Channeling has become very popular and common today.  Many people make it seem very easy, casual and automatic even while being fully conscious and involved with same. 

   This is interesting to me because of my understanding and experience of attunement indicates that true channeling, aka more direct relaying of info from guidance has many factors that influence it.  To reach that more balanced and perfect attunement to allow information to come in more clearly and directly from expanded guidance is not necessarily easy to achieve.  It even involves the state of the physical body as a factor. 

   A couple of sources are a good study in this.  One is Rosalind McKnight who worked with Bob Monroe as one of his explorers, and has regular guidance sessions take place.   If you read her book "Cosmic Journeys" which outlines a chunk of her experiences with Bob as an explorer, you will note that her guidance worked a lot with her on various ways of creating a better attunement between her and them. 

  This involved things such as specific breathing exercises, certain visualizations, fasting, as well as generally growing in love and expanding beliefs. They structured the sessions to build and expand upon each other as time went on.   Rosalind often would not remember a lot that happened in her sessions because she often went pretty deep.   Sometimes she would be more present and remember some for a little while after the session, but even then often it faded away like a dream. 

They eventually worked out a system wherein they, and especially her main guide, would speak directly through her vehicle--hence she was not very involved in translating or relaying the info.  This allowed a more direct and clear transmission of info to come through than would normally.

   Interestingly, at one point, her guidance became very serious with both Bob and Rosie and chided them some about their unhealthy lifestyle habits--especially as far as food and eating.  "Ah So", the main guide, even said essentially, *if you both cannot make changes in this important area, we will have to stop working with you in this way*  They stressed the importance of even the physical body and it's balance and health in the process of greater attunement to expanded consciousness. 

   This is a good segway into another well known psychic named Edgar Cayce.  From a young age, Edgar would pray as a child to be of service to others, especially to children.  Edgar was a complex and extremist type personality in a lot of ways.  He had very spiritual and fast vibrating aspects of self, mixed in with some pretty limited and slow vibratory aspects, but generally speaking had and tried to live by high ideals.   

     While he was pretty unusually intuitive and psychic while awake, it did not compare to when he went into a very deep and unconscious state.  During this state, his guidance could answer very specific questions about virtually anything provided there were helpful intents involved.  When oil, treasure, and the like became a focus, often times the information became more distorted.

    Cayce rarely ever remembered anything consciously from a reading.  Very occasionally, he would remember something like a dream after he awoke from doing a reading, but he, his conscious mind and personality mind was very unconscious and deeply submerged during these readings. 

    In short, he would not have been able to do these kind of readings with the depth, accuracy, and breadth had his conscious mind and personality been more consciously involved. 

     His guidance at times implored him, to create a better attunement and balance in his system.  He was told to be more loving and spiritual at times, to meditate more.  Most often, his diet and health lifestyle was chided.  He rarely made those necessary changes to attain a more clear and direct attunement.  Yet, he was still very much a service oriented person, who would give free readings if people couldn't afford them (much to the irritation of his wife, because they were basically poor most of the time). 

    You might be reminded of Rosies guidance and their advice and criticism of diet of Rosie and Bob with the above.   

   Then there are my own experiences with attuning to guidance.  It's not too hard for me to pick up information psychically about various things.  However, clearly and directly attuning to very expanded guidance and consciousness states, takes more.  Often times, i need to go into a deeper meditation to really create a more clear and direct connection to that guidance, and even then, i tend to only pick up tidbits of information at a time.  It's rarely like someone talking to me in person via clearly heard words. 

  It's more like, feeling and translating feeling impressions, occasional visuals (often symbolic), sometimes waking dreams, occasionally hearing something more clearly, a knowing popping up, etc. 

    To put this in perspective, i'm pretty dedicated to spiritual growth and service on many levels.  I eat an unusually healthy and disciplined diet, try to exercise daily some outside, work a service job of working with people with disabilities that doesn't pay much, subject myself to various challenges like having house mates live at our place--experimenting with an open relationship within a marriage.  I've been consciously interested in the spiritual and nonphysical since age 13 and have been working on self since then. PUL type love has been a big focus for me for a long time, and my basic ideal for a long time.  Been through some major life challenges and severe testing starting at an early age.

   So knowing all that i know about the issue of attunement, especially in relation to studying various outer sources and with my own experience, you might begin to understand why i tend to be rather skeptical of many channelers today whom make it seem so easy and automatic, especially when money and notoriety seems to be such a big factor in their work. 

   They cannot all be spiritual and psychic mozarts, the odds are high against it.  I do think there are some unusually and innately gifted people out there, but even they have to work at it some, and have had a lot of practice, practice, practice (often in more than one lifetimes too).   

   The point of this post is to facilitate some deeper thought about the science of attunement, and to promote the open minded but skeptical attitude which i think is very important when dealing with psychic and spiritual sources and phenomena.  Nothing is more important than your own soul and it's spiritual growth.  The latter is one of the biggest factors of why you even come here to begin with.   Doesn't it make sense to apply discrimination and seek to be led to the more universally helpful and fast vibrating sources both within and without? 

  To sort of paraphrase Bardo from another thread, why not go within and directly connect to your own guidance rather than focusing so much on this or that outer source?   Or, if you feel you aren't aware of enough of the communication, then focus on just living and being spiritual. 

  This is what most expanded outer sources are trying to steer people towards anyways.  They don't want you dependent on them, they don't want you to become overly attached to one particular teachings, channel, etc.  They want you to go within and directly connect and also to just open up to Love more and more.  If a outer source helps you to do that, then great, it serves a purpose. 

   But we also have limited and limiting aspects of self that get attracted to outer sources.  Sometimes we like a source because it helps us to keep alive certain illusions or because they say things which are comforting to those stuck aspects of self.  Often times, expanded wisdom and guidance can be a bit uncomfortable in that it challenges us and doesn't coddle our ego, or rather stuck aspects.

    

   

Channeling is notoriously unreliable.  For a current example of this, check into the recent book My Son and the Afterlife.

Elisa Medhus, a medical doctor, had a son Erik who committed suicide at age 19.  She put out a book detailing communications supposedly from Erik as channeled by her two "spiritual translators."

Among many other things Erik tells us is that he has a wide screen tv and enjoys watching it, but avoids movies because it's much more entertaining watching activities here on earth.  He also claims meeting with Source....

Medhus is a respected doctor with impressive credentials.  She is personally convinced her son is the source of the communications.

It's worth a look, if only to consider the credibility of channeled information.

R

  Hi Lucy,

  Curiosity is important.  When i come upon a new outer source, i do two things, i read and weigh the words more intellectually, but at the same time, i also try to feel the energy quality behind the words, if that makes any sense.  It's kind of like reading or sensing auras in other.  Books and sources have their own "auras" to to some extent.  Ime, some have very expanded auras and some are very limited.   If one immerses themselves in a particular book or source, it can have a resonate consciousness effect on one's own field too.  This is nice if you happen to come across a book or outer source whose field is more expanded and faster vibratory of your own.  It's not so helpful when it's more slow vibratory and limited than your own, but passes itself off as being wisdom, great advice, etc.

  That intuitive-feeling-sensing of the quality of a book or source has led me away from certain books and sources. 

   Re: Seth.  Ignoring Robert's and Seth's distortion of Yeshua's life and the whole meaning of same..

  Here is my main problem with the Seth material besides the above.  Most sources that i've come upon that have struck me as expanded and higher quality, focus a lot on Love in a more PUL type sense.  They emphasize our Oneness with each other and everything.  While they may talk about many other different things and processes, they always come back to this as the center.

  Their primary focus is to inspire us to grow in love holistically, to be of positive service, etc. 

     I'm not a Seth expert or Jane Roberts expert, but i did read some of Seth Speaks.  I found very little emphasis on this.  It was all intellectual concepts.   Interesting on one or some levels, but really not all that important in the long run. 

   Roberts originally became involved with Seth via a Ouija board.  This is a rather shallow way of getting involved with getting in touch with guidance, and attracts many impersonators because there is a lack of deeper attunement involved. 

   I'm just rather skeptical of the Seth material from what i know about it, even though it is and has been quite popular, and even people like Tom Campbell sort of gives it kudos.  I have a lot of respect for Tom Campbell, but having received a message about him one time, i realize he has perceptual errors and limitations too, though his fans think he is an all knowing, all wise master type.

It's important to understand that there many different levels of consciousness and of the nonphysical, some with beings of pure and purely helpful intention and some with anything but.  And a whole range in the middle.  Not much different than humans.  Some are just guide wannabe's.  They aren't particularly negative or anything, but think themselves experts, full of themselves, like hearing themselves talk and love giving advice, even when it's not particularly wise or informed.  In short, they really like their 10 minutes of fame.  When in physical as a human, they were probably attention seekers.  Tendencies like these can carry over.

    It's far easier to consciously communicate with and receive info from the more limited and less mature beings because they are in a sense, "closer to earth." (frequency wise)  The more expanded the level, the more difficult it tends to be for humans to consciously clearly and directly communicate with them.  This is because being in a human body, well tends to have a very limiting, grounding effect on perceptual awareness, and there is a much wider gap between certain levels of frequency between a human and a very expanded guidance source or level.  We may have some parts of ourselves very intune with them (if we are mature ourselves), but other parts are not.  This imbalance causes static and distortion.  It's very much like turning a dial on a radio and trying to match frequency wavelengths, except that we are living radios with our own inherent frequency band which is "normal" for us, they too have their own which is much faster vibrating. 

  Expanded and skilled guidance can slow down their vibratory patterns some to better match with us, but most cannot fully match to the physical level, which is a very slow vibratory field.   So the more we raise our vibratory patterns, even of the body itself, the better we can attune to them and vice versa.


  P.S., Christianity as been force fed to the masses is not real Christianity.  It's a distorted shadow of same.  Real Christianity is more akin to Buddhism in the sense that it's a way of life and way of being.   It's all about PUL and service.  The various churches and isms are far, far, far from that for the most part.   Probably Unity is the closest as a trend. 

  While i talk a lot about Yeshua, it's important to understand i wasn't ever into the religion and groups or isms of Christianity.  I think it gives me a different perspective about him, than a lot of people who have had a bad taste left in their mouth after being involved with distorted reflection versions (often pushed onto them by family or friends, larger culture around them etc).

    From around 300 AD to current time, some limited and negative forces have become involved with shaping and manipulating Christianity towards their own ends.  This becomes very obvious when you look at how many "Christians" preach hate and intolerance towards those who different, such as people who are attracted to the same sex.

Justin- I know you referenced ACIM in terms your thoughts re. its source, but can you elaborate?  Have you read all or most of it?

My own impression is that some of its tone has a hectoring quality. There is a disturbing inconsistency in the tone itself.  At times it comes across as loving, other times almost threatening.

Also something I noticed that I haven't seen others comment on, but although the book is supposedly channeled by Jesus, there is a reference toward the end of the book to Jesus in the third person!  Something that would not have happened assuming the author was Jesus (an assumption that I don't share).

I'd be interested in knowing if you have any speculations about its motives.

R

Yes, Don and I spent many hours discussing this book.  It is correct that it includes just enough truth to set the hook.  Not a new device to be sure, but effective and seductive.  It certainly has a large following.

I have my own belief as to why it was channeled, and the reason certainly isn't benevolent.  That's one reason I remain cautious about Danison's NDE (not that she herself had any intentions to mislead).

Enough said about ACIM.

R

  Good points Albert. 


  I'm not sure why there tends to be so much resistance here and at other places regarding the idea, or rather reality, that there are unfriendly beings that want to keep this world and humans stuck. 

    But there is a lot of resistance to it.

  It's interesting how some channeled or psychic sources seem to deny or downplay the reality of this as a factor, and others occasionally speak about some of these hindering forces.

   Bruce seems to give no credence to it.  Sometimes i wonder if that is a left over residue of his involvement with ACIM, which seems to have the agenda of denying such realities?

   People here may think we tend to be black and white or extremist about these things and outside sources, but we both like and respect Bruce and his work a lot, even though his material and beliefs do not speak of such important factors and to some extent seems to downplay it.

    Some people might say, well if you are transforming fear and living in the Love energies that you shouldn't think about such factors, that thinking or talking about it indicates a lot of fear within those people who do talk about it. 

    While this can be the case, sometimes i think it's actually the opposite.  Just as a lot of people don't talk about death because of their fear or discomfort with the topic.  Often those who do, are in the process of getting over their fear and it's not as big of a deal to them.   They are willing to face it directly. 

    Should we fear unfriendly beings?  No, of course not, but awareness of same and fear of same are two very different things.  Without conscious awareness, it's often easier to be influenced by these in their different forms, as in the case we are talking about outer teachings and books.

I think a neutral observer coming across this board would be genuinely puzzled with the stance taken by a number of posters concerning such sources as ACIM. My own experience with ACIM is buying the book about 15 years ago, reading some of it and thinking it had some provocative ideas/concepts, laying it to one side and lending it to a friend and not seeing it since. But I do know enough about it to know that it has influenced such people as Gerald Jampolsky and Marianne Williamson (who seem to do good works) and I remember Laughing Rain ( a poster here) , in one of her dialogues with Berserk about ACIM saying it had saved her from feeling suicidal.

I also see no evidence that people are reading it and using it as an excuse to do bad things because 'its all good'. On the other hand the historian could point to centuries of human abuses (e.g. burning of protestants in the 16thC, suicide bombers etc.) arising from traditional religions that have a punitive God figure. I understand that the author of ACIM is a source of controversy but many biblical scholars such as Prof. E.P Sanders and Prof. Bart D. Ehrman would not accept New Testament accounts of Jesus as historical 'facts' anyway (for example some contradict each other)- so can we be totally sure who the historical figure of Jesus was ? The concept of 'blending truth with lies' I find perplexing because unless one believes that 100% objective truth exists that is so vague as to apply to anything with which one partially disagrees.

Ultimately every individual has to decide for themselves which influences they choose connect with and accept the consequences. I am not sure I believe in a 'one size fits all' spirituality; what may be appropriate for one may not be appropriate for another. Also what may be inappropriate at one stage of our life may be appropriate at another. How many times have we picked up a book which we had previously disregarded and found new truths in it ? Or alternatively looked again at a book we once considered profound and found it trite ?

The problem is that if one continues to disparage other people's sources is that they simply go elsewhere and the board becomes stale and regurgitative rather than dynamic and interesting. I don't say this to offend anyone but its how I see it.

Hi Recoverer-

I don't think Marianne Williamson tries to hide her connection to ACIM, it seems central to it. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that in the same way that when Jesus in the gospel of Mark was accused with being in league with the Devil, he replied that 'If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand' (Mark 3:25), you have to ask yourself if a text is 'bad' why is it inspiring good works such as Williamson's setting up project Angel food for people with AIDS in LA ? It doesn't seem that 'its all good philosophy' causes immoral behaviour at all. The same seems to be true with Jerry Jampolsky's attitudinal healing work. I'm not arguing that ACIM is the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth' or even that it is suitable for everyone (I prefer a more interactional approach) only that its not as bad as painted here.