Conclusion of “On Ramtha, Bashar, Used Dictionaries And a Revised Peter Principle” from last issue

[Ed. note: This article is from The New Thunderbird Chronicle Mar.-Apr. 1992 Vol. 2 No. 10, pages 6-11. By Michael Topper. The first part of this article is not available to this transcriber, so it is not included.]


Letters to the Editor Continued…  
For purposes of continuity we reprint the concluding paragraph of last issue’s exciting installment, wherein we earnestly seek to determine under what conditions the T‑Bird readership will see fit to use a dictionary (and under what conditions it’ll just guess)…

 

…the topic of this particular creative diction, which most stamps and characterizes the presence of the given adept (and which you have found to be both insightful, wisdom-filled and potentially boring) is a much more fruitful subject to consider at present than the self-interested question of the disposition of souls at harvest time; for any such questions as to whether the given consciousness is harvestable, whether the body must first die or whether natural longevity is compatible with the harvesting “event”, are intimately and inextricably tied-up in the first place with the basic question as to how true spiritual instruction is ultimately received here.

A Word from Our Wording

Thus we note your appreciation of the contents; we put a placemark at the point you find us potentially “boring”; what we do take exception to, however, is the observation that the MT writings are a “strange mix” of “rare wisdom” and “collegiate educationalist jargon”. Noting what we’ve just described as the authentic function of imagination in creatively conveying the necessary contents of true Spiritual adeptship, it may at least be recognized at this point that the diction isn’t casual, an accumulation of old college habits, but is deliberate. You must ask, then, why that’s so first of all, and not immediately ask that it be changed for one’s convenience.

Right off the top, our Funk and Wagnalls defines “jargon” in a couple ways, i.e. “gibberish”, “confused unintelligible speech”. The T‑Bird Tongue may of course seem so to some — but manifestly not to you, Peter, for you could hardly discern “rare wisdom” in gibberish. Let’s try the next definition: “The technical or specialized vocabulary or phraseology used among them­selves by profession, sect, or similarly restricted group; cant; lingo.” Here seems the more intended use of the term. In this case “jargon” is the agreed upon language-expression of a specialized group, which would therefore sound much like gibberish to anyone outside the group.

If se habla jargon here, it can’t however be New Age jargon (it’ll be a cold day in hell before MT ever “accesses” information). Perhaps the reference is to the scientific terminology to which we have occasional resort in the more technical passages of our texts (there’s nothing that quite lays open the psychic wound in the general readership like the clanking sound of chainlink physics-diction being dragged in the door). But the use of and references to physics terminology etc., is always kept to sufficiently-common principles and staple terms of the “genre” that by now ought to have leaked into the general vocabulary, or come to decorate the accessible storefront of physics so that a large portion of the consumer public has had occasion to at least linger there and windowshop on the way to making real purchases down the block at Newsweek.

Indeed we usually couch those marginally-painful words in explanatory context; but in any case, their usage is always a subtle provocation to the readership to go familiarize itself a little more with terms that ought not to be so “alien” by now, since they are used by the accepted secular priesthood to define your very life.

Beyond that, however, we can’t — strictly speaking — be considered to be employing those general terminologies as “jargon” since we don’t incorporate them from the viewpoint of the specialized scientific fraternity; rather, they are incorporated into an overarching diction, that has been forged over the span of a decade and a half expressly in order to communicate the all-but-unknown knowledge of direct esoteric wisdom which alone furnishes the resolv­ing context for all such disciplines, studies and practical sciences.

Therefore we address the theoretical physicist, the microbiologist, the psychiatrist, the electronics engineer; and to that extent may be said to occasionally incorporate the lexicon of specialization. But we don’t speak from the cloister of their specialized reference itself where the characteristic diction does become delimiting, and the vessel of a cliquish self-enclosure.

Thus if anything we may be said to open up those “specialized” fields to the general public in the context of a larger and encompassing Resolution, rather than close down around those fields. There’s a big difference. And while it’s true therefore that we do speak specifically to those specialists in one respect (and indeed are subscribed to by physicists, psychiatrists, electronics experts, amateur scientists etc.) we also and at the same time speak to the grocery clerk and traffic cop, the t.v. cameraman, housewife and yardgoods salesman (check it out; they’re all on our subscription list). We’ve always pointed out that within each article and from article to article there’s a range of style and approach, right down to the semi-regular comic strip, which touches the closest point of accessibility for a large variety of people. Everyone notices that we expect the readership to stretch; yet who considers how surpassingly different that is, for a periodical presenting itself for free on the bookstall floor? (What “presents itself ‘for free’ on the bookstall floor” in this domain, is an uninterrupted block of advertising.) Just who is it, who presents material that often seems to run from the popular to the abstruse in a single paragraph; expects the readership that casually picks it up off the floor to devote the extra expenditure of cerebral tissue on its contents; and who patiently goes over this very issue periodically, on behalf of those who most probably haven’t read previous essays addressing the matter of the unprecedented T‑Bird flightpath? (Cf. Vol. 1, no. 5, December ’89, TNTC, for instance, “Editorial Reply and PHC Manifesto” beginning with the by-now famous line “The ‘vernacular’, Penny, is English.”).

For consideration, go back over the passages above in which we’ve sum­marized certain of the points in Ramtha’s teaching which, we feel, coincide with features of our own; where Ramtha has been paraphrased rather than directly quoted, you’ll find ideas that seem fairly reasonably shared but expressed in the characteristic diction of our own teaching work, i.e. “…the energy dimension of spiritual development is a requirement since the standard mind-body level subsists at a characteristic — 3rd stage — degree of integra­tion profoundly insufficient to the necessary degree of sustained awareness…such a minimum threshold intensity of sustained awareness is required, to cancel those cognitive/perceptual patterns mentally structuring the allow­able harmonics of the low-level integral lockin regulating subconscious energy-processes”.

While we don’t suspect the use of a variant diction to express ideas attributed here to Ramtha would elicit objection from that source, e.g. that we’d failed to faithfully convey his meaning while wrapping the concepts in our typifying style, it will certainly be noted that the terms employed in our specific diction have a constant overecho exciting subliminal reference to the Whole of the Southern Crown framework-metaphysique, on the large and small scale, as though every sentence secretly functioned holonomically owing to the internested structure, style and rhythm — the same versatile vocabulary capable of being used, therefore, in macro-extension as a “tele­scope” taking the measure of the Stars, or conversely as a retractable tube able to focus on the minutest reflection of those stars in the subtle dew-light dancing in microcosmic fields.

It will be noted that the selection of words is echoed and reflected through the greater body of our work, and is used in a wide variety of contexts so as to provide a unifying terminology and thinking structure (once one gets used to it) which serves to conceptually unify and draw to a commonality of cognition a diversity of subject matter; it is used very consciously to homogenize heretofore-refractory fields and areas of study which, owing to their having been “brought up” separately and through the conditioning of very diverse thinking patterns (i.e., physics and metaphysics) conventionally refuse to “go evenly” into one another, missing — as they seem to be — the common divisor.

Since such difficulty in cross-communication is always largely a problem of the respective grammars through which such subject matters address themselves, the proper forging of a flexible diction or descriptive lexicon truly conceived through the spirit of the Resolving, universal denominator was in this teaching considered indispensable — since, according to the aerial T‑Bird view of Southern Crown there is no part of being which “is not of the very Gods”.

Indeed, if our diction can in any way be considered “jargon” in the second dictionary sense as a lexicon current to special group use, it is so not because we adopted it from ready-made materials or absorbed it osmotically for the sake of convenience; on the contrary, it could only be lingeringly presumed so because other, higher-dimensional sources of (primarily) channeled variety have subsequently taken to the diction and made it more generally familiar than was originally the case when first forged at this — incarnate — end, during the ’70s decade, by the incipient adeptship of Southern Crown.

On Parakeet Paracletes

If forms of expression such as “mind/body integral harmony”, “perceptual grid-network”, “coordinate loci”, “harmonic alignment” or “compound focal resolution” seem off-handedly familiar or at least conceptually “comfort­able”, it’s because such terminology (or parallel forms modeled after the additional elasticity and abstract resonance belonging to that style of expres­sion) crept into channeled vocabularies which were of decidedly different diction before the seminal work of language-reconstitution performed at this end.

Beginning with the demonstrable existence of a mound of expository writing accumulated over the ’70s decade (which collectively would buckle the locked door of a considerable bedroom, and that constitutes the founda­tion-work of the Southern Crown teaching as generated between AAA and MT), all one need do is trace the speech-patterns of such publicly-significant entities as Seth over the course of Jane Roberts’ channeling career to note the decisive modification of descriptive palettes taking place abruptly with the publication of The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, 1981 and Dreams and Projection of Consciousness, in 1986 (note that 1979-83 is the span of the Process described in “What Is The Mother Current?”, and in Chapter VI of “T‑Bird Meets The Phoenix” in T‑Bird vs. The Flying Saucers). Since Seth only begins using the exact or similar phrases, sentence construc­tions, expository devices etc. as noted above, with the advent of these books so manifestly different in tone and stylistic approach to the matter published previously, it is not possible that MT appropriated these very distinctive phraseologies from the Seth teachings — deliberately or otherwise. Because the Southern Crown writings were not widely circulated, and were used primarily in relation to a private group of students during that time, there is zero-likelihood of Jane Roberts having encountered and subliminally ap­propriated the typifying diction on behalf of “Seth”.

As we’ve had occasion to note, even more aggressively comparable uses of the SC diction have subsequently surfaced, most particularly in channeled sources —since, within the last decades, such sources have assumed the de facto lead in “educating” consciousness, for better or worse (cf. the Review of Peace at Last, The After-Life Experiences of John Lennon, TNTC, vol. 1, no. 5). Since many such sources, with the acceptance-quotient of New Age novelty, have found easy print before the T‑Bird advent, the typology belong­ing to the language of the latter may not have seemed as disconcertingly novel in its emergence as it might otherwise, the ground being psychically prepared at least to an extent by those anticipatory heralds of the new descriptive consciousness prior to July of ’89 (although many others, including the above-mentioned Lennon work sounding magnifyingly more T-Bird-like, certainly came out after).

We speak here mainly about the authentic channeled sources, since it is they alone who chronologically seem to have begun publicly employing parallels of the language-constructs in question before the formal ap­pearance of Southern Crown and the T‑Bird. There are of course the innumerable and usually ephemeral “New Age” sources of the perfectly incarnate, 3rd-stage type who came out with or noticeably adopted the T‑Bird diction after-the-fact, and necessarily so, since the use in these cases is purely imitative (and, unlike the better channel sources, manifestly without com­prehension). Indeed, Peter, in the latter you’ll find a “simplified” adaptation of the teaching themes and styles of SC, appropriated under the presumption that the T‑Bird itself was an abstruse source that would remain safely unfamiliar to the larger public so that a “popularized” simplification would go unnoticed for what it was, and prove profitable owing to the creative profusion of “sounds” or emergent themes which could be quietly tapped at leisure and turned to public coinage (it would be hard to count how many times our exact ideas, in either graphics or themes, sometimes even in precise linguistic expression, have “shown up” not a month after first publication in the Bird, on posters, in pamphlets, on t.v. or TV Guide ads, covers etc. — we are right here at the greedy little advertising groin of Hollywood, after all, where the free-flying Bird winds up on the virtual doorstep of the creatively-indigent executive class…isn’t that right, David).

Do we mean to imply, then, that such Sources as Seth etc., have been “looking over our shoulder” and “borrowing” as well? since in the overall chronology, our original forging of the current language-conventions is a documentable fact…

Borrowing from the Middle Column

We may say that channeled sources “borrow” from us, and necessarily so, in this one sense. The higher-dimensional source does not in this case do so because it’s bereft of creativity. Yet, such a source is, by the nature of the methodology, in a large measure limited to the encoded-mnemonic thought-patterns, rhythms and Ianguage-structure of the channeling personality. It is the channeler’s “cognitive grid” through which the entity necessarily expres­ses; within that ordinary limitation, the channeling entity may work very creatively with the vocabulary and linguistic typology at hand, as witnessed by the Seth writings. Nonetheless, in order for a diction awakened to the focal field in which it functions to come to direct expression, it would be necessary that the indirect or reflective method through the mirroring medium of the 3rd-stage “unawake” channeling-presence, be overcome in some way.

There is a very great difference in the organizational patterns belonging to the thought-process of the Awakened being, and the basically unawake being, and this fact is hardly understood at all. The channeling entity as a rule is only able to use the organizational thought-patterns belonging to the specific instrument of the channeling vehicle (remember, the truly Awakened being, would not be channeling. Period.) On the other hand, a being incarnate in 3rd density who constitutes an awakened focus of consciousness at that polarity, is directly aligned with the higher densities through which the channeling entities communicate. Such a being brings to bear — through the Awakened agency—all the values belonging to the higher densities to which he’s awakened, upon the incarnated field of focus.

This direct correspondence and Identity allows a creative interrelationship to take place between the consensual keys of the focal thought-process, and the higher-dimensional magnitudes of consciousness through which they’re tacitly patterned and projected. Those higher-dimensional magnitudes of consciousness may therefore express themselves with optimum creative facility in directly modeling the symbol-vocabulary through which they com­municate; for in this case there’s no discrepancy between the vehicle of communication, and the whole-being values of which that vehicle is the expositor. But the existence of such an awakened focus at the negative or incarnate polarity, establishes the necessary “ground” for consciousness-at-large to be able to draw upon a style of expression forged in direct identity and alignment with it.

Without the existence of such an Awakened agency, no such connection could be made. It’s not that the channeling entity ceases channeling through its chosen agency, and turns to “channel” instead through the awakened agency. Rather, the very fact of an awakened agency at the “negative” polarity or incarnative, 3rd-density level, makes of that agency’s thought-patterns and modes of ex­pression a form of resonance-harmonic com­patible with Whole-being Value, effectually exist­ing in direct continuity with that Value and so available to the Awakened Whole even while the channeling consciousness is technically talking through the mouth of a “Jane Roberts”, a “Jason Leen”.

This is how “our” style and general diction ap­peared, through Seth and then others, a few years in chronological advance of the T‑Bird’s public debut.

A Palatable Palette for the Palate, With A Little Alliteration

There’s another point to consider: if the direct resonance-correspondence or overall, cognitive orientation between T‑Bird and the channeled chorus is less apparent than it might otherwise be through syntactical comparisons alone (owing to the richer/denser medium in which the Bird char­acteristically comes packed) the discrepancy should be understood as the product of the respec­tive functions. The channeled sources, even after resonance-coupling to the cognitive rhythms of awakened incarnate agency, necessarily retain the operative structure with which they began.

This means that they continue to float down from subtle, shifting currents of the probability-streams like oceanic birds on wings of a tricky draft, alighting gently to the barnacled backs of half- slumbering physical leviathans; they perform their pecking, disjointed work in symbiosis on those glistening-oblivious humps and then — necessari­ly — loft abruptly up again, in anticipation of the sudden sounding of the fantailing herd as it absent­ly plunges on a foam of distraction to the subcon­scious depths of its erratic attention span.

Thus those channeling “birds”, unlike the Mighty materially-manifested T‑Bird, must bear the inbuilt implication of that continued symbiotic relationship; they’re necessarily dependent on, and their communicating rhythms are structured by, the fluxing caliber of concentration and sidewise-slipping focus in the scarcely consolidated atten­tion of the 3rd stage ego-complex — i.e. the definitionally unawake presence of the incarnate chan­neler.

Though their corresponding station in the chan­neling stratosphere may be of a “higher density”, they’re severely compromised in their functional capacity to adequately transmit the multidimen­sional richness and inbuilt “paradox” of such levels; they’re severely restricted, by their efficient form, in exerting optimum concentrative effort at conveying the real complexity and richly-dense Simplicity of their own degree of Whole-being Consciousness (to the true, tensile limits of the linguistic medium) owing to the fact that their modus operandi is — effectively — one of maintain­ing dialogue on the back of a fitful Bottlenose.

Factors of continuity, relative efficiency of focus, lapse between Thought and the available cognitive program, overall dis­junction of identity between the channeler and channeling-entity furnish a constantly fluxing back­ground for the presentation of matters at best refractory to 3rd density consciousness, easily betrayed through the facile thought-constructs substituting simplifications for simplicity (owing to hasty extemporizations of the available stage-props by the “production manager” maneuvering in the wings).

The matter being presented by the — better — channeling entities is advanced matter, of higher-density consciousness, comprising the irreducible platform upon which any resolution of the dichotomous conditions of 3rd-density conscious­ness must take place; but by that token, it’s intrin­sically incompatible with the compulsively shifting focal apparatus at the far end of the transdimensional viewfinder. It’s intrinsically incompatible with the “allowable” states and conditions generated through the organizational degree of 3rd-stage ego-mentality — which is all a channeler ever is.

The matter communicated by true conscious­ness of the higher densities necessarily models global forms of cognition — thus the salient of that matter must draw flat 3rd-density consciousness into progressively more stable conformance with its character — not collapse down on the conven­tional limits of linear tolerance presented by the latter.

Yet in order to do this, the language and symbol-structure of the 3rd-density frame of reference must be subjected to uninterrupted transformation through a concentrative, Whole-being Light that never lapses, and which maintains uninterrupted continuity of awareness between the 3rd-density cognitive frame and the higher densities of Whole-being Consciousness.

This, the channeling entity cannot provide, despite the fact that in itself It abides through the state of that very consciousness; the medium of the essentially unawake channeler interrupts the cir­cuit. The shifting relations between the complex probability-streanis along which the entity chan­nels, and the egregiously moving target of the channeler’s chronically flickering flame of atten­tion, constitutionally prohibits the necessary work of converting the symbolic and linguistic forms of 3rd density toward wholesale representation of the new and larger framework. The channeling entity is structurally prohibited from doing what it knows ideally must be done, and which it would do were it not for the grazing mind of the dreaming, leviathan herd on which it must provisionally settle in order to tap out the Morse-of-its-message around the rim of the unpredictable blow-hole.

It knows that It needs the “time” (the “com­pressed” time of transdimensional concentration, not the drawn-out linear clock-time of the conven­tional framework) to exert the steady, gentle but persuasive pressure of an uninterrupted Breathstream from the beyond, necessary in order to “glass-blow” the fragile/crystalline model of the new global Form, the shimmering Bubble of Natural Philosophy delicately reflecting a prism of concurrent facets through itself…

It knows what It needs, It knows what It ought ideally to Create as the communicative Bridge and cognitive Symbol-vessel for the transition of 3rd-density consciousness — but like the drunk whose “body” won’t respond precisely to the conceived requirements, emits an unfortunate turn of phrase through scarcely-synchronized lips just when sear­ching for the apt expression to bail it out of its embarrassingly uncoordinated appearance.

Indeed the only “place” where there’s to be found that minimal threshold coordination and harmonization-of-identity between intending Consciousness and functional Vehicle physically-focused, is in the presence of the awakened/incar­nate adept. For the general, knee-jerk distrust such shared presence tends automatically to provoke, may be traded the real power to forge the “local” symbol-language into an adequate multidimen­sional expression able to accommodate the Octave airtight.

Thus we do not “sound” so much like these channeled sources to untrained 3rd-density ears (without comparative content-analysis etc.); nor should we really. The latter are, by force of their restricted format, furnishing obliquely-deposited sketches or black-out tableaus, bare propaganda-pamphlets of what they’d otherwise furnish whole and complete. We on the other hand are demonstrating the very function that may be per­formed when that higher-dimensional, Whole-being consciousness is Incarnated Live and On­stage, right along with you. Yet, if we’re using the symbol-structure and language-palette operative through this density as an Awakened agency, we’re necessarily employing it in a form that tests and extends its limits in direct congruence with Whole-being value — not as an indirect, reflective and dis­torted interpretation of what 3rd-density consciousness in itself could conceive that Value to be.

It is still, however, your symbol-system and your language, Peter. Notice how there’s nothing con­cealed in the palm, and nothing ever leaves the Magician’s hand. Thus you can recognize all the notes, just as everyone reading this, you can iden­tify all the chords and keys; yet the overall tune that’s played hasn’t quite been heard before, it grates the ear of expectation — even superficially, to some, seems identical to that authentic mumbo-jumbo being played by pretenders down the street.

Written at 78, Read at 33.3

By way of answering your request/suggestion that MT put out a special 90 minute tape devoted to people’s most prominent questions — over and above the fact that the tapes advertised in the Thunderbird constitute thorough discussions of the ideas and topics which initiated Consciousness would most want you to know (thus being intrinsi­cally more valuable than the satisfactions-of-curiosity that would be obtained from the reverse format), the larger matter looms that a careful line by line word-and-sentence-structure analysis between MTs printed and recorded work would ob­jectively show very little difference. In fact, the spoken word of the tapes employs the very same language (sometimes in even more complex phraseology juggling related ideas in one sinuous, spiraling syntax aerial-mapping a single-sentence runway!). Since, by student concurrence on the subject this is manifestly the case, why doesn’t the spoken word seem to you as difficult? why indeed does it seem comparatively concise, thoughtfully considered etc.? Here we have the very core of the issue, Peter, and understanding this will help con­siderably in the required orientation — indeed here’s where we’ll find you may have performed quite a service for the general readership.

Since, in listening to the tapes, one is in essence listening to the extemporized counterpart of the very same diction presented here in abstract mark­ings (only the UFO tapes I and II, and Meditation/Visualization tapes I and II are spoken from prepared materials) why does the former seem so soluble to understanding compared to the latter (in your stated opinion)?

In listening to the same expository prose, one necessarily passes in attention along with rhythms, pauses and “diacritical markings” that aren’t punctuations of one’s own internal “reading” pat­terns, but which instead enforce a patterning har­mony across the ongoing interpretive “decoder” of the brain/mind. Having to follow the enforced flow of another’s spoken verbal-patterns, the mind makes rapid bridges and gestalt connections across occasional gaps in the connective slats where an unfamiliar word or tricky turn-of-phrase intrudes. In mentally coupling to the cadences of the overall speech-pattern the encompassing context-of-meaning in which those potential disruptions ap­pear, closes around and overwhelms the little gaps (which, in reading the same substance, would enjoy no comparable thrust so that each such gap would comprise a static moment subject to indefinite pause, and irritated magnification to any inflation­ary stop).

Listening to the tape, however, the possible gaps of comprehension are more like tiny pebbles in a stream around which the waters implacably flow, and over which they close in a general con­solidation of meaning derived from context.

In this way the illusion that the spoken word is “easier” gradually installs itself.

Even the gothically-winding sentences employed as a “spring-loaded” delivery device for a nest of related concepts, that tends to charac­terize both written and oral SC presentations, seems more lucid in the latter format. The com­pressive concept-stacking of such trademark delivery-systems as MT’s luxuriating — or wantonly sprawling — compound sentence-structures, may seem to the given “consumer” more effective in transmitting the art of multidimensional mind-jug­gling (thus effecting the intended transparency of multiple, coherently-ordered ideas) when struc­tured by rhythms of the spoken word. What com­prises a visual-verbal maze upon the page, in which the unprepared may easily get lost, is a sinuous pulsing music when spoken — resonating its mean­ings rhythmically into one another so that they all reach the “exit” at the same time.

Indeed, even the language-structure engaged on the printed page would easily appear as a deliberate, cognitive music to the subjective-verbal faculty following its cadences, were it not for the fact that language is a peculiar kind of music con­veying two concurrent kinds of meaning — one to be found in the rhythms and resonances of the speech-pattern, one to be found in the content. Since everyone is familiar with the requirement of content value, but too few are familiar with the parallel art of “musical” value contained in the actual language rhythms, the general mind tends to dwell disproportionately on the literal significance of content and, by and large, fails to deduce the whole meaning through overall cadences of con­text.

Indeed, few writers understand this principle at all — yet many of these same writers babble on inanely about the need of a “multidimensional” perception, demonstrating pure monovision of the narrowest type in their very act of expression.

Emulating this speech-pattern to demonstrate differently, is beside the point. Even were one to grasp the overall “phraseology” in terms of content and rhythmical context creating a characteristic “music” — with its identifiable refrains and motifs — in peristaltic stretches, throbbing punctuations as distinctive as the “speech” of Prokofiev in the field of instrumental music, there would be no percentage in adopting the diction to demonstrate “the same” multidimensionality of vision. We’ve already seen the attempt in several cases, in which the autopsy has always shown “death by syntactical drowning”. Therefore: do not attempt these high-wire multidimensional verbal contortions at home.

We may establish, then, that grousing over the requirement of a dictionary in fortifying the oc­casional foray through these pages, indicates the protest of the mind being interrupted in its sub­liminal effort to lock into the flow and cadence of meaning contained in the syntax, by the concurrent demand of meaning contained in the content. One’s unfamiliarity with the actual terms employed, creates a pause outside the language pattern being “played” — which is a subliminal affront to those potential pleasures beginning to accumulate in the gathering shape of rhythms and harmonic cadences. This abrupt breaking-up of the otherwise-sensed rhythms by the obtruding content (presented in some such word as “tenden­tious” or a concept like the “Coriolis effect”, hmmm?) is a contretemps peculiar to verbal music; no such similar intrusion happens in aural music, (hardly ever even in Opera or Rap since you need the program, in any case, for either one) — thus the specific “demon” of one’s communicative art, eh Pete?

The solution is actually simple, and has to do with something we’ve been liberal in pointing out all along: the T‑Bird, as more and more people come to find out, isn’t written and published as a throw-away leaflet every other month; we have the utterly unwarranted expectation that it will be kept and treated as an ongoing reference guide, teach­ing source, companion educator through the in­evitable travails of these times, valued precisely as the Transcendental Source you identify it to be. The solution is therefore to pick up the dictionary, put in some work and familiarize yourself with the terms, go back and back again to the T‑Bird pages — indeed those very passages that gave so much grief — and read them over as you’d listen to a piece of music, over and over again so that progressive familiarization with the strictly mechanical business of content will ensure propor­tionately less breakup in the building pleasure of flowing, yes, cascading with us down the splashing falls and crystalline slopes of our happy linguistic slalom! This is all multidimensional Shakespeare, dude, frozen out of general recognition only by the paralytic tendency of ego-convenience that really need be thawed next to the cozy fire of open-hearth Consciousness. C’mon, Peter, everyone — if MT doesn’t “see ya no more in this world”, meet him in the next one — and don’t be late!

An Inverse Peter-Principle: Resolving to Higher Competencies of One’s Own Being

If this teaching work is properly understood, the occasional objection to its “diction” should proportionately slacken. But in any case, the func­tion of this work is always that of a transformative teaching, and it is sold short by the casual reader whenever it’s taken as something less than that. In this light, Peter, what’s important is not that you identified some difficulty in style between yourself and the T‑Bird pages, nor (in itself) that you iden­tified something of value or of wisdom in them. What’s important is whether, having perceived something of uncommon value in (and at the same time being nonplussed by the uncommon style of) the given material, the subject in question allows one or the other consideration to prevail. Having perceived the value of the one, is the subject yet willing to exert the effort he now feels is required in order to overcome that identified quotient of dif­ficulty? Will he allow the specific coefficient of inertia he feels to obtain between “potential value” and “effort required” to set an ultimate limit, or establish an invigorating challenge?

That’s the only question worth considering. It’s a test of the wisdom of the reader, not of the writer.

Since you manifestly put in the effort to get through T‑Bird vs. The Flying Saucers, you’ve made a tacit declaration with respect to your desire to learn. For certain others of our readership these particular things you cite haven’t been hard but on the contrary, have drawn appreciative expressions of simple delight; however, what in our work might for you be relatively transparent and easy, might for those same others prove personally refractory, and in every case the only questions worth asking are: do you Identify something here which, as you yourself have said, reflects “rare wisdom” and elicits such expressions even as your desire to “live closer” so as to attend every class? and, having identified something of such admittedly uncom­mon merit or relevance to your own spiritual growth (to the degree of eliciting “thanks” for the teaching presence and materials) are you willing to engage your own private factors of inertia and resistance in order to elicit the most from it, and so promote an actual self-surpassing — a practical transcendence of present personal “limit” so as to subtly alter the very, psychically-encoded basis of your mind/body structure?

For it is the latter which the T‑Bird teaching, right down to the very, apparently-casual circumstance of its “different” diction, is designed to effect. And it may so effect, in any who pass the (tacit) student challenge through confrontation with that unique, inbuilt quotient of specific per­sonal inertia (the real “adversary” in every case of spiritual development).

There are those, just like yourself, who have already written “defensively” on behalf of the T‑Bird in response to the occasional, published cavil re “style” or degree of difficulty; opinions from people just like yourself have avowedly found us “easier to read than Ra”, or “more comprehensible than the Edgar Cayce material”, or “more coherent than the Theosophical writings” (these asseverations are usually appended with “at least”). Juxtaposed with contrasting observations such as yours, where does this place any testimony, pro or con, with regard to the Bird’s flight-style — or, for that matter, with regard to the “degree of difficulty” potentially contained in any of the works above cited?

Let’s not forget that the same person who may find the style a breeze, can and often does get impaled on the content which he’s been able to comprehend so easily. In light of these considera­tions it ought to become apparent that what counts is whether anything of value is identified here, through intellect or intuition, feeling or gut-level knowing, and whether then the fact of such iden­tification in relation to the soul’s yearning for real spiritual instruction will prove to weigh more in the balance of the ego’s judgment than the potential friction anticipated from aspects of style or con­tent.

Don’t forget how you yourself phrased the ob­servation, Peter: “If it wasn’t for the uncommon wisdom” you identified in these teachings the “educationalist jargon” would be “most boring”. Would be. But since, in this very phrasing, it seems your valuation of the “rare wisdom” of these teach­ings renders the diction in which they’re framed something other than or not quite “boring”, just what is it? MT is serious about this. If it isn’t actually boring, what is it you’re detecting in your relation to the material that would make it boring, if it weren’t for…(?). Does it become more ap­parent now that what you’re sensing, in the, phraseology “would be quite boring”, is nothing but the subliminal pressure felt through the present configuration of the ego-complex (with all its specific tolerances and tacit equations of “input/reward”) finding itself caught between its undeniable identification of usable spiritual merit, and its allowable self-standard of “consumer efficiency”?

The “ego” is the mind/body complex’s organiza­tional instrument, and functional referent; yet owing to chronic, one-to-one identification with it in this masked 3rd density framework, the reduc­tion of whole-being consciousness to the condi­tioned and arbitrary proportions of the ego’s cur­rent inventory — or present capacitance —makes of the latter the absolute standard and admittance-gauge of the universe. What you’ve felt, is the fact of having run up against the ceiling of that implicit standard; yet the pressure of being borne on a fount of identified spiritual knowledge pushing you right into and through that resistive ceiling (owing to your vexatious, even puzzling adherence to that part of Spirit within you which identifies and flows along with the waters of that Fount), con­founds the ego’s acceptable tolerances and causes it, like a hungry belly that’s been asked to postpone immediate gratification for a more rewarding meal later, to growl in vague complaint.

If, then, you “almost wore out your dictionary” reading T‑Bird vs. The Flying Saucers, congratula­tions. You’ve proven so far that the part of Spirit in you is stronger than the part of ego-identification which can always come up with reasons why it hasn’t time for “work” over a certain tolerance-level, why its time is methodically rationed and expended according to efficiency tables of the profit-index…Yes, congratulations, Peter! You’ve run up against, and perhaps even passed the first test of, what Ramtha — precisely Ramtha, the very source about which you’ve asked us — has iden­tified as the challenge of the “altered ego”.

Hasn’t Ramtha said that there’s no true spiritual growth without “blowing out” the pieces of that ego-complex? How do you suppose that’s done? Is it done according to the ego’s timetables, the ego’s convenience schedule, the ego’s presuppositions, the gauge of the ego’s specific tolerances? Does it happen when the ego says “ready”? Does it happen when the ego pays for a course so that a so-called spiritual teacher can “challenge” the ego by all the rules of Hoyle in a nice, pat, paid-for context with prescribed steps for the ego’s staged “self-surpassing?” No. It happens when the ego isn’t looking. It happens when the personality complex isn’t paying attention, isn’t expecting the blow and hasn’t “per­sonally” called upon it (so as to retain the ego-sup­portive illusion of control). No, it happens, inter­estingly enough, on just such occasions as this, when the personality has presumed that, in ex­change for “information” heartily appreciated it would reciprocate with advice on how such infor­mation might be presented in a more personally palatable way. It happens when, in the course of being what the personality feels is “helpful”, a Spiritual Lesson like a cannonshot out of all proportion to the proprietary tennis-ball delivered with so civil an intent, comes blasting back over the net.

And you yourself, Peter, (as so often happens in such cases) have furnished the captioned narrative to all the recorded action of the interchange! After all, didn’t you yourself read it? Hasn’t it already been said to you, through material in which you find merit? What do you suppose “the Ram” meant, and to whom do you suppose — all this time — he was speaking, when he said “Do you know you have to earn the right to absorb knowledge?” page 109. “Don’t you know you have to have an interdimensional mind to know one?” “In order to connect to a great mind, you have to have a great mind.” “You wish to understand a truth that is a seed that has been handed down for millions of years. You have to be worthy of the seed, and to do that you have to turn the way you perceive things inside out, and make it abstract, not personal. Otherwise, your personal reality will only allow you to see what is subjective to yourself.” “You have to earn the right to learn, and earning has everything to do with haring an objective mind when you gain knowledge.” Page 110.

Is it not amazing that you use a term, “boring”, the very character of which is already addressed and interpreted for your understanding in the material you identify as valuable? Then, why didn’t you find merit in this? “It is not within the human nature to be bored; boredom is death to the human spirit.” “That is why civilizations are historically ‘history’, because they repeat the same things, because they stay caught in the image. They never evolve.” Page 211. How can one evolve, how can one desire every­thing implied in “evolving”, while reluctant to pick up a dictionary?

Again: “The unknown is, I assure you, not boring.” Page 237. If “boredom” is unevolved repetition of the same things, why would you want wisdom stated only in the terms, ideas and vocabulary you already know?

Here, you may have already shown the better part of a beginning spiritual wisdom on your own behalf, Peter; having admittedly “waded” through T‑Bird vs. The Flying Saucers, you willingly took up a kind of work which self-confessedly grinds against the ego’s habit, and framework of limita­tion. Spiritual development does not, and cannot ever come when the imperative is imposed from without (cf. our first Letter To The Editor, this issue). If the work of spiritual development is in a sense a steady grinding and wearing at the ego’s margin of preference, its personal comfort zone, the impetus for that work must originate in per­sonal volition: and such an act of will can only come about when the personality values its potential spiritual awakening and the development of “great mind”, in Ram’s terms, more than it values its chronic identification-patterns, to the degree that the resultant work and its product confesses the true ratio in real mounds of ego-dust piled before the grindstone.

Listen, Peter, ol’ MT is hardly happy with every­thing that comes flying out of this pen. As a boxer might say when he’s just had his face beat in, “no excuses, but I took this bout on short notice” — many of these pieces, nay, all these pieces, are written a week or two before deadline invariably — seldom is it that one has something just “hanging around”, written and refined long before, that fits in perfectly with the requirements of the monthly text. Indeed owing to that very fact, and even though these pieces must necessarily be published “as is”, at the time, MT isn’t curtailed from a constant work of reviewing, refining, altering or adding where necessary in order that the possible future publication of these pieces in another for­mat (as what happened with T‑Bird vs. The Flying Saucers) will find the content tightened to the rhythm, the rhythm further adjusted to reinforce the procession of content etc.

MT is always attentive to, and in the process of, changing and refining the T‑Bird/SC texts, Peter (every new printing of T‑Bird vs. The Flying Saucers, for instance, is slightly different owing to subtle, ongoing modifications here and there); but the kinds of improvements with which MT would typically be concerned (apart from pure grammati­cal considerations) have to do with greater abstract precision of expression, subtle shavings of phrase, the aforesaid adjustments between content-delivery and rhythm, and would not be identifiable by the conventional standard of “digestible ease” — wouldn’t be noticeable to that standard at all.

The latter, in fact, exactly serves to define the point at which the “personal devil” of the ego-complex, its permissible tolerance-quotient, shall col­lide with the old Thunderbird head on — where, indeed, in the tumult of flying pinfeathers the ar­rangement of dust and settling debris upon the ground will determine, like an augury by entrails, whether the given personality shall have had its “pilot” light on at the time so as to be able to properly identify the character of the creature with which it crashed, and secondly whether in that identification it had found the Will to make the necessary personal adjustments so as to ultimately secure a happy, free ride on the great Bird’s back.

You see, Peter, you needn’t really “be here”, and no one need really wait till the formalism everyone assumes is de rigueur for spiritual tutelage; the real Teaching function is always working on your be­half, whether you identify it or not; for the authen­tic spiritual adept, the teaching function is not a 9 to 5 job. It makes no calculations according to “business sense”. It greets you like a large, eager friend, indeed with such unrestrained exuberance utterly unmindful of distance or any of the rules of propriety that, (having only a moment before stated your wistful regret at not being closer so as to have it for a personal teacher) you are now quite liable to bolt for the exit at its unaccountably un­comfortable nearness.

Wherein MT Magnanimously Takes Peter On As A Long-distance Student, After All

As a new (albeit however brief) student, Peter, MT may as well give you a little tip with respect to the work on, and wiles of, the “altered ego”, a tip which would otherwise just as readily come from observing what student/initiates do indeed do in the course of formal classes. The all-too-typical response of the ego identification-pattem is self- preservation; and the structure through which it functions is based on the tacit idea of validation. The ego in itself doesn’t want to be awakened, but validated. It always moves to confirm itself. The hardest thing for the subject to understand is “you are not the ego.” Even more difficult than the canard “you are not the body”, the dictum that “you are not the ego” seems extraordinarily dif­ficult to digest, and act upon. It seems surpassingly hard for the subject to understand (even though he may assent abstractly) that he’s neither limited to, defined or obliged by, anything that the “ego” is, anything which it asserts as its descriptive “self-sense”. The ego is simply an inventory of arbitraty and changeable predicates attached to the “subject”, but any given predicate may seem to function as the whole and absolute reality of what the “self” is. Thus the “self” will struggle to validate that arbitrary and changeable predicate, with a ferocity so deep-dredged that it doesn’t even recognize the monumental virulence with which it does so.

Typically then, in confrontation with just such a trial as this (so common a trial for the soul of this dimension) the personality will automatically fail to mark it as grist for the spiritual grindstone but press on by lurid light of the unnoticed ideal, “validation”. It will immediately object that “that wasn’t what I said”, or “that wasn’t what I meant”, or “how I meant it”. It will protest that it was “misinterpreted”, then restate the self-same thing in terms that seem better “caulked”.

(Here we address ‘‘everyone in general’’, not specifically Peter): The grand free spiritual advice is — spare yourself the trouble of trying to salvage the situation by shuffling the shells around so that the gestalt looks different, but the pea’s in the same place. As is always really the case with patterns of ego-identification, that was what “you” said and what you meant to say. “You” really do know what you said; and “you” did say what you meant. But “you” have to understand what it was that you said — and for this the ego would, in itself, always prefer to substitute justification or rationalization, thus — for the millionth time — avoiding what might have proven to be a valuable key of insight whereby to do the real work of releasing potent powers of the total, mind/body magazine from the chronic lockin and tight, self-enclosed shutdown of compulsive ego-validation.

Once More Unto the Breach (of Etiquette) Dear Friends

Ultimately, Peter, there’s something more going on here than “information” anyway. A spiritual adept doesn’t just “teach”, or “transfer knowledge”, through any of the forms in which he may function. A true spiritual adept always promotes your Awakening — is always developing and working through various means toward that Awakening. And this above all reasons is why 3rd-density consciousness tends to find itself falling asleep — not in response to a soporific, but out of defensive recoil instinctively closing over its chronic narcolepsy against a Presence producing friction by virtue of its very, antithetical quality (and thus requiring the application of work in over­coming general resistance).

The T‑Bird and all the agencies, direct or in­direct, of Southern Crown, aren’t just instruments of teaching or the transmission of knowledge but are the living keys of an Awakening Process; and the two functions are inseparable. In conjunction with free public features as the method of Charger Breathing, the more esoteric instruction of the tapes or direct Empowerment of our periodic In­itiation-work, the “information-content” and style/format of the SC writings serve to conduct a current of Transformation; they promote, and ex­cite, and act as continuous ferment of, such a Transformation.

They aren’t, therefore, meant to bring informa­tion-content down to the digestible level of ordinary, 3rd-stage focal fixation (as is virtually every­thing else you’ll find presented even in terms of “higher-consciousness stuff”); they’re meant to promote the much more prodigious and millennially-significant occurrence of awakening conscious­ness out of its chronic, linear lockin (utterly inade­quate to the slightest dimension beyond it), bring­ing that consciousness directly up to and in align­ment with those levels through which the Content itself is organized. They’re designed, calculated, consecrated to raising the 3rd-stage/stranded level of consciousness to threshold degrees of its own latent genius, dedicated to unlocking commensurate magnitudes of spiritual potency direct from the subject’s being rather than diminishing the brightness of such spiritual potency in order to accommodate its Value to the acceptance-level of the very brain-pattern that keeps it suppressed and in thrall.

With reference to a wry comment in this month’s Letters to the Editor, it is most-certainly not too extravagant to say that the object of the SC teachings and T‑Bird texts is to “raise the I.Q.” by 50 points — or more. The matter of “I.Q.” is much misunderstood to begin with; that “I.Q.” is fixed, in any case, is a lie. It’s only as “fixed” as you insist on keeping your own conscious framework and focus. It’s as “fixed” as your kundalini, holding and regulating the allowable patterning-processes of the mind/body form. Where kundalini becomes less fixed, is roused from its chronic nuclear lockin the overrated “I.Q.” becomes less fixed as well. It becomes progressively evident that Intelligence does belong to the province of Spirit, and that the only true custodians of intelligence are those who’ve found the means through heart and mind to keep the Spirit-lamp brightly burning.

Conversely, it should be evident to you by now that there’s a concerted, virtually collective effort being mounted in the other direction. It should be evident that there’s a conscious and unconscious thrust toward promoting the retardation and decay of consciousness; that there exists an almost perverse delight at both conscious and unconscious poles in valuing and expediting the disintegration of mind, the trashing of consciousness and spirit, and a certain aggressive insistence that the general psyche remain flatly fixed, distractedly focused and shut down upon progressively-diminished states of its own basic wholeness so as to style it to the optimum of conditioned predictability. It’s precisely this blanket atmosphere and ubiquitous programming (of the ambient free energy and of the airwaves, of em modulations and geomagnetic currents) that SC and the T‑Bird specifically serve to counteract; for there is not just a general “lag­ging” through regular reluctance of the heart to move from “what it knows”, but a deliberate weighting and sultry saturation of the psychic at­mosphere pressing against the building of any for­ward, developmental momentum.

You’re either tending to come awake, or you’re busy falling asleep. Look around and see for yourself how many are really in the process of awaken­ing, and how many are merely dreaming that they’re awake while actually fast asleep. It’s only fitfully-sleeping consciousness that persists in requesting the wattage of the vigilant Night-light be damped, so that it can be “accommodated” at the eyes-shut level where no light enters at all.   Ω


Download “Conclusion of […] Revised Peter Principle […]”

TNTC Mar.-Apr. 1992 Vol. 2 No. 10 p6-11 Conclusion Revised Peter Principle [DOCX]

TNTC Mar.-Apr. 1992 Vol. 2 No. 10 p6-11 Conclusion Revised Peter Principle [PDF]