Keys Writings 2015, Part 8

This entry is part 9 of 13 in the series 2015B

April 2, 2015

Entering the Body

There are a lot of questions and comments in which to respond and I am short of time so I’ll just pick one subject and try and catch up later.

The group has been discussing when the soul or life enters the body so I’ll give you my views.

A soul will sometimes know who will be his mother long before the baby is even conceived and he may have a spiritual link with her. Other times he may not know who his next mother will be until a conception occurs. Sometimes at conception a link will be established but he will not enter the body. More often than not the mother is chosen by the soul some time after conception occurs, usually around six months into the pregnancy. Sometimes a choice is made and the entity finds a better opportunity and switches with someone else. This has to happen before entering the body.

Once the pregnant mother is chosen by the soul he or she can enter the body any time, but most are not interested in dong so until about six months into the pregnancy. If they go early it is to assist with the development of the body.

When the soul does enter it only partially does so. Then at birth when it takes its first breath it is anchored more firmly, but still only partially present.

There are two reasons for this.

(1) It is kind of boring to be in the womb as well being a baby and a full presence is not needed.

(2) It takes time for the soul to adjust to the body and the personality life forces which will influence him or her.

After birth the soul anchors itself more firmly and takes complete possession around the age of seven or eight.

Even here part of your soul essence (your Higher Self) remains back in the spirit world, but the full allotment of soul essence designated for a particular life is endowed around this time.

From the time of full anchoring to around the age of twenty-one the entity awakes to the level of basic consciousness and intelligence that he had in his past life.


April 3, 2015

The Gathered Monads

Many believe that the universe was created by God dividing Itself. Actually, the opposite is true. God expanding and multiplying, not dividing created the universe.

This truth was revealed in the symbolism of recent discoveries in astronomy. Scientists not only found that the universe was expanding, but the rate of expansion is increasing. This increase of the crate of expansion has really baffled scientists and they have no good explanation as to why it is happening. They have come up with theories of dark mater and dark energy to explain it.

When the mind of God decides to create it does so with a ever increasing rate of expansion.

Look at us humans who are made in the image of God and examine our history as creators. We are expanding this power of creation at an ever increasing rate. We’ve made more gains in the power to create in the past 200 years than in all of recorded civilization.

After the last universe ended it collapsed down to a singularity that we could call the one monad of God, or all there is. Within this monad all rested in subjective consciousness for it contained the monads of all lives that ever were from the past creation. The monads of you and I were there resting in the bosom of the Father and after a great pralaya we decided it was time to create again and to manifest new vehicles for the next great adventure.

The first thing we did was create space, not space as we know it for all that we were existed in a much higher plane than the physical. We will call this divine space for it was a vehicle to contain the creative thought of all there is. This thought was the result of all the monads in existence working as one, expanding the mind of God like a Big Bang of cosmic fire.

Within this divine space were reflected the monads of all living things that slept which now were awakening as points of light or intelligence. The points which were beyond the ability of present human consciousness to number began to merge and blend and create greater monads and the greater joined and created greater ones still until monads of potential humans and even greater potential lives began to manifest.

The One Great Life, which was a composite of all lives, then reflected on all possibilities that could manifest in all new creations. This created the plane of divine ideas which projected still downward until all planes came into manifestation, the last of which was the physical in which we now live.

Divine space reflected itself down to space on the physical plane first created by geometric points and then the manifestation of monads.

The first monadic expressions created the foundation of the atom followed by monads that created atoms. These atomic monads gathered and created greater monads until all types of ideas began to take form.

Finally, after the creation of stars and planets monads gathered and created plant life. The plant monads gathered and created animals and the animal monads gathered and created humans.

Human monads are created from many lesser monads. In turn, human monads will gather and create greater lives still until all lives join to create a manifestation in the physical realm of the One Great Monad or Life in its fullness. When this occurs the adventure of this cycle of existence will be complete.

Each of us, which are many, are a part of the One Great Life but as single individuals we not this great life. Nevertheless by sharing the consciousness of lives greater than ourselves we can experience the greater life as if we were the totality of this life.

Even so, lesser monads have joined to create the human monads which then created the projected human lives. Humans, who are in the image of God, are created from monads which are composites of many lesser monads Just as the One Great Monad is a composite of all that is within.

The creation of the universe is like the creation of many types of great music. There are many songs. Each song is like a great monad. The chorus and verses are lesser monads. Lesser still are the measures, the chords and the single notes.

A song has a beginning and end to its manifestation in physical existence but the song existed in subtle realms for an eternity before and will for an eternity after it was heard by the ears of the sons and daughters of men.

You are one of the songs of God, the creation of many parts. Play yourself harmoniously to your brothers.


April 4, 2015

Future Happiness

One of the big problems had by many when contemplating our future after this life and far beyond is that any description of life that is much different than we are now experiencing or want to experience may seem distasteful.

This is one of the problems people have in accepting reincarnation. Many people have had a tough life and the prospect of coming back again does not appeal to them at all. The idea of living forever in the presence of God, experiencing peace and love with no worries from then on seems appealing.

This was the case with my mother. I tried a number of times to explain reincarnation so she would understand and look forward to a future life, but no matter how I presented it she would reply something like this.

“One life is enough for me. It has been a very difficult life and I do not want to go through these things all over again.”

I explained to her that even though she may have a very peaceful existence in the spirit world that sooner or later she would want a new challenge and desire to come back. I told her that not all lives are difficult and some are very rewarding.

It didn’t matter. She rejected reincarnation mainly because she had a difficult life and felt that one life had all the lessons she needed.

We as humans dream of our future state and often formulate what we think we will be doing and experiencing in relation to what we desire at the present time rather than just being open to what it will be no matter what the truth is.

For instance, many Moslems dream of a paradise where they will have luxurious circumstances with plenty of fine food and drink and seventy virgins to serve them and fulfill their every wish. The believer doesn’t want to consider a future much different than this.

Let us examine what we do know of for sure from our limited earth experience. Think back to when you were a child or a teenager and how you dreamed your life would be . In many cases we wind up doing things we never considered when young. And some of these things tend to be quite enjoyable contrary to what we may have once thought.

Now consider how much more difficult it would be to get a correct picture of what you may enthusiastically pursue 100, 1000, one million or a billion years from now. If your far future self were to come explain to you what he is enjoying doing or experiencing it is quite possible you might be somewhat disappointed or even horrified.

The thing to keep in mind is this. This life is a part of your eternal lives and if you want to get an idea of what you will be pursuing for fulfillment in the far future then look at what you are doing now.

And what are you doing now?

Whatever you choose to do based on choices available.

And what brings you happiness?

Nothing beats the accomplishing of something that you think to be worthwhile.

And this we will continue to do in many various circumstances, forms and incarnations. We will seek to create something interesting and enjoyable. The difference will be that our capacity to achieve and enjoy that which is achieved will continually expand.



Has JJ talked about this (the virgin birth) before?


I answered this earlier but it seemed to have disappeared into the ethers.

Here is what I have taught in the past. Mary did indeed conceive of the Holy Spirit in that Joseph was overshadowed by a Divine Presence during lovemaking when Jesus was conceived. She was not a virgin as taught by the establishment.


The Soul and Truth


I am just curious to why such credence is given to Blavatsky and Alice Bailey.


It is not that we give credence to any individual so much as we give credibility to teachings that are verified by the soul. Verification through the soul is the closest that regular mortals will ever get to infallibility.

Personally I get more verification through the soul from one page of DK writings through Alice A. Bailey than a thousand pages from many teachers out there that have followers jumping up and down with excitement. And you’ll find that most people who have actually read the Bailey writings and contemplated them feel the same way. Many have come on board here never having heard of Bailey and after checking out the writings have concluded that my assessment was correct.

I have read quite a few of the Upper Triad teachings mentioned a few days ago and see that they are largely based on the Bailey writings.

Now you seem reluctant to consider the Bailey writings, but do you know what you are not considering? Have you read even one entire book of the teachings?

I would recommend you start with Treatise on White Magic.

The reason her writings have so much light is they were dictated by a Master who is around 300 years old and knows whereof he speaks. I do not think the writings are infallible and still we need to run them by our souls, but they are the highest exoteric light I have personally discovered.

Blavatsky had some help but she put together her books using her own intelligence and writing style. There is a lot of truth in her writings but it has a fairly dry presentation. And she does not go into principles the way the Bailey writings do.


I am pretty well convinced that while Blavatsky was a highly intelligent woman and an excellent synthesizer of Eastern and Western Knowledge, I think it has been quite reasonably demonstrated that she engaged in a number of fraudulent activities and her “channeled” masters were actually identifiable human beings.


She was definitely a flawed character, but when examining the teachings of any writer I go by what my soul says, not what someone says about the character of the writer. Truth is truth even if spoken by the devil himself.

On the other hand, Bailey’s character was beyond reproach. Does that mean that we should mindlessly accept her writings?

Of course not. Neither should we mindlessly reject Blavatsky.


Similarly with the Bailey readings. We are fortunate to have a actual Tibetan Buddhist monastery where I live, which opens up to the public for certain events, and I have engaged in several discussions with some high level lamas and they assert that what Bailey and Blavatsky profess is in no way true Tibetan Buddhism and is a figment of their highly developed imaginations.


Of course they would say that. Many Tibetans are very primitive in their knowledge of the truth. Just like an orthodox Mormon will think my teachings are nothing like real Mormonism many Tibetans will think the teachings of a Master such as DK are out to lunch.

You can’t evaluate the truth of a teaching by what others think. You have to run them by your soul and see what it thinks. If nothing else run them by your own mind to see what the highest part of your personality self thinks.

Instead of categorically rejecting a teaching the best thing to do it pick a teaching and examine it. I even do this will Allan. If I just dismissed all he says because of supposed flaws then I would be dismissing the occasional time that he gets something correct.


I just thought I would share this because while I find Blavatsky good for introducing some Eastern ideas to the west, I think she packaged them in a way that Westerners could embrace, but were really distortions of the East’s spiritual dharma.


Neither Blavatsky or Alice A. Bailey were trying to present the “East’s spiritual dharma.” They were just trying to present the additional truth regardless of what the source may be. Blavatsky said that her religion was truth. With this statement we are in agreement.


it seems that many people want to adhere to these new teachings just as dogmatically as the religions they left behind.


Are you saying that the people here are dogmatic about their beliefs but you are not about yours? I do not see such a superior detachment from dogmatism for you to make such a judgment.

The best way to free oneself from dogmatism is to follow the guidance of the soul wherever it leads. That is what most of the group is attempting to do.


I think all teachings need to focus more on personal development and practical methods of development than discussing improvable, and ultimately irrelevant complicated metaphysical systems.


We are not into personal development that involves me or anyone else set up step by step instructions telling the group what to do next. That has the potential for a beastly type authority. I have given out a lot of information on the principles behind soul contact which is by far the most important step to take. We are into the discovery of principles and how they work and lead us to truth. When new principles are discovered through the soul then personal development will come naturally for the seeker will know what to do.

There are plenty of personal development programs out there for those who are interested. There is no sense in reinventing the wheel. We are moving on to new types of wheels not presented before in wholeness.


Forever does not exist, forever is everlasting time, time does not exist, it is a construct of the human mind, there truly only is an Infinite Now.


So, are you saying that for the billions of years that there was no human on this planet that there was no time? If there was no time then there was no earth. If there was no earth then where did the pre-human rocks come from that are billions of years old?

Now if you would have said that the registration of time by humans is a construct of the human mind you would be correct.


Time as passing only exist upon reflection, which is an abstraction from experience. Time is a thought, it does not “exist”. When have you ever experienced “the past”, when have you ever experienced “the future”.


You are playing word games here that do not represent reality. For one thing, we in human consciousness never see the true present. We are always a portion of a second behind the present in registration so we see only the past. No one has ever seen anything on earth in true present time.

Look around you. We not only see the past but all things we see are were created in the past showing that the past was a true reality that occurred.

You said you didn’t want to talk about things we could not prove yet you cannot probe that time does not exist.


Time is a thought, reality is current experience which is infinite, beyond time, without time.


On the contrary, my friend. There is no experience without time. Time creates experience.

There are three worlds of form and where there is form there is movement and where there is movement there is time. Time is the registration of movement. If every particle in the universe stood still and did not move the universe would disappear and there would be no registration of time and no universe. Time is not only the registration of the movement of form but also the movement of consciousness. If your consciousness has moved from one state to another or one thought to another then time has been registered.

In some of the higher and subtle states of being the passage of time is not registered and some who touch upon this state feel that time doesn’t really exist. This is not quite correct. When divorced from time, time still exists in the worlds of form. Just because you cannot see the squirrel at your door does not mean the squirrel does not exist, and the fact that your consciousness may be divorced from the registration of time does not mean that time does not exist.

We incarnate in and out of time just as we incarnate in and out of various bodies. But while out of the body or time, bodies and time still exist.


April 5, 2015



Thank you for your answers. I have the same question as below, “why was there needed an overshadowing? Couldn’t the father have done so any time with Jesus individually?


I remember the exact moment my firstborn son was conceived. It indeed felt like I was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. He’s a great kid, but he is no master or Jesus. I can only imagine what it would have felt like at the moment of the conception of Jesus.

It is quite possible that the Holy Spirit that overshadowed both Joseph and Mary was Jesus or the Christ to make sure the conception got off to a good start to insure that Jesus would have a physical body with the balance necessary to permit the spiritual flow for his mission.


Good common sense comments Clay. Here is a scripture giving more evidence to the fact that Jesus was not a black and white Ebonite:

For neither did his brethren believe in him. John 7:5

Now James was famous for being a strict Ebonite and it is quite possible that James and brothers did not believe in Jesus when he was with them because he did not go along with the belief system.

April 6, 2015

The Logos of a System


I believe I heard you refer to the heart, as the place the animal resides in the human monad. Does this have a relation to the heart chakra? If so what form of entities reside in the other six to form the composite?


All the seven chakras are lives unto themselves but of a different type of consciousness than the human. In addition each of the twelve petals of the heart center is composed of a deva life or lives of differing qualities combining as a whole to make a greater life.

The heart, the throat, the solar plexus, the sacral and the base centers are all vehicles in which the animal, the plant and mineral parts of ourselves incarnate along with us and share our consciousness. Each different body we receive has a different assortment of lower lives. Keep in mind we simultaneously exist in three worlds of form (physical, emotional and mental) and each of them are composites of numerous lower lives.

The Ajna center between the eyebrows and the crown centers are linked to high deva (angelic) lives and other lives higher than human. When these two centers open the individual becomes more than human and opens the door to the kingdom of God,

The heart center has a reflection of itself in the crown center and thus becomes the bridge between our animal nature and our Divine Nature.


Recently I was reviewing the book Eternal Words. Looking at a section I found to be my favorite in the series. The part I refer to is the communion with the ancient of days. There is a point in the journey where it appears to relay information saying to the effect, that there is no gathering of intelligence ready to take on the incarnation of a galaxy. that an intelligence at the helm of a series of 7 solar systems (or constellations i have forgotten and don’t have the book handy) is the highest we have yet. Then only a few pages after this, he is able to have a conversation with the universe. This seemed somewhat contradictory to me. I assume I either misread something, or have a lack of understanding on what is meant.


Good question. The confusion comes because there are two different lives who are referred to as the Logos of a system. For instance, Sanat Kumara, the Ancient of Days, is often referred to as the Planetary Logos, but technically he is not. Instead, he is the representative of the Planetary Logos. He is an advanced human whose consciousness has gone way beyond human. He with total awareness shares in the consciousness of the whole planet which includes all life understood by us, and much more.

The actual Planetary Logos is the life of the earth itself and as a life which has incarnated into an entire planet it has not progressed nearly as far on its level as the Ancient of Days has on his. When the Logos of the earth reaches the end of its evolution then it will be a much higher life than the advanced humans here.

The same goes for the Solar Logos. Its representative is much further along the path than is the Ancient of Days, but the life experiencing physical incarnation as a solar system is not so far along.

In this universe as advanced humans move forward seeking to encompass greater systems with their consciousness fewer and fewer are able to take the job as a representative. The highest logos representative known is called THE ONE ABOUT WHOM NAUGHT CAN BE SAID and is the representative of the Logos of seven groups of solar systems.

The Higher up we go the younger is the indwelling Logos and the Universe is just a child in its evolution and without a conscious representative to speak for it – for as yet there is no one to speak to.

Now these great Logi also have Higher Selves and on higher planes are much more advanced than is the part of their self that is in physical incarnation. If you were to communicating with the higher self of the universe you would be speaking with one of incredible light compared to the part of itself that is in physical incarnation.


Keith writes:

Now, we find that galaxies have neither an indwelling intelligence or an intelligent representative mentoring from above.


If you think this you misunderstood what I wrote which was:

In each major body, whether it is a planet, a star system or a group of systems, there are two life forces at work. The first is the indwelling entity, which is awakening in consciousness, and the second is one who has already attained a high state of consciousness. This is one who has passed through the human kingdom.” (technically this applies up to the seven constellations for representative Logos )

Any combinations higher than seven constellations have incomplete governments that are in the process of formation. There is no single Logos over the galaxy, but there are various groups of great beings who seek to guide the galaxy as a whole toward an intelligent design.” (From Eternal Words)

The reference to “no single logos” was referring to a governing representative such as the Ancient of Days not the entity incarnated into the system.

All matter and groups of matter has indwelling intelligence and I have never taught anything to the contrary.

I’ll tell you… these people who come on this forum for a short time and accuse members of mindlessly accepting what I say don’t have a clue to the real truth. If something doesn’t make sense, even to my strongest supporters, then I will definitely be challenged.


April 7, 2015

Right Use of Money

Clay writes:

I do admit to asceticism as that is the path that has been advocated by every great spiritual teacher for the last 2000 years. Not a single one has ever said make sure you have a diversified stock portfolio for retirement. My favorite anecdote is when Alexander the Great went to Diogenes:

Thereupon many statesmen and philosophers came to Alexander with their congratulations, and he expected that Diogenes of Sinope also, who was tarrying in Corinth, would do likewise. But since that philosopher took not the slightest notice of Alexander, and continued to enjoy his leisure in the suburb Craneion, Alexander went in person to see him; and he found him lying in the sun. Diogenes raised himself up a little when he saw so many people coming towards him, and fixed his eyes upon Alexander. And when that monarch addressed him with greetings, and asked if he wanted anything, “Yes,” said Diogenes, “stand a little out of my sun.” It is said that Alexander was so struck by this, and admired so much the haughtiness and grandeur of the man who had nothing but scorn for him, that he said to his followers, who were laughing and jesting about the philosopher as they went away, “But truly, if I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes.”


It appears that if we judge by your standards of good and evil that Diogenes was a pretty evil Dude. After all, it seems that sunlight was pretty important to the desires of his lower nature and he wasn’t willing to share it. If we substituted money for sunlight as something to which he was attached you would definitely condemn him.

Alexander saw that he was “haughty” as he undoubtedly reminded him of himself who many thought to be haughty. Now there are those who see that characteristic as being evil. Should we reject then all the words of Diogenes as being mixed in with the black arts if our personalities do not like haughtiness?

That said let us look at your logic here. You say:

Blayne I never said Money was evil, we just should never use our spiritual faculties to “manifest money” in our lives for any purpose. Ever.


Why in Gods green earth would you think such a thing? There is nothing in the scriptures to support this idea or in any teaching with any light in it.

Now you make money as an attorney. And how do you do this? You use your spiritual faculties to do your job and thereby manifest money so you can take care of your needs. Which spiritual faculties you ask? Several.

(1) Your life force itself. Life is a very spiritual gift.

(2) Logic, reason and the quest for truth by the mind. Again, the mind put to such use is a spiritual faculty.

(3) Your heart is dedicated to assisting people through law which in the end provides money for income. The good heart is indeed a spiritual faculty.

Now you’re probably thinking something like: “I’m talking about higher spiritual power.”

Well we’re talking about using meditation and what is that, but thought and visualization? Every businessman who seeks to make money with his business puts a lot of contemplative thought and visualization into his work to make it successful in making money to feed his family. The businessman using thought and visualization is using the same powers as the guy using them in meditation. Are they both evil if they seek for money for unselfish purposes? Is unselfishness evil in your mind? If that is evil then what is selfishness? That must be the good then.

When Jesus and Peter were in arrears with taxes Jesus used his supernatural powers to guide Peter to catch a fish with enough money in its mouth to pay the tax. Was Jesus practicing black magic here? This was for a more selfish purpose than anything DK advises. He has never told people to meditate to get money to pay their taxes.

Then Jesus used his powers to create enough fish and bread to feed 5000 people. That must have been worth over $20,000. That was as good as making money fall out of thin air.

What is the difference between procuring food with money or a spiritual gift? The end result is the same and people get fed.

If you are starving and someone gives you money to buy food do you not appreciate it just as you would if he materialized food for you out of thin air?


You can absolutely ask God to help you use your talents to the best of your ability and money will come or it won’t, but one should never, ever, attempt to use our spirit to manifest money, even for the “best of causes”.


This may be the way you feel but there is no reasoning behind the feelings.

And why do you feel this way? Is it because your mind has been programmed to think that money is evil? If so, detach yourself from the program and look at the idea objectively in the light of truth.

Money, like any source of power, is not good or evil. Any power can be directed toward good or evil depending on the intention of the one wielding it.


These teachings are very difficult for the typical American capitalist to accept, and again, I am not saying throw away money, or ignore money, just don’t focus on it, especially as part of ones spiritual practice.


You say we should not ignore money. If we do not ignore it then some focus is required at times. No one is saying that making money for personal use should be the center of any teaching. There is a huge difference between focusing on making money for which to do good and making it for accumulating material things.


If you can find a spiritual master from over 100 years ago who advocated doing this I am all ears,


Is Jesus a good enough reference for you? DK, who you are criticizing, was advocating that we use our resources to transfer the power of money from those who are trapped in the forces of materialism to the workers in light and love for he betterment of mankind.

Jesus was advocating the same thing. He told those who were attached to money and materialism to do good unselfish things with their money. He tried to get money directed away from the material to he spiritual.


but this is a practice is only prevalent in certain New Age teachings which I truly believe are perversions and distortions of the great spiritual dharma of the past.


You are mixing up what DK has taught with the prosperity consciousness of some Christians and New Agers. This is apples and oranges.

If you are going you argue with us you need to represent the truth rather than a distorted straw man.


You can not serve God and Mammon, end of story.


Neither DK or myself have come close to advocating the service of mammon. If you have read anything at all of the Alice A. Bailey writings or my own you have to know this. Are you paying attention?


You will not find manifesting money in Buddhism…


When Buddha was hungry he went door to door with his bowl begging for rice. Those who gave him rice had to buy it with money. So begging for rice was the equivalent of begging for money and if you are begging for money or what money can buy you are putting attention on manifesting mammon.


I truly believe that these teachings have been developed by the darker forces in order to lead advanced souls astray and back into the materialism that binds us. The teachings come across as benign, I will use the money for a good purpose, money is energy to be used for good or evil, etc, these are very recent teachings that are very comfortable for us and play into our inherent materialism and egotism so naturally we readily accept them and even embrace them as an essential part of spiritual practice. Yay I get to be spritual and live like a King, money is just energy!!!


You are a million miles from representing the teachings of DK correctly. Obviously you have read nothing but a few selected quotes for you know not wereof you speak.

He never speaks of obtaining money to live like a king or for the sake of the ego. He does correctly say that money is used currently to further the cause of materialism and the use of this power in this direction needs to be shifted toward spiritual purposes.

Do you really disagree with this? What person on the spiritual path would?

Let us look at DK’s words that you think is so sinister.

(1) He says that the spiritual work requires money just as does the material side. If you do not think that is true then I have a bridge to sell you cheap.

(2) He emphasized using money for giving saying, “to those who give shall be given.”

(3) Here is the core message of the prayer he advises:

O Thou in Whom we live and move and have our being, the Power that can make all things new, turn to spiritual purposes the money in the world; touch the hearts of men everywhere so that they may give to the work of the Hierarchy (the work of Christ) that which has hitherto been given to material satisfaction.

I would think one would be fulfilling the words of Isaiah about calling good evil to find fault with that.

In all the Bailey writings DK never says anything that encourages focus on materialism or accumulation of money for any more than personal needs.

Here are a couple things he does say:

Release the hidden beauty which lies in real self-forgetfulness, and let your devotion (tried and proved) and your sincerity stabilise your group. Be not preoccupied with the non-essentials of personal living. Be generous of yourself and time, and give to your group brothers with a clear impersonality which asks nothing for the separated self.

May the Holy Ones Whose pupils we aspire to become so strengthen us that we may give ourselves without reserve, seeking nothing, asking nothing, hoping nothing for the separated self; may we be content to be in the light or in the dark, to be active or passive, to work or to wait, to speak or to be silent, to take praise or reproach, to feel sorrow or joy our only wish to be what They need as instruments for Their mighty work, and to fill whatever post is vacant in Their household.

I am one with my group brothers, and all that I have is theirs.

May the love which is in my soul pour forth to them.

May the strength which is in me lift and aid them.

May the thoughts which my soul creates reach and encourage them.”

If you are going to convinced us that DK is on the dark side then supply us with one evil that he promotes. Give us even one quote from his actual words and explain why is supports the forces of darkness rather than light.

If you think I am equally astray I would make the same challenge with my writings.


More On Money


Money is not energy, if you believe it is your are deluding yourself because it is a comfortable delusion to have.


We’re getting into nuances of meaning that have nothing to do with the argument. Money may not be the direct equivalent of energy, but it represents energy. Similarly, a light switch is not electricity, but it moves the electrical energy to the desired location.

Are either the switch or the electricity evil because electricity has the potential to kill?

Of course not. It is the intention behind the person that throws the switch and determines whether the energy will be used for good or evil. Similarly with money. It can be used for good or evil and if it is used for good then a spiritual event has occurred.


Now it is not good or bad, but focusing on material items with our spiritual faculties is bad, sorry it just is.


No one here is advocating the focusing on material items. The focus is always on the spiritual work. Why would you judge otherwise???

You really seem to be confusing us with the prosperity consciousness bunch. I tried to correct this misunderstanding you have, but you do not seem to want to accept the clarification.


This is a Luciferian New Age teaching that I will absolutely oppose every chance I get, it is a great deception of the New Age community that traps advanced souls in materialism.


Well then, you do not have to oppose DK or myself because neither one of us focus on materialism. Just the opposite is true. You are seeing things upside down here.


Some issues are black and white, like rape is always wrong. Using your spiritual faculties to focus on money is the wrong use of your abilities, end of story.


If you are going to teach a doctrine here then you need to tell us why such a teaching is true or makes some sense.

You say that money “is not good or bad.” Now if money is not good or evil, as you say, then putting some attention on it is neither good or evil, just as it is neither good or evil to think of a light switch.

The only thing that makes something neutral like this good or evil is how the energy is going to be directed. If you are going to turn on light to those who are in darkness then focusing on turning the switch is a spiritual endeavor. Even so, focusing on money to assist hose in need cannot in any logical way be called evil or Luciferian.

Where is your reasoning here? If you were talking about this in court you would have to present a case that makes some sense to the jury.

Just saying that directing money to a good cause is evil merely because you say so is just not enough.


Sorry if that offends you, sometimes truth is offensive and tells us things we don’t like to hear. I don’t remember Jesus saying “If you would follow me invest your money wisely, get a good job, and then follow me.”


Neither DK or myself has talked about investing money as a spiritual enterprise – certainly not in the traditional sense. But even here Jesus recognized that if you do have money then it is better to invest it wisely rather than hoard it. Keep in mind as you read the parable that a talent was worth about a half million dollars in today’s money.

Matt 25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

Matt 25:15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

Matt 25:16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

Matt 25:17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

Matt 25:18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.

Matt 25:19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

Matt 25:20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

Matt 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Matt 25:22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

Matt 25:23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Matt 25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

Matt 25:25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

Matt 25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

Matt 25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. 25:28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

Matt 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

Matt 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Obviously Jesus was in favor of those who were attached to possessions to use them for good, but even on practical matters he recognized that it is better to invest money wisely than to just hoard it. Here he actually praises the guy who uses money as a wise investment. He never insinuated he was a black magician.

The group here looks for principles behind things to determine whether they are good or evil. We don’t call something evil just because someone declares it so, but because we can see the harm. If an action produces good then why would we want to call it evil.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah 5:20


Jim comments regarding proper use of Money:

Charan Singh , the Guru who initiated me, built this Charitable Hospital in memory of his Grand Father, and Master, Sawan Singh, mostly using his own money and resources. Also, Patients came there from all over the world to be treated, always, ….FREE of CHARGE! Most of the Medical Equipment was donated by Initiates from all over the world.

All of the Doctors, Nurses, and Staff donated their Services, free of charge, as they signed up to do the Service, “Seva” to God. Some only did a month, others 6-12 months at a time, and some did more.

I think money used in ways like this example is in line with God’s Work.


This is a good example of the right use of money and if one visualizes the hospital having more power to serve or more people donating money to them so they have have more power to serve then the end result is the same. The intention and purity of heart is the same in both instances and both visualizations call for no personal benefit for the one meditating.



Also, did not Jesus directly command the rich man to go and sell all he had and give it all to the poor if he were to be follow him and then he would have treasure in heaven. Matthew 19:21.


You are reading something into this scripture that is not there. This was the instruction of Jesus to this specific individual. Nowhere does he give this as a commandment to all. If Joseph of Arimathea had done this he wouldn’t have had a tomb to donate to Jesus and Peter couldn’t have had a ship to go back to fishing after the crucifixion.


Modern people want this “middle class” American Jesus, that does not challenge them or threaten their lifestyle, well I am sorry, the Jesus I read about in the bible was absolutely radical in his beliefs, completely unconventional, and challenging to the status quo.


You are right that the Jesus of the Bible definitely wasn’t the typical middle class guy, but neither was he into extreme poverty as was John the Baptist for he was called a “glutton and a winebibber” by his enemies.

The fact that the lifestyle of John and Jesus was quite different illustrates that one size does not fit all for either master teachers or disciples. And advice to one is not always advice to all.

One disciple may have a mission, as Joseph, the son of Jacob, and become the richest man in the world in order to save many and another may be like John the Baptist and live on locusts and honey.


April 9, 2015


Yeah, concerning the posting rules, we tend to go easy on new people or posters at times when there is an interesting topic of discussion It is probably time to remind the group of the guidelines.

Unlike most discussion groups this one was organized as a classroom. Readers of my books wanted to know more of what I had to teach so I became the official instructor setting the class agenda. The topic I posted on whatever that turned out to be is considered on topic. The group did want to post on some off topics of interest now and then so to differentiate, an off topic post is supposed to begin with the capital letters OT. Now if I jump in and comment on the OT and it becomes one of sustained interest then it is no longer off topic but on topic.

Another guideline is to limit postings to three a day. The group desired this because some were making many posts off topic or descending into emotional arguments that few wanted to read and numerous such posts became a big distraction. We give a little slack on the three posts a day if they are on a topic of high group interest or for new people adjusting to the group.

The three posts a day shouldn’t be much of a limitation for many posts can be combined. You have almost an unlimited number of words available in each post.

The other main guideline is to just be civil – avoid name calling, insults and personality arguments.

If posters become too big of a distraction or generate too many complaints we put them on moderation where their posts are read and approved before letting them appear.

Overall we are about as laid back and flexible as possible while still trying to keep to the classroom agenda.

Since we’ve encountered Allan’s group we have had a lot more free-for-all than before and I have gotten some complaints so I plan on guiding the group back to focusing on one topic at a time.

Right now the main topic of discussion has centered around good and evil so this is the official topic of the present.

My next post will be on this subject.


April 10, 2015

Necessary Evil


Shalom JJ, have you ever wondered why the Apostle Paul was maligned or accused of teaching, “let us do evil so that good may result? What are your thoughts on that?


Actually, that hasn’t been something on my mind, but now that you brought it up I’ll make a few comments.

Paul sometimes taught about the contrasts of good and evil and the fact that good may come out of a bad (or evil) situation. The background of the verse you mention is that Paul noted that even when people do evil deeds it sets up a contrast so that the goodness of God becomes more obvious. Because of this teaching some evidently made fun of Paul’s words saying something to the effect, “If that is true then we might as well do all the evil we want so good will come and God will be glorified.”

The truth is that in this world of duality and contrasts there can be no good without evil, no light without dark, no up without down, no positive without negative etc.

Here is a good quote from the Book of Mormon on this principle:

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so… righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

II Nephi 2:11-13

So…since evil is a necessary part of existence then does this mean it is fine that we join in with the evil doers?

Not really. Here is what Jesus had to say about it:

Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Matt 18:7

So Jesus acknowledges that offences or evil actions must come because they are just a part of life, but then he warns the perpetrators with these swords:

“woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”

In other words, he was saying, “Sure there are people out there who will kill, steal, cheat and so on, but just because evil happenings are inevitable does not mean that the offender is justified. He will get his just reward in the end.”

I haven’t given out an assignment for a while and thus brings us to an interesting subject to consider.

We often hear the statement that a certain act was a “necessary evil” in order to produce a good result.

Is an evil action sometimes necessary to produce a good result? And if the end result was good, was the action then really evil?


April 11, 2015

Does the End Justify the Means?

Okay, let me add another question or two.

Does the end always justify the means, or just sometimes? If not give an example of where the end does not justify the means.

In my earlier example would it by all right to kill the one crazy dude to save 50 lives?

Would it be okay to steal some food or to lie to save the life of an innocent child?

Why or why not?


Why Did God Create Us?


Shalom JJ, it’s a pretty simple principle when you see it. Elohim created mankind to be AGAINST Him on purpose by creating us FLESH, and this was to allow mankind to fully come to know BOTH Good and Evil. Experience is the BEST teacher, and learning how that sin and evil produces death, and obedience produces righteousness and life, teaches a valuable lesson.


The reason I asked for the principle you were getting at is that principles are the language of the soul and when a true principle is enunciated those who are sensitive will see and feel the truth. The understanding of a principle helps a seeker understand why a teaching is true or false whereas just the giving out of data from some outward authority is generally only believed if you trust the authority and if the authority is in error then you are in error also.

You say that God created mankind to be against him. This has nothing to do with any principle but you are telling is what is in the mind of God. Now that may be possible if you received some type of revelation from God on this subject but it seems doubtful because it makes no sense. We are in the image of God so we go about our creative process as reflections of God.

Like God in the past we are now on the verge of creating intelligent machines that may develop into living things. Is there any developer who wants to create artificial intelligence that will be against him?

Not unless he is insane.

Is God insane?


Then obviously he did not intentionally create us to be against him.

Since this is the foundation of your belief system it is important that you get it right for if the foundation belief is nor right all that follows will be tainted with illusion.

This is another good question for the group?

Why did God create us, or did he?


April 12, 2015


Shalom JJ, who or what caused your “subjection” to error? And did you “willingly” allow it to happen? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.


Before the age of 12 I smoked whenever I got the chance and when I learned it wasn’t good for you I quit and was saved from that error.

What caused the error you asked?

It was a lack of knowledge and understanding.


Shalom JJ, very good response, thank you. I’m in total agreement that your subjection to error was from a lack of knowledge and understanding. This is exactly what caused the two “carnal” personages of Adam and Eve to be “subjected” to their error, because they like you, lacked knowledge and understanding concerning “Good and Evil.”

So this begs another question, why would the Creator of all things create carnal beings who lacked knowledge and understanding concerning “Good and Evil,” which in turn, caused them to be subjected to error?


Not even God can create beings that are instantly full of mastery, but every life has to learn to master all things in creation step by step. We humans are progressing step by step, as do all lives in this creation.

You and I were with God in the creation of this universe and were a part of the universal mind that planned it. We planned creation so we could learn new things and the situations provided in creation were the perfect vehicles for this.

Incarnations everywhere in the universe are for the purpose of learning and the earth is just one of the schools available. No one wants to go to a school where there is nothing to learn. Who of us would want to go back to the first grade?

We came here with many limitations in this dense physical so we could master all things pertaining to this type of existence and then move on to other types of learning. Without the opportunity to grow and learn, living becomes meaningless, even for those in a state of bliss.

We thus incarnate over and over learning new lessons in each life until we master call things as did the Christ. Then we move on to even moiré challenging situations.


P.S. You didn’t address my other question from the previous post. Was your subjection to error (having a lack of knowledge and understanding) entered into on your part “willingly,” or was this subjection by reason of Him who hath subjected your error? You may want to consider Rom 8:20 in your answer.


And Paul in Romans may or may not be right. He was a human being as am I. You have to check with your soul in all things.

The whole plan of learning was entered into willingly, but as we move from class to class we get into many situations where we are not so willing. It’s like when you play Monopoly. You choose to play the game, but you are not happy when you land on someone’s motel. You willingly play football, but the other guy’s touchdown was made against your will. If everything goes in your favor you don’t have much fun and neither do you progress in learning.

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 7Keys Writings 2015, Part 9

Leave a Reply

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