Conscious and Unconscious Channels

Conscious and Unconscious Channels

I was asked to comment on Neale Donald Walsch and his process of automatic writing.

From what he has written it sounds like he received his information through standard automatic writing.

When this happens, the pen moves by itself similar to an Ouija board and the author is unaware of what is being written down.

Ruth Montgomery did automatic writing on a typewriter. Her fingers typed automatically on the keys and she was unaware of what she was writing until she read it. She talked back and forth with Author Ford, (the entity on the other side), but not during transmission which was unconscious. After the message was typed out she would read it and ask a question to Ford, then he would take command of her fingers and type the answer.

She wrote some very readable and interesting books and much of the information is true, but it is not the type of transmission the Masters give out. She claimed to be receiving from an entity of similar evolution to herself on the other side and that seems true to me.

Go to and type in her name and you’ll see a group of books. They are easy reading and fun to read. She made popular the term “walk-in.”

The highest writings I have seen from an unconscious channeler was Seth through Jane Roberts. However, neither Seth nor Author Ford claim to be a master so I think there is honesty in both of these channelers.

Many unconscious channelers who claim to be receiving the words of some great being usually rehash old material and are often either receiving information from a deceptive spirit or from their subconscious.

Concerning Helen Schucman, scribe of A Course in Miracles, Claire writes:

“She was largely unconscious at the time of receiving, and did in fact later recant.”


I can’t find any evidence that she received unconsciously

Concerning Helen Schucman who wrote A Course in Miracles we have this from a biography, “Absence of Felicity”, by Kenneth Wapnick:

“The scribing was referred to by Helen as ‘internal dictation’; that is, she did not go into an altered state, a trance, or engage in automatic writing. She was always aware of what she was doing, even if she chose not to pay attention to it. Regardless of her attitude, the writing would continue.”

But the strongest confirmation of conscious transmission comes from her own words. Let me quote:

“I would feel it (the communication) coming on almost daily, and sometimes more than once a day. The timing never conflicted with work or social activities, starting when I was reasonably free to write without interference. I wrote in shorthand in a notebook that I soon began to carry around with me, just in case. I could and very often did refuse to cooperate, but I became so acutely uncomfortable that I soon learned I would have no peace until I did. Even so, I maintained my ‘right to refuse’ throughout, and not infrequently acted on it for some time. Sometimes I did not write for over a month, during which I merely became increasingly depressed. But there was never anything automatic about the writing. It always required my full conscious cooperation.

“…I never knew when I started a sentence how it would end, and the ideas came so rapidly that I had trouble keeping up with them even in the system of shorthand symbols and abbreviations I had developed during many years of taking class notes and recording therapy sessions.

“…The writing was highly interruptible. At the office I could lay down the notebook to answer the telephone, talk to a patient, supervise a junior staff member, or attend to one of our numerous emergencies, returning to the writing without even checking back to see where I left off. At home I could talk to Louis, chat with a friend, answer the telephone, or take a nap, picking up afterwards without disturbing the smooth flow of words in the slightest. It did not even matter whether I had stopped in the middle of a sentence or at the end of a paragraph. It was as if the Voice merely waited until I came back and then started in again. I wrote with equal ease at home, in the office, on a park bench, or in a taxi, bus or subway. The presence of other people did not interfere at all. When the time for writing came, external circumstances appeared to be irrelevant. There could be interruptions of hours, days, and on occasion even weeks, without any loss in continuity.”

Absence of Felicity, Pages 182-183

There are two key points to note from her own words.

First, she speaks of “the voice,” which she consciously heard as the originator of her writing.

Secondly, she clearly says: “But there was never anything automatic about the writing. It always required my full conscious cooperation.”

This sounds very much like the process Alice A. Bailey went through.

It also sounds a lot like Joseph Smith in translating the Book of Mormon. He could leave off the translation in the middle of a thought or sentence, go to lunch and come back and resume exactly at the point where he quit with no need to review what had been previously written. All this was done in full consciousness.

Let me now repeat again. All that comes through an unconscious channel is not wrong and all that comes through one claiming to be a conscious channel is not correct. We must never relinquish soul contact, let our guard down and just accept because of authoritarian criteria. Nevertheless, neither can we relinquish our power of observation, discernment and thought, for if we do, our power to learn through the soul will evaporate.


Because the inner spirit is a testator. It testifies as to what is true and to facilitate this we must first do all we can on our own to find all the facts and pass them by our inner self.

Back to Helen Schucman. Some say that she recanted her writings. From what I have read here is the way I understand the story.

Helen received the messages over a period of seven years from a being that she thought was Jesus. During this time she had reservations about being the scribe for this other worldly author, but overall felt impressed to continue the work.

She did not always embrace all the teachings herself and felt she was unable to complete the course herself. I cannot find were she renounced the work, even though she sometimes had doubts. Instead, I think she was frustrated that she was unable to embrace and complete the course herself.

Helen completed the writing of the Course in 1972 and shortly after that gave a copy of the manuscript to Hugh Lynn Cayce, son of the famed psychic channel Edgar Cayce. Around this time Kenneth Wapnick read a copy and decided to devote his life to promoting it. He edited the manuscript and it was shortly thereafter published.

For quite a number of years only a few people realized that an original manuscript was held by the Cayce organization in the library of the Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach.

It was only recently that someone got a hold of the Cayce copy and published it on the internet. The headquarters at the Foundation for Inner Peace were furious and attempted to legally stop anyone from publishing this original copy citing copyright infringement as the reason.

Apparently a group started to surface which claimed that the course is on par with scripture and as such it should be legally in the public domain and not subject to copyright laws.

Thus the whole matter is in litigation at the present awaiting judgment.

Now the interesting question is: How significant were the changes that were made in the text before it was published? How close to the original is the published Course that affected millions?

I have a digital copy of the original and compared some of it with the published book and there are some differences, but they do not seem to be great. I have not had time to examine them thoroughly, but the greatest differences are said to be in the first five chapters.

On examining the Course in Miracles I conclude that it was a piece of work which was consciously channeled and the intelligence behind it is higher than any unconsciously channeled material I have seen.

But because the intelligence behind it is of a high order does this mean that we can relax and accept all as true?

No. We must examine with more attention than ever before.

Whereas I have received verification on the main principles taught in the Alice A. Bailey books, there are several problems I have with the Course.

One of the main ones is the Course claims that God is perfect, yet he made a big mistake in the creation of the whole physical universe. This mistake needs corrected by our relinquishing of identity and disappearing from this unreal existence and going to a place where no change ever occurs.

There is also the problem that no one we know of has ever completed the Course and then vanished afterwards.

This idea also conflicts with many of the teachings of the ancient wisdom.

There is always the possibility that this and other writings of high intelligence are a subtle deceit from advanced entities on the left hand path.

From the viewpoint of average humanity, it is difficult to discern the difference in light when we are dealing with advanced entities from the two sides.

Even so, I have discerned that there is much truth in the Course and I often quote phrases from the text that I perceive to be correct.

I have found that some who are profound believers in the material accept it with the dogmatism that a Jehovah Witness has toward his green Bible. Many are fairly black and white in their approach, but of course, this happens in all belief systems.

Question: There are several levels of discerning truth.

(1) The Still small voice that quietly urges or speaks to us.

(2) The intuition which turns on a light in our head allowing us to understand that which was previously in the dark.

(3) The spiritual fire. This gives us confirmation on direction. Contemplate this phrase as a seed thought and write what comes to your mind.

Seed thought:

“Confirmation of direction through spiritual fire.”

June 21, 2001, 2001

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

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


Keys Posts 2012, Part 16

This entry is part 29 of 40 in the series 2012A

June 14, 2012

Question on the fate of the universe

Tom When you say God has to let the old universe go…does that mean it will all go back to a point known as the BIG CRUNCH? and no longer expand, but come back on itself and die out…then GOD creates a new universe?

JJ Essentially, yes. The universe will eventually die and matter will return to spirit for billions of years of pralaya. Then a new universe will be born slightly more complex than this one.


June 16, 2012

Rehash of DK?

Ruth: No I do not agree that much of what JJ teaches is a rehash of DK and others.

JJ I’m glad you see it that way because I have gone out of my way to insure that the teachings I present are not a rehash or merely a rewording of something already presented. I think Larry realizes this and if his point is that many of the components of my teachings have been presented in some form in the past then this is true to a degree. However, probably the only thing I have taught that could be considered a real rehash would be my classes on White Magic which did indeed elaborate on DK’s book.

On the other hand, most of my teachings either present new material or new light on old principles. For instance, the Keys of Knowledge presented in the Immortal series along with other teachings there are not found anywhere else. Then no one wrote about the Molecular Relationship before me. In fact I had to invent the phrase to even intelligently talk about it.

In the Gathering of lights I present the gathering as a principle behind evolution, something no one did before me that I know of.

I was the first, about 40 years ago, to write a whole book proving reincarnation from the scriptures. Since then many others have used my ideas and references.

The Gods of the Bible presents the idea that man and God are one with a thoroughness from the Bible and the Hebrew in a way that has not been done before.

My new book, The Unveiling, gives a totally different interpretation of Revelation that nothing else out there even resembles.

Then, if you go through the archives and pick any article the chances are you will find no other teacher, past or present, saying the same thing. I might add though sometimes I have explained esoteric teachings of the past for the purpose of bringing students up to speed with concepts often discussed in metaphysical circles. These could be considered a rehash though there are not a lot of posts dealing with this.

As far as facts that are used in many of my writings – yes many of them are used by others and where pertinent I reference where they came from. but facts are much different than a picture painted though the grouping of many facts and ideas. Einstein used many facts readily available when he presented the theory of Relativity, but that did not diminish the value of the new picture he presented.


June 26, 2012

Negating the Beast

Maryellen: Aren’t we all sick of hearing how this one channels Seth or Ramtha or whoever? I got SO sick of hearing everyone say they were channeling someone, it brought me to a place where I couldn’t read another channeled book. Then suddenly JJ’s first book just appeared on my computer screen and I’ve been here ever since.

JJ Fist let me note that I took some time off after the gathering but am now back. We had a great gathering and another fine group of people.

Have you noticed, as Maryellen has, that most of the spiritual teachers of this generation have called upon the authority of the Beast to support their words? Here are some of the ways:

(1) I am channeling this great entity therefore you need to believe my words because they are not mine but are from a Master or great Spirit.

(2) I am the reincarnation of ___ therefore if you reject me you would have rejected ___. You need to believe me without question.

(3) I have been visited by the great being who is ____. Therefore you need to believe me or you will be cursed.

More could probably be listed, but you get the idea.

One of my most important missions is to expose the source and power of the Beast and the means to destroy it. Therefore, the fewer claims I make the better for it gives readers the complete freedom to reject anything I say and not have any guilt from the possibility of offending God or some great being.

Many there are who have merely done a good job of creating writing and claimed to channel someone who was a figment of their imagination or lay claim to an experience that never happened. The writings of The Teaching of the Masters of the Far East is one example. It is said that Spaulding never even wet to India but had a good knowledge of metaphysical principles and wrote them in story form – but instead of stating they were fiction he published them as a true account. This has happened many times and it causes numerous seekers to not question any of the teachings – some of which are not true.

Jesus said the path to the Kingdom of God is narrow and few there be that find it. Few find it because they are distracted by the need for the authority of the Beast. Many want to know for sure if my account of John is 100% true or false so they can either cling to him as a Beast or seek another Beast.

As it is, the acceptance of all the teachings through me are left up to the readers own soul. Progress is slow at present for “few” can handle this path but the numbers will grow during the Aquarian Age.


June 27, 2012

Re: Negating the Beast

Dean: Well as Ruth references you have said you are the reincarnation of a friend of john, of someone planning Hitler’s assassination.

JJ Stauffenberg was not a person of any spiritual authority and a virtual historical unknown when I made mention of him.

Dean: In your books you make reference to people in the past who you were a reincarnation of that did significant things.

JJ This was in a book of fiction with no authority attached and no historical figure that I was a reincarnation of was even named.

Dean: You have wrote in your book how a great entity of light went into your body and overshadowed you.

JJ Again, this was in a book labeled fiction with no authority attached. It may or may not be true.

Dean: That all the dark forces were attacking you. All this people on the list from reading your book, have taken this all seriously. I can tell by reading the posts.

JJ So dark forces attacking you makes you a beastly figure? Wow. A number of people on the list have recounted a number of attacks. Do you view them the same way???

Dean: And you claiming that you are the disciple of john in your book.

JJ You’re making things up. I make no such claim. Making a statement in a fiction book is not making any claim. The only claim is the actual teachings are true as far as my ability to discern and teach it is concerned.

Dean: I don’t think you are that much different in this way JJ. To the others claiming something. Like at our number 3. lol.

JJ I doubt if anyone but you will be stretching his imagination that much to make such a wild connection.

We covered this subject thoroughly in the past and I do not like to repeat myself so I do not know why you keep bring up your grudge on the way I have presented teachings in the Immortal books. Your grudge is duly noted and yet I proceed on the highest I know.


June 29, 2012

Fabulous if True

Maryellen: This is SO fabulous if true! And what a great example of the means justifying the end! Hats off to Roberts!!!!!!!

Interesting point of view. Worth the time to read.\ ng-term-decision-with-obamacare/

JJ It’s not as promising as the article says. He writes:

“His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be. Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax.”

Justice Roberts stated that the Court does not have power to mandate but the Court actually gave no ruling related to this or the Commerce Clause meaning that the whole matter could come up again on this or another illusion.


June 30, 2012

Einstein Quote?

Francine writes: The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. “Did God create everything that exists?”

A student answered bravely, “Yes, he did”.

The professor then asked, “If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil.  The student couldn’t respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had “proved” that “belief in God” was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, “May I pose a question? ” “Of course” answered the professor.

The young student stood up and asked: “Professor does Cold exists?” The  professor answered, “What kind of question is that?…Of course the  cold exists… haven’t you ever been cold?”

The young student  answered, “In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of  Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything  is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute  Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have  done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don’t have body  heat or we are not hot.”

“And, does Dark exist?” he continued. The professor answered “Of course”.

This time the student responded, “Again you’re wrong, Sir. Darkness  does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light.  Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A  simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface  where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have  created to describe what happens when there’s lack of light.”

Finally, the student asked the professor, “Sir, does evil exist?” The  professor replied, “Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the  beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world,  and those things are evil.”

The student responded, “Sir, Evil  does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man  has created to describe the result of the absence of God’s presence in  the hearts of man.

After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn’t answer back.

The young man’s name was Albert Einstein.

JJ I thought this didn’t sound like Einstein talking so I checked it out and it appears to be a creative story merely attributed to Einstein in 2004. Here is a good article on it:

The article nevertheless does contain some good points for consideration.



Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Keys Posts 2012, Part 4

This entry is part 17 of 40 in the series 2012A

Feb 20, 2012

Astrological Influences

Tom writes: JJ has said that Astrology can influence one up to 25-30% if it is their sun sign.

JJ Let me clarify this. Your sun sign is one astrological influence out of many. Even though it is one out of many it is the most potent influence, making up somewhere around 25-30% of the total astrological influences on the individual.

Tom: I have been studying famous people born under my sign of Pisces. I am a bit confused as Dee Snider (Heavy Metal rocker from Twisted Sister), Andrew Jackson, Wyatt Earp and George Washington and were all tough guys. The trouble is I am not one and more on the shy mellow type that likes to relax and not be bothered. The above tough guys are all born under my sun sign. I not the Wyatt Earp type who was a fearless gunslinger in the Wild Wild West. How come people born under the same sun sign may seem very different in personalities? Due note another famous Pisces Einstein had a personality very different than Wyatt Earp

JJ Astrological influences are just that – influences. An influence is not you. You react to influences.

All the billions of people on earth have, in one life or another, been born under a Pisces sun as well as all the other eleven signs. If a person has developed courage under one sign then he will have it in another. The same goes with other qualities such as intelligence, honesty, love etc.

The key to understanding astrology is that you are not created from its forces, but merely influenced by them.

Let us take three of the people you mentioned – Wyatt Earp, Washington and Einstein. Let us imagine these three in different situations which have different influences such as.

(1) Stranded on a south sea island with a dozen beautiful sex starved women.

(2) Attending a rock concert.

(3) Their neighbor’s dog barks for hours on end.

(4) They win a lottery.

(5) They haven’t eaten for three days.

No two people will react exactly the same to these influences. Even so, no two individuals react the same to the influences of the sun or even all the astrological influences if they were born at the same time .

The influence of Pisces pushes the seeker to sacrifice the unnecessary things in life so he can concentrate on the essentials and move forward in his progression. Since no two people are alike no two people will handler this energy exactly the same.

Even though no two people handle influences the same there are some common reactions to strong influences.

For instance, a neighbor’s barking dog is bound to disturb Wyatt Earp, Washington and Einstein. After it barked for so long they all three would most likely take some type of action. Maybe Earp would shoot the dog, Washington would go talk with the owner and Einstein may complain to authorities. The influence effects them all but they use their own power of decision in handling in their own way.

Even so, three people may have similar astrological forces influencing them but they react in different ways to them. They are not the forces around them but react to the forces.

We also need to take into consideration that there are many astrological forces besides Pisces influencing someone born under that sign. There are different energies within the sun sign itself. For instance, those born in the first ten degrees of Pisces are influenced strongly by Neptune and Jupiter. Those born in the second ten egress, or second Decan, are influenced by the moon and those in the third ten degrees by Pluto and Mars.

In addition to this you have the influences of the moon and planets at the time of birth as well as the twelve houses determined by the time of day you were born.

Now even though an outside force influences you, you still have free will to ignore it or handle it gracefully. You can wear earplugs and ignore the dog or do something about it. The choice is yours. You and the barking dog are not one and the same.


Feb 21, 2012

A question to JJ on Astrology

RJ: how can we determine our sun sign, moon sign, rising sign? I am new to astrology and i need help.  I was born on Dec. 17, 1959 at 11.00 A.M..

You can have a basic chart run free several places on the web. Here is one.


Feb 21, 2012

City Under the Sea

The next step after building cities on the sea will be building them under the sea. This will be more expensive and require higher technology but the inhabitants would be safer from hurricane damage.

Here’s a video on it:


Feb 26, 2012

The Key of Judgment

Ruth: In hindsight, I bet she (Ann Coulter) can be quite emotional when she wants to be, when no one is around. I’m sure she has her moments like every other woman on earth does.

JJ I was talking about her emotional control in public when she is attacked, which she often is. She handles most personal attacks with logic rather than strong emotional response.

I believe she has a highly charged emotional self and is very passionate, but able to control how she presents herself.

I see that men treat her different in an argument than they do other men. When she has an argument with a man on TV she is interrupted twice as much as the same man will interrupt a man with whom he disagrees. They also talk at the same time she is talking much more than they do with other men. Bill O’Reilly is a good example of this. He seems to interrupt her much more than he does a comparable man.

Yet, I’ve never seen her complain about being disadvantaged for being a woman. Instead, I have watched her evolve and deal with this problem by putting men in their place more when they do this.

Instead of saying: “You’re treating me differently because I am a woman,” she will firmly say, “It’s my turn to talk, thank you,” or something that tends to make the guy realize what he is doing.

Ruth: I thought that in practicing harmlessness, then one should not attack others personally, whether they deserve it or not?

JJ I wasn’t taking about personal attacks but attacks on what one considers to be illusionary thinking or bad ideas. All attacks must be measure and used with the second key of judgment. Many attack on a knee jerk basis whenever the opportunity arises. This is not the path of harmlessness. An attack must be decided upon using the Second Key of Judgment. There is a time and place for all things and good judgment tells us that attacks on ideas must be reasonable and effective and personal attacks should be few, but enlightening when they come.

Ruth: It seems that it is okay to attack some people when they deserve it. There must be some sort of fine line between attacking others and practicing harmlessness that I just can’t seem to grasp?

JJ The right idea is to always use the Second Key of Judgment.

If one thinks he can follow the path of harmlessness through the implementation of black and white rules the he is badly mistaken.

For instance, many pacifists think they are taking the harmless route by siding with the avoidance of conflict no matter what. Pacifism was very popular just before World War II and the pacifists cheered Chamberlain when he gave away Czechoslovakia in a deal with Hitler and proclaimed he had established “Peace in our time.”

Parades were held for the guy and he was a hero to pacifists until Hitler started WWII by invading Poland. On hindsight he is seen by history as a great buffoon, an embarrassment to humankind.

What was the more harmless route? To use a little force to put Hitler in his place and save millions of lives or to go for superficial harmlessness and go along with Hitler.

One can see here how crucial is the Key of Judgment for one cannot attack every tyrant who poses a risk, but there are times when judgment decrees that such should be done. Hitler had already laid out his plans for conquest and the elimination of the Jews. Judgment should have decreed that it was not the path of harmlessness to allow him to become the most powerful nation on earth – or to just give him an entire nation to feed his source of power.

Sometimes a bully must be firmly put in his place so he will not bully again – so real harmlessness can prevail. BUT we can’t use this as an excuse to attack whenever the emotional self feels like it. Good judgment, always, must prevail in the end.


Feb 28, 2012

Global Warming

I’m sending off another letter to my local paper. Unfortunately, I am limited to 200 words or less so I had to be concise.

Here it is:

The Statesman on Feb 26 published an article by two environmental activists declaring the usual mantra: “The scientific community has reached a consensus on climate change.”

This statement is followed with a plan to socially indoctrinate America so this “truth” will never be questioned again.

Anyone who has studied basic science knows that there is no consensus on many parts of the argument. Even so let us see where real consensus does lie:

(1) There is climate change. 99.99% of scientists and the public believe the climate has been changing since the beginning of the earth. Climate change deniers virtually do not exist – like the bogyman.

(2) Global warming has leveled off since 1998 with 2011 being cooler than 1998.

(3) The first great surge of human produced CO2 from 1940 to 1976 mysteriously resulted in global cooling rather than warming.

(4) Global warming is less destructive than global cooling.

(5) Since CO2 is a plant fertilizer there are benefits to CO2 emissions such as a greener more productive earth.

(6) Nuclear power is low risk and has reduced CO2 emissions more than all green sources combined yet most environmentalists refuse to go with this consensus to reduce emissions.


Feb 28, 2012

New Discovery

Tomb Exploration Reveals First Archaeological Evidence of Christianity from the Time of Jesus



Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here