Conflicting Messages from Non-Physical "Masters"

[Vicariously Yours]

Hi. I just started some serious work over the past several days using the principles of the Law of Attraction (Abraham-Hicks), and EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques). The basis for both of these seems to be one of empowerment, which is to say, we have the power to change our lives as we see fit. And, in fact, that we are the only ones who can effect these changes. My question this evening comes from a passage I ran into while reading "Many Lives, Many Masters" by Dr. Brian Weiss (which, by the way, was recommended reading by at least two other Forum members). Dr. Weiss's patient, Catherine, channels information from her higher self, as well as from other non-physical entities, or Masters, between her various incarnations, and on one particular occasion says: "I learned about anger and resentment, about harboring your feelings toward people. I also had to learn that I have no control over my life. I want control, but I don't have any. I must have faith in the Masters. They will guide me throughout. But I did not have faith."

It seems I'm hearing conflicting information from two sources in the non-physical realm. On the one hand, Abraham teaches that all we have to do is have the desire (which is automatic), acknowledge that the Universe has heard and will answer, and then stand back to allow those desires to be fulfilled. On the other hand, the entities being channeled by "Catherine" are telling us that we have no control whatsoever, that we are "fated" to experience those things set into motion well before our births.

How is anyone to make sense of this? How does one choose between equally credible sources who happen to disagree (apparently) so completely on this subject?

Anyone have any ideas on how to approach this? I feel stalled suddenly because I don't know what path to take, and, quite frankly, it's hard to come up with action-ideas when I feel trapped into a certain course.

Thanks.

[John Hill]

This is some good food for thought.

Since I am a big believer in the universal laws I think we must consider the law of cause and effect to answer the question of whether you have any control over your life or are you fated like "Catherine" mentioned.

For every cause there is an effect, meaning that for each of your actions in life there will be some reaction at a later date. Considering also that we live in a holographic universe of interconnectedness, meaning that everything is made up of energy and all energy is connected and everything must in some way effect everything else, I'd say that there is a pretty good chance that you can control your life to some degree.

Your thoughts, words and actions control your destiny and are responsible for what you see as your daily reality. For example if you think thoughts of pain and suffering, speak ill of yourself and others and hurt people, the effect of this will be, through the law of attraction, you will experience these negativities in your life. If you think joyful and loving thoughts, speak well of yourself and others and actively help yourself and others you will experience these positive events happening in your reality.

I don't believe you can control your life 100% because I don't think anybody has absolute and total control of their subconscious mind but for the reasons I mentioned above I do believe you have a great deal of control over your life and your destiny. I have seen many examples of this in my own life which for me is all the concrete evidence I need. Some channeled books are great but they need to be read with discernment.

John

[Jill]

How is anyone to make sense of this? How does one choose between equally credible sources who happen to disagree (apparently) so completely on this subject?

I think you have to pick which source rings the most true for you and forget about the other one. It's the same in my biz with SEO experts. Lots of conflicting advice and if you try to "believe" in them all, you'll just go crazy.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Vicariously Yours

and on one particular occasion says: "I learned about anger and resentment, about harboring your feelings toward people. I also had to learn that I have no control over my life. I want control, but I don't have any. I must have faith in the Masters. They will guide me throughout. But I did not have faith."

It seems I'm hearing conflicting information from two sources in the non-physical realm. On the one hand, Abraham teaches that all we have to do is have the desire (which is automatic), acknowledge that the Universe has heard and will answer, and then stand back to allow those desires to be fulfilled. On the other hand, the entities being channeled by "Catherine" are telling us that we have no control whatsoever, that we are "fated" to experience those things set into motion well before our births.

Honestly I would scrutinize both. Catherine gives away her power to the masters and Abraham teaches you to give away your power to the universe. The beliefs are the same.... both make you powerless and unable to effect change without outside help ("masters" or "universe"). There still is the separation of self and other.

If you're trying to acknowledge you're the creator of all your experience, it makes it more difficult.

Such teachings may have come through for people who are not ready to be responsible for all their experience and need a higher power to lean on. i.e. a person ready to make changes in their life but doesn't want the whole enchilada just yet. And I can understand that.

Also, channeled beings are not all knowing, they can get tripped up by the same mistakes and denial that we fall into.

So look at both teachings and see if either is where you want to go. Do they empower you? Can you create your experiences through them? Are they limiting in any way?

[skydust]

perhaps the masters she was channeling werent serving the light? or perhaps it was her personal conclusion of what happened and not necessarily the masters speaking it. she is speaking as herself, so i would personally think its her interpretation rather than a universal truth.

Originally Posted by Dharma

Honestly I would scrutinize both. Catherine gives away her power to the masters and Abraham teaches you to give away your power to the universe. The beliefs are the same.... both make you powerless and unable to effect change without outside help ("masters" or "universe"). There still is the separation of self and other.

i agree about catherine giving her power away to the masters, however from my understanding abraham teaches you that yo ARE the universe, not to give away your power to it, but to tap into the endless power source which is you. quite different.

[Lil Chris]

Perhaps the difference is in the state of mind...
If you're in a reactive state of mind, then you'll always be reacting to the "external" stimuli that is presented before you...

However,
If you're in a creative state of mind, then you'll see it's your current thoughts you're harboring now, that affects future events. (the thoughts you're having now, are not for now (unless your in a reactive state of mind)... Their for the future events about to happen). Change your thoughts, you'll change your world...

I believe it all comes down to choice, what do you want to believe in...? Being there is truth in everything, and there are many levels of truth. So, you're in control... Meaning, (you) all always right!
What I believe in (whole heartedly) tends to be true for me, but may not for you. That doesn't mean I'm right and your wrong (or even vise / versa). What i'm saying is that what I believe in is right for me and only me. Now you may have a different perspective that leads me to a more progressive truth, but in terms of right and wrong this does not exist. There are only levels of truth...

I also believe in child like wonder... Meaning, that if you truely wonder about something (deep down, heart felt wonder) you'll see some amazing things happen...

[Richful]

It could be said that in Abraham's teachings you have no control either, desire for your goal is the driving force, where does desire come from?

We have the control to act upon desire, in the case of IM intending fulfillment or not. However the desire itself comes from within us, the cause is not something we're aware of. Okay in cases like hunger it's obvious, but talking life purpose or even just personal preference when you push past our programming our desire springs from within. No cause, hence no control. Why do we want what we want?

So maybe we have a higher soul controlling things? Is it the conduit to the greater universe, godpower, force, source, etc... maybe. Perhaps our pure desires (those not subconcious reactions to the world we live in) are our souls desires and by extension the will of the universe. It seems to be a matter of focus, am I my ego or my soul? The soul/universe has control, the ego does not, it can only react. From an ego level we can choose to follow desire or not. It just depends on where we identify. I think both perspectives can be integrated.

[Reyv]

Originally Posted by Vicariously Yours

"I also had to learn that I have no control over my life. I want control, but I don't have any. I must have faith in the Masters. They will guide me throughout. But I did not have faith."

Faith in the Masters? And that makes us what, slaves? That's disempowerment of the worst kind. If you'll look through Abraham's emotional scale, you'll see that Powerlessness is the very lowest emotion there is.

There's another very interesting thread here, that discusses the fact that not all channeled entities are positive. This particular entity sounds exactly like the kind that makes you believe it's highly positive to gain your trust, and then interweaves highly negative messages in between all the positivity.

Originally Posted by Dharma

Honestly I would scrutinize both. Catherine gives away her power to the masters and Abraham teaches you to give away your power to the universe. The beliefs are the same.... both make you powerless and unable to effect change without outside help ("masters" or "universe"). There still is the separation of self and other.

I disagree. Abraham teaches you a way to get what you want easier. Isn't that what a lot of personal development is about? Learning new ways of getting what you want? Abraham never tells you what to want. The choices are still completely yours. The universe is just the executive, carrying out your choices.

By contrast, in the Catherine scenario, she is giving her free will away, she is relinquishing control over her life.

Originally Posted by Richful

It could be said that in Abraham's teachings you have no control either, desire for your goal is the driving force, where does desire come from?

Desire comes from contrast. You observe your environment, and you form preferences. Those preferences then result in desires. And this has nothing to do with Abraham's teachings. You could ask yourself where desire comes from regardless of him.

[skydust]

Originally Posted by Richful

desire for your goal is the driving force, where does desire come from?

that is a good question. based on reyv's reply i would say that desire comes from ego/personality. so if desire ultimately comes from ego, isnt it just about us having more 'wise' egos who choose 'feeling good' over 'feeling bad'? why would the source desire anything when it is already complete as it is? perhaps the ego is merely a tool through which it can experience things, just for the fun of it? but in that case why would it have a preference towards one or the other? if its all that is and it wants to experience, every experience will be just as valid as any other, and neither better or worse.

i am confusing even myself lol.

[Dharma]

Clarification:

I'm not saying Abraham has some ill intent or is misinformed. I've listened to Esther via book on CD and while she puts forth the concept that self is everything, universe included, she constantly goes back to refering to the universe as the thing that does the work... not self. She keeps the separation alive, and for a teacher of manifestation, I'd think the group called Abraham would strive to remove all the denial they could from the get go.

[skydust]

thanks for clarifying dharma. i personally think thats more of a language barrier, as human language is very limited to express the ways of the universe. its like a real human vs a stickman, it doesnt capture the message as smoothly as it is really, and hence words themselves can be hard to choose to get close to the intended meaning.

[Reyv]

@Dharma: I think I had missed your initial meaning. Let me try this again.

The way I see Abraham's model of reality, the universe is only the framework within which you are the full creator of your experience. The universe is not defined as sentient or biased towards/against you. The universe is simply designed to respond to your thoughts, regardless of what they are.

This model only makes you powerless if you think the universe exercises any form of judgement in responding to your thoughts, and selectively accepts or denies them. But that isn't the case. The universe, the framework, the holodeck if you will, is defined as answering all requests, all the time, no questions asked, whether you're aware that you're asking or not. Kind of like the way that gravity just works.

Therefore, it doesn't really matter if the power to create reality comes from within you, or from this external source, as long as you can have control over it.

I think Abraham is using this model simply because it is easier for people to understand and accept. As opposed to most other channeled sources, I see Abraham as being the most practical of them all, and the least interested in discussing the nature of reality. They chose the path of least resistance, so to speak, and decided to only give us information that we can actually use and verify, instead of going into details which would have ultimately had no practical end for most of us.

[Vicariously Yours]

I appreciate all the excellent replies thus far. I want to take a moment to express my appreciation for the variety of ideas and the serious thought Forum members put into their posts and responses. My wife thanks you, too...she's been pulling her hair out with my infernal questions that have a nasty habit of manifesting in my brain at just about the time we're supposed to be hitting the rack. And, incidentally, though she doesn't profess to be in the same metaphysical loop that most of us might claim, she was one of the first to suggest that I try to practice a little discernment and go with the advice that feels closest to my own perspective...which is to say, anything that adds to my sense of empowerment, rather than limiting it. Thus, the Abraham-Hicks material, as well as the IM methodology, is clearly my choice, and that is what I will go with.

I feel as if I've discovered a new group of friends. Cheers!

[Acting Like Godot]

Bryan Weiss's Catherine and Esther Hicks' Abraham differ in other fundamental ways.

In the first case, karma plays a central role in the explanation of why things are the way they are.

In the second case, karma does not. Karma in fact is relegated to an extremely minor role. Abraham acknowledges that past lives exist, but asserts that they are of almost no relevance to your present life.

One possible reconciliation that I can see is that Abraham is stating a general position - that, for most of us, exploration of past lives is ultimately pointless and not very fruitful, because we already have so much creative power to do whatever we want, in our present lives.

Whereas in the Bryan Weiss case studies, the patients represent the minority of people with serious issues left over from their past lives that need resolution in the present life.

Note that Dr Bryan Weiss didn't administer past-life regression hypnosis to just any patient who walked in. His practice was to administer it only to those patients for whom other more conventional forms of hypnotherapy had already failed to achieve satisfactory results.

[Rocket Surgery]

Because the nature of metaphysical philosophy and spirituality is such that it cannot yet be proven by physical science, it will naturally lend itself it its fair share of fakes and phonies.

For example, I have seen both live and videotaped channeling sessions featuring so-called non-physical entities sharing their ages-old wisdom with the masses. Some of these channelers I believe to be complete shams, while others I believe to be the genuine article. Suffice it to say, it's an easy industry to exploit. Can you say "televangelist?"

Ninety-nine point nine percent of all sources of "new age" information I have come across to date -- to include channelers, philosophers, mediums, psychics, astral travelers, non-physical "beings," etc.... be they perceived as fakes or legitimate teachers -- seem to subscribe to the subjective reality theory that we basically create our own reality be we physical here on Earth or in Spirit form. Even the major fables, er... I mean religions of the planet profess a belief in free will, albeit contained within a major fear and control system.

This person you speak of who claims we are in the control of "the masters" and are living out predestined lives is clearly part of a very small minority. In fact, if she's right, then why are you fretting over which philosophy to invest in? According to her, you've already decided, so don't worry about it. However, the very fact that you currently believe you have to choose one or the other is rather striking evidence that she is WRONG and hence the choice should be obvious.

Of course, she will then tell you that you were predestined to choose a belief in free will. I recommend a full raspberry with plenty of free-form spittle.

~ RS

[Acting Like Godot]

Rocket Surgery:

I suspect you might not be aware of Brian Weiss's Christine (nor of his other patients). This isn't "normal" channelling. It isn't even "channelling".

Brian Weiss is a psychotherapist who takes his patients to their past lives via hypnosis. That already is rather common. What Weiss does, which is really interesting, is that he also takes his patients to that interval between the end of one life, and the start of the next.

His patients then recall their memories of .... ummm, what happened immediately after they died, and who they met.

Christine's case was slightly special. Not only did she recall who she met, but that entity decided to speak directly through Christine, to Dr Weiss. This didn't happen in other patients' cases.

[Rocket Surgery]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Rocket Surgery:

I suspect you might not be aware of Brian Weiss's Christine (nor of his other patients). This isn't "normal" channelling. It isn't even "channelling".

Sorry. My post perhaps read as if I was responding to yours. I was simply responding to the originator of the thread.

My point is not about channeling or past-life regression or any other area of metaphysics. It's simply my opinion that "new age" studies and philosophy, just like established religion, are unprovable scientifically, and therefore open themselves up to plenty of phonies who try to exploit people's belief for profit.

Some teachers are genuine, some false, and some just plain wrong. The entire study of metaphysical philosophy should not be discounted because one point of view occassionally conflicts with another. I was suggesting the person look to the majority of opinions as a guide to which one might be closer to the truth.

~ RS

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Rocket Surgery

Sorry. My post perhaps read as if I was responding to yours. I was simply responding to the originator of the thread.

My point is not about channeling or past-life regression or any other area of metaphysics. It's simply my opinion that "new age" studies and philosophy, just like established religion, are unprovable scientifically, and therefore open themselves up to plenty of phonies who try to exploit people's belief for profit.

Some teachers are genuine, some false, and some just plain wrong. The entire study of metaphysical philosophy should not be discounted because one point of view occassionally conflicts with another. I was suggesting the person look to the majority of opinions as a guide to which one might be closer to the truth.

~ RS

Yup, I agree, read a lot of opinions, and let your intuition tell you which ones make sense. Don't discredit an author because he is "wrong" on one point though, because the other 99% of his teachings could be totally right, just that one thing that he still hasn't learned.

[Lallymac]

According to Deepak Chopra, 'If you don't make yourself equal to God, you can't percieve God.' How to Know God.
From my experience in working with the masters, the messages are in relation to spiritual laws, universal truths, they are manifestations or representations of our higher selves. Most of the channeled messages I've recieved have been wisdoms as a opposed to life directives. What we do with those messages is our own choice 'free will.' There are no judgements or consequences attached. If you read Neale Donald Walsh's 'Conversations With God' series, Walsh's God taught him repeatedly, lovingly, patiently, concepts as tools to enable him to live the life he desired. The Master's exist on the plane of unconditional love. No matter how many times we stuff up, don't grasp it, deny what is said, they patiently return, loving us again and again. There is no such thing as right or wrong only cause and effect.
Lallymac