posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:26 AM
Those of you who disagree, I respectfully request that you read my whole post before responding, because I do include a few caveats and qualifiers.
Examples of what I consider "garbage" :
Edgar Cayce channeling info on Atlantis
The anon (?) 1925 channeling of the "Emerald Tablets of Thoth"
Anything "channeled" by New Agers, 1980 to the present
Benjamin Creme and his Maitreya channelings
People on TV or preachers who claim to be able to get in touched with the dead loved ones of audience members (this one really bothers me because it
is a goulish way of fleecing the gullible)
I think all of the above are a bunch of bull****. Some of them are well-written and enjoyable to read, and may even contain profound truths, but I
think ultimately they are fiction.
I'm not saying everyone who "channels" is insincere...many believe quite strongly in what they are doing, I think, but I think they work themselves
into some kind of trance state and then latch onto various self-induced visions, attaching meaning to them through a combination of error, ignorance,
and wishful thinking.
Vedic Hinduism, Eastern Orthodox Christian meditators, Zen Buddhists, and others who seek fusion with the ultimate repeatedly warn us from attaching
too much importance to "visions" occuring during altered states of consciousness or deep prayer/meditation. These things are to be ignored as
hindrances and delusions...not embraced. I think this is a nobler and deeper view. The "Channelers" stop far short of this ideal and instead revel
in the visionary state...what the Tibetans might call the "second bardo" (rather than progressing beyond to the third bardo, where ultimate truth
and fusion with the divine occurrs).
I do believe in a number of paranormal events and in the fact that there may exist higher planes, etheral spirits, etc. I just think people who claim
to be able to "channel" them are either con-artists or deluded.
There is ONE form of "channeling-like" behavior I am willing to accept as valid: the shamanic practices of ancient societies, such as when a shaman
enters a trance and "becomes" a spirit-animal. Notice I said VALID, not "true." I accept this and the belief system around it because it is
ancient and seemingly almost universal, and thus acquires a kind of gravitas that comes with pure age and tradition. When something like this persists
in cultures as wide-spread as the Amazon valley and Paleo-Siberia, it cannot be dismissed lightly, and deserves respect. From this perspective, such
activities go beyond "true" and "false" and enter into the mythic realm, where things might not be "literally factual" but do manage to
convey deep truths about life and death.
However, I extend the above caveat only to time-tested shamanic traditions...not to anyone born in the 20th century in a modern, developed society.
[edit on 9/18/09 by silent thunder]