Channeling Michael Information More Than Once

TOP AUTHORS

Channeling Michael Information
More Than Once (Two Considerations)

By SHEPHERD HOODWIN & DAVID GREGG

Occasionally, when someone has received conflicting information from more than one channel, I am called upon to do Michael Reading chart "doctoring" to try to help determine what information is correct. Before asking Michael to check the akashic records, we do extensive self-validation. First, I may ask the client exactly what Michael had said through the other channels, and in what context. For example, if Michael said, "You look like you're about sixth- or seventh-level mature" or "You look like a sage with a priest essence twin," Michael obviously wasn't committing to the information. They were probably reading his aura, perhaps in a group where it was hard to be certain, since auras can blend together in a group, or from a photograph during a telephone session, since reading photographs or a person's aura long-distance gives less information than reading the aura of a person who is physically present (if aura-reading is how Michael through that channel obtains their information). On the other hand, if they said something with certainty in an in-person private session, it carries more weight. If the information had been given from the akashic records, it carries more weight still. I also go into further detail with the client about what the different roles, overleaves, etc., actually mean so that he can explore which are most true of his life, and I attempt to guess what is probably correct, based on my observations, as well. Only then do I ask Michael to give the information again; they usually confirm most of our conclusions, but they may not. If they don't, that could lead to more questions.

In my experience, the first information given is usually the most accurate if it comes through a channel who is clear and skilled in that kind of material, under favorable conditions. I am very careful to channel charts only when my physical energy is strong, with no fatigue or headaches. If the circumstances of a channeling are not ideal, such as in conditions of stress or distraction (in either the channel or client), mistakes are more likely. Therefore, as part of self-validation, it can be valuable to consider what was going on each time information was given. If the information was incorrect the first time, the chances of it being correct the second time increase.

When subsequent channelings are largely identical (which occurs in a minority of instances), it is probable that the person's chart is pretty obvious, without a lot of cross-currents (overleaves that pull in different directions, such as a server in dominance, or an artisan with a king essence twin), and/or essence may have set it up to make sure the information came through accurately more than once because the person needed that experience. Conversely, a channel-shopper may get widely differing versions of her overleaves because essence wants her to really learn the teachings and self-validate. Still, she would be wise to examine the circumstances of the first channelings, as outlined above.

Even when channeled Michael teachings information is incorrect, it is still often plausible or has a logic to it. Consequently, it can be messy to sort out just what is correct, and self-validation can require delving more deeply. Even if a person is sure that certain information was incorrect, it can be worthwhile to examine it to see why it came up--it may convey something about what's happening in the client's life, even if it's not the correct Michael information. For example, once, not knowing that the information had already been given, I incorrectly channeled an artisan with a scholar essence twin as being a scholar. She said that friends had told her that she had been looking more scholarly lately. The incorrect information gave her a clue that she was drawing in more of her essence twin energy. (If our essence twin, or twin soul, has a different role, qualities of that role tend to "bleed through" our own, especially when the essence twin is discarnate.)

It is always possible to rationalize wrong information, to find reasons it is correct, just as it is possible to find reasons correct information is wrong. This is especially true when our understanding of what the information really means is not highly developed. For example, if I were new to the Michael teachings and someone told me that I am a king, I could "validate" that by noting that I am sometimes a perfectionist and am a good organizer, as many kings are. I could also "validate" priest because I tend to be compassionate, and artisan because I am somewhat creative. And so forth. (One long-time Michael student swore I was a server because he saw me as being nurturing.) This is all what I refer to as "circumstantial evidence." However, if I gained a deep working understanding of the roles, I would be able to see beyond the surface and eventually, at least, perceive what is actually true, which is that I am a sage, and that, in fact, I look and feel nothing like a king (and not much like a priest, artisan, or server, either).

There is no real harm in having incorrect Michael information--working to stay in the positive pole of priest, compassion, and out of the negative pole, zeal, is certainly a worthwhile endeavor for anyone. However, the correct information will ultimately be far more powerful and profound--recognizing my sagely oration and working for true expression can have far more impact on my life. In the end, correct information rings more true and deep, and incorrect information doesn't quite fit. Still, correct information may not seem right if we don't fully understand what it means or what its limitations are. For example, if a person assumes that all servers like to take care of other people, and he doesn't, he may assume that he could not be a server. Or if someone has a goal of submission but is bossy at times (which could be explained by an occasional sliding to dominance, aggression or power mode, being a king or warrior, or any other number of factors), others might assume that submission couldn't be correct, not recognizing that the goal isn't about behaviors per se but about what motivates a person.

Of all the Michael chart traits, there is by far the most misunderstanding and emotional charge about soul age. People who have read some of the Michael books before having a chart done are often unhappy with the soul age channeled. More often, they think it's too low, but sometimes it's higher than what they expected and they interpret that as being pressure to live up to a standard of spiritual advancement they don't have. Soul age, in fact, is not about spiritual advancement, but simply about the focus of one's lessons. It is much more minor than usually thought.

I have discussed at length with Michael why Michael information is often inaccurate after the first time people ask for it. They explained that asking for specific information forms a sort of electrical circuit between the asker and the information, with the channel and channeled source as go-betweens. (They called this a "structural willingness to receive.") That circuit is strongest the first time the information is requested because there is an intrinsic need for the information--it hasn't been given before. The circuit is weaker subsequently if there is no organic need for the information to be given again. Because of that, other influences can impinge more strongly than they otherwise would. That is not to say that the information will definitely be incorrect, but the chances grow.

One such possible impinging influence is the psychic projection of the person asking when he has a strong investment in certain information being correct. For example, if, from reading one of the Michael books, he is certain he is a sage, or very much hopes that he is, he may project that. The projection can appear to be the reality if it is strong enough, and can obscure the actual fact even for Michael when the circuit to receive the true information is weakened. Another influence that can obscure correct information is an aura that looks different than it usually does. For instance, a priest whose energy is scattered and who lacks a sense of higher purpose may resemble the other high-frequency role, artisan; artisans' auras are naturally diffuse. A third influence might come when a person has more than one essence sharing his body, or is working intimately with another essence, such as his essence twin, a guide, or even another person; Michael might inadvertently read the information for an essence other than the primary "lease-holder."

This is true regardless of who the channel is each time or who asks for the information. If someone else had had my chart channeled without telling me, and then I also have it channeled, the circuit is still weaker the second time. I may have a genuine need and desire for the information, but not a "structural" or organic need, since the information is, at least theoretically, available to me on the physical plane. It doesn¹t seem fair, but it does appear to work that way. Michael through me strongly encouraged a sharing of information in order to avoid such problems. This is part of being a good steward of what Michael gives us.

The problem of getting information more than once is not unique to the Michael teachings. It is often said that one's first intuition is the most accurate, even in mundane situations such as taking a multiple choice test. If you doubt your intuition and ask within again, what arises tends to be less certain and clear. When working with tarot cards about a particular problem, the first card drawn is usually the most apropos; if you keep drawing cards about the same problem, the waters become muddied, so to speak. Perhaps this reflects in part that the universe operates with an economy of effort: why ask for information twice when once will do?

A process of self-validation, like the one I outlined relative to Michael Reading chart "doctoring," can strengthen the circuit: after going through the process, there may now be an "organically" valid reason for the information to be given again, since what was first given was taken advantage of fully. An appropriate way to ask Michael again for the information would be something like this: "Such-and-such information was channeled for me. It doesn't seem right, for this reason. Could you please double-check it?"

Michael also told me that Michael students have made an agreement with Michael on an essence level to be good stewards of the information Michael gives, and not to ask unnecessarily for the same material to be looked up more than once.

MICHAEL: "The informational part of the teachings is a means to an end. We're really concerned with advancing growth, not with being a cosmic librarian."

Reconciling discrepancies teaches much about distinctions in the Michael system. For example, if a person is channeled as being second-level old on one occasion, and seventh-level mature on another, it can be quite educational to study the differences between those soul ages and try to determine which one is more true of him. Discrepancies can also help keep channels and clients on their toes, so that no one assumes that a particular channel is infallible. Someone who needs lessons in self-validation, who perhaps has a desire to believe in the infallibility of a particular channel, or who tends to just accept whatever is given without engaging with it and considering it, is more likely to attract inaccurate information when the "structural willingness to receive" is weakened.

Some other channels I have spoken with confirm the difficulty in channeling Michael information more than once, and in "More Messages from Michael," the channels discussed how they "block" information if someone has already channeled it, even if they didn't know that. On the few occasions when I was unknowingly the second one to channel a person's Michael chart, or forgot that I had already channeled a chart and did it a second time, I did not "block"--the information flowed normally. Only once or twice did something seem "fishy." The charts were usually plausible, at least on the surface. However, I later discovered that most of the repeated material was wrong.

An acquaintance of mine went to four Michael channels when visiting northern California, and asked them all for his Michael information (which I had already given him). We now refer to this as "overleaves shopping" or "channel shopping," usually meaning going to different channels until you get the chart you want, although he was doing it more as a test. He didn't tell them he had already asked other channels, and didn't realize the problems involved in doing this. He thought that if the channels were "pure," he'd get identical information each time. That didn't happen, and he felt that indicated that the channels were "editing" the material. Actually, the results were fairly similar, since the information was being read from his aura in person, and some of it, such as his role and soul age, was pretty clear-cut. However, there were some differences in soul-age level and overleaves. Part of the problem, in addition to the weakened circuit, was that he didn't tell the channels that the information had already been channeled. Although his intent was not malicious, there was a lack of openness in that. I can understand his wish to try to validate a channel's accuracy is a "scientific" method, but when information is withheld, the session becomes more about "testing" the channel than about fully participating. Channeling is a delicate process that requires a complete investment by both the client and channel, including total good-faith cooperation and honesty, without any holding back. Telling Michael what was channeled previously can help them avoid inaccuracies. It alerts them that the circuit was probably weakened, and they can explore what was channeled previously to see if it has "roots" all the way back to the core of the person and shows up in his akashic records, or if it is merely somehow part of his appearance. That said, some channels do not want to know what was previously given, and that should be respected.

At a 1996 conference of sixteen Michael channels, including Sarah Chambers, in La Veta, Colorado, there was widespread agreement that "overleaves shopping" is generally not a good idea. However, the idea that channeling Michael chart information more than once is problematic remains controversial. To some, it looks like a cop-out, a rationalization for bad channeling. All I can say is that my experience has repeatedly borne it out: when my charts are the first, they tend to be validated over time; when they're not, they tend to be less accurate unless the client has diligently worked with all the information previously given and presents me with it along a summary of her validation of it; in that case, we usually get a clean chart.

The Yarbro channels regard other Michael channels as not being valid. Occasionally, I've heard about people who'd already had their charts channeled later receiving information from a Yarbro channel that seemed wildly off-base, despite the Yarbro reputation for accuracy. Even if they're careful about not duplicating efforts among themselves, they have no qualms about duplicating channeling by others because they assume that they are the only accurate ones. Any channel who glibly repeats channeling without caution and simply assumes that she or he is correct is treading on thin ice.

Channeling specific Michael information more than once is different from asking more than one channel or psychic what he picks up about, say, your health or a relationship, because with a general question, there are always more "pieces of the puzzle" that can be given, helping fill in the whole picture--there is more than one correct answer available (unlike you role, for example; although there are secondary influences from other roles, you only have one actual true role). Michael information such as your true play or life task are also items that tend to have several parts and can be accurately depicted in a number of ways, so they can be asked about more than once with less diminishment. Still, if a channeled entity or psychic told me something specific about my health and I questioned its accuracy, I might check it with another source, but I would offer to tell him what had been said previously. Again, some (especially psychics, in this case) may not want to know, but I would at least give him the option.

If someone requests a chart on a famous or historical person, I often first consult the database at michaelteachings.com and the book "Celebrities--The Complete Michael Database" by Emily Baumbach. It has a list of Michael information on about twelve hundred well-known figures, culled from the work of many channels. What I get may disagree, but the list provides a starting point. In fact, when Emily compiled the list, there were sometimes discrepancies among some of the contributing channels, and once in a while one channel got different information at different times. Emily, who also channels Michael, chose the information that felt most right to her at the time, and later changed her mind in some instances. Although it can be difficult to validate Michael information on people we do not personally know, we still have to decide for ourselves whether, for example, Shakespeare was a sage or a scholar, or whether Shirley MacLaine is an artisan, priest, or sage. (I channeled that Shakespeare was a scholar, confirming Yarbro, with scholar essence twin, to my surprise, and that Shirley MacLaine is a sage with a priest essence twin. To me, MacLaine is a stereotypical sage, but some Michael students are convinced she's a priest because of her metaphysical writings.) Even when a channel is the first to ask for information on a particular celebrity, if Michael is reading it psychically, the lack of direct personal contact can interfere with the results. Not only is reading someone psychically without direct contact more difficult than in person, but a celebrity's media personality isn't necessarily genuine, and that can alter the way his energy looks.

Although Emily's book is an invaluable reference, Emily doesn't give us alternate channelings or who channeled information on someone first. Furthermore, there is no way to know if channels she didn't work with received information first on someone listed there, or if Michael information has already been channeled on those not listed. Michael has suggested to me that I check with other channels before channeling a chart on a celebrity or historical figure, but that isn't always practical, and I don't want to impose on other people's time.

There have been a few instances when a client has asked for someone's chart, and Michael has not been able to get the information because the essence of the prospective chart subject didn't want it to be given. In each case, the client told me afterward that the subject was intensely private or guarded. In general, a person's Michael information is a matter of public record--like a person's face--and asking for someone else's chart is usually not considered an invasion of his privacy. There is nothing on it that is either good or bad; it is all neutral, and there is nothing on it that could be used against a person. On the contrary, a chart can only help the cause of greater understanding. However, if an essence doesn't want it given out, it won't be, just as if a person doesn't want his face to be seen, he can keep it hidden.

Shepherd Hoodwin

Re-Channeling the Same Chart

By David Gregg

A perplexing and often vexatious shortcoming with Michael charts occurs when the same profile gets channeled multiple times and the results bear many discrepancies, like the blundering of a myopically challenged witness at a police lineup. In these chart reiterations of the same person, the overleaves can appear so disparate that they seem to describe three or four different people. Inaccuracies like this are not only confusing and a troublesome source of skepticism, but they raise serious doubts about the legitimacy of Michael channels. It begs the question: what goes haywire?

A pet phrase in the Michael community states that on a good day channels may only be 80 percent accurate. Perhaps that explains some discrepancies and also instills in the Michael student the importance of validating the chart, but it is not the entire story.

Not all channels are good chart channels. Their strengths may lie elsewhere, such as doing past life readings, answering personal questions, and so forth. And some channels, rather than accessing the Akashic records, thumb through the pages of your life story and just read your energy, with erroneous results.

These factors, however, do not explain all the discrepancies that occur when the same chart gets re-channeled. Even skilled channels, those stalwarts in the community with longstanding reputations for doing accurate charts get derailed by this phenomenon and have commented on it.

On a now defunct message board from years past, Chelsea Quinn Yarbro stated Michael would not do the same chart twice for her group. She mentioned how her channels always struggled with a profile someone had previously channeled.

In a meeting of the minds between Michael channels in 1996, at a conference in La Veta, Colorado, the problems of doing the same chart more than once were addressed, and the group agreed the practice was problematic and should be approached with caution.

Shepherd Hoodwin has written extensively about the issue, writing “… asking for information forms a sort of electrical circuit between the asker and the information, with the channel and channeled source as go-betweens. (They called this a ‘structural willingness to receive.’) That circuit is strongest the first time the information is requested because there is an intrinsic need for the information—it hasn’t been given before. The circuit is weaker subsequently if there is no organic need for the information to be given again.”

Shepherd’s comments align with the vernacular of many psychic mediums, who attest that their readings are weaker if there is not a genuine need for the information.

Another channel has speculated that there are three sets of overleaves per person — true, public and private — and this accounts for the discrepancies. Unfortunately, this system casts a condescending nod at channels who use so-called second-string methods in their approach to channeling, which alleges these channels never get the “true” overleaves. This is nonsense, of course, and the role photos page at the Michael teachings site disproves that theory.

Someone may think they are a certain role, for example, or attempt to posture that role in their behavior, but the unique expression in the eyes frames their true soul type. When you examine a set of photos for a particular role, this truth becomes evident. And this would be correct even with imprinting from a parent. Unless a debilitating illness exists, the authentic role shines through. The adage “the eyes are the windows of the soul,” is apt here.

Another argument against multiple sets of overleaves is how convoluted the human psyche becomes if these distinct sets all clamor for attention. This undermines Michael’s core concept of personal validation, which would be impossible in this context. Someone juggling what feels like three primary roles (not secondaries), goals, modes and attitudes would soon feel schizophrenic. Such a dichotomy of contrasting energies would not be conducive to good mental health.

But it must be stressed that none of these complications should suggest a chart cannot be successfully re-channeled. It is advisable, though, to review what someone channeled before and go over that with Michael, who will correct any mistakes. Attempting to re-channel a chart from scratch, however, is asking for trouble. The information is not as readily available. Think of a hyperlink and how it fades to a lighter color after it has been visited.

To delve further into this conundrum, I asked my Michael fragments for help.

Q: Michael, please discuss any problems associated with channeling the same chart multiple times. And why can’t you alert channels about previously channeled information?

A: Not all channels receive our thought patterns with the same fluency. Sometimes the message gets garbled, or the transmission is spotty, and in those occurrences we might implant the concept into the mind of the channel — a data-dump, if you will — and the channel translates the idea into their own words. And this is a valid approach, even if it is the sole means of channeling. Most channels translate our messages using their unique syntax, and it is not problematic in of itself, but subtle degrees of accuracy may be lost if the bias of the channel’s personality intrudes. This happens at turns with all channels.

Gaps in our transmission may lead to the channel subconsciously attempting to fill-in-the-blanks. This occurs more often with verbal channeling and is less of a problem for channels that approach a chart as a work of architecture, building its structure like a master carpenter that nails on one board at a time. This attention to detail, this focus on the parts, leads to greater accuracy in charts as a whole.

Both approaches, however, are subject to vulnerabilities because of another factor that plays a larger role.

The akashic records are a living record, animated using the same spiritual matter that sustains the consciousness of the soul. In other words, this energy is dynamic and, although archived, open to the identical states of flux that inhabit all forms of consciousness. When we read these bands of light, similar to an illuminated bar code, we not only interpret the energy, but we interact with it. These interactions, while subtle, can leave residuals that may alter how the energy is parsed on subsequent visits. In your studies of quantum physics, for example, consider the Heisenberg Principle and the way atomic particles seem to react and change each time the scientist observes them. The same theory applies here, with caveats.

The records don’t change, per se, but our ability to interact with them in the same manner is less reliable when the implicit need for the information has already been granted and the chart is channeled more than once. Remember, the akashic records are dynamic. They are not lifeless sheets of wood pulp in an ancient book but a living record pulsating with the vitality of everything that has ever transpired.

Accessing these records is open to all, but to interpret overleaves, skilled interaction with the energy is necessary, and like a book checked out from a library — at least in your older library systems — a stamp left inside confirms the loan and marks the date of return. We do not leave a crude ink blotch, of course, but an imprint of our visit is not unusual. These trace energetic imprints can obscure subsequent readings of the same record. The earlier interaction weakens the signals.

As for why earlier channeling through us does not get disseminated to those within our entity that work with other channels, the simple answer is, it DOES sometimes. But as we are more like a network in our shared consciousness than a single mind, our current development does not always facilitate an exchange of knowledge ubiquitous for all channels.

We admit since the overleaves are only a relic of the physical plane, it never occurred to us that multiple channeling of the same chart would be a problem. Once the need for this information was fulfilled, we assumed one set of overleaves would suffice. Channel error, coupled with our student’s incomplete understanding of the material — and perhaps the whims of consumerism — led to an outcome we did not expect. Validation, however, is still the recommendation.

In closing, based on the arguments presented about channeling the same chart multiple times, draw your own conclusions. The technical reasons given may not pass the muster for everyone, nor can any of us prove their validity.

We are seeing a strange phenomenon that does not abide with the expectations of real-world logic. The akashic records are not like a book you flip to the correct page and read. If they are more akin to bands of light, like an illuminated bar code, perhaps figuratively, the glass over the scanner gets smudged in some unknown way from repeat scanning of the same chart. And as mentioned earlier, in a different analogy, when you click on a web page link, the color of that link fades, showing you have already visited the link; the information is no longer fresh.

Whether you believe the faded link effect, or the other contradictory theories offered here, it seems clear we have entered one of those Twilight Zones in the Michael teachings, where facts or personal validation cannot unequivocally support the claims. But the experiences of various channels and students suggest the phenomenon has a resonance of truth and deserves to be taken more seriously.

David Gregg