March 22, 1999
The Art of Seeing
Question: Is it harmful or helpful to be able to discern differences in our present reality? I am not talking about the acceptance of diversity here, but the discernment of differences.
Actually, the process of seeing is accomplished through the discernment of differences or contrast and this principle of seeing operates on all levels.
Let us start with the physical reality. We do not see because of light and we do not see because of dark. If there is light only you see nothing and if there is dark only you also see nothing. You only see when there is a contrast of light and dark or a discernment of the interplay of the two. In the blackness of space there is lots of light but no contrast therefore there is nothing to see. In ancient times a prophet who was able to see the contrast of light and dark beyond the physical was called a Seer. Most of us are not Seers because the only thing we register is the physical contrast of light and dark, but when we expand our vision to higher levels and use this same process that causes seeing in the physical then we will see on higher levels.
One of the ﬁrst steps to seeing on the higher levels is to go to the plane of the mind and register the contrasts and discern the truth within the contrasts by the use of the mind or good old common sense.
I do not mention the emotional or astral world as the next step because it is built on the principle of illusion and no everlasting truths can be found there. The astral zone is a testing ground to prepare you for true seeing which begins on the plane of the mind and then goes on to higher spiritual levels including higher levels of feeling.
The reason I mentioned the most controversial initiates on the left (Kavorkian) and on the right (Rush) is that this contrast, if gazed upon and registered, can produce a much more clear spiritual vision than less contrasting initiates such as Lincoln and Jefferson.
Giving you what you think you know does not produce contrast and therefore, there is no enhanced vision. But if I give you that which you have never considered and you are forced to discern and contrast, higher vision is then available.
I know I took the risk of offending many here. Between Rush and Kavorkian about 90% of any audience will be offended, but this is not new. Between John the Baptist and Jesus over 90% of the people in Jerusalem were also offended.
Jesus had such a difﬁcult time with offending people that he said: “Blessed is he who is not offended in me.” (Matt 11:6) It was the unusual person who did not get his feelings hurt by the Master.
Several have questioned the value of some of the contrasts of conservative-liberal, the light and dark side, good and evil and so on, but the moment we cease considering such contrasts the evolution of our seeing comes to a standstill.
We must develop seeing in the three worlds -the physical, astral/emotional and mental/celestial before we can move on to the higher formless worlds where a different type of seeing takes place. Aspirants are often anxious to move on to what they think are the highest worlds and skipping over the principle of seeing through contrast, but such is not possible. Such thinking merely causes many disciples to waste several lifetimes of drifting.
We begin by physical seeing in the physical world then develop more sensitive physical seeing so etheric vision is accomplished, but this is merely the real part of the physical. Then we glide through the illusion of the astral, believing we see when we do not see any true reality, until we arrive at the seeing caused by mental discernment. This seeing through mind with the aid of the third eye dispels the illusion of the astral so a real step in vision is taken.
No one has mentioned speciﬁcally the two things Rush has initiated that will beneﬁt the world. Dr. Kavorkian’s line of initiation is obvious, but Rush’s is more subtle. Someone mentioned that he is leading us to more freedom in certain areas which may be true, but we want to be more speciﬁc here.
Just in case you have a hard time with this, here is another question amplifying our earlier discussion on telling the truth. Many people make promises and then feel justiﬁed in breaking them because later circumstances seem to make it necessary. Is breaking promises sometimes the right thing to do or should we keep them no matter what?
Copyright by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE