Date: Mon, 6 Jul 98 23:05:07 UT
Subject: Self-karma

Hello again, companions on the path; I've missed you!

I am trying to figure out what "self-karma" is. All I can find is in "Tao to Earth," where Jose describes it as how you judge yourself. That sounds a little pat to me. I'm wondering if it might have to do with the issue of drawing to ourselves that which we most fear. For example, I suspect that I have self-karma around the issue of being abandoned. I have been abandoned in recent lives and in this one, with resulting karma, but also I've got an attitude about it now that I'm trying to overcome. I don't want to draw any more people to me who will abandon me again to fulfill my fear!

I'm inviting your theories here, or at least your opinions.

Love,
Jody

Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:21:41 -0500
Subject: self-karma

Hi Jody,

As I understand it, "self-karma" is the term applied to that class of phenomena where it seems the soul has chosen to experience something that its personality would un-choose if it could. In other words, your own "soul" "imposed" something on you that you would not have chosen for yourself, as distinct from some other, more "powerful", person imposing their choice on you as in "karma". Everything is choice, as Michael says, but one of the fundamental, necessary realities in a conscious, choosing, cosmos is the concept of "levels". Choices are made at levels that restrict choices at other levels. For instance, personalities would not normally choose a physical or mental handicap because it does not enhance the ability of the personality/body to survive and thrive. Yet, look at all the personalities/bodies that are encumbered with these challenges. The "justification" or "rectification" for this is that it fosters "surviving and thriving" or some greater value at a more enduring, or a higher, or a more integrated ("powerful") level of consciousness. This is all a feature of what I call the "Law of Threeness", in the mathematical system to be explained later. Simply stated, what looks like a paradox/contradiction/duality/polarity at one level of consciousness is harmonized/unified at the next (a more "powerful") level of consciousness.

Namaste

Philbert

Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 22:44:34 EDT
Subject: Chief Feature, Mainstreaming

I remember in Hoodwin's book, "Journey of
a Soul" he mentioned that he channeled a few people's overleaves without a
Chief Feature. It was particularly confusing because one particular client
of his was acting (or speaking?) in a arrogant manner. Upon confirmation
from Michael, it was said that the client choose to behave arrogant because
that is the most effective way in his business life, but he does not have
the element of the fear (vulnerability) of arrogance. I think Michael
further elaborated that (my paraphrase) Chief Features are "bad" if we are
not conscious of it acting out. It is like the centering and the "part",
or "trap". It is when we are not conscious of it, that it becomes a
"trap", and in as much the same way, when we are not conscious of it, the
Chief Feature is the trap that ensnares us.

When we are aware of it, Chief Features can be less of a "shield" (when it
was fear-based), but more or a "mask" (in the sense of stage drama).

A clarification: the man who I was certain had arrogance as his chief feature acted arrogantly according to the usual definition of the word. Michael said that he didn't have the c.f. of arrogance because his behavior wasn't based on a fear of criticism or vulnerability--he was just conceited. Maybe he had let his high position within our spiritual organization go to his head. His arrogance wasn't a mask protecting raw nerves; the criticisms of others didn't mirror self-criticism or doubt--he seemed to have quite a high opinion of himself through and through that didn't waver. To my knowledge, he wasn't consciously affecting that style to be effective in his interactions, either.

I knew two women who packed their days overfull and ran around trying to fit everything in. This is typical of people in impatience who often rush because they're afraid of missing out (I tend to do that, and I'm in impatience). However, one of these women was in greed, and she confirmed that her behavior was motivated by a need to try to fill the gaping hole she perceived within herself. The other was in self-deprecation--she rushed around trying to become more adequate, in her perception. So the chief feature is a matter of motivation rather than behavior, the main blinding fear we're working on.

All c.f.s are latent in all of us. When I read Jose Steven's excellent "Transforming Your Dragons," I identified with every c.f. I think of the c.f.s as being unifiying themes around which essence can "bundle" together specific unresolved experiences and false beliefs so as to better focus on them and clear them. There are no "good" c.f.s, but if we didn't concentrate our blinds spots together to make them more apparent, it would be harder to work on them.

I, too, have concerns about mainstreaming the Michael teachings in such a way that obscures the source of the material. When people read about a complex system, they are naturally going to wonder where it came from. I think it's quite possible that before long, the mainstream will accept channeling, just as it now accepts environmental issues (a totally fringe issue in 1970), holistic healing, and many other things.

All the best,
Shepherd

Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 15:20:41 EDT
Subject: Chief Feature Rescue!

  Hi Rachel,

      I would also suggest some true play or rest. Or maybe a good long nap!

      Victoria Marina

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 17:04:25 -0700
Subject: I'm Your Bud!

I'm your bud, you better believe it! I know someone you can HAVE from the fourth entity. He's a mature 7 priest in stubbornness who asked me to marry him within two days of having met me. He's also the only other surviving member of my quadrate, so when he decided to cut off all communication with me based on a few disagreements--I wanted to get to know him before I married him, his total disdain for, and disbelief in, astrology as a powerful tool, and his utter rejection of Michael--I took it hard. Like I said, you can have him--he won't even know he's been moved. Maybe we should put him in another cadre, too.

Gloria

Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 00:26:18 +0000
Subject: Re: Mainstreaming

Kathy said:

Barry has a part of the key. To make psychology flexible enough to work
under "new rules" and train a new set of "holistic" psychologists, who
in turn will make their own progress. This would work with educational
approaches, which are comfortable with the psych basis. There won't be
much money to be made in this, that I can see.

In which case, I hearby QUIT!

Only kidding.

Kathy also said:

Barry! The one problem I am running into here, in "mainstreaming" is
how to make the reincarnational aspect palatable to this judeo/christian
society. Have you worked on this angle, or have any ideas? I can see
modifying Jungian archetypes to more readily express Role, but the other
is a difficult concept. We may need a few more "Bridey Murpheys" in
order to get the population at large comfortable with the concept.

Well, as a scholar I've got about 50 or so books on reincarnation, life after death and past life therapy. I think the population at large is a lot more confortable with the concept without any of us having to go on about it. Have you seen the statistics lately? At the time of the Bridey Murphey case, I thnk the proportion of the Euro/American population accepting reincarnation was about 4%. Now it's more like 40%. The Bridey Murphy case was badly "rubbished" by a skepical press (the Skeptics doing their bit: to force attention onto empirical data). These days there are past-life hypnotists all over the TV. Something to do with the 60s and the millenium, I expect.

BTW, I have a diploma in hypnotherapy and I often daydream about running past-life regression workshops.

There are loads of great books already on reincarnation, and there are loads of self-help psychology books. What I don't see is a synthesis of the two, and that's where I really start getting wet dreams.

Well, we scholars are easily excited!

      B a r r y
_____________________
PS - I'm going on my hols to the beach for a week. I'm going to miss this great list! It's really kickin' at the moment!

Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 14:45:53 EDT
Subject: Self-Karma's

Dear Jody,

Phil wrote:

As I understand it, "self-karma" is the term applied to that
class of phenomena where it seems the soul has chosen to experience something
that its personality would un-choose if it could.

I think this is a very good statement to use in understanding this issue. To further draw the example -- in this lifetime I have chosen to deal almost exclusively with self-karmas and here is one of them:

In the mid 18th century I was the wife of a baker in Lusanne, France. The baker died and I was left with three small children to raise. I managed to continue the business but lived in fear that what was left of my family could be turned out on the street at any time. This aggravated a cf of greed in that lifetime. When times got bad in that area, and many people went hungry, instead of sharing what I had (which was considerable as the main source of baking in that area), my fear (and cf) led me to hoard the supplies.

No one died as a consequence of my actions, no choices were obstructed and so no karma with others was created but there were issues of faith (the interconnectedness of all things), compassion and sharing/giving that were short-changed in that life. In many ways I think that that life may well have been set up to give me the opportunity of growth in these very areas and that failing to do so created a situation of failure to keep a promise to myself -- hence the need to "un-choose", as Phil says, the choices that were made. All lessons/choices to be sure, but not quite learned and, obviously, personality ran the show in some seriously negative poles.

So in this lifetime [and I am at 5th level old, second lifetime] I have made some interesting life choices in order to emphasize those things that were left in an "uncomplete" condition. First and foremost, I chose a Jovial bodytype. Being fat has an interesting set of perceptions, from both within and without, that revolve around "greed". Many of the people in my family have continually drawn from me either money or time or both for most of my life -- giving me an opportunity to watch greed/selfishness from the other side of the fence.

When you write:

I'm wondering if it might have to do with the issue of drawing to ourselves that which we most fear

I think of this; that what I've found is that since I've recognized the self-karma involved, the lessons as set up and then executed as something "I" designed and therefor control, that I no longer *call* these lessons of greed/sharing/faith into my life. Until I came to this point, and could love myself for the choices I made and lessons I learned, there were always fragments around who were willing to continue to help me learn and grow in these directions.

At the same time, all of this self-karma aided the bigger pictures in my life. One is my task, which is to disseminate my perspective. Well, perspective is one of the things that I now possess in overwheming quantity. To learn to love myself down to the last pound has also given me the ability to love others in the same unconditional way. To realize that in "giving" freely I receive back something equal, though intangible, in return. It may well lead to things in the future that I cannot yet perceive.

I would ask you to consider your task in this life, and/or your pillars, and see what self karma has done to help you grow in those directions... to fight for understanding of what "abandonment" has taught as a lesson and identify whether or not you continue to need to work on those lessons. Look at the word "fear" and read "chief feature" instead and see what's being fed on in that situation. I don't know, only you will.

Love, Kathy