To claim a number as high as 99% to be a literal fact and, in the same breath, declare that you are incapable of naming any of those 99% speaks volumes, I think.
You seem like a nice enough guy and I don’t have any real objections to what you wrote (quoted) above. I simply fail to understand the need for the wrappings, fillings and machinations of this philosophy you espouse without a shred of supporting evidence for the claims it makes. For example, how am I to distinguish between Channeling and say, Scientology? (I use these as examples because they appear to be a product of the same era.)
Ahh, this helps me understand your mindset. You are overshooting. I never said that 99% is a literal fact. I said that what I said was exactly as I meant it. And what I said was: “If my **opinion **were litmus, I’d say 99% of what passes as channeling is well-intentioned pandering, and delusion, if not outright intentional fraudulence.”
In other words, if you want to count opinion as a litmus, then, going by mine, 99% of what I don’t resonate with would have to be considered well-intentioned pandering, delusion, if not outright intentional fraud.
It’s hard to communicate past someone’s entrenched prejudices and projections, but I’m doing my best.
Quicksilver, the way you would distinguish between the something like channeling and Scientology is that one is a method by which someone describes delivering or accessing “content,” and one is “that content.” It’s like the difference between the way someone is inspired to create music, and the music, itself.
Channeling is a method. It’s a form of creativity. It’s a method of inspiration. It’s a very broad, umbrella term to describe all kinds of ways that people claim to be inspired or access information, healing, the past, the future, the dead, higher perspectives, emotions, etc. Channeling isn’t a thing, it’s a process. The method by which someone claims to access original content, whatever that may be, is personal, subjective, and difficult to “prove” in any empirical way.
Whereas, Scientology is a teaching, it IS the content, not a method for delivering that content. That teaching, and all of its usefulness, impact, meaning, and application, would have to be judged on its own as a separate thing, and that validity would be entirely subjective. Many people love Scientology. Many hate it. Many have found the experience of those who organize it to be oppressive, harmful, and deceitful, while others find them to be perfectly liberating and feel tremendous support. A teaching can’t be “proven,” it can only be explored and experienced, and experience is a difficult thing to standardize.
For me, I tend to shy away from teachings that justify harm to others or to the self, or teachings that generate division, exclusivity, recruitment, and denial, all of which tend to be inherent in a lot of religions and new age teachings, but my lack of interest in those only reflects where I am in my perspective, not whether someone else finds those to be helpful, or not.
Channeling is a huge umbrella term for all kinds of inspired creativity and that process of bringing that into form, whether that’s art, words, music, healing, etc. Channeling, when used to describe what I experience when I go into trance, may or may not ever be able to be proven until we have methods for proving that consciousness exists beyond the body. Scientifically, we know that those who claim to go into a trance and are accessing “the dead” or another, separate consciousness, do have distinct brainwaves that indicate depths of use of the brain that are unusual, but that only proves that the brain is being used in a different way. It doesn’t prove that consciousness exists beyond the body, or that there is a soul. So far, we can’t prove those things. We know consciousness exists, but we don’t fully understand how it works, what it is, where it’s “located,” where it goes, or if it continues beyond our bodies. And I don’t know how to prove that, either.
And that’s where philosophies, spiritualities, and teachings like the Michael Teachings, and even Scientology, come into play as various “maps” to try out.
So the “evidence” for the teaching can only be found in your personal use of it and if it works for you. If it works for you, great. If not, move on to something else. Or nothing at all.
A channel is different from what is channeled. Music is different from a musician. Art is different from an artist. The healing from a doctor is different from a doctor. These are intrinsically linked, but they are different. What matters is if I’m healed. What matters is if I like the music. What matters is whether I an drawn to the art. So what matters in the Michael Teachings is whether the information is helpful.
That’s not to deflect from the question of what channeling is, or how it works, if it’s working at all, but just to differentiate the question of distinguishing between a process and an outcome.
I hope that helps.
I just wanted to say thanks for the interesting exchanges before I bow out from this thread. The point of my joining in on the thread was to answer the original question of having experience with the Michael Teachings, and I think I’ve not only answered that from my own perspective, but helped represent the effects of studying such a teaching. I know there were some derisive and mocking interjections here and there, but I tried to stay constructive in my responses.
One of the things learned from the Michael Teachings is how to understand and accept where others are coming from, even if they refuse to understand or accept where you are coming from. I appreciate any efforts you have made to do the same.
Be well.
I’m trying to read you most recent post for intent and comprehension. The question that still remains unanswered in my mind is: If not evidence, what do you base your belief system on with respect to the extraordinary claims like talking to the dead and connecting to some external conscience (Michael)?
Having gone over transcripts of “channeling” on CocteauBoy’s website, I find them to be no different from every other “channeling” I’ve come across-philosophy that is a hundred miles wide and a quarter inch deep, and statements of fact that either cannot be fact checked or are completely wrong. Nothing new in any of them.
A “Michael” channeling.(very short). Anyone feel inspired?
I recognize the language as being common american english. Even the individual words make sense. But not the actual sentences.
My brain must be broken. :dubious:
Perhaps CocteauBoy could provide a better example?
I’m sure that this has been discussed many, many times, but can anyone recommend a particularly good/interesting thread on why people believe in woo?
I had a conversation the other day with a neighbor who believes meat is evil, a certain berry is the perfect food that cured his cancer and improved eyesight 10-fold in month, and that the Fed and pharma companies are the most evil institutes on the face of the planet. Touched on all of these topics in a 5 minutes conversation. Wow. At least he didn’t mention alien visitors and ghosts…at least not yet.
I think it can all be summarized as follows:
- world is a complicated, confusing, unjust place and bad things happen without reason or warning.
- some people need an explanation for 1).
- failing a satisfactory explanation, people turn to easy solutions or explanations that make them feel like they have the inside track on what’s “really going on”.
- those who question 3), are either sheeple or are in on the cover up.
After popping back in here to see if there were any attempts at intelligent and/or kind responses, I just wanted to add one more comment before I leave.
You guys are mistaking your self-serving, self-righteous, indignant rhetoric for intelligence. You are mistaking your denigration, dismissal, and insults as inquiry. You mistake your prejudiced and presumptuous assessments as definitive conclusions.
You are also making the mistake of categorically condemning all pioneering explorations in philosophy, creativity, spirituality, and human understanding just because you’ve decided it’s not worth it to you. Not everything beyond your acceptance and understanding is “woo.”
It’s really disappointing to see that none of you are actually interested in learning anything, or understanding anything beyond your entrenched projections.
It’s quite impressive to me the lengths you will go to in avoiding actual inquiry, dialog, and exchange. Even the moderator chose to interject with removal of references/links that were helpful and beneficial, but is allowing the most inaccurate and distorted examples to remain.
None of this is very intelligent, discerning, or kind.
It’s depressing to see that on the flipside of the gullible and eager believers is just another version of the same, except with much more hostility and bitterness.
I so want to respond to some of these latter jabs, because they are so uninformed and uninterested, but you guys don’t really care.
Anyway. Bye.
I think we hurt his feelings, so he took his ball and went home. Fortunately, his group isn’t the only one out there promoting this stuff, so I guess we can continue without him.
edited to add: “…but they also laughed at Bozo The Clown.”
From the OP’s cite(which still works, btw):
The original group led by Yarbro is closeknit and very particular about who gets to join them-Paypal is not something they even think about. I’ve corresponded with them recently, and they do not support the great majority of the groups out there that charge by the minute for a supposedly spiritual experience.
No, I’m actually curious why you believe in woo.
First of all, we didn’t come looking for you. You joined the board to enlighten us with your Michael teachings. We have every right to ask you questions. If we’re not falling all over ourselves in getting on board with you philosphy, perhaps that’s a reflection of your philosiphy, not our reluctance to accept things without some sort of evidence that what you claim has any basis in fact.
I’m sorry you don’t feel like you were welcomed with open arms. I think if you had stuck around, perhaps you’d also learn something from us. Isn’t that the essence of exchange of ideas you claim you wanted to have? But you’re not interested in learning anything except promoting what you believe to be true. So a two way dialogue is not what you’re really after, is it now?
As a general answer to why people believe in woo - I’d say it is because of intuition and validation over time.
I have been interested in the Michael Teachings for a few years now, and I participate on CocteauBoy’s site. People have asked me before, why do I believe in the Michael Teachings, what is my proof? Well, folks, there is no scientific proof. The Michael Teachings as well as all other spiritual teachings and religions can offer no real, hard “proof” other than ancient texts, tradition, documentation of experiences, and personal gut feelings.
When I discovered the Michael Teachings I already held many of the beliefs about the way the world/universe works (karma, souls and whatnot) and the stuff from the Michael Teachings seemed to fit it. I grew up Catholic and while I enjoyed some aspects of that faith, in the end, I realized it was weird to me to worship Jesus, and I also don’t believe that gays can’t marry, women can’t be priests, etc. I remember first exploring the concept of reincarnation when I was 11 after talking about different faiths with my mom. I innocently asked a priest at my Church about it hoping to have an intelligent, balanced conversation, but he shut me down and told me not to ever think about reincarnation again.
What I like about the Michael Teachings is that it encourages asking questions about everything, and it is open to exploring multiple truths. Most importantly, it stresses the importance of love. 
Also- I’ve never seen anything negative in the Michael Teachings.
Anyhow - I think the bottom line here is that spiritual things can’t be proven by scientific means. From my experience, you either believe in this stuff or you don’t.
At the risk of becoming labeled a woo-apologist, I want to point out that the above quote should be bolded, underlined, printed out in 24-point font and framed for everyone to clearly see. When it comes to spiritual matters, such things as “proof” and “evidence” go flying out the window, with the caveat that whatever works for you, without causing trouble for yourself or others, simply works.
This cuts both ways, of course. Any person who claims to know the absolute truth about spirits, channeling, past lives & other such stuff is either trying to shill a book, or is extremely delusional, or both. There is always an element of uncertainty to spiritual matters, which is why I treat my own personal beliefs as merely a fantasy fairy tale land where I visit whenever reality becomes too stressful or boring.
That said, I find the concept of “Michael” very fascinating, in particular how he’s described as “a group soul, a collective consciousness of 1050 essences who finished all their lifetimes on Earth” – in other words, a hive mind or collective consciousness. I’ve never heard of such a thing before. But then I started thinking about organisms in the physical world, in particular Armillaria solidipes, a gargantuan species of giant fungus in northern Oregon which covers nearly 3½ square miles – while on the surface this organism appears to be several distinct, individual brown mushrooms, they are in fact all interconnected underground as one massive Humongous Fungus.
So, in other words, the followers of “Michael” are in fact channeling one Great Big Soul Fungus. Ain’t nature cool?
But that’s kind of the point. Without evidence-based testing we simply cannot conclude that whatever it is works. For all we know they could achieve the same results or better by channeling Moira the Multidimensional Pineapple.