Keys Writings 2015, Part 7

This entry is part 8 of 13 in the series 2015B

March 25, 2015

Pacifism and Judgment

We’ve discussed diet and pacifism from a scriptural point of view. This can be helpful, but rarely solves any argument. Even though many believe the scriptures should be the last word on any subject they rarely are because most merely interpret them according to their own mindset and bias.

Let me therefore speak for a moment from the soul tempered with common sense and reason.

First let us look at pacifism. More important than asking what God thinks of it (as everyone has a different idea of what God thinks) is to ask what are the guiding principles that should determine our actions when a strong or violent reaction seems required.

The answer isn’t whether the action will result in karma, as all actions create some degree of karma. The truth is that sometimes in life we are faced with the choice between three decisions, which are:

(1) Taking the road to the left

(2) Taking the road to the right

(3) Standing still – doing nothing.

For instance, before World War II when faced with the rise if Hitler there were those in Churchill’s camp who wanted to take strong measures to deal with him. Then there was a second more numerous group who felt moderate measures were sufficient. Finally, there were others who wanted to do nothing, except maybe send Hitler good vibes.

The position of those in the third group is usually temporary in nature as changing circumstances will eventually force a choice that leads toward action of some kind.

For instance, before the war and the rounding up of the Jews in Germany many of that race were pacifists and felt the best course was to do nothing to oppose Hitler or prepare to deal with him.

After the war things changed. There probably was not a pacifist Jew left in Germany. I have never heard from a survivor that was not thankful for every German killed by the Allies in order to defeat Hitler.

So… what principle should guide us when considering a decision that may require violence?

Actually, it should be the same principle that guides all of our decisions which is this:

Will the end result of the Decision A result in better, more positive end results than Decision B?

Using this as a guide has proven to produce much better results than that produced by following the advice of some outward authority, even if it is the Bible, some expert or one who claims to speak for God.

Let us look at a possible situation.

You walk into your bank to make a deposit. As you are waiting in line a crazy guy comes in waving a gun. The security guard who is standing close to you draws to fire upon him, but the crazy guy shoots first and kills the guard.

He then puts the gun in his back pocket, takes off his jacket to reveal explosives strapped to his chest. He pulls out a cell phone and tells the group that when he punches in a code of three numbers that the device will explode and will kill everyone in the room. He says that before he does this that everyone is going to hear his grievances about the bank that refused to give him a loan and ruined his life.

He starts relating his story and seems to be nearing the end. You guess that you have less than a minute of life left in which to act or not act. Beside you is the security guard with his gun still in his hand. The crazy guy is shouting and screaming and as he prances back and forth he turns his back on the customers for a few seconds. This gives you time to grab the security officer’s gun and take him out.

Several thoughts run through your mind. You recall that the Bible says you should not kill. Should you obey this in black and white terms and just let yourself and about fifty others (including the crazy guy) die?

Or should you look at the end result of the two options and choose the one that makes the best sense?

You make a decision, which is a no brainer. The crazy guy is going to die anyway in a minute or so and taking him out will save you and fifty people.

You grab the gun and shoot the crazy guy in the head. Everyone in the bank cheers and many give you hugs shedding tears of gratitude. You are hailed ass a hero, but that is not the best part. The best part is that you return home safe to your loving wife and kids who depend on you.

I have presented this scenario to a number of pacifists I have met and haven’t met one yet who says he would take the gun and kill the crazy guy. Instead they would hope for a long shot that the police would come in and save them or maybe they would talk the guy into changing his mind.

When I tell them that no, the police are not going to save them and the guy is going to blow the place up – they still would refuse to take the guy out.

Taking the guy out is definitely the right decision because the end result is much better than the death and destruction caused by the bomb.

You would also be following the scripture that there is a time and season for all things, even “a time to kill.”

So why did Jesus seem to be a pacifist then? The key is revealed in the Revelation of John. Speaking of Christ it is written: “in righteousness he doth judge and make war.” Rev 19:10

Whether or not Christ will make war, that always involves violence, killing and death, is determined by good or righteous judgment.

Those who embrace light and love will only go to war and participate in violence when it is the last resort and have a fair chance at a good result. If a good result is not probable then the path of peace would be chosen.

‘In the days of Jesus the Roman empire reigned supreme and all who attempted to make war with it were destroyed. If Jesus and his little group had taken up the sword against any who opposed them they would have been wiped off the face of the earth and never heard of again. Jesus chose the wisest course of action which was to show no opposition and not pose any physical threat. The Christians following this example still suffered much grief, but they survived and the message of the Christ still lives in the hearts of men.

In other lifetimes when good judgment required it Christ did make war in righteousness and defeated his enemies. Each situation is different. One time may require turning the other cheek and going the extra mile and another may require the opposite.

The Second Key of Knowledge, the Key of Judgment, is the guiding principle. This insight is the lost key of the Buddha.


The logic of Christ was not the logic of this world.


Logic is the same in all worlds. Only the circumstances are different. Truth is truth. No one can supply one example that proves this incorrect. They can only point to nebulous ideas that cannot be put into words concerning God’s higher thought. They do not realize that illusion cannot be out into words that make sense. All truth can be put into words because the Word is God.

So, if you had been the guy in the bank would you have refused to take out the crazy guy and thus accumulate the karma of allowing 50 people to die?



I definitely believe that many of the founders of this country incurred very negative karma for their actions during the revolutionary war.


I would take the karma of those who fought for the cause of the freedom any day above those who stood on the fence and tried to remain neutral because of either pacifism or so they could be friends with whoever won,. That was about a third of the people.

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Rev 3:15-16



I will also state that the logic being employed by JJ and others is exactly the same logic employed by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition. No, I am not calling them inquisitors, but the logic is the same.


You are using Allan type of logic here and are 100% incorrect. A logical person does not fear a different point of view and it is totally against the stand of a logical person to punish one for merely espousing a view or opinion.

There is no hard evidence that a heretic is creating any harm, but in the example you know the crazy guy is about to kill 50 people and that action must be taken to save lives.

The real reasoning of those who punished heretics was that God’s way of thinking (which they see as their own) far transcends that of the more logical heretics. This is similar to thinking of religious pacifists.



I will also say that the violence that occurred in India was also exactly what St. Francis warned about and why he embraced a practice of voluntary poverty.


So, by your logic here a poor country like Afghanistan should be a safe place to live.

A much better plan is to not seek poverty for all, but abundance for all. The greatest stability will occur if all have equal opportunity for for abundance in life on all levels from the spiritual to the physical.



Sorry JJ, that is the logic of the world and Caiphas was being perfectly logical.


He wasn’t being logical at all – not any more than the medieval persecutors of the heretics for having a different opinion. Logical people do not fear a different teaching or opinion just as I and others do not fear anyone who comes here to challenge me or just debate.

You are avoiding my question about the crazy guy. What would you do and what is the logic in not taking him out? Why would you risk the karma of killing 50 people instead of just one?



Murdering another was not as great of a sin because you were only killing the persons body, not their soul. Heresy they truly believed, could lead to ETERNAL DAMNATION.


The eternal damnation idea was not logical nor connected with any proven reality. The reasonable and logical person does not attack those with a different opinion on a thing that cannot be demonstrated to be true. Now it is a different matter if a heretic wants to bomb a restaurant full of innocent people. Dealing with something like this goes beyond opposing a belief, but opposing real harm.

By your logic one should not prick a boil and release the poison because, by gosh, that would hurt and maybe destroy a few good cells. Have fun applying the pacifist logic to that situation.



March 26, 2015

Diet and Health

Let us put aside all supernatural authority on diet for a moment and just talk about it from the angle of common sense, reason and intuition.

There are two reasons cited to be a vegetarian. The first is for better health ad the second is an aversion to killing animals.

Let us look at the first. Are vegetarians healthier than meat eaters?

This is generally assumed to be the case but recent studies tells us otherwise. Here’s a couple quotes:

A new study from the Medical University of Graz in Austria finds that vegetarians are more physically active, drink less alcohol and smoke less tobacco than those who consume meat in their diets. Vegetarians also have a higher socioeconomic status and a lower body mass index. But the vegetarian diet — characterized by a low consumption of saturated fats and cholesterol that includes increased intake of fruits, vegetables and whole-grain products — carries elevated risks of cancer, allergies and mental health disorders.

Vegetarians were twice as likely to have allergies, a 50 percent increase in heart attacks and a 50 percent increase in incidences of cancer.

Vegetarians reported higher levels of impairment from disorders, chronic diseases, and “suffer significantly more often from anxiety/depression.”


Researchers at Oxford University recently followed 35,000 individuals aged 20 to 89 for a period of five years and discovered that vegans are 30% more likely to break a bone than their vegetarian and flesh-eating peers. A subsequent study conducted by Sydney’s Garvan Institute for Medical Research found that vegetarians had bones 5% less dense than meat-eaters. This can be attributed to the fact that many vegetarians and vegans consume very little calcium due to the limitations of their diet.


You would think vegetarians would be healthier than meat eaters, especially since this study shows they have a lower BMI and drink less alcohol but such is not true according to various studies.

Why do you suppose this would be the case? I would guess that part of the reason is that because the vegetarian doesn’t eat meat he has a strong craving for protein and many of them fill that need with foods that are harder on the system than meat. Many of them eat a lot of processed cheese, cow’s milk, starchy foods and tofu in an effort to get that satisfied full feeling you get from meat. It would be interesting to study the health of vegetarians who eat a large percentage of live foods. Now Steve Jobs did seem to live on a very restricted raw food diet, but unfortunately died early of cancer, so he fit the mold of these studies.

One study in favor of a vegetarian diet was done with Seventh Day Adventists. The church encourages members to be vegetarians, eat healthy and not drink or smoke. 30% of them are vegetarians. On the average they are quite a bit healthier than average. I think the reason for this is the church promotes an overall good diet and many members study nutrition and are careful about eating nutritious food.

Mormons also live longer and are healthier than average. They eat quite bit of meat but do not drink or smoke or drink coffee or tea..

Some researches think part of the reason these two groups are healthier than average is the positive influence of their religions as much as diet.

I have taken a particular interest in those who live to an very advanced age. Anyone over a hundred interests me, but I pay particular attention to anyone who approaches 105 or older. I’ve read quite a few stories relating to people 105 and older and do not recall one that said he or she was a vegetarian though I would suspect some are. I remember one guy who was over 110 saying he ate bacon and eggs every morning and another lady saying she ate ham hocks daily. Then there’s another lady who was 116 who raises and eats goats.

Over the years I looked for a common thread in the diet of those who lived in good health to an advanced age and I have found two things. Many of them raise a garden or farm animals and eat what they grow themselves. The most common trait of all though seems to be moderation. None of them seem to go to excess in eating or drinking. From my observations it seems that moderation is more important than what you eat, though what you eat is certainly a factor.

My philosophy in eating for health is this. Eat as many raw fruits and vegetables as possible. Green leafy vegetables are particularly good and I eat sprouts every day in a big salad. I fast from food 16-17 hours a day and if I feel sluggish I go on a fast from food for a week. That is very rejuvenating. I do not drink milk, but do use a little cream in my coffee.

I try and buy local eggs from pasture raised hens and meat from stock that is humanely raised with no antibiotics, fed with organic foods if possible.

The only drugs I take are from coffee and wine. I avoid prescription drugs as well as over the counter ones like the plague except for a couple aspirin a year. I eat very little sugar and avoid artificial sweeteners as I believe ingesting much of them is very detrimental to health. With rare exceptions the only sweeteners I use are raw honey, maple syrup (usually grade B) and blackstrap molasses.

As health insurance I take a number of food supplements daily.



From the perspective of a seeker of Truth and the vegetarian diet, you forgot the primary reason and the most important, which is the grounding of the person’s consciousness and the inability to comprehend man’s higher soul and spiritual reality.


I didn’t forget at all as that wasn’t the subject of the article. I’ll cover that somewhat next.

Vegetarian diet has little to do with comprehending a higher spiritual reality. I’ve been on both raw foods only vegetarian diet and regular meat diet and haven’t seen any difference in my ability which is moving along just fine. As proof read my thousands of articles and my books containing knowledge brought down from higher planes.

Also, Jesus was a meat eater (note previous article) and he did pretty good. You also quote meat eater Edgar Cayce regularly as a spiritual authority.


Leaselann asks:

I am curious how often do you drink wine and how much? Also do you ever drink any other type of alcohol? What is your take on other types? I know people’s bodies are different and what’s right for one person is not for another.


I currently drink a couple glasses of red wine just before and during my evening meal. I enjoy red wine the most but also like dry white and dark beers. Spaten Optimator from Germany is my favorite beer. I enjoy most all beverages though probably 95% of what I drink is red wine. I drink 5 days a week and lay off for two.

You are right that everyone’s bodies are different. There are those who crave alcohol that shouldn’t drink at all, then there are those that have no desire or taste for it and there are those like me that enjoy it but do not overindulge.

I think that both red wine and quality dark beer are healthy to drink in moderation. Smaller amounts of stronger beverages may also be beneficial, but are more subject to abuse.

Until Prohibition Nicola Tesla drank a small amount of whiskey every day. He felt that a small amount daily would stimulate his system and prolong his life.

He ate meat during the most productive years of his life. After he turned to vegetarianism he started working on weapons.


Leaselann asks:

Sorry one more question what are your favorite wines anyone? I thought you may know some that don’t have added sulfates and grapes are grown without harmful chemicals. My favorite is dmz their current one is a Cabernet rose and my husband is not such a fan.


We talked quite a lot about wine back in 2002. Back then I wrote:

I think that the wines of Australia and Chile appeal to me because the grapes there are grown in earth that has not been stripped of trace minerals. In the United States over 90% of our trace minerals are depleted from our soil, but in Australia the figure is around 50%, one of the lowest in the world. I do not know what the figure is in Chile, but I can tell from the taste of the wine that the trace mineral amount is much better than the United States.

I figure that if I drink red wine from mineral rich countries that the wine will have an additional health benefit beyond the antioxidant and heart benefits from moderate drinking.

I still like the Australian wines a lot and have never tasted a bad one. They seem to have a nice richness to them. There are several that are good and reasonable in price such as Black Opal, Rosemount, Lindeman’s, Yellowtail and Yalumba. However, my tastes have changed since 2002 and I have a taste for a wide variety of them. I used to not like French or Californian wines, but have found some I like. Anything grown in Sonoma County California is pretty good,

I have grown particularly fond of wines grown in my neck of the woods, particularly from Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Some I like are 14 Hands, Columbia Crest Grand Estates, and Red Diamond.

There is a chain here called Grocery Outlet with a store here that buys closeout and overstocked wines and sells them at a big discount. You can sometimes get a $20 wine for $6-$7. The trouble is that when I find one I like they often never stock it again, but it does provide me with an opportunity to sample a wide variety of quality wines without spending a lot.

Twice a year they have a sale where all wines are discounted an extra 20%. One is coming up next week.’

Another way I save on popular name brands is to use rebates. Some wines offer rebates of $3 a bottle for up to six bottles. On top of that one of the stores I buy from offers an additional 10% if you buy six and an additional 10% still on senior day. I’ve bought $10 wines for less than $5 a bottle and $6 wines for around $2.

I usually buy organic with no additive in food, but I haven’t found any really good organic wines and some are quite pricey for what you get. I don’t think the sulfates do much harm. I go mainly by how my body responds to any drink or food.



I have counseled THOUSANDS of Alcoholics, who drank less than two glasses of wine a day.


Why would someone need counseling for drinking two glasses of wine a day? Did they have some kind of negative reaction to it? I It has no negative effect on me, but has the healthful effect of relaxing me. I’ve done some of my best writing and thinking after a couple glasses, but that is me. If it affects one negatively then he shouldn’t drink and neither should one eat peanut butter if he has a bad reaction to it.

I have never had a problem related to alcohol, never had a DUI and never lost control.

The benefit for me as outweighed any detriment. If it didn’t I would stop tomorrow.



“…the vegetarian diet … carries elevated risks of … mental health disorders.”


The real problem with using statistics is an assumption of cause and effect that may, or may not be true. One example that you see all the time is the use of statistics to prove racism, for example, comparing how many blacks and whites are stopped for traffic violations in Ferguson, Mo. It is entirely possible that the problem that statistics is measuring there is not racism, but a much higher propensity for some blacks to be more violent and law breaking (FBI statistics show blacks are almost 8 times more likely to commit murder).


I agree with your points Larry. You have to look at the details of any study to make a judgment because many of them were made with an agenda.

For instance, there was a study a while back that showed that taking vitamin supplements had no benefit. But what they didn’t tell you is that the vitamin they used in the study was the worst one made containing many synthetic vitamins – Centrum. They didn’t use a decent natural supplement because that wouldn’t have given them the results they wanted.

The same thing occurred when a study revealed that the benefit of vitamin E was negligible. They used a synthetic vitamin E and anyone into natural foods avoids that because we realize it probably does more harm than good.

Then they did a study on organic vegetables which showed that they had no more vitamins than the non organic. Their conclusion was that organic was a waste of money.

This was an attempt at deception because we do not buy organic for the vitamins but buy it to avoid pesticides, enjoy the better flavor and trace minerals and other esoteric benefits.

Like they say, the devil is in the details.

March 28, 2015

One Size Not for All


The Sant Mat Masters teach that when awake, the seat of the soul is headquartered at the Third Eye, where it functions from. They say that intoxicants pull the soul down in to the lower Chakras, to the Throat Chakra, as when asleep, and below.


All dense food has a magnetic earthy pull which the person can either follow or neutralize. Those who cannot neutralize and want to seek the spiritual path should check with their souls about drink or eating meat.

For short periods I like to go with the flow and just enjoy the moment wherever I am, earthy or not, but can snap back to the spiritual flow when needed.


You say drinking wine helps you write better.


No, I didn’t say that. I said that I have done some of my best writing after drinking wine. I do not drink enough at one time to cause a hindrance.

I drink like Socrates who often sipped on wine while having philosophical discussions. He said that it was important to no drink so much that you couldn’t appreciate a quality wine.


So, if you soul is drawn below your Third Eye level, do you think you are writing at your highest spiritual potential?


I would think that Socrates functioned at the third Eye as good as anyone you are rubbing shoulders with. Jesus who even turned water into wine for guests to enjoy was another.


Why don’t you try abstaining from all alcohol for a month trial, and substitute drinking wine at dinner for an hour’s Meditation, sitting in contemplation, while concentrating at the Third eye , visualizing a Rose at the center of The Cross.


I didn’t drink for the first 33 years of my life and notice no difference in my spiritual abilities. My greatest quest is to bring down truth and principles from the higher realms and have done that uninterrupted throughout my life. I also seek to introduce principles that will cause positive change on the planet. Take a look at my millions of words of writings as evidence. There are many things there found in no book on earth.

The bottom line is one size does not fit all. I follow the advice of my soul. If it tells me to make a change then I will listen. Many people do get advice from their souls about diet, drink, relationships, behavior etc and think it applies to everyone, but often it just is for them.


March 29, 2015

Diet and Spirituality

So, how important is diet in connection to spirituality? After all Jesus said:

It is “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” Matt 15:11

Then in the Gospel of Thomas, verse 14 Jesus is quoted as saying:

“…when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it’s what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.

Obviously a basic idea is this. Eating and drinking has little effect on spirituality when compared to what is going on inside the person’s mind and heart and to what comes out of his mouth. A person’s good words and works will generate much greater spiritual advancement than select food and drink.

Does his mean that what we eat and drink have no effect?

Of course not. Everything has an effect of some kind. The thoughts close to our heart have the greatest spiritual effect on us, but that doesn’t mean that what we take into our mouths has no effect.

There are a number of claims about spirituality and diet. Some claim that one must eliminate all animal meat to enter the spiritual path. Others claim we must eliminate all fish also. Others claim we must not eat anything with a face so clams and oysters would be okay.

Still others say we must not eat any living and moving creature and not eat any of their products, such as milk, cheese and eggs.

Others go further saying on top of this we must not eat anything that is not exposed to sunlight. This would eliminate root foods such as beets and potatoes. Then there are others who say we should only eat green leafy vegetables and fruit.

There’s another group that quotes this verse:

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. Genesis 1:29

This bunch claim that to be really close to God we most only eat fruit from fruit trees.

So you think that is as extreme as one can get? Think again. There is another group called Breatharians who claim we must lean to live on air and prana alone before we can ascend. Willey Books is the head of the Breatharian Institute of America and humbly tells us he lived past as Adam, Zeus, Enoch, Jeshua (Jesus The Christ), Joshua, Elijah, John The Baptist, St. Francis Of Assisi, Kuthumi, Balthazar (King Of Syria), Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan (Builder Of The Taj Mahal In Agra, India), Joseph Smith And William Mulholland.

There are quite a few in the East that also teach some version of the Breatharian philosophy.

It is interesting that few of these gurus who are big on diet offer much in the way of new teachings. Usually diet is the centerpiece of their teaching with some copy and paste added in from teachers of the past.

If diet is really the spiritual boost that they claim then they ought to be able to access the higher realms wherein lies divine ideas and bring some new ones down and offer them to us.

Just preaching diet is not new as every version has been already written about somewhere.

Four of the greatest spiritual innovators in recent times have been Joseph Smith, Madam Blavatsky, Edgar Cayce and Alice A. Bailey. Smith ate a fairly basic diet that included meat and drank wine and beer. It was decades after his death that the Church prohibited alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee.

Blavatsky preached against eating meat but didn’t live up to her own teachings and ate meat and animal products. She was against drinking alcohol, didn’t drink it herself, but did smoke about 200 cigarettes a day. This chain smoking was probably largely responsible for her bad health in her later years.

I think she would have been much better off to trade the smoking for a couple glasses of wine a day.

Edgar Cayce was a meat eater and recommended nutritious foods of all kinds. He also drank wine and said it was “a good blood builder and vitality enhancer.”

Alice A. Bailey, who presented numerous new teachings transmitted from a Master named Djwhal Khul, was one of the few innovators who was a true vegetarian and teetotaler.

If we look at these four initiates of spirituality what do we see that they have in common as far as diet is concerned?

Not much except that they ate and drank as seemed good to themselves.

So, does diet have any effect on spirituality then and if so what is it?

What we need to look at here is the governing principle rather than listening to some book or guru who claims to tell us what God wants us to eat and drink.

Here it is. All food, and physical matter itself, has a magnetic pull on the souls of men that draws us in the direction of materialism. Some say we are trapped here because of this pull whereas others just see this as either a playground or school where we come to learn lessons. Both have their points.

The fact is that we have to neutralize this pull in order to free ourselves from the wheel of rebirth. As the pilgrim realizes the need for this freedom he contemplates and enters the path to liberation. This is a journey that lasts many lifetimes. As he journeys on the path he realizes that the heavier his diet the stronger is the pull of the material forces. The heavier foods are animals and animal products, Vegetables are lighter and fruit and leafy vegetables are the lightest of all.

As he begins his journey he feels the extra pull generated by heavy foods and senses that he needs to eat lighter foods to continue onward. As he continues onward he gains in inner strength and finds that for many purposes it does not matter what he eats or drinks. He can now decide on the diet best for him depending on what he needs to accomplish in a certain time or life.

The currents of materialism are like mild currents in river. An experienced swimmer can override the current and swim upstream. A beginner cannot swim upstream and must move forward where the current is not strong.

Even so, different people on the path handle the current of material forces with different amounts of strength, will and power of decision.

Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry gave good advice: “A man’s got to know his limitations.”

Each seeker must asses his limitations and adjust his eat, drink and actions accordingly.

And how does the seeker gain strength as he journeys along? There are too many to discuss in his article but there are several big ones. The first is to cultivate in word and deed the spirit of true spiritual love as taught by the Christ. He must lose himself in service to others because of a love of mankind.

Second he must be pure in heart, true to himself and honest and reliable to others.

The third biggie is self discipline. And this is one of the greatest benefits of a restricted diet for various parts of the path. Several lifetimes of a difficult diet gives a huge boost in self discipline and control that will aid him for lifetimes to come.

So, diet does lessen the pull of material forces, but more important than that is the added strength through the above three strength building spiritual exercises. When the disciple gathers enough strength then for most purposes he can swim upstream with relative ease.

In some lives he may need to blend in and mix where the material forces are strong and others he will not. Whatever the choice, the keynote of the true disciple will be service to his fellow brothers and sisters.


March 30, 2015

Animals and Compassion

A lot of people are vegetarians not for health, or even spiritual advancement but simply for the reason that they believe it is wrong to kill an animal for food.

The question sometimes put to them is where do we draw the line?

Some, like Paul McCartney, say it is wrong to eat any living thing with a face. If it doesn’t have a face, like a clam or oyster, then it is okay. Others would include all shelled creature.

So what about insects? They are eaten in some parts of the world and the Bible says that John the Baptist ate locusts. Many insects have faces.

Some would say this is okay and others not.

So, what if your house is overrun with roaches, termites or spiders? Is it okay to hire an exterminator to kill them?

Some would go so far as to say no.

Once we consider life this low on the scale we have to ask if it is okay to kill trees for our use or vegetables that we eat. They are also living things.

Even the most sensitive animal rights people have no problem taking the lives of vegetables and fruit, but some do have a problem with trees and some other plant life.

Indeed there are many thoughts on this matter and again we need to ask this. What is the governing principle that we need to use?

Is it the Bible?

Not really as there are many interpretations and it doesn’t give any principle on the subject.

Is it the idea that we just should not kill?

Not really as even most vegetarians will put a suffering animal to death.

So, what is the principle?

Quite simply it is the principle that should guide us in all decisions which is this:

Will the proposed action contribute to the creation of more harm than good or more good than harm?

Many animal rights people are very black and white and see only evil in killing an animal for meat and close their eyes to the good that comes because they are of use to humans as food.

Let us look at the positive and negative of raising animals for food.

The negative:

(1) The animal may suffer a few seconds when slaughtered.

(2) Some are raised in poor conditions and treated badly.

That doesn’t really sound so bad, does it? After all, most humans suffer months and sometimes years as they approach death.

There are also a lot of humans raised in poor conditions. Being in prison or starving in some third world is particularly troublesome.

Now let us list the positive.

(1) Many animals raised for food have it a lot better than wild animals.

(2) Animal abuse is being exposed and we are headed in the direction of more humane treatment.

(3) Because animals are important to humans we make sure they multiply in large numbers and the species are preserved and thrive.

(4) Some farm animals such as cattle and sheep would have difficulty surviving in the wild, which they would have to do if humans did not take care of them.

(5) If humans quit eating meat tomorrow farm animals would suffer immensely as they could have no caretaker. Some species would be in danger of extinction.

(6) Because humans make sure animals raised for food breed in large numbers this insures that the animals get a lot of opportunity for life and advancement that they would miss if we did not need them.

(7) Unlike humans, farm animals do not have their progression interrupted when the experience an early death. Because they are raised in large numbers they can rapidly come back and resume their lives.

(8) Contact with humans who raise them stimulates their evolution.

Overall it looks like the benefit to the farm animals outweighs the harm making it more good than bad that we raise them for food and the products they yield.

There is another point to note which is this. There are certain animals that even the biggest supporters if meat eating will not kill for food. These are our pets. Who in the world would ever kill and eat the family dog? What is the difference between killing him or a cow?

This is interesting to contemplate and here is what I believe to be the answer.

Animals which are close enough to human consciousness to be given names should not be killed for eating. Why? Because once an animal is named he is taken under the wing of a human and becomes in training to acquire human consciousness at some future time.

Once he is named and responds to that name then killing him prematurely will interfere with is progression. Once you name an animal under your jurisdiction and adopt him as a pet you should let him live out his natural life as much as possible.

If humanity made a huge move toward vegetarianism this would be a disaster to farm animals. We are, however, slowly moving in this direction and such a slow steady transition is beneficial for both animals and humans.

For more of my thoughts on raising animals for food go HERE


March 31, 2015

Do Animals Become Humans?

Leaselann asks if animals will evolve into humans.

To understand how leaps in evolution occur we must look at the big picture as well as use the Law of Correspondences.

All lives in the universe are a part of the One Great Life which is God. God is the Many and the One something akin to the idea that space is one yet contains all there is, which is many.

Just as the life which is God contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of star systems, and each containing billions of various life forms, even so we as humans contain a universe of lives within us. Within us are the seven major centers, each representing a separate life cooperating to create a greater life which is you. In addition to this there are numerous minor centers. Many of these have been identified as an acupuncture points. These are centers of lesser lives.

Each organ in our body is a lesser life. As we go smaller we find that the average body contains over 30 trillion cells, each living a life of its own, but cooperating with other cells to house the God of their universe which is you. Then there are cells of bacteria co-existing with human cells. There are ten times as many cells of bacteria than human cells.

If we look at the human cells we discover a complexity beyond the imagination with a communications system, a defense system, a government, a distribution system, all kinds of machinery and much more. Around 100 trillion lesser lives called atoms compose just one human cell.

Then if we were to examine the atom we would discover that even this tiny life contains a universe of life dwelling within it.

Some esoterists have taught that the atom, or the tiniest of particles, eventually becomes a cell then a plant, then an animal, then human and eventually a god.

This isn’t quite how it works. The lesser lives do not, as a separate entity, become a greater life, but unite in consciousness with other lesser lives to provide a vehicle for a greater life. A greater life then incarnates into that vehicle, or body of manifestation. The lesser lives then share the consciousness of the greater life and move into higher vistas of being and experience.

The mineral kingdom is the lowest on the planet followed by the plant and then the animal. Humans represent the fourth kingdom on the earth and Christ and associates represent the fifth.

This fifth kingdom is often called the Kingdom of God and one does not enter it alone. It is only entered by the union of one conscious human with others to provide a vehicle for a greater life. Those in the Kingdom of God, who we all the Masters, then share the consciousness of that greater life and move into a new realm of becoming.

In my book The Molecular Relationship I teach how this process which can be incorporated by humans that are not yet masters to link the two kingdoms.

We see this molecular relationship process duplicated in all creation. Atoms gather together to create a greater life, which is a cell. The atom does not become the cells, but shares in the consciousness of the cell so when the identification is complete it is as if it is the cell.

The cell does not become the plant but cooperates with many other cells to create the plant. A blade of grass does not become an animal, but the many tiny plant lives unite to create animal life and then share in the animal consciousness, beginning with the insect kingdom. A fly does not become a cow or a dog, but the fragmented insect lives unite to create the vehicles which make possible the appearance of a higher animal. The lesser lives then identify with the higher life and live through its consciousness.

Individual animals technically do not become humans, but numerous animal lives unite to create the vehicle for the human soul. When that soul then incarnates as a human they share in its consciousness and evolution.

There will be one advanced animal that will be the governing life within you and it will occupy your heart center. Many ancients realized this and spoke of having a heart like a lion, for instance. They also often named people after animals and called forth animal lives within the human for assistance in healing work.

You as a human consciousness are not an animal, but your manifestation is made possible by many lesser lives working together to create your bodies of manifestation. Many lives there are which share your consciousness. You as the decision maker owe it to them to give them a great experience.



We are not going to be judged on if we held the right beliefs or not, we are going to be judged on how we treated each other and how we treated this creation. If anyone thinks some magical set of beliefs earns them any merit, they are in for a rude “awakening”.


This is an important realization and is in harmony with the teachings of Jesus. He said that if a child asks for a fish will you give him a stone? If we know how to give good gifts to our children then how much better will be the gifts from God?

So if we have some errors in belief but are doing our best in treating our brethren well would God be more evil than earthly parents and punish us for eternity?

No. He will be much better than earthly parents and steer us to correct beliefs while opening paths to greater joyousness.


April 1, 2015

Merging and Identification

I figured I would have to write a follow up to that last post. I’ll cover some extra ground and then if there are questions unanswered please ask.

Some seem concerned that we will be limited in our future progression because of this gathering and merging principle of moving forward, but such is certainly not the case. You will have the opportunity to progress to the state of the planetary Logos, the Ancient of Days, the Solar Logos and beyond.

But as you enter into greater states of being in kingdoms above the human you do not go there alone, but must take others with you. Do you think that Sanat Kumara sits alone on a throne just being the Logos of planet earth?

No. There are many with him and he represents trillions of lives and identifies with the wholeness of them. One of those lives is you. You are a part of the consciousness of which he is a part and yet he shares the whole. This is an achievement that will be ours in the far future, but through the Oneness Principle we can get a taste of what is to come.

Visualize the One Great Life which is God as divine space that contains all there is. Even though space is only one thing that which is within it is many. Within this space are points of eternal intelligence without number. They correspond to the innumerable stars and galaxies we observe in the heavens.

Some points are in manifestation and others are not. The points that manifest, and decide to be, blend and merge to create everything there is. First there is conception and creation on higher planes and finally that which was spiritual manifests on lower planes including the physical.

Soul essence was organized and manifest in the spirit before life appeared in the physical. The complete self-conscious soul was designated to manifest the human consciousness. This soul consists of many parts that had to be united first in the spirit and then in the material world. These many parts are called fragments. The fragments of a soul, which are many, first enter the mineral kingdom. After ages of time many fragments unite and enter the plant kingdom. After more ages many other fragments unite and enter the animal kingdom. The advanced animals are large fragments compared to insects and the lower kingdoms, but still not complete enough to manifest a human soul.

Finally, higher monadic intelligence gathers the scattered fragments and creates the soul body to house human intelligence. This soul body, or the Higher Self, then reflects itself into the material world and is born as a human being – a self-conscious entity that is a reflection of the whole yet contains many fragments from all the lower kingdoms. Within you are billions of lesser lives, or fragments, united together to manifest something much greater than themselves.

A fragment that was once a mineral, a plant or an animal that is now part of the whole no longer says I am a crystal, a flower or a dog, but will identify with the whole and say I am John Smith, a human.

Consider this. You are fragmented when you are in the dream state – only a part of you is there and you are not even aware of the existence of the real you in waking consciousness. When you awake fragments come together to make a greater whole and you no longer identify with the guy in the dream who was shopping naked in the grocery store. You now say you are John Smith (or whatever your name is). The fragment that was in the dream has merged and now identifies with the whole rather than the part.

Does the fragment that as in the dream feel a loss when it wakes and identifies with the greater whole? No. It feels a gain for it has entered into a higher state of awareness.

Even so, humans are fragments of a greater whole still and we will eventually gather together and create bodies of manifestation for greater lives. There is a grand oversoul for the whole of he human family that all will eventually identify with and greatly enhance their consciousness and sense of being.

The souls, or Higher Selves of advanced humans have already done a good deal of merging in the higher realms. This is one reason it is important to achieve soul contact so we can gain the knowledge to manifest the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven.

I’m sure I will be writing more on this later.


The Prince of this World


I was wondering if you think the Scriptures speak of Sanat Kumara? Do you think Yeshua was referencing Sanat Kumara here:

Lk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Jn 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

So if Sanat Kumara is the Prince or King of the World, then is not Sanat Kumara actually an evil deceiving spirit known as Satan or the Devil? And doesn’t Satan masquerade or disguise himself as an Angel of Light (2 Cor 11:14), so could the Sanat Kumara really be Satan? Just some well founded questions.


Many believers make the mistake of categorizing every belief with which they do not believe as being something promoted by Satan disguising himself as an angel of light. This is a very illusionary way to attempt to discover the truth and they never ask themselves if they could be the ones promoting the doctrines of the adversary.

To discern whether a teaching comes from a good or evil source one must examine the teaching and simply ask yourself if it leads toward greater love and light or away from them.

If you take the English translation of the New Testament scriptures of Satan being the God of this planet and not the real God then you will indeed have a problem with the Old Testament God. Take a look:

Joshua3:11 Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan.

Zech 6:4 Then I answered and said unto the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord?

Zech 6:5 And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth.

Psalms97:5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth.

Isa 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

Micah 4:13 Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion: for I will make thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces many people: and I will consecrate their gain unto the LORD, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth.

Jer 32:27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

You cite the scripture from John 12:31 which reads:

Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

The word “world” comes from the Greek KOSMOS which is often translated as world, but more closely corresponds to what we currently call “the system.” It literally means the “current arrangement of things.”

Satan is generally seen as the Prince of Darkness or materialism which does rule the current order if things.

Notice that the God of the prophets is called “the Lord of the whole earth.”

This is the same title given to Sanat Kumara who is the Ancient of Days spoken of by Daniel and called the Planetary Logos, or the God of this earth. He is not called the God or the Prince of this KOSMOS or this system of things, for this system has a long way to go before it is in harmony with either the Christ or the Ancient of Days.

To read last years writings go HERE

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Series NavigationKeys Writings 2015, Part 6Keys Writings 2015, Part 8

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *