Jump to content
  • 0
Johanne

Role in essence

Question

Johanne

I have a quick question. Sometimes ME say "Role in essence".  Is "Essence Role and "Role in essence" mean the same thing or is there something I am misunderstanding? Thank you

  • LIKE/LOVE 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Philip Wittmeyer

At the risk of confusing the matter further, let me just say that the matter looks ambiguous to me, but admittedly my own research in this matter is incomplete. Here is what I have written about it so far, a sub-section in a section named "What is an Overleaf?" in a book manuscript named A History of the Overleaf Chart. This will not provide you with a definitive answer for what Troy's Michael means when they say what they say. Maybe someone on this site knows if Troy's Michael has weighed in on the question posed by Johanne.

 

Essence [Role] versus Personality

There are a lot of ambiguities in the use of the words ‘Essence’ and ‘Personality’ in the MT. In another one of my books, Study Papers on the Original Michael Group, I have a lengthy chapter on the subject of "Essence and Personality". I will not go into it in detail here. Suffice it to say that these two words were adopted from the Gurdjieff teaching and then adapted into the MT in the original Michael group (OMG); there are other names in other teachings that the OMG members were familiar with. Whatever they are named, the discussion of the concepts continued into the OMG, and there were adjustments in the definition of these terms, as we see in this quotation:

Someone in the group had a question about Michael’s use of “Soul,” “Essence,” and “Self” interchangeably, and the departure from the Gurdjieffian system where there is a False and True Personality, and that Essence and True Personality go together [to] form the “self.”

The soul is the Essence. This is synonymous with “self.” Even we have a personality. It simply is no longer challenged by maya. [22 September 1973]

Can we talk about Centers on higher planes being counter part?

Not really. You see, the need for the Roles is a Physical [Plane] one, but the need of Centering is found throughout [creation] — at least in our experience it is. [08 October 1974]

I am still confused about my Essence and my Role.

The Role is chosen as the Role in Essence. Read the description of this Role in the transcription [of October 1973]. Your Essence is your soul, that part of you that is immortal and eternal. The Role you chose concerns only that interval you spend on the Physical Plane, which is brief to say the least. [01 November 1973]

These statements are quite clear that even though the Role is chosen ‘in Essence’ (and the phrase ‘Essence Role’ is common), Role is a factor of the Physical Plane, therefore an overlay of Essence, the same as the other Overleaves are. The fact that the description of (permanent) Role is different from the other (switchable) Overleaves is irrelevant to the question of inclusion or exclusion of Role from the Overleaf designation. These clear statements from the OMG transcriptions did not become available to the MT community until after the notion that Role was not an Overleaf became entrenched.

One of the differences between Gurdjieff and the Michaels is that Gurdjieff did not believe that people had inherent immortal souls; he said that ‘Essence’ had to be developed by ‘work’ on oneself. The Michaels taught that people did have immortal souls, but they adopted Gurdjieff’s word ‘Essence’ for that anyway. In the OMG, the Personality self was said to have at its core the Overleaves, aka overlays of the Essence Self.

Please remember that the Role is in Essence, not in Personality. All the other Overleaves [other than Role] are in Personality. Only the Role gives you a glimpse of the Essence. [01 October 1977]

The phrase “other Overleaves” implies that Role is an Overleaf, but unlike the other Overleaves, it is said to be a glimpse of Essence. Here the Essence is contrasted with Personality, as it was in Gurdjieff; therefore I capitalize them. There are uses of the word ‘personality’ that are not in contrast to Essence; therefore I don’t capitalize those instances, as in the quote above: “Even we [the Michaels] have a personality”.

In the OMG transcriptions, ‘Role’ is often part of a phrase, ‘Essence Role’ and ‘Role in Essence’, and sometimes only the single word ‘Essence’ is used when it obviously refers to the ‘Role’ rather than to the soul. A review of the OMG transcriptions published by The Center for Michael Teachings, Inc., will verify this, so I will not document it here. To me, this seems like an ambiguous practice, but perhaps this was done to obviate another ambiguity; it might have been a device to make clear when the Michaels were referring to Overleaf Role rather than some ‘life role’, such as one’s occupation, as in this Q&A exchange:

Can a soul take on a dual Role?

Not in Essence. However, the life role often bears little relation to the Essence Role, and if False Personality is firmly in command it will almost be impossible to detect the Essence Role. On a personal level, others can often detect the facade [role] and the underlying Role before the student can. [15 November 1973]

A word search of the OMG transcriptions on the phrases that connect Essence with Role are consistent with this interpretation. This interpretation would also be consistent with the previous quote, the one about “the need for the Roles is a Physical [Plane] one”. This practice of using the phrase ‘Essence Role’ was carried over into MFM and henceforth subsequent publications, perhaps without understanding the possible reason the phrase was used by the Michaels in the first place, namely to distinguish ‘Role’ from ‘role’.

There is much more that could be said about the history of “Essence and Personality” in the MT that I will not say here. One of the conclusions of the referenced study paper is that the definition of ‘Essence’ is very fuzzy; sometimes it seems to refer to the highest aspects of the Personality self; other times is seems to refer to the highest aspects of the Soul Self; maybe it spans the whole spectrum. The reason for this ambiguity might be because the term itself was borrowed from Gurdjieff, where its meaning was different from what the Michaels gave it.

Another one of the conclusions from the referenced study paper is that the dividing line between Essence and Personality is very ambiguous. This is the case for obvious reasons: there is said to be a lot of interaction and feedback between the two, and thus there is overlap. And whatever dividing line or overlap there may be moves around a lot. In fact, the essence of the spiritual path is to lessen, or at least improve, the function of Personality, and increase the function of Essence within the Personality during an incarnation; intercourse between the two is promoted as Good Work because it helps both Essence and Personality to progress. In the MT, one’s Role is said to play a key part in this transformation, because:

Role stands both in Essence and Personality. [MFM, p. 197]

This exact statement does not appear in the OMG transcriptions that have become generally available, but it is similar to the previous quote. That is why the word ‘ambiguity’ is fitting for the problems Michael students have had sorting out these two things. Essence and Personality are alleged to overlap; the words are distinct but the separation/connection between them is not.

Because of this ambiguity, and the differences in descriptions between Role and the other Overleaf categories, it is obvious why the majority of MT students – as shown in Table 3Ca – prefer to put Role in the Essence category rather than the Overleaf category, in spite of the fact that the quote from the OMG transcription of 08 October 1973 said that “the need for the Roles is a Physical [Plane] one”, and despite the fact that MFM said that “Role stands both in Essence and Personality”. My preference is to leave Role in the Overleaf category as stated in the OMG and in MFM, and my evidences are arguments are furthered in subsequent subsections.

  • LIKE/LOVE 4
  • THANK YOU! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Connor

Yeah, 'Essence Role' and 'Role in Essence' are the same thing, they're referring to the Role.

Essence, however, is a different concept from Role, even though the two terms are often used interchangeably. Technically, the term 'Essence' refers to an individual spark of Tao, which chooses a Role when it enters into a Grand Cycle. To a Personality experiencing a Grand Cycle, the distinction between Role and Essence is rather moot.

  • LIKE/LOVE 3
  • THANK YOU! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Janet

Phil, the content through Troy is a little different. Briefly, the Role is not an Overleaf like Mode or Attitude because it is chosen by Essence at the time of casting into an Entity, and the Role and Casting are retained for the duration of the Grand Cycle rather than for the duration of a physical lifetime. Here there is blurring between the terms Essence and Spark, with Essence actively participating in a Grand Cycle while the Spark is not. (That is my personal distinction and not specifically defined by Michael.) Once Essence returns to Tao it may choose to do another Grand Cycle with a different Role. 

 

Role in Essence is a strange phrase that I take as an indication that the Essence is associated with the Role only within the Grand Cycle. So the Role is like the course of study selected by Essence for the Grand Cycle. (Or the theater part selected for this long-running drama.)

 

There are sessions that speak of the Role being more important for physical plane activities and Casting more important after cycling off, although “important” is not exactly the right word. The point is that this concept seems connected with some of what you described as the need for Role being physical. 

 

 

 

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 5
  • THANK YOU! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Connor

@Janet The word 'prominent' could work. I remember Michael elaborating on how Casting takes greater prominence than Role by saying that once reunification begins, we will first be working with our Cadence Mates, and when you and your Cadence Mates are interacting with someone as a Cadence of 7 Artisans, your Casting will be much more relevant for individuation by virtue of there being no Role discrepancy among a Cadence. The Role never stops mattering, nor does it matter any less, but individuation by Casting simply becomes more convenient.

35 minutes ago, Janet said:

There are sessions that speak of the Role being more important for physical plane activities and Casting more important after cycling off, although “important” is not exactly the right word. The point is that this concept seems connected with some of what you described as the need for Role being physical.

 

Edited by Connor
  • LIKE/LOVE 5
  • THANK YOU! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
John Roth
7 hours ago, Janet said:

Phil, the content through Troy is a little different. Briefly, the Role is not an Overleaf like Mode or Attitude because it is chosen by Essence at the time of casting into an Entity, and the Role and Casting are retained for the duration of the Grand Cycle rather than for the duration of a physical lifetime. Here there is blurring between the terms Essence and Spark, with Essence actively participating in a Grand Cycle while the Spark is not. (That is my personal distinction and not specifically defined by Michael.) Once Essence returns to Tao it may choose to do another Grand Cycle with a different Role. 

 

Role in Essence is a strange phrase that I take as an indication that the Essence is associated with the Role only within the Grand Cycle. So the Role is like the course of study selected by Essence for the Grand Cycle. (Or the theater part selected for this long-running drama.)

 

There are sessions that speak of the Role being more important for physical plane activities and Casting more important after cycling off, although “important” is not exactly the right word. The point is that this concept seems connected with some of what you described as the need for Role being physical. 

 

7 hours ago, Janet said:

 

 

 

 

I seem to remember a channeling where Role was sharply distinguished from Essence. They had different functions in the reincarnational cycle. Briefly, Essence knows everything, while the Role begins the Grand Cycle without knowing anything. It's the Role that spawns the individual lifetimes (Incarnational Selves, True Personality, whatever you want to call it. The functional separation is important.

  • LIKE/LOVE 1
  • THANK YOU! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Christopher LeBlanc

Further to John Roth's point about essence "knowing everything", it is the Role I seem to remember Michael has said that is evolving over the course of our incarnations, rather than simply our essence.  Perhaps it's useful to organise our "constituent parts" by the dimension in which they are chosen.  
For instance, i believe centering and chief features are chosen/defaulted to by the personality by the 3rd IM; sexual orientation - not an overleaf per se, but interestingly permanent personality "choice" nonetheless - at the 2nd IM; body type and astrological imprinting at birth; attitude, goal, mode as well as our parents, culture and material environment by the nascent unborn  personality as the  cumulation and continuation of all previous personality desires and paths in concert with those of essence on the Astral sometime before and up to and likely including conception; our role in essence, casting positions and mutual relativities upon engaging in yet another grand cycle probably  even beyond how we see the casual and akashic dimensions looking back; all the way back to when each of us were first spewed out of Tao as a unique spark with a fingerprint m/f energy ratio and frequency we seem to keep for ever beyond even the universality of any capacity for choice. Not that I'm complaining about the pair I've been stuck with 😉  I'm going to be a while getting to know me yet lol.

Anyhow, jst another perspective of all the levels at which we are born, exist and function as peeps 🙂

  • LIKE/LOVE 10
  • THANK YOU! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Janet
2 hours ago, John Roth said:

I seem to remember a channeling where Role was sharply distinguished from Essence.

Perhaps this is the session: Michael Speaks: June 2009

 

Turns out a search for "Role in Essence" brought up a session in which MIchael discussed Johanne's specific question. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 4
  • THANK YOU! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
AnnaD

@Janet, that was an amazing transcript, going beyond the subject posed here, thank you. I was wondering if the definitions and descriptions of Rites of Passage is elaborated upon anywhere else? It would be good to have that, even if that means asking @Troy in a dedicated session. I am so grateful that you found this transcript.

  • LIKE/LOVE 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Maureen
1 hour ago, AnnaD said:

@Janet, that was an amazing transcript, going beyond the subject posed here, thank you. I was wondering if the definitions and descriptions of Rites of Passage is elaborated upon anywhere else? It would be good to have that, even if that means asking @Troy in a dedicated session. I am so grateful that you found this transcript.

 

This might help @AnnaDMichael Speaks: Internal Monads: September 12, 2010.

  • LIKE/LOVE 3
  • THANK YOU! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Maureen

This whole posting is making me laugh... in a good way. When this sort of discussion takes off it reminds me of what MEntity has said about our group on TLE. I love you guys!!!  💞  Here it is... one more time:

 

TROY’S GROUP, for lack of a better way of referencing this channel’s students and agreements that have come to form as a group, is a PASSIONATE Group, with an emphasis on true self-actualization as a means of increasing strength of choice. Nothing within this group will ever be “neutral” and nothing within this group will ever be “simple.” Passion Mode as a means of exploring Discrimination is a turbulent and exciting path, and in the end, all involved know EXACTLY where one stands on an issue of choice, exactly who one is in relation to an issue of choice, and feels inspired to own one’s self fully and lovingly, leaving the false aspects of self behind.

 

In addition to this, our teaching will never be presented in this atmosphere without an emphasis on its being a source of inspiration, transformation, and meaningful depth. Nothing will be presented as a simple subject of observational study. It must be deeply explored, lived, and experienced before this group can move beyond that particular aspect of study. This can often feel tedious and tiring, with a repetitive review of “old” material (sometimes seen as “ad nauseum”) that is less-exciting than ever-new material (from us or from you), but that is simply the nature of Passion and Discrimination. It is not just a matter of learning how to choose, and choosing how to learn, but building on the comprehension gained over the last century as to exactly what has been chosen and the how and why of it. As Passion is Exalted, this group will also strive to be all-inclusive in its inspiration as a method of refinement for Choice, but Passion with Discrimination can be tricky because Discrimination will emphasize a discerning eye against all things not passionately inclusive, which can seem to create bizarre conflicts of interest, since one cannot please everyone, or cater to every wish or demand, but must also allow room for all of those differences.

 

What we have described is mostly the higher end of what this group has as potential, but this same combination can fall prey to what would seem to be the extreme opposite, with an emphasis on exclusivity, superficial nods to concepts without encouraging depth of experience, and such a strong investment in an identity that the nature of community is lost altogether in the shadow of a fearful agenda.

 

All of this is made even more interesting by the philosophical atmosphere of Idealism, which is the key to his successful or failed group. When the group has moved into a Naivete and has presented grand arcs of direction without understanding the actual steps needing to be made as a path along that arc (Coalescence), the group will fail to live up to its ideals and lose all sense of inspiration and choice. When the group is failing against its ideals, it may slide into phases of Rejection (being rejected, or rejecting), Identification (experiencing loss of self, rather than exploration of self), and Rationalization (offering excuses and defense, rather than insight).

 

Contrary to what many students may believe, Troy’s Group is an Intellectually-Centered Group with an emphasis on EXPRESSION, and not an Emotionally-Centered Group. For those involved with his group, any curtailing of EXPRESSION can be experienced as tantamount to an absolute removal of validity of self and soul.

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 11
  • THANK YOU! 1
  • LOL 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Uma
15 minutes ago, Maureen said:

For those involved with his group, any curtailing of EXPRESSION can be experienced as tantamount to an absolute removal of validity of self and soul.

We sure see this happening

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
KurtisM

Maureen, what you posted makes me wonder what the next iteration of the MTs will be with the next wave of Michael Channels in the mid century just coming up.

They will have Virtual Reality and Virtual Interaction as resources for building community.

Edited by KurtisM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Janet
3 hours ago, AnnaD said:

I was wondering if the definitions and descriptions of Rites of Passage is elaborated upon anywhere else?

The suggestion Michael gave in that Michael Speaks session about using the term Rites of Passage was not picked up as a standard. On this site you will get results if you search for "rites of passage" but you still should search for "internal monad" or "4th IM" or something similar to pull the majority of results on the topic. 

 

An effort is underway to cross-post content into the Study Library, and there are lots of articles on the subject there, but not everything available. Perhaps start with Study Library: Internal Monads and then follow up with a search if you still want more info. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
AnnaD

Thanks @Janet, I will check this out later. getting nuances between definitions is an ongoing thing.. thank you.

  • LIKE/LOVE 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Ingun

@Maureen I'm actually not sure if or when I have read the channeled piece above that you've shared, so I wonder what the original date was for it, and if it was a personal session? I could not find it here on ourTLE in any separate post, but I really think it deserves it's own posting somewhere because that actually says so much about this community. Thank you so much for sharing it 😊

  • LIKE/LOVE 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Maureen
8 minutes ago, Ingun said:

@Maureen I'm actually not sure if or when I have read the channeled piece above that you've shared, so I wonder what the original date was for it, and if it was a personal session? I could not find it here on ourTLE in any separate post, but I really think it deserves it's own posting somewhere because that actually says so much about this community. Thank you so much for sharing it 😊

 

I found it!!  True Community  ♥

  • LIKE/LOVE 1
  • THANK YOU! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Ingun
1 hour ago, Maureen said:

 

I found it!!  True Community  ♥

Thank you @Maureen !  I copied different parts from the text and searched for these, and nothing came up! That's quite weird, but I actually experience that now and then when searching..

Edited by Ingun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...