It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hypothesis: "Channeling" is garbage.

page: 1

log in


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]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:43 AM
edgar cayce channeling on atlantis alone? or all of his works?

how about the medical diagnoses? or maybe his stock and horse race predictions which both were responsible for large financial gain... just because the chennelings weren't 100% accurate cannot discredit the ones that were true or came to be true. like his channelings about the dead sea scrolls, or the sphinx. his method never changed.

there are many people out there who claim to channel in order to manipulate people and make money. others like cayce had a true gift.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:47 AM
reply to post by wx4caster

Agreed, I came in here just to dispute the lumping of Edgar Cayce in with a bunch of bunk. The Atlantis thing didn't turn out perhaps, but what about Edgar predicting the room under the Sphinx's paw for instance?

Anyway, appreciate you taking care of that for me wx4!!!

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:47 AM
Channeling always makes me giggle...

Not me...

The guy I'm channeling!

Oh... I see... that is me. Thoughts are such confusing things!


posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:53 AM
Could you define exactly what is "channeling"?
I could see many definitions for the word and at least one of those definitions makes me think channeling is not really garbage.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:01 AM

Originally posted by Geladinhu
Could you define exactly what is "channeling"?
I could see many definitions for the word and at least one of those definitions makes me think channeling is not really garbage.

Yes, I realize its a vaguely defined term, and I also feel that any attempt to define it specifically will lead to a morass of not-very-interesting (nor productive) word-game battles.

It's like an old-time Judge (foreget the name) once said about pornography: A literal definition is impossible, but one knows it when one sees it.

For the record, I exclude SPONTANEOUS, unsaught encounters with paranormal realities or higher planes from this criticism.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:07 AM
reply to post by silent thunder

Aren't all channelings supposed to be "spontaneous" in a way?
I mean, I would suspect that these non-conventional things that happen are not really seeked by the people that claim to have them. And I think that those who seek are better off and would probably think twice before labeling it as channeling.

You see what I'm saying? If we disregard the liars why would channeling be garbage? Its just one more phenomena that brings more information inside of the game, thats how I see it at least. It may be that the specific information coming from the mouth of these people that claim to channel is not as interesting as the information of one actually claiming to have such experiences.

I don't know if I made myself clear.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Geladinhu]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:42 AM
I am more worried about your definition of garbage than your definition of channeling.

Almost all of your examples involve someone bringing into consciousness part of the contents of the mind of which they were previously not conscious. Those contents are a mixed bag. Anybody who journals their dreams catches on to that.

Edgar Cayce's Atlantis material is "garbage" if you interpret what he was saying as a geography lesson. As to his testimony that it was supposed to be a geography lesson, how would he know?

All he could possibly know is that he dredged it up from his mind, and that some of what he had dredged up on other occasions was factually accurate. He picked some stocks and horses, for instance. How nice. So have I. So have many people. So what, Edgar?

If you think it was a geography lesson because he said it was, then you were disappointed, and perhaps felt resentment about that. And if you paid him money because of what he said the material was, then you are entitled to your money back. Bad Edgar.

On the other hand, if you approach what he said about Atlantis the way most "elaborate" dreams are profitably viewed, as something with the form of a narrative, fictional, but expressing truths about the self in figurative imagery, then the Cayce Atlantis stuff is pure gold.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by eight bits]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:32 AM
I agree. There are mounds of evidnence on YouTube alone to support your claim.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:13 PM
Good question. You should read Skyfloatings thread about the astral circus.

My opinion is that we cannot really know what it is. Just because something contacts someone and speaks through them (if you take that as given) does not mean this is something divine with monopoly on the "universal" truth. We humans easily get impressed by channeling and the fact that both channeling or the ouija board can provide correct answers to something nobody else but you could have known. The world is complex...expect the unseen worlds to be the same.

One can only guess the reason why these entities are willing to be in contact with us. It is much to be said about the "laws" and the nature of this communication. This forum provides good information about it

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:37 PM
The problem I see about channeling is I cannot tell the difference between it and schizophrenic behavior.

In my opinion, un the old times this "channeling" guys could be called as prophets, today, they are just nuts. The contact of ancient channelers was god, today is ETs because if they say today its god or devil they just bought the mental hospital ticket.

In this strange scenario how we can identify the true?

About Edgar Cayce... from what I have readed the answers from asked questions are at best encrypted in a not very clear answer.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:25 PM
reply to post by silent thunder

Hi, silent thunder.

It's a GOOD thing you keep it as **hypothesis** ! !

Get the 3 DVDs of the first line of my signature to see VERY fun science.

And for channeling, get the PDFs of the second line of me signature,
and you will read THE BEST OF THE BEST ! !

Blue skies.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:23 PM
"Uh Oh... What gave it away? Was the funny accent with the nasal voice? I can do better!"
- Madame Digsyagold

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 12:35 AM

Originally posted by blackcube
... the old times this "channeling" guys could be called as prophets, today, they are just nuts.

They were nuts then too.

Once all humans quit believing spew, we can get on with understanding reality.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Chakotay]

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:16 AM
reply to post by silent thunder

Well, Haven't you seen Stargate Atlantis? I'm pretty sure that Atlantis did rise from the ocean bottom. Truth be told, many seers had likely been seeing future fiction on media such as television.

Even david Wilcock ( supposed reincarnation sha) had mentioned that Edgar Cayce likely had some bad channeling connections with a trickster source.

For a guy who was supposed to be psychic, he sure made some dumb business moves. Too bad no one gave him advice based on his own predictions. Just doesn't add up.

So, how do you feel about Remote Vewing? disinformation garbage?

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:12 AM
Thanks everyone for your diverse replies. Obviously its a confusing topic and as one poster noted, I kept it as a HYPOTHESIS.

I think there are ways to achieve some of what channeling's all about but if there are individuals with this gift they must be extremely rare, and I've yet to see one come to the fore. As for ancient shamanic trances where the shaman would turn himself into a raven and spek with the spirts of the dead or what have you, I put that in a totally different context because the context in which it developed is totally different from the "modern world" and modern world efforts along those lines are likely to produce shallow or zero results. I also believe flashes of insight about the rationally unknown and so forth come to lots of people, but it seems a process beyond control if it seems sincere to me.

top topics


log in