A Modest Proposal [Part I]


The Bottom Line in Identifying a True Teacher and Teaching:

A Modest Proposal

[By Michael Topper]


Those who keep up with Letters to the Editor as a format of swiftly digestible opinion may have noticed that the “Coco” inquiry of December re the origin, personnel and goals of the Thunderbird was not really answered in that issue (although inferential answers have been deposited along the way in various articles from the beginning, as a matter of course). Now it’s appropriate to address such a question, since sufficient interest has been generated amongst our readership to draw forward the more focused inquiries as to just what comprises a legitimate and verifiable source of special teaching knowledge: how may we identify the genuine aerial Perspective of a Thunderbird, and clearly distinguish its communication from the innumerable imitative turkeys flapping on the ground (but generating enough breeze to befool those who’ve only learned so far to equate “flight” with hot-air production)?

First of all, we return you to our front-page editorial in the very first issue. The T-Bird is present along with many other things in response to a global condition that clearly calls for help. Some of the very many “things” (journals, products, groups, campaigns, personalities etc.) amongst which the T-Bird necessarily appears, are inspired by an authentic impulse for service whether well or poorly informed; others amongst that same profusion of profiles are certainly there to exploit the crisis character of the general emergency condition.

The confusion of fronts belonging to the overall crisis and vocal caterwaul claiming “clarification”, produces a deep (if merely implicit) longing amongst people everywhere for the gift of an incisive Knowing. There are many amidst that confusion who’d be swift to respond to the effect there’s no such thing, and that the measure of safety in gauging solutions lies precisely in the fact no “answer” can monopolize the truth; in this way we approach provisional creatively-malleable solutions “together”, arm-in-arm, from horizontal ground-perspectives which are individually partial but which, in combination, furnish an open-ended feedback corrective whereby the “real” meaning of all crisis conditions emerges as precisely that resultant group cooperation and harmony.

Even in this “answer”, however, there’s the tacit promise of an overview—if only in a creatively-mobile whole which is always more than the sum of its parts and so aggregates an action beyond mere Brownian turbulence. No matter how you slice it ultimately, there’s no way to seek a solution (absolute or provisional) which doesn’t project a kind of unifying pattern; whether or not this pattern is finally perceivable by any one focus of intelligence, it’s still necessarily presumed as a functional minimum.

The corollary of this vaguely New Age activist arm-in-arm thesis is that the persistently implied pattern may be known by “God”, by some Divine Overview but that collective participation in the production of such pattern is a rough-and-ready process of collision and cooperative conciliation amongst mutually groping parts, intuitively guided as a whole perhaps but never complete in any one of its units.

This idea is comforting to many. It reduces “reliance” on any one person or group, for such singular sources have chronically proven to be exponents of an oblique perspective rather than the Whole Vision advertised; the corrective to that seems most naturally to be a pooled multiplicity of perspectives summing to a functional Mean which corresponds to no single element on a one-to-one basis.

Yet it must be understood this syncretic ideal is as much an unproved proposition as any other. It’s as hypothetical as the idea of a “single” comprehensive knowledge. In fact there are many who instinctively flinch before this “collective” proposition with as much reservation as is exhibited for competing proposals, feeling that the sum of many blind components can’t possibly add to Sight. There’s equal historical “evidence” to show such synergistic acceleration from multiple outputs only speeds the collective vehicle to the brink of disaster more swiftly, since an initial deviation due to faulty ground-level perspective multiplied by an exponent only magnifies the basic fault into a fault-line, quivering to crack with the falling of the next straw.

Wild Card

This brings us indeed to the insertion of an additional factor which doesn’t escape the notice even of those who put stock in the alloy of “collective accomplishment”: the factor of the unpredictable, the constitutionally-indeterminate output—the Wild Card, the ungovernable variable, the element of Chaos which, even though demonstrating unsuspected pattern and even beautiful form (as we find in chaos theory) nonetheless defies linear prediction in its process. There’s the inescapable factor, the presence of the intransigently nonlinear which as science confesses actually accounts for most of everything we perceive in the realm of effect.


So we may extol the virtues of pooling our collective ground-level perspectives and horizontally-equivalent estimates of “what is” and what need be done in order to avert the trap of reliance on a “non-verifiable” Special Perspective; but, as good New Agers (and most everyone else) will do, we turn covertly to consult just some such “special perspective” in the form of seer, astrologer, psychic etc. in very respectful regard of that stubbornly-contrary Unpredictable presence, the upsurge of the chaotic variable…the little ticking timebomb of quake, tsunami or the fateful flicker of insanity in the unsurveyable mind of Someone having too much power under a heavy thumb.

Stacking the Deck

Indeed our collective “rational” mind always reserves space for the possibility of some such seership simply as a mechanism of talismanic protection against that one despoiling variable, the unreadably random factor. We keep that extra-normal possibility over in the corner in the form of various, available soothsayers; we do give credence to that “special overview” or insight after all, we must in some way if only as a psychological rabbit’s foot to cover the unmanageable margins of life.

Yet we propose to keep the provisional “power” loaned such Outlook (by grace of our begrudged credence) within reviewable limits. We control and tame that Special Perspective even as we expect it to furnish the insight that will help us control and contain within bitesize bounds the conventionally “ungovernable” factor; for we place a tacit condition on what it may tell us from its special Perspective. We demand that it predict for us the “what” and “when”, but that it keep any insight as to WHY to itself—or tell us “why” only up to what our prefigured, personal tolerance-levels are able to accept without the obligation to modify or upgrade themselves.

This was the substance of MT’s essay of last month (The 90s, Prepare for LIFE) appearing simultaneously in the T-Bird (intact) and the Whole Life Times (not-so-intact). That essay should be consulted again, and as many times as necessary to master the point re what we demand psychologically and therefore admit (albeit reluctantly) into our purview of possibilities, while restricting and often crippling the degree of real benefit we could derive from our implicit acceptance of such potential through just those same psychological demands.

There remains, then, the persistent hope for—and even intuitive recognition of—a “perspective” which proceeds from the overview of the Whole and is at the same time communicable, knowable, transmissible through some accessible agency so benefit from that viewpoint may be obtained. We know we are supposed to have precedents for the communication of just such “privileged” perspective; all our historical and cultural traditions insist on the fact of such communication, if they differ over particular contents. But the only “sure” and “safe” existence of such communication seems to abide in the past. Current candidates for such sources of communication seem inevitably embroiled in controversy. But then there should be no surprise in this; as a million commentators have already noted, the dead are inevitably safer and more subject to the certitude of one’s own interpretation than the living.

Knowledge In The Biblical Sense

Yet the past and “precedent” still seem to suggest to us the means of interpreting any current candidate to supernormal legitimacy. If for example we take our own “Western” tradition as embodied in the Bible, we find two distinct means of intercepting and interpreting extraordinary communication: that text not only divides down the middle but gives us an actual sequence, a mode of progression in the presentation of Extranormal News. The Old Testament is rife with examples that are the proper equivalent of channeling (i.e. holy prophets given to trance states in which a Source independent or functionally “beyond” the limited personality-expression imparts information purporting to proceed from the Whole Itself); and the New Testament in which that very Whole is in some perplexing Way represented by and embodied in the living personality-expression.

Indeed our search for the reliable appearance of some such modernday communication, always fluctuates between the poles established by that ancient textual precedent.

We believe, alternatively, that we’ve located and identified a living (incarnate) embodiment of such transpersonal Knowing expressive of the Whole; and that we’ve isolated a dependably authentic channeled source of such knowledge in which the embodied personality is gratifyingly unextraordinary, “just like us”, but at the same time empowers the norm by demonstrating some capacity to operate as Telephone, Keyboard or Etch-A-Sketch for an invisible source that does possess the requisite Vision-insight and direct knowing.

We believe in the directly-incarnate or embodied version of the classic alternative, until such time as we get the impression that the “human” part might significantly outweigh the “divine” part. Alternatively then we subscribe to the superiority and inbuilt safeguard of channeled knowledge until such time as it becomes all-too-apparent that the “neutral” channeler inevitably has more to do with the nature and value of the communication than is accountable by the standard of neutrality, and that the certifiability of an extra-mundane source doesn’t automatically certify its impersonal and benign character.

Since neither possibility between these classic alternatives can furnish a definitive superiority or reliability over the other, we are back again at the doorstep of the original premise: if we need a kind of guidance beyond any (single or combined) conjectural estimate, how may we identify it? If we persistently intuit a potential within ourselves, all-but-formless, an intimation of the Soul that sits (as yet) unreachable within its egg, the Spirit-unity through which everything is certain to go evenly in the end, it’s hard to pretend to do without it for long. If we sense its presence accurately rather than through the impatient presumption of the ego, we know perfectly well it’s as yet out of reach, the invisible being of ourselves still in incubation. We know equally that where there’s a chick, an embryonic stirring of life, there’s a parent—the awakened Form that can be touched, that is within reach and which is always the proper source of nurturance, the model and agency of development. If we persistently intuit the Existence of that developed Form of ourselves despite every let-down, every false start and red herring that seems to comprise the sum of what so far has turned up, how may we spare ourselves the precious time and effort in weeding the profusion of everything that is not it? How may we recognize the Perspective of the overshadowing Thunderbird? how may we know even in our apparently earth-bound state that the communication we receive issues from a truly Aerial viewpoint, that it accurately reports the vista as Perceived from the vantage of a wingspan so immense we fail to take it in, so tender it cradles each as proper to its kind that it may raise each up (in realization of the formless potential felt) in the very likeness of its Form?

The Mighty Thunderbird

Who, What, When, Where and Why, then, is The Thunderbird?

There is global crisis, physical dilemma, ecological and related immunological catastrophe; and these things naturally preoccupy the collective attention representing the Salient to be addressed in any extension of help. Note then that according to Indian tradition, the consorts of the mythic Thunderbird and its symbolic surrogates are to be found in “terrestrial” creatures of the air such as hawks and falcons, eagles and owls. The great T-Bird is often depicted with this retinue of feathered correspondents accompanying It from wingtip to wingtip in Its flight.

These creatures which occur in nature represent the physical and biological concern, the immediate terrestrial condition the T-Bird addresses. But the T-Bird Itself is “mythical”; while it bears a relation and identifiable resemblance to those creatures occuring in nature, indeed is composed of their compound attributes, It is also endowed with Its own characteristic traits that clearly distinguish It from the strictly “known” and identify It with the decidedly archetypal.

The T-Bird Itself then not only participates in the “known”, the things of terrestrial concern, but extends Its characterization into the Domain of the Sacred, the psychic/spiritual archetype producing a significance that shoots like lightning from Its wingtips and announces a Presence conveying more-than-the-material, which speaks directly of and from the spiritual domain itself where the whole is Known not only by its material components but through its psychic and emotional, mental and noetic values as well.


You have undoubtedly noticed, over time, that despite the diversity of subject-matter and mode of expression there’s the presence of one “MT” appearing and disappearing, arising as Monty Tyson in the review section, materializing as Mick Trumpet through the cartoon Hal O. Harvest, flickering in and out as various personae—Morgan Tannhauser, Ming Trey, Mother Terasu…everywhere arising only to vanish and metamorphose in the cover-illustrations and feature art, the Power Breathing articles, New Age Cheers and Jeers…Some have noticed the presence of the self-same “identity” moving amongst these myriad features by virtue of unassisted perspicacity, some have been nudged to recognition by clues and casual statements salted through the T-Bird’s monthly text; some “caught on” with MT’s Expo appearance in the public persona of Michael Topper (that coincides with a real birth certificate somewhere). And of course there’s a certain signature style of “arts and letters” causing those who’ve caught on most belatedly, to chide themselves for not having noticed the self-same tracks of that MT imprint in the snow (initials which themselves, of course, function conceptually the way a Necker cube functions visually, since MT is at once both “mountain” and “empty”—for everyone groaning at the gracelessness of our having pointed out this naturally-occurring curiosity of inversion perspective, there are those even now who are doubtless deeply grateful for having been explicitly shown what otherwise would have escaped them!).

In any case, this whole demonstration over the past half-year has been quite leisurely. There has been no hurry to disclose its “secret”, for the simple reason such disclosure in itself isn’t the point. Having been exposed to the presence of the T-Bird for this long and having “caught on” at best by increments and cumulative hints, you must ask yourself what it has been that’s really greeted you from these pages. Has it been the simple idiosyncratic expression of a “single personality”? Has it seemed all along to convey the narrow and ultimately doctrinaire viewpoint of a solitary agent? Has it seemed first of all a “tour de force”, a specialized expression of one man or one woman grinding the one sole axe that characteristically belongs to one self-enclosed ego-being?

Despite the fact that long-term exposure may have secured some certainty of a unific presence, is it not possible in reflecting on one’s reactions and subliminal intimations that what was felt first through such stylistic unity was an integral energy, a presence more akin to a coherent passion diversely expressed than to a single, oblique-angle perspective? In contemplating the various features, art, articles, topics and considerations presented to you through the T-Bird you must ask yourself: is it really so much that the experience was of a single ego-identity lurking behind the scenes, manically manipulating all the pulleys, curtains, and painted flats himself? Was it clearly a matter of the same personality-expression taking you through the Power-Breath sessions, presenting to you a first-hand understanding of UFOs, The Positive and Negative Realms Beyond This World in the form of “Marshall Telemachus” etc.? Is it even now evidently a matter of a single party pushing his “angle”, his private focus through this present disclosure of the Method and Demonstration that has been, and is, the T-Bird?

Who does this kind of thing? Where has it ever been done before?

If you were made to understand that all articles in their diverse expression, their appropriately-tailored tone and adapted variations of style as well as all artwork were never drawn month to month from a leisurely backlog but were monthly fashioned for current consideration of the readership, produced on the spot in great surplus (as the T-Bird Ed. may testify) so that it has always been financial limitation alone keeping the T-Bird from being a 50 page monthly or 75 page monthly, would you begin to wonder a little what would possess the ego of this dimension to do such a thing, to address you with such self-renewed fever on so many levels through every draftable means (i.e. book and movie reviews, cartoon-comics, magical acts and mystic card-readings) to wake you up at this eleventh hour?

In the face of an evident Project that has more than once expressed its editorial refusal to sacrifice quality—or degree of precision in keeping with the requirements of the subject—to render its material more “palatable” to the unreal statistical cross-section (purportedly unable to take anything that doesn’t come in a Gerbers container), would you begin to wonder what kind of “ego” could sustain that intensity against every knowledgeable oddsmaker in the Empire of Entertainment?

As everyone ought to know by now, a bid for “conquest” panders to the lowest common denominator, it doesn’t speak to the level of which you’re capable with effort—for it’s precisely that proviso of effort which detractors and timorous pundits count on you won’t make, banking that you’ll cleave to the line of least resistance down the broad middle placing you in perpetual harm’s way of their fast-food facsimiles and puerile purées—where everything’s blended in convenient cliché-frappé on a sucker socle, always at fingertip ready of their own reach.

Has it been, then, one monoplane display indicative of the ego of this dimension which has greeted you month to month? Is the ubiquitous presence of “MT” unambiguously identifiable in this way? There are those who would answer for you, indeed are all-too-eager to do so—precisely those who are blasted by the content of what appears here and are expecting the general inertia to account for you as well—expecting the public to settle for cheap innuendo and personal sour grapes for having received proper Rebuff to improper efforts at appropriating and twisting a true teaching for their personal aggrandizement. There are those who are counting on the public to accept their prepackaged and self-serving “yes” to the above significant question, to accept it thoughtlessly in the manner they have popularized without the slightest consideration of the character, quality and content of the material you’ve received since the Bird first swept within sighting distance.

It’s easy to accept the dismissal of “ego”, when the aggravated trend of the general inertia tends to pull you from the effort required to properly assess the value of something which insists there’s more important work to be done than arguing the dubious merits of “personality”, and so serves you a banquet—a banquet perhaps bewildering in the depth and spread of the Table prepared under advisement of the critical time but lovingly fixed nonetheless, to accustom toward practice of properly chewing, digesting and assimilating the full form of real spiritual nourishment. Of course this proposition isn’t the easy equivalent of wolfing “known” commodities, so reassuring in the cliché-familiarity of their flavors that no special attention need be paid. Furtive detractors of this teaching count as always on the reactive mind, most ready to consume takeout caricatures illustrating the educated range of their own palates…

How then is all this spirit, this teaching, this tidal communication (happy to surprise a puzzled/delighted public month to month with a kind of presentation in style, substance, and sheer volume curiously unreminiscent of anything, unborrowed, incomparable to the point of startling the drowsy eye of the seeker to near wakening by itself) able to be stuffed into the dimensions of ego? Even our fearful detractors who must attack by disguise and innuendo seem unable to depict the force of this presentation as anything but wholly beyond the dimensions of the ego-personality; thus they’re obliged to depict this presentation as a monstrous Disproportion to the tiny scale that really represents the caricature of themselves as the craven ego-being—only by projection purporting to depict the vulnerable ego-subject “who-would-be-king” taken over by a Power vastly beyond him, as though he must be a mere channeler!

Does all this neatly fold up into the usual, convenient categories? Or has the intuited unity, the persistent coherence threading art to article and issue to issue been detectable (before identification of any alleged single author) as a tidal force, an energy of expressive diversity and purposive intensity that can’t be distilled to a single theme, a single summary note or object but which ranges high and low, informing every topic at whatever level with the illuminative Key that belongs to no single person, which isn’t the possession of anyone but which only expresses thus freely and comprehensively where there functions a productive presence that lives and abides by that non-exclusivity of Being?

Has there not been, in the manifesting presence of the T-Bird’s sweeping wingspan, the distinct intimation of Intelligent Energy first of all, pouring forward in the abundance of unprecedented demonstration taking protean form before the One background Identity (which is not the equivalent of any single, self-same personal identity) shifting like a will-of-the-wisp while leaving the lingering sign of a persistent Presence appearing through the playful puzzle of every “signature”, the symbol-clues encoded in occasional glyphs and pictures?

(There are those who may have noticed, for instance, that the pseudonyms aren’t entirely arbitrary; they furnish anyone inclined toward the pleasure of mind-problems some “noshing” diversion; and of course the rest for whom it is not to their taste can leave those little rebuses that pop up with each column…For example “Morra Talion”, writer of the Power Breath articles, expresses in his name the very object of the series, i.e. that of bringing back the balance to the Crown or summary “head center”, for “Morra” is the Spanish root of crown and “Talion” means “to rectify” or revenge, that is, to restore balance…Okay, so not everyone is going to want to take advantage of the little intellectual pleasures that are variously encoded about the T-Bird pages—but having heard this we bet there’s hardly anyone who doesn’t at least look, out of the secret corner of the eye, whenever an “MT” moniker is next encountered.)

Those indeed who first of all perceive the presence of a diversely manifesting, magically unific and palpably multidimensional Energy-intelligence expressing through these pages, who intuit the ceaseless working of an Awakened service-function which can never be rightfully ascribed to or limited by the conception of a single servant, have grasped what the Bird is all about. They’ve understood without perhaps even noticing, or needing to notice, that the “same initials” undersign every article; for the showcasing of any particular personality was never the point!

What A Thunderbird Does

When the format for the T-Bird was first conceived (a genesis which took all of an instant), central to the consideration even then was precisely the question: how may people learn to identify the being of an authentic teaching-presence of the higher stages? and immediately the answer was clear; rather than show forth a particular person, rather than spotlight an embodied Source and surround that source with claims of an authenticity requiring a certain minimum good faith at the outset (to the effect that such claim proceeded neither from an effort at public deception or from self-delusion), rather than put the improper foot forward at the beginning which almost automatically compels than an equation be made between an “authentic teaching presence” and the assertions surrounding a particular personality, it was understood on the instant such a presence should be demonstrated in practice—allowing the natural functions of the public antenna the native wisdom to pick true signals from the false without overriding static proceeding from the intimidation of magnified personality-publicity. It was recognized at the very beginning that the point needed to be made in a wholly unique, and uniquely appropriate, way, i.e. as a gentle exhibit in practical terms of what such a wisdom and such an energy is.

Whether it proceeded from “one” or from “many” was not the point except insofar as it inferentially demonstrated a fragment of what any one being, any “single personality” may do alone when the Centers are truly opened and harmoniously integrated with the Whole; the real point has always been to show what the inner order of our Reality actually is, to characterize, describe and give the practical keys of that Reality in such a way that the common significance of every apparently disparate zone of knowledge becomes increasingly clear, the puzzles and contradictory signals from various sources—of diverse perspective, energy-composition and ultimate purpose that have so confused and bewildered a seeking dimension of souls—become progressively coherent, mutually illumining and accessible to a single comprehension (admittedly, with a little reciprocal effort on the part of the public! another aspect of the demonstration of what an authentic teaching must be in order to be honored as such, for any real teaching at any level of its expression will require the active participation and engaged curiosity of the “seeker-public”…)

While We’re On This Subject

Though we were naïve enough to think we’d thoroughly covered the subject of our “variable degree of difficulty” (and the opportunity it presents the reader on all occasions to resolve simple with complex truths, the spiritual and the scientific etc. from many—mutually illumining—angles and approaches) we will here exhibit one other of the holy qualities by demonstrating the patience of a Saint and addressing those who may still lament, in confrontation with the “What Is ‘Christ Consciousness’?” series, for example, that the “simplicity of Jesus’s parables was what made his teaching so accessible to the common man”. We’ll always take the time with those who mean well, since they always seem not to notice the obvious bait in a title such as “What Is ‘Christ Consciousness’?”! Can one honestly believe the T-Bird didn’t know that people’s salivary-glands would approach such a title with all the conditioned expectation of teaspoon feedings, and recoil in shock at the actual tone and character of the text? can anyone honestly suppose we didn’t give such conditioned consciousness this particular Bird in all deliberateness as an affront to the unrecognized lassitude of mind that such Biblical homilies have encouraged as a de facto standard of “spiritual communication”?

The truth is, Jesus was addressing a mass-average which couldn’t push its collective I.Q. into the 100’s column; those homilies (or something like them) were all that could be communicated at the time, and even by internal Biblical evidence they were not plums of successful communication at all—“simple” as they were, they were utterly mystifying to the mass consciousness of the time, “Christ” was universally misunderstood…and then he was crucified! Have a nice day. The condescension behind the concept of the “common man” actually presupposes everyone is still stuck, at the “year one” mark, with the mean mentality of a troglodyte. So “simple” were those communications in any case, that Holy Wars have been fought over their meaning, newborn churches have fragmented from their parent source in contention over the sense of such “simple” content, and to this day there are interdenominational logomachies fought over just what “Christ” meant, with hardly a concession to the obvious fact that “Jesus’s parables and sayings” are more the assemblage of “all King James’ horses and all King James’ men” working from unsatisfactory remnants and redactions of basically secondary source-texts (themselves penned by disciples and discipled-rumors of questionable accuracy) than they are reliable expressions of what the personality “Jesus” intended to communicate.

In the case of the T-Bird, we are obviously presented with a situation of twentieth century consciousness, functioning from various levels (none of which can profit by easily-digestible bite-size sayings casually passed right through the mental cloaca without real transformative engagement) in a critical situation of wholesale planetary and psychic transition requiring a universal upgrading and integration of knowledge, understanding and practical means compatible with the metaphysical and scientific orientation of the specific era. Those who may not realize that times, needs and requirements have changed over a millenium should consult the old Alice Bailey text, A Treatise On Cosmic Fire, where it’s explicitly stated that “Christ and the Hierarchy” are now—in the latter part of the 20th century—aiming the communication of adepts in the direction of philosophical disclosure and teaching, a strengthening of the epistemological foundations of “science”, an awakening of dispassionate metaphysical analysis in the general public etc. This mandate hasn’t changed. It is only now in the process of being fulfilled. It only stands to reason that it requires different energy, different methods, different tools.

And never forget—not everything in the T-Bird displays that highest degree of “difficulty” for the general public. The easiest and most accessible ongoing feature is also the one which significantly proffers the most direct potential for real spiritual and mind/body transformation, i.e. the Charger Breath series. Yet when we ask whether those protesting the tone or timbre of a particular feature have begun to take routine, practical advantage of that feature which is easiest and most accessible of all—as well as being a potent transformative tool uniquely available to the public for free—we’re generally greeted with a nonplussed silence!

AAA: Heart Of The Thunderbird

Those, then, who first perceived in the T-Bird pages the presence of such a multidimensional, variously-expressed and often playfully stated Teaching-energy having a reciprocal good time with a public caught off guard in the midst of a stalled “New Age”, actually noticed the important point about the appearance of our winged Messenger, i.e. that it was the unique expression of a real Awakening Energy and purpose appropriate to the Time; without perhaps overtly knowing it, they’d succeeded in identifying the Manifestation of the illumined Mother Principle!

Note our monthly masthead, “The Mother”: AAA.

The awakening principle and manifesting power that expresses itself on the arching back of the colossal T-Bird through the functional persona of “MT” each month is not then even a “male” agency!

So much for the “single person” theory.

The Mother Principle, the nurturing force of cosmic wisdom/illumination as it applies to the specific awakening and Transformation of Gaia, our “earth” the mother-planet, is exactly the force and Agency being expressed and liberally dispensed here month to month.

AAA, the efficient source and awakened presence of the Mother-teaching, has herself no visible or public function; she does all initiation work in seclusion. She has a handful of personal students, works through them as representations and typal embodiments of the present state/condition of humanity, and performs all public work through her external representative and awakened emissary “MT”. Whatever the public receives, whatever the public comes to know of its own initiating Mother-current, will in the foreseeable future be known through MT. If this inevitable and necessary focus upon a “personal” agency awakens the disquietude of those for whom the hasty accusations of “egoity” yet echo in the mind, it should be remembered that the wise have always said: You can tell the presence of the Real when it finally comes, amidst all the other stuff; it’s the only one for which the accusers are already waiting as if to “crush it under foot” the moment it makes its appearance, “like a Scorpion”.

This recited order of things (AAA working inwardly upon the world without public contact and MT working outwardly with the world as the accessible agent of the Mother Teaching) is not the result or expression of any personal determination. It expresses the Decision of Cosmic Process, and has nothing to do with the way “male or female egos” decide to handle things. The Determination as to the Way in which this initiating Process is to be presented, has occurred with the impersonal organic simplicity—as well as the inevitability—of cell-division in a growing embryo.