Tag: right hand path

May 27, 1999

Discerning The Two Paths

Question: How does the popular emphasis on “being” instead of “becoming” distort the vision of many on the three principles of freedom, harmlessness and peace?

John writes:

“You see, if I accept that I am becoming all that I decide to become, but I also realize that I operate always in this eternal moment of now, then I find myself in this moment “being” one who is “becoming”. In this way, I am always going to be being something at any given moment on my way to becoming whatever it is I am becoming. Does this make any sense to anyone out there? JJ. Any help here?”

The original reflection of God, which is you, or more accurately, God’s concept of you, does exist in a state of being beyond time and space. Becoming exists side by side with consciousness and consciousness as we know it is caused by our attention on time and space. Time and space exists in this world and the two planes above us. Becoming as we understand the term is essential in the three worlds of form. Then as we progress beyond these three worlds our becoming takes a higher form. It may not seem like becoming from our point in consciousness, but there is still progression and evolution for becoming has taken on a higher octave.

A state of being is a state of rest. In between lives we achieve “relative being” but there is still progression and therefore becoming. A pure state of being will not be achieved by us for billions of years. And even then it will be a temporary thing. Relative being, or even pure being, is merely a preparation for a greater state of becoming. Therefore even the rest of being is movement toward greater becoming.

We can use a play on words with the “being” concept.

For instance a student attends law school so he can BECOME a lawyer. Then After he graduates he is BEING a lawyer right?

Right. But does this mean that the guy is just being and nothing else?

No. He is BEING a lawyer. This statement implies he is not moving to or moving away from attorneyship, but his title in this area is just “BEING a lawyer.” When we reach a plateau such as this we enter this state of being for a while, but we immediately switch to the next goal. Now he wants to BECOME a good layer. Thus the smart student never leaves the journey of BECOMING and never relaxes to the extent that all he does is “just BE.”

The error I was trying to point out with my question is that many teachers promote the idea that to reach the highest state of evolution me must relax and “just be.” Effort, they say, just gets in the way. We need to just be what we have always been, relax and let whatever happens happen. Whatever is going to happen will happen and by making decisions or an effort to change we just get in the way.

This philosophy does not work in this reality. This illusionary idea may sound pleasing if you do not think about it, but if you do think about it a person would basically have to yield his power of decision to others to follow it.

If we follow some teachers who teach us “just to be” we would be basically going to sleep as far as life goes. We would also relinquish control over life. Thus we give up our freedom to merely be. The freedom to become is alive and well in all of us and must be used to expand our souls.

Following this resting philosophy can delay the progression of the seeker by several lifetimes. This is a definite harm.

Following this philosophy can cause the seeker to enter the peace of stagnation rather than the peace that passes all understanding or the peace of the living waters of becoming.

There are two paths all of us face.

(1) The path of least resistance

(2) The path of high resistance

Notice that neither path is called the path of no resistance. This is because a path of no resistance would be a state of being that is impossible and not desirable for us in this reality.

As all human lives begin their incarnations they blindly tread the path of least resistance. If there are two choices the entity will pick the easy choice or the path of least resistance.

This continues for many lives until soul contact is established. Around this time the person becomes a disciple and switches paths and follows the path of high resistance.

Overcoming resistance increases becoming and growth. Thus the disciple switches from a path of very slow growth by trial and error to accelerated growth by overcoming resistances that were before avoided, but now faced square on.

Contemplate the meaning of these two paths and how they have played out in your life. Do you always seem to take the easy path or does it seem as if you are faced with tough decisions and the result of these decisions seem to upset others beyond what seems reasonable?

Do you think that disciples on path two are often considered troublemakers? Is it any wonder that the authorities of the beast want subjects to just relax and “just be?”

Seeing the Two Paths

Just as the principle of freedom takes the power of discernment through the soul to see in its entirety even so do the two paths take a higher vision to perceive correctly.

One of the reasons for this is that the path of high resistance is closely linked to the principle of freedom. He who operates with a degree of knowing in the principle of freedom will often make the hair stand on end of others who are following the path of least resistance. Those offended will often not be able to explain why, they just are.

Jesus was a great example again. He followed the path of high resistance because He made His own decisions based on the highest good. Even though He broke no rules and applied the principle of harmlessness, the majority of the people “felt” that something was wrong with Him. This was because His wave currents were going one direction and the currents of the majority were going the other.

Most of the pioneers of the human race had this same problem. All the Apostles of Jesus except for John were killed. Socrates was forced to commit suicide, Galileo was thrown I prison. George Washington was opposed by a majority of his own colonists who were faithful to the king. Churchill was viewed as a crazy alarmist for warning the world about Hitler for seven lonely years. Lech Walesa was thrown in prison. Joan of Ark was burned at the stake for helping France.

Now the tricky thing is that there are those who are caught up in illusion who think they are a new Christ or George Washington and cause resistant thoughts among the common people with common sense. Such deluded ones are still on the path of least resistance for in their delusion of being a new Washington is the easiest choice. Such a one who proclaims his glory to all merely seeks to satisfy his ego and desire for glamour.

Since I’ve published The Immortal I have had a number of people contact me telling me that in the past they were this great historical personality and claiming that we need to work together. Usually the evidence they give me about this past life is totally unconvincing. They had a couple nebulous signs, and this accompanied with an overactive imagination, made the path of least resistance projecting himself as a famous person, in the past, one who lived a life of high resistance.

A trouble maker who creates disturbance just to get a rise is not following the path of high resistance. Neither is the ordinary criminal who creates disturbance through a harmful path.

The disturbance created because of the path of high resistance is not through any real harm, Instead it is caused by an illusionary perception of harm where harmlessness, change and healing are really taking place.

So the problem in perception is that those in delusion on the path of least resistance and those who are on the constructive path of high resistance are often lumped together in the same category by the masses and seen through the same angel of vision.

It is not a coincidence that the people were given a choice to either free Jesus or Barbaras, a rabble rousing criminal. The people chose the criminal as the one who disturbed them the least.

It is interesting that many teachers of today use the phrase “go with the flow.” As if this is what you will do if you are enlightened. Actually the truth is the opposite. All people do go with the flow for many lifetimes until they wake up to the principle of freedom and decision. At this point they realize they do not have to go with the flow, but there is a different direction they can take.

Eventually the seekers reach that point of great decision that we mentioned earlier. Those who are tempted to take the dark path are those who cannot give up an attachment to the “flow” of personality energies. Those who choose the right hand path are those who tap into and identify with the opposing flow of the spiritual energies.

The energies of the path of high resistance are like the intelligence and energy that builds a sand castle.

The energies of the path of least resistance are like the natural winds, waters and erosion that tear the sand castle down and makes it as if it never was.

The path of least resistance: Circumstances mold the choice.

The path of high resistance: Your decisions mold circumstances (or builds the castle).

I will name several decisions that have been made and I would like you to tell me if they were made through the path of least resistance or high resistance.

(1) The decision to go to war in Kosovo.

(2) The decision of Bill Gates to create Windows 95 and 98.

(3) The decision of Steve Jobs to create the Mac.

(4) The decision to get up and go to work at your regular job Monday morning.

(5) A decision to tell your boss (who irritates you to no end) to take a flying leap.

(6) A decision made by an unmarried woman in the Fifties to get pregnant and raise the kid on her own.

(7) The decision by Rosa Parks to not sit in the back of the bus.

(8) The decision by the Republicans to go ahead with impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton

(9) Karvorkian’s decision to end the lives of the terminally ill.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives (Like this One) 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

 

May 23, 1999

Freedom and the Right Hand Path

Question:

Can you name some freedoms on both sides of the pendulum that those in illusion wish to restrict? What is the only reason that freedom should ever be restricted?

I thought Glenys gave a good answer to this. Let me quote:

“Both conservative and liberals deny freedom of choice in one way or another eg the conservative’s commitment to tradition and the liberal’s commitment to the power of the state (depending on which branch of ‘liberalism’ is practiced). Throughout history, freedom of religion and self-determination have been sacrificed by people who describe themselves as being one or the other. Both look to eternal sources for answers to life and purport to know what’s best for the individual, going so far as to devise severe penalties for those who choose to control their own lives and destinies.”

A reader mentioned that we only seem to have a blind spot when one eye is shut and that it seems to go away when both eyes are open. It is an interesting correspondence that the left eye is male-conservative-logical and the right eye is female-liberal-emotional. In other words, we can greatly eliminate the effects of the blind spot by balancing the male-conservative-logical and female-liberal-emotional energies within us.

Those who have a mindset on either the conservative or liberal side will have a blind spot and be out of balance in their total vision. Hence they will feel justified in restricting the freedoms of those on the other side of the pendulum.

Let us bring this home with specific examples.

(1) Abortion is a great example. Liberals claim conservatives are seeking to restrict their freedom over their own bodies.

On the other hand, conservatives claim liberals are seeking to totally eliminate the freedom of the unborn child.

Who is really seeking to take away freedom, or are they both in the wrong?

(2) Liberals claim that freedom is increased through expensive social programs. Those who receive the money have more freedom because of more access.

Conservatives claim that freedom is decreased because the State takes by force from some and gives it to others. Those who have money taken from them lose freedom.

Who is correct, or are they both wrong?

(3) Liberals support free speech in most creative endeavors even if it distorts and makes fun of God and Jesus. They support the right to say any number of cuss words, sex and violence from Hollywood and insulting opposing views with threatening or guttural language.

In this area conservatives take a stand and say we should restrict some freedom of speech in these areas.

On the other hand, conservatives support free speech in areas considered politically incorrect by the liberals. They think it is ridiculous that anyone should be offended by a name like “Washington Redskins.” They do not like being restricted to the word “person” instead of “him” or “he” and want the freedom to continue to use the word MANkind as a designating word for the race. They want the freedom tell jokes about Italians or Mexicans if they want.

In these politically correct areas many liberals want to make it a law that takes away freedom to use politically incorrect words and phrases. Even now in most government jobs you can be fired for being politically incorrect.

Again, who has the right idea in the restriction of freedom?

(4) The liberal thinks we should correct our children with kindness on the physical level – that kids should have freedom from fear of spanking.

Again, good and decent people have differing views of freedom here.

Many conservatives believe they should have the freedom to spank their kids when necessary.

(5) Conservatives want to restrict freedom to smoke pot and liberals generally want to restrict the freedom to smoke cigarettes.

Now earlier someone mentioned that they thought that most of the people in the group have chosen the path of light, but before the final choice can be made the principle of freedom must be correctly understood.

My guess would be that in these three areas that part of the group would identify with the conservative idea of restricting freedom and part with the liberal side.

Hopefully we have illustrated here that the choice between light and dark is not that simple. If we make a wrong choice for the restriction of freedom now it will be very difficult to change directions in the future.

The dark side is not entered in one giant step or decision, but is preceded my hundreds of small wrong illusionary decisions that later have to be undone with steps retraced if we are to make the correct choice in the end.

When we do make a wrong decision concerning freedom what do you suppose our soul does for us later in life (or a future one) to help us back on the path?

The Reason to Restrict Freedoms

Travis gave a good answer on this:

“Only if in using the freedom in question you cause harm to or remove freedom from another person. So while you are free to drink, you are not free to then drive your car into someone. While you are free to own a gun (for now, if the government gets their way) you are not allowed to shoot someone with it because they pissed you off. While you are free to say anything you like, saying false things about someone can damage their reputation and prevent them from doing business, thus we have libel and

slander laws.

“It should all come down to one simple question: Did the action in question cause measurable damage to the victim?”

You seem to be headed in the right direction with your answer. The trouble is that even if you or I were king of the world and had a responsibility to write the criteria for the restriction of freedom it still would be misinterpreted by future generations no matter how clear and accurate the presentation was.

The reason is that it takes a certain degree of soul contact to obtain a sense of the true principle of freedom. Therefore the best we can do as teachers is to present the principle as clear as word can be and attempt to inspire others to throw the principle of freedom across the soul so the desire for maximum freedom of spirit will burn in the hearts of the sons and daughters of this little planet.

The greatest temptation placed before us humans to assist the Dark Brothers is to get caught in the illusion that “to accomplish good, we must participate in an evil to remove freedom, for the trade off seems good.”

This was what happened with communism. They had a great goal – equality and abundance for all, but they made the mistake of seeking this goal by forcibly removing the freedoms of the people. As a result in the end (in the USSR for example) they had neither equality or abundance.

Remember our discussions about the Beast in the beginning of our group? Some wondered why we spent so much time on that subject, but it is extremely important to understand that the Beast represents a strong authority figure that we either give our freedoms to or it takes them from us “for our own good.”

The only freedom that should be restricted are actions that take away more freedom or rights of the group or individuals than is added.

We restrict the freedom of the thief to rob others because this action takes away more freedom than it adds.

Overall we may define the principle of freedom as follows:

“Those actions and laws lie within the principle of Freedom that bring greater freedom for and amplify the power of DECISION making for the group and individual.

“The actions and laws that lie outside the Principle of Freedom are those that bring less freedom for and diminish the power of DECISION making for the group and individual.

In other words that which increases maximum freedom for the whole points to the right hand path and that which diminishes maximum freedom for the whole points to the left hand, even though a minority may benefit.

“To diminish freedom so that good may come is illusion and the foundation of great evil.

“To allow freedom so that both good and evil is possible is the path of light for when freedom reigns the illusion of evil is eventually seen and dispelled and the power to BECOME and evolve is amplified.”

The decision between the two paths is not a decision between blissful love and demonic madness. If that were all it is then all would choose the path of light. Instead many are deceived into a dangerous heading toward the dark path because they believe they are choosing love.

It is a great temptation for seemingly loving people to support the taking away of freedom so that good may come. Such decisions lessen the power of decision and as the power of decision is diminished the illusion is amplified. As the illusion is amplified the possibility of choosing the unthinkable becomes real.

In our last post we gave five examples of possible distortions of freedom. Try and apply the principle of freedom to discover the true course to take to solve these problems.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives (Like this One) 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