|
Home > Related Articles > Spiritweb Michael Spiritweb
Michael List Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:05:25 -0500 Hi Gang, I have been reading the archives of this list over the last few weeks. It occurred to me yesterday that if we filter out the "dogmatic" parts of the Michael teaching - meaning those things that we probably cannot Validate in our every-day experience - we will find that not just the Centers, but ALL the other Overleaves could be ranked from strongest to weakest in any particular person just like I proposed for the Centers. It seems like we collectively are moving toward this simplification. It dawned on me that the Level and "manifested soul age" are like secondary and tertiary strengths to the Soul Age Overleaf. Your "Casting" back through the Position, Cadence, Greater Cadence, Entity, Cadre, and Greater Cadre are like less and less influential modifications of your Role. I vaguely remember that somewhere in the Yarbro books it said we have all Chief Features present in our personalities, but obviously there are varying strengths there too. We read in the various published literature about having a primary Goal, Mode, and Attitude that "slide" to a secondary or even a tertiary Goal, Mode or Attitude. Do I see a pattern here or is this just the bias of my Higher Intellectual Center appreciating a beautiful picture? It seems to me that if we consistently "explain" the various Overleaves as having a rank in strength, it would be a lot less confusing as well as providing a more accurate description of the way we actually experience our Overleaves. And we wouldn't have to deal with all that dogma stuff that in my mind confuses more than it "explains". Some people might object and say that by doing this the Overleaves become so ambiguous as to be meaningless, but I think this is not the case. The Archetypes do exist and they are well defined, but the expression thereof in particular persons is not all that defined. This Artisan/Scholar would like to present In future postings his understanding of the pure abstract ideal of the Overleaves as derived from mathematics and logic. He will warn you of this with the title, "Pet Theory Dept." Namaste, Philbert Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:58:25 EDT In a message dated 6/20/98 2:36:25 PM, you wrote:
> In the quest to better
Stacy, Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 15:13:03 EDT In a message dated 98-06-22 14:05:47 EDT, Phil writes:
I have been reading the archives of this list over the last few weeks.
I'm not quite sure that I follow you here, but from what I know of this group, it has often been agreed that all the overleaves can be present in our personalities, but that certain overleves were likely to "dominate" over the others. Of course, then these areas of dominance result in the information channeled on our charts. Dave Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 16:33:02 -0400 Dave wrote:
> I'm not quite sure that I follow you here, but from what I know of this group,
I just figured I'd share this idea before I ask Michael: Strongest Overleaf = 7/28 = 25.0% per Michael: "This is not to say that there is not just one dominant overleaf in each category. There is a dominant leaf in each category that during the fifth monad is usually solidified within the fragment's personality. "To give the ranking of all of the overleaves for each fragment's personality would not be sufficiently productive of that fragment's self comprehension. There would be much confusion in that regard. Knowing just one's primary and secondary overleaves are sufficient to bring about the desired comprehension and growth." Peace and Light to You and Yours, Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 18:37:23 -0500 Hi gang, I have been into New Age music for many years now and I have some observations to share about how music might relate to Centering. Namely, I think we appreciate and seek the kind of music that resonates with our stronger Centers, and that might not be Emotional or Intellectual or Moving. I have not made a study of all kinds of music, since I prefer to listen to what I like, but following is how I have correlated types of music with specific Centers. Others probably have differing opinions, and one could probably analyze this subject in much greater detail. MOVING/PHYSICAL/SEXUAL: Dance music or marching music in general of course - anything with a loud, rapid and heavy beat as its basis that makes you want to move your body to its rhythms. I think "Rock and Roll" music is named after this phenomenon. Percussion instruments seem to dominate this category, and I include some types of shamanic drumming. I would include in this category music that would fit right in with sexual or athletic activities of the sweaty type. EMOTIONAL: Romantic music in general. Much of country music seems to me to fall in this category - or any music that makes you want to laugh or cry, these being the positive and negative poles of emotional release or "orgasm". Stringed instruments and the human voice seem to produce music for this Center very effectively. INTELLECTUAL: I put most jazz in this category since it does not seem to appeal to any other Center. Has anyone else noticed that people who have a mentally intense occupation like to relax with jazz after a hard day at the office? Almost all forms of popular music appeal to a lower Center or some combination of lower Centers. I would put much of New Age music of various sorts into the following higher Centers. INSTINCTIVE: Music for this Center I think primarily consists of arhythmic and ambient music. The meaning of the music is either in the gaps between the notes rather than in the cadence of the notes like music of the lower Centers, or the music transports your body/emotions/mind into a relaxed and perhaps even unfocused, meditative state. This kind of music is generally not distracting or intrusive - it doesn't impel you to do anything, feel anything, think anything. You just be with it in the background. HIGHER INTELLECTUAL: Beauty is the predominant attribute of music for this Center. No harsh instruments or forms are allowed here - its all sweetness and light. HIGHER EMOTIONAL: Spiritual uplift and inspiration is the hallmark here - some church organ music and Gregorian chants are good examples. Any music that is reverent. (Grandiose and joyous music is "tainted" with the Emotional Center.) HIGHER MOVING: I think this music is characterized by a slow and steady beat (less that 60 per second) with a drone in the background. In its pure form it is entrancing without exciting the lower Center body/emotions/mind. Namaste, Philbert Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 21:43:16 EDT Subject: Re: Centering and music In a message dated 98-06-22 19:37:30 EDT, Phil writes:
Hi gang,
Interesting post, Phil. :-) Now I'm not an expert on the subject of centering, but I definitely have noticed that there could be predilections towards certain centers based on a particular style of music. Conversely, I've also noticed that reactions to music tends to be highly subjective. For example, I personally find Bartok's great string quartets to be some of the most impassioned, emotionally wrought music ever written. Depending on my mood, I can sometimes literally be in tears as I listen to each stirring passage, the atmosphere it creates almost dripping with emotion. Yet, other people in the room with me often find that Bartok is overly cerebral, and completely devoid of any emotional fervor. For me his music causes a angry tempest to swirl in my brain, yet for them, his music hardly causes a ripple in their emotional pond, so to speak.
MOVING/PHYSICAL/SEXUAL: Dance music or marching music in general of
I would classify "Rock & Roll" as the kind of music that would stimulate the instinctive center. And especially resonate with the lower chakras. Though, one could make an argument that it's also emotionally based, but this would be strictly on a gut-level kind of interaction. If you have ever observed a rock concert, the audience is reacting on a very instinctive/emotionally(ah, maybe moving, too;-p) centered response, almost to the point of mass hysteria.
EMOTIONAL: Romantic music in general. Much of country music seems to
For me, this is the center most activated by music of any kind. Though, anymore I find myself accessing the higher emotional center when I listen to music. The human voice and string instruments could be an obvious choice, but I think any instrument will give the prescribed effect. For me, music is largely the conveyance of emotion through sound. Though to appreciate it as thoroughly as possible, I think the intellectual center is also required, especially in jazz and classical music. I think of music as being a combination of intellectual and emotional properties. Without both of those elements, there's always the feeling that something is missing.
INTELLECTUAL: I put most jazz in this category since it does not seem
I would need to place classical and jazz into this category, as well as placing them in the emotional center. Let me see if I can capture my thought process when I play music. For example, if I'm playing jazz, lets say in the style of bebop, as I'm improvising, there's a feeling that my creativity is being guided by my emotional centering, but in a split second, I'm shaping the raw clay, the string of ideas that ushers forth from the artist side of my brain, with a little of my intellectual centering. I know this sounds like left brain/right brain, but it's really more involved than that. In crafting a jazz solo, I truly need my emotional centering for the sheer creative act of my output, and I need the intellectual center to sculpt my output, this raw clay, into something worthwhile, and ultimately meaningful. I think the two centers co-exist in this particular instance. Of course, one could argue that the moving center plays an equal part in this output. Could be....Yes, I think it does.
Almost all forms of popular music appeal to a lower Center or some
How do you define popular music? Some of the great songs by George Gershwin, Billy Strayhorn, Cole Porter, and so forth, are much more developed on an intellectual and emotional foundation than say, for example, some of the New Age meanderings I've heard. Of course, I've heard very little New Age music (it bores me), so I could be entertaining a little bias here. ;-p Take a look at an excerpt from Strayhorn's "Lush Life." "Then you came along, with your siren song, to tempt me to madness.I thought for awhile, that your poignant smile, was tinged with a sadness of a great love for me.....ah, yes, I was wrong. Again I was wrong. Life is lonely again, and only last year, everything seemed so sure Now life is awful again, a trough of hearts would only be a bore. A week in paradise, will ease the bite of it, all I care is to smile in spite of it I'll forget you I will, while yet you are still burning inside my brain... Romance is much stifling those who strive, I live a lush life in small dive, and there I'll be where I rot with the rest, Of those...whose... lives...are lonely too......"
This is certainly a most poignant, beautifully poetic statement, which when coupled with its equally stirring melody, is far more than the result of just the lower centers. So you have to be careful how you label popular music.
INSTINCTIVE: Music for this Center I think primarily consists of
Hmmm...I never thought of it that way. I love your thought "the gaps between the notes." That fascinates me for some reason. Very interesting observation.
HIGHER INTELLECTUAL: Beauty is the predominant attribute of music for
What is beauty? I frequently can find absolute discordance to be painfully
beautiful. Listen to Ive's ethereal 2nd movement from his "Three Places in New
England" and tell me that discord is not beautiful.
HIGHER EMOTIONAL: Spiritual uplift and inspiration is the hallmark here
I'm here quite frequently, but I think it might be a particular goal of my essence to explore this center during this incarnation. But I've bridged this center through Bartok, Prokofiev, Beethoven, Hindemith, Stravinsky, even Mozart. It's a fleeting feeling, almost as if I'm suddenly fourth dimensional. Regardless, thanks for the post, Phil. There's certainly some correlation to your observations, but also widely opposing views, as I'm sure everyone else on this list will have a different experience than mine, and might completely disagree with my observations. Of course, once again that brings us back to the subjective perceptions that music can arouse. Dave :-) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 19:55:35 -0700 Hi Everyone... :^) I'm starting to reorganize my Michael Website. Tonight I worked on the Channels, Resources, and Services page which I think most people access a lot. Suggestions are welcome--and remember, if you're a channel or student who offers Michael's services, classes, or whatever, and you want your "blurb" there, let me know! :^) Or let me know also if anything changes or you want to make changes to a description I have of your organization (for those of you who are listed there already of course.) Would anyone like a chat-room? We can get one on Spiritweb if anyone's interested. I'll probably do that sometime soon.... Love, Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 13:27:01 -0500 Hi gang, First of all I would like to express the gratitude I feel toward the members of this list for their responses to my postings. The feedback is good because it clarifies and tempers the insights of this particular Artisan who has developed his theories somewhat in isolation from other mature Michael students. As you know, we Artisans tend to stray far afield unless we do a "reality check" regularly. Dave, I have a few more comments about music and Centers. I was under the impression that most people had a similar response to the same music - everybody recognizes marching music as distinct from love-story music, for instance. I have noticed that a person who has a weak Emotional Center but a strong Moving Center prefers the former to the latter. But you brought to my attention that an Emotionally Centered person might respond emotionally to marching music that was actually written for the Moving Center. It is very true that appreciation of music is very subjective, and I think it depends on the strength of the various Centers of the listener as well as the objective qualities of the music itself. It has also occurred to me that past life experiences will determine appreciation for various forms of music. For instance, I do not much care for classical music, and my guess is that I did not incarnate in an environment where this music was present. On the other hand, one time at a Renaissance Festival I heard a group singing a madrigal, and it made my hair stand on end with Recognition. Even tho I am not very familiar with this form in this lifetime, I could anticipate the rhythms and melodies quite easily and I loved it. I believe that as an Artisan I have had lifetimes where music was the predominant theme. Other lifetimes I have emphasized art, or craft, or engineering. Namaste, Philbert Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:22:28 +0000 Hi gang, All this stuff on centering etc. is prompting me to "think aloud", which is usually how I get to see what my mind is trying to show me. So here goes ... start brain dump I think it's important to remember that we incarnate with the purpose of accomplishing a particular life task. Yet the life task doesn't come into play until after the mid-life (4th) monad, once we are (hopefully) manifesting at our true age, level and essence. In other words, only in the second half of life are we working at it; the first 35 or so years are preparation. So what's going to get us by in those 35 years and keep us on target for our life task? The overleaves! I see our dominant overleaves, which after all we've chosen for a reason (to support us in our life task), as our *default* way of being. So no matter how "amnesic" we get in early life, our Goal, Mode and Attitude will tend to push us in the right direction for later life. Meanwhile, at the time of the 2nd monad (age 2-3), we differentiate ourselves from others by "getting" that they can influence us and we can influence them (cf. Freud on toilet training). We can't get through childhood on instinct alone -- we have to accommodate the unexpected influences coming at us and generate our own responses. So at this time we adopt a "center" through which we handle such inputs and a "part" through which we make our own output. Or something like that. Our sense of self at this point is pretty much defined by the ikon (image, label) put onto us by our parents. False personality thus begins to develop as a function of imprinting and acculturation. At the 3rd monad, however, we normally re-define ourselves with an ikon of our own ("I'm not your precious baby. Can't you see I'm an astronaut.") By this time, we have also had experience with all of the chief features, and we adopt one of them as our "default" ego-prop. ("I'm a ****ing IMPATIENT astronaut!") I know Michael says there are NO good CFs, so I guess the CF is just something that is inevitable in the nomal course of life (like tooth-ache) rather than a functional overleaf per se. So, to support its current life task the soul picks an appropriate Goal, Mode and Attitude. To get through childhood it picks an appropriate Center/Part, and to lurch into adulthood it latches onto a Chief Feature. Then 20 years later the mid-life crisis hits in, the true self is hopefully realized, and work finally begins on the life task. brain dump complete. Time for some TV. B a r r y Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:37:57 -0500 Hi gang, There is at least one thing in Barry's last posting that I want to explore further in the spirit of the positive pole of the Skeptic Attitude, that is +Investigation. First of all let me explain my bias. Perhaps because of my Artisan Role, and perhaps because I was once a member of a dogmatic authoritarian Christian cult, I am skeptical about allegedly "revealed knowledge" even though my own Spiritualist Attitude tends to bias me in favor of revealed knowledge. Much of the Michael teaching does fall in the category of "revelation". Fortunately, Michael themselves decry dogmatism and blind faith in what they say or what anybody else says. At the same time they go on to teach many things that probably cannot be Validated while we live on the physical plane. Barry brought up something that we might be able to Validate if we examine our lives and compare notes. It is something I have questioned from the beginning of my study of this teaching - because it differs from my personal experience. This has to do with the alleged formation of the Chief Feature in adolescence. When I examine my very own life, I find that I can trace my Chief Feature all the way to early childhood. I also have two children, and I saw evidence of their Chief Features as well as their other Overleaves from about the same stage in their development. Now Phil dogma isn't any better than Michael dogma (it's probably worse actually, but we don't know that for sure), so I would like to enlist you folks in a scientific study, if you would be willing. How far back can you trace your Chief Feature and that of other intimates, such as your children? I believe it is true that the Chief Feature manifests fully at adolescence as the Fragment transits the Third Milestone (Internal Monad) and stabilizes its identity, but I suspect the seed is planted at conception and/or ensoulment just like the other Overleaves. This is Phil dogma: your spiritual life is "driven by demons and drawn by angels", so to speak. The "demons" are in Chief Feature and the "angels" are in Role. Both impel the soul toward Agape in Essence. Both are equally necessary and valuable -- because they are actually inseparable poles (Cardinal and Ordinal) of a Monad. Your lower self is infinitely low and your higher self is infinitely high and together they are reconciled in Essence/Agape. When you live fully in Essence/Agape, Role and Chief Feature are extinguished simultaneously. What I am saying is that, in spite of what alleged Michael alleges, the Chief Feature is every bit as much a part of True Personality as the other Overleaves, and it serves as valuable a role in the full experience of the soul as does the Role. The actual situation is that we Michael students and other "spiritual" seekers are at the reintegration stage of the cycle of the Tao. This is where we are biased toward Role (and other manifestations of Cardinality) and against Chief Feature (and other manifestations of Ordinality). During the fragmentation stage of the cycle of the Tao, the bias goes the other way - hence, ego shit. The reason I say this will be made clearer, I hope, when I get around to explaining the Overleaf system as derived from mathematics and logic like the rest of the verifiable cosmos rather than as some arbitrary "revelation" that has fallen out of the sky from whence we know not. My exposition will also call into question the dogma that the Role, Chief Feature, and Centers are each a different kind of animal than the "ordinary" Overleaves - Attitude, Goal and Mode -- which don't seem to have any "special" "explanation" attached to each of them in the teaching. Namaste, Philbert Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 20:45:01 -0700 Barry's brain dumped:
"I'm a ****ing IMPATIENT astronaut!"
And out of the woodwork Lori exclaims: YES I AM!!! Finally, somebody actually GETS it!!!! Wow -- that felt, really good. How's that for accountability? Thank you. "True wisdom is when you can always distinguish the difference between when you Truly Know, and when you ought to close your mouth and listen up." --me :-p Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 01:32:20 -0400 Philip, I think you are on to something with this train of thought, but I wanted to say that there are a few things you said that made me flinch a little. One: Validation is not the same thing as proof; especially self-validation. That would mean it is true for you, not necessarily for anyone else. There have been many Overleaves channeled that were in contradiction, for instance, and we are left to figure it out on our own. But we cannot prove what Role someone is, EVER. The Overleaves are meant as parameters for understanding the nature of our relations and experiences. In the same way that a Road Sign may be true if you were to follow it (as we find with the effects of the Michael Teachings), does not mean that there is no other way. So to try to validate the Overleaves in a Universal medium of comprehension seems unfeasible. Two: In regard to the Chief Feature and our memory of it or perception of it in others, I think that is highly subjective and cannot be accurately used as a reference. It is only with my "adult" perceptions (having already incorporated Chief Feature, supposedly) that I can see where I might have played it out at an early age. In our children or ourselves in the past (even present) we see our level of understanding, so it's easy to extract that. We also "channel" our parents'/guardians' CF's when children in the same way a companion animal will incorporate the psyche of the human caretaker. Then, again, Michael has never said we don't have a CF at an early age, we, rather, choose one or two as our challenge for the growth spurt of our life; a kind of fire to pass through, if you will. I wonder if we've misunderstood that we are not necessarily to extinguish CF by avoiding/fighting it, but to embrace it with the innocence of a child. I certainly have fun with Arrogance! Three: I've understood Michael's perception of True Personality not to be just a technical term, but a refers to our experience with/through Personality as feeling good, whole, "bigger" maybe, or whatever your definitions of those great things are. The reason there are no "good" Chief Features is because we don't find the experience of them to be a good feeling, but, instead, a sense of disconnection, isolation, illusion, etc. feelings that apparently abrade with the disposition of our flow in the Universe. Michael has said that our Universe is still expanding, so the nature of energy flows "naturally" in that direction, but in a Universe that is contracting, terms would be different/opposite. Can you imagine a Universe where our Goals as we know it are the CF's and the CF's become our Goals? So, I agree that CF's are probably important to us, but True Personality and the challenge of extinguishing our CF is just words to describe variations of our experience, and is based on the ultimately massive majority of preference for that experience. CF's represent our expansion AWAY from each other, and our Goals represent, maybe, expansion INTO each other. Will it be our Love that brings the Universe to a screeching halt? Four: Michael does suggest that we question and not "blindly accept" their teachings. But some of the advanced or "far out" applications of the Teaching (parallels, reincarnation in the first place, Michael themselves, etc.,..) require validation of a sort that cannot be touched by our simple world of science. Science has always been based on theory, unproven assumptions, innovative art of perception and projection. There is no science as it is popularly thought. You know that. BUT, when we know something is true, even if only for ourselves, it is beautiful (for some reason). This world, universe, our being, is hard to prove or study. I wonder what I would do if I were to have to prove that I am real. All of my reasons could be dismissed, depending on your view. You said that you were going to explore the Overleaves in a fashion that is "derived from mathematics and logic like the rest of the verifiable universe". There has never been a "verifiable universe", even in science, only really good guesses, trust, and inner knowing, that's all. We don't even know what the speed of light is REALLY, we just "know it" in theory. We don't REALLY know how far a star is from Earth, we just guess and trust. In all it's accuracy, we still don't know what tomorrow's weather might bring for sure, so how could you possibly ever "verify" something REALLY? Okay, this was just to express my experience, and since your intent seemed so rooted in a world that is increasingly THE world of dogma and blind faith(science), I just thought I'd throw this into the works. Don't get me wrong, I am in love with science BECAUSE of that ambition and trust; it's just not the only way. AND, I am anxious to hear your explorations because I am always wanting more "proof" and validation myself, despite what my mouth just said above. Am I gonna get flamed here? smoooooch, otterly Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 01:47:55 EDT Hi Phil and List I agree that while the chief features are chosen or fixated usually sometime between the ages of 12-early 20's, they are alive and sneaking their way into our lives long before that! I watched my son, now 16 and who has chosen arrogance and impatience, suffer at the hands of one criticism or embarassing moment after another during his early years. I cant quite figure out why he chose impatience, since I was the one driving him around to all the activities! But for some reason, he felt he was missing something, or at least the chief feature covinced him that he was. Michael has also said that the choice of chief features can be related to the most recent incarnation as well. Best wishes,
Victoria Marina Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 03:03:29 EDT This is from the Seth list. I'm not sure how to accept this kind of detached intellectualism. I read passages like the one below, and I quickly find myself depressed. This is the same individual who informs me that the reason there is animal cruelty in the world is because I oppose it. As you know, according to Seth, we are all magnets to what we fear. I'm not entirely in dispute of that belief, but I do take issue at notions that imply that the only solution to the world's problems are to completely ignore them. I've always thought that we are to accept responsibility for our choices, and that we will suffer the consequences of our actions, good or bad. Regardless, read the pasage below and tell me how it strikes you. I'm just curious. There is some truth in it, but there's also something a tad wonky about the conclusions, IMHO. Of course, you can disagree with me, that's fine. I'm just looking for some group clarification. Dave :-)
I'd like to start by dismissing the concepts of greenhouse gasses
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 98 10:43:26 UT My personal take on this: Having just about completed the fourth monad, it seemed to me for most of this transition that it had to do with coming to terms with my chief feature (arrogance) - seeing it for what it is and how it plays out in my life, "spotting" when it rears its ugly head, and choosing not to be driven by it. In other words, learning to live and make choices based on love, not fear. (PS Phil I would say my CF was pretty well set by age 12.) I can't agree with Phil; I'm quite sure that the overleaves more or less equal false personality. As Jose Stevens says, they're a set of clothes we wear just for one lifetime and they change every time. However, now I wonder if that's true for, say, a 7th-level Old soul, or even 7th level of any age, or someone doing a goal of flow . . . perhaps in those situations the overleaves would be chosen to reflect the true personality? I like Barry's theory that the more we operate from true personality, the less hold the overleaves have on us. Now that I'm looking back with this idea in my head, it does seem to me that I have backed off a lot not only on my CF but on perserverance, my mode - it's a lot easier for me to say "nope, that's not working, let's cut our losses and get out" now than a year ago. And this may be wishful thinking, but I feel ready to back off from my goal of intense growth too and go for something gentler, like acceptance . . . hmmm. Anyone else feel that their overleaves "lost power" after the 4th monad? Any older folks out there care to take Barry's thought through their experience of the 5th monad for us? Now I'm curious. Jody Date: Wed, 24 Jun 98 11:05:07 UT Dave wrote:
"As you know, according to Seth, we are all magnets to what we
Dave, I agree with this thinking. (no sarcasm this time) Do we create our own reality? It's a tricky issue. My take on it is that there are various kinds of energy out there - many of which take form in ways we've learned to discern as "bad." We do not create this negative energy (well, not as humans, one could argue that since we're all part of the Tao and everything comes from the Tao . . . nah, let's not go there). Give it that negative energy exists as a necessary part of the yin and yang of life, and it manifests in various ways. I do believe that we personally will draw to ourselves the kind of energy we're putting out, like magnets - so if you walk around convinced that people are just waiting in line to rob your house, you'll be burgled sooner or later. But I don't think one person's beliefs have power much beyond their own life. In other words, because you, Dave, abhor the killing of animals, it's likely that you may draw to yourself a lot of reminders that it is happening, but I doubt very much that YOU ALONE created the stockyards. I think it's more likely that humans as a whole have created that negative situation, just as we create wars, out of our collective fears. And as we, slowly, lurch towards operating out of love instead of fear as a species, we will begin to manifest and attract more positive forms of energy. As an example, infanticide used to be a regular practice in most societies; it still happens, but not on the scale it used to and not as an accepted thing. Our personal responsibility - perhaps best we can do - is to model for others how to operate from love instead of fear - as everyone on this list is striving to do - and to hope that by so doing, we are the pebble thrown in the pond. As for those who say "ignore it and it will go away" - they've got their heads in the sand. Perhaps they feel so powerless in the face of how huge some of these problems are that denial is the only option they see? Love, Jody Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:26:25 -0500 Hi Gang, Its another day and I have read your responses to my last posting. Thanks. I would like to make some more specific responses later in the day perhaps as I get my thoughts and feelings together (a tough project for me). I wrote the following last night. "Upon reflection, I feel the need to explain something about the behavior exhibited in my last posting. I attended the Michael seminar with Jose, Lena, Kay and Sarah in Santa Fe this past weekend, and I am all fired up. Seems some of the evangelical fervor for spreading this teaching that I had in the eighties has returned, and that is why I have been posting to this list. Much of the presentation at the conference had to do with the future of this teaching during this world's transition from Young Soul consciousness to Mature Soul consciousness. They are looking for ways to "mainstream" this teaching during the next few years and decades. They realize that we have a very good thing with this teaching, and that eventually it will be well known throughout the world, and they want to make it more palatable to the "secular" masses so that they can receive its benefits right along with the "spiritual" masses that are attracted to revelations from mid-causal teachers and such. They realize that if we are going to mainstream this teaching, that it is expedient to find a way to present the information without emphasizing its source as "revealed" channeled teaching. For instance, for years Jose has been using terminology with his secular business clients for the Soul Ages that doesn't sound like Soul Age. At the conference they also proposed to explain some aspects of the Overleaf system (namely Role and Casting) in terms of the well-known Myers-Briggs system. The Meyers-Briggs system and the Enneagram have gained widespread acceptance in the secular world, and most secular people don't know or care that both these systems were derived from the mystical spiritual teachings of Carl Jung and Georges Gurdjieff respectively. So long as a teaching works to benefit them, what difference does it make where it came from? Well, I believe that this desire to secularize Michael's Overleaf system is a good idea. In fact, my manuscript, The Process Aspect System, written during the years 1981 to 1986, was intended for the self-help psychology market -- without mention of soul and reincarnation and spirituality and such. Situation is, I never finished it as I went on beyond the Overleaves to experience and write about other aspects of the teaching. Now I feel it may be time to resurrect this manuscript and polish it, because it derives and explains the Overleaf system in terms of "hard-headed" mathematics and logic rather than "soft-headed" revelation. This would make it very palatable to the secular masses because there is nothing more hard-headed in our lives than strict mathematics and logic. However, for all I know, I might just be in serious need of a reality check -- Artisans do tend to go off on strange tangents. That is why I am going to begin to present it to you folks -- for examination and criticism before I release it to the world in general. I want to test it among friends. OK? Besides, I do not have everything figured out to my own satisfaction, and I am going to be asking for your help in that regard. Reading the archives, I see we have some very bright, knowledgeable people out there. I believe it will be recognized that what I am going to be sharing with you is not some "new truth" invented or contrived by me. In fact, I believe it is just the same old number mysticism that was around long before Lao Tsu said, "Tao produced the One. The One produced the Two. The Two produced the Three . . ." Frankly, it amazes me that no one besides myself seems to have noticed this number pattern in the Overleaf system and how it relates to the geometry of space and time. It is not scary high-falutin complex mathematics and logic either. I think you will see that it is so simple and obvious once it is pointed out that you will be surprised that you did not notice it yourself. Most people have been busy Validating the Overleaves in their own subjective experience, and this is as it should be. Now this engineer, an Artisan/Scholar in the Higher Intellectual Center, proposes to Validate the system in the more objective realm of abstract concepts. I intend to show you why Michael called the Overleaves, "archetypes", and demonstrate how this system of archetypes resonates through all phenomena of the cosmos, not just the human personality. You have seen hints and clues about this in the various published Michael teachings. It is time to put it all together in the grand cosmic scheme of things." (Geez, that sounds pompous and pretentious to me when I read it back. No wonder I kept this to myself all these years.) Namaste, Philbert Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:51:37 +0800 Philip Wittmeyer wrote on 22/6/98 11:36 pm:
>INTELLECTUAL: I put most jazz in this category since it does not seem
I would like to comment that jazz is very expressive. For "intellectual music", I would like to "recommend" the genre of "classical music" that is called "contemporary" music, specifically, "serialism". These types of music is more often better appreciated after studying the music score than listening to it. :-) We just performed one piece that looks very interesting on the papers, but otherwise "no heads or tails" when we play it. J J Tan Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 13:05:27 EDT
Hi gang,
I'm an artisan/scholar, and I have no reality. Well, at least not one that could be printed in a public forum like this. ;-p
Dave, I have a few more comments about music and Centers. I was under
Haha...Well, I'm intellectual/moving...figure that one out. ;-p Concerning your comments, if a piece of music was presented without any visual or worded representation that it was written with the expressed purpose of being "love-story" music, how many people do you think would think it was of amorous intent? I could play a piece of music for a group of people, and I can assure you that if asked to provide a visual description, or story for the music, each person would describe a slightly different picture.
It is very true that appreciation of music is very
That must have been over 300 or so years you spent in an eastern culture. ;-p I would agree that past life experiences will probably determine our affinity for a particular style of music. I'm sure I've spent lifetimes absorbing the music of the western culture. Not to say that I haven't sampled everything, as I'm by most accounts a naturally curious fellow. ;-p Dave Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:47:28 EDT Ok, here goes. Hi. I'm Nick. I am admittedly less than a novice to the
Michael Teachings because I first discovered it in the 1980's but not until this
past week have taken it up again. So I am more than rusty and cannot speak about
overleaves and roles and all the other stuff yet. However, as a human being that
is on his own quest of spirituality, I really felt compelled to comment on the
quote posted by you all from John M of the Seth group. Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 05:27:21 EDT I think I've been banned from the Seth list. (sniff, sniff...)
Subj: I Just Channeled Seth!!!!!
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 14:07:01 +0000 I cant belive that you have been banned !!!!!! *G* *?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?* Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:23:20 EDT In a message dated 6/23/98 8:28:45 PM, Barry wrote:
I know Michael says there are NO good CFs, so I guess the CF is just
Phil suggested a different take on this, that CFs were a balancing factor. Which sounded to me to be like Yin/Yang... good/evil... black/white... two poles which then create a bigger picture. Learning about the overleaves was great until I got to those embarrassing CFs... I keep on trying to fit them into a more positive pole... I want them to be useful to my growth... I want my CFs to be good for me... Mine being impatience/greed... I have decided that these can be in positive poles... Impatience being facilitate/activator/efficiency and greed being Frugality/foresight/preparation...am I fooling myself here... could this be a way of managing those unsightly CFs. Or am I on some sort of denial trip? My other question about CFs is are they a result of something? Do they pop up because of some step not taken. I don't know what... maybe attachment to false ego... habitual responses as opposed to being conscious... I guess what I am getting at is if I can deal with the cause then I won't find myself blindly pushing through a situation or hoarding. I do know that the Michaels say that we can get beyond our CFs. But, I don't recall ever reading anything that says how. I am sure this has been discussed, I have just missed the material. Hey gang what has been your experience on all this? Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:52:16 EDT Hi there again, I would add that as we come more fully into our true personality, which
Michael has defined as the positive poles of our overleaves, then we are less
likely to be fear driven or in the negative poles of the overleaves. What Jody
described about perserverance mode sounds like she made the choice to be in the
positive pole rather than the negative rather than simply 'unattaching' from the
overleaf itself. Victoria Marina Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 12:08:19 -0400 PJ wrote:
> In a message dated 6/23/98 8:28:45 PM, Barry wrote:
One way to manage your CF is to stop seeing it as "embarrasing" and "unsightly", but rather as a self-chosen means of preventing complacency. This seems to be necessary for most of us since most of us do not seem to be able to grow "consciously" without something or other kicking us in our psychological butts. The CF is "good" for us in that if we take a clear "picture" of ourselves when the CF is sceaming and pounding away at the world we can see just what effect we and our CF are having in this world, and we become better able to recognize and handle these CF aspects in other people.
> My other question about CFs is are they a result of something? Do they pop up
Your CF was chosen by you/essence before you were born. You as essence are the cause of your overleaves. Blindly pushing is only one way to handle a situation.
> I do know that the Michaels say that we can get beyond our CFs. But, I don't
As you pay closer and closer attention to yourself when manifesting your CF you become better and better at not giving in and allowing your CF to control you and your reactions. Eventually it can become "extinct". As my essence says: "Awareness is the key to freedom." -- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:00:34 +0000 Happy birthday to The Happy Scholar! Hope you got that keyboard you wanted...after all, it's not every lifetime you get to celebrate your 60th birthday! Love always, Dean Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 13:01:35 -0500 Hi Gang, and especially Otterly, Thank you, Mr. Blue, for so gracefully pointing out some things that I need to clarify. As a preliminary, let me say that this exchange is awkward and uncomfortable for me as well as for you. I am a socially challenged techno-nerd of German descent ("Heil mathematics!"). I also have the German national Chief Feature of Arrogance -- as if you had not already noticed -- and it is giving me a fit lately. I am conflicted with the dichotomy between shyness and grandiosity that is inherent in this Chief Feature. Please bear with me while I grapple with my vulnerability issues as I begin to reveal myself in this public forum. I think the problem is temporary. Another factor for me in this form of exchange is that it is difficult to translate into the language of the Intellectual Center what I see in the land of archetypes with my Higher Intellectual Center. The two Centers are in fact opposed to each other in a way. You are probably aware that the physicists and cosmologists are now telling us that rationality seems to break down in the realm of the very small, the very large, the very young, and the very old -- at the extremes of space and time. With the help of your (all of you) feedback, I seem to be clarifying how to convey my mystical insights into words. Please bear with me while I go through this process. It would have been a lot easier for me if Michael had explained what I propose to explain to you in future postings. They did hint around with a few obscure clues here and there, but so far as I know, none of the channels pursued the leads. I have quite frankly been hoping for years that it would happen so that I wouldn't have to get involved (shyness again, and Observation Mode, negative Pole). At any rate, here are my responses to Otterly's numbered comments. 1. Otterly's comments here highlight something I have not made clear. I see a big difference between the Overleaves and the fundamental, pure abstract archetypes of which the Overleaves are just one of many manifestations. The thesis I want to present is that the archetypes are an ideal, conceptual "template" or "pattern" that has a mathematically and logically exact existence in the mind of the Tao as revealed by Michael and a myriad of other spiritual teachers down through the millennia. This alleged template may not be the final, ultimate, absolute "truth", but it has the weight of the consensus of spiritual teachings, not just Michael. The Overleaves as expressed in the mere human personality are a crude, dim and distorted shadow of the pure abstract archetypes. The reason is, that "consciousness" is the fundamental ingredient in the archetypes, and conscious, sentient beings can adjust and adapt the archetypes in the processes of "experiential differentiation". As an example, let us take the archetype labeled "Role" in the personality system. Michael says we human souls have the same Role in all lifetimes. I put this particular teaching in the category of "dogma" because, at least for now, I do not see how to Validate this as either a personal, universal, or cosmic truth. It seems very possible to me that a soul or entity or cadre or whatever could, for the purposes of arbitrary experiment, or non-arbitrarily to suit conditions, choose one of the other archetypes and make it something to explore in all lifetimes. End of example. How does this sit with you: The closest we can come to Validating the reality of the archetypes is through mathematics and logic; the closest we can come to Validating the reality of the Overleaves is our own subjective experience. I think one reason we have so much trouble identifying people's Overleaves is because the One, the Two, and the Three are profoundly obscured by the Ten thousand things that the One, the Two, and the Three produced. I want what I think Michael wanted when they provided the Overleaf system: to reveal the One, the Two, and the Three with the hope that we will eventually see our way past the maya of the Ten thousand things. 2. Good points here, in my opinion. Once again, my point is that it is up to the sentient being to adjust, modify, and use any one of the archetypes as the chooser sees fit. The human expression of an Overleaf is much more ambiguous and subject to change than the corresponding archetype. It is the dogmatic aspects of the Michael teaching -- in regard to Chief Feature and everything else -- that I would purge in any mainstreaming that I do. Therefore, I will not teach such things as, Role survives lifetimes and Chief Feature forms in adolescence. Same comment applies to the special way that Centering is explained in the teachings. These might actually be the case in real life -- I do not know -- but they are "revelations" by Michael about how things have been set up for our experience, and these are factors not inherent in the archetypes themselves, so far as I can tell. It is Good Work to Validate both the archetypes and the Overleaves, but they are not exactly the same thing, and they are not Validated the same way. 3. Same response for this item as for item # 2. The archetypes as we experience them in the Overleaves may have been set up such that we humans extinguish the Chief Feature in order to achieve "enlightenment" in our Role, but maybe this could happen some other way if some sentient being at a higher level of reality chose it that way for it's physical plane experience on some other planet in some other kind of body or some other grand cycle or who knows what. 4. As I said above, there are things suitable to be Validated by experience -- as best we can -- and there are things suitable to be Validated -- as best we can -- by mathematics and logic and the scientific method. The latter has mostly been ignored in this teaching because it has not been generally recognized that it was possible. Seems to me that humankind in general is headed for a breakthrough paradigm shift in science and spirituality both, as the two converge in our lifetimes. I think this is some of what is happening during the shift from Young Soul to Mature Soul perception. There is room for both spiritual revelation and for physical science in our consciousness. One final comment: I believe that an understanding of the mathematical and logical derivation of the archetypes will shed light on some of the other topics that have come up for discussion in the list; such as, parallel universes, the structure of the entity, and the place of the pesky chief feature in the evolution of consciousness. It will even provide a serious philosophical explanation of Seth's statements, "You create your own reality", and, "There are no victims." (BTW Dave, I love your outrageous humor!) Namaste, Philbert Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 16:14:17 EDT In a message dated 98-06-25 14:01:42 EDT, Phil writes:
One final comment: I believe that an understanding of the mathematical
Yikes....mathematics tends to throw my neurons into massive mis-fire. Ever since I argued with my first grade teacher(and rather convincingly) that 2+2=5, I've worried that math might send me into some sort of retroactive calamity, such as being reborn with a silver spoon in my mouth while the other kids had tongues. ;-p But your ideas are very interesting, Phil, so I'll print them out and study them....but from a safe distance. Hey, have you thought of packaging your thoughts into a volume that might be more eye-catching then just this present collection of bytes and pixels? I could envision something like a dusty, aging tome that has binding made from dried human flesh, and on the yellow parchment, the print is written in human blood. Kewl, huh? :-) Dave Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 16:49:13 -0400 Mr. WITT' Now see, THIS is the way to communicate! Mister Witt', I want to thank you for taking my post in the exact light that it was meant! That felt very good. It's way too hard sometimes to get what you are experiencing inside, all animated and fun and curious, heart-felt and embracing, challenging, etc. to be conveyed in words. If you have any doubts concerning your communication skill, let me express that you really exude genuineness and I love that! I'm still a little confused as to what EACTLY is trying to be accomplished here, in regard to your theories, but you are making headway with me, at least. From what I do understand the intentions are amazing and exciting! I support your explorations. Depending on you feelings about my channeling, I would like to offer up my services for any technical questions you might have for Michael. It seems that everyone on this list channels Michael, so maybe this is nothing to you, but I have a good feeling about your work. Keep it up. Blue, but not blue, Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 17:31:27 EDT In a message dated 98-06-25 14:01:42 EDT, Phil writes:
Hi Gang, and especially Otterly,
Oh, come on. I bet you just finished making an Otterly doll and you're presently stabbing it repeatedly with a hair pin. ;-p "Die, blue boy, DIE, DIE, DIE!!!!!" You mean you didn't even envision wrapping your long fingers around his throat and squeezing until his eyes bugged out and his tongue started waving like a flag? ;-p Just kidding...;-) Man, I have got to STOP reading so much Harlan Ellison. Dave - with "Tales from the Cadre" {Evil laugh}... Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 20:10:44 -0400 Well, well, well,... Dave is attempting to woo me I see... but,... would anyone REALLY want to wring my neck? (tee hee) SQUEEZE THIS! Otterly Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:03:40 EDT In a message dated 98-06-25 20:18:44 EDT, Otterly writes:
Well, well, well,...
Hahahaha....Actually, if I was trying to woo somebody, I'd have my cattle prod handy...;-p The greater likelihood is that I'm just a bizarre person. But that's okay...I take pride in such things. :-)
SQUEEZE THIS!
{Averting eyes} No, no....take it away! ;-p Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:20:20 -0400 you is so funny i almost got gas... Otterly Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:31:05 EDT Hi All, It is my understanding that the chief features are chosen in response to physical plane experiences during childhood, and not before a particular incarnation. Now I might agree that essence could have something in mind, as Im sure it always does, but Michael has said that children 'try on' various overleaves during the early years, including the centers which are chosen at the 2nd Monad and the Chief Features which are fixated at the beginning of the 3rd monad. So I guess to me it would not be exactly accurate to say that the CF's are chosen before incarnating. Considered, perhaps, as part of the larger life plan, but not 'in place' yet. Best regards. Victoria Marina
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 15:01:48 +0800 Having Impatience CF don't always manifest in terms of rushing around. I have Impatience, and am still dealing with it. Impatience, in me, manifest in the way of "trying to find something to do". :-) e.g. When I'm on the subway, in restaurant waiting for food, even visiting friends or relative. I would "try to find something to do". That is one of the reasons I always carry a book with me... well, nearly always. And I always carry my PalmPilot with me, where it has around 50-100 downloaded emails to read, or several games I can play. I still tend to rush around at times, but I don't feel the "push" from Impatience that acutely. Also, Impatience is one of the CFs that can also be "passed-on" from parents to children. Or "learn by imitation". You did say that you're the one "rushing" your son around. Those are the times when you demonstrate how to be impatient. Just my late $0.02. :-) J J Tan Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 15:14:00 +0800 At 07:04 AM 6/24/98 -0000, Dave wrote:
>This is from the Seth list. I'm not sure how to accept this kind of detached
I don't feel it as "detached intellectualism". And I don't agree that to ignore the problems is to eliminate them. To me, it is "detached", "neutralism". Not "ignore". When we have progressed to the stage of having "been there" and "done that", those issues and lessons experienced and learnt, there is a neutral feeling, that can be expressed and interpreted as "detachment". No this does not help solve the "problems of the world", stop animal cruelty, etc. issues that you seem to involve yourself with. Also, your feeling depressed about how others experience their realities (and choose their ways of acting) is only your use (waste) of your energy.
>always thought that we are to accept responsibility for our choices, and that
hmm.... I thought we are responsible for our choices and actions, whether we accept it or not. And the consequences will always follow, whether we desire it or not.
>the pasage below and tell me how it strikes you. I'm just curious. There is
I guess you can say I "frown" upon your reaction (feeling depressed) because someone else did not see things the same way as you. J J Tan Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 04:15:00 EDT In a message dated 98-06-26 03:22:52 EDT, J J writes:
I don't feel it as "detached intellectualism". And I don't agree that to
To be perfectly honest, I have been "NEUTRAL" (with a few small exceptions) most of my life. Being in "flow" I lead an easy and very relaxed existence, and it's conveniently structured so that if I want to see the atrocities in the world, I need to go WAY out of my way to greet them. In my life, there's absolutely no reason for me to worry about anything. Yet, in the past couple years, something has been tugging at my sleeves with a faint whisper that this is just not good enough. Here I have an opportunity to be a shiftless idler, who gets winded playing chess, and could very well beat Rip Van Winkle's record, but lucky me, "neutral" just doesn't seem to be working anymore. At least not in the literal sense.
No this does not help solve the "problems of the world", stop animal
No offense, but I believe I could have endless cycles of killing and being killed, almost to the point where I could do it while sleep walking, and I would STILL feel depression when people harm others, or demonstrate a lack of interest in the decline of our planetary environment. Obviously, this is a drama I no longer need to play, but I can't help but feel compassion for those who are still emersed in its throes.
> always thought that we are to accept responsibility for our choices, and that
Semantics...you got the general gist
I guess you can say I "frown" upon your reaction (feeling depressed)
No, I feel depressed because it's obvious that this is a prevalent belief in society. There's a long road ahead of us before animal cruelty is remembered, as someone mentioned weeks ago, as "the last great holocaust on the planet," and I don't know if the road is long enough to endure our current environmental timetable. Therefore, I find this rather depressing. I'm sorry if this makes you frown. Dave Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 04:33:30 EDT In a message dated 98-06-25 22:20:45 EDT, Otterly writes:
you is so funny i almost got gas...
{{Burping Blue Boy}} There, there, young grasshopper. When you can snatch the pebbles out of my hand, and I might give you a Tums. Of course, you're not the first person to tell me that my performance "underwhelmed" the audience, but if you're not careful, I might give an encore. ;-) Okay, folks, the intermission is concluded. Phil, we're ready. Say something profound. :-) Dave - Listening intently :-) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 04:49:48 EDT In a message dated 98-06-25 10:12:16 EDT, Thorunn writes:
I cant belive that you have been banned !!!!!! *G*
Well, they didn't really ban me. They mentioned a couple places where I might get some good therapy, along with where I might find a good plague. Good plague? I didn't quite understand this one, but I still don't understand Michael math, so perhaps it's not a total loss. ;-) Dave Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 07:59:35 -0400 I would have to agree with Victoria since I have never heard Michael say anything about choosing a fear BEFORE birth. I don't remember who posted that, but it's not the way I've ever understood the CF; on the other hand, Ms. Marina, you've GOT IT! the choking blue boy, Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:37:26 -0400 per Kenneth Broom:
"Your CF was chosen by you/essence before you were born. You as essence are the cause of your overleaves."
per Victoria Marina:
"It is my understanding that the chief features are chosen in response to physical plane experiences during childhood, and not before a particular incarnation. Now I might agree that essence could have something in mind, as Im sure it always does, but Michael has said that children 'try on' various overleaves during the early years, including the centers which are chosen at the 2nd Monad and the Chief Features which are fixated at the beginning of the 3rd monad. So I guess to me it would not be exactly accurate to say that the CF's are chosen before incarnating. Considered, perhaps, as part of the larger life plan, but not 'in place' yet."
per Troy Tolley (Otterly Blue):
"I would have to agree with Victoria since I have never heard Michael say anything about choosing a fear BEFORE birth. I don't remember who posted that, but it's not the way I've ever understood the CF; on the other hand, Ms. Marina, you've GOT IT!"
per Michael: "All of the above expressions of understanding are correct within their individual contexts. What also is to be considered is that the primary function of a child, teen, and young adult (pre-5th monad) is to explore and test out its earth environment, and its own psychological makeup, to the greatest extent feasible. During these times fears and limitations and personalities are put on and shucked off as easily as one would put on and take off a body suit of clothing. The more intense the experiences during these periods the deeper the resulting "imprinting" of whatever body suit experiences the fragment was wearing during these periods."However, this does not mean that the original set of pre-carnate overleaves as determined by essence and fragments are ignored. A great deal of post-5th-monad manifestation depends on the "relative" strengths of the imprintings vis-a-vis the original overleaves. The imprintings that are in accord with essence intentions are strengthened. If the imprintings are discordant with essence intentions, they will remain with the fragment if they have sufficient energy, even though they may abrade some of the original overleaves. "As far as choosing a fear before birth... at the level of choosing overleaves the CF is not considered a fear. There is no fear at the noncarnate level where overleaves are chosen. CF as a fear manifests on the lower astral and physical planes. On the higher levels CF is chosen as a daunting, and therefore growthful, set of experiences since our present states of human and social development tend to view them as daunting. "The true task of the human fragment usually begins after the child, teen, and pre-5th-monad explorations have been completed and integrated. This pre-5th-monad exploration can take up to 50% of an 80 year human lifetime when it would take only 10% percent of a 400 year lifetime.
"TAO Bless you all." Peace and Light to You and Yours, Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:24:07 -0500 Well, it is another day and I wake up this morning with a bunch of thoughts swirling in my head. Hope it isn't too painful for you to watch the thought processes of an Artisan while he tunes this five channels of input into harmony. A girlfriend once explained why she was dumping me: "You're so convoluted!" As I have said before, we are blessed with an abundance and diversity of channels in the Michael teaching. They do not always agree on matters of what I have been calling "dogma" in my postings, but to me it seems they pretty much speak with one voice when it comes to the important spiritual truths that we all hold near and dear. I feel an appreciation for them welling up, and also an apology for my own self-righteous dogmatism about "dogma". The matters in which their information differs from one another are relatively unimportant in our real spiritual lives. Either they are matters that we ourselves need to validate as personal truths -- such as our own overleaves -- or they are matters that are pragmatically equivalent to the arguments by medieval theologians about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. For example, in this category I put such "dogmas" as, whether your "essence twin" is usually of the same role or usually of another role. For your personality to be misinformed about the role of your soul's essence twin is of little consequence in the evolution of your soul -- because it does know the truth about the role of your essence twin, if any. The soul evolves through love, joy, peace, burning karma, completing monads, keeping agreements, recognizing essence contact, and such. These revelations are the real hallmarks and foundations of the Michael teachings, and these truths have real value. My ego has been running amok and I lost my perspective. My own little pet theory about the structure of the archetypes probably falls into the category of "unimportant". I have been way out of line in some of my remarks. From the channels we have consistently received significant revelations from Michael, revelations that assist us in relaxing the ego to allow the soul to work out its fulfillment on the physical plane. The matters in which the Michael teaching offends my German sense of precision engineering are insignificant in the greater scheme of things. From now on, I will no longer insist that you address me as, "Mein Feuhrer". !!!!! Phil Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 10:56:18 -0400 Well, I guess it's clear now who must have posted that original comment. Sorry. I would have to agree that the CF to be called a fear is probably not valid on all levels of experience, especially "outside" the physical plane. But, then, murder and planetary raping, violence, etc., are seen as valid choices too, OUTSIDE the Physical, and all part of our growth (or destruction -- which might be seen as growth too "from a distance"). So, since I'm still here, and can choose to see Violence/Murder/Cruelty as a valid way of living, if I'm creative enough to get by with it, and can find total neutrality in the midst of it, I suppose we'd have a far different agenda for progress. The CF can be seen in that same light. If you CAN feel comfortable in the midst of what most certainly (while Physically-incarnated, at least) appears to be FEAR (all the manifestations of CF), then sink into it, and embrace. I used to think that way, actually, while struggling with coming to terms with being beaten as a child by my own Mother, left outside, naked, because I wanted to play in the snow and she was in a bad mood, being trapped under a kitchen table while she slept on the floor with a knife, threatening to cut me if I moved, ... I went on to find abusive relationships for years; my mind screamed to "HIT ME, that's how I know you love me!" Of course, being an Old Soul, there was always this sense of being guided and in a space of knowledge that allowed this Karma to be played through, without losing my mind,... or heart. In fact, I took my abuse and found in it the desire to transform all levels of Harm. Since I gained such insight into pain and could empathize amazingly with others, I had continued the trend of remaining in some way abused. I profited in so many ways! I was getting the only form of love I really knew, then I could turn that into points for understanding another! Everybody loved me! But, then, it was if I woke up. I never needed to indulge in that pain so passively like I had grown, unconsciously, to believe. I had embraced what could easily be seen as a metaphor for the CF, if not a CF itself. It hurt. One day, after beginning my process of saying "no", and understanding my right to pleasurable love, Michael said something that will always be a Mantra for me: MICHAEL: "You don't have to stay inside a burning house to learn how to love it..." So, RECOGNITION of CF, I feel, is amazingly valuable, but the release of it, the "extinguishing of it", is what saved my life, and loves. I offer up that to turn your CF, itself, into something valuable, while Physical, is a transformation. This would no longer be a CF, then. I'm all for new info and breakthroughs, even model-busting that we've all gotten used to. But, sometimes we are too quick to think that is "michael" coming through. Maybe it's another slick attempt of the CF, incognito? Otherwise, maybe I just didn't get it? happy now, but sometimes hated, Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 11:08:54 -0400 Philip, You are definitely on to something with your humble explorations, and I, for one, am enjoying your brain farts and burps. They come from a Rich Meal of Thoughts! Hee hee! Keep us informed. Do you have any sample text of your book? increasingly, Blue Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 12:32:30 EDT Dear Phil -- Before you self-dep yourself into oblivion, I want to hear a lot more of your ideas. IMHO Michael said in Yarbro that theirs is a teaching for old souls, and (my addition) in general, "mystery schools" of the past, which involved discarnate sources and metaphysical and esoteric subject matter, likewise were for old souls generally. The most original and basic Michael material is metaphysics. It pertains to non-physical levels of beingness and the reality of the cosmos as seen from their causal plane beingness. If, as Michael said, old souls are basically in some way teachers (i.e., doing a 5th chakra thing), to do it properly they need to have a not confused understanding of non-physical reality. By that I mean, most commonly, such things as death and the spirit world, past lives, karma and agreements, the strong connections we have with some other people, and so on. These are subjects which we usually will get into when we are being wise people or "teachers". IMHO it is very much acceptable that we discuss these things and refine our understandings of them. The final version of Michael's teachings is far from complete at this point! We should be aware of the positive and negative sides of scholar (knowledge vs. theory) and artisan (creation vs. artifice or self-deception). IMHO we should bring out into the light whatever Michael inspires us to. Someday hopefully someone can synthesize all of it together with whatever JP et al are getting. At the conference last year they described it as a process just entering the third of seven phases corresponding with 14-year Neptune timings. Whatever.... there is a lot more of the Michael system yet to come, and much of it is in templates or creations at the astral and causal plane level or higher. This includes the cadre/entity structure and the mathematics of overleaves and other energies. So, Phil, you have good stuff in the Process Aspect manuscript and elsewhere, and please don't be shy about bringing it out and refining it. All the best, Ed Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 12:46:49 -0400 YAY!! Thanks ED! I'm so eager to hear more of Phil's Spills and maybe the REALITY of our genuine interest will get him all excited to share! Hooray for Teamwork! ott Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:58:30 -0700 Hi Everyone, I'm not here to argue with anyone about when we choose our CF, I just want to tell what's been my experience as of the last year or so, regarding a spirit who I have an agreement with, who will be my second child. "She" (I call her she because she comes to me looking like a little girl in my dreams and envisioning of her, but it doesn't really tell me if she'll be a boy or girl when I do go through with this agreement) makes herself known to me in very unsubtle ways, and one way is her pushiness, anger, and impatience with which she comes off at me. Yes--she is VERY impatient. I don't know if that will be her CF once she is alive, but right now, as an astral fragment waiting to come in, she's sometimes very impatient. It got so bad last week when I kept insisting I am not ready right now and that she was going to have to wait longer and that she ought to consider my life and the other people involved too. I basically told her to go back to the Light and think about it for a while. Hah! I think she's angry because probably I agreed to let her in for this time period now (I don't remember, I made this agreement a long time ago--maybe before I even came into this body, I just always felt I'd have two children someday, ever since I was very young), and now I've changed my mind, to put it off a while....So, I'm not meeting her expectations.... Children are manipulative to get their own way, and yes, they are innocent also. I just can't believe how manipulative they can be even before they are born, and how obvious they can make their presence known!! Now sure--some psychologist out there, go ahead and tell me I have delusions of persecution, I dare you! ;-p Hehehehe, I feel playful today. BTW: Otterly and Phil, I'm enjoying your really getting to the heart of the matter and all your honesty and sharing.... I don't know much German, just a few bad words (we always learn those first huh? heh!) and a nice phrase, "Ich liebe dich," which I'm told in English means, "I love you." And I think this phrase, in whatever language, ought to be said between parents and children often. :^) And it should be shown in a kind, compassionate way.....even sometimes when it needs to be "tough." Frankly it's something I can't ever say enough, those three little words that mean so much. It never gets old to me, or taken for granted. Phil I don't know what "Mein Freuher" (or whatever you said) means but I wish you farfugfleugen or something. ;-) A girlfriend dumped you because you were too "convoluted"??? That is too funny--I'd have thought it would be a compliment! I mean, it certainly has its advantages. Then again, my hatha yoga instructor said it just means we're very limber in the hips. ;-p And Otterly, I offer you a huge (((((((((((HUG))))))))))) from a young mother who has vowed to never, ever hit a child in anger, because like you, I've made a promise, a commitment that the cycle stops RIGHT HERE. With me--this is where it ended. And through the death of the cycle of abuse I choose transformation--a new beginning, and I even do have my CF to thank for many of the things I've learned. Impatience is often the kick in the butt that I need to show me what my fears were, and to get me up to do something and actually make changes in my life. Not to say it hasn't been hard a lot of the time! It's been getting to me lately too! Anyway, have a great day! Love, Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 14:30:01 EDT In a message dated 98-06-26 10:24:10 EDT, Phil writes:
The soul evolves through love, joy, peace, burning karma, completing monads,
Good God, Phil. I asked for something profound, not depressing. Now I feel like slitting my wrists. BTW, is it a vertical or horizontal cut? Seriously, I don't think you're stepping on any toes here. We all offer our two cents , and then hash, and re-hash, and then stir and serve. It actually makes for a delectable mix, and your pinch of spice is just the right flavor. So no apology is needed, and hopefully you'll bounce back out of your self- imposed state of Self-Dep exile. Because if you don't, you might miss some important things. I mean, it might rain soup, and there'll you'll be, standing there with a fork instead of a spoon. ;-p Dave Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 14:56:50 -0400 FIRST, thanks for your hug, I felt it! You've always been the sweetness and light of the list! And I want to make it clear that I spoke of the abuse from a place very far from a place of sadness. I DO value the experience insomuch as you can, and mainly because of my efforts to love, not only myself, but those who are still playing "the bad guys" for the collective consciousness, until we all finally say enough. It's like, we've all been so ingrained with the root assumption that pain = growth, (which just isn't true, universally, at least) that we actually HONOUR it. Just like I was saying earlier that I was getting SO MUCH out of it, albeit unconsciously, that I thought it was OK. As beings designed to seek pleasure and intimacy, it's such a bizarre paradox. Somehow we've glamorized pain, anguish and suffering. But, look at the realizations that America is finally going through with this ever-growing, ever-loving Mature Soul population that can actually say, "NO!" to the likes of Jerry Springer. It wasn't that the idiotic brawls weren't entertaining, and absurd, but the realization that these were PEOPLE we were essentially pitting against each other by supporting that format that brought about the change. Look how religion has glamorized suffering with the incessant reminder that "JESUS SUFFERED AND DIED FOR YOU!!!" And considering he's the "Son of God", that would only seem to be the right path to follow in our daily examples. "The more pain and suffering I've endured the more real and valuable I am." It could be said that ARROGANCE/SELF-DEP' might have been what was actually my savior through my childhood, giving support to the theory of Kenneth (as I understand it?), but that's just NOT true. It was my love that got me through. Regardless of my environment, I believed I was loved. I truly did. I never felt separated from my Universe, only from my Mother, and then each relationship helped me to process that. It's all very complex, but I think we are doing a disservice to the teachings and to ourselves by giving the CF's the wrong credit; they deserve credit, but not in the way I think it's been expressed. I think there may be a misunderstanding as to what we perceive. We, by nature, I believe, look for the good in all things. This includes our CF's. Though WE can use them to our advantage when we are conscious of them, I still have to say that the moment you are conscious of them, and able to transform your experience into one of empowerment, it is no longer a CF! That would be like saying the color BLACK is still BLACK even when I exchange it or alter it to Red, or Blue, etc. It may be technically true that all colors are present in all colors, but we don't live there. We live where we recognize the differences and though we can learn to love them all, they are not the same things to us. For instance, in LIFE 101, they teach that the same biological responses occur in fear and excitement, therefore you can transform your fear into the realization that you are just excited, and move foreword with empowerment. The symptoms may have appeared the same, but it was the replacement of the consciously-chosen energy that made the difference. In retrospect, we might look back and glamorize fear, but the truth is, fear wouldn't have moved. See, I think the confusion is based on something very beautiful, actually, because when we look at anything from LOVE, all is included, even the CF, but it's from the perspective inside the CF that we see no love. WE are all trying to place the CF in a loving context, which Michael would probably say is "Good Work", but this does not mean we have to glamorize it, or promote it as valuable, when it's not required by anyone, anything, universally, or otherwise, that we live with it. (the "burning house" mantra again) So, I think that's where we might be with this. And as for you YOUNG LADY: We say we see the Impatience in an unborn child/Essence (even our toddlers), but we forget our own needs to see our personal lessons in whatever manner fits us. In this case, might it be an interpretation of Impatience on behalf of the Essence, when actually it's just the Essence/unborn child, quite consciously, pushing YOUR buttons of Impatience, so you, yourself, can complete lessons around feeling comfortable with "NO." What better gift could an unborn Essence give to it's Mother; the peace to say "no" with trust, instead of saying "yes" with resentment? This child might know you too well? Please know this is just an idea, and not an argument, because I trust you, Lori, in your perceptions. But, MAYbeee..., ya nevva know? GAWD! What has gotten into me?! Hope you guys/gals are having fun with all this and not taking it too seriously? Anyway, love is in the air, Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 16:04:21 EDT In a message dated 98-06-26 14:57:06 EDT, Otterly writes:
FIRST, thanks for your hug, I felt it! You've always been the sweetness and
Ah, yes. Lori is.....THE LOVE BROKER. :-)))))))))))) Dave Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 15:11:05 -0500 Thank you all for your support. I'm feeling much better now. The nurses have adjusted my medication and they tell me if I be good for just a little longer they will take the straightjacket off. I will like that. It hasn't been easy typing with the pencil between my teeth. They also tell me that if I continue to improve, they will let me out of the padded cell to take a walk in the zen garden here at the sanitarium. That will be nice. It's so pretty and peaceful there. They even said if I promise not to hurt myself or other people any more they will let me draw up a chart of the archetype structure to share with you soon. What fun that will be! La, la, la, la, la . . . . Bye . . . Phil Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 16:23:39 EDT In a message dated 98-06-26 16:14:36 EDT, Phil writes:
Thank you all for your support. I'm feeling much better now. The
Oh, I can almost envision those nurses; their dresses cut to "see" level, their mounds of pleasure defying all laws of gravity. Man, Phil, it must have been hard being tied up like that. No pun intended. ;-p And the walk through the zen garden. I hope there were lots of pretty flowers. I like pretty flowers. Good to have you back, fellow artisan. :-) Dave Date: Fri, 26 Jun 98 13:54:37 -0700
>I think I've been banned from the Seth list. (sniff, sniff...)
Dave Yours -- Ted Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:29:32 EDT Hey, I was just chided by a person who calls herself a "speaker." Seth had mentioned that Ralph Waldo Emerson was a speaker. I wonder if Emerson would have called me an idiot? I wonder if Emerson knows I stuck a piece of bubble gum on the front door of his house when I was in Concord last summer? Has Michael ever spoke of "speakers?" <---try to say that 10 times as fast as you can. It's thrilling!
> Can you elaborate on this in terms I can understand? What do you mean you
Dave Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:31:46 EDT In a message dated 98-06-26 16:54:42 EDT, Ted writes:
Dave
ROFLMMFAO...That's a good one, Ted. I'm proud to have you in my entity. ;-)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:12:52 -0700
> FIRST, thanks for your hug, I felt it! You've always been the sweetness and light of the list!
Thanks Otterly! Admittedly though, I'm not always so nice....
> And I want to make it clear that I spoke of the abuse from a place very far
I know what you are saying, I'm coming into this place within myself, as well. I just was thinking about how our mothers are usually the very first examples, and the most influential examples that we have of what Woman is. Sure it seems that's an easy one--women have these body parts and men have these other ones, but obviously I'm talking about something more than this, something on an energetic level that is on the female side of the duality of the physical plane. There is a certain flow of energy that is distinctly, "woman." It's hard-wired into the human-beingness of women. When the essence and personality (no matter how much masculine or feminine energy the essence has) are in harmony with the body, this energy flow is in balance. This energy is essentially a powerful force, an involuted force, it is the dark abyss, that expands inward instead of outward, (the energy of the male is the opposite, expanding outward, explosive, light)....This archetype even reminds me of space: men would be the supernovae, and women the black holes (gravity wells). Well now doesn't that sound Freudian? LOL! Ok, anyways.... My point is the disharmonious woman creates such a false image of what in its highest potenial is the essence of the Goddess. When her power is misused, she creates chaos....and in order to clean something up, something else has to get dirty. So we all suffer when the Woman is not in balance. It is not in balance in this world. And I do feel Her pain when I see stories of abuse and violence, and I have compassion, although I may not always know what to do about it. That is where I'm coming from on this. The one thing I have made a commitment to myself to do is to keep becoming more of the Harmonious Woman in this life, with Love, because who and what I am, I know, does make a difference in the world. I am one of many and I know my part makes a difference in the whole. < lots of good stuff snipped >
> We, by nature, I believe, look for the good in all things. This includes
Yes, I agree! And as a woman in this life, I've agreed to be I guess you could say, an instrument of transformation for the Earth and the female side of this human species, in order to assist its integration with the male side, and to be a bridge somehow....I do this rather quietly, it's not so exalted as it may appear here in my writing.
> And as for you YOUNG LADY: We say we see the Impatience in an unborn
Indeed I think you do have a piece of the puzzle here, Otterly. Someone else said to me last week how he has transformed his life through the belief that there is nothing outside of himself (I haven't forgotten you Tim! Thank you!!!) Then there's this loud voice in me that says, "These guys must not have kids! Only people who never had kids would tell me such things!" LOL! (Please don't get offended.) ;-) YES, YES I SEE IT! I certainly have "fun" with the concept of "It's never about the other person," as a way of being accountable for my own life. Sometimes it's not very comfortable, because my ego wants to blame things outside myself, or others, for "making me" feel a certain way, or I even blame myself a lot for not meeting expectations.... But, at the same time, and it's just been in the past few years that I've found this out--I tend to take on other people's stuff a lot, and do a lot of emotional processing for them. Even for astral beings. I know I attract to me people/beings who have the same kind of stuff or lacks that I feel in myself, and sure, you get more of what you focus on. The last few years I've been using the goal of discrimination a lot, which is often difficult since I'm in intense growth, but when I really focus I can use discrimination effectively. What I've had to do is figure out what's "Mine" and what's "Not Mine," and process it accordingly. I tend to blame myself a lot for stuff that isn't even mine, things I didn't even know weren't mine! And being a Scholar on top of all of that, you know, we just suck stuff up and don't let go of hardly anything without a whole lot of conscious effort to change that ingrained soul-behaviour. I'm very psychically sensitive, and pick up stuff all around me, often unconsciously. What Michael showed me was how to notice what was not my stuff and how to let it go. And I have learned how to let go of a lot of my own stuff too, but that's another story. I was carrying around burdens for others so much that I sometimes could hardly function myself. I saw a lot of this when I had astral beings removed from my aura. I think a lot of us, especially (but not exclusively) women, tend to take on other's emotional stuff when the others don't want to have to deal with it. And we feel responsible even when we are not. Now it's still not easy to see when the stuff I get into is only my own self-karma, or when someone else is projecting onto me, or an astral being is clinging to me, but after a while I can tell the difference. And I am grateful for the experience, because I do get spiritual lessons out of it, and sometimes others do too, and whether it was joyful or painful, it's still one step closer to the goal.... Some of the most valuable lessons I got the painful way, and I would not glorify that, and it's not something I look forward to in getting through lessons, but *sometimes* it's the fastest way to healing. And since I asked for the fastest way to healing (along with a few other things along the way :-)) I have been willing to take on some of the painful lessons as one of the prices I'm willing to pay to reach my goal. (Notice I didn't say "suffer the consequences," because, that seems rather, um "martyrdom-ish" to me. The price I'm willing to pay comes from a more neutral space.) Well anyway Otterly, back to your suggestion regarding the gift that this spirit who will be my next child may be offering me, I would say, yes, you're right. I'm sure that she does know me very well and does press my buttons of impatience (and it's up to me to remove my own buttons.) At the same time though, I can tell there's a lot of her own stuff involved in this as well, and in order to keep my own sanity (which is questionable at times anyway, heh) I must ask her to get out of my space so I don't have to process her stuff around this issue as well as my own. I have a friend who has seen her around me too, and she actually made her presence known to us in a moment of clarity, through another child who was the "messenger." It was startling and beautiful at the same time! I can tell she will be quite an incredible being, whoever she turns out to be, and that I will learn a lot from her. I am already grateful. :^) Yeah, Otterly and Tim, maybe you guys are right more than I am willing to admit.... Love and surrendering laughter, Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 19:32:19 -0600 Phil:
The thesis I want to present is that the archetypes are an
Gloria: Yuk. I don't see it that way. My sense is that the term "archetypes" at best invokes a crude concept for these "patterns," and that, rather than having a mathematically exact existence at Tao, they are fluid patterns--resilient, resonant, continuously fluctuating as they flow out of the container that is the Tao--to us, and back again, to the Tao. Patterns which move to an ever-responsive rhythm within a fathomless creative source. Phil:
The Overleaves as expressed in the mere human personality are a
Gloria: I don't think so. I believe they are very reflective of the spectrum of expression of these "archetypes." And I'm sorry you see the human personality in such mere terms, as there is much about the human personality that is extraordinary. It is a wondrous thing to me, that despite the thick dimensionality and proclivity for forgetfulness of this dimensional existence, we nevertheless have all capability of recalling our Selves, and acting from that Self-knowledge. Gloria Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 19:32:28 -0700
> Ah, yes. Lori is.....THE LOVE BROKER. :-))))))))))))
Heheh, thanks Dave. Is it Ok if I'm a bitch sometimes too? :-D Lori singing some Meredith Brooks-- "I'm a bitch, I'm a lover, I'm a child, I'm a mother, I'm a sinner, I'm a
saint, I do not feel ashamed....." smooches, Date: Fri, 26 Jun 98 19:41:39 -0700
>Hey, I was just chided by a person who calls herself a "speaker." Seth had
This is sounding way too religious Dave.Sometimes I wonder if our beloved higher beings like to watch our folly as we learn our lessons. Knowing Seth personally I think he is laughing his ass off, and please excuse my minor explitive (if we play a minor explitive on a major explitive do we get a 13th chord and therefore are we playing the devil's music. Speaking of music how many of you 5th entity folk have performed musically?) Is a speaker the same as a sage???? or is this something else, -pole woofer, +pole tweeter. If a speaker is a sage, then what is an artisan? A mixing board? Are servers or warriors the amplifiers.....?????? Don't get me wrong I like Seth and I find a good bit of useful truth in his teaching through Jane Roberts.
>>Can you elaborate on this in terms I can understand? What do you mean you
How about giving me what ever you put in your pipe so I can smoke it! I tell you what, right now, I will channel Seth and see what he says about all this. Right Now: The catch 22. It is quite true that this is all illusion and it is quite right to believe that your reality, and all realities for that matter are illusions. Our reality itself is an illusion. The difference is that we are more aware of the mechanical processes that are used to create the illusion. For example, think of two engineers, one that drives a steam locomotive and one that invents electronic computers. The driver of the steam engine is quite limited in what actions can be taken while the inventor of the computer is open to a vast array of possibilities, almost infinite, in the variety of proceedures that the computer can be programmed for. We are then creating a reality that has a foundation of a super comupter rather than a lowly steam locomotive. You have then a state of hypnosis creating more hypnosis and this is the catch 22. Your illusion is just as much creating you as you are creating the illusion. The solution then is to write a more powerful illusion that will in turn serve you in the creation of your own illusion. You have then solidified your reality to such an extent that you cannot walk through a wall that is a construction of your own thoughts. You can though and often do, walk through your own thoughts. The key to this lies in your perception of your separation. WHEN YOU BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE NOT SEPARATE FROM EXTERNAL REALITY THEN YOU TAKE FULL OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ILLUSION YOU HAVE BEEN CREATING ALL ALONG ANYWAY. Your thought of the wall as an external reality then becomes your own thought which of course you can walk effortlessly through or change at anytime. You do so anyway. Every change in the moment is a change in your thought, however your perception of yourself as being separate organizes a set of rules that for you in your present condition make it quite difficult to alter. The alteration of the rules comes from more of you, or more of what you believe yourself to be, entering into the moment. You are in a partial moment of yourself or a moment separate from your greater selves. Once the greater selves of you are placed within your present moment then the rules slowly but surely begin to alter and alter consciously. Between Michael and ourselves there is only a difference in how our students practise becoming their greater selves. You have the tools of the overleaves with the goal of obtaining awareness of the polarities of the personality. Our students of course have illusions about themselves to move through before they can reach the next level of illusion. The point before a breakthrough can be agonizing as many of you have come to realize. Please realize that the goal is to CREATE THE ILLUSION RATHER THAN LETTING THE ILLUSION CREATE YOU. One more note, and many of you on this list have been asking for clarification on what we are about to say. YOU ARE COMING TO A PLACE WHERE THE DISTINCTION OR SEPARATION BETWEEN YOUR DREAMING REALITY AND YOUR MECHANICAL WAKING REALITY IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE DIFFUSE. You can practise this by being more and more aware of yourself in your reality. That is spend time observing yourself in the most mundane of events. Especially being stuck on the freeway. Most affectionatly yours, Seth (just another dude from causal land) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 23:45:23 EDT In a message dated 98-06-26 22:41:21 EDT, Ted writes:
>No, you idiot, what part of this do you not understand! It is an illusion
Ted.....Patsy is on the other list, but I'll send her your regards, if you
like. ;-p Dave :-) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 02:43:54 EDT Hi All, Wow- what a wonderful and lively discussion between everyone, including chief features! Im sure they (CF's) all just snort and laugh when we start talking about them saying 'hey look- the humans are trying to figure this out again:...snort...chortle...cough. On a different note and related to the title (my artisan casting is showing Im afraid) We just put up some new channeling about Leadership from Michael's perspective. Its kind of a 'Who's Who' list on the great leaders of all time. We will also be posting more material this next week. Check it out at the website. Best regards, Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 23:59:39 +0800 At 03:24 PM 6/25/98 -0000, PJ wrote:
>I do know that the Michaels say that we can get beyond our CFs. But, I don't
In case nobody responded, :-) check out "Transforming Your Dragons" by Jose Stevens. I have found it to be very helpful and have recommended it to my colleague. She found it good, too. Regards. Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 18:44:44 +0000 Hi, To quote Phil:
I attended the Michael seminar ... in Santa Fe this past weekend, and I am all fired up. ... Much of the presentation at the conference had to do with the future of this teaching during this world's transition from Young Soul consciousness to Mature Soul consciousness. They are looking for ways to "mainstream" this teaching during the next few years and decades. They realize that we have a very good thing with this teaching, and that eventually it will be well known throughout the world, and they want to make it more palatable to the "secular" masses so that they can receive its benefits right along with the "spiritual" masses that are attracted to revelations from mid-causal teachers and such. They realize that if we are going to mainstream this teaching, that it is expedient to find a way to present the information without emphasizing its source as "revealed" channeled teaching.
Who's the "they" here, the conference attendees or the Michaels? Either way, I do think it would be "Good Work" to up the visibility of the teachings themselves by exploring more interesting (or entertaining?) ways to present the info -- it's something I feel inspired to pursue myself. However, I'd personally steer clear of "evangelising". As a psychologist, my own route down this path is to see a way to integrate/correlate the Michael system with the field of transpersonal psychology. I can see great potential for marrying the concepts of essence roles, overleaves, law of seven and so on with the theoretical work of Wilber, Grof, Maslow and others, all of whom have a lot to say about the evolution of personal consciousness beyond the ego-self. What's MISSING in transpersonal theory is an appreciation of how individual consciousness evolves in stages over many lives (i.e. through reincarnation), as well as a meaningful understanding of what Phil calls the seven archetypes. I also think the Michael teachings themselves could be put across to some people more effectively using the language and perspectives of transpersonal psychology. B a r r y Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 19:08:42 +0000 Ed said:
IMHO Michael said in Yarbro that theirs is a teaching for old souls, and
Oops, I've obviously gatecrashed the wrong party. Well, I'll just be going now... B a r r y Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 19:28:36 +0000 Lori said:
Now sure--some psychologist out there, go ahead and tell me I have
OK, you have delusions of persecution! Then again, maybe not. (But just to check: what's your CF -- martyrdom, or self-destruction?) Speaking of CFs, I would suggest that the function of a Chief Feature is to increase the experience of SEPARATION, which is after all one of the things we come here to experience and live through. Essence presumably knows all about oneness, but to *realise* its own Self through its own experience it must "differentiate" itself from oneness. So the soul is incarnating in physicality as a separate body -- you can't get much more differentiated than that. But what the CF also does is create the experience of being a separate MIND. This "forces" the individual to "think for himself", to consciously call upon their own inner resources and confront outer reality. In order to transcend ego, you need an ego to transcend. So I'd say CF's job is to reinforce the development of ego, which fosters a sense of self-responsibility. At the 4th monad, soul says to ego "Thanks, but I'll take over from here". (And ego, of course, says "Get lost"). More Saturday afternoon musings, B a r r y_________
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 15:36:31 -0400 Hey again! I don't understand how or why we would want to worry about "mainstreaming" the teaching. I know someone would stand to make a lot more money, or at least those with the impetus to write or speak. But who would be the Authority? What would all the Michael Channels do? Will we have to develop a Secret Society to figure a way to infiltrate the media and lives of people with new information from Michael? Where WILL we say we got the Teachings from? And are we in any position to be concerned about "saving lost souls"? It's not the marketing that's a problem, it's what people are drawn to. We can spice it up or color it any way we want, but it's still the same teaching (I would hope). Look at the Celestine Prophecy; an accident! I don't think this guy knew it would be a cult classic! Now they make curtains and toilet seats based on this. I, personally, found the Celestine Prophecy to be something far from what the "mainstream" found it. I don't want the Michael Teaching to be a novelty, too. Michael has mentioned their specific Agreements with their Students, and has conveyed a deep trust in the individuals to come to them when they choose, or to whatever teaching an Essence may be drawn to. See, I think we could bring greater attention to the Teaching and Michael FOR WHAT IT IS. What the approach should be is to develop different angles to market the information so that Michael can speak to the Young Souls, Baby Souls, etc. There could be specific books catering to the interests. Then a blurb in an AFTERWARD to share the source? Individuals may even write THEIR how-to books based on what they've learned through the Michael Teachings as their OWN teachings. That would be cool. The Seth fans have gone on to do this. Celestine goobers have done it. Even the whole Course in Miracles stuff. No one hid their origins. I'm excited about the prospect of this all being even more mainstream than it is. That would be great for people to share their Role as easily as they share their Sun Sign. I just don't know about the whole incognito thing. We can provide revelation without watering it down. otterly Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 15:39:52 -0400 Barry said:
Speaking of CFs, I would suggest that the function of a Chief Feature is
************************************************************* And Otterly says: EXCELLENT THOUGHTS! Otterly then says: bye bye Date: Sat, 27 Jun 98 14:42:28 -0700
>Dave, it's so fun to argue with you. Come on; we're tool-users, that's the
This is somewhat old stuff now, but on reviewing saved emails I can't resist the following comment.
>After all we started out as hunter-gathers; it was through...
Started out as hunter-gatherers? For those of us who are a bit more Darwinian in their story of our origins.....started out as randomly colliding organic molecules in a tidal pool.....and on and on. (Darwin may have been on to something but I personally think he could have abandoned the random in random selection) As far as algae goes are we eating our ancestors?? Good stuff, I've been eating Aphanazomen flos aquae for about four years now. It has a less green and more oceanic flavor than Spirolina. It has more of a sushi taste (Sorry Dave but I like my fish raw). It is also the high prana, wild variety. Tune into the planet eat Aphanazomen. Ted
Michael Teachings | Site Map | Welcome | Introduction | Michael FAQ | Soul Age | Roles | Overleaves | Advanced Topics | Nine Needs | Michael Channeling | Related Articles | Channels & Resources | Michael Tools | Michael Books | Michael Chat | Michael Student Database | Role Photos | Spiritweb List Archives | Personality Profile | Translations | Glossary | Links | |
Next Page | 1998/21
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |