https://www.michaelteachings.com/channeling/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 03:40:35 +0000 Early Man - Michael Teachings Channeling - Q & A en https://www.michaelteachings.com/channeling/discussion/212/beginnings-of-literacy Sat, 25 May 2013 04:19:52 +0000 Early Man ubiquitous 212@/channeling/discussions All instances of the beginnings of literacy seem to have started at around 5,000 years ago -- whether in China, Egypt, the Fertile Crescent, or even the Americas. This might even be deemed part of the beginnings of civilization and urbanization. This is at odds with how long humans have been around and have been ensouled. What triggered this sudden expansion towards civilization?

MICHAEL: There had actually been 'civilization' before 5000 B.C. We remind you that 'civilization' is your word that comes from 'civis' which is Latin for city. Therefore your definition of a civilized people hinges on their coming together into groups capable of operating in concert with each other. After this little lesson in semantics, we return to the original question about literacy. To be literate is to have the means to transmit information from one person to another when they are too far apart to hear one another. The need for such a device as writing came about with the development of larger than tribal group living and the fact that groups with similar objectives could establish themselves in various areas, not just in one.

The notion that symbols could stand for words became obvious when the need for such transmission was felt. Keeping track of people and things was the province of the priesthoods of the time and the 'invention' of writing came from their order.

That didn't answer the nearly universal impetus aspect of the question.

MICHAEL: The 'nearly universal impetus' was an extension of the wave of congregating that took place around 3500 BC. Several of the centers of cultural congestion around the world experienced this need at the same time, almost as though there were already an interchange of information among them. There was little interaction between what has been labeled for practical purposed as the Fertile Crescent and the established cities of Mohenjo Daro and similar sites around the world. There was, however, an energy toward this end that made the development of writing possible.

So are you saying that with the exception of the past 6000 years of recorded history, the past 125,000 years of human history have been purely hunting & gathering and nomadic tribes? It seems very odd to me that we'd have our collective thumbs up our asses for some 119,000 years.

MICHAEL: Why would you stop at 125,000 years of human history? Why would you not want to compare to, say, 1,000,000 years or more?

125,000 years is considered the current extent of homo sapiens, or at least of what is known as homo sapiens.

MICHAEL: We have said that the ensoulment of the animal which was your 'ancestor' took place about 65,000 years ago. It would be fair to say that this is the place that one might want to start with when speaking of 'human history'. And yes, for much of that time humans were hunter/gatherers and there was no particular need for writing anything. Some of the art work from this period includes symbols, which were understood by those who were expected to see them, but there was no sending of missives to others, nor any need to do so.

The need for your scientists to extend the existence of homo sapiens, as you say, to a greater and greater history, has nothing to do with the fact that there was no ensouled animal cum human being extant on this planet before 65,000 to 70,000 years ago. The bi-pedal, stereoscopic visioned, opposable thumbed, palate-shaping of words animal who became ensouled had the tools to become homo sapiens and made very good use of them. If they had not, you would be the descendants of another species.

Channeled by Nancy Gordon]]> https://www.michaelteachings.com/channeling/discussion/172/theory-of-evolution Tue, 21 May 2013 02:06:58 +0000 Early Man ubiquitous 172@/channeling/discussions How accurate is the theory of evolution as man has defined it. Is it in keeping with the reality of species development on earth? How does the idea of 'intelligent design' fit in?

MICHAEL: Let us look at the last question first. All creation is intelligent. There is no grain of cosmic dust nor of the minutest cell that is not intelligent. Therefore the design is by its nature intelligent. Now, is there a divine being who has drawn up the blueprints for all of this creation? Not in the way that your scriptures tend to picture it. All of what you call creation comes from one source, the Tao. But the Tao does not create. The Tao allows energy to 'escape', to be cast from IT in its quest for the experience of parting with it. It is this energy that ultimately 'creates', that sets the intelligent patterns for matter to follow. If you wish to call this 'intelligent design', you may do so. Now as for the theory of evolution as understood and taught by your scientists, this is as near to the truth of things as most fragments' minds can encompass. The species that evolved on this planet to the point that it could be ensouled had to have certain physical qualifications: among them was the opposable thumb and a palate and larynx for speech. You may not think that the opposable thumb is primary to your humanity, but we suggest that you try to do the most ordinary gesture without being able to bring your four fingers together with your thumb. Upright gait was also part of the requirement for ensoulment. So in a manner of speaking, there is no argument between the Darwinists and our teachings. It is just that the theory of Darwin was not informed by the considerations that you and we understand. Ensoulment was accomplished some 60,000 years ago. The area that cannot be ascertained by science is the assistance that the evolving species had from the universe. When you have heard that your planet was 'seeded' by star peoples you imagine that humanity as it exists today was brought fully formed from a distant planet and introduced here among the animals that already inhabited it. But this is a misunderstanding of the 'seeding' process. It is much more usual that a promising form be identified and then 'helped along' in its evolution, a process that takes generations, by the way. The physical apparatus must exist in at least incipient form. You cannot make omelets without breaking eggs. If the species that became human had not had the potential for speech, for instance, a different vehicle would have had to be found.

CHANNELED BY: Nancy Gordon


Someone made the statement that he had considered physical evolution to be finished now, or that it was going backwards. Is it?

DEFINITELY THE ADAPTATIONS CONTINUE. IF YOU WISH TO VERIFY THIS, PIT YOUR OWN STAMINA AGAINST THAT OF SOME HISTORICAL CHARACTERS WHO WALKED THOUSANDS OF MILES OVER MOUNTAINS AND DESERTS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF LIFE AND GREW STRONGER FROM THE EXPERIENCE.

SOURCE: Michael Teachings Transcripts]]> https://www.michaelteachings.com/channeling/discussion/58/neanderthals Sun, 30 Oct 2011 14:33:35 +0000 Early Man ubiquitous 58@/channeling/discussions Q. Are we descended from Neanderthals at all or did their line die out? What was the relationship between humans and Neanderthals?

MICHAEL: They died out. They were parallel.

- (Channeled by: Shepherd Hoodwin)

Q: Were Neanderthals sentient, and why did they die out?

MICHAEL: The so-called Neanderthals were in fact pre-sentient, a limited understanding. They were a possibility for ensoulment but did not attain the necessary level of physicality that would allow total use of the ensoulment.

The main problem with the Neanderthal was a lack of intellectual adaptation. There was brain activity, certainly, but without the promise of intellectual 'elasticity' that the so-called Cro-Magnons possessed. Their habitations were overtaken by the latter and as they were overrun, they lost the fixed places for survival. Being 'inelastic' they could not adapt to new circumstances, new food sources, and found themselves without the means to continue.

Consider the Asian Pandas of your own time. Their food sources are extremely limited, the latitude in which they thrive is also a very small area of the planet. Without sufficient adaptability, they too will fade away.

Q: The so-called Neanderthal lineage of humankind died out without attaining ensoulment. Yet, there have been burials discovered that indicated they believed in an afterlife. This would imply a state of creative consciousness at least at the level of Gorillas. Can you elaborate on Neanderthals?

MICHAEL: The Neanderthal creatures achieved a state somewhere between animal and human. And we define human here as an ensouled species.

Ensoulment required certain elements, not only physical ones, but mental ones also. The Neanderthals attained a level of physical success, but in the end were found to be incapable of intellectual growth. That is why the ensoulment of the other species was undertaken. One element necessary for ensoulment on a human level is imagination. This was lacking in the Neanderthals.

There was a sense of the pack, translation: family, if you will, and there was a sense that a death was a severance of one from the pack/family/tribe. There is the same sense of loss exhibited by the pacaderms of this planet, and of some of the great apes. Neither of these species have attained the same level of awareness that the Neanderthals did, but there is a parallel to be considered. Since there was the ability to handle tools, putting the dead down in a caring way was possible. Neither the pacaderms nor the great apes have achieved that facility.

CHANNELED BY: Nancy Gordon]]> en