Keys Writings 2014, Part 15

This entry is part 19 of 33 in the series 2014

2014

July 28, 2014

Discussions with Another Forum

You (Allan) say that Larry does not use the scriptures for their intended purpose – that he doesn’t live “the necessary Consecrated Life” that he doesn’t seek the kingdom because of his concern with the cares of the world, that he doesn’t seek self knowledge, and does not endeavor to know himself. And you know all these things about Larry because???

Note this from the Gospel of the Nazirenes which you use:

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again; and as you do to others, so shall it be done to you.

2 “And why behold the mote that is in your brother’s eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, ‘Let me pull the mote out of your eye; and behold a beam is in your own eye?’ You hypocrite, first cast the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast the mote out of your brother’s eye.

Instead of judging that about which you know not, how about giving us something usable? You say that you have assisted many in recalling their past lives as have I. We would be interested in hearing your method as well as how you did it yourself the first time.

***

New Direction

We have just about milked this scripture-allegory-deception-history thing for what it is worth. I believe that we understand the points that Allan is making but I do not think he and his group understand the main point I was trying to make. Oh, well, I gave it my best shot.

Meanwhile, Allan makes an interesting claim that he is the reincarnation of the Brother of Jesus and even helped write the scripture. Since he claims to have a memory of that life he could answer some interesting questions. Here are mine.

Are the current gospels accurate in stating that Jesus was physically crucified and resurrected? If not could you tell us what really happened and how Jesus really died?

Did Jesus walk on water, calm the storm, raise Lazarus from the dead and pay his taxes with a coin from the belly of a fish?

What did Jesus physically look like?

I’m sure others will have their question as we move forward.

***

The Scriptures

A reader wants to know how I view the scriptures.

I see the Bible as a composition of a number of endeavors. The farther back in history the Bible compilers had to go the more they had to rely on legends passed down by word of mouth. There was indeed a creation and a first family but there are many legends of what happened and the Bible compilers took the best and what they thought was the most accurate available and created a narrative containing as much truth as they could encapsulate until we ended up with the Old Testament scriptures. The farther back we go the more myth is incorporated, yet some of the greatest truth is revealed through allegory. But even the allegorical stories are a mixture of historical truth and symbolism.

I believe there has been numerous Adams and Eves who have represented new beginnings after cataclysms. The first Adam appeared over 18 millions years ago.

As the scriptures get closer to the present the historical part becomes more accurate.

The New Testament accounts we have were written between 60 – 120 AD, some of them based on earlier records. I do not think they wrote them as allegory, though there is a lot of symbolism in them but did their best to make their accounts accurate as far as the teachings and history go. Of course, we do not have the original manuscripts but current scriptures are translated from about the twentieth copy or so. Thus there is no way of telling how much any of the scriptures have been altered and corrupted, but I think the original writers of New Testament scriptures did their best to relate real happenings. It just so happens that many of those happenings have allegorical and symbolic meaning.

Some, but not all the Bible writers were inspired. Works of particular depth are Genesis, Isaiah, Daniel, the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation.

The scriptures were written by intelligent, but flawed mortal men and are bound to have some imperfections, thus they, along with all other writings, need to be read by the light of the soul to avoid deception.

I do not believe that the whole of the scriptures are full of hidden meaning placed there on purpose by the writers. The more inspired scriptures do have a lot of hidden meaning, but they weren’t always placed there consciously by the writers so hidden knowledge could be passed down – with maybe a few rare exceptions.

How is it then that so much symbolic and hidden things are found in the scriptures? The answer is this. When any writer touches the Spirit with his consciousness as he writes, the words that are written will contain more than seems to appear on the surface. There will be interesting things to discover through numerology, symbolism and other means.

But the greatest discoveries are made through the contemplation of the words themselves. The student must let the words take hold as planted seeds and see where they take him. Jesus said it well when speaking of inspired words, “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63

All words of truth are words of life.

How about the idea that the Gospel writers had to write in allegory because it was too dangerous to tell the truth?

This does not make sense because nothing they could have written could have been more dangerous than the portrayal of an entity such as Jesus who was much more powerful than Caesar and even rose from the dead. In fact what was written was so dangerous that thousands of Christians were persecuted and put to death. What hidden meaning was there that could have upset the authorities more than that which already happened? One would have to stretch his imagination to come up with something.

In other words, there was no reason to alter the historical accounts in the gospels in order to pass along hidden meaning, but hidden meaning wound up being there naturally because many of the words and actions recorded touched the Spirit.

July 29, 2014

Knowledge & Relationship

Dan:

True friendship doesn’t require agreement in all things, can withstand differing opinions, cannot be built upon deception and is lasting.

Your words reminded me of my many interactions with my good friend Wayne, who has now passed. When we had lunch together we often got into very intense disagreements and had some very good discussions, but neither of us let any disagreement interfere with our friendship in the least.

Even so, here I have had strong disagreements with you (Dan), LWK, Susan, Blayne and others, but they remain great friends. This is as it should be.

It is too bad that there are so many who see anyone who disagrees with them as an enemy that should only be attacked. This clouds a person’s vision from seeing the inner Christ and the true concepts that they may be saying.

On that note, even though Wayne and I had disagreements I found myself amazed at what he would come up with at other times. He was capable of manifesting amazing light that I would have missed if I had stereotyped him as one in darkness whose thoughts could not be trusted.

***

A Synthesis

Dan:

BUT, and it’s a big but 🙂 if there IS both an outer and inner meaning(s) to soul-infused writings then there was not necessarily deception involved on the part of initiates when they wrote the scriptures, they just wrote in the outer manner KNOWING that the inner meaning would be preserved for those “with eyes to see”.

The deception I was talking about was the intentional type. If, for instance, some writer made up the story of Jesus walking on water for teaching effect then that would be an intentional deception. That is a lot different thing than writing what one may consider a true account of Jesus walking on water and manifesting some true symbolism in the process.

***

Re: The Scriptures

Allan maintains that the gospels were not written to be historically accurate but to be allegory containing events that did not happen in historical reality. It is interesting that a quote he gives in this post says otherwise. He quotes Gibbon as saying:

“But the secret and authentic history has been recorded in several copies of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, which these sectaries long preserved in the original Hebrew, as the sole evidence of their faith.”

So, according to Allan’s quote here the original gospel did not contain just made up allegorical history, but “authentic history.”

Now I’m sure he can argue that the real “authentic history” is allegorical and did not really happen, but that would require a stretch of the imagination and believability to interpret this way. When 99.9% of the population says “authentic history” they mean history as it has actually occurred, recorded to the best of humanity’s ability.

Then the more widely circulated edition was translated into the Greek from the Hebrew. The translation was undoubtedly imperfect but there is no evidence that wholesale changes in the history were made. I would bet that the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection were quite similar as they are in both the Gospel of the Nazirenes and the modern gospels.

Those who had the early texts didn’t just keep them among believers merely because the writings were sacred to them but it was dangerous to give out writings to the masses. A character like Jesus who was elevated above Caesar was dangerous to the Empire. It was so dangerous to be an early Christian that the sign of the cross was developed originally to be a means of one Christian identifying another. It appears the story of the “authentic history” of the gospel was given out to all who were willing to listen whether it was dangerous or not. After all, the apostles went all over the known world teaching the message in the original gospel.

***

Some believe that there is hidden or allegorical meaning in all he scriptures. For those who are so inclined I would like to see then reveal the hidden meaning is a scripture like this:

Numbers26:16 Of Ozni, the family of the Oznites: of Eri, the family of the Erites:

Numbers26:17 Of Arod, the family of the Arodites: of Areli, the family of the Arelites.

Numbers26:18 These are the families of the children of Gad according to those that were numbered of them, forty thousand and five hundred. 26:19 The sons of Judah were Er and Onan: and Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan.

Numbers26:20 And the sons of Judah after their families were; of Shelah, the family of the Shelanites: of Pharez, the family of the Pharzites: of Zerah, the family of the Zarhites.

Numbers26:21 And the sons of Pharez were; of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites: of Hamul, the family of the Hamulites.

Let’s face it. Some scriptures are full of meaning while others are just somewhat boring accounts of what the writer deemed to be true.

July 31, 2014

Teachers

A reader gives this partial scripture apparently as evidence that we are not to be called teachers.

“or One is your Teacher, and you are all … brothers?

Let us give the whole quote.

“But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

“And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” Matt 23:8-12

The first thing to look at is the main point that Jesus was making, which was revealed in verse 12. He was teaching the disciples to avoid titles which would place them in a position of authority which would take their attention away from the inner Christ.

First he told them to not be called Rabbi. A Rabbi was seen as an authority, like a priest, whose words were supposed to be followed above what a seeker may receive from within.

Secondly, he says to call no man “Father.” Now people who take things too literally may go so far as to not call their own fathers this, but is this what he means? If it is then we shouldn’t call our parents Mom and Dad, Father and Mother, etc. By extension Grandma and Grandpa would be forbidden.

Does such a restriction make sense? That is what the true seeker must always ask and the answer he gets should be in harmony with his spirit, mind and emotions after he thinks it through.

No, it doesn’t make sense to refuse to call your Father and Mother by what they are for it doesn’t unjustly exalt then. How could we honor our Father and Mother if we cannot call them by what they are?

What Jesus was against was substituting the authority of the inner Christ for the outer that takes it’s place. The Catholic Church as done this by insisting members call the priest “Father.” He is seen as a father that is a substitute for God and this exalts him, which thing Jesus was against.

Finally he says, “Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”

Master here comes from the Greek, KATHĒGĒTĒS, and these verses in Matthew are the only place in the New Testament where it is used. Here in the King James it is translated, “Master,” but other versions render it “teacher, instructor, leader, director, and even preceptor.” The first suggested translation from Vine’s as well as Strong’s is “guide.”

KATHĒGĒTĒS is derived from two other words which are KATA and HĒGEOMAI. KATA is a common preposition indicating motion but HĒGEOMAI denotes power or regal authority. That us without doubt the reason Bible translators in the past have rendered KATHĒGĒTĒS as Master, for Master is a much more authoritative word than teacher.

The common word for teacher in the New Testament is DIDASKALOS, which is used 58 times. When we think of the English word teacher, this would be the Greek word we would want as comparable. Nowhere does Jesus tell us to not use this word.

Jesus was called DIDASKALOS a lot of times and he did not correct anyone for doing this.

In addition to this the teachers Jesus confronted in the temple were called DIDASKALOS. (Luke 2:46) Jesus also called Nicodemus a teacher (John 3:10).

Disciples were called teachers or DIDASKALOS in numerous places after Jesus left the scene.

“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger,” Acts 13:1

“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles,” I Cor 12:28

“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” Eph 4:11

Paul says, “Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.” II Tim 1:11

Obviously neither Jesus or the disciples saw any problem with using the common word for teacher which was DIDASKALOS.

Even so, common designations like teacher can be misused. I call myself a teacher in a way that applies to anyone who teaches for we all teach one time or another and are students at other times. What could create a violation of the principle that was being stressed by Jesus was if I demanded that I be called “teacher” when being addressed. This was why Rabbi was on Jesus’ list of forbidden words because when meeting one with such a position you are expected to address him as such.

It is not the words that concerned Jesus, but the way they could be used. If a title is applied to you in a way that is forbidden to others then you are falsely exalted and this is an error.

Such designations are the “names of blasphemy” which were applied to the beast of Revelations. (Rev 13:1)

Here are some more comments on this subject from my book, The Unveiling.

We are told that on his heads are the names of blasphemy. The King James says “name” but most modern versions correctly translate this as “names.” What are the blasphemous names on the heads of the Beast?

The emperor of Rome was proudly called Caesar Augustus. “Augustus” implies Caesar was Lord, or God. We all know many Christians were fed to the lions and crucified. Few know that much of it had to do with the refusal to accept this and other names chosen by the Roman emperors.

The current names of the Beast are not negative names like anti-Christ, Satan, devil and so on. The names of the Beast are adored by the world.

Here are some of the names of blasphemy used in the religious and political world:

* His/Her Royal Highness

* Holy Father

* His Holiness

* His Eminence

* His Grace

* Reverend

* Imperial Majesty

* Serene Majesty

* Lordship

* Most Reverend

* Most Worshipful

The Pope has been accused of having the name VICARIVS FILII DEI (in the place of the Son of God) written on his hat or some other item. The roman numerals on this name add up to 666, but this seems to be a fabricated accusation made by the enemies of the Catholic church who believe they singly represent the Beast. Little do they realize that the Beast has infiltrated all the organizations of the earth.

The great name of blasphemy was extended through the Caesars who went beyond Augustus to being called Lord and being deified as a God. Once a year each citizen in Rome had to appear before authorities and acknowledge that Caesar was virtually God. Once one did this, he could go worship according to his choice undisturbed. But, if one put Jesus or some other version of God above Caesar, he was seen as a danger to the state and was usually executed.

Thus, the most blasphemous name of the Beast occurs when a flesh-and-blood man, like the rest of us, is called and worshiped as a God. It is true that even Jesus said that men are Gods (John 10:34), but he was speaking of God in all of us with equality, great and small. Caesar was declared God as one who was special and unique among men. Caesar demanded to be worshipped, and it is blasphemy for one man to worship another man or even see another person as having more rights than he himself possesses.

The interesting thing about the emperors of Rome is that it was not the government who it was the people. The early emperors thought it was a silly thing for the people to do, but eventually the people called them gods long enough and with enough repetition that they began to believe it, and also see that the idea would secure more political power.

One does not need to go to the extreme of calling himself a God to his fellow men and women to have a name of blasphemy, but any name that brings the person a reverential respect takes away from the glory that belongs to God alone. Even Jesus was very cautious about not taking away from the respect due God alone. A man once addressed Jesus as “good master.” To this he responded:

“Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God.” Matt 19:16-17

Jesus did not even want to take the chance of looking too “good” to his followers, but in the present time his mindless followers think it is blasphemy to call Jesus anything less than the best and most perfect creator God of the universe.

Here is another example: “But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” Matthew 23:5-15

Isn’t it interesting how clearly Jesus tried to teach the principle of not using a name or title that exalts one person above another because “all ye are brethren.”

The Catholic Church has certainly disregarded the command of “call no man your father …” Using the title or name of “reverend” violates the same principle and is blasphemous. One man is to be revered no more than another because “we are brethren” as Jesus taught. Many religions use the title of “Holiness” or “Holy” in reference to their leaders. Many New Agers use the title Master when talking about a teacher, but there is one Master over us and that is the Christ within all of us. If a teacher does not speak to that center within us then we should ignore him.

Royalty uses all kinds of blasphemous names for God such as “Your Highness,” “Your Majesty,” “Your Excellency,” and so on. Even the idea of one being a king or the divine right of kings is blasphemous. One person has no more divine right to be a king than does another. There are many titles that are not blasphemous because they do not indicate that a man is taking the place of God. A title is correct if it merely indicates the job he is attempting to do in this life such as president, mayor, judge, senator, doctor, teacher etc. “Master” may be legitimate as an acknowledgement of one’s mastery over an activity, but not in relation to being a master (or in the place of God) over an individual. There is nothing untruthful or disrespectful about these names.

You will find, however, that wherever unjust authority rears its ugly head, the person exercising it will revel in the chance to be called by some title that belongs to God alone.

There are religious and political organizations where blasphemous names are not allowed, but the leader is still revered as one who is infallible or able to commune with God in a way that the average person cannot. This type of fixation corresponds to a name of blasphemy and it will be just a matter of time before the illusionary names surface to fit the thoughtform.

Truly great leaders are examples of what we are to become, not examples of holiness that we cannot attain. When is the last time you heard a person with a God-like title speak in such a way that it spoke to your inner Christ and caused your heart to burn? Probably never. It is different when a true teacher, who wears not the names of blasphemy, speaks or writes. Then the soul of the seeker will be stirred.

***

Comment to Allan who claims Jesus doesn’t want us to be called teachers:

Allan is teaching you but he is not a teacher.

You are learning from him but you are not students.

Throughout the world we have millions of teachers teaching students but they are not teachers.

We have billions of students, but they are not students…

Are you sure I am not on the Twilight Zone forum here? The illusion here is of Biblical proportions.

To call yourself a teacher when you teach is a description not a title. It is like calling one a human when he is human.

You need to spend more time on writing some enlightened teachings you think to have gotten from your higher self rather than creating minutia that has no significance one way or another.

There is nothing in the New Testament that tells us not to use the word teacher as a description. That must e hidden in the original Gospel of Matthew that no one can see but Allan.

A reader accuses me of calling myself a master. To this I respond:

Completely untrue. It is amazing how many falsehoods are thrown out here with no quotation marks.

As far as being a teacher goes which of you are not teachers to your children? A Parent is a similar term. Which of you with children are not parents. Some of you are looking for evil where there is not a hint of any.

Aug 1, 2014

Past Lives & More

Rather than spending all my time answering questions on nuances of meaning and defending myself it may be more productive at this point to switch to looking at doctrines that Allan has presented here and commenting on the bigger picture rather than fragments. His teaching the shadow and higher selves seems to be of concern to the group. It goes something like this:

(1) We have a Higher Self which is a being of light and much more enlightened than ourselves.

Though I have read quite a bit, I haven’t read everything Allan has written, but haven’t found any more information about this being, like: How did it originate? Where does it dwell? Did it have a beginning and will it have an end? Does it have a Higher Self also? What is its purpose?

So, about all he says about the Higher Self is that there is one and it is a fantastic being.

Comment: We both agree with the basic teaching that we have a Higher Self.

(2) We as individuals are not much more than shadows created by the Higher Self and have nothing in common with it and are only given one life to have a chance at salvation. After death, all but a few are consigned to some dwelling place where they have no access to the Higher Self, or apparently the kingdom of God. He doesn’t say much about this place, except it isn’t nearly as glorious place to dwell as where the Higher Self lives. Because these lower selves are just shadows one must assume they live in some type of shadow land after death. One guesses that maybe this is a hell of some kind.

On the other hand, there are a handful of shadow people who, during their life on earth, follow in Allan’s footsteps in some mysterious way only known to certain special people, and merge with their Higher Selves thus becoming saved and enter the Kingdom of God after death. There they can dwell with their Higher Self in a glorious mansion world. The secrets of this are too sacred to put into words so we must discover them for ourselves, apparently by osmosis, without much help from anyone. All that the unwashed are told is that there is a way called TheWay and we are supposed to find it.

Allan says he knows this is true because he has communicated with his Higher Self and even communicated with his past lives, including the failed ones. He does talk about progressing through the 12 spheres of the Tree of Life but I don’t see much instruction on what these spheres are or how to move through them.

Comment: Allan has part of the truth here but is mislead on a couple of items.

Each life you live is created by your soul essence in connection with your Higher Self. You will determine what you want to accomplish and then create mental, emotional and physical bodies that are suitable for your needs. Each life these bodies will be somewhat different and the entity’s identification with them will cause a different personality expression.

Some time before birth your Higher Self will determine how much of its essence and consciousness to endow in the new life. The more demanding the life mission is expected to be the more essence is made available. This means that a part of itself is born into incarnated earth life and a part, the greater part, remains in the spiritual world. So it is interesting that as we live our lives here we are really living in two places at once but the lower part of ourselves is generally unaware of this.

At death the entity goes through a process of shedding the personality self and then merging again with the Soul essence. You, as an individual existence ever remains but the bodies which created your personality are left behind to make way for a new creation in a new incarnation. On returning to your soul you realize the truth that is taught in my books, that you are not your body, nor are you your feelings or your mind, but an eternal intelligence with power to decide.

To understand this better we need look no farther than the dream state as a correspondence. When you go to sleep and dream, only a part of your consciousness enters this state. It is the consciousness connected with your emotional body with some access to the physical through the brain. The mind part of yourself is off in a higher sphere. Just like your Higher Self is in two places at once so now in the dream state is your lower self. The lower part of the lower self is in the emotional body in the dream state, completely unaware of what the mind is doing. The mind is in a higher sphere with full awareness of the two parts. Because the mind is away from the body at sleep the brain has no recollection of its activities when it returns.

When you awake the “you” of the dream state no longer exists, but you the entity which is you certainly does. You feel no loss when you realize that the you of the dream was a projection that is no more. Instead of loss you feel a gain because you have greater consciousness and power of decision in the waking state than the dream state.

Even so, death is like awaking up and discovering that the real you has more parts, greater consciousness and greater power of decision than did your projected personality while on earth. There is no sense of loss, but of gain, especially if the life went as planned.

Why is it then that some teach that all of our past lives are still in existence? Some go so far as to teach that they are not just alive, but still living that past life as a monk, a warrior or whatever. As proof some will claim they have communicated with their past lives. How could this happen if we have really moved on?

Let us go back to the dream again. Le us say you dream you are rich and famous and all kinds of fans are wanting your autograph. When you wake up that rich guy no longer exists, but you, the dreamer certainly does. As time passes does that rich guy return? No. Most likely you will never see him or dream of him again.

BUT, can that which he was be recovered? Yes, at any time. Through hypnosis or a guided meditation he can return to the dream and fully recover the consciousness and experiences of that rich guy.

On a higher turn of the spiral, in the realms of greater consciousness, such a recovery is similar but with differences and more potent. Each one of your past lives still exists as a recording, but much more sophisticated than a tape or digital recording. All that made up you as an entity is recorded like a super computer program which can be accessed by tuning into its frequency.

If you were Jessie James in a past life and tuned into his frequency you could meet Jessie James, even though you may be Jim Jones in this life. But you are not really encountering yourself, but a recoding of yourself. Your consciousness is no longer Jessie James, but what you detect is a simulated consciousness.

Every life past and present has a simulated consciousness that can be accessed with the right frequency. When we see psychics contact the dead, they usually do not contact the real person, but merely tune into the right frequency and pick up some details from their recorded self. The real entity generally ignores most of the psychics.

The real you then lives numerous lifetimes trough its creations. When one life is finished the soul unravels its makeup and moves on to another. As you reach liberation you become one with your Solar Angel and it goes back to its Source leaving you with its reflection which now has access to a still Higher Self, the Monad, or your Father in Heaven.

There are many steps involved in the whole process that would take a book to cover.

***

Allan:

I am not going to reply to your below points, because that would be a negative reply.

So, I take it that you think your replies so far are of a positive nature then? Interesting and revealing.

Allan

Unlike you, I ceased to read books about 30 years ago. And everything that I write on, is based upon first-hand knowledge.

This must one of those allegorical statements you talk about that has no historical truth in reality.

You obviously read books and lots of them – apparently quite a few more than me. You rarely make a post without quoting from some book or author of books. Even in this post, where you say you don’t read books, you quote from books you have read. Strange indeed. You quote from more outward authorities than anyone I have encountered – as if you feel your teachings are not potent enough to stand on their own. So how do you get all these quotes without reading books and outward authors? Does your Higher Self project them on a wall or something?

Allan:

In this life when I was first communicated with my higher soul-self in the Realm of Souls, I was told to get rid of the Alice Baily and other books because of their gravely misleading content — much of which is in fact a cosmic type of allegory.

So, let me get this straight. You apparently were told not to read any modern books that attempt to present higher knowledge but it was apparently fine to comb through every book available from centuries past by the church fathers or anything relating to them? Or maybe you are just being a disobedient rascal and defying your Higher Self in reading all the books from which you quote. I’m surprised none of your group has called you on this. I know my group would if I made such a contradictory statement.

Allan

The focus was to open the door to my higher soul-self in order to write what had previously been portrayed as the incomprehensible mysteries of God — and set them forth in a way that genuine seekers could receive the necessary edification to begin their own walk in TheWay.

And where is this information available?

Allan:

With respect to my portrayal of the scriptures, I authored the original Gospel along with the historical man that you call Jesus —

So, are you saying here that Jesus helped you write about his crucifixion and resurrection when he was still on earth and nothing like that had occurred or would occur? I know you do not like to answer interesting questions, but please answer this one or your credibility on this will go to zero.

Allan

but since the manner in which the scriptures are allegorically written has already been portrayed by some people as a fiction and a fraud, if this is their judgment of the man they call Jesus, then their own judgments will come back upon them.

And where has this happened? Most of the Keys members think as I do and accept what a writer says as either true or possible as a true event unless we see evidence to the contrary. I accept the New Testament as written except in a few cases where I conclude evidence indicates otherwise. That doesn’t mean that all I accept for consideration is historically true. Some could be true and some not. The truth of the history of the scriptures is not something have placed much attention on as I read them and other works for the principles.

Thus we do not portray the scriptures as a fiction and a fraud. You have been told this many times, but it seems to go over your head. It makes me wonder that if you received things from your Higher Self if they would go over your head also.

Allan

The genuine Yeshua does not want you to study history

Are you talking about the Jesus who obviously studied all the history in the scriptures and often quoted from that history?

Allan:

much of what I have written exists no where else.

I have found that some of the names you have given to writings are found nowhere else, but then when you read the details most of them are found in pretty standard new age teachings or break-away religious thought. You must not be aware a to how common some of your teachings are since you do not read modern books.

The only thing I have found in your writings that I have found nowhere else is the idea that the average guy does not reincarnate but the spiritual guy does.

Allan:

But, in order to bring about Stephen’s vision of a Spiritual Community, the people will have to begin to learn the Language of the Soul — and properly interpret what they see — i.e., (5)

Interpretation. People must accept and interpret the scriptures as Allan presents them.

Allan

Admittedly, what I write can be difficult to comprehend — but since it has been portrayed as incomprehensible by many enlightened men of the past, I can live with the assessment that what I write as being portrayed as difficult. As I stated, it exists no where else.

I do not see anyone as saying your writings are difficult to understand. They are pretty easy to understand. The trouble is that you do not go beyond the basics and answer questions that would reveal some real usable knowledge – like how does one contact the Higher Self as you see yourself as having accomplished? How did you go about retrieving your past lives and what did you do to assist others in doing this? I have asked lots of questions you just refuse to answer.

***

Knowledge & Relationship

lwk wrote:

… the idea that the agents of light started off with little or no concern for factual truth should be obviously false to anyone who understand the principles of soul contact and the Holy Spirit.

Dan:

What? You and I have completely different understandings about what JJ has taught on these subjects then and I ALSO must not “understand the principles of soul contact and the Holy Spirit”.

According to his teachings, these “agents of light” are ALL fallible human beings that are subject to that same horror of horrors that we all are: being wrong. Getting it flat-out twisted up and backasswards.

To decide in the extremis of possible, even probable, persecution unto death if discovered (or whatever) to camouflage secret teachings in the guise of historical accounts or teachings does not NECESSARILY mean one has “no concern for factual truth” – for crying out loud!

Hate to see two good friends having a conflict here.

You are both making good points. Larry doesn’t like the idea Allan presents that the original writers of the scriptures may have written them as fiction and presented allegory as true history. As I have said, wherever conscious deception is applied then a lower amount of light will manifest and negative karma will set in.

Dan is correct in that all past disciples have indeed been fallible people and thus we always need to run all things by our souls. It is possible that those working for the light decided to create a fictional/allegorical historical account and present it as fiction for some reason they thought was justified. Good intent though does not negate the negative karma incurred from deception though.

One reason that this history/allegorical presentation does not carry a lot of weight with me is that I have seen no one come up with any good inspirational knowledge or principles contained in them. Allan and others quote and interpret the parables, which we all know is intentional allegory, but where is the interpretation of allegorical New Testament history? If something is hidden there someone ought to be able to find it. I have seen little if any of this discovery from the New Testament.

If a bunch of truth is being hidden in allegory then where is it and who is seeing and using it or doing anything with it??? It appears that if this was truly what was done then all that effort was a waste of time.

***

Allan:

I don’t know whether you realize it or not, but Alice Bailey portrayed the black race as not evolved and inferior.

Obviously, you have not read the Bailey writings. In them she asserts that the black race will prove the ideas of the inferioty incorrect by establisjing at some pont in the future a society in Africa that will be as advanced as any on the planet. She also wrote that Christ could very well chose to come again as a black man.

Here are a couple other quotes from Problems of Humanity

Behind the many separative religious cults of that dark land, there emerges a fundamental and pure mysticism, ranging all the way from nature worship and a primitive animism to a deep occult knowledge and an esoteric understanding which may some day make Africa the seat of the purest form of occult teaching and living.

…goodwill must be demonstrated. Right human relations must be firmly established between the emerging Negro empire and the rest of the world; the new ideals and the new world trends must be fostered in the receptive Negro consciousness and in this way “darkest Africa” will become a radiant center of light, ready for self-government and expressing true freedom. Increasingly these Negro races will forsake their emotional reaction to circumstances and events, and meet all that transpires with a mental grasp and an intuitive perception which will put them on a par and perhaps ahead of the many who today condition the environment and the circumstances of the Negro. … The destiny of this great land will clarify itself and Africa will take its place as a great center of cultural light, shining within a civilized land.

***

All races have child souls. Child souls incarnate into the more primitive cultures as a whole and it is a fact, especially almost a century ago, that a lot of the tribal people were black. As any race create situations where greater civilization and opportunity exists then more evolved people will incarnate into it. The black people in America today live in a time a great opportunity and this is drawing many evolved souls to incarnate among American blacks. It is not the race that draws the evolved but the opportunity.

And to suggest that to help any race or people in their progression as being racists is crazy talk and has no logic whatsoever behind it. I suppose you think that those who merely disagree with Obama are racist too.

***

Okay, it is noted Ra that you do not like how Djwhal Khul the Tibetan oriental Master of Wisdom who actually wrote through Alice A Bailey wrote about blacks. None of it offended me and I have two black granddaughters who are fairly advanced souls. One size does not fit all.

On his forum we do not recognize any text on earth as being infallible and run all things by our souls before we accept them.

Aug 2, 2014

Allan:

Bailey was also eventually opposed by some within the Theosophical movement. They said that she was channeling inferior spirits.

Not eventually. They opposed her from the beginning. Every group resists new teachings – like your group doesn’t want to consider anything I teach. We would consider what you say if you’d answer our questions – but as it is there is not a lot to consider. We already use the Key of going within.

***

Alan:

She (Alice A. Bailey) wanted to rid the world of Judaism. She actually was of the position that the violence in the Old Testament represented actual historical events. And yes, she was against interracial marriage.

The real author, the Tibetan Djwhal Khul, who we call DK, did not say he wanted to get rid of Judaism, spoke very little about the Old Testament and merely said that interracial marriage was difficult to make work, which indeed it was in the 1930s. He spoke positively of the interracial unions that were brought about through various soldiers and natives of foreign lands indicating that this would further evolution and inclusion.

You ought to break with your rule of not reading books and read some of the AAB material.

***

Allan

You were asked questions about what we portray as the Law of Octaves, the Tree of Life, the Divine Marriage, as well as a whole host of other such topics. I believe you told one forum members to go and search your writings. They are not satisfied with the depth and understanding of your writings. I back virtually point that I make — which as questioning minds, they respond positively to. I have been criticized in this group for information overload.

This is a completely unfair accusation as usual.

What they wanted would have required me to comb through the millions of words I have written and compare them to their list of subjects, some of which I am not that familiar. To read through all your material on those subjects and then research trough all my material for comparisons would take hundreds of hours and weeks of time. I told them that if they wanted to know the comparisons to just do a search of my site, which search feature you do not have. And because you have so many sites one is limited even with Google search features.

I did read a little on the Law of Octaves and gave samples that seemed to compare and was told it did not, so I researched more and gave more material and again was told there was no comparison (but nothing to back the statement up), so this indicated to me that the only way to satisfy them was to comb through the minutia of everything both of us had written and compare them side by side which in my mind would accomplish nothing, but at least I tried.

On the other hand, questions that need a simple answer concerning my beliefs or do not take a lot of research I have answered to the best of my ability, which thing you have not done.

For instance you could easily answer these questions.

(1) What technique do you use to regress people to their past lives? Is it guided meditation, hypnosis or something else? If it is something else please briefly describe.

(2) Do you believe that Jesus was resurrected in a physical body? If not what is your belief about it?

(3) Do you believe the ancient Jewish laws (diet, Sabbath etc) should be obeyed literally or should we interpret then as analogy?

(4) Since you believe the gospels is mostly analogy with hidden meaning to teach us why is no one, including yourself, coming up with hidden meaning to illustrate this is true?

I have had no problem with simple questions like this that can be answered off the top of my head. I have answered probably around a hundred of them on your site. On the other hand, you dodge. Why?

***

Re: Past Lives & More

lwk

You don’t have to lean on the crutch of “the Greatest Source” and capitalized mysterious phrases if you are actually in possession of truth. If you are in possession of real truth then speak it, speak it to the soul of the listener. But lay off the mumbo jumbo and mysterious claims. Just teach truth, if you have any of it.

Great advice, Larry. That is what I attempt to do. There are times I could reinforce my teachings with some claim of spiritual authority, but I do not do so, for it would set me up in the position of the beast. Instead, i just throw it out there for people to take or leave and I find the words that rang true to my soul usually ring true in the souls of others who are seeking.

***

Olivia’s Post

Great Post Olivia. That deserves to go in the archives.

Thank goodness you wrote that last paragraph because that first one was all over the place!

So you admit that you strive to bring your lower nature under your control or to become “kosher” but this is not necessary for indigenous people because they want to be immersed in their lower nature. You criticize AAB for being racist by stating that they are child like souls but it is OK for you to state that they should be left to express their lower natures with their animal consciousness.

The whole point of existence is to subjugate the lower so that the higher may come through wouldn’t you say?

After all you a black man, “as black as the ace of spades” according to YOUR WHITE TEACHER have decided it is OK to subjugate your lower nature in pursuit of the higher and yet you say making this opportunity available for indigenous cultures is wrong.

In New Zealand we have the Maori who are indigenous here. Yes good old Mother England came over and made settlements. With them came Missionaries. Some tribes embraced them, some did not. Some traded and became wealthy, some did not. We had land wars and much upheaval.

In order to redress some of the past we have given back land and payed many millions in compensation. Some tribes have done so well that they are a business force to be reckoned with internationally. Others have lost money and this has caused tribal infighting.

Despite all this virtually none of the tribes apart from a few radical individuals really desire to loose the benefits of being part of a modern society with all the opportunity this offers, and go back to trying to survive off the land with no modern conveniences. And if they did want to they could, no one would stop them.

So really in your long convoluted back hand way, you do agree with AAB, that there ARE child like indigenous cultures, yet you don’t think they should benefit from the opportunities that modern society can offer them, even though you do. Because you have a different consciousness than they do?

According to you we should leave these people to express their lower animal consciousness and they will be better off.

Ra, if you had been locked in a room with only enough to keep you alive, do you think your inner intellect would have automatically risen you above these limitations and educated you, or have your experiences and opportunities that “you have been blessed with” stimulated your intellect and helped shape who you are today?

Confusing double speak and verbiage seems to characterize the way your group communicates. Now may be a good time to read the link that Dan gave you. Perhaps that will provide some clarity for you and your group.

***

Hallelujah

Hallelujah. Allan finally partially answered a couple questions. Now maybe we can get somewhere. Let us review them

(1) What technique do you use to regress people to their past lives? Is it guided meditation, hypnosis or something else? If it is something else please briefly describe.

Allan:

I use Age Regression.

This is a method similar to that used in Scientology where you regress to unpleasant memories and reprogram or release them.

Perhaps you just meant that you take them back step by step using hypnosis.

Whatever the case, from reading your writings it sounded like some very mystical process was used and now it seems you use fairly standard hypnosis.

If you want to clarify further about your technique we would be glad to hear more.

(2) Do you believe that Jesus was resurrected in a physical body? If not what is your belief about it?

Allan

I believe that Jesus so transformed and perfected himself, that he literally took his body with him.

At least you gave us some information. I asked if you believe he was resurrected, not whether he was transformed. Resurrection means he would have had to been put to death first by crucifixion or some other means. I’m sure the group would like some clarification here. Was he resurrected as implied in the scriptures or not? If he was just transformed instead, then when and how did this come about?

(3) Do you believe the ancient Jewish laws (diet, Sabbath etc) should be obeyed literally or should we interpret then as analogy?

Allan:

How can I believe in the Jewish dietary laws when I am a strict vegetarian for the last 40 years?

You have a talent for seeming to answer a question yet not answering it. The truth is that as a vegetarian you automatically conform to Jewish dietary laws so you haven’t told me if they should be obeyed or not.

Allan:

The Sabbath is a Universal symbol of Completion. The Jews, being carnal, have never experienced a true Spiritual Sabbath.

That is in harmony with my teachings except it doesn’t answer the question so let me ask it again:

Do you believe the ancient Jewish laws (diet, Sabbath etc) should be obeyed literally or should we interpret then as analogy?

In other words, are we bound by the dietary laws of what not to eat? We realize you have gone the extra mile here in being a vegetarian.

Should we literally keep Saturday apart as a holy day as is taught in the Ten Commandments?

(4) Since you believe the gospels are mostly analogy with hidden meaning to teach us why is no one, including yourself, coming up with hidden meaning to illustrate this is true?

Allan

By Divine Design, everyone who opens the scriptures is supposed to see a different message — in accord with the Laws they were born under — their Spiritual DNA — and the condition of their mind, or where they are at. Therefore, the scriptures should be a personal learning and self-discovery oracle between themselves and their own higher soul-self, and ultimately them and the Indwelling Logos.

Sorry this sounds like a dance to me. In your previous writings you say that the inner group had the original gospel written in allegory, but they knew the inner meaning which had to be kept hidden so the mysteries could be passed on.

Now are you telling me that the mysteries are different for each person? That doesn’t make sense. If they are true allegory containing teachings to be passed down then a thousand people interpreting them a thousand different ways would make them meaningless. If there is truly hidden knowledge contained in the original gospel then it can’t be different for everyone.

This is a complete non answer as far as I can see here and think you should clarify

Allan

If you were nice to the people on the other forum, they might begin to share their experiences with you.

My response to your group is posted on my site and I think if people go through them they will have difficulty in finding examples where I have not been nice.

Allan

I believe that if you ask the members of the other forum, they will say that you have not answered any thing they have asked of you. Moreover, they feel your hostility.

Again I ask all those who are objective to look at the links I’ve given and ask if I answered the questions or not.

Except for one that would have taken lengthy research I think I have gone out of my way to answer questions. This is something that was Not reciprocated by Allan or members of his group.

And any hostility seen is in your imagination. I speak as the greatest expert in the universe on my own thinking.

***

John C
“This is a method similar to that used in Scientology where you regress to unpleasant memories and reprogram or release them.”

This is not exactly true, and it has nothing to do with hypnotism. As, LRH says “we are trying to wake people up, not put them to sleep.”

JJ
Allan said he used an age regression technique which may or may not use hypnosis. Here is some information on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_regression_in_therapy

I haven’t been in the program like you but as I understand it to become clear all the negative engrams need to be removed in Scientology as well as Dianetics. Correct me if i am wrong.

I have never said my regression techniques at the gatherings is anything like Dianetics or Scientology.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Series NavigationThe Grand TourKeys Writings 2014, Part 16