The Clairvoyant & Enlightened Times

Issue 16 – 29 May 2017 – rattuos

It strains the mind to think about this in the way you would think about anything else. Even our greatest scientists cannot or will not do this but it is really not that difficult and explains so much.

If you take any ‘object’ you will find it has an inside, an outside an origin and an end. You may not know all these things but you know they are there. A golf ball for example. It will not last forever will it?

If you take an ‘event’ the same is true but it is harder to see perhaps. This will have an apparent exterior and the truth will lie within. It also has a beginning and end. Can you think of anything that does not? Our very universe is a classic example although we have all been told it had no beginning and has no end. Now we are told it is 13.772 billion years old!

If you have found an example it may be ‘infinity’ that cannot be categorised as above but that is the concept or part of it that this may explain.

Time has a beginning, an end, an inside and outside too. It may be hard to think about it. This last week I read that Einstein had said time was invented to stop everything happening at once. I do not know if he said that but if so it was a joke*. That may be the result or apparent result but not the purpose.

If we want our eyes open we have to see time as it is and also as it is not. Of course it is linear with a beginning and end, just as it appears. Say we look at 2 + 2 = 4 – we cannot dispute that but we can dispute that 4 = 2 + 2 because 4 equals an almost infinite range of possibilities like 4 = 1004 – 1000 or 4 = 3.526 + 1.474 not to mention 4 = 1.6 + 3.9 – 1.5. Well time is more than a linear thing even if a linear thing is time.

Many have speculated on time even Buddhist sages and there is a school of thought called eternalism that you may like to look up, however none of them say what time is, just what is time.

If you hold a golfball you know what it is, that it was invented, made in great numbers and this is one of them, that it is composed of various substances and layers. I dismembered one as a boy and found that beneath the white crisp shell was a very long elastic band wound many times to form the shape and in the middle of that was a small rubber bag containing a heavy white liquid that I took to be white lead. That may not be the case with modern golf balls as I have never taken them apart to find out or read about them but even all of that does not quite add up to a ’golfball’. They have individual histories, have travelled and been hit. After all you are an individual, a product of your history and genes not just a human. We cannot say a human is you either.

There is a phrase – ‘division of time’. It perhaps originated in the biblical Book of Daniel and may even be a mistranslation:

“And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. (Daniel 7:25)

 

 

* Misattributed

Time is nature’s way to keep everything from happening all at once.

Wheeler quoted this saying in Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (1990), p. 10, with a footnote attributing it to “graffiti in the men’s room of the Pecan Street Cafe, Austin, Texas”. Later publications, such as Paul Davies’ 1995 book About Time (p. 236), credited Wheeler with variations of this saying, but the quip is actually much older. The earliest known source is Ray Cummings‘ 1922 science fiction novel The Girl in the Golden Atom, Ch. V: ” ‘Time,’ he said, ‘is what keeps everything from happening at once.’ ” It also appears in his 1929 novel The Man Who Mastered Time. The earliest known occurrence other than Cummings is from 1962 in Film Facts: Volume!” Wikiquote

Possibly the words in the Book of Daniel mean three and a half years but it does not matter and I am sure they do not mean what I am about to write but the wording does.

Time starts in the middle and radiates outwards both backwards and forward as far as we can see wherever we may be. If we look outwards from here as far as possible using our most massive telescopes we see stars as they were 12 billion years ago shortly after the universe started. But we know that – it is just how we see it. What we do not see is that the universe arrived fully formed before time started. Impossible you think.

In 1971 some people built a scale replica of the Great Pyramid in the South-west of England and a thousand or so hippies spent the weekend in front of it watching bands perform from the stage built into it. It was at the time of summer solstice in a place aligned at an intersection of ley lines and linked to Stonehenge. For one reason or another a host of spirits attended that weekend too and some were from pre-dynastic Egypt. They loved this field and the happy people in it, they called it the ‘field of reeds in the west’ also in the beautiful islands of the west. They told stories about it as if it was heaven, stories that reached Greece about three thousand years later where they called this field the Elysian Fields**, the proto type for paradise. But bear in mind that stories told over many generations tend to become distorted. More to the point they started trying to replicate the pyramid in Ancient Egypt and elsewhere in the world and also started holding a festival (Opet) at that time of year. If I am right then which came first – the chicken or the egg? The Great Pyramid built around 2600BC after various attempts over the previous centuries or the stage modelled on it?

This is the vision that reached Creation before the universe was created, a ripple radiating outwards from the middle which is where we are. I know this as I have been back. Spirits can travel through time but you do not know this and probably consider me deluded at best, or mad or trying to mislead. So here we are very close to what we call heaven but sadly also close to the beginning of the end unless we do something about that. Lots of us have tried, most of us are dead or, like me, dying.

** “Elysium (or the Elysian Fields), Is the place passed through before entering the “Other World” according to the ancient Pyramid Texts. Depictions of these fields are often found inscribed inside the sarcophagus. This may also be called Islands of the Blessed”

Elysium or the Elysian Fields (Ancient Greek: Ἠλύσιον πεδίον, Ēlýsion pedíon) is a conception of the afterlife that developed over time and was maintained by some Greek religious and philosophical sects and cults. Initially separate from the realm of Hades, admission was reserved for mortals related to the gods and other heroes. Later, it expanded to include those chosen by the gods, the righteous, and the heroic, where they would remain after death, to live a blessed and happy life, and indulging in whatever employment they had enjoyed in life.

The Elysian Fields were, according to Homer, located on the western edge of the Earth by the stream of Okeanos. In the time of the Greek oral poet Hesiod, Elysium would also be known as the Fortunate Isles or the Isles (or Islands) of the Blessed, located in the western ocean at the end of the earth. The Isles of the Blessed would be reduced to a single island by the Thebean poet Pindar, describing it as having shady parks, with residents indulging in athletic and musical pastimes.

The ruler of Elysium varies from author to author: Pindar and Hesiod name Cronus as the ruler, while the poet Homer in the Odyssey describes fair-haired Rhadamanthus dwelling there.

In Homer’s Odyssey, Elysium is described as a paradise:

to the Elysian plain…where life is easiest for men. No snow is there, nor heavy storm, nor ever rain, but ever does Ocean send up blasts of the shrill-blowing West Wind that they may give cooling to men.

— Homer, Odyssey (4.560–565)

According to Eustathius of Thessalonica the word “Elysium” (Ἠλύσιον) derives from ἀλυουσας (ἀλύω, to be deeply stirred from joy) or from ἀλύτως, synonymous of ἀφθάρτως (ἄφθαρτος, incorruptible), referring to souls’ life in this place. Another suggestion is from ελυθ-, ἔρχομαι (to come).” Wikipedia

It is true – they were fascinated by the rain that left a small lake in front of the pyramid before the festival started. It often rains in Somerset but it was a very hot weekend. A very good translation is of course ‘to come’. The spirits that arrived from Egypt, India and elsewhere knew it was in a time to come, saw what we had become and came to live with us after they died because that is what they wanted so much after seeing us. They are reading this now.

There is nothing like seeing something for yourself and although you cannot all be with me back in 1971 due to our miraculous age you can experience some of it, indeed see more of it than I could back then. They kindly made a film of it starting with the construction of that pyramid which gleamed white at night and influenced the architect of that Great Pyramid in Egypt who coated his with polished limestone, so white it hurt your eyes at midday. The film is what it is – the sound may not be what we are used to these days but you can see why the spirits were so fascinated, watch the western fakirs that influenced them. See what you think and don’t be put off by the first few seconds (sent to test us):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxSGaldvSlg

Meanwhile here is a photo of me at it – I found it on the net. I am 21 going on 22 and about to have the shock of my life.

glasto-71-sue-bowler-veggies[1]

I am standing, dark hair, dark trousers – about one third in from the left and I think that is a camera in my hand. Where are my photos now I wonder?

Advertisements

The Clairvoyant & Enlightened Times

Issue 15 – 23 may 2017 – rattuos

There are always different ways to look at things and indeed life in general. What may seem like fun to one may be dreadful to another. Last night I was filled with despair watching members of gangs talk about their exploits, many of which were violent and centred around drugs or the need for them. One can be quite horrified by the depravity of our species at times and very fearful for our future. When we have a terminal illness we can fall into deep despair too, but equally many of us can treasure life and see it anew at such times, from another angle if you like. There is a famous biblical verse which may suggest this although its meaning is disputed:

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love….

“Through a glass, darkly”

1 Corinthians 13:12 contains the phrase βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι διἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι (blepomen gar arti di esoptrou en ainigmati), which is rendered in the KJV as “For now we see through a glass, darkly.” Wikipedia

It is similar to that expression often used – glass half full or glass half empty. Anyway this is what I wish to discuss today and how it affects our enlightenment.

Our status quo is extremely valuable – if our status quo is endurable. For many it is not but just as many have enviable lives and happiness. For most of my life this fact conjured up a feeling that life is not fair. Perhaps it is not. Some of the fledgling birds I am watching this morning who compete to get at the bird feeder will not last the summer while others will live to make their own nests and breed. Were this not the case we would be overwhelmed with birds, a plague of birds perhaps or have none. But what we so enjoy is something in between. And that half empty glass is what it is.

Today there are wars, famines, torturers at work while some of us are enjoying breakfast bird watching. It was just this enigma that so concerned the man we call Buddha.

After his experiences as a prince and as a wandering monk, the Buddha had learnt that all people have one thing in common: if they think about their own life, or look at the world around them, they will see that life is full of suffering.

Suffering, he said, may be physical or mental. The Buddha’s most important teachings were focused on a way to end the suffering he had experienced and had seen in other people. His discovery of the solution began with the recognition that life is suffering. This is the first of the Four Noble Truths…..” http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/bs-s03.htm

I only mention that to show that this has exercised minds for a very long time. One way that humans adapt to it is to close their eyes as much as possible to the suffering of others. You will not notice that, in most cases, because they are so clever at hiding the fact and expressing their concern for example for refugees or the bereaved but in reality most are content that the agony has passed them by and struck at someone else, something which is even celebrated in religion.

I have also known some people who were so concerned for others that they suffered with them. It is not difficult to find examples and in the enlightened world the way is usually ascetic, living a life without luxury. We can become obsessed with the suffering of others and many do. But although it is admirable to dedicate our lives to alleviating suffering in one form or another, it is never helpful to fall into obsession. This can lead to even more anti-social activity which is often the cause of even more suffering and which in that case is avoidable suffering. We will all die and that is not avoidable.

I suppose it is the definition of a middle way that is the real problem for those who wish to be enlightened. If we look at a shoal of fish or a herd of animals we may think that the safest place to be is in the middle. Predators will tend to take the outsiders, but some predators will aim for the middle in the hope of catching anything and the human predator delights at the shoaling instinct of fish as he catches the whole shoal in his net, a prize that would be impossible to replicate with a single fishing line and a dispersed prey. There is therefore considerable danger in seeking safety in numbers. Our modern weapons of mass destruction are aimed at cities for example. Pollution is greatest in such places and famines more deadly. But we tend to feel more frightened in some isolated cottage in the country.

However the point is whether we look at life darkly or optimistically. Do I bemoan the fact that cancer has caught up with me just as our health service is crumbling and the waiting list for my operation is longer than ever, or do I celebrate the fact that it took this long to catch me? Having a daughter taken by it and living with it in her early twenties certainly focuses my mind. Looking at countries where only the rich can afford the operation also sends a message. Perhaps accepting some responsibility for it too. But we can only consider life fair if it is. The real problem with it is that for a very long time it has not been. If we are the beneficiaries of ’unfairness’ then we must take responsibility for the suffering we cause. This is the real lesson of the law that governs what we call fairness or justice – karma. And that law states that we create fairness or unfairness by our own actions and will reap reward accordingly. But few among us realise that karma really is a universal law and cannot be avoided.

The most obvious unfairness is being rich when so many around have nothing, or worse, live in debt. We may then look at life as a glass half full but are missing the problem we are storing up for ourselves. If however we devote our resources to alleviating suffering we create a positive karma, but to do that we need our eyes open to our responsibility. The rich seldom feel responsible for poverty. They usually consider that their efforts, or those of some remote ancestor, entitle them to more than the poor. They may even consider that the poor should work for them, clean their houses, cook their food, plough their fields. And some will consider that God himself has granted them this right. It was called the divine right of kings and these days has morphed into a divine right of certain nations. And so entrenched is this that it has entered our books of law to ensure it cannot be challenged = but human law rarely takes account of the law of karma let alone mimics it.

In the case that we may have more than those around us we need to ensure that we look at the glass darkly, as a mirror showing us our imperfections and what we need to do about them. But if we live austere lives we can afford to look at ourselves in a slightly more favourable light. As long as we are not causing others to suffer by our actions we are not storing up for ourselves the awful afterlives we must endure if we do. Now obviously very few really think about the afterlife and, if they do, they consider that it is at worst a neutral experience. But my experience of it tells me that it is far from that and that most there suffer dreadfully and are full of remorse. Most religions tell us that, even if they have watered down the message these days. Some suggest that paradise awaits the violent men and women in our midst.

So shocked was I when I first saw the treatment of perfectly ordinary people over there that I complained. As most people there are dead it came as some surprise to them that I was not. However my complaints merely highlighted that karma really is fair and that what I was seeing was the direct result of the suffering they had caused in life whether they had bothered to look at it or as most of us do, refused to. The treatment of the real criminals in life is very much worse – they endure what they hand our when alive and take great exception to the fact. But if the dead harbour any major grievance it is that they died in ignorance of the real laws that govern us and that they lived in the illusion they have created for themselves.

There is another expression – seeing the world through rose tinted glasses. This seems to date back to the 1840’s if not long before. Now it is a fact that rose tinted glasses can make the world seem more attractive in some ways, reducing the harsh glare, although sunglasses tend to be other colours. We might note however:

A study performed by researchers at the University of Birmingham, England tested a group of migraine sufferers by having them wear glasses with a rose colored tint called FL-41. The tint preferentially blocks blue-green light and was originally developed to reduce sensitivity to fluorescent lighting, but has been shown effective in mitigating the frequency and severity of migraine, blepharospasm, and other light-sensitive conditions. Participants experienced a reduction in the number of migraines, from 6.2 episodes per month to 1.6 episodes per month. Dr Katz and researchers at the University of Utah continue to study and work to optimize tinted lenses for light sensitive patients“

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/257566/origin-of-rose-tinted-glasses

A few different countries and languages have the expression ‘pink glasses’. Quite how it fits in here is hard to say. As a migraine sufferer for my whole life I wish I had known about this. The emperor Nero is said to have worn emerald glasses and green is certainly a soothing shade, it compares with sitting under a nice leafy tree perhaps or even swimming underwater. I suppose I could compare this expression with the difficulty we have in looking at the harsh realities of our world. If there is a way to look at them more comfortably maybe it is through fiction which is to say that we can experience some suffering best by watching films where we can comfort ourselves with the thought that these are actors and they are not really suffering, indeed they are being well paid. That is increasingly how we do experience different lifestyles in our world, a kind of voyeurism which our ancestors gained from books. In some ways it raises our emotions and encourages some feelings of suffering in ourselves too, but in other ways it inoculates us against real emotions. We become blasé and when we see film of real people blown apart by real bombs there is the same distance and sense of unreality.

Fear for example is an emotion that we have to protect us when we are in danger, but we tend to experience it most when watching horror films. Then when we need it most it is ineffective. What I feel is that the Buddhist explanation of suffering gives us the same detachment from it, and even more so by watching it in others. We need to be clear. Some suffering is unavoidable but most is quite avoidable and we should be doing all we can to minimise the avoidable suffering in our world whether experienced by other species or our own. It has become a weapon used as a deterrent, used as a crude cattle prod to ensure we behave in a certain way. The real deterrent should be what happens to us in the afterlife when we settle our karmic bills but that has been completely hidden from us in recent generations. As a result real suffering in our world is increasing dramatically and is mostly avoidable. So many communities now live in fear of the gangs that exploit the weak, terrorise the old and use violence as their main skill to make a living. If we do not live under them we are fortunate but our eyes should be open to the fact that so many do, even in our own country. We will all suffer ill health and pain at times but we really need to heal our world not arm the hooligans and excuse the torturers. How nice to think they don’t exist, not to see them or suffer under them. How difficult to see that we are responsible for them, and how painful to know that we will have to answer for their actions when we die. Unless you visit an abattoir you will never know what you inflict on the animals you eat. But the same is true about the lives lived by those who produce our food, clothes and other goods whose countries we invaded centuries ago and whose people we enslaved. Whose poor now underpin our wealth. If we refuse to accept our responsibility for this we do not have our eyes open and can never have enlightenment. But when we do travel down the path of opening our eyes what we will find is a thousand times worse that we imagined possible. Real history is a horror story worse than any film. Religions have killed, tortured and maimed the innocents. Justice has been a travesty. Slavery is and has been all around us. All only possible because we refused to look.

But even saying that we must treasure our status quo. Certainly we can improve it and reduce the suffering in it but it is of inestimable value compared to the abyss above which it is perched. As a species we are close to enlightenment and to perfection if only goodness can prevail and survive what is ahead.

 

The Clairvoyant & Enlightened Times

Issue 14 – 19 May 2017 – rattuos

We are brought up with thousands of ‘sayings’. One for example is ‘there is no time like the present’, another ‘tomorrow never comes’. Some are based in wisdom, some in religion, some in wit but collectively they represent pillars of our societies. I do not intend to recount our sayings, praise them or dismiss them. I just wanted to mention them.

Children used to be told that ‘the bogeyman will get you’. That was just one saying designed to terrorise a child into good behaviour as seen by adults. A famous political saying which was posted on advertising stands all over the UK in 1964 was ’13 years of Tory misrule’. This slogan was credited with unseating the Tories and perhaps became a template for the future. We had many during the war ’the walls have ears’ for example suggesting spies were all around. The walls really do have ears these days.

What I do want to point out is that sayings are powers or influences in their own right. Rarely do we know the author of them, which is not to say that the authors are unknown just that we do not usually know who they are. In the same way we rarely know who actually wrote our scriptures because we are told that God wrote them or his messengers dictated them.

There are also ’phrases’ that we use a lot. Again we rarely know the author but use them as a kind of shorthand. ’Get your skates on’, ’drove like a maniac’, ‘you’ve got to be joking’ etc. They are clichés which are quite hard to lose once acquired much as swearwords can be. Some people cannot stop themselves interspersing almost every sentence with one.

Well language is not exactly what we think it is. It is quite limited in many ways and some words go back to prehistory – two we will find in most languages in one form or another – ‘father’ and ‘mother’, usually very similar in pronunciation. In Latin for example pater and mater. In Egyptian the gods Ptah and Maat or Mut. Papa, Daddy, Mama, Mummy all come from this. When we say these words they echo through the ages and when we repeat these sayings the same thing happens and a link is made.

When we say ’Go to Hell’ to someone do we mean it? It is the most serious curse and links to this whether we mean it or not. If a Judge says ’Guilty’ and intones a death penalty this also connects to links throughout our history and that is what results whether he or she mean it or not. ’Kill him’ or ’kill them’ have the same ominous link and result. It is something few of us will ever hear said with meaning ourselves except in films.

Conversely Shakespeare is famous for adding many phrases and dimensions to our language raising it to the level of the classical languages where poetry and prose were so prominent. Here was a man who attended court as a youth and was educated with the finest brains in the country. They attended Lord Burghley’s school in London and included Francis Bacon and the Earls of Essex, Southampton, Oxford and Rutland – all considered by some to be the real authors of the plays as was the young man’s Italian tutor at Oxford, Florio. This man eventually became the 8th Earl of Shrewsbury on his brother’s death on 8th May 1616 following an illness which meant he had to ‘kill’ his Shakespeare alias on 23 April 1616 (St George’s day) to clear the way to his succession. But still the plays and poems continued to be written for him by his friends under this collective name. Little wonder we have such a massive and inspiring body of work and a continuing mystery over authorship. These men took much of our verbal language, sayings and knowledge at the time and immortalised it for us.

Under this section I must also include ‘mantras’. I have always been suspicious about young men and women being given usually Sanskrit words by their gurus, words that they do not really know or understand but repeat many thousands of times when in their deepest meditations. Let us look deeper at the word mantra:

“A “mantra” (/’mæntrə, ‘mɑːn-, ‘mʌn-/ (Sanskrit: मंत्र); is a sacred utterance, a numinous sound, a syllable, word or phonemes, or group of words in Sanskrit believed by practitioners to have psychological and spiritual powers. A mantra may or may not have syntactic structure or literal meaning.

The earliest mantras were composed in Vedic Sanskrit by Hindus in India, and are at least 3000 years old. Mantras now exist in various schools of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. In Japanese Shingon tradition, the word Shingon means mantra. Similar hymns, chants, compositions and concepts are found in Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Christianity, and elsewhere.

The use, structure, function, importance, and types of mantras vary according to the school and philosophy of Hinduism and of Buddhism. Mantras serve a central role in tantra. In this school, mantras are considered to be a sacred formula and a deeply personal ritual, effective only after initiation. In other schools of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or Sikhism, initiation is not a requirement.

Mantras come in many forms, including ṛc (verses from the Rigveda for example) and sāman (musical chants from the Sāmaveda for example). They are typically melodic, mathematically structured meters, believed to be resonant with numinous qualities. At its simplest, the word ॐ (Aum, Om) serves as a mantra. In more sophisticated forms, mantras are melodic phrases with spiritual interpretations such as a human longing for truth, reality, light, immortality, peace, love, knowledge, and action. Some mantras have no literal meaning, yet are musically uplifting and spiritually meaningful …..” Wikipedia

As we may note they are not really that different to prayers, psalms and hymns which are said, sung or chanted in churches except that they tend to be in our own language and more easy to understand. Some however are very difficult to understand and often repeated. There seems to be an element of self hypnosis or even brainwashing about that.

One guru famous for handing out mantras was the founder of the group known as ‘TM’ (Transcendental Meditation) so a quick look there may illustrate this. In the 1970‘s you handed over a week‘s wages, were instructed in the basic technique and given your mantra:

“…..The Maharishi is reported to have trained more than 40,000 TM teachers, taught the Transcendental Meditation technique to “more than five million people” and founded thousands of teaching centres and hundreds of colleges, universities and schools…..In Rishikesh, India, beginning on 20 April 1962, a forty-day course was held for “sadhus, sanyasis, and brahmacharis” to introduce TM to “religious preachers and spiritual masters in India”….In 1967, the Maharishi gave a lecture at Caxton Hall in London which was attended by Pattie Boyd, George Harrison‘s wife, as well as Leon MacLaren, the founder and leader of the School of Economic Science (SES). He also lectured at UCLA, Harvard, Yale and Berkeley. That year, an article in Time magazine reported that the Maharishi “has been sharply criticised by other Indian sages, who complain that his programme for spiritual peace without either penance or asceticism contravenes every traditional Hindu belief”. Religion and culture scholar Sean McCloud also reported that traditional Indian sages and gurus were critical of the Maharishi, for teaching a simple technique and making it available to everyone, and for abandoning traditional concepts of suffering and concentration as paths to enlightenment….In its obituary, BBC News reported that the Maharishi’s master had bequeathed him “the task of keeping the tradition of Transcendental Meditation alive” and that “the Maharishi’s commercial mantras drew criticism from stricter Hindus, but his promises of better health, stress relief and spiritual enlightenment drew devotees from all over the world”….In a review of the documentary film David Wants to Fly, Variety magazine reported Swaroopananda’s assertion that “as a member of the trader class” the Maharishi “has no right to give mantras or teach meditation”…..

(Swami Swaroopananda, one of three claimants to the title Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, is “an outspoken critic” of the Maharishi)

…The Maharishi is credited with heading charitable organisations, for-profit businesses, and real estate investments whose total value has been estimated at various times, to range from US$2 to US$5 billion. The real estate alone was valued in 2003 at between $3.6 and $5 billion. Holdings in the United States, estimated at $250 million in 2008, include dozens of hotels, commercial buildings and undeveloped land. The Maharishi “amassed a personal fortune that his spokesman told one reporter may exceed $1 billion”. According to a 2008 article in The Times, the Maharishi “was reported to have an income of six million pounds”. The Maharishi’s movement is said to be funded through donations, course fees for Transcendental Meditation and various real estate transactions….” extracts from Wikipedia

It does not really tell us about the mantras only that there was some opposition to them being handed out. If there was a little opposition there was also massive support for what he was doing. All those I have known who subscribed to his TM have been extremely healthy and radiant people and I have no doubt about the benefits of meditation. The man was a major inspiration for the Beatles and many others.

His organisation can tell us more:

“TM is practised by silently and effortlessly thinking a mantra or sound, which has been passed on during personal instruction by a fully-trained teacher following careful guidelines laid down by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It is strongly recommended that you do not try to learn TM from any other source, even if they claim to be using Transcendental Meditation mantras, for reasons which will become apparent below.

….How do Transcendental Meditation mantras work?

The mantra does not act as a focus for the mind as in other forms of meditation, but as a ‘vehicle’ upon which the attention gently and innocently rests. This allows the mind to settle into increasingly subtle levels of thinking, and finally the mantra itself is transcended and we settle into silence.

There are two qualities of the Transcendental Meditation mantra which are important for this process to occur: It is a meaningless sound. Using a word with meaning would keep the mind on the surface, thinking about the word, and not allow it to transcend (go beyond) that level.

Its vibration has a resonance with its source in the primordial hum (Om) close to the silent, blissful level of the mind which gives it a tendency to fade in that direction. This attracts and charms the mind, which itself is always searching for greater happiness, so the mind settles with the mantra towards silence.

Where do Transcendental Meditation mantras come from?

The mantras used in Transcendental Meditation come from the ancient Vedic tradition of India. They are Sanskrit sounds, the language which is the closest possible human imitation of the natural vibrations produced by the dynamism of the unified field – the field identified by objective modern science as the silent source of all creation, and by yogis in their meditation as the Self – the field of Pure Consciousness. Some mantras have healing power for specific parts of the body, but the Transcendental Meditation mantras are for transcending, which has an enormous healing effect for the whole body and mind and much more.

How do you choose the Transcendental Meditation mantra?

There are thousands of Transcendental Meditation mantras, from which a small number with known effects are used. We choose one that is suitable for you from a selection passed on by Maharishi according to a simple procedure that ensures it is correct.

Can I get my mantra from my friend, or some other source?

It is important to receive the mantra from a fully trained Transcendental Meditation teacher because they have been given a selection of mantras which have been passed down through a long line of teachers over thousands of years. The effects are therefore well known both historically and currently to be always positive and life-enhancing.

The mantras and procedures for passing them on are received by the teacher after months of intensive training, and the student is asked not to share the mantra or the way it is taught with anyone. This is for the benefit of the one already meditating (see next question), and to preserve the purity of the teaching ensuring that every person receives full and correct instruction. This is very important.

There are 4 vital aspects of the teaching that ensure that it will work for you:

Receiving a correct mantra.

Knowing how to use it properly.

Being able to correctly interpret the experiences that come as a result.

Having the support and guidance of a fully trained teacher free for the rest of your life.

Any one of these aspects missing could result in incorrect practice, lack of progress, and giving up on meditation completely, so missing a priceless opportunity to significantly enhance your life.

I don’t think I could/would want to keep my mantra a secret

This is not an uncommon feeling for people to have before they start. However after a few TM meditations, the mantra becomes very personal to you; it’s the vehicle that allows the attention to dive inwards and the mind begins to associate the mantra with the experience of settling down and enjoying inner silence. It becomes a treasured and trusted friend. Speaking the mantra aloud, chanting it or passing it on is to bring the mantra ‘out’, to reverse its natural direction – it’s of no value. Also, the Transcendental Meditation mantras only work in context. Using or speaking the mantra without its simple yet very specific instructions and personal guidance from a teacher simply doesn’t work. Because the way that TM is taught is simple and does work, once you learn you will no doubt feel, as others have, that you want friends and family to learn it in the same simple, effective and enjoyable way. We find therefore that it is actually extremely rare for anyone to abuse their mantra in this way, even if they started with the same doubt as you.

Why not Om?

As explained above, not just any sound will do. Different mantras have different effects. The mantras used in TM are a group of ‘householder’ mantras designed to enable people to experience deep, restful meditation which brings integration between inner silence and outer activity – deep rest along with energy and dynamism. Om has a strong environmental effect which is OK if chanted in a group, but if used as a personal, internal mantra, it is suited only for those wanting to withdraw from active life……

https://www.meditationtrust.com/transcendental-meditation-mantras/

So there we have it – or do we? Enlightenment does not need a mantra, it needs the overwhelming desire to open our eyes to the truth however hard that is. What stops us doing this are the illusions which comfort us and religions top that list. They usually forbid us to look further into things which they teach us to accept without question, many of which are quite ridiculous. Sects love having secret names for God, secret rituals, secret ’truths’. In my experience they keep them secret because they are nonsensical and too easily debunked. But that is my experience. We each need our own. At least TM gives reasons for their mantras and for keeping them to yourself.

I have one saying that is close to my heart – ’the darkest hour is just before dawn’. It comforts me when times are hard as they often are. It has a history and may have been an ancient saying long before it was written down. But at least it makes sense and I have tested it to my own satisfaction very many times. However I do not meditate and mumble it over and over again. I see great benefits in occasional self hypnosis especially its ability to promote healing in ourselves but it is also easy at those times to ‘pull the wool over our eyes’. That is to say when under hypnosis – self or induced – we are wide open to suggestion and must take great care.

“The English theologian and historian Thomas Fuller appears to be the first person to commit the notion that ‘the darkest hour is just before the dawn’ to print. His religious travelogue A Pisgah-Sight Of Palestine And The Confines Thereof, 1650, contains this view:

It is always darkest just before the Day dawneth.”

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/darkest-hour.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Clairvoyant & Enlightened Times

Issue 13 – 15 May 2017 – rattuos

Before starting on ancestors and how you can actually see them, ie exactly what they looked like in your case, I need to show you some numbers. We all share ancestors. These figures should explain why:

1 (you), 2 (your parents), 4 (grandparents), 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, approx500, 1000 = 10 generations

2000, 4000, 8000, 16000, 32000, 64000, 128000, 256000, approx500000, 1 million

= 20 generations

1 billion = 30 generations, 1 trillion (1000,000,000,000) = 40 generations.

That is how many great grandparents you have and looked at another way by them, assuming they all had two breeding children. How many descendants they would have had (but didn’t).

If we consider an age gap of 25 years for each generation then there will be 4 generations per century, 40 per 1000 years and 400 going back to 8000BC. The number for our ancestors over 400 generations would be too vast to enter here, far more than the stars in the universe* or days since it was created (5037 billion). However the following table shows us that in 8000BC there were only around 5 million humans living (by 1800AD there were 1 billion).

https://www.census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table_history.php

Clearly most of us humans have not survived to breed. In fact the odds of you being here are so remote as to be almost incalculable. 33 generations equates to our current population of around 8 billion. But 33 generations only takes us back 825 years to around 1200AD. There were about 360 million of us then.

I might add here that in 1974 a fossilised skeleton of a young female ape was discovered in Ethiopia, about 3 million years old. This they called ‘Lucy’. What was extraordinary about her was that she walked upright. Since that time it has often been stated, erroneously, that all humans descend from this woman, as if she is Eve and somewhere undiscovered is our Adam. However this does make the valid point that we probably all do descend from some creature that mutated for one reason or another in the dim and distant past and led to our eventual hominid classification. Lucy was a vegetarian, 3 foot 7 inches tall, and they think she died falling out of a tree.

Historically the influences limiting our exponential population increase were disease, famine, natural disaster and war. We who live now are the survivors and carry an extraordinary gene that has survived unbroken for millions, even billions of years, from our remotest ancestors whatever they were. They include bacteria, sea snakes, apes and early hominids. But here we are. And although we can trace back through our blood line these ancestors, they could never have predicted which of them would bring us about. It takes some thinking but however you think about it these are the numerical facts.

So when you actually see your own ancestors for the first time bear in mind that many will be ‘our’ ancestors and some will look very strange. All will have something of you in them just as you have something of them, this dominant gene if you like, or shared DNA. They can seem rather frightening if you do not know what they are.

I stumbled upon them by accident but since the internet age is upon us I have been able to find others who have also seen them. Whereas I know them to be my ancestors and in psychic terms consider them to be spirits that live in me, in my blood, others think of them as past lives. I could too if I did not know that this is my only life, my first life and my life not theirs.

My first sighting happened in the 1980’s. This was a time when I was experimenting with all sorts of things and one was what I would now think of as self hypnotism. It involved looking at myself in a mirror, focussing around my eyes and letting them drift out of focus. It started I think when I noticed one day that my skin looked a bit yellow and my face a bit different in the mirror. I supposed that this might be my inner life looking back at me and decided to investigate further, applying the mirror experience to a series of meditations. This one I practised standing in front of a wall mirror at head height in a shady part of a room.

What subsequently happened took me completely by surprise and had I not been able to repeat it at will I imagine I would have put it down to some kind of hallucination. After a few moments of allowing my eyes to drift out of focus a succession of different faces snapped into view. I say snapped because that is how they arrived. Almost with a click first one, then another, then another. They each lasted for less than a second which was in some ways rather frustrating as it did not give me enough time to study them. Each one was very different but all had my eyes in common, or that is what it seemed like. For example some were blonde, ginger or red haired, some dark like me. Many had facial hair and a few seemed to have it all over their face looking quite leonine. I felt no menace just mutual curiosity, even perhaps a hint of amusement.

I did not realise that other people experienced this and did not really discuss it with others. Most of my work I did not discuss and I think that most clairvoyants are the same. People do not feel comfortable talking about such things with you for any number of reasons. I did another mirror meditation around the same time which had a different result and will mention that later. But this one I called my faces and about that time I discovered an Egyptian god linked with my namesake Sutekh who is called ’Ash of many faces’. He first appears on a seal of a First Dynastic wine jar found in the tomb of the pharaoh Den at Abydos. I had no reason to connect him with my meditation but did anyway. We both seem to have many faces.

As you know I now consider these faces to be ‘ancestors’ but I am including some of what I now find on the internet about this experience seen through others’ eyes. It is twenty years since I first mentioned this experience on the internet and I cannot tell if others tried it out after reading about this or not. Nor can I tell whether it is something that happens to many people quite spontaneously. I think if you spend a lot of time looking at mirrors it might. Nor do I know whether it is more difficult to achieve when told by someone what happens before you try.

This first article on it urges you to protect yourself first…

“… place a mirror in front of you, light a candle and turn off the lights. Focus on the spot between your eyes where your 3rd eye would be. Due to the dimness of the room, you will find your eyes going in and out of focus and this is perfectly normal and expected. Try to avoid excessive blinking because it is in this state that the faces will appear.

Your third eye will begin to open and reveal these faces. Many times, you will see various genders, ethnicities, races and sometimes, demon-looking entities. Do not be afraid. These nefarious entities cannot harm you and may be a shadow self side of you, or they may be simply testing your spirituality. If you sense and negative energy from these energies, you can always ask them to leave, then restart your protection techniques as you did before you began this meditation.

In my own experience doing this mirror meditation, I have seen myself as many different ethnicities and races as well as both genders. I have also seen a demonic-looking entity with glowing, red eyes and fang-like teeth but I remained calm and told it that it was not welcome during my meditation and I asked it to leave.

This meditation is not for the faint of heart. If you think you are ready to try it, please be sure to follow the recommendations on what to do before you meditate. It really is quite fascinating to see the many sides of yourself as ultimately, you are a spiritual being having a human experience while incarnating many times, in various ethnicities and races and different genders. Through this meditation, they will all be shown to you.”

http://in5d.com/3rd-eye-mirror-meditation-what-faces-will-you-see/

“Have you ever tried Mirror Meditation?

Mirror meditation can help you see your faces of previous lives, faces of fearies and ET’s, faces of other people from various times. Sometimes you see demonic images, these images can’t hurt you though, so do not be afraid.

As with all meditation, it is a good idea to cleanse and protect yourself and your home before you start.

Once you have done your protection ritual for both yourself and your home, light a candle and switch the lights off. In front of a mirror, focus on and look at your third eye (between your eyes). Your eyes may feel to be going out of focus, this is normal because of the dim candle light. Try not to blink excessively, or you will not be able to see the faces appearance.

As your third eye opens it will reveal the faces you are meant to see. Seeing a demonic face is nothing to be alarmed about, this face cannot harm you and is likely to be a shadow self, it could also be a test of your spirituality. So if you sense any negative energy from these images ask them to leave and/or stop your meditation and repeat your protection cleansing before sitting in front of the mirror again.

Please understand that this meditation is not for someone who scares easily, seeing the many different forms of yourself can be quite overwhelming. That said, it is incredibly humbling as you start to see the real meaning behind being a spiritual being having a human experience! Seeing the various incarnations of yourself, in many different genders, races and times!

http://thespiritscience.net/2016/08/06/what-faces-will-you-see-this-3rd-eye-mirror-meditation-takes-you-to-another-dimension/

Sound a bit similar don’t they! I am sure there are many more.

I mentioned the other mirror meditation and am including again what I wrote here on that previously:

What is Alexanders mirror and how does that fit in?

There are a series of exercises that help us. Probably many exercises do not. The Tibetan woman who shut herself up in a dark cell for 50 years was doing one. We do not need to do that but could try a few hours in our lifetime to see what it is like (at first). She may have done 300,000 hours of meditation. I also used a darkened room and in my case a bath. It helped me concentrate and removed distractions.

I will explain one very valuable exercise as far as creating another body, or recognising it, is concerned. If you have played some computer games you will know that at first you cannot get up the ladder, but then you can and even make it down the plank but it takes a while to leap through that window. With determination you get better and soon can do it almost effortlessly. In this case if you lose concentration do not worry, just try again until you overcome that.

Like many things I have done I thought I had invented the exercise by following my internal guidance. However some time after doing this one I was with the Pathan Ali who let me use his West End shop for readings in the 1980‘s. He had a little magic book from his childhood with him and showed me it. Then we came to this. He was translating the book for me and I told him I knew it so he asked me what happened to me and it was the same as happened to the author. It is called Alexanders Mirror in his book.

(By the way I googled ‘Alexanders Mirror’ and found something else entirely

On this folio from Walters manuscript W.623, Alexander the Great (Iskandar) invents a mirror that, when mounted on a tower, shows everything within a radius of 60 farsangs and thus enables Alexander’s men to attack marauding pirates

This is certainly not about that. I also found a man in Australia who uses a mirror and seems to have taken the name Alexander, it is not really about that. In a book Poetry of the East it is claimed that Alexander the Great used some fabulous mirror for some mystical purpose. That is probably the origin of this name for an ancient meditation, or reflection.)

I have done this exercise standing but suggest sitting comfortable with medium to low light at first. I will describe later here what happened to me so will not put that into your head before you try. Place the mirror so that you can see your head, if possible sit back. You may like to have something that means something to you by it, a crystal perhaps or memento. I can think of no reason for that but in my case had a bowl of salted water. In those days I bathed in salty water. I would not suggest bathing in the dark by the way as you can slip and fall when you get out. We had a windowless bathroom then so it was pitch black without a light. We are seldom ever in pitch darkness. Turning off the light stopped the wretched fan noise. That Tibetan woman would not have had any idea of the time of day, even that can be a distraction. Nor could she see herself.

So now you are looking at yourself, or your reflection which is not what anyone else sees as the mirror changes us left to right. No matter. Have a good look at your eyes as you may see what we are looking for, our inner self. But then start looking at that middle point in your forehead where they say the third eye is based, not for that reason but because it is a good blank spot to concentrate on. You may lose focus and that is good. Let whatever happens with your vision happen. As soon as you react it will probably stop so this is an exercise in allowing your eyes to do what they wish. If you think of the computer game it is just taking that leap into the next dimension without any idea of what is there.

These exercises do not need to go on very long and do not need to be endlessly repeated. When you look in the mirror after this it may remind you of it. I will write what happened to me, and what it says in that little Pathan magic book, in a few days time!

 

* Kornreich used a very rough estimate of 10 trillion galaxies in the universe. Multiplying that by the Milky Way’s estimated 100 billion stars results in a large number indeed: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, or a “1” with 24 zeros after it

(ie equivalent to 90 generations – still far less than 400 generations of ancestors/descendants!)

 

 

The Clairvoyant & Enlightened Times

Issue 12 – 7 May 2017 – rattuos

I don’t remember ever having the difficulty that writing this issue has caused me. Two sides fight for control in me over this. I will try to be impartial but really there is no middle line between them, no compromise. So let me start by writing how lucky I am on this sunny Scottish morning, fortunate to be able to write what I feel, fortunate not to have fought in any wars, fortunate to have been well fed. I have cancer but how fortunate I am to have a free health service and excellent surgeon. But for the status quo of the last 67 years none of that might be the case. We in the west have had the protection of a nuclear armed military, which we call a deterrent, and we have not been overrun by armed hordes dominated by political or religious dogmas. We have not been burned to a crisp or flooded by global warming (yet). I have no idea how much nuclear power has contributed to that safety margin. But for radioactive iodine treatment in a hospital I would be long dead. However having admitted that my concern is now for our future, the future of our species and the other wonders on a planet that is the jewel of our galaxy and universe. So let me start here:

“A fire requires three things: oxygen, fuel and heat. On the surface, one might think that the answer is that there’s no fuel present, but that’s actually not quite true. Nitrogen can, in fact, burn under the right conditions. The thing it, it’s really hard to burn. Nitrogen is triple-bonded, which means it doesn’t react easily. If you heat up the atmosphere enough, it will burn, but it won’t produce enough heat to keep the reaction going.

So, basically, the atmosphere can burn, but not very well. It needs heat to be continually added, so the fire can’t spread any further than the heat source. That’s the difference between burning and catching on fire”

https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-atmosphere-burn

 

“Normally, water-splitting devices have two electrodes that are made up of expensive materials like platinum and iridium — two rare-Earth metals that are extremely expensive. These electrodes are submerged in water-based electrolytes, and when the water molecule gets zapped with some low-voltage current, the hydrogen bubbles cling to one electrode and the oxygen bubbles cling to the other.

Just last year, Stanford’s Hongjie Dai used nickel and iron instead of more costly metals, and made the process even cheaper by using a regular 1.5 V battery. This was a step in the right direction, but this year the research was taken to an even more efficient level.

“Our water splitter is unique because we only use one catalyst, nickel-iron oxide, for both electrodes,” said Stanford graduate student Haotian Wang, who led the study. This technique allows for constant water-splitting action as long as you keep the power source steady.

The team hopes this research will be make hydrogen power a more viable alternative to fossil fuels, coal, and all the other dirty energy sources civilization currently relies on.”

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/scientists-develop-device-that-splits-water-clean-oxygen-hydrogen-247/

Lightning can start forest fires. If paper burns it can burn until none is left whether it is a single sheet, a bale or all the paper in the world in a big pile. It does not run out of energy if fuel is left, it creates heat and light and burns and burns. Put paper on a radiator or in the sun and it will not burn but if it reaches 233 centigrade it combusts. A spark can achieve this and the fire it creates raises the temperature of the rest of the paper until it has all combusted.

There is a scientific theory that a large enough nuclear explosion can set on fire the atmosphere of the planet in an uncontrollable chain reaction. It surfaced shortly before the first nuclear bombs were tested. It was a most unwelcome theory at that time and swiftly debunked. The bombs they calculated were not large enough to do that. The man who computed this theory is perhaps the most extraordinary man in modern history although few know of him outside his field. Like Einstein he was a ‘late talker’ which can signify the autistic spectrum and various other conditions. Like Einstein he crunched massive numbers in his head while other children played with marbles. I am putting the whole Wikipedia article here about the man they think is the model for Dr Strangelove, the man they called the ‘father of the hydrogen bomb‘. He is much more than that. He may have saved us all, he may have doomed us. Even Shiva can be a destroyer or saviour. Whatever he was certainly one of the ‘hidden masters’ among us. Almost every line in this article is important to reach an enlightened view on our future (check the original article for the many references):

“Edward Teller (Hungarian: Teller Ede; January 15, 1908 – September 9, 2003) was a Hungarian-American theoretical physicist who was born in Hungary, and is known colloquially as “the father of the hydrogen bomb”, although he claimed he did not care for the title. He made numerous contributions to nuclear and molecular physics, spectroscopy (in particular the Jahn–Teller and Renner–Teller effects), and surface physics. His extension of Enrico Fermi’s theory of beta decay, in the form of Gamow–Teller transitions, provided an important stepping stone in its application, while the Jahn–Teller effect and the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) theory have retained their original formulation and are still mainstays in physics and chemistry. Teller also made contributions to Thomas–Fermi theory, the precursor of density functional theory, a standard modern tool in the quantum mechanical treatment of complex molecules. In 1953, along with Nicholas Metropolis, Arianna Rosenbluth, Marshall Rosenbluth, and Augusta Teller, Teller co-authored a paper which is a standard starting point for the applications of the Monte Carlo method to statistical mechanics.

Teller emigrated to the United States in the 1930s, and was an early member of the Manhattan Project, charged with developing the first atomic bomb. During this time he made a serious push to develop the first fusion-based weapons as well, but these were deferred until after World War II. After his controversial testimony in the security clearance hearing of his former Los Alamos Laboratory superior J. Robert Oppenheimer, Teller was ostracized by much of the scientific community. He continued to find support from the U.S. government and military research establishment, particularly for his advocacy for nuclear energy development, a strong nuclear arsenal, and a vigorous nuclear testing program. He was a co-founder of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and was both its director and associate director for many years.

In his later years, Teller became especially known for his advocacy of controversial technological solutions to both military and civilian problems, including a plan to excavate an artificial harbor in Alaska using thermonuclear explosive in what was called Project Chariot. He was a vigorous advocate of Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative. Throughout his life, Teller was known both for his scientific ability and his difficult interpersonal relations and volatile personality, and is considered one of the inspirations for the character Dr. Strangelove in the 1964 movie of the same name.

Ede Teller was born on January 15, 1908, in Budapest, Hungary (then part of Austria-Hungary), into a Jewish family. His parents were Ilona (born Deutsch), a pianist, and Max Teller, an attorney. Raised in a Jewish family, he later on became an agnostic. “Religion was not an issue in my family”, he later wrote, “indeed, it was never discussed. My only religious training came because the Minta required that all students take classes in their respective religions. My family celebrated one holiday, the Day of Atonement, when we all fasted. Yet my father said prayers for his parents on Saturdays and on all the Jewish holidays. The idea of God that I absorbed was that it would be wonderful if He existed: We needed Him desperately but had not seen Him in many thousands of years.” Like Einstein and Feynman, Teller was a late talker. He developed the ability to speak later than most children but became very interested in numbers, and would calculate large numbers in his head for fun.

Teller left Hungary in 1926, partly due to the discriminatory numerus clausus rule under Miklós Horthy’s regime. The political climate and revolutions in Hungary during his youth instilled a lingering animosity for both Communism and Fascism in Teller. When he was a young student, his right foot was severed in a streetcar accident in Munich, requiring him to wear a prosthetic foot, and leaving him with a lifelong limp. Werner Heisenberg said that it was the hardiness of Teller’s spirit, rather than stoicism, that allowed him to cope so well with the accident.

Teller graduated in chemical engineering at the University of Karlsruhe, and received his Ph.D. in physics under Werner Heisenberg at the University of Leipzig. Teller’s dissertation dealt with one of the first accurate quantum mechanical treatments of the hydrogen molecular ion. In 1930 he befriended Russian physicists George Gamow and Lev Landau. Teller’s lifelong friendship with a Czech physicist, George Placzek, was also very important for his scientific and philosophical development. It was Placzek who arranged a summer stay in Rome with Enrico Fermi in 1932, thus orienting Teller’s scientific career in nuclear physics.

In 1930, Teller moved to the University of Göttingen, then one of the world’s great centers of physics due to the presence of Max Born and James Franck, but after Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in January 1933, Germany became unsafe for Jewish people, and he left through the aid of the International Rescue Committee. He went briefly to England, and moved for a year to Copenhagen, where he worked under Niels Bohr. In February 1934, he married his long-time girlfriend Augusta Maria “Mici” (pronounced “Mitzi”) Harkanyi, the sister of a friend. He returned to England in September 1934.

Mici had been a student in Pittsburgh, and wanted to return to the United States. Her chance came in 1935, when, thanks to George Gamow, Teller was invited to the United States to become a Professor of Physics at George Washington University, where he worked with Gamow until 1941. At George Washington University in 1937, Teller predicted the Jahn–Teller effect, which distorts molecules in certain situations; this affects the chemical reactions of metals, and in particular the coloration of certain metallic dyes. Teller and Hermann Arthur Jahn analyzed it as a piece of purely mathematical physics. In collaboration with Stephen Brunauer and Paul Hugh Emmett, Teller also made an important contribution to surface physics and chemistry: the so-called Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) isotherm. Teller and Mici became naturalized citizens of the United States on March 6, 1941.

When World War II began, Teller wanted to contribute to the war effort. On the advice of the well-known Caltech aerodynamicist and fellow Hungarian émigré Theodore von Kármán, Teller collaborated with his friend Hans Bethe in developing a theory of shock-wave propagation. In later years, their explanation of the behavior of the gas behind such a wave proved valuable to scientists who were studying missile re-entry.

In 1942, Teller was invited to be part of Robert Oppenheimer’s summer planning seminar, at the University of California, Berkeley for the origins of the Manhattan Project, the Allied effort to develop the first nuclear weapons. A few weeks earlier, Teller had been meeting with his friend and colleague Enrico Fermi about the prospects of atomic warfare, and Fermi had nonchalantly suggested that perhaps a weapon based on nuclear fission could be used to set off an even larger nuclear fusion reaction. Even though he initially explained to Fermi why he thought the idea would not work, Teller was fascinated by the possibility and was quickly bored with the idea of “just” an atomic bomb even though this was not yet anywhere near completion. At the Berkeley session, Teller diverted discussion from the fission weapon to the possibility of a fusion weapon—what he called the “Super”, an early concept of what was later to be known as a hydrogen bomb.

Arthur Compton, the chairman of the University of Chicago physics department, coordinated the uranium research of Columbia University, Princeton University, the University of Chicago, and the University of California, Berkeley. To remove disagreement and duplication, Compton transferred the scientists to the Metallurgical Laboratory at Chicago. Teller was left behind at first, because while he and Mici were now American citizens, they still had relatives in enemy countries. In early 1943, the Los Alamos laboratory was established in Los Alamos, New Mexico to design an atomic bomb, with Oppenheimer as its director. Teller moved there in March 1943. Apparently, Teller managed to annoy his neighbors there by playing the piano late in the night.

Teller became part of the Theoretical (T) Division. He was given a secret identity of Ed Tilden. He was irked at being passed over as its head; the job was instead given to Hans Bethe. Oppenheimer had him investigate unusual approaches to building fission weapons, such as autocatalysis, in which the efficiency of the bomb would increase as the nuclear chain reaction progressed, but proved to be impractical. He also investigated using uranium hydride instead of uranium metal, but its efficiency turned out to be “negligible or less”. He continued to push his ideas for a fusion weapon even though it had been put on a low priority during the war (as the creation of a fission weapon proved to be difficult enough). On a visit to New York, he asked Maria Goeppert-Mayer to carry out calculations on the Super for him. She confirmed Teller’s own results: the Super was not going to work.

A special group was established under Teller in March 1944 to investigate the mathematics of an implosion-type nuclear weapon. It too ran into difficulties. Because of his interest in the Super, Teller did not work as hard on the implosion calculations as Bethe wanted. These too were originally low-priority tasks, but the discovery of spontaneous fission in plutonium by Emilio Segrè’s group gave the Super increased importance. In June 1944, at Bethe’s request, Oppenheimer moved Teller out of T Division, and placed him in charge of a special group responsible for the Super, reporting directly to Oppenheimer. He was replaced by Rudolf Peierls from the British Mission, who in turn brought in Klaus Fuchs, who was later revealed to be a Soviet spy. Teller’s Super group became part of Fermi’s F Division when he joined the Los Alamos Laboratory in September 1944. It included Stanislaw Ulam, Jane Roberg, Geoffrey Chew, Harold and Mary Argo, and Maria Goeppert-Mayer.

Teller made valuable contributions to bomb research, especially in the elucidation of the implosion mechanism. He was the first to propose the solid pit design that was eventually successful. This design became known as a “Christy pit”, after the physicist Robert F. Christy who made the pit a reality. Teller was one of the few scientists to actually watch (with eye protection) the Trinity nuclear test in July 1945, rather than follow orders to lie on the ground with backs turned. He later said that the atomic flash “was as if I had pulled open the curtain in a dark room and broad daylight streamed in.”

In the days before and after the first demonstration of a nuclear weapon, the Trinity test in July 1945, his fellow Hungarian Leo Szilard circulated the Szilard petition, which argued that a demonstration to the Japanese of the new weapon should occur prior to actual use on Japan, and with that hopefully the weapons would never be used on people. In response to Szilard’s petition, Teller consulted his friend Robert Oppenheimer. Teller believed that Oppenheimer was a natural leader and could help him with such a formidable political problem. Oppenheimer reassured Teller that the nation’s fate should be left to the sensible politicians in Washington. Bolstered by Oppenheimer’s influence, he decided to not sign the petition.

Teller therefore penned a letter in response to Szilard that read:

 

…I am not really convinced of your objections. I do not feel that there is any chance to outlaw any one weapon. If we have a slim chance of survival, it lies in the possibility to get rid of wars. The more decisive a weapon is the more surely it will be used in any real conflict and no agreements will help.

Our only hope is in getting the facts of our results before the people. This might help to convince everybody that the next war would be fatal. For this purpose actual combat-use might even be the best thing.

On reflection on this letter years later when he was writing his memoirs, Teller wrote:

 

First, Szilard was right. As scientists who worked on producing the bomb, we bore a special responsibility. Second, Oppenheimer was right. We did not know enough about the political situation to have a valid opinion. Third, what we should have done but failed to do was to work out the technical changes required for demonstrating the bomb [very high] over Tokyo and submit that information to President Truman.

Unknown to Teller at the time, four of his colleagues were solicited by the then secret May to June 1945 Interim Committee. It is this organization which ultimately decided on how the new weapons should initially be used. The committee’s four-member Scientific Panel was led by Oppenheimer, and concluded immediate military use on Japan was the best option:

 

The opinions of our scientific colleagues on the initial use of these weapons are not unanimous: they range from the proposal of a purely technical demonstration to that of the military application best designed to induce surrender…Others emphasize the opportunity of saving American lives by immediate military use…We find ourselves closer to these latter views; we can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use.

Teller later learned of Oppenheimer’s solicitation and his role in the Interim Committee’s decision to drop the bombs, having secretly endorsed an immediate military use of the new weapons. This was contrary to the impression that Teller had received when he had personally asked Oppenheimer about the Szilard petition: that the nation’s fate should be left to the sensible politicians in Washington. Following Teller’s discovery of this, his relationship with his advisor began to deteriorate.

In 1990, the historian Barton Bernstein argued that it is an “unconvincing claim” by Teller that he was a “covert dissenter” to the use of the weapon. In his 2001 Memoirs, Teller claims that he did lobby Oppenheimer, but that Oppenheimer had convinced him that he should take no action and that the scientists should leave military questions in the hands of the military; Teller claims he was not aware that Oppenheimer and other scientists were being consulted as to the actual use of the weapon and implies that Oppenheimer was being hypocritical.

Despite an offer from Norris Bradbury, who had replaced Oppenheimer as the director of Los Alamos in November 1945, to become the head of the Theoretical (T) Division, Teller left Los Alamos on February 1, 1946, to return to the University of Chicago as a professor and close associate of Fermi and Goeppert-Mayer. Mayer’s work on the internal structure of the elements would earn her the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.

On April 18–20, 1946, Teller participated in a conference at Los Alamos to review the wartime work on the Super. The properties of thermonuclear fuels such as deuterium and the possible design of a hydrogen bomb were discussed. It was concluded that Teller’s assessment of a hydrogen bomb had been too favourable, and that both the quantity of deuterium needed, as well as the radiation losses during deuterium burning, would shed doubt on its workability. Addition of expensive tritium to the thermonuclear mixture would likely lower its ignition temperature, but even so, nobody knew at that time how much tritium would be needed, and whether even tritium addition would encourage heat propagation.

At the end of the conference, in spite of opposition by some members such as Robert Serber, Teller submitted an optimistic report in which he said that a hydrogen bomb was feasible, and that further work should be encouraged on its development. Fuchs also participated in this conference, and transmitted this information to Moscow. With John von Neumann, he contributed an idea of using implosion to ignite the Super. The model of Teller’s “classical Super” was so uncertain that Oppenheimer would later say that he wished the Russians were building their own hydrogen bomb based on that design, so that it would almost certainly retard their progress on it.

The Teller–Ulam design kept the fission and fusion fuel physically separated from one another, and used X-rays from the primary device “reflected” off the surrounding casing to compress the secondary.

By 1949, Soviet-backed governments had already begun seizing control throughout Eastern Europe, forming such puppet states as the Hungarian People’s Republic in Teller’s homeland of Hungary, where much of his family still lived, on August 20, 1949. Following the Soviet Union’s first test detonation of an atomic bomb on August 29, 1949, President Harry Truman announced a crash development program for a hydrogen bomb.

Teller returned to Los Alamos in 1950 to work on the project. He insisted on involving more theorists. but many of Teller’s prominent colleagues, like Fermi and Oppenheimer, were sure that the project of the H-bomb was technically infeasible and politically undesirable. None of the available designs were yet workable. However Soviet scientists who had worked on their own hydrogen bomb have claimed that they developed it independently.

In 1950, calculations by the Polish mathematician Stanislaw Ulam and his collaborator Cornelius Everett, along with confirmations by Fermi, had shown that not only was Teller’s earlier estimate of the quantity of tritium needed for the H-bomb a low one, but that even with higher amounts of tritium, the energy loss in the fusion process would be too great to enable the fusion reaction to propagate. However, in 1951 Teller and Ulam made a breakthrough, and invented a new design, proposed in a classified March 1951 paper, On Heterocatalytic Detonations I: Hydrodynamic Lenses and Radiation Mirrors, for a practical megaton-range H-bomb. The exact contribution provided respectively from Ulam and Teller to what became known as the Teller–Ulam design is not definitively known in the public domain, and the exact contributions of each and how the final idea was arrived upon has been a point of dispute in both public and classified discussions since the early 1950s.

In an interview with Scientific American from 1999, Teller told the reporter:

I contributed; Ulam did not. I’m sorry I had to answer it in this abrupt way. Ulam was rightly dissatisfied with an old approach. He came to me with a part of an idea which I already had worked out and had difficulty getting people to listen to. He was willing to sign a paper. When it then came to defending that paper and really putting work into it, he refused. He said, “I don’t believe in it.”

The issue is controversial. Bethe considered Teller’s contribution to the invention of the H-bomb a true innovation as early as 1952, and referred to his work as a “stroke of genius” in 1954. In both cases, however, Bethe emphasized Teller’s role as a way of stressing that the development of the H-bomb could not have been hastened by additional support or funding, and Teller greatly disagreed with Bethe’s assessment. Other scientists (antagonistic to Teller, such as J. Carson Mark) have claimed that Teller would have never gotten any closer without the assistance of Ulam and others. Ulam himself claimed that Teller only produced a “more generalized” version of Ulam’s original design.

The breakthrough—the details of which are still classified—was apparently the separation of the fission and fusion components of the weapons, and to use the X-rays produced by the fission bomb to first compress the fusion fuel (by process known as “radiation implosion”) before igniting it. Ulam’s idea seems to have been to use mechanical shock from the primary to encourage fusion in the secondary, while Teller quickly realized that X-rays from the primary would do the job much more symmetrically. Some members of the laboratory (J. Carson Mark in particular) later expressed the opinion that the idea to use the x-rays would have eventually occurred to anyone working on the physical processes involved, and that the obvious reason why Teller thought of it right away was because he was already working on the “Greenhouse” tests for the spring of 1951, in which the effect of x-rays from a fission bomb on a mixture of deuterium and tritium was going to be investigated.

Whatever the actual components of the so-called Teller–Ulam design and the respective contributions of those who worked on it, after it was proposed it was immediately seen by the scientists working on the project as the answer which had been so long sought. Those who previously had doubted whether a fission-fusion bomb would be feasible at all were converted into believing that it was only a matter of time before both the USA and the USSR had developed multi-megaton weapons. Even Oppenheimer, who was originally opposed to the project, called the idea “technically sweet.”

Though he had helped to come up with the design and had been a long-time proponent of the concept, Teller was not chosen to head the development project (his reputation of a thorny personality likely played a role in this). In 1952 he left Los Alamos and joined the newly established Livermore branch of the University of California Radiation Laboratory, which had been created largely through his urging. After the detonation of Ivy Mike, the first thermonuclear weapon to utilize the Teller–Ulam configuration, on November 1, 1952, Teller became known in the press as the “father of the hydrogen bomb.” Teller himself refrained from attending the test—he claimed not to feel welcome at the Pacific Proving Grounds—and instead saw its results on a seismograph in the basement of a hall in Berkeley.

There was an opinion that by analyzing the fallout from this test, the Soviets (led in their H-bomb work by Andrei Sakharov) could have deciphered the new American design. However, this was later denied by the Soviet bomb researchers. Because of official secrecy, little information about the bomb’s development was released by the government, and press reports often attributed the entire weapon’s design and development to Teller and his new Livermore Laboratory (when it was actually developed by Los Alamos).

Many of Teller’s colleagues were irritated that he seemed to enjoy taking full credit for something he had only a part in, and in response, with encouragement from Enrico Fermi, Teller authored an article titled “The Work of Many People,” which appeared in Science magazine in February 1955, emphasizing that he was not alone in the weapon’s development. He would later write in his memoirs that he had told a “white lie” in the 1955 article in order to “soothe ruffled feelings”, and claimed full credit for the invention.

Teller was known for getting engrossed in projects which were theoretically interesting but practically unfeasible (the classic “Super” was one such project.) About his work on the hydrogen bomb, Bethe said:

Nobody will blame Teller because the calculations of 1946 were wrong, especially because adequate computing machines were not available at Los Alamos. But he was blamed at Los Alamos for leading the laboratory, and indeed the whole country, into an adventurous programme on the basis of calculations, which he himself must have known to have been very incomplete.

During the Manhattan Project, Teller advocated the development of a bomb using uranium hydride, which many of his fellow theorists said would be unlikely to work. At Livermore, Teller continued work on the hydride bomb, and the result was a dud. Ulam once wrote to a colleague about an idea he had shared with Teller: “Edward is full of enthusiasm about these possibilities; this is perhaps an indication they will not work.” Fermi once said that Teller was the only monomaniac he knew who had several manias.

Carey Sublette of Nuclear Weapon Archive argues that Ulam came up with the radiation implosion compression design of thermonuclear weapons, but that on the other hand Teller has gotten little credit for being the first to propose fusion boosting in 1945, which is essential for miniaturization and reliability and is used in all of today’s nuclear weapons.

Teller became controversial in 1954 when he testified against Oppenheimer at Oppenheimer’s security clearance hearing. Teller had clashed with Oppenheimer many times at Los Alamos over issues relating both to fission and fusion research, and during Oppenheimer’s trial he was the only member of the scientific community to state that Oppenheimer should not be granted security clearance.

Asked at the hearing by Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) attorney Roger Robb whether he was planning “to suggest that Dr. Oppenheimer is disloyal to the United States”, Teller replied that:

I do not want to suggest anything of the kind. I know Oppenheimer as an intellectually most alert and a very complicated person, and I think it would be presumptuous and wrong on my part if I would try in any way to analyze his motives. But I have always assumed, and I now assume that he is loyal to the United States. I believe this, and I shall believe it until I see very conclusive proof to the opposite.

He was immediately asked whether he believed that Oppenheimer was a “security risk”, to which he testified:

In a great number of cases I have seen Dr. Oppenheimer act—I understood that Dr. Oppenheimer acted—in a way which for me was exceedingly hard to understand. I thoroughly disagreed with him in numerous issues and his actions frankly appeared to me confused and complicated. To this extent I feel that I would like to see the vital interests of this country in hands which I understand better, and therefore trust more. In this very limited sense I would like to express a feeling that I would feel personally more secure if public matters would rest in other hands.

Teller also testified that Oppenheimer’s opinion about the thermonuclear program seemed to be based more on the scientific feasibility of the weapon than anything else. He additionally testified that Oppenheimer’s direction of Los Alamos was “a very outstanding achievement” both as a scientist and an administrator, lauding his “very quick mind” and that he made “just a most wonderful and excellent director.”

After this, however, he detailed ways in which he felt that Oppenheimer had hindered his efforts towards an active thermonuclear development program, and at length criticized Oppenheimer’s decisions not to invest more work onto the question at different points in his career, saying: “If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance.”

By recasting a difference of judgment over the merits of the early work on the hydrogen bomb project into a matter of a security risk, Teller effectively damned Oppenheimer in a field where security was necessarily of paramount concern. Teller’s testimony thereby rendered Oppenheimer vulnerable to charges by a Congressional aide that he was a Soviet spy, which resulted in the destruction of Oppenheimer’s career.

Oppenheimer’s security clearance was revoked after the hearings. Most of Teller’s former colleagues disapproved of his testimony and he was ostracized by much of the scientific community.[68] After the fact, Teller consistently denied that he was intending to damn Oppenheimer, and even claimed that he was attempting to exonerate him. However, documentary evidence has suggested that this was likely not the case. Six days before the testimony, Teller met with an AEC liaison officer and suggested “deepening the charges” in his testimony.

Teller always insisted that his testimony had not significantly harmed Oppenheimer. In 2002, Teller contended that Oppenheimer was “not destroyed” by the security hearing but “no longer asked to assist in policy matters.” He claimed his words were an overreaction, because he had only just learned of Oppenheimer’s failure to immediately report an approach by Haakon Chevalier, who had approached Oppenheimer to help the Russians. Teller said that, in hindsight, he would have responded differently.

Historian Richard Rhodes said that in his opinion it was already a foregone conclusion that Oppenheimer would have his security clearance revoked by then AEC chairman Lewis Strauss, regardless of Teller’s testimony. However, as Teller’s testimony was the most damning, he was singled out and blamed for the hearing’s ruling, losing friends due to it, such as Robert Christy, who refused to shake his hand in one infamous incident. This was emblematic of his later treatment which resulted in his being forced into the role of an outcast of the physics community, thus leaving him little choice but to align himself with industrialists

After the Oppenheimer controversy, Teller became ostracized by much of the scientific community, but was still quite welcome in the government and military science circles. Along with his traditional advocacy for nuclear energy development, a strong nuclear arsenal, and a vigorous nuclear testing program, he had helped to develop nuclear reactor safety standards as the chair of the Reactor Safeguard Committee of the AEC in the late 1940s, and in the late 1950s headed an effort at General Atomics which designed research reactors in which a nuclear meltdown would be impossible. The TRIGA (Training, Research, Isotopes, General Atomic) has been built and used in hundreds of hospitals and universities worldwide for medical isotope production and research.

Teller promoted increased defense spending to counter the perceived Soviet missile threat. He was a signatory to the 1958 report by the military sub-panel of the Rockefeller Brothers funded Special Studies Project, which called for a $3 billion annual increase in America’s military budget.

In 1956 he attended the Project Nobska anti-submarine warfare conference, where discussion ranged from oceanography to nuclear weapons. In the course of discussing a small nuclear warhead for the Mark 45 torpedo, he started a discussion on the possibility of developing a physically small one-megaton nuclear warhead for the Polaris missile. His counterpart in the discussion, J. Carson Mark from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, at first insisted it could not be done. However, Dr. Mark eventually stated that a half-megaton warhead of small enough size could be developed. This yield, roughly thirty times that of the Hiroshima bomb, was enough for Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Arleigh Burke, who was present in person, and Navy strategic missile development shifted from Jupiter to Polaris by the end of the year.

He was Director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which he helped to found with Ernest O. Lawrence, from 1958 to 1960, and after that he continued as an Associate Director. He chaired the committee that founded the Space Sciences Laboratory at Berkeley. He also served concurrently as a Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley. He was a tireless advocate of a strong nuclear program and argued for continued testing and development—in fact, he stepped down from the directorship of Livermore so that he could better lobby against the proposed test ban. He testified against the test ban both before Congress as well as on television.

Teller established the Department of Applied Science at the University of California, Davis and LLNL in 1963, which holds the Edward Teller endowed professorship in his honor. In 1975 he retired from both the lab and Berkeley, and was named Director Emeritus of the Livermore Laboratory and appointed Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. After the fall of communism in Hungary in 1989, he made several visits to his country of origin, and paid careful attention to the political changes there.

Teller was one of the first prominent people to raise the danger of climate change, driven by the burning of fossil fuels. At an address to the membership of the American Chemical Society in December 1957, Teller warned that the large amount of carbon-based fuel that had been burnt since the mid-19th century was increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which would “act in the same way as a greenhouse and will raise the temperature at the surface”, and that he had calculated that if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by 10% “an appreciable part of the polar ice might melt.”

However, as better data and models were created, Teller, in his later years, would come to deride much of what he saw as increasingly common exaggerations and general doomsdayism on the matter of climate change. Thus, he became one of the most prestigious signers of the Oregon Petition. The petition, drafted in 1998, states, in part: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate”

One of the Chariot schemes involved chaining five thermonuclear devices to create the artificial harbor.

Teller was one of the strongest and best-known advocates for investigating non-military uses of nuclear explosives, which the United States explored under Operation Plowshare. One of the most controversial projects he proposed was a plan to use a multi-megaton hydrogen bomb to dig a deep-water harbor more than a mile long and half a mile wide to use for shipment of resources from coal and oil fields through Point Hope, Alaska. The Atomic Energy Commission accepted Teller’s proposal in 1958 and it was designated Project Chariot. While the AEC was scouting out the Alaskan site, and having withdrawn the land from the public domain, Teller publicly advocated the economic benefits of the plan, but was unable to convince local government leaders that the plan was financially viable.

Other scientists criticized the project as being potentially unsafe for the local wildlife and the Inupiat people living near the designated area, who were not officially told of the plan until March 1960. Additionally, it turned out that the harbor would be ice-bound for nine months out of the year. In the end, due to the financial infeasibility of the project and the concerns over radiation-related health issues, the project was abandoned in 1962.

A related experiment which also had Teller’s endorsement was a plan to extract oil from the tar sands in northern Alberta with nuclear explosions, titled Project Oilsands. The plan actually received the endorsement of the Alberta government, but was rejected by the Government of Canada under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, who was opposed to having any nuclear weapons in Canada. After Diefenbaker was out of office, Canada went on to have nuclear weapons, from a US nuclear sharing agreement, from 1963 to 1984.Main articles: Israeli nuclear program and Israel and weapons of mass destruction

For some twenty years, Teller advised Israel on nuclear matters in general, and on the building of a hydrogen bomb in particular. In 1952, Teller and Oppenheimer had a long meeting with David Ben-Gurion in Tel Aviv, telling him that the best way to accumulate plutonium was to burn natural uranium in a nuclear reactor. Starting in 1964, a connection between Teller and Israel was made by the physicist Yuval Ne’eman, who had similar political views. Between 1964 and 1967, Teller visited Israel six times, lecturing at Tel Aviv University, and advising the chiefs of Israel’s scientific-security circle as well as prime ministers and cabinet members.

In 1967 when the Israeli nuclear program was nearing completion, Teller informed Neeman that he was going to tell the CIA that Israel had built nuclear weapons, and explain that it was justified by the background of the Six-Day War. After Neeman cleared it with Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, Teller briefed the head of the CIA’s Office of Science and Technology, Carl Duckett. It took a year for Teller to convince the CIA that Israel had obtained nuclear capability; the information then went through CIA Director Richard Helms to the president at that time, Lyndon B. Johnson. Teller also persuaded them to end the American attempts to inspect the Negev Nuclear Research Center in Dimona. In 1976 Duckett testified in Congress before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that after receiving information from “American scientist”, he drafted a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Israel’s nuclear capability.

In the 1980s, Teller again visited Israel to advise the Israeli government on building a nuclear reactor. Three decades later, Teller confirmed that it was during his visits that he concluded that Israel was in possession of nuclear weapons. After conveying the matter to the U.S. government, Teller reportedly said: “They [Israel] have it, and they were clever enough to trust their research and not to test, they know that to test would get them into trouble.”

Teller suffered a heart attack in 1979, and blamed it on Jane Fonda, who had starred in The China Syndrome, which depicted a fictional reactor accident and was released less than two weeks before the Three Mile Island accident. She spoke out against nuclear power while promoting the film. After the accident, Teller acted quickly to lobby in favor of nuclear energy, testifying to its safety and reliability, and soon after one flurry of activity suffered the attack. He signed a two-page-spread ad in the July 31, 1979, Wall Street Journal with the headline “I was the only victim of Three-Mile Island”. It opened with:

 

On May 7, a few weeks after the accident at Three-Mile Island, I was in Washington. I was there to refute some of that propaganda that Ralph Nader, Jane Fonda and their kind are spewing to the news media in their attempt to frighten people away from nuclear power. I am 71 years old, and I was working 20 hours a day. The strain was too much. The next day, I suffered a heart attack. You might say that I was the only one whose health was affected by that reactor near Harrisburg. No, that would be wrong. It was not the reactor. It was Jane Fonda. Reactors are not dangerous.

In the 1980s, Teller began a strong campaign for what was later called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), derided by critics as “Star Wars,” the concept of using ground and satellite-based lasers, particle beams and missiles to destroy incoming Soviet ICBMs. Teller lobbied with government agencies—and got the approval of President Ronald Reagan—for a plan to develop a system using elaborate satellites which used atomic weapons to fire X-ray lasers at incoming missiles—as part of a broader scientific research program into defenses against nuclear weapons.

Scandal erupted when Teller (and his associate Lowell Wood) were accused of deliberately overselling the program and perhaps had encouraged the dismissal of a laboratory director (Roy Woodruff) who had attempted to correct the error. His claims led to a joke which circulated in the scientific community, that a new unit of unfounded optimism was designated as the teller; one teller was so large that most events had to be measured in nanotellers or picotellers.

Many prominent scientists argued that the system was futile. Hans Bethe, along with IBM physicist Richard Garwin and Cornell University colleague Kurt Gottfried, wrote an article in Scientific American which analyzed the system and concluded that any putative enemy could disable such a system by the use of suitable decoys that would cost a very small fraction of the SDI program.

In 1987 Teller published a book supporting civil defense and active protection systems such as SDI which was titled Better a Shield than a Sword and his views on the role of lasers in SDI were published, and are available, in two 1986-7 laser conference proceedings.

At a 1995 meeting at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in Calif., Edward Teller proposed to a collective of U.S. and Russian ex-Cold War weapons designers and space engineers the use of nuclear fusion warheads in diverting the paths of extinction event class asteroids. Edward Teller suggested the creation of an orbital platform for faster missile delivery. He further suggested the need for nuclear weapons more powerful than the Tsar Bomba for this purpose.

Teller died in Stanford, California on September 9, 2003, at the age of 95. He had suffered a stroke two days previous, and had long been suffering from a number of conditions related to his advanced age.

A wish for his 100th birthday, made around the time of his 90th, was for Lawrence Livermore’s scientists to give him “excellent predictions-calculations and experiments-about the interiors of the planets”.

In his early career, Teller made contributions to nuclear and molecular physics, spectroscopy (the Jahn–Teller and Renner–Teller effects), and surface physics. His extension of Fermi’s theory of beta decay (in the form of the so-called Gamow–Teller transitions) provided an important stepping stone in the applications of this theory. The Jahn–Teller effect and the BET theory have retained their original formulation and are still mainstays in physics and chemistry. Teller also made contributions to Thomas–Fermi theory, the precursor of density functional theory, a standard modern tool in the quantum mechanical treatment of complex molecules. In 1953, along with Nicholas Metropolis and Marshall Rosenbluth, Teller co-authored a paper which is a standard starting point for the applications of the Monte Carlo method to statistical mechanics.

Teller’s vigorous advocacy for strength through nuclear weapons, especially when so many of his wartime colleagues later expressed regret about the arms race, made him an easy target for the “mad scientist” stereotype. In 1991 he was awarded one of the first Ig Nobel Prizes for Peace in recognition of his “lifelong efforts to change the meaning of peace as we know it”. He was also rumored to be one of the inspirations for the character of Dr. Strangelove in Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 satirical film of the same name (others speculated to be RAND theorist Herman Kahn, mathematician John von Neumann, rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara). In the aforementioned Scientific American interview from 1999, he was reported as having bristled at the question: “My name is not Strangelove. I don’t know about Strangelove. I’m not interested in Strangelove. What else can I say?… Look. Say it three times more, and I throw you out of this office.” In one episode of Mission Hill (1999), a character appears to be inspired by Edward Teller. The character is very old, has pictures of himself and other scientists in his home office and is known as the father of the nuclear bomb.

Nobel Prize winning physicist Isidor I. Rabi once suggested that “It would have been a better world without Teller.” In addition, Teller’s false claims that Stanislaw Ulam made no significant contribution to the development of the hydrogen bomb (despite Ulam’s key insights of using compression and staging elements to generate the thermonuclear reaction) and his personal attacks on Oppenheimer caused great animosity towards Teller within the general physics community.

In 1986, he was awarded the United States Military Academy’s Sylvanus Thayer Award. He was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 1948. He was a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Nuclear Society. Among the honors he received were the Albert Einstein Award in 1958, the Enrico Fermi Award in 1962, the Eringen Medal in 1980, the Harvey Prize in 1975, the National Medal of Science in 1983, the Presidential Citizens Medal in 1989, and the Corvin Chain (hu) in 2001. He was also named as part of the group of “U.S. Scientists” who were Time magazine’s People of the Year in 1960, and an asteroid, 5006 Teller, is named after him. He was awarded with the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush in 2003, less than two months before his death.

His final paper, published posthumously, advocated the construction of a prototype liquid fluoride thorium reactor. The genesis and impetus for this last paper, was recounted by the co-author Ralph Moir in 2007.” Wikipedia

Before getting back to his theory about nuclear explosion having the potential to set light to earth’s atmosphere let us look at some of these bombs:

Little Boy exploded over Hiroshima with a yield of 15 kilotons of TNT (63TJ). It contained 63 kg of enriched uranium.

On 6 August 1945, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress (Enola Gay) of the 393d Bombardment Squadron, piloted by Tibbets, lifted off from North Field, and Little Boy in its bomb bay. Hiroshima, the headquarters of the 2nd General Army and Fifth Division and a port of embarkation, was the primary target of the mission, with Kokura and Nagasaki as alternatives. With Farrell’s permission, Parsons, the weaponeer in charge of the mission, completed the bomb assembly in the air to minimize the risks during takeoff. The bomb detonated at an altitude of 1,750 feet (530 m) with a blast that was later estimated to be the equivalent of 13 kilotons of TNT. An area of approximately 4.7 square miles (12 km2) was destroyed. Japanese officials determined that 69% of Hiroshima’s buildings were destroyed and another 6–7% damaged. About 70,000 to 80,000 people, of whom 20,000 were Japanese combatants and 20,000 were Korean slave laborers, or some 30% of the population of Hiroshima, were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured” Wikipedia

The next bomb was different:

“On the morning of 9 August 1945, a second B-29 (Bockscar), piloted by the 393d Bombardment Squadron’s commander, Major Charles W. Sweeney, lifted off with Fat Man on board. This time, Ashworth served as weaponeer and Kokura was the primary target. Sweeney took off with the weapon already armed but with the electrical safety plugs still engaged. When they reached Kokura, they found cloud cover had obscured the city, prohibiting the visual attack required by orders. After three runs over the city, and with fuel running low, they headed for the secondary target, Nagasaki. Ashworth decided that a radar approach would be used if the target was obscured, but a last-minute break in the clouds over Nagasaki allowed a visual approach as ordered. The Fat Man was dropped over the city’s industrial valley midway between the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works in the south and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works in the north. The resulting explosion had a blast yield equivalent to 21 kilotons of TNT, roughly the same as the Trinity blast, but was confined to the Urakami Valley, and a major portion of the city was protected by the intervening hills, resulting in the destruction of about 44% of the city. The bombing also crippled the city’s industrial production extensively and killed 23,200–28,200 Japanese industrial workers and 150 Japanese soldiers. Overall, an estimated 35,000–40,000 people were killed and 60,000 injured” Wikipedia

This was a plutonium bomb

“Fat Man was an implosion-type nuclear weapon with a solid plutonium core. The first of that type to be detonated was the Gadget, in the Trinity nuclear test, less than a month earlier on 16 July at the Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range in New Mexico. Two more Fat Man bombs were detonated during the Operation Crossroads nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll in 1946.” Wikipedia

Science had moved fast:

 

There were still many unknown factors. The properties of pure uranium-235 were relatively unknown, as were those of plutonium, an element that had only been discovered in February 1941 by Glenn Seaborg and his team. The scientists at the Berkeley conference envisioned creating plutonium in nuclear reactors where uranium-238 atoms absorbed neutrons that had been emitted from fissioning uranium-235 atoms. At this point no reactor had been built, and only tiny quantities of plutonium were available from cyclotrons. Even by December 1943, only two milligrams had been produced” Wikipedia

Around this time the theory of igniting the atmosphere first surfaced;

“Edward Teller pushed for discussion of a more powerful bomb: the “super”, now usually referred to as a “hydrogen bomb“, which would use the explosive force of a detonating fission bomb to ignite a nuclear fusion reaction in deuterium and tritium. Teller proposed scheme after scheme, but Bethe refused each one. The fusion idea was put aside to concentrate on producing fission bombs. Teller also raised the speculative possibility that an atomic bomb might “ignite” the atmosphere because of a hypothetical fusion reaction of nitrogen nuclei. Bethe calculated that it could not happen, and a report co-authored by Teller showed that “no self-propagating chain of nuclear reactions is likely to be started.” In Serber’s account, Oppenheimer mentioned it to Arthur Compton, who “didn’t have enough sense to shut up about it. It somehow got into a document that went to Washington” and was “never laid to rest”.” Wikipedia

If anyone would know about the potential for atmospheric explosion Teller would.

In fact the first nuclear test explosion was:

“At 05:30 on 16 July 1945 the gadget exploded with an energy equivalent of around 20 kilotons of TNT, leaving a crater of Trinitite (radioactive glass) in the desert 250 feet (76 m) wide. The shock wave was felt over 100 miles (160 km) away, and the mushroom cloud reached 7.5 miles (12.1 km) in height. It was heard as far away as El Paso, Texas, so Groves issued a cover story about an ammunition magazine explosion at Alamogordo Field”

So at the time that the theory of atmosphere ignition surfaced and was rebutted the yield of nuclear bombs was around 20 kilotons of TNT, not enough to cause this dread scenario. But what is the size of the modern bomb?

According to Wikipedia the USSR developed the Tsar Bomba with a yield of 50 megatons, 50,000 kilotons, 50 million tons of TNT. In its final form it was double that. The US highest yield bombs apparently were slightly smaller – 25 megatons.

So where does the scientific calculation of Mr Teller come now in our thinking? We have recently been told that the latest Russian bomb is huge. This is called Satan 11. It is said to be 40 megatons and capable of wiping out Britain twice over.

Imagine a nuclear conflict with thousands of these bombs being exploded! Is it remotely possible that our atmosphere might be ignited? According to the ancient Icelandic prophecy the giants kill each other and the world ends with what they call the fire of Surtr. Eventually some form of life returns – maybe 100,000 years later.

Lif and Lifthrasir—female and male respectively—are two humans who are foretold to survive the events of Ragnarök by hiding in a wood called Hoddmímis holt, and after the flames have abated, to repopulate the newly risen and fertile world. Líf and Lífþrasir are mentioned in the Poetic Edda, compiled in the thirteenth century from earlier traditional sources, and the Prose Edda, written in the 13th century by Snorri Sturluson. Scholarly theories have been proposed about the underlying meaning and origins of the two names.” Wikipedia

The names mean life and love of life. They do not mean ‘human’.

There are many scenarios we could fear. Global warming (on which teller changed his mind for some reason), an asteroid strike (which he worked on), disease, pollution and biological or nuclear war (which he worked on – we might wish he had found an answer to decommissioning nuclear waste however which is another ‘fire‘ risk) . Some could set us on fire as described above. Let is look at that scientific calculation that almost stopped nuclear weapons being created.

Bear in mind that just one uranium mine, not the biggest, can produce over 100 million tons of radioactive slag that needs to be disposed of safely. Our World Nuclear body considers it safer than granite which emit’s the carcinogenic radon gas in places like Cornwall where there is much of it in the bedrock underhouses. But some do not agree:

“To produce the 25 tonnes or so of uranium fuel needed to keep your average reactor going for a year entails the extraction of half a million tonnes of waste rock and over 100,000 tonnes of mill tailings. These are toxic for hundreds of thousands of years…..To supply even a fraction of the power stations the industry expects to be online worldwide in 2020 would mean generating 50 million tonnes of toxic radioactive residues every single year. These tailings contain uranium, thorium, radium, polonium, and emit radon-222.……”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/05/nuclear-greenpolitics

But back to that atmosphere calculation of Mr Teller. We are not going to get to the bottom of this easily. Conspiracy theorists have a field day with it, nuclear and defence authorities issue stern denials. Here is an article that includes an interview with one of the men involved – well worth a look and here you will see how ‘unlikely’ it is. I include an extract:

Horgan: I wonder if you could tell me a little bit about the story of Teller’s suggestion that the atomic bomb might ignite the atmosphere around the Earth.

Bethe: It is such absolute nonsense [laughter], and the public has been interested in it… And possibly it would be good to kill it once more. So one day at Berkeley — we were a very small group, maybe eight physicists or so — one day Teller came to the office and said, “Well, what would happen to the air if an atomic bomb were exploded in the air?” The original idea about the hydrogen bomb was that one would explode an atomic bomb and then simply the heat from the atomic bomb would ignite a large vessel of deuterium… and make it react. So Teller said, “Well, how about the air? There’s nitrogen in the air, and you can have a nuclear reaction in which two nitrogen nuclei collide and become oxygen plus carbon, and in this process you set free a lot of energy. Couldn’t that happen?” And that caused great excitement.

Horgan: This is in ‘42?

Bethe: ’42. Oppenheimer [soon to be appointed head of Los Alamos Laboratory] got quite excited and said, “That’s a terrible possibility,” and he went to his superior, who was Arthur Compton, the director of the Chicago Laboratory, and told him that. Well, I sat down and looked at the problem, about whether two nitrogen nuclei could penetrate each other and make that nuclear reaction, and I found that it was just incredibly unlikely……………”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/bethe-teller-trinity-and-the-end-of-earth/

Not unlikely enough when there are multiple vast nuclear reactions happening at the same time above our heads. But for the enlightened we also note that that prophecy and many others – they all tell us something like this will happen. And the brutal fact is that the earth is littered with nuclear reactors past their sell by dates, storage facilities creaking under their dangerous loads, no agreed technologies to deal with the problem let alone funding, pools of water in the UK and France in which sit huge amounts of radioactive fuel which would combust immediately outside that pool and kill so many people around the planet from the resulting fire. Chernobyl for example resulted in radioactive water in the US http://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/08/05/Oregon-bills-Kremlin-for-Chernobyl-fallout/5955523598400/

radioactive sheep in Wales and countless deaths that are deliberately not linked to the disaster. 800,000 men and women were rallied to deal with the disaster, people whose shifts were only around 5 minutes before the exposure was too great. Many no longer alive to tell us about this one small accident. Why did we need this dangerous power? Possibly to gather the fuel for our nuclear warheads although that will always be denied. The real expense of nuclear electricity is so vast we could never afford it. Recycled energy is so cheap, free by comparison, but still they build more reactors and hold up investment in the recycled sectors (wind and solar panels). But they subsidise the nuclear industry and build more and more power stations, in some case to never tried designs. The result:

14,900 nuclear warheads that could destroy our world many times over. Some in the hands of unstable countries. In a world where our major nuclear powers are driving towards an ultimate war. And sadly that is what the war gods do, that is their nature. We sheep seem incapable of preventing our cataclysm.

An article that debunks the atmosphere ignition theory using science can be found here:

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/chung1/

One of the pillars of this ‘impossibility’ is that as the explosion or ignition spreads outwards it will run out of energy and no longer be able to keep the chain reaction going. Tell that to the science that underpins the burning of paper.

But the other worry was igniting the oceans. Again this is deemed impossible. How could the temperature and pressure be created by a nuclear explosion to allow this? However when we look at a 1.5volt battery separating water into oxygen and hydrogen we may not be so impressed with this science either. I recall my chemistry teacher in 1965 igniting oxygen and hydrogen in a big bang leaving a residue of water. This he told us is how water was created and the constituents – two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen one are a particularly explosive mixture requiring only a tiny spark, no great heat or pressure. Now consider the spark as some 50 million tons of TNT. Where you might ask is the electricity?

“At the explosion of nuclear bombs lightning discharges sometimes occur” Wikipedia

“An average bolt of negative lightning carries an electric current of 30,000 amperes (30 kA), and transfers 15 coulombs of electric charge and 500 megajoules of energy. Large bolts of lightning can carry up to 120 kA and 350 coulombs” Wikipedia

Not exactly a 1.5Volt battery is it?

This is of course fake news and junk science. No one is that irresponsible. But we might consider that wonderful spacecraft Cassini which we are about to send on a death plunge into Saturn. When we launched Cassini by a rocket it carried 33kg of plutonium-238 (far more potent than nuclear bomb plutonium- 237)

“Then early in 1964 Mound scientists developed a different method of fabricating the weapon component that resulted in a production efficiency of around 98%. This made available the excess Savannah River Pu-238 production for Space Electric Power use just in time to meet the needs of the SNAP-27 RTG on the moon, the Pioneer spacecraft, the Viking Mars Landers, more Transit Navy navigation satellites (precursor to today’s GPS) and Voyager spacecraft, all of the Pu-238 heat sources for which were fabricated at Mound” Wikipedia

This mass of plutonium powers the small electric motor on Cassini. It has a half life of around 90 years. There is a lot of the stuff up there powering satellites etc. The problem was getting it up there safely. Had the rocket crashed or exploded after launch as was quite possible Cassini had enough plutonium to give lung cancer to half the planet so they say. One invisible particle of this plutonium can kill you.

Consider this:

“With Plutonium-238 becoming available for non-military uses, numerous applications were proposed and tested, including the Cardiac Pacemaker program that began on June 1, 1966, in conjunction with NUMEC. When it was recognized that the heat source would not remain intact through cremation, the program was cancelled because 100% assurance could not be guaranteed that a cremation event would not occur.” Wikipedia

Well a cremation event of 33kg of the stuff in our atmosphere, coming down with rain and dust is a lot worse. Why did they take the risk? This is the real question.

“Plutonium-238 is given the highest relative hazard number (152) of all 256 radionuclides evaluated by Karl Z. Morgan, et al, in 1963” Wikipedia

Why do these people take such enormous risks with our planet? There is a

 

 

5.8% chance of a space bound rocket failing which is to say that at least 1 in 20 do. If we had a major war what would happen to the world’s nuclear power stations? To our decommissioning/reprocessing sites? Would anyone be alive to worry about them?

What was safe 60 years ago, 20 years ago is not the point any more. Governments are not devoting sufficient resources to cleaning up the mess we have created. These are not matters we can brush under the carpet. They are boomerangs we threw which are on their way back and can hit us. Men like Teller were responding to what they knew of the world, a world where his homeland Hungary saw its Jews and Gypsies exterminated by the Nazis and which was then taken over by the USSR. He saw the creation of a safe haven in Israel after seeing so many relatives and friends killed. His nuclear bombs have in some ways protected us all since then. But now nuclear armed nations are threatening each other and not with the comparatively puny bombs that were dropped on Japan. Even if there is only a remote possibility of destroying the earth we can no longer take risks. Each risk we take is making our extinction more likely. And this is what the war between the spirits and the living is about. The spirits and watchers from our universe are furious with humanity which is poised to destroy a beautiful and extremely rare planet, one in which humans have existed for the blink of a universal eye – less than 1 million years, less that 6000 years since we first wrote, less that 100 years since we evolved into nuclear wielding gangsters. We are not worth protecting if we do not deal with this but no politicians will be campaigning for this in the forthcoming elections. No vast budgets will be devoted to a clean up. No nuclear disarmament is around the corner. Is it?

 

The Clairvoyant & Enlightened Times

Issue 11 – 4 May 2017 – 2017

Today we are looking at human nature. We must bear in mind that we have an animal nature but in our world we humans consist of carnivores and vegetarians just as the animal kingdom does. So first here is an article that is worth looking at on the vegetarian side:

“World history of vegetarianism

Antiquity

Far from being a relatively new phenomenon, vegetarianism has enjoyed a long and diverse history and has been preserved in most cultures since the beginnings of time.

In antiquity, vegetarianism found favour with some of the great figures of the classical world, most notably Pythagoras (580 BCE). Well known for his contributions to mathematics, Pythagoras was an independent thinker, the first to admit women to his intellectual circle on equal terms and to argue that the world was a sphere. His teaching that all animals should be treated as kindred included the abstinence from meat. Pythagoras’s ideas mirrored, in part, the traditions of much earlier civilisations including the Babylonians and ancient Egyptians. A vegetarian ideology was practised among religious groups in Egypt around 3,200BCE, with abstinence from flesh and the wearing of animal derived clothing based upon karmic beliefs in reincarnation.

In the Greek tradition of Pythagoras, it was not only the avoidance of animal cruelty that established vegetarianism as a way of life, he also saw the health advantages of a meat-free diet. Pythagoras viewed vegetarianism as a key factor in peaceful human co-existence, putting forward the view that slaughtering animals brutalised the human soul. Other notable Ancient Greek thinkers that came after Pythagoras favoured a vegetarian diet. These included Theophrastus, pupil of Aristotle and successor to him as head of the Lyceum at Athens. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all debated the status of animals though Aristotle’s conclusion that the animal kingdom exists for human use (and in his view, as equal to slaves) prefigured the view of the Romans and the Christian church that was to become the dominant view in the west.

Pythagorean ideals found very limited sympathy within the brutality of Ancient Rome, where many wild animals were murdered at the hands of gladiators in the name of sport and spectacle. Pythagoreans were despised as subversives, with many keeping their vegetarianism to themselves for fear of persecution. However, the term ‘Pythagorean’ was to become synonymous with ‘vegetarian’ and vegetarianism was to spread throughout the Roman Empire from the 3rd to 6th centuries among those influenced by Neo-Platonist philosophy. Such authors included Plutarch (c.CE46) whose 16 volume work Moralia includes the ‘Essay on Flesh Eating’ , Porphyry (c.CE232) who wrote ‘On Abstinence From Animal Food’ and Apollonius who was a well travelled healer and strict vegetarian who spoke out against deliberately imposed grain restrictions.

Eastern religions

In Asia, abstention from meat was central to such early religious philosophies as Hinduism, Brahinanism, Zoroasterianism and Jainism. Vegetarianism was encouraged in the ancient verses of the ‘Upanishads’ and also mentioned in ‘Rig Veda’ — the most sacred of ancient Hindu texts. Pivotal to such religions were doctrines of non-violence and respect for all life forms.

Vegetarianism has always been central to Buddhism, which enshrines compassion to all living creatures. Buddha and Pythagoras were almost exact contemporaries and it is possible that the Greek thinker was influenced by Indian mystical teachings. The Indian king Asoka (who reigned between 264~232 BC) converted to Buddhism, shocked by the horrors of battle. Animal sacrifices were ended as his kingdom became vegetarian.

https://www.vegsoc.org/page.aspx?pid=830

Next here is a list of prominent vegetarians. I have taken most of our celebrities out of it but left some that I find interesting for one reason or another.

 

 

 

Alan Watts – philosopher, theologian

Vegetarian

Albert Einstein – Scientist

Vegetarian

Albert Schweitzer – theologian, philosopher, and physician

Vegetarian

Aristotle – Greek philosopher

Vegetarian

Benjamin Franklin – writer, politician, scientist, electricty

Rumoured (vegetarian)

Bill Clinton – Former President

Vegetarian

Buddha – Indian saint, spiritual master, and realized being

Vegetarian

Diogenes – Greek philosopher

Vegetarian

Epicurus – Greek philosopher

Vegetarian

Gandhi – Hindu spiritual leader

Vegetarian

George Harrison – musician of Beatles, lead guitarist

Vegetarian

George Bernard Shaw – writer

Vegetarian

Isaac Newton – physicist and mathematician

Vegetarian

Isaac Bashevis Singer – Nobel Prize winner

Vegetarian

Jean-Jacques Rousseau – philosopher, writer, French Illuminist

Vegetarian

Jiddu Krishnamurti – spiritual teacher Eastern Indian

Vegetarian

Joan Baez – singer and musician – folk music

Vegetarian

John Lennon – singer and songwriter of The Beatles

Vegetarian

Leo Tolstoy – Russian writer and philosopher

Vegetarian

Leonard Cohen – singer and songwriter

Vegetarian

Leonardo Da Vinci – Renaissance painter and inventor

Vegetarian

Lord Byron – writer and romantic poet

Vegetarian

Mary Shelley – author – novelist

Vegetarian

Nikola Tesla – Serb inventor, physicist, and engineer

Vegetarian

Paul McCartney – musician from Beatles & songwriter

Vegetarian

Percy Bysshe Shelley – poet and writer

Vegetarian

Plato – Greek philosopher

Vegetarian

Plutarch – Greek historian, writer, and thinker

Vegetarian

Porphyry – Greek philosopher

Vegetarian

Pythagoras of Samos – Greek philosopher/mathematician

Vegetarian

Ralph Waldo Emerson – writer and poet – American

Vegetarian

Ringo Starr – musician and drummer of Beatles

Vegetarian

Sean Lennon – musician and son of John Lennon

Vegetarian

Socrates – Greek philosopher -Know thyself to be true

Vegetarian

Stella McCartney – fashion designer and daughter of Paul

Vegetarian

Steven Jobs – Apple Computers

Rumored

Thomas Alva Edison – inventor

Vegetarian

Voltaire – writer and philosopher

Vegetarian

Yoko Ono – artist and wife of Beatles John Lennon

Vegetarian

Extracted from https://www.happycow.net/vegtopics/famous?page=12

 

 

I remember vividly (sadly) a visit to the Bull Ring in Barcelona in 1967 and that hideous spectacle changed me dramatically. It also made me realise how different humans are. I have the same feeling about all hunting and shooting, even fishing. Many vegetarians do. Within our species are sheep like me and wolves. I have relatives who cannot stand any meal that does not include meat and others who have not touched it for over 40 years.

One thing that many vegetarians like me have encountered is how meat eaters can eat with us quite happily. They may even enjoy our meat free food. India has a vast vegetarian population and wonderful vegetarian food for example. However we cannot stand to eat meat. The compromise if there is one tends to be one way. Humans are vehicles and whether you like the idea or not spirits can inhabit us. And here is the problem for them.

Generations of enlightened beings have come from the vegetarian societies in India – Hindus and Buddhists. They do not like eating meat even when inhabiting us and will choose vegetarians to stay with. That may partly explain why so many inspired people have been on this side of the divide. Our ‘inspiration’ often comes from spirits who delight in using us to continue their work.

Here is an article on bear baiting. I do wish this dreadful ‘sport’ would cease and that our politicians did not also delight in baiting the Bear:

“Bear-baiting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bear-baiting is a blood sport involving the worrying or tormenting (baiting) of bears. It may involve pitting a bear against another animal.

Bear-baiting was popular in England until the 19th century. From the sixteenth century, many bears were maintained for baiting. In its best-known form, arenas for this purpose were called bear-gardens, consisting of a circular high fenced area, the “pit“, and raised seating for spectators. A post would be set in the ground towards the edge of the pit and the bear chained to it, either by the leg or neck. A number of well-trained fighting or baiting dogs, usually Old English Bulldog, would then be set on it, being replaced as they got tired or were wounded or killed. In some cases the bear was let loose, allowing it to chase after animals or people. For a long time, the main bear-garden in London was the Paris Garden, that section of the Bankside lying to the west of The Clink, at Southwark.

Henry VIII was a fan and had a pit constructed at Whitehall. Elizabeth I was also fond of the entertainment; it featured regularly in her tours. When an attempt was made to ban bear-baiting on Sundays, she overruled Parliament. Robert Laneham‘s letter describes the spectacle presented by Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester at Kenilworth Castle in 1575:

Thursday, the fourteenth of July, and the sixth day of her Majesty’s coming, a great sort of bandogs [mastiff] were then tied in the outer court and thirteen bears in the inner . . .

Well, the bears were brought forth into the court, the dogs set to them, to argue the points even face to face. They had learned counsel also on both parts, what may they be counted partial that are retained but to one side? I know not. Very fierce, both one and the other, and eager in argument. If the dog in pleading would pluck the bear by the throat, the bear with traverse would claw him again by the scalp, confess and a list, but avoid it could not that was bound to the bar, and his counsel told him that it could be to him no policy in pleading.

Therefore, with fending & proving, with plucking and tugging, scratching and biting, by plain tooth and nail on one side and the other, such expense of blood and leather [skin] was there between them, as a months licking (I think) will not recover, and yet remain as far out as ever they were.

It was a very pleasant sport, of these beasts, to see the bear with his pink eyes leering after his enemies approach, the nimbleness and wayt [wait] of the dog to take his advantage, and the force and experience of the bear again to avoid the assaults. If he were bitten in one place, how he would pinch in another to get free, that if he were taken once, then what shift, with biting, with clawing, with roaring, tossing and tumbling, he would work to wind himself free from them. And when he was loose, to shake his ears twice or thrice with the blood and the slather about his physiognomy, was a matter of goodly relief.

A painting of about 1650 by Abraham Hondius of a bear-baiting.

Variations involved other animals being baited, especially bulls. Bull-baiting was a contest which was similar to bear baiting in which the bull was chained to a stake by one hind leg or by the neck and worried by dogs. The whipping of a blinded bear was another variation of bear-baiting. Also, on one curious occasion, a pony with an ape tied to its back was baited; a spectator described that “…with the screaming of the ape, beholding the curs hanging from the ears and neck of the pony, is very laughable”.

Action

Attempts to end the entertainment were first made in England by the Puritans, with little effect. The deaths of a number of spectators, when a stand collapsed at the Paris Gardens on 12 January 1583, was viewed by early Puritans as a sign of God’s anger, though not primarily because of the cruelty but because the bear-baiting was taking place on a Sunday.

One bear named Sackerson was written into in a Shakespearean comedy The Merry Wives of Windsor. By the late 17th century “the conscience of cultivated people seems to have been touched”, but it was not until 1835 that baiting was prohibited by Parliament by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835. The ban was soon extended across the Empire.

India

Main article: Atlas the Barbary lion versus the Bengal tiger of Simla

In India, towards the end of the 19th century, the Gaekwad of Baroda arranged a fight between a Barbary lion and Bengal tiger, to determine whether the lion or tiger should be called the “King of the Cat Family.” The victor then had to face a Sierran Grizzly bear weighing over 1,500.0 lb (680.4 kilograms), after the Gaekwad was told that the cat was not the “King of Carnivorae.”

Pakistan

Bear baiting has been occurring in the Punjab and Sindh provinces of Pakistan, since 2004. The events are organized predominantly by local gangsters who own the fighting dogs.

During the event the bear will be tethered to a rope 2–5 metres long in the centre of an arena to prevent escape. Bears’ canine teeth are often removed and their claws may be filed down giving them less advantage over the dogs. Each fight lasts around three minutes. If the dogs pull the bear to the ground they are said to win the fight. Bears usually have to undergo several fights during each day’s event.

Bears are illegally sourced by poaching. Asiatic black bears and brown bears are known to be poached in Pakistan and used in bear baiting. Asiatic black bears are listed as vulnerable on the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN’s) Red List of Threatened Animals. The capture of bear cubs is prohibited across three provinces of Pakistan by: the North West Frontier Province Conservation and Management Act (1975); the Punjab Wildlife Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management Act (1974); and the Sindh Wildlife Protection Ordinance (1972).

Action

Bear baiting was banned in Pakistan by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (1890). Pakistan’s wildlife authorities are working with animal welfare groups to eradicate the events, with some success.

Baiting animals is outlawed in Islam. The Bioresource Research Centre, a Pakistani wildlife group working to end bear baiting, uses this to encourage mosques in areas where baiting occurs to add an anti-cruelty message to their Friday Khutbah (Arabic: خُـطـبـة‎‎, Sermon).

Kund Park Sanctuary was opened in 2000 by World Animal Protection to provide a home for bears confiscated by the wildlife authorities and NGOs working to eradicate bear baiting in Pakistan. However, during the 2010 Pakistan floods Kund Park was destroyed and all but three of the 23 bears there died. The survivors were moved to a newly constructed sanctuary in Balkasar Bear Sanctuary.

North America

Mexico

Author Washington Irving describes vaqueros setting a bear against a bull in his 1837 book The Adventures of Captain Bonneville. In this “favorite, though barbarous sport” in Monterey, a bear and a bull would be caught from the wild and put together in an arena in a fight to the death.

The United States of America

Bear baiting is currently only known to occur publicly in South Carolina. Public bear baiting competitions are held in Spartanburg, Hickory Grove, and Travelers Rest Backyard events are reportedly held throughout the rural areas of northwest South Carolina during much of the year.

In the 19th Century and during Spanish Colonial rule, fights had been organized in California, which had brown bear of its own. In a case of the bear winning, the bear would use its teeth to catch a bull between its horns, on its nose, which would allow the bear to move its head enough to twist its neck, or bite a part of the bull’s body, like the tongue, or use its paws to catch or harm the bull, like in squeezing its neck, or catching its tongue.

Other uses

The term “bear baiting” may be also used for the hunting practice of luring a bear with bait to an arranged killing spot. The hunter places an amount of food, such as raw meat or sweets, every day at a given spot until the hunter notices the food is being taken each day, accompanied by bear tracks. He then chooses a day to await the bear, killing it when it arrives to feed. Such bear baiting is legal in many states in the United States, with the Humane Society reporting that:

Bear baiting is banned in 18 of the 28 states that allow bear hunting. It persists… in Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. For instance, in Wisconsin in 2002, hunters killed 2,415 bears; those using bait accounted for 1,720 of the kills. In Maine, hunters killed 3,903 bears in 2001, and baiters took 3,173 of the animals.”

Wikipedia

I am not saying that vegetarians are ‘good’ and carnivores ‘bad’. For many years the anti-vegetarian lobby have delighted in telling us that Hitler was a vegetarian. In fact there is evidence that he was not as he often age sausage but there is some truth here. The Nazi leaders were fascinated by the occult and derived much of their information from places like Tibet and India where so many are vegetarian. It is chilling that an organisation that had so little regard for human rights in fact promoted animal rights. It is almost incomprehensible but it seems that animals meant more to many of them than people. I would point out that occultists are fairly evenly balanced between god’ and ‘bad’. But for the enlightened the question is whether and how a vegetarian diet empowers the mind and spirit. This is something we must all experience for ourselves. Many I have known have wanted enlightenment for the most peculiar and sometimes awful reasons. Personal power over others is common as a reason for going down this path. Sexual abuse is very common in gurus.

But what I also want to point out is that those Ancient Egyptians who abstained from meat for the duration of their service in the temples did so for a practical reason. It enhanced their spiritual powers, their ability to incubate dreams for example. Quite why the grazing side of the human is more spiritual than that carnivorous side is hard to determine but it is. We all need to find that ourselves. My main interest is in the spiritual, however were I different and had my main interest in say fighting or competing I might have chosen a meaty diet.

For any interested here is a link to that article on animal rights in Nazi Germany. It may explain how the occult has been ‘used’ for the most nefarious purposes in our history. It is very foolish to try this and history should be teaching us that lesson.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201111/was-hitler-vegetarian-the-paradox-the-nazi-animal-protection-movement

This is what Wikipedia say. I include this to ensure that I am not giving a biased view. Enlightenment means having our eyes open to reality, uncomfortable or not.

“Towards the end of his life Adolf Hitler followed a vegetarian diet. It is not clear when he adopted it, since some accounts of his dietary habits prior to the Second World War indicate that he consumed meat as late as 1937. By 1938, Hitler’s public image as a vegetarian was already being fostered and from 1942 he self-identified as a vegetarian. Personal accounts from people who knew Hitler and were familiar with his diet indicate that he did not consume meat as part of his diet during this period, with several contemporaneous witnesses—such as Albert Speer (in his memoirs, Inside the Third Reich)—noting that Hitler used vivid and gruesome descriptions of animal suffering and slaughter at the dinner table to try to dissuade his colleagues from eating meat.

Some modern day analysis has theorized that Hitler’s vegetarianism may have been due to Richard Wagner‘s historical theories, or even a psychological reaction to his niece’s death rather than a commitment to animal welfare, but these theories are contradicted by reports that he was often distressed by images of animal cruelty and suffering, as well as being an antivivisectionist…..” Wikipedia

Here was a man who had no regard for humanity and who allowed vivisection on humans. My feeling is that something much more sinister lay behind this and that he hid it behind a supposed care for animals and their rights. Choosing whether to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is up to each of us. There are many incentives, lures and bribes. It is also up to us whether we kill animals for pleasure or food and whether we eat them. This is a huge industry which goes to great lengths to make huge profits from our choice. I know that a trip to the local abattoir would horrify almost everyone. There are some things in life we do not wish to know but if it is our aim to open our eyes then we must know them. Those farmers who kill their own animals for food and those communities where that happens, at least have their eyes open to any suffering they cause. Most of us do not and the karmic effect of that will hit us much harder when we die. It is a fact that on organic farms animals tend to be treated very much better. So many animals now endure their short lives in small cages or crates and never see the light of day let alone experience any kind of freedom. It can never be justified solely to put cheap food on your table and profit in someone’s bank account.