Before I give a few examples, let me give a bit of background.
You know I consider myself a student of cross-cultural spirituality.
The basic questions there are: Who am I? What is “God”? Is there a purpose to life? If so, how do I achieve it? Etc.
If we look at “What is ‘God’?”, we soon encounter Mother and Father God, Shiva and Shakti, the Father and the Holy Spirit.
We find that the Mother is the creator, preserver, and transformer of everything in the domain of matter, mater,Mother, while the Father is void of anything material. If she’s everything, he can be said to be nothing. (2)
They’ve drawn a line. She has dominion over the entire material realm, which extends … I used to think … as far as the Twelfth Dimension. I’m now no longer sure because I’ve learned, from Linda’s sources, that the Transcendental has gradations. (3)
But listen to these next two passages. Keep in mind that I’ve never had a conversation with a living master about these questions. And I certainly would never have dreamed that I’d be talking to an archangel and the Mother herself.
I almost swooned each time one of them confirmed one of my theories. It was like being back in school.
Archangel Michael: The Mother … is the ultimate architect, you know.
Steve Beckow: Yes, and just for our listeners the Mother and the Father are not different.
AAM: They are one.
SB: Yes, they are one. (4)
I’m sitting there, so to speak, with a living master – Archangel Michael – having a conversation with him, and hearing him confirm what I’ve only so far heard from sacred books or from gurus way off in the distance, whom I can’t speak to. I am thrilled.
It would have been enough to have Archangel Michael confirm “in person” that the Mother is the architect of creation, which he drops as if we’re having coffee together. (5) He then goes on to confirm perhaps the most basic axiom of a cross-cultural, New-Age spirituality and that is: The Mother and Father are One.
The impact on me of hearing that teaching directly from him in a conversation was … well, Hindus would appreciate me saying it was like a darshan.
A darshan is a revelation or manifestation of a teacher’s divinity in sight, sound or some other sensory means. It’s an elevating experience for the student. His words were like a darshan to me.
One needs authoritative sources to base core principles of a cross-cultural spirituality on. Statements like these from our sources represent authoritative confirmation for me, which I can cite in my publications. (6) Not only does it free me up as a scholar, but it gives me confidence in what I’ve been writing. And hearing it directly in conversation allowed the teachings to really take root.
Here’s another pet theory. I’ve always held that the Mother/Father metaphor is a teaching device, a useful educational tool. But there’s no gender at the level of the Mother and Father. Michael seems to confirm that particular theory by telling us that the Company of Heaven are drawing on our ideas of gender, to help us understand the nature of God.
Having said that the Mother is the architect of creation and she and the Father are One, he adds:
AAM: You differentiate for purposes of clarity and understanding. But you do not differentiate in terms of what you think of as Source, and that is why I have used this term today, to say that we are fueled by Source. (7)
“You differentiate for purposes of clarity and understanding.” I imagine that sages first used the device of differentiating between a Mother and a Father to reflect prevailing parental procreation patterns. They intended it as a teaching device. It promotes the student’s clarity about and understanding of the nature of God: Active/inactive, silent/sonic, laws/no laws, Everything/Nothing, etc.
In my own eyes, I’ve just had another important theory validated – that the use of the device of Divine Parentage is not an actual comment on God, (8) but simply a useful device for teaching. I was ecstatic. Each of these comments is one more point established in the construction of core principles for a cross-cultural, New-Age spirituality.
(Concluded tomorrow in Part 2.)
(1) If I named some, I’d wound others whom I might leave out. I’ve written private emails to some acknowledging their contribution so they know who they are.
(2) I was much maligned as a child as a “lazy, no-good good-for-nothing.” I wish I’d been alert enough to reply, “God does nothing. Is he lazy?”
(3) That in itself is an example of a mind-blowing acknowledgement. How is it “Transcendental” if it has differentiation? It upsets all our existing knowledge of the Transcendental. I need a bigger brain.
(4) “Archangel Michael on the Angelic Kingdom,” June 13, 2014, at http://goldenageofgaia.com/2014/06/13/archangel-michael-on-the-angelic-kingdom/.
(5) I once saw him in a lucid dream in a cafe onboard ship. That’s the closest I got to having coffee with him.
(6) Of course academia would not entertain my sources of knowledge, but I left academia a long time ago when they wouldn’t recognize the study of enlightenment as being within the university’s paradigm. My writings are not intended for academics such as I knew in the Sixties through Eighties.
(7) “Archangel Michael on the Angelic Kingdom,” ibid.
(8) There are not two forms of God up there who are actually female and male.