Sunday, August 03, 2008

Joan In Agony, Essence In Bliss

There are two examples of my lack of total concurrence with the Michael's POV that I can illustrate here, and the first comes from a few passages in the "Messages From Michael" books, where Michael states that when Joan D'Arc was being tortured to death, her Essence was in bliss. 'That's some creepy shit', I remember thinking at the time of my first reading (and if I am challenged for chapter and verse I can get my signed copy of MFM and look it up).

Michael later states in a couple places that great physical pain often brings Essence and incarnation into a greater communicative rapport. As I have stated before in this blog, this bothers me (as does Darwinism, for that matter) because it shows that the nature of existance is abusive to incarnation, and oppressive. For a more thorough dissertation on this POV, please peruse my earlier posts.

Another problem I have with the MT, is the namby-pamby alteration of the original teachings for the sake of political correctness. A "Slave" in Essence, IS a slave in essence, and changing the name of the role to "Server", as is now the fashion, dilutes and distorts the Michael Teachings, as does all misappropriation of meaning by revisionist editing.

But hey, that's just my opinion. I am a 'Yarbro Fundamentalist', OK? The original MT were transmitted via Oiuja Board folks, much less chance of that 20% error due to innate bias by channel (which is Michael's estimate of error in channeling) Which is why I trust the innate accuracy of the original MT more than anything that has come through since.

Proper definition through prescriptive sourcing is important, I opine. I had a current Michael channel comment to me recently about 'Life Tasks' being "assigned" by Michael (I have the e-mail and can quote it verbatim). I think I know what they were talking about, nevertheless their lack of specificity in stating their thought illustrates part of this problem.

Michael doesn't "assign" the life task (that is done by Essence for each incarnation). Michael, however can COMMENT upon one's life task, and/or DEFINE it for one through a channel. I'm sure the channel knows this, but this illustrates why I don't channel stuff for other people. I cannot make sure that what I'm saying when channeling is the EXACT right way to convey the proper meaning, in real time, so I don't channel that way. I would never want a new student of the MT to be misled into thinking that the Michael somehow "assigns" one ones' "Life Task". Just my choice.

When something important is misstated, or the actual datastreambytes are re-defined for the sake of currently fashionable sentiment, it can give rise to all sorts of reverberative dissonance in meaning, and can actually be more disinformative than enlightening. I choose my words carefully, therefore, because transmission of data from a higher knowledge source is an awesome responsiblity, one which perhaps I take a bit less lightly than most. Which is not to say that I don't get it wrong sometimes as well.

Saturday, August 02, 2008

"Michael Teachings" Comment For Troy


Because you have left me no other way to get in touch with you (I tried joining your website on various occasions, and have attempted to e-mail you, but you make it less than easy to get back to you) I'll just drop a note here, because you always seem to be aware of my postings soon after I do post.

First, let me just say that I consider you to be the best of the current lot of Michael Channels online. The statements I am attributing to the Michael (things like "The creation is perfect.") have been channeled REPEATEDLY by channels on the "Michael Teaching" website. Don't blame me if both you and I disagree with their channeled statements. The moderator of that site hounded me unmercifully in personal e-mails accusing me of all sorts of imagined transgressions of that site's policies when I attempted to engage in a colloquy with others there (I have saved these personally insulting e-mails, BTW, in case my veracity with regard to their existence is questioned). I know you have had problems with this person, and a few of that site's denizens, as have I.

If you bother to read back through my blog, and not just focus on my recent postings, you will see exactly where the Michael and I differ. One big point is that I BELIEVE THE "FALSE PERSONALITY/WAKING CONSCIOUSNESS" IS A LIVING BEING THAT IS SACRIFICED EVERY LIFETIME FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE ESSENCE. Michael has repeatedly, through various channels, stated that this is NOT the case. Hence our disagreement. (Mchael and I)

My humor is self-deprecating in nature, and I'm glad you picked up on my self-immolative intimations. Well done. My teachers always told me that the way to learn to levitate was to think of yourself lightly, right? I'm certainly never offended by anyone questioning my opinions, but my veracity should speak for itself.

We got no beef, buddy, that I can see. I would suggest you re-read my post: "List of Channeled Beings" and realize (as most Michael channels and students seem NOT to be able) that there were reliable channels long before the Michael Teaching, and Michael does not have a copyright on "cosmic truth", as it were (nor even on most of the "Teachings" systemetology/phraseology - the very similar Seth material pre-dates the Michael stuff). There are a host of beings that have been truly channeled (some of whom are delineated in my post) Michael being only one of many.

May your feet tread light on your path, - Jondalf (a fellow student of the 'Channeling Arts');{>

Friday, August 01, 2008

The "Michael" Police

To whom, etc,
(but most especially students of the collected teachings of the collective disembodied Entity, "Michael");{>

I've been a conscious channel for 40+ years. I learned to channel the Akashic (by observing and listening to a guy named Stephen Gaskins, in the '60s attending a group called "Monday Night Class") long before the Orinda group. CQY was a friend of one of my oldest childhood friends, and I have been able to 'get' The Michael since I was a child. I studied the "Seth" material before the Michael Teachings and I consider myself a ' Yarbro Fundamentalist'.

If you're a Michael student and curious about who and what I am, and my POV, JUST ASK MICHAEL! My Overleaves (but NOT my "Life Task") were channeled by Ted Fontaine in 1995, and vetted by me. A previous posting: "List Of Channeled Beings" was compiled by me, FROM MEMORY (no Googling involved) in response to a question from the moderator of one of the major "Michael Teaching" sites (who hounded me from the site after I started to state some of my 'disagreements'). The list is of beings with whom I have either communicated or channeled personally, or of those whom others have attested they have ("Principle of Charitable Interpretation/Benefit of the Doubt" notwithstanding);{>

And, if you read between my lines over the course of this blog, you realize that The Michael and I happen to disagree about some important aspects of "The Creation", as repeatedly delineated by The Michael through various channels. I don't trust most Kings and/or Warriors, anyway (I generally wouldn't consult them for advice on much other than "noblesse oblige", or Martial Arts, respectively) and I certainly don't take everything The Michael says, as most Michael students and channels apparently do, as Gospel. According to The Michael, one IS supposed to question everything, even The Michael. Remember the "Shroud of Turin" fiasco?

I have never claimed to be a professional, or even an accomplished Michael channel. I HAVE channeled Michael infrequently, but I get too much static in my 'tuning', as it were, and I don't channel for other people. I DO however, answer questions put to me, about esoteric subjects, to the best of my ability, and if that includes channeling Michael, The Nine Diamond Faced Masters, Groucho, Brother Bartholomew or the Akashic, so be it. Occasionally I'm even successful.

Sometimes I feel like one of those those folks who try to present an independent view of Scientology, from an informed POV, when I question some of the Michael Teachings doctrine/dogma, which I have studied for more than three decades. Especially when I'm challenged and asked questions like: "Who channeled that for you?"- as though I need to vette my own perceptions, or insights, or 40+ years of metaphysical studies. I reserve the right to have an opinion about everything, as should everyone else. Some opinions may just have a "mythic resonance" (as Burroughs said) like it or not. To each his onus, eh?

Hey, if it works for you, use it, if it doesn't, go do something else. - the Dalphe