|
Home > Related Articles > Spiritweb Michael Spiritweb
Michael List
THE POSTS:
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 01:07:20 -0600 (MDT) On 11 Aug 1997, Aida Rodriguez-Parnas wrote:
Ack.... and a quick note from the Right Use of Willer: that detached state is responsible for all of the problems in the Feel free to disagree, it's just my view... Love, Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 01:39:35 -0600
(MDT) On 11 Aug 1997, Lori Tostado wrote:
Yes, I did. Let me say up front that I suffer from terrible suicidal ideation and depression. It comes and goes but is always around, and Michael couldn't help with it (we tried) and Shepherd tried to me with it, and whatever relief I found was temporary at best. I've since realized that this is part of my path, that I am healing through depression. Suicide is a escape for me, a way to run away... even though I know it would be short lived and I'd have to come back again... I've tried medication, BTW, and therapy is crap (don't get me started, I have HUGE issues with the mental health industry...) Currently, I'm unable to work, and am lucky enough to have brothers and other family who support me... Some days are fine, many are dark and painful. I cope on a day to day basis though, and I do feel healing occur after the dark stuff is felt into. Depression is my way of tapping that huge store of long held emotions, and it's a pretty full closet of pain for me.
This whole thing is the essence of RUOW, Lori. The details are important too, and sometimes it's the subtle judgements that slip in that are the problem, but overall, sounds good to me.
Well, I can see and agree with you, and so does RUOW, that moving everything in someone's else presence isn't always good. There must be space for it to be received or it can be harmful to yourself or others.. Good luck on the judgement release... that is another crucial element of RUOW. God recommends using statements like "I forgive myself for beleiving for so long that....emotions were bad or good." etc...
Darn close. Let me clarify by saying that Spirit (soul/essence) can pull out but Body and Will (body and emotions) stay behind.. and pull us back. Spirit is able to leave for a time, but Body and Will stay and suffer through death, and eventually, Spirit is forced to come back again... magnetically pulled here...
Like I said, This is one aspect of Michael that I think is cosmic "after the fact" supposition. What if parts of us ARE trapped and the 'higher' parts feel this pull and tell themselves it's by choice, it's just a game... etc? There are people who feel trapped, heck, I beleive I chose to be here and STILL feel trapped.
Right, you weren't going to be able to leave, until you liked it here. In other words, enjoy the prison, cause we can't break you free of the ball and chain. :) The whole ascension movement of 'moving toward light beings' smacks of body denial and Spirit once again leaving what it doesn't like behind and going to a 'higher' plane...
I hope so too. The survival chakra is the only that has kept me alive so far, cause I'm not able to override it... In fact, just discovered today the new RUOW book (number 7) coming out in the next month or so, is called "Imprinting: A Survival Manual for the Healing of the Chakras" Looking forward to it.... Love, Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 11:23:19 +0200 Hi there from South Africa, My name is Gay and I have been involved with the Michael Information since way back in 1979. However I have been truly committed to the Michael Group since November 1995 when I started getting together the Michael information, to teach, channel and present the information to the public at large. (Would you then guess that I am a 7th level old Sage in the mode of Passion with a goal of Growth?) If you would like to visit my web-site which deals with the Michael information in a rather light-hearted way then try: http://www.icon.co.za/~entrance/ You can also see how Michael arrived in South Africa - officially!! We have three groups studying the Michael material at present - all at my home!! I research all 21 books on the Michael teachings and do a computer presentation which highlights the information as viewed from all the different channels aspects and then we as a group, make the knowledge practical by putting in our own comments from a South Africa viewpoint. For example at one stage we might divide up into roles and find out what has been previously channelled about each role. Then we see how that information applies to us in particular. Perhaps we might discover that certain facts pertain more to us as we were growing up than now. However, each role then has a spokes-person who "presents" the qualities of that role to the rest of the group. We then get valuable insights on how that role likes to be treated or how we can get the best out of a particular role from this information. We really enjoy our Michael Meetings and after the presentation and tea we then get down to channeling Michael in person. At present I am the only one who brings them through but we are looking for back-up channels or those that feel committed enough to go further. Each computer presentations has three levels: First for those who haven't read a Michael book but have been dragged along by a friend! Second for those who need a little support now they have read a book or two and are a little swamped with the information. Third for those who really need to get their minds into overdrive in order to deal with the more complex ideas of Michael. This is why I have replied to you Seth. You wrote:
Shepherd was my first real contact with the different Michael channels and I did some work at a distance, on his Cat Agape - he too kindly acknowledged my help in a letter to all his friends, as a clairvoyant from South Africa. I used to be BIG into Michael Math, and if anyone has any questions about, I'm probably a good person to ask. This is where we really need the help. I have recently joined the list but caught the tail end of the discussion of Kenneth Broom and Lori Tostada on Cosmology. I too am slightly confused. Each entity can be made up of between 800 - 1500 essences. Each Greater Cadence is made up of 49 essences. For easy maths sake, lets say 50. Therefore each Entity must contain between 16 and 30 Greater Cadences. However, at present I am only channelling Greater Cadences 1 - 7. Where on earth are the rest? And like Kenneth and Lori mentioned, with 6 billion people on earth we should be seeing at least just under 1,000 Cadres of 7,000 Entities but we are only coming up with about 25 Cadres. Where are the rest of the Cadres - or more to the point are the Cadres we are picking up the ones containing those who are active in some way where the others aren't? Any comments on this aspect would really be appreciated from any list member who has insight where I am lacking. Ciao, Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 04:18:59 -0600
(MDT) On 11 Aug 1997, V.G. Avice du Buisson wrote:
Would NEVER have guessed (wink wink) The way you've organized the whole thing, I'd guess Sage, sounds almost theater like....
Agape, his cat, is a sweetheart. (pronunced A-gah-pee, not a-ga-pay) Little cute thing... Been a long time since I saw it's ugly little mug.
You know about the archive on the website right? You can catch the missing stuff there...
That's not quite true... remember everything is 7's BUT everything isn't 7s all the time. I used to wonder this and I asked a long time back and basically as I remember the answer, (don't quote me), that higher cadences were there, but 'looped' back, in other words, think octave: 12345671234567 etc... the exact number is getable but the michaelmath effects aren't very strong at that point, because most 'octaves' are unfilled. In other words, Being in the 3rd of an incomplete group of 7 isn't nearly as much 3rd as being in complete group of 7, and most entitys aren't a full 7 by 7 by 7 by 7 etc... setup. The octaves aren't 100% at the top, so they don't have much real effect. so maybe the 'real' number is 10, but you might get 3rd greater... this also accounts for some of the overlap that different channels get when they channel the same numbers for 2 people: they are both sorta right, but are missing the exact answer... the different flavor between the 'true' 3rd and the 10th/fake 3rd would be subtle... because the 10th would be 3rd but slightly more ordinal.
The Michael Answer: Those cadres who are 'active' in the world (both as michael students, and as movers and shakers) tend to fall into a smaller group of cadres based on overall 'cycle experience' and agreements to be 'in charge' of the planet... (this is all from memory, and it's been a while, so if someone can validate this, please do...) My own perspective is a bit different, because I believe in massive fragmentation,and think that many of the people on Earth today aren't real. They are fragmented bits of essence caused over time, and they aren't 'full' people, just mirror reflections. So Michael picks up on the real people's 'position' and sees that, and strangely enough, they all tend to fall into the first 'chunk' of cadres, because all 'real' people fall into that. so 25 cadres * 7 entities * 8-1500 essences = 150,000 to 250,000 essences... and all the rest of the 'people' we see are fragments of fragments so to speak. Like I said, that's MY view... YMMV (Your mileage may vary) Love, Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 09:47:13 -0400
(EDT) In a message dated 8/10/97 1:44:54 PM, you wrote:
Could you elaborate? Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 01:00:53 +0800 Seth; Thank you for your prompt reply to my post - one post and already I've got much to think about. My Sage wife also was amused by (probably your refreshingly blunt tone) and in agreement with your reply. I suppose I was playing up the humour using my CF of self-deprecation when I wanted the removal of the Emotional Centre. Lighten up, guys (you too, Kenneth) - humour is not illegal yet, paltry though the effort was. From my own experience to this point (33 years into this incarnation), it seems that Scholars and the emotional centre make a painful combination - Sagey partner made the supposition that perhaps we Scholars aren't able to cope with the emotional centre until the old soul cycle. She had this idea that leaving the dealing with "that" centre until the old soul cycle makes it that much harder to deal with because we have little experience of it until then. I don't know if that's entirely accurate, but it does have a certain resonance to it. Certainly feels that way...... Okay, Seth - I'll jump into the fire; "stillness isn't necessarily the answer. Flow is." How do you slip into that flow? Crying and screaming, move your body - the latter has worked on rare occasions but it always ends there - I'm still blocked after - and the dissonance within builds.....Cycling, surfing, guitar playing, reading, writing, a walk in bushland, karate, doing dishes, housework, doing nothing, working in the garden, chopping the wood, study - all of these, either singly or various combinations thereof, used to work but nothing does now - and the dissonance builds.....My partner has run out of ideas, and so have I.....She has always been one for flowing (she does it brilliantly), and I admire that deeply - I try to pick up clues and insights as to how she does it and how I can adapt it for myself - no such luck. So I look for stillness, in the hope that the flow will come gently from stillness (still waters run deep, etc.)....And still the dissonance within builds..... There must be a way - something I haven't seen, something that I'm missing - Sonny PS - Kenneth; thanks for your contribution too - right after I read your reply, I geniusly hit 'delete' instead of 'save as'..... Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:12:53 -0600
(MDT) anther misdirected post. Forwarded to the list. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To list Members - Greetings, I hope my attempt to send to the List as well as reaching Seth is effective this time. I have resent my previous email which I think only went to Seth. As a Sage, I like to try and do it myself and making the mistakes is all part of the learning process. Here's Arrogance sliding into Self Dep!! COMMENT TO: Seth, you are an absolute star for replying so quickly - and I had to reply immediately!!!! What a welcome to a list. Seth commented: My reply: Thank you for this - I did not know and I am not sure if the address to find it on would be http://www.spiritweb.org/michael-teachings/ I am very new to this list thing and am just trying to find out how to do it without causing too many ructions! I originally talked about the entity makeup: Seth wrote: Gay wrote: Seth wrote: My other question was: Seth wrote: My own perspective is a bit different, because I believe in massive fragmentation,and think that many of the people on Earth today aren't real. They are fragmented bits of essence caused over time, and they aren't 'full' people, just mirror reflections. Gay wrote: Seth: Gay: What I am seeing in South Africa, channeling charts of the students of our Michael group and their families is that there seems to be some who group together in similar Cadres and Entities where others are the inspirational light all on their own. Sort of like paving the way for others to follow. Love, Your help has been just what I needed - thanks for the time you took to help and I wonder if anyone else has any comments. Much love, Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:20:49 -0600
(MDT) On Mon, 11 Aug 1997 Owowoski@aol.com wrote:
I could go on for a long time on it, and barely scratch the surface. This idea is crucial to the concepts of Right Use of Will. The Gap is the Gap between Spirit and Will, Male and Female, Mind and Body, and almost every other split you can find. It is full of the denied emotions of the universe, and has been there from the start, and it is only now being healed and felt into. Before now, it has twisted everything that was meant to be into forms full of unlovingness and pain. It was caused when God first denied his own feelings, his own female side, because it hurt to feel it, and instead of embracing it, it was smacked into the darkness, forming a gap between them. We have all recreated this gap, because we didn't know any better, this is what God taught us was 'right' to do. I'll send you my Right Use of Will intro package I made up, which is just the online bits and pieces people have already written, stuff about the books, and the mailing list address (anyone else who wants it, email me) Love, Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 11:22:59 -0700
(PDT) Gay, welcome and to answer your queston about the archive..... (And welcome to other new members who've de-lurked--I'm sorry but I often have a hard time keeping up on my e-mail so I don't get to "welcome" everyone....:) The list archive is at: :) Love, Lori Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 11:15:37 -0700
(PDT) On 11 Aug 1997, V.G. Avice du Buisson wrote:
Lori here-- There is something else Michael channeled about concurrent lifetimes. Each essence can have up to 12 lifetimes happening at the same time (I don't know why 12 exactly, other than that is all the energy one essence has in the space/time aspect of life I was told.) I thought this also may be the same 12 fragments that Joshua David Stone speaks of in "The Complete Ascension Manual," based on the Alice Bailey material. That's my theory though. Anyway, Michael says on average, at this time in history, most essences are having 4 lifetimes concurrently. So, it's conceivable you could meet yourself out there, in another body! I know that Holly Coleman has done just that. She is 7th level old and this man she knew was her was 7th Mature I think.... Michael says concurrent lifetimes have the 'tendency' to be within one soul-age of each other. (So don't take it as a law that you couldn't have a younger soul-aged concurrent life going on, just as a likelihood.) I think it would be rather fascinating, if not even a bit narcissistic to meet someone else that was me out there, hehheh.... Well, on the spiritual level, I have a guide who is on the Angelic Realm, who says she is me (she's a Priest though, with high-feminine energy, and her energy is so intense, that I think she is also some of my current entity-mates, not just my essence--because some of my entity-mates recognize her too, maybe a cadence or something--maybe essences are "bigger" on the Angelic Realm...hmmm....), but this is another Grand Cycle of lifetimes, not so much this fragment here called Lori..... Happy finding yourself! Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 11:47:12 -0700
Good point. Also I understand Self-Dep is a favorite CNF for Old souls.
"As Far As I Know". This is a fairly well-used acronym. I'll ship you a list I have of "standard" acronyms. Also - http://www.ucc.ie/acronyms/acro.html ...and - http://digital.gemconsult.com/glossary/index.htm ...might be of use.
Throughout the Michael literature are mentions of Transcendental souls manifesting in particular people. AFAIK there are no levels to a physical incarnation.
No argument there. :^)
Um, are you saying that Sages are blabbermouths, and Scholars are rude, insensitive jerks? How can you!!! <VBG> Regards, Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 11:47:20 -0700
I would like to see them.
I found Shepherd's explanations to be reasonably clear. If you want to see complicated explanations of Michael Math, try to find _More Messages_ and take a look at Chapter 8.
Wow!
Indeed.
Hmmm. :^) Regards, Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 17:07:54 -0400 Lori and Gay, This is amazing. For a minute just before I downloaded the email below, I had just barely started touching Michael to try again to get at the truth about cadres, cadences, entities, and earth population when the words "parallel lives" popped into my mind. Then I thought "...this can't be right because that would mean there are other me's alive on this planet right this very moment." I went ahead and downloaded your posting. And... guess what? there you were saying that Michael was channelled saying the same thing. This is also very interesting because I met a lifelong lady friend, 41 years ago, when I was sixteen and she was fourteen. We sometimes go out together, but we have never actually dated and had a sexual relationship. We tried, but we couldn't make it work. She's an old warrior with a goal of growth and I am an old scholar/idealist with a goal of acceptance. It's no wonder that we cannot sustain a sexual relationship although in other deeper ways we have never been closer. I have described our relationship to myself as me feeling like I'm in love with myself. At the time that I had that thought I felt that this was really crazy and didn't think about any more. Now maybe that is what the truth is. Peace and Light to You and Yours, Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 18:07:29 -0400 John Rogers I really enjoyed your post. Thank you for de-lurking. :) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 18:16:46 -0400 Seth Cohn wrote:
Thanks, I'll do it with a long post warning at the top. I already sent my questions to Kay Kamala who referred me to Jose Stevens and J P VanHulle. Jose's office said they had no tapes on the subject and I haven't heard back from JP.
Sorry, yes, I mean Sages. <G> I was just talked to death by a Mature Sage (my chiropractor) today, and I felt I owed it to the poor man to listen with a smile because it was like looking at myself in a mirror (myself when I was acting out at Mature level). =o Kate Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 00:20:55 +0200 Hi there from South Africa, My name is Gay and I have been involved with the Michael Information since way back in 1979. However I have been truly committed to the Michael Group since November 1995 when I started getting together the Michael information, to teach, channel and present the information to the public at large. (Would you then guess that I am a 7th level old Sage in the mode of Passion with a goal of Growth?) If you would like to visit my web-site which deals with the Michael information in a rather light-hearted way then try: http://www.icon.co.za/~entrance/ You can also see how Michael arrived in South Africa - officially!! We have three groups studying the Michael material at present - all at my home!! I research all 21 books on the Michael teachings and do a computer presentation which highlights the information as viewed from all the different channels aspects and then we as a group, make the knowledge practical by putting in our own comments from a South Africa viewpoint. For example at one stage we might divide up into roles and find out what has been previously channelled about each role. Then we see how that information applies to us in particular. Perhaps we might discover that certain facts pertain more to us as we were growing up than now. However, each role then has a spokes-person who "presents" the qualities of that role to the rest of the group. We then get valuable insights on how that role likes to be treated or how we can get the best out of a particular role from this information. We really enjoy our Michael Meetings and after the presentation and tea we then get down to channelling Michael in person. At present I am the only one who brings them through but we are looking for back-up channels or those that feel committed enough to go further. Each computer presentations has three levels: First for those who haven't read a Michael book but have been dragged along by a friend! Second for those who need a little support now they have read a book or two and are a little swamped with the information. Third for those who really need to get their minds into overdrive in order to deal with the more complex ideas of Michael. This is why I have replied to you Seth. You wrote: Shepherd Hoodwin, now located in CA, used to live in NYC, and I was a close friend and transcribed (and participated in) a lot of monthly Michael Speaks he held. I'm honored to be listed among his acknowledgements in a few of his books. Shepherd was my first real contact with the different Michael channels and I did some work at a distance, on his Cat Agape - he too kindly acknowledged my help in a letter to all his friends, as a clairvoyant from South Africa. I used to be BIG into Michael Math, and if anyone has any questions about, I'm probably a good person to ask. This is where we really need the help. I have recently joined the list but caught the tail end of the discussion of Kenneth Broom and Lori Tostada on Cosmology. I too am slightly confused. Each entity can be made up of between 800 - 1500 essences. Each Greater Cadence is made up of 49 essences. For easy maths sake, lets say 50. Therefore each Entity must contain between 16 and 30 Greater Cadences. However, at present I am only channelling Greater Cadences 1 - 7. Where on earth are the rest? And like Kenneth and Lori mentioned, with 6 billion people on earth we should be seeing at least just under 1,000 Cadres of 7,000 Entities but we are only coming up with about 25 Cadres. Where are the rest of the Cadres - or more to the point are the Cadres we are picking up the ones containing those who are active in some way where the others aren't? Any comments on this aspect would really be appreciated from any list member who has insight where I am lacking. Ciao, Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:09:52 -0400 Seth Cohn wrote:
By "accept" what do you mean? Simply "be present" with them without judgment?? Kate Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:15:34 -0400 Kenneth Broom wrote:
LOL. Good point! Sometimes the worst abuse we get is from our own selves. <G>
In my 20s I practiced Eastern meditation where the goal was to be in "cosmic consciousness," a state of "witnessing" or identification with a larger, watching (observing) consciousness. This seems to me to be the kind of "nirvana" a scholar in observation might crave. Even a Sage/Observation/Idealist like me has often craved it. <G> Kate Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:36:39 -0400 Lori, Thanks for starting this list--it's great! I really enjoyed your post. I'm in Growth, too. Also Impatience. The two together can drive one wild! It's a real karma mill. <G>
I can identify a lot with your lonliness and isolation in childhood. I've often felt that I had a "mission" this lifetime to track down old souls and validate them (in the pre-internet days we were *so* cut off from each other!). Essentially every old soul I've met this lifetime has had a really suffering time. <sigh>
Ditto for me. I looked at female culture and I looked at male culture, and I said to myself, No way! I don't want to be either! So I've been pretty androgynous in appearance this lifetime. <G> I have warring needs between my Sage self's desire to be highly visible and my Scholar bleedthrough intense need to be invisible. It's a real tug of war. But the teen years are really terrible when you just can't make yourself get into young soul values. :}
I had a fantasy too that my parents were not my real parents. No spaceship, but maybe a nice limousine was going to show up and take me away one day. <G>
I really identify with all this. :)
Yes, this info has been so very valuable for me and every other old soul I've known whom I've told about it. :)
Yes, I feel the same. The one motto I've given my kids is, "Don't abuse others or let others abuse you." That's pretty well the bottom line for me. :)
I guess it's the old Sage thing--but, darn it! I want to have some fun before I shake this incarnation. <G>
If anything, being an old soul in a young soul nation/world has caused us to be far more screwed up than any other soul level. Our lives have often been a sad testimony of self-destruction and isolation and fear because of it. <sigh>
I like that definition. Thanks for sharing it. :)
Who is Steve?
I've heard this, too. I find it a very depression maxim at times. <G>
That sounds interesting. Where do you order it?
Kay Kamala talked about that this spring in her newletter. I'll look forward to reading more about it. Thanks for posting that. :) Kate Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:47:04 -0400 Seth Cohn wrote:
Seth, I've suffered a lot with depression as has essentially every old soul I've met this lifetime, and I've met a ton (I had a thing for many years, pre-Michael, about attracting "soul mates" a desire that brought dozens of OS's into my sphere). I really identify with what you're saying about feeling "trapped" here, too. I think that OS's have one foot in spirit world and one foot in the physical plane and it is very easy for us to slip on a banana peel and leave the physical world entirely behind. I find for myself that too much suffering makes me check out. I start thinking that what I am going through, this life, this planet, all of this *stuff* is only a tiny part of all there is. Trouble is, when I focus on the "bigger picture," I soon lose all desire to "participate" or "play the game" "down here." So that approach to dealing with overload, despair, etc. doesn't work well for me. What's been a nightmare for me is having my second child. He's a seventh level Mature Warrior in Dominance and Aggression. Living in his aura is like being beaten to death with a stick. The rest of us in the family are Old Souls with a live and let live attitude and his attitude is "I'm going to beat you guys into shape if you all die while I'm trying to do it." Pre this entity entering my life, it was pretty fun and easy for me here, in spite of being in Growth with all the karma and hassle that can summon. :} Anyone found anything to help with depression? My biggest trap this lifetime is waiting out my son's childhood. When he is 18 (in 9 more long years), it will be like being set out of prison. (How's that for honestly admitting to "sinful" and "horrible" emotions? <G>) Kate, who's been an itinerant priest in so many lifetimes that motherhood is a weird mystery to her <G> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:51:42 -0400 Seth Cohn wrote:
What archive? What website? (You were talking about Michael math.)
This is fascinating. I never heard this. Did you channel this yourself from Michael? Kate Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 23:22:32 -0400 ******VERY LONG POST WARNING********* Here are the questions on casting that came up for me as I read Shepherd Hoodwin’s book, THE JOURNEY OF YOUR SOUL: A CHANNEL EXPLORES CHANNELING AND THE MICHAEL TEACHINGS. He has a whole chapter on casting in it, and it is so, to me, confusing, I've read it over twice and still am struggling to comprehend all he says--it's a wealth of detailed, technical information. BTW, among other things, I find it a bit unsettling that, unlike many other Michael channels, he believes that each essence has only one fragment. As a result, he frequently uses the terms fragment and essence interchangeably. Hoodwin says that every cadence is not a "primary cadence," which is "seven essences of the same role within an entity." However, he says that a primary cadence is the most common kind. I got confused when in his diagram on page 172 he illustrates a cadence with all seven possible "positions" in it. How could that be, I asked myself, if they were all Scholars? Then he shows this same cadence, which has the number seven (I presume this means it is a "King" cadence?) as part of a Position Five (in an Entity) Scholar Greater Cadence, five being the Sage position number. All this brought up the following questions: (1) In a primary cadence that is made up of fragments who are all the same Role, for example, Scholar, would every member of the cadence, because he/she is a Scholar, have the "position" Four, which corresponds to the Scholar? Or will every cadence, of any kind, always have seven "positions," one through seven, each of which corresponds to the seven Roles? Here is what I *think* is the answer, if I am reading Hoodwin correctly: The most common cadence is a "primary" cadence which is made up of fragments who are all of the same Role. In each cadence, there are seven "positions," numbered one through seven. Each position corresponds to a role:
This means that if seven Scholars are in a primary cadence together, all of them but the Scholar who sits in the Four position will have a different role tacked onto them, their "casting." (2) Is the casting number a ranking system or merely a descriptive seating arrangement? Here is my the understanding I came to after reading Hoodwin, but using my own words/images: I picture the positions in a cadence as acting similarly to the numbers on chairs in an auditorium. Each seat faces the same stage (life on the physical plane), but from a slightly different vantage point. In other words, the "assigned seat" or position is a way for the universe to connect each fragment with another type of influence, this time a numerical vibration rather than one of the typical overleaves. Observation: The meanings which Hoodwin indicates as attached to each of these numbered positions are only sometimes like the traditional meanings for these numbers from numerology. (I put the numerology meaning in parentheses.) Also, numerology uses numbers beyond 7, of course. One Purpose, Simplicity (initiative, drive,
independence) (3) Hoodwin says that a "greater cadence" is made up of "seven primary cadences." This makes me wonder what happens to the uncommon cadences which are not primary? Do they form groupings of seven as well? If they do, what are they called? Logic would seem to demand that the names be "Secondary," if there are two kinds of Roles in the Cadence, "Tertiary, if there are three kinds of Roles in the Cadence, and so on. (4) Hoodwin says that each entity is made up of groupings of greater cadences. He doesn't mention if there is a standard number of greater cadences in any given entity, but I presume not, since entities are often defined as being made up of "800-1000" fragments. May we presume that each entity, though, is made up of some number of fragments (AKA "essences") which is a multiple of seven? (5) From Hoodwin’s diagram, it looks as though each greater cadence has, like each cadence, seven positions. May I presume from that drawing the following: In each Greater Cadence, a grouping of seven Cadences, there are seven "Positions," numbered one through seven. As in the Cadence, each Position in the Greater Cadence corresponds to a Role: One Warrior Two Server Three Artisan Four Scholar Five Sage Six Priest Seven King Are we supposed to understand as well that even though there are assigned positions which correspond to the seven Role Overleaves, each member of a Primary Cadence, and each member of a Greater Cadence to which groups of seven Primary Cadences belong, is of the same basic Role? Example: John Doe, a Scholar, belongs to a Primary Cadence made up of himself and six other Scholars. In this Primary Cadence, he holds position Three, Artisan. This means the first level of his "Casting" is Artisan. John's Primary Cadence is in position number Seven, King, in a Scholar Greater Cadence. This means the second level of his Casting is King. John's Greater Cadence is one of five Scholar Greater Cadences in his Entity. BTW, if this latter is the "third level" of his Casting, what would we call it? (6) Next question is this: In Hoodwin's diagram, an entity has three Sage Greater Cadences, four Warrior Greater Cadences, five Scholar Greater Cadences, and seven Priest Greater Cadences. By the way these groupings of Sage, Warrior and Scholar Cadences are numbered, it looks as though the Tao simply counted them off. That is, as if each Greater Cadence of a particular type, like people standing in a line (first come, first served) took a number, starting at one and stopping when there were no more Greater Cadences to number off. To wit, the four Warrior GC's are in positions one through four, the five Scholar GC's are in positions one through five and the seven Priest GC's are in positions one through seven. I’m wondering: is this the rule? Or could it be that even if there are only four Warrior GC's they might be assigned any of the one through seven possible positions? (I'm assuming the positions throughout are the 1-7 pertaining to the basic Roles as outlined above, because Hoodwin assigns each fragment he does a reading on a casting by number, written as follows, using the example in his diagram, the casting is "3/7/5", which means: third position in Primary Cadence Number Seven within Scholar Greater Cadence number Five within a particular entity.) (7) It looks like, examining Hoodwin's diagram further, one could give a numerical reading to a fragment like so: the mythical John (I assigned him a name <G>) of Hoodwin’s example who has a 3/7/5 casting, might have his whole Michael casting (as in "cast from the Tao"??) number read as follows: 3/7/5/2, which means: third position in Primary Cadence Number Seven within Scholar Greater Cadence number Five within Entity Two of a particular Cadre. Is this right? Further question: what are Cadres part of, and do they have a number, too? And does anyone include *that* in a reading? (8) When you do readings, do you ever include Casting, and if you do, do you get as complicated about it as Hoodwin? I'm interested in the numerological implications of all this. Does anyone do anything in any depth with these numbers? Do you? (9) Hoodwin assigns position numbers to not just the Roles, but to Goals, Modes, Attitudes, Centers and the Planes as well. Since we have seven soul ages and seven levels within each soul age, one would assume those could be "positions" as well. Consequently, one could assign a number to every aspect in a chart. Here’s how I do soul ages: One Infant Soul Two Baby Soul Three Young Soul Four Mature Soul Five Old Soul Six Transcendental Soul Seven Infinite Soul Here are the Roles and Goals as Hoodwin places them: Positions Roles Goals Seven Exalted Action King Dominance Six Exalted Inspiration Priest Growth Five Exalted Expression Sage Acceptance Four Neutral/Assimilation Scholar Flow/Relaxation Three Ordinal Action Warrior Submission Two Ordinal Expression Artisan Discrimination One Ordinal Inspiration Server Reevaluation Here are the Modes and Attitudes: Positions Modes Attitudes Seven Exalted Action Aggression Realist Six Exalted Inspiration Passion Spiritualist Five Exalted Expression Power Idealist Four Neutral/Assimilation Observation Pragmatist Three Ordinal Action Perseverance Cynic Two Ordinal Expression Caution Skeptic One Ordinal Inspiration Repression Stoic Here is my extrapolation for CNF (which he doesn’t list) and what one would assume would be the numbering for Centers if he were to maintain the same pattern he has used throughout as listed above: Positions Chief Neg. Feature Centers Seven Exalted Action Impatience Higher Moving Six Exalted Inspiration Arrogance Higher Intellectual Five Exalted Expression Greed Higher Emotional Four Neutral/Assimilation Stubbornness Instinctive Three Ordinal Action Martyrdom Moving Two Ordinal Expression Self-Destruction Emotional One Ordinal Inspiration Self-Deprecation Intellectual But, in fact, Hoodwin gets off his pattern for Centers: Seven Exalted Action Higher Moving Six Exalted Expression Higher Emotional Five Exalted Inspiration Higher Intellectual Four Neutral/Assimilation Instinctive Three Ordinal Inspiration Intellectual Two Ordinal Expression Emotional One Ordinal Action Moving He’s gone from
action-inspiration-expression-neutral-action-expression-inspiration Here’s what I mean by the inconsistency of his pattern: if you look at Christeaan, Van Hulle and Clark's book, my favorite basic book, Michael: The Basic Teachings, they draw axes like this:
Exalted Exalted Exalted
Inspiration Expression Action
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
Neutral
Assimilation
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
Ordinal Ordinal Ordinal
Action Expression Inspiration
Hoodwin chooses the following numbering schema: Seven Exalted Action Six Exalted Inspiration Five Exalted Expression Four Neutral/Assimilation Three Ordinal Action Two Ordinal Expression One Ordinal Inspiration Which visually would look like this:
Exalted (Six) Exalted (Five) Exalted (Seven)
Inspiration Expression Action
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
Neutral (Four)
Assimilation
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
Ordinal (Three) Ordinal (Two) Ordinal (One)
Action Expression Inspiration
It doesn't make sense to me to go from Inspiration to Expression to Action on the Ordinal level, but go from Expression to Inspiration to Action on the Exalted level. It seems to me it should either be: Ord. Insp., Ord. Exp., Ord. Action, Neutral, Exalt. Insp., Exalt. Exp., Exalt. Action, OR it should be: Ord. Exp., Ord. Insp., Ord. Action, Neutral, Exalt. Exp. Exalt. Insp., Exalt. Action. Do you see what I mean? Michael works in patterns, and by numbering the way Hoodwin does, the pattern is off, it is inconsistent. Have you heard or read anyone else talk about this numbering system of Hoodwin’s? Nevertheless, I will assume his way of numbering is correct, and use my chart to play around with his numbering concept to see if it is useful for adding depth to a Michael reading. Kate's Michael Overleaves: No. Major Minor Overleaf/Etc. 5 X Old Soul 5 x Level 5 6 x Moving into Level 6 5 X Sage 4 X Scholar bleedthrough 3 x Mother imprint: Young Soul 1 x Warrior 3 x Father imprint: Young Soul 5 x Sage Creative/Focused (probably can't assign number here) Frequency (probably can't assign number here) 6 X Goal: Growth 4 X Mode: Observation 6 X Attitude: Spiritualist 7 X CNF: Impatience 2 X Center: Emotional 3 X Intellectual Part 6 X Casting Level 1: Priest 6 x Casting Level 2: In a Sage Primary Cadence which is Position 6 (Priest) 4 x Casting Level 3: In a Sage Greater Cadence which is Position 4 (Scholar) 4 x Casting Level 4: In my Entity which is Position 4 (Scholar) in my Cadre OK, looking at the numbers, I get: 1 - 1 minor 2 - 1 major 3 - 3 minor 4 - 2 major, 2 minor 5 - 2 major, 1 minor 6 - 4 major, 1 minor 7 - 1 major Looking at the above, I’d say that the primary position influence in my chart is 6, which is about harmony and connection. I tend to think this may be right, because my mission in life seems to be to mediate between people and to help them find harmony and connection both within and without (inside themselves and with the various competing parts of themselves, and outside themselves with other people). So this is what I’d call a very complex reading of my "casting," according to the information in Chapter 11 of Hoodwin’s book, "Cadences and Numbers." What do you think? Does anyone find doing this sort of reading useful? I think that Hoodwin might say that having Priest again in Position 2 of my casting reinforces the Priest in Position 1, and that having Scholar in position 3 and 4 would strongly reinforce my Scholar bleedthrough as well. (I think it also increases my very strong attraction to Scholars. <G>) So, Michael fans: what do you think of this? Is this how one does a casting reading? Does it make sense? Kate Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:42:57 -0600
(MDT) On 12 Aug 1997, Kate McMurry wrote: > Seth Cohn wrote: > > But Intent is so important. I have seen people do this, and heal > > greatly, and I have seen people do this and push the unwanted feelings > > out and away from them. Very tough to learn to accept the feelings > > no matter what they are. > > By "accept" what do you mean? Simply "be present" with them without > judgment?? Mostly yes, and maybe even to the extent of
embracing these feelings A lot of judgements about what is Loving and
what is not are present in Love, Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:57:14 -0600
(MDT) On 12 Aug 1997, Kate McMurry wrote: > Seth Cohn wrote: > > You know about the archive on the website right? You can catch the > > missing stuff there... > > What archive? What website? (You were talking about Michael math.) On www.spiritweb.org, there is an archive of
all the posts to this list. If you > > My own perspective is a bit different, because I believe in massive > > fragmentation,and think that many of the people on Earth today aren't real. > > They are fragmented bits of essence caused over time, and they aren't > > 'full' people, just mirror reflections. So Michael picks up on the > > real people's 'position' and sees that, and strangely enough, they all tend > > to fall into the first 'chunk' of cadres, because all 'real' people fall > > into that. so 25 cadres * 7 entities * 8-1500 essences = 150,000 to > > 250,000 essences... and all the rest of the 'people' we see are fragments of > > fragments so to speak. Like I said, that's MY view... YMMV (Your mileage may vary) > > This is fascinating. I never heard this. Did you channel this yourself > from Michael? No, as I said this is my own view, based on Michael stuff and Right Use of Will, and my own feelings and ideas. I have the firm belief that most people on this planet aren't real. That they are empty reflections of tossed out bits of other people. If you feel something strongly and repress it, it leaves and goes off eventually, doing what it wants to express anyone, but in another body. It fragments. Just as Michael talks about essence fragmenting into this world, I find that fragments fragment out even more. You can see parts of this within people suffering from MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder) as they fragment without the other parts leaving. I believe that we all have lots of people out there who ARE us, who are PARTS we didn't align with, who left/pushed out into the world, and we have to reintegrate them eventually. Love, Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:58:55 -0600 (MDT) I've included Shepherd's email in here because when in doubt, his channeling would clearly take priority, and I'm sure some of the stuff I end up saying will be colored by my own views etc.... (Btw, HEY Shepherd, Long time no talk... drop me a line... we're having a good chat here in you want to pop in...you've been a topic of discussion a lot, and even Agape's name has come up (Gay, from South Africa is on the list and said she'd worked on him...) ) On 12 Aug 1997, Kate McMurry wrote: > ******VERY LONG POST WARNING********* > > Here are the questions on casting that came up for me as I read Shepherd > Hoodwin's book, THE JOURNEY OF YOUR SOUL: A CHANNEL EXPLORES > CHANNELING AND THE MICHAEL TEACHINGS. He has a whole chapter on > casting in it, and it is so, to me, confusing, I've read it over twice and still am > struggling to comprehend all he says--it's a wealth of detailed, > technical information. BTW, among other things, I find it a bit > unsettling that, unlike many other Michael channels, he believes that > each essence has only one fragment. As a result, he frequently uses the > terms fragment and essence interchangeably. I don't think he's saying that fragment=essence, so much as he's saying that essence shares certain things in common with fragments of itself. Casting would remain the same, even if overleaves changed (Essence would still a Scholar for instance, but Essence doesn't have goals or modes.) > Hoodwin says that every cadence is not a "primary cadence," which is > "seven essences of the same role within an entity." However, he says > that a primary cadence is the most common kind. In other words, _most_ entities do it the easy way, which is 7 at a time of one kind. They make flushes, in poker terms. Some like to draw and create full houses or two pair. > I got confused when in his diagram on page 172 he illustrates a cadence with > all seven possible "positions" in it. How could that be, I asked myself, if they were all > Scholars? Then he shows this same cadence, which has the number seven > (I presume this means it is a "King" cadence?) as part of a Position Five > (in an Entity) Scholar Greater Cadence, five being the Sage position number. Ok, reading this made something very clear: you are confused the ROLES for the NUMBERS. Yes, 4 is a Scholar flavored thing, but it is NOT Scholar, it is 4, which is a much broader energy then just Scholar. 4 can feel Scholar flavored or not, but Scholars will usually have a strong 4 taste. (I'm using another sense than feel to get the point across that this is NOT easily seen sometimes..) > All this brought up the following questions: > > (1) In a primary cadence that is made up of fragments who are all the > same Role, for example, Scholar, would every member of the cadence, > because he/she is a Scholar, have the "position" Four, which corresponds > to the Scholar? Or will every cadence, of any kind, always have seven > "positions," one through seven, each of which corresponds to the seven > Roles? Here is what I *think* is the answer, if I am reading Hoodwin > correctly: > > The most common cadence is a "primary" cadence which is made up of > fragments who are all of the same Role. In each cadence, there are seven > "positions," numbered one through seven. Each position corresponds to a > role: > > One Warrior > Two Server > Three Artisan > Four Scholar > Five Sage > Six Priest > Seven King Um, a mistake here... It's One Server, Two Artisan, Three Warrior, the rest are right. The poles add to 7 each time, except for Warrior/King and the 3/4 connection of Warrior/Scholar makes up for that, with a strong 3.5 midpoint energy (half of Seven) > This means that if seven Scholars are in a primary cadence together, all > of them but the Scholar who sits in the Four position will have a > different role tacked onto them, their "casting." No, not a role... that is the mistake you are making. The first scholar in the line will have a ONE flavor, with everything that ONE implies including some Server style stuff, and some of the "server" aligned mode, goal, attitude, etc, etc, etc but he/she will still BE a scholar, with a hint of all of the energy that ONE brings to bear, NOT that _Server_ brings to bear. Same with the rest, TWO > (2) Is the casting number a ranking system or merely a descriptive > seating arrangement? > > Here is my the understanding I came to after reading Hoodwin, but using > my own words/images: I picture the positions in a cadence as acting > similarly to the numbers on chairs in an auditorium. Each seat faces the > same stage (life on the physical plane), but from a slightly different > vantage point. In other words, the "assigned seat" or position is a way > for the universe to connect each fragment with another type of > influence, this time a numerical vibration rather than one of the > typical overleaves. True enough. One of many ways to view it. > Observation: The meanings which Hoodwin indicates as attached to each of > these numbered positions are only sometimes like the traditional > meanings for these numbers from numerology. (I put the numerology > meaning in parentheses.) Also, numerology uses numbers beyond 7, of course. > > One Purpose, Simplicity (initiative, drive, independence) > Two Stability, Balance (partnership, assistance, receptivity) > Three Enterprise, Versatility (creativity, communication, artistic ability) > Four Consolidation, Achievement (groundedness, practicality, dependability) > Five Expansion, Adventure (growth, change, being a catalyst) > Six Harmony, Connection (harmony, the family & groups of all kinds) > Seven Inculcation, Eclecticism (seeking knowledge, introverted, contemplative) But I don't see much conflict between these views... in fact, the WORDS used all seem to describe the same energyy. Don't get tied into words, the Energy is far broader then any pair or even dozen words can describe. You could brainstorm for hours coming up with words to explore the Energy of the Number 3.... > (3) Hoodwin says that a "greater cadence" is made up of "seven primary > cadences." This makes me wonder what happens to the uncommon cadences > which are not primary? Do they form groupings of seven as well? If they > do, what are they called? Logic would seem to demand that the names be > "Secondary," if there are two kinds of Roles in the Cadence, "Tertiary, > if there are three kinds of Roles in the Cadence, and so on. No, you are getting caught up in a big confusion... Primary in this case means: a group of seven essences. This is the strongest group of Seven. The next group of Seven is seven sevens, or 49... and that would be greater cadence.. Don't confuse the Roles or anything else... all 49 should be (in most cases) the SAME role. > (4) Hoodwin says that each entity is made up of groupings of greater > cadences. He doesn't mention if there is a standard number of greater > cadences in any given entity, but I presume not, since entities are > often defined as being made up of "800-1000" fragments. May we presume > that each entity, though, is made up of some number of fragments (AKA > "essences") which is a multiple of seven? No, first of all, it's NOT so rigid as It MUST be multiples of 7 all the way up. Many times it's not.. other numbers have meaning also. Also, you are confused here because an entity is made of essences, not fragments. All the fragments of one essence are one essence. I used to wonder this myself, about how rigid it was, and Michael quickly disabused me of that. If it was that rigid, they'd have said so. Patterns can be seen, but that doens't mean that patterns are the end all and be all. > (5) From Hoodwin's diagram, it looks as though each greater cadence has, > like each cadence, seven positions. May I presume from that drawing the following: > > In each Greater Cadence, a grouping of seven Cadences, there are seven > "Positions," numbered one through seven. As in the Cadence, each > Position in the Greater Cadence corresponds to a Role: [Deleted the list, same as before.... same error] > Are we supposed to understand as well that even though there are > assigned positions which correspond to the seven Role Overleaves, each > member of a Primary Cadence, and each member of a Greater Cadence to > which groups of seven Primary Cadences belong, is of the same basic > Role? Yes. The role of them all is ONE role, but the FIRST essence (say it's a Scholar Greater Cadence) would have 1st position in his cadence and 1st cadence of the cadences, so he'd be a 1/1 casting (with a strong Server smell maybe, but still Scholar through and through....) > Example: John Doe, a Scholar, belongs to a Primary Cadence made up of > himself and six other Scholars. In this Primary Cadence, he holds > position Three, Artisan. This means the first level of his "Casting" is > Artisan. John's Primary Cadence is in position number Seven, King, in a > Scholar Greater Cadence. This means the second level of his Casting is > King. John's Greater Cadence is one of five Scholar Greater Cadences in > his Entity. BTW, if this latter is the "third level" of his Casting, > what would we call it? We'd call it complicated. heheh, John would be (depending on the channel's method of writing it down) 5/7/3 or 3/7/5...(ANd I've seen Channels do both... so it's a pain in the ass) This extra level since it's NOT complete (being only 1-5) wouldn't be as strong as a full 7 would be... so many times it's not as important. It might even feel different, if say he was 5 out of 5, since that would be "last" more like a 7 would be normally.... > (6) Next question is this: In Hoodwin's diagram, an entity has three > Sage Greater Cadences, four Warrior Greater Cadences, five Scholar > Greater Cadences, and seven Priest Greater Cadences. By the way these > groupings of Sage, Warrior and Scholar Cadences are numbered, it looks > as though the Tao simply counted them off. "Sound off!!! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7.... " Yup, that is it. > That is, as if each Greater > Cadence of a particular type, like people standing in a line (first > come, first served) took a number, starting at one and stopping when > there were no more Greater Cadences to number off. To wit, the four > Warrior GC's are in positions one through four, the five Scholar GC's > are in positions one through five and the seven Priest GC's are in > positions one through seven. I'm wondering: is this the rule? Pretty much. > Or could it be that even if there are only four Warrior GC's they might be > assigned any of the one through seven possible positions? (I'm assuming > the positions throughout are the 1-7 pertaining to the basic Roles as > outlined above, because Hoodwin assigns each fragment he does a reading > on a casting by number, written as follows, using the example in his > diagram, the casting is "3/7/5", which means: third position in Primary > Cadence Number Seven within Scholar Greater Cadence number Five within a > particular entity.) > > (7) It looks like, examining Hoodwin's diagram further, one could give a > numerical reading to a fragment like so: the mythical John (I assigned > him a name <G> ) of Hoodwin's example who has a 3/7/5 casting, might have > his whole Michael casting (as in "cast from the Tao"??) number read as > follows: 3/7/5/2, which means: third position in Primary Cadence Number > Seven within Scholar Greater Cadence number Five within Entity Two of a > particular Cadre. Is this right? Right on the money. > Further question: what are Cadres part > of, and do they have a number, too? And does anyone include *that* in a > reading? Ah, this is where everything breaks down, because people do, and it all conflicts at times.... For Instance, Shepherd gets it as one set of numbers and other channels get other sets... There is not hard fast rule about the cadre numbers and I think it is VERY arbitrary... I'm in 3/4, Cadre 3, Entity 4. The Entity number is right, but the Cadre number isn't a real 3... it's a made up 3. (hope that's clear...) > (8) When you do readings, do you ever include Casting, and if you do, do > you get as complicated about it as Hoodwin? I'm interested in the > numerological implications of all this. Does anyone do anything in any > depth with these numbers? Do you? I don't channel or do readings so I can't answer that. Maybe someone else can. As for what can you do with it, a lot... you can understand the subtle Michael Math behind it all. > (9) Hoodwin assigns position numbers to not just the Roles, but to > Goals, Modes, Attitudes, Centers and the Planes as well. Since we have > seven soul ages and seven levels within each soul age, one would assume > those could be "positions" as well. Consequently, one could assign a > number to every aspect in a chart. Here's how I do soul ages: > > One Infant Soul > Two Baby Soul > Three Young Soul > Four Mature Soul > Five Old Soul > Six Transcendental Soul > Seven Infinite Soul Yes, this is right. > Here are the Roles and Goals as Hoodwin places them: > > Positions Roles Goals > > Seven Exalted Action King Dominance > Six Exalted Inspiration Priest Growth > Five Exalted Expression Sage Acceptance > Four Neutral/Assimilation Scholar Flow/Relaxation > Three Ordinal Action Warrior Submission > Two Ordinal Expression Artisan Discrimination > One Ordinal Inspiration Server Reevaluation And Shepherd is right on the money here... > Here are the Modes and Attitudes: > > Positions Modes Attitudes > > Seven Exalted Action Aggression Realist > Six Exalted Inspiration Passion Spiritualist > Five Exalted Expression Power Idealist > Four Neutral/Assimilation Observation Pragmatist > Three Ordinal Action Perseverance Cynic > Two Ordinal Expression Caution Skeptic > One Ordinal Inspiration Repression Stoic > > Here is my extrapolation for CNF (which he doesn't list) and what one > would assume would be the numbering for Centers if he were to maintain > the same pattern he has used throughout as listed above: > > Positions Chief Neg. Feature Centers > > Seven Exalted Action Impatience Higher Moving > Six Exalted Inspiration Arrogance Higher Intellectual > Five Exalted Expression Greed Higher Emotional > Four Neutral/Assimilation Stubbornness Instinctive > Three Ordinal Action Martyrdom Moving > Two Ordinal Expression Self-Destruction Emotional > One Ordinal Inspiration Self-Deprecation Intellectual All correct except for Centers... Centers are A BITCH, cause we have Bodies. > But, in fact, Hoodwin gets off his pattern for Centers: > > Seven Exalted Action Higher Moving > Six Exalted Expression Higher Emotional > Five Exalted Inspiration Higher Intellectual > Four Neutral/Assimilation Instinctive > Three Ordinal Inspiration Intellectual > Two Ordinal Expression Emotional > One Ordinal Action Moving This relates to Chakras and the Energies in our bodies... The lower stuff is shifted around... and Yes, there are reasons for it, cause we asked about it a lot... > He's gone from action-inspiration-expression-neutral-action-expression-inspiration to > the reverse: action-expression-inspiration-neutral-inspiration-expression-action. It > doesn't fix the previous inconsistency of the pattern, only introduces a > new inconsistency, IMO. > > Here's what I mean by the inconsistency of his pattern: if you look at > Christeaan, Van Hulle and Clark's book, my favorite basic book, Michael: > The Basic Teachings, they draw axes like this: > > Exalted Exalted Exalted > Inspiration Expression Action > + + + > + + + > + + + > Neutral > Assimilation > + + + > + + + > + + + > Ordinal Ordinal Ordinal > Action Expression Inspiration > > > Hoodwin chooses the following numbering schema: > > Seven Exalted Action > Six Exalted Inspiration > Five Exalted Expression > Four Neutral/Assimilation > Three Ordinal Action > Two Ordinal Expression > One Ordinal Inspiration > > > Which visually would look like this: > > Exalted (Six) Exalted (Five) Exalted (Seven) > Inspiration Expression Action > + + + > + + + > + + + > Neutral (Four) > Assimilation > + + + > + + + > + + + > Ordinal (Three) Ordinal (Two) Ordinal (One) > Action Expression Inspiration > > It doesn't make sense to me to go from Inspiration to Expression to > Action on the Ordinal level, but go from Expression to Inspiration to > Action on the Exalted level. It seems to me it should either be: Ord. > Insp., Ord. Exp., Ord. Action, Neutral, Exalt. Insp., Exalt. Exp., > Exalt. Action, OR it should be: Ord. Exp., Ord. Insp., Ord. Action, > Neutral, Exalt. Exp. Exalt. Insp., Exalt. Action. Do you see what I > mean? Michael works in patterns, and by numbering the way Hoodwin does, > the pattern is off, it is inconsistent. Nope, I asked MUCH the same thing and the reason is SPIRALING energies. It's not a frozen pattern it's a moving one. The energy spirals around and this causes this "shift". > Have you heard or read anyone else talk about this numbering system of > Hoodwin's? He's done a lot of channeling on it, and maybe he can share some, or at least point to where he deals with it. > Nevertheless, I will assume his way of numbering is correct, and use my > chart to play around with his numbering concept to see if it is useful > for adding depth to a Michael reading. I'll add comments to it like this {my comments} > Kate's Michael Overleaves: > > No. Major Minor Overleaf/Etc. > > 5 X Old Soul > 5 x Level 5 > 6 x Moving into Level 6 > 5 X Sage > 4 X Scholar bleedthrough {from here} > 3 x Mother imprint: Young Soul > 1 x Warrior > 3 x Father imprint: Young Soul > 5 x Sage {I wouldn't count any of that...} > Creative/Focused (probably can't assign number here) > Frequency (probably can't assign number here) {Right}
> 6 X Goal: Growth > 4 X Mode: Observation > 6 X Attitude: Spiritualist > 7 X CNF: Impatience
> 2 X Center: Emotional > 3 X Intellectual Part {Don't count these much very few people are using 567 here...} > 6 X Casting Level 1: Priest > 6 x Casting Level 2: In a Sage Primary Cadence which is Position 6 (Priest) {Not minor} > 4 x Casting Level 3: In a Sage Greater Cadence which is Position 4 (Scholar) {Is minor} > 4 x Casting Level 4: In my Entity which is Position 4 (Scholar) in my Cadre (NOT minor} > OK, looking at the numbers, I get: > > 1 - 1 minor > 2 - 1 major > 3 - 3 minor > 4 - 2 major, 2 minor > 5 - 2 major, 1 minor > 6 - 4 major, 1 minor > 7 - 1 major
Well, I get slightly different totals: basically 4 becomes MUCH stronger.
> Looking at the above, I'd say that the primary position influence in my > chart is 6, which is about harmony and connection. I tend to think this > may be right, because my mission in life seems to be to mediate between > people and to help them find harmony and connection both within and > without (inside themselves and with the various competing parts of > themselves, and outside themselves with other people).
Overall, I see a lot of 5 (Sage, Level, Old Soul) which is all major, and a bunch of 4 which is in the right places to be influence on higher plane stuff (thus the bleedthrough)... The 6 is all over, and I think you are right.
> So this is what I'd call a very complex reading of my "casting," > according to the information in Chapter 11 of Hoodwin's book, "Cadences > and Numbers." What do you think? Does anyone find doing this sort of > reading useful?
It can be, and I used to think it was... but I've shifted a lot in the years, and I have to say that overall, no more useful then numerology, which depending on your view is VERY helpful or not... same class of stuff.
> I think that Hoodwin might say that having Priest again in Position 2 of > my casting reinforces the Priest in Position 1, and that having Scholar > in position 3 and 4 would strongly reinforce my Scholar bleedthrough as > well. (I think it also increases my very strong attraction to Scholars. > <G> )
I think you are right.
> So, Michael fans: what do you think of this? Is this how one does a > casting reading? Does it make sense? Yup, looks right to me. Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 02:01:30 -0400 Kate McMurry wrote: > In my 20s I practiced Eastern meditation where the goal was to be in > "cosmic consciousness," a state of "witnessing" or identification with a > larger, watching (observing) consciousness. This seems to me to be the > kind of "nirvana" a scholar in observation might crave. Even a > Sage/Observation/Idealist like me has often craved it. <G> Dear Kate, I remember in my grade school days there was a little comic book character that I think was called "The Witness". He wore a little toga, and resided outside of the action frames of the story he would be narrating. He was never ever involved. I remember back then feeling: "Gee, I wish I could be like him. All he does is observe and narrate and be intelligent, and he never gets into trouble". On the face of it, this kind of Nirvana seemed to feel right to me, but I know now that the positive pole of Observation is Clarity, and the Negative pole is Surveillance. I just can't seem to get the kind of "Clarity of Comprehension", that I need and want and thoroughly enjoy, just by "surveying" life and getting "facts". It seems as though I must "participate" in life, and experiment, and find out just how this physical life stuff works, and what the inter-relationships are. What I just "witness" is usually insufficient to answer my skillions of questions, so I must question and experiment on my own to get the information I want. This seems to be in keeping with one of my causal jobs as an "Akashic Orderly", i.e. to take questions from the akashic level (between the causal and the mental levels), then go to the akashic records, pull up the answers, and then put these collected answers back into the akashic level as a replete package of wisdom. Sometimes, as in my present earth life incarnations, I have to incarnate into a particular reality time line in order to obtain the "experiential" answers that I have been assigned to obtain. I suspect that a great many of us Scholar/Sage Observers are here doing the same thing for their own entity mates. It's amazing how we Michael Listers, from the vast depths of our collective personal experiences, keep adding to the different ways a "fact" can be perceived. To me this accumulation is a great part of the stuff of wisdom. This is what I meant before (in another posting) about the truth changing from one day to the next. To me a given truth doesn't "become another truth", it just gets "refined into a more accurate representation of itself". One last thing, FWIW, while writing the above posting, I was jumping back and forth between 7th level old scholar and 1st level transcendental. (I'll post a series of summaries by Joya Pope re the Soul Ages.) The Michael entity chose to not stratify the transcendental soul age. However, any fragment or entity who wants to can do so. It serves my causal function to do so. One more last thing: My Dear Michael Listers, I cannot begin to verbalize how much your postings and conversations mean to me. The intelligence and agape that I experience through this list is truly healing, educational, and even recreational. I'll try to lighten up some because I know I tend to be too much to the point in presenting myself. My last "last thing" :>)# God BleesBlissBless You All, and, aside: Geez, talk about typos! :>)# Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 02:29:56 -0400 Kate McMurry wrote:
Kate, I've been dealing with depression since I was a child who always wanted "to go back home". I knew I was a spiritual ET early on. The only thing that has been really effective for me is to continue to do things that are really interesting to me, regardless of what other people, including my parents, felt I "should" do. Swat the should bees and the could bees. Do what you really prefer to do, and try not hurt or discomfort anyone. For any given situation this latter point can be really ticklish and enlightening: are you really the cause of someone else's hurt or discomfort, or is the person hurting or discomforting his/herself because of his/her attitudes and belief systems? Boom, Boom, Clap. Peace and Light to You and Yours, Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 03:49:33 -0400 From "The World According to Michael: INFANT SOULS [EDITOR'S NOTE: Ken went on to post all of the chapters on Soul Age with no personal commentary of his own. Since the article is already posted at this site, it's not included here. If you'd like to read it, go to: Soul Ages ] Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:20:36 -0400
(EDT) Dear Kate and Kenneth: Take St. John's Wort. 2 caps X 3 X day This herb is a natural anti depressant. Carry Lepidalite with you at all times. A small piece should do. The stone has the high amount of natural lithium salts of any stone around. Using it as a worry bead will suppy you with a steady stream of needed lithium. It salt will rub off the stone and be absorbed into the skin to endup in your bloodstream. It may also help to understand that depression is anger redirected toward oneself and that occurs because one is generally afraid of the consecquences of a clean expression of such anger. There are various meditations available which will guide you through your anger and transform your depression. One guided meditation tape I know to be exceptional is the Lazaris Tape album on Releasing Anger. I would consider it without question to be the best tape album of its kind on the market today. I will see if I can ferret out some other
information. Institute for Shamanic Studies and
Vibrational Medicine On 12 Aug 1997, Kenneth Broom wrote:
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 09:25:20 +0000 |
SUMMARY:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Praesent
vestibulum molestie lacus.