Speaking the Same Language

1999-12-15 00:26:00

I received my Norton Utilities by federal express and after working with it, and installing a new system, my main computer is up and running again.

I would much rather have spent the time working on this computer talking to my friends here on the list, and I must say there is much to talk about. I will just scratch the tip of the iceberg tonight. Forgive me if my comments overlook your posts or do not comment sufficiently. As time goes on, and more people have more questions and the list grows, this will become increasingly a problem. The solution is the oneness principle. Teachers are surfacing and tapping into the Spiritual Internet and when they teach I think I am listening to myself, or should I say my soul?

Rick wrote some great wisdom:

"If we want to be one family it would help if we could be flexible enough to all try to speak the same language, at least when we are together."

Now when two people are in the Oneness Principle they can speak from different backgrounds with a different way of looking at definitions yet sense the meaning the other is trying to convey. Reading Xavier, for us English speaking people, is a great example of this. Even though he sometimes struggles to convey his thought because his native tongue is French, most of us get a good sense of where he is heading even when he is using a weird selection of words.

On the other hand, when people are centered in the personality and ego and any disagreement arises, this "feel" for what the person means goes out the window. For this cause it is good to have a uniform definition of terms. Scientists use very exact definitions which allow them to communicate professionally with minimal distortion. Now we, who are becoming spiritual scientists, need to follow this same principle.

Concerning myself I know that all members on the list cannot absorb by supernatural means what my true meaning is if my terns are fuzzy, so as a teacher I have some responsibility to make myself clear.

There seems to be some fog out there as to my meaning of the word channel. I thought I had made myself clear in the past, but in case I have not let me do so now so. If the subject comes up again we can just pull up this post.

While it may be true that the word "channel" has been loosely applied to all sorts of reception of information, let us specifically narrow it down for this class.

Class Definition:

A channel is basically the same as, is or has been called a medium. This is a person who turns his body over to another entity. In doing this the person usually goes into an unconscious state and comes back to the body with no memory. Other channelers maintain some awareness and return to the body with some memory of what has been said or done. Generally the channeler will speak by what is called "direct voice." If you are in the presence of such an experience you will notice a distinctly different voice, personality and mannerisms. The entity who owns the body is definitely not doing the talking.

In other cases the entity will write through the person's hand or, in this age, even type as in the case of Ruth Montgomery who I must admit came up with some interesting material. It is called channeling because the subject is offering his or her body as a channel for another entity.

The Masters would not use direct voice channeling unless there was some exceptional situation, and that would probably be a one time thing.

Channelers make several different types of contacts.

(1) A thought form of their own creation.

(2) A projected thought form from a dark entity

(3) A discarnate entity from the astral realm.

Whereas most channeled material is rehashed material, containing little that is new, there are some worthy of study. The best that I have found is that of Jane Roberts, author of the Seth material. What sets Seth apart is that he does not claim to be a master. It seems that the higher the channeled entity claims to be, the lower the grade of the material. Seth comes across as an intelligent student of the perspective from the other side and seems to be doing his best to relate it to us.

Many channeled entities are outright deceptive. Some claim to be historical figures from the past for the purpose of gaining more credibility with their audience. Many claim to be masters even though the Masters have said they avoid direct voice. With channeled material, just as with any other, the student has to run the teachings by the soul.

What channeling is not:

Mental telepathy is not channeling.
The science of Impression is not channeling.
Overshadowing is not channeling.
Revelation is not channeling.
Anything received through the oneness principle is not channeling.

I am not a channeler and have never claimed to be. I have not turned over my body to any other entity, but do seek to be one with lives higher than myself. I always speak with my own voice. Reception through oneness is much different than channeling, which is reception through duality.

It has been said that there are those who seek to expose me as a fraud. This will be difficult to do because I make no claims - even my book is published as fiction.

If I were to make any claim, it would be that it is possible to know the truth, especially principles that reveal truth and this is through reflecting the material off your own soul. You must not trust me or anyone else until you do this and prove to yourself that a teacher or teaching is leading you the right direction.

I'm glad to see that Sterling is making himself at home here. His last posting surely took a lot of thought to create and his use of the law of correspondences concerning the way to peace was excellent. I expect great things from the author of "Greater Things."