Why should we believe you?

Why should we believe you?

Tonata:……Good evening my friends.

When I was training as a young lad this was more a thing that men did. Tonight I see mainly women! Oh well. This work is not really about gender, but I will say more of that in a moment, for this is not a group that meets to work in the sense of working a magic. It is simply a means of communication – to answer certain questions. Tonight the question is that of belief. “Why should you believe what I say?” My answer to that is very simple – at first, and that is “I cannot think of a compelling reason why you should!”. However I do not think that will satisfy people generally and I need to expand my answer.

For those of you who will be reading the transcription, the first and obvious question you ought to have in mind, every time you read a channelled message, is ‘is it all make believe and is it a hoax?’. For as you read the page you have no idea whether the written word was deliberately done to make money to sell books or the like, or to gain an audience. What was the motivation of those involved? Was there only one person involved or many? Is it for real? Is it a hoax or not?

I think it ought to be fairly easy to corroborate from the website and the information given there that several people are involved, and a further investigation ought to show who some of those people are likely to be. It is much more difficult to arrange a hoax with a group like that, so it is unlikely that that is the case, but you have no proof as you read these words! I can assure you that it is much easier to find excuses or reasons why you should not believe what I say rather than to actually believe them. Indeed, generally I suggest that you always think this way until you know more of the circumstances of the channelling.

What next? Well given that the group and the person who is channelling are all sincere, you should ask yourself whether the message is no more than just imagination on the part of the channeller. Is there some deep part of the channeller’s subconscious which is gathering all this information together and presenting it in this rather bizarre fashion? Unfortunately the very fashion has a certain fascination, and for some people who read or hear such a message – including the channeller – it will hold a certain amount of authority also. But if that is the case it is simply coming from the channeller’s mind and nothing more – certainly not from any discarnate entity. As long as the person who is channelling has read widely and has much storage of information consciously forgotten, then it is amazing what can be produced in this rather strange way.

You have seen people who have been hypnotised. It is easy to suggest to someone that something or someone does not exist – I am sure you have seen that as a stage act – and the person is confused but they will go out of their way to accommodate the invisibility. The something or someone is invisible and, for the hypnotised, does not exist. The suggestion is accepted. It can be quite hilarious to those who are watching and belittling to the person who has been hypnotised. But it is a very real experience for them. And just as you can suggest somebody isn’t there, so you can suggest somebody is there. Then the person who is hypnotised can have a conversation with the invisible person, which can be even more hilarious to those who are watching.

So to return to your original question, is this unfolding drama no more than a self hypnotism on the part of the channeller, producing all manner of seeming authoritative information, but the information having no more and no less authority than just the channeller himself or herself?

So you need to look at what is said. You need to challenge it, to question whether this is more than the channeller’s knowledge, for so much depends upon the person who is channelling.

What is the next step? Let us suppose, for want of an argument, that it is indeed what is being portrayed, that a discarnate entity is able to use the channeller’s voice to speak and communicate. Then what should be in your mind? So often people just listen and accept without questioning what is being said. And yet I would have thought the next question is who, or what, is coming through? Even though the channeller may be sincere; even though the channeller may be doing what he or she claims and the voice is not from them; who or what is the entity that is using the voice?

There are some entities who delight in – in fact feed on – such an act and phenomenon. There are groups of people, who through their awe, adoration, or unthinking uncritical positive thoughts, give that entity something it feeds off. It can be much more than just a psychological thing we are talking about. For it isn’t just like a thought or the feeling of being ‘en rapport’ that it experiences and that feeds it, but emanations from the group itself, emanations that sustain the phenomenon and enable the entity to grow.

So is it an entity of a lower elemental order or of a lower life form that you might call a demon? All the more reason you should look at the content of what is being said, to question it and challenge it. All the more reason you should look, after a time, to see what goes on in that group, to see whether the people are being taught, whether they feel enabled, whether they actually grow in some way from that communication or whether the whole thing is inward looking and exclusive. If there is a building up of a kind of cult figure or an unhealthy relationship then I advise you to dismiss it, to walk away from the whole thing for your own safety and concern.

So you see that reasons are building up as to why you should not believe what I have to say.

But let me go further. Suppose the communication is genuine and that it is not from an entity that feeds on the emanations of the group, but from a discarnate being that has its dwelling in some unseen realm, or from someone who was once incarnate and has now passed on – has died to the earthly plane. Then why are such beings awarded instant wisdom and authority? If you ever compare some of the messages which are given to various channellers or mediums then I think you would soon be disillusioned of that particular claim, for there is much which is foolishness and obvious contradiction which is communicated!

I do not even mean that the entity may be deliberating misleading the group, for just as in your physical world people from different ethnic backgrounds and different countries describe their lives so totally differently, but who is speaking true from false? Both are true in their own ways although they may seemingly contradict each other at face value. So if that discarnate being is from more of a distance in time, as well as in ethnicity, then all the more are subtleties and nuances going to be lost or misunderstood. It is difficult enough in your own time and country to understand idioms and subtleties. And that is in just the one language. If you translate from another background and another time then even more of the message is lost – quite unwittingly. And what is heard and interpreted may be quite different from what is meant.

And so we come on to another problem, the problem of the relationship between the person who is channelling and the ‘companion’, as I will now call that discarnate being, and the need for trust, acceptance and a letting go on the part of the channeller.

There are all manner of prejudices or preconceived ideas in everybody’s mind. The letting go to avoid those preconceived ideas takes time to develop and to grow. It is easier to get the actual message across by overshadowing a person so they cannot hear it themselves and so they cannot influence what is being said, but that is much harder for the companion to do, and much more tiring for the channeller as a result – energy must come from somewhere to do this work. It is easier in the one sense if the channeller is not removed entirely, but it is harder to agree on circumventing such prejudices or doubts.

The problem for the companion is how to speak a truth without causing offence, for that offence actually does block something of the message. The channelling is like a light which is shining through a particular filter, but the resulting colour may be quite different to that originally intended.

The relationship is very important. The acceptance and openness of the channeller is a crucial factor, but it doesn’t stop there either, for to help increase the ability of the channeller or the clarity of the message or the strength of communication, it is best to involve others as well. Yes, a channeller can do this on his or her own but for a very limited time, but what if something goes wrong? Who is there to help? However, as soon as you involve someone else then the complications increase many fold.

What of the preconceived ideas and prejudices of those other persons? Do they also enter into the equation? Of course they do, and not just between the companion and extra people but between the extra people and the channeller. For if the channeller is still able to hear and understand to some degree, then something may be said that the channeller knows may not be well received by another member. The channeller is concerned and so the companion will also be concerned. Too strong a prejudice and the anxiety present means the message will become filtered to the extent that the original ‘colour’ is damaged.

Taking this further, the more members of a group there are, although there is more energy available to assist the communication, the more the situation is convoluted and complex. Too many people and it becomes extremely difficult. For a large group to function, despite the energy at hand, a group ‘party line’ or policy develops. And who says what that party line is? The combined psyches of each member predetermine the kind of message and the framework of that message, for the companion cannot keep to the true ‘colour’ of his or her intended message. A truth is thus spoken which is a truth no longer but a kind of dogma.

So there needs to be a small number of people for they cannot help but contribute something of themselves. If there is a negativity, if there is anger, if there is upset, then that is something which taints the communication, even though the channeller tries to let go, even though the companion tries to speak his or her truth, it still somehow gets in the way. It twists what is said. Those colour filters become even more twisted or dark. But where there is a good relationship, a trusting relationship for those group members, then the greater the integrity of the group members will mean a greater acceptance of each other and an openness to what is taking place. So it follows there will be greater clarity of the message and more keeping to the ‘truth’ of the companion.

So you see there are far, far more reasons why you should not believe what is said in this way than accepting it at face value. You must also think!!

I think I have padded out my answer sufficiently.