Teaching without Attachment
Question: 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’.
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 regular 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 even 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.
Question: Do we all have to be physically gather ed on one place to create the molecular link?
(My answer from 2026) In my answer back in 2013 I expressed the view that a physical gathering was necessary, since that is what happened at the day of Pentecost, but after experiencing spiritual links with others through Zoom videos I am now of the opinion that the link can be created using internet connections and contact through the Oneness Principle.
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
I think Dr David Hawkins gives a more enlightened list:
In his book “Power vs. Force,” he provides the results from a study of the vibrations we hold in different states of consciousness, emotion and perceptions.
This is a very short synopsis of some of the basic information you will find in “Power vs. Force” and Dr. Hawkins’ work.
The chart below is a listing of emotions and consciousness with a corresponding number that is attributed to the vibration of those emotions and perspectives. The higher number, the higher the vibration. The lower the number, the lower the vibration.
Shame/Humiliation 20
Guilt/Blame 30
Grief/Regret 75
Fear / Anxiety 100
Desire/Craving 125 (based in a more of lack consciousness)
Anger/Hate 150
Pride/Scorn 175
Courage/Affirmation 200
Neutrality/Trust 250
Willingness/Optimism 310
Acceptance/Forgiveness 350
Reason/Understanding 400
Love/Reverence 500
Joy/Serenity 540
Peace/Bliss 600
Enlightenment/Ineffable 700-1000
The work of Dr. Hawkins further states:
Your vibration alone (not your direct actions) impacts humanity as follows
~ One individual who lives and vibrates to the energy of Optimism and a willingness to be nonjudgmental of others will counterbalance the negativity of 90,000 individuals who calibrate at the lower weakening levels.
~One individual who lives and vibrates to the energy of pure love and reverence for all of life will counterbalance the negativity of 750,000 individuals who calibrate at the lower weakening levels.
~One individual who lives and vibrates to the energy of the illumination, bliss, and infinite peace will counterbalance the negativity of 10 million people who calibrate to lower weakening levels. (approximately 22 such sages are alive today… but don’t let this stop you!)
Happiness is a thing to be practiced, like the violin. – John Lubbock
May 9, 2013
Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
I don’t acknowledge this distinction between material and spiritual, but if you insist on it, recognize that it goes both ways. If you insist that the spiritual cannot be understood from a material mindset, then the material cannot be understood by a spiritual mindset. Does that stop you from making conclusions about the material based on your spiritual notions? Of course not.
Regarding intelligent design as valid science, saying “truths about God” should be taught in schools, denying climate change because you vibed from within that the science is wrong, putting a bunch of filler in pre-history because you vibed it to be true—all examples of you exerting your spiritual understanding on material matters. History, science, and education are material matters which cannot be understood from a spiritual perspective, so why are you bothering with them?
“I don’t acknowledge this distinction between material and spiritual.”
Understood. Since you do not believe the spiritual realms exist then seeing a distinction would be difficult indeed.
Then you say: “but if you insist on it, recognize that it goes both ways. If you insist that the spiritual cannot be understood from a material mindset, then the material cannot be understood by a spiritual mindset.”
The materialist cannot understand that which he’d does not even recognize existing. For instance a flat earther will not understand anything about the Kuiper Belt because he thinks is is a fantasy. On the other hand the spiritual believer recognizes the existence of the material and can understand it.
History, science, and education can be easily understood by a spiritual believer such as myself.
Go ahead. Test me. Tell me something material I do not understand.
> The materialist cannot understand that which he’d does not even recognize existing. For instance a flat earther will not understand anything about the Kuiper Belt because he thinks is is a fantasy. On the other hand the spiritual believer recognizes the existence of the material and can understand it.
In other words, you’re a finger-wagger who sees yourself as being on higher ground
I believe in higher spiritual realms and you do not. If you classify that as higher ground that is your choice.
You’re the one who has classified your perspective as being higher. You even use that word to describe it—higher spiritual realms—your words, not mine. Therefore, you have proved my point: you’re a snob who sees yourself as coming from a place of higher authority with no obligation to earn that authority. You are, by the logic of your own teachings, a Beast.
* You denounce human effects on climate change while citing scams like the Oregon Petition as evidence.
* You want to teach unscientific ideas in science classes like intelligent design.
* You indulge history that has no material evidence, like Atlantis and stories about beings from Venus.
* You promote quack medicine like homeopathy and Emanuel Zevallos’ magic magnets, while being anti-vaccine.
* You have occasionally promoted free energy scams because you don’t understand basic thermodynamics.
All of these things are examples of a complete break from understanding the material world. When challenged on these matters you then, like any other religious snob, claim that you can discern the truth through spiritual vibes, that your brand of spirituality is above material understanding, and excuse yourself from providing material evidence.
You make a material claim, you need to provide material evidence. If all you can provide are vibes, then you do not understand the material world.
> 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.
So what is your intention behind dismissing everything I say as being “materialistic” and therefore invalid critiques of your “spiritual” teachings? Is it not to be a smug finger-pointer who sees yourself as being on higher ground?
You are like the guy who knows some Spanish but is in a French class and telling everyone they have the wrong words. Even so, the materialist can reason effectively in his material world but is lost in the spiritual and what he thinks are corrections are usually meaningless.
Every skill has a reality check by which that skill is verifiable: chefs have to produce good food, plumbers have to fix plumbing issues, doctors have to successfully treat illness, lawyers have to win cases, but you apparently don’t have to produce anything. You exempt yourself from producing any outward manifestation or reality check that verifies anything about what you teach, which a privilege that real skills do not have.
To the contrary I have taught many things that are provable or have strong evidence to the materialist, but my main focus is on the spiritual and a foundation belief necessary to follow them is that there is a higher intelligence behind all creation that people call God . Because you reject this not much makes sense to you.
You say you teach many things that are provable to materialists, but in the same sentence, you say that belief in God is required to understand. Which is it?
Belief in God is completely irrelevant because, as I have pointed out before, there are plenty of people who do have your foundational belief and who would not accept the things you say. Belief in God does not establish any congruence, evidenced by the fact that there are billions of different and contradicting perspectives on God, of which yours is just one. There are more believers than atheists that doubt you, and they would ask the same question: What is your evidence?
Not long ago you said “Spiritual teachings are generally not based on outward scientific evidence but students register them within.” This was in regard to your notions about ancient mythical cities and levels of etheric matter. Now that you have retracted that statement and you say you do have strong material evidence for your historical narratives, I would like you to present that.
I haven’t retracted my teaching about verifying truth from within. Where in the world do you get that idea?????
Don’t recall saying I have “strong material evidence for (my) historical narratives.”
However, I have written a lot about Abraham Lincoln and the civil war using accepted historical data along with other historical events. It wouldn’t matter if you are a materialist or mystic in discussing this and other items in the archives.
Then my treatise on AI (which you said you agreed with) was something that both categories could assimilate. Did you ever finish it? I added quite a bit after your comment. Here is the link:
https://freeread.com/is-ai-good-for-humanity/
You say: “You say you teach many things that are provable to materialists, but in the same sentence, you say that belief in God is required to understand. Which is it?”
You misread my words as usual. I was talking about teachings that fall in two categories. Teachings, like my “Principles of Discovery” can be appreciated by materialists and need no belief in the spiritual realms. Then most of my teachings involve the mystical and require a belief in that realm to appreciate or even to comment intelligently on them.
Yes, there are many who believe in God who do not believe all that I believe. That is no big revelation. And there are many who accept the Constitution but have different interpretations. So what? But if you are going to start a new country and incorporate the essence of it you gather those who see its value. You wouldn’t be working with a bunch of communists who do not accept it.