So-called ‘channelers’ have it rough...
I’m a longtime fan of Esther Hicks. Although, to someone in a different place, I can see where she might come off as a bit… Phooey.
Like — Who is this lady up on stage acting like she’s channelling some sort of spirit-body? She’s just trying to sell books/seminars/etc.
It’s hard to blame them? With as many phonies as there are out there, especially today in Internetland (the right sidebar of Facebook/Google is like old-school late night infomercials of old, 24/7), our BS detector as a society is set at an all-time high.
But I just wanna know — what’s the problem with channelling?
What is channelling, anyways? I see it as entering a meditative state and pulling thoughts/words from a ‘spiritual source’. Right?
Well, since we can’t point to a ‘spiritual source’, we can just say that we’re pulling thoughts from outside of ourselves — instead of reaching back into our memories/past experiences for something we’ve thought/expressed before.
Looking at it this way, I can’t see any problem whatsoever with channelling.
If you say you’re channelling Abe Lincoln and that gets you to feel more confident, I say channel away. If you’re channelling Mister Rogers or Malcolm X to help you deliver a speech that transforms the masses into being more loving, compassionate beings, I see no harm in that either.
In fact, I’d say this…
All creativity is the act of channelling.
Creativity comes from new thought. Statement of the obvious, I know.
When Esther Hicks gets up there, she’s stepping out of the small, limited ego of Esther Hicks and jumping into the power of this being called Abraham. And her talks, books, and conversations with people are truly transformative to certain people.
Before we go knocking channelling, maybe we should give it more of a shot ourselves. Hand me that remote and let’s see what you can tune into.