|
Related Articles > Spiritweb Michael Spiritweb
Michael List
THE POSTS:
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 06:44:17 -0400 Ow ow oski wrote:
> [clipped]
I've read both books. And I tried very hard to contact this "God". What I kept getting was something that called itself "Spirit", and defined itself as the highest part of my own being that I could comprehend. The relative "height" of myself that is contacted depends on my openness to, and my familiarity with, the subject matter being discussed. The better I am able to comprehend the subject, the higher and clearer that part of me is on that subject. I've asked some high questions of my "Spirit" and all I got was a bright light filled with knowledge that I could not at all even begin to understand at my present state of comprehendability(?). Weird feeling. I've even forgotten what my questions were, although the knowing bright light is still here/there waiting for me to become smart enough to comprehend it. Funny... feeling..., man! Spirit said that indeed this is what happened to Neale Donald Walsch. His mind, when he channeled those books, could only accept that source of knowledge as "God", not as higher aspects of his own being. Part of my entity when channeled about a similar subject said that, as an analogy: "To one of your body's cells, the whole body is God." As far as specifically channeling GOD or the TAO I have never ever been able to get a peep of a verbal answer. But what I have gotten was (a) an inner wordless knowing of the answer, or (b) an outer physical demonstration of the answer. Peace and Light to You and Yours, Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 08:27:48 -0400 Mike H:
SNIP
I seem to recall something from an early book - I don't keep records of anything and can't quote exactly, but you'll remember and get the idea. The discussion was about reincarnation ... and Michael said something to the effect that belief was not necessary, making the comparison to a leaf falling from a tree - the leaf doesn't have to believe or even be aware that it must fall - but it will still happen ... I would think that would be truth. Now if all the big shot trees in the forest got together and decided that every leaf was going to have to believe in the "fall" and subsequent death and reabsorption in order to be accepted, saved, redeemed, pick one ... that would be dogma. So, perhaps we simply shouldn't demand that anyone (even ourselves) accept what clearly appear to be truths to us at any particular point in time. Comments? Gina (Mnemosyne) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 07:34:40 -0600 Mike wrote:
> Hi all,
Yes, the newsletter would be an opportunity/forum to share more personal experiences and views at greater length. Narratives, essays, articles, perspectives, opinions/editorials. I should think that the themes and topics would (potentially) be limitless. I also think that if the Listers' needs for exchange and expression are already being met by the List, then the newsletter won't be successful. Someone will need to be responsible for making editorial decisions. I sense that there's an evolutionary push for more and deeper exchange, and this could provide the place for that to happen. Also, we can share our art, our poetry, our joys, triumphs, and sorrows--our unique voice. So, what do you think? These are just my thoughts. Gloria Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 09:57:40 -0400
> I feel I need to say something profound, but during the excitement
Jody,IthinkwhatDaveistryingtosayisthis.Gina(Mnemosyne) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 98 08:59:02 -0700
> I kinda figured when I read the original post this issue would be raised.
John & anyone else interested: I gone over this same issue many times. I have talked to people who have had four or five different readings given to them and on and on... My abridged explanation follows: Most of us use most of the overalls at some time. For example, there are times when I have to use dominance when I am taking on a leadership position, there are times when I have to use power mode when I am teaching, and when I am driving the freeways I use caution mode, etc etc. Our primary set is our default set but but when need be, we will use other sets to handle specific conditions. For example: If you were to read my overleaves when I am arguing passionatly you may get that I am a cynic in passion mode. That is the "energy" that I am projecting at that time. Many of us use the Michael Teaching as a Teaching, but what is it we are learning and how are we learning it? Some of us may need to learn the overleaves by trying them on or testing them out. Let's say I am channeled as a mature warrior, goal of acceptance, stoic, moving center, aggression mode, with a chief feature of martyrdom (sounds like an ambulance driver). From here I can accept the set as my own or I can go about testing it against my life to see if it fits. In my case it doesn't come close, so I have a good idea what I am not but what is more important is that I have learned more about those particular overleaves. I may have found a greater understanding of acceptance or stoic and I can identify when I am using them - expecially in their negative poles in false personality. Process of elimination, which works for some of us. What I have done through the process is learn something about that particular overleaf set though and by learning that set I have come to a better understanding of the overleaves. So if someone channels Billy S. as a scholar, and somebody else gets sage instead of complaining about accuracy (which I know you are not doing), we can apply the positive and negative poles to what we know about that person and see which one fits. It could be that they both work quite well, but in the process we have learned more about Sage & Scholar. The mid causal plane is described by some as a teaching plane. In our world of public & private education, the teachers that make the students do most of the work show better end results. Are the two that much different? Is Michael acting as a teacher who gives us sets of problems that we solve. The problems are based in the overleaves and by solving the overleaf problems we incorporate the system within ourselves. It could be that all Michael has ever given us is the basics of the chart and we are doing all the rest (I have already gotten in trouble over this so please refrain from firing cannons). YOurs -- Ted Artisan/scholar Essence Twin/skeptic/growth/observation sliding to Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 12:21:23 -0400 Mike H, Funny you should mention the Michaels merging w/some other entity. I was just wondering a few days ago when would be a good time to post an open question to all the channels on the list and open another "can of worms". Where does Michael go for "higher" inspiration, and what would be the next step in the Michael(s)' evolution (so to speak)? Gina (Mnemosyne) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 12:47:17 -0400 Dear Michael Teachings Listers, Yesterday I asked the Michaels about my channeling accuracy and they said as far as channeling overleaves is concerned: my accuracy has maxed at around 95% when I use the birthdata, and around 70% when I do not use the birthdata. They also added the following points regarding the accuracy of channeled data: 1) Using the birth data information is a major aid in helping them in obtaining and channeling overleaves. 2) Any other information that may help them "home in" on one "truth point" out of several is of great value. A "truth point" is a location in the akashic that satisfies the requirements of the questioner's question. Better to give them too much initial reference data and get one truth point, rather than not enough data and get several truth points. 3) The release of ambiguities concerning a channeling is a goal of the search for the truth point. 4) The caring about the singularity (whether it is singular or not) of a truth point more than strongly held beliefs or opinions is of extremely great importance, 5) Be willing to check and re-check answers and to change them as necessary. Ask Michael whether the data you have is from a singular truth point or not. If you consistently get more than one truth point for your question when you desired only one then assume that your question needs re-phrasing. Do some detective work. 6) Those channels that consistently check and recheck and adjust their channeled data will normally have the greatest accuracy. This does not mean re-asking Michael the same question the same way. Rephrase your questions and with the "intention" of finding a singular truth point for that question. 7) Those channels that are willing to back off a bit and to question their channeled data have the greatest chance of helping the Michaels and themselves to "home in" on the single "Truth Point" for that particular question if one exists. 8) The asking of questions and searching for and homing in on a truth point is a cooperative process. 9) The searching and homing in on the truth point as asked for is not a one-step process as many believe it to be. 10) Michael suggests that we constantly check the veracity of all channeled data. Ask the least little question regarding apparent or possible contradictions, and with the "intention" of finding "the" or "all" the truth point(s). 11) Disconnect your expectations from the channeling process. 12) Disconnect your desires from the channeling process. 13) Focus on asking clear and accurate questions. Take little or nothing for granted. 14) If and when you and Michael arrive at a truth point try comparing that
truth point with your own akashic search results if you have dared to search the
akashic yourself. 15) Asking good questions is just as important as getting good answers. 16) Getting good answers is of little value if the question and its context are not understood. -- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 12:24:29 -0700 Barbara Taylor wrote:
You have complete choice about what you listen to and what you believe.
Priests + = compassion Hmmmmmmmmmm. Kath ::::well aware of her own tendency to slide from dissemination to oration:::::::: Date: Mon, 13 Apr 98 18:56:03 UT
Hi there Jody, This was from a letter by Katherine. :) She began that letter with a quote from one of mine so my name was at the top, which may have caused the confusion.... Best to you, Brin
Sorry Katherine - I will add your name to the list of the people whose posts I ALWAYS read (I get them all in a long single message, so it is hard sometimes to figure out who sent what, especially AFTER I've snipped it. Still love what Brin has to say, too!
Dave,
Barbara,
Hi everyone,
Jeanne, I volunteered before to contribute my Scholarly, picky, every-comma-matters editing skills - offer still stands.
One aspect that I found interesting was that this "god" pointed out that
Doesn't Michael say - I think through Shepherd - that "God" is the consciousness of the Tao? That would imply to me that God would know itself to be part of something larger, and that we could not talk to that larger whatever . . . except, of course, as far as we are all part of it and talk to it every time we have contact with our essences. -------<--{@ Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 17:26:08 -0500 To all, I've left most of both posts in so you can see and get the flavor of the entire thing without having to go back and read the previous posts. I think this is important regarding the Newsletter. Jeanne John wrote:
> >I kinda figured when I read the original post this issue would be raised.
Ted wrote:
> John & anyone else interested:
Ted, this is exactly the kind of thing that I think the Newsletter should carry in it's opening area for Newbies. Something that really explains the discrepancies we are always chewing over on this list and it's an excellent explanation of "validation". If you are someone else who feels able could work up an introduction to the Michael Teachings for Newbies so that they won't be terrified the moment they start to read posts on the list or the newsletter (when it's up and running), it would be of great help. Of course it would need to be short and sweet, if that's possible. Jeanne Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 07:53:32 +0800 At 09:26 PM 4/11/98 -0000, Dave wrote:
>This is a fascinating paragraph that in capsule form, neatly summarizes the
But to many who are on the 6th level, particularly of Mature Age, karmic drive can feel very intensive and they can feel exactly as you described, "rigid set of occurences that leaves us powerless and in a position of little control". :-) It is no wonder people have this idea, especially in the illusion of separateness that is the physical plane. J J Tan Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 00:55:32 +0000 Judy wrote:
.........................................................................
Not so, IMO. A Course in Miracles (http://www.acim.org) was channeled, purportedly at least, from the infinite soul who was/is Jesus and presumably is of the higher planes. The Course itself was channeled by a woman with a taste for old literature, so the text is steeped in obscure language (more so than Michael!). However, there have been subsequent channelings from Jesus (a.k.a. Jeshua), by far the best and clearest of which is presented in the book ‘Dialogue on Awakening’ by Tom Carpenter. This is probably the book I would want to have with me on a desert island. I have met Tom a couple of times and he is one of the most enlightened people I know. PS- I love Conversations With God, though I agree it’s probably coming from the mid-Causal plane. Notice also how it's turned into a successful multi-million-dollar industry... but at what price? B a r r y Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 00:57:12 +0000 Jeanne wrote:
.........................................................................
I like the idea, and I happen to be a scholar with web-design skills, but not as talented as Christine Daae, my sister-in-law (who wrote: “What it needs is people willing to type up the material and turn it into HTML, and ideally someone to code a search engine of it all! With enough volunteers, it should be possible.” Are you volunteering, Christine??? I will if you will!). I’ve personally been compiling my own ‘mini-encyclopedia’ of Michael concepts (in my own words) for private use; this could also easily be turned into a webpage if anyone’s interested. Jeane also wrote:
.........................................................................
There isn’t one truth ‘out there’ because it’s IN HERE, in you. The core of you is universal Truth, and you can certainly ‘grasp’ it. Words cannot convey it except indirectly, symbolically. But you can experience it directly as your Self. Otherwise, I quite agree with everything you say Jeanne! In a similar vein, J J Tan wrote:
.........................................................................
Oh THAT old chestnut. How can you conclude that “there is no Truth” if we are all perceiving facets of it? IMHO we can’t *perceive* the Truth itself because we ARE the Truth, and we can only be aware of our true nature directly, by consciously being who we are. This reminds me of a Quaker meeting I once went to out of curiosity. Quakers are nice enough, and the Quaker path is more genuine than most, but there was an intellectual discussion going on about the nature of “truth” (only between the men -- the women had left to make the tea). They had all agreed that there is no absolute Truth, only the personal truth of each individual. So I asked them, “but what if YOU ARE the absolute Truth?” I wasn’t invited back. How’s this for a koan: Is it *really* true that there is no Truth? I mean really, ABSOLUTELY true? B a r r y Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 00:57:57 +0000 Mike H wrote:
.........................................................................
Here we go: Truth is something you recognize within yourself. The classic self-realization is “I am”, the recognition that one really exists in an absolute way. Let’s say you’ve just had an “I am” realization. Now take the words “I am” and get everyone else to repeat them out loud in the hope that they will *perceive* themselves in a way that agrees with Truth as you’ve experienced it. Punish or excommunicate anyone who questions the words, no matter how much it doesn’t feel right for them. Promote those who go along with it, no matter how ignorant they really are. Now you’ve got yourself a dogma. The Michael teachings are are representation of Truth which would become a pointless dogma if we were to insist on acceptance of certain words rather than seek the Truth to which they point. B a r r y Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 20:55:00 -0500 Dave Wrote:
> Yes, I had thought Ken, like me, was 5th entity, and in the same cadre. I
Sigh, yes, we all have our crosses to bear don't we. We poor little Teddy
Bears. We look to the Michaels and say "What have we done????????" Love and uproarious Laughter (and I don't know him, do you?) Jeanne Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 22:03:10 -0500 Just wanted to let all of you know that I've been printing out the messages from everyone who wants to participate in the Newsletter. I'm going to go over all the ideas and post them for you to decide what you want and how you want it. The only thing that I personally want to see in the newsletter (above all else) is an opening statement for the Newbies and Lori's idea of having her channel an astrological type forecast based on the Roles. If anyone who has not yet posted to the list or to me or Lori, wants to be involved let us know. I think that rather than being like the list itself, it will generate new and fascinating topics for the list. And to all of those who have volunteered, YES, YES, YES. We need and want you. Love and Laughter and the sweat of my brow :-)) Jeanne 5th Level Old Sage/Priest ET; Discrimination; Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 20:44:03 -0700 Jeanne wrote:
> Sigh, yes, we all have our crosses to bear don't we. We poor little Teddy
Well hey I'd be proud to have you all as honorary members of MY entity!! I guess I got a little thing for big teddy bears.... :-)))) TTFN! Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 20:59:29 -0700 Jeanne wrote:
> Just wanted to let all of you know that I've been printing out
Oh boy--look at me--I volunteered to get totally out of my comfort zone and do something I never do--forcasts. Will they be accurate? My scholar wants to know. Can I let that attachment go? We'll see. It'll either be really neat or really cheesy. Dave--won't you write something for us??? I'll give you some of my cheese...from the forcasts.... (yes bribery gets me anything--it's the real key to abundance.) ;-p Thank you Jeanne for taking the helm on this! It should be a lot of fun! BTW: Regarding that Emily merger with Michael--I think you guys got it all wrong!! I think it's not Emily, it's really MLE, an acronym! Betcha can't guess what that stands for! Lori Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 00:35:12 EDT And maybe, if it has been covered in the past, please do tell and I'll search the archives. Has Michael ever said anything about twins? I mean, I would guess that twins must at least be TCs, yes? Twins came to mind after the short discussion of Jesus and cloning...it seems that lots of people out there (like my mom, how frightening!) think that if a clone is made it for some reason would have the same soul of a person. I mean, perhaps I am being naive in a biological sense, but it is just like identical twins, yes? Am I being arrogant and missing something here? (yes yes and I must also admit I get very upset when people seem to think that evolution means that we have no souls...personally, I find science to be very enlightening and inspiring in a spiritual kinda way!) Regardless, this got me thinking about what it means to be a twin. Is there anyone on the list that is a twin (frat. or pat.) who has had their overleaves done for themselves and their twin? What has Michael said about that kind of relationship? Do we each probably "try out" being twins with our et at some point in our grand cycle? I imagine we must, yes? Thanks for listening to yet another silly question by me! My my I can't ever stop asking questions...that's why everyone hated me in school! Are there other scholars out there who have that problem? Is it an issue of maturity? Probably is, to a certain extent. Mature soul...wanting to talk talk talk to people but being a scholar and wanting to know know know... byebye! Kris Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:19:29 +0800 At 03:59 AM 4/13/98 -0000, Mike H wrote:
>> One aspect that I found interesting was that this "god" pointed out that it
IMO, whoever wrote that we cannot communicate directly to the Source is erred. Kenneth Broom wrote very nicely about TELLING the Tao just recently, so that's the communication. :-) On the other hand, we may not be able to understand anything the Tao has to tell us, but that is not the same as "cannot communicate directly". :-) Regards. J J Tan Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 04:02:47 -0700
| From: Barbara Taylor
Uh, huh. See recent posts WRT excluded channels.
| There exists (for some people) an illusion of separation. Other
But that illusion is very real *on* the physical plane, and that is where we are so we must deal with it.
| Rather than criticize what doesn't fit *your* picture of
Criticism can lead to awareness of a problem, necessary to effect meaningful change.
| The primary purpose of this teaching is to learn acceptance of
Right. And if Old souls, especially channels of those teachings, carry on as they do, where does that leave us younger students? Heck of a role model, wouldn't you say? Cheers, Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 04:03:11 -0700
| From: Jody B
What does one's point of view about something have to do with accuracy in channeling? Either it's accurate or it isn't. It is to be expected that, in any group of people, there will be different views, opinions, positions, whatever. But a channeling is supposed to be the process of receiving information from a discarnate source. So any views or opinions that enter the channeling process are distortions that undermine the value of the material received.
| So when I read all these posts I read them as a musician might, looking
As above - of course not everyone will agree (on about any subject you care to bring up!). But more consistency (accuracy) in channelings would lessen the tendency to disagree WRT the teachings IMO.
| Dick, I'm a Mature Scholar too, and my work (book editing) consists of
I would tend to agree with your assessment. Cheers, Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 04:03:30 -0700
| From: Jeanne H
Hey, be glad we're not Sages! Cheers, Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 04:03:49 -0700
| From: Dave
You may pity their personality, but remember their experience is by choice. Their essence needs that experience or they wouldn't be there.
| I think you would be instinctively remembering those days in your past
Of course, but *at the time* it was a needed experience. So it is not amiss IMO to realize that the same holds true for others. At the risk of over-simplification (which it is), you might look at it this way - we are all on a trip to Disneyland. Just because I rode the Teacup ride yesterday and want to ride the Matterhorn today, should I pity other people who just got to the park and want to ride the Teacups?
| I certainly find organized religion unappetizing.
Probably true of most older souls.
| Seriously, you made a good point. Everyone has their own set of lessons
No question about that - I got sick on those blasted Teacups! (Just kidding. :^) Cheers, Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 04:04:09 -0700
| From: ted fontaine
Boy I'll bet that's cozy! Cheers, Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 04:04:30 -0700 Kenneth,
| From: Kenneth Broom
This is for me, by far, the most useful information you have posted. Your Scholar is definitely showing here. Thank you. Cheers, Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 04:04:51 -0700
| From: Jody B
No. God is the consciousness of the universe.
| That would imply to me that God would know itself to be part of
Apparently it has been done. Cheers, [--------------------<*>--------------------] The Tao gives birth to the universes. New universes come into being --- RUOW = "Right Use of Will" / http://www.Summerjoy.com/RightUse.html In marking quoted material, the marks text represent italics. The following table shows nominal markings for each source - === Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 04:05:10 -0700
| From: Barry
Not yet.(§1)
| PS- I love Conversations With God, though I agree it’s probably coming
Not if those who say it was channeled from the author's essence are to be believed. If one is incarnating, one's essence cannot be mid-causal. Cheers, [--------------------<*>--------------------] §1 - »Jesus, as now experienced by those in this time frame who connectwith him directly, is mid-astral simply because that is what works. His entity is recombining on the upper astral, but he works mostly with the physical plane from the mid-astral in order to give better access to those who are physical. Soon this will no longer be necessary.« [JS1.356]
--- JS1 = »The Journey of Your Soul« V1 / Shepherd Hoodwin In marking quoted material, the marks »text« represent italics. The following table shows nominal markings for each source - JS1 = Author »Edited Michael« === Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 07:24:38 EDT Lori, Have you tried the new PBS show "Teletubbies"? My 18 mo old is crazy about it. Martha Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 23:25:43 +0800 At 04:58 PM 4/13/98 -0000, ted fontaine wrote: <snip>
>Most of us use most of the overalls at some time. For example, there are
<the rest snipped> Well, I would like to comment just on this point... being that this is something I mentioned before, about "changing Goal"... Having more flexibility with certain parts of our overleaves (as described so nicely by Ted Fontaine), I believe that it is possible to change all of our overleaves that we chose for one particular life-time. Shepherd mentioned that we chose our set of overleaves for a particular purpose. I can confirm (validate) that I am most efficient (pragmatic -- that being my Attitude... so that doesn't really say much) when I'm using my current overleaves. On the other hand, as mentioned in several books, and described so nicely above, we do make use of other types (energy) of overleaves, depending on circumstances. On reflection (hind-sight), I think we "stick to default" when we are otherwise "unprovoked", or "unconscious".... or in our habitual patterns. If we become really conscious of a particular moment in time, we will then be able to choose what type of action/reaction (energy of overleaves) to use. e.g. When we're being slapped in the face, do we choose Reserve Mode? Or do we choose Passion Mode? Power Mode? :-) Or Chief Feature of Arrogance? Martyrdom? Guess nobody functions this way, eh? :-) I suppose the Role can't be change even if we consciously try to, but that's just what "I suppose". :-) As for Soul Age, that is even more mutable, especially for older souls (like us). We can act (manifest) a Young age, or Baby age, or anything "younger" than we currently are. It is no wonder channeling information at different times can get different overleaves. In Journey of a Soul, Shepherd also mentioned about reading overleaves from akashic records and from the person (aura, energy). He also mentioned that reading from aura is a lot faster, and in our present-day Impatient society, that would be what most clients (and newbies?) prefer. And down goes the accuracy. Well, that's it... I have nothing more to add. :-) (how about that for a "profound ending"... really unbecoming of a Sage) Regards. J J Tan Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:45:55 +0000 Fellow students, I had a sleepless night recently trying to piece together the new casting info from Caris and Ed. Finally I sat down to visualize it on paper. It took shape quite well, and helped me understand the casting system a lot better. I'm so pleased with myself that I've done a web page illustrating the model, with '3D' diagrams AND a full table showing correspondences between 'raw number' and casting position within the new model. All are welcome to view the results and comment: http://www.michaelteachings.com/visualizing_new_casting.htm B a r r y Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:29:25 EDT In a message dated 98-04-14 16:06:46 EDT, you wrote:
Just because I rode the Teacup ride yesterday and want to ride the Matterhorn today,
You should pity the people who sit in the lunch that I left splattered inside the Teacups. Dave - an annual pass holder to Disneyland. :-) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:48:50 -0500 Dick Hein wrote: ----snip----
> Hey, be glad we're not Sages!
Hey Dick, I resemble that!!! Watch it, or us sages will gang up on you and tell you so many funny jokes you'll cry!!! (Boredom or laughter is your call.) John M Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 17:58:12 EDT In a message dated 98-04-14 03:29:13 EDT, Jeanne writes:
If anyone who has not yet posted to the list or to me or
I guess I'm confused about what the format of this newsletter will be. Will this be an organized collection of articles by regular contributors, along with special features, or just a free-for-all like the list? Will it be sent on the list itself? Will it be distributed monthly, weekly, daily, or just random? I don't understand the web site connection. If it's a web site, it's not a newsletter. I might have missed an earlier post that described the nature of the newsletter, so somebody fill me in. Dave Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 17:59:42 EDT In a message dated 98-04-14 04:21:32 EDT, Lori writes:
Dave--won't you write something for us??? I'll give you some of my
Damn...now I have to earn my cheese. No fair....:-( ;-p Dave - All typos are the sole responsibility of my cat. Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:46:26 -0500 Some of you have asked if the Newsletter would be just like the list and I thought I should address that and a few other issues. The main reason I thought (with some help from a few others) we needed a newsletter was for the purpose of giving Michael Students something with a structure. And forgive me darlings, but our posts are generally anything but structured. LOL. But we have many members who never post anything to the list and we often get Newbies who are quite possibly given short shrift (unintentionally) when they don't understand what is going on. Example, coming in in the midst of a messy, Michael Math discussion. A newsletter that contains 1) basic information for newbies, (where to find the Quizzes, etc.); 2) good indepth pieces such as Ken, Brin, Gloria, Barry and some of you others put out occasionally (i.e., definition of Essence); that give all of us an opportunity for reflection and more meat for discussion on the list; 3) a monthly Channeling from various Michael Channels who are interested in contributing (gives all of us a feel for our different channels, which we don't have now unless we visit a lot of Websites, or have a channeling done for us personally - and I would add that those of us away from large metropolitan areas don't have this one-on-one opportunity very often); 4) Some whimsey, humor, poetry, individual pieces that members wish to contribute, which gives us an opportunity to know each other better; and 5) a Book or Tape Review that would give enough of the flavor of the item to let someone who hadn't purchased it, decide whether or not they wanted/needed that particular book or tape and if it was at their study level. If some of you have other ideas, please let's have them. This should be for us, about us, and most importantly by us. All of the information we get comes from the Channels. This is an opportunity for the "Students" to take some responsibility for strengthening the "Michael Teachings" which we believe in. Be political, call it a "Grass Roots Movement". (I'm waiting for Thumbless Dave's response to that!) Also Barry and Christine - HELPPPPP! I know nothing about HTML. But Lori is supposed to check with Rene regarding our doing this on Spiritweb. If that doesn't work out and we need a Website, I do have something in mind. Okay - responses please. Love and Laughter and now reading "Newsletters for Dummies"! Jeanne 5th Level Old Sage/Priest ET; Discrimination; Date: Wed, 15 Apr 98 00:22:44 UT Okay, I'm curious. If the 5th entity is teddy bears, what is the 2nd entity? Jody B Date: Wed, 15 Apr 98 01:21:48 UT Dick wrote:
"What does one's point of view about something have to do with accuracy in channeling? Either it's accurate or it isn't. It is to be expected that, in any group of people, there will be different views, opinions, positions, whatever. But a channeling is supposed to be the process of receiving information from a discarnate source. So any views or opinions that enter the channeling process are distortions that undermine the value of the material received."
I'm wondering how we can ever know if a channeling is "accurate." If 10 channels agreed on a detail and one did not, I would not assume that the 10 who agreed were right. What if one channel had managed to clear himself or herself of all interference or influences and the others had not? IMHO the fact that we have many channels and they don't always agree forces us to do exactly what Michael said in MTM: validate what is said for ourselves. For me that means checking it out with my gut (a/k/a my essence) and seeing if it rings true or not. And then I can only say it's true for me, not for anyone else. As far as the value of the material: I value the Michael teachings for the quantum leaps they have allowed me to make in understanding myself and what it is I'm doing here. If I got nothing else from the teachings from now on, or if new information came through that contradicted everything that had been said so far, I'd still spend the rest of my life being grateful for how I've been helped by the basic concepts. Shakespeare's overleaves don't matter to me; I didn't know the guy, I was in Japan at the time. (I have a pragmatic attitude, can you tell?). (I'm having so much fun here! Haven't had the opportunity to debate "the things that really matter" since college. My scholarly self is just reveling in seeing how many "sides" there can be!) -----<--{@ Jody Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:45:43 -0600 Wow! What an incredible job you've done! We've got homework now, studying the new casting model. I understand the drive you experienced, the incredible NEED to UNDERSTAND this thing, to bring it into the dimensional language of our realm, where it has MEANING, and provides visual TOOLS whereby we may begin to grasp something of the order and design of the Tao. Uh, did I get carried away here? Gloria, a/k/a Geebee Geebs and Jibes Date: Tue, 14 Apr 98 19:07:09 -0700
>Hi all,
Mike, I heard that at one of Steve C's classes but I thought the name was Lydia. As I recall they did not get along. Ted Fontaine Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 21:05:52 -0500 Barry, That is fantastic. I don't understand all of it, but it's starting to make some sense. The curved triangles will take some more study for me. But I'm amazed at what you've done. Thank you. Jeanne Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 00:36:57 EDT In a message dated 98-04-14 23:02:49 EDT, you write:
If some of you have other ideas, please let's have them. This
For starters, I have two quick suggestions: - I think the site should have downloadable GIF's of all the female Michael students. Of course, the photos must be taken of each prospective student without the spiritually confining restrictions of their clothing. Then we'll rate them on a drool scale of one drop thru ten. However, long sinewy strands of glistening saliva, that make a determination of such a drop ratio impossible, will earn the stimulating female in question a free plane ticket to Dave's place of residence, so that she can assist him in battling those physical plane detriments that sometimes result from a separation with the Tao. Yes, this would be good work indeed. - If current technology allows, a special "Scratch & Sniff" site would also be stimulating. Aren't you dying to know what each role smells like, and if there are distinctions between one role to the next? Of course, I think the most telling aromatic example would be a S&S specimen of the fecal matter from each soul age. Aren't you dying to quantify such statements like, "Hi, I'm a 7th level old soul, and my shit don't stank!" Dave ;-) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 02:44:54 EDT Dear Barry -- Good work, so far. One thing is truly amazing, though. You have the whole thing 90 degrees different in orientation. It really twists my mind to look at it.I hope this will make it easier to visualize. I hope this very narrow layout displays properly in e-mail. Most pipes we see are round, but for this one, our model has three flat sides. Imagine columns 1,2, and 3 are the three sides (Truth, Love, Beauty, whatever). Each symbol X is one block of 49 cells. All the X's are one entity. The + and _ symbols are blocks of 49 of the entities above and below. Do you see how the X's are staggered? If this diagram below were on a big enough sheet of paper you could fold it with two folds so that the edges touch. The two outside edges are joined so you have a triangular cross section as below. 123 Here "M" is the middle or the hollow part inside the "pipe". Each 1,2, or 3 is a column of 7 X 7 = 49 cells extending into the third dimension (into your computer screen). The actual cross section might well be curved rather than flat. You could follow this interior space all the way around the "energy ring" of 12 cadres of 7 entities. People are said to have important connections with the two others in their corresponding position on the other two sides. These energetic links pass from their backs through the interior space to the backs of these two special cadence mates. Does this make it fit together better? All the best, Ed
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 03:03:15 EDT Very macabre and spellbinding! This is the kind of creeping horror that will curl your hair. It's a tale that goes straight through your heart like rats' fangs. Definitely a sundown feast that won't end until the chill of dawn. I'm looking forward to further entrys. Keep me posted. ;-) Dave Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 03:33:24 -0400 20 Reasons Why Chocolate Is Better Than Sex 1) You can GET chocolate. 2) "If you love me you'll swallow that" has real meaning with chocolate. 3) Chocolate satisfies even when it has gone soft. 4) You can safely have chocolate while you are driving. 5) You can make chocolate last as long as you want it to. 6) You can have chocolate even in front of your mother. 7) If you bite the nuts too hard the chocolate won't mind. 8) Two people of the same sex can have chocolate without being called nasty names. 9) The word "commitment" doesn't scare off chocolate. 10) You can have chocolate on top of your workbench/desk during working hours without upsetting your co-workers. 11) You can ask a stranger for chocolate without getting your face slapped. 12) You don't get hairs in your mouth with chocolate. 13) With chocolate there's no need to fake it. 14) Chocolate doesn't make you pregnant. 15) You can have chocolate at any time of the month. 16) Good chocolate is easy to find. 17) You can have as many kinds of chocolate as you can handle. 18) You are never too young or too old for chocolate. 19) When you have chocolate it does not keep your neighbors awake. 20) With chocolate size doesn't matter. -- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:19:11 -0400 Barry wrote:
> Fellow students,
Great work Barry, you deserve to be pleased with yourself. For those entities that have more than 1,029 fragments, does your model repeat itself after every 1029 fragments? The Michael entity has 1,050 fragments, and my entity has 2,185 fragments. -- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:41:59 EDT In a message dated 98-04-14 23:42:44 EDT, Gloria writes:
Wow! What an incredible job you've done! We've got homework now,
and here I just liked the pretty colors....;-p Dave Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 07:07:09 EDT You may have already said this... but, it sounds like it will be more of a
teaching manual for the newbies... I for one, need it. Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:54:18 +0800 Barry wrote on 14/4/98 1:01 am:
> How’s this for a koan: Is it *really* true that there is no Truth? I
Wow! It really looks like (a) I phrased my words wrongly, or (b) I am too "beginner" in my perception. Thanks to all who responded directly and indirectly to my post. Now is my time to digest them. :-) J J Tan Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:55:03 +0800 Dick Hein wrote on 14/4/98 12:01 pm:
> Right. And if Old souls, especially channels of those teachings,
Well, I don't know about others, but I usually leave "role modeling" for Baby Souls. Do you need a role model to follow or imitate? I hope you don't. And I hope what you wrote about was out of the moment's reactions, not what you need deeply. Anyway, I think there are some religions that are particularly good with providing and requring role models. J J Tan Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:55:40 +0800 Dick Hein wrote on 14/4/98 12:02 pm:
>What does one's point of view about something have to do with accuracy in
As far as my current knowledge goes, you wll need to become a Nagual like Don Juan and Carcos Castaneda, to lose self-importance, so that any "channeled" information is no filtered in any way, conciously or not. Do we have any nagual channeler here? :-) J J Tan Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 06:28:52 -0700
>What does one's point of view about something have to do with accuracy in
The point of view is the filter through which the information comes. That is why information varies so much from one channel to another both in flavor and in actual information. The overleaves are simply an obvious area of variance. But the information varies from channel to channel in lots of ways. One person may be interested in numerology separate from Michael Math. Another person may not give much credence to numerology. The two will channel differently on these aspects. A lot of channels don't like to channel the math element at all or if you ask questions about it will simply say they don't like dealing with the math. Channeling is not simply like picking up a telephone and listening to information from another plane. It is information filtered through the mind, vocabulary, habits, attitudes and understanding of a particular person. If the personality of the person is very pronounced, the channeling will usually be filtered through that personality and that filter may be very marked. If through inner work, the fragment is able to let go of the personality more and become more neutral, the channeling may well be less influenced by their own nature, the nature itself can become thinner, so to speak. But that residual color and style will be there to some degree. We can see that from this list. (In India they speak of this at length. They call the filters vasanas. They have information, a kind of spiritual science, that speaks of all of this in great detail. Probably from some of our entity and cadre mates....:) For me a good example of how this works is the current understanding of parallels. While we are in bodies, in a plane where time is important, we have a tendency to think of parallels as endless 3-dimensional spinoffs. To me, this clearly feels like an understanding that serves the personality who looks at the idea of parallels from the point of view of a body moving through time. From the point of view of another plane, they might speak of parallels meaning something quite different, that interpreted through our filters and understanding on this plane comes out sounding like these endless spinoffs, with endless bodies living endless variations and on and on into complexity. From the point of view of a causal plane where time is simultaneous, a parallel might be true, say, just from the aspect of the mind. Each moment there is a seed thought, the awareness might spin out into thought as far as one wanted/needed to experience. That itself might be the level of reality, it might be of a fine vibration like instantaneous thought, having a kind of reality without the necessity of having endless 3-dimensional bodies actually living in 3-dimensional worlds. Regardless of what the actual truth may be for a moment, you can see how the understanding and point of view will affect the information. Perhaps in this case the current standard view of parallels might hold sway for 20, 30, 100 years, and then in the case of any shift in understanding, there might be a realization of a more subtle and accurate truth like any of the changes we have in our understanding of science. The fact of how it works doesn't change, only our perception of that fact. So when people considered the earth flat, it didn't change the shape of the planet we live on, only the shape of people's current perceptions of that truth. A channel is no different. There is gradually expansion in understanding with leaps now and then, but a channel won't be able to express what they have no conception of at all, no basis for understanding. That's why some channels -- say with medical background now or at some time previous -- can channel about precise medical information while others will focus on areas they know more about. I do believe, in itself, focus on any area, known or unknown will begin to bring in knowledge, information and understanding about that area. That is how we learn. And through focus we can attune ourselves to vibrational information and open ourselves up to new things. But it still comes through the filter of the person to a greater or lesser degree. And without a doubt the degree to which we may believe this is happening is going to vary too :). I want to add with this that what we can understand is often greater than we might imagine. There is such a thing as instantaneous knowing. A whole body of information can enter into you in a flash and then it can take years to bring it into form. Or it can take some time to put that understanding that came in an instant into words to express to others. This is a good place to mention that information can come through in a lot of different ways. Perhaps the further the plane is from our own, the more the information will come through simply in energy that requires being translated into words. Being able to attune to that energy is itself transformative. I know some want just the facts please, but it's not so simple especially as the information is newly coming in and our understanding and vocabulary is expanding to take in new models, which can only ever be approximations useful to understand facets of the reality itself. For those just beginning, there is lots of information that is accurate enough to be useful in adding greatly to our understanding of the world and our interrelationships. Why people are different and why you are who you are. Just at that level, the Michael information has been marvelous. I'm sure it will continue to be fine tuned, adjusted, corrected, but that doesn't take away from how powerfully it affects the lives of those who've come across this information. And how powerful the tools are that we've already been given especially the more we use them. Maybe the point of view itself is the difference between our plane and another. Because all the planes are here simultaneously and it is as our awareness expands that we become aware of them. Best to all, Brin Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 00:18:14 +0800 At 07:49 PM 4/14/98 -0000, Barry wrote:
>Fellow students,
Somehow I can't access that URL, got a message that says "does not exist". Is there anything I'm missing? Regards. J J Tan Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:06:28 EDT In a message dated 98-04-15 03:04:24 EDT, Dave writes:
Very macabre and spellbinding! This is the kind of creeping horror that will
Ooooops....I meant to send the above paragraph to a mailing list about fiction. Sorry...I guess it was more tired than I thought. ;-p Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 00:42:44 +0200 Dick Hein wrote:
>| Doesn't Michael say - I think through Shepherd - that "God" is the
Actually I don't think we can expect a large and somewhat loaded term like God to be used the same way in all channeling. In some contexts Michael has spoken of prayer as being directed to one's own essence, which would make the essence God... This also fits in with my own understanding of essence. At our last study group session here Michael, addressing the question of the exact meaning of "false personality", after discussing the term a bit said, "false personality is not really a scientific term however, we would caution against trying to make an iron clad definition that may be used in all contexts. Channeling doesn't work that way." In other contexts in my channeling Michael has cautioned against using channeled teachings as if they were a new bible. As tempting as it is to search for a source of certainty I don't think the Michael material can be used concordantly. Dick also wrote:
>Right. And if Old souls, especially channels of those teachings,
I think you're misunderstanding the function of Soul Age. Old souls are working on different issues, or perceiving from a different perspective than, say, mature souls, but this doesn't make them any more "advanced" spiritually nor closer to perceiving the Tao. Mature souls may be much better role models and much more in touch with the loving heart of the Tao than old souls. And because issues of relationship are so accented in the mature cycle mature souls may be even more in tune with the meaning of the Michael teachings, since so much of the teaching is focused on relational issues. So I'd suggest you may be the role model rather than needing to seek it in old souls. Peace, Katherine E. D. The real problem is; Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:22:42 -0500 First I read your post, and then I read Kenneth's about Chocolate and I have to wonder what's in your drinking water?????? Poor babies! Love and Laughter and shipping Hershey Bars to Dave & Ken :-)))))))) Jeanne
> For starters, I have two quick suggestions:
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 98 16:50:46 -0700
>Dick Hein wrote on 14/4/98 12:01 pm:
Dear Dick & JJ and All Others The thought popped in as I was reading the above that there could well be a greater support circle with the Michael Teachings (As far as I am personally concerned there is a greater support circle). The Michael Teaching like any other group may also have a support circle and all channels/students/teachers occupy a place within the support circle. For those of you new to support circle positions they are as follows: Love How different the child position may look from the discipline position, the healer position from the anchor position, and the humour position from the compassion position. Yours -- Ted Date: Wed, 15 Apr 98 16:50:57 -0700
>From: Jody B
Pound Puppies (Just Kidding) Ted Fontaine Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 19:53:47 -0500 PJ wrote:
> You may have already said this... but, it sounds like it will be more of a
No PJ, I was just stating that I felt there should be an abbreviated, basic explanation of "Michael" and then information regarding the links to enable Newbies to find out more about themselves. I think there should be something for everyone or it's not a Newsletter. I've just had the feeling over the past few months that many come here not understanding what "The Michaels" are about and needing a little direction and not getting it. I also believe that if someone comes searching here, chances are their Essence guided them here and they shouldn't be just sluffed off, but should be allowed a little space and knowledge so that they can decide for themselves if they want to learn more. We have such an advantage over many of the souls who have only recently begun the search. If there's no resonance they should move on, but they should have the opportunity to understand a little of what we are about before they try to make that decision. Love Jeanne Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:43:26 EDT In a message dated 98-04-15 18:45:02 EDT, you wrote:
<< Dick also wrote:
I would like to think that no soul age has a particular monopoly on a loving heart. And I disagree that the Michael teachings are structured around relational issues. I've always thought that the core of the teachings revolved around the development of our own personal evolution? Regarding role models, I agree that mature souls are much more adept in the mastery of certain facets that can lead to them appearing well-adjusted in the physical game, while old souls tend to tire of sweating the little stuff, that from their perspective, seemingly drowns them in an endless myriad of pointless details. Thus, the mature soul becomes the master of all the integral components of life, reciting its dramas and playing its arias like a great Shakesperian actor or a master musician, while conversely, the old soul pulls away from such turmoil, aging like a fine wine, and focusing on the big screen version of existence, and the few spiritual truths it may contain. Of course, my scenario would bestow neither soul age as the most suitable role model, unless the game of life involves being what appears to be the most well-adjusted in terms of societal standards. But that's not really the nature of the game, is it? Nevertheless, I still believe your final assessment holds many elements of truth: We should never under estimate are own power in accessing the vast knowledge and truth which resides in all of us. And we can all be our own role models if we are simply not afraid to look within, regardless of soul age. Returning to the original quote that Katherine addressed, I want to add that I think the main thrust of Dick's comment was concerning channels, and how ironic it is that despite their ability to channel wonderful insight from the Causal plane, they sometimes fail to practice what they teach. That's not a judgement call, just my interpretation of what I think Dick was trying to say, and I'm sure he also meant it as an observation, and not a judgement. Regardless, it's an interesting point, and one the shows that we're all coming from the same place, with the same issues, and that hierachy means nothing. Dave Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 19:40:32 -0700
>Here we go: Truth is something you recognize within yourself.
Barry, I think the show is misleading in that regard. Mike H Date: Thu, 16 Apr 98 02:31:22 UT Kenneth wrote: "my entity has 2,185 fragments." OOOh, Kenneth . . . I never met anyone with such a large . . .entity! ------------<--{@ Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 20:10:52 -0700
>Right. And if Old souls, especially channels of those teachings,
Actually, Old Souls are terrific role models for that "don't give a f@*!" attitude toward life. Anne H Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 23:44:45 EDT Jumping on Ken's chocolate band wagon.... The Zen master steps up to the hot dog stand and says: The hot dog vendor fixes a hot dog and hands it to the Zen "Where's my change?" asks the Zen master. And the hot dog vendor responds, "Change must come from within." Dave Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:32:54 -0700
> A lot of channels don't like to channel the math element at all or if you ask
I have wondered if a less mathematical view of Michael Math might be to
look at the structure of the fragments within entities as a grouping of colors
where each color represents a role. Isn't that what the Michael Math is all
about, the additional overleaf influence we get from the position we have in our
entity? The colors would represent the different frequencies where the red end
of the rainbow would relate to more grounded roles and the blue end would relate
to the less grounded roles. Red is lower in frequency than the other colors and
blue is the highest frequency as would be seen on an optical color chart. Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 00:36:50 EDT I would add a couple of points to what Dave says in following up Katherine about soul ages and the Michael teachings, etc. 1) Michael said right at the beginning "This is a teaching for old souls" (or very similar words) in MFM, though I can't locate it exactly at the moment. They made that point IMHO to distinguish the Michael teachings from innumerable mature soul teachings available in this era. (All manner of stuff to do with psychology, relationships, spirituality, and "quality of life" issues.) "Old soul teachings" I believe could be described as anything that includes the concept of soul ages, reincarnation, metaphysics, and the large- scale view of the universe and its workings. 2) The difference there is that mature soul corresponds with 4th or heart chakra and old soul with 5th or throat, which is about communication, teaching, wisdom, etc. I don't believe the books mention it, but the soul ages correspond very clearly with the chakras. Each soul age is about the gathering of experience and learning of lesons pertaining to the area of life connecting with a particular chakra. It might seem that both mature and old are about love, opening the heart, acceptance, agape, but there is a difference. Mature souls are developing that experience while old souls have already "graduated" from it and are not focused on redoing that school grade, so to speak. Old souls go on to formulate a broader knowledge of everything that includes the mature soul understanding as a subset, while mature souls don't really have the old soul understanding as a part of their own. Old souls are supposed to be able, if they choose, to be detached from "soap opera" in order to see and deal with or teach about a larger, "more "global" universe. (Often mature souls regard this detachment as "coldness".) Of course it's common for both mature and old souls to not be manifesting their true soul age and to have plenty of issues, drama, or interpersonal "growth" to work through on the way to being able to love easily and readily. Mature souls will usually learn to master loving with a relatively small group of people, while older old souls learn to be in a space of unconditional love for anyone and everyone. 3) Re judging quality of channels by how well they put it into action in their own lives...no -- imperfect correlation. I would definitely hold a "spiritual teacher" strictly to that standard. A channel is just doing a cosmic job of being a vehicle for someone to communicate through; usually by prior agreement, and the channel's ability to channel well is just an ability, not necessarily connected to how he or she lives life. In fact I'd rate most of the channels I have met (a couple of dozen) as not up to the "spiritual teacher" standard, but so what? I'd expect channels to live up to a standard of integrity with regard to their channeling process. Lots of good posts lately Dave, Ken, Brin, others. The old list is bubbling. All the best, Ed Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 00:53:10 EDT Dear Mike -- About the overleaves corresponding to colors....in some way they are a vibration like sound or color and each person is like a little orchestra of many tones. The harmonies and disharmonies between different vibrations have an effect on how people's "chemistry" works. It isn't a continuum from 1 through 7, though. The impression I get from all the channeled material so far is that all the overleaves correspond to the whole numbers 1 through 7; no 1.38962 or 5.064's, thank God. I asked Seth Cohn once when he was channeling just "what" the overleaves were in terms of vibration and also, what was it that vibrated. He said, I believe, that the overleaves were energy vibrations and that they had different wave characteristics. But he couldn't easily put into words what these characteristics are. Each number had a different vibratory pattern and a being who could see the energy could be able to tell the different number vibrations apart. Maybe Seth can come in and elaborate on this???? All the best, Ed Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 05:02:05 EDT In a message dated 98-04-15 19:52:01 EDT, Ted writes:
How different the child position may look from the discipline position,
Uh, Ted...you left out the missionary position. ;-p Dave Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 08:17:28 -0400
And the hot dog vendor responds, "Change must come from within."
Applause from those of us lurking in the gallery!!! Gina (Mnemosyne) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 98 15:29:13 UT Well, I know what position Dave occupies! By the way Dave, I thought your "rat's teeth through the heart" apparent response to Barry's drawings of the castings was you expressing delight and approval in your own idiom. -------<--{@ Jody Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:46:20 -0400 Jody B wrote:
> Kenneth wrote: "my entity has 2,185 fragments."
Rat proud ta meetcha ma'am. Howse about we mosey over to the Overleaf Lounge and talk some scholar stuff over a cupla agape punches. Actually entity 5 describes themselves as a High Accomplishment entity (or words like that), meaning that they want to accomplish as much as possible during their physical sojourn here, so they somehow doubled up on their fragments. This includes folks like Oscar Wilde, Johann Pestalozzi, Voltaire, and Beethoven. --- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:33:01 +0800 So far, I have yet to read a lot of information from Michael with regard to the teachings from Don Juan and Castaneda. It is understandable that not many are interested... so I wonder if it is OK for me to ask for any information (or validation) here via the channelers. Well, I'll shoot anyway... hope someone is kind enough to pick it up... I have read from various postings that in some workshops, Castaneda was reported to mention an aspect of teaching, or phenomena, which they called "cyclicity". That human beings are "cyclic beings", and our "energy body" (or the luminous spheres) are connected to certain other human beings in a string/chain. It was described like beads in a strand. That people on the same strand (connected cyclically) have very similar external appearances (like family members, though no direct relationship) and also very similar personality traits (and also "energetically"). Castaneda and his "nagual woman", Carol Tiggs, reported that in some of their "dreamings", they traveled to some other worlds where other people there recognized them as different persons. This sounds like "parallel universe" to me, but that does not explain the cases of >this universe< people being very similar for being on the "same strand". Actually Castaneda and his group of people proclaimed (according to their "seeing") that reincarnation does not exist, and explain the phenomena of past-lives memories as memories of these other people (connected on the same "strand"). What does Michael has to comment on that? Aside from saying that Don Juan has his own version of reality, the universe as described by him (and Castaneda) does seem to extend beyond their confine (proximity) of their usual activities. On a side note, I read in a book by Robert Monroe (Journey Out of the Body) that he "entered another person's body" on some of his out-of-body trips. Sometimes this takes place without him being prepared, sometimes there was a pull that he could not resist, and he did not feel like it was a case of "possession". Also, he reported that in one of these other "bodies" that he took over temporarily, one was in such a world that is definitely different than ours, with different technological developments. Superficially, this sound a bit similar to the "cyclicity" as described by Castaneda. But could it be that Monroe was simply occupying the body of his other fragments (of the same Essence)? In a parallel universe? I apologize if other members find this off-topic. Or if I am asking really irrelevant questions (to personal development). Or if channeling for answers would take volumes and tome of scripts... :-p I am just curious, and since Michael channeling seem to be largely reliable, I am curious as to what they have to say about this... Regards. J J Tan Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:36:12 -0500 For anyone who may have missed my previous post: We are hosting a gathering of Michael students and friends on April
25th in Fort Worth, Texas. I will be channeling a group session, and introducing
some new information. This will be followed by a BBQ and hang time for folks to
get to know eachother. Caris and Terry old king who loves parties Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:54:34 EDT In a message dated 98-04-16 11:35:28 EDT, Jody writes:
Well, I know what position Dave occupies!
Oh, yes...the hunka-hunka burnin' love position, right?
By the way Dave, I thought your "rat's teeth through the heart" apparent
Actually, it was, but I thought it would be funny if it looked like a mistake. ;-p Oh, well......:-) Dave Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:59:24 EDT Thank you for your book-promotion suggestions. I did searches both in Alta Vista and Amazon, and didn't come up with 1001 Ways to Sell Your Book. I'll try a used book dealer. I e-mailed Ken Dashow about the "Edge of Reality" radio show. I signed up for Link Exchange, and now need to make a banner. I tried the two online banner-creation services, and didn't like the fonts or backgrounds. The software they offer is PC-only (I'm a Mac user). Any ideas? The banner can only be 7k. I may try "hiring" one of their free services, but it seems like it would be harder to get what I want that way. All the best, Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:26:33 EDT I wrote a friend in the used book business about finding out-of-print Michael books and the one suggested to me. He replied:
I did a quick computer search for the books you are seeking and did not find
Best, Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 21:25:02 +0000
Very macabre and spellbinding! This is the kind of creeping horror
Thank God for that -- I thought it was a comment on my web-page about the new casting model. B a r r y Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 21:38:02 +0000 Kenneth wrote: "my entity has 2,185 fragments." Yeh, but I bet my dad's bigger than your dad. Thanks for your input though -- it's completely put a spanner in the works for my pretty model! B a r r y Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 18:19:09 EDT In a message dated 98-04-16 11:47:48 EDT, Ken writes:
includes folks like Oscar Wilde, Johann Pestalozzi, Voltaire, and Beethoven.
That's an impressive list. I guess I must have been the one token peasant in the entity. Well, it's a job somebodys got to do. ;-p Dave Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:24:55 +0200 Dave wrote in reply to a posting of mine:
>I would like to think that no soul age has a particular monopoly on a loving heart.
I agree completely, I was only emphasizing the Mature soul in my posting because Dick is a Mature soul and he was speaking of Old souls as role models to younger souls. Dave further wrote:
>And I disagree that the Michael teachings are structured around
Actually, what I wrote was:
>...so much of the [Michael] teaching is focused on relational issues.
I was thinking of things like Essence Twins, Cadence Mates and Task Companions etc... Karma, Aggreements, Quadrates, Support Circles... these elements of the teachings (and there are more) which have a lot to do with relationships... However, as I mentioned above, my focus on Mature souls was a rhetorical device addressing what Dick had said. In the main I agree with the points Dave made. (I'm not going to quote it all here, but it was a good letter) Peace, Katherine Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 20:40:08 -0500 Emily Baumbach describes us as Teddy Bears and Ewoks. But since there are a plethora of Scholars and Artisans, she is probably referring to the sprinkling of Sages thrown in for a little spicy seasoning! Hang tough Dave. You are not alone. Jeanne a/k/a Ewok 1 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 18:55:01 -0700 Hi all, Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:26:25 EDT "Redivivus." I have never seen that word before. But I just looked it up. I'll have to add it to my arsenal. Dave :-) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:30:05 EDT In a message dated 4/17/98 1:52:32 AM, Mike H wrote:
the original 1040 fragments
Was it 1040, or is it just tax time? John C Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 02:56:28 EDT I'm just curious if any of the Michael scholars here have ever seen an overleaf reference for the Hungarian composer, Bela Bartok. Actually, I'd love to know what entity and cadre he resides in. I've always thought that even if it meant living a life as a termite, such an existence would be worth it if I could dine on the floorboards of a home that played Bartok's music. I'm particularly fond of his 6 string quartets, which I think offer some of the most profound, and awesome musical utterances ever composed for the genre of modern Western music. Dark, and foreboding, majestic and triumphant, Bartok seems to tap into the emotional and intellectual embodiment of the human spirit; musically peeling away layer after layer of the soul like a museum curat |
SUMMARY:
Another year begins on the list.