The different flavors of channelers

This leads rather neatly into the topic of what different kinds of channelers there are. Setting aside the moral levels and gradations, there are several different ways of channeling as well. Although these ways actually fall on a spectrum rather than into discrete categories, here are four of the more distinct points on that spectrum:

• Fully conscious channel.
• Altered-state "conscious" channel, where the feeling while channeling is that you are fully conscious, but afterward you realize that you were in a (either slightly or greatly) different focus than normal waking reality--a kind of superconscious state of awareness.
• Light trance channel (that is, channeling while in a light trance).
• Full trance channel.

First, let me say that I do not believe there is any one "right" or best way. Having said that, I will say that the best way for me is the way I do it, just as the best way for another is the way they do it. As Virginia Satir reportedly once said, "There are 265 different ways to wash dishes, and they all get the dishes clean."

Still, others are of differing opinions. This is a sensitive area. Some people like to claim that whatever their way of channeling is, is the best or "purest" or least prone to mistakes and distortions, and I'm not immune to the syndrome myself.

For example, some full trance channels are fond of saying that, because they are in trance, the material they bring through is "purer" and less distorted than material brought through by "lesser" channels who are conscious or semi-conscious. Their reasoning is that supposedly they can "get out of the way" of the message better, or "let the entity through" better; that is, they allow the entity to more fully possess their bodies, and that the conscious mind, with its filters and programming and beliefs, is safely out of the way, so that the entities can therefore to speak more directly.

This ain't necessarily so.

The fact is that whether you are a fully conscious channel or a full-blown out-like-a-light trance channel, you are still translating for the entity with the same set of tools you have available in any state of consciousness, and with the same beliefs, rationalizations, filters, biases, and so on. (Which go much deeper than the conscious mind.) It is just easier, when you are in a trance, to pretend that you had nothing to do with the translation, and to therefore claim to yourself and others that the information is less fallible. Any trance channel who claims this is denying his or her contribution to the message, and is denying any responsibility for what comes through.

This can lead to an amusing circular verification process, which goes something like this:

1. Channel (speaking as her/himself): "My opinion is X."
2. Channel (in trance, speaking as entity): "Yes, X is true."
3. Channel (speaking as her/himself again): "Since the entity said X is true, it must be true and not just my opinion."

I try to be on the lookout for this kind of thing, and am personally relieved when the entities disagree with me. I am also always ready to admit that if they seem to be agreeing with me, it could be my own filters getting in the way of the message. This rigorous self-policing is a necessary component of any psychic practice.

The quality (high or low) of a channeled message will be the same for a given channel whatever form the channeling takes. A good channel will produce good, clear messages whatever the channeling method, and a muddy channel will produce muddy messages. I have heard one of the very best trance channelers alive today channel, and he occasionally brings through some (not a lot, but some, still) fear-based and judgmental material, just as he would if fully conscious. It is, as far as I know, inescapable that the channeler imparts his or her own flavoring to the message. In a very real sense, the medium is the message.

Being a conscious channeler myself, I have a certain bias toward conscious channeling over trance channeling, though in the end I think that it is up to each of us to analyze the process and the results and decide for ourselves what we prefer.

Of course, any person claiming to be a channeler of any stripe may be a fraud, either partially or completely, consciously or unknowingly. This is why it is imperative that those who consult channelers be fully aware of how it is possible for a channeler not to get all the information (if s/he gets any information at all), so that the consulters do not give away their power and self-determination to the consultants (the channelers). If you keep in mind that the channeler is essentially someone you are consulting, then perhaps it will be easier to maintain your perspective and remember who is in charge of your life.

What I find unfortunate about those who claim that their style of channeling is inherently better and more accurate is that, as I mentioned earlier, people already tend to lend channeled material far more unthinking and unexamining credence than it warrants, and to be told by implication or omission that the material coming through a particular channel is even less open to critical examination is to encourage people to stop thinking for themselves (or continue to not think for themselves), and to not apply their discernment to whatever messages are coming through. In either case, I would recommend that you either avoid such channelers or you take a very large bag of salt with you when you either read their materials or listen to them (in person or on video or cassette tapes).

Having said this, I will proceed to describing what the channeling process is like from my perspective.

Which way is best?