[Excerpt from TT: 2009-12-13]
[Question] You’ve discussed “templates,” and in an answer to me, you said, “Once that flexible template is in place, any Entity or Cadre can “play” the role for any group or individual as a means to teach, giving rise to a multitude of variations.” You said you’ve played a role as both Ra and the Delphi Oracle. Are you using a template or playing a role when you work through channels at this time in your teaching history?
[Michael Entity] We no longer have to play roles or use templates, except through those channels who wish to speak on our behalf, instead of allowing us to speak for ourselves. We do not mind, though. In those cases, it could be said that we are, in fact, using a template, but not in the sense that we were speaking about in your quote of us from a previous exchange. Our “voice” is just as valid among those channels who speak on our behalf, when the speaking is reflective of our teaching.
[Question] How would you speak for yourself? What would that be like?
[Michael Entity] When it is “our voice” vs the voice of the channel on our behalf, there is little discrepancy from the consistent build of our teaching, especially in a way that would identify a channel as unique to that discrepancy for any great length of time. There will always be new additions to our teaching in a way that only one or two channels deliver initially, but the valid additions propagate. This does not mean that those discrepancies are not valid as their own teaching, or that they are in conflict with our teaching, but it is one of the ways for discerning the authenticity of our “voice,” if that is of interest to a student.
[Question] so is it just personal preference when we think something “sounds” more like you?
[Michael Entity] How we “sound” is far less important than what is claimed that we are saying.
We do have a kind of “check list” for validation of our voice through a channel that any student can use for navigating the various channels, regardless of what we “sound” like. We will include this in the final transcript for this chat. This check list would be one that does NOT reflect the validity of the information that a channel is conveying, as the information may have validity of its own regardless of it’s consistency or lack of consistency with our evolving teaching, but only as a means to discern the proximity and clarity of contact with us and our intentions.
Navigating the validity of channels and their proximity and clarity of contact with us can be complicated; we have “channels” who actually do not channel us but who speak consistently and accurately on our behalf, and we have channels who work directly with us who distort the information to such a degree that this information only serves to distract from our teaching.
The exploration of such topics as this can be “dangerous” territory for some, and it is not an exploration that can be undertaken accurately without a high level of intellectual and emotional maturity, as it can easily prompt the younger imprinting of hierarchy, competition, and conflict. When we say that it can be “dangerous territory,” we are not speaking in terms of caution or concern, because with or without our suggestions for validation, the younger imprinting will find its ways into our circles of students. We were merely speaking to the concern that some may have about any process for validating the authenticity of a channel if one were to be in place. There is great fear in that regard, though our students will eventually find it to be an important, and non-threatening process, at some point when the younger imprinting is shed. In other parallels where we work with you, the process of validation is as important and as uncomplicated as validating a surgeon’s claims.
Without the process of validation, the door is wide open for us to work with a wide swath of students and non-students, but it minimizes much of the potential for actual learning. Without the process of validation there is also a consistent division nurtured among the various channels as certain groups form around the discrepancies that are unique to a channel, which then undermines much of the point of our teaching. Validation is vital on many levels, but only for those who choose for that to be a relevant ingredient in their process of learning and discerning.
Many have not considered the possibilities beyond the current courtesies that increase such variations and gaps among the channels.
A BASIC CHECKLIST for validating the clarity, consistency, and presence of Michael through a person claiming to channel Michael, regardless of the “voice” being used:
We will never tell you what to do.
We will never predict.
We will never speak to you in ways that only seek to comfort you.
We do not use affectionate language as a means of socializing, or as a means to appeal to you.
We will never shame you.
We will never do the work of your life for you.
We teach a philosophy that naturally encourages study and practice, if that philosophy is going to be valid, but it will not do the work of your life for you, or make your life easier. Only your study and implementation of the teaching can do such a thing.
We refer to Past Lives as a means to increase your capacity for choice in the current life, but never as a means to simply explain away your conditions and experiences.
We will never teach that your current life is a result of, or an imposition from, your Past Lives, but that your most relevant Past Lives are because of your current life choices.
Our teaching is an evolving body that builds upon itself, but does not replace or displace itself. We do expand upon concepts that are often previously conveyed or interpreted as concluded, but this expansion is not a replacement or displacement, and will only add dimension that is consistent to the evolution.
When we introduce a new aspect of our teaching, it propagates among our channels and does not become unique to any one channel for any great length of time.
We do not make sensational, urgent, or conditional announcements.
We do not do healing, or “energy work,” as this is a form of interference and potential karma.
We do not work with any other entity in any way as any means to communicate or convey our teaching.
We come to all who ask, but this does not mean we are heard, understood, or clearly communicated.
We come to all who ask, but this does not mean that we come through any channel who claims he or she is channeling us.
We and our teaching cannot be misrepresented because it is either us and our teaching, or it is not; we and the teaching are either heard clearly, or not.
We will always trust that you will hear what you most need or want to hear.
We will never restrict our communication to only what you want to hear, and we will never impose upon you what we see as your needing to hear.
We cannot access private information about any fragment. Private information in the Akashic Records is as private as the individual Personality deems it to be, until that Personality deems it otherwise.
Individual Personalities will always be the authority over their own information.
Overleaves are not private information.
Accessing the Akashic Records is part of our study, and your questions help us in that process. You cannot ask your questions, or for Overleaves, too many times.
We do not evade or avoid questions that seek to help a student in a process of validation.
We do not require questionnaires, birth information, or photographs as a means to access your Overleaves; that is a tool for the channel, not for us.
Our channels are never displaced by us, but only merge with us as a means of communicating for us. There will always be a percentage of consciousness of the channel contributing to even the clearest of information, accurately or inaccurately.
Everything we teach extends from the premise that every fragment carries the primary tool of Choice.
We will always emphasize the tool of Choice as your most empowering tool.
We state that “all is choice,” but this does not preclude the responsibility of learning how to choose in ways that contribute to you and your species evolution.
We make the statement that “all is choice” as a fact of existence, not as a statement of permission.
We are not out to save the world, have no interest in recruiting students, and do not find it necessary to alter our teachings in a way that allows for consumption by the masses.
We do not expect you to take this check list at face value, but we offer it as a means to bring to light the patterns of consistency that establish the strength of our proximity to you through a channel, keeping in mind that the lack of proximity means only a lack of proximity. It does not have any bearing on the validity, or lack of validity, of a channel’s teaching or his or her interpretation of our teaching.