|
Related Articles > Spiritweb Michael Spiritweb
Michael List
THE POSTS:
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 18:11:38 -0800 How long have you been on the Michael list?
Mike Huttinger Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 14:50:22 -0800
| From: Shepherd
Is the new address operative at this time?
| BTW, my new web site (www.summerjoy.com) is ready for prime time now,
I took a look and there is a lot of stuff there!
| Feel free to e-mail me general-interest questions for Michael for the
OK.
| The site also has excerpts from my upcoming books, including "Opening to
I read them and =really= enjoyed what I saw. I especially liked the chapters BEING IN THE WORLD/THE GAME and GROWING THROUGH JOY/WORKING WITH SPIRIT GUIDES. I recommend everyone take a look.
| Re: Michael's position within their cadre, both my channeling and Yarbro
Thanks. Regards, Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:24:15 -0800 Thanks you all who replied about what you thought about the president thing.... God, I know I said I'm all for honesty, but sometimes, I think people ought to just mind their own business. I actually feel kind of sorry for him! Anyway, I got this e-mail below from Carol Willis, an astrologer who I've talked to before and she's also a Michael student. I don't know much about astrology but I do like Carol's articles and I thought some people might be interested.... Blessings,
BILL, HILLARY, and MONICA GO TO WASHINGTON
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 23:58:20 EST I just witnessed on TV the carnival-like hoopla made from people cheering the execution of Karla Faye Tucker. I am sickened by such a lack of respect for human life, no matter how the individual in question lived it. How long will this country continue to believe that violence is justified, especially in regard to capitol punishment? Societal acts of violence committed for the sake of peace, or RETRIBUTION, are just as barbarous as the crimes of the people who we punish for committing similar acts of brutality. The difference in capitol punishment is that it is governed by constitutional laws. Such rubbish... Days like these make me ashamed to be a citizen of this country. Dave Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 21:15:05 -0800 Hi, Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:30:40 -0600 To anyone who might know this: While we're talking about capital punishment, do countries that have capital punishment laws create karma at the individual level or is any karma created? In other words, when a person is executed in the U.S., since I am a citizen of the U.S. and partly responsible for it's laws, have I formed a karma with the person who was killed? Or is it that the person who kills someone who has created a karma with the victim has also formed a karma with society, then, when executed has resolved that karma? John Macchietto Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 01:00:06 -0800
| From: John Macchietto
No. Capital punishment is a result of the laws of society, and does not incur karma if applied properly.
| In other words, when a person is executed in the U.S., since I am a
No, as above.
| Or is it that the person who kills someone who has created a karma with
No again. Being executed by society has no bearing on any karma involved. Karma can be incurred, however, if the execution is unjust. If, for example, person A kills person B, but person C is executed for the crime, there is karma between persons A and C as well as between A and B. This assumes the killing was not monadal. If it was monadal between A and B, there is no karma between A and B but there would be between A and C in the scenario described above. There can also be karmic links between any parties that maliciously assist in C's being executed for killing B when C did not kill B. All of this is explained in detail in the early Yarbro books. Regards, Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:29:55 -0400 (EDT) Hello everybody! I'm forwarding this for a friend. Oh, since I'm de-lurking to do this, hello to the list! I've enjoyed
listening. Ok, on to the serious stuff...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 08:09:17 -0800 Dave, I was wondering if we would ever get around to this topic. I have never been able to come to terms with the death penalty. There is something about this act that makes me very uncomfortable and yet I can not stand up with conviction and say stop. Try arguing with a group of military couples at an evening social. There always seems so many who feel that killing another human being legally is the right thing to do and that it helps in deterring further violent crimes. I can't change folks way of thinking, but I won't ever believe that taking a life is justified. Thus I sit quietly by still feeling terrible each time these stories become big news and hope that we can find other ways of dealing with such violence. Sigh. Hugs (cause they feel good) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 08:31:53 +0000 1. I don't especially think capital punishment is an appropriate tool, but when you consider the soul age of our country and most of its citizens, it is probably something we need to experience and work through as a society, and it probably will not go away anytime soon. 2. This may be an over-simplification, but maybe the heroin/redemption/execution cycle is just something Karla Faye needed to experience in her own evolution. 3. Maybe those folks cheering the execution are just playing out something they need to in their own evolution. 4. I constantly have to remind myself that this is all just a game, and all of these things that seem so terrible, immoral, unethical, and downright disgusting from our current perspective really don't mean much in the bigger scheme of things. We'll all eventually arrive at our final distination, and what we do here, regardless what it is, is only for the experience. John Rogers Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 11:57:22 -0500 per Kenneth: per The Michaels: Others view the issue as being whether or not to execute anyone at all... whether male body, male psyche, female body, or female psyche. Now,we ask you would Karla's execution have been more acceptable if she had had a male psyche in a female body, or a female psyche in a male body? And let us also say that no one has the ability to "kill" anyone. Each one of you, as a fragment of his or her Essence is immortal. At most the only thing that can be physically accomplished is to render the body of the judged-guilty fragment totally unfit for use in your physical earth dimension. This has the effect of removing that fragment's soul/essence from the earth plane. The fragment is still alive. This may or may not prevent similar so-called crimes in the future. There are three questions that each human must consider for him/herself regarding the matter of paying penalties for committed crimes: 1) What higher good does the so-called punishment serve? 2) What mundane good is really served? 3) Does the punishment really serve to discourage the commission of future crimes? We will make no judgment about your present day penal codes, but we will say that for the most part they do not serve your spoken desires to live in a crime less society. Nor is there due consideration of the public financial burden of providing free food, clothing, shelter, medical care, mental care, and guards for someone judged to be a criminal; when a non-criminal usually has to provide all these for himself. We would suggest that consideration be given to creating growth facilities rather than punishment and/or detention facilities. We suggest to you that deep love and deep caring for all life will have a more salutary effect on what you call criminals rather than putting them out of sight (and out of mind) in a facility that fosters their lower natures and their negative overleaf poles. per Kenneth: TAO will be done, on Earth, as it is in Heaven. -- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 12:43:45 -0500 Dick Hein wrote:
> | From: John Macchietto
per Dick Hein:
> No. Capital punishment is a result of the laws of society, and does not> | > incur karma if applied properly.
per The Michaels:
> | In other words, when a person is executed in the U.S., since I am a
per Dick Hein:
> No, as above.
per The Michaels:
> | Or is it that the person who kills someone who has created a karma with
per Dick Hein:
> No again. Being executed by society has no bearing on any karma involved.
per The Michaels: [clipped] -- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:48:34 -0500 John Macchietto wrote: [clipped]
> To anyone who might know this:
per The Michaels: Karma is the return of the results of one's creations. Those who create capital punishment laws and those who support those laws create karma concerning those capital punishment laws. "Society" is not exempt from receiving the results of its thoughts and actions.
> In other words, when a person is executed in the U.S.,
per The Michaels: If you had no part in creating or promoting or agreeing with the capital punishment laws, then you have no karma there.
> Or is it that the person who kills someone who has created a karma with the victim
per The Michaels: Karmic resolution, or completion, occurs when the total experience is complete. This can happen either before society's judgement and execution, or after. And this regardless of what society's judgement is. Society does not determine individual karma. --Peace and Light to You and Yours, Kenneth Broom, Columbia, MD, USA aka I.A.M. Research - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7th Level Old Scholar, Observation, Acceptance, Idealist, Emotional Part of Intellectual Center, Impatience. (INFP) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:30:54 -0600 I'm wondering if any of the Michael Channelers have received any explanation for the "new" attitude toward women lawbreakers, i.e. Karla Faye Tucker and now today the schoolteacher in Washington. I'm hearing a different tone regarding these women than I've heard since the beginning of the women's movement in this country. I've also noticed it in reference to Monica Lewinski. I felt that the explanation for Karla was that she was "born again" and with Monica it was "youth". But I heard people on television today (I'm home with a dis-ease I gave myself for some reason or other), excusing the schoolteacher just caught with her student/lover again. I am not sitting in judgment on any of these people, they all have their purposes, reasons, experiential sequences for these events. But what I am hearing from the general public is a far more tolerant attitude than I have heard in the past few years. Does anyone have any ideas about this? Could it be the start of the vibrational shift that is to occur? Love and very gentle Laughter (because I'll cough!) :-) Jeanne Holley Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 17:58:00 -0500 per Kenneth: Right you are, lady. This is a part of the consciousness acceleration (and vibration shift) that started during the Harmonic Convergence several years ago. Plus... Right now the Earth is in the photon belt until sometime in June 1998, I think. per Michael: per Kenneth: Peace and Light to You and Yours, Subject: Re: Karla Faye Tucker
> Hi,
Mike & everyone I have been looking into, through the channeling process, the issue of Karmic Retribution for a few years now and the some of the answers I receive are. (Whether or not any of it is truth is up to individual discretion) There is no eye for an eye etc. That is a baby soul concept of Karma. It is easy to understand and good for crowd control. Karmic ties, ribbons, chords etc are removed through forgiveness between parties and it needs to be integrated into all three axis. That is to forgive someone you have to understand it intellectually, feel it emotionally and act. It must be reciprocal. (Just like math, Z x 1/Z = 1) Karmic ties need to be removed in the same medium they were formed, that is, I can't break a Karmic tie in the astral plane after I am executed. Execution and punishment does nothing to break the Karmic tie. Only forgiveness with ACCEPTANCE does the job. Since the plant/animal/mineral kingdoms can't break the rules of cause and effect giving them a karmic zero balance (perpetual win-win game). Once you become a sentient human you start writing your own rules and cease to zero out. (I talked about this before in a Michael Line) You need Karma to incarnate. No karma, no incarnation. If you don't want to cycle off quite yet you will have to purchase some Karma on the open exchange. (If you think wall street is a party, just hang out in the great Astral Karma Exchange). Does capital punishment relieve your Karma? No. All it does is delay Acceptance. Karla Faye Tucker was probably working very hard to forgive herself and work for the forgiveness of the victims. She must have been praying real hard for them considering the spiritual techniques she learns as a BAC. Could she have stayed alive long enough to find the reincarnated victims? Now she has to wait on the astral plane, and research a way to meet them, again, and who knows under what circumstances. Yours -- Ted Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 01:42:58 -0500 Ted, fascinating points. An eye for an eye could be described as "equal indemnity," using a legal term for repayment of debt. When we add forgiveness into the mix, we get "lesser indemnity." As we move higher up the evolutionary scale of consciousness, motivation becomes increasingly important. And this is reflected in the physical plane in our current legal systems in the West, especially in our nation. When a person "repents" sincerely for the crime they have committed, our legal system tends to lessen the price of punishment they must pay for their crime. In the case of the woman who was a brutal, bloody murderer who, at the time, reveled in her barbarous crime, but later converted to Christianity and "repented and changed" into a "new person" what we have here (if authentic) is a living example of what our prison system claims to hope to achieve: reformation of criminals into law-abiding citizens. It hopes to achieve it, but it rarely does. Why? There appears to be no evidence anywhere (either spiritually or via the modern science of psychology) that a human social system which "teaches" sheerly through punishment can increase positive behavior by that method. Research shows just the opposite, confirming the old spiritual adage known for thousands of years, "What you put your attention on grows." When you "reinforce" negative behavior such as murder and mayhem, through either praise (intense news media attention, high book advances and huge amounts paid for screen rights) or harsh punishment (life prison sentences or capital punishment), the targeted negative behavior (in this case, murder) only increases. Interestingly, though, the same is true of positive behavior. When you reinforce it, it grows, too. But rarely does anyone reinforce positive behavior in our culture. The media, all types, simply finds it boring. Not "sexy" enough to be reported. Not chilling and thrilling to the audience. So what does tone down negative behavior? It has been found (again, both spiritually and psychologically) that the best way to "extinguish" negative behavior is to give it no attention at all. To, as much as possible, ignore it. But that is only the beginning. The next step (which our prison system rarely attempts to take, or does so ineffectively) is to offer training in replacement behavior. Behavior in effective social skills which can provide an alternative means to achieve fulfillment besides preying on fellow human beings. Note: I fully admit that one needs to restrain violent people to prevent them from harming others while positive social training goes on. But to only restrain, and to reinforce the whole while that this not for safety's sake but merely to demean and degrade the prisoner as a means of brutally punishing him/her is not to teach the criminal anything other than how to increase his/her already high quotient of hatred and resentment. IOW, it teaches the criminal how to be an even "better"--more effective and more self-justified--criminal than he/she was before entering prison. Will this approach ever be used for crime in this country? Maybe. When virtual reality makes it more feasible and cost effective. But it won't happen in the near future. And even when it does will be undercut by the way our news and entertainment media is constructed. In Gavin DeBecker's wonderful book on violence, The Gift of Fear, he points out that our news and entertainment media, with its intense focus on crime and horrible criminal acts such as serial murder, especially, is directly responsible for the huge upswing in such crimes. There is a documented "copycat" action occuring for bombers, stalkers and serial murders particularly because such criminals *live* for all the hoopla their crimes can potentially attract. Sadly, though many social reformers (primarily those wonderful, idealistic Mature souls) are heartily in favor of reforming criminals, the truth of the matter is we have little notion currently, in spite of intensive efforts to figure this out, how to go about it. The closest anyone has come to it in any way, shape or form (other than relatively very minor successes of psychology and psychiatry) are occasional instances of spiritual conversion such as for Karla Faye Tucker. Unfortunately, because our prisons are grossly overcrowded, the system frequently encourages prisoners to strive to convince their parole boards that they have authentically "repented and changed," when in most cases they have not and are simply trying to manipulate the system, and its needs to justify and unburden itself, to their own ends. Thus, I believe it is indeed "karma" that so many criminals who have committed terrible crimes and who have truly NOT changed, or "reformed," are allowed to walk on parole when others who have actually reformed, indeed had a noticeable, powerful spiritual transformation, as Tucker seems to have had, are NOT allowed to have their sentence transmuted. On the issue of capital punishment, IMO, the major problem for most people who object to it is this: it is a fact of life in this country that guilt unfortunately has little to do with whether or not (or how much) you are punished for a crime you commit. The amount of money you have with which to purchase excellent legal defense makes all the difference in this equation. Thus, though our legal system provides a right to legal counsel to every person charged with a crime, State appointed counsel are often incompetent or listless in the pro bono (unpaid, or poorly paid) pursuit of justice and truth. This means that rich people can often, literally, get away with murder, and that poor people often are charged with murder they did not commit. So a huge risk with capital punishment is that frequently, maybe as high a percentage as 30-50% of the time, the person being sentenced to death is innocent. Theoretically, if they could be made to see this statistical truth, even people who believe venemently in an eye-for-an-eye would realize that it is neither right nor effective to demand that the State murder on society's behalf a person who did not commit the crime he/she is being punished for. State-sanctioned slaughter of the wrong person, IOW, does not "repay" or "effect justice" for murder. Unfortunately for the potential of this understanding becoming more widespread is the fact that many of the people responsible for herding through executions are elected officials who want to placate citizens (often vocal Baby Souls, but sometimes very frightened, emotional Matures, or prestige-oriented, votes-conscious Young Soul politicians). They hope by supporting executions they will be seen as "tough on crime" and therefore worthy of votes at relection time. Basically, when citizens demand that politicians "Do something, anything!" rather than take well-considered, thoughtful, *effective* action, situations like our current capital-punishment dilemma are the sorts of slapdash (and tragic) results we are rewarded with. -- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 00:02:15 -0800 You know Jeanne, your words struck a chord in me too as to how there seems to be a lot more voices speaking for tolerance in the wind. Might it be, as you stated, the slight breeze in the wind of change? It sure has the sense of it, don't you think? Just my take on how your words ran through me. Hugs, (cause it will hold you together when you cough...:) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:43:28 -0800 John Blanchard stood up from the bench, straightened his Army uniform, and
studied the crowd of people making their way through Grand Central Station. He
looked for the girl whose heart he knew, but whose face he didn't, the girl with
the rose. His interest in her had begun thirteen months before in a Florida
library. Taking a book off the shelf he found himself intrigued, not with the
words of the book, but with the notes penciled in the margin. The soft
handwriting reflected a thoughtful soul and insightful mind. *** Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 09:34:10 -0800 Hi Everyone, Love, Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 10:08:18 -0800 To the list: Wayne mentioned that if we all put our attention on peace rather than on violence for the next 60 days, we can do amazing things. Barbara Taylor Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 15:33:35 -0800
| From: Kenneth Broom
*Telling* the Tao? Wouldn't =asking= be more appropriate? Regards, Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 15:33:41 -0800
| From: Kenneth Broom
This appears to be in disagreement with the following from _Michael's People_ - [H]owever a society defines its crime, it also defines punishment, and if that punishment is deserved, it is valid. /276 No mention is made of possible repercussions society might incur as a result of its lawful actions.
| > In other words, when a person is executed in the U.S., since I am a
So if I do nothing more than =agree= with capital punishment laws, I incur karma? Sorry, I don't buy it.
| > Or is it that the person who kills someone who has created a karma
Most of the time resolution does not occur during the life in which the karma is created.
| And this regardless of what society's judgement is. Society does not
Correct. Regards, Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 15:33:47 -0800
| From: ted fontaine
Really? What about the first one?
| If you don't want to cycle off quite yet you will have to purchase some
I challenge the validity of that statement. Nowhere in any of the Michael literature I've read have I seen anything like that. From _Journey_ -
We choose whether or not to cycle off. Permission does not have to be granted by somebody else. /228
Regards, Date: Fri, 6 Feb 98 17:00:30 -0700
> You need Karma to incarnate. No karma, no incarnation.
Dear Dick & Everyone Since I just pulled the seven of swords on this one it may be futile to try to convince you on this one, but I will make a few comments. I would think the first incarnation has nothing to do with the individual fragment and everything to do with the entity. The entity has been diving into earth forms and running through species for a while but always balancing the Karma. At some place, or time, or location in itself it makes a decision to become human. I would think that this decision is not made from a single entity but made by the cadre. What I am leading to here is that we as individuals are much more self serving than than a cadre. The cadre is thinking of the benefits of the whole beyond itself rather than what its going to eat for dinner or if its going to lose its job. Most of us do not remember what it was like to be in our entity being one unified being. If you do, let me know what you have to say about it. I have a problem remembering what I did three days ago. I would then suppose that if the entity is serving the Tao it is also serving other entities and comes to a planet to do just that - offer its energy to the system. Karma for the entity then is simply a means to an end, service. So how does it obtain or accumulate the Karma to anchor or ground itself to the planet? What I am getting on this, and I am getting it now, and it is making me laugh a bit since it is somewhat humourous. It pays for it, purchases it, buys it, trades it or whatever you want to call it. It is funny but it feels very real at the same time. All it needs is a tiny bit as a catalyst to start the process. Once the entity opens the doorway the fragments just start rolling in. What do they do after they incarnate? Accumulate Karma.
> | If you don't want to cycle off quite yet you will have to purchase some
Perhaps this is the first place in the Michael Literature for this to appear. Do we have to be redunant in our channeling or can we find, remember, and/or recognize what we have forgotten. As far as I know, we all have the information within us, Michael Channeling just helps us retreive it. Reading your quotes from Journey I don't see who what I have to say is so much different.
[The] designation ... would be described by Michael as a "seventh-level old soul transcendental," who has no remaining karma and could cycle off, but reincarnates mainly to be helpful to others. /211
So, why does it seem invalid for the fragment to obtain some Karma to jump start another incarnation? Yes, it cycled off and has no remaining Karma, so it "purchases itself some Karma on the exchange, at the going rate of course and just the right amount". I am certainly not in opposition of the above idea (I have channeled similar material often enough and I have not read the "Journey" book) and I don't at all see any contradiction. All I am saying is that we need Karma to maintain the incarnation process. If we don't have any we obtain some. Look at the case of a walk in. A walk in will take on the Karma of the walk out. It enters that body with all the history of that body intact. Is this not taking on the Karma? Many of us who are channeling the Michael Energy have unique parts to play. You may want to look at my work that way. Some channels play more major parts, such as bringing in the foundation material, and others of us take minor roles which augment the teaching. I make no claim to channeling the foundation material but I certainly find the study of it quite valuable and inspiring. I encourage everyone to study the overleaves and similar foundation material, then explore their inspirations. Yours -- Ted Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 22:51:00 -0600 bear in mind I haven't read a tremendous amount on the Michael Teachings as I am a NEWBIE and will be for the next 20 years At 02:00 07.02.98 -0000, ted fontaine wrote:
> Look at the case of a walk in. A walk in will take on the Karma of the
"The" karma? It wouldn't be the same karma though, would it? The walk-in/walk-out aren't exactly the same.. even if they were very similar wouldn't there be slightly different perceptions leading to different karma? If the body has a deformity which the walk-in doesn't view in the exact same manner as the walk-out, that would change whatever self karma the deformity served as for the walk-out. So this wouldn't really be 'taking on the karma' because the karma's changed and will change further due to someone different being at the helm. If you aren't looking at the situation in an identical manner I don't see how the karma could be the same. Can you really "take on" someone else's karma?? How can you "exchange" something, which, by its very nature becomes what *you* make of it ..? I *really* like to lurk, Melissa. Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 23:09:44 +0800 FWIW, I would like to put in my $0.01 here. One of the core teachings of Michael's is "all are choices" (or something to that effect). Based on this, I have to disagree with Ted Fontaine on his perspective of karma. Make or unmake karma is a personal choice, separate from the choice of being in the physical plane. Shepherd Hoodwin once wrote here that generated a great deal of resonance in me. (I would like to say "Great Sages think alike" but that sounds too shameless of me... ;-> ) My paraphrase is: "we choose to be here in the physical plane is simply to *be*." That what we perceive as "spiritual growth" or "learning unconditional love" is a by-product of *being*. (Our Essence already know unconditional love) Karma, in other words, is also one such by-product. It is not the "currency" in which we have to "work for" or "earn" in order to be born here. If this is the case, then "all" are no longer "choice", but rather, "karma is the pre-requisite", or "capital for investment", in return for some sort of gain (e.g. experiences and lessons of the physical plane). I simply cannot accept the model of the universe as having anything similar to Wall Street, or capitalism, or any such political / idealistic "-isms". Now I don't mean to say that Ted Fontaine is not channeling "the same Michael". My opinion is that there might be some "filtering action" going on, not known to his conscious mind when the channeling takes place. Any other opinions? Regards. Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 10:17:56 -0800 Dick & others,
> | per The Michaels: Karma is the return of the results of one's creations.
I know that each of us *can* affect the whole, therefore, we have both
the ability to change things and to ignore our ability by continuing with the
status quo. The harmonic convergence was an example of a collective desire to
change.
> *Telling* the Tao? Wouldn't =asking= be more appropriate?
Actually, commanding the Tao is most appropriate if you *really* want action! :) The powerful force of conviction available to each individual is an awesome one! By the way, these principles (the ability of each person to affect the whole through our thoughts and connection with the Tao) are part of many metaphysical and shamanic traditions. -- Barbara Taylor Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 11:54:12 -0800
| From: ted fontaine
I don't know what that refers to, but assume tarot cards.
| I would think the first incarnation has nothing to do with the
No; see below.
| The entity has been diving into earth forms and running through species
Incorrect. Only sentient species form karma; hive-soul species do not. Prior to human incarnation we are not "diving into earth forms and running through species". The following is extracted from _Tao to Earth_ -
We first approach the planet sensing it only energetically. We sense the planet as a whole, not as its parts. We do this first with the wind in spirit form. The members of the entity begin to take a hand in creatively molding the face of the planet, changing its surface features gradually according to a larger overall plan. A fragment has become a deva, a spirit who is caretaker of some segment of the physical plane.
This was heavily edited and reworded in places in order to create, in effect, a summary. I recommend this book, as well as its companion, _Earth to Tao_, for very thorough coverage of this and other subjects.
| At some place, or time, or location in itself it makes a decision to
It is documented as by entity in T2E, but that would imply that cadres could be split among planets. Shepherd, can you clarify?
| What I am leading to here is that we as individuals are much more self
True, but you're also mixing concerns of the personality with concerns of essence.
| Most of us do not remember what it was like to be in our entity being
The personality does not; I would assume essence does.
| I would then suppose that if the entity is serving the Tao
I am not particularly drawn to that phraseology; I've not seen it said before that anything "serves" the Tao.
| it is also serving other entities and comes to a planet to do just that
We come to the planet for the experience.
| Karma for the entity then is simply a means to an end, service.
I disagree; karma is an integral part of the experience.
| So how does it obtain or accumulate the Karma
That is well documented.
| to anchor or ground itself to the planet?
Being "anchored" to the planet is a byproduct of karma, not the reason for it.
| What I am getting on this, and I am getting it now, and it is making me
Completely incorrect. Karma is =earned= and =repaid=, not swapped around like so many shares of stock. Karma is a link between fragments that occurs when one interferes with another's life choices. Reams have been written about karma, and nothing even hints at what you suggest.
| It is funny but it feels very real at the same time. All it needs is a
A completely invalid concept. We are cast in order to have the experiences on a particular planet, and we incarnate as part of that process. Karma is merely a part of the process of a major cycle on a planet.
| What do they do after they incarnate? Accumulate Karma.
They incur =and repay= it; they don't just accumulate it. It is a byproduct, not the driving force.
| > | If you don't want to cycle off quite yet you will have to purchase
I was referring to =published= literature.
| Do we have to be redunant in our channeling or can we find, remember,
Just because something is different doesn't make it correct.
| As far as I know, we all have the information within us, Michael
Correct.
| Reading your quotes from Journey I don't see who what I have to say is
Two reasons, stated above - 1. It is not necessary. 2. It goes counter to all other (Michael) documentation about karma.
| Yes, it cycled off and has no remaining Karma, so it "purchases itself
Completely incorrect.
| Look at the case of a walk in. A walk in will take on the Karma of the
I disagree. Karma is related to essence, not to the personality. That's why it is carried from life to life, and why, as you state, we do not cycle off with karma outstanding.
| It enters that body with all the history of that body intact.
Right, the =body=, not its essence (it just walked out). Again, karma is related/attached to essence, not a body. Any karma associated with a body after a walk-in is a result =of= the walk-in; that is, it came with the essence that walked in.
| Is this not taking on the Karma?
It takes on the karma of the essence that walked in.
| Many of us who are channeling the Michael Energy have unique parts to
1. If karma and how it operates are not "foundation material", I don't know what is. 2. If those who "take minor roles which augment the teaching" bring in material that contradicts "foundation material", I'll stick with the latter. Regards, Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 11:55:00 -0800
| From: J J Tan
Correct.
| Based on this, I have to disagree with Ted Fontaine on his perspective | of karma. Make or unmake karma is a personal choice, separate from the | choice of being in the physical plane.
Right.
| Shepherd Hoodwin once wrote here that generated a great deal of | resonance in me. (I would like to say "Great Sages think alike" but | that sounds too shameless of me... ;-> ) My paraphrase is: "we choose | to be here in the physical plane is simply to *be*."
We come for the experience.
| That what we perceive as "spiritual growth" or "learning unconditional | love" is a by-product of *being*.
It is the result of growth; it is our goal.
| (Our Essence already know unconditional love)
Definitely.
| Karma, in other words, is also one such by-product. It is not the | "currency" in which we have to "work for" or "earn" in order to be born | here. If this is the case, then "all" are no longer "choice", but | rather, "karma is the pre-requisite", or "capital for investment", in | return for some sort of gain (e.g. experiences and lessons of the | physical plane). I simply cannot accept the model of the universe as | having anything similar to Wall Street, or capitalism, or any such | political / idealistic "-isms".
Well said, IMO. Regards, Date: Sat, 7 Feb 98 21:53:04 -0700
> One of the core teachings of Michael's is "all are choices" (or something
Dear JJ Tan I would appreciate it if you question me directly on any channeling I have done. I would like the opportunity to clarify whatever I am quoted on. You do not know me so you are probably not the best judge of what goes on in my conscious mind during what I believe to be the channeling process. Wall street etc is a fun way to bring astral plane ORGANIZATION - what I have been calling the "astral bureacracy" - into our 20th century understanding. It is only one way of thousands to look at how energy and information are exchanged. Essence is energy, Karma provides the information and together they create multitude of forms in which we play the game. I have plenty of material on this subject and you are welcome to read it at my web site. I do not remember ever saying that we earn Karma or have to pay for it etc. I do however believe the the information within the Karma is an important element in defining the events of our incarnations. Could karma then not be exchanged during the planning stage of a new incarnation? Yours -- Ted Date: Sat, 7 Feb 98 21:53:07 -0700
> bear in mind I haven't read a tremendous amount on the Michael Teachings
From Ted Just because information has come through the channeling process doesn't mean that it is true. Also, just because another channel of Michael or Billy Jo or any other entity believes something to be true doesn't make it so. Validation, for me is a personal process but just because it feels valid doesn't make it true. Anyway I have found from past experience that getting into Michael arguments can be a bit futile (back to seven of swords). Anyway, in response to your comments: Karma is accumulated during a lifetime. We have Past Life Karma (PaLK) & Present Life Karma (PrLK). PaLK influences PrLK. PrLK is the result of PaLK. PrLK is in the body. Since PrLK is in the body than at least the information of PaLK is there. Lets say I get tired of this lifetime and decide to bail out. Another essence says, "hey, I can use that body, I'll take it". So the new essence takes over my body. Both Palk and PrLK are in that body. The influences of all the PaLK & PrLK are in that body at the point of the exchange. The old essence carries with it the information package, the personal akashic record (the PAK folder), but the influences of it are all still in that body. As far as I know, and this is my belief, we do not take our physical body with us into the astral plane at death. If we are in agreement that there is an influence of Karma in the body we can continue. So, the new essence comes into the used body with all that old information. Well, yes, it has no use for it, it isn't hers, but it is still there. What ever disease, deformity, eccentricity, peculiarity, affection, etc is still there. (Do you remember hearing about a heart transplant case where the recipient found herself with KFC cravings. It turns out the donner loved KFC). Also, the body's Mother, Father, Sister, Brother, Spouse, Children are still in the story. So now we have two sets of desire. We have the desires left in the nervous system of the body and we have the desires of essence working through it. How long does it take? Some say about seven years to make the transition. So, is this new essence taking on some of the Karma of the old essence, even just a little bit? You could also think of it as hoping into a used car. The previous driver has not changed the oil, greased the wheels, or changed the spark plugs. You still have to drive the car to the mechanic to have it repaired. If the previous driver has driven into a ditch, you will have evrn more work to do before it is operating in the best way for you. I hope this makes some sence. It seems logical to me but we all read and hear information differently. Some words are highly charged for us. Some words carry different defintions for us. I like agreement because when we agree we become closer. When we argue we set up our boundaries and separate more. I have a big Cynic sub so I do like to argue, but...this skeptic would rather gravitate toward true personality and investigate. Yours -- Ted Date: Sat, 7 Feb 98 22:05:04 -0700 Dear Dick You seem a bit resitant to looking at some of my ideas. Seven of Swords is a Tarot card. In the A. Crowley deck it represents futility. Instead of quoting other Michael Channels why not offer some of your own ideas to this board. I have also read plenty of Michael books. I certainly don't agree with every statement in them as you appear to be doing. Your comments appear to be more geared for exclusion rather than inclusion. I think you didactic approach to this teaching offers it little service. Yours -- Ted Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 17:18:47 +0800 At 06:52 AM 2/8/98 -0000, you wrote:
Karma is accumulated during a lifetime. We have Past Life Karma (PaLK) &
I'm afraid that I do not agree with you that karma is carried in the body. e.g. A killed B in one life-time, in the next life, B "bailed out" before dissolving the karmic tie with A, and C took over B's body. Does that mean that C automatically inherit the karma? Isn't karma related to "responsibility", as well as "experiencing the opposites"? If C had nothing to do with A, there is absolutely no karma there. I think you are too confused over this, but that's my opinion. I think you should step back from defending yourself, or your channeled message, and take an objective look. There is nothing wrong from admitting your mistake, or the misake of the channeled message. This is about responsibility, not "defend to the death".
The influences of all the PaLK & PrLK are in that body at the point of the exchange.
The influences may be there, but the "newly took-over" fragment would have it as part of the deal to cleanse it off, because it has nothing to do with karma that was none of it's business. No-one can repay karma (or dissolve) karma in-lieu-off another fragment, nor inherit it via whatever mean.
The old essence carries with it the information package, the personal akashic record (the PAK folder), but the influences of it are all still in that body. As far as I know, and this is my belief, we do not take our physical body with us into the astral plane at death.
Personally, I don't think karma influences are in the body. The influence of the original Essence, yes. But karmic, no. If that is your believe, it is about time to examine that belief.
If we are in agreement that there is an influence of Karma in the body we can continue.
If not? There may not be that many messages here. At least I haven't seen many channelers who have responded to this particular "karma issue" yet. What if other channelers disagree with you through their own opinions, or their channeled message? Do you still defend your belief? Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 17:18:58 +0800 At 09:53 PM 2/7/98 -0700, Ted wrote:
>> Now I don't mean to say that Ted Fontaine is not channeling "the same
Neither did I say I was doing any judgement. Did not that sound a bit touchy? What I did was writing down an opinion, which is worth next to nothing, as well as making a suggestion, which is also worth next to nothing. But somehow you sounded uncomfortable with this little next-to-nothing words.
> Wall street etc is a fun way to bring astral plane ORGANIZATION - what I
I understand that there are people (whom I have met personally as well as over this modern electronic network) whose lives feel like karma is the central issue. That they seem to have karma forces (or influences) pushing them this way and that until they really "get the works done". But it is quite apparently not the case for everyone. As for "exchanging karma during the planning stage of a new incarnation", well, I remember reading one channeled message right here that karma can only be made and "paid" while on the physical plane. Unless you challenge that statement, otherwise I think you are wrong. Regards. Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 21:29:14 +0800 At 07:04 AM 2/8/98 -0000, ted fontaine wrote:
Dear Dick
How about looking at it from another perspective -- if your channeled message seem to be contradictory to quite several other published channeled materials from Michael (past and present), wouldn't it be more logical that your channeled message is the "inconsistent" (if not erroneous) one? Regards. Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 09:00:24 -0500 per Kenneth: per Michael: "How is it demeaning to say that someone is "wrong" or incorrect...? Truth is what "IS". Truth is infinitely flexible and malleable. You all create and change truth by your every thought, word, and deed. This is what karma is about. "Karma is your "thought children" going out into the universe and creating/doing what you have declared to be true, and then bringing back to you their creations and experiences. "Karma is your "word children" going out and returning to you their creations and their experiences. "Karma is your "action children" returning to you with their experiences. "If you even just "conceive" of an idea, that idea immediately becomes part of your reality. The strength of that idea and its impact on the universe depends on how much energy you, as its creator, put into its creation. "Now, if that idea includes someone else then that someone else must contend with your idea, and its power, that you put in that person's being and in their life. You all influence each other this way. No one of you is disconnected in the ways that you may think you are. You all influence each other all the time. "So when "Fragment A" says to "Fragment B" that "You are wrong." that one vocal or written statement of Fragment A's thoughts immediately creates a reality in which a vibrational cloud of "wrongness" appears in and around Fragment B. Now if Fragment B does not want this cloud of wrongness in her being she must somehow release it from her being. She must release something from her being that intruded itself into her being, without her permission, and that she did not want in her being. "Love, as Kenneth often says , is the connectedness that everything shares with everything else. Most humans emotionalize and objectify this beingness, but it is nonetheless one valid and deep-reaching definition of a fact of life in our (yours and our) greater reality. "So it behooves us all, you and us, to recognize that we all have definite effects on each other, some to a greater degree than others, depending on the energy exerted. Mr. Redfield tried to explain this in his "Celestine Prophecy" books. The song "No Man Is an Island" expresses this as "No man stands alone. Each man's joy is joy to me. Each man's grief is my own." The Master you called Jesus is quoted as saying "Love ye one another." "As a teaching entity we say "Try to comprehend in your everyday consciousness that we are all connected to each other." To say "I disagree with you." keeps your ball in your court so to speak. To say "You are wrong." puts your ball into somebody else's court. Do you really want to do that? Do you really want to create that kind of karma for yourself? If you do then fine and good. There is no judgment of this on our part. Regardless of what words and behaviors you choose, try to be aware of the effects of your thoughts, words, and deeds on the universe. Active awareness is a key to what we call good work" per Kenneth: per Michael: TAO and Essence seek experience, not truth. Truth IS. All of the different truths of all extant fragments are grist for the beingness of TAO and Essence. per Kenneth: per Kenneth: per Michael: "The walkin will usually not experience the walkout's karma in that body unless it (the walkin) actually desires to experience the walkout's karma. This why after a walkin, there are so many divorces and career changes. The walkin has a different agenda than the walkout "The walkout will usually re-incarnate to experience its abandoned karma. It is possible, however, for the walkout fragment to "take-on" its incarnate karma after walking out without being reincarnated. However this is not usually done because the walkout usually feels that it "needs" to be in the same physical or social situation that created the karma before the walk out. A walkout is not smarter or wiser after walking out, it just has a larger view of its own life and lives. "There are wise advisors and guardians, etc. that are available to help discarnate fragments with their reincarnation decisions, but in the end it the fragment itself that "chooses" what it cares to do regarding how it accepts and creates its own karma. "Again we say that nothing that we say is etched in stone. Being aware of choices and possibilities is the key to CREATING and RELEASING karmas. It's your choice." -- Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 08:36:33 -0600 Dear Ted, Why is it that you "sound" as though you have a chip on your shoulder and want someone to knock it off? No one on this list wants to fight about our belief systems. We each "validate" for ourselves and your right to believe is yours, but by the same token, none of us are required to believe your truth. Be kind and remember that if you bring in ideas that fly in the face of all previous channelings, you will undoubtedly be challenged, which is as it should be. More laughter and humor is good for all of us. The "endorphins" make us healthy. So smile for awhile. Love and Laughter :-)) Jeanne Holley Date: Sun, 8 Feb 98 09:27:41 -0700
per Kenneth:
Dear Kenneth I really appreciate this last post. Very beautifully written. It is a real "keeper" for me. Thanks again. Yours -- Ted Date: Sun, 8 Feb 98 09:27:43 -0700
How about looking at it from another perspective -- if your channeled
Dear JJ You are quite right here. I still think the difference is a minor one. Here is the issue for me though. I don't see how any channeled material can be in the realm of right or wrong - that is, that any of it can be considered a doctrine. What I was getting from some of Dick's responses that pushed my cynic button was what appeared to be the following of a doctrine at the expense of "my" ideas that were derived from the channeling process. It was similar to talking to a Christian quoting The Bible. I have been seeing Michael Channeling as a way to help us construct beliefs that in turn create our reality. It has evolved for me to become a tool of exploration. I am not using the Channeling Process as a way to collect factual data. Channeling has opened a lot of doors for me and I may just be going down a hallway that nobody has gone done yet (it could be a dead end too). If I find some goodies in there and bring them back to the main hallway to share and they are immediately rejected because they are a little out of synch with the information in the main library then maybe something is lost. Thanks for your response Yours -- Ted Date: Sun, 8 Feb 98 09:27:46 -0700
Dear Ted,
Dear Jean You could be right on that. I know I have issues about being excluded. It is not my intention to be didactic with my own channeling. I am sure that the martydom of exclusion will also be a driving force at times. I still don't see why anything I have mentioned should "fly in the face" of anyone.This is not the first time that I have been at IDEA-logical odds with other channels but maybe there is some value to it. What pushed my cynic button and turned up the warrior volume was how quick some respondants were to flatly say I was wrong. Did I mis read? Maybe I did. Do I think I am wrong? No. (Am I stubborn? Check out my web site for my overleaves). My chip may just be some frustration coming from a perception that I am misunderstood. My channeling style includes figurative language that does not need to be taken literally. So take care and I will certainly try to add some more controversy - unintentionally of course! Yours :) Ted Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 11:37:52 -0600 At 21:53 07.02.98 -0700, ted! wrote:
Just because information has come through the channeling process doesn't
oh! I agree! Fortunately, as a self professed (confessed?) NEWBIE, I can guarantee that my opinions are actually *my* opinions and not simply a channeling restated to look like my opinion. I haven't read enough to quote anything to back up my opinions anyway. Therefore I have no responsibility to be "correct" or whatever it is we are supposed to be. That's why it's nice being a NEWBIE. I refuse to be anything but. As for the valid thing.. I tend to go with my gut instincts. I don't think my antenna is too bent or anything so my gut instincts tend to do me good. That's all I need. Although maybe I will read a few more Michael books anyway.. just for kicks. :P Melissa. Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 10:07:13 -0800 Dear Folks, Barbara Taylor Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 10:38:51 -0800 Looking at things from many perspectives has helped keep me from turning the Michael Teaching and other channeled perspectives into a doctrine for me. Regards, Mike
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 10:57:38 -0800 Is anyone else interested in keeping track of parallel realities besides me? Timelines fascinate me as I see there an indication of future trends. When Bill Clinton was first elected a Michael channel said that there was more light in the Whitehouse than had been there in a long time. That may be tough to believe for those following the various alleged nefarious activities surrounding Bill (I don't mean the sex scandal). That same channel said that Bill getting elected split off a parallel that was an experiment. Supposedly, in the main trunk of parallel realities for earth where Bush stayed president Desert Storm was used as an excuse to declare martial law. After Bill had been president for about four years that same Michael channel said that this timeline we are in has moved closer to the main trunk. I took that to mean that this parallel has less freedom now more like the main trunk where Bush is (was? He may not have been elected to a second term) president. I realize my curiosity for the future is based in a fear of change. Anyone else have information on this? Regards, Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 14:08:31 EST In a message dated 2/7/98 11:54:36 AM PST, Dick Hein writes:
<< | I challenge the validity of that statement. Nowhere in any of the
Dick and others I don't think any channel on here holds the title of being indisputable. If you can give me some tangible evidence that what they say is undeniably irrefutable, then we'll write their doctrines in stone; otherwise, lets listen to some of Ted's ideas, and give him the same modicum of respect and courtesy that we give to the other channels. Personally, I've received good information from Ted in private sessions. Besides, if we adhere to the precepts that our thoughts form the fabric of our existence, then any idea, on a subjective level, has validity and carries with it -- the truth. Dave Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 14:20:24 EST In a message dated 98-02-08 09:42:16 EST, Jeanne Holley writes:
<< Dear Ted,
I didn't perceive this at all. In fact, the only chips I've seen in these posts are the kind one can step in. Ted is relatively new here, so lets be courteous and clear a path for him so that he doesn't soil his shoes. ;-p Dave Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 11:28:46 -0800 I remember a particular Michael channel told me that he could sense that different Michael fragments would come in and leave during the channeling process depending on the question being asked. A question on astrology for example, always brought the same Michael fragment in as he was the Michael fragment who knew more about astrology than others in the Michael entity. I thought of that when I read:
channeling "the same Michael". My opinion is that there might be some "filtering action" going
Regards, Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 11:48:17 -0800 I began to remember past lives and past cycles a few years ago. I became
aware that I was angry at the entity Michael. Michael, or I should say one of
their fragments, had (detail left out here to keep this a family oriented list)
done me in in a past life. I remembered the anger and a few of the details of
the incident leading to my demise. The Michael channel filled me in on what
happened. If I wanted to process that karma further I would have to process it
with someone else besides Michael because he has already left! I seem to be over
it but I wonder if I will be angry about it when I cycle off? Michael told me in
a past life that one of their fragments was my parent. It occurred to me just
now that that may have been the other end of the karma for their fragment,
giving me life when that fragment took my life in another incarnation.
Initially, some of these memories were difficult to accept. It was especially
difficult to remember that I had hurt other people in other lifetimes. Regards, Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 12:19:53 -0800 One of the reasons I have enjoyed Ted's channelings so much over the past
years with his publications, and now on this list, is because of his new
perspectives and fresh information. Ted, I really enjoy your perspectives. Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 13:40:36 -0800
| From: ted fontaine
|
SUMMARY:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Praesent
vestibulum molestie lacus.