Difference between mediumship and channeling?

Originally Posted by LadyB.

Thank you, Mac

I would not consider myself to be a channeler or a medium. I am being led down many paths at the moment and appear to have capabilities in a few different areas. However, I feel I have a lot more to learn before I bestow myself with a title in any of them.

With regard to who I am channeling. I believe that to be the my higher-self/source/god. It is certainly not channeling to be broadcast, more for me to reflect on and learn from to further me spiritually. I would be very hesitant to take any form of channeling as infallible as there are so many variables to take into account.

I would like to think that all I am being taught at the moment will lead to something wonderful I can pass on to others. Who knows...? But maybe that's my ego coming into play


LB
X

an admirably modest response.... That's a refreshing change from other 'stuff' I read. I hope you won't mind if I further add to what you've contributed?

I know that some practitioners squirm about 'titles' but if someone is providing information by a process traditionally recognised as 'mediumship' then I'd refer to that individual as a medium. And if the communication gives evidence of the survival of an identifiable communicator, known to the sitter/enquirer, I'd call that evidential mediumship.... Channelling seems to overlap mediumship at times but not in terms of evidential mediumship.

If 'channelled' information were of general application and not specifically for the channeller, then it would appear very similar to the mediumship (for example) of Silver Birch and Maurice Barbanell.

When channelling is a personal issue it sounds like inspiration or the contact one might have with one's own helpers, guides, friends, guardian angels - whatever word you might favour....

I have to confess that I'm very dubious that anyone's channelling is likely to provide something of earth-shattering novelty or importance. When it does I will revise my take on that situation. What it might do, though, is to continue the process of informing new generations of the unchanging truth about life, death and life continual.

I can accept that personal channelling might be a means whereby our unseen friends inspirit reach individual souls in our ever-changing world but in a different manner to that provided by (for example) the mediums of Modern Spiritualism which I now see as having run its intended course.

A Channel is an American term, that the rest of the world really didnt use until the programmes came over (ie charmed etc). Im afraid they do change a lot of very ancient terms that way.

Originally Posted by ZeroPointField

Ok, So I hear there are both conscious and unconscious channels? Is a medium sort of in between these two? My understanding of what you said, Lady B., is that channeling is more of an external communication with a spirit, and mediumship is more of an immersive or merging experience where the "spirit" or being...hmmm, I'm trying to phrase this right...I guess somewhat blends with your own consciousness so you are able to receive impressions on a deeper level than just words. Whereas unconscious channeling would be a spirit or being completely taking over the channel temporarily. Am I close?

Well, ok my bad, I just realized I didn't look for the other threads, but it sometimes helps me to form my own analogies and then get confirmation from people with experience to see if this sounds right. If someone else has already said something similar, don't worry about answering and I'll just search the other threads.

Thanks!

The word channel is of course going to be as open to interpretaion as the word medium...


In my experience..

Channeling comes from within. Higher self is to be found within us all. Our Souls are connected to and are part of 'source' so therefore we look internally. It is an interactive experience. You can have a conversation, although it is usually only on reflection that the true message becomes apparent due to the variables I mentioned before.

With mediumship it is more of an external process, the spirit and our own energies will blend together. The spirit will then impress their own thoughts over ours. Depending on the level of blending one may then go into various levels of trance. On the deeper levels It's comparable to being in a deep hypnotic state. (I have always been conscious on some level, even though I may have little recollection of events.) Not unpleasant actually. It is at these deeper levels that a spirit may temporarily 'take over' and speak themselves as indeed Silver Birch did.

I have never 'channeled' pages of writing from mental mediumship. A paragraph at most before the spirits energy fades.

This makes sense to me of soul to soul energy versus soul to source!


As Mac says the perameters of spiritualisim are evolving and many will realise they have an open line of communication with source/spirit/angles. To what degree, depends of course on the individual. Interesting times ahead...

`
,
LB
X

So Lady B, when you channel, it is always your higher self, and not an external entity? I have no experience with either channeling or mediumship myself, so I don't know and I'm just curious, but it seems like I've heard of various people channeling what I would consider "external" entities that are not the channel's higher self....but you feel this would classify more as mediumship?

Personally, yes.

The two have a completely different process and energy.