Bottom line is that encountering a spirit/medium combo that has asked the big questions, objectively explored, hypothesized, analyzed, tested and formulated an answer is going to be a very rare event. So we get a bunch of junk and half-baked, poorly communicated concepts. And that's before we factor in the tricksters, psychopaths/demonic deceivers. As below so it is above.
I think so much also depends on what our sources are as well. There are quite a few purportedly high quality sources, but they are not part of the popular reading material. There is a lot of junk 'channelling' that conforms to all the rules for doing it badly. Still, the high quality stuff is not only rare, it is often unappealing because it is difficult to read and requires openness to propositions that can be discouraging.
If we look for what is specific and definitive we can miss the fact that the reality of 'the other side' is so unlike 'this side' that witness accounts can vary even more greatly than they do here. Trying to match reports as if there is a one fixed reality that is subject to uniform description is a fool's errand. It is better to seek shared attributes and characteristics to come up with a 'sense' of what is.
A lot of us reflexively insist on knowing on our terms and prefer to 'doubt', rather than speculate and engage. Doubt is essential if the alternative is gullible belief. But doubt also can express a rigidity of thought - in the sense that its not really doubt, but demand to be informed on one's own terms. Proper spirit guides couldn't give a damn about our demands and conceits. The ones that do are the ones to be afraid of. They will, pander to our delusion and flatter us. Then they hook us and reel us in.
I didn't mind Robert's approach overall. I was disappointed that he fell for the tsunami thing. For me that's the kind of BS that lower level influences pull. There are two reasons I say this. The first is that the 'information' is not useful in any way that does not demand a surrender to the acceptance of the proposition. These random bits of informational spectacular titbits that are not accompanied by a useful teaching - they have a wow factor and no other value. The second is that the 'information' is essentially sentimental - and that's a danger signal.
I am not saying the 'information' is not true - just that it is useless. The truth of the proposition is another matter. The notion of noble sacrifice is not invalid, but then proposition that sundry souls who would have to gather in a geographic region in order to fulfil a collective sacrifice could not know the result of their 'plan' for me beggars belief. Its a 'nice' idea. But I suspect the bulk of listeners felt it was untrue.
This does not invalidate Robert's works - if untrue. It points up the degree of difficulty in knowing whether you are in tune with the real thing or spouting BS. The inner guides will not interfere to correct. I had it pointed out to me that most of what I was writing at one stage was too distorted to be really useful, but not so bad as to be toxic - just useless. But then I had asked. That advice was not offered.
This is important, because sometimes the worst problem is not some external bad actor, but one's own conceit and delusion.
I noticed Andy Paquette's presence on an earlier forum. I hope he's still around, because what he recounts in Dreamer is powerfully pertinent to this conversation.
