Month: August 2022

Gathering 2004, Part 17
The Progression of Life

Audience: Are you saying that at the beginning of creation that God had experience through matter?

JJ: Exactly right. This is before man was created. When God was perfecting the atoms there was no life as we know it. The mind of God was concentrating on perfecting the atoms. When He was concentrating on perfecting the atoms, the little particles had consciousness. Using their consciousness, they experimented through the mind of God to perfect the first hydrogen atom. When they got it perfected to the point it couldn’t be improved on any more, they went with it. Billions and trillions of hydrogen atoms have since been created and they’re all almost exactly the same. Each hydrogen atom is very minutely different but so closely similar that scientists can’t tell one from the other.

From a scientific point of view, it looks like a hydrogen atom here is the same as one in the Andromeda system or the same as one on Pluto and the same everywhere. These little hydrogen atoms appear to be the same everywhere. They’re so perfect that in all the universe they’re made by exactly the same principles. The reason they’re made exactly the same is because they can’t be improved upon. When they create the final version of Microsoft Word everybody will get it because it does everything we want. That’ll be the version we finally settle on. It may even duplicate past versions for variety.

The little particles that make up the atoms cooperated with the mind of God and the consciousness of God was there so at that time they were conscious. They were consciously cooperating. That’s how it was created, by the conscious cooperating life within the little particles moving together to experiment to create the perfect atom. Scientists are mystified by this for they cannot explain the perfect balance of energy that allows the various atoms to remain stable.

When the hydrogen atom was created, consciousness experimented making the more complex ones like helium and carbon and so on. All sorts of experiments had to happen where the little particles were cooperating with the mind of God in making these complex atoms. Fair minded scientists look at the complexity of the microcosmic world and think, “Wow, this is evidence that there’s a God because it’s so complex that something had to create it.”

Well, it created itself. The little particles created themselves through experimentation, over and over and over through billions of years related to their time, until the atomic world was perfected.

Then the next step was for the atoms to join together to create molecules. When this step was in creation, the mind of God was then in the atoms; in the whole atom as a self, instead of in the protons, the neutrons and electrons being the conscious creators.

The atoms were like little people getting together creating. How can we create something greater than ourselves? They got together experimenting in different unions. They experimented with monogamy, polygamy (laughter) and other relationships until the atoms found what worked to create different kinds of molecules. We’ll talk about the water molecule since we all know about it. They finally decided that two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen united together produced a stable molecule of water which was the basis for the creation of many other forms.

Audience: inaudible question

JJ: We’ll get to that but everything does involved numbers. They say God is a great mathematician. The next step was when the molecules began to be formed then the consciousness of God shifted into the molecules and the molecules became conscious creators and the molecules began to form cells. Look at these molecules as little people. There are several million of them. Several million get together and decide to build a perfect city. They attempt to do it but the first city is bad with lots of crime and political strife. That city gets destroyed. They build another city which is a bit better but there are still a lot of problems so they build another one. After maybe a thousand attempts they finally get a city that’s flawless. They finally have a city so good that it cannot be improved upon any more. The several billion molecules that got together and did this created the first living cell.

The first living cell didn’t happen instantaneously. It required experimenting over and over and over. People think that when the mind of God decides to create something it’s a matter of snapping fingers and it’s made. But that isn’t the way it worked. The mind of God has to experiment. The mind of God experimented by throwing Its consciousness in these little particles. The little particles became alive in consciousness and they cooperated in experimenting over and over again over a very long period of time until they had a city that was perfected. That perfected city was the first living cell.

Audience: Then the consciousness comes to us? How does it work?

JJ: Assaf asked if our cells continue to have consciousness. Not in the same way they did back then. Once they reach perfection time ended for them and they continue on a computer-like program that does not need further adjustment. Consciousness as we understand it has to take place through time. When relative perfection is achieved time ceases. When time ceases, in order to experience time and consciousness you need to elevate your consciousness to a higher level. So for the cells in your body to experience time they need to do so through your brain. They are attempting to be one with your consciousness just as we are attempting to be one with the consciousness of God. We are attempting to see through the eyes of God as the little cells in your body are attempting to see through your eyes and feel what you feel and understand what you understand. That’s their goal.

Audience: comment inaudible.

JJ: They say the cells duplicate about fifteen times then they die. Each time they duplicate there is a bit of imperfection passed on, a little bit of corruption. Just like in book IV, using the game of Chinese Whispers, there is corruption each time it goes around the circle. In fifteen duplications there is enough corruption from beginning to end to kill the fifteenth cell. If we can minimize the corruption by good food, exercise and taking care of ourselves and positive thoughts it will minimize the corruption because in a positive atmosphere the cells have less deterioration and less corruption.

We have the cells and they begin to gather together. Think of the cell as a whole city of entities that have gathered together. They finally achieve perfection. Let me emphasize a strange thing about perfection is when it happens normal consciousness has to be transcended. Once relative perfection is achieved consciousness as we know it has very little meaning. It’s almost like going to sleep because what is there to do?

Remember that Twilight Zone where that guy thought he went to heaven. An angel gave him everything he wanted. He gambled and had prostitutes. He was thinking he would go to hell, but here he was in heaven with all these things and it was great. After a few days he got tired of it and said to the angel, “I don’t think I like heaven. It’s not what I expected.” The angel says to him, “What makes you think you’re in heaven?” He was really in hell. Once you get relative perfection where all your desires are fulfilled, meaning is lost and you have to find new meaning in a higher consciousness.

Audience: Does that apply to us too? At the time we reach a certain level there will be no more mankind, we will evolve upward into a higher level or species?

JJ: You will always be you but you evolve upward through the gathering principle and identify with the next level of life.

Two and two continue to make four, in spite of the whine of the amateur for three, or the cry of the critic for five. James Abbott McNeill Whistler

Posted July 9, 2005

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

 

 

Gathering 2004, Part 16
The Mystery of the Gathering

JJ: Let’s start with raising our vibrations up and we’ll do some different things, then a little later we’ll talk about the Gathering of Lights, which is a fascinating subject.

Follow me in the Oms again. OOOMMMMMMMMMMM

OOOMMMMMMMMMMMM OOOMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Remember the OM destroys anything negative in your path. Negativity cannot withstand the sound of the true OM. Visualize yourself being lifted up. OOOMMMMMMMMMMMM

That’s harder after a meal, isn’t it? I think we all felt lighter the first time, didn’t we?

I think we’ll talk about the Gathering of Lights now then later after our meal is digested, we’ll do more spiritual work.

Does anyone know which subject of the Bible is covered more often than any other subject? It’s the gathering. Have any of you ever heard a sermon in church or on TV by anybody on the Gathering of Lights or the Gathering of Israel? You never hear about it, do you? Yet it’s talked about in the Bible more than any other subject.

Near the end of Jesus’ life He went outside of Jerusalem and it says He wept. It says He said these words, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” Matt 23:37-38 So, right near the end of Jesus’ mission He goes outside of Jerusalem and He weeps because He says He attempted to gather Israel and they would not gather and He wept over that. This is something you’ll never hear a sermon about because people do not understand the Gathering. One of the scriptures calls the Gathering a mystery. Why do you suppose it’s called a mystery? Is it perhaps called a mystery because nobody understands what it is or the principle behind it.

In the history of the scriptures we have several attempted Gatherings. The first Gathering that we know of was not too successful. It tells us that a person named Noah attempted to gather people into an ark. How many came into the ark? Just his family because he was feeding them plus the different types of animals he captured and took inside. But no one voluntarily came and gathered with Noah. What’s the second Gathering that was somewhat successful?

Audience: The tower of Babel?

JJ: That was kind of a gathering but it was more of a dispersion. They gathered to build the tower and when they gathered to build it the scripture says, “Now that they are of one tongue as they have gathered to build the tower, there is nothing that is beyond their ability to do.” That’s an interesting statement, isn’t it? There was nothing they could not do. What did they want to do? They wanted to build a tower to reach Heaven.

There are a lot of interpretations on that. Some people think it was some type of space ship that they were going to send off and God didn’t want them to go into space. Others think it was just a great big tower. It’s symbolic of a lot of things. The interesting part is the voice of God as recorded as saying there that there is nothing that these people can’t do because they are of one tongue and one mind. Being in that state of mind they can do almost anything.

There are legends that say God was looking over man and man becomes too powerful every now and then so they need to be whittled down to size so they do not challenge the power of the gods. The story says the gods are actually jealous of man because man is becoming too powerful and man will eventually dethrone God and become gods themselves. These are some of the legends that are in our history. It sounds somewhat like that in the Tower of Babel in the fact that God looks down and says, “Man these guys are becoming too powerful. I need to give every man a different language so they can’t understand each other then they’ll disperse and be powerless.”

What’s the major Gathering in the Old Testament? Moses. Moses gathered the greatest lights out of Egypt, the people who had the concept of one God. Everybody thinks he gathered slaves but he gathered more than slaves. The slaves weren’t just pure Hebrew blood. That’s the way it’s portrayed and hinted at in the scriptures, but the scriptures also tell us that Moses was in one place and the Hebrews were descended from different type of racial stock, not just Abraham alone. The ones who were called the Hebrew slaves weren’t pure descendants from Jacob but they were a composite of people who were put into slavery. Moses freed these people and he gathered them out. The people who gathered out and followed Moses were basically people who understood something that was a step higher than what had been understood by the general Egyptians. That was that there was one God that was to be worshipped. The idea behind the Gathering of Israel was to produce something higher than man had ever seen before.

Djwahl Khul talks about this through Alice A Bailey. He says in the Gathering of Israel that Israel is representative of the human race as a whole. The purpose behind it was to gather them out, raise their consciousness higher so that they could stimulate the evolution of the whole planet. He said it was a failure to a degree. Instead of looking upon themselves as representative of what other people should be, those who were gathered out looked upon themselves as unique and special and separate from everyone else. This caused the grand experiment to be less successful than the Hierarchy had hoped.

Let’s go in to the gathering principle as a whole. The gathering principle is the key principle behind all evolution, physical or spiritual. Think about that. The gathering principle is the guiding principle behind all evolution, physical or spiritual. Let’s go into the physical.

After the big bang there were all kinds of random particles. The particles began to gather. The particles gathered to produce greater particles until they produced particles that we can understand, like electrons and protons and neutrons and the particles that make them up and so on. The gathering that we can understand is as far as we have a rudimentary understanding on the atom. The atom is a composite gathering or particles which we call neutrons, protons and electrons. The neutrons and protons gather in the center while the electrons gather in the periphery. They are opposite polarities. By the gathering principle all the atoms of the world were made.

One interesting way to look at this is, it says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Some scholars have dissected the word ‘Elohim’ for God saying that part of the word represents male and the other part represents female, El and Heem. El means powerful, mighty or strong. I’ve heard several different interpretations on ‘heem’. Maybe Assaf has some insights. One of the interpretations I’ve heard about ‘heem’ is that it represents ‘covenant’. I’ve heard others besides that. Does that make sense to you? Consider that this may be true. Strong covenants between male and female energies create the heavens and the earth. That’s the literal reading of the first verse of the Bible.

So, what created the atoms that create the heavens and the earth? Strong bonding between electrons, negative energies and protons, positive energies; strong bonding between male and female energies creates the heavens and the earth. Now we take these atoms. The atoms join together and they create molecules.

Molecules are the next step in evolution. Again, the molecules are created by the gathering of atoms and the gathering of certain types of atoms. To create a water molecule nature sifts through everything until it settles on hydrogen and oxygen. It doesn’t accept nitrogen. It doesn’t accept carbon. It doesn’t accept zinc or copper or any of these other things. It will only accept hydrogen and oxygen and out of all the elements it gathers hydrogen and oxygen to create water. It gathers peculiar atoms into combinations to form other things and to produce different types of molecules from sugar, alcohol and all types of molecules that exist about us. So, the gathering principle creates the next step. What’s the next step after that? Are the molecules then gathered?

Molecules gather into various compounds and orders until the next great step in evolution occurs. And what is that? A cell. A cell is a gathering together of all kinds of different molecules that are specifically designed or needed for this creation. The cells are created by gathering of all types of molecules; the gathering of certain ones to create the DNA, and others to create the genes and so on. We have a whole city or almost a whole earth or planet of different types of molecules gathered together to create one living cell. One living cell has a complexity that boggles the imagination.

What gathers next? In the beginning of our evolution, we had one-celled organisms. For many millions of years that’s probably about all we had on the earth. Eventually they gathered together and created greater organisms, amoebas and eventually different types of fish. We had different types of insects, lizards and animals and birds. These cells gathered together to create many sorts of living things.

Audience: inaudible

JJ: What causes this is what I call the intelligence of God. The Universal Mind or the Mind of God concentrates on the current point of evolution on any particular planet or sphere. This is where the mind of God is. When the mind of God finishes its job then it leaves and goes to the next step. That which is left behind is then like a giant computer program that runs by itself and the mind of God doesn’t need to consciously concentrate on it. Your heart beats without a need for you to think about it. It’s like a computer program. Some people think it’s controlled by your subconscious mind.

There is no such thing as a subconscious mind. It’s an oxymoron. If you have a subconscious mind, it means it’s below the threshold of your consciousness. If it’s below consciousness, then it’s not consciousness. Consciousness is only something that’s conscious. You don’t have a subconscious mind any more than your computer has a subconscious mind. You have computer programs that run yourself and this is what they call the subconscious. If you tell a psychologist that he’ll think you’re crazy, but think about the oxymoron here. If something is below your consciousness how can it really be conscious?

What we think is below our conscious mind is like a running computer program. The mind of God creates and as it begins to create there is a lot of imperfection involved. It’s like us who are in the image of God.

When we create something, like software, we have version one, version two, version three, version fifteen. Maybe by version one hundred we’ll get it perfect so it can’t be improved anymore. This is what God does. He creates version one of man, version two of man, version three. Eventually He creates a version where any improvements would be very minimal and reaches a point where working on improvements would be a waste of time. This is what we call relative perfection.

There is no such thing as absolute perfection. There’s only relative perfection. Relative perfection is when something works so well that it’s extremely difficult to improve it. It’s like having the final version of Microsoft Word. When Bill Gates finally gets it the engineers won’t be able to figure out how to improve on it. They’ll look at this final version and think, “Man, we can’t really improve this. We’ve done everything possible. There’s no tweak we can put on. We’ve put on everything everyone has asked for. The thing talks. The thing writes in Hebrew. The thing will read your mind. It does everything you can imagine.” Eventually you’ll reach a point any improvements would be a judgment call and probably wouldn’t improve it at all.

This is the way the mind of God works. When the mind of God made the first atoms it made a lot of mistakes in their creation. He reconstructed them and made them again. If they fell apart the mind of God would put them back together. The mind of God is operating through the little particles of the atom itself so the little particles are controlled and tuned into the mind of God. All these little particles and the mind of God work together. The particles play around at balancing themselves off. Finally, they create a hydrogen atom that is so perfect that the mind of God cannot improve on this atom. It is almost flawless.

I not only use all the brains that I have, but all that I can borrow. Woodrow Wilson (1856 – 1924)

Posted July 6, 2005

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

 

Gathering 2004, Part 15
Spiritual Experiences

Audience: Usually when somebody wants to run for office, he stands for something. He wants the left to go right.

JJ: We try to make a balance.

Audience: I also realize that sometimes there is a need for the pendulum to swing to the right and to bring a balance you need to move people to the left.

Audience: I think they tried to correct some of the name calling and derogatory comments in advertising.

JJ: They’re fairly careful in those ads. They try to be somewhat civil. It’s probably a good idea that they’re forcing them to do that. The other groups who aren’t connected to the President, they can get nasty.

Audience: I have just a couple comments since we’re wrapping up here. I think there needs to be a point added about responsibility, that freedom and responsibility need to go together. There should be a principle that we could agree on that people need to take individual responsibility for their actions and not to expect the government to take care of them per se. The second thing is in point number three in the last sentence where it reads, ‘I accept the principles enunciated in the US Constitution Bill of Rights’ I personally take exception to that because I’ve studied the Constitution through other people that go through and make cases regarding some real weaknesses in the Constitution. There is a need for improvement on that document so to refer to that document that is old as we’re trying to evolve as a society. . .

JJ: Notice we aren’t saying what it lacks but the freedoms it enunciates.

Audience: I agree with him. People interpret it differently and it’s extremely divisive.

JJ: I debated on putting the Constitution in there because when you use the word “constitution” the right wing automatically flashes in a lot of people’s minds. It might even be better to use Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms or a more generic thing. We don’t want people to read this and think it’s either Liberal or Conservative. We want them to wonder whether it was written by a Conservative or a Liberal. In today’s world liberal things are called conservative and conservative things are called liberal. We had a test about that in this group.

By definition of what a Liberal is most people were more liberal than conservative. The most conservative people in the whole country are the environmentalists. They want to conserve everything just the way it is. Everyone calls them Liberals but they’re the most conservative of all. It’s kind of funny how everything is turned upside down. Going to Mars is something a lot of conservatives want to do and that’s a very Liberal thing. It’s not keeping things the way they are. It’s doing something entirely new. The language has been turned upside down. The titles are used more to make others look bad than to define what they are.

JJ: We don’t have enough time before lunch for anything profound so we’re going to turn this over to you. I want you each to think in your mind of some spiritual experience or revelation or something really important that’s happened to you along the path. Think on this and when something comes to your mind raise your hand. Sterling, come on up.

Sterling: First of all when we were doing a walk last night the person I was walking with was saying that when she was driving into Manti she got chills. Guess what happened to me last night when I was driving into town. My odometer was 666 and my clock was 111.

Audience: That adds up to 777! JJ, what do you mean by experiences, like visions?

JJ: Anything spiritual or something that changed your life. Keep it short.

Audience: In 1990 plus or minus a year, my middle son presented me with a copy of the Federalist papers. That was a moment in my life that completely changed my perspective of the world. I had the Constitution as a document but never realized the Federalist papers existed. Those were documents by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison trying to sell the Constitution to the New York delegation. That was a big point in my life. When JJ asked the question I interpreted him to mean a major occurrence in life that changed our ring pass not.

Audience: This is just a little thing which might seem basic to you guys. Christ taught to judge not lest you be judged and that concept. Something that my wife and I have gone through a lot lately is because of our views, because of our opinions a lot of people look at us and say things. In the political things we were talking about with allowing freedom of speech and allowing people think freely, to act freely and do as they desire to do without impeding on the rights of others. When we demand justice on others, we’re setting ourselves up to reap justice on ourselves. None of us are perfect. We all have faults and flaws. I might look at one person and think they did something stupid or I don’t’ like the way they do their hair or whatever. They might look at me and do the same thing but when we relate with others, other religions, other backgrounds and philosophies, dogmas, creeds, if we see someone doing something we might consider wrong and we demand that justice be paid in full, part of Christ’s atonement was to show the effects of the demands of justice. Here, He was the most innocent person and people demanded justice on Him and the demands of that justice on this innocent person we all know the results.

By demanding justice on others, we by default, demand that justice be served on ourselves. The other option is to fight for the mercy of others which becomes a fight for mercy on ourselves. In my life and as we’ve experienced and have seen more how things are working, the more that we can spread mercy and claim mercy for others, the more that mercy has hit us back and the more tolerance is created and more unification.

Audience: My wife and I have had a lot of interesting things happen. When we first got married, I found this little moonstone on the countertop in the bathroom. I was eyeing it. It looked kind of cool. So, I took it into the kitchen and asked where it came from. She said it was her moonstone but she hadn’t seen it in two years. I was kind of taken by it. I had never liked crystals much but I liked this one. So we went into Park City at Rock and Silver but they didn’t have any. Then we went to Sandy Heart and I found an amethyst layered geode. I thought it was pretty and it was only $8 so I bought the thing and started carrying it around with me. I bought a little book on crystals and read it. It said if you really want to dream to put your crystal under your pillow. I was sick at the time and didn’t have anything else to do so I put it under my pillow.

At 11:30 I awakened to a sensation, a vibration that I felt through my whole body, sort of like electricity but I wasn’t being shocked. It was an empowered sensation. Then it went into this oscillation. A far out experience all for $8! I thought it must be the crystal after it had been going on for about 5 minutes so I took it and put it on the nightstand and it stopped like unplugging from it. When I tried to go to sleep I kept seeing Egyptian images of Isis and the jackal and a little Egyptian girl playing with a ball on a hardwood floor. I saw this beautiful vase with an eye that kept closing its eyelid. I could not sleep!

Later on I went back to the store and I found those images that I kept seeing in my mind where the images of items that were sitting around it on the shelf.

JJ: So the crystal had taken in the images.

Robyn: Probably about four years ago, if I hadn’t had this experience, I would think that Ren was on something, but I was lying in bed one night saying the song in my head. I said all the verses then went back to the part, ‘wherever we will the light to descend.’ I kept saying that over and over in my mind. I was lying on my side drifting off to sleep. All of a sudden, I wasn’t in my bed or really in my body any more. I was floating and a beam of light was coming down and filling me up. I had that vibrating sensation all over. The only way I can think to describe is like a spiritual orgasm. It was incredible. I have no idea how long it lasted but what brought me back was my daughter’s voice. She was calling me. I came back and was immediately awake. I could still feel the tingling all over. I didn’t open my eyes but I could see a pyramid shaped image with an eye in the middle. The eye would change into a face which I interpreted to be the face of Christ. The two images kept switching back and forth with colors swirling around the whole thing. Again I don’t have a concept of how much time passed but finally it faded and I shouted, “Larry! Larry! You’ll never guess what just happened!” I was sort of walking off the ground the next 2-3 days. The sensation stayed with me.

JJ: If your daughter hadn’t called you back you might’ve had something else happen.

Audience: Were you meditating?

Robin: I guess I was meditating. I was thinking ‘wherever we will the light to descend and descend the light on me’ and there it was. It was awesome!

Audience: You don’t think it was a cognitive dream state?

Robin: No, I was not dreaming. I was fully awake. It’s never happened since. There were no voices, just a light and the sensation.

Susan: The same thing happened to me so I know what you’re saying is absolutely real. It was before I knew anything about JJ. In my situation I was shown this light and told to go over. Melva had just asked me how I got started and I told her I had this experience like you’re talking about. There was a circle of light and I was told to go stand in it. I stood in it. I told Melva outside that it was like having an orgasm through my whole body and every pore of my body. I could not describe it in human terms. I couldn’t have lived on this Earth in that circle because it wasn’t here.

Audience: What were you doing to induce that experience?

Susan: Actually nothing like this. I was a very active member of the LDS church. I had gone to one of the powers that be to ask for enlightening at that time. I remember saying, “I want wisdom.” I was led to a book, to messages, to JJ, to James Twyman. I even called JJ and I know he doesn’t remember because it was years ago. He sent me a bunch of books which I took to others like a domino effect. The reason I called JJ was that I was having vibrations like Ren talked about. It was almost like a cloud. I just described it to Melva as electricity. In my situation I didn’t find it positive. I was left brained all day.

Audience chatter.

Audience: There have been many experiences since then. I wish there was a way to bring that back. At the time I was only asking for wisdom. JJ sent me a copy of the song and I really didn’t read it. One day I was having a bad day then I read it. I can sense anymore when this vibration is going to happen. When you walk into a room or at night when my husband snores and I move into another room, I can sense that imaging. Now I say the song every morning and every night. It’s been great. Since I say it that light surrounds me and I don’t have the darker vibrations. I can see what I call electron clouds. I could see it above me and it would hold me. I’d be screaming for my husband but I couldn’t say a thing. I was absolutely paralyzed. I thought I was screaming but obviously I wasn’t. This was after the good thing.

First the good thing, then several dreams then the dark cloud. I saw it come up in the yard then leap right through my front window. It was always in that state of half dreaming when you’re just going to sleep or waking up and you don’t have your self all put back together. There is one other thing I wanted to share and I don’t mean to be taking a lot of time. Twice I heard music, different singing. It was a beautiful singing. I don’t know what I was tuning into. One time as I turned over in bed I was suddenly blinded by this light. I knew I was this light and it was me.

I remember thinking, “How can I be seeing this? I can’t be seeing this with my eyes because this is too bright.” At the time I was thinking that I was shown that I was inside my body looking out and I could see my eyes right there so I knew I was looking through them. I was seeing a light that was so bright and as I sat up I knew I was experiencing what we all are, the light. It was a guidance to me that no matter what I see or how anybody pisses me off or I allow that I know that I can look beyond that using that exercise that JJ had us do last night. That’s what it’s all about, seeing that light that everybody has. That’s what spirit was telling me and that’s an awesome thing.

I want you to know that. I have this wonderful light inside me and some of you will be fortunate enough to see it and some of you won’t. I was fortunate enough to see it. I didn’t have a crystal. I didn’t know anything about crystals at the time. I just simply said I wanted wisdom.

Lorraine: I want to go back to what Robin said about the spiritual orgasm. It is a feeling, if you were to have a physical orgasm it would be on the physical plane of the body or an emotional one on the emotional body then the mental one then the spiritual one will be even higher than. I was camping in my tent, by myself, nobody with me. I had a vision of a man that I loved lying beside me and I knew he wanted to make love. I said to him that making love isn’t about the physical. He said, “You’re right.” At the time I didn’t know what a chakra was so I had to find out later. When I said making love isn’t about the physical and he said I was right he just laid beside me and thought and my sacral chakra began to spin, which felt really good, really good. Then it raised higher and my emotional chakra began to spin and that felt really good. Then it went higher to my love/wisdom and it began to spin. It kind of took my breath away because it was so beautiful and I’m spinning all the way up to here. It’s better than any massage or anything I’ve ever felt in my life. It went up to my throat and I began to choke because I thought I couldn’t breathe or swallow so I began to fight him at that point. Later I found out that’s where my ring pass not is. It’s in my throat. For the next three days I felt fantastic. Everything was attracted to me, every man in the campground, every woman wanted to sit next to me and all the bees and animals around for miles. I was like a walking magnet. The female energy had been raised so high that everything wanted to be around me. I would walk across camp and they would walk across camp. It was amazing. That was the spiritual orgasm that lasted about three days. I was to the point that with that much power inside of me I didn’t think I should be seen in public. It was that walking above the ground feeling and it felt really powerful.

Audience: What did you do to incite this?

Lorraine: I didn’t do anything to cause it. I’d been reading JJ’s stuff for about nine months. I didn’t go backwards and read the archives. I just read books I and II together. I’d been online studying with JJ but I didn’t say a prayer or have a crystal or anything. These things usually surprise me when they happen.

Audience: Did you learn something from it? There’s that saying that when a student is ready a teacher appears. There is some reason you were ready for that experience.

Lorraine: What it taught me was to learn about chakras and I also learned that making love is not about the physical. The love that we have comes in all the bodies we have. We have a physical level and emotional, mental and spiritual love. We are capable of experiencing each one but we need to know what each one does. You can share a physical encounter with someone and just have sex and that’s all it is. Or you can have an emotional bond or a mental bond or a spiritual bond. I think that experience truly wrecked my love life because now that I know the highest, I won’t settle for anything else so I often say that JJ wrecked my sex life. (laughter) But it did teach me about chakras and about the highest and that making love is not about the physical. It’s about all the bodies.

Audience: JJ, is there anything one could do to invite this experience?

JJ: You’ll notice with all of these that the moment these things happened the person wasn’t really driven to seek at that particular time. It’s like the scripture says, “Store up in your mind continually the words of life and when the time comes the words will be given to you what to say.” It’s the same principle. Store up in your mind and heart a quest for searching for knowledge, always searching and doing the right things and the highest you know. In a moment that you aren’t expecting it, you’ll have an experience. Most of the experiences people have come at a time that they weren’t particularly expecting anything dramatic to happen. Energy follows thought so by putting your thought in the right direction you’re sending energy. When you are sitting back one moment not expecting anything there is sort of a vacuum which draws the experience down to you.

Audience: I would say that when this happened to me I was trying to be the very best I could be at the time with the knowledge I had. I was reading the scriptures. I was doing the highest that I knew JJ and I was trying hard but I wasn’t actually seeking this as such. The thoughts in my mind were that the knowledge would come one way. I did not realize it would come like that. The only thing I was doing was trying.

JJ: We keep hearing a common thread of three days mentioned. After a spiritual experience you’ll usually have a residual energy lasting about three days then you’ll be back to normal. Though oftentimes when you’re back to normal you have a three day period where you have a negative force come to negate everything you acquired in the spiritual experience. If you’re not careful you can wind up in a worse state than you were before because you’ll end up thinking it was all imagination or meaningless. A person has to completely ignore the negative when it comes. Focus in your mind as though the negative doesn’t even exist then it will lose its power. But if you pay attention to the negative it can draw you away from the spiritual experience.

Audience: I’ve only told this to my sister because it’s personal. In the process when I wanted to conceive my second child I lit candles and stuff so I thought maybe this was just a reflection of the light. There was a ball of light and I knew at that moment that I had conceived so I don’t know. I know some women are in tune to it and know exactly when they conceive and I did.

JJ: Yes, that happens. I knew the moment my wife conceived our first child. I just sensed it so even a male can sense things once in a while.

Audience: I think being a home birth wife and working with parents I think quite often mother energy can tap into that and know the moment you conceive. It involves letting go of our negative feelings on death. I refer to the day my son passed as his rebirthday. I celebrate his birthday and his rebirthday. I knew the moment he passed over.

Audience chatter.

JJ: I hate to cut this short but we should do more of this because you guys are a very interesting group and have a lot of combined knowledge and experiences. I appreciate you all and think you all deserve a hand.

It is honourable to be accused by those who deserve to be accused. Latin Proverb

Posted July 3, 2005

Copyright by J J Dewey 

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

 

Gathering 2004, Part 14
Political Unification, Part 2

JJ: We’ll read it through the rest of the Principles of Political Unification and offer one or two comments at the most then we’ll move on.

[4] I commit myself to sending goodwill and the spirit of friendship to all involved in the political process especially those with differing political views.

This is going to be a hard one in the present situation. So basically, we’re committing ourselves to being nice to each other

(5) Even though the majority may not always support my views I realize that the majority view, when properly informed, rarely will lead us on a dangerous path. I therefore seek to honor the will of the people. When I disagree with the will of the people I will not seek to forcefully control them or change them but will use peaceful means to inform and educate them.

One thing you notice in today’s society is that the common man on the street seems to be a lot smarter than the average politician. Many common people like us have more common sense on what should be done than Congress, which is controlled by leaders and people not representing the will of the people.

(6) There are a number of issues that cause division, heated debate and anger. Examples are abortion, gun control, social programs, drug legalization, military activities and others. Most cannot be resolved in the near future through the conversion of the one side to the other. I support the following unifying approach: To support the principle of fairness on controversial issues, both sides must be heard even though the other side may be repulsive to me, for free speech and thought is the most important principle and the prime directive of unification and ultimate peace. I therefore commit to the principle of fair play realizing that both sides deserve to be heard and have their representatives in positions of power according to the will of the people.

This illustrates a big problem we currently have. Both sides are trying to squelch the other side so they can’t be heard and there can’t be fairness in debate. They only want their side to be heard. The commitment in this one is basically the principle of fair play. Let both sides be heard. Let everyone be free to speak. Let both views be put before the public. If we don’t like it we can write our congressman and tell him we don’t like it.

(7) I believe in integrity and honesty and will seek to be truthful no matter what the opponents do. I seek not to distort or lie for the benefit of my party or for personal gain.

JJ: This is going to be tough for the politicians, isn’t it?

(8) I accept that we must be fiscally responsible and will do all in my power to create a balanced budget, except in times of national crisis. I will only support social programs that can be funded or continued without increasing the burden on the taxpayer.

Audience: I see that this could be problematic. Social programs are not the role of government.

JJ: Almost everybody supports a certain amount of social programs. Even many die hard conservatives are not against Social Security funds. One of the problems we have that both parties recognize is that we’re spending ourselves into oblivion and it needs to be controlled responsibly.

Audience: Instead of itemizing why not write the last sentence so it reflects balancing the budget. Remove the word ‘social’ and leave programs.

JJ: That might be good. The trouble with social programs is that people are very polarized with them and want to spend whatever it takes to keep them going no matter what. Both sides claim to be working on balancing the budget but in deed neither does it.

(9) I agree that the people are taxed enough and seek to keep the budget within the range of current tax revenues and to not raise the percentage of taxes on anyone.

JJ: Approximately 50% of our earned money goes to taxes, when all are taken into account, and most people feel that’s enough. Almost every legislator will say we’re taxed enough.

JJ: So let’s make them commit to that. They can work with what they’ve are currently taken and hopefully much less.

Audience: We can’t assume that every country has the same taxes we do.

JJ: The citizens and inhabitants of every single nation feel like they don’t want any more taxes. They all feel they’re taxed enough.

Audience: comment inaudible.

JJ: Yes it is. They really feel like they’re taxed enough in France.

Audience: A lot of countries may never have freedom of speech either.

JJ: Eventually we all will. We’ll progress toward greater freedom. Some of them will take a while to achieve.

Audience: I think we will lose some people too sticking with the current taxes because a lot of people think it’s way too high and needs to be brought down.

JJ: That doesn’t mean it can’t go down. It just can’t go up.

Audience: It doesn’t read that way.

JJ: My intent was that it can’t go up but it can go down. We’ll may need to change the wording on that if it is misunderstood. We can say ‘the current tax or below.

Audience: That raises the point that some people think we aren’t taxed enough and it should be raised. (general chatter)

(10) I agree to put the security of my country and the world above the views or actions of my own political party. If others of my party sabotage national security or undermine a just effort toward the elimination of threats I will be just as critical of them as the opposing party.

JJ: Any quick comment on that? The security of the country is more important than a political party.

(11) I accept the fact that there is great waste and inefficiency in government spending and commit myself to eliminate waste and increase efficiency wherever and whenever possible.

JJ: I think everybody will agree with that.

(12) I accept and support the idea that we can save ourselves much grief by learning from the mistakes of history so we do not repeat them. It is therefore of extreme importance that the youth be accurately taught, without censorship, national and world history in a way that is of interest and will be absorbed by them. I will oppose all those who revise history in distorted fashion for political gain.

JJ: This is really important because if we don’t learn the lessons of history then we repeat it. What led up to WWII is really important for this generation to read and understand. If we understood it we could prevent it from happening again.

Audience: JJ, the only way that can happen is if you can return the control of education to the parents.

JJ: There are a lot of different opinions on how that can happen but we won’t go into that. We want people to agree that it should happen. People should learn history and learn it accurately.

Audience: Some parents don’t want their children to know.

(13) I agree that extremism has been and is the cause of many problems in the world and seek to not impose extreme views on the people. If I happen to have extreme views, which I believe to be of value, I will seek to persuade by education rather than by force of law. It is also a problem when political opponents are called extremists when over a third of the public support them. Such accusations are extremism in disguise. I seek to not be extreme myself in distorting the image of opponents by calling them extremists when such is not true. For instance, it is not extremism to be simply for or against abortion as there are many on both sides of the equation.

JJ: This is good because both sides are calling the other extreme right or extreme left and this is very divisive. With abortion, half is on one side and half on the other so how can you be extreme when half the people in the country support you? Neither side is extreme. They just extremely disagree. This principle allows for the true extremist to function in society but it says if I happen to have extreme views I will not try to force them on others.

Audience: I think it would be better to streamline this into two or three sentences.

JJ: Good idea. Maybe we should simply them and add an exposition below.

(14) I support the elimination of poverty but realize there are two approaches to this. The first is to give a helping handout and the second is to provide circumstances so the person may help himself. Extremists on this issue have warred against each other and have been the cause of much division. I reject extremism on both sides and seek to recognize the value of both sides. There are times of helplessness when people need direct assistance and times when they need encouraged to stand on their own feet. I do not support handouts to those who are capable of helping themselves and refuse to do so.

Audience: Well what are you going to do with the people who refuse to help themselves? If you don’t give them handouts, what are you going to do with them?

JJ: In that case it’s what they do with themselves if they are capable of working.

Audience: So many times we put them in prison and that costs us $30,000 a year.

JJ: That costs us a lot. There are times when people do need help and these should be helped. On the other hand, I’ve met a lot of people in my life who just don’t want to work and expect others to take care of them. That’s not right.

Audience: Concerning the word extremists, you use it here but said earlier to avoid it but there are a lot of people on each side of this issue so they’re not really extremists.

JJ: The ones who are warring are usually extremists. That’s my point. The people who aren’t extremists rarely aggressively attack. That’s a good thing to consider though. I’ll consider taking that out.

Audience: Social programs should be handled through voluntary organizations so in number fourteen you’re going to lose all of them.

JJ: I don’t think we will because where would we lose them?

Audience: Because you’re assuming it’s the government that gives a helping hand out.

JJ: I don’t say who is giving the helping hand out. For those who believe the government should be giving a hand out or those who don’t, the door is open there.

(15) I support the separation of church and state, but reject extremism on both sides. I reject the extreme of specific religious influence dictating public policy even though all religions have the freedom to express their views. I also reject the other extreme that any mention of God, religious values, or the public display of religious symbols is to not be tolerated.

JJ: Both of these are agreed on by most citizens.

(16) I support equal rights for all races, both sexes and members of all religions and ideologies. I recognize that the large majority both sides of the political spectrum seek what is best for all races and minorities (even though the opposition has a different approach) and refuse to manufacture accusations for political gain.

Audience: We should encourage religions to express.

JJ: People are worried about religions dictating to them.

Audience: Influence should be changed to actual legislative powers or something like that. Religions not only can but should influence the political process but they should not have the power where they are actually dictating.

(17) I recognize that the large majority both sides of the political spectrum seek what is best for the environment but again both sides have a different approach. Two extremes causing division are: The first seeks to conserve the environment even if there is strong economic and job loss. The second is seeking profits at the expense of the environment. The truth is the two are interdependent. A strong economy can provide funds to help the environment and a healthy environment provides for a good long-term good economy. I seek therefore to work with both sides of this issue and will seek cooperation rather than assigning blame. I seek to aid the environment without harming the economic structure.

JJ: This is a big problem we have. One extreme says we need to save a certain bug even though everything else around it is destroyed. The other says heck with the bug. We need to reach a common ground between these two so that the bug can be saved without destroying the economy. If we don’t have a good economy we couldn’t make improvements in the environment that we have. A lot of the third world nations have tremendous environmental problems that they do not have the money to solve.

(18) I recognize we are a nation of laws and will not support the subversion of law for political gain. I will condemn such subversion of those who share my views as well as those who do not.

JJ: The two political parties will often be willing to break the law for political gain. That’s something we’ll try to get them not to do.

(19) I will only support the establishment of necessary law as well as the elimination of bad, as well as useless laws that clutter the system.

JJ: We have a lot of useless laws. There are still laws against spitting on the sidewalk or kissing in public. There are a lot of weird laws on the book. We need people to go through these useless laws and eliminate them all.

Audience: chatter on bad vs useless

JJ: The big problem we have in politics today is that our legislators think it’s their job to make laws and spend money. So even, if a law is not needed they’ll twiddle their thumbs and think a new one up. So they pass a lot of laws. A lot of times these laws are used for entrapment later on so people can go after their enemies for violating some silly law that’s only on the books because the legislators were creatively thinking of a law they could pass.

(20) In the end, I support the example of John Kennedy who, while campaigning, found good things to say about his opposition and instead of tearing down he said “we can do better.” I support the idea of converting by good works and ideas rather than tearing down the opposition.

JJ: I was just a young boy during the campaign of Kennedy and Nixon. One thing I noticed about Kennedy was that he didn’t call Eisenhower a criminal or a rat or a slug. He admitted that Eisenhower had been a pretty good president. He said, “Eisenhower did okay, but I can do better.”

I really liked that. That really sold me on Kennedy. His attitude made me admire him a lot. I haven’t seen any other politician do that since him. When politicians campaign now they demolish the other guy. “He’s a snake in the grass. He’s a liar, a cheat and a weasel. I don’t know why his wife even puts up with him.” So we need to change this attitude instead of saying the other side is a weasel we need say they did a few good things, but we can do better. It’d be nice to have politicians present us with another way instead of saying, “Vote for me because the other side is Satan incarnate and has 666 tattooed on his forehead. Because of that you need to vote for me.”

Audience: To go back to a comment that there is an astral war going on compared to the Civil War do you think there had to be a physical war to settle some things at that time. There are astral causalities and I think a lot of people won’t agree with this because of the astral war.

JJ: That’s true, but I think the general John Q Public will accept it. Both Democrat and Republican guys on the street will read this and think it’s good, but there will be a lot of politicians who read this and say, “I want to be able to fight dirty for my side. I want to be able to call the other guy scum.”

Audience: comment on using the idea instead of Kennedy’s name. The principle of goodwill and the idea behind it should be used instead of a name.

JJ: One of the reasons I like to use Kennedy is because he’s an example people remember, especially people my age. It was a powerful debate between Kennedy and Nixon, but it was civil.

Audience: You mentioned editing them to make them shorter and tighter and adding comments below. That might be more of a comment than a principle.

JJ: It might be a good idea to rewrite them so they’re as simple as possible. On the web an advantage is that you can allow a person to click below each principle for more details.

Audience: When you get into details you could also start losing some people. It needs to be as concise as possible.

JJ: What do you guys think? Overall, would the common person agree with them? Politics is as metaphysical as anything else. People shy away from it, but when you think of it, politics is such a powerful influence in our lives. Many political problems need to be solved before the Masters can materialize upon the Earth again. They can’t come here and teach us if they’re going to be put in jail.

If an idea’s worth having once, it’s worth having twice. Tom Stoppard (1937 – )

Posted July 1, 2005

Copyright by J J Dewey 

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

 

Gathering 2004, Part 13
Political Unification, Part 1

The last time we were in Manti we presented the Principles of Unification. Hopefully most of you have endorsed them. Something else needs unified. Does anybody know what it is? We worked on the Principles of Unification for religions. We presented points on which almost every religion believes the same way. We presented beliefs that the Muslims believe like the Christians and the Buddhists believe like the Muslims and if most believe the same on these certain points, they can see that there is more bringing them together than taking them apart. There isn’t too much they disagree on, but lot of people don’t want to be unified that much.

Something even more divisive than religion right now, is politics. Presently, in this country we’re having a civil war on the astral plane. It’s unlike anything since the Civil War in the days of Abraham Lincoln. If you read about the thoughts just before the Civil War it’s a lot like it is today. The Democrats and Republicans really hated each other.

Unfortunately, the way this was resolved was through the Civil War and the splitting up of the nation. We’ve got a splitting up of the nation now. Not right in two but they’re talking about the red states and the blue states so we’re kind of split up in that way. The Democrats hate the Republicans and the Republicans hate the Democrats. Liberals hate Conservatives and Conservatives hate Liberals.

We’re reaching a fairly dangerous point. It’s good to have a certain amount of disagreement with argument and dialog and reaching resolution. This is how it should be. But we’re reaching a very strong dichotomy in our country that needs to be corrected to a degree.

So what I’ve written is called the Principles of Unification. There are twenty principles that both parties should agree upon 100%. I’m going to pass these out to everybody.

After all those OMs I almost feel too spiritual to talk about politics. When we talk about politics, we usually want to feel angry. (laughter)

Audience: This says Principles of Political Unification. Isn’t that an oxymoron?

JJ: Pretty close. Unfortunately, it’s not just this country. It seems to be a worldwide thing. Wherever you go, in whichever country, there is a big dichotomy in political thought and a lot of hatred involved. It’s probably strongest in the United States than anywhere because we have a lot of freedom of thought here so every view is presented, probably more than anywhere. So there is a lot of dialog going on. It’s to the point that they don’t agree with things the person they’re opposing says even if they believe it. Both sides are getting that close-minded. If Bush or Clinton or someone gets up and says, “I believe in prosperity” the other side will say, “I disagree with that.” No matter what is said, they’ll disagree with it. People are developing the mindset that the other side is evil and needs to be destroyed.

What we need is a little more unification, judgment, common sense, brotherhood and respect. So here are the principles. We’ll read through them and talk about them. I’m sure we probably have people on both sides of the political spectrum in this room. It might be close to 50-50 so the group is a good testing ground. What we want is for everyone to comment on whether you agree on these principles from your point of view, politically. We’ll try to avoid discussion on which party is the best, Republican or Democrat. Here is number one.

1. I will seek that which is good for my country above that which is good for my party.

Do you think both parties should do that? I know there are also a few Libertarians and minority parties should hopefully agree with that. Nobody disagrees? Good.

Audience: comment inaudible.

JJ: For most people they can see what’s good but you’re right. Everybody has a different definition of good. Sometimes in politics it doesn’t matter. Even if they recognize the good, they will negate it for the good of their party, I mean blatantly disregard it.

Audience: I’d like to comment that there are two extremes on this particular point. Not everyone will agree with it. It’s like in Sunday school the answer to every question is, “What would Jesus do?” That depends on whether you’re talking to a fundamentalist Christian. People interpret Jesus into their own best liking so it’s a good point that which is good for my party or which is good for my country but what you mean by good opens a whole can of worms because of that principle. If there is a way that we could maybe rephrase the word ‘good’ to ‘what is in course with my conscience’ because now we’re going to a standard.

JJ: It’s not perfect but what we want to do is to establish a certain mindset that the good of the many is better than the good of the few.

Audience: From my understanding you aren’t setting an absolute standard of good. You’re saying if I’m a person and I look out here and I think from my point of view this is good for the party or this is good for everyone. It’s not an absolute standard of good. If you think something is good you follow then you follow the examples.

JJ: Let’s go with an obvious example of good, like balancing the budget. Most everyone agrees that the budget should be balanced and we shouldn’t live on borrowed money that our grandkids will have to pay off. But let’s suppose your party wants to spend a lot of borrowed money for political purposes on the sex life of the housefly because a bunch of people in your party are going to be benefited. The balanced budget is the better option because you’d need to unbalance the budget to do this research. So, the person really knows he’s not following the good of the whole when he benefits a handful of his constituencies with research on the sex life of the fly. He knows that, but a lot of them do it anyway.

A lot of things won’t be covered by this. There are certain things when you meet a crossroads sometimes where these guys know they’re not doing what’s good for the whole but they want to benefit the few rather than the many.

Audience: With the good of the group, if you think about concentric circles, there’s going to be some overlap or places where you agree it’s good and others agree it’s good. Wherever these segments of the circle overlap that might be good for the group but whatever it is for the country it encompasses more harmony and more unity than just for some group or party.

JJ: Then there are other cases where one side will think something is good but the other side will say this principle won’t resolve that, but it will resolve some things if they commit themselves to follow their conscience and the good that they recognize.

Audience: What you’re establishing with this first point is you’re saying, “Look, you can’t assume that what’s good for your party is automatically good for the country. It puts them in the other person’s shoes and says, “Think about where they’re coming from and let’s look at the whole picture here rather than just from your own moccasins.” That’s what this first principle establishes and I think that’s a good first principle.

Audience: I’m not sure I understand why we’re not expanding that to, “I see what is good for my planet, Earth.” Why are limiting it to my country? Why aren’t we looking at a bigger picture?

JJ: Because most people don’t think globally. If you’re talking about metaphysical people that would be good but when you’re talking about the political animals out there they’d see it as a bunch of new age mumbo jumbo. For people like us that would be good.

Audience: I’d think you’d want to establish unity and harmony within your own country first before you can unite the whole world.

JJ: You’re right. It needs to be but what needs to be and what can be done are often two different things.

Audience: We don’t have high enough aspirations. Why are we limiting ourselves?

Audience: Look at this as a first step. This is a movement in that direction.

JJ: We’re looking at something which will hopefully permeate down into the born-again Christians, the atheist, the capitalist, the business man and all these people who really aren’t into metaphysics. They can understand the word ‘good’.

Audience: It seems to me, like you said in the beginning, we have this separation going on. “I’m Republican. I’m Democrat.” We’ve become so segregated party-wise that this first statement says, “Wait a second. We’ve got common ground which is the country.” It takes the people who are segregated to their party and it actually divides them from their party and puts them back into their country, where we were originally. So, I believe this sentence and this statement does exactly what you’re trying to make it do, separating them from their differences and unifying them with their common ground.

JJ: Good point. It reminds me of Kennedy’s words, “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.” That goes along a bit with this first principle.

Audience: I think we could reword it to say ‘my country and the world’ instead of limiting it to my country.

JJ: That sounds good. What do you guys think?

Audience: It helps to see it through a universal perspective because one group of people or one country can set an example for the world.

JJ: Yet either way would work I think. Many of the people who will like something like this will be the more metaphysical people anyway. But hopefully we can eventually, and it may take years or decades, but eventually something like this can permeate down into ordinary consciousness so we can negate some of this hate and division we have among us. Let’s go to number 2.

2. I support the principle of free speech. All people must be allowed to express their political and spiritual views however repulsive without legal restrictions.

JJ: Do you think most parties would support that?

Audience: chatter

JJ: Well, the far left want to control us with politically correct speech. They don’t want us to say anything that’s not correct. The far right wants to censor us. Some of the far right censoring some things wouldn’t be too bad, like child pornography and things like that. There is a limit of things.

Audience: It seems that there is a barrier between what I believe and somebody else believes something else so I’d rather say what I believe than letting them say what they believe. I think that barrier may be broken down by acknowledging that I enjoy and appreciate and need my freedom of speech, therefore I am willing to allow others the freedom of speech. Perhaps something could be added at the beginning to break down that immediate barrier. If I enjoy free speech they must enjoy it too and it could all be one side of the thing.

JJ: Ok. The main danger of limiting freedom of speech comes from the government. We, as individuals, if we don’t want to support someone’s speech we have the perfect right to do this. A lot of times when individuals or businesses don’t support or finance someone’s speech they claim it’s lack of freedom. Freedom must reign everywhere. This must especially apply to the government so the government doesn’t step in and limit anybody’s free expression, especially, notice how this is worded, ‘All people must be allowed to express their political and spiritual views.’ Things like child pornography don’t enter into that. That could be somewhere where the government actually should step in to limit things that could be harmful to children, for instance

That would be a good example. To have their freedom of expression with that type of thing they have to take away the freedom of a child.

No matter how repulsive, if a Nazi or communist wants to have a parade or whatever or speak or buy time and someone is willing to sell it to them it’s ok. On the other hand, if a Nazi wants to buy space in a newspaper and the newspaper refuses to sell it to him, are they violating his free speech? No, because they have the right to sell or not sell. That’s not a violation.

Audience: ‘All people must be allowed’ what if we changed the ‘must’ to ‘may be allowed. It sounds like would, should, could or whatever might be better.

JJ: I like the word ‘should’.

Audience: “I should be allowed to express my political and spiritual views without restrictions and allow all people the same privilege.”

JJ: That sounds good.

Audience: However repulsive-doesn’t that sound rather judgmental?

JJ: Well, we are judgmental. That’s the reality. People are judgmental. That’s why they don’t’ want the other guy to have free speech, because it repulses them. You need to start where you are. To climb a ladder you need to start with the first step. I know we want to be on the top step but we need to start with the first step.

Audience: Susan is speaking in first person. “Are we signing this or are our politicians?”

JJ: We’ll play it by ear depending on the response we get.

Audience: I’d say the word ‘should’ could be removed and replaced with ‘may’. It’s a much better choice.

JJ: I prefer should. Let’s change it to all people should be allowed.

Audience: What about I? I support the principles, I should be allowed.

JJ: Not just you should be allowed, all people should be allowed.

Audience: If you look at the Constitution, the word ‘should’ is not anywhere within it. They chose not to use that word for a reason. They use ‘shall’.

JJ: What was your wording? Read it again.

Audience: Shall we vote on shall or should? (chatter) Okay, let’s try shall. I shall be allowed to express my political and spiritual views, however repulsive, without legal restriction, and allow all people the same privilege.

JJ: That sounds okay.

Audience: I’m just wondering, by changing that wording in that sentence, it would need to be parallel throughout the entire document. If you make a decision to put this principle in first person then the rest will need to be the same.

JJ: That’s a good point.

Audience: On number two I think there is a principle that needs to be taken into account. The freedom of someone to turn it off and walk away if somebody is imposing his free speech on someone else that itself it a form of freedom.

JJ: That’s a good point because a lot of people equate free speech with the freedom to be heard. In other words, for me to have free speech you need to sit there and listen to me. That’s not what free speech is.

Audience: One of the primary offenders is the pornographic group. They’re abusing my email box and bombarding me.

JJ: Right and there is no way to cancel anything. It’s definitely an abuse and it’s not free speech. Free speech entitles freedom to not hear the speech also. Let’s take Whoopi Goldberg saying these things about Bush. Her sponsor dropped her then she complained that they were trying to take away her free speech. Her sponsor has a perfect right to say, “Hey I’m not going to pay you to speak that way.” He has a right to do that. Free speech isn’t forcing someone to pay you to speak. Free speech as we are discussing it means the government can’t step in and tell you that you cannot speak. Saddam Hussein used to do that. If you said anything negative about him you’d be dragged off to the torture chamber.

Audience: People need to perceive the difference between political lines and property lines. A political line gives you the right to say something but a property right says we can turn the radio off etc.

JJ: Let’s pick the most despicable people we know about, the Neo-Nazis perhaps. They have free speech but that does not mean the newspapers have to publish them. It doesn’t mean a radio station has to sell them an ad. Even if no one will support them, they can still go on a street corner and say what they choose.

Audience: We have the right to walk away from bad behavior too.

Audience: There was a guy who drove around with a megaphone atop his car playing loudly and he claimed he had the right. But others said he did not have the right to force others to hear what he was saying.

JJ: We need to get back to the middle way where the key is to not impose your speech on others but to be able to speak the truth when the truth is required, whenever you feel like it to whoever will listen. If you’re speaking the truth, the truth will make its own way. As long as there is free speech, the truth will eventually get out. It’s so important that it is the number one amendment to the Constitution. If we don’t have free speech we don’t have a lot of hope.

This is extremely important. Both sides claim to be for free speech but both sides step over the line on it periodically. If these principles ever become accepted, and some politician is stepping over the line with free speech we can say, “Hey, you agreed to preserve our rights and now you’re stepping over the line.”

Audience: Wouldn’t you add another sentence of truth to that. I’m working on some wording such as, “Such expressions shall not be imposed on others. They shall be presented in such a way that the recipient can chose not to listen.”

JJ:  I think it is easy to make thing a little too complex. We want to keep it as simple as possible. I think it would be good to write a commentary or expansion on this whole thing eventually. Something like that would fit.

Audience: The problem is that if we don’t specify our case somehow with this principle then people can abuse that principle. A good example is if this were to be true as a codified law for a country it would be a problem because they could take number two and do what Susan was describing with a megaphone on a car and no one would be able to stop that.

JJ: But there is a legal restriction on disturbing the peace.

Audience: It goes back to political rights and property rights. If he’s invading my property with sound, we’re talking about property rights.

JJ: How was your wording on what you wanted to put in?

Audience: Such expressions shall not be forced upon others but shall be presented in such a way that the recipient can choose not to participate.

JJ: It’s a good thought. I think it makes it a little too long though.

Audience: chatter.

JJ: Okay or we could say, ‘however repulsive without legal restriction or seeking to impose my will upon others or my speech upon others.’

Audience: I’d add the word ‘reasonably’ in front of ‘expressed.’

JJ: Too much interpretation could get involved with that. You’re being unreasonable, let’s shut this guy up. Free speech allows you to be unreasonable. A lot of people think othersare unreasonable. Melva had a judge tell her that we sound like an unreasonable group so her boy couldn’t come to the gathering. Things that are up to interpretation are really complex.

Audience: It seems to me JJ that the six words at the beginning of number two say it all. When we’re discussing the principle of free speech, those six words can say it all.

JJ: Think on it and send me an email if you think of a better wording. I’ll look through them and pick the best combo of everything to put in the final. Okay, number three.

3. I support the principle of freedom and work toward securing the greatest possible freedom for individuals and groups in every situation. I accept the principles of freedom enunciated in the US Constitution and the Bill or Rights.

Do you think both parties would agree to that? Both parties give claim to support the principle of freedom. Any comments on this one? The basic thought behind this is the greatest freedom for the greatest number of people should be what they support whereas the problem with the two political parties is that they want freedom within their party above the freedom of the whole of the country. They want the freedom for them to do only what they want to do rather than what’s good for their country or the world. What we want to do is to redirect their thinking from their own little worlds of freedom to the freedom of the whole, which is the important thing.

Audience: Should that be in there? The freedom of the whole? I think freedom and security are almost inversely proportional. My personal freedom is not where you mean here I think. You mean the freedom of the whole is what we’re want to work for rather than the personal.

JJ: Personal freedom and freedom for the whole are intertwined. It all needs to be expanded to work.

Audience: Someone said freedom is inversely proportional to security. If I’m going to be secure in my home, does that tap into my freedom to go outside or to hire cops? That’s not what anyone else thinks of as a personal freedom.

JJ: There are certain things that people do not have freedom to do. The burglar doesn’t have freedom to burglarize your house. There are certain restrictions on freedom. I think it covers it that way it’s written. ‘For the greatest possible freedom for individuals and groups in every situation.’ So even though a burglar feels it’s his right to burglarize a house he’s taking away more freedom than he’s giving. He’s given a little more freedom in his individual sphere, but he’s taking away freedom of the whole.

Audience: It sounds to me that there’s a difference between freedom of action and freedom of security. I want to be free to act to ensure my security. I want to be free to control my own security. The only way I can be in control of my own security is if I have the freedom to act. Right now, a lot of our freedoms are being pulled away to make us safe. Once enough freedoms are taken away we should be safe as in a cell.

JJ: Freedom and safety are two different things.

Audience: Right and right now that’s a big thing in the world because of 9-11 and other things going on. People are saying they want the freedom to walk down the street and feel safe and secure.

JJ: That’s not a freedom though. Being secure is not a freedom. The seatbelt law takes away some of our freedom to make us feel more secure. I don’t agree with the seat belt law myself. I think we should be educated to use it and have the freedom to buckle up or not. The state wants to take away our freedom of thought and make us buckle up, make us quit smoking outside and make us do all kinds of things. The government encroaches more and more on our freedom and they do it in the name of freedom. They say they’re making us free from having accidents. That’s not freedom. We want to be free to have accidents. That’s what real freedom is. Real freedom includes the freedom to have an accident if we want to take the risk.

Audience: It’s bad enough some don’t put on their seat belt. People fool around and the accident is all on the other car.

Audience: So it should be enforced.

JJ: That’s the responsibility of the driver to enforce it. Because it’s his car he can command the guy in the back seat to buckle up because it’s his property.

Audience: May I make a suggestion? I think that’s very important, but I think maybe for those who are interested in this to sit down later and discuss it. Many here would like to hear what you have to say. This feels like a committee discussion but we’re here to gain as much knowledge from you as we can in this point in time. We don’t’ mind helping you with this but it’s distracting from what we’re here to learn. I think it would be good if a group who is interested would meet to help you with this aspect.

JJ: Is the group here interested in hearing the rest of these? What do you think?

Audience: Can we read through them without dissecting the words?

JJ: That’s a good idea because it’s taking longer than I thought because it’s generating a lot of discussion.

Audience: If you want to read through them and those who have suggestions can do so later that would suit me. It sounds like I’m not a politically minded woman but I really am. I care and what you’re saying here is right but I’m not going to be one to pull it apart.

JJ: Let’s read it over but not discuss it. Everyone can get a copy on the internet and email me suggestions. I’ll read it over and we’ll limit the discussion. Not everyone is that interested in this topic.

Audience: We have options. We could read through it taking five minutes or discuss it taking five years. Let’s allot a time and read through it and utilize that time.

JJ: I wasn’t planning on going beyond noon with this.

Audience: This discussion is good, We’re getting to know each other.

Nobody loves me but my mother, And she could be jivin’ too. B. B. King

Posted June 29, 2005

Copyright by J J Dewey 

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

 

Gathering 2004, Part 12
The Sacred Words

We might as well work on raising our vibration up some. One of the benefits of OM is that it destroys negative energy. It’s actually a destroying sound. People don’t really think of it as a destroying sound because they think of it as a sacred word that uplifts the spirit. But if used properly it uplifts the spirit because it destroys negativity. It destroys limitations that prevent us from raising our consciousness up. On the other hand, the AUM can be used for a building energy for it has building sounds. The hard O in the OM is the most powerful destroying sound.

What word can you think of that has this destroying sound in it? “OH, NO!” right? When destruction is happening around you, you say, “Oh no.” Isn’t it interesting how much that sounds like the OM? Another interesting thing about the OM is that if you say it over and over, “om, om, om, om, om” it sounds like you’re saying, “omomomom” which sounds like mom. That connection is interesting. The AUM repeated, “aum, aum, aum” sounds like ancient words used for father. So we have AUM or father for building and OM as a destructive word, even though it’s reversed to what it is in reality. This often happens. Some of the correspondences are reversed so that when they come from the higher to the lower everything materializes backwards. In this world mother builds and father is more of the destroyer but as far as the sounds representing them, the OM is the destroying word. There is a great mystery behind the sounds. I haven’t taught much on the science of the sounds yet but if you contemplate how similar ‘oh no’ is to the OM a lot of revelation is in store. It can be used to understand the powers of the sounds.

Audience: So we don’t want to use the OM because it’s destructive?

JJ: No, you do want to use it. You want to focus on anything negative that’s holding back the positive. Think on this when you say the OM. Sometimes in my life I’ll pick up some negative vibrations and not know where they’re coming from. So I say the OM over and over and think of destroying these negative emotions. It really works better than anything I’ve ever tried.

Audience: Can you say it to yourself?

JJ: Yes, I say it while driving down the road. That’s a good time. You can even say it silently. Saying the OM vocally is really just practice to saying the silent OM which can be done by the power of thought. The training wheels to saying the OM is to say it vocally. As we say it vocally, we think of what it does internally. I say the OM the most when I’m driving in my car because it’s an alone time. Nobody will think you’re weird. If you think you feel any negativity creeping in or you’re picking up negative vibrations, say the OM over and over, concentrating not on hurting any individual but just destroying the negativity.

If the negativity comes from a certain person, they’ll be a little besides themselves because they’ll feel a vacuum. It will be a strange feeling for them because they won’t understand why they’re being affected the way they are. Let’s concentrate on this.

One thing I like about this group is that it’s very positive. Everyone here seems to really enjoy each other’s company. Bryan and I were just watching the group and commenting to each other how much everyone seems to enjoy everyone else. So there may not be much negativity here to destroy but we can always elevate ourselves a little higher. Follow me in saying the OM. When you say it, visualize that anything that is limiting or taking away from a spiritual experience is being dissolved into nothingness. We’ll say several long OMs. Just follow along as I say them. OOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Which center do you think it would be best to concentrate on? Third eye? Right. Concentrate on your third eye, right here. OOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

This time concentrate on a light coming out from your third eye, first of all like a beam then spreading out until it encircles the whole room, the aura and all the atmosphere around you. OOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

This time visualize the light again but feel your heart energies being involved and feel yourself being lifted up like you don’t weigh anything, like you’re being elevated. OOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Again. OOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Are you feeling lighter Phillip? Let’s go lighter still. OOOMMMMMMMMMMMM Again. OOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

This time think of your body being lighter merely as your consciousness being lighter. Visualize your consciousness being raised up. OOOMMMMMMMMM

Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it. Stephen Vizinczey

Posted June 28, 2005

Gathering 2004, Part 11
Understanding Limitations

We need to look at our limitations especially as far as energy goes. Can I go out with this beautiful secretary and have lunch with her day after day and not be affected? How would I be affected? How would my wife be affected? The key to controlling your future is to look into your future and examine your limitations then control the circumstances so that those limitations are not reached because if those limitations are reached you fail. Then you lose control of your life. This is what a successful business does.

A successful business has X amount of capital. That’s their limitation. They aren’t going to spend twice the amount of capital they have within the next month. Then they’d fail. They examine how much capital they have and they spend within the range of what they have to make everything work. That’s what we need to do. We need to spend our energy within the range we have. We have to ask ourselves. Look at what’s going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, next year.

Look at everything you know is going to happen then plan your life so that your limitations are not reached. Then you will be able to work toward being unlimited. By those who are watching you it’ll appear you’re working without limitation. They’ll think you’re really in charge of things but you’re in charge because you know what you’re not in charge of. You know that if they torture you enough, you’ll cry uncle. You know that if a good-looking woman (or man) comes on to you the hundredth time, just maybe something could happen. So if you think by the hundredth time that you might start to weaken, you don’t let that hundredth time happen.

If you’re positive you can handle four or five temptations, fine. If you’re not positive keep in mind there is always a wearing down effect. An example is the US interrogation methods. The military says torture isn’t standard procedure so they try to wear people down instead of torture them to get information out of them. We reward them with food or take goodies away and wear them down without torturing them but with pleasantries. It’s said that this will often work better than torture. Many people who can resist torture can’t resist something that feels good.

This is one of the keys to a happy relationship. Understand your limitations and work within your limitations and understand the limitations of your relationship together and work within those limitations. Don’t be in illusion that we don’t have any limitations. On the other hand, always have the belief that we’re unlimited in the fact that we’re capable of overcoming all of our limitations eventually.

Getting back to the soul energy let’s review this point that it is possible to fall in love with anyone romantically if these barriers are removed. Beyond all the barriers of personality is the person’s soul. We’re capable of looking at anyone and seeing their soul. To let yourself love a person emotionally or spiritually we have to remove these barriers. When we looked in each other’s eyes, I think all of us could see that if we really remove the barriers and gave love to that person we could have a soul response. What did you feel Bill? Do you think you could receive a soul response from most of the people you’ve met?

Bill: I don’t think so.

JJ: How about you John?

John: Some people are easier than others.

JJ: True because some people have more barriers than others. When the barriers are let down, all of a sudden we are all equal.

Audience: comment on barriers regarding cultures, background, etc. There are so many factors that enter into a relationship. Soul connection is when all that stuff is out of the way otherwise that stuff is in the way of soul connection. It seems to me that any two people could have a soul connection but the second part of that is a lot of other factors involved into that soul connection.

JJ: You mentioned the things you have in common. If two people have the same religion, same philosophy, same political party they both like motorcycles and hunting and fishing but all of a sudden you look at the other person and you really like to like him or her because those barriers aren’t there. Some people say they don’t’ want a relationship with anybody who has a kid. So, even though they meet a person who they normally would like, the child is a big barrier. If the barrier is removed they could fall in love. Little things like that can be barriers that stop the energy dead in its tracks.

Audience: Do they have to? Say they’re best friends and they like everything about each other and the barriers come down and they see each other’s souls, do they automatically go to romantic love or what happens?

JJ: You can have either spiritual love or romantic love or both but if you’re looking for romantic love or you’re open to it then it can happen. If you’re married and the barriers are all down you’ll have a good relationship and if you’re committed. I’m committed to Artie but I like Lorraine and there aren’t many barriers so I share a spiritual love with her but it doesn’t interfere because I chose not to have it be romantic. On the other hand, if I didn’t have much moral compass I could think, “Hey Lorraine is available.” You could do something like that but that would be your choice. It’d be a bad choice but it would be a choice.

Audience: Say you have two people very compatible in every way. The barriers come down and they like each other very much but they’re not romantically in love. Are you saying they can be romantically in love if the barriers come down?

JJ: I’m saying they could be if they wanted to. For the logical person there is usually something that triggers romantic love. It’s either a decision or else indecision. Often romantic love comes from not making a decision to follow your highest good.

The woman meets a guy who is a member of Hell’s Angels and is attracted to him because he’s macho and she likes motorcycles so she lets her barriers down and it’s a disaster. She didn’t really decide that but she was sucked into it because of indecision. Romantic love is the result of either a decision or indecision that allows you to go with that flow. If you decide you just want to be friends with someone of the opposite sex you can share nice spiritual energies with that person. By spiritual energies I mean from friendship on up to divine love.

Audience: During the exercise I noticed that there were some I connected to better than others. Would it be my barriers preventing me from connecting with certain people or would it be theirs?

JJ: It could be a little of both. You were the same with each person, right? Then it could be theirs. There aren’t too many barriers you could have outside of their physical looks because you don’t know them that well.

Audience: But the way they interact with you could come into play?

JJ: Yes, that’s part of it too. Barbara gives a lot of attention. It’s probably a combination of both. You feeling different could be because each person is different and some have more barriers up than others. When you look into the eyes of ten different people you’ll see that some people have a reluctance to allow things to be shared and others really want to be outgoing. Those people who are outgoing make the sharing more fun.

Audience: I was going to compare it to biology where you have this different protein inside the molecules. With some the interaction is immediate and creates a bond even though it’s not a permanent bond and I think people are like that to a certain extent. We’re all human and the interaction could be part of who we are. With one person we might bring out one aspect and another aspect with another person who’s totally compatible so there are different interactions that show with different people.

Audience: Talking about soul mates and realizing that each person has a different make up and all that. Sometimes we find someone, maybe one person who kind of complements you very, very well. This person understands you better than any other person and who is willing to share the potholes you have in your life. Isn’t it possible to consider such a person as your soul mate? That one person with whom your soul is in agreement and alignment and sometimes you find the way this person accepts you is very different than any other person accepts you and somehow you find that unique feeling. Perhaps in the whole wide world there is just this one person like that.

JJ: You sometimes meet a person you feel a strong soul connection with and you feel like they’re your soul mate because you do share the soul energies with that person. When you meet them in a future life you’ll fall in love very quickly all over again. We have quite a few lifetimes before we reach liberation so there may be three, four or five different people you’ve been very close to. Hopefully you don’t meet them all at the same time. (laughter)

A man’s got to know his limitations. Clint Eastwood, Magnum Force

Posted June 25, 2005

Copyright by J J Dewey 

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE