May 1, 2013
The Carnal Nature
Keith: Another problem is these higher energies can filter down and stimulate the carnal nature. I believe that is why you see a lot of spiritual leaders fall prey to their carnal side, because of this over stimulation of their lower natures.
JJ This is an interesting observation for many spiritual leaders and progressive thinkers have fallen prey to their lower passions. I’ve been reading more about L. Ron Hubbard and discovered he had an insatiable sexual appetite. Kennedy’s numerous affairs are widely known as well as FDR. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had multiple wives. Solomon, the best that God could conjure up to build his temple, had 1000 wives and concubines. Blavatsky was a chain smoker etc.
On the other hand, others seemed to keep passions under control such as Lincoln, Churchill, AAB and of course, Jesus.
Money and power also present tremendous temptations to advanced entities.
May 2, 2013
Re: Some Basics
Ruth: Were there numerous Adams and Eves because of each root race had it’s beginning in an Adam/Atom and Eve, or because some of these experiments to seed Earth failed?
JJ There have been numerous correspondences to the Adam and Eve story at the beginning of the various root races and subraces. It has also happened several times after great destruction. Accompanying every move forward has been dark forces attempting to frustrate it.
May 4, 2013
Aleister Crowley
I’ve taken a look at Aleister Crowley’s handwriting and will make some comments.
You can check out samples also so you can see what I am referring to.
His regular handwriting can be seen in this sample:
His signature can be found here at the bottom of the page.
I won’t give a complete analysis but will point out several things that stand out.
His up strokes are very far forward which combined with the bend in his letters indicates a lack of control over his emotions. One of his main philosophies was “Do what thou wilt.” He liked this idea because he didn’t really want to control himself but desired to go with the flow, wherever that was taking him.
Notice that the direction of his handwriting points downward. I’ve looked at several samples and all but one does this. This indicates a strong pessimism or depression for a highly emotional person. He was reported to have said that he hated himself on his deathbed and maybe he did feel that way at times.
For a highly emotional person he was also quite intelligent and intuitive in the standard sense of the word. He was a quick thinker and probably a good speaker, never at a loss for words. He had strong passion and could stimulate people on an emotional and mental level at the same time.
It shows that he was not good art keeping secrets, unless it was personally important to him. His life verifies this as he revealed the secrets of The Golden Dawn, an esoteric organization that he joined.
His signature is interesting. Notice the two capital letters of his name A and C. In standard writing they do not go below the baseline but Crowley forces both of these letters far into the lower zone, even farther than his Y, which normally does go to the lower zone.
This tells us that the material side of life was of great importance to him. In his private thoughts he reflected on all aspects of life but when he mingled with the masses he became very carnal and material in focus.
Notice how his letters move all over the place in his signature. This tells us that he was always trying to think outside the box and because of his material focus he wasn’t afraid to embrace out of the box thinking if it moved beyond the bounds of normal acceptance.
He had a surprisingly normal ego but on an intellectual level he saw himself as a person of great importance. This feeling of importance was created more by illusion than a big ego.
When he wanted something he pursued it with great vigor.
Under normal circumstances he was quite honest but would lie when it served his purposes.
I found a couple interesting links to the guy. Apparently some believe that as a young boy he was Jack the Ripper and others that he caused the deaths of those who opened King Tut’s tomb.
Here are some links: Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4
His autobiography can be found here.
I’m going to start reading it and if it is interesting I will read the whole thing. Right now I’m reading a book on L Ron Hubbard co-written by his son called “Messiah or Madman?”
It’s pretty good but the meat of it can be found in an interview with his son here.
You will find that interesting reading.
Johann: It was in the Thule Society that Hitler met those who would help him take over Germany and wage the Second World War. Rudolf Hess, Heinrich Himmler, Martin Bormann, Dietrich Eckart, Alfred Rosenberg, and Hermann Goering were all said to be members. It was these, along with Hitler, who used the Thule Society – and it’s inner sect the Vril Society – to launch and promote the Nazi Party.
JJ Interesting information. It is interesting that DK said that there were seven people in Hitler’s inner group that laid the foundation to his power. You named six and with Hitler makes seven. Seems to have been a dark molecule.
May 4, 2013
The Controlling Principle
Dan: So to sum up 🙂 IF one says that JJ’s family was being CRITICAL (using criticism) and they shouldn’t have done it, that MIGHT have delayed his discovery of THAT particular blindspot until YEARS later when he ends up in front of MILLIONS of people auditioning for American Idol, becomes a nationwide laughingstock, makes millions of dollars and dies a sad and lonely little rich man 🙂 and delays his “mission” another lifetime.
JJ Now that would have been an interesting twist of events to be sure. When I heard the first recording of my voice screeching in a terrible falsetto it was a shock to my system to be sure, but a necessary one. It hurt at the time but was a great life lesson as it made me consider criticism later on much more than I may have otherwise.
Yes a valid criticism taken to heart is very useful but the problem is that criticisms whether they be valid or invalid, justified or not, usually have a negative effect and make the person feel attacked and resentful. Even in this group of friends I have to be very careful how I phrase anything that may sound even remotely critical as it can cause hurt feelings.
The Dale Carnegie book that lwk mentioned gives some of the best advice in handling this. He points out that criticism should be meted out very sparingly but when it is deemed necessary then the person must act. He should warm the person up by saying something good about him first so he knows you are not coming across in an attack mode.
Let us say, for instance, that a friend’s coarse language bothers you. Instead of saying, “Shut up! You sound like the demon spawn right of the pits of hell.” One should say something like this.
“You have a talent expressing yourself and putting your point across. I think you could have greater impact though if you substituted some of your salty language with words that people would not take as offensive.”
Of course, there is a time and place for everything. When the inner self approves, sometimes you have to let the guy have the blast from both barrels as my Dad did with me, showing no mercy. This should be a rare event, however.
For those who liked Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” I would recommend the lesser known, “How to Sell Yourself to Others,” by Elmer Wheeler. I read them both way back in high school and they changed my life.
May 5, 2013
Babylon vs Christianity
John C writes: Scientology also draws from early Hinduism, Buddhism, the Kybalion, and the Kaballah among others. So, it is incorrect if a person were to say it is completely on the left hand path. What I find to be on the left hand path are some of the recent teachings and practices of the Church of Scientology, but there are many independent researchers on the Internet, who were involved with Hubbard in the early days or have gone back to his original research to discover where he went wrong and correct it.
JJ
On a note of interest I just read that L Ron Hubbard Jr. said that his dad got a lot of his early ideas from reading Science and Sanity by Count Alfred Korzybski. Few innovators are entirely original in their ideas. Even Einstein was accused of borrowing a lot from others.
It would probably be useful to clarify at this point that the left hand path refers to a path that takes you to a certain end which is the opposite of life and the right hand path takes you to greater livingness. Those on either path are not totally wrong or totally right.
A person or organization who directs you toward the left hand can incorporate many things that are true. For instance, let us say two cars are headed to the same place and reach a fork with no destination signs. One takes the right hand road that leads to the desired destination and the other takes the left, which eventually heads over a cliff.
As the two are traveling the two paths they are both moving onward using true principles. Each of their cars uses the same combustion engines, the same gas the same tires and the road below appears a lot the same. Both are enjoying the creations of God in the scenery, the trees, the animals and vegetation. It is only as both reach their destination that the real truth becomes obvious.
Even so, a person of the blackest dye and darkest soul will use and accept many things that are true and correct. This doesn’t mean he is functioning in the light of the soul. The true disciple will seek out roadmaps, study and contemplate until the right hand path is discerned so he moves forward not by luck but by design.
Unfortunately, in our present society just about every group and individual is mostly controlled by the brothers of the left hand for the whole world wonders after the beast and do not buy or sell without his approval. Only a small number at this time have the Father’s name in the forehead and knowingly follow the right hand path.
The situation is that some organizations are just more strongly left hand than others.
Fortunately, it is the destiny of humanity to awaken to the light and seek the right hand path. 60% will do this when civilization matures on this planet.
Dean makes the mistake of claiming that Christian churches are the good guys (apparently on the right hand path) and just about all others in league with the Nazis including DK.
The truth is that all organizations including Christian churches are under the control of the Left hand path. The only difference is in the degree. Some restrict freedom and control with unjust authority more than others.
Dean attacks DK as being on the side of evil when he is one of the few who consistently supported the light and fought evil. Here are a few of his teachings.
1. He was one of the few teachers who was against Hitler and the Nazis clear from the beginning – before it was obvious he was a monster. Many religious people and metaphysical groups thought he was a good guy before the war started.
Jesus said a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand so if DK was in bed with the Nazis then he kingdom of evil was divided against itself.
2. When the U.N. was formed DK said it was a mistake to allow tyrannical governments to join.
3. Dean rightly points out the problem with the idea of relative truth, but DK taught many absolute truths and rejected many relativists such as the pacifists during World War II, and many others who are not grounded in sound and stable doctrine.
(4) DK supported the principle of freedom. The beast always seeks to limit or take away freedom.
(5) DK emphasized soul contact which frees us from the mark of the beast.
Yes Christianity is under attack because it still supports some elements of freedom and many Christians support the freedoms espoused in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even so, the organizations are run by authoritarian leaders that support the overall power of the Beast.
The demarcation of good and evil right now is found in the power of individuals and the few individuals who are actively fighting for greater freedom are those who follow the inner Christ, not an outer one.
May 5, 2013
Re: Babylon vs Christianity
Dean: AB is not the Christ,
JJ Why are you saying this??? Apparently to take a blind stab at things. No one said she was the Christ.
Dean: nor does he belong to christs kingdom and his teachings are not from the christ or the lord, and neither is the Lucis Trust. This is why there has been such a schism between us because I don’t believe in the authority of AB. But JJ is promoting it
JJ So you admit that your only purpose in being here is to create arguments and stand against all that I teach. Maybe I should have not let this post through if that is your only purpose.
You are disobeying Jesus injunction to not judge unjustly which you have just done. If Jesus himself were here I’ll bet you would find lots of problems with him just as did your blood brothers the Pharisees.
Dean: AB speaks of the new world order and has used Christ name to deceive.
JJ The Bible talks about a new world order. A new work order is definitely coming. It is our duty to make sure it is a good one. If we just sit by waiting for God to do it without us then, sure, the bad one you envision will come.
Dean: I only hope that JJ and the rest of the group see that because it’s very dangerous to take such a deviation away from god.
JJ There you go supporting the Beast again. And who tells us about this god against which we cannot speak? It is someone from without taking His place speaking his own words presenting them as the voice of God which we are supposed to fear. The real voice of God only comes from within or is verified there.
Dean: If you get a chance look at this video clip.
Wow. Such dreadful music and it is full of Satanist symbols which neither Baily or Theosophists used. Neither of them claimed to be Satanists.
HPB did teach about the swastika as a positive symbol which Hitler stole and tarnished forever. When you watch the video notice that HPB’s swastika went counter clockwise and Hitler’s went clockwise. This is like a Satanist s talking the cross and turning it upside down. That doesn’t mean the cross is bad because a mockery is made of it.
Dean More than likely he got his information from the people who planned and supported hitler and that’s how he knew in advance what to say………
JJ Yeah and Churchill was also a Satanist because he also fought against Hitler just to make it look like he was a good guy. You’re making no sense here.
The silly video make a lot of hay about Lucifer but there are many Lucifers and only one was mentioned that fell. Jesus was also a Lucifer or son of the Morning.
Here’s a previous article I wrote on it:
Distortion Number 4 — Lucifer Publishing: “Alice A. Bailey’s publishing company, now called Lucis Trust was originally called Lucifer Publishing Company. This proves she is in league with the devil.” This is the only criticism of Alice A. Bailey that, on the surface, has any validity, but that which appears on the surface is not always as it seems.
Alice A. Bailey was among other things a born-again Christian minister and a strong believer in Christ — so why would she choose such a name?
The answer is that she was a serious student of the writings and works of H. P. Blavatsky and she had a magazine she named Lucifer. I believe this inspired Bailey to also use the name.
The next question is why did H. P. Blavatsky use this name?
The answer is this: When H. P. Blavatsky began her work she suffered vicious attacks by the Christian communities similar to what happened to Joseph Smith when he started teaching some unorthodox doctrines. Just as Joseph viewed most Christian churches as very corrupt, so did Blavatsky. And just as Joseph sometimes made fun of them in their illusions so did Blavatsky.
Finally Blavatsky came up with the ultimate idea of tweaking her enemies’ emotions. She named her magazine Lucifer. This sealed her doom in the eyes of her opposition, for surely this was an open admission that she was in league with the devil himself.
But was it?
No, not by any means.
Why?
The answer will surprise most Bible readers and it is this:
Lucifer is NOT the name of Satan, any devils or adversaries of love and light.
Who does bear the name then?
According to the Bible it is Christ and the redeemed. Peter also used the name in a positive light.
But aren’t we told that the one who fell was called Lucifer?
Answer: Yes, we are told that, but that was his name BEFORE he fell and was a bringer of light. Now one of his current titles is the “Prince of Darkness,” a much different title than “Prince of Light” or “Bringer of Light,” which is the meaning of the name Lucifer.
Here are some words from none other than Peter: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.” (2 Peter 1:19) The words “day star” is taken from the Greek word for Lucifer which is PHOSPHOROS.
Now let us literally retranslate: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and Lucifer arise in your hearts.” If Lucifer refers to the devil himself maybe the Christian world should burn their Bibles.
Another variation of Lucifer is “Morning Star.” Note the actual promise of Jesus to the faithful: “And I will give him the morning star.” (Rev 2:28) Evidently Jesus will give us the power of Lucifer.
Even more shocking Jesus calls himself a Lucifer: “I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” (Rev 22:16) Let us literally retranslate this: “I am the root and the offspring of David, and Lucifer.” (Rev 22:16) Morning Star is only translated as Lucifer once in most Bibles as follows: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north.” (Isaiah 14:12-13) Even here most Bible scholars believe Lucifer refers to the king of Babylon which was addressed by Isaiah. Nevertheless, Isaiah often spoke with dual meaning and this has a definite correspondence to a fallen being.
Lucifer is a Roman word applied to the Hebrew HEYLEL and the Greek PHOSPHOROS which literally means “One who brings or carries forth light.” It could also be translated as “one who is able to hold light.”
Now let us see what the Mormon scriptures tell us about this name. The name is only used once here: 25 “And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son. 26 “And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him — he WAS (but not now) Lucifer, a son of the morning. 27 “And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!” [Doctrine & Covenants (D&C) 76:25-27] Notice here that Lucifer was “a” son of the Morning, NOT “the” Son of the Morning.”
Also notice that it says he “was” Lucifer not “is.”
He is fallen and no longer can be called a “Son of the Morning.”
What is a Son of the Morning?
It is a being who was with God at the beginning, or morning, of time, as we know it.
The name, Lucifer, which refers to a Son of the Morning, is not the name of one evil being, but is a reference to pristine and holy ancient beings who were conscious creators before this earth rolled into existence.
Here is another reference to the Lucifers: 4 “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 “Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 “Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 “When the morning stars (Lucifers) sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7) Now here is a thought. If the Lucifer that fell lost his status and there is more than one Lucifer (or bringer of light) — that means there would be good ones out there somewhere.
Lucifer also refers to Venus and for good reason. It has been called the bright and morning star for thousands of years. When it is visible it will often be the only star (or planet) visible in the early morning light — this the bringer of the new light of the morning.
Brigham Young made the interesting statement that the first man (the first Adam) came from another planet and that he had already passed through human existence and had overcome all things and became exalted. After he came here he took upon himself mortality to become the father of the race of mankind.
Then he also made the statement that Adam was our God, “the only God with whom we have to do.”
This harmonizes well with the writings of Bailey and Blavatsky who also teach that the first man came from another planet. They tell us that the Ancient of Days, Sanat Kumara, came here from Venus (the morning star) 23 million years ago.
They also teach that he once lived as a mortal man like ourselves in another system eons ago and came here to be a father and God to the human race.
When the Ancient of Days came here he arrived with a number of morning stars called Kumaras. Here is Alice A. Baileys writing about the one who we call the fallen Lucifer: “In every grouping,-whether in heaven or on earth-there is always evidenced a tendency by some units in the group to revolt, to rebel and to show some form of initiative different to that of the other units in the same grouping. When our solar universe came into being, we are told in the allegorical language of the ancient scriptures, there “was war in Heaven”; “the sun and his seven brothers” did not function with true unanimity; hence (and herein lies a hint) our Earth is not one of the seven sacred planets. There is, as we know, the ancient legend of the lost Pleiade, and there are many such stories. “Again, in the council chamber of the Most High, there has not always been peace and understanding, but at times, war and disruption; this is made abundantly clear by several of the stories in the Old Testament. Symbolically speaking, some of the sons of God fell from their high estate, led, at one time, by “Lucifer, Son of the Morning”. This “fall of the angels” was a tremendous event in the history of our planet, but was nevertheless only a passing and interesting phenomenon in the history of the solar system, and a trifling incident in the affairs of the seven constellations, of which our solar system is but one. Pause and consider this statement for a moment, and so readjust your sense of values. The standard of happenings varies in importance according to the angle of vision, and what (from the angle of our Earth’s unfoldment in consciousness) may be a factor of prime importance and of determining value may (from the angle of the universe) be of trifling moment.” Because the name Lucifer is now so rigidly associated with evil instead of light few dare use the term openly, but originally Lucifer was a glorious title.
Even though they were technically correct and on solid ground in the light to use the word, it was indeed not good public relations for H. P. Blavatsky or Alice A. Bailey to use this name, which is so misunderstood by humanity, and Bailey was wise to drop its use. Link
Tom: What church was she (AAB) a minister in of what church organization? I was unable to find it doing a web search.
JJ I know she was raised a Christian but do not recall he calling herself a minister. I think she did some missionary work though.
Tom: I did not know that Lucifer was the name of the morning star but then again I am new to being a Minster…I wonder if most Ministers knew that?
JJ Very few know this (apparently Dean does not) as they do not examine the Greek and Hebrew.
Tom Also, JJ, you always translating Bible quotes…what your secret to doing t his and what languages do you know to do this?
JJ There is no secret. All you have to do is examine he Greek and Hebrew Concordances and Grammar guides as well as double check all the places the original words are used so you can make sure the translation can withstand criticism.
May 6, 2013
Re: Babylon vs Christianity
Dean: Apparently according to one of your long held followers I am on the dark side and not with Christ.
JJ I’ll take your word that you are following him to the best of your ability so I’ll leave it at that.
Dean: Imagine if that’s wrong and that I am actually for Christ. How is that going to Look on you JJ? In fact how is it going to look on you disagreeing with me at all during all this time.
JJ I follow the highest I know so I’m sure he’ll give me a lot of slack and do his best to set me on the right path.
Dean I did know that Lucifer meant morning star, but the name Lucifer is still used to refer to Satan.
JJ You’re following tradition here rather than the actual Bible you claim is so important. In the Bible (Rev 22:16) Jesus calls himself Lucifer. After his fall Satan was no longer a light bringer (Lucifer) but a prince of darkness. You are following false tradition here.
Dean It doesn’t change the fact that ABs writings are about the luciferian new world order
According to the Bible a luciferian new order would be an order of light and truth. Such a day was predicted by Peter: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.” (2 Peter 1:19) The words “day star” is taken from the Greek word for Lucifer which is PHOSPHOROS.
And Jesus: “And I will give him the morning star (PHOSPHOROS).” (Rev 2:28)
Dean: I can’t believe you called the churches of Christianity evil.
JJ I didn’t. You made that up.
Dean: I would never do that because the bible is god’s word.
JJ So because the Bible is God’s word that means the church fathers were correct in burning unorthodox people like you at the stake? Wow, that is quite the thinking process you have there.
Dean I hope you repent.
JJ I’ll think about it. I did say some naughty words the other day. I hope it didn’t make Jesus frown.
So, Dean when did you get into the fundamentalist, Bible thumping mode? Did some born againer scare the dickens out of you with hellfire and damnation as you are now trying to do with us?
I have news for you. This is not a fundamentalist born again Baptist forum. We’ll entertain comments on my any subject for a time and you are welcome to call us to repentance a couple times but then it gets old and we will move on.
By the way, you seem oblivious to the fact that you are limited to three posts a day. I let you have four yesterday, but will now enforce the rule. I had to reject a bunch of your ramblings so if you want to be heard, post the excess on Dean’s site at freeread and I’ll reference them here if you do.
Now let’s look at your third post of the day:
Dean: Surely it must be clear that the theosophical society was more into witchcraft than it is was into Christianity.
JJ It is into neither one. As HPB said her religion is the truth wherever it lies. That is a good motto that synthesizes all groups, but exclusive to none.
The trouble with your recent arguments is all you do is attempt to destroy by demonizing and name calling rather than using logic and examining teachings.
Dean, telling me what Jesus is going to do to me: “So even in ignorance that would be judged quite harshly especially since you spent so much time with the bible already that you should know better than to mix it with other things.”
JJ This Jesus of your is a pretty mean Dude. Sure you’re not talking about the devil himself?
> JJ > You’re following tradition here rather than the actual Bible you claim is so important. In the Bible (Rev 22:16) Jesus calls himself Lucifer. After his fall Satan was no longer a light bringer (Lucifer) but a prince of darkness. You are following false tradition here.
Dean The Lucifer in the bible clearly fell from grace and he was referred to Lucifer,
JJ He was called Lucifer when he fell, not afterwards. In the New Testament Lucifer refers to Jesus and his followers.
Dean So satan today would be Lucifer.
JJ Sorry the Bible does not say that. You don’t seem to give it much weight for a true believer.
> Dean: > I can’t believe you called the churches of Christianity evil. > > JJ > I didn’t. You made that up.
You wrote this: “The truth is that all organizations including Christian churches are under the control of the Left hand path”
JJ Like I said you made the “evil” quote up. Do you think that deception made Jesus happy with you? Yes, all organizations are usable by the left hand brothers, but that does not mean they are evil. Most are doing their best to do what is right but are just deceived. Someone who is evil knows what he is doing.
Dean: It wasn’t ‘the church fathers’ (why do you call it that?) that burnt people at the stake. Are you saying Jesus and the apostles burnt people at the stake? Because they would be the only ‘church fathers’ as you call it, and the bible is the foundation. JJ Way to twist things. Of course I was not referring to the original apostles but the church Fathers during the Middle Ages. These believed in Jesus and the Bible yet committed grievous wrongs you seem to think impossible to do for believers.
Dean: In fact you should read this verse very carefully and have a long hard think about what you are attempting to do.
Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away … Ye shall not add – Any book, chapter, verse or word, which I have not spoken
JJ A lot has been added to the Bible since Deuteronomy.
Dean: I don’t know any Christians that would put me on moderation either as I’m not even offensive. But to you I have been offensive? What planet are you on?
JJ Talk about a blind spot. You are offensive to many here because you do not stay on topic or obey the rules. For instance you attempted to get eight posts through today when the rule is three. That is plain obnoxious, especially when the posts are not in the parameters of group interest.
Dean: If you still don’t think I have a valid point, and won’t listen, I’m going to have to leave and not come back here, and you won’t have to argue with me again.
JJ Then you can go and meet with your own kind. I would suggest a fundamentalist Baptist group for you. But even there you will have to behave yourself.
Dean: I guess you would think that’s a good thing?
JJ Like gathers with like. Apparently you are only here to call us to repentance. Okay, you’ve done that. There’s lots of other esoteric groups left that you can try this on. Let us know how they responded.
Dean: I respond here because I care about people being on the right path, including yourself, not because I am interested in arguing.
JJ I don’t believe you. You have argued here for years before you called us to repentance.
May 7, 2013
Tone Scale
I just finished reading a biography of L. Ron Hubbard. In it his son notes that he created a “tone scale.” This is, “a scale which plots the descending spiral of life from full vitality and consciousness through half-vitality and half-unconsciousness down to death. . . from the highest to the lowest. . . .”
The tone scale is as follows:[1]
40.0 Serenity of beingness
30.0 Postulates
22.0 Games
20.0 Action
8.0 Exhilaration
6.0 Aesthetic
4.0 Enthusiasm
3.5 Cheerfulness
3.3 Strong interest
3.0 Conservatism
2.9 Mild interest
2.8 Contented
2.6 Disinterested
2.5 Boredom
2.4 Monotony
2.0 Antagonism
1.9 Hostility
1.8 Pain
1.5 Anger
1.4 Hate
1.3 Resentment
1.2 No sympathy
1.15 Unexpressed resentment
1.1 Covert hostility
1.02 Anxiety
1.0 Fear
0.98 Despair
0.96 Terror
0.94 Numb
0.9 Sympathy
0.8 Propitiation
0.5 Grief
0.375 Making amends
0.3 Undeserving
0.2 Self-abasement
0.1 Victim
0.07 Hopeless
0.05 Apathy
0.03 Useless
0.01 Dying
0.0 Body death
– 0.01 Failure
– 0.1 Pity
– 0.2 Shame
– 0.7 Accountable
– 1.0 Blame
– 1.3 Regret
– 1.5 Controlling bodies
– 2.2 Protecting bodies
– 3.0 Owning bodies
– 3.5 Approval from bodies
– 4.0 Needing bodies
– 5.0 Worshipping bodies
– 6.0 Sacrifice
– 8.0 Hiding
-10.0 Being objects
-20.0 Being nothing
-30.0 Can’t hide
-40.0 Total failure
A brief explanation of this is on Wikipedia here.
What do you think of this idea? Do you think that Hubbard was accurate in his list? Can you improve on this or simplify? If so give your thoughts and your own list.
May 9, 2013
Teaching without Attachment
Stephen writes: May I ask you a rather personal question – but not too personal that it might make you blush 🙂
When you give out teachings or get into a debate over any particular issue, is it done without any attachment to results? (no ‘desire’ in you for the other person to see sense and change so to speak).
The emphasis is on the word ‘desire’.
I’ve had some recent ‘dawnings’, so I am testing them in the ‘fires of reality’ 🙂
JJ There is a lot of illusion and glamour around the idea often presented in new age circles that we should not be attached to the results of our work.
I have been accused of this a number of times by smug finger-pointers who see themselves as being on higher ground because they see themselves as having no such attachments.
The first thing we need to do to answer your question is to look at the core true principle and how it is supposed to play out. The basic true principle is centered around the idea of us, as individuals, being the observer, as if we were watching a movie rather than being totally immersed in everything that is happening. This viewpoint allows us to handle the ups and downs of life more dispassionately and objectively and avoid an excessive amount of emotional attachment.
If you lose the love of your life you may be devastated for many years but if the character you identify with in a movie loses his then you are only upset for a small time and move on.
The fact is that no intelligent being in the universe is totally detached from the results of his work. The next person who announces with an air of superiority that he is not attached to the results of his work needs to be asked this question. “Since you are not attached to the results of your work and one of those results is a weekly paycheck does this mean you will be willing to work for free from now and on just turn your check over to me?”
“That’s different,” he may say.
But it’s not different. The money we get from our labors in this life is definitely one of the results and all of us are somewhat attached to getting enough money on which to survive.
The idea of not being attached to the results of our labors is only true as far as it applies to placing ourselves in the seat of the observer. This is a huge aid in dealing with the ups and downs of life.
If one is overly attached to his job and the money it pays then he will be devastated if he is fired. If he sees himself as the observer he will still be somewhat upset but will deal much more effectively with the problem.
That said I will answer your question. When I argue with a person yes, I do desire or him to see the light behind my point of view. If I didn’t desire this then I would not eve be presenting my case.
Does it ruin my day when he is not moved or convinced at all? No. Not at all. It is a numbers game like shooting free shots. You know you are not going to make them all but if you hit a certain percentage you figure it is worthwhile to make the attempt.
Then there is an extra bonus to being able to assume the attitude of the observer. When something bad happens you can detach yourself from the emotional turmoil but when something good happens you can decide to not be so detached and immerse yourself in temporary happiness. It’s a win win.
May 10, 2013
Human Molecule
Stephen: I wonder if there is something there for consideration. JJ, is this worth reflecting on for Keysters to help them form the Human Molecule? Do we all need to be in the same room? What if Keysters were to ‘pair off’ into male/female couples to try and mentally link up with each other, and if/when successful, couples could then reach out to each other? Or is this too dangerous?
JJ To receive the initial link up the group has to be physically together just as were the disciples on the day of Pentecost. Then after the linkup they can be separated and mentally link up. The apostles in the first molecule traveled all over the world after the linkup happened.
If you feel you need to use my teachings to the extent that you are borrowing them you could actually include my name in the book by mentioning something like: “This concept was first presented by J J Dewey around the turn of the century.”
Larry W JJ said, “JJ: “We may have to go through a sifting process before we can gather 24 people capable of soul contact all at the same moment so heaven and earth can be linked. I would guess that this will happen sometime in the next five years.”
JJ also said, “The goal is to have the physical city of New Jerusalem initiated by 2030. There may or may not be 144,000 working atomic units by that time, but there should be over 144,000 fairly enlightened people who are willing to receive.”
JJ As you noted I said that back in 1999 and it was a guess that was way off. As Ruth found in the quote, the main reason for this was an anticipation of the Immortal series becoming a much bigger seller than it was. If we are to succeed in initiating a real gathering by 2030 then we are going to need to breakthrough to reach mainstream consciousness. My responsibility in making this happen weighs heavily upon me.
The higher lives have done more harm than good in assisting too much in the past and this time the gathering of lights is mostly up to us mortal folk. If we can do this mostly on our own then a long lasting foundation will be laid.
May the force be with us.
Keith: 2025 should be an interesting year for the few of us who get there.
JJ As our resident prophet, have you had any insights about the next 10-20 years?
May 12, 2013
A Few Words
I’ve been contemplating some of the comments and concerns voiced lately and thought I would say a few words.
All of us who have been here for a decade or so thought the work would have progressed much further than it has at this point. It seems that everyone who reads The Immortal is very impressed and like it better than best sellers such as The Celestine Prophecy or Conversations with God. Unfortunately, it did not take off like these and other books. Why this is so, is somewhat of a mystery, not only to me but to many of my readers who love the books.
My only explanation is that my words do not yet register with the masses but certain types of people who are searching for the truth.
As an experiment once I sent out a couple thousand free copies of Book I of the Immortal inserted with the local paper to saturate a certain area. I got two responses. One was an old lady concerned that I was not in harmony with the Bible and another from a guy who actually read it and liked it. One positive response from thousands of Immortals books was far from a paying proposition. Why even a dozen people did not pick it up and read it seems strange indeed.
I’ve given away around 50,000 free physical copies of Book I and an amazingly small number of people read it. Those who do are very enthused but they are the few.
The only time I have had success passing them out is when a bookstore owner actually reads The Immortal, gets enthused and then gives away free copies of Book I to his customers while recommending it. When this has happened sales leaped forward making The Immortal the best selling book in the store for a few months.
After writing the four Immortal books published in three volumes and seeing that the series just wasn’t taking off with the general public I then moved on to the political arena and wrote Fixing America. I sent many copies to talk show and media people all around the country and did not receive a single response.
I then stood back and asked myself what to do next. Logically it seemed best to move forward promoting my political views but then I realized something. I just didn’t have the fire in the belly about moving forward with it at the moment.
Realizing this I decided to start a local group and teach spiritual principles. The goal now is to get a good group going and which I can then use as a base for endeavors impressed upon my by the soul. In addition to this I am sending out the best of my teachings in emails to thousands of people on my list. This is showing some promise. I am also considering making more videos for youtube.
I think Keith is correct that events have not unfolded as expected by the Higher Lives. This is not all bad though. It means that opportunities may be in a different direction than anticipated.
My feeling at present is just to proceed with the highest I know, and as I do the day of opportunity will come.
Copyright by J J Dewey 2013
Easy Access to all the Writings
For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE
Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE