As a veteran agent, I've been pitched works that have been allegedly channeled by many dozens of the usual and unusual suspects, Whereas other works are apparently drawn from the writer's own experiences and/or research. Where do you guys stand? Jeff
that's why we get to be repressed or incarcerated, or . .
I understand the separation of what I can create on paper and that which I channel. There has been no question in my mind, over the past 20 years, that the channeled material I receive is beyond my thought patterns and processes and far more impactful and profound than my brain would produce. It's a blessing and a gift, therefore I don't add to it or adjust it in any way by adding my thoughts..
Where's the "like" button when you need it!
Okay, I'll rewrite the gist of my original posting. The problem with "channeled" writings is that there is no way to verify them, particularly when you have several channelers channeling the same being, say for example the Archangel Michael, and the being says vastly divergent things, contradicting himself all over the place. I think that channeled information is basically the person's own subconscious. It's a form of wish fulfillment and fantasy. I do believe that it is possible to have a spiritual communication, but it's dicey when you start thinking about publishing it as a book. I think that when Spirit really does communicate with you, it empowers you to speak in your own voice...in other words, spiritual intuitions should lead to the growth of personal wisdom, and that wisdom will express itself authentically as you. You don't have to fob it off on some angel or spirit guide to say it FOR you.
As an editor, I will not work with channeled books. I will, however, work with WISE books--books that express an author's wisdom without the author having to hide behind the coattails of a disembodied entity. Channeled books are often badly written and mostly I find them boring. Spiritual writing is so much bigger than channeling and I don't think that channeling really makes much of a contribution to worldwide spiritual wisdom. I would rather read the REAL writings of a mystic such as Meister Eckhart or Julian of Norwich than to read the drivel that comes from some channeler who thinks he/she is transmitting the words of some 4000 year old "shaman" or what have you.
I realize that my comments may seem harsh toward channeled books and I apologize for my bluntness, but really, if you indeed received real spiritual wisdom from a source outside yourself, then why not say it in your own words and at least be consistent with the wisdom you are sharing?
And again, I could use a "Like" button or a "Love" button!!!
Yes! Sharon, I really resonate with several things in what you just said:
"...contradicting himself all over the place. I think that channeled information is basically the person's own subconscious".- I do too! The subconscious is full of contradictions since it is also where belief systems flourish.
..."when Spirit really does communicate with you, it empowers you to speak in your own voice.." -I agree here too having had that experience. And I do feel that when we are speaking from channeled information -if it is from a Higher source-it can be our own Higher Self! Then it is empowering, uplifting and part of our own natural evolution-spiritually speaking. It has seemed to to me that at times people have a hard time accepting that the Inner Wisdom is a part of their own Self so according to their own belief system-it is therefore ascribed to someone 'other' accordingly.
YES, Margaret Sue!
I propose that there is an AbsoluteTruth, and it may reside in what Julia referred to as "The One Mind"....However, there are many many other names for the Absolute "God", "The Higher Power"," Paratma" "Divinity".....I personally like the theosophical version:"Him in whom we live and breathe and have our beingness". The question is, how many writers are actually tapping into this Absolute Truth when they write? probably not as many as think they are. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem I have is when someone, blinded by ego, believes they are tapping into the "Source of All" and advertises themselves as such. Isn't there an old spiritual adage that...if someone tells you they are enlightened, it is a sure sign that they are not?
Spiritual writing can come from many sources...but the first responsibility of a spiritual aspirant is to KNOW where they are on the spiritual ladder and then speak honestly from that point. So a book of personal experiences, is just that, a book of personal experiences. A researched book on the belief of reincarnation, is a well researched book. A book that comes to you word for word one weekend when you are meditating...is a gift from your soul to your mind and probably should be written down whether it sells or not.
Channelling is a sticky subject....why we are glamoured by information that comes from a dead person, and think it's more spiritual than what our own soul might give us to write, is beyond me. Always one needs to be very careful about letting other entities use them. It is not necessarily a good thing. That being said, I know there are some beautiful so called "channeled works" the truth of where they are from...Who knows?. I believe the mind of the esoterically untrained can be easily tricked. But, I also believe in magic ;-)
So, I vote that every spritual writer take the time to look long and hard at where they are actually getting their information from and be honest in letting their readers know. After all, we are all here to help each other along the path. If we don't know where we are on the path, how can we help someone else?
Some very wise words indeed, Jill! You are talking about discernment, and as you point out, it's very easy for people to trick themselves into thinking they are tapping into the "Source of All" when in fact they may be driven by ego, as you say. I think that many of the authors who "channel" see it as some kind of spiritual status symbol. You used the word "glamoured", and that's exactly what it is. In the legends of my Celtic background, "glamouring" is something the faery folk do in the tales to fool people. In the case of channeling, the channeler is often fooling himself/herself and if he/she is publishing it as a book, then they are drawing readers into the foolery. And sometimes this foolery makes a lot of money for the "channeler" and further feeds the ego and dupes the readers/listeners, and to me, this is definitely not right livelihood. Not to mention that the field of channeling so frequently descends into silliness and absurdity.
A few years ago, a friend of mine wanted me to go along with her to a "channeling" session where there were four channelers, each claiming to be channelling the Archangel Raphael and his messages about health. I went with her, hoping that my skeptical commentary might bring her to her senses about trusting stuff like that. But the channelers did it for her--made her into a skeptic through the inconsistency and lack of coherence in their messages. One channeler had Raphael saying that we need to eat more fish to get those omega 3 fatty acids; another channeler had Raphael saying that humans should consume no animal protein whatsoever and should be complete vegans. The third channeler had Raphael saying that taking vitamin supplements is a necessary part of being healthy in the modern world; and the fourth one had him saying that all our nutrients must come from food and that taking supplements is a waste of money. Hmmmmmmm.....I was about to ask how come "Raphael" couldn't seem to make up his mind, when a man at the back of the room summed it up beautifully. "Hey Rafe," he called out. "Have you been drinking?"
Battle of the Raphael Channelers! My Raphael can beat up your Raphael And why not? None of them were The Raphael, nor could they be as far as we know.Yet each of them may have been accurate for a portion of the audience. The lesson may be to hear everything and then use your own brain, and encourage others to do the same. Jeff
Well, Jeff, all the contradictory advice was all just based on common sense, valid in part for some people as you mentioned, depending on which "Raphael" appealed most to a person. As you also said, it wasn't any angel. The problem with channelers that market themselves as such is that often their listeners block out the critical thinking part of the brain. That's the way it is with a lot of the woo-woo stuff...the need to believe overrides the critical faculties. At the Battle of the Raphael Channelers, as silly as it was, I was amazed at the number of people who still believed they were actually hearing Raphael. When asked how Raphael could blatantly contradict himself in the same room in the time frame of about half an hour, they told me I didn't have enough "faith". My friend was cured of her fascination with channelers, though, so that's good.
Wierd...all the posts from 3 hrs ago just showed up.... I applaud many of their opinions and hope my post isn't redundate now that these others have emerged from the ethers!!