channelling

Originally Posted by Internal Queries

i'm not clear on why you would consider it "lying" if/when someone feels subconsciously compelled to create a character aspect.

Well, unless I miss-understand.. my idea would be that you are looking at seth/jane and making a assumption about how "Jane/seth" operated..

I am not under the understanding that either Jane or Seth offered knowledge that "seth" was created to be male.. or created in the subconscious

So what I'm saying is.. because it's my understanding they offered no such information.. you are seeking to "invalidate" the truth they offered with your assumption.. and that is what I mean by "lying"

I seek to validate all truths in all ways! I don't need to make assumptions or guess's on what's going on in peoples spaces..

Originally Posted by Internal Queries

PS. i didn't say i feel "condescension" from you. i only asked that you not condescend by "validating" my concepts, theories and ideas if you, in fact, felt they were **. thus far, you haven't "validated" me at all so thank you for your honesty.

I validate your opinion and your right to it

When I point things out.. it's merely a idea or suggestion for something you might look at..

[Internal Queries]

**sigh** if Jane created "Seth" out of her subconscious she wouldn't necessarily realize that she was his creator or why she created him. it was HER mind in which those remarkable ideas and theories were configured. IMO, "Seth" was merely a vehicle she subconsciously created and used to carry her genius. not the other way around.

her era specific need to produce a male entity to convey her concepts certainly wouldn't invalidate those concepts. HER concepts are presently being validated, 40 years later, by quantum physicists. modern channellers are lucky. human concepts of gender roles have changed immensely since Jane Roberts came and left the planet so androgyny can be accepted as a more accurate portrayal of pre or extra physical selfhood.

[Internal Queries]

btw, have you read Jane's stuff? unlike many other channellers Jane's work is not a bunch new agey religious dogma. it's straight up lectures and disserations. deep. complex. and logical. NO FLUFF.

Originally Posted by Internal Queries

btw, have you read Jane's stuff? unlike many other channellers Jane's work is not a bunch new agey religious dogma. it's straight up lectures and disserations. deep. complex. and logical. NO FLUFF.

Yep.. I've studied it some..

I don't think I would refer to any other "new age" material as religious dogma though.. As I said before.. validation

Seth is old school speak.. and as such it's not my preference when it comes to channeled work.. it mostly resonates it's just so borrring.. and wrapped in "old school" world/ways

The thing is there is a noticeable progression going back a 100 years where it was much harder to understand channeled work and it's gotten easier and easier over time.. so that's why I think seth 60's speak sucks.. it's too convoluted I prefer modern channels of Abraham, Bashar and Steve Rother among others..

[Internal Queries]

Originally Posted by themaster

Yep.. I've studied it some..

I don't think I would refer to any other "new age" material as religious dogma though.. As I said before.. validation

Seth is old school speak.. and as such it's not my preference when it comes to channeled work.. it mostly resonates it's just so borrring.. and wrapped in "old school" world/ways

The thing is there is a noticeable progression going back a 100 years where it was much harder to understand channeled work and it's gotten easier and easier over time.. so that's why I think seth 60's speak sucks.. it's too convoluted I prefer modern channels of Abraham, Bashar and Steve Rother among others..

ah well ... to each their own preference. i'm not much into "validating" what appears to me to be a rehash of old hierarchy based "religious" models whether decorated in new age crystal and rainbow accutriments or not ("indigo children" pfffft!). and yeah it does take a certain mindset to not get bored with the complexities of Jane's work. i mean, her work is dry lecture and there's not a lot of ego labels available in her work to apply to oneself.

Jane's work might be "old school" but quantum physicists are having fun.

[John32241]

In my view, Jane's work introduced us to a new world of expanded reality perceptions. She was the forerunner of the new age material coming to light at this time.

It is quite natural to discount conventional wisdom, until science starts to prove those concepts. Then the revelations from that time begin to establish a new conventional reality perspective.

It is my understanding that All Ways of Being are blessed and serve the common good. The different points of view on this subject are quite appropriate.

John

[vortex]

I have been very grounded these days but for me

Automatic writing, psychic art, when words poped out of my mouth I called this channelling. more on wisdom
You can have them come in the guide, god, mass experience all are interesting mediums add fun to try I like the one voice of god for personal stuff easer to understand but guide for fun and its way more interesting

Talking to dead people or just past over they often to play charades or just relayed messages I called this medium ship and I had more control and about foretelling the future or what space some one was in than wisdom

[Rah nam]

In my understanding, channeling can happen on three levels, on all three levels the receiver needs to raise their vibration and the sender needs to lower their vibration in order to make a connection.
On the deepest level the channeler goes into a trance and someone needs to tape or take notes of what is said.
On an other level one is aware that something is said, and often is aware of the broader concept what is said but not in detail. They usually can tape it themselves or someone takes notes.
On the lightest level, one is fully aware of what is said, and can write it as one is receiving. And obviously the most inaccurate of all forms of channeling.
Most of the channeled material comes from the fifth vibration.
There is some from the higher fourth vibration.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by John32241

In my view, Jane's work introduced us to a new world of expanded reality perceptions. She was the forerunner of the new age material coming to light at this time.

It is quite natural to discount conventional wisdom, until science starts to prove those concepts. Then the revelations from that time begin to establish a new conventional reality perspective.

It is my understanding that All Ways of Being are blessed and serve the common good. The different points of view on this subject are quite appropriate.

John

Oh please ... 1960's to 1980's. Quantum mechanics was around since 1912 or so. Einstien Bohr Planck Feynman ... and so many more predated Seth's medium.

Originally Posted by mac

One common aspect is that evidential communication seems rare. Communicators do not appear to have familial or close friendship links to the receiver. They may be described as Ascended Masters or variously named angels and archangels. Although one channeller may claim her/his communicator as a personal 'guide', another may act simply as an uninvolved go-between.

In the last situation, there is a similarity with certain 'teaching' mediums, those whose communicators offer general advice on spiritual issues rather than personal evidence of survival.

99.9% of my wife's medium work is simply passing on to a client what the dead or guides are telling her. She tries to tell them as accurately as she can with no censorship what she is being told or shown.

The rare instances of what I call "channeling" she "allows" a person or guide to actually take over her body. She then communicates with me in the first person. I have spoken to my father, her grandfather, my best friend, her guide and a few other folks not family. I get kinda spooked out by these sessions. Unlike her "medium" sessions Georgia is not aware of anything that she says nor how much time has transpired.

My father often tries to use this method but Georgia usually refuses to allow that and prefers to simply be the "medium" in our conversations. The "channeling" type of sessions tend to give her a headache and nausea afterwards.

I'd be happy to recount any aspects of these instances if it would help with your inquiry. I personally don't know beans about classic channeling or it's history. I have digitally recorded the audio and video of most of these sessions.

den