Validating isn’t disproving

I had an epiphany of sorts in my reply to Diane’s comment on the previous entry. In conclusion I said, “My original goal for VM has completely changed or evolved through a series of choices I’ve made on focus points. I’ve lost my need to disprove what others think.” This is a critical observation that I’d like to expand on as it represents an entirely new parallel in thinking for me.

For most of my life, I combated others’ belief systems by attempting to prove them false or wrong, rather than trying to figure out what I personally believed and proving it right, or in Michael terms, validating it. I just assumed that whatever I believed was “right” or “true.” This is a good example of how imprinting works. This is also why the 4th Internal Monad can be such a difficult experience. It starts off with a series of false assumptions, i.e., about rightness and wrongness. It forces one to confront deeply held beliefs that have never been questioned. Just when you get to some semblance of sanity over one issue, another one is dragged into view. Even when one has finished the 4th IM or even the 5th IM in positive poles, there are still many lingering beliefs that have yet to be confronted. But, beyond that I’ve figured out why Michael has said that we need to validate.

Each of us has a unique set of beliefs and truths, based on a combination of imprinting, conditioning, teaching, and experience. This means that the knowledge each of us holds is unique to the individual. No two people are alike, EVEN IF they were to have the exact same set of overleaves for Essence and Personality. Each Essence has had its own set of incarnations and evolutionary learning moments. No two are alike. So, even if two Essences were to have the same traits of Role, Casting, Frequency, and Energies, each of the fragments that they send out into a new incarnation will be different. Similarly, each Personality that is created will be unique to a combination of its own fragment, genetics (overleaves) and experiences. The only truly common denominator between all would be choice as a concept, but not as an actuality, as each choice would be unique and a moment in now.

When it comes to validation, no two Personalities are genuinely the same, not even conjoined identical twins, although I would suspect they are the closest, at least until separated. So, while my validation experience may provide some food for thought for others, it still falls to each individual to actually validate from within and without based on their own unique combination of Essence and Personality. No two will be exactly alike. How each of us arrives at our conclusions will be unique to each of us.

I’ve stated my current belief that there are no complete beliefs or truths — that somewhere in everything we think we know there is missing data. Until I come up with something better as a way of describing “absolute truths” as being less than absolute, that will continue to be my perception. I’ve yet to meet or become aware of any single human being who knows everything. I will concede that Infinite Souls may have a much bigger slice of the “truth” pie than anyone else, but they are few and far between, and are as ephemeral as a mayfly. And, just because they may know the Logos far better than any of us, it doesn’t mean they’ve been able to successfully pass it along in its entirety. Michael has said that Infinite Souls have been greatly misunderstood and their teachings watered down and distorted by those who had contact; so, whatever we do know from Infinite Souls is still incomplete.

Back to validation, and this is the A-Ha! moment, I cannot validate based on disproving someone else’s validation. If someone else believes that the moon is made of green cheese, and they’ve validated it to the best of their abilities, it is “true” for them until they discover more complete information. It’s not for me to provide that new information as a “mission” of validation for myself. I might consider other information and attempt to validate it for myself, but if I cannot, I simply have to admit: I cannot validate this. It doesn’t mean that I have actually disproved it or that it isn’t true. Although, I will apply my own universal caveat . . . it’s incomplete.

When I started this blog, part of my presumed mission was to be able to validate Michael through various Michael channels and books. Since I already knew there were huge discrepancies in some of the information and that several of the well-known channels had veered off in what I considered to be non-Michael directions, my real premise was to disprove “some” in the process of validating. (That streak of arrogance never quite goes away.) Since then, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s nearly irrelevant what I think of things I cannot validate or have little interest in attempting to validate. If it’s something that I can partially validate, then I can set it aside in the “could be true, but incomplete” column of thinking. If it’s something else, it could be true for someone else and not me.

I’ve become more accepting that channels are as human as anyone else — still as caught up in IM issues, negative poles, or belief systems. It makes sense that whatever they channel has to process through the filter of whomever they are and whatever they believe. I’ve also learned that people can be very different in terms of how they process ideas or visualize — and how they can express that through words. Not everyone uses the same symbolism. We even know that Michael’s vocabulary has been developed based on the vocabulary already known to Sarah Chambers or later channels. As they’ve continued to say, the language is a concept or an idea — that one could use any number of similar words. We don’t HAVE to parrot the words exactly.

I’ve also accepted that not all Michael students have the same interests. The questions they ask will be developed based on their own unique interests and combination package of imprinting, experiences, etc. This directly affects the body of work of any given channel.

Add to that each channels skills in terms of “how” they channel, whether it’s through a Ouija Board, through live vocalizations, captured in notes, captured on tape, and/or through the computer medium of typing. There has been more work “lost” than work captured and disseminated to a larger public audience. Some deep trance, some light trance, and some do somewhere in between. So, how much of the channel’s Personality is set aside is a big variable.

This is why it has to come back to the individual to validate for themselves and to remember that whatever you validate today may be unvalidated tomorrow or the converse. Each of us is a continuing work in progress as new choices are made.

2 comments to Validating isn’t disproving

  • David Stollar

    Dear Geraldine,
    I found your latest note raised a number of questions.
    In the 2nd and 3rd paras you talk about ‘confronting’ our assumptions.
    I wanted to know to what degree such convictions are carried over to the next life as, presumably over several lifetimes, we complete one internal monad after another.
    Are these beliefs part of personality or part of the individual Essence?
    To what extent then, if any, does the personality survive death?
    If we retain such ‘lingering beliefs’ arising from previous conditioning etc. at least until they are, as you say, ‘confronted’, then where exactly do they reside?
    In the Essence, perhaps? If so, is each life part of a gradual clearing of the Essence until, perhaps, its differences with the pure Tao are dissolved and a merging takes place?
    Any light on these issues would be welcomed.
    Love,
    David

  • David — First of all, my caveat definitely applies — I don’t feel we have complete information on the topic of death, dying, afterlife, etc. We did get some during a Live Michael Speaks NYC session during this past year — transcript in Forums/Transcripts, and I followed up with the 7 Stages of the 7th Internal Monad. I’d also recommend reading the “Frequencies and Energies” transcript, too.

    Now, having said that, a couple of other facts from Michael: 1) There are situations of “ghosts” being created when the physical body dies but the emotional body doesn’t (4 bodies: spiritual, emotional, intellectual, physical)–they will only last as long as it takes for that Soul Age Level to be finally processed with a 7th IM in positive poles. Part of the process of the 7th IM is to gather up all existing “personalities” who are part of a single soul age level, but didn’t finish the 7th IM. 2) Parr of the process of “uploading to Essence” during an incarnation is why we aspire to a conscious connection — although, it will be done every 7 years otherwise. Also, the Scholars in one’s Cadre and/or Entity have as part of their tasking to upload cadence mates, etc. In turn, this upload will eventually go to the Akashic Records. 3) One of the things that we are missing clear information on is the difference between being incarnate vs discarnate — the physical includes negative poles, ego, false personality, and Maya — whereas the Astral does not. So, even a very wounded Personality who may have been stuck in the 2nd IM and is a psychopath will not hang onto all of that emotional content once discarnate, unless it opts for being a ghost.

    The 4th IM is completely processed within the realm of the physical Personality, other than for moments of conscious connection to Essence. People can complete the 4th IM in negative poles (which means it’s not actually completed) but they will start the 5th IM when it’s the appropriate time — it’s just that no IM will be considered truly complete until it’s finished in positive poles. The purpose of the 4th IM is to truly become yourself. This means examining many closely held beliefs and determining whether or not they are actually valid for yourself. The issues can be gender-related, political, racial, or any of all of the other ways we set up limitations about others or ourselves. It doesn’t mean that one stops having some of these belief systems, just that one has examined them and found them to be true for themselves. My observation is that examining includes some major life events that push one past simplistic thinking, such as major career changes, divorce, marriage, having to take care of dying parents, inheritance battles, etc.

    I don’t think we bring much conditioning into a life. That’s the purpose of having a brand new start. A new run at choices, many of the same choices we’ve already tried before under other circumstances. In fact, we don’t connect or resonate to past lives until we’ve already made choices and had experiences that create the connection.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>