Reincarnation And Evolution

[florduh]

To be even more clear than I already am, I never ever, ever advocate anyone abandoning science and logic.

I know, I was trying to make clear that I wasn't looking for scientific proof, but merely examining the internal logic of spiritual thinking.

 

As I understand it, you can accept anything, in this case reincarnation, as a person's symbol for a greater reality, though they may not realize that it is symbolic representation. Please understand that my aversion to all this is that a weird experience will lead one to claim it was a ghost and another will swear it's a guardian angel - the upshot is that we now get claims that ghosts and angels are therefore real entities. Few honestly say that their god, ghost or alien abduction is their mythical symbol for what they consider to be a spiritual experience or glimpse of some greater, unseen reality.

 

I'll meditate on it.

[Antlerman]

To be even more clear than I already am, I never ever, ever advocate anyone abandoning science and logic.

I know, I was trying to make clear that I wasn't looking for scientific proof, but merely examining the internal logic of spiritual thinking.

I don't know there is such a thing as 'spiritual thinking', actually. I certainly wince at some ideas people have that are way off-beam. What I would say about the spiritual is that it most definitely affects your perceptions. But if your perceptions are in a prerational space, then you come up with things like channeling the spirit of Chief Hole in the Day telling you to build cistern to capture rain water, or some such thing. That way of thinking may have had legitimate value in its day before the Western Enlightenment, but to say the least its a bit 'woo' today (I know you would agree).

 

I don't know that there is any "logic" to spiritual thinking you'll be able to put a finger on. God knows, try it with me and you'll fail. But to be sure, there is a certain altitude, a certain vantage point that without that the picture is far less 'holistic', narrow, flat, reductionist, sterile. That may seem safe in comparison to woo, but is that the only option? Heck no, it's not, thankfully.

 

As I understand it, you can accept anything, in this case reincarnation, as a person's symbol for a greater reality, though they may not realize that it is symbolic representation.

Not at all. No, you cannot just accept anything. There actually is a system of checks and balances. The only thing I am emphasizing is that we can understand the logic of it, understanding the level at which it is operating. But its not some universal thing. Liken it to a child experiencing love compared to an adult. Is it the same influence in reasoning for a five year old as it is a 50 year old? Well, yes. But it is clearly understood differently. Is love, still love? Yes. Same thing with Spirit. So the myth-thinking of the literalist is like the five year old. The cloud is a person who is happy with you, or might smite you with lightning if you're bad. Just call that cloud Jehovah.

 

Please understand that my aversion to all this is that a weird experience will lead one to claim it was a ghost and another will swear it's a guardian angel - the upshot is that we now get claims that ghosts and angels are therefore real entities.

My take is these are manifestations of the subconscious mind. Not that that means "that's all it is". Hardly, no. We are deeply connected to the universe in ways that go way beyond our rational minds, and accessing that directly is what the spiritual experience is. It only seems weird to you, or others, because we are so alienated from ourselves this way. Might as well say, "God, I'm so weird!". Getting to rediscover yourself this way is in fact healing. I'll say that again, this sort of experience is healing. We are so dissociated with ourselves that such transcendent things seems "weird" to us, like seeing a hand that for some reasons we never saw our whole whole lives but was always a part of our body. It's like that.

 

Few honestly say that their god, ghost or alien abduction is their mythical symbol for what they consider to be a spiritual experience or glimpse of some greater, unseen reality.

Most people I know do recognize this. In fact, I think more people do than you give them credit for.

 

I'll meditate on it.

Now, if you do, then all these words will become unnecessary. At best, they may get you to look a little deeper.

[stryper]

Right now I'm exploring reincarnation. I'm okay with the concept, but there is a basic problem I keep sticking on. At what point during the evolutionary process were souls introduced? With the emergence of homo sapiens? Before?

 

For those of you who believe in reincarnation, what are your thoughts? Or even for those of you who do not believe, have you heard of this being explained anywhere?

 

I'll be honest. I haven't read every post in here. When I saw Antlerman and Florduh getting into a philosophical debate, I decided to stay out.

 

To answer the OP:

 

My views on reincarnation are based off the Micheal Teachings. The way the micheals explained it, reincarnation happens whether or not you believe in it. The plant doesn't need to believe in photosynthesis for it to work. The same is true of reincarnation.

 

I will say at this point that some of the discussions that happen on the linked website I have found intellectually stimulating to imagine and think about, but beyond that I have no outside validation for them. That said I don't wholly buy into some it either.

 

The Micheals will answer any question asked within their ability to do so. Someone asked when we first incarnated and the response was the first human souls incarnated on a planet in the Sirius system 6 million years ago. While I find that interesting, I cannot validate that claim.

 

As far as known human ancestors on our apparent current planet. There was a companion branch to Australopithecus of which only a few fossils have been found, contained human souls. All those that came after did as well. There has been through out our history several die offs of the Human race. We apparently are on at least the 3rd incarnation of civilization in our time on earth. The most recent was apparently a crash of civilization due to a comet impact in the Indian ocean that apparently gave rise to the Flood myths because of the resultant tsunamis. (see halocene impact group for a possible validation)

 

The Micheal have additionally stated that currently cetaceans and gorillas are also sentient on our planet. We have according to them had other beings which inhabited the planet with us and are currently no long incarnate. All other animals have a soul, however they are different then conscience souls. In the jargon, they are referred to as hive souls. Whereas, Humans, cetaceans and gorillas are fragments. Humans do not reincarnate as anything other than humans. The possibility apparently exists for cross species ensoulment, however there is currently little interest in doing it as we don't recognize other beings as having a soul.

 

The purpose of the cycle of souls is to learn and evolve. At some point in about 6000 to 10000 years the last humans will "cycle off" the physical plane and continue our evolution on the casual plane. At which point the evolution will continue in way the Micheals have difficulty explaining with words.

 

That's pretty much the reader's digest version. As stated, I am not convinced of alot of this. I do believe that reincarnation is a fact. My experiences are not ones which anyone would accept in a scientifically valid manner. So, I don't offer this information as proof. I offer the information as what it is another potential source should you choose to explore it.

[TrueFreedom]

My experiences are not ones which anyone would accept in a scientifically valid manner. So, I don't offer this information as proof. I offer the information as what it is another potential source should you choose to explore it.

 

What experiences, Stryper? Have the Michaels spoken to you?

[Deva]

The purpose of the cycle of souls is to learn and evolve. At some point in about 6000 to 10000 years the last humans will "cycle off" the physical plane and continue our evolution on the casual plane. At which point the evolution will continue in way the Micheals have difficulty explaining with words.

 

That's pretty much the reader's digest version. As stated, I am not convinced of alot of this. I do believe that reincarnation is a fact. My experiences are not ones which anyone would accept in a scientifically valid manner. So, I don't offer this information as proof. I offer the information as what it is another potential source should you choose to explore it.

 

I hold reincarnation to be a strong possibility logically, but I see absolutely no evidence that the whole process is about our souls "evolving, learning." Who is to judge the evolving - when have we learned enough? By what standard? I see some progress in humanity technologically and scientifically, but ethically and morally, well you just have to look at the 20th century and the continued wars and terrorism, etc., to know that no real progress has yet been made in these areas.

 

The "causal plane" is impossible to prove or disprove.

 

The evidence of people remembering former lives at a very young age is persuasive to me, but I can see why it is not to others.

 

If reincarnation is a fact, I can see no rational reason to think that science may yet discover the mechanism by which it happens. Just because it is not there now, doesn't mean it will never get there.

[stryper]

There is no judge of the evolving.

 

The learning takes places through a process on the individual level. The mechanism, according to the micheals, is through the internal monads. There are 7 and the correspond to lifestage. You complete all the internal monads in the positive enegtic poles.To progress to the next level and then you start over again.

 

Since there are 5 soul ages with 7 levels in each age and 7 internal monads...if you assume one life per soul level that is a minimum of about 268 lives. The average is closer to 400. On top of that, once you have rejoined with tao you can and most do start all over again. According to the micheals there are people who are members of the site who have left and gone back to the tao 9 times. Therefore they have lived through the physical plane of lives multiple times. This doesn't even get into the multiple parallels and concurrent lives.

 

Your comment about no real progress implies that there is a standard to meet. There is some ideal evolutionary or spiritual goal. The only purpose to living is to live. however, that is at its most basic and simplistic. The ultimate goal is to choose. Even in the most primitive of lives, there are choice to be made. Choices about dealing with family, friends, community, love, hate, anger, lust, reproduction, care of the body, ways to live "better", etc. There literally are infinite choice to be made. Most people don't bother to stop long enough to consider more then a handful.

 

Based upon what I have read on the site, I would say it would be hard to scientifically prove reincarnation. Part of the reason is souls intentionally "forget" previous lives to concentrated on this one. Not everyone wants to think about it. Would you want to remember your previous life as serial rapist that committed the crimes for over 40 years and never was prosecuted? Would you want to remember a life where you were held your entire life in bondage as a slave? You might. Others would not.

 

That being said. The causal plane may be impossible to prove. However, it like us, are energy. It is simply energy that exists outside the bounds of what current technology can detect.

 

The Micheals have commented very specifically on a tool called cording. These are energetic links to other people that are formed through out life. Infants and young children are very good at it as it is a form of communication. The point to all this is that cording was specifically mentioned as being detectable by current technology. Nobody has bothered to look for it is my assumption.

 

Therefore if cording could be proved with current technology, then it should be possible to take an energetic signature of a person at birth, teen years, mid-life, old age and death and decode the core signal, then match that up at some point in the future with another signal that is the same or simliar. The problem is the following. One person on the site Ingun is a 7th level old soul and according to micheal appears to be "on track" to exit the physical plane after this life. The problem is the last time she was incarnate was 5000 years ago. So you can see there could be some issues in data collection.

 

The same idea applies to the casual plane. It is not so much as being up in the clouds or down in the earth. It is still "here" to energtically less dense then the physical plane, thus harder to see.

 

An interesting point, The micheals stated in a chat that going through the birthing process is not necessary. The is apparently a race that "reproduces" by genetically engineered adults. When you reincarnate, you just wake up into the world.

[Voice]

Right now I'm exploring reincarnation. I'm okay with the concept, but there is a basic problem I keep sticking on. At what point during the evolutionary process were souls introduced? With the emergence of homo sapiens? Before?

 

For those of you who believe in reincarnation, what are your thoughts? Or even for those of you who do not believe, have you heard of this being explained anywhere?

 

I'll be honest. I haven't read every post in here. When I saw Antlerman and Florduh getting into a philosophical debate, I decided to stay out.

 

To answer the OP:

 

My views on reincarnation are based off the Micheal Teachings. The way the micheals explained it, reincarnation happens whether or not you believe in it. The plant doesn't need to believe in photosynthesis for it to work. The same is true of reincarnation.

 

I will say at this point that some of the discussions that happen on the linked website I have found intellectually stimulating to imagine and think about, but beyond that I have no outside validation for them. That said I don't wholly buy into some it either.

 

The Micheals will answer any question asked within their ability to do so. Someone asked when we first incarnated and the response was the first human souls incarnated on a planet in the Sirius system 6 million years ago. While I find that interesting, I cannot validate that claim.

 

As far as known human ancestors on our apparent current planet. There was a companion branch to Australopithecus of which only a few fossils have been found, contained human souls. All those that came after did as well. There has been through out our history several die offs of the Human race. We apparently are on at least the 3rd incarnation of civilization in our time on earth. The most recent was apparently a crash of civilization due to a comet impact in the Indian ocean that apparently gave rise to the Flood myths because of the resultant tsunamis. (see halocene impact group for a possible validation)

 

The Micheal have additionally stated that currently cetaceans and gorillas are also sentient on our planet. We have according to them had other beings which inhabited the planet with us and are currently no long incarnate. All other animals have a soul, however they are different then conscience souls. In the jargon, they are referred to as hive souls. Whereas, Humans, cetaceans and gorillas are fragments. Humans do not reincarnate as anything other than humans. The possibility apparently exists for cross species ensoulment, however there is currently little interest in doing it as we don't recognize other beings as having a soul.

 

The purpose of the cycle of souls is to learn and evolve. At some point in about 6000 to 10000 years the last humans will "cycle off" the physical plane and continue our evolution on the casual plane. At which point the evolution will continue in way the Micheals have difficulty explaining with words.

 

That's pretty much the reader's digest version. As stated, I am not convinced of alot of this. I do believe that reincarnation is a fact. My experiences are not ones which anyone would accept in a scientifically valid manner. So, I don't offer this information as proof. I offer the information as what it is another potential source should you choose to explore it.

 

Wo.

First a Genesis story on alien worlds, then quantification. This is fiction. They sound like court judges of a Mormon variety. I don't buy it either.

[Deva]

There is no judge of the evolving.

 

The learning takes places through a process on the individual level. The mechanism, according to the micheals, is through the internal monads. There are 7 and the correspond to lifestage. You complete all the internal monads in the positive enegtic poles.To progress to the next level and then you start over again.

 

Levels and stages. Progress. Seems rather fancy. The number 7 is a highly symbolic number used quite a lot in the Bible. Makes me suspicious. Madame Blavatsky talks about monads too, in her book "The Secret Doctrine". I suspect some of these things the Michaels say is derived from that work, although I admit I don't know enough about either one to be completely sure.

 

 

Your comment about no real progress implies that there is a standard to meet. There is some ideal evolutionary or spiritual goal. The only purpose to living is to live. however, that is at its most basic and simplistic. The ultimate goal is to choose. Even in the most primitive of lives, there are choice to be made. Choices about dealing with family, friends, community, love, hate, anger, lust, reproduction, care of the body, ways to live "better", etc. There literally are infinite choice to be made. Most people don't bother to stop long enough to consider more then a handful.

 

Progress implies a change of some kind, usually for the better, doesn't it? I am making progress in learning how to play an instrument, for example. Yes, I would say it does imply a standard. Why wouldn't it? Yet you say there is "progress". I would want to know in what way? Then you say its all about choice. Then I want to know what's so special and significant about choice? Who made it special? Yes, we make choices all the time. Not knowing the outcome and not being able to see the future we make good and bad choices. Sounds suspiciously like the Christian emphasis on free will being such a cool thing.

[Mudhoney]

Right now I'm exploring reincarnation. I'm okay with the concept, but there is a basic problem I keep sticking on. At what point during the evolutionary process were souls introduced? With the emergence of homo sapiens? Before?

 

For those of you who believe in reincarnation, what are your thoughts? Or even for those of you who do not believe, have you heard of this being explained anywhere?

 

I'll be honest. I haven't read every post in here. When I saw Antlerman and Florduh getting into a philosophical debate, I decided to stay out.

 

To answer the OP:

 

My views on reincarnation are based off the Micheal Teachings. The way the micheals explained it, reincarnation happens whether or not you believe in it. The plant doesn't need to believe in photosynthesis for it to work. The same is true of reincarnation.

 

I will say at this point that some of the discussions that happen on the linked website I have found intellectually stimulating to imagine and think about, but beyond that I have no outside validation for them. That said I don't wholly buy into some it either.

 

The Micheals will answer any question asked within their ability to do so. Someone asked when we first incarnated and the response was the first human souls incarnated on a planet in the Sirius system 6 million years ago. While I find that interesting, I cannot validate that claim.

 

As far as known human ancestors on our apparent current planet. There was a companion branch to Australopithecus of which only a few fossils have been found, contained human souls. All those that came after did as well. There has been through out our history several die offs of the Human race. We apparently are on at least the 3rd incarnation of civilization in our time on earth. The most recent was apparently a crash of civilization due to a comet impact in the Indian ocean that apparently gave rise to the Flood myths because of the resultant tsunamis. (see halocene impact group for a possible validation)

 

The Micheal have additionally stated that currently cetaceans and gorillas are also sentient on our planet. We have according to them had other beings which inhabited the planet with us and are currently no long incarnate. All other animals have a soul, however they are different then conscience souls. In the jargon, they are referred to as hive souls. Whereas, Humans, cetaceans and gorillas are fragments. Humans do not reincarnate as anything other than humans. The possibility apparently exists for cross species ensoulment, however there is currently little interest in doing it as we don't recognize other beings as having a soul.

 

The purpose of the cycle of souls is to learn and evolve. At some point in about 6000 to 10000 years the last humans will "cycle off" the physical plane and continue our evolution on the casual plane. At which point the evolution will continue in way the Micheals have difficulty explaining with words.

 

That's pretty much the reader's digest version. As stated, I am not convinced of alot of this. I do believe that reincarnation is a fact. My experiences are not ones which anyone would accept in a scientifically valid manner. So, I don't offer this information as proof. I offer the information as what it is another potential source should you choose to explore it.

 

Thank you for the information, this is interesting. I've briefly looked at the Michael teachings but never in depth. I have read about animal souls being a group soul in a few other places.

[Voice]

This is limiting. It puts souls in boxes. Who says human's don't/can't reside as in a group soul? Don't be egocentric, geocentric. Who says the life essence of any living thing is less than another? Michael? All hail this written authority. Breaking souls into categories is like how the catholic doctrines break down and quantify spirit realms and stages of afterlife.

 

If you really want to think about reincarnation for what possibilities it has, you can't restrict yourself to these rules and parameters. They make it a religion.

 

Early on in this conversation, it was asked who's in charge of reincarnation, the funneling of souls, decisions about who goes where, who advances, etc. If you want to think of reincarnation as how the universe is, then think of it as laws of nature. Things fall around a singularity because of its properties, because it's there. It makes the shape of the universe.

 

All this said, I'm not an advocate of reincarnation. I dread the possibility. Things like people mindlessly regurgitating the basics of what reincarnation is, along with documentation and rules such as Michael teachings leave me assured that it's not real. For entertainment purposes and speculation, I cast Michael rules into the furnace and really think about it. It's fun. It's mind expanding. The question keeps coming back to me, what would I learn as a soul if I were reincarnated as my own pet? Forgiveness I'd hope.

[Deva]

If reincarnation is true, it would work like another law of nature such as gravity. I know Buddhists believe ignorance and karma drive this thing but there are certain problems that I have with that.

[stryper]

Progress implies a change of some kind, usually for the better, doesn't it? I am making progress in learning how to play an instrument, for example. Yes, I would say it does imply a standard. Why wouldn't it? Yet you say there is "progress". I would want to know in what way? Then you say its all about choice. Then I want to know what's so special and significant about choice? Who made it special? Yes, we make choices all the time. Not knowing the outcome and not being able to see the future we make good and bad choices. Sounds suspiciously like the Christian emphasis on free will being such a cool thing.

 

Deva,

 

I am admittiedly bad at trying to convey all this. Mainly because I simply don't talk about it with anyone. So, I am doing my best here. Let me try again.

 

The reason why I started talking about choice is because that is the mechanism of the souls evolution. To explain better, there are 5 soul ages. Infant, Baby, Young, Mature, and Old. Infant souls are those that have incarnated recently. Old souls are just about don't with life on earth. Therefore, Old souls have more experience. Just as you at 54 have more experience in life then I do at 36. The analogy works but is not perfect. That is not a dig at your age either.

 

Please keep in mind that in speaking in generalites, they don't mean EVERY soul acts in a particular manner.

 

I would think it would be fair to say that as a child you or me would react to someone taking our favorite toy away differently then we would now. The same is true in the difference between the soul ages. Infant souls are more likely to have what you might think of as immature reactions to events in life. In the toy example, they would be more likely to react violently or in kind and take the toy back. A baby soul would probably "throw a tantrum" until the toy was given back. A young soul would probably give a lecture on how you are suppose to play and then get a parent, teacher, or other kids involved to make the bully conform to how things should be. A mature soul would be likely to talk and ask for it back, then go elsewhere to play. An old soul is most likely to shrug and go play with something else.

 

As the choice are made in any given scenario, learning occurs with the soul. This then allow for evolution in thinking and progress through the soul ages. The only standard that the micheals have referred to is one in which the individual learns to make more loving choices. When people have asked why there is so much pain in the world, the answer the micheals gave was because that is the primary means by which the human race has chosen to learn. You can hear this every day in talking with people. They place a higher level of significance on those experiences they learned from that were painful then those that weren't.

 

Would you rather not be able to make your own choices? If all you were was a biological automaton that fill a specific niche and only did a certain function, then what would be the point in being conscience to do it?

 

The Christian throw the free will thing out there because of apologetics. God has a plan for you all you gotta to is choose to follow it. Choose God and you get into heaven don't you go to hell. This has nothing to do with any of that.

 

First, because there is no judge.

 

Second, heaven and hell exist on the Astral because so many people believe there is where you go when you die. Just as many souls pull up lawn chairs and crack a beer to watch the dramatics. So it means is kinda like in the disk you only experience what you expect to experience. The whole point of those parts of the astral are just to help you deal with the fact that you are no longer in the a body.

 

Third, you point out something I said in the previous post. Most people don't think about their choices. They just act. How many times have you heard it said when I child is acting up and not listening that "somebody should smack that kid". How many times have you seen it, done it, or had it happen to you? Do you think the person doing the action took any thought to the consequences of the action. Do you think the thought about the unnecessary pain cause to the child? The embarrassment? The thoughts of not being loved? The fear at the fearsome look of anger on the adult's face? Do you think the person had any other thought then stopping the "inappropriate" behavior as quickly as possible?

 

I am not saying that deeply thinking about how you tie your shoes or button your shirt is going to affect the universe. Though double knots usually do keep them tied longer.

 

I am saying that stopping to think before you respond, thinking about how something could work out, can lead to more loving outcomes. Which as testamented by previous interactions between us, I fail at quite frequently.

 

Does that help? I am trying my best to explain things as I understand them.

[stryper]

This is limiting. It puts souls in boxes.

 

The roles are chosen by you. You deicided on the roles probably thousands or millions of years ago. There are seven Servers, Artisans, Warriors, Sages, Priests, and Kings. The Servers are the primary souls in existence. They do the work that is necessary. The artisans are exactly what it sounds like. They create, and build. The warriors are the organizers. The Sages are the comminicators. The Priests are the inspiration. The Kings rule. Sometimes Literally.

 

Each of the roles is there to fill a specific purpose. Through out history, Kings has been slaves. Sages have been kings. Priests have been generals. Warriors have been artist and Artists have been soldiers. They are only limiting as you choose them to be. That said an Artisan will not see the world the same way a king does, but the artisan can do anything they want just like any other fragment.

 

Who says human's don't/can't reside as in a group soul? Don't be egocentric, geocentric. Who says the life essence of any living thing is less than another? Michael? All hail this written authority. Breaking souls into categories is like how the catholic doctrines break down and quantify spirit realms and stages of afterlife.

 

First, your sarcasm is duly noted and very off putting. I am answering the questions to the best of my ability as I understand the material. If you wish non-sarcastic replies, then I would appreciate the same courtesy.

 

Second, Human, Cetaceans and Gorillas only incarnate into those forms because that is the choosen bodies for these cycles. Additionally, we have already been through the animal forms. Each of the different animals works in a different center. insects work in the moving center. Cats and Dogs work in the emotional center. Chimps and Great apes work in the intellectual center. I am not sure which works in the instictive center my guess would be bacteria and such. We incarnate in those forms as part of our larger cadence or entity, I am not sure which. Then we split into indivdiuals. Therefore, there is little interest in incarnating in those forms. Additionally, their bodies are not able to handle the energy. The exact genetics and such to allow for incarnation I am not sure of.

 

If you really want to think about reincarnation for what possibilities it has, you can't restrict yourself to these rules and parameters. They make it a religion.

 

Early on in this conversation, it was asked who's in charge of reincarnation, the funneling of souls, decisions about who goes where, who advances, etc. If you want to think of reincarnation as how the universe is, then think of it as laws of nature. Things fall around a singularity because of its properties, because it's there. It makes the shape of the universe.

 

All this said, I'm not an advocate of reincarnation. I dread the possibility. Things like people mindlessly regurgitating the basics of what reincarnation is, along with documentation and rules such as Michael teachings leave me assured that it's not real. For entertainment purposes and speculation, I cast Michael rules into the furnace and really think about it. It's fun. It's mind expanding. The question keeps coming back to me, what would I learn as a soul if I were reincarnated as my own pet? Forgiveness I'd hope.

 

As I stated before, there is not judge.

 

To go with your analogy, According to the micheals, when we were relocated to earth becuase of potentially be wiped on Sirius. Very few of us were saved. however, those few that were allowed multiple fragments to inhabit the same body. Apparently, this was not comfortable as our bodies were not designed to do that. However, it served as a beacon if you will so that all the other human souls knew where to go.

 

These are not rules. It is simply the way it work, apparently. There are other species out there in the universe. Some are plants. Some look like insects. Some look like bigfoot. Some do incarnate into other speices, this usually occurs after an extended period of large scale interaction. Part of the reason why we don't is because we don't have large scale interaction with other species.

 

The biggest thing that you could learn from your cat would be processing your emotions. As cats and dogs both have lots of interaction with humans specifically to learn this. If you are serious about the question, ask your cat. Couldn't hurt.

[florduh]

Quick question, Stryper - I gave a cursory read of the Micheal material. It seems very similar to the Seth Material. Is it a derivative work? Are they simply purported to be two sources that provide the same information? Or do they have major differences I just haven't discovered yet?

[Voice]

Take no offense stryper. Nothing I said was directed at you. I'm bucking the teachings, calling out religion. The more the unknown is packaged so well, the more fallible the model. It's the nature of religion.

I ponder reincarnation, but my thoughts aren't confined to the same definitions written by these authorities.

[Deva]

It seems too narrowly defined for my liking. It also seems too human-centered to me. Life isn't always about individual choices. Quite often in life our "choices" are either very narrow, or someone else makes them for us. I don't believe that in general we are guiding our own life roles. Some people may indeed have more opportunities than others to achieve the role they set their minds to, but I think there are many, many people that are not afforded these opportunities. Probably some great artists are working at McDonalds, maybe some people of genius level intellect are garbage collectors. It wouldn't surprise me.

 

Yes, there is gaining of life experience. In my 30s I had less life experience than I do now, but you might very well know more than me in your 30s.

 

I have come to see that all systems of religion have their flaws. The experience of Life is not neat, it is not systematic, except for those general ground rules such as general laws of physics, gravity, etc..

 

Reincarnation of some kind is certainly a possibility. It can't be proven at this time in history although I think one day it may be.I don't know what "powers" it. What is the mechanism? Is it our will alone? As you say, if we want to be something thousands of years ago, will we achieve it? I don't know. The Buddhists say our minds are gradually conforming to patterns which ultimately may send us to the animal realm or to states of higher being. I am uncertain about it. That would make what you are just what you deserve. It just seems a bit harsh, I don't know.

[Antlerman]

The more the unknown is packaged so well, the more fallible the model. It's the nature of religion.

I agree with this. I'm not so sure I would say its the nature of religion entirely however. Religion can be shaped and molded into these "and here are the hidden answers you seek" approaches to appeal to those looking for more concrete direction and answers. I see it as appealing to something like astrology. "Tell me what the future looks like". At a certain point however these 'answers' are really much more an open-ended unfolding of potentialities, rather than a "this is how it works" answer. So it's not religion per se, but the approach to religion by where people are at.

 

As far as the Michael Teachings, I'm somewhat impressed by it as like astrology this way; the hidden mysteries of the universe are held by the cosmos if we know how to read them right. As appealing as that is to seeking answers, is that really what leads to understanding? As Florduh brought up the Seth Material and I looked into that, it did bring up the whole channeling phenomena in New Age circles that really took off. Soon all sorts of channeling was going on of all manner of disincarnate souls. I'm not going to say that all such channeling doesn't have some validity, but where it does I'd say its more along the lines of some greater or higher realization of cosmic Truth, but as such it is formless Truth, not small cases truth as in facts.

 

It's hard to put that into words, but it generally does not entail an encyclopedia of specific knowledge. This is where I agree with you that the more we define the transcendent, the less it is. These 'higher realities' appear more as just different versions of our own in some extraterrestrial plane, rather than a higher awareness of this reality. Funny thought... you know even clinging to science to tell us these facts of reality so we can feel more assured and grounded in life is probably coming from the same place as what attracts people to astrology for answers?

[stryper]

Quick question, Stryper - I gave a cursory read of the Micheal material. It seems very similar to the Seth Material. Is it a derivative work? Are they simply purported to be two sources that provide the same information? Or do they have major differences I just haven't discovered yet?

 

They are similar. Both orginiate about the same time in the 70's. I believe Seth was published first. I beleive that Jane Roberts was only person to claim to have channeled seth. There are several Micheal channels out there. Some are more protective of their channeling than others.

 

As far as major difference, I am unsure. I have never read any of Seth's information. My understanding from comments made on the referenced site. It that there is disagreement on if Seth is a casual plane teacher or not. From what I understand Seth, said he explictly that he worked only through Jane Roberts. From what I have gathered, it apparently took quite the toll on her body. Micheal has stated they will come to whomever calls and will do their best to communicate with you.

 

Micheal has commented when others have asked about who is so and so channeling. Micheal was an entity of primarily Kings and warriors. So he comes across as more direct and a short tolerance for bullshit. Micheal mentioned when asked the there are casual plane teachers who are were mainly artisans and sages who were working with people in the performing arts. They mainly expressed their teaching through danse and music.

 

So it could be, but based on this discussion

 

http://truthloveenergy.com/profiles/blog/show?id=803120%3ABlogPost%3A76211&page=1#comments

 

I am not sure. People channel from the astral plane as well as the casual. The usually difference is the astral has an obvious agenda because the beings there are still incarnating and have a vested interest in what goes on here. The casual doesn't.

[florduh]

Thanks, stryper. As you may have gathered, I tend to be a bit non-woo, to put it mildly. Still, I have enjoyed Jane Roberts' writing, and also that of Neale Donald Walsch. Maybe I'll look more closely at Michael(s), though at this point I find Roberts' "Seth" and Walsch's "God" to be more relatable.