Month: December 2020

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

A Prime Ingredient of Goodwill

December 30, 2020 Joseph Dewey

A Prime Ingredient of Goodwill

We have recently introduced the Declaration of Goodwill and are in the process of fine tuning it before we promote it on a larger scale.

One of the main points emphasized that will help with goodwill is the elimination of using derogatory names thrown at each other, commonly called “name-calling.” This is emphasized because name calling is one of the prime causes of negative feelings of one person or group toward another. If this process can be significantly reduced then that alone could take us half way to reasonable goodwill.

First, let us clarify what is meant by negative name calling. Quite simply it is this: A name or description of another to which the person does not identify with and feels insulted at being called such. The name called has intention to insult and the sender is aware that the name will not be favorably accepted.

The most common of such names are liar, hypocrite, hater, racist, bigot, the N-word, homophobe… The list could go on, but the point is that few if any think the calling of these names is justified and have ill will, not goodwill, toward those who do use such names.

Just call a person a liar one time and there is a strong probability he or she will loath you for the rest of his life. You may think your accusation is correct, but the accused may see it as completely unjust and just plain mean.

Some may think we should not make a blanket rejection of name calling because there seems to be times when the person’s sin is so egregious that he deserves to be called a liar, hypocrite or whatever.

Here’s the problem with that idea. When most any person calls another a negative name he will just about always think he is justified and the guy deserves it. If we say a little is okay then the little will be turned into a lot because each person thinks his judgment is just fine. This is why negative name calling needs to be met with disapproval in all instances. There is no supreme judge as to what is justified and what is not.

Perhaps I can set the example here. Not once in my life have I resorted to name calling toward any individual far as I can remember. I have made it a policy to avoid such attacks and it has served me well.

Let us examine the most common word used in negative name calling which is probably “liar.”

The problem with this (and other name-calling) is that everyone has told some kind of lie sometime in their lives. This means you could call anyone a liar and be technically correct.

But when using the encompassing word liar in relation to an individual you are not just pointing to one or two isolated untruths, but you are categorizing the whole of the person as a liar, as if this is what he is and nothing he says should he trusted.

Maybe the lie was just a mistake, or maybe it was the first lie in years or maybe the attacker was the one mistaken and to be stereotyped as an all around liar s is always seen as an insult. Whether the person deserves it of not the attack always does more harm than good as far as the promotion of goodwill is concerned.

If you think then that another is telling a lie that needs corrected then what should you do? Should we just let the lie go unexposed and perhaps do much harm?

Of course not, but name calling is not the answer. I do not know how many times I have seen someone called a liar and I have been left to think, “I wonder what his lies were or if they are really lies.”

Just calling someone a liar or any other name does little to expose the real problem.

What then does reveal that which needs correction?

The answer (concerning a lie): A description of what is not true followed by that which is true.

For instance, suppose another says something like this: “I can’t stand that politician Bob Smith. Did you know he hates little puppies?”

Now you are very familiar with Mr. Smith and you happen to know he is an animal lover. You may be tempted to call your friend a liar, but realize it will just alienate him so you say this: “I’m familiar with Bob and know he loves dogs so I am wondering where you came up with this idea. Do you have any evidence of this?”

Now instead of feeling insulted which results in more attack your friend is forced to examine his own thoughts and there is a chance he may realize his lie.

Confronting the attacker with truth is the best means of diffusion. Most anything is better than just categorizing another as a liar as if that is all he is all the time. Simply saying “I believe that statement is a lie or not true is better than calling the person a liar for you are dealing with the statement, instead of stereotyping the person. To describe the untruth and present the truth as mentioned earlier, however, is the best approach.

The much less destructive approach of analyzing the words of an attacker rather than attacking back can be used with any type of name calling. For instance, if you see hypocrisy instead of declaring the guy a hypocrite remind him that his specific action does not seem to be in harmony with what he claims to believe.

One of the problems in applying this principle correctly is we live in an age of high sensitivity and people are offended over many things that were just passed over a generation or two ago.

The older generation will often use words they think are harmless that offends the younger generation.

Words that are unintentionally offensive are not part of the main problem. Of course, if a person offends another with a certain word and is made aware that such word is offensive then, for the cause of goodwill, he should stop using that word in relation to that individual. For instance, a trans person may be born a “he” and desire to be called a “she”. If you learn that “he” is offensive then good manners should dictate that one stop using it in identifying this person.

Negative name calling designed to be insulting, that you know will be rejected by the person attacked is a much bigger obstacle to goodwill than the many unintentional offenses that happen in daily life. If we can eliminate the intentional insults and replaced them with civil dialog we can create a major step forward in establishing goodwill on this planet.

Dec 30, 2020

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Understanding Polarization & More

December 29, 2020 Joseph Dewey

Understanding Polarization & More

Reader comment: Personally I’d say it is only in the last year I have become mentally polarized, and I have indeed noticed the difference. My thoughts or perceived point of consciousness within the mind no longer flit between the left and right hemispheres. An interesting consequence of this is that stereo music now sounds more like mono! I now think with better clarity and a better filtering mechanism for emotions, especially negative ones. I put much of my progression down to esthetic support structures which I feel are in place. These I feel are both internal and external. (Do I hear an hallelujah?)

JJ: I’m glad you brought this up so we can bring up some additional clarification to some who may not yet understand. It is obvious you are attempting some humor here but what is not clear is if you truly believe that I have been presenting a mental polarization as meaning that the mind only is at play to the exclusion of the emotions. I would hope that none have seen it this way because I have said the opposite many times in my writings. Just in case any misunderstanding yet exists let me repeat the principle.

To be mentally polarized does not mean that you are like Spock attempting to have no emotions. A mental person is more like Kirk, who is very logical but with a strong emotional side. Even though Kirk often operates from the intuitive level, the intuition only comes into play during points of tension and often defaults to the mind in normal decision making.

A polarization on one plane does not mean all your energy is there. If 49% of your energy is on the emotional plane and 51% is on the mental then the polarization will be mental. The situation is never zero percent verses 100%. The highest mental polarization would be something like 40/60 with 30/70 being an extreme.

It’s a little like the functioning of a corporation. If you have 51% of the stock then you have control. Even so the other 49% of the stockholders still have a strong influence.

Mental or emotional polarization is determined by the force that dominates your decision-making. This is the key. It is not determined by how strongly you feel about the matter.

Pacifism

Reader comment: Interesting quotes you produced from DK disagreeing with pacifists but anyone could find a quote from DK to support their position; you should see what the pacifists have used! 🙂

JJ: It is true that one can use DK, the Bible or other writings to seemingly support any position. Those on the emotional plane can often be swayed by quotes that may distort an author’s position, but such distortions cannot pass by the plane of the mind unnoticed.

I would guess that over half of DK’s readers are pacifists even though he stood very strongly against such a thing when we are faced with a definite threat.

This misinterpretation comes because people polarized on the emotional plane see what they want to see.

My conclusion is that one cannot prove any position from DK’s writings to one polarized on the plane of the mind or higher.

I haven’t seen how pacifists use DK’s writings to justify their position and would be interested in looking at them if you have a quote or two available. My guess is that they would use his teachings on harmlessness. Perhaps they do not realize that he stated that pacifism in the face of a tyrant like Hitler is harmful and can cost many lives and extend suffering.

Comment: You mention George Bush as a second degree initiate but if he had any light he’d take on all those oil interests and take the US down the path of alternative energy technologies – like hydrogen fuel cells).

JJ: We’ll have to wait a while to see how he looks on hindsight, but he is vecry eco friendly and has a much more green friend ly home in Texas than has Al Gore or any environmentalist I know. He recently proposed (in 2003) several billion dollars toward hydrogen fuel research. Everyone seems enthused about this as if it were a panacea for energy, but such is far from the case. What few realize is that it takes more than one unit of energy from coal (the usual source) to produce a unit of energy available in hydrogen. Hydrogen creates few environmental problems (but there are some), but because the moving to this source would cause more pollution through coal burning than the current pollution through fossil fuel – this makes it a very questionable source at present.

What makes little sense is that every environmentalist I have ever heard interviewed completely overlooks this fact. This seems to give fuel to the fire of the theory that many environmentalists are against the free market more than they are in support of the environment.

Converting to the hybrid engine would give us much less pollution than converting to hydrogen as suggested by many – unless there is a breakthrough in the method of production.

Reader comment: Let me amend my mention of hydrogen fuel cells with that it was actually solar hydrogen I was thinking of. As implied this uses solar energy to split the water molecules and produce hydrogen. This would require advances in solar panel technology to provide a nations worth of solar hydrogen, but it does have potential.

JJ: I did some research on sites promoting the idea of solar hydrogen power. They universally promote the advantages of hydrogen power, but they also universally ignore the fact that it would cost much more to produce a unit of hydrogen from solar power than from coal or oil. They also avoid the current limitations of solar power.

One site tells us that it would only require land the size of North Dakota to produce enough solar power to create the necessary hydrogen for the United States.

North Dakota???

Do they not realize that they are talking about over 70,000 square miles and how much it would cost to build and maintain solar panels covering such an area? Do they not realize the great disturbance to the environment this alone would do?

Then what do we do when our need for energy doubles in forty years? Will South Dakota disappear also with maybe my state of Idaho being next on the agenda?

There is a simple solution using current technology and others I am sure will surface soon.

Solar Power. As far as being a clean energy, solar power is a definite improvement over oil or coal. Some see it as free energy and completely pollution free, but this is not quite so.

Producing the materials (vast quantities of steel, glass, and concrete) for deployment of a solar hardware requires about 3% as much coal burning as producing the same amount of electricity by direct coal burning.

In addition to this solar panels often use cadmium compounds which are very poisonous and must be replaced and disposed of periodically.

The greatest pollution problem is space and this item alone will prevent standard solar energy from ever supplying more than a couple percent of our energy needs unless we achieve significant advances in solar efficiency.

Consider this. If we could convert 100% of the sun’s energy into electricity, a square foot of land at the equator would supply enough energy to light a 125 watt light bulb. But then if we take the night time the variable weather into consideration we would only have enough for a 22 watt bulb. The big problem is that we can only convert about 10% of this into energy (in 2001) so this reduces the power to 2.2 watts. Finally if we move our solar collector to a more probable location in the United States the power is reduced to less than one watt.

To build a solar energy plant equal to the power of a typical coal burning one of a billion watt capacity then would occupy a space of 50 square miles. (Note This was written in 2001. Thanks to technology increases that area has been reduced to around 15 square miles in 2020 in an area of high sun. In areas of low sun we could still be at 50 square miles)

To even come close to supplying our energy needs we would need about 500 plants which would require (figuring maintenance roads and access) 25,000 square miles of ground which is equal to the surface area of Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and New Jersey combined. (Figures taken from The Environmental Case for Nuclear Power by Robert C. Morris)

(NOTE: This source was a few years old. It is interesting that the current estimate I noted earlier was 70,000 Square miles)

On this ground there could be no farming, no fishing, no hunting, no camping etc. and would be a great eyesore on the environment.

It is true we may have a breakthrough in energy conversion, but even if solar efficiency doubled from 10% to 20% it would remain impractical as a large scale energy source.

Another problem is that in large population centers (New York, Boston, Chicago) where the greatest amount of energy is needed the amount of sun available is much less and transporting electricity from solar power over long distances is impractical and involves large energy loss.

And Great Britain and other northern nations is out of the question. It would take about half of the surface area of that country to supply power through solar means. If you ever lived there you would understand.

The main reason there is not greater proliferation of solar power is the cost. Each watt created by solar power just costs more than those produced by coal, oil, nuclear or natural gas. Believe me if it was cheap, the power companies would be taking it seriously.

Solar enthusiasts believe that all we have to do is increase solar efficiency, but achieving 100% efficiency with any energy source is near impossible. We are likely to make small improvements in solar power but a large leap using solar panels is not likely, and depending on such requires a leap of faith indeed.

Also here is an excerpt on hydrogen power: The Hydrogen Engine The second innovation not on the market yet, but expected within five years by Ford Motor Company is an engine that uses hydrogen fuel cells. Mazda is also working on one that uses their rotary engine.

As you know water is two parts hydrogen so the potential supply is as unlimited as the ocean. A hydrogen engine burns no petroleum at all and pollutes much less. The greenhouse gas of carbon monoxide is not released. Even so there is some pollution. Because it burns at a high temperature it causes the nitrogen in the air to chemically react with oxygen to form nitrogen monoxide which further reacts to form nitrogen dioxide which is a pollutant.

At present most hydrogen is produced from natural gas so we are largely trading one clean fuel for another in its production. Extracting hydrogen from water takes large quantities of electricity which requires the burning of substantial quantities of coal which of course pollutes the air.

Another problem is that for some time to come the burning of hydrogen would cost over 50% more than gasoline. This is largely because it take more energy to create a unit of hydrogen fuel than the fuel releases.

April 13, 2003

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Signs of Polarization

December 28, 2020 Joseph Dewey

Signs of Polarization

Reader Comment: I am concerned that you seem to be saying that if someone follows the highest that they know ‘at any one point in time’ and it turns out to be wrong, then they must be emotionally polarized.

JJ: Of course all people are wrong at times including the mental. I never suggested otherwise. Let me expand on the point I was making. I was talking about situations where there are not large missing pieces to the picture, where all the necessary facts to see the truth are available. In this circumstance, the mental person will attempt to put aside his preconceived notions and see the point of truth – the big picture. If a person resists putting the facts together to see the obvious conclusion and sticks with his feelings then this is a sign he is emotionally polarized.

Comment: I know of several advanced initiates who have not made up their mind on the war in Iraq. Does that they are emotionally polarized?

JJ: Indecisiveness in the face of a plethora of reliable information is a sign of emotional polarization, but there are exceptions to all things. I would have to become acquainted with your friends to make an intelligent judgment.

Overall indecisiveness and neutrality during war is discouraged by DK. For instance he states:

“When the war broke and the entire world was hurled into the consequent chaos, horror, disaster, death and agony, many spiritually minded people were anxious to stay aloof from the struggle. They were not the majority but a powerful and noisy minority. They regarded any attitude of partisanship as an infringement of the law of brotherhood and were willing to sacrifice the good of the whole of humanity to a sentimental urge to love all men in a manner which necessitated their taking no action or decision of any kind. Instead of “my country right or wrong,” it was ‘humanity, right or wrong.’

“This necessarily placed the Hierarchy in the position of not endorsing the Axis position in any way. Many in the goodwill work and some few in the school interpreted this as political in import, presumably believing that a position of complete neutrality, where both good and evil are concerned, was demanded of spiritually inclined people. Such people fail to think clearly and confuse an unwillingness to take sides with brotherly love, forgetting the words of the Christ that “he who is not with me is against me.” must preserve the spirit of goodwill, even when using force, which is the only means of conquest the totalitarian powers understand.” Externalization of the Hierarchy Page 784

Here he speaks negatively of “taking no action or decision of any kind” during a crucial war. Note also he quoted the same words of Christ that George Bush roughly used: “he who is not with me is against me.” Thirdly, notice that he states that there are times that force must be used for this is the “only means of conquest the totalitarian powers understand.”

Here is another quote: “The German is as dear to the heart of humanity, to God, to Christ and to all right thinking people as are any other people. The German must be rescued from Hitler’s world order as much as the Pole, the Jew, the Czech or any captive nation. In effecting this freedom, the allied nations and the neutral powers must preserve the spirit of goodwill, even when using force, which is the only means of conquest the totalitarian powers understand.” Externalization of the Hierarchy, Page 189

This was an enlightened statement during World War II but let us change the names of the countries representing today’s world (2003).

“The Iraqi is as dear to the heart of humanity, to God, to Christ and to all right thinking people as are any other people. The Iraqi must be rescued from tyrant’s order as much as the Cuban, the Kurds, the North Koreans or any captive nation.”

Here is another great quote: “Which way will humanity go? Will it go the way of selflessness, expressed in a willingness to act always in the interests of all, thus promoting world understanding and world unity, or the way of selfishness and aggression, expressed in an intense nationalism, thus sacrificing the true and larger values of liberty, independence and freedom to think. This selfishness may show itself through active aggression or an active neutrality. Those nations who participate in no way in this struggle will lose much and-enhancing their own selfish struggle and clouding the real issue in beautiful words-will help to prolong the struggle and hold back their own people from useful opportunity.” Externalization of the Hierarchy, Pages 129-130

Notice that neutrality enhances selfishness. These indecisive ones cloud “the real issue in beautiful words.”

It is an interesting fact indeed that many who are either neutral or oppose the war often write song and poetry which cloud the real logic and only serve to “prolong the struggle.”

Let me offer one more quote from DK: “You will then be able-if you are sincere and clear-thinking-to work for that group within the whole which seems to you to embody the highest possible activity and aims, and you will relinquish that attitude of futile negativity, smug neutrality or bewildered confusion which may distinguish you. You will then emerge from the glamour of propaganda and of world illusion into the clear light of your own soul, whose essential nature is love and selflessness and whose major aspiration is to bring peace and goodwill among men and to see the consummation of the mission of Christ.

“This will lead eventually to the disappearance of so-called neutrality upon earth-a neutrality in act, for there is never neutrality in thought.” Externalization of the Hierarchy, Page 216

It is interesting indeed that the coming of Christ will cause the disappearance of neutrality. Why? Will he utter the same words he did in ancient times that “he who is not for us is against us?” Will he be so polarizing that all will either love or hate him?

Time will tell.

An interesting point is that he states that “there is never neutrality in thought.” If we take this statement at face value then he who honestly examines his thoughts will always know which side he is on.

Whatever the case, this is not the time for disciples to be indecisive or neutral toward any conflict. The truly mentally polarized will seek to gather the facts and make a decision. For the disciples, a part of the facts to be gathered are the teachings of DK as partially mentioned above.

A reader quotes me as follows: “To take the facts and come to an incorrect conclusion is a sign of emotional polarization or being in transition at best.

“This can also happen to a mental person but not as often. The difference is that the emotional person will be deceived by his feelings whereas the mistake of a mental person will be in putting the pieces of the puzzle together. Either he puts them together incorrectly or is missing pieces.”

Question: So are you saying that sometimes one can also make a mistake but remain mentally polarized?

Yes, I’ve said that numerous times. No one is infallible, not even the Masters. The mental person can come to wrong conclusions because he is missing data or because he makes mistakes in putting the data together, especially if the situation is complicated – as in the Vietnam War. The Gulf War is much more simplistic.

Comment: Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that a mentally polarized person had to give a Yes or No answer.

JJ: I never said he “had” to give an answer. I did say that a mentally polarized person is usually willing to give a yes or no answer when it is requested.

The situations I have been referring to is where a yes or no is easy to mentally ascertain and thus an “I don’t know” would rarely fit into the equation.

For instance, when I am in an argument I will often ask a yes or no question, but I will only ask such questions to which the other person will know the answer if he mentally reflects. If two people disagree yet will question each other for knowable answers they will often achieve unity of thought – if both stay on the plane of the mind or higher.

April 12, 2003

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Group Synthesis, Part 12

December 26, 2020January 9, 2021 Joseph Dewey

Group Synthesis, Part 12
The Goal of Ideal Groups

The master teacher Djwhal Khul (DK) has given out many teachings and suggestions concerning groups and group work. He asks this question:

“What should disciples in a Master’s group look for as evidence of successful group work?”

Then he answers:

“First and foremost, as you well know, group integrity and cohesion. Nothing can be done without this. The subjective linking of the disciples with each other in their own group, and the linking of the group with other groups occupied with special work within the Ashram and the emergence (as a result of this) of a group and an ashramic consciousness are vital objectives. It is hoped that this will also eventuate in a telepathic interplay which will bring potent results and successful outer work. From these activities will emerge a group circulation of energy which will be of service in world salvage. Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 1, Pages 15-16

So first the group must have “integrity and cohesion” for it to develop along constructive lines which will lead to telepathic interplay and a subjective linking to other group members and eventually other advanced groups.

Since integrity and cohesion lay the foundation to all advanced group work the disciple should indeed focus on what is meant here.

A group with these two ingredients would be one where the members are bonded together with enough unity, purpose and soul energy that no personality issues , attacks or disagreements can shatter its existence or alter its purpose. The bonding and agreement on higher levels is strong enough to withstand all the lower temptations that come to all groups.

This takes a group some time to achieve, as in the formation there are always rough edges to be worked out. The spiritual group that will be useful to the Hierarchy must have members that appreciate group integrity and cohesion more than their small personality issues. A love and acceptance of other group members through looking upon the soul is essential.

Strong group cohesion is essential but tricky to achieve for it involves the Principle of fusion concerning which DK says this:

“Identification with others, which is embryonic fusion, carried eventually to synthesis…” Discipleship in the New Age, Vol II Pg 661

“The underlying Principle of Fusion and of group endeavour is right and part of the divine plan; its implementation by grasping, greedy and ambitious men, or by deluded disciples, is terribly wrong and will lead to disaster. This disaster the Hierarchy is seeking to avert, but the Masters are handicapped (as usual) by the relatively few upon whom They can depend, and by the lack of understanding amongst the masses of well-intentioned people. These, through their ignorance rather than through their planned ill-doing, know not how to stem the tide of evil.” Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 2 Pages 353-4

So, group cohesion and fusion are necessary but they must be achieved by spiritual methods working with the free will and the souls of the individuals involved. If a group is directed by a powerful aspiring personality a forced unity can be achieved that will create problematic thoughtforms that create more harm than good.

True group integrity where focus is of the many on the oneness of spirit and soul is rare today but the numbers will grow as we work with Aquarian energies in the decades and centuries to come.

DK tells us that the Hierarchy sets the ideal for group fusion:

“The Hierarchy is a place of fusion of all souls upon the higher levels of the mental plane. Just in so far as a person comes under soul impression, then soul control and final identification with the soul, just so far does he move towards the centre of fusion. As your love for humanity increases and your interest in yourself decreases, so will you move towards that centre of light and love where the Masters stand in spiritual being.” Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 1 Page 681

DK emphasizes numerous times that groups useful to Christ and the Hierarchy do not have personal development as a main goal. The spiritual progress of the individual is his or her responsibility and needs to advance under the guidance of the seeker’s own soul.

He says this:

“It is not primarily the unfoldment of the intuition, or of the power to heal, or of telepathic efficiency which is of importance. That which counts with the Hierarchy as the Ashrams function is the establishing subjectively of such a potent group interplay and group relation that an emerging world unity can be seen in embryo. A joint power to be telepathic or a group capacity to intuit truth is of value and somewhat novel. It is the functioning of groups who have the ability to work as a unity, whose ideals are one, whose personalities are merged into one forward swing, whose rhythm is one and whose unity is so firmly established that naught can produce in the group the purely human characteristics of separation, of personal isolation and selfish seeking, that is new. Unselfish people are not rare. Unselfish groups are very rare. Pure detached devotion in a human being is not rare but to find it in a group is rare indeed. The submergence of personal interests in the good of the family or in that of another person is often to be found, for the beauty of the human heart has manifested itself down the ages. To find such an attitude in a group of people and to see such a point of view maintained with an unbroken rhythm and demonstrating spontaneously and naturally – this will be the glory of the New Age. Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 1, Pages 22-23

There is a key thought here on which the disciple should focus. Concerning the ideal he says that “the establishing subjectively of such a potent group interplay and group relation that an emerging world unity can be seen in embryo.”

DK then wants to see such unity and spiritual interplay among outer groups that they will set an example significant enough to be copied and followed by the world. Is there such a group today that sets such an example? Perhaps, but not one with much influence, but that will eventually change for DK adds this in t the same section:

There will (through this and analogous groups) be set in motion on earth a network of spiritual energies which will facilitate the regeneration of the world. The influence of these groups – when permanently established and potently working – will have a wider objective than just the elevation of humanity.”

Then he adds this:

“No group can be used in world service that is not working in perfect accord and this harmony must be attained as a group. It must be brought about, not through the process whereby people withdraw within themselves and thus inhibit that which upsets group equilibrium, but by the process of loving self-forgetfulness.” Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 1, Pages 194-5

Many times DK emphasizes that the individual members of a group accepted by the Hierarchy must take attention away from the lower individual self and focus on the group life.

“As long as your state of awareness lays emphasis upon the fact of your individuality, the group idea cannot take form as a group ideal. The sense of separativeness is still present.” Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 2, Page 94

“Where true identity is achieved, there is no sense of this and that; where the merging is complete, there is no recognition of individual activity within the group, because the will of the merged soul is identical with that of the group and automatic in its working; where true unity is present, the individual applicant becomes only a channel for the group will and activity, and this with no effort of his own but simply as a spontaneous reaction.” Rays and Initiations, Page 168

The advanced disciple has no fear of loss for the personal self for he realizes that focusing on the good of the whole also results in the greatest eventual good for the individual unites involved.

Jesus hinted at this principle when he said:

“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” Matt 16:25

As far as group work today goes the individual who seeks to gain for self shall lose and miss out on the greater reward and life that can only realized through a focus on the good of the whole.

Dec 26, 2020

To read Part 1 go HERE , Part 2, HERE , Part 3 HERE, Part 4 HERE, Part 5 HERE, Part 6 HERE, Part 7 HERE, Part 8 HERE, Part 9 HERE, Part 10 HERE, Part 11 HERE, Part 13 HERE

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Christmas Message 2020

December 25, 2020 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 25 of 28 in the series Christmas Messages

Christmas Message 2020
A Spiritual Healing

The Son of Man, who is the Son of God sat in counsel with the Great Ones and spoke, “Consider the world. It has changed since last year has it not?”

“Indeed,” said one. “The virus has given humanity a lot to struggle with. Some, of course, blame God for their woes.”

“It is human nature to place the blame where it is not” said the Master. “The wise know that outward events are caused by inward thoughts. Thoughts of fear and separation from others who think differently than themselves has been growing in their hearts and thus manifested this virus to justify their fears and cause them to physically separate and isolate themselves.”

“That has truly occurred,” said one. “This season is often the happiest time for many as they mix with family and friends. Instead, many are alone and downcast.”

The Master replied, “Yet there are some who never feel alone, no matter the circumstances, for they share the Spirit of Union with us.”

Another spoke, “Even with the force of these external conditions humanity is slow to learn and comprehend the joys that await them when they embrace inclusiveness and goodwill. Perhaps you could visit a few and plant some seeds. Many are thinking of you this time of year,”

“Yes, goodwill is definitely needed to push back the virus, quiet their fears and heal the planet.”

With that the Master ascended above the earth and looked upon the many lives. He saw each life as a point of light. A handful were bright but many were dimmer than usual because of the virus, the isolation, the financial hardships and many personal and interpersonal conflicts. He selected a young boy in prayer and silently stood beside him.

The boy was in distress and pleaded saying, “Dear God, my parents are angry at my Grandpa. They say he has the wrong political beliefs and is no longer welcome here. I love my grandpa and he loves me and we enjoy each other so much. I do not want to miss seeing him, especially at Christmas.”

At that moment Grandpa was driving nearby feeling rejected. He had just had a conversation with his son and was told he was no longer welcome and to not come over for Christmas, or ever until he gets his mind right. Tears poured down his face making it hard to see so he pulled over and was still in silent thought.

Then it seemed as if there was a gentle light illuminating the inside of the car and he heard within his mind these words, “Your grandson needs you. Go now and when your son and his wife answer, listen not to their rejection, but only say ‘I love you’ until their hearts melt.”

Grandpa was beside himself. They had told him to stay away. He thought the message may be just wishful thinking, but on reflection he decided to follow it.

His knock on the door was greeted by his son and his wife. Both appeared upset at his presence. The son rudely reminded him that he was no longer welcome.

Grandpas looked him in the eyes and said, “I love you, son.”

Then his wife said similar things, telling him to go away and not come back.

He looked her in the eyes and said, “I love you.”

They both stood there in silence not knowing how to respond when the grandson burst between them, grabbed his grandpa exclaiming, “And we love you, grandpa!. God has answered my prayer and you are here.”

The parents could no longer resist and invited him in and their relationship was reborn.

Their renewed spirits created a ripple effect through the one life that permeates humanity. Many there were that day that felt just a little more forgiving, a littler more loving and showing a little more goodwill.

After visiting a number of others and stimulating love and goodwill the Master returned to the council. He spoke to them: “The virus and political climate have taken their toll but there is always a path that leads to healing and is available to all who seek and are willing. Let us continue to tune into those who are ready and send light and love to heal the world.

The council bowed their heads and whispered, the sacred word of approval.

Dec 25, 2020

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Supporting Goodwill

December 23, 2020July 11, 2021 Joseph Dewey

Supporting Goodwill

As we announced few days ago we have launched a new group to promote the Declaration of Goodwill.

Here are the words from the master teacher Djwhal Khul that inspired this document:

“The main hierarchical need today (apart from its need for workers) is the forming everywhere of such groups as yours, the relating of group with group within the range of influence of that super group, the Hierarchy. Such groups are forming now in their thousands and are to be found in every land, and they will eventually blend and fuse together into one great movement of goodwill, which is spirit in actual expression. Aspirants everywhere, Arcane School students the world over, and my group of special workers such as yourself, must contact these groups, bringing them together on one point only, and that is Goodwill. Each group must necessarily be left free to proceed with its own destiny and mode of work. Unity is a necessary ideal and is the reverse side of Goodwill. Unitedly, when the right time comes, these groups must issue a great manifesto to the world – identical manifestos being issued in each country by all the groups who stand for world unity and goodwill. Thus they will make the word “goodwill” carry power throughout the planet, whilst the disciples and aspirants will, through their thought, make the word “unity” carry hidden power. Thus a vast band of men of goodwill will be working unitedly, yet independently, and there will be made available – in moments of world crisis – an organised, ready and world-wide public opinion of such strength and organisation that it cannot be ignored.” Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 2, Page 457

The plan is to first introduce the idea here and encourage all to endorse the Declaration by joining the Declaration of Goodwill group. Unlike creating some petition that you sign all you do to support the Declaration is to join the group. Your name on the membership means you support there basic idea of promoting goodwill to all in an attempt to be a healing force for the planet .

The second thing is to invite your friends of goodwill to support the Declaration by becoming a member. These can be people of any belief system

The third thing we will do is reach out to all other groups of goodwill and invite them to either join with us or issue a declaration of their own with a wording that is agreeable to them.

Then after enough momentum is gained we can unitedly influence public opinion and those in power in a positive rather than the current negative direction.

What is true goodwill? The answer should be obvious, but to many it is not.

Goodwill is not something limited to being friendly to those with whom you agree. That takes no power of “will.” It is easy to be friendly to those of your inner circle of friendly faces. The “will” part of goodwill is engaged when one extends the hand of friendship to those who are not in agreement and may even seem to be an enemy.

To extend goodwill one does not have to compromise beliefs or agree with those who oppose you. Instead, the greater the opposition to what you think is good the greater is the need for goodwill. If your neighbor has some political or religious beliefs you think are crazy, destructive or just plain wrong then that is where the opportunity resides.

Consider this. How much will the guy change if you approach him or her and let him know in no uncertain words that you think he is crazy? This will merely have the effect of him standing more firmly on his beliefs while dismissing yours.

But suppose you invite your neighbor over for a barbeque and instead of attacking his beliefs you seek for something in common first. Maybe you both like the same movies or football team and start talking about that.

Consider this: Now you have reached points of agreement in a spirit of goodwill do you think he will be more open to other things you might say that may differ from his beliefs?

Yes. Instead if picking your beliefs apart he will be more likely to seek points of agreement or at worst agree to disagree, but maintain a spirit of friendship. In other words, because of your goodwill he will not feel like throwing rocks through your windows.

Going to extremes is generally a destructive approach and this applies to goodwill. It would be an extreme to accuse others of violating the principle of goodwill merely because they disagree with us, but this is the area where goodwill needs to be applied. Where goodwill will be especially helpful will be in obvious infractions where such perpetrators need to be reminded of accomplishing their goals in constructive rather than destructive ways. Some actions that violate goodwill and need to be pointed out as such are:

(1) Any physical violence of one person or group against another that is not an act of self defense.

This is listed as number one for this is the most obvious act that violates goodwill

(2) Any statement that calls for physical violence against another human being.

(3) Name calling using words that are obviously negative and attacking. Examples of such words are hypocrite, liar, hater, bigot, stupid, racial and religious slurs and others.

The key is to not stereotype a person’s identity with an accusation. If you think the guy is lying, for instance, instead of just calling him a liar, as if that is all he is, instead, state back to him the words you think are not true and say something like:

“You said this (quote statement) but here is why I think this is not true.”

This approach does not create ill will as when you just categorize the guy as a “liar.”

The same applies to other attack words. The right approach can make the offender consider the error of his words where an attack approach will just cause him to plant his feet more firmly in his beliefs.

(4) Protesting or interrupting officials or people with who you disagree in their private homes, restaurants or places not designed for airing grievances.

(5) Anti protesting. This should be discouraged as when a group of protesters are met by anti protesters violence and increased ill will is often the result. Protesters should be encouraged to protest separately for their own cause and should be allowed to do so without interruption even though we may disagree. Protest later if you want but not the same time in the same place as your opposition. That’s just asking for trouble.

There is a large silent majority of people who favor good will over ill will and attack. Many feel their hands are tied and there is nothing they can do.

Perhaps there is something we can do if we gather together and let those who seek to disrupt the peace of society know that their approach is not acceptable, yet at the same time extending the hand of friendship to all.

Watch short video on Goodwill HERE

Support goodwill by joining The Declaration of Goodwill:

Read the Declaration HERE

Dec 23, 2020

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

DECLARATION OF GOODWILL

December 23, 2020July 11, 2021 Joseph Dewey

DECLARATION OF GOODWILL

We, the people of goodwill from all nations, who desire to see the people of this planet progress in a state of peace, safety, and friendship, find it necessary to act and issue this Declaration of Goodwill.

Polarizing rhetoric, accompanied with vitriol and name-calling, from leaders, celebrities and media spawns tension among the masses and undermines goodwill and cooperation. Therefore, we, the silent majority and people of goodwill on this planet, have decided to take action and issue a call to correction. Such a correction is essential, for our leaders have power to take us into wars and conflict that could destroy our civilization.

We do not expect our leaders to be perfect or agree with us or each other on all matters, for that is beyond the present ability of most individuals. But there is one thing all can do that will pave the way to quieting the present conflict and opening the door to peace on earth.

We can all be civil to each other and send goodwill rather than the prevailing ill will we currently witness. Loving our neighbor as ourselves is at the core of the teachings of every great messenger of the past and we need to be reminded of this now, perhaps more than any time in our history.

The great majority of us who are not in power do not hate those who vote or think differently than ourselves, nor do we care about their race, sex, or status; we are willing to extend a hand of friendship and goodwill to all who will accept it. We do not call others hateful names or desire to hurt them, but seek harmlessness in all discourse and interaction. Name calling is out of the question for us and it should be for our leaders as well.

Many leaders and media personalities seem to think that personal attacks are justified, as it highlights how bad the “other guy” is in order to affect change; but negative tactics often beget negative rather than positive change. Calling our neighbors “haters” when they see themselves as loving people results in resentment and often fuels the emotions of the projected name calling. The attack thus brings forth the hate that was not previously there. Many leaders and media personalities understand this principle and use it to polarize and create false animosity where none should exist.

So much grief in the world can be avoided if our leaders would embrace the spirit of goodwill, as it is longed for in so many of us who silently watch these reckless attacks.

Therefore, we the people of goodwill call on leaders and media who fail to embrace a higher path to match the positive spirit of goodwill that exists in most of humanity, the common people.

The day of watching leaders bring us to the brink of destruction is over. Sending peace and goodwill is our charge as we seek to transform our societies throughout the world.

It is true we have problems to solve which require rigorous debate and uncomfortable discussions, but we cannot solve them by demonizing each other. If we look for the best in one another and give our neighbors the benefit of the doubt, we have a much better chance of solving problems and reaching agreement.

Therefore, we the people of goodwill can no longer silently stand by and watch angry persons of power set the world aflame. All those with influence must be held accountable and shamed from hateful speech and emotion toward goodwill and friendship for all.

We, therefore, will watch our leaders and others with influence and call them out when they violate the principle of goodwill. When such a violation occurs, we will write them letters, emails, make posts on social media, and communicate our displeasure in every peaceful means possible to make them aware of their destructive behavior.

On the other hand, when people of influence perform positive acts of goodwill that deserve recognition, we will go out of our way to praise and recognize them.

Leaders and people of influence include:

Political, spiritual and business leaders
Celebrities of any kind
Those in the media, especially writers
People of influence in social media and on the internet

Last of all, there are those of lesser influence among family, friends and associates who need to be reminded to be and remain civil.

The simple fact is this. We need to start with ourselves. If each of us does our part to extend goodwill and friendship to all, and encourage others to do the same, the world will be healed and we can safely enter into a new era of peace and goodwill.

Watch short video presentation HERE

Instead of signing some endorsement we invite you to endorse the idea by joining the Goodwill group. By joining you are saying you support the Declaration of Goodwill. After joining you are under no obligation for further participation though we hope all members will support Goodwill at every opportunity.

Support goodwill now by joining The Declaration of Goodwill

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Yes or No, Please

December 22, 2020 Joseph Dewey

Yes or No, Please

A reader quotes me saying: “The mental person will answer yes or no when a yes or no is specifically requested because he will willing to see where the logic takes him.

“The emotional person will only answer yes or no when the answer agrees with his feelings. If the answer does not agree he will not answer, often resisting if the question is repeated a dozen times.”

Then she responds I do not think that a sure sign of a mental person is that he or she would always answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. There is a third option – ‘I don’t know’.

Notice I did not use the word “always” as there are always exceptions. I perhaps should have phrased it as “The mental person will ‘generally’ answer yes or no…”

Reader comment: I think it is more likely that an emotional person would feel constrained to give Yes or No answers because of the need of the lower self to be seen to be certain and an inability of the lower mind to deal with paradox and ambiguity. On the other hand, mental people do not have the same needs and have an innate humility that is more ready to admit a lack of knowledge or certainty.

JJ: The emotional (or mental) person is not more or less inclined to give a yes or no because of a need (or lack of) to be certain or right. The mental person is more inclined to give a straight answer because of mental honesty, a totally different thing that the need to be right.

The emotional person is less inclined because he does not examine his own thoughts and is this often incapable of honestly expressing them. When a definite yes or no is requested to a question to which the basic information is readily available and the person gives a nebulous or evasive answer it is usually because he is avoiding examining his thoughts for emotional reasons because of lower attachments, not because he is free of lower attachments.

In certain teaching circumstances, as with the case of John in my book, the answer may be “yes and no” because the one asking the question would be mislead by a direct yes or no with no additional explanation. For instance, John was asked if the doctrine of reincarnation is true. That would seem to demand a simple yes or no.

But note John’s answer, especially what he did not do. He did not say that asking for a yes or no was unfair or biased. He did not avoid answering the question. He did not change the subject. He did not say he did not like the question. He did not accuse me of being in delusion for asking the question. He did not say the question could not be answered. He did not say I should have asked some other question instead.

From my experience these are the type of escape mechanisms used by emotional types with me when they seek to defend their attachments.

In my dialog with emotionally polarized people on the internet do not recall even one straight answer, but without exception they avoided a “yes” or “no” with a nebulous off-the-subject lecture.

There is no greater proof than experience and experience bears this teaching out with almost 100% accuracy.

So instead of avoiding the answer with distraction techniques, John actually lead to a definite yes or no with further enlightenment. He said that as far as the individual identity having many lives the answer is yes, but as far as the entity being the same personality in each life the answer is no. He pointed out that we have different ray influences in each life causing us to have a different personality in each life. The personality does not reincarnate but the individual essence does. Instead of giving a yes or no to a limited question he expanded the question and gave a definite yes to one and a definite no to the other. The emotional person will very rarely do this, for John’s method is one used by an advanced mind who understands the answer.

A point to call attention to is this. There are many people interested in New Age and metaphysical philosophy, some with great learning, who are not yet polarized on the plane of the mind or higher. I have met many of them who are on a similar level of progression as a typical religious zealot, but just on the opposite side of the belief system. I would guess there are as many mental types who operate a business as their main focus as among metaphysical students. Even so, if a person is mentally polarized and at the same time a student of the Ancient Wisdom he can indeed be of great use to the Brotherhood of Light.

Reader comment: DK says disciples come from every walk of life and represent every point of view. Undoubtedly, this means there is a percentage that display uncertainty with respect to some issues.

I do not believe he specifically said that disciples come from every point of view. If he did then he was technically incorrect.

Do you think there were any disciples who were zealous Nazis, or current believers human trafficking?

Do you think there are any disciples chanting who support tyrants and murderers??”

There are quite a few points of view that true disciples avoid like the plague. The philosophy of the Dark Brotherhood is certainly one of them.

He did correctly say that disciples are to be found in a wide variety of belief systems, but perhaps avoided stating that there are certain illogical views that will be avoided by them.

Now if we speak of aspirants it is true that some of them can be deluded into buying into harmful belief systems.

To take the facts and come to an incorrect conclusion is a sign of emotional polarization or being in transition at best. This can also happen to a mental person but not as often. The difference is that the emotional person will be deceived by his feelings whereas the mental person will make a mistake in putting the pieces of the puzzle together.

Question: Isn’t demanding or expecting people to take a stand or choose a side on issues is a feature of the outgoing 6th ray?

To demand a stand is lower sixth ray, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a request, not a demand. To request information so an issue can be resolved is more Third or Fifth Ray – sometimes even Second Ray.

Question: Aren’t both mental and emotional types uncertain at times?

Uncertainty exists for both emotional and mental types, but for different reasons.

The mental person is uncertain at times because he realizes he does not have all the facts. In this case he must use his power of judgment to come to the best possible conclusion. Because he does not have all the data he realizes he may be wrong and will be open to change. He will also realize that some of his data could be wrong and will calculate the probability of this. If he has only anecdotal evidence then he will give it less credibility than massive evidence. On the other hand, if soul contact affirms a point of view he will trust in it as far as his understanding will allow.

The emotional person will sometimes be uncertain because of a lack of facts, but a greater cause is from having two conflicting emotions.

Taking the war as an example he may have an emotional attachment to “peace at any price” yet also be emotionally involved in human rights and desire to see the oppressed people liberated. In this case the question for him is which emotion will prevail.

Reader comment: Sometimes the logical answer is not the right answer because it does not involve ‘straight knowledge’ or the wisdom of the soul.

Sometimes that which seems the most logical is not the most correct because pieces of the puzzle are missing. Soul contact can take the seeker beyond the facts that can be discovered through normal means and supply the missing information. When this happens then the final conclusion will be seen to be most logical of all. Why? Truth is always logical.

The Star Trek series gave a great example of this. Captain James Kirk was a mental/intuitive for he possessed something that no one else on the Enterprise had to a significant degree. And what is that? What is it that he has that puts him even above Spock? He explained it while in a conversation with Spock in which the two disagreed because Kirk was not being entirely logical. Jim said: “One of the criteria in the selection of a Starship commander is the possession of intuition, and ability to make accurate decisions and come to correct conclusions beyond the ability of the normal powers of logic and reason. I know the choice I am making does not seem logical to you, but when all the facts are in you will then know I am correct.” At this point Spock thought reflectively and seemed satisfied that Kirk had a logical reason for being illogical. Spock had a great admiration for Kirk for he had witnessed the accuracy of his intuition time and time again and even his superhuman Vulcan brain capacity, fantastic reserve of accumulated knowledge, and calculating logic were no match for the intuition of his captain.

Spock basically used his mind to come to this conclusion. “The captain is not being logical, but because his intuition has been proven right and saved our lives so many times then it is logical to conclude his course will prove to be the most logical action when all the facts are in.”

On the other hand, if Kirk did indeed receive an intuitive flash he could see the logic of the matter from the beginning. Higher contact (with rare exceptions) reveals the whole picture of the revelation to the mind.

Comment: Francis Bacon said “If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.”

The first part is true when speaking of dogmatism, but the point of certainty I am presenting has to do with the honesty of knowing ourselves and acknowledging our true thoughts on a matter. Why do we believe what we believe and what do we really believe and think? If we know these things we can usually answer yes or know to simple questions.

Note that the end product of mental application is certainty.

Question: What’s wrong with just saying you do not know?.

Nothing wrong with this. This may be the result of honest mental reflection.

There are many questions to which anything but a yes or no is avoiding the question leading to dishonesty.

For instance a spouse may ask, “Are you having an affair?”

He either is or he is not. If he is guilty and does not want to answer he will respond with great emotion saying something like:

“How dare you think such thoughts. I am disappointed in your lack of trust.”

Let me repeat an interesting yes or no situation I recently asked:

Let us suppose that you and your family lived in a tryanny You have no freedom of speech. You live in fear that on a whim your spouse and children could be raped or tortured and you could be forced to watch. You could be tortured and killed if you do not conform. Your family cannot eat if you do not conform. You have little or no economic hope. You realize you must praise the dear leader at every opportunity or you (and your family) may face torture and death. You even have to be careful of not saying anything negative about him in front of your children for if they let something slip at school your family may face torture.

Before you is a green button and a red button.

If you press the green button then nations will come forth to a war of liberation for your country. Your leader will be disposed of and soon you will have freedom of speech and freedom from fear. The downside is that there is a 10% chance that you or a family member may be injured or killed.

If you press the red button there will be no war and the situation will continue as is.

Which button will you press?

Comment: Some answered the question, some made excuses to not answer.

I would hope that the recent events have brought enough confirmation to our feeling nature that we can all press the obvious button.

April 11, 2003

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Seeing Through Mind

December 21, 2020 Joseph Dewey

Seeing Through Mind

The Question: If the mental person is able to discern more shades of gray than the emotional, and overall the emotional is more black and white in his outlook, then why is it that the mental is more likely to give a yes or no answer to a specific question? Why is he more willing to give specific answers to specific questions?

Both sides claim to see the shades of gray. Is illusion involved? Explain.

The mental person discerns true shades of gray, based on true observation and discernment whereas the emotional person’s feelings bounce all over the place. When his feelings change his views change and he will often justify this by claiming to see shades of gray when he is not seeing at all. A changing emotional state has little to do with shades of gray.

Since what the emotional person sees as shades of gray is really a fluctuating emotional state, he is reluctant to give specific answers, or often even answers at all, because he cannot understand or explain his feelings.

The mental person understands the difference between perception and emotional fluctuation and can thus reduce that which he perceives to words, even if shades of gray are involved. The emotional person does not understand why he is taking his current position because he does not understand that his views are emotionally polarized. He will thus reduce must of his thinking to some esoteric mystery that has no solution.

The mental person will answer yes or no when a yes or no is specifically requested because he will willing to see where the logic takes him.

The emotional person will only answer yes or no when the answer agrees with his feelings. If the answer does not agree he will not answer, often resisting if the question is repeated a dozen times.

An example would be a religious argument using the scriptures. If you read a scripture that contradicts his thinking and ask: “Now does this scripture says ABC or not.”

The emotional person will not want to deal with the evidence so he will say, “but what about this other scripture?” Then he will change the subject to something that has little to do with the first scripture.

On the other hand , the mental person will analyze the scripture, even if it goes against his feelings.

A war is certainly a powerful issue that separates the mind from the emotions and there are many questions that could be asked that are difficult for the emotionally polarized to handle and examine with the mind.

Consider this question:

Overlooked in history is that there were a lot of peace activists during World War II who were against the war and killing for any purpose. They were willing to not fight back and let Hitler conquer the world in the name of pacifism. Was this an emotional or mental approach?

The emotional person will associate war in his mind with images of dead women and children, and, because of feeling association, he will not balance this off with the tremendous human suffering caused by a tyrant.

Overall, the major problem writing about the distinctions of the mind and the emotional polarization is this. The higher can understand the lower, but the lower cannot understand the higher. The emotional person does not understand the use of mind in coming to a decision, but is under the illusion that he is using mind because he uses his computer brain which is not mind. True mind brings forth true logic, common sense and wisdom.

The most significant thing that can happen to the emotionally polarized is to come to the realization that mind is there waiting for him to discover it’s benefits. When he becomes aware that he has further to go he can finally make progress.

This discussion will have very little effect on the emotionally polarized until he is ready to progress. And what makes him ready?

Usually it is hard painful experience. For instance, an incarnation where he lives under a tyrant will make him mentally analyze the idea that freedom from persecution and oppression may be worth the temporary difficulties of a war.

A person must carefully examine his thinking for evidence of deception. If he will not see through the fog with the light of his own reasoning then his soul will place him in a situation (in this life or the next) where he will learn through painful experience.

Perhaps the most common deception is that we must appease tyrants rather than do what is necessary to stand up to them. Illusion on this is much more dangerous to the entity than he realizes for it will often lead to his being born under oppression so he can attain vision through the light of the mind.

Picture a person who is against a war of liberation because he only looks at the disadvantages of war and does not identify with the oppressed people.

Then imagine how his reasoning will change if he incarnates under a tyrant and is forced to watch his wife being raped and his children tortured before his eyes because he spoke a wrong word.

What makes judgment of the emotionally and mental polarized is that many emotional people have efficient computer brains hence have good memories and do well in school and often get degrees.

It is the actual thinking and reasoning processes that determine polarization, not the equipment in our possession.

We are talking about emotional and mental polarization. The emotionally polarized person may have developed much ability to remember details and calculate, but does not base his decisions on pure reason.

Remember this important point.

The polarization is caused by the influencing factor in the decision making. Is it mind or emotion?

If one has power to reason, but ignores the logic and makes his decision based on emotion then he is still emotionally polarized. His reasoning powers is preparing him to maker the switch but has not done it yet.

Let me repeat another important point as we move along. The mental person will actually feel stronger emotion than the emotionally polarized because his centers are more open, but the emotions will not be able to control his power of decision for he has reasonable control over them.

April 8, 2003