There is no official group, and no necessary affiliations. That’s one of the intriguing things about this teachings is that there is no central authority or standard, yet, through multiple, unrelated sources, this teaching has grown, and continues to grow in awesomely succinct and comprehensive ways. Yes, there are some who get territorial and try to position themselves that way, but the teaching inherently undermines that, so it just doesn’t work.
To further clarify: Most of us gladly lend an “official” respect for Yarbro and reference her work as a kind of core foundation because it is very well done. Also, it was a pretty daring topic to broach, in general, but even more so considering it is completely non-sequitur to her main line of work. Once the “new age” exploded, and there were waves upon waves of people claiming they could channel just because they decided they could, that group got a little closed and a little harder around the edges to help preserve some sense of integrity and validity. I don’t blame them. Sarah Chambers was the “original” channel documented in the books, and she contacted me long ago in support of what she was seeing coming from my own work, and I was very touched by that. On a side note: Previous to Chambers, you’ll find a lot of familiar terminology and concepts in the Gurjieff/Ouspensky material.
You know, even though there is a bit of badgering going on with what is found, I do appreciate the effort that you are making to even do a little research. That’s cool.
So that would be “no”, then?
So, no?
Once again, you didn’t answer the question that was actually asked. What is the source of all this information?
I don’t know about others but I’m hanging on your every word. So far the sources provided by various people in this thread led me to understand that there are 1050 spirits that combine to make “Michael”. There are 7 ages of souls. There are 7 levels to every age. That hell is on level 3 and heaven on level 4.5. That spirit guides live on level 5.5 and that souls are reincarnated 500-600 times, on average.
You made the claim that like psychology, philosophy, music, art and map making, channeling is an art and therefore open to interpretation. Also, you’ve admited that there is a lot of fraud going on in this belief system but that you won’t call out anyone as being or saying fraudulant things.
Now, while some of us are admitedly skeptical cranks, most of us are not incurious. So we’re asking you for any evidence you have in helping us get on board with your premis that channeling legitimately reflects the basis of human reality. You know, like map making. Show us your Manhattan, CocteauBoy.
CocteauBoy, does channeling “Michael” pay most of your bills, or do you do something else on the side?
…Once again, this is why we can never have any new friends.
Well, it’s kind of hard for him to claim that sometimes he is as unsure about channeling as we are when he charges for the service.
Maybe the board should start charging for its services as well.
That’ll be $150 for the initial consultation, CocteauBoy. Please see the receptionist on the way out.
Actually, yes, I did. I said I had no idea. I don’t know who that is, and I don’t see who he’s giving credit to. People co-opt terminology all the time. That video seemed to be someone using the familiar terminology of the Michael Teachings, but using that to teach his own version of it. The Michael Teaching, itself, is a conglomeration of terms from all over the place, so this kind of thing isn’t unusual.
Then what is the source of the factual information given by your group, and would you be willing to let us see an example of you channeling “Michael” without us having to pay for it?
So it’s like walking through a junkyard and throwing random crap together and calling it “art”.
- That seems to be a fairly definitive statement about the nature of most channeling out there…and such a high number almost certainly indicates that you think most “Michael” channelers are included in that number.
- Do you ever question your own channeling when someone else pays for it and, if so, do you let the customer in on your doubt?
Hey Quicksilver…
Your first line below has nothing to do with the teachings. I’m not sure where you got that. I just wanted to point that out.
To your second line: I didn’t think I was “admitting” to anything. I only shared my perspective. I made it clear I know of no one being fraudulent, but that I relate and empathize with anyone who reacts with suspicion to some claims and teachings. If I wasn’t clear before, I’ll further clarify that I don’t think I could point out a fraudulent channel any more than I could point out a fraudulent doctor, musician, author, or scientist until they showed clear evidence of fraud. My dislike or disgust with someone or their work isn’t the same thing as being able to conclude someone as a fraud.
To your third line: listen, there isn’t one, definitive, conclusive way to interpret or describe personal experiences of life. My “Manhattan” is life, and the Michael Teachings is just one map of many to help navigate that. I will never be able to prove with empirical “legitimacy” such a personal and subjective thing. The only “proof” that could come is your own study and exploration of the teachings in a way that reflects your curiosity, and see if some of the insight makes a difference.
But, as an example, a teeny tiny part of the teachings is about the nature of Truth. We get very hung up on what is true, and what is not, but when we understand the nature of truth, we can navigate that terrain much more intelligently and constructively. So if someone understands that Truth can be understood as having 3 Levels: Personal, Global, and Universal, then we can actually move beyond conflict and differences, and find common ground, or accept that there may not be any, and move on, or take the time to invite common ground, but not impose it.
See… Personal Truths are those truths that are true just for us, alone, and these can change, evolve, and be directly opposed to other truths (even within ourselves). This is the level of truth where someone says “I love chocolate,” yet someone else can say, “I hate chocolate.” Or where one religion is “true” over another. Personal Truths are what most of us think of as “the truth,” and this is how people get so invested in religions, dogma, status, and so on. This is where things like “Mothers always love their children” might be true for a lot of people, but it’s NOT true for a lot of people, too. Pain to one person might be pleasure to another, or what it means to be happy is different for one person than another. Personal Truths grow, change, evolve, alter, get tossed out, and be “true” one day, and not the next day.
Global Truths are those truths unaffected by Personal Truths, like the truth of Gravity, Photosynthesis, Rotation of the Earth, Physics, and so on. These are true for everyone on the planet. There may be very different ways that these are used, understood, or utilized, but the truth of their existence is static enough, consistent enough, and wide-spread enough to be true for everyone. We can fly in an airplane, take off in a rocket, but the truth of Gravity will still be true. Someone could have a religion that denies modern conveniences, but the truth of electricity will still turn on their lights if they flip that switch. So Global Truths don’t really change, even if our understanding of them does, and even if we deny them. But these truths might not be true on another planet. Gravity may not exist on another planet, or be very different, and no photosynthesis in sight. So these truths are true for “earthlings,” but not necessarily for or about another planet. If these truths change, they would affect everyone. If I change my mind about liking chocolate, it’s not going to make much difference to gravity.
Universal Truths are true, no matter where you go, like Energy. You can go anywhere in the known universe, and “Energy” will be a part of the equation. Again, this might be in a multitude of forms, and understood differently at different times, but that has no bearing on the truth of Energy. Energy is everywhere, in everything. It just IS.
So when we realize that what we fight over (and bond over) are most often our Personal Truths, which are often temporary, handed down, shaky, changeable, and naturally inclined to evolve, it can be pretty sobering. The differences among our personal truths will never really go away, so it can be really helpful to drop defenses and offenses regarding these, and just share them as invitations, not as impositions or conclusions. And Global Truths are already true, with or without our understanding, so debate over these should be constructive so that we gain understanding together, not distract from it. And Universal Truths are so broad, ubiquitous, and inclusive that the exploration of those truths can be just as broad and deep. Our ability to understand and use Global and Universal Truths is definitely limited or enhanced by our flexibility and adaptability of Personal Truths. That’s an important thing to accept as a scientist, for example, when personal truths can be blown away in a single experiment. If this flexibility is true for scientists so they can be open to completely new understanding, then maybe this can be helpful between us on a personal level for each other?
Anyway, this little sample of the Michael Teachings isn’t telling anyone anything new, but it’s a mapping out of terrain already familiar, but in a way that might make navigation much more meaningful and effective.
I hope this helps.
Not really, but I understand that you have to express this derision as a way to represent yourself. It’s kind of mean-spirited. I’m doing my best to keep up with you guys and treat your responses with respect.
All of this is freely available through my site. We broadcast live channeling events for free all the time. Even if you approach all of this with derision and mockery, and even if you leave with nothing new or meaningful, I would just ask that you be a decent and kind person if you attend. We won’t be broadcasting again until January, but you can keep any eye out for alerts, and check it out. It could be fun. The “source” is what we call “Michael.” The description of Michael is already covered here, and at my site, but that description is based on our understanding of what that source is, not necessarily conclusive of what that source is. I’ve already expressed my questioning of the nature of channeling and what it might turn out to be. By the way, cosmology and philosophy and finding ways to understand life isn’t something someone can claim as “factual.” The Archetypes offered up by Freud, and the “speed of light” and the symbols used in establishing mathematical theories aren’t “factual” things, but are symbolic of something that makes sense to some consistent degree of usefulness. I feel the same way about the Michael Teachings.
Clear as mud:
Czarcasm, no, I want to be clear that it’s only a definitive statement about my resonance with most of what passes as channeling. That same percentage of distaste is there for mainstream music, too. I hate most of what passes as music in the mainstream, but I’m not an idiot. I know that MY taste in music doesn’t make one genre more legitimate or fraudulent than another. I just have very specific tastes and interests. So does everyone. I would never tell someone his or her favorite music is not real, any more than I would tell someone that their channel isn’t. Someone would have to do something as criminal as Milli Vanilli to be authentically and definitively called fraudulent. I know there must be Milli Vanilli channels out there, but I don’t know of any, personally.
Do I question my channeling… or lordy, do I ever. I write about this openly and freely at my site on a fairly regular basis, and my clients are well-aware of my precarious balance between being open-minded and critically skeptical. I wouldn’t be able to keep up this conversation with you if I hadn’t spent so many years in conflict with myself over trying to explain it away vs trying to understand it. That’s why I’m not taking it too personally when someone says something intentionally insulting. I’ve had my own thoughts like that, too, so I can relate. It does make it nicer to respond to all of these questions if people are nicer, though.
Your quotes of me were exactly as I meant them. I was being literal. I’m sorry if I was confusing. I meant them exactly as I wrote them, not with subtext or meaning between the lines.