Quote:
Originally Posted by lightwalker
Hi,
After 20 years of experience in reading channeled material and discerning for myself that which rings true for me his statements under question 11 I found are fairly misleading.
He (James) wrote as follows:
"If you carefully examine channeling you will see that it does not mention the Sovereign Integral, the silence that is you. They discuss the heavens, God, angelic beings, extraterrestrial intelligences, the service orientation of ascended being, ascension process of soul, morality, practical living, alignment to God, life after death, and the complex teacher-student ordering of the universe. It is all designed to instill separation and satisfy the seeker that truth exists on the material plane, thus, they do not have to leave the prison to find it; they simply need to read or listen with their mind."
His above statement is his perception ( in my opinion) and not true in my book of experience at all.
It is not all designed to instill separation.
|
From a reading of the WMM it is obvious James has researched a lot of the channellings but he has not examined them very carefully . That is, he thinks he can plaigerise the concept of the "Sovereign Integral" without being sprung, simply by denying the obvious presence of the concept in other works. It is perfectly evident to anyone who's read other channellings more carefully than he. Here again, James takes a well understood concept then denies it's existance in other sources. This allows him yet another pretext for denying the validity of those sources (ie, those that originate from source) which he achieves simply by labelling them as "separated" products of the HMS.
Why don't reliable channelled materials mention the 'Sovereign Integral'? Because the 'SI' is simply James' new label for "true identity" which has already been conceptually identified and named by many other religious and metaphysical channelled sources:
Jesus called it the Father, Moses, the I AM, Guatama called it Buddha Mind, Hindu texts call it Brahma, Atma, Bodhi, Mahayana Buddhists call it the Dharma-Kaya... etc. Over the past 150 years numerous channellings have explained that all these names refer to our own "true identity" which is to say real-Self, inner-Self, higher-Self, spiritual-Self, God consciousness, christ-consciousness, christ-Self, buddha-Self, etc.
We are presented with the same question regarding James' empty claims about the validity of other channelled material:
Ie, How can James so badly misrepresent the teachings of the adepts yet claim fraternity with Jesus? Could this be an empty claim too?
It appears to me that James makes these baseless claims about the "sovereign Integral" to give the impression that his powers of perception are virtually unique to himself in the entire history of the human race. Virtually no-one has ever seen what James can see. He must be a singularly unique individual and utterly indispensable to our search beyond the frontiers of ALL that has ever gone before.