Lunch with Bertrand and Djwhal

“I offer up this day all the wounded areas of my heart, as I surrender utterly to the Divine Mother.”        - Djwhal Khul

Althea Tansy: Wow, Djwhal Khul!

Jeff Thomas:   interesting timing . . . just read this excerpt from Bertrand. Though spare, outside its larger context, i would enjoy working with you to synthesize a common principle from these two polarized approaches to inner composure:

"To allow oneself to entertain pleasant beliefs as a means of avoiding fear is not to live in the best way. In so far as religion makes its appeal to fear, it is lowering to human dignity."
-  Bertrand Russell "Education and the Social Order" (1932) p. 107

Althea   OK, "how about feel it, release it and accept that things change"; better to enjoy pleasant anything’s and have no need for fear; this naturally brings healing and peace with human dignity; then share this concept with others in times of sorrow; to simply be there, sitting silently beside them, understanding.

I just want you to know I am not religious. Religion was created by humanity. I am into the Occult Philosophies and Sciences. I am not "Wiccan." I do practice Witchcraft but it is not this newfangled Wicca. It is very different and it is a very secret society of mostly very educated people, a lot of Doctor's and Engineers, and believe it or not big Corporate CEOs. It is not for the ignorant or the weak. You don't need a religion to be Spiritual and the sad part is, most religions are devoid Spirituality. I consider you Spiritual because of you innate kindness. Religion keeps the masses from being even more violent and hateful then it seems they already are and sometimes, especially true of the Phallic religions, they create more violence, segregation and war.

Jeff  Although Bertrand, as is true of all of us, was writing as man/philosopher very much of his time, I do not believe he wrote with such plasticity as prevents me from interpreting the broader, (read: "contemporary") context of his choice and use of "Religion" to include what we now more commonly understand as the phenomenon of all "codified spirituality."
This would have to include (I regret) the statement by Mr. Djwhal, above, by virtue of his reference to "Earth Mother", which subjects his intention toward a codified system or order in which there exists a strata whereby one may subject oneself to the approval of "another," . . in this case: Earth Mother.

AT  Well thought out. Knowing about Djwhal Khul, who is from the 1800's, my surprise on discovering this prayer was his use of the term Earth Mother which is completely the opposite of the teachings he knew. While studying Theosophy with the older generations, I learned that this is a term and thought they probably either did not acknowledge let alone observe because of the fast growth of paganism at the time. I went further than my teachers in my studies as did my student Tuffy. When she found this at this particular time and age we thought it very interesting. Being that I have other FB friends who are also students I shared it. I will say though, I was looking forward to your thoughts, especially when you said the timing was interesting, which indeed it was. I truly enjoy our conversations; your perspectives are fascinating and fresh and I am having fun. Also I love the photos of you and Jen. What an interesting woman she must be; I can tell she understands you without words, she gets you.

JT  Oh Althea! . . . the day must come when we will meet (again), face to face. I recall you from a time so many lives ago, when Commack had a hippy vibe; when Dave was still alive, when Guy was legend and Pat Upton employed whole fresh carrots to divine hidden pools of cold spring water far beneath the burning summer asphalt. . . . Until this day, I'll settle on your FB page . . .

Now, about Djwhal and the Bertrand:
. . having preemptively established a less ambiguous context for my premise, wherein Bertrand's assumption directly condemns the legitimacy of Djwhal's authority on the subject of prescribed enlightenment, it is my question whether I should take the position of one Sage over the validity of the other OR is it conceivable that the two principles may coexist outside the narrow interpretation of their mutual exclusion?
It is not our concern here Althea, that these two should have, in life, personally agreed under compromise or through some inconceivably rigid and logical consensus;
no I would rather enjoy inventing some extra-curricular dialogue between these two based solely on the evidence and merit of these two phrases alone.

AT   It is conceivable that the two principles may coexist outside the narrow interpretation of their mutual exclusion.
Ok. Invent. It sounds great and I am listening. I agree with Bertrand and understand Djwhal. I have experienced both. Religion which becomes a crutch to escape the reality of this world is of no use. But there are ways and techniques of release and to each his own.
The idea of Mother Divine is "matter"; matter and energy united is form, or “Father”. He does not speak as a fundamentalist but rather, in a symbolic language. These are principles. And what do these two symbols, Matter and Energy, represent and call out from within yourself? Each of us understand differently and experience differently. I walk my own path and follow my own drummer but I am open to the experience and understanding of others. There is no single anything or anyone to be followed; it has to be you. I have learned some valuable things from the teaching and yet there is much I don't agree with. I have also experienced the opposite teachings and agree with only some of that.
Djwhal has no religion and is not a part of any society. He shares for those who have ears to hear and reserves judgment for the rest. It’s OK not to hear; simply not their time to hear. They must first experience other things.

Another thought, If they were to have a conversation would Bertrand, more or less roll his eyes and feel superior to someone like Djwhal for his spiritual simplicity? Or would Russell know enough to understand that Djwhal’s knowledge of the spiritual part of life made him a whole person, free from attachments and at a peaceful acceptance of the physical plane? I think D. would feel great compassion and respect for B. and leave him as he would wish to go on with his perfect, peaceful life. He had no need for love or attachments. It is not why he was here.

JT   You've just brought up a point that we need to get a handle on. Bertrand Russell spent his professional years hounded by the establishment for his pacifist agenda, spending time in prison during World War I for his anti-war activism, for instance; using his unique celebrity attacking Hitler, Stalin and US involvement in the Vietnam war. In 1950 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."
At the age of 29, in February 1901, Russell underwent what he called a "sort of mystic illumination", after witnessing Whitehead's wife's acute suffering in an angina attack. "I found myself filled with semi-mystical feelings about beauty... and with a desire almost as profound as that of the Buddha to find some philosophy which should make human life endurable", Russell would later recall. "At the end of those five minutes, I had become a completely different person."

I apologize for the history lesson, but it is meant to help calm the stirring of uneasiness which too often accompanies the introduction of an Edwardian-era Occidental academic into a traditionally Oriental context. I might just as well reply to your suggestion by asking much the same of Mr. D; for isn't it the stereotype of the outspoken Spiritualist to harbor the embellished strength of conviction (interpreted often as condescension) required of a curriculum for which very little of its core authority can be supported through empirical devices?

I suggest that neither assumption is fair or valid, which is exactly why I am fascinated by the pairing of these two phrases; for as the two of us represent some spirit of fiercely independent and legitimately self-realized souls, searching for Art in the hidden programs of human behavior and the natural world, I believe we can settle, if only amongst ourselves for the time, this debate over whether these two gentlemen were not cut from the same cloth.

I know of nothing logical without its art, nor any art without its logic. The metaphors you use to reference Matter and Energy are locked into this puzzle. I think of it as a puzzle because no manner of explanation to this date, using these or similar metaphors alone has yet convinced me that the "meta-structure", the codified system, has effectively replaced or substituted for the plastic realities they represent. I intend to begin thinking about this question from this premise.

AT   First never apologize for any teaching, this was important information. You hit the nail on the head because we need to know about each man. Although I realize we can’t actually speak for them it is fun to try and step into their shoes.
Do you mean Mr. D. would roll his eyes at what Mr. B stated? As far as I have been taught and have read, he
wouldn't roll his eyes. He would instead know why Mr. B made his statement. The early Spiritualists were frustrated and very strong in their convictions. Many had personally experienced something that no one believed; something for which they felt obliged to provide evidence. It was never part of the modern curriculum for our students to embellish or insist anything or to give demonstrations for the curious. To just prove something was a task of the past. I was taught that no one who has not had any personal physical/spiritual experience could simply be expected to understand someone else’s account.
I would hope that Mr.’s B and D would understand each other. For that matter, I think they would. Pain and suffering without a light at the end of tunnel, no way to fix it, is torture. Words alone cannot help to ease or eradicate such conditions. Nothing is simple to accomplish when in pain and suffering of any sort. And any technique which can be helpful has to be practiced and experienced at length before it becomes any sort of a tool.

It would be cruel to think something can "magically" make you feel better. It took me every single day for near 30 years focused on my studies and practices. This, combined with certain, very specific, fantastic experiences helped develop my many aspects of self.

Mr. B had his experiences and nothing could change that or what it did to him. What is true for one is not necessarily true for another. They were cut from the same cloth but Mr. D. isn't exactly dense form. He can be but does not always choose to be.


I don't mean dead, just not as dense as we are physically. And now you probably think I am either nuts or an ass. I will try to stay on this plane of thinking if possible. Be patient with me for being slow in understanding what you say, without voice I don't always get it.  Even with a voice I don't always hear things the way they are being said. I am better at PSI stuff.

JT   . . . infinite patience extended, infinite patience also requested. . . . hell, who ever said this was supposed to be easy? . .
. . . You ask: "Do you mean Mr. D. would roll his eyes at what Mr. B stated?"
. . to which I reply: This was an example of an abstract reciprocity and nothing more. I emphasized the silliness of this suggestion in the opening line of the third paragraph:
"I suggest that neither assumption is fair or valid . . "

AT  Got it! Thanks
JT   Oh Althea ! ! . . . . it's been a hectic week ! . . . please forgive my tardiness. . . but I've been preoccupied assisting Myna Setbach and her Puerto Rican husband Geraldo serve matzo-ball soup at the FDR Presidential Library in upstate Hyde Park, NY . . . Tyrannies need loving too. . .

BUT . . . I'd still very much like to add this new twig onto our wigwam:

You see, I reason that any individual interested in the nature of “meaning”, having initially acknowledged the astonishing facility and empowerment of self-accreditation, must inevitably confront next the riddle of those related forces which in retrospect conspired to suppress it. The benefits of Wisdom, by their very nature, demand for this good turn, some form of self-reference, call it the “surtax”; some effort to establish standards by which a thought may be determined uncorrupt, compatible and useful.

Russell and Djwhal are alike so far in this respect; they simply appear on the surface to have established different standards by which to achieve similar ends. This "Epiphany", this Emancipation, is as much a riddle to its "victims", looking back onto the swinging cell door; as enigmatic in its muscle as its illusion. It is the nature of our uniqueness as individuals which determine the ratio of the former to the latter.
Djwhal forages, Russell farms. . . both have something to teach. This is the art we refer to.

Bertrand felt compelled to trace the bread-crumbs, speck by speck, back into a place which marked the vaguest stirrings of his embryonic perceptions; from here employed a calculus, observing and assessing every landmark on his journey back through retrospection to his ink stained blotter of the present. Djwhal, much informed of Aristotle’s dogma concerning such a methodical approach, simply observed the pitfalls in the echo-chamber logic of such “reasoned introspection”:

where every step forward, being impartially subject to the equivalent burden of suspicion as the initial premise, became a capillary of the greater logic of the whole. A flow chart of this method could be best observed in these graphic metaphors of a fractal equation:

         

 a rudimentary Fractal progression    . . . . . . . . . .   and a fractal expression of a natural experience

Zeno teased us with this paradox as far back as the 4th century b.c.; (ref: see notes 1.  below)

The potential madness of Bertrand’s syllogistic explanation to the enigma of man’s purpose and morality in the grandest context simply validated Djwhal’s decision to dismiss all hierarchy of position with respect to Theorem “a” toward Theorem “b” . . . the Euclidian format now having subsequently collapsed under its own weight.

Mr. D, free from the fences of Mr. R.'s "farm", could dine directly from the trees and fields wherever he decided, and so roamed the wider field with no sense of obligation to map his steps.
It is this distinction that most excites the mind attempting to reconcile these two quotes, and about which you and I write. Am I close enough to correct so far that we can continue?

AT   Hi Jeff I am attempting to follow you. So…let me see if understand. suffer
. . . . . . . .   BUT . . . I'd still very much like to add this new twig onto our wigwam . . .  me too! Perhaps I’m just not as educated as you are.  You were posting B.R’s quote at the same time I was posting DK. That synchronicity in itself was an attention grabber. What I understood from DK was that when you are going through some sort of “suffering” you can turn to the peace of Nature, always symbolically Mother, Mother Nature. This of course includes humans. Nature, where it is peaceful and yet wild; where there is a continuous cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth. If you could let go for even a moment, if you would just melt into the whole of it, you will find a moment’s relief; it could trigger more acceptance of life, changing the way your suffering feels.

Now BR, I thought, was saying that “religion” is a crutch for human’s to deny their pain through the pointless illusion of something more, and that to believe in anything beyond the physical world, beyond the limits of the materialist, one denigrates the human being. Therefore it seemed that DK’s views would be the cause of B.R.’s potential lack of respect for DK, the latter being so illogical and impractical in his comprehension of another’s suffering, producing “Eye Rolling”.
So your comparison for this reason wasn’t exactly clear on what Djwhal might have meant to Bertrand or vise versa. I also did not know about Mr. B.R himself, thus your history lesson being of importance. Also you were showing me the nature of your ideas and feelings.

Then, you talked about “anyone who wants to understand the nature of meaning….”
What I think you are saying is; that when you go by your own personal experience in trying to understand the true nature and meaning of someone’s statement, there are always more questions that arise from it. This is the surtax you pay to get to more understanding and information. There will always be others who need you to prove what you are saying through a series of questions. If it is what you meant, this is true.

They do both have something to teach. Looking at the two statements, it would seem that Russell describes how hard life can be; how silly it is not to recognize this struggle by hiding your head in illusion. Djwhal, on the other hand, believes one needs to get a moment to get one’s self together, to find a way to reconcile the suffering through acceptance; by trying to find a way to your best nature by observing nature itself; discovering its beautiful, mystical and raw forms. To begin your healing, you must learn to let go and make the best of it, otherwise you just suffer.

Bertrand followed it in a strict, linear course, back toward the beginning. I think Djwhal saw the pit fall of this method, perhaps, because tracing back and forth with narrow perception through logic doesn’t help anything. On the other hand, being flakey, unrealistic and unfeeling to the pain of others, regardless of whether you have been in their shoes, is equivalently insane. Pretty sayings to a suffering parent (I have had my suffering too) or lover, etc. are stupid and empty words. Telling someone that hugging a tree will magically fix everything is ignorant. So you are right in saying that the correct context of each man’s statement is of primary importance if attempting to really learn the nature of their meaning.

Foraging and farming compared: Farming, systematical, routine, and hardworking; the earth in your hands, literally; growing the food. Foraging is roaming free, in search of food and supplies, place to place. It can even be seizing food and supplies as a soldier might. One is structured and hard working for oneself and the other free and easy; just getting to dine upon the farm. Yes, it does excite the mind to dwell upon the two quotes. I think I follow you and agree.
Of course if there is such a choice free and easy sounds better. But in reality there is a price tag for everything, (karma?) So to me, first you worked, sowing on B.R.’s farm and then you reap the benefits of that work next time. It is this hard work and suffering that is the farm that eventually gets you to dine freely and happily.

This was the only thing I knew about Zeno until your reference.
Isis Unveiled Book 1 Pg. 12 H.P. Blavatsky

Zeno the founder of the Stoics, taught that there are two eternal qualities throughout nature; the one active, or male; the other passive, or female; that the former is pure, subtle ether, or Divine Spirit; the other entirely inert in it until united with the active principle. The Divine Spirit acts upon matter, producing fire, water, earth and air; it is the sole efficient principle by which all nature is moved. The Stoics, like the Hindu sages, believed in the final absorption.

The Secret Doctrine Book 1 Pg. 76-77 H.P. Blavatsky
It was not Zeno alone who taught that the Universe evolves, when its primary substance is transformed from the state of fire into that of air, then into water, etc.

The Secret Doctrine Book 2 Pg. 159
As old Zeno is credited by Laertes with having said, “Nature is a habit moved from itself, according to seminal principles; perfecting and containing those several things which in determinate time are produced from it, and acting agreeably to that from which it was secreted.”*
*Cudworth’s “Intellectual system, “I. Pg. 328

Numbers and motion: “1” not really existing after a while. Boy is this true. The sacredness of numbers begins with the great First ----The ONE, and ends only with the naught or zero-symbol of the infinite and boundless circle which represents the universe. (HPB) It is the many that make up the ONE or Whole but in itself is illusion for there is no ONE but many and zero is the primordial soup, it is not ONE but NONE that is a reality, the circle, zero.

JT  Education is merely the refined articulation of some knowledge about a "Thing".
This knowledge flows as freely from a classroom as a book. I personally, never paired the access to a classroom with the maturity required to exploit it. Luckily for me, maturity never came in time. The lion's share of my learning is rooted in the fragile combination of self-enforced free time and a discriminating set of references collected over thirty-plus years. The "articulation" factor is the result of severe discipline and joyful prolificy. These variables are available to everyone freely.
Your knowledge is commanding, your comprehension holds its own. You are fun, you are extremely intelligent and impassioned. How can we go wrong?

AT  Thank you.

JT   . . . and now, we bring you another episode in the never ending series: Philosophy of the Absurd . . .
when we last tuned in, Althea had cited Blavatsky, (Secret Doctrine) in response to my reference to Zeno. Let's listen in on my response . . .

Zeno's metaphors on the question of set theory and the natural order, contain both the elements of immutable profundity (i.e. his "Dichotomy") and unfortunate predilections for unstable hypothesis, (" the Divine Spirit acting upon matter produced fire, water, earth and air; and that it is the sole efficient principle by which all nature is moved".)

Within the context of his time, a special forgiveness can be extended the old boy, considering his language, specifically the choice of "Divine Spirit", can be associated with contemporary theories with commutative intentions, namely our development of a Particle Theory, (billions of dollars invested in particle acceleration and detection); billions of hours invested by String Theory doctorates and Space exploration in search of "God's Fingerprint."

I distinguish the two branches of Zeno's legacy for the following reason:

Zeno's "Dichotomy" expresses a need to expand the contemporary Greek intuition of a single definition for "the Infinite Set", for which he established a unique test, subsequently met by Philosophers and Mathematicians over the next two millennia, to create a second order of Infinite Set theory to resolve his Paradox.
The two sets being, the Closed Order of Infinite Subsets, (of which your "Numbers and motion" statement is an example)
and:
the Open Order of Infinite Extension . . . a concept so abstract its contemporary graphic expression exists primarily in the speculation of an endless, expanding Universe.
As it has been observed, the laws of Nature behave in extraordinarily unique ways inside these separate worlds. This distinction is essential to any interpretation of Djwhal and Bertrand's perspectives from which our Primary Focus of Discussion is concerned.

By this approach, I will attempt to frame the inadequacy of your assumption of Russell's "Achilles’s heel", as hypothetically (prematurely?) observed by Mr. Khul;
(note: I'm not interested in whether these two ever met or discussed one another in specific works or dialogues. I simply use the two names as symbols of contrasting strategies)
whereby the analytic method, (an ordered strategy to problem solving, referred to in Geometry as a "proof"; in Philosophy as the "dialectic”; in Chemistry or Physics as the "Scientific Method") was observed to collapse “under its own weight.” A metaphoric “Maggie’s Farm” and Djwhal ain’t workin’ it no more.

There is just one problem with using a fractal metaphor to dismiss Russell’s pedantic approach to the question of “meaning.” If Djwhal constructs his defense of a divine order to such matters on the assumption that the analytic approach is doomed to cross an infinite number of postulates in a finite time, then he will have incorrectly misinterpreted the challenge of Zeno’s Paradox. In a closed set, the negative spaces (be it area, time or any quantitative subset of the “Super Task”, (ref: Thompsons Lamp: see: notes 2. Below) will reduce its negative influence reciprocally to the progress.

Just think of a football game. In a closed order set of 100 yards, the strategies of both offense and defense are radically different as one team moves across its infinite number of halfway points, closer to the end zone of the opposing team. The depth of defensive coverage is consequently minimized to allow a greater focus of energy in an increasingly smaller zone of activity.
If however, there was no limit to the size of the field, as would be the case in an Open Order game of football, this dynamic fluctuation would never be stressed into existence. The ball would simply be moved back and forth from some hypothetical “center” line in perpetuity toward an unachievable destination somewhere located on the farthest opposite ends of a never ending distance. This is the most significant difference between Closed Order Infinity and Open Extension Infinity.  (ref: see notes 3. below)

It is a common error of the non-analytic philosophers, (Mystics?) to stretch the prose of minds like Russell across the framework of some infinite Deity, yet skillfully ambiguous with which infinity they employ.

AT    What do you mean by Deity?

JT   "Deity": " The idea of Mother Divine is "matter" and matter and energy, "father" united is form. He does not speak as a fundamentalist but as a symbolic language." - A. Tansey, From: Philosophy of the Absurd; Discussions, Summer '13

. . but as a Symbolic Language . . . hmmmm
I have to admit, your question demanded I re-read our letters to confirm the suspicion that I have not yet made myself clear on this term. You touched on my intentions most closely in this quote, so I borrowed it.

"Deity" is the Godhead, the Chi, the principle of some Ideal Balance toward which our understanding gravitates, endeavoring to replicate its harmonics with the rudimentary and imperfect fibers of our individual experience. The term "Deity" itself is emblematic of this concept and nothing more.

Bertrand's Deity is an ideal, to be sure, but the ultimate legitimacy of any such incarnation, his "brand" of successful imitation, demands that the individual "face his fears."
There is no short cut to understanding, and no achievement of balance or peace without it, which subsequently segues my half of the conversation into the nature of the very harmony these two philosophies are dancing around.

AT   If we are only talking about the two quotes, than Russell is being condescending and rude, though there is a truth in what he says. It is important to face your fears and sorrows; it is a way to learn and develop in order to bring harmony. I guess like the opposites, day and night, happiness and sorrow, dark and light, good and evil, you can’t have one without the other; they bring about harmony and balance.
Djwhal is trying to describe a time to let go and move forward. You have already used the courage to face your fears, trials and tribulations; it made you strong and taught you polarity and balance, harmony through conflict. Hopefully, once learned you will have a useful tool to handle your next trials and tribulations with less fear.

Yet there are also times when there is no helping, curing or making it all better through any mundane reasoning or technique. Sometimes you have to just let go and that takes a hell of a lot of strength and courage. To let go and try not to control things is very difficult. It takes a lot of will to silence the mind. People feel fear when surrendering; we need control or the belief in control to feel safe.
There must be an alternative, or at the very least, a technique to release this pressure in order to face the “fear” without having to tread the path from the beginning over and over again. In life we have many times that we will have to face fear and suffering along our way.
Next, the illusions of those who are in denial, these delusions, become another problem. When we release things in whatever way a person can, it must first be faced; you need to look deeply into the challenge, the “fear”, for how can you release what you are unaware of?

I think DK was only simply saying if you can’t change it or fix it, let it go. Quit fighting the battle of non-acceptance, it is already lost. Mother, Chi, nature, is a good place to go and find peace, to think, to observe the many facets of perspective and to accept the beauty that remains and not just look at the suffering. Once you do this you can face your fears and not feel singular and victimized by life. You are clear and refreshed, ready to try again and hopefully see the “conflict” from another point of view and thereby find a solution. You have a choice either to be destroyed and live in pain or to find a way to peace of mind and heart.

Russell comes from a specific human, or logical, perspective. Djwhal’s human perspective is dis-integrating and not centered in human logic. Russell is still struggling, facing fears, and is involved with pain and suffering. Djwhal found freedom from struggling and suffering, he has no fears. So to me, to reconcile the two, I would say you have to go through the pain and conflict before you figure it out and get to leave the farm.

Russell tells us to “man up” and Djwhal, after you “man up”, to “look over there,” you might find some relief. Let go of the complicated for now and find the peace which lies in simplicity, then go back to your troubles if you wish, for they will always be there if you need them. That is why we are here, to solve ourselves.
We can bring up Zeno or HPB but we also have our own knowledge and wisdom from our own experiences and observations. So we can like and understand both of their quotes. They are not in conflict; one is the means to the next step and it doesn’t stop at either one’s statements.

The meaning of “meaning” is in all that you are and will become with time and new experiences both good and bad, sadness and joy, for we need both, though we would rather it all be good. But then I think we would be bored and not recognize happiness.

JT   Philosophy was never quite the same after Marx, and Russell understood this as well, if not better, than any single philosopher practicing at the time. Socrates set the bar especially high in the Republic, by proposing that the inequities of society were unnatural.

The introduction of quantified, systematic observations (ala: philosophy, dialectic, pure logic) permitted the stronger reason to incapacitate the weaker, and so begins the attempt, through logic, to bring the debate onto the academic floor and off the battle field. Many issues have since proven to undermine a short haul toward this effort, primarily the quasi-ambiguous consensus as to the definition of the greater "virtue."
The hero of the Republic eventually achieves "perfect wisdom", but concludes that its value is proportionate only to the good he can achieve with this knowledge. Having struggled from the black belly of the cave to the exit where the ecstasy of freedom waits, it becomes the duty of such privilege to honor its value by sharing it equally among one's community, each to their individual aptitude.

The philosopher turns back from the fresh air and light of knowledge and returns to the dark, foreboding belly of the cave to share this new science with his nation.
Somewhere over history, the academics lost their sense of social integration and quibbled philosophical minutia amongst themselves in scholarly papers written in Latin, too frequently embroidered with Jesus.
Karl Marx, gifted student of Hegel, rallied, with formidable articulation, for the Philosopher to return from the textbooks to the street and "Become the change you wish to see in the world."

Russell's "condescension" must be viewed within the context of his times and the unbearable stranglehold that Christianity held, through unprecedented Capitalist success, over the greater conversations of the day.
His frustration must have been enormous. Try arguing the complex sacrifices called upon by issues like Social responsibility when the well-funded reply was to demand the number of angels which can fit on the head of a pin.
These calculated distractions may have caused him to appear agitated, but it is important to remember that we are describing an individual who walked the talk, went to prison, lost jobs and suffered enormous public distain for his pacifism; ideas well ahead of their time; some of which we are just now beginning to employ.
(sorry . . . . have to run again. Love to all.)

AT   "Become the change you wish to see in the world." And this says it all!!!!!
"Russell's ‘condescension’ must be viewed within the context of his times and the unbearable stranglehold that Christianity held, through unprecedented Capitalist success, over the greater conversations of the day." Yes, I understand this.
I do understand the problems of his time and it seems to still exist today in politics and big business. So what you are saying is he’s talking about Christianity: the great corrupt farce and lies of men based on the extensive stolen, falsifying and corruption through doctrines of the Judea/Christian society and religions. I agree!
Their lust for power and money disgusts me. Their arrogance and certainty of position by their god, which is no more than an impersonating spirit and at best an Elohim, though I doubt it.
Theosophist's suffered from the same abuses in the late 1800's by the "New Religions" who claim to be Ancient.......I prefer La Vecchia Religione and the Ancient Wisdom Teachings, for they are nowhere near the same at all in any way shape or form, Theosophy being my favorite study.

I took a philosophy class with Dr. Washell who had tenured at Kent State, he is friends with Wolfe who wrote In Defense of Anarchy, a great book. I got an A in the class and he was curious about me. Of course I could not break my Oaths but he unknowingly helped me to find my own way to Theo Sophia through Philo Sophia and to continue on my path. He taught me about my own thinking and my papers with my own twist from his teachings got me all A's. A wonderful experience just as you are.

JT   It would be simplistic of me to interpret Russell's statement as a surgical strike at the mouth of Christ's tomb and be done with it. I believe his language, though leveled at the church, can be sensibly extrapolated to include all the forebears and successors of his prime antagonist, including every theology which allows for similar "faith based axioms," (an oxymoron.) You mention the condition of "suffering" with respect to the 19th century Theosophists, a term difficult to tease from notions of victimization and martyrdom.
I would like to make a brief comment on your word choice.

This was an age of explosive interest by Western intellects into everything exotic, anything “eastern,” both plastic and philosophic. It was no less true of the age however, that the vast majority of the public was no less inclined to keep their intellects off the streets, contained and away from politics in the incensed haze of their drawing rooms, studies and parlors. Here, behind beaded curtains, these eccentrics “westernized” the rituals of these precocious “savages” with their Dewey-decimal predilections; everything holistic, mystic and fashion-istic. They held séances, studied acupuncture and gorged themselves on Japanese prints and Chinese silk paintings. The Theosophists suffered very little from those who perhaps understood them best, ignored behind these strung-bead drapes.

The public schools at this time however still produced ranks of graduates who would inevitably run the “Enlightened World’s” banks, factories, mines, governments and churches. There was a tradition of order and philosophic nepotism supported by centuries of detailed codes of social and academic protocol. These radical sciences, with their oblique validations and contrasting methods simply upset this order. To many of the powerful and esoteric-illiterate, these Gypsies in their ridiculous silk bathrobes cut across the line of decorum. It was not their Objective for which these customs were initially disparaged, but rather their ill-coordinated integration.

I will borrow from the Gospel this phrase, "suffer the children," and contrast the idea whether or not everyone truly suffers who is challenged to put a label of ingredients on the snake oil they peddle. This much is equally obliged of western physicists and Theosophists, the ancients and contemporaries. Hence my reference to Russell’s reliance on an analysis-based solution to the problems of society. To suffer is the “last full measure of devotion”; to cross the room, Zeno’s snail would have to cross/(suffer) an infinite number of “half-measures” in a finite amount of time.

No manner of psychology or Theosophy, under these conditions, could effectively compensate for the suffering of accountability demanded by the ruling Intelligentsia. The Theosophist denigrated this "sanctified" order by reconfiguring the concrete reality of the starting point and repapering it with all the flourish of the finish line. Theosophy was therefore condemned as counterfeit science and trivialized.
I believe John Lennon was looking to see whether the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had himself found the true “worm hole” from ignorance to enlightenment; the key to conquering fear without personally accounting for the suffering. To his own disappointment I believe he found instead, as you very recently reminded me, Sexy Sadie waiting in his place.

This is not an indictment of you or Theosophy. I simply reserve my suspicions most for those philosophies which assure me how disruptive my instincts are.

AT   “The Theosophists suffered very little from those who perhaps understood them best, ignored behind these strung-bead drapes.”

They really didn’t suffer like someone dying from cancer or the pain from the suffering of a child of course, but there is suffering when frauds, charlatans, impersonators and identity thieves get hold of people’s lives to rip them off and that a lifetime of work gets dashed because of it. But then you go on.

By “suffered” I simply mean that when ideas opposed to Christianity become public it brings out the protesters and related troubles, as at abortion clinics; sometimes dangerous but mostly troublesome. This is very annoying and, being a bit dramatic and sarcastic, I used the word “suffered”. To be antagonized is a form of suffering, just a differing matter of degree; for example, you can suffer through a boring class or conversation.

“I believe John Lennon was looking to see whether the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had himself found the true ‘worm hole’ from ignorance to enlightenment; the key to conquering fear without personally accounting for the suffering. To his own disappointment I believe he found instead, as you very recently reminded me, Sexy Sadie waiting in his place.”

Yes John was disappointed, but George Harrison and he didn’t give up what they had learned; particularly George, who chanted continuously and meditated daily until the day he died. They just went on to study with others.
John and Yoko collected all types of Eleggua’s and other objects. They had a Pentacle they kept on a table. They didn’t travel unless they went to their numerologist. John was into it more than Yoko; he was on the superstitious side sometimes.

Even the words of his song’s Mind Games, Out of the Blue and Scared reveal his beliefs, even God is a Concept, (which is a line that a psychologist said to him and then talked about it for a long while) showed he finally got it!

I was surprised they didn’t realize the Maharishi was a man to begin with. You can learn about great techniques for developing and seeking your personal enlightenment from someone even if they are flawed, but to have blind faith in a man and follow him like a disciple is silly.

“Here, behind beaded curtains, these eccentrics “westernized” the rituals of these precocious “savages” with their Dewey-decimal predilections; everything holistic, mystic and fashion-istic.”

This is true for some but not for all. When someone spends their entire life studying with the most learned in the East, giving up marriage, children and an ordinary life, it is hardly a fashion-istic thing. For a lot of people it may have been fashionable but for some it was very serious. They not only westernized it, the Occult even disagreed with a lot of it and had their own views and beliefs.

Back in those days it was a dawning of new spiritual period in time. They were just beginning and had to go through all the growing pains of any new thoughts and insights. People in those days were different in their expressions and personality’s. Both Science and the Occult are always learning and changing and finding errors which lead to more discoveries.

You could only truly know about the Occult Societies if you study with them, and then, only if you seriously study the many volumes of meaningful, not simply popular works. If one has not, I don’t see how they could have an opinion about it.

“To many of the powerful and esoteric-illiterate, these Gypsies in their ridiculous silk bathrobes cut across the line of decorum. It was not their Objective for which these customs were initially disparaged, but rather their ill-coordinated integration.”

I don’t know who these Gypsies in robes who are ridiculous are. I would think even in that day and age it would be hard to stop giggling at such an act. Intelligent people should know the difference between the sincerely knowledgeable and a Charlatan circus act. The first clue being money wanted.
I have been in the occult for a long time. The Theosophical Society changed when Bailey came in, and has been changing ever since. Because of this I am not a part of their society. But anything before Bailey that I can get my hands on I read. Different group’s that formed from it I have worked in. Theosophy itself has no rituals at all, thus the birth of the Golden Dawn was formed.

All of the work that is kept in their libraries is free to study with no interference or threat to opinion, they don’t expect anything. There is no church, there is no practice, there in no one to judge. It is Theosophy:
“Here is some info. Take or leave it.”
No commitments of any sort necessary. They don’t even agree among themselves. The point of the Occult is not to become a disciple of any one person, place or thing. Just share what you know when you are asked. If a hundred people ask you, then do a lecture.

“I will borrow from the Gospel this phrase, "suffer the children," and contrast the idea whether or not everyone truly suffers who is challenged to put a label of ingredients on the snake oil they peddle.”

Well if they are GMO’s and dangerous, then no, they would not want to label the ingredients. But the Occult has never peddled snake oil and always makes its ingredients clear. Those who take the teachings and turn them into miracles get an F and are kindly told not to represent the Occult. Or they are the ones who dabble and never get trained, initiated, never really read anything or study and meditate upon any teachings and practices. These are the people who just go to lectures to say they were there because of some imagined, “specialness” they may think they’ve achieved simply by being there. There is plenty of that.

I have studied in the Occult for 30 years now. I have been in many groups including the Rainbow Bridge, Rieki, old time healing circles, podium work etc.  . . all great and amazing experiences. Not one of my teachers was in the public eye, famous or rich. They were not interested in any fads of the New Age or materialism; they were just the sincere and knowledgeable.  . . . no charlatans selling snake oil.

Now it is different with the Gardnerian Tradition. This is a religion. It is the Catholic Church of Witchcraft and it requires commitment and specific studies and practices that we will not share easily. There are no books or lectures that can prepare you properly for this. On line stuff is misleading. So unless you are in the society you couldn’t really know anything about it. So this would be hard for someone to have a valid opinion on.

Are there people who leave and break their oaths? There are people who left, I don’t know anyone personally who would break an Oath and tell anything to just anyone. Not even Crowley, though he did like the publicity and did terrible things, but he was never accused by the Golden Dawn of oath-breaking. As my HPS told me once, they know better.

How about the Golden Dawn, Ceremonial Magic, and the Rosicrucian’s? It would be hard to judge any of it by a casual knowledge of it and especially through books and public works. But you cannot know that if you are an outsider, of course. The more false accusations the better the blinds become; the more propaganda and disbelief, the better reason for those who don’t really belong not to pursue it. It is very helpful. There are many blinds even in the “Kaballah”.

When I did lectures on Gardnerian Witchcraft it was very difficult. I was not permitted to tell anything people would want to know. It was vague, I did my best to explain what it is we believe, and do so without telling them a thing. It is not in books, it is oral. It takes 5 or more years, to really know anything. You simply teach and are committed to the people of the group; you do so without pay or compensation for the 5 or more years of your life that you dedicate to their learning.

Out of 50 people who signed their names and phone numbers to a paper one evening at a public lecture I gave in their hopes of studying in Craft, I found none that were eligible. In Theosophy any one can get a book and read or not read it. Repeating, there are no rituals in Theosophy.

Ceremonial Magic is more secretive than the Gardnerians, but in the end you find no matter how much you learn and how many groups you practiced in, like Rainbow Bridge or Healing circles, no matter how many books you read, you are on your own. There is no one to judge you; no one forces their beliefs on you, no one who will say they know the one and only way. There is no pay, no money, no fame, no profit, just you giving away your time for the sake of a person, some stranger most times . . . at the beginning.

It’s all food for thought. The point in the Occult is for you to come up with your very own philosophies and beliefs, regardless of anyone else, even your teachers. We don’t need clones and we don’t need students who regurgitate what they have learned, they don’t make it. You shouldn’t “believe in anything blindly”, you should know what you experienced and know what you need to and be happy with that.

You share only with those who ask you to share and this is why I am Althea Tansy and not D. That is why I have so few FB friends. The ones that are my FB friends have already been my students, clients or family or those who wanted me on FB who want to hear and share with me. This way when I share anything which is really nothing, just FB stuff that goes round and round, I am not pushing it on someone who doesn’t’ want it.

Now as for your disruptive instincts, this would be quite welcomed and one point in your favor in the Occult.

HPB was a cigar smoking, Hashish smoking, Vodka drinking, independent woman with many flaws; an extremely gifted individual. She is the only Occultist that Crowley respected and feared. He is not someone I would study from……genius that he was, but quite the ass and too much in the public eye.

I can’t get any deeper into the Occult than I am. I can’t go any further in the Gard. Tradition than I am. I can however practice, and practice, and experience and develop and be wowed! I can use my gifts and get confirmation continually as I have since the beginning. I stay hidden for the most part.

I have shared an awful lot of myself with you…….for some reason, maybe because of Dave and I like you. You’re funny and interesting. I am surprised you have spent so much time even talking to me, especially because of my practices. Hugs and warm wishes, A.

JT   I suppose it was inevitable that any such elaborate investment as ours, hinged on such rare trust and heavy seasoned with confession, might graze the fragile margins of our spirits. I have honestly enjoyed every syllable since our dialogue began; have wondered many times how you've managed such patience for my rhetoric.
Yet a certain sadness in your letter looms like a summer rain over the flowers; this field of grass, tall with pride, her petals shrunk into their buds against some looming storm. That I should ever bruise one single blossom with my wind is more than I intended; yet as I say, was always such a risk.

As they say in the crazy world of theater: " . . above all, DON'T bump the scenery!"
I have a suspicion I have done just that. But here we are, none the less, on the stage when everyone else is either in the pub or on the couch watching television.

For this cause I say we celebrate; two persons joined in one compartment on a lazy train through meadows of philosophy, forests of Theosophy; over rivers of religion and valleys of prejudice.
It is a marvelous thing we have achieved here, something worthy to protect. I will not let my poor handling of style upset the day. You have proved yourself sincere; and trust me when I confess to you that I too have been around; I too have little left to give of my heart or patience in idle defense.
It is my intention to recover from the risk that I have made myself misunderstood. This explanation will follow once I finish my other responsibilities. Be patient. I will write you when I get back.

(some days later):   There is no way to disguise the effort by Bertrand (in this quote) to discredit the premise of Djwhal’s authority on matters of spiritual enrichment. I have skirted this issue by apologizing for his methodology and avoiding his abrasive choice of language. In so doing, I have tested your patience with my perfumed defense of Russell's motives hoping with each post to have contributed to a deeper understanding of his complex perspective. It was wholly unreasonable of me to assume that we would not simply drift further from our original objective and deeper into the darker evidence which divides our positions and away from all we can prove which aligns them.

" . . . but there is suffering when frauds, charlatans, impersonators and identity thieves get a hold of your life to rip people off and that a lifetime of work gets dashed because of it. But then you go on."

In this single phrase you reminded me to summarize my meandering defense against your claim that he was "condescending", the radioactive nail in the coffin of any philosopher. Without persuading you that he was simply "reactive" and not aggressive, the philosophical divide between our positions is insurmountable.
It became essential that I produce some evidence of the power of deductive dialogue to establish a history of legitimacy for those disciplines which hold claim to healing, through chemistry or through the mind; territory rank with charlatans and egomaniacs eager to enlist acolytes.

My reference to Lennon was not an indictment of mysticism. There are many things which occur in the natural world, events whose effects trip alarms, stretch rulers and defy mathematics; events which cannot be explained through philosophy. This is not the issue for me. But I do admire Bertrand's indictment of the Church, whose "axiom" of Infallibility eclipses every authority of the individual.
This model of control must be exposed in its every incarnation; this includes any "ministry" so devised to expose it. No, it is instead the due diligence of every individual to work these issues out to the personal satisfaction of the Great Seat of Justice within.
If this is what Djwhal has named his "Earth Mother", than I can rest peacefully knowing we have found our bench in the park by the water's edge.
I simply need to suffer, Althea, genuinely suffer for my pride, my own deep contempt of any organized spirituality before I will sit there.

When I do finally find my way, I won't sit unless there's room for my Em, who was somehow cheated of all this knowledge but through her loss gained a greater sense of peace than you or I will ever know. I already expect you'll be sitting there with Mike, having found your balance ages before I do.

AT   I am glad you have brought this to a conclusion and back to the two statements. I don't know what either man meant in reality but I do know that there are always two ways to look at it, exoterically and esoterically. But yes Earth Mother is part of what we are, there is a pulsating within us, a heartbeat that resonates to the pulsating of all nature and life and it is calming at least for a moment.

Of course there would be room for your Em.....always. She does have a sense of peace that we will never know....she doesn't appear like she feels cheated; she looks instead like she is in control of herself and her thoughts and likes to have fun. If you are happy and content, clean, fed, a roof over your head and loved, you have it all, the rest is just a way of keeping occupied until we die.

She is here to teach you and she knows it. I can tell from her photo. She will never have to feel the suffering that you have to feel.....worry, stress, because you and Jen Love Her and will take care of her. She can just be herself for the rest of her life and without confusion. True Peace, dear one.

JT   Xoxox . . . . fin.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
notes:

1. :   That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.– as recounted by Aristotle, Physics  VI:9, 239b10
Suppose Homer wants to catch a stationary bus. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.

This description requires one to complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno maintains is an impossibility.

This sequence also presents a second problem in that it contains no first distance to run, for any possible (finite) first distance could be divided in half, and hence would not be first after all. Hence, the trip cannot even begin. The paradoxical conclusion then would be that travel over any finite distance can neither be completed nor begun, and so all motion must be an illusion.
2.  :  Thomson argued that if supertasks are possible, then the scenario of having flicked the lamp on and off infinitely many times should be possible too (at least logically, even if not necessarily physically). But, Thomson reasoned, the possibility of the completion of the supertask of flicking a lamp on and off infinitely many times creates a contradiction. The lamp is either on or off at the 2-minute mark. If the lamp is on, then there must have been some last time, right before the 2-minute mark, at which it was flicked on. But, such an action must have been followed by a flicking off action since, after all, every action of flicking the lamp on before the 2-minute mark is followed by one at which it is flicked off between that time and the 2-minute mark. So, the lamp cannot be on. Analogously, one can also reason that the lamp cannot be off at the 2-minute mark. So, the lamp cannot be either on or off. So, we have a contradiction. By reductio ad absurdum, the assumption that supertasks are possible must therefore be rejected: supertasks are logically impossible.
3.  :  Aristotle (384 BC−322 BC) remarked that as the distance decreases, the time needed to cover those distances also decreases, so that the time needed also becomes increasingly small.^[17][18] Aristotle also distinguished "things infinite in respect of divisibility" (such as a unit of space that can be mentally divided into ever smaller units while remaining spatially the same) from things (or distances) that are infinite in extension ("with respect to their extremities").^[19]