On Channeling Accuracy

BY BRIN

I think if anyone is looking for word for word accuracy of any of the channeling, they are not going to find it because it is not the nature of channeling to be that accurate. On a "good" day they say 80% accuracy but that can fall much lower.

What does that mean?

It means there will be factual inaccuracies when the channel is tired, when there are belief systems in place that color the information ie. if the channel really believes something to be true, sometimes that will come through and sometimes what Michael is seeking to share may come through with greater or lesser clarity. The vocabulary a channel is comfortable with will color the information as we've seen; the early group was well-versed in the Gurdjieff teachings, so a lot of that terminology influenced the expressions.

I've heard (so this is probably about five steps removed from the source :) and may be of dubious accuracy itself) that the original Michael channel when asked about printing the original transcripts as a greater whole, wasn't charmed with the idea partially because of the errors in the early channeling and the degree of accuracy.

I think this is a great discussion to have. It brings us all back to our own ability to know and discern what is true and not true. If discernment is only based on accuracy of material, that creates a fairly vulnerable state because it is a sort of externally based discernment. For years people thought the world to be flat and just because they all agreed, didn't make that belief true. I've felt for a long time that I doubt Michael or any healthy spiritual information or system, is meant to make us dependent on others to tell us what the truth is. Whether they are channelers or a priest class or whatever. We are all of the Tao, the breath of the Tao enlivens all our bodies, our awareness is the Tao itself colored by our thoughts, habits, perceptions. There are times we turn to "external" teachers, yet what we know, how we learn and grow, our beingness is an inside job so to speak based on our own choices and understanding.

The tradition of personal experiences of openings to greater light go back and back weaving in one form or another through all the spiritual and religious traditions. One of the reasons for this is that one's personal awareness of who and what you are, the nature of the Tao, and the ability to know/sense/intuit/discern directly-- to simply be/do, becomes more clear. A lot of thought patterns, habits, limitations caused by belief systems and so on can fall away. When this happens even briefly, there can be enormous transformative effects. You can come to know for yourself directly.This cuts through a lot of the conjectures we often see on the list or sharings that may simply be personal opinion or even inaccurate information.

Meanwhile in terms of accuracy of the early transcripts, or of any of the information, it's probably more useful to see what the overall thrust is or at least not to let this become lost in details. The system Michael shared was a system to help us understand ourselves and the world better. Why we are like we are, why others may be different. In general, it's clear that there is a beautiful structure that creates our inter-relationships. That we are never truly alone, but part of larger groups on every level until we realize ourselves as simply a Oneness expressing in all these different ways. That we have choice in how we are. The information was never meant to limit us to its expressions, rather it was meant to expand our vision and understanding, to enable us to find greater balance.

Where understanding leaves off and fantasy begins "is" the journey and how we answer that creates the cycles....

More On Channeling Accuracy

I just wanted to add that in general I agree that at some point the information must mesh in a way that rings true as one body of information. Or perhaps I should say that at every point that it divurges, the material becomes questionable and I imagine we each deal with that in our own ways.

Since many of us are entity and cadre mates, the information has served to bring us together. Loyalties to parts of the information may spring up for various reasons that may or may not actually have to do with how accurate the information is or how much it's really a part of what feels like the central body of what we're calling (more or less loosely) Michael teachings.

In terms of a body of information, what is it that makes up "Michael"?

I want to say that I found it deeply useful to see the original transcripts and to be able to sort out on my own what was what. Seeing those transcripts made the fictionalized part of the early books clear, which may have been a way of presenting the material initially, but at some point clear information is more useful. It also gave a sense of major themes at the time. Some came out in the early books, some didn't and haven't really been in any books.

Overall the level of inconsistancies in those transcripts as well as in the styles and kinds of information of different channels even when channeling on the same person or subject is inevitably in our face pretty quickly. I've found it disturbing when we've discussed someone famous and there was such a range of information channeled by different people that didn't agree and didn't really go together in any way. Different overleaves, different basic info as well as different interpretations of what that person was about.

Initially there's an impression perhaps that we're getting some kind of final truth from some kind of authority beyond and we can sort of rest in accepting that they have a greater clarity and understanding from their perspective. Well, maybe that's true and some of that comes through, but which is which? And we can say, "channels get it together" and sort of put a responsibility on the channels, but that doesn't seem to be the way it has been, or seems to be going -- not to say that wouldn't be nice or that there couldn't at any time be more of the channels collaborating. I think one of the many issues influencing potential collaborations is the element of the degree of time that would take. I think each channel has sought to find some way to make it a financially viable choice to be channeling at all and perhaps that hasn't supported doing more work together. How do the channels even if they did come together decide on what information is accurate? Do they create standards of channeling and if so, how... One person may have a very different style of channeling and yet bring through very strong information. One may change numbering to reflect an aspect of the truth that another is not focusing on. And yes, some of it may be just off. Do they create standards of what is Michael? It doesn't seem to me to be that much different than the information we encounter every day in the rest of our lives. Which is to say that on this plane we get facets of truth, we get a lot of illusion and fantasy, we get points of view (always with the potential to open to something deeper... which I personally think is the point anyway.)

So instead of a complete body of harmonious information, we have people sort of doing their own thing.

For me, some of the information really has been helpful to my understanding of myself, the world, and my place in it -- has added more dimension and richness to understanding how this all works. A lot of that was in the initial information or in clear descriptions of what feels like that core body of what I think of as Michael. The loyalty I feel to that information probably comes from the strength of the positive impact it had on me and still has. When newer information comes through, some of it is useful, some less so. I don't feel much loyalty to information that seems to fall more into the realm of personal preferences. Some of it may simply be interesting, some not. As new information comes out on the basics of structure, some of it feels accurate to me, some feels somewhat off or completely out there in the realm of ahhh....

When a channel or a teacher, a therapist, an astrologer, or a friend or mate for that matter, shares info with us, some of it can give us great new insights, leaps of understanding. Just hearing a different point of view can do that. Sometimes the quality and accuracy of the information is strikingly powerful and sometimes we just want it to be....

Which doesn't help much for those who want to keep the material honest. I appreciate some of the fleshing out of structure with newer channeling and intuitively sense what it is that people are trying to describe. I intuit dimensions of the structure and of information not yet described. I guess where I'll end is simply to say that at best, each of us bring our part, our specialty of understanding, of insight, of strengths to the whole, to the better understanding of that whole through expressing what it is we are. So we're creating it as we express it as we intuit it and continue to create in the nature of what we are. It's an ongoing living organism. Within that, wanting to sort out the excesses, distortions and fantasies of this plane helps us define truth and fantasy for ourselves.