Home > Related Articles Spiritweb Michael

Spiritweb Michael List
1997 - Week 37


Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:05:43 -0500
From: Aida P.
Subject: More YOU KNOW YOU'RE AN OLD SOUL WHEN...

(Dave, mine are not as gross as yours - but they are FACTUAL!!! A.)

YOU KNOW YOU'RE AN OLD SOUL WHEN...

23) in order to satisfy your need to buy something new you go shopping and charge a bunch of stuff on your credit card, and next week you go and return it all and have it credited back - and you actually feel like you accomplished something!

24) when you find yourself enjoying a conversation with someone about how you never get anything done and can't seem to get a grip on your work life, and you hear yourself saying, yes, yes, that's right, and laughing as you go...

25) when you face the parent of a young child who is urging the kid to eat, and tell him "Hey, leave the kid with me for a while, and take a break before you give the kid develops an eating disorder..."

26) when you decide you're not going to wait for the next holiday to happen, and bring out your Christmas lights and invite your friends over in August to string lights on each other and have a beer..[this is the only one I have yet to do...]

27) when you go to the dog pound to retrieve your shaggy dog who took off for a hike, and come home with 2 new dogs in addition to the one you already had...

28) when you go to the theater to see CONTACT twice, just because you feel so very HAPPY and PLEASED that Carl Sagan wasn't a total scientific materialist and came out with it in the end...

29) when you find it amusing that you are annoyed with someone for taking too long to say something - and actually thank this person sincerely for sharing with you...

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:35:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: telling it like it is (Michael Land)

In a message dated 97-09-12 16:15:22 EDT, Lori writes:

<< BTW: No one has any exclusive rights to Michael IMO, go with your
intuition on that, as you would with any channeled material....>>

Yeah, as I was telling Lori in a private letter, "it seems that Michael now has territorial rights." Makes you wonder if he was a vacuum cleaner salesman in his past incarnation. ;-p Now perhaps the individual who is the sole member in this Michael club could rent his services out to interested, and paying channelers. Hey, a "Michael franchise" could even be started! (Eyes popping out) This could be bigger than McDonalds!!! People could drive up to a fast-food styled building like the Golden Arches, but instead of getting a greasy slab of dead animal flesh, they would receive info on their past lives, their overleaves, the allotment of toe cheese between their ears, some Michael action figures thrown in for the kids, and the relative age of their soul; of course, old souls would immediately be dragged out of their cars and beaten senseless with wet noodles, but this would only prove that the young souls are still in charge. Geez, the possibilities of this are limitless. I can even envision this mega corporation expanding into a huge entertainment center like Disney World, but with a slight spiritual twist. Here's an exciting promo.......

WELCOME TO MICHAEL LAND!!!

With the dawn of New Age awareness, and the realization from extensive Michael teachings that life is merely a game that you can always play again in the next lifetime, the philosophy was adopted that "why not take some risks? Who cares if you accidentally become disemboweled by a rectal itcher or find a barbecue fork inappropriately lodged in your skull, you can always win the game in your next incarnation!" Thus, Michael Land is the newest craze in entertainment attractions. Conveniently located on the beautiful coastline of Antartica, it is quickly becoming the least populated amusement park in the world. Please include us in your next vacation intinerary. We'd love to shove you in....uh, er....I mean, introduce you to our lovely cryogenic chamber of din, where kids are frozen free of charge. First time guests also receive a complimentary dead penguin that oozes pus. See you soon!!!!

EXCITING RIDES AND ATTRACTIONS (with apologies to David Letterman)

The Cordless Bungee Jump - One word: Splat.

The Human Blender - YOU strap yourself in...WE call the paramedics!

The Mystery Log Ride - Come float in our medicinal toxic waste.

Parade of Elves with Hideous Infections - They love to be cuddled.

Giant Wasp Petting Zoo - Lick the nest. They love it!

The Michael Lick-off - 1050 souls will annoint you with raw veal.

The Industrial Waste Flume - Can you say pungent?

Decapitated Horse Carriages - A Sicilian delicacy

Hot Buttered "Michael" Massage Booth - Over 1050 hands of pleasure.

The Cryogenic Drool Rink - Made of the finest spit from "genuine" transients.

Hall of Infant Soul "Cereal" Killers - Come help them earn karmic points.

Tramway Thru the Digestive System - Watch us digest a live puppy.

The Electricution Parade - You only need to it see once.

Lice Mountain - Join our infestation.

Kiss a Tasmanian Devil - Disgruntled animal souls finally get their revenge.

It's a Tall World - The ride to infuriate midgets.

The Scratch and Sniff Museum of Flatulence - A warrior's favorite.

Michael's Haunted Sock Drawer - Explore the static cling generated by over a million, tiny white socks.

Mengele's Dental Delights - Strap yourself in for the pain of your life, as the good doctor performs a root canal with a blow torch and an ice pick.

SHOPS TO PERUSE

Candy Palace - Featuring "Gummi Entrails!"

The Candle Shop and other Pleasure Seeking Attachments - Never have to say "you're sorry" again.

Eat a Cricket Family Restaurant - Dave's personal favorite.

Abcess Julius - Freshly lanced while you watch.

"Things That Ooze" Snack Shop - Try our snot slurpees.

Toxic Waste Scent Shop - Can you say pungent - again?

The Mummify Your Mother-IN-Law Store - Easy ten step procedure.

Michael-riffic Lice Cream Shop - Flavor of the month --- Chocolate Chip Cigarette Butt

Dave ;-p


Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:11:20 -0700
Subject: Re: Channeling Michael - for Lorraine & Dick

Lorraine,

Thanks - I definitely received the light you (or someone) sent! I honestly don't normally give into anger like that - I tend to keep my Warrior in check pretty well - but in this case, it felt like my friend was being personally attacked and I blew it. I mean, she put Alma's name up on the 'net in a very demeaning and condescending manner. Geez...

Your telling me to stay in my circle is exactly the type of thing that Alma herself tells me, so I should know better! (Especially since I'm constantly telling my husband to do the same.) Ironically, Alma just recently channeled Michael as saying that anger is one of the emotions that has it's basis in fear. I obviously didn't apply the lesson they were trying to get across - to stay in love, not fear. I'm working on it though!

Thanks for your message!

Dick,

Thanks for posting the message for me, nasty as it was. I'm finally back online, hopefully not temporarily. I'm starting to believe that the psychic fireworks I had going on Wed. morning regarding this is what caused my system crash. Better be more careful! Can you see what Alma's reaction to that message would be? I see it now and it makes me smile! She's great :-)

Take care,
Janet

On Fri, 12 Sep 97 Lorraine wrote:

> Janet,
>
> Wow! This subject certainly created a lot of anger and
> hostility, which, by the way serves no good purpose.
> Everyone who is involved in these kinds of "channeling
> feuds and uproars" knows their own intentions and
> integrity. Stay in your circle. Why let someone
> else's reality, perceptions, deceptions, or whatever
> deplete your energy? If it is what they need at the
> moment to learn a lesson, let them be with it. Do not
> judge, keep it simple and let it go. Maybe even send
> them a little light if you feel they need. I know I'm
> gonna' send you some!
>
> Love
>
> Lorraine


Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:01:47 -0600
From: Gloria C.
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Conference]

From: John S.
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 97 14:36:00 EST

You wrote:

> I'd miss the opportunity to meet other people who are bonkers over the M. Teachings
> and their overleaf system. It seems the next step for me in my own
> development,

... thats the suprising thing for me Gloria, it seems my guidance is prompting me to prepare for some other things as the next step in my own development. Its a bit of a dilema for me because the M. teachings have such a huge impact on me, and i really though this was it for this life - - - just hunker down and bury my head in it for the next half century of so. And I really went at it with feverish priestly energy.
... but now that the tide of the last 2 years have passed am beginning to hear strains of a different tune.
I cant make out all the music yet, but it sounds different. Its almost as if I might already be completing my agreement with Micheal. Maybe thats why I hesitate to go to the conference ... its such a sweet romance I want to keep dragging it on at a low key & am somehow apprehensive that going might trigger events that spark off a new fire; I'm feeling somewhat lazy & would like access spiritual energy of a slower frequency than the ones i've been tapping from recently ...

I feel you will do well in Taos even if you went with just a few bucks in your back pocket.
Wow, what would I give to live in a place with just 5000 people ! Its beautiful here in Europe but its so Crowded.
As you know Holland is full of old souls as well ... but there are mostly in the rural North ... relaxing and hiding away from the rest of the world & those of us who have to make a living are crowed into a small dense part of the South West. There you find a lot of very troubled mature souls ... Belgium is full of mature souls, pleasant but busy.
Its more fun than Holland though ... much more warm and emotional. The old soul flavour in Holland is the detached, cold sort. They really dont care about anything anymore, they are mostly shy and reculsive and prefer to be left alone. Not very nice & not very easy to connect with.
It amazing how the different soul'd populations are flavoured by the history/geography/radiations of their country.
The mature souls in Germany are of the deeply burdened, depressed, angry sort. Unpleasant but very genuine ... meeting and observing people in Germany filled me with so much compassion ... you see people on the streets every day almost bursting with the weight of dark difficult emotions they are trying to process.

I like the feel of North American old souls. I sometimes fantasize about moving but you and I know I shouldnt really do that now ... I should proably first concentrate on recovering from all these moves ive made already.

I love talking to you so much. Stay in touch.

Lots of love,
John


Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:02:13 -0600
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Conference]

John S. wrote:

> ... thats the suprising thing for me Gloria, it seems my guidance is
> prompting me to prepare for some other things as the next step in
> my own development. Its a bit of a dilema for me because the M. teachings
> have such a huge impact on me, and i really though this was it for this
> life - - - just hunker down and bury my head in it for the next half century
> of so. And I really went at it with feverish priestly energy.
> ... but now that the tide of the last 2 years have passed am beginning to
> hear strains of a different tune.
> I cant make out all the music yet, but it sounds different. Its almost
> as if I might already be completing my agreement with Micheal. Maybe thats
> why I hesistate to go to the conference ... its such a sweet romance I want
> to keep dragging it on at a low key & am somehow apprehensive that going
> might trigger events that spark off a new fire; I'm feeling somewhat lazy &
> would like access spiritual energy of a slower frequency than the ones
> i've been tapping from recently ...
>
> I feel you will do well in Taos even if you went with just a few bucks in your back pocket.
> Wow, what would I give to live in a place with just 5000 people !
> Its beautiful here in Europe but its so Crowded.
> As you know Holland is full of old souls as well ... but there are mostly in the rural North ...
> relaxing and hiding away from the rest of the world & those of us who have
> to make a living are crowed into a small dense part of the South West. There you find
> a lot of very troubled mature souls ... Belgium is full of mature souls, pleasant but busy.
> Its more fun than Holland though ... much more warm and emotional.
> The old soul flavour in Holland is the detached, cold sort. They really dont care about
> anything anymore, they are mostly shy and reculsive and prefer to be left alone.
> Not very nice & not very easy to connect with.
> It amazing how the different sould populations are flavoured by the
> history/geography/radiations of their country.
> The mature souls in Germany are of the deeply burdened, depressed, angry sort.
> Unpleasant but very genuine ... meeting and observing people in Germany filled me with
> so much compassion ... you see people on the streets every day almost bursting with the
> weight of dark difficult emotions they are trying to process.
>
> I like the feel of North American old souls. I sometimes fantasize about moving but you > and I know I shouldnt really do that now ... I should proably first concentrate on recovering > from all these moves ive made already.
>
> I love talking to you so much. Stay in touch.
>
> Lots of love,
> John.

My dear John S.:

What agreement did you have with Michael that you might be completing? I can certainly understand the need to take a break from teachings, specific to a system as they are. I also comprehend that what the Tao is, and what the Tao has to offer us in our current embodied states is vast, and absolutely awesome in its vastness. To be sure, you are not the first voice I've heard that, having studied richly the M. Teachings, are feeling a need to incorporate something else. This is right, and this is appropriate. It is about making choices, exercising your right will, and taking back your power.

The brief message I sent you regarding the massive changes taking place in your life (it's everywhere, and not confined to a specific area or manifestation) as shown in your natal astro chart are definitely unfolding. And we both know that that unfolding has only begun to show itself in concrete ways, and has far from shown where it will take you, or what things will eventually look like. This is always hard to determine, as we keep weaving and re-weaving our future probabilities with every choice we make, or don't make. I am not surprised to hear you speak thus. You are ever one who will keep moving, lest you get dragged along the ground by your hastening essence. I will confess that I momentarily felt as though I were behind in grasping truth (since I'm so intrigued by the Teachings) but I know that Truth has many facets or ways of telling itself, and that one system is not ahead or behind another. Truth, being what it is, is always what it is. No matter the experience or style. Or name.

I am definitely excited about seeing where your guidance leads you. It's so important to stay in touch with your own inner knowing. I don't have powerful clarity for myself at this time on certain crucial and heart-squeezing issues, but neither do I feel the clock ticking, forcing me to make an unreadied decision. I confess the only thing I feel strongly about is quitting my job--now. And that's insane from a practical point of view. I want my cats, and I want my Lah-ti who I keep trying to give away to my sister in Ohio and then call to say I can't--I'm about to do it again--no clarity. (There's some shame now, and some embarrassment.)

I had a conversation with my good friend Sharon J. (a practicing spiritually-oriented psychic) who just contradicted some crucial stuff I got from my last channeled session with Michael. She doesn't think I should try to sell this condo at all. And she says--if you feel isolated now, what the hell are you thinking moving to Taos where you don't know anyone! I didn't bother to bring up the concept of finding old soul familiarity. She believes in the godheads God and Christ, but channeled stuff is at best iffy to her. So, I've never discussed the M. teachings with her, but with every other friend I have. It's interesting, as she does function as a spiritual counselor to many, many clients. I genuinely believe she has everyone's best interest at heart, and has done a lot of good, pulling quite a few through crisis.

I guess, John, what we're left with, and what we really only ever have is INNER KNOWING. If we don't access it and honor it, we'll be totally at the mercy of the advice and insights of whatever guru we happen to be attracted to, intrigued and impressed by. That's not to say the g's haven't been helpful. They may even be helpful in the confusion they create. However, I am now so confused, I have no one to turn to but myself. And who knows better than me. I need to detach, somehow, from my need to have certain outcomes, and from my fears that call me a major fool. I am going to absolutely have to go within. I'm so damn comfortable with real conversation and the profoundness found in books, and so used to going there to find out what's really going on with me. Now it has to be me I turn to. Gloria has to tell Gloria what Gloria needs to do. Gloria needs to take back her power. If she needs help, she can ask for it. It's OK to ask for help--but very sabotaging to seek assistance prematurely.

I feel like a fool. OK, so I am a fool. What's next?

Lots of love,
Gloria


Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:42:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Ed on Lori L. on Janet on Tricia

Whether Janet is angry or not, and whether or not anger is appropriate, I completely agree with her opinions on the posting about Tricia S. and "A.P." (who has a website at www.spiritguide.com).

Having been around the subject for a decade in which I've read everything and met about ten of the Michael channels including Aaron, JP and Alma, never once had I ever heard of Tricia S. I would speculate that she had some fleeting encounter with the M.E.F. and some sort of personal upset or disagreement with them which she evidently walked away from without patching it up. If this were true, not just speculation, I would take it as a bad indicator on Tricia's work, for old souls usually know that it is good work and good sense to communicate with an intent to repair upsets, for letting them sit unhandled has lingering bad effects.

All the best, Ed


Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 23:29:41 +0200
Subject: Re:Parallel Lives

Hi all,

I got three replies concerning Parallel Universes, from Ken, Ed and Dean (I think Ed's may only have come to me) and all three supported the concept. The unanimity of the responses and the low turnout make me think this isn't such a hot topic after all. Oh well. I got something out of the exercise anyway... a better understanding of where people are coming from when they talk about parallel universes. So thank you all for responding. Strangely, though Ken's response was the most subjective it makes me think the most... it reminds me of an experience I had that I could not explain by in my understanding of the "classical" Michael teachings, but which I "know" is true. So I respect that kind of knowing.

As to consensus, it doesn't mean unanimity, it means everyone is agreed to work in a certain direction together. It also doesn't mean majority rule. If one person feels very strongly on some point the rest of the group may decide to go along with that person even against the majority (i.e. the majority agrees to stand aside for that one person). It means that every person has a voice (a real voice, not one vote) in every issue. (I didn't come to this entirely on my own, I was deeply influenced by Starhawk's book, DREAMING THE DARK (the concept is also much better explained there)) In terms of parallel universes; I see that the issue means more to other people here than it does to me so I will choose not to belabour the point on this list. I might perhaps have hit upon a better topic to work on, one where there is a more widespread disagreement that needs to be worked out. However, when that topic surfaces I shall still be here... In the meantime thanks for humouring me.

Katherine


Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:15:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Michael 2

Dear Bill -- First, as to whether the Michael people are channels or not -- everyone channels. All it is is the opening of a connection with one's essence. Everyone does that in times of creativity, sometimes in physical action, whenever there seems to be a perfect alignment. I think of when the painter steps back from the picture and wonders "what next?", lets the mind go blank and suddenly there comes the message to "put a little blob of green down there" or something. Such a message is often not verbal but just a concept or feeling that you can act on without even having words pass through the mind.

Within that there is the less common subset of "channeling" where the essence allows a contact (which essence mediates and is the ultimate gatekeeper for) with other beings, which can be of many different types and planes. Even 30 years ago this contact was quite uncommon, mostly practiced by Spiritualists. Now this kind of channeling has proliferated as have teachers of it. Both as individuals and as a culture our vibrations have dramatically lightened up so that people are much less afraid or inhibited; also there are a multitude of good loving sources to connect with and fewer of the lower astral, not so nice ones.

If you're an intellectual person you may have found channeling happen when you write, or solve problems, or answer questions, and something just pops into your mind unexpectedly that is just right.

Anyone's own essence is a complete source of anything, information or otherwise, we can ask for. It is what we call "God" and "pray to" if as in conventional religion we believe we are lowly and God is far away.

The "Michael" entity group has an agreement with 12 cadres (about 100,000) of their "students" to serve as discarnate teachers. Their "job" is to learn how to do this and do it well. When we cycle off and our entity groups recombine we will probably serve as teachers in this way for other groups of newer students coming along. Bear in mind that these relationships don't entail any attachment or commitment to any specific dogmas or doctrines; it's above such details.

So within this list there are various channels who have varying amounts of experience and specific talents. Some do it professionally, some for fun. There are lots of "students", like me, who, after discovering and becoming familiar with the material, just seem to be well-versed in it. I can often know how Michael would answer some general question, but I don't have the feeling of being a channel even when I know that what I am saying is just what they would say. So I don't know whether it's just my own personality's familiarity with the ideas, or my essence's, or whether my essence is in contact with Michael. It all feels the same to me.

A lot of channeling activity involves being "psychic" and learning to pick up on information about other people, the important people in their lives, their past lives, and specific advice for them, etc. But channeling doesn't have to focus on this sort of work. It is whatever is the way in which you express your essence in life, and all such ways are valid and wonderful. My advice for most people would be to note the physical or other cues that connect with times when you are "on" and to then get more "onness" time in your life. The more you do, the easier everything gets and the better all of life flows.

All the best, Ed


Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 02:13:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: You know you're an OLD soul when....

In a message dated 97-09-13 01:37:16 EDT, Lori Tostado writes:

<< Hahahahahahahahaha....:-)

19. You find out that there IS something out there that's better than sex! But you're too lazy and tired to find out what it is. <---Lori..you mean to tell me that my ambition in life should be more than just breathing? ;-p

20. Your chakras start giving into gravity: "They've fallen, and they can't get up!" <---and here I thought your chakras were perky and defied all laws of gravity. :-( <--Yes, I'm an old soul pervert. Of course, if I didn't have an interest in female anatomy I'd be called a fudge packer. Geez, you just can't win with women.

21. You get all excited when you're watching the Borg on Star Trek as they say, "Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated." And you're going, "Oh yes, yes, please...assimilate me!" <---Oh, yes, yes..GOD yes!!!!!! ;-p

22. You now are old enough that you even take full accountability when you release your flatulence: but you tell the victims of your expression around you that you were "making a melody." <--- Listen to Lori's gaseous children of the night. Ah, what sweet music she makes....:-)

----- >>

Dave - Just adding an addendum to my sick and twisted sister...;-p


Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: random acts of kindness

To all the angels on this list (or even one's who aren't ;-)

Would you like to participate in a small random act of kindness for someone that you don't know, but who is a friend of mine who really needs to be reminded that there truly are angels in this world, and that the universe is abundant and can be trusted?

E-mail me PRIVATELY please if you would like to participate. You'll feel like a kid again... ;-) I'll collect e-mail addresses for 2 days and e-mail you the details.

Thank you....Love,
Lori


Date: 15 Sep 1997 16:50:25 -0700
Subject: Re: telling it like it is

Lori said:

I don't like it when people tell me not to be angry, or not to hate
something, because I have found that I really have to move through
the emotion. Emotions pass, but when we deny them they stay stuck.

This is very timely stuff for me. I was just going to ask what Michael says about anger. I have been recently feeling huge amounts of anger at my signficant other because he is trying to "save" a gutter-punk junkie who has decided to camp out in our back room. I have huge (apparently) unresolved issues regarding addiction (my ex was an alcoholic) and I get extremely angry when I see others stuck in their addictions. Part of me wants to help her get clean (if thats what she wants) and part of me is so unsympathetic that I feel like kicking her out on the street. That part of me plays a tape that says things like: I'VE had crap in my life too and I'M not a junkie, I'VE worked since I was 16, put myself and my ex through college and I'M not a junkie, if I can live through my pain and still stay sober SHE can... and if SHE Can't she needs to get OUT OF MY HOUSE!

Wow and I hate that attitude in me. SO SELFISH... but the anger is still there even after exploding on my boyfriend for 5 hours last night about her.... you'd think I'd have gotten it all out. It's not. I realize they are My emotions to control but I seem so out of control when it comes to certain issues. Any thought? Anyone?

Thanks for listening to me rant again,
I'm really not this angry and bitter all the time!
I'm usually really fun! (yeah, I know, tell it to the judge) *smile*

Peace
Jen


Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:35:15 -0400
Subject: Ed's Post on Channeling

Ed,

Really enjoyed your post on "everyone channels." Well said. :)

Kate


Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:42:56 -0400
Subject: Channeling Overleaves on the List

To anyone who may be waiting/hoping for me to channel their overleaves for the list:

It was a good experiment, but I think, for now, it's run it's course, and I won't be posting any more readings at this time. My apologies if I've disappointed anyone. :)

For anyone who would like a not-free but very reasonably priced reading such as I was posting (that is, a listing of just the overleaves with no explanation in a one-page typed format either by snail-mail or e-mail), you can get this from multiple channels, including: Shepherd Hoodwin, Joya Pope, Emily Baumbach, and Kay Kamala, to name a few. (I can post their e-mail addresses or Lori can--or anyone else who wants to, the addresses are readily available to potential clients.) Prices range from $20-40. If you want a more complex reading, prices range from $90-200+/hour.

BTW, if you are looking for a good astrologer who is also a Michael Channel, I just found out this week that Emily Baumbach fills the bill, and very well, too.

Kate


Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:41:37 -0700
Subject: on parallel universes....

Hi Katherine and everyone,

I think parallel universes is a great topic. I've both been giving it some time and consideration before sharing and also I've felt some recent hesitancy to post, I must admit. But after spending some time thinking and writing about it -- here are some of the thoughts and feelings that occured to me.

The idea of parallel universes seems to be a topic of discussion from science fiction to science fact and so it has found its way into the michael information too.

I must say it doesn't have much real resonance with me either. I find it often being used to explain things that could be explained in much simpler (and more ordinary) ways. I do understand what Katherine means by the concept negating choice. After all, if you get a chance to experience all the major choices, what difference does it make what you choose? I also understand people saying it allows for greater choice, because it allows all choices. But again, the discrimination/discernment and learning of having to make a choice and see what it means is definitely shifted if there are all these infinite spin-offs.

I think for me, the whole idea comes from science's inability to conceive of the nature of potentiality. From chaos theory to parallel universes, I think there's a lot that's currently off the mark a bit. It comes back together and makes a lot more sense for me in the intuitive understanding/knowing of the nature of Tao-stuff, the nature of creation and our part in it. Whatever it is that is the underlying nature of everything is of infinite creative potential. We know that how we view something, the colors of glasses we wear without realizing it, the prism-like aspects of our current natures, mold the potential into a current form or expression and our experience. The Tao-stuff has the potential to constantly shift and change, in fact it doesn't really stay still at all and it isn't really solid. But I don't think the infinite potentiality of the Tao means it's creating everything at once. (Gosh, there are a lot of issues wrapped up in this one.) Yes I think time is simultaneous at some level, no I don't think there are infinite personal, particular me's living out all of the major options of me. Somehow it seems like a need of a me to begin with, because in a way, all the options are being played out, just through all the different personalities that will someday experience themselves again as one.

On a more intuitive level, I experience a lot of bleed through in terms of what I love, what creates a feeling of comfort for me and what frightens me, from experiences in other lives and possibly even memories from systems other than earth. I came in talking to my parents at 3 and 4 years old about how I chose them as my parents and had lived in China as a peasant rice farmer before I came to them. (I told them how old I was, when I died, how many children I had, which ones had died. I even still remember the look of that valley.) It's possible that it was just the work of a vivid imagination, although it doesn't feel like it. One personal experience that points to reincarnation not being linear and sequential, (which I don't believe it is) is that when I was watching the silent movie Metropolis, made in Germany I think around the time of world war one, I suddenly felt that I knew a lot of that group who acted in the movie as well as some feeling of familiarity with Antonin Artaud, another actor of that time, in Paris. (At the same time, I knew "I" was in China.) But whether the insights about the Metropolis period was my "own" personal memory, or whether I was picking up on someone else's thoughts, either possibly an entity or cadre mate, or just feeling into someone else's life (which does happen as oneness becomes more palpable and boundaries fall away) I can't say. But it led me to feel that our current view of time as sequential and linear is too limited. As you can see, so much of this is affected by our current definition of I.

About the same time, I had senses of an event in time being like a pebble dropped in a pond. The ripples go out from the pebble (the event) and are larger closer to the pebble and smaller -- more subtle --further away. The ripples don't just go in two directions, but out in all directions. With sensitivity and awareness, often as we approach a probable event, we can pick up on and "read" the ripples coming out as we approach the moment, getting a sense of what might happen. In a sense, we see/feel a potential future.(People can still choose to act differently, but there are strong tendencies and probabilities -- which is how there can be knowledge of the future and free will existing simultaneously.) I think sensing these waves coming off of events is really little different than having good eyesight and being able to see a distant mountain from far away. Except currently we think of it differently. I imagine that will change when it happens that this world moves into its old soul phase.

But I've never yet, that I know of, experienced bleed through from parallel lives (not that this in any way necessarily means it's not possible.) Unless, it's such a common feeling, I might not recognize it for what it is. (So far, I've just been able to find other simpler more direct explanations.) I know what it feels like when a potential agreement doesn't happen. Some of these would have had major impact on my life. I can't honestly say on any level that I feel I am also living these lives. In fact, there's a lot that has needed to be processed and dealt with around missing out on that potential life experience, often major grieving and adjustment. I know what it feels like when there are probable future events that are to include me, that I need to go out of my way to be a part of, and do so because I feel/know I'm to be a part of it. I've had feelings of potentials in my life that have been held out to me for years as a sort of carrot to help me persevere through difficult times. I just don't have even the remotest hit that I'm currently living lives with different mates etc. Sometimes I know there are other things I'm capable of doing, and I know this with such a strength, it might be easy to imagine I'm already doing it somewhere. In a sense "I" am, depending on who I am. But whether this particular woman, with this particular personality is currently out there doing it somewhere else??? I don't know. Possibly.It just doesn't feel that true to me.

During moments of expanded awareness, it seems to go the other way. All the multiples become clear as being just one.

It's almost as if the old classic teaching that this world is just a dream is spinning off wildly into multiple dreams in people's minds that will all again unite as one dream, then to a whole different reality of awareness of our Oneness and finally that sleep was just a dream to begin with. I guess if we're dreaming, it doesn't matter how many dreams we awake from. We're still dreaming or awake.

I do have the sense of all the various planes of consciousness coinciding at our particular point of awareness, and that we can draw more of other planes into our reality through choice and our focusing on them and living more in their perceptions. But this still isn't a feeling that there are universes where Elvis Presley still lives and that's why people keep seeing him or Gandhi lived and India stayed one country or Princess Diana survived the accident or or or....Sometimes I wonder if when Nostradamus looked into the future, he confused our realistic Hollywood disaster movies for the real thing. I mean, not knowing about movies, who would imagine that as a future idea of a good time? Maybe in a parallel universe....

I've certainly heard parallel universes being used as an explanation and excuse for all sorts of things. But bringing it back to the basics, of choice, focus, responsibility -- works better for me, a lot less glamorous though.... Seems more grounding, especially since one of the self-karmas of artisans is getting lost in their own creations and not knowing the difference between what is imagined and what is real....whatever real is.

Best to everyone,
Brin

(which, for those who've inquired, in this case is a woman's name....however maybe in other universes....)


Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:42:02 -0500
Subject: Re:Parallel Lives

This is a concept that resonates deeply with me.
I've lived in Minnesota all my life..I like it here because of
the pronounced seasonal changes.. and as a result I do not
look at life as a continuing linear kind of existence.
I live it in sections, sort of. Like the seasons.
Every season here is different, and I have different memories
associated with each. When a new season begins, I change. I have
a whole new set of feelings with memories attached to each. I can't
experience autumn the way I experience spring.
I can't help but look at the whole of my life this way.
If, for every season I'm operating from a specific set of memories
defined by that season, isn't that how it would be for each "branch"
or parallel life? Do I know what I'm talking about? No. I started
out with this big grand thing I wanted to say and now I have
confused myself.
(sigh).
I don't doubt that there are parallel universes out there.
I've made totally radical painful life altering decisions expecting to
feel like hell afterwards only to find that I feel great.
I feel like new! My friends expect me to be crying on their shoulders
when I'm actually laughing with glee. They get disturbed. Well, actually
that's only happened once that I recall. But it was so unexpected.
All the baggage was gone. I'm not sure what that would be an indication
of.. maybe I was getting off of a karmic branch or something.
I have dreams about still forging through with that particular
life and to my surprise I am really starting to get myself together
anyway. Sort of. I'll keep an eye on it if I can.
So anyway, I'm glad that the topic was brought up because it's
something that I've been really interested in..

Melissa.

At 20:11 15.09.97 -0000, Katherine wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I got three replies concerning Parallel Universes, from Ken, Ed and Dean (I
> think Ed's may only have come to me) and all three supported the concept.
> The unanimity of the responses and the low turnout make me think this isn't
> such a hot topic after all. Oh well. I got something out of the exercise
> anyway... a better understanding of where people are coming from when they
> talk about parallel universes. So thank you all for responding.
> Strangely, though Ken's response was the most subjective it makes me think
> the most... it reminds me of an experience I had that I could not explain
> by in my understanding of the "classical" Michael teachings, but which I
> "know" is true. So I respect that kind of knowing.
>
> As to consensus, it doesn't mean unanimity, it means everyone is agreed to
> work in a certain direction together. It also doesn't mean majority rule.
> If one person feels very strongly on some point the rest of the group may
> decide to go along with that person even against the majority (i.e. the
> majority agrees to stand aside for that one person). It means that every
> person has a voice (a real voice, not one vote) in every issue. (I didn't
> come to this entirely on my own, I was deeply influenced by Starhawk's
> book, DREAMING THE DARK (the concept is also much better explained there))
> In terms of parallel universes; I see that the issue means more to other
> people here than it does to me so I will choose not to belabour the point
> on this list. I might perhaps have hit upon a better topic to work on,
> one where there is a more widespread disagreement that needs to be worked
> out. However, when that topic surfaces I shall still be here... In the
> meantime thanks for humouring me.
>
> Katherine


Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 03:04:11 -0700
Subject: The "real" Michael?

Since posting a response from Janet B. to the thread, "Channeling Michael", I have felt a need to set out a few words of my own. As I mentioned in my preface to her post, I was offline for a few days and was unaware of the thread (and at least one derivative, "Exclusivity").

I have not seen the post quoted by John R. on Tricia's Web site, but am confident he has quoted it accurately, and will use it as the basis for much of my answer.

First, a little history might be in order. About the middle of August Janet visited Tricia S.'s Web site, then sent an email to Ms. Sullivan to comment on her site and channeling Michael. Janet shared with me Ms. Sullivan's reply, which is virtually the same as the Web posting except for the addition of the question at the beginning. Janet did not, and indeed would not, pose such a question; therefore, though it appears to be genuine, it is merely a mechanism by which the author attempts to legitimize the following...ah, "information".

After having read this several times now, the only conclusion I can come to is that Ms. Sullivan, if she is channeling at all, is channeling a being other than the Michael we all know and love. The following is in support of this conclusion.

First and surely the most important - the Michael we know is inclusive and expanding, not exclusive and withdrawing. Especially now, at the time of the planetary shift from the Young soul age to the Mature, they are working to bring people together, not isolate themselves from us. Indeed, they are working to help us get to the day when we don't need channels per se at all; that is, working with discarnate beings (or non-physical beings, NPBs) will be a normal activity for many people.

There are several places in Ms. Sullivan's words that tend to substantiate the conclusion that her "Michael" is not our Michael. Here are a few of them.

First, though, I have to comment on -

Q: Who do you channel through? I mean, can anyone contact and
channel your information? Does A??? P???? really channel you?

This thinly disguised attempt to evade taking responsibility for naming someone you are speaking about is tacky, tasteless, crude, and just plain juvenile. Those who do it are, at best, lame.

...those who would study our works.

Interesting - in all the Michael books I've read, and that includes almost everything in print and two that no longer are, I've never known them to refer to their "works"; it is always their "teachings".

The "Dear Michael" channelers, Van H???? and Ch?????, are the only
...............................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ones truly in touch with me, other than yourself.

This was added since the letter to Janet (which was, BTW, a forward of a letter to several other recipients). And our Michael refers to themselves as "us", not "me".

We were paraphrased when we said that we would "talk" to all that
ask, for we will, but only 29% of the world's population have the
abilities to contact us, and only about 19% of them have developed
and use those abilities regularly.

How convenient, refuting a statement of enablement. Makes it start to appear like a deliberate act rather than just being misguided. Looking at it another way - this is obviously an attempt to usurp our Michael's following, otherwise why refute published information? Subterfuge is an aspect of maya, which is present only on the physical plane. Therefore the source of the misinformation must lie with Ms. Sullivan.

We are not like a radio frequency that you can easily readjust
yourselves to.

Of course not; there are references to methods of learning to channel in several of the available books. Shepherd Hoodwin's _Journey of Your Soul_, for example, has some detailed words on this subject WRT channeling Michael, and _Opening To Channel_ is an entire book devoted to channeling in general.

For there are concepts and perceptions that need to be tuned as well
as techniques of communicating that need to be established.

Implying, "...before one can channel us." Well, not exactly. One's concepts and perceptions will change as one becomes more familiar with the teachings, but nothing in the books mentions needing a specific set in order to channel. Of course techniques of communicating will evolve as one channels more; this is a natural phenomenon applicable to all methods of communication.

For we are not of your plane, and you are not of ours.

Gee, really? What a startling piece of news! Is this supposed to lend authenticity to their words?

This is a skill that has taken each of our channelers years (in their terms) to perfect.

Perhaps, maybe even likely. But one doesn't have to be "perfect" in order to do it.

We do not come just to human students. We also have cetacean
students, as well as others from different "planets" within the
physical plane, and some located on the astral plane.

So? What's the point? More words to feign authenticity? And why is the word "planets" quoted? Is it not a common term?

So, this is not a spontaneous act that we do.

"Spontaneous" in reference to what? It may appear spontaneous to those on the physical plane, but as any serious student knows, all is planned in advance. That, of course, is not to say that all plans eventually manifest (in one lifetime, anyway).

We have agreements with only 127 fragments, only 12 of which are
located on Earth.

Very possibly. That would tend to support the conclusion that they are not "our" Michael.

That includes all "portions" of us, for we are also students as well
as teachers, and there are lessons we also partake in just as you
do, so this occupies our other "portions" that are not teaching.

That computes, for both whoever they are and our Michael. Contrary to Seth Cohn's take on it -

Nope, since "Michael' is fully cycled off, there are no 'portions'
or fragments to teach...

...when they speak of "portions", I assume they mean fragments (though I've never known our Michael to use the word "portion" when referring to any fragmented being). Even though they (our Michael) are teaching from the mid-causal plane, they are not fully reunited and still have fragments. It is documented that when a channel communicates with Michael, only a few of their fragments are involved. But this does not imply that those fragments are still incarnating.

As to being students as well as teachers, of course they are. First, it's logical since they are not fully reunited yet; and second, they have said so many times.

I'll now address Ms. Sullivan's deliberate attempt to cast doubt on Alma's ability to channel Michael. I have been to 24 group and two personal sessions in which Alma channeled "our" Michael in a very clear and understanding way. Their manner and information through Alma are consistent with what is seen in the many available books, and quite unlike that described by Ms. Sullivan's "channeling". All personal information Michael provided through Alma rang very true.

Maybe Ms. Sullivan is channeling some being named "Michael". I think it's evident, however, that whomever she is channeling is not the Michael whose words appear in books, and who we consider to be "our" Michael. There is nothing "wrong" with that, of course; it is her choice. As our Michael has said, there is more than one NPB going by the name "Michael".

I visited Ms. Sullivan's site several months ago after seeing a link to it on Lori Tostado's page. When I saw Ms. Sullivan's references to "Lail" as an alternate name for Michael, I had the feeling it was likely not our Michael. In all the books I've read and all the channeling sessions I've attended, Michael has never referred to themselves with an alternate name.

In closing I would like to say I think the words from Dave G. and Gloria C. in their followup posts are well-spoken.

Regards,
Dick [2.1(3)/5/4.2-144=4.7.3<5.150/4.5=26/0.4.11>]
----------------------------------------------------
Dick Hein / Mountain View, California.


Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:35:09 -0400
Subject: Re: telling it like it is

Jennifer S. wrote:

[clipped]

> Wow and I hate that attitude in me. SO SELFISH... but the anger is still
> there even after exploding on my boyfriend for 5 hours last night about
> her.... you'd think I'd have gotten it all out. It's not. I realize they
> are My emotions to control but I seem so out of control when it comes to
> certain issues. Any thought? Anyone?

It might help to understand that you are not your emotions. You experience emotions. You have emotions. You are not emotions. You are a wonderful and immortal fragment of the Prime Creator/Supreme Being/Etc. Now and then I have to remind myself that this is what I am, inspite of whatever pissed off, dirty word, emotions I may be experiencing at the moment.

Maybe also you're experiencing the addicted person's repressed anger. I have lived with addicts of various types, and it seems to me that no matter how weak, insipid, self-pitying, or stoned they may seem to be, there is a HUMONGOUS anger and frustration within them that they are using drugs to try and hide from.

So, maybe some of the anger that you're experiencing may not be totally yours, and when you get it off it comes back from somewhere out side of yourself. Better to protect yourself in and out with the Great White Light of Your Highest Self. The hatred of "that attitude" in yourself only serves to strengthen it. Try not to "resist" inner stuff you don't like, but rather, once you clearly recognize it for what ever it is, then "de-energize it" and "replace it" with whatever goodness you would prefer to feel.

Your intense emotions re an addict in your house seem normal for a 6th Level Mature Scholar in Growth, and especially frustrating for a Pragmatist in the Moving Part of the Intellectual Center who tends not to want to deal emotionally with other people's heavy-duty emotional "stuff", and who is intellectually "always clear" <smile> about what to do (moving part) to get to wherever she needs to get to. (maybe everybody else too) <another smile>

I really respect you folks in Growth for your courage in choosing to grow this fast, this way. And too I greatly respect you Jenn for telling it like is about your own stuff. :>)#

> Thanks for listening to me rant again,
> I'm really not this angry and bitter all the time!

Hey, Jenn, thats how we are learning from each other. You asked for ideas/help. You didn't just rant.

Peace and Light to You and Yours,
Kenneth Broom, Columbia, MD, USA
aka I.A.M. Research


Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: telling it like it is

Jennifer S. wrote:

> > Thanks for listening to me rant again,
> > I'm really not this angry and bitter all the time!

Personally, I think you own your stuff very well. Most people never even get to this level of awareness! And, I think a good rant once in a while, around people who understand and don't judge you, is good for the soul.... :^) In some of the Michael classes I was in, Michael said to say, "Thank god, there it goes, off for healing." (Or you can change the phrasing to suit you.) Basically, don't resist your emotions, but allow them to move through you. Surrender is the key. We like to be in control but when things are getting rough, that's when we want control the most, and that's when we have to let it go. It's hard, but I found that by taking a deep breath and saying to myself, "OK, I surrender," then things begin to flow again, somehow, even surprisingly sometimes.....

Blessings,
Lori


Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:37:09 -0400
Subject: Re[2]: telling it like it is

In response to Jennifer's post, Kenneth wrote:

So, maybe some of the anger that you're experiencing may not be
totally yours, and when you get it off it comes back from somewhere
out side of yourself. Better to protect yourself in and out with the
Great White Light of Your Highest Self.

Being very sensitive myself, I often have to stop and try to discern whether what I am feeling is my own stuff, or someone else's that I have picked up (which, by the say, I do very easily). Sometimes, when I know I'm going to be close to folks who, historically have given off negative energy or if I just feel a little vulnerable, I close my eyes and see the white light surrounding me. After a few moment I see it turning all around me in a clockwise motion, sealing me off. At the same time, imagine your feet are standing on black light. Black is for grounding. Let the swirling white light disappear into the black light through your feet and ground you. This is an incredible tool to help with outside energies mixing with your own.

Kenneth wrote:

Better to protect yourself in and out with the Great White Light of
Your Highest Self. The hatred of "that attitude" in yourself only
serves to strengthen it. Try not to "resist" inner stuff you don't
like, but rather, once you clearly recognize it for what ever it is,
then "de-energize it" and "replace it" with whatever goodness you
would prefer to feel.

AMEN! THE LIGHT WILL HEAL THE ISSUES IN THE TISSUES!

love,

lorraine


Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 15:23:51 -0400
Subject: Re: telling it like it is

Jennifer S. wrote:

> This is very timely stuff for me. I was just going to ask what
> Michael says about anger. I have been recently feeling huge
> amounts of anger at my signficant other because he is trying
> to "save" a gutter-punk junkie who has decided to camp out
> in our back room. I have huge (apparently) unresolved
> issues regarding addiction (my ex was an alcoholic) and I get
> extremely angry when I see others stuck in their addictions.
> Part of me wants to help her get clean (if thats what she wants)
> and part of me is so unsympathetic that I feel like kicking her out
> on the street. That part of me plays a tape that says things like:
> I'VE had crap in my life too and I'M not a junkie, I'VE worked since
> I was 16, put myself and my ex through college and I'M not a
> junkie, if I can live through my pain and still stay sober SHE can...
> and if SHE Can't she needs to get OUT OF MY HOUSE!
>
> Wow and I hate that attitude in me. SO SELFISH... but the anger is
> still there even after exploding on my boyfriend for 5 hours last night
> about her.... you'd think I'd have gotten it all out. It's not. I realize
> they are My emotions to control but I seem so out of control when it
> comes to certain issues. Any thought? Anyone?

Jennifer,

If my significant other ever tried to do this to me I'd tell her to either get the person out IMMEDIATELY or to get out with them (or I would leave myself). It is in no way a selfish attitude to protect your living space. Your anger is totally justified in this case.

Christopher


Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:42:07 -0400
Subject: Re: telling it like it is

Christopher M. wrote:

> Jennifer,
>
> If my significant other ever tried to do this to me I'd tell her to
> either get the person out IMMEDIATELY or to get out with them (or I
> would leave myself). It is in no way a selfish attitude to protect
> your living space. Your anger is totally justified in this case.
>
> Christopher

What Christopher said. As his SO, if I were insensitive/abusive enough to do to him what has been done to you, Jennifer, I'd deserve to lose his respect and companionship.

IM, perhaps, NSHO, a shared living space is just that, *shared*, as are the decisions about who and what will enter that space. If only one person has the say, it isn't a partnership, it's a dictatorship.

I personally believe that anger in and of itself is not "evil" or a plague to be gotten rid of. It is a natural, very useful signal from our bodies (mind & emotions) that we have been violated. It isn't a particularly new thought, but I believe (and experience) that emotions arise spontaneously (involving little or no conscious volition). We do, however, have a choice about how we choose to *express* them. In the case of expressing anger (the emotion people in our culture seem to dread the most) our means of doing that can be effective or ineffective. And, of course, at the ineffective end of the continuum, you can get downright destructive/abusive expressions of anger such as rages, tantrums on up to actually physically attacking the other person.

I tend to agree with Harriet Lerner (The Dance of Anger) that women (or men) who yell to get their point across often look (and feel inside themselves) as powerless as women (or men) who "wimp out" and won't speak up for themselves. One possible way to take back one's power (to be "assertive" vs. "violently aggressive" or "wimpily passive") using the housemate situation as an example: the roommates could sit down together and arrive at mutually agreed upon house rules (about house guests, chores, food and utility bill payment, etc.), which are decided upon in a spirit of mutual respect and co-equal partnership.

IMO, when the ability to negotiate in this sort of co-equal, respectful manner is not present in *any* sort of roommate situation (romantic or otherwise), this can lead to a great deal of painful, unresolved--and often unremitting--conflict.

Kate, tossing in her two cents


Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:29:34 -0700
Subject: Re: Channeling Michael

Dick,
Thanks for your very "scholarly" post on the authenticity of Michael channels. As more and more people are drawn to this body of teaching, we will see more misuse of it as well by younger souls who want to get in on a good thing.

We all need to remember to validate what we hear, what we see and who we encounter.

About channeling Michael ... somewhere (in one of the early books, I believe), Michael discussed "who" could channel and said that the accurate channels are advanced students of the teachings. Yes, everyone channels someone. However, to do it well enough to use it for other people requires extensive work, personal discipline and time.

When I first asked Jose Stevens about whether I could learn to channel, he said yes, if I was willing to spend 5 years of diligent work learning how. At first I was rather discouraged, but after spending that amount of time, I can see the difference. By the way, I don't channel in the same way most Michael channels do. This is because of my own life tasks and goals this lifetime. Therefore, I do not promote "channeling" as part of my professional work. This is in spite of many years of diligent spiritual work and very specific training. I am trained and licensed to do spiritual counseling.

I am very skeptical of those who "spontaneously" channel Michael and do not follow a rigorous training program designed to help them get clear of their own "stuff" and develop the skills to really help people in their channeling work. Being perfect is not necessary -- however, any counseling profession has a code of ethics and agreed behaviors to adhere to. Counseling, psychology, ministers, social work, etc are regulated through specified training, ongoing educational requirements, state licensing, etc all designed to keep people from getting hurt.

Channeling is not regulated (that I'm aware of), so none of those "earthly" protections are available for the public. There was at one time a code of ethics used by many of the Michael channels. I hope the new AMT will reinstate such professional ethical guidelines and announce them publicly to help differentiate the professional channels from others who are not willing/able to adhere to the guidelines.

My understanding is that the entire Michael entity does not enter the channel -- it would destroy their body!! One fragment of the Michael entity is usually assigned to be the contact point for the channel. When a channel calls "Michael" they are actually getting their contact point within the Michael entity. The vocabulary of the channel's knowledge of the teachings is what the channeled fragment works with. Channels who have not done their study work, don't have the ability to translate what they might get from Michael, therefore, inaccuracies result.

Other complicating or supporting factors that arise are the agreements and past life connections between the channel and Michael, between the channel and the inquirer, etc.

Rarely does a channel make contact with the Akashic records as Edgar Cayce did (he was a very unusual channel), since that takes a tremendous amount of energy.

<climbing down off my pulpit>

Barbara T


Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:56:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Channeling Michael

Barbara T wrote:

[clipped]

> We all need to remember to validate what we hear, what we see and who
> we encounter.

Absolutely!

> About channeling Michael ... somewhere (in one of the early books, I
> believe), Michael discussed "who" could channel and said that the
> accurate channels are advanced students of the teachings.
> Yes, everyone channels someone. However, to do it well enough to use
> it for other people requires extensive work, personal discipline and time.
> When I first asked Jose Stevens about whether I could learn to
> channel, he said yes, if I was willing to spend 5 years of diligent work
> learning how.

I recently contacted a group I called "The Masters of Galactic Astrology". This subject matter was about astrology, numerology, psychology, mathematics, and geometry. There was no way that someone not familiar with that "related" subject matter could have understood what we were communicating. Apparently the source can only use the words, definitions, and concepts that are wired into the brain of the channel. When I first tried channeling overleaves I got nothing because the overleaf words and phrases were not in my brain. As I became very familiar with the concepts and meanings, the words started coming into my consciousness before showing up with the pendulum.

I don't think this holds true with psychics and unconscious channelers. I am neither of these.

[clipped]

> I am very skeptical of those who "spontaneously" channel Michael and
> do not follow a rigorous training program designed to help them get
> clear of their own "stuff" and develop the skills to really help people
> in their channeling work.

I remember when I first tried channeling via a typewriter about 25 years ago. It was so much garbage, yet looking back at the words, it was not garbage, it was just "garbled" thoughts and letters. The words were "trying" to mean something, but the word spellings were garbled and the ideas were hazy, confused, and intermixed. Jose says 5 years. It took me about 10 years of personal work just to get fairly clear enough of my own "stuff" just to be able to "listen clearly" to "humans", not to mention non-carnates like my own "entity", and "The Michaels". I found that as I learned to really "listen" to, and to really "care" about people, then I started to attune much more easily and clearly to the non-physical folks.

> Being perfect is not necessary -- however,
> any counseling profession has a code of ethics and agreed behaviors to
> adhere to. Counseling, psychology, ministers, social work, etc are
> regulated through specified training, ongoing educational requirements,
> state licensing, etc all designed to keep people from getting hurt.

I remember we had to go through a 4-hour, twice-a-week, 32-week, training period to learn to how handle a volunteer hotline service. And even after training being on the phones was a bunch of lessons all by itself. The hardest part for me was just non-judgemental listening.

> Channeling is not regulated (that I'm aware of), so none of those
> "earthly" protections are available for the public. There was at one
> time a code of ethics used by many of the Michael channels. I hope the
> new AMT will reinstate such professional ethical guidelines and announce
> them publicly to help differentiate the professional channels from
> others who are not willing/able to adhere to the guidelines.

I fully support this idea. I know of astrologers who have grossly mis-counseled clients, and had to call their teachers in to put their client back on center. It goes along with client self-validation. If it "feels" wrong, it probably is wrong.

However, I am not in favor of regulation or control of any kind. I feel that full public awareness is the best safety measure.

> My understanding is that the entire Michael entity does not enter the
> channel -- it would destroy their body!! One fragment of the Michael
> entity is usually assigned to be the contact point for the channel.
> When a channel calls "Michael" they are actually getting their contact
> point within the Michael entity.

My entity has many groups within it that serve specific interests. Some call themselves "Healer", "Truth", "Tabor", "Love", etc. Who you get depends on who you specifically ask for, and what your questions are. I have "felt" the energy of the whole entity. It's like a big huge cloud of love and knowledge that surrounds me. How do you talk to a cloud? The Michaels that I get the overleaves from is only a few of the total Michaels.

> The vocabulary of the channel's knowledge of the teachings is what the
> channeled fragment works with. Channels who have not done their study
> work, don't have the ability to translate what they might get from Michael,
> therefore, inaccuracies result.

Like I said before.

> Other complicating or supporting factors that arise are the agreements
> and past life connections between the channel and Michael, between the
> channel and the inquirer, etc.
> Rarely does a channel make contact with the Akashic records as Edgar
> Cayce did (he was a very unusual channel), since that takes a tremendous
> amount of energy.

Why is channeling usually so tiring? I just asked, and my higher self said that the subconscious and the physical body get really insecure and stressed out when the mind focuses for too long in non-physical realities. I have seen my mind's representation of the akashic and it is absolutely mind-BOGGLING. It's like an infinite physical, emotional, and mental database that can be sorted any way you want. Even every "false" impression and every "mistake" is in there. It is really really difficult to home in on a particular piece of "truth". So I usually leave it to the Michaels.

Peace and Light to You and Yours,
Kenneth Broom, Columbia, MD, USA
aka I.A.M. Research


Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 18:24:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Channeling Michael

Barbara T wrote:

> About channeling Michael ... somewhere (in one of the early books, I
> believe), Michael discussed "who" could channel and said that the
> accurate channels are advanced students of the teachings.

This makes sense.

> When I first asked Jose Stevens about whether I could learn to > channel, he said yes, if I was willing to spend 5 years of diligent > work learning how.

> I am very skeptical of those who "spontaneously" channel Michael and
> do not follow a rigorous training program designed to help them get
> clear of their own "stuff" and develop the skills to really help
> people in their channeling work. Being perfect is not necessary -- however,
> any counseling profession has a code of ethics and agreed behaviors to
> adhere to. Counseling, psychology, ministers, social work, etc are
> regulated through specified training, ongoing educational
> requirements, state licensing, etc all designed to keep people from getting hurt.
> Channeling is not regulated (that I'm aware of), so none of those
> "earthly" protections are available for the public. There was at one
> time a code of ethics used by many of the Michael channels. I hope the
> new AMT will reinstate such professional ethical guidelines and
> announce them publicly to help differentiate the professional channels from
> others who are not willing/able to adhere to the guidelines.

I ask this respectfully: What about the first Michael channels who spontaneously channeled them? They had no training, nor have many, many mystics throughout the ages.

This also I ask as someone who highly respects Jose's work: how did he come up with his training program and who trained him?

> Channels who have not done their study work, don't have the ability to
> translate what they might get from Michael, therefore, inaccuracies
> result.

I agree with this and mentioned it in one of my posts as a possible reason for inaccuracies. It makes sense to me. :)

> Rarely does a channel make contact with the Akashic records as Edgar
> Cayce did (he was a very unusual channel), since that takes a
> tremendous amount of energy.

I'm curious as to your source for this statement. I have not heard it before, anywhere else.

Kate


Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:12:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Channeling Michael

Kate M wrote:

[clipped]

> I ask this respectfully: What about the first Michael channels who
> spontaneously channeled them? They had no training, nor have many, many
> mystics throughout the ages.

An excellent point, Kate. I wish I had thought of it. Could these folks have been trained or experienced in other related ways? or born with a natural talent? I'd love to know the answers these questions.

per Barbara:

> > Rarely does a channel make contact with the Akashic records as
> > Edgar Cayce did (he was a very unusual channel), since that takes a
> > tremendous amount of energy.

Unless I stand corrected, Cayce also channeled his information from a mid-causal source, who in turn got their info from the akashic (just affirmed by the Michaels).

I also wonder where Nostradamus got his training/experience and his knowledge. I read somewhere that he had a darkened mirror in which he "saw" future events. and I think he had his psychic abilities from childhood. I don't know where he got his mirror from, but I'd sure like to get one like it. <smile>

Peace and Light to You All,
Kenneth Broom, Columbia, MD, USA
aka I.A.M. Research


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:43:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Advanced degree in Michael?

Ken Broom:

<< I recently contacted a group I called "The Masters of Galactic Astrology". This subject matter was about astrology, numerology, psychology, mathematics, and geometry. There was no way that someone not familiar with that "related" subject matter could have understood what we were communicating. Apparently the source can only use the words, definitions, and concepts that are wired into the brain of the channel. When I first tried channeling overleaves I got nothing because the overleaf words and phrases were not in my brain. As I became very familiar with the concepts and meanings, the words started coming into my consciousness before showing up with the pendulum. I don't think this holds true with psychics and unconscious channelers. I am neither of these. >>

I'm fairly new to these teachings, but I find this concept kind of suspect. Hasn't a channeler been described as a human telephone? Most of the words used in the Michael pedagogy are not foreign to the average person, so even if the channeler didn't understand the underlining concept, why couldn't Michael still construct sentences and phrases using familiar words such as artisan, scholar, entities, goals, attitudes, and leave us to decipher them at a later time? I suppose I'm a skeptic, but I always favored Jane Roberts' Seth Material over other metaphysical offerings because she relayed information that would have been impossible to originate from a person of her background and technical expertise. In addition, the individual who originally channeled Michael must have had to learn the new material as it came through, and didn't have the luxury of reading the latest Shepherd Hoodwin or Jose Stevens book in order to grasp the latest concepts.

I beg your pardon if I'm missing a crucial component here, but this simply doesn't make sense to me at the moment. I can't believe that one would need an advanced degree from the "School of Michael" in order to channel the material.

OK, I just read the last entry in Ken's paragraph concerning how it isn't applicable to unconscious channelers; however, I don't see how that would make any difference as the Michael phraseology is simply not that complex, even for the conscious mind.

Dave - vigorously scratching head and wondering if the only thing he is contributing to this topic is "dandruff..." ;-p


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 03:22:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Channeling Michael

Great post, Kenneth! Like you, I've been channeling for a long time (about 20 years, consciously, before that, all the way back to my childhood unconciously). The more knowledge and education (self- and formal-) that I acquire, the more sophisticated my channeling grows. I've found when mentoring channels, or in being mentored myself, the time issue varies from person to person. It may be that there are certain definite steps that, maybe, most channels might agree on as being necessary to learn the "trade," but the length of time in mastering those steps can vary drastically from channel to channel.

BTW, speaking of Kenneth's channeling, I recently suggested the names of some Michael channels for those who are still hungry for overleaf readings. Kenneth is also available for one-page overleaf readings at the very reasonable rate of $20 and also does astrology. I'm getting in line for my reading. :)

Kate


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 04:02:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Advanced degree in Michael?

Dave G wrote:

> if the channeler didn't understand the underlining concept, why
> couldn't Michael still construct sentences and phrases using familiar words
> such as artisan, scholar, entities, goals, attitudes, and leave us to decipher
> them at a later time? I suppose I'm a skeptic, but I always favored Jane
> Roberts' Seth Material over other metaphysical offerings because she relayed
> information that would have been impossible to originate from a person
> of her background and technical expertise. In addition, the individual who
> originally channeled Michael must have had to learn the new material
> as it came through, and didn't have the luxury of reading the latest
> Shepherd Hoodwin or Jose Stevens book in order to grasp the latest concepts.
>
> I beg your pardon if I'm missing a crucial component here, but this
> simply doesn't make sense to me at the moment. I can't believe that one would
> need an advanced degree from the "School of Michael" in order to channel
> the material.
>
> OK, I just read the last entry in Ken's paragraph concerning how it
> isn't applicable to unconscious channelers; however, I don't see how that
> would make any difference as the Michael phraseology is simply not that
> complex, even for the conscious mind.

Dave, I can't speak for all channels, but for myself and others I have talked to and worked with the concensus seems to be this: it is very draining to be a full-trance channel, and it is getting rarer to find channels these days who choose to do it. The one person in recent years I have personally sat in on who does trance channeling has increasingly moved to light-trance (fully conscious) channeling in recent years. She finds it easier to channel almost any odd info unknown to her conscious self in a full trance.

What happens to many channels I've met who do light trance (and it's happened to me from time to time) is that when something highly unfamiliar comes through there can be a response. The conscious self can start to interfere in the process and say, "Can this weird unknown thing possibly be right?" OTOH, when the light-trance channel starts to channel something that sounds like information right out of his/her own brain, then thoughts can again come up such as, "This can't be the right--it sounds like me!"

In regard to the latter: I think in a light-trance channeling session it is possible to channel pertinent information which is exactly what the client is seeking from out of our own magpie memory banks. By this I mean that in light trance we can reach (in a precise and useful manner) parts of our mind that aren't normally readily accessible to us. To wit: we have all read and studied an enormous amount, but only those with "photographic memory" can access, instantly and consciously, every jot ever read/learned. In a light-trance channeling state, though, we can access our own inner, mini "akashic records" of all we've learned this present life.

In addition, and similarly, I've also found that it is possible to channel in light-trance, the memory banks of incarnate people (not just the incarnate spirits which are more usually channeled). For example, once I was helping an international friend write a paper for an all-French class in French lit and was able to channel information about the book he was writing his paper on which he had read in French, and which I had never read in English and definitely not in French (I speak a miniscule amount of French). Interestingly, maybe because he's bilingual, I got the info on the book in English, though he had read it, as I say, in French. So, in this manner, I was able to know the story and major themes of a book I'd never read.

I've also done this kind of channeling helping friends write injury reports for work, helping them by channeling out of their brains/memory jargon of their field and descriptions of equipment and surroundings I had no personal knowledge of which were involved in the injury incident. In several cases this information was stored in a rather-inarticulate person's brain as images. I had to use my own vocabulary creatively to describe what I was seeing, and then would assist me in whittling that down into the right jargon.

Here's another thought on this whole topic of training for channeling that occurred to me today: many have remarked over the centuries on the fact that if one wishes to become an adept at any particular discipline, several factors are required: (1) innate talent for the particular field (music, mathematics, dance, writing, counseling, whatever), (2) the drive to acquire the "techniques" involved (a solid knowledge of the history of adepts in one's chosen discipline, acquiring the "howto" to be an adept oneself). It is often hotly debated (another version of the nature-nurture question) as to which of these two sides are is most crucial. Often a rough paraphrase of the famous Edison quote is trotted out such as, "Genius is 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration."

I got to thinking today that maybe we need to add two other things to the above list: (3) good mentors/examples--which can be examples of the kind of work we want to do, as for an artist, great works of art she/he can study and emulate; and/or mentors in the flesh (or even disincarnate spirit mentors). Finally, and this may be the most important factor in the whole puzzle: (4) an innate generalized ability to learn. People vary in their ability to learn new skills. Meaning, some people (I'm thinking Scholars, esp. those in observation <G>) are geniuses at learning in general--they revel in acquiring new skills and information. The rest of the population is somewhat below that astounding potential. <G>

People also vary in their ability to learn within any given discipline. For example, writers. As a fiction-writer who has mentored many fellow writers, I've found that many times a person will very much want to become a fiction writer but, for multiple reasons, simply cannot absorb the many complex rules of the genre. Something never quite "clicks" inside and that person, even though quite determined and involved with the fiction art form, never can seem to get beyond an awkward, painful-to-read attempt at fiction writing.

Kate


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:10:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Advanced degree in Michael?

Dave G wrote:

> Ken Broom:
>
> < < I recently contacted a group I called "The Masters of Galactic
> Astrology". This subject matter was about astrology, numerology,
> psychology, mathematics, and geometry. There was no way that someone not
> familiar with that "related" subject matter could have understood what
> we were communicating. Apparently the source can only use the words,
> definitions, and concepts that are wired into the brain of the channel.
> When I first tried channeling overleaves I got nothing because the
> overleaf words and phrases were not in my brain. As I became very
> familiar with the concepts and meanings, the words started coming into
> my consciousness before showing up with the pendulum.
> I don't think this holds true with psychics and unconscious channelers.
> I am neither of these.> >
>
> I'm fairly new to these teachings, but I find this concept kind of suspect.
> Hasn't a channeler been described as a human telephone?

Dear Dave,

There are various degrees and definitions of channeling.

1) A "trance" channel can be accurately described as a human telephone because he (as essence) is no longer in his body during the communication/channeling process and the source actually inhabits or uses part of the channeler's body in order to communicate.

2) A "conscious" channel, if she has removed her mind (to whatever degree necessary) from participating in the transmission process, can also be described as a human telephone, or

3) if fully conscious and participating, the "conscious" channel can also just mentally converse with the source and write/type the conversation onto a piece of paper or a typewriter or a computer.

What I normally do is a combination of the second and third type of channeling. I can either type/repeat verbatim what is told me (and have to read it to myself), or I can type my comprehension of what is told me. When I repeat verbatim my eyes tend to stay glued to the keyboard, and to not look at the computer monitor. That's why I have to read the stuff I just typed.

I normally choose to do the latter because it is more edifying and more participatory, and I can ask relevant questions immediately without having to re-read what I've just typed. When I type something that the source feels is incorrect then there is an "immediate stillness/disconnection" that settles around the process like "Hey, that is not what we mean!"

> Most of the words used in the Michael pedagogy are not foreign to the average
> person, so even if the channeler didn't understand the underlining concept, why
> couldn't Michael still construct sentences and phrases using familiar words such as
> artisan, scholar, entities, goals, attitudes, and leave us to decipher them
> at a later time?

It depends on whether the channeler wants to dialog during the process or to just be a telephone. I expect that those first Michael channels choose to be conscious telephones. or maybe they had agreements with the Michaels?

> I suppose I'm a skeptic, but I always favored Jane Roberts'
> Seth Material over other metaphysical offerings because she relayed
> information that would have been impossible to originate from a person of her
> background and technical expertise. In addition, the individual who
> originally channeled Michael must have had to learn the new material as it
> came through, and didn't have the luxury of reading the latest Shepherd
> Hoodwin or Jose Stevens book in order to grasp the latest concepts.
>
> I beg your pardon if I'm missing a crucial component here, but this simply
> doesn't make sense to me at the moment. I can't believe that one would need
> an advanced degree from the "School of Michael" in order to channel the
> material.
>
> OK, I just read the last entry in Ken's paragraph concerning how it isn't
> applicable to unconscious channelers; however, I don't see how that would
> make any difference as the Michael phraseology is simply not that complex,
> even for the conscious mind.

When I first started contacting Michael or my own entity re overleaves the words were not complex, but the system was new and foreign to my brain back then, i.e. it wasn't in my "conscious memory". There were very few "overleaf circuitry connections" in my brain. This was crucial to my consciuosly channeling accurately. Plus there was a part of my consciousness that would/could not get out of the way of what was being transmitted. The overleaf circuitry is now fairly well in place and the overleaves come through fairly clearly.

When consciously channeling stuff about which I have no brain circuitry connections then I must remove myself/ego from the process and just watch what comes through. I think that's where a lot of the "I didn't know I knew that." stuff comes from.

> Dave - vigorously scratching head and wondering if the only thing he is
> contributing to this topic is "dandruff..." ;-p

Dave, your questions are clarifying questions. They are very valuable to me, and I suspect to many others. I thank you for your questions. I feel like I am a library, not a teacher. I don't teach easily or well, but I will give up all the knowledge that I have in response to good questions. Maybe this is part of being a scholar/idealist in observation. See, see, this is what I mean! I could not have said, much less understood, that last statement when I was first into overleaves.

Tao Bless You my Brother,
and
Peace and Light to You and Yours,
Kenneth Broom, Columbia, MD, USA
aka I.A.M. Research


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:09:04 -0700
Subject: Re: Digest No. 1997-09-18 of Michael Teachings List

Kate asked:

> I ask this respectfully: What about the first Michael channels who
> spontaneously channeled them? They had no training, nor have many, many
> mystics throughout the ages.

Jesus, one of the greatest mystics in our times, spent many, many years in training, in Egypt, India and in the temples, starting as a young child.

Mother Teresa didn't suddenly become a saintly person, she worked at it her entire life.

Both by the way were 7th level old souls. Jesus had a Infinite Soul walk-in near the end. For that to work well, the body had to be well-trained beforehand.

The first channels to channel Michael worked for a long time learning how to do it well and accurately. They continue to work on themselves constantly and have their own teachers. For example, see (http://www.pivres.com/~pivotal/lenajose.html) for a description of the Stevens' background and training.

Barbara


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:54:49 -0700
Subject: Re: Digest No. 1997-09-18 of Michael Teachings List

Dave wrote:

> I'm fairly new to these teachings, but I find this concept kind of suspect.
> Hasn't a channeler been described as a human telephone? Most of the words
> used in the Michael pedagogy are not foreign to the average person, so even
> if the channeler didn't understand the underlining concept, why couldn't
> Michael still construct sentences and phrases using familiar words such as
> artisan, scholar, entities, goals, attitudes, and leave us to decipher them
> at a later time?

Dave,

I disagree about being a human telephone...a channel is more like a translator. If they don't have the vocabulary, training, words and concepts to work with, they can't translate what is coming in.

Channels receive messages in many different ways. Some get pictures, some get emotions, some see words as if written on a blackboard, some can write and have the words come out on the paper, some speak directly what they "hear" or "feel." The more someone works at learning how to do it and verifying their accuracy, the stronger they become. It's like anything else...a beginning piano player may bang out some sounds, but a master pianist is rarely that when they first sit down to play.

I'd suggest you study up a bit on channeling. There are a many places to get such information. "Earth to Tao" Chapter 4 has a good overview, and there a quite a number of other references in other Michael books. "Opening to Channel" is another good one, as is "Channeling" by Joe Klimo.

Barbara


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:54:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Decimated archives

I was just checking the latest Michael list archives, and I noticed that my post entitled "Advanced Degree" was completely chopped up. Actually, I've noticed this on many letters from the archives. Question: what's the deal???? ;-p

Dave

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Decimated archives

On 18 Sep 1997 Dave wrote:

> I was just checking the latest Michael list archives, and I noticed that my
> post entitled "Advanced Degree" was completely chopped up. Actually, I've
> noticed this on many letters from the archives. Question: what's the deal????
> ;-p
>
> Dave

Hi Dave--I checked it out and it's working fine from my Netscrape. Must be a problem with AOL's browser or something (I could make wicked jokes about AOL and stuff but I'll mercifully refrain for now.)

Have a great day!
Lori

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:13:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Decimated archives

In a message dated 97-09-18 12:00:05 EDT, lorazz@crl.com writes:

<< Hi Dave--I checked it out and it's working fine from my Netscrape.
Must be a problem with AOL's browser or something (I could make wicked
jokes about AOL and stuff but I'll mercifully refrain for now.)

Have a great day!
Lori >>

Yes, it's probably AOLHell's browser. As they sometimes say, "ya get what you pay for..." ;-p


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:11:15 -0400
Subject: Did Jesus travel to India?

Barbara T wrote:

> Kate asked:
> > I ask this respectfully: What about the first Michael channels who
> > spontaneously channeled them? They had no training, nor have many,
> > many mystics throughout the ages.
>
> Jesus, one of the greatest mystics in our times, spent many, many
> years in training, in Egypt, India and in the temples, starting as a
> young child.

Hi Barbara,

I'm curious as to where this information comes from. I was not aware that there was any documented evidence of Jesus' life other than what is commonly known. I know there is channeled info out there (such as Elizabeth Prophet's book on the lost years of Jesus), but I'm not comfortable with trusting it as "the word of God". <G> Channeling overleaves, insights, etc, is one thing, but because of the number of parallel universes out there, I don't trust info channeled about "history". The channeler may be bringing historical data from a parallel universe. (E.g., in one universe, Jesus died on the cross, on another he lived and moved to India and got married, etc...)

Christopher


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:20:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: re: Channeling

Hi ALL!

I would like to thank everyone - especially Kenneth and Kate (a bit of alliteration there) and Dave - everyone! On the past discussion re Channeling!

The small group in my area began channeling about a year ago and to my knowledge, no one has ever asked about the "mechanics" of how it is done. I found much information in Shepherd's book and this satisfied me for that point in time, but now they are asking. And to tell them to read a book on The Michael Teachings is just not their "thing." They are coming from another place, as it were.

I CAN however share with them this discussion and illustrate the various "ways it is done!" With your permission, I would very much like to do so.
Any objections?
By anyone?

Thank you again! I have learned much!
<3 pmp* :-)


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:22:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Did Jesus travel to India?

Christopher M wrote:

> > Barbara T wrote:
> >
> > Jesus, one of the greatest mystics in our times, spent many, many
> > years in training, in Egypt, India and in the temples, starting as a
> > young child.
> >
> > [clipped]
>
> I'm curious as to where this information comes from. I was not aware
> that there was any documented evidence of Jesus' life other than what is
> commonly known. I know there is channeled info out there (such as
> Elizabeth Prophet's book on the lost years of Jesus), but I'm not
> comfortable with trusting it as "the word of God". <G> Channeling
> overleaves, insights, etc, is one thing, but because of the number of
> parallel universes out there, I don't trust info channeled about
> "history". The channeler may be bringing historical data from a
> parallel universe. (E.g., in one universe, Jesus died on the cross, on
> another he lived and moved to India and got married, etc...)

Christopher,

Your point is well taken about channeling history, and points up the difficulty in correctly accessing the akashic "records" rather than from the akashic "level". They aren't the same thing. At the akashic level the akashic records has been pulled together, by akashic orderlies and others, into a more coherent, orderly, and accessible format.

The Urantia Book has several chapters (approx 200 pages) on the travels of Jesus during the so-called lost years. This is channeled information, and to be trusted, or not, as with any channeled info. The whole 1st part of this book struck me so powerfully that I actually had to read it one page at a time. So I have no reason, yet, to disbelieve the part about Jesus' life. Whether that info came from the akashic records or the akashic level I have no idea at this point in time. Seems like an excellent subject for research, tho.

Peace and Light to You and Yours,
Kenneth Broom, Columbia, MD, USA
aka I.A.M. Research


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:35:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Channeling

Pmp wrote:

[clipped]

> I CAN however share with them this discussion and illustrate the various
> "ways it is done!" With your permission, I would very much like to do so.
> Any objections?
> By anyone?

No objections from Kenneth Broom.

Peace and Light to You and Yours,
Kenneth Broom, Columbia, MD, USA
aka I.A.M. Research


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:00:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Did Jesus travel to India?

In a message dated 97-09-18 12:46:14 EDT, Kate M writes:

<< I'm not comfortable with trusting it as "the word of God". <G> Channeling
overleaves, insights, etc, is one thing, but because of the number of
parallel universes out there, I don't trust info channeled about
"history". The channeler may be bringing historical data from a
parallel universe. (E.g., in one universe, Jesus died on the cross, on
another he lived and moved to India and got married, etc...) >>

This is very interesting. I have had many readings of my past lives and have often wondered how many of them pertained to my current spiritual lineage. It makes me wonder if during the cold war our paranoid nations' didn't destroy the planet via nuclear holocaust. If something like this occured, what effect would it have on our present existence? Can we destroy our world, but still have a completely untouched one in a parallel universe? I recall Michael stating that the destruction of our planet would result in the loss of the physical game for many entities, but if there's numerous alternate realities, does this mean that it wouldn't be a total loss?

Curious Dave - without the sloping forehead and big lips.


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:35:08 +0200
Subject: Re: Advanced degree in Michael?

Hi Dave and all,

Dave wrote:

> Most of the words used in the Michael pedagogy are not foreign to the
> average person, so even if the channeler didn't understand the underlining
> concept, why couldn't Michael still construct sentences and phrases using
> familiar words such as artisan, scholar, entities, goals, attitudes, and leave
> us to decipher them at a later time?

As far as I can tell it isn't the words that are important, it is understanding the essence of the concept... My understanding is more that when Michael says that someone is an Artisan what they "send" to the channel is not the word, but Artisan type energy (frequency, wavelength, whatever) which the brain of the channel translates into the word Artisan. The more the channel understands about what an Artisan is and what Artisan energy feels like the more accurate the channeling is likely to be. Part of becoming a better Michael channel is in depth study of the material already given and practise in applying it in practical ways.

Cheers,

Katherine


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:33:59 -0700
Subject: Re: Channeling

Greetings, Namaste, Love and Light to all,

I am moved to put in my two cents worth. With the help of Jose Arguelles, I hope to add to this subject. Hopefully, you will follow this to the end before trashing it.

The modern name for galactic focusing and transmission of information(or channeling) would be called 'the principle of harmonic resonance'. What is resonance? Electricians, physicists,musicians,healers,etc. all refer to resonance. Resonance means the quality of sounding again. To resonate is to reverberate. Reverberation implies give and take, the definition of communication is always simultaneous and between at least two agents. Any communication implies an exchange of information. What is information? From the perspective of resonate harmonics, information is the thought-form qualities of energy passing between at least two agents. As a sounding again, resonance is information. The essence of information, then, is not it's content but it's resonance. This is why feelng is so important. To sense the resonance of incoming information co-creates a resonant field. If we try to conceptualize experience before we have actually resonated with the experience, the field is off or even broken. If the field is broken, we have actually stopped feeling and have damped the resonance of understanding. When people speak of resonance, this implies frequency and tones. Frequency refers to rate of vibration. As everyone knows there are higher an lower rates of vibration, while all vibration is pulsation of waves. A frequency held but for a single wave cycle is known as a beat, becomes a tone. A tone then is any sustained frequency, whose level determines which of our sences may be affected. In other words touch has it's tones, perfume is a tone in our sense field "smell", and even mind experiences high-frequency sensory tones.

Inclusive of all sense-fields, harmony is the synchronization of two or more tones. The skill in synchronizing tones and synthesizing sense-fields is an art as much as it is a science. The practise of science yields such things as flying airborne is the passage of the physical body between two points. What if flying is a capacity to identify conciousness with resonance and ride the frequencies of different realities? What if the frequencies you hear are something to tune yourself to? If you mearly experience the tone you hear and sense whether or not this frequency has a particular meaning(or harmonic to you), that thought-form will come to you. This is channeling.

To me, Channeling comes in the form of sound, sometimes that sound is formed into words. When I write these words down, they do not always mean something to me at this point in time. As my search for the experience of life goes on, channelings of 2o years ago take on meaning. The vocabulary is of no concern. I have directed my mind to find meaning where there is a need to experience my highest purpose. If it has no meaning to me now then it falls by the wayside until the time comes for me to understand. In other words I do not judge the meaning until I have experienced the resonance, then if the meaning is there, I experience understanding. Nothing is ever dismissed as having no meaning, it is mearly placed in the file called not understood yet.

Jeez, do I sound like a 6th level old, scholar, in the observation mode with the goal of growth and the attitude of a pragmatist? LOL LOL

With love and light to all,

Dave W/Nada


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:17:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Channeling

Thanks (((((((((Kenneth)))))))!

I'm certain this will help !

<3 pmp* :-)


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:15:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Did Jesus travel to India?

Dave G wrote:

In a message dated 97-09-18 12:46:14 EDT, Kate M writes:

<< I'm not comfortable with trusting it as "the word of God". <G>
Channeling overleaves, insights, etc, is one thing, but because of the number
of parallel universes out there, I don't trust info channeled about
"history". The channeler may be bringing historical data
from a parallel universe. (E.g., in one universe, Jesus died on
the cross, on another he lived and moved to India and got married, etc...) >>

This is very interesting. I have had many readings of my past lives
and have often wondered how many of them pertained to my current spiritual lineage.
It makes me wonder if during the cold war our paranoid nations' didn't
destroy the planet via nuclear holocaust. If something like this occured, what
effect would it have on our present existence? Can we destroy our world, but
still have a completely untouched one in a parallel universe? I recall Michael
stating that the destruction of our planet would result in the loss
of the physical game for many entities, but if there's numerous alternate
realities, does this mean that it wouldn't be a total loss?

Curious Dave - without the sloping forehead and big lips.

Dave,

Check out Shepherd Hoodwin's book, The Journey of Your Soul, p. 360 & 361. The chapter is on parallel universes...

"If the earth is destroyed from nuclear war in a parallel universe, what does that do to us in this universe?

If you are affected, the effect would probably be subtle.  You might find that your resolve to prevent nuclear war strengthens if a parallel self experienced nuclear destruction. Incidentally, you will probably not have a nuclear holocaust in this universe.

Was the earth destroyed in a parallel universe in 1986?

Yes. In about five of them. Earth has been destroyed many times in other parallel universes, in various ways."

That's a good book. Highly recommended. :)

Christopher


Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:18:21 -0700
Subject: re: resonance

Hi Dave and everyone,

Dave, thank you for sharing your wonderful piece on resonance. I think it's also a great description of the essence of communion, communication, the basis of relationship and relating and why we are magnetically drawn to certain people and things and not to others.

That's why when something feels off, even if there are no words for it, there is so much implicit knowing transmitted. It has always felt like awareness comes and then needs to be translated into words. Or a work to be created feels like it comes whole in essence, like a feeling tone, or maybe sensing a whole body of tones that we can retain and then find ways to express through various forms.

Your words just keep reverberating....and sparking off connections, such a pleasure. Thank you,

Brin


Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 01:05:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Ed: Did Jesus travel to India?

Since we have broached this fascinating topic.....

I heard that Shepherd Hoodwin at one time had researched about 30 non-Biblical accounts of Jesus. There are lots of them and lots of variations, so the parallel hypothesis may be valid here to some degree.

My favorite is "Life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far East" by Baird T. Spalding, Jr. In Vol. 2 Jesus materializes his body in a temple inside a mountain. He talks extensively. He explains basically everything the Western world of about 1900 needed to hear to correct the very extensive misinformation about and misunderstandings of Jesus's life that have prevailed since then. His words ring true to me.

Numerous channeled "ascended masters" sources including Mark and Elizabeth Prophet generally agree and correlate with the view of Jesus and the other masters in L & T.

(Incidentally, the Prophets ripped off the original I AM group which published many books by Godfre Ray King (Geoffrey Ballard) of messages from St. Germain in the 1930s. When the original group failed to renew their copyrights the Prophets published their "public domain" material as if it were their own creation.)

The Urantia book is very impressive seeming; for one thing, I couldn't find one single typo in 1500+ pages of it that I read. The part about the life of Jesus did not ring true to me (it's pretty similar to the Bible) and doesn't fit with other stories. Urantia seems to be off in several other important ways, too. Martin Gardner, professional skeptic formerly of Sci. American, has published a fine book detailing the history of the Urantia channeling and the people involved with it.

Michael gets into Jesus's story in the Yarbro books somewhere...I don't feel like looking it up.

Probably most channels good enough to have a following have been asked about Jesus's life and have come up with their own versions. Many people channel Sananda (the name that Jesus's essence goes by) and other ascended masters and their messages seem to cross-correlate roughly as well as the various Michael channels do.

Too bad there isn't a place where I could be a professor of this stuff....

All the best, Ed


Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 02:03:43 -0400
Subject: Barbara Taylor's post on channeling

Barbara T wrote:

> constantly and have their own teachers. For example, see > (http://www.pivres.com/~pivotal/lenajose.html) for a description of > the Stevens' background and training.

I zipped over there. Nice site, thanks!

BTW, I took his test and came up a Scholar primarily, secondarily a Warrior and least a Sage. Interesting.

Kate


Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 02:00:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Channeling

Dave W wrote:

> something to me at this point in time. As my search for the experience
> of life goes on, channelings of 2o years ago take on meaning. The
> vocabulary

Good points, Dave, esp. this about not always understanding what we are channeling. That's why the Scholar knows better than to throw out any records. ;>

> Jeez, do I sound like a 6th level old, scholar, in the observation
> mode with the goal of growth and the attitude of a pragmatist? LOL LOL

You do, and I can totally relate. Keep it coming. :)

Kate


Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 01:40:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Channeling

Pmp wrote:

> I CAN however share with them this discussion and illustrate the
> various "ways it is done!" With your permission, I would very
> much like to do so. Any objections?

You can use anything I've written with my blessings. :)

Kate


Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:49:44 -0700
Subject: parallel Earths

Christopher M wrote:

> Was the earth destroyed in a parallel universe in 1986?
>
> Yes. In about five of them. Earth has been destroyed
> many times in other parallel universes, in various ways."

Christopher,
Strange, your message came through with lots of html tags on my e-mail. Oh well, anyway, I find this quote above really fascinating, because back in the early to mid- '80's I was really into future prophecies and asking for my own spiritual guidance about what would happen in my future. Nuclear holocaust was one of my greatest fears. Back in 1984 when I was 14 or 15, I had a premonition that this would happen in the summer of 1986. I even asked for a dream to tell me what was going to happen, and I got it. That night I dreamed that I was travelling across Arizona with my dad and my brother in my dad's 5th-wheel trailer. I don't know where my mom was--feeling was she had died. We were listening to reports on the AM radio about where the nuclear fall-out was going to be, so we were driving down this highway to get as far away as we could, but picking up people who were stranded along the highway because they had nothing and nowhere else to go. When I woke up, I felt such a gut-wrenching. I got up and asked my dad what nuclear fall-out was. He told me and it was pretty much what it was in my dream. It bothered me a lot.... But still, I wasn't counting on it, as I knew that many of my premonitions didn't happen. I prayed that this one wouldn't. I walked to school each day and looked at the sky...I didn't want to see this beautiful planet destroyed, and then again, I didn't want to be too attached to it either. So I kept doing all the stuff in school that I would have anyway, still not being able to imagine it would last much longer.

As the summer of 1986 approached, and it was decided by my mom and dad that we were going to travel back east for the summer (not to Arizona like in my dream) I began to feel that the premonition wasn't going to happen, that the world wasn't really going to end that summer. I don't know where things began to turn, but the Chernobyl incident sure had me scared there for a while.....

As it turned out though that summer was very traumatic for me, because the day we returned home, I found out that a friend of mine from school and his best friend were both killed in a car wreck the previous week. This one boy Jim who was my friend was such a wonderful person, I had had a big crush on him almost all through high school, but never had the courage to tell him how I'd felt about him because I was too afraid of being rejected. I had had a lot of time to think about him and my other friends who I had kind of lost touch with while I was on vacation with my family, and was determined that I would contact them, and Jim, as soon as I got home, because I missed them. Then the week we were on the road driving back home, we were going through Montana and I felt Jim's presence there near me, and he was asking me how I'd felt about him, and I remember thinking how I loved him, very innocently, and I missed him. So when I got home I was really shocked, but it made sense to me then why I'd felt contacted by him in Montana, the day after he'd died. I was so sad for so long and regretted so much that I'd never told him how I'd felt about him while he was still alive, that I vowed never to do that ever again--that I'd always make sure the people I loved knew it, even if I got rejected.

So after all this, I just thought that my premonition about 1986 was really just a heavy personal lesson for me....I'd never read that part of Hoodwin's book yet. Funny huh....

Oh yeah, I was always a big fan of NASA, and always dreamed of being an astronaut. I kept up on the space missions since we had a satellite dish at the time and I could watch the NASA TV channel on it. About a month before the Challenger incident, I had dreamed that something was going to really go wrong with the space shuttle on some mission, and in my dream it exploded. After that I had a really bad feeling...but when the accident happened, I wasn't surprised, but I felt devistated. I think it was at that point that I decided I didn't want to have the psychic ability to see these sorts of things. They were too scary, and it was too much of a burden to see these possibilities, never really knowing which ones were going to happen, and which ones weren't. And then having to make the choice of whether I should tell someone about them or not, because it left some responsibility on me that if I did tell the right people, perhaps some of these things could be changed.... But I didn't want that responsibility--my own life was hard enough to handle then! So I decided to stop allowing this. It was too painful and I couldn't handle it. That was 1986 too.

I guess it wasn't until after I read a lot of the Michael books that I began to understand my psychic/channeling abilities, and have been able to refine them further, and feel when parallels are splitting/merging, but I can't always tell when they are just mine or bigger than that. I don't really connect to my other parallels, so I can't say that I really know for sure they are out there, but I know other lives are, as I can connect to them pretty easily.

To Dave W, I found your descriptions of channeling very fascinating, and to Brin, your description of parallels was really interesting to me as well--I love multidimensional stuff. :)

You guys are all really great and I want you to know I love you all.... :)

Lori


Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:22:45 +0000
Subject: Re: Advanced degree in Michael?

> the whole puzzle: (4) an innate generalized ability to learn. People
> vary in their ability to learn new skills. Meaning, some people (I'm
> thinking Scholars, esp. those in observation <G>) are geniuses at
> learning in general--they revel in acquiring new skills and information.
> The rest of the population is somewhat below that astounding potential. <G>

<click, buzz, whirrrrrrrrr> Wow, what an astounding observation<G>. This overleaves stuff is really starting to click for me. Coming from another scholar in observation -- I have always been an extremely fast learner. For example, after leaving the Army I lied my way into a deckhand job. I bluffed my way through the first couple of days, and through (what else?) observation, I was quickly right up there with the best of them. When the skipper commented some months later about how pleased he was, I confessed (with a cynical attitude, of course), and he thought it was hilarious. On the other hand though, I find that being an old soul, I quickly become bored. Or maybe it's laziness. I learn quickly, but once that curve peaks out and it takes more effort to improve, maybe I'm just looking for something new and easy.

> People also vary in their ability to learn within any given discipline.
> For example, writers. As a fiction-writer who has mentored many fellow
> writers,

Kate, would you be willing to talk to me offline in regards to this?

John R


Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:39:04 +0000
Subject: Re: Ed: Did Jesus travel to India?

> My favorite is "Life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far East" by Baird
> T. Spalding, Jr. In Vol. 2 Jesus materializes his body in a temple inside a
> mountain. He talks extensively. He explains basically everything the
> Western world of about 1900 needed to hear to correct the very extensive
> misinformation about and misunderstandings of Jesus's life that have
> prevailed since then. His words ring true to me.

As a side note, this series of books is incredible and I highly recommend them.

> Too bad there isn't a place where I could be a professor of this stuff....

What a concept. I'm not so sure there isn't. Oh, what the heck, just go start your own school. Ed's Institute of Jesusology. I hear Sally Struthers does endorsements for cheap.

John


Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:21:11 -0700
Subject: potential futures and parallel lives

Hi Lori and everyone,

Really enjoyed your sharing. Thinking back to around that time, I can remember some pretty vivid dreams I had about nuclear holocaust also. I can remember a kind of tension around that time and a sense of not wanting to be on my own when it happened. I also remember some television mini series about a nuclear holocaust in this country. Didn't it view about then? I joked about it in the parallel lives post, but sometimes I wonder if we're burning out tendencies to go in certain directions by doing all these disaster movies. I also wonder about the differences between potential futures in this world and the concepts behind the idea of parallels.

Enjoying the thoughtful sharings and discussion, as well as your playfulness Dave.

Some of the earlier sharings about music and the higher centers were wonderful to read and made me think of a book some of you might enjoy called the _Music of Life_ by Hazrat Inayat Khan, a wise, poetic and sensitive old soul (a musician and a Sufi). He also writes a lot about resonance and what he calls the alchemy of vibrations.

Best to everyone,
Brin


Date: Sat, 20 Sep 97 16:21:34 UT
Subject: RE:The "real" Michael?

Dick, your words induced me to ponder and the thought that struck me was a concurrence with what you had to say. I will never profess to being a "great" reader but I will state that I enjoy reading immensely and have done a lot in the last 30 years. Writing is another story all together. I find that task extremely difficult. So let me see if I can say this the way I mean for it to be understood. In all the many years that I have been reading and the diverse text that I have read, the Michael Teachings...the actual channeled words seem to have a certain "ring, feeling, sense" to them. IMHO (and remember this is my opinion only... yours can and will differ in flavor) the presentation of the words and information is just so easy to take in and to understand. Now granted there is a lot of information and you can ponder on it for just ages, but the way it is stated is so easy to read. I still have trouble with words and kept my old trusty dictionary at hand and not all the definitions stick the first, second or even third go through. Either I'm dense from trying to cram so much in or some of it is dripping out through leaks in my brain...<g>. I never "feel" any judgements or requirements or any sense at all except balance or neutrality on how we "get it" or if we even want to. I keep hearing the words.... Yes, no, (shrug) whatever (your choice...<s>). I really liked the terms you used when you said that Michael is expansive and inclusive because I figured if there is any rejection or exclusivity going on, it's from we humans not an entity who has moved beyond this plane. It seems to me that agape would come from being able to say "everyone" can have some!!!!!! Sure gives me warmer feelings :)

Diane


Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 19:29:34 -0400
Subject: Another Parallel Reality

Spirit-WWW: NewsGateway Article
From "John F. W" :
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 08:47:42 -0700
Subject: How The Sirians Saved Our Tails. Sept. 20, 1997.

Here is something that came my way about the action of the Sirian space people and how they protected the Earth against some radiation from our sun.

......................................................................
......................................................................

From: v
Subject: The Pole Shift & The Secret Gov't.

Drunvalo on the Pole Shift
Notes from the Flower of Life Workshop by Drunvalo Melchizedek
Home Site: "http://www.folr.org/"

Now lets jump ahead to our time to the Sirian experiment of 1972. This is all so fantastic, if it is too much for you to accept, don't. Just let it go. But I got to tell you the way in which I'm told and the way that I see. Go way back in time, when they were setting up the Christ Consciousness Grid, and the hole in Egypt to set the grid. It was calculated that by the winter of 1998 we would go through the shift and at that time a few people would make it through. And this is nothing unusual. This has been tried before on other planets. When a planet is out of phase or something, they may jump them up or they may jump them down. Depending on what level they are on at the time. Or they may start them all over again. That's what happened to the Hebrews. Or step them ahead, whatever is necessary. This aspect of the experiment, and you can say it is an experiment, did not attract any attention at all. However, about 200 years ago the Sirians the Father aspect of this race became aware there was a very high possibility we were not going to make it. They knew there was an event that was going to happen August 7, 1972 and if we were not in a certain state of consciousness we were not going to make it. And if we didn't , that's it. There wouldn't even be a bug left on the planet. But the Sirians didn't want to see that happen, because as our parents they had compassion for us. So they started looking for an answer to this particular situation to solve the problem. And there weren't any. There was no cure. There was nothing known. There was nothing they could do to get a planet of our level of awareness through to the other side of this problem, intact. So what happened in the past meant the planet was just gone. But the Sirians kept looking through time and space for a solution. Eventually they found somebody somewhere, not in this galaxy, who conceived an idea that might work but it had never, never been tried before. And even then they didn't know if it would work because humans have fee will and can take any turn any time and go in any direction. So they assumed it would work. The Sirians then created a vehicle 50 miles long, cigar shaped, colored black. It had silicon-carbon based life forms blended together so the whole thing was a self-aware living unit. The crew 350 men and women from the white Sirian race from the third planet out. They wore white uniforms with gold emblems. And they dedicated as much time to this project as was necessary. They also made 8 little flying saucer shaped vehicles which were robotic, unmanned, 12-20 feet across. They got all this stuff together and worked out all the possibilities and just set it aside. And waited.

What was happening on the earth level at that time, is that I was lead to go to Canada to meet a man named David Suzuki. It was a whole secret connection that was made then. He is a very disciplined man in many different fields. David won the Nobel Prize in Genetics. Not by looking through a microscope but by looking out into the stars. He believed "as above, so below." He watched asteroids as they broke off and moved around the solar system. So he hired some people to watch the movements of the asteroids. Anyway, one of the things he had going was that he had a team of people watching the sun all the time. They, in 1950, noticed a phenomena never recorded before in human history. Spiraling light and it went past the earth very rapidly. At the earth's axis there is the precession of the equinoxes which takes place every 24,000 years. But there is the "Chandler wobble" every 14 months and is 72 feet. There is one very 14 years. During one of these wobbles the earth began to deviate from its path around the central sun. [Alcyeon in the Western astrology and Revati in Hindu astrology.] At this time we were at about the furthest point away from the central sun. The area of the wobble began to open. Which is the equivalent of a top slowing down. It took them another 14 years of study before they were certain this wobble would lead to a new north and south pole. And David Suzuki was not into Edgar Cayce or any of that. He was a scientist. An interesting note though, Cayce predicted this wobble would go 16 degrees into Russia, and with their computers calculating everything they knew, there was a spot about 15.75 from a spot where Cayce said it would be. The difference was so small it was amazing. And so by 1964 they were pretty certain of this. They took 4 more years to watch and study to make sure this even was going to happen. He wrote a paper and sent it out to all the major governments in the world that we were going to have a new north and south pole. He put it in his paper that the sun spiral was coming off the sun like clockwork every three years. Only it was increasing in intensity. After studying this for 18 years he said that by 1972 it would be so great it would do something never done before. They didn't say exactly what. Then another one in 1984 and after that one we would probably have a new north and south pole. The actual event happened in August of 1972. The explosion happened. The biggest thing that has ever happened, ever.

The solar wind got up to 2-1/2 million miles per hour for 3 days. And it dropped down to 1-1/2 million MPH for 30 days. It was published in all the major scientific publications and a conference was called of scientists where David announced his findings. All major newspapers of the world reported it. This publicity went on for six months and then suddenly nothing was ever heard about it again. There was a total world-wide black out. No one discussed it anymore and you couldn't find out anything more about it.

If the Sirians hadn't acted, that explosion would have killed us. But what really happened, and here is where it gets difficult, is that there was going to be a pulse from out of the sun which would have expanded all the way to Jupiter. If we were prepared for this, there would be no problem. We could just tune to it and it would be beautiful. And the other planets are having no problem with it but earth being where we're at and having this situation of being down here in the middle of no-man's land in consciousness, we were unable to protect ourselves. So what was happening on another dimensional level was that the 144,000 beings from all over the universe, from different cultures, were planning on coming in here to assist, by the middle of January of 1972, about 80,000 of them were here, they had what you might call an intense discussion over this subject. Some were very upset over it. The result was that 79,800 of the cultures said there's no hope. Not in prayer. There's nothing we could do. They packed up and went home, leaving us to die. 100 of those remaining believe there was something they could do. They were the Acturians, Aldeberons and a whole spectrum of life decided to stick with the Sirians. (The other 100 were Sirians and Pleiadians.) They were not going to give up. They were going to stay there and help.

So the Sirians had the hardware and software in place and ambassadors ready to go and everything. The moment the group said there's no hope, they sent the ambassadors to Galactic Command. And they asked permission to do an experiment on earth. If there was going to be anyone at all who was going to survive the explosion from the sun, they could not have gotten permission. Even if one man and one woman would survive, they would have said no. But because nobody was going to survive it and it was going to be a dead planet, they got permission for the experiment. And the Galactic Command, which was 48 members, asked the Sirians, how many people do you think will survive this? They said we believe at least two will but not more than 10.

They went into operation immediately and in 30 days they had everything set up and turned on. They placed the large cigar shaped object just outside the membrane of consciousness of the earth, which is 440, 000 miles out, one overtone higher. And they placed it outside because they didn't want it to interfere because it was too powerful of an object. And around the earth the 8 little robot space ships were placed at the apexes of the star tetrahedron which surrounds the earth. [Every planet and in fact every living body, even animals and plants, have this star tetrahedron around them] [A tetrahedron is a four sided pyramid.] They were on one overtone higher so they were not seen. Then the Sirian ship shot in a beam of laser light which contained billions of megabytes of information to the north pole and it was 8 inches wide and traveled at the speed of light. If you could stop it you would see all these different colors of light in different segments.

And it came in the ship at the pole and then was separated into three primary rays. A red, blue and a green ray. This went to the other three space ships at the three apexes of the north tetrahedron and also to the three apexes of the southern tetrahedron. Finally they went to the ship at the south pole which combined them and shot them down into the center of the earth. Then by diffraction it came out in billions of tiny streams of light. It came out of the center of the earth and around the star tetrahedron of every human being on the earth, and the breathing animals. Then it went inside from the top of every human and animal. They had to protect us from the wall of flame. And also they had to prepare us to stand up to this wall of flame. So they created a holographic field around the earth and then they set up a holographic field around each person. And then they began to program into these holographic field events.

Part 1.

John W.

--
Peace and Light to You and Yours,
Kenneth Broom, Columbia, MD, USA
aka I.A.M. Research


Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:23:12 -0400
Subject: parallel Earths & premonitions

Lori

Great post. Thanks for sharing that. I can see why it would be a terrible burden to have powerful premonitions like that!

Kate :)


Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:56:51 -0400
Subject: Scholars in Observation

John  wrote:

> > the whole puzzle: (4) an innate generalized ability to learn. People
> > vary in their ability to learn new skills. Meaning, some people (I'm
> > thinking Scholars, esp. those in observation <G> ) are geniuses at
> > learning in general--they revel in acquiring new skills and information.
> > The rest of the population is somewhat below that astounding potential.
> > <G>
>
> <click, buzz, whirrrrrrrrr> Wow, what an astounding observation<G> .
> This overleaves stuff is really starting to click for me. Coming
> from another scholar in observation -- I have always been an
> extremely fast learner. For example, after leaving the Army I lied
> my way into a deckhand job. I bluffed my way through the first
> couple of days, and through (what else?) observation, I was quickly
> right up there with the best of them. When the skipper commented
> some months later about how pleased he was, I confessed (with a
> cynical attitude, of course), and he thought it was hilarious. On
> the other hand though, I find that being an old soul, I quickly
> become bored. Or maybe it's laziness. I learn quickly, but once
> that curve peaks out and it takes more effort to improve, maybe I'm
> just looking for something new and easy.

John, you reminded me how I spent a lot of my 20s and 30s, bluffing my way into jobs. <G> A personal saying of mine was, "If I have six months experience in something I can easily (lie and <G> ) claim six years, because in six months time I can get as good at the job as most people do in six years. <G> I used to help other Old Souls who were having a very hard time surviving in a Young Soul cuture learn how to bluff their way into jobs as well. Unfortunately, only the Scholars had any real potential at it. Attempting such a brash thing just about scares Old Servers to death. <G>

Like you, I'm definitely in observation and have strong Scholar (bleedthrough). I used to have these goals in any new job: (1) learn the job faster than anyone did before, (2) streamline the job to be more efficient, (3) write up a clear, cohesive, easy-to-study job description. Then, like you, with no more mountains to climb, I would proceed to intense boredom. <G> For a while I "solved" the problem by working freelance or as a temporary employee, though that had it's problems as temp employers were always trying to hire me permanently--I would warn them I don't stick around long, the longest I've ever worked at a "real" job is 17 months, and that seemed an eternity. My goal in life, and I know this is true for a lot of Old Souls (<G> ) is to avoid working in a "real" (esp. young soul) job like avoiding the plague. <G>

The trouble is, almost every Old Soul I've ever met, because of being phobic about working for others, even fellow OS's who are notoriously bad at business, is that they spend their lives floating on the fringes of society, feeling like outcasts and living in virtual poverty. Somehow I've been born with strong money karma, that is, the ability to channel all the money I need, in all circumstances, and to help people closely aligned with me to channel money, too. (But I don't want to make that a career, either--boy is it exhausting being aligned to someone who has major poverty consciousness! <whew> )

Anyway, because of my Scholar thing, I've left and re-entered college as both an undergrad and grad student, six times. <G> As an undergrad, I studied dance, foreign languages, sociology and political science (finally pulled the whole mess together into an honors interdisciplinary degree in 1984 with the help of a wonderful undergrad advisor <G> ). As a grad student, I studied education, counseling psychology and creative writing--I now have 60 semester hours of grad work (what it usually takes to get a Ph.D. for those lucky folks who don't get bored <G> ), and no masters, let alone a Ph.D.

The past few years I've been incessantly studying alternative medicine: homeopathy (did part of a diploma from the British Inst. of Homeopathy), herbs, essential oils, energy work, nutrition and nutritional supplements, and environmental medicine (the effects of toxins and pollutants on health). Right now I'm making an intensive study of heart disease and cancer prevention. In typical Scholar fashion, a lot of this studying is just for me, for the sheer fascination of it. Though the Priest and Sage sides of me often clamor for me to "pass on" what I've learned. The trick is, in what format? I have spent innumerable lifetimes as a healer, and I have no real desire to be one this lifetime, at least not anymore--my foray into being a counselor in the early 90s had such a "been-there-done-that" feel to it, I got bored with it within a year and a half. Throughout the 80s and into the 90s I've taught a lot of workshops on various subjects from yoga and meditation, to starting your own home business, to spiritual parenting and numerology and how to channel (which keeps my Priest happy but exhausts my Scholar <G> ).

When you combine the fact that I'm in Growth and 5th level (terrible need for change <G> ) with the intense speed of comprehension and ability to in months (vs. years) acquire whole disciplines of study related to the Scholar in Observation part of me, it makes me "commitment phobic" to any one career or discipline. My mind and interest are always endlessly roving.

Related aside: This may sound arrogant, but after what I've just said, maybe it will make sense: because of my whole overleaf situation, the only people I don't get bored with within a very short period of time are people with my same profile, really smart Scholars in Observation who endlessly study, too--which is why the Internet is such a boon to me and people like me. <G> Everyone who doesn't have this same sort of profile inevitably becomes to me an interesting "specimen" to observe, because, what the heck else does one do with them when there is little or no common base? <G> Well, in the days of my youth, my Priest would take over in response to strong requests (I don't ever seek out disciples, it makes the Scholar part of me shudder <G> ), I would take them as students. For short periods of time. Being a mentor, like everything else, gets old (tiresome) after a while.

So right now the one thing I've found I can do that never gets boring, because there is always new research to be done in relation to it, is writing. BTW, for any of you old scholars who are in my same boat with all this who are good writers, there are a lot of possibilities opening up for doing paid writing on the internet if you want to e-mail me for specifics. :)

Now it may seem that I am arrogantly proud of all my above overleaves, but I assure you that, like most of you Old Scholars, I have spent a lot of this life accepting the estimation of myself given me by Baby, Young and Matures alike--"What a flake!" <G> We are seen as the "absent-minded professors," and the people who just "don't make good family people." I can manage, for short periods of time, to look "normal" in close, family-like group situations, but if I don't get 8-10 hours/day all to myself, I go crazy. I'll bet a lot of you Scholars can relate to that. <G>

> > People also vary in their ability to learn within any given discipline.
> > For example, writers. As a fiction-writer who has mentored many fellow
> > writers,
>
> Kate, would you be willing to talk to me offline in regards to this?

Sure, and we can discuss it here if any of the Old Scholars here can relate. :) Those of you who aren't Scholars can delete all these weird Scholar posts. <G>

Kate


Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 17:11:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Scholars in Observation

Kate M wrote:

> John  wrote:
>
> > > the whole puzzle: (4) an innate generalized ability to learn. People
> > > vary in their ability to learn new skills. Meaning, some people (I'm
> > > thinking Scholars, esp. those in observation <G > ) are geniuses at
> > > learning in general--they revel in acquiring new skills and information.
> > > The rest of the population is somewhat below that astounding
> > > potential. <G>

I could read when I was three. I used to read cereal boxes and street car ads and the intruction manuals of stuff my parents used to bring home. I was always always asking questions. Show me how to do this. How do you do that? What happens if...?

> > <click, buzz, whirrrrrrrrr> Wow, what an astounding observation<G > .
> > This overleaves stuff is really starting to click for me. Coming
> > from another scholar in observation -- I have always been an
> > extremely fast learner. For example, after leaving the Army I lied
> > my way into a deckhand job. I bluffed my way through the first
> > couple of days, and through (what else?) observation, I was quickly
> > right up there with the best of them. When the skipper commented
> > some months later about how pleased he was, I confessed (with a
> > cynical attitude, of course), and he thought it was hilarious. On
> > the other hand though, I find that being an old soul, I quickly
> > become bored. Or maybe it's laziness. I learn quickly, but once
> > that curve peaks out and it takes more effort to improve, maybe I'm
> > just looking for something new and easy.

per Kate:

> John, you reminded me how I spent a lot of my 20s and 30s, bluffing my
> way into jobs. <G > A personal saying of mine was, "If I have six months
> experience in something I can easily (lie and <G > ) claim six years,
> because in six months time I can get as good at the job as most people
> do in six years. <G > I used to help other Old Souls who were having a
> very hard time surviving in a Young Soul cuture learn how to bluff their
> way into jobs as well. Unfortunately, only the Scholars had any real
> potential at it. Attempting such a brash thing just about scares Old
> Servers to death. <G >

"Ribi dibi dip. That's right Buck."
I've never concerned myself about "getting" a job. I always could do that. However, where I ran into trouble was trying to avoid the acute, almost painful, boredom would sometimes set in. It was then that I, almost automatically, would start something that would normally get myself in dutch with my boss.

> Like you, I'm definitely in observation and have strong Scholar
> (bleedthrough). I used to have these goals in any new job: (1) learn the
> job faster than anyone did before, (2) streamline the job to be more
> efficient,

This is the one that would get me in trouble the most. Most of my bosses didn't want me telling them how to do my own job better, much less my telling them how to do "their" job better. I remember telling one vice-president of engineering (and in front of my own supervisor yet) that I wanted his job. My supervisor almost fell through the floor, and so did my section manager when he found out. The VP, to the contrary, found it amusing, and said "Hey, you can "have" the job." Needless to say I resigned this job too.

[clipped]

> When you combine the fact that I'm in Growth and 5th level (terrible
> need for change <G> ) with the intense speed of comprehension and ability
> to in months (vs. years) acquire whole disciplines of study related to
> the Scholar in Observation part of me, it makes me "commitment phobic"
> to any one career or discipline. My mind and interest are always
> endlessly roving.

Me too, commitment phobic. That's why I tend to be a loner. The ladies I've met tend to set up expectations about me, and I expect this is a natural tendency for most people. But the only expectation that is valid for me is that today I am not what I was yesterday, and tomorrow I will be different again. My "real" friends have no expectations except that "Hey, Ken, what've you been up to?". They are never suprised at whatever my response is.

> Related aside: This may sound arrogant, but after what I've just said,
> maybe it will make sense: because of my whole overleaf situation, the
> only people I don't get bored with within a very short period of time
> are people with my same profile, really smart Scholars in Observation
> who endlessly study, too--which is why the Internet is such a boon to me
> and people like me. <G > Everyone who doesn't have this same sort of
> profile inevitably becomes to me an interesting "specimen" to observe,
> because, what the heck else does one do with them when there is littlev > or no common base? <G >

What I tend to do is just to quietly disappear. Is that the "audacity" of the CF of impatience, or the "intolerance"?

> Well, in the days of my youth, my Priest would
> take over in response to strong requests (I don't ever seek out
> disciples, it makes the Scholar part of me shudder <G> ), I would take
> them as students. For short periods of time. Being a mentor, like
> everything else, gets old (tiresome) after a while.

I remember pondering the idea of starting a new religion, or becomimg a guru. Even that got boring after two days.

[clipped]

> Now it may seem that I am arrogantly proud of all my above overleaves,
> but I assure you that, like most of you Old Scholars, I have spent a lot
> of this life accepting the estimation of myself given me by Baby, Young
> and Matures alike--"What a flake!" <G > We are seen as the "absent-minded
> professors," and the people who just "don't make good family people." I
> can manage, for short periods of time, to look "normal" in close,
> family-like group situations, but if I don't get 8-10 hours/day all to
> myself, I go crazy. I'll bet a lot of you Scholars can relate to that. <G >

My ex-wife couldn't relate at all. She thought she was doing (or did) something wrong.

Kate and Dave, I felt like you two were giving me a psychic reading like on television. The difference being that Kate has a goal of growth, mine is acceptance. I absorb everything, and have learned to set aside (not throw away) the extraneous or incorrect.

[clipped]

> Sure, and we can discuss it here if any of the Old Scholars here can
> relate. :) Those of you who aren't Scholars can delete all these weird
> Scholar posts. <G >

Relate, relate, relate. :> )#

Thanks, you two,
and
Peace and Light to You and Yours,
Kenneth Broom, Columbia, MD, USA
7th Old Scholar, Observation, Acceptance, Idealist, Emot Part of Intell, Impatience.
aka I.A.M. Research

Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 17:54:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Scholars in Observation

Kenneth Broom wrote:

[clipped]

> Kate and Dave, I felt like you two were giving me a psychic reading like
> on television. The difference being that Kate has a goal of growth, mine
> is acceptance. I absorb everything, and have learned to set aside (not
> throw away) the extraneous or incorrect.

Excuse me Kate and Dave. I meant Kate and John

Peace and Light to You and Yours,
Kenneth Broom, Columbia, MD, USA

Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 17:27:17 +0000
Subject: Re: Scholars in Observation

BELCH! You're excused.

John

Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 21:12:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Gregg
Subject: Re: Scholars in Observation

Are those messages from departed "spirits", John? ;-p

Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 18:58:49 +0000
From: John
Subject: Re: Scholars in Observation

Yes, I learned how to channel! That was from Adolph Busch.


Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 17:27:17 +0000
Subject: Re: Scholars in Observation

> This is the one that would get me in trouble the most. Most of my bosses
> didn't want me telling them how to do my own job better, much less my
> telling them how to do "their" job better. I remember telling one
> vice-president of engineering (and in front of my own supervisor yet)
> that I wanted his job. My supervisor almost fell through the floor, and
> so did my section manager when he found out. The VP, to the contrary,
> found it amusing, and said "Hey, you can "have" the job." Needless to
> say I resigned this job too.

> That's why I tend to be a loner.

Me, too, though I have learned (kicking and screaming mind you) that being just a tad sociable can be very beneficial.

> My ex-wife couldn't relate at all. She thought she was doing (or did)
> something wrong.

Ditto for my current, but she is a warrior, so she just gets pissed.

John


Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 17:27:17 +0000
Subject: Re: Scholars in Observation

> Like you, I'm definitely in observation and have strong Scholar
> (bleedthrough). I used to have these goals in any new job: (1) learn the
> job faster than anyone did before, (2) streamline the job to be more
> efficient, (3) write up a clear, cohesive, easy-to-study job
> description. Then, like you, with no more mountains to climb, I would
> proceed to intense boredom. <G>

Mmmmm boy, here we go again with the scholar in observation stuff. They seem to congregate here don't they? The light went on again as I read the above. As I have moved from position to position in the military, I have followed the same pattern. <sidebar - I talked in a previous post about leaving the army. After being out for two years I fell into an active duty national guard position and have been in that program for seven years.> In each instance I found myself thrust into a position that required fixing lots of stuff, and was normally a position held by a person of higher rank by myself. As soon as I assessed the problems, fixed them, and set up a routine for maintaining what I had implemented, I was moved to another position. I am sure this is unconscious manifesting on my part, as the maintenance part bores me to tears.

> My goal in life, and I know this is true for a lot of Old Souls (<G> ) is to avoid > working in a "real" (esp. young soul) job like avoiding the plague. <G>

Yes! The only reason I am back in the military is financial. I was marrying someone who already had four children, and I realized I needed to do something different and much more stable in the realm of employment. Looking back, I now realize the energy I put into that concern is what resulted in my landing the position I did. The circumstances involved were astounding. It was like a well-planned chess move that happened at a much higher level than my conscious awareness. On the other hand, being in the military drives me absolutely insane. I don't want to work for anyone else. Period! The thought of another 9 years in this system to secure my retirement is at times extremely frightening. The control drives me nuts. And although I have proven myself time and again to be an exceptional leader, I don't want that either. Just leave me alone and let me do my thing.

> Anyway, because of my Scholar thing, I've left and re-entered college as
> both an undergrad and grad student, six times. <G>

I could see myself doing this, but am very aware that it would be counter-productive for me. What I could see myself falling into, if I did not take my familial responsibilities so seriously, is doing the same thing with spiritual/metaphysical studies rather than with traditional institutions of learning. I guess I do that on a small scale now, but the time actual spent doing that is fairly minimal.

> I have spent innumerable lifetimes as a healer, and I have no real desire
> to be one this lifetime, at least not anymore--my foray into being a counselor
> in the early 90s had such a "been-there-done-that" feel to it, I got bored with
> it within a year and a half. Throughout the 80s and into the 90s I've
> taught a lot of workshops on various subjects from yoga and meditation,
> to starting your own home business, to spiritual parenting and
> numerology and how to channel (which keeps my Priest happy but exhausts
> my Scholar <G> ).

So are you aware of what your life task is, and how all of this smaller stuff fits into the big puzzle? This is my BIG issue. I am really clueless here. Does anyone have a methodology for ferreting this out? If I could figure out what my real purpose was for this lifetime, I know everything else would fall into place.

> When you combine the fact that I'm in Growth and 5th level (terrible
> need for change <G> ) with the intense speed of comprehension and ability
> to in months (vs. years) acquire whole disciplines of study related to
> the Scholar in Observation part of me, it makes me "commitment phobic"
> to any one career or discipline. My mind and interest are always
> endlessly roving.

Yes. And I have a horribly time trying to quiet the internal chatter. If I were to pick myself apart I would say that shutting down my internal dialogue would make more impact on my life than any one other issue.

> Related aside: This may sound arrogant, but after what I've just said,
> maybe it will make sense: because of my whole overleaf situation, the
> only people I don't get bored with within a very short period of time
> are people with my same profile, really smart Scholars in Observation
> who endlessly study, too--which is why the Internet is such a boon to me
> and people like me. <G>

Yes, I become quite impatient. In addition to my "real job", my wife and I have a horse ranch. I personally have no interest in horses, but her passion lies there so I support that. In many instances she will have clients over, and my role becomes entertaining the "non-horsey" spouse, which incidently is usually the husband. They generally want to talk about one of three things -- sports, cars, or hunting. ACK! 30 minutes of this completely drains me.

> So right now the one thing I've found I can do that never gets boring,
> because there is always new research to be done in relation to it, is
> writing. BTW, for any of you old scholars who are in my same boat with
> all this who are good writers, there are a lot of possibilities opening
> up for doing paid writing on the internet if you want to e-mail me for
> specifics. :)

Writing was my first passion, and I am working towards making that a significant part of my life again. I would like to hear about this.

> but if I don't get 8-10 hours/day all to myself, I go crazy. I'll bet a lot of > you Scholars can relate to that. <G>

The only time I get is my commute, and I am going absolutely insane. And my wife doesn't understand it, because she draws her energy from interacting with people constantly.

> > > People also vary in their ability to learn within any given discipline.
> > > For example, writers. As a fiction-writer who has mentored many fellow writers,
> >
> > Kate, would you be willing to talk to me offline in regards to this?
>
> Sure, and we can discuss it here if any of the Old Scholars here can
> relate. :) Those of you who aren't Scholars can delete all these weird
> Scholar posts. <G>

I really don't think this is a topic appropriate for the list, but if you get a positive response go for it. I will observe the flaming before I go any further with this. <G>

John


Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:16:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Scholars in Observation

Kenneth Broom wrote:

> I could read when I was three. I used to read cereal boxes and street
> car ads and the intruction manuals of stuff my parents used to bring
> home. I was always always asking questions. Show me how to do this.
> How do you do that? What happens if...?

Sounds like you're gifted. :) I think a lot of scholars choose to be gifted in different ways, intellectually, musically, artistically, linguistically, etc. It gives them more "game pieces" to play with in their eternal quest for knowledge. <G>

> I've never concerned myself about "getting" a job. I always could do
> that. However, where I ran into trouble was trying to avoid the acute,
> almost painful, boredom would sometimes set in. It was then that I,
> almost automatically, would start something that would normally get
> myself in dutch with my boss.

Boy, can I relate to getting into trouble with bosses! It's very painful. :( We do far, far better being self-employed whenever we can make that possible.

> Me too, commitment phobic. That's why I tend to be a loner. The ladies
> I've met tend to set up expectations about me, and I expect this is a
> natural tendency for most people. But the only expectation that is
> valid for me is that today I am not what I was yesterday, and tomorrow I
> will be different again. My "real" friends have no expectations except that
>
> "Hey, Ken, what've you been up to?". They are never suprised at
> whatever my response is.

I applaud you as a Scholar in Observation for finding a way to be an acute loner that works for you. The problem is, in this culture (and probably most other ones), unless you overtly set yourself up as the village "shaman" or "poet-priest" (and therefore get the "negative privacy" of being the village's crazy-but-powerful-one) you have no freedom to be "the very one you are." All of us, but esp. males, are strongly imprinted with our culture's Young-Soul Sage-Warrior values. We are told that we have to relate and form family (or family-like) bonds (the Sage) and that we have to work hard and "look normal" and do "the 'right' thing" (the Warrior).

I think this cultural imprint in its male version is especially hard for male, OS Scholars. You have been imprinted with the believe that to be a "real man" you have to play successfully the part of a "real man" (act like a Young Soul Warrior). To wit: you are expected to hold down a "good" job. Depending on your socio-economic status, the definition of "good" can vary, but generally involves working in an 8-5, punch-the-clock fashion so that you can bring in a regular paycheck. You are told that if you do this, you will earn the respect of your peers. You'll be accepted. You'll belong.

All well and good in its way, but the trouble is, as an OS male, there is terrible internal conflict as to who our "peers" are. Scholars are pretty androgynous in their internal sex-role orientation. So even more perhaps than other OS roles, playing the "macho man" can feel horribly false to them. (I can imagine that not only the boring routine of the military but the relentless high-wattage-testosterone-maleness of the mostly male military community would be exhausting to an OS Scholar--unless he has a Warrior bleedthrough or casting to help him find a way to relate to it somehow.)

So in the male portion of our YS culture, esp. the ultra-male portion, the military, a Scholar-in-Observation with bleedthrough and/or casting of Server and/or Artisan would really be run over by a truck. No means to relate. King wouldn't help--their would just be a complete disoriented feeling, "Why isn't everyone respecting me and running to do my bidding?" A casting or bleedthrough of Sage would help--you could talk your way out of trouble and be a good "actor" who could play the part of a "real man" (young soul warrior aka John Wayne). A Server might do better in the sense of not minding the way as an OS he is marginalized and pushed into the background--as long as the Server could convince himself that, working invisibly in the background, he was helping others reach their goals. I think the overleaves of Submission, Perseverance, Realists, Pragmatists or even Stoic could be of help in enduring the trauma of trying to fit in.

When all else fails, and it frequently does, the OS Scholar is left with poor-paying, ill-respected "New Age" type work, writing books that 50 people read so you can teach seminars that 10 people come to (unless you are of a small handful who bring in a lot more people and charge big bucks for the privilege <G> --but I don't think these people are Scholars in Observation; if they are Scholars, they have some strong overleaves, and karma, propelling them into the limelight, which normally Scholars shun like the plague). About 5-10% of the time the Scholar who is not forcing himself to be in a marriage or family situation can feel acutely lonely, alienated and so forth. If he can manage to get beyond those hard moments, or while in the midst of them pick a mate wisely who is strongly Scholar as well, then he'll be alright on the home front.

If he wants to make very good money, the "natural" environment for him (or her) is to work with computers. Academia used to be the only place they had to go, but academia with all its infighting and petty discourses and emphasis on picking one tiny little area of study and making a whole life's work out of writing about it can be boring in the extreme, esp. to an OS Scholar. The YS's can at least get into ambition and work up to being Dept. Chair or Dean. The matures can revel in "moulding young minds," but the OS sees through the BS and wants O-U-T.

But nowadays Scholars seem to abound among computer "geeks," and if you are really smart and good at what you do (programming, beta testing, technical writing, etc.), no one cares if your socks don't match, you have "standing hair syndrome" and you can't relate to anyone around you. <G> If you get good enough, you can write your own ticket, make $50-90/hour and work from your home. :)

> What I tend to do is just to quietly disappear. Is that the "audacity"
> of the CF of impatience, or the "intolerance"?

Kenneth, I think it's an innate ability of the Scholar, if there is no underlying Sage or Priest yanking him forward, to fade into the woodwork. They are so darn good at being invisible! <G> I don't think it takes a lot of "audacity" to disappear. It's pretty "nervy" to try and go head-to-head and relate where there is nothing to relate to (IOW, beating your head against the wall), which those of us with Priest are often stupid enough to do. IMO, the Scholarly tendency to "fade out" makes wonderful sense. <G>

> I remember pondering the idea of starting a new religion, or becomimg > a guru. Even that got boring after two days.

I think the Scholar would enjoy channeling the "received truth" but would leave it to a Priest or Sage to pass on the "good word." <G>

> > We are seen as the "absent-minded professors," and the people who
> just "don't > make good family people." I can manage, for short periods
> of time, to look "normal" > in close, family-like group situations, but
> if I don't get 8-10 hours/day all to myself, I go crazy. I'll bet a lot of you
> Scholars can relate to that. <G>
>
> My ex-wife couldn't relate at all. She thought she was doing (or did)
> something wrong.

What were your ex's overleaves?

IMO, it takes innate "talent" (particular overleaf configurations) in order to have the understanding and acceptance needed to successfully live with a Scholar. IMO, the ones most likely to pull it off are people who have a bleedthrough or at least a casting of Scholar, or at the very least very, very strong imprint from a Scholar parent. Otherwise the intense need of the Scholar for buckets of privacy and their incessant desire to collect information and pile up the house with their collections (books, rocks, paintings, artifacts of all sorts, etc., etc.) can drive other Roles mad. <G> The OS Scholar in particular can appear so eccentric that I would imagine that a mature Warrior would find him/her horrifying to live with or work with on a day-to-day basis since the Warrior just "does what needs to be done" and, as John mentioned about his wife, is very people-oriented in a pragmatic, down-to-earth, no-nonsense kind of way. The Warrior just "takes care of business" and never "sweats the small stuff" while the Scholar goes nuts (has a mini nervous breakdown, if you will <G> ) if he/she has to deal with the "overload" of too much "socializing," not to mention that he/she has an incredibly low tolerance, as we've mentioned, for boredom. Unfortunately, the daily grind of mindless inconsequentials involved in the "duties" that keep family and job running smoothly are rife with boring moments and the "overload" of having to converse with other people far more than the Scholar is wired to tolerate. :}

I think an Artisan might do fairly well with the Server if they could get into a mutual admiration society of the Scholar excited by the Artisan's creativity and oddity. <G> The Scholar might "help" the Artisan out by searching out mentor's for the Artisan's work and information that the Artisan might find useful. If the Artisan gets really involved in his/her work, he/she might give the Scholar the room to breath he/she craves.

A Server married to a Scholar would tend to kind of watch him/her from a distance in something of a state of awe. <G> The nice thing for the Scholar would be that the Server would make sure that all those awful daily chores were handled and would say things like, "I feel it is my life's work to promote my beloved Scholar's career and life aspirations"--and really mean it. <G> For this reason, I think a lot of Scholars are very attracted to younger-souled Servers as mates as the convenience of the stereotypical "wife" (even if these days the "wife" is the man) is offered. It's been channeled that I had this kind of service from my wife in a recent past life when I was a rural doctor with a family of nine children. Nice as that was in that era, in this day and age, an OS Scholar isn't as socially programmed to be satisfied with a mate that isn't his "equal" in education and discourse. It doesn't feel like just a "normal thing to do" to find, for a male, ental stimulation from other literate males and see women as genetically intellectually inferior. We (male and female Scholars) want our mates (or many of us do) to be our intellectual equals.

> > Sure, and we can discuss it here if any of the Old Scholars here can
> > relate. :) Those of you who aren't Scholars can delete all these weird
> > Scholar posts. <G>
>
> Relate, relate, relate. :> )#

Any more Old Scholars who want to throw in their two-cents worth? <G>

Kate


Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:18:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Scholars in Observation

John  wrote:

>> That's why I tend to be a loner.
>
> Me, too, though I have learned (kicking and screaming mind you) that
> being just a tad sociable can be very beneficial.
>
> > My ex-wife couldn't relate at all. She thought she was doing (or did)
> > something wrong.
>
> Ditto for my current, but she is a warrior, so she just gets pissed.

LOL. Is she an OS Warrior? What are her overleaves?

Kate


Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:41:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Scholars in Observation

John  wrote:

[clipped]

> So are you aware of what your life task is, and how all of this
> smaller stuff fits into the big puzzle? This is my BIG issue. I am
> really clueless here. Does anyone have a methodology for ferreting
> this out? If I could figure out what my real purpose was for this
> lifetime, I know everything else would fall into place.

Four methodology questions or thoughts for food:
------------------------------------------------
1) What is it you find yourself coming back to, time and time again, whether in thought, word, or deed?

2) If money were no object, what would you most like to do, even if you never got recognized for it?

3) What is it you like "most" about the world? What can you do to help promote that one thing? What next most?

4) What is it you like "least" about the world? What can you do to help change that one thing? What next least?

FWIW: For me these four questions all led to the same answer. I love research and I love making knowledge available. I am a library. My greatest pleasure right now is learning and sharing and learning via the World Wide Web, "especially" via these SpiritWeb Lists. Such fantastic questions are brought up. In a few months I'll start working again on my website.

[clipped]

> Yes. And I have a horribly time trying to quiet the internal
> chatter. If I were to pick myself apart I would say that shutting
> down my internal dialogue would make more impact on my life than any
> one other issue.

There is quiet in the spaces between the words in the internal dialogue. Have you tried looking/focusing there? What is focused on... grows.

[clipped]

> Writing was my first passion, and I am working towards making that a
> significant part of my life again. I would like to hear about this.

Several years ago Steve Allan, the comedian and master intellect, wrote and presented several TV shows called "A Meeting of Minds" wherein several well known people from different time frames in history met together for dinner each week, and discussed just about anything that came to their minds. I would really like to see something like that done again, and be taken as far as the author could take it.

> The only time I get is my commute, and I am going absolutely insane.
> And my wife doesn't understand it, because she draws her energy from
> interacting with people constantly.

My entity folks, when any of us still in human form have a major challenge in our lives, have two sayings:

1) If you don't like your reality then change it.
2) How do you change it: Use your imagination and give energy to the image.

This usually drew arguments from us mere mortals about responsibilities, but they kept telling us something like "everything conceivable is possible" and that "awareness is the key to happiness and freedom". After we calmed down quite a bit we began to realize the deep truths in what they were telling us, and that we could include the well-being and happiness of our "responsibilities" in the images that we energize and empower.

I hope this helps you, John. I really feel related to you. What kind of stuff do you, or would you, like to write about. I too am open to continuing this thread off-list if you prefer.

Peace and Light to You and Yours,
Kenneth Broom, Columbia, MD, USA
aka I.A.M. Research


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 00:03:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Scholars in Observation

*****LONG POST WARNING: IF YOU AREN'T INTERESTED IN THIS THREAD, PLEASE DELETE THIS POST****

John  wrote:

> Mmmmm boy, here we go again with the scholar in observation stuff.
> They seem to congregate here don't they? The light went on again as
> I read the above. As I have moved from position to position in the
> military, I have followed the same pattern. > previous post about leaving the army. After being out for two years
> I fell into an active duty national guard position and have been in
> that program for seven years.> In each instance I found myself
> thrust into a position that required fixing lots of stuff, and was
> normally a position held by a person of higher rank by myself. As
> soon as I assessed the problems, fixed them, and set up a routine for
> maintaining what I had implemented, I was moved to another position.
> I am sure this is unconscious manifesting on my part, as the
> maintenance part bores me to tears.

Well, I think what has helped you survive in the military (after my last post I checked on your overleaf reading) is your strong Warrior bleedthrough. Also, all that setting things up and moving on kept your Growth satisfied. I think I understand now why you were moved to marry a woman with four children who runs a business from her home which requires that you, as her spouse, entertain her clients' spouses. Only if she were your ET, as you suspect (and which I am getting is in fact the case, btw) could you have been kept from running in horror from taking on such an incredibly overloading job! <G> (The fact that my dh is my Entity Mate was the only thing that kept him from running screaming into the night to get away from the difficulties inherent in marrying me with two children, both with ADD, which makes them as much trouble as four or more. <sigh> )

BTW, your comment about entertaining the spouses of the people, usu. women, buying horses from your wife is a good example of the "androgynous" nature that Scholars have which I mentioned in my other post. Without a qualm about your "masculinity" you are fulfilling what needs to be done, what your spouse needs, nevermind that it is the "traditional female role" to entertain her spouse's clients' spouses. <G>

> awareness. On the other hand, being in the military drives me
> absolutely insane. I don't want to work for anyone else. Period!
> The thought of another 9 years in this system to secure my retirement
> is at times extremely frightening. The control drives me nuts. And
> although I have proven myself time and again to be an exceptional
> leader, I don't want that either. Just leave me alone and let me do
> my thing.

The warrior bleedthrough that led you to select the military in the first place is even more strengthened now that you are married to your ET. Speaking as one who was also married to my ET, since being with him, a Scholar, I have become more Scholar than Sage. <G>

> Anyway, because of my Scholar thing, I've left and re-entered college
> as both an undergrad and grad student, six times. <G>
> I could see myself doing this, but am very aware that it would be
> counter-productive for me. What I could see myself falling into, if
> I did not take my familial responsibilities so seriously, is doing
> the same thing with spiritual/metaphysical studies rather than with
> traditional institutions of learning. I guess I do that on a small
> scale now, but the time actual spent doing that is fairly minimal.

To do this might possibly be counter-productive to your current goals at this time, fulfilling your obligations as a step-parent, but as a Scholar in Observation and Growth with the intellect/giftedness you have obviously chosen to pull to yourself this lifetime, to suppress that side of yourself indefinietely and almost entirely and, more than that, tell yourself, "It's wrong!" is to "sell out" your Scholar to your Warrior. The latter side of you has no desire but to "do his duty like a Man." And while he is busily doing "what needs to be done," he is shutting a door firmly in the face of the side of yourself that strongly wants to know its "purpose in life," the Scholar. Unfortunately, and an OS Warrior friend of mine who is Artisan bleedthrough reminded me of this recently, to deny the most essential part of you, your primary overleaf, your Role, is to deny yourself any true peace or contentment. It can also cause you to feel victimized by fate leading to a, to varying degrees, conscious or unconscious resentment of the very persons/obligations on whose behalf you have denied who you really are. Sadly, this can many times drive a wedge in your relationship with your spouse and the rest of the family members to whom you feel obligated.

(BTW, not understanding who I was, what I needed, and always doing what was "right," that is, totally living for the fulfillment of my mates' career goals and aspirations, in the past destroyed my marriages, even with my ET. Ironically, after a while my ET saw me as holding *him* down. What is happening when one partner sacrifices a major part of him/herself to the relationship is that an energy imbalance of give-and-take is set up, and, interestingly, it is the person who is giving less who most often tends to be the one to end the imbalance by fleeing the relationship. I'm thinking, though, that since it sounds like you have found your ET after the age of 30, you have far more chance of resolving your issues since both of you, being older and wiser (and more likely to be manifesting your true soul age) are likely to be much more conscious about who you are than my ET and I were in our 20s.)

> So are you aware of what your life task is, and how all of this
> smaller stuff fits into the big puzzle? This is my BIG issue. I am
> really clueless here. Does anyone have a methodology for ferreting
> this out? If I could figure out what my real purpose was for this
> lifetime, I know everything else would fall into place.

I think my life task as a late-OS is figuring out how to put together the rather complicated set of puzzle pieces I chose for myself in terms of overleaves and karmic agreements this lifetime due, especially, to being in Growth and being 5th level. The closer I get to 53 (I'll be 46 in October), the magical age when we have, according to Michael, completed the bulk, if not all, of what we came in to accomplish in a given lifetime, the less pressed I find myself feeling about "ferreting out" my "purpose in life." I think, as JP channeled recently, that what eludes OS's many times (and makes them suffer needlessly a lot of shame and self-doubt) is that the whole point of being here is simply to *play* the karma game, to just keep moving. (This isn't verbatim, but a paraphrase, btw.) Our job isn't to "look good," to never make mistakes, to be "enlightened" and full of grace. It isn't to save the world. It's just to keep moving. Because we don't realize this, far too often OS's pull back, give up, go into fetal position spiritually and emotionally and refuse to move.

OTOH, as an OS Scholar in growth and 5th level, you basically couldn't *stop* yourself from moving no matter how hard you tried <wry grin> . But it might help your confusion about your "purpose" if you turned that Scholar/Observation eagle eye of yours on yourself in a, possibly, different way than ever before. That is, try to learn as much as possible about the different directions you are pulled due to so many highly conflicting overleaves. This can be a very fascinating study if you call on your innate ability to be objective because of your Scholarliness and Observation. <G>

In this regard, I've found that my "dharma" as an OS, in general, is most likely, more than anything else, the interesting task of figuring out how at any given moment I can juggle competing needs/desires well enough to keep all of the various parts of me happy. I think those voices you want to still in your head is the "chorus" of the different parts of you, btw. IMO, many times it can feel like our mind is very like a house overfun with rampaging children in want of a little guidance and discipline. <G> Each "child" (overleaf) needs to be allowed to play its part, give what it has to give, freely and without criticism or downright horror expressed by the other children (conflicting overleaves).

In your case (looking at your overleaves), you have a definite conflict of interest, as I say, between your Warrior and Scholar. And then there's your Sage Casting and Sage imprint from your father, Sage being frequently diametrically opposed to what the Scholar needs (the extrovert dragging the horrified introvert onto the stage <G> ). Then there's your strong Server imprint from your mother. The Server can get the poor, beleagured Scholar up to his eyebrows in social (people! aaak! <G> ) obligations. The Scholar valiantly tries to fulfill them but gets so darn overloaded in the process, he feels like he is drowning.

BTW, since both your parents were near you in soul age, the influence they had on you was intensified. I find that the imprinting of Young or Baby Soul parents onto Old Souls is often only "skin deep." It is there, but not down to the bone, so to speak. However, OS's with mid-to-late Mature parents, such as you, often are very strongly imprinted by them.) Also, because you are living with your ET, you are in many ways living out a double set of overleaves (I have the same going for me), which is real "fun" for the Growth thing, because it immensely complicates life <wry grin> , but can make the task of sorting out, "Who am I, really, and what do I most want to do?" next to impossible. Who you are, really, is a lot of things, a lot of "people." And there may never be any one "purpose," any one life work (job or career or calling) that will satisfy all of you.

That can be a real problem for you as a member of our culture. We are all programmed to want (though the manifestation of this desire in action has a different "flavor" depending on the soul age) and, please God, to *get* <G> the "ideal" (utterly romanticized and essentially non-existent except in Madison-Avenue fantasy) in all aspects of life. To wit: we want the perfect work/job that will "fulfill all of me." We want ecstacy, intimacy and simultaneous old-shoes comfort from our spouse. We want perfect kids who will love and adore us, respect every word from our lips, and never give us a moment's trouble. <G> We want the perfect pet greeting us at the door of our perfect home every night, and we want to eat delicious food in the midst of perfect health. <G> And in the midst of all this sybaritic plenty, we'd also like to think that our valuable contribution to society not only makes a ton of money which pays for all our perfection, but also makes a vital contribution toward the achievement of world peace. <G> So what happens when we can't make this ideal picture a reality? Well, we have lots of opportunities to feel incomplete or "cursed." :}

In this regard, with your Warrior overleaf, you will be naturally a very hard worker, and as such, Warriors have a tendency to assume that all good fortune is because "I worked hard for my money." (I once said to a holier-than-thou YS Warrior on her high horse about this entitlement, "If hard work were the way to prosperity and riches, every peon on the planet putting in 18-hour days, seven days a week would be rich as a king." <G> ) Also, in re: your Scholar side, no one can blitz out studying like a Scholar on a roll--which looks and feels like work and discipline, except that it's fun. <G> So because these important parts of you are always hustling and hassling, if you don't have all the "fruits" your labors seem like they "ought" to entitle you to, your Warrior, and even your Scholar, can think, "What's wrong? Why don't I have more to show for myself by now?"

This tendency to feel dis-ease is in you reinforced by strong perfectionistic tendencies coming from several areas in your overleaves. You aren't in Discrimination, which can get *really* bad about perfectionism (pickiness), but you are a Cynic. This overleaf will, to quote the Basic Teachings, "in the negative pole, denigrate others and situations without cause." The Cynic is also introverted, adding to the introversion of the Scholar and Observation.

On introversion, looking at your overleaves, you are ordinal (which tends toward introversion) in bleedthrough, mother imprint, and attitude. You are neutral in Role and Goal, and exalted in casting and attitude. This weights you heavily toward the introversion end of the spectrum.

OTOH, looking at your ET/dh's overleaves, we have exalted in Casting, goal, and mode with the Role in ordinal and the attitude and CNF neutral. This means the pull is the reverse of yours, toward extroversion.

The upshot is that you and your mate/ET might act to balance each other, or, to the degree that you don't know yourselves, merge into an amalgam that may not necessarily be a new "whole that is better than the sum of its parts." Just to make the marriage monad more interesting, the tendency is weighted toward you "giving in" (introversion can flow into "passivity," going along to get along) to your partner more than this is likely from your wife. Warriors, by gum, know what is "right" at any given moment and can often be remarkably free of self-doubts when in forward motion. <G> The trouble is, when one mate exists only (or even primarily) to support and uphold the goals of the other, and is not by Role a Server (who absolutely, bone-deep revels in this sort of situation <G> ), this can be a prescription for misery. Esp. for a Scholar, who is, as I say, utterly drained by the sorts of goals set for her self by a Warrior with a home-business and a family. Where is your haven? Where is your sanctum? Where, in short, can you get some peace, quiet and privacy (all of which are *essential* for the survival of the Scholar).

To put it even more bluntly, according to what you've described, your wife has exactly what she needs (for the most part--she gets, as you say "pissed" with you, I would hazard an educated guess, mainly because you don't naturally and happily "get with the program" of supporting all the time family life, that you give "grudingly" rather than with a smile on your face). You, OTOH, are *not* having your most basic needs met, other than the indescribable spiritual delight of the incredibly flowing, innate, nothing-need-be-done-about-it connection of being with one's ET. (There is, of course, a *lot* to be said for that connection, and most of us, including me, would eat nails to keep it going. <wry grin> ) But though in an ET mating on a certain level (the soul-deep connection of one's "other half") there is *no* work to be done, on another level there is a *lot* of work to be done--if you want the relationship (you are in Growth, never forget that one) to survive. That level is, as I mentioned briefly above, the tendency for the relationship to teeter out of balance, because one (in this case, you), is drawn to give in totally to the other, to become a shadow in the other's sun.

Well, I go on and on. Your reading is fascinating. <G>

> Writing was my first passion, and I am working towards making that a
> significant part of my life again. I would like to hear about this.

You're a writer? Great! It could be a very good career choice for you in terms of fulfilling all parts of you. However, the reality is, as you say, you need, right this minute, to support a large family. Trying to get into writing at this juncture would depend on how much you had written in the past, when and why you gave it up and what it would take for you to pick it up again. Are you the kind of person who can use writing to de-stress yourself or does it become one more source of stress (due to worrying incessantly about "getting it right")? You sound very organized, and that can be useful in the attempt to "steal" time to write.

> I really don't think this is a topic appropriate for the list, but if
> you get a positive response go for it. I will observe the flaming
> before I go any further with this. <G>

Why isn't it appropriate? We are talking in Michael terms and taking the teachings, which to "newbies" and old timers alike may seem quite fascinating but not really "of this earth" and and bringing it down to the ground, showing what it means in action, putting the overleaves and their interpretation into very concrete, real-world terms. Why would that be inappropriate for a Michael list? <scratching head> As has been brought up befire, if people aren't interested in a particular thread, they can delete the posts pertaining to it and go on to other treads, or start threads that they what to hear talked about. :)

Kate


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 00:34:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Scholars in Observation typos

Kate M wrote a few typos:

> I think an Artisan might do fairly well with the Server if they could
> get into a mutual admiration society of the Scholar excited by the

I meant to say, "do fairly well with a Scholar...."

> with a family of nine children. Nice as that was in that era, in this
> day and age, an OS Scholar isn't as socially programmed to be
> satisfied with a mate that isn't his "equal" in education and discourse. It
> doesn't feel like just a "normal thing to do" to find, for a male,
> ental stimulation from other literate males and see women as genetically
> intellectually inferior. We (male and female Scholars) want our mates
> (or many of us do) to be our intellectual equals.

That odd word "ental" (where the heck did that come from? <G>) was meant to be "intellectual."

Kate M


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 01:09:21 -0400
Subject: Scholars in Observation & Life Task

Kenneth Broom wrote:

> John Rogers wrote:
> >
> > So are you aware of what your life task is, and how all of this
> > smaller stuff fits into the big puzzle? This is my BIG issue. I am
>
> Four methodology questions or thoughts for food:

[clipped]

> FWIW: For me these four questions all led to the same answer. I love
> research and I love making knowledge available. I am a library. My

Great advice, Kenneth, and it sounds like it led you to find a way to be true to your Scholar. So do you make a living at it? This is the next question in all our minds, before we rush off to follow in your footsteps, so I'll be impertinent enough to ask. <G>

> > The only time I get is my commute, and I am going absolutely insane.
> > And my wife doesn't understand it, because she draws her energy from
> > interacting with people constantly.
>
> My entity folks, when any of us still in human form have a major
> challenge in our lives, have two sayings:
> 1) If you don't like your reality then change it.
> 2) How do you change it: Use your imagination and give energy to the image.
> This usually drew arguments from us mere mortals about
> responsibilities, but they kept telling us something like "everything conceivable is
> possible" and that "awareness is the key to happiness and freedom".

This makes total sense to me, Kenneth. In this regard, I've found it helps me greatly in resolving unbearable situations to talk to my essence and the Tao and say, flat out and very strongly, "I've had it with this karma, it needs to be lifted off, NOW." Then I stay open to any and all inspirations that come to me as to concrete actions I need to take to make what I've asked for materialize. I have used this technique multiple times in my life, and it always, always works. Even the most "impossible" situations (involving guilt and shame around "family responsibilities," like John, these are biggies for me this lifetime, real karma mills <G> ), have resolved that way. Suddenly, my vision clears--I'm like a cart horse whose blinders have been lifted off. I can now see peripherally all sorts of possibilities that weren't visible before. As a result, my choices increase and my sense of victimization (helpless hopelessness) goes down.

In a situation with a spouse, in my experience resolving seeming impasses involves being willing to renegotiate the family priorities. I think it is crucial at all times in a family that no one member be asked to immolate him or herself on the altar of the (relatively speaking, often minor) comfort of the rest of the family. OTOH, when the renegotiation that needs to be done involves something huge, such as the financial impact of one spouse "starting over" into a whole new career, this can be problematic. Money is the No. 1 thing that spouses fight about--there are so many huge fear issues around money in people, esp. in this culture where money has so much to say about social value. Also, another wrinkle comes up when it is the very relationship (one's spouse) which has "enslaved" one into needing a paycheck from a non-fulfilling job that simultaneously gives one the emotional freedom to start (maybe for the first time really seriously) asking the big questions you list above, Kenneth. Especially, "If money were no object, what would you most like to do?" Most people cannot even *imagine* asking that question, because money seems to be, always, an object, and to allow oneself to think about money *not* being an object seems too big a stretch.

Oh, and this is directly to John: you know, nine years is an interesting number you brought up as to your enslavement to the military while waiting out the years to run to earn retirement (I take it you've toughed out 11 years of the requisite 20?). As for myself, I have nine more years to go before my emotinally disabled son is an adult and I am no longer legally responsible for him. Like you, counting off the nine years to your retirement, I have for a very long time now been counting off the years until my parental burden was lifted. Then it got to the point in the recent past where the burden was just more than I could bear. When I made my plea (described above) to the universe, my eyes were opened up to some new insights that never occurred to me before, to wit, that part of the reason my "burden" was so unbearable was that I was trying to make myself into a committee of five or more health-care professionals and turn my home into a mental institution in order to adequately care for my son. IOW, I was trying to make myself into something no one human being could become.

In your case, by trying to live with a family of five, support your wife's home-based business (which involves excruciating socializing), working at a job you hate, and never having any privacy, you are trying to "measure up" to an impossible standard, forcing yourself to engage in an incredibly stressful, complex lifestyle that you simply don't have the overleaves to accomplish without leading yourself to: (a) a nervous breakdown, which is a dramatic (and passive-resistance) way to call attention to the fact that, "Hey, I'm dying over here trying to live three impossibly demanding lives at the same time (husband and father, spouse's work assistant, military job)," or (b) you wake up (ding! a light goes on <G> ) and realize you *have* to sit down with your wife and step-children and re-negotiate your karmic contracts.

My Scholar dh went through (a) before he got to (b) around me and my kids. Speaking from the position of your wife (of course our overleaves are different, but the expectations are similar in most all divorced mothers of their new spouse), of course I fantasized that my dh would adore my children and give them all the love and support (emotional and financial) that their father couldn't (another overwhelmed Scholar). But living out my Perfect Family Fantasy was so unrealistic, how could he without destroying himself? I love him too much to ask that of him. So the upshot was that we had to be very creative about negotiating custody and living arrangements so that the kids could get their needs met without destroying my dh, my health breaking down mediating between everyone, or our marriage being destroyed from too much pressure. It has taken constant, *daily* clear, honest, open communication of wants, needs and emotions--no matter how "unworthy" those emotions may be--to pull this off.

IMO, it is particularly important in step-families to get the inevitable resentment (on *everyone's* part, kids, step-parent, natural parent) out in the open and deal with it at once, to not let anything accumulate. As John Bradshaw says, people tend to "gunny sack injustices until they have accumulated enough for one guilt-free explosion of righteous rage." Such explosions accomplish nothing but increasing resentment and tearing the fragile step family apart.

Kate, Saging and Priesting you to death again, darn it, you keep bringing up issues incredibly close to my heart <G>

--
Kate M

 

 


Next Page | 1997/38  
.....................................................................................................................................

Michael Teachings | Site Map | Welcome | Introduction | Michael FAQ | Soul Age | Roles | Overleaves | Advanced Topics | Nine Needs | Michael Channeling | Related Articles | Channels & Resources | Michael Tools | Michael Books | Michael Chat | Michael Student Database  | Role Photos | Spiritweb List Archives | Personality Profile | Translations | Glossary | Links |