two levels fits, but on a higher level for the master/human..

The Christ was above the consciousness of his disciples to a similar degree as the average person is above his pet.

Many humans love their pets very dearly. The most emotionally upset I have been in my life because of death has been in the loss of pets when I was young. I have considered my pets to be my friends.

I am not saying that the Masters look at us and say “cute little pet,” but am saying there is a correspondence worth considering. The Law of Correspondences always reveals truth.

Another thing to consider is that many teachers from the other side who work with humanity are fellow disembodied humans and are not Masters. A relationship with these beings would be much more similar to a relationship with a fellow human on the earth and a disciple to a Master.

There is one more idea to consider in the Law of Correspondences.

In between the adult human and pet we have the child. Notice that the child has a lot more affinity with pets than most adults. I remember when I was a child when my pets were always my best friends. I particularly loved my dog and talked to him like I would another child and felt like he understood me on some level.

I still love animals, but I do not have such an intimate association with them as I did when I was young.

In a way the disciple corresponds to the child and acts as a bridge between the kingdom of God and the human. Just as the child communes with the parents as well as the pets so does the disciple commune with the Higher Lives and link them with the highest of the human kingdom.

Just as the child is very emotionally linked to his pets so are disciples bonded with their students.

I think the thing to do here is not look at the black and white words such as pet, animal, human etc , but to examine how the various relationships work out on one level and then contemplate how they will play out on a higher level. As DK says many times, the Law of Correspondences is the great test as to whether or not a teaching has merit.

Sept 25, 2002

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Name of Christ & Questions

October 22, 2020October 22, 2020 Joseph Dewey

The Name of Christ & Questions

I received a letter basically asking what we should call Jesus if we should meet him again.

Some think he is the same as the Biblical Jehovah and thus should be addressed as YHWH, Yahweh or as close as one can get to the correct pronunciation.

Others think that it is sacrilege to use the English name Jesus but should call him by the Greek IESUOS, approximately pronounced Yaysoos. Still others tell us that IESUOS is derived from the greek Zeus and that Christ is offended that the masses are using it. Some say instead we should use the Hebrew name because it is most ancient. Suggested are Yahwehshua, Yahoshua or simply Yeshua.

Question: Do you think the Christ would be offended if you met him and you called him by a wrong version of his name? Does it matter what you call him? Why or why not?

If you were Jesus would you use some ancient name when you came again or would you choose a new name?

In Revelations we read : “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.” Rev 3:12

What do you suppose this new name of Christ is and how is it written upon the disciple?

We also read: “I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.” Rev 3:8

Question: Do you think the Christ would be offended if you met him and you called him by a wrong version of his name? Does it matter what you call him? Why or why not?

First I will say that I am not offended if someone innocently calls me by a wrong name. Since Christ is greater than me he would probably show even more tolerance. If a tolerant person desires to be called by a certain name then all he has to do is make it known that this is the name he desires to be called by. There are no clearly defined comments in scripture on this matter so no one should be condemned for using the name that seems best.

Question: If you were Jesus would you use some ancient name when you came again or would you choose a new name?

Answer: I would choose a new name that blended in with the society I was working with.

Question: What do you suppose this new name of Christ in Rev 3:12 is and how is it written upon the disciple?

Answer: In past ages God was seen as outside of self, in the burning bush, on mount Sinai, in the sky etc. But in this age a new name for God is “the God within” or Christ within.”

Question: How does one deny the name of Jesus Christ?

Answer: The name of Jesus Christ means “anointed to deliver” or “Anointed for Deliverance”. He who takes upon himself the name of Jesus Christ and honors it will reach out to those behind him on the path and help them attain to his own station. To deny the name of Jesus Christ is to seek only for one’s own advancement without giving aid (or deliverance) to his fellowmen.

Question; could you elaborate on the last thought of the following quote saying, “the well-known failure of the Buddha to attain his goal”?

“All have failed and will again along some line. E’en the Masters fail at times to pass through one or other of the highest initiations at their first attempt and – from the hierarchical angle – that connotes failure. But the failure is scarce recognized; the effort is made to register what caused the failure and the inability to stand before the One Initiator, for all effects emanate from some ascertainable cause. So should it be on all levels of advancement, even such a relatively unimportant effort (from the point of view of hierarchical work) as your attempt to gain the right of entry into my Ashram or what is called “ashramic penetration,” and then on and up through many graded failures, until you meet the well-known failure of the Buddha to attain his goal.” Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 2, Page 732

According to Djwhal Khul, the Buddha still has an attachment to humanity and this has caused him not to move ahead on the path. He chose the path of earth service instead of the path to Sirius where he was supposed to have gone. Buddha did not quite reach his goal of non attachment.

He also failed to make sure that a clear doctrine of the Middle Way was passed down by his disciples.

Of course, using this standard we could even say that Christ failed to insure the full understanding of love was passed down and taught during the Piscean age.

Each avatar can only do so much to make sure his message is understood.

Comment: It’s difficult to see the line between attachment and sacrifice in this situation. It seems the Christ would benefit by Buddha’s choice of earth service in addition to all of humanity benefiting.

JJ: Yes, we all benefit from Buddha’s choice, but in the sense of the universal good beyond the scope of this earth he could have accomplished more had he made his best choice which was the path to Sirius.

Question: How does one determine it wasn’t a situation of non attachment to moving on?

JJ: All setbacks in our progressions are because of attachment of some kind and attachment reaches to levels that disciples on earth cannot even imagine.

Each one of the nine initiations is a freedom from attachment of some kind. The Buddha has reached at least the sixth initiation. He chose a temporary Path of Earth Service because of a good attachment (from the viewpoint of humanity) which was an attachment to his love of humanity.

Questions: Is time a factor at this level of moving ahead? How is Sirius affected by his choice? How does this affect Buddha’s future?

JJ: He has delayed his own progression, but because his intent was pure he may have a chance to make up for lost time. There would be some effect on Sirius, but I’m sure they will compensate.

Question: Once he’s liberated from his attachments here will he be free to move on to Sirius?

JJ: Djwhal Khul indicates that Sirius is no longer in the plan for him. Here are a couple quotes:

From Rays and Initiations

“The Buddha was originally to have chosen the fourth Path (Sirius) but other plans confront Him now and will probably claim His choice.” Pg 415

“This word He has lately given in the case of the Buddha, Who has expiated His most understandable mistake and will now move forward-in His own good time-on to the Path which will lead Him to His rightful field of expression.” Pg 397

DK does not say what the new path is, but chances are it will be the path of the Planetary Logos since Buddha is now working closely with Shamballa.

Question: How closely is sacrifice related to attachment?

JJ: It takes discernment to differentiate between true non attachment and sacrifice. Many think they are detached when they are sacrificing a desire which still lingers with them. With true detachment no sacrifice is necessary. Buddha’s love for humanity created an attachment that made it difficult for him to move on. This was good for us, but created a delay for him and a vacuum on Sirius. Such a delay is not of large moment, however, when considering the wholeness of the path of the soul traveled by one of pure intent.

Question: Do our souls evolve from the animal kingdom into what we know as humanity or into something else? I’ve never met an enlightened cow but some Buddhist sects I’ve heard of forbid the killing of insects and worms because you could be killing your grandmother’s grandmother. is there any truth to that in Reality?

JJ: As far as our evolution goes we always move forward and not backward. Some Buddhists and Hindus believe that if you live a bad life you can be reborn as a snake or some other animal, but in this round of evolution you will always be reborn as a human until you become more than human in the kingdom of God.

If a person is very carnal and identifies powerfully with the material world he can, from the astral world, identify in consciousness with an animal. Because the will of a rat is small he can share the consciousness in its body if he desires. But the spirit of the animal still lives in the body. Perhaps this is where this false teaching originated. This misconception has caused some in the East to be too extreme in dealing with the lower kingdoms.

As far as evolution from the lower kingdoms to the higher, I have written much on this. The parts which compose the human have come from the lower kingdoms, but the human monad (seed), the essential intelligence which is us does not appear until the human vehicle is created.

This process of combining lesser parts to create a greater is covered in detail in the book The Molecular Relationship.

To attain the greater life in the Kingdom of God groups of humans join together in consciousness to create a vehicle to house a greater life which will descend. All the individuals will then share in the consciousness of the greater life while maintaining their individual identity.

You as a human, in turn, are composed of millions of lesser lives, including cells, bacteria, organs etc.

Question: How about killing a fly simply because it’s buzzing in my face and bugging me, would that in Truth be considered wrong action in any way?

JJ: Lesser lives like insects are not such a mistake to kill as a dog, for instance. We should not kill anything that is doing us no harm, (except for food) but I would have no reservations about swatting a fly that is buzzing around driving me crazy. On the other hand, if an insect is causing me no annoyance I will usually leave him alone or put him outside.

Sept 20, 2002

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Questions on the Middle Way and More

October 21, 2020 Joseph Dewey

Questions on the Middle Way and More

Question: Did Christ teach something which corresponds to the Middle Way?

Jesus hinted at the Middle Way in the following scripture about the supposed straight and narrow path:

“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Matt 7:13-14

The Greek word STENOS (for strait) here implies restriction or cramped. In other words, the gate that leads to destruction seems to be open wide with a worn and wide path leading to it, easy to spot, and the obvious one to take But the gate that leads to life is barely open and difficult to squeeze through and the path leading to it barely visible and one must observe with high awareness to follow it.

This reminds me of the words of Robert Frost:

“Two paths diverged in a wood and I, I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.”

The members of the brotherhood have thousands of years of experience under their belt and synthesize the teachings of all the great teachers of the past as well as pass on new views of their own. They are certainly not restricted in their learning and expertise to one small lifetime or one book of scripture. Neither are they limited to religion for many are likely to teach science, architecture, literature etc if it furthers the cause of the Great Plan.

All the members of the Brotherhood know far more than the few paragraphs in the Bible attributed to Christ. They all learn the just as we do plus they have access to many texts not available to us. In addition they have encounters with advanced beings that we do not have, but most important is that they are finely tuned to the Oneness Principle where knowledge of all true principles is available.

More on the Dweller

Comment: It seems to me that people with dementia or Alzheimer’s may be at that threshold. I have the opportunity to be around many people who suffer from the dementia/alz debility and generally speaking they are not talking about Love and Light. These people may have had a strong faith in their right minds, but now they are: paranoid, suspicious, uncooperative, mocking, and emotionally stuck. It almost seems like their minds have deteriorated and all that is left is the Dweller state. It is not possible to reason with most of them. (A very challenging situation.)

JJ: As others indicated the diseased state of mind is not a confrontation with the Dweller. Also the seeing of an evil or strange spirit is not; neither is a typical possession. All these happenings are merely a part of the creation of the final Dweller that is faced at the threshold.

When the Dweller is faced the attack is quick and powerfully and has nothing to do with disease. The disciple, if he is not distracted, can overcome (at least temporarily) the Dweller quickly and enter into the presence as did Joseph Smith. If he is distracted it can take years or even lifetimes. Moses, for instance, first contacted his Dweller in Egypt when he received a revelation that he was a Hebrew. It was forty years later before he applied the principle of attrition successfully enough to enter into the presence.

Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness negating his personal Dweller.

The writings about Buddha indicate that he overcame it with little effort, but history leaves out many of his struggles with it (lasting years) before the final defeat.

Many other disciples have dealt with the Dweller and have not written the story. It would be interesting to know how Djwhal Khul handled his confrontation.

If the Dweller is confronted and the disciple passes quickly to the Angel of the Presence, because he is not distracted, then the body of the Dweller may remain intact and come to life again later in his life or in another life. Only when the astral body of the Dweller is completely destroyed will he be gone forever. This astral body of the Dweller is only destroyed completely by the continued attrition of the disciple placing his full attention on the spiritual work to be done, forgetting completely the cares of his lower self.

The disciple should not be fearful or concerned about his final meeting of the Dweller for this will just add more power to its life force when he is confronted. Going forward in the light without fear with full attention on the next step of the path is always the safest route.

Nostradamus and Babylon

A reader wants me to acknowledge that certain predictions of Nostradamus and the Book of Revelation have come true with the 9/11 disasster.

If indeed there is a prediction that has come true I am happy to acknowledge it, but our friend is a little too eager to see what is not there.

First he quotes two quatrains from Nostradamus which are unrelated to each other.

First Quote

“A King of Terror shall attack the New City of York at 45 degrees.”

Second Quote

“A mad ruler shall react to this and start the third great war.”

The first thing to note about the first quote is that New York is not at 45 degrees. The World Trade Center location is less than 41 degrees. That makes the prophecy about 400 miles off right off the bat.

This first quote is a distortion of Century 6, Quatrain 97 which reads:

“At five and forty degrees, the sky will burn, Fire approaches the great new city,

Immediately a huge, scattered flame leaps up, When they want to have verification from the Normans.”

The Normans in the days of Nostradamus were from Normandy, now a part of France which does not seem to have any unusual connection with 911.

The King of Terror mentioned comes from Century 10, Quatrain 72 which reads:

“The year 1999, seventh month, From the sky will come a great King of Terror. To bring back to life the great King of the Mongols…”

Looks like we have the wrong year here for one thing.

As far as I can tell the second quote is fraudulent.

Next let us examine the scripture which he says predicted the 911 disaster. He quotes chapter 18 of Revelations expecting us to believe that Babylon is New York City. While it is true that New York Could be symbolic of a part of modern day Babylon, there is much more to Babylon than this one city.

For instance in his quote we read: “And in you (Babylon) was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slaughtered on earth.”

Here we are told that Babylon has on its hands “the blood of the Saints, prophets and ALL who have been slaughtered upon the earth.”

If Babylon is merely New York then how could it have slaughtered the prophets before America was even discovered?

The scripture further says:

“ Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, Come out of her, my people, so that you do not take part in her sins, and so that you do not share in her plagues.”

Here God says that his people will dwell in Babylon just before the destruction and a voice from heaven will call them out. If Babylon is indeed New York then the people of God must dwell there.

Where are these people?

And if the WTC destruction is the fulfillment of this prophecy then when did the voice from heaven call then out before the destruction?

Several other things do not correspond closely enough to link this to 911.

“Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!

It has become a dwelling house of demons, a haunt of every foul and hateful bird, a haunt for every foul and hateful beast.”

It is obvious that New York is not known as a haunt for demons, hateful birds and beasts. One could argue perhaps that this does not refer to literal animals, but despicable human beings.

But in truth what kind of human beings did we see emerge in New York after the disaster? Instead of the slime of the earth we saw all that is best in humanity. We saw the finest in courage, the best in sharing, great examples of love and sacrifice, a renewed trust in the human spirit, a search for meaning etc.

Humans in New York that are like demons and hateful birds and beasts??? That’s not what the world saw.

The scripture continues:

“Therefore, her plagues will come in a single day – pestilence and mourning and famine – and she will be burned with fire; for mighty is the Lord God who judges her.”

We had two buildings with some fire collapse and there was no pestilence and famine associated with it. Furthermore, if New York is all there is to Babylon then the whole city would have to be destroyed to fulfill the prophecy.

Then in verse 11 we are told that no one buys the merchandise of Babylon after the destruction.

The last I heard business in New York is returning to normal and there is lots of buying and selling going on.

The scripture continues:

“Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, With such violence Babylon the great city will be thrown down, and will be found no more.”

If the disaster in New York fulfilled this prophecy then the great city of New York should be “found no more.”

Since millions of people can still find it then it becomes as obvious as the nose on your face that the WTC disaster is not the fulfillment of this prediction.

Now, if sometime in the future the city of New York was completely destroyed with an atomic bomb and became so desolate that it could no longer be inhabited, perhaps we can take another look at this city fulfilling the prophecy. Let us hope this will not be the case. On the other hand the year 1999 is passed.

Question: Why is the yoke of Christ light when those on the path encounter such high resistance?

When the disciple is in the midst of high resistance he takes the viewpoint of the observer and his consciousness is not sucked in to the situation. His consciousness is in the higher and lighter realms. He is like a person watching a Star Wars movie (with lots of conflict) but enjoying it from a point of reality where his yoke is light.

When the disciple becomes one with the higher nature, his yoke will be light no matter what is happening in the world around him.

On calling avatars, teachers etc, Masters.

In ancient times the teacher was called a master with the idea that he was the master of the student and the student was to be dedicated to him.

In this age (because of evolution) the Hierarchy has changed the emphasis. Now the term master is applied to one who has mastered himself and is directed to the Master within for confirmation as well as where his dedication is supposed to lie.

This is a test for the teachers of the world as well as the students.

The students must let go of the exclusive authority without and the teachers must release their authoritative hold upon the students. An earned authority is the only power he sparingly uses.

Sept 16, 2002