The Forces of Materialism

The Forces of Materialism

Question: Some seem to think that Osama bin Laden and the terrorists are fighting the forces of materialism. Is it possible they are mare spiritual than those in the democratic countries?

JJ: To see good in Osama bin Laden because he is fighting the forces of materialism is illusion.

Why is it illusion?

Ask this question. Are the terrorists really fighting materialism or are they really aiding materialism? Is it actually materialism that bothers them or is it change brought about by true progress, not related to the materialism of the west?

There are two primary things that bother them.

(1) The first in this group is democracy and an increase in rights and freedom of the people, especially women.

(2) The second thing that bothers them is anything that represents progress from the West that will alter their way of life, especially as it relates to the authoritative control over the people.

But isn’t it obvious that the West, particularly the United States, is much more materialistic than the terrorists who seem to want to live in the lifestyle of the Amish?

No, it isn’t obvious. If a people have money, abundance and scientific advancement this does not mean they are materialistic. DK himself gives out a meditation to disciples to assist them in drawing money in their direction. Is this materialistic? No.

DK happily points out that nuclear energy has power to give us cheap energy which can advance civilization and give us more free time from the drudgery of earning a living. . Is this materialistic? No.


What is then???

Materialism, as correctly taught by DK are forces which pull the people toward matter and the material side of life where the personality and beastly authority assumes control rather than Spirit.

Let us look at two sides in the greatest of all conflicts, World War II.

DK specifically defined Hitler and the Axis powers as representing the “forces of materialism” and the United States, Britain and the Allies as representing the forces of light. Of course, within these two groups there were pockets of both forces, but overall he identified the polarization with definiteness.

Now why did Hitler and the Axis powers represent materialism?

Was it because they were more centered on the wealth and everyone in the country was seeking to get rich?

No. Both sides were doing all in their power to get ahead and gain prosperity.

Was it because Germany was cozy with big business?

No. Both sides catered to big business.

Was it because Hitler, as the leader, was coarse, self indulgent and did not direct the people to a spiritual path?

No. Hitler was very self controlled, was a vegetarian, did not smoke or drink, encouraged marital fidelity, Christian morality (in many ways) and was consistently teaching the Germans about what he saw were high ideals. Hitler did not like cussing in his presence.

FDR and Churchill, the leaders of the forces of light, ate lots of meat, smoked and drank a lot more than average, and rarely preached about morality. Some thought they were amoral. Churchill was also overweight and some thought him overindulgent in his appetites. Both men cussed at times and were tolerant of bad language and off-color jokes.

Why then did Hitler’s Germany represent the forces of materialism?

(1) Just like the terrorists, he wanted to return to the glories of the past empires and tyrants rather than move into the future of change. And increased freedom.

(2) Just like the terrorists, he did not respect the freedom of the individual but believed the masses need a strong dictator to set them on the right path.

(3) Just like the terrorists, he saw spirituality as a well-defined black and white morality that needed to be imposed upon the people through law of brainwashing.

(4) Just like the terrorists, he believed that cruelty and torture should be used to gain advantage. He taught his underlings to block out any sympathy of feelings or empathy for any person that they must hurt. People were to looked upon as no more (perhaps less) than material objects to be used or eliminated.

(5) Just like the terrorists, he sought to take other people’s property and lands by force.

To hear the statement “forces of materialism” and equate them with how the preacher in church defines it is a big mistake. Remember, the truth is often completely upside down to the mass thoughtform.

Except from DK on the Forces of Materialism.

In past communications I have oft spoken of the Forces of Light and the Forces of Materialism, meaning by these terms the controlling trends towards brotherhood, right human relations and selfless purpose, and those which reverse these higher tendencies and bring into human affairs selfish acquisitiveness, emphasis upon material interests, brutal aggression and cruelty. The two positions are clear to the unprejudiced onlooker.

To these two groups I would add a third. This third group is taking shape in the world today with extreme definiteness and is composed of those who throw the weight of their influence and of their action on neither side; theoretically, they may advocate the higher way, but practically they do nothing to further its interests.

This third group is formed internally of two groups: first (The pacifists of today-JJ), those people who are potentially weak and are therefore ridden by fear and terror, feeling that they dare not move in any way against the forces of aggression, and secondly (nations that do not want to get involved-JJ), an intrinsically powerful group who, through selfish material interests, plus a sense of separative superiority, or distance from the seat of trouble and the domination of false values, hold aloof from the situation and shirk their evident responsibility as members of the human family. This latter group includes, among others, a number of powerful democracies and republics. Fear, terror and a sense of helpless futility govern the reactions of the one, and who can criticise? Selfishness and separativeness control the other group.

You have, therefore, in the world at this time three groups of people who embody the three major views of the whole of humanity, plus the unthinking masses, swayed by propaganda, controlled by their governments, and the prey of the loudest voices. It is of value to you to get this picture clearly in your minds, and I would like again to define them.

  1. The ancient entrenched forces of aggression, of material acquisition and pure selfishness, working through a pronounced cruelty which reaches out and grasps what it wants, irrespective of any other rights, historical and legal possessions or the will of anyone.
  2. The forces of spiritual purpose, embodied in the will to protect the rights of others, along with individual rights; to end aggression and its consequent fear, and to throw the weight of their combined influence on to the side of the most spiritual values, of human freedom, of the right to think, and of kindness. I use the word “kindness” advisedly because it embodies the idea of kin-ship, of brotherhood and of right human relations. It is world goodwill in expression, just as the will-to-good is the basis of any possible peace-a goodwill which would negate any premature peace at this time, because the latter would give time for the Forces of Materialism to consolidate their gains and prepare the way for further aggression. Kindness, the will-to-good and peace-such should be the practical expression and the formulated intention of those who are conditioned by the Forces of Light.
  3. The force of mass negativity, as expressed today by the dominated people in the strongholds of aggression and by the neutrally minded people everywhere. They are all coloured by racial fear, by the instinct to self-preservation, and by short-sighted selfish interest.

The problem is one of exceeding difficulty because, even though the lines of demarcation are becoming steadily more distinct, yet the exponents of these three groups are to be found in every land and among all people-in every church and in every home. Externalization of the Hierarchy; Pages 214-215

Money doesn’t always bring happiness. People with ten million dollars are no happier than people with nine million dollars. Hobart Brown

Oct 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

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Serpent Evidence

Serpent Evidence

A reader says: As far as I know there is absolutely no evidence in the fossil record to support that such beings ever existed on this planet. At the very best I think that an objective position would necessarily be very skeptical in regards to these claims.

JJ: A healthy skepticism is always fine, but I do not see enough evidence to warrant strong skepticism. Especially in this case where legends of the serpent race are found in so many ancient and diverse cultures such as Sumeria, Babylonia, India, China, Japan, Mexico, and Central America. In addition, many drawings and sculptures depicting human-likes serpents have been found in the Middle East as well as from the Ancient Americas.

Not the least of these is the Bible itself. In Genesis we see a story of a serpent that walks upright, is crafty and speaks. As punishment to him for tempting Eve he is altered physically and removed of his human characteristics and the only remnant would be the snake who craws on its belly.

Now one can say that the story of Adam and Eve was symbolic but a number of ingredients are not symbolic such as the fact that our early parents were humans or perhaps that there were talking serpents. Many of the ingredients in stories and legions have some truth in them.

In another account Jewish document called the Haggadah we read: “Among the animals, the serpent was notable. Of all of them, he had the most excellent qualities, in some of which he resembled man. Like man, he stood upright on two feet, and in height, he was equal to the camel. … His superior mental gifts caused him to become an infidel. It likewise explains his envy of man, especially his conjugal visits. … In punishment for tempting Eve, God said, ‘I created you to be king over the animals … but you were not satisfied. … I created you of upright posture … therefore, you shall go upon your belly.’”

Joe Lewels, Ph.D. writes this:

“Another interesting reference to the Watchers was found in the same cave as the Books of Enoch, but was not known until 1992, when two Biblical scholars, Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, published their book, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered.

“Among the 50 documents released for the first time in this book is a reference to the Watchers that is unique, for it provides one of the few physical descriptions of them. The text, called the “Testament of Amram”, describes the experience of a person named Amram in which “an angel and a demon” were wrestling over his soul:

“‘[I saw Watchers] in my vision, the dream-vision. Two [men] were fighting over me. I asked them, ‘who are you, that you are thus empowered over me?’ They answered me, ‘We [have been em]powered and rule over all Mankind.’ They said to me, ‘Which of us do yo[u] choose to rule [you]?’ I raised my eyes and looked. [One] of them was terrifying in his appearance, [like a s]erpent, [his] cl[oak] many colored yet very dark. … [And I looked again], and … in his appearance, his visage like a viper. … [I replied to him,] ‘This [watcher,] who is he?’ He answered me, ‘This Wa[tcher,] … [and his three names are Belial and Prince of Darkness] and Kind of Evil.’”  LINK

There is evidence that the humans had some interbreeding with the serpents as hinted at in Genesis.

“Carl Sagan described the three tiers of the human brain as the reptilian (the most ancient and deepest layer), the limbic (the middle tier that directs motor sensory and normal life functions), and the neocortex (the uncharted territory of the upper realms). He also used the symbolic dragon to portray the dormant, sleeping, reptilian part of the brain that is both ancient and undisturbed. When the sleeping dragon rises, his fire (kundalini?) surges throughout the various layers and in alchemical measures awakens and integrates the triune brain.

“The dragon’s breath strikes far into the upper neocortex stimulating areas that have either been undiscovered in modern humans, or perhaps areas that we used in prior eons and from which we have fallen. In either case these areas are not accessible to humans without focused will and effort toward developing higher consciousness.” LINK

As far as not finding them in fossil records there are two points to consider. First, it is possible that some of the serpents were close enough to human in appearance that when only the bones are left that it would be difficult to tell the difference, especially if there was some interbreeding.

Secondly, much of our past is buried under the oceans and also under thousands of feet, sometimes miles of earth. Miners have found man-made objects only thousands of years old hundreds of feet below the earth. Imagine how deeply buried are many things from the more ancient past.

As evidence of this consider that there has only been one humanoid skeleton found that lived between the past 4–6 million-year time period, and that was Toumai man. Think of it. We have evidence that humanoids existed over 6 million years ago but for a period covering about two million years we have only one piece of evidence to prove it.

Legend says that the serpent race began as far back as 275 million years ago. I believe that there were only a few remnants of them in the days of Atlantis, of which land we have no solid proof of either.

Also important is that when an archeological find is discovered that goes against belief systems, it is often suppressed or destroyed. There are a number of testimonies to this effect making us wonder what we would have available if all that we have found was published.

They have just found evidence of a Hobbit race that was before unknown. It’s difficult to predict what they will find next, but I guarantee they will find some surprises in the near future.

Reader: Carl Sagan _never_ suggested that human beings once interbred with a reptilian species. If you are suggesting that then I believe you are seriously misrepresenting the facts.

JJ: I never said that. The data could support that idea though or at least that the two races developed along similar lines of evolution.

Reader: There is _nothing_ in this model to suggest that a reptile species could interbreed and produce viable offspring with mammalian humans. From a biological perspective that idea is ridiculous.

JJ: Why do you say this is ridiculous? Someone may look at two very different species of dogs and think they could never breed but they can.

There is no way to prove this is ridiculous because we do not have a sample of the Serpent DNA. It is possible their evolution was so close to ours that nature sees them as two very different races instead of species. It is very possible they were close enough to reproduce. We do not know for sure they did, even though the Bible does indicate this – or that they at least had sex, but I see no reason to proclaim the idea is ridiculous. Either way it does not conflict with anything in my book.

In addition, we find an interesting quote from the Book of Jasher, which is mentioned in the Bible (see Joshua10:13 and II Sam1:17-18) as an authoritative scripture used in ancient times. It says:

“…and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.” Jasher 4:18

It is interesting that this scripture was written around 3000 years ago and mentions something that only today is modern technology approaching.

If this scripture is correct then even if they were two species it is possible that there could have been a “mixture.”

The man who insists on seeing with perfect clearness before he decides, never decides. Henri-Frédéric Amiel

Sept 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

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Questions on God, the Universe and Serpents

Questions on God, the Universe and Serpents

Reader Question: Does it strike you all as true that God is limited to what we human

beings manifest? Help me out here to understand.

JJ: You have to take this into consideration. Many have passed through the human kingdom that are now much more than human and are reflecting the higher attributes of God. These are “the Gods” in the language of some.

The one God is limited in this world by the actions and intelligence of its reflections, but remember that the Planetary and Solar Logoi are also reflections who have advanced further than we. These are much more unlimited than are we.

However, in our everyday lives we are dependent on reflections more closely aligned with our own development.

Reader: Related to your book, is the universe of six the atomic universe, and the universe of 7 the universe we exist in including planets and suns etc? How high and how low do each go?

JJ: The universe of six begins within the atom itself. The Universe of Seven extends from the seven potential electron shells to our universe of galaxies.

Reader: Does the universe of 6 end with atoms?

JJ: Yes. There are six different quarks in the Standard Model of Physics, three are in a proton and three in a neutron.  The mass of the proton is much higher than the three quarks and some think there are an additional three anti quarks undiscovered which would make the six appear again.

Reader: Will the atomic universe become a universe of 7 someday?

JJ: No, but the sparks of life there will share consciousness with life in our universe of seven, just as we will share when the greater universe is formed an eternity from now.

Reader: It seemed like Joseph communed with lots of different entities, but I did not see any key underlining or revealing any new understanding about communion.

What is the third key of communion?

JJ: The tour (referring to Book 4 of the Immortal) was not to find the key of communion, but to put it into practice. The third key was given earlier in the book which is basically this:

What we call regular communication is subject to the Principle of Corruption, similar to what happens in the game of Chinese Whispers. This corruption can only be overcome through the seeing of principles through the eyes of the soul. Embodied principles are eternal words. Eternal words, or words that do not pass away, are the key to communion and is also the name of the book.

Reader: What is “foundation DNA”?

JJ: A rat’s foundation DNA is that foundation program which constructs the rat’s body. Foundation human DNA lays the foundation for the basic human shape and function.

Reader: Why does it limit their vibration and prevent higher contact as with the reptiles?

JJ: Imagine that you were in the body of a lion. Suddenly you would find blood stimulating to the taste whereas in a human body it is repulsive.

Now imagine being constrained to a tree. You wouldn’t even have the faculties to become self-conscious. You would suffer many limitations compared to human form.

Even so, the energy of the serpent race is much more centered on the physical sensation than the soul, even more than lower humans.

Humanity has presently evolved to the fifth root race. The coming sixth and seventh will allow us to be more sensitive to higher contact.

Reader: Through their survival of the fittest society does the serpent race perfect dna and physical form so humans can then perfect consciousness?

JJ: The serpent races perfect physical sensation and make progress in perfecting form. But it is the humans that perfect living form. Consciousness advances in human form but continues to progress in realms beyond human.

Reader: Is this done when a planet is based on the third ray of active intelligence?

JJ: This certainly helps in the perfection of form, but I’m not sure it is always the case. However, the third ray would always have an influence.

Reader: Are the serpent races that existed in the history of our planet left over from when our planet’s previous incarnation on the ray of active intelligence?

JJ: Actually the earth is presently on the third ray and this is conducive to the development of beautiful physical form. You are probably thinking of the previous solar system, which was on the third ray; whereas the present one is on the second ray. Not a lot is given out on the previous soar system except that the foundation for all physical form was laid there including human and serpent.

Reader: Are the logos’ of Draco and Hydra based on active intelligence?

JJ I believe that Draco is third and Hydra is sixth.

Reader: In the chapter it is said there are no shape shifting serpents. But this quote (from the Emerald Tablets) seems to state otherwise.

JJ: The book talks about the present time, not Atlantis. There are no shape shifters among our leaders as some teach though some may project an illusion of various shapes.

Reader: If the serpents in Atlantis did not shape shift did they take permanent possession of the chiefs’ bodies? How?

Or did they kill the chiefs and by some lower magic or hypnotic power make themselves look like men? How?

JJ: The serpents reached the end of their evolution in Atlantis and there were just a few left. The few were very powerful and could appear as human by hypnotic control rather than shifting shape. They had power to draw life energy from average humans and use that energy to manipulate and control them, but the disciples saw through them and exposure caused the human race to dominate.

Reader: What other kinds of forms appear?

JJ: On some planets, birds, dinosaurs, fish, and other creatures evolve into human like form, but the serpents are very tough physically and usually dominate for a time. Then when humans appear they are nurtured because of their beauty. When they multiply and become a threat for domination, conflict ensues until only one upright race is left.

“And I will put enmity between thee (the serpent) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Genesis 3:15

Sept 20, 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

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

The Old is Not New

The Old is Not New

Our challenging reader continues: DK illustrates the error in your reasoning about the paradox of Buddha. Let me explain:

First of all: While it is right that evidently the lower self never existed and so the physical universe did not, which is entirely True seen from the Cosmos i.e. monadic level, since this is all but a dream; yet the dream life in this dualistic world is as real to each of us participating in this dream. It is as if a computer is projecting a game on the screen, and the (living) figures on the screen only see each other and their surroundings. For them this surreal world is real.

JJ: The correspondence does not fit. The figures in the computer have no self-consciousness, or consciousness itself, as do we. Neither do images in a painting correspond to entities of consciousness.

Reader: Take a needle and pierce yourself in the arm. You are not dreaming and life in this dream is as real to you as it is real to me. Yet in an expanded consciousness we can perceive this state as a dream and consider the body as a piece of cloth or as a space suit in order to be here. This now was the paradox of Buddha: this dualistic world does not exist and yet it exists.

JJ: Again the correspondence does not fit. When we awaken from a dream we often recall the dream. We can recall the experience within the dream as a real experience.

In the Paradox of the Buddha when we awaken we have no memory because even the dream did not exist.

Reader: Secondly: You are in error that you ASSUME that once one would have reached nirvana, he would have forgotten all of this world.

JJ: That’s not my error for I assume no such thing. I was merely repeating what you appear to teach. You seemed to be saying that after we achieve liberation that this world will be as if it never existed. After all, that is what those who use the Paradox of the Buddha teach.

Reader: This is NOT true. DK’s Call which you quoted above illustrates this perfectly. All masters who HAVE reached the other shore, perfectly recall their past worldy dream and see this dream of humanity evolving. That’s why they could offer the Call to humanity in wording or by telepathy to human beings in this world. That’s why they are able to help working from the Cosmos or in the Hierarchy.

JJ: Then maybe we agree after all. If you agree with me then what is this augment about?

Reader quoting JJ How loving of you to make such a judgement with no evidence.

Reader: Evidence? In all discussions so far there was but one thing clear to all of us, when I touched on the subject of gun control; all Americans here were stumbling over me in order to defend their rights. Talking about attachments….

JJ: But you began the discussion by revealing your powerful attachment to controlling the rights of others to own guns. Because of this strong attachment of yours you are like the pot calling the kettle black.

Reader: The saying goes: “It takes one to know one.” But if one does not know yet the principle of Transfiguration (which comprises several aspects and Mysteries) and the principle of HOW our ego flaws can be transmuted and purified – and these two Principles are the main principles working on the Path to Home – then it is clear that one has not walked this path yet. And so neither can one judge if someone else would have walked it or not for he cannot discern.

JJ: Why are you being so judgmental and assuming that we do not know this? Why do you assume the worst in your fellow humans?

Could you please explain what the Principle of Transfiguration is as you see it?

Reader: I will only offer the description of the main principle, but I cannot go into the details or revealing the Mysteries in public. It would desecrate that which is divine and from God’s hands. It was and still is a secret that can hardly be found anywhere in written form. DK also hinted at that and said that in future it will be revealed plainly and clearly. But it is not yet time.

When people would like to know more and in particular to experience this as a logic step towards Liberation of the spirit soul, then they can contact our group or me privately.

JJ: This is the same tactic used by the last group that came here with a similar philosophy.

You claim secret knowledge but cannot tell us about it nor give us any wisdom that indicates you even have a carrot to dangle in front of us.

From your description though it sounds like you claim the key to immortality or at least life extension. Is anyone in your group over a hundred years old or does anyone give any evidence that they use the principle of transfiguration any more than members of this group?

I give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean well here and you are welcome to stay as long as you like, if you abide by the rules, but some grow weary of covering this topic so many times. It would be interesting to see what you have to say about something other than the topic of duality. From past experience, those with your philosophy cannot seem to talk about anything else.

Because of this I try to limit my response to various items that you bring up. You’ll have to forgive me if I do not give extensive replies to you in the future, but this is about as far as the discussion usually gets before everything becomes repetitive.

Reader: There is one vital thing required for the Path that leads to the Treasure: that is obtaining a True Balance between head and heart. The mind must learn to serve the heart, which is contrary to the current situation in this world where the mind is dominating and is constantly reasoning out things preferably by this lower world’s logic and understanding at the cost of the heart. But evidently this attitude does not work when we are touching upon things supernatural.

JJ: Where in the world do you get the idea the mind is dominating? DK tells us that only about 10% of the populace are capable of using mind and from my experience I have difficulty in believing it is that many.

Ask any good salesman what sells his product, the emotions or the mind, feelings or reasoning and he’ll tell you he must appeal to the emotions over mind and feelings over reasoning.

Perhaps you are referring to brain activity rather than mind. This would explain why you think the mind is dominating in the human race.

The heart is composed of two major aspects, love and wisdom. Love is the higher spiritual feelings and wisdom is the radiance of mind expressed as pure reason. Thus mind is not separate from the heart but has its beginnings of manifestation in the heart. The heart center also has a reflection in the head where even higher light and love is revealed.

Reader: I am amazed. On the one hand you promote ultimate freedom, yet you censor my posts and even block one.

JJ: I do not have power to censor posts, only to accept and reject them.

I did reject one the other day because it contained wild-eyed conspiracy theories that was way off topic and would have distracted the class.

To keep a class on topic to a reasonable degree in no way violates the Principle of Freedom. Do you think an Algebra teacher is violating the freedom of the class by not allowing another teacher to come in and teach Spanish? If he did do this he would be taking away the freedom of the class members to study their elected course of Algebra.

The biggest complaint I receive from students is that I allow people like yourself to distract us too much and interfere with their freedom to learn as they have chosen.

The Principle of Freedom looks at the maximum freedom for the whole, not at just one individual who wants to violate group will.

Reader: On the one hand you promote receiving new principles which might help the group find and expand our understanding of the Truth and hence our consciousness, yet when something new is coming up and even a second Principle of HOW it would be possible to let our ego go, then this is negated, ridiculed and even outrightly denied.

JJ: What new principle is this? You have not explained any principle that I know of, let alone a new one. I cannot reject a thing if it does not exist.

Reader: It seems to me that your ego has problems in accepting that there might be something new that you actually didn’t know yet.

JJ: Like I say, I have to be presented with something new before I can reject it.

Reader: When I touch upon the principle of Transfiguration, which is the one and most vital Principle on our way Home, which is to become truly Spiritual, or in a popular terminology “to become enlightened”, then all I get is your comment “It would be interesting to see what you have to say about something other than the topic of duality.” Sigh…. Transfiguration IS the effect of leaving duality, JJ.

JJ: You didn’t touch on the principle of Transfiguration. You said nothing about how it works. You said it was a secret.

Reader: Obviously you did not understand at all what I had to say about Transfiguration.

JJ: Maybe I missed something, but I do not recall you saying anything about it other than it being a secret.

Reader (Referring to a Gathering post): Good piece, JJ. We must become pure in heart AND pure in mind, meaning empty, transparent, like a child. But it still did not say HOW to let go the ego.

JJ: Thanks for the compliment. I did cover quite a bit of material on this in the previous gathering posts over the past couple months if you want to check the archives.

Another reader writes: When one starts to strangle their Ego, do other Egos come to the rescue of that ego being strangled? Meaning, if someone was killing off their ego and other people, friends, family etc started to notice the disintegration of this person’s ego, would they try and stop that person from killing off his ego by feeding him/her with ego laced compliments etc etc, to keep that ego fed and alive still and keep you focussed on the ego still? When one has killed off their own Ego, it must seem a lonely journey when the World is full of Egos 😉

JJ: Whenever someone attempts to make a step forward, in any way, a vacuum is created that creates a force that attempts to pull him back to where he was before or worse.

A simple example of this is the person who is trying to quit smoking. It will seem that people will come out of the woodwork to offer him cigarettes.

Anyone who’s ever significantly changed the course of humanity has either been a Crackpot, a Heretic, or a Dissident. In the case of Albert Einstein, he was all three!

Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996)

The same applies to controlling the ego. When a person makes a step toward in dominating the ego it creates a great force to pull him backwards. The pilgrim must use the force of will to move forward despite the pull.

Sept 17, 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

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

More Strange Doctrine

More Strange Doctrine

Reader: I feel sorry to hear a heavy emotional charge in the comments. It seems that all I am saying is being refuted regardless of what I am saying.

JJ: I think the refutation began with you refuting what many here write and believe – or at least what you assume they believe.

Reader: Among other things I see a need to defend a supposed attack upon the so highly valued free will, this little expression of the little self, which is almost considered as holy in the western world. But this is not what I meant.

Let there be no doubt; I will be the last one to challenge the free will of humanity (in fact it is not a free will but rather a freedom of choice).

JJ: Excuse me for misunderstanding. Here are your words: “All the lofty talk about freedom is imaginary and illusory and misleading when it is not understood that each human being is not free at all in this world.”

I am glad to hear your clarification, which tells us that you do believe in some free choice after all.

You distinguish free will from free choice and I can understand that if you use a lofty esoteric definition of will, but if we use the dictionary definition free will and free choice are the same.

Reader: I only offer a more Universal view – which some consider to be more eastern coloured – which may invite people to look out of the box of materialistic conventions and traditions, which is so pressing in our western world, and which is being considered here as the one precious export product to the rest of the world.

I have offered both a spiritual and humanitarian view regarding the law of free will and the Law of Absolute Freedom. I have tried to make this clear as far as this relates to humanity in its attempts to become spiritual.

JJ: What you do not realize is that many have come to this group before you in an attempt to teach from a similar view as yourself. I thought you had a different twist because you said we have no free will, but now you have clarified your views we see you your doctrine is basically the same as we have heard many times before, even though the presentation may be slightly different.

The problem here is not that you represent Eastern thought, and we the West, for many in this group have synthesized both the East and the West.

The problem seen by many of us is that you represent a western version of eastern philosophy in which we see major flaws. These flaws are similar to what we see in some fundamentalist Christian religions that have a similar belief to you but merely use a different vocabulary.

You, and those before you, seem to think you are presenting us with fresh thinking that we have not heard before. On the contrary, we have heard it many times, thought it through, seen its flaws and retain that which the soul verifies.

When a teacher such as yourself comes here and we do not fully accept him he always thinks the problem is that we just do not understand what he is saying. We do understand and that is why we see the flaws. If you were to peruse the archives you would see that just about every point of your teaching has been covered. Even so, I usually comment briefly when a new challenger comes on board because each teacher gives a slightly different slant on the same material.

Now, even though we see flaws in your philosophy we also see some truth in it. For instance, the idea that we are trapped in matter and suffer limitations here is certainly one that is true.

The pattern followed by teachers such as yourself has been almost exactly the same so far. They stay for a few months and make a great effort to help us to see the error of our ways. When we do not totally accept, they figure we just do not understand and continue to hammer away. Then, after a month or two, when it is seen that no converts are made, they will leave. We have yet to see one stay and just attempt to be a positive member of the group and participate in the classroom topics.

Reader: All I have done is to invite people to look beyond all appearances and even beyond conditioned spiritual views and thus beyond themselves; in fact it is the invitation to look beyond the opposite poles of duality of good people and bad people. There is more than that. Not seeing this is missing a higher level of spirituality, exactly as Buddha told so urgently to his bikkhus. For it is time.

JJ: Many here have already done this. Why do you assume we are a bunch of spiritual country bumpkins? If you want to present something new tell us what is next – after we have seen Nirvana.

Reader: Besides being free of the ego self does not mean that the spirit within is free. And the latter the only interest of the Cosmos. This is the second part of the Buddha paradox.

My point is that I am constantly directing to the other [divine] shore and to see things from that focus. And all that I am hearing is an emotional attachment to the idea of free will and the effect of it on this plane. Free will is only an idea of the lower ego mind, necessary though to have it in the dream state of humanity. It may help him to eventually see the final choice, which is not to choose anymore.

JJ: First let me explain the Buddha Paradox to the group in plain English. It is basically this:

This world is illusion. We must dispel the illusion by letting go of all attachments to the past present and future, to form, ego, consciousness, everything the mind and feelings register.

When this is successfully done then everything is as if it has never been and we obtain oneness with the ALL which is really nothing, or the great void between dualities.

Now the paradox is this. It seems obvious to us that we have an existence, identity and consciousness on this shore, but as soon as we step on to the other shore it will be as if this universe and the people in it never existed. Actually, we never did exist and do not exist because when we get there we will have absolutely no knowledge that we ever came here and had this experience. The One Life will continue on with no knowledge this universe ever existed, even though IT created it through his own power.

This is the paradox. It seems that it is impossible that we even seem to exist since we don’t exist.

Now the reader claims to be seeing from the other shore, but this is impossible, according to the Buddha Paradox, because if he was on the other shore, he would have no knowledge of this world and would not even know that he has ever had an illusionary existence.

Again, we return to the Nothingness Philosophy.

Some may wonder how a great teacher like the Buddha could have taught this.

He didn’t. The Buddha Paradox is created by mislead disciples.

Listen to the words of the Master DK speak of the “other shore” who sees from an angle of vision beyond that which was available to the Buddha in ancient times:

“Hearken, O Chela, to the call which comes from the Son to the Mother, and then obey. The Word goes forth that form has served its purpose. The principle of mind (the fifth principle. A.A.B.) then organises itself, and then repeats the Word. The waiting form responds and drops away. The soul stands free.

“Respond, O Rising One, to the call which comes within the sphere of obligation; recognize the call emerging from the Ashram or from the Council Chamber where waits the Lord of Life Himself. The Sound goes forth. Both soul and form together must renounce the Principle of life and thus Permit the Monad to stand free. The soul responds. The form then shatters the connection. Life is now liberated, OWNING THE QUALITY OF CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE AND THE FRUIT OF ALL EXPERIENCE. These are the gifts of soul and form combined.” Esoteric Healing Pages 501-502

Notice the part I placed in caps. It will not be as if we never existed, for when liberation comes, we will own “the quality of conscious knowledge and the fruit of all experience.”

This just goes to show that there is no such thing as a true paradox, but only that which has the appearance of a paradox. When all the truth is seen then one puzzle of truth fits in with every other piece.

Reader quoting me: “Why do you assume we are a bunch of spiritual country bumpkins? If you want to present something new tell us what is next – after we have seen Nirvana.”

Reader: What I see is a heavy attachment to earthly things even when it is admitted that the soul is trapped in matter and does suffer limitations.

JJ: How loving of you to make such a judgement with no evidence.

Reader: Since you said that all has already been explored and searched out in this classroom, I would like to see then the two main Principles that would make it possible to step out of the box that is called the physical Earth. There is no need to say that this is not possible, for it is.

The first one is the Principle of letting go our imperfections, desires etc,

The second one is the Principle of Transfiguration that allows the New Man to evidence himself within.

Showing the way is one thing, but accompanying him on his way is another thing.

JJ: First, I see no evidence that you have any ability to accompany anyone here anywhere.

Could you please explain what the Principle of Transfiguration is?

Okay, here are what I would say are the two main principles that lead to liberation.

(1) Follow the highest you know.

When you do this, even if it is wrong, if you have pure intent, you will discover your error and the right choice will manifest.

(2) When the better path manifests, let go of your investment in the past and chose the new.

If you do these two things with an honest heart complete freedom awaits you.

Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter (1919 – 1988)

Sept 14, 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


Strange Doctrine

Strange Doctrine

A reader makes this strange statement:

“All desire for protection is a strong desire from the self, which negates God’s Will and the spiritual Hierarchy.”

JJ: Your basic philosophy from this and other statements seems to be this. We should not, in any, protect ourselves but should never kill (or perhaps even harm) any living thing including human, animal and insect. I’m not sure if killing vegetables by eating them is included here.

It sounds to me that if you came home and found a man raping your wife in your own bed you would just sit in a corner and meditate until the man was satisfied and then killed you both.

I don’t want to conjure up a picture that is not true so let me ask you a couple questions that will allow for some clarification.

Suppose you did come home and found a man raping your wife (or loved one) as described above? You notice he left a loaded gun on the floor and you can reach it before he does.

Here are some possible choices:

(1) You could grab the gun and order him to retreat until the police arrive. Since you now have power over his life he would comply. Thus, would the situation end without you having to take violent action. You were not only harmless here, but also prevented additional harm.

If you would not pick this option, please tell us why.

(2) You could attack the man with your bare hands as a weapon and force the rapist off the loved one. This would require courage because there is a 50/50 chance he would overpower you and you and the loved one could wind up dead, especially since the man has a gun. Yet it seems much better than doing nothing because you have a good chance of saving your wife and yourself.

(3) Jump up and down and shout, hoping the man will just go away.

(4) Do nothing.

(5) Proclaim that this could not be happening to you because this type of thing does not happen to one who is enlightened.

(6) Other, describe.

Why do I think that “other” will be your answer? I will be interested in seeing what it is.

The reader did respond and did not directly answer  my questions so I suppose  he chose “other.” Here is the dialog.

Reader: If one wants to make a huge leap on his spiritual path, the very first thing he has to learn is to be able to establish a sound and healthy relationship with his/her neighbour, whether this neighbor has committed crime or not.

JJ: This is really basic. I think all members of the list realize this.

Reader: However, this healthy relationship is more than just being friendly towards each other. It implies to be responsible for our neighbour’s acts too.

JJ: I’m glad you’re not my neighbor then. I don’t want someone living close to me who wants to take my responsibilities upon himself. I am happy being responsible for my own acts.

Reader: It is to become or see our overall responsibility on earth towards life in general, to being a human soul with consciousness and for being the custodian of all other lower kingdoms on earth. Seeing and feeling this responsibility is called awareness.

JJ: It’s our responsibility to contribute to the good of the whole to the best of our ability if that is what you mean, but this involves taking a self-chosen responsibility upon ourselves and not taking responsibility from someone else.

Reader: However, during the ages humanity has forgotten this responsibility completely.

JJ: I don’t think so. Many feel it to some degree and this taking responsibility is increasing not decreasing.

Reader: It satisfies itself by its outer sense only and by feeding its desires. It satisfies itself by breeding and then slaughtering animals in order to eat them. Nobody seems to care about the life of other life forms that is inhabiting our planet also. The human being has developed into a creature that seems to be totally indifferent concerning life except its very own. Man has forgotten his relation with nature, and that’s why man has fallen in a dense body and has even forgotten who he truly is.

JJ: The karma between humanity and the animal kingdom as far as food supply is concerned is mostly of a group nature. The animals who in the beginning dined upon man are now being eaten by man. When the great wheel is balanced then the time will come when most of humanity will be vegetarians and the “lion will eat straw like the ox” as stated by Isaiah.

When this time comes then our plants will be grown in much better soil and our food will be much more nutritious and satisfying.

If a person raises an animal for food and treats it well then the good treatment of the animal will balance off negative karma.

Outside of some large factory farms, cows, chickens, pigs and other farm animals raised for food have a close relationship with humans. Small farmers often talk to these animals, name them and feel genuine affection toward them. In return these animals are stimulated and do acquire a sense of higher relationship toward their masters which wild animals never develop. These domestic animals are thus stimulated in their evolution toward the human kingdom just as teachers among us stimulate our human evolution toward the Kingdom of God. Our own evolution toward the Kingdom of God often carries with it much more sacrifice than that experienced by the domestic animals. Domestic animals, for instance, are often taken better care of than are those in the wild at the hands of nature and protests  are growing toward mistreatment from the large factory farms. A growing number are only buying their meat and eggs from sources that treat the animals humanely.

If humanity ceased eating meat tomorrow all the cows, chickens, pigs etc would not be properly taken care of and begin suffering death and pain in many forms until they arrive at the danger of extinction. Meat eating is essential for their survival for the foreseeable future.

Not far from where I live the wild elk at the mercy of nature come close to starving to death in scarce winters. Without human assistance in supplying them with some extra food these poor animals would suffer horrible deaths.

Reader: The human being has developed into a creature that settles himself in a place and only when this place is raped and plundered of all the raw materials, and the trash has piled up to massive amounts and when he has poisoned the environment entirely that it might become a threat for himself to live in, then he will move and seeks himself another place to vampirise. There is but one species on earth that has the same behaviour: a virus. It even preferably kills its host before it leaves.

JJ: Wow! You have such a negative view of who you are that I am surprised you haven’t jumped off a bridge to destroy at least one virus.

You are totally mislead on this. Humanity makes some mistakes but then sees the error of their ways and corrects them. It will not be long before humanity lives in harmony with nature and actually improves upon nature. A virus does not change to the better. We do.

Reader: Humanity has lost its roots and has forgotten the plot completely. It wanders on earth in chaos. In fact it does not know what life is. The only thing it understand is the temporal physical life and the fear of death, which is so huge that it needs to protect itself to extend it or to protect its little group members by buying and using killing weapons. The excuse is to protect themselves, but he easily forgets that allowing guns also allowed potential criminals to buy and use them too. So, what in fact is the chicken and the egg?

JJ: Yes, freedom seems a little hazardous until you look at the alternative. Then you have a cataclysmic collapse of the soul to worry about.

I assume that since you need no protection then you have the ability to walk through walls.

We had a guy in this group a while back who claimed to be able to teleport himself. We invited him to teach us how to do it, but of course he refused.

Reader: Everybody is focused upon the black and white fields of the chess game of the Beast.

JJ: If you support the unnecessary restriction of freedom then you are in bed with the beast, big time.

Reader: Everybody is focusing on the attack and protection of self.

JJ: I’m not. Most of the people in this group are not. Speak for yourself.

Reader: Everybody is heavily focused upon the self.

JJ: “Everybody” would include yourself, right?

Reader: It all is a selfish game people are playing out on the stage called the Earth. There is nothing else that is done despite all the lofty spiritual teachings and sayings etc, which in fact are only confirming and cultivating the ego-self if such knowledge does not sink in and integrate in one’s awareness.

JJ: Everyone is not selfish. There are a lot of good and decent people on this planet. To not see this is missing a level of spiritual vision.

Reader: Everyone here loves his free will and his freedom, and would even protect this with all that one has available.

JJ: Consider those who did not love their freedom enough to stand up for it. The prime example are the Germans in the thirties and forties. And the result? They were enslaved by a tyrant. Those who do not love their freedom and defend it will lose it in due time.

I understand the European Union where you reside is seeking to take away your freedom to buy vitamins and herbs. Are you going to let them walk over you or stand up to them? If you and others do not then the freedom to naturally medicate yourself will be no more.

Reader: He thinks that he is free and that he has the right to own a gun in order to kill anybody who would dare to threat him or his relatives. He only thinks in terms of he against me. His mental state, his mind frame is only fixed upon the physical body which has nothing but a a low body-consciousness. That is his object of all his desires and his simplistic reasoning.

JJ: I really wonder if you even know any gun owners because of the way you mischaracterize them. Most of them do not think of doing harm any more than non-gun owners, but if a dangerous situation occurs then both the gun owner and the non owner would think of self-protection. I guarantee you that if a crazy man were sawing off your legs that your thoughts would gravitate toward protecting yourself no matter what your belief system.

Reader: But nobody knows that his sense of freedom is a false sense.

JJ: I have the freedom to wave my arm. Are you telling me that I am deceived and cannot really wave my arm? If one has the freedom to move and to speak then he has the freedom to speak and move. It is as simple as that.

Reader: He believes that he is free when he stays out of prison in his bodily state, but all the while he is caught in a mental prison that is put over his mind and which keeps him enslaved to this physical world by exploiting his desires and passions and his ideas about freedom.

JJ: You seem to think this is a secret knowledge that only you possess but almost all people understand there are levels of freedom, that we can be enslaved by our passions and habits on one hand yet have certain freedoms on the other.

Reader: All the lofty talk about freedom is imaginary and illusory and misleading when it is not understood that each human being is not free at all in this world.

JJ: Not free at all. Here you are deceived for I have complete freedom to type up this post and express my views. This requires some freedom. All of us have some freedom. Even a child understands this.

Reader: Man is caught in this world of forms and appearances. Man’s spirit is caught in matter. That is what counts. That’s why Jesus said: only the [Living] Truth will set you free. He meant by this the Liberation of the soul.

JJ: You’re preaching here what we all know. We realize that matter limits our freedom, but this is a temporary thing. “The truth will set you free” applies to many different levels of meaning.

Reader: We have to understand deeply that it was this free will of self that once created the Fall from Heaven, from the Source.

JJ: And it will be though free will that we return.

Reader: It was the free will that created the big distance with God.

JJ: And it will be through free will that the choice is made to bridge that distance. You cannot force people to God.

Reader: Using this free will has caused the human race to fall and to crystalise into a dense and gross body.

JJ: And by free will we will overcome all things and ascend in spirit.


By using the free will, man once deviated from his divine heritage and turned his face from God’s Will, which resulted in the simple man he is now.

JJ: By free will we will reveal the face of God.

Johan: It is this free will that was responsible that Adam and Eve listened to the serpent, and started to obey the Beast. And up to now no one seems to have any idea of all the implications. Up until now it is still this free will that keeps man enslaved and subservient to the Beast. More than 6 billion people are daily playing out the game of free will of self and so are serving the Beast.

JJ: Lack of applying free will keeps humanity subject to the beast. I thought I have heard it all. I have come across some who are against free will and will not admit it, but you seem to be against it and are proud of it. This is a milestone I have not seen before.

Reader: Your example of how to protect oneself against a rapist of one’s wife simply is an ignorant example, and does not testify of any Knowing of the Higher Laws that are governing this world. I only hear the vibration of body-consciousness and of bodily care. I only hear the self in its desire and fear. Such a situation as you depict is not real.

JJ: To declare all life is illusion is pretty meaningless when a loved one is being raped or assaulted and you can do something about it. Are you one who thinks the Holocaust was not real? Terrible things happen now and then and to pretend that painful situations will never occur in your life is to be disconnected from reality.

You didn’t answer my question as to what you would do in an awkward situation as I suspected you would not. The trouble with your philosophy is that it is all theory with no application. You have no real-life experience proving it works.

Reader: The spiritual law is that it is you and you alone who attracts this kind of situations yourself. This kind of situation usually is karmatically determined and will happen anyway regardless you have a gun or not. For karma must be balanced and fighting against this Cosmic karma and the spiritual Hierarchy and karmic Lords is absolutely useless.

JJ: Karma can play itself out in many ways. It would be silly to follow your philosophy. For instance, if I saw a car coming at me and thought like you I would think, “Because this car is coming at me it must mean that it is my karma to get run over. I guess I’d better not move.” It is just as ridiculous to be in the way of an aggressor and to let him destroy you without resistance because you think it is your karma and there is nothing you can do. There is always something you can do.

Reader: Simply said, this situation as you depicted will not happen unless you have created a similar situation from your side in the past that calls forth the same situation today but then in an opposite way. So, that’s why I cannot answer on your questions since this example is futile.

JJ: DK tells us that we are also subject to group karma. This brings us into many situations that we did not personally imagine. Do you think all the six million Jews killed by Hitler had thoughts of death by a tyrant that drew that reality to them? Many of them were as pure in thought as yourself.

Reader: The law is that violence evokes violence. This destructive circle can only be broken when we come to Know about the higher Laws and obey them and to be able to forgive the trespasser. We do not need a gun to protect ourselves. We can trust the Cosmos and act in this.

JJ: And harm begets harm. If a policeman with a gun comes across one man about to kill another and does not use the threat of force to stop it then he will have blood on his hands and would be responsible for the death of another.

It is as Solomon said. There is a time and place for all things. Sometimes a situation will require drastic action, as in the case of the policeman above. There is more to harmlessness than to sit in a corner, escaping from reality, and meditating all day.

Reader: Only this allows him to understand what life is and also what the Purpose of Life is, and then finally in his increased awareness he begins to understand that the only true choice he has to execute his free will, is to choose not to use his free will anymore and to surrender to God’s Will.

JJ: But God’s will is that we have free will, else we would not even have it. Many try and follow God’s will, but who’s to say whether they are successfully perceiving it?

Reader: A strange doctrine, isn’t it? But I assure you that this doctrine is purely Gnostic. It is the doctrine of selflessness and giving up of self.

JJ: What makes you think that the giving up of self has anything to do with giving up free will??? When you yield the lower self to the higher free will is enhanced. The truth makes us free, remember?

Reader: However, this seems to be so damn difficult to understand and to accept by westerners. And yet this mental resistance blocks any spiritual progress. This is a real challenge.

JJ: And I suppose you’re an example of great spiritual progress? You had me fooled for you certainly are putting a lot of energy lecturing us and standing up for your ego. You seem to be going out of your way to disagree, never seeming to find points of agreement where you can add a constructive thought. It is you that has the “us against them” consciousness on display here and until you see that the only purpose you will serve here is to challenge and diminish the “them” in this group.

I was going to buy a copy of The Power of Positive Thinking, and then I thought: What the hell good would that do? Ronnie Shakes

Sept 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

The Criteria of Freedom

The Criteria of Freedom

It is interesting that when I have written about the Principle of Freedom that readers are almost in universal harmony with me. They seem to think “Yea, Freedom – that’s for me! I certainly support freedom over no freedom.”

But then when we talk about this principle, as it applies in reality, an entirely different reaction comes forward in many.

These will step forward and say – “You can’t do that because there is risk involved.” Or they will say, “You can’t do that because it is not the right or good thing” (in his opinion).

Here are some of my previous comments on the Principle of Freedom:

The only freedoms that should be restricted are actions that take away more freedom or rights of the group or individuals than is added.

We restrict the freedom of the thief to rob others because this action takes away more freedom than it adds. Overall, we may define the principle of freedom as follows: “Those actions and laws lie within the principle of Freedom that bring greater freedom for and amplify the power of DECISION-making for the group and individual.

“The actions and laws that lie outside the Principle of Freedom are those that bring less freedom for and diminish the power of DECISION-making for the group and individual.

“To take away freedom so that good may come is illusion and the foundation of great evil.

“To allow freedom so that evil and harm is possible is the path of light for in the end the illusion of evil is dispelled and the power to BECOME is amplified.”

The decision between the two paths is not a decision between blissful love and demonic madness. If that were all it is then all would choose the path of light. Instead, many are deceived into a dangerous heading toward the dark path because they believe they are choosing love.

It is a great temptation for seemingly loving people to support the taking away of freedom so that good may come. Such decisions lessen the power of decision, and as the power of decision is diminished the illusion is amplified. As the illusion is amplified the possibility of choosing the unthinkable becomes real.

Now let us apply this to gun control.

Does the freedom to own guns “take away more freedom or rights of the group or individuals than is added?”

I would say the answer is no. There is no proven benefit or additional right given through forced gun control. Yet allowing the freedom to own guns provides this benefit:

It allows more choices for the individual thereby enhancing his power of decision.

Some of the choices are as follows:

(A) A choice as to self-defense. All are not enlightened enough to use the power of the mind or higher self to preserve themselves from harm.

(B) A choice as to recreation. Many gun owners choose recreational shooting as their main reason for owning a gun. For them it is a little like the freedom to play a video game but more closely linked to reality.

(C) A Choice to hunt. Some think hunting is wrong, but if one thinks this then he should be a strict vegetarian for killing in the hunt is much more in alignment with nature than the methods used on the kill floors.

(D) A choice to collect. Many gun owners just enjoy collecting guns.

(E) A choice to exercise a right granted in the U.S. Constitution. Many gun owners like the idea behind the Second Amendment, that a well-armed nation is protected from foreign aggression as well as government suppression.

Does gun control supply any benefit?

About the only one I can think of is the illusionary one of greater safety for the general populace. I say illusionary because the facts prove otherwise. For instance, in Washington DC, which has the most powerful gun control laws in the nation, the murder rate is over 40 times as high as in Idaho which probably has the most liberal gun laws.

Some use comparisons between nations but this is more like comparing apples to oranges; whereas when we compare one part of the U.S. to another part we are closer to comparing apples to apples.

For instance, it would be unfair to compare the rate of auto related deaths between North Korea and the United States. Their death rate is much lower because few own cars. But in the overall picture who wants to trade our situation with theirs just because of the lower death rate from accidents?

England also is much different than the U.S. because few are able to hunt, for the lands available containing game are few and far between and controlled by the rich. They also do not have a history of a large percentage of the population possessing guns as do we. The people there just do not have a feel of what it would be like to live in a country where most of your neighbors own guns. Consequently, they conjure up unrealistic images in their minds of out-of-control violence.

I would imagine that this situation applies to most of Europe.

Many in the UK and Europe seem to think that if gun ownership were liberalized that people would go crazy and start shooting up the neighborhoods something like a gang war portrayed by Hollywood. If tomorrow the English and Europe were told that they can now own guns without restrictions I doubt if many would rush out to buy them. Because the consciousness of the people is so set very little would change, except maybe in the urban areas where some see the need for greater protection. I would suspect that crime would go down in those areas where stable people have the trust of the state.

The basic direction of law which is in harmony with the principle of freedom is to only restrict those who do harm by inflicting a sure punishment after the fact, not before the fact. Gun control punishes innocent people who have done no harm. On the other hand, if law punishes those who commit harm with a gun this serves as a greater preventive measure than does banishing gum ownership from those who are harmless.

Some say that if there were no guns at all in the hands of thee citizens then gun violence would not exist. If this happened then only the State could commit gun violence and this does happen. We have examples of millions killed by the state in these situations.

And consider this. The only way to do away with guns completely for all (but the state authorities) is to have complete power invested in the hands of the State. This presents a great possibility for tyranny.

To see the middle way on gun control requires vision from the plane of the mind or higher. It cannot be seen correctly from the emotional plane. Many on both sides of the issue are emotionally polarized and obtain their views from feeling only with little logic involved.

The important point to realize on this and other freedom issues is not whether guns are good or bad, but whether freedom is good or bad. Freedom should only be restricted when it is obvious to the vast majority that it needs to be done to pave the way for greater freedom.

For instance, the freedom of the burglar needs restricted so the majority can have the greater freedom to enjoy their possessions. But even here we do not punish the burglar before he commits the crime.

Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom. Albert Einstein

Sept 10, 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

Decision and Life

Decision and Life

Question: If I am not part of that 144 000 can I sing the Song?

JJ: You do not need a revelation that you are a part of a special group to sing it. The 144,000 is symbolic of a conscious state that relies on soul contact and is free from the control of the beast. If a person feels in harmony with the song and feels right in saying it, adding thought to its words, it is a sign he is heading toward this consciousness.

Question: What is decision? Where does it come from. And how can I even prove it exists?

JJ: Decision is an impulse emanating from our life principle. You know it exists because it comes from your life essence. You think and decide therefore you are and are becoming what you decide to become.

Reader Comment: I have had a discussion with someone on another forum. They believe everything is cause and effect and that decision is an illusion.

JJ: Is experience illusion even if you are having it within a dream? No. It is real and you take it with you whether it emanates from a dream or what some consider true reality.

Reader: I don’t understand the quality. Or how it can exist. Since cause and effect, action/reaction does make sense. It seems to leave no room for the quality of ‘free will’… it does not seem to exist in the way that it does not conform to the laws of physics in regards to action and reaction where there is a chain of events. cause and effect, which seem to control events. rather then a decision, it seems its just the variables that control it all and decision does not even exist? Any help on this?

JJ: Sure. Look at your computer in front of you. Did random cause and effect create it or did a decision-maker do it?

Take a look at a cell in your body and ask the same question.

Any intelligent design is evidence that a decision-maker exists somewhere.

Reader: To finish off here, one may say that if the universe could go back in time and a big bang happened again exactly the way it did before that everything would play out exactly the same and the same variables would control the outcome?

JJ: No two big bangs in the universe are the same just as no two galaxies or solar systems are. What seems like an explosion in space is really an explosion of time. Billions of years are passing in one second for the tiny decision-makers laying the foundation for a new and improved universe.

Reader: Where exactly does decision fit into it all. Can you prove it exists?

JJ: If you can prove you exist then you have proof decision exists.

Reader: What are thoughts and from where do they originate?

JJ: Thought originates from the power that gives us decision. Without decision there would be no life, creation or thought. Decision stimulates thought and thought amplifies intelligent decision.

Another reader asks that if Christ or an avatar were to be born among us as a babe would he know who he was?

JJ: All beings high and low, who are born as infants, start with a blank slate with a few exceptions of flashbacks.

Most likely he wouldn’t know who he was or the details of his mission until around the age of 21 or possibly longer.

Question: Would a master be going through mini-initiations once more and have to face the Dweller again?

JJ: He would go through the initiations all over again. They would still be difficult, but easier than the first time they were taken. Yes, he would face a dweller again, but have additional power to overcome him.

Question: Would such a being be born through a Disciple or Initiate (if that is what they chose to do), who was learning or knew more of the Truth and Knowledge, rather than an ordinary woman who wasn’t into the spiritual realm of knowledge and Truth?

JJ: This would depend on the nature of his mission. If it is important that he relate to the common man it is possible that his parents would appear to be ordinary people. If it is important to demonstrate the ideal man or woman then he will have an outstanding parent as Jesus did in Nazareth.

Another Reader Comments:

When I read chapter 20 of Eternal Words, I couldn’t help but ask myself a question about the largest of the large, the precise point where JJ communicates with the universe when he can go no further. He feels a tremendous fear and loneliness stemming from the universe for ‘it’ has been alone and does not know if any one of ‘her’ kind exists or not. Looking back to us humans, when we meditate and send energy to a place or a person, or to the universe, does the universe sense our light and energy, or love for that matter? Is there any way to exchange and give to her, as lonely as she may seem? It surprised and puzzled me to see her in that state, yet she contains so much…

JJ: Just as you start life in a vulnerable state knowing little of what it is all about so does the entity who occupies our universe. As this entity, or any other, matures it senses the life force within itself, which emanates from the tiny cells within its body. Later it develops soul contact and receives from his higher self.

For the Universe this higher self would be the Masters and other higher lives that are now appear to be the highest intelligence in the universe, but not forever. The day will come that the universe will mature and it will be more intelligent than all of us put together. Then we will blend our consciousness with it and all life will be as one.

Keep in mind that we are talking about limited consciousness as it manifests on the physical plane. The Higher Self of the universe is linked to the One Great Life we see as the universal God.

You cannot conceive the many without the one. Plato (427 BC – 347 BC).

Sept 8, 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

Left, Right and Science

Left, Right and Science

I’ll make a few comments about the evolution of those on the spiritual left and right.

There are no disciples of the left or right until a certain degree of evolution is reached. That point is reached after the first and second initiation is passed and the physical and emotional natures are placed under control. As the third initiation is approached the two paths become clear for the first time and a decision is made. The decision on the left hand path is centered around the motivation that the needs of the self must come first, even at the expense of the many.

For example, if the cells in the body eat each other the whole is injured and will eventually die. The cannibalistic cells are fed for a short time but in the end they will die with the body.

The decision on the right centers around the idea that the good of the whole must come first and may require some sacrifice from the individual. The value of the individual is seen and nurtured, but a realization is gained that the individual cannot receive full benefit unless the whole is nurtured. The understanding is basically this. If the body dies the individual cells also die. If the body lives and is healthy the cells also live and are healthy.

All disciples progress in evolution until this decision of the two paths is reached. After it is reached the disciples on the right continue to progress toward life and spirit. On the other hand, the disciples on the left begin to move away from life and spirit toward death and the lower material spheres.

From this point on, their spiritual evolution comes to a standstill and they begin to devolve rather than evolve. They can gain some additional concrete knowledge, but these become as pieces to a puzzle where half of them are missing and the whole picture can never be clearly seen. He who has chosen the dark path sinks further into illusion until he is engulfed and eventually suffers a spiritual death.

He who chooses the right-hand path rises out of illusion and begins to see clearly the next steps to take to move toward spirit.

DK tells us that Hitler was a second-degree initiate. One on the dark path such as this can have very good concrete intelligence and appear to some to be even more intelligent that a higher initiate on the right. This is because most people judge intelligence only as it relates to data and the material world. The higher initiates have intelligence that ascends to pure reason and spirit but it is not comprehended by the average individual.

The average people of society are neither on the right or left, as far as the path is concerned, for they do not yet have the consciousness to see and chose either one. They can be deceived by agents of Dark Brotherhood and used by them. Then there are others who are influenced by the Brotherhood of Light and used by them.

Many more, however, are attracted to the deceptions of the Dark Brotherhood than are attracted to additional light presented by the light. The main advantage the Brotherhood of Light have in dealing with humanity is that through the process of time they have anchored many valuable truths that humanity now sees as obvious. One example is the earth is not the center of the universe but moves around the sun. This and many other truths are anchored and cannot be denied by a sane mind today.

Even so, it is amazing how the Dark Brotherhood can take the obvious and twist it so the truth becomes obscure to further their ends.

A person from another group quotes me as follows: “The chemist calls the male atom a positive particle and the female atom a negative one. Within the atom we also have the positive or male nucleus, and the negative or female electron shells which are married to the nucleus to produce something greater than themselves – a whole atom.” (endquote) JJ Dewey, The Molecular Relationship

Then he says: I don’t know a single scientist who would professionally refer to parts of atoms as ‘male’ or ‘female’. This statement of JJ’s is BS…. it’s misleading. It would be much better for JJ to leave the chemist out of that statement because it isn’t true.

JJ Response: You totally misread what I was saying and are taking it out of context. I never said that science refer to particles with a positive or negative charge as male or female. This is what I call them and in the statements above I am saying that which I call male in charge the chemist calls positive and that which I call female in charge the chemist calls negative. This is a true statement.

I point out that the male charge is a sending energy and the female is receiving which are the foundation energies or duality of energies from which all things are formed.

You seem to have a bias against calling the positive and negative energies male and female but the correspondence is accurate as I point out in my book.

Comment: Hey, you have a university professor and chemist (Ph.D. in Biochem, 1986) right here talking to you. And I’m telling you that this statement of JJ’s is inaccurate and misleading in referring to what a chemist would say.

JJ: Again, I’m not saying that male-female in relation to energies are the language of the chemist, but the opposite. I am saying the correspondence is accurate.

He quotes me again: “Let me add this. I have published over 2900 articles on the web, many of them with scientific data and information. So far not one person has found one scientific error in anything I have written. If you think I am so much in error then go ahead and find even one. Make my day.”

It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that any fool with a $50 computer and $10 of internet access can publish all they want. So, why are you claiming this as a ‘badge of greatness’? It seems foolish to me.

You likely haven’t gotten much feedback because most scientists would look upon your claims as spurious and inconsequential… not worth their time.

JJ: Not a badge of greatness but evidence of my scientific accuracy. I do get reasonable comment on my writings. In fact we have some good analytical thinkers in our group that will call me on any obvious error. I refer to scientific data regularly and one of my treatises deals with nuclear energy from a practical standpoint.

You shouldn’t be confused by this treatise because I use orthodox terminology.

Another reader says this: I’ve not been following this dialogue very closely, but poked my head in for a little this evening, as I was curious what the fuss was about. I’m a scientist by training (B.S. Medical Microbiology, with two years grad work in Physiology, Bioelectrochemistry).

What probably piqued my interest the most was your assertion that in 2900 hundred articles you haven’t made a scientific mistake.

My goodness. I would urge you, JJ, to back away from such statements as they drip with ego. I know you know better, and I’m would suggest that you curve it. It is the “I’m an infallible prophet” complex, and is unbecoming of what you know and teach.

JJ: The statement I made has nothing to do with ego or infallibility. There is no claim or hint of infallibility here and it is a stretch to see it as such. I only claim to be careful in the presentation of any factual information I put out there. Because I am careful it would be difficult (but not impossible) to find errors in data that I place in my writings. This has nothing to do with any claim of infallibility of any doctrine put forward. I have never made any claims about such but have left it up to the readers.

There are many writers in the world today who are careful about their quotes or presentation of data of whom it would be difficult to find any error in the factual information they put forward.

When I write about science, history or whatever I am careful about the facts I relate and it doesn’t take a large ego to challenge anyone to find error when one is confident an error would be difficult to find.

If I write down the numbers one through a hundred in sequence and someone tells me my numbering sequence is full of error it has nothing to do with ego or infallibility to challenge them to find an error in sequence when you are confident your sequence is correct.

It is possible I have some error in my writings according to the relating of current scientific teaching but I was fully confident that my accuser could find none and am still confident.

Now I present a lot of philosophy that cannot be presently proven or disproven by science but this is not a part of the discussion.

Notice that he has found no error so far. If my writings are full of scientific holes (as he says) the job should have been easy for him.

He insulted my intelligence so I placed the challenge to illustrate that the insult was unjustified.

Reader: JJ is into religious teachings, and he does very well there. He is clearly no scientist.

So JJ, don’t egg a scientist into debate about your science. You will come out looking pretty bad. As long as you wear the philosopher hat, you’re fine; we’ll cut you slack on your science.

JJ: I think one should give an example of any bad science I present before telling me I am no good at it. I can hold my own with any argument or discussion with any scientist. An illogical scientist is no different than an illogical guru. I am not likely to argue much with a logical scientist as his reasoning may be sound.

It doesn’t matter who is presenting a case, sound logic and reason are essential and if someone has a PhD and lacks this he will lose to the layman with common sense.

The guy from the other group continues: That’s the assertion I am making… that the premises you use to write the Molecular Relationship are erroneous.

JJ: Let us give the audience here the premise of the Molecular Relationship so they can accurately judge. In a nutshell it is this.

Atoms unite in various combinations to form molecules. Once formed the molecules have different properties than do the original atoms. Even so, the original atoms still exist and can be separated from the molecule and resume their original identity and properties.

Humans have a higher correspondence to atoms even though it is not exact there are strong similarities.

As individual humans we have certain properties, but when humans unite in various combinations the individual remains, but the group properties are different and enhanced. For example, a married couple has different properties, characteristics and abilities than does a single individual. An organized body of people such as in a business or think tank has different properties than does a single individual or a married couple.

Now the Molecular Relationship takes human relationships to a higher level by teaching that higher properties still can be manifest in humans when the relationship between two or more people is united through soul or spiritual energy. This happened with Jesus and the twelve apostles and caused higher properties to manifest.

The Molecular Relationship merely operates on the truth of the very ancient maxim of that which is below corresponds to that which is above.

I would be interested in seeing any opinion as to why this teaching runs contrary to any established science. In stating this it must be realized that science has little if anything to say about the future science of human relationships nor is any claim made in this direction.

He continues: I’ve already pointed to two fallacious premises… one being his premise that all things are in opposition (positive or negative therefore male or female…

JJ: Are you maintaining that atoms are not created through the interplay of negative electrons and positive protons? I have never heard anyone, even with an elementary scientific background, teach this.

Comment: along with his assertion that there is no such thing as neutrals;

JJ: This is one of my teachings which is new and not taught by modern science BUT it does not run contrary to any scientific knowledge. Instead, it is supported by it. Some of the discoveries on Titan, for instance, ran contrary to scientific thought, but did not contradict any fact that was previously established.

I teach a basic principle, supported by science, which is this.

All creation takes place through the process of energies combining to create greater balance. Atoms, for instance, form molecules by the sharing of electrons which creates more balance through the filling of their outer electron shells.

Now an ion is definitely recognized as being out of balance, but other atoms such as an inert gas are seen as stable.

I maintain that even though an atom or a neutron appears stable and neutral that there is still a slight imbalance of energy and thus still has a charge, even though that charge may be extremely small. There is no way to prove this in the present, especially as far as the neutron is concerned, so my teaching on this mater neither agrees or disagrees with current science. It does, however, agree with reason.

(NOTE: A study made two years after this conversation concludes:

“Neutrons not so neutral after all, study says” LINK

Comment: and two that love and light is an example of opposition (to Love) in the same fashion as the male/female or positive/negative pairs.

JJ: Love is a magnetic force that pulls toward a united center and as such corresponds to female energy which is receiving and draws toward a center. Light radiates outward from a center and corresponds to male energy which is radiatory and sending.

Example: The female egg receives the male sperm which is radiated or sent.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who do not” (author unknown)

Aug 21, 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

The Flood and Karma

The Flood and Karma

Question: Can you shed some light Atlantis, Enoch and the flood?

JJ: According to Theosophists Atlantis developed on two large Islands and a third smaller one over millions of years reaching its peak around a million years ago.

The larger island was named Ruta and was in the Pacific. The smaller was called Daitya and was in the Indian Ocean. A third smaller still was about the size of Ireland and was called Poseidonis located in the Atlantic.

Ruta and a part of Daitya suffered a great catastrophe about 850,000 years ago and sank. This did not happen instantly, but over a period of time.

The second great catastrophe happened about 200,000 years ago with the final submergence of Daitya.

The final sinking occurred about 9564 BC with the sinking of Poseidonis. This was the Atlantis referred to by Plato.

Since that time there have been other floods and catastrophes. The flood of Noah could have referred to a large regional flood around the time specified in the Bible or it could be extended to symbolize the many floods which have occurred in history where the Brotherhood have worked to salvage a few enlightened souls to begin anew.

Because we have such a long history it makes it difficult to place legendary characters in their right place in history. Some believe that Enoch was Hermes, the legendary son of Zeus.

The truth is Hermes was a great teacher of ancient date who is said to have lived 12,500 years ago, written over 24,000 books on every subject one can imagine and designed the Great Pyramid.

Another Reader comments: I came across this principle in a book (The Revelation Of Ramala) and would like for you all to run it past your soul and tell me if you think it is correct.

“A person cannot be the cause of another’s death unless the person responsible for the death is of an equal or higher level of spiritual evolution.”

If you think that this principle is difficult to work in a war, the second world war for example, Hitler and Churchill were basically responsible for many of the killings and not the soldiers themselves. These two were both advanced souls.

JJ: This is a teaching with a thread of truth, which if misunderstood could lead to disaster.

The thread of truth is this.

In war conditions a commander who orders men into dangerous situations should be more highly evolved than those whom he commands. For instance, Washington and Lincoln were highly evolved souls who ordered many men into life-or-death situations. There is nothing worse than for a highly evolved soul to be under the command of an ignoramus. But the lesser evolved can be inspired by the more intelligent, even if it be an evil genius such as Hitler and such people will risk death because of respect for the one giving the command.

The illusionary and wrong interpretation of this is the highly evolved have a life and death power over other souls.

David made this mistake and had Uriah killed so he could have his wife Bathsheba. The Bible tells us he was condemned by God’s prophet for doing this.

The higher evolved can lead others into danger for a great cause and be justified, but if they take the life of another with selfish intent, either high or low, they will suffer the effects of karma just like anyone else.

It would have solved a problem for Jesus if he had just killed Judas, but such a thought never entered his consciousness. If he had acted on such a thing he could not have been the Christ.

Question: Just to clarify exactly what you are saying here in regards to “taking the life of another,” it is not the case that you are saying that in _all_ cases if you take the life of another you will receive some negative karma, is it?

JJ: Every action or cause brings an either positive or negative effect. Notice that I said the high and low will receive the same effects. Just like the effects of gravity can be used for good or evil, and affects the high and low the same way, even so the high and low will suffer the results of the cause of a death through the same principles.

Of course, the circumstances of the death will determine the ultimate effect. If a person has to take a life in self-defense, then the true cause of that death is the attacker, not the one forced to defend. If you jump off a cliff and kill yourself the cause of the death is your decision to jump, not the gravity that pulled you to your death.

Now the effects I am talking about are divorced from emotion. Add emotion to the problem and the results will be different, even with gravity.

Two people fall off a ladder and break their arms. In the same circumstances they suffered the same effects.

Now add emotion in the mix.

The one man is optimistic, heals fast and goes back to work.

The second man is negative, fearful and refuses to get on a ladder again and loses his job. He feels even God is against him and his life is ruined.

The two men suffered different effects not because of gravity, but because of the added cause of emotion that they placed in the circumstance themselves.

The main difference between the highly evolved and the lesser is the emotional ingredient. Both suffer the same effects from cause but the truly spiritual person will not add in an extra negative emotional cause to add more pain to the situation than necessary.

Question: Jesus said to the Father when He was on the cross, something to the effect of “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do”….. so if the *Father forgives* does this in effect, wipe out the karmic debt to be repaid to/by those people or race;….. or from “forgiveness” from a higher entity such as the Christ etc, does this stamp out cause and effect or karma for people via the Lords of Karma?

JJ: To forgive does not release another from the results of his karma or cause and effect.

If you give me a black eye and I forgive you I still have a black eye and you are still affected by what you did.

Forgiveness relives the people from the emotional condemnation. Lower emotion is created by the interplay of mind and etheric energy and is a temporary energy full of illusion. This illusion is dispelled through forgiveness but cause and effect in the physical and the world of mind continue.

Jesus was aware that those who put him to death did not know what they were doing but felt they were righteously doing their job. This included the Roman soldiers and most of the Jewish leaders. He knew that many would later realize they put an innocent and righteous man to death and when this realization came, he didn’t think they deserved to suffer because of emotional condemnation of themselves. He wanted the Father to safeguard them from this future emotional torment.

Seeing the movie, The Robe, would add understanding to this. Richard Burton played the Roman soldier who wound up with the robe of Jesus. After he realized what he did he suffered excruciating guilt and pain. This is what Jesus wanted the forgiveness to nullify.

If you haven’t seen this movie, I would suggest you rent it.

Question: However, was not Hitler the effect from a cause set in motion via the Jews or their race? If Hitler was an effect to a cause of something the Jews did in the past, perhaps even from Jesus’ time on Earth, then the effect was still there for them, and so, did the Father really forgive those people (Jews?)

JJ: First, Hitler would have surfaced with or without the Jews. Killing the Jews was more of an afterthought for him. Even if the Jews did not exist he would have sought for power and convinced the people of various enemies who needed to be destroyed to secure his power.

Only a handful of Jews had anything to do with the death of Jesus and this event had little to do with the problems the race had in Germany. The cause of their problems there was because of various seeds of exclusivity that had to be worked out. The peaceful existence the Jews enjoy in the United States is a foreshadowing of what they need to accomplish world-wide.

Wisdom is knowing what to do next; virtue is doing it. David Starr Jordan (1851 – 1931), American naturalist

Aug 14, 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