These two posts concern matters that needed to be communicated in starting up the new discussion group, The 2012 Scenario, at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/2012Scenario/. This first post is an answer to questions that Jasmine asked. She asked what channeled sources we do post, what criteria are used to choose among sources, what it was OK to say on the site and what not,
Given that Ann has asked me to join in, Jasmine, I’ll add a bit more to her response. I prepared a list for Julie who may be posting channeled messages. It includes:
Archangel Michael through Ronna Herman
Arcturian Group through Marilyn Raffaelle
Saul through John Smallman
The Arcturians through Suzan Carroll
Montague Keen sometimes
Hilarion through Marlene Swetlishoff
Michelle Coutant’s sources
Mira the Pleiadian through Valerie Donner
Uriel through Jennifer Hoffman
Mira the Pleiadian through Valerie Donner
These aren’t all the ones we post.
In terms of criteria, what the source says needs to be credible. Elements of a lack of credibility include improbabilities, implausibilities, impossibilities, contradictions and inconsistencies. Most of us have a little bell that goes off in our head when we hear someone who is not credible.
One has to establish a baseline of events that one follows. For me that baseline is established by the accounts of the two sources I regard as most reliable and those are Matthew Ward and SaLuSa.
Sometimes other people speak through Mathew’s channel, Suzy Ward, and these include Hatonn and Ashtar. Hatonn and Ashtar in the past have helped by identifying sources who were not credible. For instance, Ashtar has said that he does not speak a word through a source that is commonly quoted as being from him. He called that source’s material “blathering” and said that, when he speaks, his words have substance. Some of those are not on that list and if I were to name them I’d have a light war on my hands. But the mods know who they are.
There is one obvious channel who is not there and two highly-respected sources, who don’t wish to be named, have told me that that person has not been reaching his sources for a while but that the galactic and spirit teachers will be working with him to reconnect him with them. So they say not to give up on him even if he is not reaching past the contents of his mind at present. No, I don’t want to name him. Most people know who I’m referring to.
An example of an event that falls outside the baseline that Matthew and SaLuSa have given is stasis, the theory that we will leave the surface of the planet and go down to the Inner Earth. Both SaLuSa and Matthew say this is not true. There are many other examples of events that SaLuSa and Matthew dispute.
Many people here make a distinction between the positive and the negative and avoid the negative. I don’t value that distinction quite as much myself. For one thing, what is negative often resides in the eye of the beholder. What might be negative for me might not be negative for you.
We can see that quite often among lightworkers. Some see President Obama as negative and others see him as positive. Some see global warming as negative and others as positive (a prelude to the formation of a global temperate climate). Species extinction, Earth changes, the galactics’ refusal to violate our free will can all be seen by some as positive and by others as negative.
I’m more interested in what is true than what is negative or positive.
Regarding your own thoughts, it would depend on the thoughts. The site itself follows the events associated with disclosure, accountability, NESARA, first contact, terraforming, ascension, 2012, and related events. I could offer a lot of topics that fall outside the site’s purview.
There are also kinds of posts that are marginal or only appropriate in certain contexts. If we permitted jokes, unrelated music, diets, etc., we’d pretty soon have a site where you’d have to wade through a lot of low-quality material to reach the nuggets.
That having been said, this site is here for your emergence. But I mean something specific by the word. Emergence is not simple cleverness or dominance or overposting. It means standing forth as your truth.
How do you know when you’ve stood forth as your truth? Simple. The truth will set you free. When you’ve told the truth, no kidding, you’ll feel relief or release. No release, no truth. The deeper the release, the deeper the truth. I use that yardstick to govern my writing: if I feel release of tension, energies, etc., I’ve told the truth. If not, I’m just blowing smoke.
One factor, for me at least, comes ahead of truth and that is harmlessness. So many people use truth as a weapon to knock an opponent
out with. And of course every person whose comment falls outside the purview of the site accuses the moderator of censoring their truth. So even truth can be a tricky thing.
So what I value is not necessarily knowledge or style or any criteria like that. It’s personal transparency, integrity, courage – the virtues which at some place we know will bring spiritual evolution and growth.
Undoubtedly you’re aware of the distinction often made between the old paradigm and the new paradigm. The old paradigm relates to everything characteristic of third-dimensional duality – so separation, ego, material desire, sensual pleasure, amassment of possessions, etc. Not like these are bad. I’m not saying that. It’s just that they are connected with existence in this dimension and may not assist a person to evolve per se.
The new paradigm relates to everything consistent with existence in fifth-dimensional unitiveness – so unity, soul, hunger for liberation, spiritual enjoyment, discernment, detachment, devotion, love, joy, truth, equanimity, compassion, etc.
SaLuSa is fond of saying “Raise your vibrations.” The rising light energies are helping a great deal with that, but there is some
alteration of behavior that we can do as well to promote that process. And moving from the old paradigm to the new is one helpful thing we can do.
After all, we’re not here for idle passing of time. We’re preparing for Ascension in 2o12. So there is an element of purposefulness to our gathering as a sathsang or company of truth.
I realize that there is what we regard as “normal” discussion group behavior. I’m not as interested in that myself as I am with emergence. Emergence is what writers and readers can do to court enlightenment. We don’t meditate here. We don’t do yogic postures or read scripture. We communicate. The spiritual practice that seems to me appropriate to communicators is emergence – standing forth as your truth.
BTW, everyone, please remember to trim your posts for the sake of those people who read the daily digest. Don’t just reply appending a huge block of useless text. That can be really a downer for the home readers.
I hope I answered your questions, Jasmine. Usually I’ll leave it to the mods unless one of them asks me to add my opinion, as Ann did here. Have fun in here. There’s no reason why truth-telling can’t be fun as well.