I was watching some of Esther's videos http://www.lawofattractioninteraction.com/lottery.php#
and when she talks about herself it is in the 3rd person?
Whats up with that?? To be honest she had me interested until she did that, then I just thought she was crazy!?
Is there something I am missing here? Have you heard her do this or just happened to be the 2 first videos i watched on her site?
As Michaela and Vesuvius have implied, it's a broader perspective of Esther (a group consciousness called Abraham) that is projecting blocks of thoughts that her physical self is then vocalizing for the benefit of us listening and watching human beings.
But it brings up an interesting point...even if she was just herself and talking about herself in the third person, why does it matter?
Which is more important to you - the information, or the way it is presented?
If someone you consider crazy tells you something that has the potential to change your life, would you dismiss that information just based on that person's appearance and behavior rather than what the information actually is?
What is it within you that requires others to conform to your internal definition of normality before you will take what they say seriously?
I have to say that in my own life, some of the most apparently crazy people I've ever met (ones that "normal people" avoid) have turned out to be some of my most influential friends and acquaintances. For me, different and unusual perspectives are like a breath of fresh air.
Just some friendly thoughts to ponder :)
I know this isnt a popular view..but it could be that Abraham is a figment of Ester Hicks imagination!
If anyone bases their beliefs on what Ester says their working on quite a massive assumption that she is on the level and hasnt made the whole thing up.
There seems to be some strength of feeling on this site that what she says is a fact. I do tend to take much of it with a pinch of salt.
Having said this its pretty similar if someone bases much of their beliefs on the teachings of Wattles,Trine etc. Or for that matter on what a biblical prophet may have said. It just seems that with Ester theres a great deal that has to be taken on trust.
answered 30 Oct '10, 10:34
The obvious answer to the question is because she is channeling
Now you can look up channeling and get an "external" opinion.
If you go to Wikipedia, which in my opinion is about as useful as asking the Vatican to explain Hinduism, you will get the following explanation under Channeling> spiritism = which takes you to the page dealing with Mediumship and within that page under Channeling you find the following.
In the latter half of the 20th century, Western mediumship developed in two different ways. One type involves psychics or sensitives who claim to speak to spirits and then relay what they hear to their clients. Clairvoyant Danielle Egnew is known for her alleged communication with angelic entities.
The other incarnation of non-physical mediumship is a form of channeling in which the channeler goes into a trance, or "leaves their body". He or she becomes "possessed" by a specific spirit (spirit possession), who then talks through them. In the trance, the medium enters a cataleptic state marked by extreme rigidity. As the control spirit takes over, the medium's voice may change completely. The spirit answers the questions of those in its presence or giving spiritual knowledge. A widely known channeler of this variety is J. Z. Knight, who claims to channel the spirit of Ramtha, a 30 thousand-year-old man. Others claim to channel spirits from "future dimensional", ascended masters, or ,in the case of the trance mediums of the Brahma Kumaris, God. Other notable channels are Jane Roberts for Seth, Esther Hicks for Abraham, Margaret McElroy for Maitreya, Serge J. Grandbois for Kris, Barbara Marciniak for the pleiadian collective, and Lee Carroll for Kryon.
As you can see this doesn't exactly describe Esther Hicks behaviour when she delivers the information. (Like I said, it’s like the Vatican explaining Hinduism)
A far less misleading and useful description can be found in the most unlikely place, The Skeptic's Dictionary. Here is the link.
I must point out that the consummate skeptic here is sure to get hung up over the "She is GOD" statement and judge the entire paragraph by this one statement.
One cannot become a good artist by getting the opinion of other artists or those who claim to know about art. At some point one has to grab a pencil and paper and see what this whole "Art" thing is all about.
Just a single stumbling attempt at trying to draw something by one's own effort will answer and awaken an understanding that cannot be arrived at by comparing the opinions of millions of art lovers.
Especially when it comes to the subject of the "Power Within", one cannot make even the slightest progress by learning through the opinion of others.
This journey of "Awakening" can only be accomplished by YOU trusting the opinions from YOU.
IF the opinion from you regarding Esther is one of doubt then "trust that" and if you wish, you can explore her teachings to see why you don't trust it, or just leave it alone and be OK with it.
You should not be concerned by Other's interest and trust in Esther's teachings as a measure by which to examine your own interests in these subjects.
If you are hung-up over not being sure if YOU are "right" or THEY are "right", then your issue is not about Esther's Teachings.
It has more to do with YOU trusting your inner guidance.
I have stated many times here that the endless discussions we have here don't really make a difference in our inner development, because by constantly seeking the opinion of others we, in fact, begin to distance ourselves from our inner source, preferring to instead fall back on the external approval for our own inner fountain of inspiration.
By constantly asking advice from others, we are forever dis-trusting the attraction that attracted the inner vision which you then formulated into a question, almost as-if you need to seek permission from others to be OK with your own thoughts.
If you find Ester's information questionable and you arrived at this by your own effort that's fine. Now if you want to change your opinion regarding Esther, Your attempt to unravel your own previous opinion cannot be accomplished by gathering the opinions of other's who love Esther's material.
If you do that, you will, change your mind back and forth constantly based on the latest opinion you gathered from "Others" and you will not be able to settle on a comfortable trust upon a particular philosophy.
The only person who can verify if Esther's information is complete nonsense or Brilliant guidance is YOU.
You have to test her teachings YOURSELF and arrive at an understanding by your own effort.
Of course, if you go into it already believing "I think this is pure bull s##t but I'm going to find out if it is true", you have already pre-determined the outcome you are anticipating, and your anticipation will attract only the physical evidence that it is pure bull s##t.
When working with the un-seen energy of creation, of which, the version that is most familiar to you is called CONSCIOUSNESS, you cannot use the approach "Can someone please tell me what I should do because I don't know what to believe"
Asking such a question only indicates that the individual has not yet begun to trust their own inner source.
Please don't miss-understand my statement here.
When you trust your inner source, you will still have plenty of situations where you will not know what to believe.
But what you will no longer do is start asking everybody else what they think you should believe.
You will still post question here regarding the questions that awaken within you.
But they won't be in the form "Please tell me what to think"
Now, Back2Basics, You DID NOT say "Please tell me what to think" and by my mention of it here I am being somewhat unfair to you in how I am answering this question.
Most of this answer is not directed towards you, in that I am not assuming Back2Basics is not in touch with the inner source.
For from it, in fact, you may be fully in touch with the living spirit of creation and your questions are meant to educate the rest of us.
I'm trying to hit a wide target with this answer because it seems to me that discussion passes for authentication.
We don't want to crush the awakening spark within the seeker with casual and congratulatory criticism of subject matter, the understanding of which is based on opinion alone.
It is either that or Esther got into using the royal we.
(Sorry, just a little joke). :S
answered 31 Oct '10, 16:40
The extraordinary part of all this that convinces me on the whole to believe in these utterances is the fluidity that esther speaks in front of an audience with no autocue. Even if she memorised such long lectures with a a photographic memory her interaction with questions from members of her audience are just as informative and fluent
If she is a fraud then she deserves credit for being a great actress. Pauses and humour are perfectly delivered.
There are more things in heaven than earth ... than are dreamt of by mankind
It would be interesting for a university to study the philosophy being disseminated to see if they could see any intellectual voracity or would they conclude that in the main it is all persiflage?
This answer is marked "community wiki".
If you are seeing this message then the Inward Quest system has noticed that your web browser is behaving in an unusual way and is now blocking your active participation in this site for security reasons. As a result, among other things, you may find that you are unable to answer any questions or leave any comments. Unusual browser behavior is often caused by add-ons (ad-blocking, privacy etc) that interfere with the operation of our website. If you have installed these kinds of add-ons, we suggest you disable them for this website