A few days ago it was a message from the intel side. Now it’s a message from the channeled side.
No, I’m not posting the message from “GrandFather,” the head of the Chinese Elders, that’s circulating widely on the Net at the moment – for many reasons.
One has to run one’s own credibility tests on channeled messages. That really is the only test we have for their authenticity – that I’m aware of.
I choose to walk by those that don’t pass these tests. We have many, many channeled messages these days so we don’t have to go with messages that don’t sound accurate.
As encouraging as this message is, it doesn’t pass my tests.
One reason is that I don’t believe the main claim made in the article:
“You see, my true identity is the one you know as God, or more accurately, Father God….
“I am your Father God. I am the Creator, with Mother God, of all planets, stars, beings and consciousness in this Universe and far beyond.”
If one accepts this claim, a lot flows from that. Therefore I’d need to be really satisfied that the claim was true.
But it can’t be true. It isn’t possible for the Transcendental One, the Source, the Void to incarnate. It has never happened and never will. (1)
Krishna hints at the fact that the Transcendental never incarnates when he says:
“This entire universe is pervaded by me, in that eternal form of mine which is not manifest to the senses. Although I am not within any creature, all creatures exist within me. I do not mean that they exist within me physically. That is my divine mystery. You must try to understand its nature. My Being sustains all creatures and brings them to birth, but has no physical contact with them.” (2)
God is not manifest to the senses, ever. The Source does not enter the illusion. Given that GrandFather mentions the Mother, and so is aware of her, I’m able to say that the Mother, not the Father, makes herself manifest to the senses.
God’s Being sustains all creatures but has no physical contact with them. The Father is unknown, unsensed, untouched, uncreated. That’s why we need to enter a “cloud of unknowing” to “know” the Source. (3)
One could say that GrandFather is meaning, not that he’s the One, Source, etc., but that he’s the God of this universe. “I am the Creator … of all … in this universe.” But GrandFather adds “and far beyond.” “Far beyond” would make him Source, not this universe’s God.
I hear someone immediately say that all of us have a Divine Spark in our hearts, so it could be said that we are all Incarnations of the Father.
Insofar as all of us have Light of the Father’s Light inside us, yes, we are all Incarnations of the Father. True enough. But the claim being made here goes deeper than simply that GrandFather possesses an Atman, soul, Christ, or Self.
I hear someone else say that Krishna claimed to be an Incarnation of Brahman, of the Father.
“I am Brahman
Within this body,
That shall not perish:
I am the Truth
And the Joy for ever.” (4)
Yes, he did. However even Avatars will tell their disciples, advanced enough to want to hear about the matter, that they are specifically Incarnations of the Mother. Here’s Sri Ramakrishna for example.
“The Full Brahman [God the Father, in my vocabulary] is the Witness, pervading all space and time, equally. It is his Energy (Shakti) [i.e, the Divine Mother] that incarnates.” (5)
“God’s play on Earth as an Incarnation is the manifestation of the glory of the Chitsakti, the Divine Power [the Mother].” (6)
“The Divine Mother of the Universe manifests Herself through this three-and-a-half cubit man.” (7)
“It is Sakti alone that becomes flesh as God Incarnate.” (8)
Therefore to make the claim for oneself that one is an Incarnation of the Father, as opposed to the Mother, does not ring true for me and any claim for deference or consideration that flows from it would be invalid for me. (You may feel differently and that’s fine with me.)
Here’s another alarm bell for me: “Mother God has also incarnated to do her part in this great Project, but that is another story.” “GrandFather” does not seem to be referring to an ordinary Avatar, because Mother has taken form as that. I agree.
Sri Ramakrishna, for instance, has again taken a body again, as he predicted he would, (9) and will announce himself when the time arrives (he’s too young at the moment). He’s an example of a Shakti-filled incarnation of the Mother, if you will.
But GrandFather seems to be pointing to an incarnation in which the Mother would reveal herself as the Mother (the Mother as Mother), in the same way that he’s is “revealing” himself as the Father.
I’m under the impression that that has not happened at this time. Please correct me if you know of such an Incarnation. (10)
There are other indications that this message does not come from the sources it claims to or that its assertions are not credible.
Here’s one. It says: “The Matrix is not made of our essence.” Everything is made from God’s essence. How could it be otherwise?
“It contains no Love, is not made of Light and therefore is not real.” That statement looks good on the surface but doesn’t bear up when we turn the power of the microscope up.
Everything is made from love, from light. If the Matrix is not made of it, what is it made of?
The unreality of a thing or phenomenon comes, not from whether it’s made of love or not (since everything is) but from its compound structure not being permanent, eternal, undying.
The Matrix is energy and form bent to evil purposes. Evil purposes are not from God. The Source has given us free will and, with it, we create evil, not God.
But break the Matrix down and it returns to light or love, as does everything else. I therefore don’t believe that the Father would make such a metaphysically-loose and -inaccurate statement.
A feature of credible channeled messages is that you can increase the power of the microscope and the truth of the statement holds up. That makes reading credible channeled messages so delightful. One can ride them to vaster horizons, so to say. But not in this case.
Everything contains love and light and yet it could also be said that every thing is not real. Every thing is compound. Every thing is put together. Everything made, put together, compound returns to its essence of love/light eventually and so it could be said to be not real.
Neither are you real nor am I. Sorry. The body is not real. And the soul – Light of God’s Light – in the last instance returns to God and is no more. The soul is the penultimate, but not the ultimate, Reality.
Only God is not made, not created, and therefore real, as the Buddha reminds us in his description of God:
“Monks, there is a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be apparent no escape from this, here, that is born, become, made, compounded.” (11)
So if you’re wondering why you don’t see that message here and you do see it elsewhere, it’s a case of having flaws that suggest its probable lack of authenticity, no matter how encouraging it may sound.
(1) One can never say never, but under present circumstances I don’t think it’d ever happen.
(2) Sri Krishna in Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood, trans., Bhagavad-Gita. The Song of God. New York and Scarborough: New American Library, 1972; c1944, 80.
(3) Anon., The Cloud of Unknowing trans. Clifton Wolters. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1978; c1961. See also Cohn Luibheid, trans., Pseudo-Dionysus, His Complete Works. New York and Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1989.
(4) Bhagavad Gita, ibid., 110.
(5) Paramahansa Ramakrishna in Anon., A Bridge to Eternity. Sri Ramakrishna and His Monastic Order. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1986, 54.
(6) Paramahansa Ramakrishna in Swami Nikhilananda, trans., The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna. New York: Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, 1978; c1942, 290.
(7) Ibid,, 353.
(8) Ibid., 272.
(9) “I shall have to be born once more.” (Ibid., 359.) “On a certain occasion the Master, standing on the semi-circular verandah of his room, said that he would be born again after a hundred years.” (Swami Chetananda, They Lived with God. Life Stories of Some Devotees of Sri Ramakrishna. St. Louis: Vedanta Society of St. Louis, 1989, 65.)
(10) So not an Avatar like Sri Ramakrishna, but the Mother incarnating as herself. Numerous “avatars” have fallen in past years. Those I would have called an “avatar” years ago, I’d no longer accord that status. Yes, I’m avoiding naming names.
(11) The Buddha in Trevor Ling, The Buddha’s Philosophy of Man. Early Indian Buddhist Dialogues. London, etc.: Dent, 1981, xiii.
ART : Lioness – Susan Seddon Boulet