|
Related Articles > Spiritweb Michael Spiritweb
Michael List
THE POSTS:
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 10:30:27 -0800 To members of the list, Barbara Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 10:30:56 -0800 A comment about "the bible" -- when I was taking a class in the ministry
about the Bible, one of my assignments was to read and understand certain
passages. I collected every bible in the house (5 of them at the time) and
compared the passages word for word. Each of them was different! Sometimes a
litttle, sometimes a lot. Not only were they different in the actual words they
used, they were also different in the shades of meaning. In a couple of cases,
they actually seemed to contradict each other. Considering how much manipulation
and re-translating/re-transcribing has been done with those "messages" by
probably thousands of different people I'm actually surprised there is any
"truth" remaining. Barbara Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:29:53 EST All right, I'm going to step out on a limb here. I'm mostly a lurker. I resonate big-time with the Michael teachings and am working hard to try to understand everything I'm reading. But -- I'm not certain I get this walk-in walk-out thing. Someone doesn't die, but chooses to leave their physical body, and a different essence agrees to take it over their body? Is that it? How does that work? Is it during near-death experiences? While essence-A is sleeping, they "walk-out" and essence-B walks in? How is it that husbands/wives/best friends/children don't know this? The way a couple of people on this list have been talking, it sounds like this is pretty common. How would I know if someone I know has changed essences? OK, I admit it -- I don't get it. Explanation, please? Anyone? A Confused But Loving, Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:08:26 -0800
| From: Barbara Taylor
OK.
| Therefore, wanting to be "right" and arguing over minute points of view
1. Whether the points are "minute" is a matter of perspective. 2. The futility of it probably is also.
| and not very interesting for the rest of us.
So now you speak for "the rest of us"?
| It's also a well-known and easily recognized display of one of the ugly
Probably not an inaccurate observation. -Dick [2.1(3)/5/4.2-144=4.7.3<5.150/M5=26/IME/4.11>] Date: Mon, 9 Feb 98 12:02:55 -0700 Dick, I really appreciate this communication you have made below. Thanks for taking the time to make this thoughtful response.
There are several reasons -
2. Those concepts resonate because they are -
I do this too, so I am not getting on my high horse. But we tend to value comfort over, lets say hardship. We like soft couches, warm beds etc, and ideas that don't conflict with what we are accostomed to seeing. Sometimes we need a little Shiva energy. (I am thinking also that as a culture we are going to get a massive Shiva boost as we continue to pass into the Mature Soul Age - MSA) I am thinking that our ancestors probably think we are babies.
5. Acquiring, accumulating, and imparting information are what Scholars
Excellent observation. Allow me to appear patronizing and say, "Good Work!".
| I have also read plenty of Michael books.
I read what I need when I need to read it.
| I certainly don't agree with every statement in them as you appear to
I need the contradictions. But thats how I process. Sometimes information is not as contradictory as it seems. There is the old "Blind men describing the elephant" story I sure you are familiar with. In any developing philosophy we hopefully will have contradictions to bring us to new levels of understanding.
| Your comments appear to be more geared for exclusion rather than inclusion.
Fair enough.
| I think you [sic] didactic approach to this teaching offers it little service.
Certainly but who knows where it may lead (I would just as soon move on to new topics)
One more thing - I think it would be of benefit if you would use a spell
This program doesn't have a spell checker and sometimes I typo. Is this a cut?:) Besides I teach photography and computer graphics. Thanks for taking the time to reveal more about yourself Best to all -- Ted Date: Mon, 9 Feb 98 12:03:03 -0700
So rather than try to prove someone else wrong (which is impossible),
Dear Barbara Great Suggestion! Lets get on to more important issues like: Sienfields character's overleaves: Is George a cynic? Take Care Ted Date: Mon, 9 Feb 98 12:03:08 -0700 Thanks JJ, I am really glad we are making this valuable communication.
>> Here is the issue for me though. I don't see how any channeled material
Wasn't that a beautiful post! Thanks again Kenneth.
> And yes, they way Dick Hein quoting the books was also a bit unsettling to
Unsettled can be of value also. Anytime I get defensive the issue becomes ego. It gives me a chance to review, not the information, but those parts of myself in rebellion.
>> I have been seeing Michael Channeling as a way to help us construct
If you could? I think in many ways you do. Give yourself that admission, you may be pleasantly surprized. One of my issues about channeling is whether or not we can really get factual data. I know for scholars this is important. I use it as a tool for Self Discovery (old soul stuff). Part of of the process is to go into channeling space and communicate. Although it is a "Michael" space I think that sometimes he is only a switchboard to connect me to what ever it is I am looking for.
>> Channeling has opened a lot of doors for me and I may just be going down
what is the Maya of an artisan? The artisan sees itself as its creations. Am I throwing out the idea because some people don't like it? No, I love the idea and I will keep investigating (+pole skeptic, my attitude).
> Thanks for your response, too. :-)
Yours -- Ted Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:03:51 -0800 Well, it seems the consensus here is that I am in the minority with my largely traditional views of the teachings. As I mentioned in a recent post, I resonate strongly with concepts as documented in books, and at this time choose to perceive as invalid some of the new concepts such as trading karma as if it were baseball cards. I just can't get into that. So, from this time forward I will read (and when appropriate, respond to) only those posts from authors I feel embrace the more traditional values of the teachings. That is not to say anyone or any view is "right" or "wrong", but only that I choose to not interact with those whose views are so radically different from my own. One of the reasons I so strongly favor those concepts documented in books is that I feel a great deal of extra care is expended to assure accuracy when it is to be published (see Shepherd's comments in the front of _Journey_ (no, I won't quote it here, as it seems that my quoting was upsetting to some readers)). Cheers to all, Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 16:22:38 -0500 Dick Hein wrote: [clipped]
> I just can't get into that.
per Kenneth: Dick, I cannot find sufficient words to describe my very deep feelings of loss concerning your choice to "not interact with those whose views are so radically different from" your own. I can readily accept your need to do this... I have done the same thing when I felt it was necessary. However, my emotions are feeling like I'm losing a deeply valued brother. I don't know what the connections between us are, but I am really surprised at the depth of my own personal and emotional reaction to your withdrawal. [clipped] TAO Bless You, My Brother, and Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:23:44 -0800 I'm not a big Seinfeld fan, but has anyone done Ken Starr's overleaves? He looks like a baby Warrior to me. Barbara Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:01:49 EST Hi! I'm just catching up with several days of posts. Karma, as Michael originally used the term, is between individuals, but what are societies but groups of individuals? My understanding is that true group karma is simply the sum of the karma of the individuals in it. If a group contains individuals who formed similar karmas, they might choose to reincarnate to repay it more or less together. That might be within the same society, or it could be a thousand years later. (It is said, for example, that some former Atlanteans are currently seeking to repay some karmas together.) In a more general sense, a society has to deal with what was created in that society in the past, even if its citizens aren't currently repaying karma. For example, most of those now living in Germany are not those responsible for the Holocaust, but they still have to live with the ramifications of it. We in the US have to live with our society's treatment of the blacks and native Americans. That's not exactly the same thing as the primary definition of karma, but it's similar, in that it involves cause and effect, balancing energies. Germany lives with the guilt, and the continuing judgment of the rest of the world. The white US lives with the anger of our blacks and native Americans. The difference between this, though, and karma, is that it's more environmental, whereas actual karma is internal. How much the former affects a person depends on his own karma, choices and circumstances. If I, in a past life, had harmed native Americans, in this lifetime I might choose to be a teacher on a reservation working long hours for little pay, turning down much more lucrative employment because of my inexplicable need to be there. (This might look like altruism to others, and there might also be some of that, too.) However, once the debt is repaid, I would probably suddenly feel ready to move on. Those who have the DIRECT responsibility for a karmic action bear the karma (several people can share this, in different ways). Karma is usually about significant physical intrusions that limit someone's choices, such as murder, life-changing theft, or abandonment of someone who cannot care for himself, for whom one has responsibility. You don't generate karma just for not being nice or for being lousy parents, for example. Mental karma is limited to deliberate "mind fuck," where, for example, someone sets out to drive a fragile or unbalanced person insane (in which case, there are physical repercussions). A person can be quite mean, nasty, unreasonable, irrational, and so on, yet there is no karma until he does something that significantly infringes. However, it is still true that the energy you put out attracts similar energy, and some people define karma to include that, accounting for part of the confusion about karma. The way I'm using the term refers to only those major imbalances of energy that must be rebalanced with the same souls with whom it originated. I channeled, or example, that George Bush generated much karma by his choices in the Gulf War, because many innocent people were unnecessarily killed. He made the decisions, so he bears the brunt of it. Those who were the foot soldiers simply carrying out the orders (most of whom probably felt that they were serving a higher good) have a much lesser karma, commensurate with their actions. The way that George Bush will repay that karma is partly up to his essence. It would be impractical for him to experience thousands of deaths as an innocent victim of unnecessary war, although he might do that a few times, to really bring home the point. (His essence probably already understands the point in theory, but evidentally, he hasn't yet made the lesson deeply his own; otherwise, he probably wouldn't have made the choices he did, unless it was purely a matter of false personality--it is hard for any outsider to tell whether a particular soul actually knows better and is just being blocked by false personality, or whether the soul itself is lacking in development. However, it doesn't change the fact of karmic debt.) A practical solution would be for Bush to incarnate and find a cure of a disease afflicting many of his previous victims, or become a statesman and prevent a war that otherwise would have again taken their lives. Whatever works, whatever rebalances the energy. We can feel it when a karma is repaid--the energy feels "flat." It is the feeling of relief and release. By the way, Michael saying that Bush has karma doesn't negate the far greater karmas Saddam Hussein is generating. Whatever things Bush had to do just to stop Hussein were probably not karmic, or at least not as severely (but taking into account that Reagan and Bush helped arm Hussein to begin with, blindly helping to create the situation to begin with). We do learn much through karma, and as Michael has said, the game would be boring, or at least uneventful without it. But we can increasingly learn through joy, by being conscious, by creating, exploring and expanding of our own volition, rather than just reacting to other people unconsciously. However, when we start out as infant souls, we are totally ignorant, and it is inevitable that we will make lots of mistakes, trespass upon others, and generate karmas. Of itself, this is not all that unfortunate--it is just a necessary part of learning and growing. What has been truly unfortunate on earth is that we humans have tended to be hardheaded and keep making the same mistakes over and over, ad nauseum. How much easier on us if we can quickly learn from our mistakes and get on to making new ones. Ted brought up forgiveness, which is very important. Let's say that in another life, I brutally attacked someone. If the other person was very evolved and is able to completely forgive me, AND I am evolved enough to get the lesson, fully realize the impact of what I did and feel total remorse, the karma can be neutralized through "grace." The energies are rebalanced without acting out the game physically (i.e., the other person brutalizing me). However, most of us are too dense and don't get the lessons unless we act them out. An intermediate step would be for me to save the other person from a brutalization. Forgiveness is still essential in garden-variety karmic payback. For example, if someone brutalizes me and I don't realize I'm paying back a karma, my first impulse might be to get even and initiate still more karma--nothing learned yet. If I can forgive at that point, or at least choose not to seek revenge, I get off that karmic wheel. Part of the disagreements on the list, as in most human interactions, can be attributed to semantics. For example, Ted, when you spoke about a karmic "stock exchange," that was a resonant analogy for some and not for others, because what that might mean in real life looks different to different people--specific examples would have illuminated exactly what you meant. It's hard to discuss the merits of an analogy or of any generalities without examples. An obvious illustration is politicians saying that they're for "family values" (and that so-and-so isn't); what are "family values"? What does that mean when it comes down to cases? In the absence of an example, if the analogy doesn't resonate--if it isn't useful to me--I have to just skip over it. There is truth in everyone's views, and a lot of good points are being made on this list that aren't as mutually exclusive as they may seem. If we can share our thoughts as respectfully as possible, without polarizing the discussion, making it adversarial, I think we'll all learn more and have a better time.
<< | At some place, or time, or location in itself it makes a decision to
My understanding is that we, as individual sparks of the Tao, choose to embark upon a sentient cycle on a particular planet while in the Tao, and begin gathering into groupings there. Then, the process begins of being cast from the Tao as cadre groups containing cadres containing entities containing cadences containing individual souls (or fragments). The only decision about incarnating physically that remains is timing. Generally, 1st position cadres, entities, and fragments incarnate first, paralleling the way they were cast from the Tao (first come, first served!), but that's not cut-and-dried. It depends on what's available and the interests of those incarnating. Often entity members begin incarnating in the same geographical location before spreading out in later incarnations. Cadre Groups generally incarnate on the same planet unless they are transitioning from a planet being phased out for them (or their species incarnates on more than one planet anyway, due to their being space travelers). All the best, Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:33:46 -0600 Dick wrote:
> Well, it seems the consensus here is that I am in the minority with my
I appreciate your traditional views Dick. I am having difficulty accepting some of the channelings that are "The Michaels" from many of the newer channels. The reason for that is that everything I have read and the channeling I had done for me was very clear and concise. I have trouble understanding how "The Michaels" can contradict themselves. I do not channel myself for the simple reason that I have a very strong personality and do not trust any channeling I might do to not be well laced with me.
> So, from this time forward I will read (and when appropriate, respond
May I contact you personally if I have doubts or questions regarding some thread or other that does not ring true to me? You are very well versed in the Michael Material. Thank you. :-)) Jeanne Holley Date: Mon, 9 Feb 98 17:19:42 -0700
> But -- I'm not certain I get this walk-in walk-out thing. Someone
Dear Alexandra Here it is as I understand it, and this is not the exclusive domain of Michael Channeling. Much of the information I found on this is from Ruth Montgomery's books. I am sure some folks here can reference Michael Channeled Material for more on this. Anyway lets say I get real tired of my life. Nothing is going the way I planned in my between life planning stage on the astral plane. So maybe I receive a very opportunistic auto accident or maybe an illness that brings me near to death or maybe I die on the operating table. Either I come close to death or die - correction - the body comes close to death or dies temporarily. Somewhere in the astral plane the exchange of essence takes place. I think sometimes it takes place during the life review many NDE'rs talk about. The essence that was operating the body/personality leaves the body/personality and another one takes the place. Also, I don't think an NDE is necessary. The new essence will do this because it doesn't need or want to go through the earlier internal monads (Michael Language). Why bother with the childhood adolescent process again? It usually has a mission or clear purpose and needs a body to carry it out. As far as I know the new essence uses the body of the previous fragment but it brings in a new overleaf set. The transition into the new personality takes some time and some accounts give about seven years to fully incorporate the new body. Physical plane memories are still intact unless the brain is damaged and all the previous relationships and history are still there. The new fragment may have to work through old issues which it didn't create. According to Ruth M, Anwar Sadat was a walkin. Yours -- Ted Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 17:49:32 -0800
> Many times when we have questioned Michael about
I remember once I asked Michael something and there was a long pause so I asked is this one of those seventh dimensional questions I am trying to understand with a third dimensional brain and they said that is part of it... Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 01:25:27 EST I've been away from my computer for about a week but as I have returned I see that karma has been a thread on the list. That's interesting, because some of my time away was spent with a woman who was insisting over the course of several days that our karma could be cancelled if we reached suficiently-high escatic states. At first I listened in silence. The second time she brought it up I must have let a moan slip, because the third time she brought it up she was ready for me and upped the ante, adding that certain Tantric masters here on earth now could take on our karma for us. She guessed right: I couldn't resist replying to that. "I don't think it works that way," I said, calmly. "I don't think anyone can take on our karma for us, it's ours." She was driving, and she also knew where our little talk was going. "I know you don't," she said, and then paused for a moment before downshifting to get more revs into the conversation. "But they can, and I'll tell you something else you don't know. When you sleep with someone, you take on all their karma. And not only theirs, but all the karma of all the people they have slept with in the past seven years." It was more than I could take. I was still calm but my patience had run out, and, even more dangerously, I felt extremely confident and powerful from some successful meditations earlier that day. "Fine," I said. "I'll take on their karma. I've got plenty of energy and I'm well-eqipped to handle it. Bring it on." Well, uh, that was then, a momentary blurb that slipped out and that I didn't really mean. But I do know the power of the spoken word. I do know the universe is always listening and I do know how manifestation works and I just want to say - very loudly and very clearly - that my own karma is plenty, thank you. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you for giving me this absolutely perfect amount of my own karma for me to deal with in this lifetime and not one bit too much more which would just be too much for me to handle and prevent me from doing that ultra-important planet-saving life task work that I and only I can accomplish as an energetically not-to-karmically encumbered soul who isn't preoccupied with plastering over other people's past deeds but instead is living his life and only his life paving the highest possible path for humanity's golden lumenescent destiny, thank you thank you thank you thank you. Think that will do it? Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 02:38:37 EST Hello, I'm testing to see if I actually succeeded in getting on the list. Did I make it? Am I posted? Hope. hope. Or faith? Faith. Dan (mostly a Sage) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:29:16 EST Dan! Yay! Good to see ya here! Martha Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:09:35 -0800 Dan, Welcome aboard mate!!!!! Glad you could make it to the party....but then you know how much fun we all have when we pass the spark around...<g> Hugs (cause that's what I'm good at) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:10:16 +0800 At 12:03 PM 2/9/98 -0700, ted fontaine wrote:
Thanks JJ, I am really glad we are making this valuable communication.
You are very much welcomed! :-)
Unsettled can be of value also. Anytime I get defensive the issue becomes
I am currently also on a mailing list that has a "side-issue" of "believes" and "knowns". Where Michael's materials are concerned, most of us can only take "for granted" (e.g. how many races of aliens are currently visiting Earth, or whales & dolphins are ensouled species [we still haven't managed to communicate with them yet], it is possible to travel faster than light, etc. etc.). The reason I brought this up is that most of them, when we get into any sort of arguements (mild or heated), they are mostly about our "believes", than about our "knowns". Take this issue on karma, for example. We all have our believes on how karma works, and karma, indeed, works very differently for each of us, even though there are much similarities. When something is experienced and learnt personally, the "belief" become a "known". When we compare notes, it is easy to see that "knowns" are "personal truths". e.g. Until we can really communicate with the cetaceans, and reincarnate "interchangably" with them, (and thereby having past life memory as a dolphins, for example, or communicate with them telepathically) we can only _believe_ that they are intelligent beings like us. (which does not mean we can still slaughter them) So let us all examine what we write (or say), to see if it is our believes (including very strong believes... especially those unchallenged ones) that we're arguing about, or is it really "personal knowns". In which case, the "arguement" would quickly reduce to a more constructive comparison of notes.
>> If I could channel Michael, I would go for factual data. :-) It might be
I don't think I can... I have read one Michael book (I think it was "From Earth to Tao"?) where a channeling method was described. I tried it (only briefly though) but didn't work. :-) I suppose I have to really work at it, what with the extra thick skull and all. :-) Too bad I can't attend any channeling workshops in the US... it's a bit too expensive for me. (the air-ticket)
> One of my issues about channeling is whether or not we can really get
Hehe... I would ask for "faster-than-light" technology. :-) Or at least a much safer method of transport than what we currently have. etc. Right now I can only settle for learn to go out-of-body. :-)
> what is the Maya of an artisan? The artisan sees itself as its creations.
Whatever works best for you. :-) Personally, I have always wondered if it is possible for me to change (even temporarily) some of my overleaves, if only to be more flexible. For example, sometimes I find my Reserve Mode a bit too inhibiting, and the sliding to Passion Modes feels a bit too accident-prone (yeah it happend more than a few times). I am test out Observation Mode, and have been getting some positive results there. :-) Time to move on... :-) Regards. Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:28:43 -0500 Mike Huttinger wrote: [clipped]
> > They have even told us (much to our frustration) that some things
Thanks, Mike, for bring up this point. When I channel Michael I can sometimes feel them in my head trying to help me "get", or more accurately paraphrase, what they are trying to communicate through me. Usually I get it, but sometimes I can feel that I don't. I have found that if I ask/allow them to go back and edit what has been typed into my computer keyboard the end result comes out so much more powerfully, and to "their" point, that sometimes I really wish they could communicate directly via my keyboard without me in between. I think I am getting better with their channeling and editing process. Like more consciously attuned to them. The end result when The Michaels edit their own stuff comes out so... comes out with a much stronger Michael-ness that greatly lessens the Kenneth-ness of the channeling. This is precisely what I want... less Kenneth and more Michael. It seems that the more Michael-ness is in the channeling, the more strongly the Michael flavor reaches further out into the world. It is something I can feel in the final Michael-edited versions of their channelings... a greater going-out-ness of their energies. I can actually feel the outreach or extendedness of their communication. It's not just the words. There is something that The Michaels put in with the words that I do not know how to describe... that touches whoever is supposed to be touched. Am I making sense here? It's as though they are speaking specific points directly to specific people out here in Michael-Teaching land... all in the same channeling session. I feel grateful and greatful to be allowed to share in their beautiful and powerful energies in this way. Do any of the Michael Channels on this list allow Michael to go back and "edit" their channelings during a channeling session instead of just accepting the first channelings as gotten? Would anyone out there care to comment on what Michael-ness means to them. -- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:16:31 -0600 JClark wrote:
-----snip-----
J, If I understood your explanation right, you have to have sex with them to get their karmas. ***LOL*** I think if you do "get" their karmas, you should at least get the sex too. That's only fair. John Macchietto Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:47:38 +0000 JClark wrote (clipped:)
> Well, uh, that was then, a momentary blurb that slipped out and that I didn't
Who among us here has not wished from time to time for some sort of Karmic "morning-after" pill? If only well-worded press releases like this worked! Heck, I know at least a dozen sages who would have cycled off by now... ;) Dean p.s. JClark: can I get her phone number? Only kidding. Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:26:45 -0800 Dear Michael Listers, I just wanted you all to know I'll be away in Mexico from Feb. 12 to the 21st and won't have Internet access (a good thing, once in a while, don'tcha think??) during that time.... So if anyone's having problems with the list during that time, you should contact Rene Mueller (webmaster@spiritweb.org) for help instead of me. Hasta La Vista, and Mucho Agape to everybody!! <GGG> Love, Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:59:45 -0600 Hi Kenneth, Did I understand correctly? Do you channel Michael at the Computer? What a fascinating concept. I wish you'd explain it further, if it is not too personal a question. By the way, I do enjoy your channeled messages. Love and Laughter :-)) Jeanne Holley Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:41:38 -0800 Shepherd, This made me think of the wandering soul looking for connections from different parts of the world. All feeling like a bunch of old gypsies who others think have a few loose screws. Well at least we try to have fun....:) Hugs (cause they are better for you) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:11:45 -0500 Jeanne Holley wrote:
> Hi Kenneth,
You understand correctly. In this day and age many channelers do their thing into a word processor or an email screen. I started channeling years ago into a portable typewriter. And when I got my first computer it was easy to make the transition. The computer affords me a very easy way to correct typos, edit text, and to save whatever was channeled. It is less distracting for me than to use pen and paper, or a ouija board, or a pendulum. Although I do use a pendulum when channeling overleaves. I can do conscious and vocal channeling, and depending who I am with, I will do it. But when I do vocal channeling I almost always forget what it was that I just said. And for me being an old scholar, I find this, not remembering what The Michaels just said, to be almost intolerable. So I prefer to type, edit, and save the channelings. Usually The Michaels are ahead of me when I start to channel, in that they almost always know what I'm going ask them before I ask. What I do is: This is not a linear step-by-step preparation, but may happen in almost any sequence, or even all steps at once, or spread over an hour's time. Whatever...
> By the way, I do enjoy your channeled messages.
Great gratitude to you and all others who have expressed their appreciations. These positive comments help keep the connection strong and clear between me and the Michaels. Yes, I am not in this by myself. You are all, with your energies, part of my channeling process. We are all connected, yes? All of the Michaels have the same great Michael-ness feeling of love and power, but they also have differences that I can feel. The ones that channel the overleaves feel different from the ones that do medical stuff, and these feel different from those that do social commentary. 'Nuff said. -- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:05:25 -0800
> There is something that The Michaels put in with the words that I do not know how to describe...
That really connects to a non Michael channeling I attended once where
Mike Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:24:27 -0800 This is actually a little embarrassing to admit but my view of the Mike Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:22:42 EST I want to thank Lori for walking me through the gate on getting here. Thanks to all for the welcome! What about you, Dave? Where's my hug? You know I love you, baby. Ted, I really liked what you were saying about karma and forgiveness. I firmly believe that karma is complete when forgiveness has occured. You take critisism very well. I want to too. I want to argue with you about boundaries. (No groans from the audience). Shepherd, thank you for reminding me of the main purpose of karma-the lesson. Dick, quote, quote, quote. I'll never know what Michael said in the begining if you don't. I suggest that you will create a very charged karma if you remove yourself from those that disagree with you. I want your steady, grounded observation of what you know is true, that way Ted and Ken and I can play without falling off a cliff. (Go ahead. Roll your eyes.) You are very fair and very safe to have debate with. Often I talk just to hear what I'm thinking. With your patience, checks and balance, I'll be able to see more clearly what really is true for both me and you. Barbara, you are so right about the Bible. I could talk forever about proto- Mark. JP channeled some great stuff about Jesus. I really recommend the tape. Has anyone seen Ed's legs? I have. You should, too. As far as drugs go...stay away from them. Send them to me. All the bad drugs. I know what to do with them. Just kidding. My wife's got me on probation (19 years). Did I say years? I meant days. Love you all and I feel loved by you, Dan Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:20:20 +0800 I am going to be nosey here, so please forgive if I'm intruding. At 09:03 PM 2/9/98 -0000, Dick Hein wrote:
> Well, it seems the consensus here is that I am in the minority with my
Neither can I accept that model of karmic exchange.
> So, from this time forward I will read (and when appropriate, respond
Instead of saying "choosing not to interact", how about saying "agree to disagree"? Both are essentially the same thing, but "your version" has a "not" word in there, which tends to make it negative, doesn't it? I won't say it make a huge difference, but it certain put us into a different mind-set. One being defensive, the other being acceptive (if there is such a word).
> One of the reasons I so strongly favor those concepts documented in books
We have to be thankful to these authors to expend their energies on publishing those wonderful books. :-) Perhaps the other non-publishing channelers did not go through their scripts as many times as those who did published their materials. .... Well, on thinking on what, or how, I shall put down my next sentence, it occurs to me that this particular aspect of Michael's Teaching is important -- "there are always alternatives", and "open to possibilities". In that there are almost always alternatives that we are not aware of, that we are (consciously or unconsciously) closed out (or blocked out). It is so much about choice that there are choices we are not aware of, that we need other people (not least Michael) to remind us of. When I mentioned that Ted Fontaine was channeling "a different Michael", I meant it to be exactly as one other channeler (sorry I forgot your name) described -- different fragments of the Michael entity. I read it in Shepherd Hoodwind's book ("Journey"), too. I also said that the "karma exchange" system was a rather narrow perspective, but perhaps that was exactly the necessary image (concept) for a particular individual(s) (someone on, or off, this mailing list) to trigger an understanding. All these are just my conjectures. No doubt there are other possibilities that I am not aware of. Right now, I will just urge Dick that instead of just "stop any further interactions with those that I cannot agree with", let the "file" open. There may be missing pieces, or hidden pieces, to the mystery of karma. (oh do we all know everything about it already?) :-) Regards. Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 05:10:19 -0500 Kenneth Broom wrote:
> > There is something that The Michaels put in with the words that I do not
Mike Huttinger responded:
> That really connects to a non Michael channeling I attended once where
I just asked Michael about this multi-simultaneous non-verbal communication, and I got that same previously-mentioned extended silence with hints of terms like "multi-dimensional existences", "universal connections", "similarities of attunement", and the like. I'll try a little later to get more detail about this, if I can. -- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:30:48 -0800 Hello listers, First I would like to thank those who expressed positive responses to my last post ("Perspectives and perceptions"). I have corresponded with them via personal email. I would also like to say for the record that I did not see Ted's post prior to posting my last. I did correspond with Ted via email afterward, however. I have done (and continue to do) a lot of reflection and processing concerning the list activity during the past few days. I would like to offer some thoughts about this. Some of them may be nothing new to some readers, but I think it will be of benefit, at least for me, to bring them up and maybe help "clear the air" as it were. I think it is clearly evident that some of us, myself not only included but as one of the primary players, got "carried away" with our discussion during the last few days. Ever hear the term, "fog of war"? Whereas we were not "at war", nonetheless I think there were certain aspects of the "heat of battle" in effect, thus clouding our perceptions. It could also be described as a "forest-and-trees" thing. Now that things have calmed down, our perceptions have changed (I know mine have). I would say those changes are due to 1/the "battle" being over, and 2/our having learned things from it. It's my feeling that one of the reasons I have a problem with seeing other people's points of view is the Mature soul's tendency to see others as themselves.(§1) There is also my CNF of Stubbornness which tends to resist change. Then there is my Scholar, along with my Intellectual/Moving/Emotional (IME) centering, always in pursuit of the "correct" information. It's my feeling that those who have either Emotional first or Intellectual last are the least likely to have much in the way of passion for intellectual material. I played around with centering a few weeks back, as it is the only overleaf I have any kind of feel for. From that study I developed a "Principle of Potential Interoperability Based on Centering" which I can post if there is enough interest. I would like to comment at this point that it takes a fair amount of effort to create a post of any appreciable size. Those who have done so are well aware of this fact. It can take literally hours to craft posts such as those by Kate, especially if research is needed for references. Some of Lori's, even though they contain mainly personal information, are also somewhat lengthy therefore take time to produce. Shorter works such as those by Shepherd, Ed Hamerstrom, Kenneth, Ted, and myself, can be quite time-consuming to create also (gather, and if necessary, research the material; get your thoughts down in a coherent, and hopefully cogent, manner; make multiple passes to try to assure proper grammar and spelling; etc., etc., etc.). I have spent literally hours trying to locate a particular quote I thought I recalled seeing =somewhere=. Fortunately most of the time I am successful, though not always. I also find it beneficial to wait at least several hours between passes when creating a document; this allows a fresher perception of it during the following editing session (there is less of a requirement for this, as well as needing fewer passes, for shorter works). In summary - even if you don't like what the person said, at least give some thought to the amount of effort they put into creating the post. Continuing the general theme of posts - in my last I spoke of my intent to interact only with those authors who embrace the core or traditional aspects of the teachings. As I mentioned above, I have given considerable thought to this and have altered my planned method of interaction to be as follows - 1. Less overall interaction than before. 2. When something comes up that IMO deviates significantly from the core aspects of the teachings, I will make a comment to that effect but put forth no attempt to convince anyone which view is more "correct" (or the most "correct", if that is the case). Spinning wheels arguing is, IMO, not only counterproductive, it's also a waste of time. 3. ICW that, there will also be a change to my use of references. As I stated previously, my "knowledge" of the teachings is derived mainly from books (and as I also mentioned previously, I accept them as valid because they resonate). It is augmented by more up-to-date information from primarily Shepherd in his posts here and on some of his Web pages, as well as from other sources I have located. And, probably because I am a Scholar, I like to document/back up (reference) what I state WRT the teachings so that it is not taken as just my opinion. However, it has been demonstrated that some readers are uncomfortable with the many references I tend to use. So I am changing my methodology as follows - Where I would normally place a reference I'll put a mark (§n) where n is a number (notice the first one above). This will be like a footnote or bibliographic reference, except the reference will not be in the post. Anyone who wants the references for a given post can email me and I will provide them (accurate identification of the relevant post will be required). If anyone always wants all references for all posts, I'll set up a mini mailing list to provide that. Note that reference numbers will be relative to the post; there will not be a universal set of reference numbers. Hopefully this will keep everyone happy! BTW, I have recently encountered a situation where some characters on a Web page have been altered from those intended by the author. At this time it is unclear where the alterations occur, but they do nonetheless. This situation brought to my attention the fact that different fonts are used throughout the computer industry. Each platform has multiple fonts available, and differences because of that occur also (the problem I just mentioned is not that, however; the binary values of characters actually change). So, this "§" mark is a section mark. Is that what you see in your email or browser? It is for Windows System and Times New Roman fonts; for Terminal it is a small "o" with a line under it. I would like to again express gratitude for Shepherd's many thought- provoking posts, the latest of which -
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:01:49 EST
...is no exception. I think we are fortunate to have someone like Shepherd who has a solid background in the teachings and is willing to share his perceptions with us. WRT walk-ins and walk-outs - I enjoyed Lori's comments in -
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 18:07:05 -0800
...and Ted's comments in -
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 98 17:19:42 -0700
...as well as Shepherd's in the message referenced above. That's about all I have at this time. Again I would like to thank the list members for their understanding and "cool heads" while some of us were busy thrashing about and accomplishing very little except making a lot of noise. Cheers, Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:30:54 -0800 Hi Shepherd,
| From: Shepherd
Thanks for once again giving members of the list the opportunity to share some of your insights. Your clarity of perception is always welcomed by this reader, and probably many others. "Calming the troubled waters," as it were. Cheers, Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:31:04 -0800
| From: Mike Huttinger
Thanks for posting this. It is another case for me wherein I knew that A/there are concepts we cannot comprehend because there is no language for them, and B/we have been cautioned about being "too rigid and [wanting] everything set in concrete." But before this I didn't realize the connection between them. Now that I do, I'll be more inclined to heed the caution. Cheers, Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:31:08 -0800
| From: Mike Huttinger
This has happened to me more than once at Michael sessions. Also they have commented that they make connections to all those present at sessions. And whenever you even think about them a connection is established. -Dick [2.1(3)/5/4.2-144=4.7.3<5.150/M5=26/IME/4.11>] Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:53:48 -0500 Hooray for Dick. Hooray at last. Hooray for Dick. He's a man of class. -- Dick, you can have my Budweiser anytime. Peace and Light to All of Us, Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:45:25 EST Dick, Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 07:59:59 +0800 Huttinger wrote on 11/2/98 6:22 am:
> This is actually a little embarrassing to admit but my view of the
That was me when I first read Messages From Michael. I remember thinking to myself "This is it! I hove found the answer to the universe!" .-) That was about 7 years ago. Needless to say, I encountered several "slaps" since then. :-) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:30:46 -0800 Dan, you wrote snip
> Barbara, you are so right about the Bible. I could talk forever about proto-
I would really like to know what kinds of things JP talked about with regards to Jesus. This is a little off topic so if you wish please send any reply to me privately. Also, this is related to an earlier thread on walk ins. JP said her husband was a walk in twice. Mike Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 21:30:10 -0500 J J Tan wrote: Huttinger wrote on 11/2/98 6:22 am:
> > This is actually a little embarrassing to admit but my view of the
And that was me when I discovered the Urantia Book. Funny how we tended to latch on to stuff like that. But we don't do that anymore... do we? Hmmm? :>)# --
Michael Teachings Home | Welcome | Michael FAQ | Soul Age | Roles | Overleaves | Advanced Topics | The Nine Needs | Michael Channeling | Related Articles | Channels & Resources | Michael Tools | Michael Books | Michael Chat | Michael Student Database | Links | |
SUMMARY:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Praesent
vestibulum molestie lacus. 
Next Page | 1998/1
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |