Extremism and Critics

Extremism and Critics

Our critical friend disagrees with me on extremism and says that the true extremist stands in the middle.

It sounds like he is being contrary to be contrary again. Tell me this. How could anyone following the Middle Way see an extremist who cuts off an innocent victim’s head off with a dull knife while praising Allah as a person who is in the middle?

I attempt to stand in the middle and see these people, as well as snake handlers on the Christian side, as extremists. If you want to call them as standing in the middle you may be the first one on the planet to do so. I do not think that even these extremists see themselves as in the middle, though it is true that as the pendulum swings, people point to all points on it and make accusations of extremism.

Next he claims that everyone sees themselves as in the middle.

I think a lot of extremists see themselves as being in the extreme, but for a good cause, of course.

Take Barry Goldwater who said: Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

He was seen as an extremist by most Democrats and he happily admitted to it.

Before moving on I thought I would attempt to teach a principle that my critics would be wise to incorporate.

Principle: It is easy to destroy, but difficult to build.

This principle applies when dealing with the various teachings available.

Notice that my recent critic takes my words and tries to destroy their meaning rather than to look for the truth therein and build upon that.

Just imagine if he sat at the feet of Jesus and challenged him as he does me.

Jesus: Love your enemies.

Critic: This is nonsense. Why do you think you have enemies? Enemies and friends are two sides of the same coin. There are no enemies for all things are pure.

Jesus: Blessed are the pure in heart.

Critic: Nonsense again. We are all pure in heart. No one is impure.

Jesus: Deliver us from evil.

Critic: You are a false teacher Jesus. There is no evil except for what is in your mind.

Jesus: The father waits for the prodigal son to return.

Critic: Nonsense again. The prodigal son never left.

Jesus: The truth shall make you free.

Critic: What truth? You are only looking at one side and see half the truth. You need to listen to me to get the other half.

Jesus: Blessed are the merciful

Critic: We are all merciful and all blessed. There is no need to call for a blessing that has already been meted out.

Jesus: Go the extra mile.

Critic: There is no such thing as an extra mile. The infinite is found in one mile.

Jesus: Sin no more.

Critic: There is no sin, no evil and no good. They are all one.

Jesus: Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Critic: Wrong message. God’s will is already done everywhere.

I think we get the point here. There is no master, no teacher or wise man who is capable of uttering words that cannot be attacked. It is the easiest thing in the world to take any words, even the words of the greatest of us all, and declare them to be wrong by the use of sophistic logic.

It is another matter still to look for the truth behind those words and add additional light.

Let me issue a call to the group to do the latter. Sure, if I make a blatant error point it out. Assaf does this quite successfully with my Hebrew while still seeing the good, the beautiful and the true. We find what we are looking for. Let us look for the true with more attention than the false so in the light we can see more light.

Let me give the group my philosophy on how I react if I see something I consider negative from another person.

No matter how dumb the statement I never call the person stupid, dumb, ignorant, boring etc. Neither do I call any person a derogatory name or use a swear word directed at them.

Instead, what I do is to isolate the statement or philosophy that may show some ignorance and comment and elaborate on that.

For instance, a very intelligent person may utter a dumb statement. If I criticize such a statement, I am only criticizing a non-entity, not the person himself. Such a dumb thought may count for less than one percent of his thinking process, the rest of which could be brilliant.

I think you can go over the millions of words I have written and do not think a reader can find one direct insult I have ever made to a reader. Instead, if I have a criticism, I will isolate his or her words and analyze them.

That said, let me again offer a piece of advice I have given many times to those who criticize me.

Please argue with what I do say; not with what I have not said.

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger. Franklin P. Jones

July 2, 2006

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

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE

Simplicity and Initiation

Simplicity and Initiation

Question: How would a dark brother react to a disciple extending love to him or her?

The Dark Brother would see a true unselfish act of love as a stupid gesture and would not register the feeling of love expressed.

Then too, there is a segment of the population who do not let themselves feel spiritual love but feel the selfish aspect of love attraction is all there is.

While it is true that an act of love is registered as a similar feeling among all those who are willing to feel it, there are a number of variations of love energy released through the heart center as it unfolds. Therefore, those who send love, send it out in a variety of levels. Pure love energy is much more universally recognized in a receiving state than it is wielded in a sending state.

On another note, a reader brought up an interesting apparent paradox which is basically this:

[1] The true seer sees the simplicity behind all things.

[2] But evolution is causing the end of the various creations to become more complex.

There is a lot of illusion around the simplicity principle. Many religious people emphasize Christ’s statement that we must become like a little child and think that little children should be our teachers. Some teach we must shut down our minds and just follow authorities without thinking, as a child may do.

Jesus was emphasizing that we must be open-minded like children, not that we should blindly follow as a child, or cry every time we skin our knees.

Anyone capable of reasoning can see that there are many benefits to being an adult – that an adult can understand many things that a child cannot.

That said, it is true that evolution is causing creation to become more complex. Just look at our cells and the DNA. It is so complex that we have only recently mapped the human genome using the most sophisticated computers in the world. If it took all our intelligence just to map it, just imagine the complex thinking it took to create it from scratch. But when higher forms are created the complexity will be greater still.

Even though there is great complexity in our universe all forms can be reduced to simplicity. All is created from the great Trinity of positive, negative and the originating point. From the multiplicity of this and the interplay of countless pieces of intelligent creation we have the majesty of complex creation that boggles the mind.

The true seer looks at the complexity of all things and attempts to understand it. As he understands he seeks to reduce the complex to the simple by tracing it back to its source. As he does this, he begins to understand in simplicity no matter how interwoven is the complex. He sees the principles behind all things rather than all the details.

In all cases complex creation can be reduced to a simple duality such as complex programs being reduced to 0 and 1. The seer will look for the trail that leads from the complex to the simple so understanding can be complete.

I received some questioning on this statement: “Initiates are usually less disruptive than average in an environment like this group. Beginners are usually the difficult ones.”

Two contradictory statements cannot both be true. Either beginners are the most disruptive or the initiates are.

I submit that it is the beginners who are the most disruptive.

Look at Christ in the temple when he was 12. He was not disruptive, but interesting.

Then later when he was seen as disruptive, he was minding his own business. He didn’t enter the meetings of the Sanhedrin and try to force his views upon them. He taught and healed among the people where the authorities shouldn’t have cared less. But they did care because it was the authorities who were disruptive, not the Christ. The authorities went out of their way to attack the Christ–not the other way around, except that one time he chased the moneychangers out of the temple.

One of my critics accused me of suppressing real initiates by not allowing them to continue forever on their own line of discourse and objections.

First, let me clarify the purpose of this group. Simply put, it is this. It is to raise a beacon of light and in doing so attract or gather the lights.

This group is a classroom. A classroom is not a place conducive for students to initiate. It is a place to learn, to be inspired and in the process, some may initiate outside the classroom situation.

Let us look at initiates in history.

Jesus: Any attempt to initiate in a classroom for him? No.

The apostles? They did not initiate while they were students. They initiated when they became teachers in their own right.

Buddha: He learned under many teachers and never initiated a thing until he became a teacher himself.

Lincoln: Did he initiate anything of consequence while attending school? Not hardly.

Churchill: He initiated through his writings, speeches and his bold actions during and after the war.

What is there for a student to initiate while learning in a class? Very little. It is a time of preparation. Agreeing or disagreeing with the teacher has nothing to do with initiating. One has to create something to initiate. If one has not created something or assisted in it then nothing has been initiated.

Is everyone here just twiddling their thumbs then with no initiating going on?

No. For one thing if one is a good student, he has accomplished a lot right there. One must master receiving before he can give through initiating.

In addition, many here who are receiving on one hand and sending on the other and are working to initiate different things.

Larry initiated the archives as they are now, but he did this outside the classroom.

John Wayne Kline is always busy working on getting something going locally and internationally.

John Crane is working on a book.

Rick initiated the Keys group.

A Keys student who is in prison is initiating new teaching ideas there that the prison system may use nationwide.

Marilyn initiated the editing and storage of all the Keys writings and this task has been taken over by Chrissie.

Glenys started her own forum and has been successful in spreading the Ancient Wisdom.

Anni initiated translating my books into Danish and publishing them.

Dan and Adam are initiating a project to use computer programs to translate my works into other languages.

Susan, Sharón and Mindy volunteered to edit my writings.

Robert initiated his own podcast.

Perhaps the closest work directly related to this forum was Bryan initiating the daily quotes, which has been continued by Ruth.

There are other good members working at initiating projects but this group should present the general idea–that initiating is going on and the sign of it is that something is being created that benefits others.

Arguing with the teacher has nothing to do with initiating anything. Now if a student thinks the teacher is out to lunch and moves on and creates his own teaching that draws a significant audience and changes them for the better then he could lay claim to initiating something.

Yes, initiating is about change, but my critic made no positive change in this classroom, nor was one desired.

Plato was an initiate, but while a student of Socrates he did not try and introduce a whole new brand of doctrine or teaching method. He was extremely respectful and cooperative in his classes and began initiating only after Socrates was gone.

It’s not the hours you put in your work that counts, it’s the work you put in the hours. Sam Ewing

June 28, 2006

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

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE

Principles of Discovery – Part 8

Principles of Discovery – Part 8

Quoting myself from the previous post:

“One of the key ingredients to effective person to person communication is that those attempting to so communicate use the same definition of words. This was the reason that I defined the word “channel” a while back so the group could use the word with unity of definition.

“Let us pick a popular word and demonstrate how even our fairly enlightened group will have different definitions of it.

“That word is LOVE.”

As happened last time, I was surprised by the quantity and diversity of thought expressed by the group – all of it good and valuable for contemplation.

If I had to express it briefly, I would say love is a magnetic pull that draws all life back to its source and in that process unites that life.

Now the interesting thing about love is this. When another person performs a true unselfish act of love in our direction a feeling of love is registered in our breasts. This feeling is the same for all of us.

Even though we all feel the same energy when love is registered no two of us seem to be able to explain what we felt in the same way.

Some say it is a state of mind. Others say it is a verb. Still others an emotional feeling, a creative force, the foundation of creation and even what God is.

So, we have a feeling that we all register and sense in a similar way yet we all define and express it differently. It is quite possible to take two people who have felt the same energy of love yet argue about what it is because their words they chose to communicate the word veil the actual truth of the experience that both have felt in the same way.

This is the problem of communicating from personality to personality. Two personalities can take exactly the same experience yet present it in such different ways that the two will soon be swearing that the other guy has no idea what love is.

Two personalities may have a similar view of God, yet because they call Him/She/It by different names they may see the other as an enemy of such God.

The problem with the personality is that even if two people experience or believe in essentially the same thing our filters cause us to see the other as one who is much different from ourselves.

The solution is soul-to-soul communication rather than personality-to-personality.

When there is soul-to-soul communication concerning love (or any other subject) why is there perfect communication even though the two may have different ways of explaining it?

How do we achieve this soul-to-soul communication? What are the obstacles in the path?

Few people are ready for true soul-to-soul communication. Such communion comes after many lifetimes of frustration due to the limitations of the personality or lower self. Then the time comes that the frustration and pain become so great that the pilgrim lifts his downward focused eyes upward in the initially shaky belief that there has to be something more fulfilling.

Many of those who read these words will have passed through various dark nights and will be ready for something higher.

For those who are seeking here are some helpful steps towards soul-to-soul communion.

[1] The first step is to desire higher communication. Many are comfortable in the world of personality communication, for sterile words without life hide meanings and distort the true thoughts behind them. This distortion produces a comfortable illusion behind which many hide until they can hide no more.

[2] The seeker must believe that soul-to-soul communication is possible. Without this belief his search will wither and die from lack of attention.

[3] Once the desire and belief in higher communion is recognized the seeker must actively seek to acquire and master it. Nothing of value is just dumped in our laps. Hard work and focus is as important here as in any other endeavor.

[4] Search for others who feel they have achieved soul-to-soul communication to a degree and learn from them.

[5] Seek communion with your own soul. Only when you have found your own soul can you then discover the soul of others.

[6] Understand the difference between soul-to-soul communication and personality communication. Soul communication looks beyond the black and white meanings of words to the thought and principles behind the words. “Reading between the lines” is the first step to higher communion.

[7] Feel true love toward those with whom you desire higher communion. Words given and received with love become alive and carry the thoughts of God within them.

[8] Believe in the natural goodness of others and see the Christ within all, especially those with whom you touch the soul.

[9] Hold no grievance toward any person.

[10] When the soul of another is touched make sure the experience is firmly rooted in your memory. Recalling this memory often will renew your faith and give you the stamina to continue on the path until another contact comes.

[11] Be aware of your own state of consciousness. When you slip away from the soul recognize what is happening and refocus. Keep your mind steady in the light.

[12] Seek to bring the communion of the soul with those who have it not. By giving that which you have received you will call forth others higher than yourself who will lift you to higher ground.

A person who trusts no one can’t be trusted. Jerome Blattner

June 28, 2006

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

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE

Principles of Discovery – Part 7

Principles of Discovery – Part 7
Effective Communication

The Question: How does giving and receiving effective communication aid in discovering the truth?

At least part of this answer is pretty obvious. Without communication of some type the word “truth” would have no meaning to us humans. A truth has to be given and received through communication before it can be registered as such by our consciousness. Even though 2+2=4 whether you are conscious of it or not, this truth will be as though it does not exist to your universe until the knowledge of it is communicated to you.

A tree does fall in a forest even though no one sees or hears it, but until this information is communicated to your consciousness, it has not fallen for you.

There are several levels of communication in our search for discovery.

[1] Communication through perception of the outside world.

[2] Person-to-person communication.

[3] Communication through the soul.

If each of us could just have accurate communication on these three levels we would rarely disagree. We could all see the truth together and have a wonderful union.

So why is this not the case? Why do so many of us disagree on even simple things?

The Course in Miracles gives a good reason for this. It tells us that we “see only the past.”

Thus, when two of us look upon the outside world with the same instruments of perception we see two different realities because the present is filtered through the memory of the past.

Let us use a football game as an example. On one side we have a cheering section for team A and on the other we have one for team B.

Both groups of fans are perceiving the same game, but the filters of the past cause entirely different perceptions.

If the referee calls a penalty for team A, team B fans will cheer him while team A fans may boo him off the field.

Both groups have the same perception, but different vision because of seeing the past blended in with the present.

Now let us suppose that all memory of all fans present was taken from them concerning the two teams

Let us suppose the referee once again gives a penalty to team A. Now what will their reaction be?

I think we can all visualize here that, by taking away the vision of the past blended with the present, that suddenly the two sides would see the penalty very close to the way it really was. In other words, if two people keep their consciousness in the present (as a little child) and refuse to let the past distort their vision they will see as one. They will both see the truth as it is happening now.

Even though an eyewitness has the greatest possible credibility in court, studies have shown that they are much less reliable than the juries believe them to be.


Because their vision of the event is clouded by their memory of the past there is distortion, but there is one more reason: Faulty memory.

Our vision of the present is distorted by mingling it with the past, and the present is further distorted by imperfect memory bringing a distorted past forward as a cloudy filter, making it difficult to see the present truth.

Another thing that distorts the vision of the past is emotion. Even if you have a good memory, a very positive or negative feeling associated with a past perception can fog the vision for the present. For instance, you may have met the quarterback of Team A and found him very charming and even gave you an autograph. Then later you bumped into the quarterback of Team B and he barked at you to watch where you are going.

Even though you remember everything accurately you bring the feeling from the past into the present and decide you want Team A to win because the quarterback was a nice guy. Maybe Team B has more nice guys than team A, but you don’t care. The first quarterback planted a positive emotion in you and this greatly influences your present vision. The referee calls a fair penalty against Team A and you shout him down and call him a blind idiot.

Now the question is: How can we use this knowledge to increase the accuracy of our perceptions thus increasing our ability to perceive truth?

Quite simple. The first thing to always keep in our consciousness is the realization that the past does distort the present. Therefore, use memories of the past very sparingly as you perceive the present and when they are used make sure you only use items that are remembered correctly. Test your memory now and then and get an idea of how accurate it is so when you do filter through memory you will take into account a margin of error.

Also test your feelings and recognize the influence they have on you. When the referee makes a call you do not like, detach yourself from your feelings for a moment and ask yourself if the call was really fair. Do not allow yourself to see the call through your feelings. Instead, use pure present perception and accept what your perception gives you, even if it hurts.

Sports fans should be pleased here that even a game, or should we say, especially a game, can be a great exercise in the correct registration of reality.

There are two main communications left that reveal truth which are:

[1] Person-to-person communication and…

[2] Communication through the soul.

Does seeing the past also distort these two communications? How about faulty memory and past feelings? Do they also play a part?

We have always maintained that communication through the soul is accurate, but can even this be distorted by the past, feelings and faulty memory?

Now, let us go to the second category: Person-to-person communication.

If a teacher has a truth to reveal, but finds that he is unable to communicate it in such a way that his vision is perceived correctly then the truth stays with the teacher and nothing is given out. Perhaps the student through misunderstanding will decide the teacher is out to lunch and shuts off any reception that he previously had–all this because of lack of effective person-to-person communication.

Listen to any two friends have an argument. Often they are both making good points, but just don’t understand what the other is trying to say. If they could only understand, perhaps they would realize that they do not disagree after all.

It is interesting that many of the arguments that have happened in this group have occurred because of lack of understanding of another’s point of view. I’d say that over half the time I spend in handling confrontations is merely spent in clarifying something that I have already said, but is misunderstood by someone out there.

One of the key ingredients to effective person-to-person communication is that those attempting to so communicate use the same definition of words. This was the reason that I defined the word “channel” a while back so the group could use the word with unity of definition.

Let us pick a popular word and demonstrate how even our fairly enlightened group will have different definitions of it.

That word is LOVE.

The assignment for today: Give your definition of Love in 100 words or less.

“Destiny is no matter of chance. It is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.” William Jennings Bryan (1860 – 1925)

June 27, 2006

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

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE


Final Logic


Final Logic

I must have written around a hundred thousand words on duality. There have been times that the group has been distracted for months talking about it and it was very frustrating to members to endure the same arguments over and over. I tried to respond with different insights, stories and parables to keep the dialog interesting. I covered it thoroughly so I would not have to do so again.

The “two sides of the same coin” argument was sent to me many times as if it were proof that what I was saying was incorrect when it had little or nothing to do with what I was saying. Even if we look at duality in this manner heads is still not tails. They are two different aspects of the trinity of reality.

Now we have entered a discussion with no end on predeterminism or predestination.

A lot of what has been argued about is based on semantics rather than principles. To most people two apples is a definite finite number of apples, but anyone can use a play on words to argue otherwise just as one can argue there is green cheese on the moon. It is wearisome to argue on a play on words rather than dealing with principles.

After some contemplation I have come up with logical proof that predestination is not correct and all is not happening at once in this reality.

Here it is:

[1] Time is caused by motion of form.

[2] Without motion there would be no time, space or matter for even the tiniest atom is created by waves in motion. Without motion all we see around us would cease to exist.

[3] All motion takes us toward a future point in time.

[4] If the future point in time is really in the present then there could be no motion for there would be nothing for motion to take us to.

[5] Again, if there is no motion, there is no time.

[6] If there is no motion and no time there is no form, no past, no present (as we know it) and no future.

[7] Therefore, because we do experience motion we have to be moving toward a future that is not yet formed.

[8] If the future is not yet formed then predicting it with exactness would require a knowledge of all existing causes in play.

[9] Even though this is theoretically possible another element comes into play that cannot be entered into any calculation. This element is intelligent decision.

[10] Because a decision can be made that runs contrary to all calculations, all data and all expectation, the exact future cannot be known in the present.

Our objecting reader seems to think that all decisions are predictable because “Nothing runs contrary to cause and effect.”

Okay. Someone throws a coin in the air and I am to call heads or tails. What causes and effects would you plug into God or your supercomputer to predict whether I will call heads or tails?

Let’s repeat this 1000 times. What causes and effects would you use to predict my call 1000 times without fail?

To this the reader still thinks cause and effect can predict such a thing in advance.

Okay then, how will you use this knowledge of cause and effect to consistently predict whether I will call heads or tails?

To this he gives the reasoning that each flip of the coin has a cause and is predictable in advance.

To this I would ask how this understanding (which we all have) can lead one to successfully predict whether the coin will land on heads or tails? What causes and effects would you plug into your super computer or universal mind to know a day in advance that you would be flipping a coin and what call you would make?

The reader then keeps falling back on the fact that there is a cause behind all things including flipping a coin. He seems to think I am going contrary to universal law

No one is talking about breaking any universal law. Just tell us how one could use this law to predict whether I will choose heads or tails.

You cannot because it cannot be done because one of the universal laws is the uncertainty principle. Science has elaborated on this but it extends to other things such as decision making.

He tells us that a dog can be taught to roll over on command and then we can predict when he will roll over.

But this is not an example of decision. This is an example of programming. It’s like your heart is programmed to beat and has nothing to do with your conscious decisions.

Animals do make some decisions on an elementary level, but to see this you have to put them in a situation where their instincts or programming does not take charge of their actions. If you put two paths before an animal and the choice is not related to his instincts, you will then see an elementary unpredictable decision made.

Many apparent choices humans make are not decisions but just people following a program. If a kid is indoctrinated in a certain religion and  acquiesces decision and does what he is told, then no decision is involved. On the other hand, if he thinks about what he is doing and rebels then he is using his power of decision.

Perhaps the simplest decision is the choice between two things where no programming is involved, such as the choice of heads or tails.

He thinks programming causes decisions and this is not true. Programming can influence us, but not necessarily decide for us. We are not computers or robots. We are living unpredictable beings who can decide between two alternatives.

He then tells us that a higher intelligence can understand our decisions and predict our exact future.

If what he says is correct then a scientist should be able to put a rat in a maze he has not seen before and predict each turn he will make. He cannot. If we cannot predict what a rat will do what makes you think that anything higher could predict all the decisions we would make? Why would It even want to? Would you want to know everything every rat decides to do?

Then he tells me I am breaking universal law thinking I am above cause and effect.

Where do you keep getting this nonsensical accusation that I think I am above universal law? I think no such thing. I keep telling you this and you seem to get amnesia or something about what I have told you.

He says I think that I am unpredictable to those more evolved.

Use the law of correspondences. Those lesser evolved than us are not 100 percent predictable to us, even so we are not fully predictable to those above us. DK said that Christ and the Masters of Wisdom could not predict all human decisions.

I am still waiting for an answer to this question:

Someone throws a coin in the air and I am to call heads or tails. What causes and effects would you plug into God or your supercomputer to predict whether I will call heads or tails during the 1000 flips?

The reader has danced around this, but given no answer. If he has no answer then he should consider that the future may not be completely determined.

Even with the best of maps and instruments, we can never fully chart our journeys. Gail Pool

June 18, 2006

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

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE


The Kybalion and More

The Kybalion and More

This argument on predestination is getting about as futile as arguing that the moon being made of green cheese. This is a doctrine popular during the dark ages and partially responsible for keeping the people in their darkness. Many felt it was fruitless to use free will to change anything, as everything was already determined.

Next this reader tells me that my teachings on infinity are not in harmony with the Kybalion

I took a look at the Kybalion this evening which can be found at this website:

It is interesting that the Kybalion was supposed to be written by Hermes and some think he was Hermes.

I read some of the Kybalion and some commentary this evening and it says quite a few things in alignment with my teachings. Ironically, it says some things that run contrary to what some here have been teaching.

The text I read says:

“We do not wish to enter into a consideration of Free Will, or Determinism, in this work, for various reasons. Among the many reasons, is the principal one that neither side of the controversy is entirely right–in fact, both sides are partially right, according to the Hermetic Teachings.”

This is in harmony with what I have taught, that both extremes of this teaching are incorrect. Our predestination friend teaches the extreme that all, every detail, has been previously decided. The Kybalion says that this idea is only “partially right.” The other extreme, that nothing is determined or predictable, is also only “partially right.”

I agree with the Kybalion 100 percent on this.

This is also supported in this statement:

“And yet, do not make the mistake of supposing that Man is but a blind automaton–far from that. The Hermetic Teachings are that Man may use Law to overcome laws, and that the higher will always prevail against the lower, until at last he has reached the stage in which he seeks refuge in the LAW itself, and laughs the phenomenal laws to scorn. Are you able to grasp the inner meaning of this?”

As I started reading I saw a major contraction within the teachings of the Kybalion itself. It says this:


It thus says that the ALL is undefinable and then proceeds spending a good portion of the book defining it. It says it is unknowable and proceeds to explain it so we can know what it is.

If God or “the All” were truly unknowable and undefinable then it would be silly to define it as “infinite” as does the Kybalion. If it were truly undefinable and unknowable there is no way anyone could be consistent and define it as infinite or all knowing. All one could say is that he doesn’t know what the dickens it is, how big it is, how smart it is or any of its characteristics.

On the positive side I thought this statement from the Kybalion was good and in harmony with my teachings about God:

“Following the Principle of Correspondence, we are justified in considering that THE ALL creates the Universe MENTALLY, in a manner akin to the process whereby Man creates Mental Images. And, here is where the report of Reason tallies precisely with the report of the Illumined, as shown by their teachings and writings. Such are the teachings of the Wise Men. Such was the Teaching of Hermes. THE ALL can create in no other way except mentally, without either using material (and there is none to use), or else reproducing itself (which is also impossible). There is no escape from this conclusion of the Reason, which, as we have said, agrees with the highest teachings of the Illumined. Just as you, student, may create a Universe of your own in your mentality, so does THE ALL create Universes in its own Mentality.”

The writer uses the term “mentally” for want of a better word. I use the foundation word of Purpose and the Trinity of Purpose/Decision/Intelligence and Purpose/Light/love as it manifests in creation.

It says: “THE ALL can create in no other way except mentally, without either using material (and there is none to use).

This is in harmony with my teachings that matter has no solid material but is only Purpose in vibration. I have also said that man’s imagination is a reflection of God’s imagination and we both use this principle to create. The main difference is that ‘we cannot out imagine God’ and thus what is unlimited with God appears infinite to the human point of view.”

It says: “Just as you, student, may create a Universe of your own in your mentality, so does THE ALL create Universes in its own Mentality.”

I can see why a reader thought I may have taken a few things from this book as this is a principle I endorse.

My critic says this: “Just like hot and cold is part of the same thing. With different degrees in between the two. There is no place where hot and cold starts or stops. There is no place where finite starts, and infinite stops.”

Actually, cold starts at minus 459 degrees Fahrenheit, and hot cannot exceed the temperature where particles vibrate faster than light. There is a beginning, end and middle to all things in the world of form including hot and cold.

Our friend continues with a number of objections to my teachings, some the result of misunderstanding. Here are some of my clarifications:

Objection: You believe God makes mistakes.

To deny there is such a thing as a mistake is to deny the reality in which we live. Would you call DaVinci ignorant because he made mistakes before he finished the Mona Lisa? Can you find a perfect world among the billions of stars?

Objection: You think God creates without knowing what will happen

God knows the end which he has imagined but does not know all the details in between, nor would any intelligent being want to know. Why would Leonardo want to know how many times he would have to relieve himself in the process of painting the Mona Lisa? Why would God want to know about all the times you scratched your armpit as you are assisting in manifesting a creation? It’s silly when you think about it.

Objection: No hinderance is possible with God.

But the Kybalion says God is unknowable, so how can you claim to know this and accept the book?

God’s will always manifest, but it works its way through many hindrances. Without such hindrances creation would be no fun and God would not even participate. Would you play Monopoly if you got the roll of the dice you wanted each time? No, you would not. Neither would God.

As God jumps into the game of creation and life through His reflections (us) He has to figure things out through us to manifest his will. It’s not that we are made the way we are on purpose. We have always been and are not created because (as the Kybalion says) THE ALL is in ALL. As creation manifests, we all have to plow with the horses we have until mastery is attained. This is verified by reality.

Objection: You think that God is without order .

I have never said God is without order. What makes things unpredictable is not chaos for chaos is fairly predictable. What makes things unpredictable is intelligence making decisions. Intelligence produces order, not chaos, and the decisions of one who is intelligent are the most difficult things to predict.

Example: Before World War II DK tells us that Christ and his Hierarchy thought they had the path of evolution into the new age figured out. Then an evil genius named Hitler made decisions that were not foreseen and created situations that caused the Hierarchy to reformulate many of their plans. We will still enter the new age as planned, but the path is different than anticipated.

Objection: You do not acknowledge that good and evil are two sides of the one polarity.

There is no such thing as two sides of a duality being the same polarity. By definition a polarity can only exist when the pull is to one side of the duality.

Dualities exist in our world, but are an illusion originating from a place where there are no polarities, except in t

Objection: There can be no problems where God’s will rules.

I would like to know where you get the idea that there can be no problems, no errors and no mistakes in life. This is not taught in the Kybalion or by any teacher of significance I can think of.

Yes, God’s will rules, but part of His will is to have a game with lots of pitfalls so he can enjoy the win in the end.

Objection: Scripture says that the son of man goes as it is written of him. That is another way of explaining predestination if you hadn’t noticed.

I do not notice. This has absolutely nothing to do with determinism as you teach it. There is no argument that some things can be predicted. The argument (perhaps you have not noticed) is whether everything down to the smallest detail can be predicted. In other words, it can be predicted that there will be a crime mentioned in tomorrow’s newspaper, but no one can email me the exact text of the details or tomorrow’s newspaper.

Objection: Your belief in a world beyond time and space is not logical

This is actually explained quite well in the Kybalion. It tells us that all things in form are created from the imagination of the mind of God. This mind does not exist in time and space, but creates it and incarnates within it.

From the Kybalion: “The Teacher instructs the student to form a Mental Image of something, a person, an idea, something having a mental form, the favorite example being that of the author or dramatist forming an idea of his characters; or a painter or sculptor forming an image of an ideal that he wishes to express by his art. In each case, the student will find that while the image has its existence, and being, solely within his own mind, yet he, the student, author, dramatist, painter, or sculptor, is, in a sense, immanent in; remaining within; or abiding within, the mental image also. In other words, the entire virtue, life, spirit, of reality in the mental image is derived from the ‘immanent mind” of the thinker. Consider this for a moment, until the idea is grasped.

“To take a modern example, let us say that Othello, Iago, Hamlet, Lear, Richard III, existed merely in the mind of Shakespeare, at the time of their conception or creation. And yet, Shakespeare also existed within each of these characters, giving them their vitality, spirit, and action.”

Objection: How could a formless world even exist? If there is no form there is nothing, right?

Not quite. The lowest of the formless worlds is a world of essential ideas. Consider the song “Yesterday” by the Beatles. Even before the formation of the Beatles, the essence of the song existed beyond time and space as an idea in the mind of God. As an essential idea it had no form. Then Lennon and McCartney tuned into this formless idea and brought it down into time and space and clothed it with vibration, vinyl and sheet music.

If every piece of form representing this song in this world were destroyed the essential idea would still exist in the formless worlds and take form again somewhere, sometime.

Look at your computer, a coffee cup, your watch… These are all ideas clothed in form. The idea behind each form (including your body) is eternal and exists in the higher worlds and is experienced by pure life energy, which resides there.

To tap into the formless worlds, we must go beyond consciousness in time and space and identify with essential life energy which is one with all other lives in a world of ideas. Actually, living there beyond time and space is beyond regular human consciousness. The best we can do is tap into these higher worlds and bring some inspired ideas from on high down to human consciousness.

I know God will not give me anything I can’t handle. I just wish that He didn’t trust me so much. Mother Teresa (1910 – 1997)

June 17, 2006

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

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE


Principles of Discovery – Part 6

Principles of Discovery – Part 6
The Process of Elimination

Another instrument in the discovery of truth is the Process of Elimination. How do you suppose this principle works? Have you used it yourself to discover truth? Many of us have used this in the game “Twenty Questions.”

Whatever the case this is an important principle of discovery.

Remember the test I gave the group some time ago to guess which one digit number I had in my mind? Since no one was psychic enough to get it they had to use the process of elimination. The group assumed that there were ten one-digit numbers which are 0123456789. After half of them were eliminated, the group ceased using the guessed numbers as possibilities. They were removed through the process of elimination.

Finally, there were two numbers left and then one. Surely the number left was it, but I still said no. None of the ten guessed was what I had written down. The group went into deep meditation (a guess). Since there are ten one-digit numbers and they had guessed them all and none of them was the number then the truth may not have been as obvious as it seemed. Could there be more than ten one-digit numbers, someone finally mused?

Finally, someone used the process of elimination correctly and eliminated all positive numbers from the equation and realized that the answer could be a negative number. After the ten standard digits were eliminated, the group realized that there were nine negative digits that no one had considered yet. In other words, the process of elimination made them consider a possibility that otherwise would have never been looked at.

Finally, when the group realized they were on the right track it was only a short time through the use of the process of elimination that the correct digit was picked. As I remember, it was minus 2.

The interesting thing is that we have a number of psychics in this group, but as it turned out the process of elimination proved more reliable than ESP.

The truly accurate psychic is indeed a rare thing, but if we can, through the use of mind, logically eliminate certain items as false this leads us, with great accuracy, toward the truth. Any time the seeker has a chance to eliminate a piece of data as false he must rule it out no matter how much it goes against his belief system.

Any scientists who honestly uses the process of elimination must admit that there is a God, or at the least a higher intelligence than man. All he has to do is study the human cell and ask: Could this have been created with no guiding intelligence? Anyone using the process of elimination must admit that a creation a million times more complicated than the Mac I am staring at had to be created by some guiding hand or Purpose.

The atheist scientist illustrates one of the problems with this principle of truth. An item that must be eliminated from the equation can stare many of us in the face, yet we refuse to eliminate it.

If the prophet Rambalana takes his believers to a mountain top time after time to be picked up by Zor and his spaceship and nothing happens, the time should come that the believer would eliminate Zor and Rambalana from the equation of truth.

The sad fact is that even when that which is obviously false appears, the believer continues to believe instead of eliminate.

Take the Jehovah’s Witnesses for instance. One of the founders named Charles T. Russel predicted the return of Christ in the late 1800’s. When he didn’t show up he moved the date ahead. When he didn’t show up again the followers still did not use the process of elimination. Russel took advantage of that belief and moved the date ahead again to 1914.

Well, 1914 came and went but still no Jesus appeared in the clouds. Russel himself refused to eliminate this final date as being wrong and concluded that Jesus did come in 1914, but he just came invisibly and no one saw him. Thus, if I understand the current Jehovah’s Witness doctrine, they still to this day have not eliminated 1914 as the arrival date and accept this as the year of the coming of the Lord.

I personally grew up in an alcoholic family and pretty much fended for myself and my little sister as a kid. I eliminated my parent’s lifestyle as a desirable way of life and became active in the Mormon Church as a teenager. Then, using this same process of elimination, years later I eliminated certain teachings within the church, such as strong infallible authority, as being anti-spiritual and moved on to greater vistas of learning.

“All we can do is to train aspirants in recognized group requirements. We must also point out to them the dangers of mental pride, detail to them their personality limitations and the difficulties of true spiritual leadership, and then plead with them to mind their own business where each other is concerned and ask them to serve the human race; this of course means, incidentally, serving the Hierarchy and thus demonstrate their ability to work within an Ashram. Disciples-in the earlier stages-are apt to be didactic; they like to express in words their profound understanding of occult truth and thereby, in reality, establish their superiority over non-esoteric students, and in so doing (again incidentally) antagonise those they otherwise could help. They like to show their unique familiarity with hierarchical principles but, as they are not yet living those principles, they hinder more than they can help; at the same time, through self-discovery, they learn much thereby. They believe that in expressing their knowledge of petty and unimportant details anent the lives and methods of the Masters, a high point of spiritual understanding and development is thereby indicated. This is not by any means the case. In the last analysis, it indicates a superficial sense of false values, and seventy per cent of their information is wrong and of no importance.” DK – Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 2 Pages 108-109

June 16, 2006

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

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE

God’s Will

God’s Will

Question: What is not the will of god? If something is not the will of God. How does it even exist?

What you are describing as the will of god, is just part of what God already exists as.

One thing that is predictable is where you are going with this. We know you have the belief that everything is happening now and all is as it should be, that we live in a perfect universe and even a woman being raped should appreciate God’s will being carried out on her.

The fact that you see a rape or murder as part of God’s perfect will should make you aware that something is wrong with your belief system. Unfortunately, it does not faze you. You think that it was God that decided the woman needed to be raped. If you look around at all he has decided (in your opinion) such as Saddam Hussein running people through a meat grinder then God must be as pretty mean guy. Maybe going to heaven would be a scary thing if you were correct.

That said, let me attempt to set this straight as far as this universe of time and space is concerned. The Ancient Wisdom revealed by DK tells us that God’s will in the present is that which moves us toward the manifestation of love. Therefore, that which moves us forward in the manifestation of love, goodwill, peace on earth, friendship, unity, acceptance, inclusiveness and other aspects of love is within God’s will. That which moves us away from love runs contrary to his will.

Comment: You seem to imply it is somehow possible to not do gods will.

Yes, I do imply it. So did Jesus. His Lord’s Prayer tells us that God’s will is not yet done on earth as it is in heaven.

Question: How would it be possible to do something contrary to God’s will

Real easy. Just pick something contrary to God’s will and choose to do it. Killing your neighbor’s dog should do the trick.

We must take note that nothing resists the will of God in the higher formless worlds, but in this world of illusion a different reality is at play. Some teach that because this world is created by illusion, and that it is not even real in the eternal sense, that the true will of God is not even manifest here.

Our friend is saying that he sees that there would be no existence without form and motion within that form. He sees that from God’s point of view everything is happening at once, that there is no past or future even in the worlds of form.

When the Eternal Now is reached that state of being does not identify with form. There is no motion, time or space in this awareness.

He doesn’t think we can read tomorrow’s newspaper but thinks it is already printed. My contention is that if he is right someone should be able to read it.

Within this Eternal Now is no form, but the primordial undifferentiated substance from which all things spring.

Question: Is the real argument over predestination just semantics?

I don’t think so. Often the problem is semantics. Members will sometimes disagree with me just because of a different use of words and when we straighten out the communication, we wind up agreeing. The reader and I have a true disagreement. He thinks everything down to the tiniest detail has already been decided and brought into existence and is happening now. It appears to him that we are only in a small section of time and space because of the limitations of our consciousness.

I see the future as malleable yet the end of our evolution is pretty much set – like the end product of a blueprint is a house. In the building process though, many unexpected events occur.

I think our friend has done a good job in arguing his point, a point that can never be proven or disproved with the concrete mind. I’m sure he must have generated a few new brain cells in the process.

Now if we examine the dialog representing the reader’s view many would think he is in la la land if one thinks a judge would listen to anyone accused of rape who insist that the woman was raped for her own good. We need to use a realistic dialog that could occur in the real world if we want to convince anyone.

Consider a person who decides to design and build his own home. He works many hours and makes many corrections in the design. He’s just about done and spills coffee right in the middle of it and has to recreate it. His corrected mistakes, which were not a part of his design, did not deter him from finishing it. When the design was complete he did not see the mistakes as being anything that made the design perfect. Instead, he saw them as problems that caused delay, but not discouragement.

Next he decides to physically build the house. As he starts, a neighbor comes to him and tells him the house is already built. The builder gets such a good laugh out of this that he loses an hour of work that day because his mind is distracted. As he works away the next day, he hits his hand with a hammer and walks back and forth letting out a few choice words. The neighbor approaches him again and tells him to be of good cheer. His house is already built and hitting his thumb was part of the plan. It is good, as well as necessary, this happened.

“I drew up the plans myself and believe me it was not part of any plan,” said the builder. “What are you trying to do, irritate me?”

The next day a thief came on his property and stole some of his tools. Again, the builder was upset and this was noticed by the neighbor who approached him and said, “Friend, this theft is a part of a great plan designed for your good. Your house could not be perfect unless you went through this experience.”

The builder felt like slapping some sense in the neighbor but constrained himself. “I’ll tell you what this theft did,” he replied. “It has cost me time and money and delayed the building of my house. This thief has done nothing to add to the perfection of anything as far as I am concerned.”

“Wait and see,” said the neighbor.

Everything went pretty smoothly until it was time to paint. The builder hired a man to paint the house while he went fishing for a few days. When he returned he was aghast to discover that the man had painted the house the wrong color. As he was walking back and forth saying more choice words, the neighbor approached him again.

“So the painter got the wrong color? It would help if you understood that this bright pink is just part of a greater plan on the road to your perfect house and perfect enjoyment thereof.”

Again, the man constrained himself.

The painter skipped town and the builder couldn’t afford to hire another so he finished the job himself. It took him a week to scrape off the pink paint and change the color.

Finally, he was done. The house looked just like he had planned. He stood back and admired his work. As he was doing this the neighbor approached him again and said:

“See. It’s worked out just like I said.”

“What in the hell are you talking about?”

“Your house is now perfect,” said the neighbor. “All those things you thought were mistakes were just part of a plan to create a perfect house for yourself.”

The builder was incredulous at the man’s audacity. “Those mistakes did nothing to add to any perfection. The perfection was achieved in spite of them. All they did was cost me time and money. If they didn’t happen I could have moved in some time ago and would have money left over for landscaping. I’ll still get the landscaping done. I’ll just have to save up some more money.”

“You just don’t understand the great plan behind all things,” said the neighbor. “If you did you would see I am correct. You needed to see your house as bright pink before you could really enjoy it now.”

The builder was astonished at the smugness of the neighbor and decided to give him some of his own medicine. He bought a dog that barked like crazy throughout the night. During the second night of barking the neighbor knocked on the door and said. “That dog is driving me crazy. Please shut him up.”

The builder replied, “I have been thinking about your philosophy and have concluded that this barking dog is perfect for both of us. His barking is music to my ears and it is also part of the perfect plan that he drives you crazy so you get no sleep. You need to be driven crazy.”

The neighbor cursed the builder but his cursing was music to the builder’s ears. He encouraged his dog to bark all the more, especially at night. Maybe the neighbor would finally get it into his head that some events are not a part of a master plan, but just temporary distractions we pass through on the way to reaching our goals.

Jesus said: “The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.” Matthew 26:24

Obviously, we are better off avoiding really bad mistakes if some are so bad it would be better if we had not been born in order to avoid them.

“If winning isn’t everything, why do they keep score?” Vince Lombardi (1913 – 1970)

June 13, 2006

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

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE

Principles of Discovery, Part 5

Principles of Discovery, Part 5
The Seven Perceptions of Will

Let us return to this scripture:

“Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” John 7:16-17

What principle was the Master teaching here and how can we use it in the discovery or confirmation or truth?

Perhaps some additional questions will get us going here.

Where do we look to find the will of God?

How is following our perception of the will of God a test that proves the perception true or false?

We are also told that “By their fruits you shall know them.” What does this mean and how is it a guide to the discovery of truth? What are the different fruits?

It is inevitable that those who have a genuine love of truth and its application will display fruitful characteristics in their lives.

When Jesus was talking about knowing them by their fruits, he was saying that “false prophets” bear bad fruit and genuine teachers bear good fruit. As he taught, people were amazed at his wisdom and his teaching them as “one having authority…not as their scribes.” In other words, he displayed good fruit, the hallmark of someone people could listen to with confidence.

One of the ways of discovering truth is to identify teachers who bear good fruit and to listen to what they have to say. Unfortunately, this gift is missing from the lives of those who feel they don’t need a teacher or who are not ready to listen.

If a teacher’s creations result from his decisions and represent God’s will, then it makes sense to say that to him the will of God is the highest unselfish good he can perceive within which he acts. If he follows this inner perception of the omnipresent will, his creations will, on some level, make the world, both his and those around him, a better place. It will solve and free up instead of weighing down or complicating, bringing unity and power through harmonizing of diversity. Whatever he wills, will be consistent with God’s will in that moment of time and space.

Jesus basically told us that if we “do” God’s will two things will happen:

[1] We will “know of the doctrine.” In other words, we will discover whether or not the teachings are true.

[2] “…whether I speak of myself.” We will know whether the teacher just speaks for himself out of his own imagination or whether he speaks for one higher than he.

Question: What do we have to do to be able to have these two gifts of discernment?

Answer: We must “do his will.”

Notice what the injunction does not say. It does not say “believe his will,” or “think his will.” It does not say “preach his will,” or “write his will,” but “do.”

Do what?

”I’d love to know what God, Christ or a Master has for me to do, but I just haven’t heard any voices lately,” says the seeker.

Actually, you do not have to receive a divine revelation to know the will of God for there are always parts of the divine will that all can perceive. Then when that which we perceive is followed additional will is sensed and additional truth is also perceived.

Try and name three or more things the average seeker would correctly perceive as the will of God – that all of us should “do” so the truth can be known.

The Seven Perceptions of Will:

There is a revelatory principle behind the perception of the will of God and that is this. All of us can perceive some aspect of that Will and when it is perceived and followed a higher aspect will be given. Then when we follow that aspect, something higher still will be given. All of us (except a handful of Dark Brothers who have completely denied the light within) perceive a part of the Divine Will as it applies to us and are struggling to harmonize with it.

[1] The first perception of the Will that most of humanity understands in one degree or another is Love, perhaps best expressed in the statement of the Master: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Even the hardened atheist or skeptical agnostic accepts this concept as a good idea to incorporate into their lives.

Most of us know within ourselves that it is better to love and to give than to think of only self, and when this aspect of the will is followed to the satisfaction of the Spirit within, the person receives more light which is poured in through the soul.

Forget about being judgmental here and condemning others as being ignorant of true love. Each person has a different degree of understanding on it, but we must recognize that each normal person has an inner compass that points him in the direction of love, if he will seek it.

[2] The second one is: Good Will and Friendship.

Extending good will to all and the hand of friendship to all who need it is considered a good thing to do in the minds of all who are sensitive to any kind of positive direction and this action is within the grasp of us all.

[3] Practice telling the truth or non-deception. The interesting thing about this is non-deception is definitely within the will of God yet one does not have to be spiritually minded to appreciate this quality. Even the biggest scoundrel likes to be told the truth; the difficult thing is telling the truth ourselves. We want the truth told to us, but many find it difficult to practice honesty as we want it given to us.

[4] Work toward perfection. All of us sense that we can do better and that we should be taking steps to improve ourselves.

[5] Be responsible for your actions and for your families.

[6] Promote and advocate the principle of liberty and free will.

[7] Take reasonable care of yourself, those within the realm of your responsibility and the planet earth so future generations will have a pleasant place to live.

Just run these seven concepts by the average person and ask him if he thinks they are all good things to do and the chances are that he will say yes, even if he has no interest in the spiritual path. They have no great mystery behind them, but every thinking person will admit that if there is a God, and God is good, then these things would be within His Will.

The trouble is that many are seeking some divine calling to fulfill the will of God when all humanity already has these seven before us and many of us are miserably failing to follow the highest we know concerning them. But when we do follow these seven with devotion, the eighth stands revealed.

[8] And what is that? It is Service. But one may ask, doesn’t everyone believe that service is a good thing? Not really. The masses do not understand service as it is expressed in the Will of God. We all understand service for pay or even praise, but only a small number understand selfless service as it relates to the good of the whole. The correct feeling on this matter is a reward given to those who have followed the highest they know in the seven principles mentioned above.

[9] When selfless service is accepted by the seeker and becomes a real plan of action for him on the physical plane he then can share in the Will of God that is projected to His reflections and this is the Peace of God. True selfless service brings forth the revelation of this Peace. This Peace is sensed by all those who diligently strive to follow the highest that they know.

After the pilgrim serves and comes to the Peace then a specific aspect of the will of God will be revealed or presented before him in some way. He will become aware of a Plan with aspects higher than he has understood in the past. Nevertheless, he will sense that the Plan is from higher intelligence than himself and great joy is available to those that participate in it. He realizes that he is only one part of many participating units, but his part is unique and he begins to sense and understand his role that he is to play. When he understands this role and acts it out, he will be treading the path of great joy. If he seeks the role of another instead of his own, he will sound a note off key and become out of harmony with his brothers in service.

Let us return to the scripture under consideration:

“Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” John 7:16-17

All of us have within ourselves the capacity to recognize at least seven aspects of the Will of God and if we follow all of the Will of God that we understand then we will have the power to recognize teachers who are in harmony with that Will and we will be given a sensitivity to the truth so we will know whether or not the principles the teacher teaches is true.

The truth is the kindest thing we can give folks in the end. Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811 – 1896)

June 12, 2006

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

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE

The Root of the Problem

The Root of the Problem

Contemplating any train of thought and bouncing it off another with different beliefs will normally yield some light and knowledge of some sort. The real question is as to whether the time spent on a detour is as productive as the pre-established road. Sometimes it is and other times it is not.

What is interesting about the recent argument is that it is one of the few that has not been presented before. In a way this is odd because many new agers believe that everything is preplanned. If something unusual happens to them you will often hear them say, “Well, I guess it was just supposed to be.” On the other hand, I’ve never met one that wants to argue the subject or even present logical reasoning as to why they believe this to be true.

While it is true that there are some things that are supposed to be, because they have already been decided, there are many things not decided in advance that happen just because we made them happen through free will.

To resolve any argument, one has to first discover the core difference and deal with it. Dealing with the branches, as we have been doing, never leads to resolution, but sometimes the branches lead to the root.

Here is the root of the problem.

Our friend believes that all springs from infinity. He doesn’t make clear whether he means God, Infinite intelligence or what, but he does tell us that infinity has every detail that has ever happened or will ever happen in the universe all constructed and that it is here now. It is set and cannot be changed. Everything in infinity has already happened.

Within this construct he says we have free will and choice, but it just so happens that whatever we choose is exactly, to the smallest detail, what has already predetermined in infinity.

He maintains that a cause cannot cause itself. This is logical to a degree, but something caused our extremely complicated DNA to manifest. Was it a causeless cause or a cause, causing itself?

That which is responsible for all creation is either a cause causing itself to do things or a causeless cause. Which is it?

To understand we must look at the causes and effects in creation and ask ourselves what they are…

When we look at creation we think we are looking into the present. By normal definition this is true and I also use the word present for simplicities sake.

The truth is we never see the present, but always see the past. The past is the only thing that can be registered by our consciousness.

Consider this, that it takes about a 64th of a second to pass for us to be able to perceive that any event has occurred and within this quantum of time lies an eternity as taught at the end of my book, Eternal Words.

It takes about a second of time to pass for us to be able to consciously register that any event has occurred. It was not by accident that the ancients gave the smallest unit of time as a second. We can perceive things more quickly than a second, but registering them is another matter.

Now what would happen if we were able to perceive all things and saw the true present? What would we see?

The answer is we would see nothing?

Nothing? Why?

Because all form is caused by motion and that which seems solid is not solid but caused by other motions of wavelengths. If all motions of all waves were stilled there would be nothing to see. This would be the true present.

But would there be nothing? Is all this form created from nothing?

Yes and no.

As far as something in the way the world thinks of as something, all is created from nothing. But the world does not realize within that which we call nothing, lies something and that something is the Original Cause behind all there is.

Within this Original cause is Decision, Intelligence and Purpose manifesting through an eternal interplay of cause and effect.

Divine Purpose created from its essence the illusion of the wavelength and from wavelengths it created all form, time and space.

If all creation were the result of simple multiplication of Original Cause, then a high degree of predictability of even small details would be possible. But because Original Cause is duplicated and endowed with intelligence and free will, the future is not set in many of its details. The unpredictability of many future events is not caused by randomness, but it’s opposite. It is caused by intelligent intervention to create that which is not random. The direction of an intelligent decision can often not be predicted in advance. An intelligence coming to three paths of equal value will often pick one for reasons that even it did not know in advance.

Entropy is cause playing itself out without the interference of outside intelligence. A radioactive element can thus disintegrate and its stages of decay are close to 100 percent predictable until intelligence is applied to change its makeup. How and when the intelligence is going to be applied, or the creative process, is not predictable as is the process of decay.

Intelligence, free will and purpose are not predictable in detail because they exist outside the illusion of time and space yet create all the causes in time and space. They are masters of form and originate new cause. Existing cause can be measured and the effects known but all the manifestations of intelligence that will initiate cause cannot be measured, nor predicted.

The future is much like the present, only longer. Dan Quisenberry

June 12, 2006

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

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE