Discernment 1.2

Discernment 1.2

People are divided into three categories.

(1) Those who have the mark of the beast.

(2) Those who have escaped the mark and have the “name of the Father in their foreheads.”

(3) Those who are making the transition away from the outward authority of the beast to the Father (God) within. These people will sense the inward authority but not always have the courage to follow it.

Those who have the mark of the beast follow an outward authority that substitutes for God, takes the attention away from the Spirit within and places it on an idol without. This can be a righteous person, an evil person or even a work of scripture.

Paul tells us before Christ can come the man of sin must be revealed “who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” II Thess 2:4

One of the meanings of this scripture is this.

The coming of Christ here is represented by the disciple obtaining soul contact, or union with the Christ principle. In other words, one interpretation of the coming of Christ is the shifting of the attention away from the outward beast of authority to the God within.

The man of sin is revealed when the disciple realizes that the God he has been following is not the God that speaks to him from within, but a substitute for God that barks orders and doctrine from without.

This prophet, priest or king who speaks for God and takes the place of God “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”

How does this outward authority take the place of God by “sitting in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God?”

Our bodies are a symbol of a physical temple and the representative of the beast resides in a physical body like you or me. He presents himself in this temple of God claiming to speak for God expecting you to worship him as God because “God is in his temple.”

If you disagree with him you are this going against God.

When this acceptance is complete the devotee has the mark of the beast in his forehead (thinks as he is told to think) and in his right hand (acts as he is told to act) and thus this man of sin extends his reach to the temple (body) of the student obtaining complete control over it.

To become as the Gods as promised in Genesis the disciple must cast out the “man of sin” and become as one of the wise virgins and rely on the oil (spirit) that burns within so the power of Christ can be seen. This leads the disciple to become one with God and thus become as God, knowing good from evil.

Earlier in this treatise I asked what the effect would be if you discovered that a cherished belief that perhaps is the foundation of much of that which you hold dear is discovered to be not true.

For example what if you discovered that Jesus was a mythical character? This would be devastating indeed for a strong believer.

One of the reasons I asked this startling question is that such a jolt in the undoing of certain beliefs will happen when one switches attention away from the God without to the God within.

The discovery will not be that Christ is not real, but it may be other things just as startling.

Instead of Christ or God not being real the seeker will find that what is not real is where he placed his attention. The person, book or oracle who was speaking for God is that which is found to be illusion and must be put in its correct place.

God is found to be more real than ever, but just in a different place than was imagined. God is discovered to reside within the temple of the seeker’s own self. Now he only listens to words of voices without that speak the same words as revealed by the “Father within the forehead” and the Mother God within the heart.

When one communes with God within he learns to discern the true good from the true evil and will indeed discover that many cherished icons are not what they were believed to be. But when this happens is any truth previously registered undone?

No. Truth is never undone and truth is never not true.

Suppose that tomorrow you discovered that I was a con man, just out to deceive you so I could relieve you of all your money. Would this mean that a truth you received by reading my words is no longer true?

Verily no.

If you read the words of the worst scoundrel on the earth and your soul verifies that a principle within the words is true then nothing can take that from you. 2+2=4 even if Hitler teaches it to you.

It is thus a mistake for anyone to take the words of Alice A. Bailey or any other teacher and reject the whole thing because you come across a point or two that does not sound right. No teacher is all right or all wrong, but the guidance you receive from the God within will never lead you astray.

If you therefore read my teachings or that of another and find words that strike the cord of truth within, trust that truth for in doing so you are trusting God and are on the path to knowing good from evil.

“The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” Milan Kundera

May 14,  2004

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

Discernment 1.1

Discernment 1.1

First Question: The scripture says: “And the Lord God said, Behold, the MAN IS TO BECOME AS ONE OF US, to know good from evil.” Gen 3:22

How do we become as one of the gods and obtain the power to discern good from evil? How can we read the words of a teacher and come away knowing we have discerned that which is good and that which is evil?

In other words, what is the principle behind the discernment of good and evil?

Second Question: Let us suppose you discovered three things as definite truth.

(1) That Jesus was a fictional character.

(2) That Alice A. Bailey made up the character of Djwhal Khul and wrote all the books using her own wisdom.

(3) That I was in cahoots with the devil.

If you discovered these three things to be true how would it change that which you have valued as true coming from the New Testament, the Writings of Alice A. Bailey and my teachings to you?

These two assignments may seem quite different but they are actually quite closely related in what they reveal.

Notice the scripture tells us that man will become as “one of us” (the Gods, Elohyim) and the key to this achievement is to learn “to know” or discern good from evil.

It is interesting to note that the Bible tells us that God called prophets to warn the people during times when it was written the peopled called “evil good, and good evil; they put darkness for light, and light for darkness; and put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” (Isa 5:20) The scriptures further say: “There is none that doeth good, no not one.” (Psalms 14:3)

In other words, the seeing of that which is truly good or evil is so subtle that there have been times that the whole population of the world was deceived about it.

Why is it that people are so deceived about good and evil? The answer is quite simple. They do not use the Second Key of judgment and instead seek to place that which is good under strict black and white guidelines and that which is evil under another set.

For instance, many today say that war of any type is evil and pacifism is good with no exceptions. Putting good and evil in a little box like this removes all power of thought, judgment and soul contact from the equation and sets the person up to be one of those who can no longer see, or know, good and evil.

Was it good to go to war and defeat Hitler? Would it be good to go to war to prevent another Hitler? Yes, of course. There is a time and place for all things. If we take an action and condemn it as always evil it will only be a matter of time before the action enters the “season” where it will be good. At that time this non thinker will find himself supporting the evil and opposing that which is good.

Now let us go back to the days of Jesus. What were some of the black and white criteria to determine the good?

One of the main ones was obedience to the Sabbath. Moses said do no work on the Sabbath and by damn no work means no work. When Jesus and his disciples strolled through a wheat field and they grabbed a few handfuls to eat that was seen as work – therefore Jesus was evil.

Jesus also worked on the Sabbath to heal and this verified again (to many) that he was evil.

Now we may think that if we had been alive in 1938 we would have seen that it was good to stop Hitler or had we lived in the days of Jesus we would have surely not been one of the many who condemned him.

Good and evil is much easier to see on hindsight than when we are actually facing it.

Why?

Because the vast majority of mankind have their criteria for what is good and what is evil written in stone allowing no room for personal judgment on the matter.

Here are some examples where people will reject the whole of a teaching or belief as being evil.

“He doesn’t accept the real Jesus, therefore, he is in league with Satan.”

Of course, for this person the real Jesus is Jesus according to his interpretation – or one that was taught him.

“Anyone who believes in a ‘new world order’ is on the side of evil.”

It is interesting that many reject the Alice A. Bailey writings because DK uses this term. On the other hand, does not the Bible itself tell us a new world order is coming? A new world order can be good or evil. The phrase is neither.

“He doesn’t follow the literal constitution and is one of those who is destroying our country.”

The U.S. Constitution is a great document and the principles are sound, but there are also many good ideas that one may miss if he is too strongly fixated on it.

“Talk radio is hate radio so I will reject all that comes from it.”

Talk radio has both good and bad ideas. We do not want to miss the good ones because we think we have put evil in a box.

“Anyone who supports cutting down trees in our pristine forest is evil.”

This narrow attitude may cause one to miss the good that can come through wise logging in our public forests. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, currently teaches common sense forest management for maximum health that includes intelligent logging. Like many initiates, he is rejected by those who replaced him.

There are those who come across my writings and see some things that conform to their idea of good and then think “this JJ: is on the side of Christ so I will believe all he says.”

But then they may come across a phrase, a teaching or a sign that fits in their criteria of evil and will instantly turn around and reject every word I write because I am now “evil.”

The point to these examples is this. If we put good and evil in a black and white box then eventually there will come a time that we will find ourselves supporting the evil and fighting the good. What we must do instead is to understand the principle behind good and evil and follow the principle instead of judging by a piece of data or catch phrase.

In the past we have quoted DK and stated that the principle of good and evil is this. Good is that which takes us forward in evolution/progress and evil is that which attempts to pull us backwards.

By this principle then the terrorists who want to take us back to the seventh century are evil for this would strip humanity of much of the positive progress they have made.

But seeing this principle takes judgment because if our generation is corrupt then the past may represent a higher point in evolution than the present.

This just illustrates to us that tunnel vision cannot consistently see the good.

How then do we discover the power of the gods and truly discern good and evil? And once we obtain this power can our appreciation for the good be shaken even if we discover that one of our cherished beliefs is turned upside down?

To be continued…

“Committee–a group of men who individually can do nothing but as a group decide that nothing can be done.” Fred Allen (1894 – 1956)

May 12,  2004

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

Discernment 1.0

Discernment 1.0

A critic lumps Alice A. Bailey and H. P. Blavatsky writings together under one banner. Like many others, he assumes that if H. P. Blavatsky makes a statement or quote of a doctrine that Bailey follows right along in the same belief.

Such is not the case.

To understand either Blavatsky or Bailey and to be fair to both one must examine their writings as separate units and judge them accordingly.

The big difference in their writings is this.

Blavatsky wrote in her own words and her books were not dictated by a Master. She used an amazing number of quotes from writers ancient and modern (to her). The main assistance she received from the masters was the supplying her with documents from which many of her quotes were derived. It is said she would look at what apparently was a blank wall and see an original document from which she would quote.

The main point of her writings (which is missed by many) was to show the world that the ancients were not so backward as many at the time believed and to illustrate to the world what the beliefs of these ancients were.

Her work stimulated the world for good. Because of her there is much more interest today in the knowledge to be gleamed from ancient history which has not been covered by orthodoxy, or even HPB, such as:

(1) Pyramids as a whole, especially the Great Pyramid.

(2) Ancient teachings outside orthodox Christianity and Judaism such as Gnosticism, Buddhism, Hinduism, ancient American Indians such as Hopis and Mayans etc.

(3) The Kaballa

(4) Stonehenge

(5) Goddess philosophies

(6) Ancient technologies

Much of what has been investigated was not mentioned in depth by her, but inspired by her. In other words, she directed the attention of humanity to look into our past and discover what is hidden there which has been covered up or overlooked by the authorities of the day.

Because she relied so heavily on quotes and often without commenting on whether they fit in her own belief system it is difficult to take a few paragraphs from her writings and exclaim “See. This is what she believed and Alice A. Bailey must have believed the same thing.”

To do this is to lay the foundation for much illusion for often Blavatsky would quote from one source at one time and then from another later that would contradict the first.

Her main works “The Secret Doctrine” and “Isis Unveiled” were meant to stimulate thought more than to establish a black and white dogma.

To understand Blavatsky one must contemplate her favorite quote which was this:

“There is no religion higher than truth.”

She sought truth no matter where it led and quoted presentations of truth from writers of the past no matter how controversial they may have been.

This does not mean that all her quotes and personal thoughts are true. One must read her by the light of the soul just as we must any other author.

When we similarly examine the writings of Alice A. Bailey we cannot therefore, start with the premise that all the writings of Blavatsky are part of her foundation. While it is true that Bailey often quoted Blavatsky her work must be judged on it’s own. One of the reasons for this is the great difference of direction between the two.

Blavatsky concentrated on the past, shedding light on the intelligence buried in history.

Alice A. Bailey concentrated on the present and gave teachings that would elevate our current consciousness. A keynote of her work is expressed in this mantra from DK:

“Let pain bring due reward of light and love. Let the soul control the outer form,

And life, and all events,

And bring to light the Love

That underlies the happenings of the time.”

Her basic work was not from her own thoughts and writings as was the case with H. P. Blavatsky but dictations directly from the mind of a Master of Wisdom often directed at understanding “the Love that underlies the happenings of the time.”

Many unjust criticisms have been directed toward her work and was answered by me in a previous treatise

The next revelation concerns the future as the main point of attention. That is, these writings will deal with principles, ideas and restoration of mysteries which will lay the foundation for the coming age.

There will be several teachers involved in this revelation. One of my main missions is to present new principles and simplify old ones with clarity so they can be registered by the souls of men and lay the foundation for the dispelling of illusion which has so plagued the work in the past.

Once a principle has been understood and registered by the soul, the seeker can no longer be deceived by false teachers on the matter and is one step closer to being ready to learn at the feet of the Master, the Christ.

That said let us consider the best way to respond to our critic’s concern that H. P. Blavatsky and Alice A. Bailey are agents of evil rather than the light. He and others who make such assumptions have usually come across a quote or two they attribute to the dark side and then advocate a complete rejection of all they wrote.

Should we instead search for words of light that are 100% true so we can relax, and then find works of darkness that must be also completely rejected?

The problem is that there is no such thing as any work of light that can be trusted 100% nor is the a work of darkness that is to be totally rejected.

“How about the words of Jesus?” you say?

Well, how about them? Consider this quote:

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.” Matt 10:34-38

If Jesus actually said this and realized how much these words would be misused that he may not have said them. This quote was mouthed by those who have instigated dozens of wars resulting in untold suffering during the last 2000 years.

Similarly, many cite the act of Jesus casting the money changers out of the temple as justification to lose their temper and mistreat their fellow men.

The point is there are no safe teachings out there that can be infallibly understood and applied. Therefore, instead of answering the critic with a black and white counter I will answer with a principle. If we understand the principle of discerning good and evil then it matters not where the writer is coming from. One can examined the teachings in relation to his own soul and be guided by this and not a black and white rejection or acceptance.

Question: The scripture says:

“And the Lord God said, Behold, the MAN IS TO BECOME AS ONE OF US, to know good from evil.” Gen 3:22

How do we become as one of the gods and obtain the power to discern good from evil? How can we read the words of a teacher and come away knowing we have discerned that which is good and that which is evil?

In other words, what is the principle behind the discernment of good and evil?

Please, this is not the time to discuss whether or not good and evil exist or how to escape duality.

Let me throw in another question to stimulate interest in discerning topic.

Let us suppose you discovered three things as definite truth.

(1) That Jesus was a fictional character.

(2) That Alice A. Bailey made up the character of Djwhal Khul and wrote all the books using her own wisdom.

(3) That I was in cahoots with the devil.

If you discovered these three things to be true how would it change that which you have valued as true coming from the New Testament, the Writings of Alice A. Bailey and my teachings to you?

“May I fulfill my part in the one Work through self-forgetfulness, harmlessness and right speech.” DK

May 9,  2004

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

Capitalism/Socialism 1.3

Capitalism/Socialism 1.3

We have been talking about a controversial statement made by DK that seems to go against the grain of many seekers and libertarians.

Here was his prediction of the coming age:

“National material assets and the needed commodities will all be provided for under an entirely new system. – Private enterprise will still exist, but will be regulated; the great public utilities, the major material resources and the sources of planetary wealth – iron, steel, oil and wheat, for instance – will be owned in the first place by a governing, controlling international group; they will, however, be prepared for international consumption by national groups chosen by the people and under international direction.” Externalisation of the Hierarchy, Page 581

The scary thing here that concerns students of economics and history is that commodities such as “iron, steel, oil and wheat” will be under a “controlling international group,” that will apparently regulate distribution to the nations and peoples of the world.

This conjures up images of the failed Soviet Union that micromanaged distribution and went bankrupt in doing so.

Does this mean that DK was just out of his mind on this point?

There are a couple points that are overlooked here by students and the main one is this. DK here is not presenting his ideas on ideal economics and government nor is he endorsing this system he is writing about.

What is he doing then?

The answer is he is predicting the future. He is telling us where the economic systems of the world are headed in the coming age. He doesn’t tell us whether or not he thinks this coming system is in agreement with what he would come up with if he were in charge or if he thinks it will be completely benevolent. What he does state that he agrees with is people will come to a greater understanding of the principle of sharing, but this will not be a cure-all:

He says, “The world will still be full of selfish and self-seeking people, but public opinion will be such that certain fundamental ideals will motivate business, being forced upon business by public opinion; the fact that the new general ideas will in many cases be governed by the expediency of interplay will not basically matter. It is the sharing that is of importance.”

When will this controlled distribution system manifest? He gives several clues. It will be in a time in which:

(1) The principle of barter and exchange will control economics

(2) He indicates that atomic energy would give us unlimited power changing our attitude toward money.

(3) The attitude of sharing and aiding the less fortunate will be a keynote.

This tells us that the fulfillment of his words are still some time in the future. However, it is interesting to note that the developed nations share much more now than they did in the first half of the last century when DK did his writing.

After World War II the United States gave away many billions in rebuilding Europe and Japan. After the fall of the Berlin wall West Germany took East Germany under its wing and helped it back to prosperity. Whenever there is a disaster the wealthy nations immediately step forward to help, even if the assisted nation views them as the enemy. Two examples: Iran (in 2004) with the recent quake or North Korea in dealing with the great train wreck.

There is more sharing between business and labor. Ordinary workers are given generous vacations, sick leave, insurance benefits and stock as well as stock options.

So, according to DK this application of the sharing principle will only increase and will lead to many changes.

He tells us that we are headed toward a centralized control of the earth’s resources and I must admit that for good or bad the peoples and nations of the earth have been headed in this direction with no end in sight. Unless there is some shift in momentum it does indeed look as if his prediction will come true.

The problem with independent souls looking ahead is that if past efforts at central control, are any sign then we should be wary indeed of a giant world-wide one manifesting in the future.

But consider this correspondence. The nations of the world are at a point in relationship quite similar to that of the thirteen colonies in America before a central government was established. In that age the states did not trust each other and there were often conflicts, border disputes, religious, economic and ethnic warring. There was a constant fear that one state may make war against another and trust was low.

If a master teacher would have made a prediction to them of a future controlling central government that would regulate the states so war between them would be improbable they would have been appalled and an image of a dictator would have loomed in their minds.

While it may be true that some of their fears may have been justified there are many benefits of the current system that would have not been foreseen by them.

Are most people happy we have a United States instead of many little conflicting countries? Most are.

Even so, if we can create a united world of cooperating nations we will, in several hundred years, look at what we have and be happy with the progress and not want to return to the past.

This will be our fate if freedom, light and love prevail. If the world allows those who do not love freedom and seek to control the minds of men to obtain power then the fate of the world will be gloomy indeed.

But do not forget. There is an eternal law called “the Law of Dominating Good” that manipulates circumstances so in the end a good result is obtained through the guiding intelligence of the human race.

Conclusion:

DK was making a prediction, not necessarily a statement of how he thinks things should be. It is indeed a very probable prediction. The job of the lights of the earth is to also to examine the trends of evolution and instead of letting others with selfish intent jump ahead and lead the parade, the servants of the race must guide the current of human events so good will dominate and the freedom that seeks expression in the human breast always has place to expand and move.

Insanity in individuals is something rare – but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900)

May 8,  2004

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

 

Capitalism/Socialism 1.2

Capitalism/Socialism 1.2

In relation to DK a reader says:

“In my view either DK is lacking common sense in this particular area or there are a lot of missing pieces I have not read or he has left out.”

JJ: I believe the statement below is one of concern to you:

“National material assets and the needed commodities will all be provided for under an entirely new system. – Private enterprise will still exist, but will be regulated; the great public utilities, the major material resources and the sources of planetary wealth – iron, steel, oil and wheat, for instance – will be owned in the first place by a governing, controlling international group; they will, however, be prepared for international consumption by national groups chosen by the people and under international direction.”

I personally think that DK’s wisdom and light he presents in the Bailey books is unsurpassed, but even though he is an earned authority when it comes down to principles I do not accept him carte blanche on all matters, especially in matters of government.

I think the reader is correct on both points here. Let me cover the second one first concerning the possibility of missing pieces.

Yes, there are missing pieces. No one can give an entire philosophy in a paragraph. If you read this with a socialist filters one would think he supports the old style Soviet central control. I have carefully studied all his writings and this is just not the case. Also, he wrote during an important part of history approx 1920-1949 and during this time period made numerous comments on current events and endeavors. This is particularly important to examine to get an idea of how such a teacher reacts to proven dangers of the time. Such an examination gives us a clearer idea than any talk of theory about the true sensibilities of the man.

(1) The most important thing he did was encourage resistance toward Hitler at any cost from the beginning.

(2) He supported the Atlantic Charter and Four Freedoms espoused during World War II. The text is at the end of this post.

(3) He was against pacifism when freedom was at stake.

(4) He supported nuclear energy for the generation of power.

(5) He was against the Soviet style state control.

(6) He was supportive of the U.N. but against the inclusion of tyrannical and abusive governments.

(7) He foresaw that the establishment of Israel would create much tension and many problems in the Middle East.

During the 30 years he communicated with Alice A. Bailey he did not seem to make one call in relation to current events that ran contrary to the principle of freedom or common sense.

Here is what he said about Democracy:

Government by a true democracy. This again will be made possible through a right use of the systems of education and by a steady training of the people to recognise the finer values, the more correct point of view, the higher idealism, and the spirit of synthesis and of cooperative unity. Cooperative unity differs from an enforced unity in that the subjective spirit and the objective form are functioning towards one recognised end. Today, such a thing as a true democracy is unknown, and the mass of the people in the democratic countries are as much at the mercy of the politicians and of the financial forces as are the people under the rule of dictatorships, enlightened or unenlightened. These latter might be regarded as selfish idealists. But I would have you here note the word ‘idealist’! When, however, the world has in it more truly awakened people and more thinking men and women, we shall see a purification of the political field taking place, and a cleansing of our processes of representation instituted, as well as a more exacting accounting required from the people of those whom they have chosen to put in authority. There must eventually be a closer tie-up between the educational system, the legal system and the government, but it will all be directed to an effort to work out the best ideals of the thinkers of the day. This period does not lie so far ahead as you might imagine, particularly if the first move in this direction is made by the New Group of World Servers.”

Externalization of the Hierarchy, Pg 52-53

A particularly encouraging statement is: “When, however, the world has in it more truly awakened people and more thinking men and women, we shall see a purification of the political field taking place, and a cleansing of our processes of representation instituted, as well as a more exacting accounting required from the people of those whom they have chosen to put in authority.”

It is interesting that he supports “a more exacting accounting” of those who shall lead us.

In speaking of dictatorships he says that the “animating principle is not one of the new age ideals.”

If we then put together a complete picture of DK’s endorsement we get a picture of a teacher who exercises wisdom and supports free will and freedom.

That said, what about the reader’s other point – that DK seems to be lacking common sense in his views of an international group controlling and regulating distribution of resources?

I think he may have a point here despite the fact that DK has an excellent track record and is a Master of Wisdom.

First, just because he is a master does not mean he is perfect. All of us, great or small, develop excellence in those areas where we focus attention and may have lack in areas where our attention is not.

Secondly, DK indicates that he prefers the Eastern world and has had only a few incarnations in the West and was not that enamored with western ways. This fact may have caused him to have an ingrained bias against western private enterprise and to lean toward a more strongly centralized system.

Whatever the case, the student will always get in trouble, even with the words of Christ himself, if he interprets in a black and white manner without attempting to understand for himself the principles at play.

This is what we will do next in this series – that is, we will examine DK’s controversial quote and look at the principle behind it.

We’ll end this post by including the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms endorsed by DK.

THE EIGHT POINTS OF THE ATLANTIC CHARTER

August 14, 1941

The President of the United States of America, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing his Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

Fourth, they will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security.

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;

Eighth, they believe that all the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons, must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measures which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.

THE FOUR FREEDOMS

January 6, 1941

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression-everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way-everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want-which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear-which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour-anywhere in the world.

“An education isn’t how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It’s being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don’t.” Anatole France (1844 – 1924)

May 7,  2004

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

Capitalism/Socialism 1.1

Capitalism/Socialism 1.1

Good comments from the group on capitalism and socialism.

It is indeed true that they both have their advantages and disadvantages. If I had to pick one at present I would pick capitalism because it works in a society, as a whole, where the individual good is valued over the group good and works in an atmosphere of freedom. Where the consciousness of the society has not evolved to the group good social programs and especially communism, need to be administered by force and are presently breeding grounds for tyranny.

Keep in mind that evil is often a misplaced good. The principle of sharing is, of course good, but when undue force is used in making people do the right thing a greater evil is created than that administered by the crime lords of the world.

On the other hand, the principle of sharing, including socialism could avoid the present evils associated with them if the following occurred.

(1) The consciousness of society rises to group consciousness where the majority of the individuals therein seek the good of the group above the individual. This would involve the political parties seeking the good of the whole above the good of the party. Unfortunately, we area long ways from this.

(2) The freedom of the group and individual are given maximum possible latitude.

(3) Individual initiative is honored, encouraged and rewarded. This will be essential for a long time to come as civilization is a long way away from service without the incentive of individual reward.

(4) Waste and inefficiency must be reduced to match those found in capitalism and free enterprise.

Inefficiency is indeed a major problem in social programs. It often costs two, three or even four dollars in administration for every dollar that is given away. In addition, even when there is no apparent profit motive the cost associated with the end result is often several times more than with free enterprise taking a profit.

When I was in the hospital in 1958 my hospital room was $8 a day which is less than $100 in today’s money. Basically medical bills were low enough that one could say we had universal health care back then, as most everyone could a for health care. But then the government stepped in to help with social engineering and today a room costs around $3000 or so a day.

This is completely unacceptable and is a major reason why socialism has always failed to improve the economy of the nations. This is one of the reasons the Soviet Union collapsed.

(5) The majority of the population should approve of the programs and be satisfied that their monetary contribution is well spent with fairness.

This is a big gripe many, including myself, with current social programs. I don’t like my taxes being wasted, neither do I like them going to people who take advantage of the system and will not help themselves. I especially do not like making a contribution when I get little or nothing in return.

To solve these problems I wrote the Treatise entitled The Molecular Business. It works through each of these problems as follows:

(1) It works with the consciousness of people as they are today and is not dependent on an ideal consciousness to succeed.

(2) It works with the freedom of the individual. If you are not happy you can withdraw.

(3) Even though all are paid the same wage other monetary and management incentives are offered.

(4) There would be greater efficiency than found in capitalistic businesses today.

(5) The will of the majority is honored.

If you have not read this treatise yet you can find it by going to the archives at: LINK

“Calamities are of two kinds: misfortunes to ourselves, and good fortune to others.” Ambrose Bierce (1842 – 1914)

May 6,  2004

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

 

Capitalism/Socialism 1.0

Capitalism/Socialism 1.0

Our Crème acolyte gives us a quote from DK that will be unnerving to some free enterprisers. He gives it as evidence that Benjamin Créme is correct in his socialistic/communistic teachings.

“The principle of barter and of exchange (to the benefit of all concerned) will control. – Owing to the development of atomic energy on behalf of human welfare, national currencies will have been largely superseded, not only by a system of barter but by a universal monetary exchange – representative of the bartered goods when they are relatively small and unimportant – and by a planned scale of related values. National material assets and the needed commodities will all be provided for under an entirely new system. – Private enterprise will still exist, but will be regulated; the great public utilities, the major material resources and the sources of planetary wealth – iron, steel, oil and wheat, for instance – will be owned in the first place by a governing, controlling international group; they will, however, be prepared for international consumption by national groups chosen by the people and under international direction.” Externalisation of the Hierarchy, Page 581

If one reads this and nothing else he would think that DK is indeed on the side of socialism and government control. I will admit that of all his writings this, taken by itself is perhaps the most disturbing which sounds like a socialist plan similar to what Hitler had in mind, which brings us to an important consideration.

Suppose DK, the Bible or some trusted teachers says something that just flat out disagrees with a principle understood by my soul? What do I do then? Do I acquiesce my reason and understanding and just blindly accept?

No.

Do I totally reject it then?

No.

What do I do?

You go by the highest you know and at the same time give weight to the earned authority. You consider that you may have misunderstood the words or are missing pieces to a greater understanding.

Therefore, if DK or anyone else states any teaching that goes against the light I have I will not accept, but will put the teaching in the background if it comes from an earned authority. If the teaching comes from one of the numerous unearned authorities I will not waste much time or thought upon it if it does not register with my soul.

That said we must ask if DK is taking the side of socialism or even communism here?

To understand his teachings the reader must examine what he is against before he can fully understand what he is for.

When Hitler came to power there were quite a number of psychics, teachers and spiritual leaders who not only tolerated him but almost embraced him. Today we see the evil behind Hitler as an obvious thing, but evil is not so obvious when it is on the rise. DK, from the beginning saw Hitler for what he was.

He stated:

“In the world order of the Axis powers, the individual has no rights; he has no freedom except in so far as he serves the state; there will be no liberty of thought or conscience, all issues will be decided by the state, and the private citizen will have no right to an opinion. Men will be drafted like slaves into the service of the state.

“Such is the picture of the order which the Axis powers are preparing to impose upon the world, and to this their own words testify. Only insight into the true nature of this crisis, a determination to face the facts, and fearlessness will suffice to defeat Hitler. “This conquering fearlessness must be based on a recognition of the spiritual values involved, on a belief in God, and on a commonsense which is determined to establish security, right human relations and liberty.

“It is important that people face up to the facts immediately. They must realise what is the nature of the world order which Hitler is preparing to enforce, and what lies ahead of humanity if the Axis powers triumph. It is essential that the little children of the world be rescued from this overshadowing evil and from the false education to which they will be subjected if the totalitarian powers hold Europe in their grasp.” Externalization of the Hierarchy, Pages 188-189, April 1940

Then after the war instead of speaking favorably of communist Russia he criticized it as repressive, separative and totalitarian.

Her correctly teaches that we are headed toward a one world government. There is no getting around this product of evolution. Instead of decrying and resisting this movement what must happen is that the lights of the earth must participate in it to insure that the principle of freedom is upheld. Think of it. If the lights stay on the sidelines waiting for some rapture then the future government will be planned and executed by selfish materialists who do not have the good of the whole at heart.

When the United Nations was established DK acknowledged that it carried the seed of the future, but also saw an alarming danger. He said:

“The United Nations is still the hope of the world and can remain so; it is a great field of experimentation, but is suffering today from an initial error. That error was the admitting of a totalitarian power into its nations. For seven long and terrible years the Forces of Light had been fighting totalitarianism. In the early days of the post-war period the Nations compromised with principles and admitted Russia to the United Nations. Had they proceeded to unite all the other nations of the world on the sure ground of economic reform, of needed national reorganisation and of regional groups (a better term than “blocs”), Russia would have been forced to conform, for her very existence would have been at stake. An initial error can lead to much trouble, and it is this type of trouble which the United Nations today faces.” Externalisation of the Hierarchy, Page 640 – April 1948

His hope was thus for a United Nations of the free countries of the world and excluding the totalitarian ones until they reform. This danger still exists within the U.N. even though Russia has underwent significant changes. The idea has been to include all nations no matter what their human rights record and thus the problem with the U.N. of over a half century ago still exists today.

DK thus stood up for freedom and common sense by endorsing power in the hands of the free nations and coming out against Hitler and other tyrants.

Concerning the future world government he said that it would include the best ingredients of the east and the west and of socialism and capitalism.

He gave nine points that he considered desirable for future government. Keep in mind this New World Order he speaks of is the one we are living in now, for he wrote this right after the War.

“1. The new world order must meet the immediate need and not be an attempt to satisfy some distant, idealistic vision.

“2. The new world order must be appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis and to a humanity which is badly shattered by the experience.

“3. The new world order must lay the foundation for a future world order which will be possible only after a time of recovery, of reconstruction, and of rebuilding.

“4. The new world order will be founded on the recognition that all men are equal in origin and goal but that all are at differing stages of evolutionary development; that personal integrity, intelligence, vision and experience, plus a marked goodwill, should indicate leadership. The domination of the proletariat over the aristocracy and bourgeoisie, as in Russia, or the domination of an entrenched aristocracy over the proletariat and middle classes, as has been until lately the case in Great Britain, must disappear. The control of labour by capital or the control of capital by labour must also go.

“5. In the new world order, the governing body in any nation should be composed of those who work for the greatest good of the greatest number and who at the same time offer opportunity to all, seeing to it that the individual is left free. Today the men of vision are achieving recognition, thus making possible a right choice of leaders. It was not possible until this century.

“6. The new world order will be founded on an active sense of responsibility. The rule will be “all for one and one for all.” This attitude among nations will have to be developed. It is not yet present.

“7. The new world order will not impose a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations. The sovereign rights of each nation will be recognised and its peculiar genius, individual trends and racial qualities will be permitted full expression. In one particular only should there be an attempt to produce unity, and that will be in the field of education.

“8. The new world order will recognise that the produce of the world, the natural resources of the planet and its riches, belong to no one nation but should be shared by all. There will be no nations under the category “haves” and others under the opposite category. A fair and properly organised distribution of the wheat, the oil and the mineral wealth of the world will be developed, based upon the needs of each nation, upon its own internal resources and the requirements of its people. All this will be worked out in relation to the whole.

“9. In the preparatory period for the new world order there will be a steady and regulated disarmament. It will not be optional. No nation will be permitted to produce and organise any equipment for destructive purposes or to infringe the security of any other nation. One of the first tasks of any future peace conference will be to regulate this matter and gradually see to the disarming of the nations.” Externalisation of the Hierarchy, Pages 190-191

Number 8 sounds a little like the quote our friend gave.

Question: What is right/wrong – good/bad about capitalism/free enterprise and socialism/communism as they have existed in the last century?

What must be left behind and what must we take with us to the future?

The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority. Ralph W. Sockman

May 5,  2004

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

Dialog with New Reader

Dialog with New Reader

Thought I would post my response to fairly new reader. Some people read the first Immortal book and get very enthused until they discover some of the teachings which run contrary to orthodoxy. Since this occurs periodically and may happen with some of your friends I thought I would make available this dialog.

Reader: I found the dialog in your book with John the Revelator interesting but do not see him saying anything in your other writings, such as those about reincarnation which is a false doctrine. What gives?

JJ: Reincarnation and the Bible was written by me back around 1980. The Immortal series (which you have read one of three books) was written much later and is presented as a combination of fact and fiction with some events based on truth and some fictionalized. This is explained in the book itself.

There are two reasons for this. The first is to present true teachings in an interesting manner so people will read and understand them.

The second is to avoid the mark of the Beast. I would suggest you go to the beginning of the archives and read the teachings on the Beast and his mark which is basically this.

He who places an outward authority before his mind in the place of the Holy Spirit (which works within) has the mark. This mark can be something or someone good such as the Bible, a church, a prophet or even John the Beloved.

If I were to teach from the authority of an outward source in such a stance so that source is not questioned and seen as basically infallible then the student acquires the mark of the beast.

Therefore, in my writings I claim no authority except as the Holy Spirit speaks to the reader as he reads, which thing happened to you when you read the first book. You want to deny this now, but if you are honest you will have to admit it.

You are seeking an outward John or prophet to be your authority and this is the mark of the beast which must be transcended through finding the Holy Spirit which resides within your own mind and heart. I hope you will read the beginning archives so you can see the truth behind my words here. Also, you might want to read the other two Immortal books.

The teachings I give on reincarnation are a stumbling block to many Christians in a similar manner that the teachings of Jesus concerning the Sabbath were. Jesus was accused of violating the law and the prophets they screamed.

But he was not. When one honestly examines the scriptures we see that Jesus was in harmony with the scriptures as am I with reincarnation.

The scriptures plainly verify reincarnation as my writings testify. You can read my writings on this in the archives.

So why does a believer of scripture such as yourself criticize me for teaching reincarnation when it is proven in the scriptures?

(1) I gave you positive scriptural evidence that we lived before birth.

(2) I gave irrefutable evidence that John the Baptist was Elijah.

(3) God’s will is to HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” I Tim 2:4 God’s will is always fulfilled, but this cannot be done without reincarnation.

(4) Obviously reincarnation was a popular belief back then for many thought that Jesus may be Elijah or Jeremiah born again (see Matt 16:13-14)

(5) Some of the early church Fathers wrote of reincarnation, such as Origen.

Reader: You say you proved reincarnation to yourself through handwriting but then say it was regression that made you take it seriously. Which is correct?

JJ: Both are correct. I believed in reincarnation when I was young but then when I started going to church I was taught that this was an evil doctrine contrary to the scriptures. I swallowed this explanation for about 12 years. I then did experiments with past life regression that made me take it seriously. This was followed by studies in handwriting samples that convinced me.

Reader: Here’s what my research into the named book turned up. …”Almost any hypnotic subject capable of going into a deep trance will babble about a previous incarnation if the hypnotist asks him to. He will babble just as freely about his future incarnations….In every case of this sort where there has been adequate checking on the subject’s past, it has been found that the subject was weaving together long forgotten bits of information acquired during his early years” (Gardner 1957).

JJ: Not so. Such a thing would not explain experiences I had such as the one I mentioned in the treatise. There have been numerous cases where information has been retrieved that was not available in the current life. I have had this happen in my own regressions. Sometimes the subject will even speak in a foreign or ancient language of which he has no knowledge of in this life.

Reader: Are you blind? You have twisted your own mind to believe these things, and now you shine your wasting rays of black light onto all others you meet. Your payload of souls you will lead into damnation shall be great, but if so, these were never intended for paradise anyway.

JJ: You insult me whereas I give the light of scripture to you that you claim to accept. Who is using the words of light here? It is I who is using the scriptures to prove my point, not you. Think on that.

Reader: It is obvious by your dialect what kind of man you are, much in the same way you claim to know so much about a person simply through his or her handwriting, so much more can be learned about someone through the actual words they reveal. I have not the time , nor the patience to debate further, but this reproach I decree, that you should delete the archive, and if you must write, begin anew, and this time, stick to the truth, and leave out all the bs.

JJ: Consider this scripture: Satan is “the accuser of the brethren.” Rev 12:10 Who is being the accuser here? Who is accusing without cause? Who is behaving like the Biblical Satan?

Reader: I doubt you’ll make it to this point in this letter, but if you do, I am sure you won’t respond.

JJ: You are obviously wrong about me here just as you are wrong about my teachings. Go back to your original feeling when you read my book “as a little child” without preconceived notions.

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof. Ashley Montague

May 4,  2004

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

Conflict Resolution

Conflict Resolution

Several have questioned my wisdom concerning the recent dialog with the Crème supporter There are several reasons they question this.

(1) Benjamin Crème has been discussed before.

(2) Some do not like the conflict of discussions of disagreements at all.

(3) Some do not mind a little conflict but do not want to see it move beyond a couple posts.

(4) Some believe we should not attempt to expose illusion in any other philosophy.

Let me make a few comments on these points.

(1) Benjamin Crème has been discussed before. While it is true that we have discussed Crème before; in this round the Crème supporter led us into discussions where new ground was covered. True some details were repeated, but a considerable amount of new material and teachings were added.

I think some just tuned out thinking that there was nothing new, but I assure you that in most of my posts on the subject that new teachings were added. I think some missed important ones because of the feeling that only a rehash was being offered.

(2) Some do not like the conflict of discussions of disagreements at all. If a Keys member does not like the idea of confronting illusion then he is in the wrong group. When an illusionary idea is presented that I believe the majority of the group already see for what it is, or if it has been covered before, I will usually not comment. But if someone presents an illusion which would be beneficial to many to dispel then I will tackle it. When this occurs it can sometimes be handled with a post or two. Other times it may take a half dozen or so.

The illusion which to which the greatest attention was given is the idea that duality can easily be bypassed by basically believing you are centered in some non dualistic point, sometimes called the great void.

Because this illusion is so widely circulated and effects so many new agers it was covered from many angles.

Now when a student brings it up we can just refer him to the archives.

There must be contrast between light and dark for vision to manifest. Illusion must be confronted head on and the contrast between illusion and reality must interplay in order to see the two for what they are.

When I teach I attempt to not offend the various religions and philosophies by mentioning them by name, but generally will comment on specific trends of thought and teachings and then comment. Generally, I will only mention a specific movement when someone on the group brings it up. If someone brings up a name such as Benjamin Créme then I will comment if I feel clarification is needed.

I’m sure there are more Benjamin Créme readers here than have surfaced. The are also students of Ramtha, Elizabeth Prophet, standard Christianity and many other teachers. A lot of these teachers, including Crème, teach some great truths and stimulate many to search and discover. Students of all beliefs are welcome to stay and will not be judged unless they attempt to judge or convert us to what I see to be illusion.

Our friend began this exchange by extolling the virtues of Crème, posting an article from him, while mentioning we were in denial about him. This demanded a response and led to the exchange.

If he would have merely given a short quote from Crème about the subject at hand then we would have probably talked about the thought and not the man behind the thought.

Any quote from any source is welcome and will probably not lead to conflict if it is the idea that is the focus and not the man behind the idea. I certainly hope that no one is telling other groups that they need to believe my teachings because I am JJ Dewey. On the other hand, if they quote me and let my words stand for themselves I am happy with this.

(3) Some do not mind a little conflict but do not want to see it move beyond a couple posts.

Keep in mind here that the current topic is illusion.

Tell me this. In which situation will you learn the most in a cake-making class?

(A) Studying the theory and creation of cakes.

(B) Actually making some cakes and then tasting them after the work is complete.

The answer is obvious as far as cakes go (which is of course B) but is not so obvious when it comes to metaphysics-philosophy-spirituality.

In these categories the line of least resistance is to dwell on theory and that which cannot be proven. Then when we come to actually applying something we find (as we do with making a cake) that we must supply specific ingredients, heat and timing etc. Finally when the work is complete we must taste the whole to see if the work is good.

Here is something I find interesting. We have gone through a number of conflicts (related to teachings) that have generated considerable impatience and complaints from readers. Many felt we were spinning our wheels.

But then what part of the archives do you suppose is the source of some of the greatest praise I receive from new readers?

Right. It is these same writings where conflict seemed wearisome to current readers. In other words, when the cake was done and was tasted by newcomers the taste caught their interest.

As usual the second key of judgment must be used. It is certainly possible to overdo things and this must be avoided. I attempt to feel out when the recipe is complete and then leave the cake alone to bake. Your comments are always a big help here.

(4) Some believe we should not attempt to expose illusion in any other philosophy.

In other words, isn’t it a sign of tolerance to just live and let live as far as differing philosophies go?

Yes, it is, but live and let live has different interpretations by differing people.

For one thing, most of those with who I have had conflicting dialog have not felt that I have interfered with their ability to live according to their will. Anyone can follow any belief system they desire and yet be a good and accepted member of the group. The live and let live philosophy is an important ingredient of our direction here. This does not mean that members are not free to question me or any other member when they make a statement that makes no sense to them.

If we are not allowed to question and to clarify then we will not learn much more than unusable theory.

Overall Benjamin Créme is probably a more important person to examine than meets the eye.

One evidence of this is the statement by Glenys that in many metaphysical gatherings quite a large number are Crème followers. Now the people that come to these gatherings she mentions are thinkers and often people of influence, far above the typical new age connoisseur. Many of the Crème followers are very bright and have real potential to prepare the field for the coming of Christ.

If therefore Crème is right then indeed it would be important to pay attention to his message so the lights could join forces and aid the Christ in his preparations.

But if he is wrong then what?

Then you have a large number of intelligent seekers and disciples diverted into looking for him where he is not and making preparations for something other than Christ.

And what is that “something other?’

Some think it is an antichrist, others a false teacher and still others just a diversion sponsored by the Dark Brothers to hinder the work of light as much as possible.

Whatever the case, because of what is at stake it can only be helpful to at least get the basic pros and cons of Benjamin Créme before the seekers so they can run them by their own souls and make up their own minds. Many of those who investigate Crème only get one side of the equation. The ground that we have covered and will make available in the archives will be helpful for the pilgrims that wander through them. And it is interesting to note that many people read the archives who never buy my books or come to this group.

It’s getting to the point now that most of the time when I do a search on a spiritual topic that something from the archives comes up near the top.

This is one step we have taken to reach the public that is on its way to the envisioned success.

“If thee marries for money, thee surely will earn it.” Ezra Bowen

May 1,  2004

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

Créme and Illusion 2.0

Créme and Illusion 2.0

Créme Supporter: Today, Créme does not speak of a date or a time-frame, although the words, “very soon” are to be attributed to his Master and Maitreya. In 1977 Maitreya said the whole world would know the fact of His existence and presence “very soon”.

JJ: You can save Crème some embarrassment by communicating to him and his strange hierarchy that he is wrong again. The coming will not be “very soon.” There are at least 20 years of preparation before he can “appear” in the physical. (written in 2004) Much more needs to be done than declaring that he is secretly running around the earth incognito.

Crème’s followers will not like the teachings of the real Christ any more than they like mine.

Créme Supporter: Now, it is possible that Créme could be under the influence of some glamour or illusion – but if he were and it were interfering with the Master’s work, with the group good and with the Plan – do you not think that his Master would bring the needed eradication to Créme’s attention? Or even the Master withdrawing His contact with Créme until he tackles those glamours and illusions?

JJ: You are assuming that he is in contact with a Master of Wisdom and not some other entity or thoughtform. I make no such assumption.

Créme Supporter: What if the interviewer who believes that the moon is made of green cheese is interviewing someone who believes that the moon is not made of green cheese, that the moon is made of basalt (feldspar, pyroxene, apatite, magnetite)? Are you telling me that the interviewer is not prone to be bias, not prone to fabrication, not prone to dishonesty when writing an article about the interview?

JJ: Again I say this: A person can be full of illusions but if he is honest and gives actual quotes then the illusions have nothing to do with whether or not the quotes are accurate. For instance, most of the New York Times staff hates George Bush and distort his views in many of their stories. But when they give an actual quote it is almost without exception accurate. Bias or illusion does not alter a quote. Only an outright act of dishonesty can.

Show me examples of actual lying by Morton and I’ll start doubting the quotes. Better yet write Crème and ask him if the quotes are accurate and/or reflect his views. I keep asking Crème followers to do this and no one seems to have the guts to do it.

Créme Supporter: In Créme’s work, we both see the consistency in relation to the work of Blavatsky and Bailey – there are differences, but we do not lose sight of the common ground.

JJ: To Crème’s credit he is an astute student of Bailey and uses much of her material. He does teach contrary to the teachings on several core issues such as the use of nuclear energy. Créme is to Bailey as Charles T. Russell (Jehovah’s Witness founder) is to the Bible.

Créme Supporter: I have read and heard people speak about Benjamin Créme being cold, about his lectures being boring or lifeless or both. There are people, and I think you are one of them, who speak about Créme lacking a spiritual vibration and such. Could it be that Créme’s ray structure is not compatible with your own?

JJ: I thought he was a decent lecturer and did not come across as cold. There’s nothing wrong with his rays. What is wrong is that he has been dead wrong yet not admitting it. “To thine own self be true.”

Créme Supporter: Yet, JJ:, you think that Créme is glamoured and under heavy illusion. Could it not be your own glamour and illusion?

JJ: This is always possible and all the more reason to use plain old common sense and the power of discernment and the second Key of judgment. To do this examine Crème’s writings and ask: How many have been proven to be incorrect?

Answer: Dozens.

Examine my writings and ask the same question:

Answer: Zero

Créme Supporter: The message from Maitreya is seemingly mundane; which is precisely why I chose it. Let me elaborate: most people would comment on the normalcy of the message, how it appears blasé, … The Christ energy in the message is known to some, but it’s not to be expected that all of the average masses can consciously detect it. Furthermore, the average thinking person sees the words, but does not experience the revelation of their meaning.

JJ: You remind me a lot of the Mormon faithful here. Twice a year they attend or watch the general conferences of the church and listen to the general authorities. To the casual observer (and most members) the speeches are extremely boring, repetitive and reiterate what has been said many times before. But if you take a very astute Mormon and mention this to him he will say something like this:

“Your problem is that you did not listen closely enough. These authorities have profound wisdom and there is hidden depth in their words that reveal revelation after revelation. Their words may sound simple but they are really very deep and profound.”

But then if you ask them to reveal to you this profound truth or revelation he received from the speeches he will give you a blank stare.

Créme Supporter: The question that I leave you with, JJ:, and whoever in the group would like to answer, is the following:

Who on earth (and in the public arena) do you think are some of the most evolved (from the point of evolution) people living today? In other words, who do you think is a soul-infused personality – individuals who are not just in contact with their soul – but know themselves to be the soul? Also, people nearing this degree of consciousness can also be mentioned.

JJ: First let me state that many who are fairly high initiates are not versed in the ancient wisdom and would not know what is meant by a “soul-infused personality.” Initiates are often focused along their lines of service and are not considered particularly spiritual.

You will notice that Créme seems to think that only those on the left in today’s world are advanced enough to be initiates. The truth is they are on both sides. Those on the right are more likely to be initiates along the lines of 1-3-5-7 or politics, science, business, philosophy-logic-reasoning and those on the left are more likely to be found in 2-4-6 or social movements, creative arts, education etc. This is not a hard and fast rule, but a general one.

Living initiates in 2004 on the right are:

Ann Coulter
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Condoleezza Rice
George W Bush
Ronald Reagan
Newt Gingrich
David Horowitz
Ward Connerly
Roger Ailes
Ted Nugent
Steve Forbes
Oliver North
Benjamin Netanyahu
Mel Gibson

Near the Middle we have:

Bill O’Reilly
John Stossel
Dennis Miller
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Colin Powell
Rudy Giuliani
Lech Walesa
Harry Wu (Civil Rights Activist)

On the Left we have:

Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace)
Steve Jobs
Bill Gates
Nelson Mandela
Steven Spielberg
George Lucas
Jane Fonda
Ted Turner
Gorbachev
Dr. Jack Kevorkian
Dan Brown – Author of the DaVinci Code
And Benjamin Crème – though not as high as he sees himself

These are not all 100% soul-infused by any means but are initiates of some degree.

Some of the most soul-infused have been side-tracked and are having difficulty in finding their true calling during this period of transition. That is one of my purposes – to find them and redirect them to the Aquarian energies rather than the Piscean.

Many there are who believe themselves to be on the path of enlightenment when in reality they are stuck in the energies and thoughtforms of the past. This needs to be corrected to some degree before Christ can manifest.

Créme Supporter: Your analogy of the hypnotist is “a feeble analogy dependent on ignorance and unsound conclusions. The analogy you created is full of fanciful elaboration and has a clever tone, but it lacks wisdom because it is not applicable.

“How so? I will ask you a question. If you were walking down the street and a man politely attracted your attention and you stopped and he said, “Gentleman, ponder on this: today the sun is bright” Would you, JJ:, think he was hypnotically implanting a thought in your mind?

JJ: My friend. My analogy was very sound and you never pointed out any flaw in the correspondence, least of all with this example. Having a casual conversation with a stranger is about a million miles away from an encounter with a hypnotic situation.

What causes a hypnotic situation? A reader said it very well:

“To hypnotize someone, anyone, all you need to do is bypass his or her Critical Faculty. This can be done by various methods that produce an altered state of mind. The most common everyday method is simply via a bond of trust. Once someone trusts someone else to the point that they `believe every word they say’, they are then in a state of hypnosis and every time they receive some communication from this person, they allow it to enter directly into their subconscious bypassing their critical reasoning process.”

Two things cause this to happen.

(1) The person relinquishes his “critical faculty” to a known hypnotist and places his trust in him for some predetermined result.

(2) A parent, guru or leader generates so much trust that the student yields all (or most) critical thinking in favor of the authoritative voice. Crème fits in this category in relation to his followers because he is seen as speaking the words and will of Christ. Who is going to argue with the Messiah?

Some stranger commenting on the brightness of the sun certainly does not carry the authority of Christ,

Créme Supporter: Does the man become a hypnotist when you have full ability to reject the thought? Does the man become a hypnotist if you agree with the thought he presents?

JJ: Under actual hypnosis the subject always thinks he has full power to reject the suggestion of the hypnotist at any time, but he will not if he is under a deep trance – not unless the suggestion is outrageous to his belief system.

You think you merely agree with Créme, but I have seen no sign of independent thinking. If Créme thinks a certain way you seem to think likewise with no deviation, especially when he claims to speak for Christ.

Even though he was blatantly wrong on a number of predictions you hypnotically bypass this information as if it did not exist. It enters not into your critical thinking.

Créme Supporter: The analogy of the hypnotist and his hypnotism fails because Créme does not manipulate anyone. The analogy fails because it is a belief that Créme is planting a thought by means of hypnotic suggestion.

JJ: I am not saying that Crème is attempting to use hypnosis. I am saying that when a person allows another in a position of authority (especially one who speaks for God or Christ) to be an absolute authority, then he relinquishes his critical mind, just as a subject does with hypnosis.

I’ve seen this not only with Créme followers, but with many who adore a religious or group leader.

It could even happen with those I teach. This is why I bring up the subject of thinking for ourselves periodically and claim no authority behind my words. Who ever disagrees with me should not see themselves as opposing God, Christ or some master.

Créme Supporter: There could be people who manipulate themselves into blindly believing everything Créme says – but I am not one of those possible people, nor does self-hypnosis mean Créme is a hypnotist.

JJ: So what has Crème taught that has not yet been proven to be wrong with which you disagree? What has Maitreya said through him with which you disagree?

Créme Supporter: The millions and millions of religious people who ‘bypass their critical reasoning process’ would fall into the category of the sleep state you ascribed to me. Is Christ a hypnotist because millions of people ‘believe every word he says’?

JJ: You are to blame if you believe anyone’s words without critically thinking about them and running them by your soul. It doesn’t matter if it appears to come from God himself.

Créme Supporter: I have faith that Christ is alive, here, in the flesh and awaiting His reappearance at the soonest possible time. Remember, faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

JJ: Most Bailey readers and many Christians believe this. This is not a new message. Even the Mormons believe Christ is still in a physical body and can appear to whomever he wants.

Créme Supporter: Therefore, my purpose becomes evident when I know that there are reasonable, intelligent people in this group who happen to misunderstand what Benjamin Créme speaks, a misunderstanding based on lack of knowledge and information.

JJ: Your problem here is that they do understand. More information here will not help your cause.

Créme Supporter: But when people misunderstand what Créme speaks because a crystallized belief holds their mind captive – I can do very little, if anything, about their conditioned state.

JJ: You’ve mentioned this crystallization several times. When I first heard of Crème in the early 80’s I bought his book. I have the first edition of “The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom.” I read the book, I later attended a lecture and contemned to monitor his teachings.

I’ve done a similar investigation with most every other major movement. They all have the idea that I just haven’t read or studied enough. Instead of reading one or two books and attending several classes I am supposed to read every single book and go to every class and lecture.

No one can humanly do this with all movements. You do not have to read every single book someone writes to have enough to make a judgment.

Have you read the Book of Mormon? Maybe you are missing something.

Have you read Paul Twitchell’s works from Ekankar? How about Elizabeth Claire Prophet? Have you read the Immortal? By your standards if you have not thoroughly checked them out you are crystallizing.

Créme Supporter: Today, Lucis Trust is a sufficient example when it comes to crystallization. Many people involved with Lucis Trust reject what Créme speaks because of one explanation or many.

JJ: Because someone rejects something that does not make sense does not indicate crystallization.

Créme Supporter: The point being, there are people who tend to see the glamours and the illusions in Créme’s group as Créme’s glamours and illusions.

JJ: It’s Crème’s actual teachings we have checked out. Not the flaws of the followers.

Créme Supporter: Thus, if you see Créme as glamoured – could it not be the glamour surrounding him, around the periphery, that you recognize?

JJ: No. I had never met a Crème follower when I reached my first conclusion about him.

Créme Supporter: Is it your soul granting you the authority to tell me that I am in a trance-sleep state and to explain my experience as illusion? Is it your soul who seeks to discredit, deny and demean my reality?

JJ: My soul tells me you have great potential which could be wasted if you do not take your next step. I am guided to shake you for a moment and then step back and observe and be ready to extend the arm of fellowship. I give you a 30-70% chance short term but a 70-30% long term. A 30% chance is worth fighting for.

Let me clarify an important point. I am not saying that all of Crème’s teachings are false. Much of what he says has truth in it, especially his teachings using the Bailey material for a base.

Where I see a lack of evidence is in his claim that Christ is speaking through him. You would think that Christ could plan a couple months ahead and make the plan materialize, but according to Créme he has failed in this four or more times. Can you not see this does not make sense????

But above this my soul does not confirm this message from Crème. There is no “flashing forth” in the intuitive mind when Crème speaks on behalf of Maitreya.

I think he does have a good mind and sometimes he comes up with an interesting twist on the Bailey material, but consider this. If Crème did not have this fabulous claim that Christ was speaking to him would anyone listen to him?

Suppose it was not Christ who speaks through him but someone else. How many followers would he have then? When his followers then hear words they think are from their Lord there will be no questioning, but a willingness to please and to follow at all costs. This is a dangerous situation, a breeding ground for Kool Aide drinking and riding the Hale Bop comet. One must look carefully and get soul confirmation before he leaps.

“Always tell the truth, not only because it is the decent thing to do, but because it gives you such an advantage over the man who is trying to remember his lies!” Sam Brookes

April 26,  2004

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