Related Articles Spiritweb Michael

Spiritweb Michael List
1998 - Week 6


SUMMARY:  Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Praesent vestibulum molestie lacus. Aenean nonummy hendrerit mauris. Phasellus porta. Fusce suscipit varius mi. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Nulla dui.


THE POSTS:

 

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 10:30:27 -0800
Subject: Re: Virus Warnings

To members of the list,
    One of the biggest virus problems is now hoax virus warning messages! A good web site to bookmark is the Virus Myths page (http://kumite.com/myths/) -- then, check it yourself before continuing to spread the hoax.

Barbara


Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 10:30:56 -0800
Subject: Re: Quoting the Bible

    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.
    For the sake of validation, a good exercise for anyone who tends to believe that what is written is law (or ultimate truth), would to be to try that exercise with a few bibles for yourself and see how much variety there is. If you are fortunate enough to be able to read other languages, you might try finding even more versions to work with. My Latin is way too rusty to try that.
    To quote "Michael's words" as law is *completely opposed* to what Michael teaches through all the Michael channels and teachers (except Chelsea Yarbro). Many times when we have questioned Michael about something as inconsistent with previous understandings, they have reminded us that humans have a tendency to become to too rigid and want everything set in concrete. They have even told us (much to our frustration) that some things simply cannot be explained in the logical terms as we seek. The Michael teachings are not meant to be a religion, nor to be taken as faith or absolute anything.
    Wayne Dyer last week commented about his lack of "organization" for his work. He said if he had a big organization promoting his work, he felt it would destroy his messages, just as organized religion has destroyed Jesus's original messages.
    Many of us have agreements with particular channels as teachers or students, so we naturally tend to resonate more with their interpretations than with others. That in no way makes the others "wrong" or "incorrect" -- simply different. If all we needed was ONE channel for everything, wouldn't that be rather boring? It would for me -- I like the variety and different views. (I know, I'm weird :)
    By the way, I do have a spell checker, but usually choose not to use it, because anything I write is simply what I want to say at the moment (faults and all), not a masterpiece to be worked over.

Barbara


Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:29:53 EST
Subject: Re: Ted Fontaine's views on karma

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,
Alexandra


Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:08:26 -0800
Subject: Re: Miller's Law (1998-05/714)

 

| From: Barbara Taylor
|
| Dear Folks,
|
| One of the most interesting things about communications is that each
| of us has our own reality. Therefore, what we see or hear or feel comes
| from OUR point of view. Everything we do or say is affected by OUR
| reality, not the TRUTH.

 

OK.

 

| Therefore, wanting to be "right" and arguing over minute points of view
| is futile

 

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
| personality dragons (ie., chief feature).

 

Probably not an inaccurate observation.

-Dick [2.1(3)/5/4.2-144=4.7.3<5.150/M5=26/IME/4.11>]
-----------------------------------------------------
Dick Hein / Mountain View, California.


Date: Mon, 9 Feb 98 12:02:55 -0700
Subject: Re: Ted Fontaine's views on karma (1998)

Dick, I really appreciate this communication you have made below. Thanks for taking the time to make this thoughtful response.

 

There are several reasons -

1. I came to the teachings in this life because of what I read in the
early Yarbro books. The actual words of Michael resonate strongly with
me, as do the concepts presented.

 

 

2. Those concepts resonate because they are -
a. Logical. That is, "they fit" with what I have observed during the course of this life.
b. Structured.
c. Detailed.
d. Consistent (are logical within themselves).
e. Fairly complex.

3. I am a Mature/5 at this time, so I don't have the perception of most fragments currently active in the teachings with whom I have come in contact (they are, of course, Old).

4. I am not comfortable with the idea of presenting one's personal ideas
about the teachings if those ideas contradict what has been channeled by
reliable channels.

 

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
do better than generating new ideas. I think Artisans would be more suited
to such activities. Could that be where some of your ideas originate?
You are an Artisan/Scholar, are you not?

 

Excellent observation. Allow me to appear patronizing and say, "Good Work!".

 

| I have also read plenty of Michael books.

Recently?

 

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
| be doing.

I evaluate all information I encounter, and react accordingly. Offhand
I don't recall disagreeing with any statements in published literature
(that is, books) that I've read except those that contradict each other.

 

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.

My basic mode of operation is deductive, wherein one method is to exclude
things I perceive to be invalid in order to identify the valid ones.

 

Fair enough.

 

| I think you [sic] didactic approach to this teaching offers it little service.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But aren't we getting a little off topic?

 

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
checker on your messages before posting them. I am surprised that you,
being a school teacher, don't already do that.

 

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
Subject: Re: Miller's Law

 

So rather than try to prove someone else wrong (which is impossible),
how about trying to understand what the other person is trying to say
and what their reality might be? That's good work, as Michael likes to say.

 

Dear Barbara

Great Suggestion!

Lets get on to more important issues like:

Sienfields character's overleaves:

Is George a cynic?
Are Jerry & Elaine both in Goal of Discrimination? Is Kramer A Passion Mode Sage in Flow?

Take Care

Ted


Date: Mon, 9 Feb 98 12:03:08 -0700
Subject: Re: Ted Fontaine's views on karma

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
>> 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.
>
> After reading the channeled message by Kenneth Broom, I realized that some
> of my posts (in this particular issue) reflected that I had not been really
> "opened for possibilities" in the way of speech. I apologize for my
> manners. :-) But not for my opinions. :-) I still feel that your
> interpretation of karma in "the scheme of things" is rather narrow. It may
> fit in where karma and reincarnation is concerned, but I think your model
> would fail when other issues are taken into consideration, such as freedom
> of choice (as I mentioned in one post), and that karma is
> "non-transferrable" (relating to the necessity to experience the karma, as
> well as the responsibility of it).

 

Wasn't that a beautiful post! Thanks again Kenneth.

 

> And yes, they way Dick Hein quoting the books was also a bit unsettling to
> me. I think you said it there that it was like Christian quoting holy
> scripture. Given that we have seen several reference to "mistakes in
> channeled messages", including those in the early books (Messages from
> Michael, or More Messages from Michael), it was clear that we cannot just
> "quote the passage". By the same regard, it is also possible that your
> channeled message has mistake. The way you defend your channeling was just
> the same unsettling to me as the way Dick Hein made his quotes. :-) I
> think we should all "take a step back" and find the middle (if not neutral) ground.

 

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
>> 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.
>
> If I could channel Michael, I would go for factual data. :-) It might be
> the pragmatist in me, though I'm not a Scholar (but a Sage). I believe
> that certain type of factual data would also help, immensely, as a tool for
> growth, including spiritual growth.

 

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
>> 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
>
> What I feel is that you are treating these "goodies" as your own invention,
> or your own creation. It was just something you discovered, or channeled.
> Not from you the person. Perhaps it is my "Old Soul age" speaking, but you
> should be detached from something not created by you. Even detached from
> something that was created by you. I mean, what is done, is done. What is
> said, is being laid out for others to examine. If it holds up to light,
> fine. :-) If it does not, no great lost. We are all in the creative process anyway.
> There are bound to be improvements and rejections along the way.

 

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. :-)
>
> Regards.

 

Yours -- Ted


Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:03:51 -0800
Subject: Perspectives and perceptions

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,
Dick [2.1(3)/5/4.2-144=4.7.3<5.150/M5=26/IME/4.11>]
----------------------------------------------------
Dick Hein / Mountain View, California.


Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 16:22:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Perspectives and perceptions

Dick Hein wrote:

[clipped]

 

> 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.

 

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
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: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:23:44 -0800
Subject: Re: Ken Starr's Overleaves

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
Subject: Karma and Incarnation

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
| become human. I would think that this decision is not made from a
| single entity but made by the cadre.

> It is documented as by entity in Tao to Earth, but that would imply that cadres > could be split among planets. Shepherd, can you clarify?>>

 

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,
Shepherd


Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:33:46 -0600
Subject: Re: Perspectives and perceptions

Dick wrote:

 

> 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.

 

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
> 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.

 

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
Subject: Re: Ted Fontaine's views on karma

 

> 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?

 

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
From: Mike Huttinger
Subject: Re: Quoting the Bible

 

> Many times when we have questioned Michael about
> something as inconsistent with previous understandings, they have
> reminded us that humans have a tendency to become to too rigid and want
> everything set in concrete. They have even told us (much to our
> frustration) that some things simply cannot be explained in the logical
> terms as we seek.

 

    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
From: JClark
Subject: Re: Karma and Incarnation

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
Subject: TEST

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
Subject: Re: TEST

Dan! Yay! Good to see ya here!

Martha


Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:09:35 -0800
Subject: Re: TEST

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)
Diane


Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:10:16 +0800
From: J J Tan
Subject: Re: Ted Fontaine's views on karma

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
ego. It gives me a chance to review, not the information, but those parts
of myself in rebellion.

 

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
>> the pragmatist in me, though I'm not a Scholar (but a Sage). I believe
>> that certain type of factual data would also help, immensely, as a tool for
>> growth, including spiritual growth.
>
> If you could? I think in many ways you do. Give yourself that admission,
> you may be pleasantly surprized.

 

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
> 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.

 

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.
> 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).

 

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
Subject: Michael-ness: Quoting Michael

Mike Huttinger wrote:

[clipped]

 

> > They have even told us (much to our frustration) that some things
> > simply cannot be explained in the logical terms as we seek.
>
> 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...

 

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.

--
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: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:16:31 -0600
Subject: Re: Karma and Incarnation

JClark wrote:

 

-----snip-----

> ... 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?

 

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
Subject: Karma and Incarnation

JClark wrote (clipped:)

 

> 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,
> ( . . .)
> Think that will do it?

 

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
Subject: I'll be out for a while....

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,
Lori :^)


Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:59:45 -0600
Subject: Kenneth's Channeling

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
Subject: Re: Karma and Incarnation

Shepherd,
You stated: "Often entity members begin incarnating in the same geographical location before spreading out in later incarnations."

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)
Diane


Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:11:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Kenneth's Channeling

Jeanne Holley wrote:

 

> 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.

 

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:
a) Clear away some empty uninterruptable quiet time and space,

b) Sit at my computer,

c) Cleanse my being and space of as much impurities and internal chatter as possible,

d) Put myself into the positive poles of my overleaves,

e) Raise my personal vibrations as close to theirs as possible, and still stay conscious, (sometimes I go too far and just want to hang out in that space),

e) Declare for maximum clarity and accuracy in our communication,

f) Declare for strong attunement with Michael,

g) Wait until they and I are "feeling" attuned,

h) Start asking questions.

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.

--
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: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:05:25 -0800
Subject: Michael-ness: Quoting Michael

 

> 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.

 

    That really connects to a non Michael channeling I attended once where
they said that there was other communication going out to the people
listening besides what was being said verbally.

    Mike


Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:24:27 -0800
Subject: Re: Perspectives and perceptions

    This is actually a little embarrassing to admit but my view of the
Michael teaching after I studied it for a few years was that it made sense
to the point that it was the only perspective that made sense. In other
words I turned it into my own religion complete with some proselytizing. As
I studied other views my perspectives became more flexible.

    Mike


Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:22:42 EST
Subject: Thanks

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
From: J J Tan
Subject: Re: Perspectives and perceptions

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
> 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.

 

Neither can I accept that model of karmic exchange.

 

> 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.

 

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
> 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,
> Dick [2.1(3)/5/4.2-144=4.7.3<5.150/M5=26/IME/4.11>]

 

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
Subject: Re: Michael-ness: Quoting Michael

Kenneth Broom wrote:

 

> > 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.

 

Mike Huttinger responded:

 

> That really connects to a non Michael channeling I attended once where
> they said that there was other communication going out to the people
> listening besides what was being said verbally.

 

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.

--
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, 11 Feb 1998 02:30:48 -0800
Subject: Lessons and learning

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
Subject: Karma and Incarnation

 

...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
Subject: re: value of perspectives

 

...and Ted's comments in -

 

Date: Mon, 9 Feb 98 17:19:42 -0700
Subject: Re: Ted Fontaine's views on karma

 

...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,
Dick [2.1(3)/5/4.2-144=4.7.3<5.150/M5=26/IME/4.11>]
----------------------------------------------------
Dick Hein / Mountain View, California.


Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:30:54 -0800
Subject: Re: Karma and Incarnation (1998-06/742)

Hi Shepherd,

 

| From: Shepherd
| Subject: Karma and Incarnation
| Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:01:49 EST

 

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,
Dick [2.1(3)/5/4.2-144=4.7.3<5.150/M5=26/IME/4.11>]
----------------------------------------------------
Dick Hein / Mountain View, California.


Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:31:04 -0800
Subject: Re: Quoting the Bible (1998-06/745)

 

| From: Mike Huttinger
|
| > Many times when we have questioned Michael about something as
| > inconsistent with previous understandings, they have reminded us that
| > humans have a tendency to become to too rigid and want everything set
| > in concrete. They have even told us (much to our frustration) that
| > some things simply cannot be explained in the logical terms as we seek.
|
| 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...

 

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,
Dick [2.1(3)/5/4.2-144=4.7.3<5.150/M5=26/IME/4.11>]
----------------------------------------------------
Dick Hein / Mountain View, California.


Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:31:08 -0800
Subject: Re: Michael-ness: Quoting Michael (1998-06/758)

 

| From: Mike Huttinger
|
| > 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.
|
| That really connects to a non Michael channeling I attended once where
| they said that there was other communication going out to the people
| listening besides what was being said verbally.

 

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>]
-----------------------------------------------------
Dick Hein / Mountain View, California.


Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:53:48 -0500
Subject: Hooray for Dick

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,
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, 11 Feb 1998 11:45:25 EST
Subject: Re: Lessons and learning

Dick,
Nice post. Glad you are still with us on the list at full force. --John Clark


Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 07:59:59 +0800
Subject: Re: Re: Perspectives and perceptions

Huttinger wrote on 11/2/98 6:22 am:

 

> This is actually a little embarrassing to admit but my view of the
> Michael teaching after I studied it for a few years was that it made sense
> to the point that it was the only perspective that made sense. In other
> words I turned it into my own religion complete with some proselytizing. As
> I studied other views my perspectives became more flexible.
>
> Mike

 

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
Subject: Thanks

Dan, you wrote

snip

 

> 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.

 

   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
Subject: Re: Re: Perspectives and perceptions

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
> > Michael teaching after I studied it for a few years was that it made sense
> > to the point that it was the only perspective that made sense. In other
> > words I turned it into my own religion complete with some proselytizing. As
> > I studied other views my perspectives became more flexible.
> >
> >     Mike
>
> 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. :-)

 

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? :>)#

--
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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


 


Next Page | 1998/1   
.....................................................................................................................................

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