"Channelling" - what does everyone think of it?

[Swank]

Hi fellow Beyond Dreaming'ers, I have a a two part question for you all! Firstly, what do you think about 'channelling'? Have you read any channelled books before, or heard the term used much? What are your thoughts? Do you have any bad connotations about the word? Some famous ones I know of are Conversations with God, Esther Hicks' Abraham books, Jane Roberts' Seth Material, among others. Secondly, and the reason I ask, is despite still being unsure of it's validity and the science behind it, I've been channelling on and off for years, and my mother has been doing it for about 20 years. Not the angel, tarot, ascended master out there stuff, but quite practical material very similar to the books above. Now, I'm a 27 years old male, and although I'm quite skeptical about all this new age material around the place, this channelling content has helped me out incredibly so far in my life (and others too). I want to put the best of this stuff on a website, so others can gain from it too....especially Gen Y, those 35 and below, who most of this new age stuff isn't written for (as we're not in the female over 40 demographic). I'm trying to figure out how best to approach it - whether to call it channelling, or an energy, or just say it's some wisdom I'm passing on. That will then determine how I write the content - well, if I leave it as is, or re-write it. All thoughts are MUCH appreciated. Thanks in advance!

[shadowofwind]

Channeling seems to me to be pretty much the same kind of identity shift that allows dream telepathy, but it is branded in a different way. You move your sense of 'I' so that it partially includes a subconscious, semi-collective spirit, and you speak for that. A limitation of this is that the pool of 'knowledge' that is drawn on this way doesn't get improved or expanded much by that kind of thinking. People recycle the same material over and over, or synthesize new thoughts by incorporating material that was developed through other conscious effort, often by others. The channeled book "Christ in You", from 1910, seems to me to be relatively good quality. A Course in Miracles, from the 1970's, draws on Gnostic Christianity and Jungian psychology. The voice is ostensibly Jesus, and it feels a lot like Jesus. But it is melded somehow with other minds, including the person who did the channeling. There was the raw text, which has been available online at various times, despite lawsuits, then there is the sanitized official version that was first published. If you compare the two, and if you have studied other influences like Gospel of Thomas, then a picture emerges that's different from the idea of Jesus speaking to someone who writes his words down. Most metaphysical books are like this in my view, even ones that aren't presented as channeled. Every book rests on a mountain of obscure predecessor books that most people have never heard of. Taken individually, a book seems remarkably inspired, like a bolt of insight out of the void. And the unity of ideas between the different books is attributed to a common Truth. But if you know what came before it, its always a slight tweaking of older ideas, and the unity is due to that common history. Many of the ideas are partial truths, many of them are almost pure fantasy. But people judge them mostly by how they feel and how they compare to other branches on the same tree. So there's a fair amount of internal consistency within the whole genera, but it is largely untethered from reality. That conflict or contradiction between the religious beliefs and objective reality aggravates a kind of alienation from "the world" and science. So among people who read channeled material, there's a lot of talk of love, but also a longing for apocalyptic destruction. The "mystic dreams" subforum over at dreammoods is like this, as an example. It has been a place where there's a lot of good sharing and interpretation of epic dreams. But its also loaded with xenophobic prophecies that are consistently wrong. Would-be prophets seem to be in love with the idea that they have a special gift and are selected to be the mouthpiece of God. I can "channel" a little bit, and find it enjoyable. But like everyone else, the things I/we have to say that way draw heavily on understanding and experience that have been gained through other means. We're not actually drawing on a repository of Divine Knowledge, we're drawing on a fairly shallow and stagnant pool in the collective unconscious. But since I'm willing to face that, I can't write a self-righteous book of psychically plagiarized material. Maybe when I get time I'll write a self-righteous book about how I alone seem to be the Chosen One who sees this.

[ThreeCat]

Does it really matter what you call it, as long as the content helps you and others? Not trying to be combative, but sincerely curious why the label is necessary. I think it has to do with contacting some higher wisdom or "higher self." I believe it all comes from within, and whatever you are doing is probably just a different way to access that self. Some, as you say, use tarot, meditation, dreams, and trances. You could also use a pendulum, a Ouija board, automatic writing, or whatever to gain access to this wisdom. That's very cool that you are able to tap your creative resources in such a way. Good luck!

[Swank]

Shadow: Awesome stuff. Basically how I've been seeing it all these years. The repeated content, particularly the centering around 'love' and 'higher self' I've found challenging, and seems to undermine the necessity I feel to publish what I've got. It does draw heavily (at first) on your own knowledge and experiences, though I believe there are more concepts and ideas that can come through later. But still, there's not much there that hasn't been said before. And you can't help but wonder what percentage is your own thoughts, and what is someone, or something else's. Also, how much comes from a group consciousness. You've reminded me that perhaps it would be better to present what I've got as coming from Group C, or at least acknowledging that it's not just me being some sort of chosen one. What do you think about how to present it to younger people? ThreeCat: It does matter what I call it, I believe, because of negative connotations associated with particular words. Using God, for example, puts people off before they get started. So does channelling. If you look the word up on wikipedia, it sounds like something out of the blair witch project. So while it ultimately doesn't matter, when presenting it those whose experience with new age culture has been yoga and basic meditation, you need to choose something that's accessible. That's the problem with material available at the moment - it alienates this group. I know that branding is important to Gen Y, so it's going to be heavily focused on HOW it's presented, the LOOK and FEEL of the sight, to make it look more like a band, or music blog. That's my feeling so far. Any ideas welcome!

[shadowofwind]

My suggestion would be to just write what you have to say, as clearly as possible, and say in the introduction what your process was. 'Channeled' stuff has a feel to it that you can't hide, since it is sort of stream of consciousness without much filter, even when it is clear and well organized. I would include a disclaimer in the introduction, don't try to pitch it as 100% reliable unless you conscientiously think it is. You need the disclaimer there since its hard to work a lot of conditional words and qualifications in while channeling. I don't think you should worry about undermining your credibility by showing doubt, or worry too much about branding. If people can't get past that, they're not ripe for it anyway. And if slightly dishonest branding gets someone to open to it when they wouldn't otherwise, then you become responsible for what happens to them. Metaphysical ideas have real life consequences, and our own understanding is usually an inadequate measure of what someone else needs, or what helps or hurts other people. Just because a message is all about love and hope doesn't make it 'safe' for everyone, a lot of these idealistic ideas can have unanticipated effects. For instance, people can unavoidably be paralyzed by guilt at their failure to live up to a glorious vision, even when the dogma explicitly says that guilt is unjustified. So we should be as honest as possible and let people judge for themselves. I agree that the word 'channeling' isn't the best, since its misleading. The word 'God' can also be misleading. But I think you shouldn't shy away from the word if its actually what you mean. Another option of course would be to channel the stuff first, then write it again in your more 'personal' mindset, drawing on the channeled material for content. Then its not really channeled, and doesn't read that way. I agree its best to give credit to the true source in the intro though, rather than claiming it as exclusively your own.

[Sageous]

Though Shadowofwind seems to have the definition (and sourcing) of channeling down pat, here is a practical thought: The term "channeling" has been pretty well established in our, um, unconscious lexicon (mystical zeitgeist, perhaps?) that just using the word tends to draw an immediate definition -- and innate comprehension -- from listeners of almost any age... and if the kids don't get it? Well, then, educate them! So hang on to the term, and rest assured that you are using it correctly... but if you do that, then be sure you properly reference your channeled sources: you can't just say "I channeled it." You must say "I got it from [insert mystical superbeing here]" or else it won't be channeling, but simply inspiration or, yes, common sense.