exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
The Wedding Song
The Union of Your Spirits
return to "contents" page
©1971 Public Domain Foundation
I am now to be among you at the calling of your hearts
Rest assured this troubadour is acting on My part.
The union of your spirits, here, has caused Me to remain
For whenever two or more of you are gathered in My name
There am I, there is Love.
A man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home
And they shall travel on to where the two shall be as one.
As it was in the beginning is now and til the end
Woman draws her life from man and gives it back again.
And there is Love, there is Love.
Well then what’s to be the reason for becoming man and wife?
Is it love that brings you here or love that brings you life?
And if loving is the answer, then who’s the giving for?
Do you believe in something that you’ve never seen before?
Oh there is Love, there is Love.
Oh the marriage of your spirits here has caused Me to remain
For whenever two or more of you are gathered in My name
There am I, there is Love.
Who is this “I” addressing us? – this “My” and “Me.” Who is speaking,
and whose perspective is offered?
The altered and popular, not the original, version of The Wedding Song
offers narration by a nameless commentator. This invisible Greek chorus
instructs us, for example, that the “troubadour is acting on His
part,” and that disciples of love are “gathered in His name.” Further,
such third-person perspective is sealed with a simple declaration,
“There is Love, there is Love.”
In the original version, however, the detached point of view is shattered
with first-person pronouns. No longer altogether disembodied, the narrator itself is now presented as a character in the story. We’re given to know that the “troubadour is acting on My part,” and devotees of love are “gathered,” not in the troubadour’s name, but “in My name.” Gone is the generalized concluding affirmation, replaced by a more jarring, “There am I, there is Love.”
For many years, I knew only of the popular version, which seems to
cast the troubadour as protagonist, the mover-and-shaker of The Wedding Song’s message. The “troubadour is acting on His part” suggests a measure of autonomy and self-directed activity. But in the original version we find the troubadour deferring to another, playing a supportive role, now “acting on My part.”
Who is directing the troubadour?
The original writing invites us to look at life and love through the eyes
of a particular person. We’re offered the narrator’s unique perspective.
The speaker in The Wedding Song not only knows what might
normally be known by any person with five senses, but knows things
that no one else knows, a high-moment aspect of knowledge generally
unavailable to hapless humankind: “Do you believe in something that
you’ve never seen before?”
Who is speaking to us in The Wedding Song? Who is the main character?
It is Love Personified: Authentic Eternal Romantic Love. An emissary of Heaven, she, herself, reveals her identity with an emphatic first-person pronoun: to those gathered in her name, she asserts, “There am I, there is Love.” Love is her name.
If True Love were a person, The Wedding Song, as directly-channeled
information from advanced Spirit Guides in Summerland, reveals what
she would say to us.
True Love’s teaching is so momentous, so integral to spiritual evolvement
and destiny, so germane to eternal joy and happiness, but so
contrary to that which passes for romantic love on this planet, that
Heaven smashed dimensional barriers normally separating our two
worlds to pro-actively deliver a message of highest importance.
Kairissi. When the author asked us to provide ancillary commentary
to his analysis of The Wedding Song, my immediate reaction was, what could I possibly add?
Elenchus. Don’t worry, I’ll cover for you.
K. Uh-huh. It’s just that, Love Personified virtually made a
special trip from Heaven to tell us about authentic romance,
and so it’s really hard to follow that act.
E. I think we’ll be fine with this, Babe. Remember our
discussions on the meaning of marriage with Day Star and
Big Water? We said that even though “there’s only one love
story,” that all lovers experience certain universals, it’s also
true that each romance is unique, each couple will reflect
the joy of God’s mind in a special way.
K. Yes, of course, I should have remembered that. Let’s
tell the readers about the timeless principles of Love, but
filtered through our own experience. Suddenly, I have a lot
to say. I might not let you say anything at all.
E. That would be quite unusual for you.
this troubadour is acting on My part
Authentic Sacred Romantic Love is speaking to us. She seeks to influence, direct, and enhance our lives. The upper-case denotation of “My” suggests that she is well aware of the primary importance both of her message and her role in the lives of humankind.
Despite Love’s preeminence, she reveals her methods via the agency of
another; that is, she enlists the services of the “troubadour” who, she
says, “is acting on My part.”
The Troubadours, we discern by inference and by other afterlife testimonies, constitute a brotherhood and sisterhood of Spirit Guides. They believe that the experience of Authentic Sacred Romantic Love is the best means by which the soul, human consciousness, will evolve and develop toward fulfillment of its “made in the image” destiny.
Allow me to share one of my very favorite and most profound afterlife
testimonies. Troubadour Spirit-Guide Margaret is speaking here (see the
entire text on the Word Gems site).
[True romantic] love is the atmosphere of this life. You have
not come to the arctic regions, but to the region where love
is a pervading influence, warming all hearts. No spirit can
find its most perfect development who misses from his life
the experience which [romantic] love can give him. If he has
lived a loveless life on earth, the possibility is still reserved
for him here. The certainty will come to him in the future. His
being cannot be perfected without it.
This is humorous: “You have not come to the arctic regions”; after living
in, what is for many, a loveless world, we’re convinced that this is the norm. But notice also Margaret’s bold and unequivocal statement: “No spirit can find its most perfect development who misses … [romantic] love… His being cannot be perfected without it.”
I find her plain words astounding in their directness. The Troubadour
Guides, essentially, present sacred romantic love as a “salvation theory.”
While the soul was created perfect, whole, and complete, needing no “salvation” as such, it seems that it cannot know its own perfection without interacting with a Sacred Beloved. As we’ll learn, this will cost a few dollars more.
But, why does Love work through the Troubadour Guides? Why doesn’t
she act on her own part? The answer is, she cannot. True Love, the nar-
rator of The Wedding Song, is an abstraction, not a real person, with no
power to effect her will in the world. The Troubadour Guides, however,
powerful Spirit Beings, are quite real, as real as you and I. And therefore
Love works through them. They are her agents.
troubadour – origin and history
The Wedding Song’s message represents a philosophy of living concerning matters of utmost importance; so important, in fact, that the song’s lyrics were sent to us directly from the other side. We presume, but not without warrant, that a Troubadour Spirit-Guide both authored the lyrics and facilitated their transmission.
Why did this service group of Spirit-Guide helpers take to themselves the
title of “troubadour”? Dr. Joseph Campbell, in his Power Of Myth (see the Prologue), offers most enlightening discussion on the origin of this term.
For thousands of years, as I discuss in Word Gems articles, marriage
existed as a property interest of clan-chieftains. Historian Will Durant
explains that marriage began as a form of slavery. Female concubines
were listed, so to speak, on a patriarch’s balance-sheet along with real
estate, supplies, other slaves, and cattle. The modern ritual of “carrying
the bride across the threshold” is a vestigial holdover from days when
female slaves were taken, brutalized, and carried off to the lair of some
captor. Also, check out the etymology of “marriage” in the Oxford English
Dictionary where you’ll find its roots linked to notions of property and
In the twelve century, however, like a most welcomed spring thaw after
a severe North Dakota winter, we find initial-stirrings of a new perspective. For the first time in recorded history, in the West, romantic love was promoted as a primary reason for marriage.
This does not mean that no one in earlier millennia ever fell in love
and wanted to marry for love, but it was the first time that the great
idea of authentic romance was put forward in a systematic, somewhat organized manner. This is what the troubadours of the twelfth century
did. They began to redefine the meaning of marriage, to popularize love
as its impetus, and thereby changed the course of societal evolution. As
Dr. Campbell informs us, the troubadours virtually invented the modern
concept of romantic love.
Who were the historical “troubadours”? - a term suggesting artfulness, deriving from “invent” or “compose." They were a group of poets, artists,
writers, and musicians who sang, wrote, and preached of the power of
romantic love. Dr. Campbell asserts that the troubadours were the first
to promote romantic love as a person-to-person relationship.
Eros, and even agape, Dr. Campbell posits, are or can be impersonal
loves, but amor is heart-to-heart. Agape magnanimously loves all, “the
just and the unjust,” and “sends rain” to both, as the scripture suggests;
and raw eros, too, unconcerned about exclusivity, is not so particular
with whom it sleeps and will accept any alluring body.
But amor, says Dr. Campbell, wants only a particular one: it is a man’s love for one woman, one particular woman, and woman’s love for one man, one particular man, and not romantic love in general. The true marriage is based on amor, a most personal and personalized love, that which springs from the soul’s recognition of identity in the other.
We feel the temperature in the room rising now. Dr. Campbell is very
emphatic: the greatest tragedy of the inauthentic marriage, he says, revolves around not recognizing one’s soul-counterpart in the other person - “and that’s what the troubadours stood for.”
What happened to the troubadours? Dr. Campbell laments to explain
their tragic end. The Catholic Church, in its characteristic
malevolent ways, hunted down the troubadours and exterminated
them. This horrid event occurred in conjunction with the
Church’s murderous efforts to eradicate the rising influence of
competing church-groups in France. You will want to read about
this sorrowful episode for yourself in Dr. Campbell’s Power Of
Editor’s note: The Catholic Church is not more evil than other
religions. All ego-institutions of the world, large and small,
exhibit the same cultish power-and-control characteristics
(see my Word Gems article on “Cultism”). The RCC has been
at its trade longer than most, has crafted for itself a long history
of malfeasance, and, consequently, has made itself a big
target. If we were of a mind to, we could easily make a case
of seeming RCC exclusivity of evil as there are so many examples:
(1) the extermination of the troubadours; or (2) the
slaughter of the followers of Francis of Assisi (see Kenneth
Clark’s Civilisation), along with (3) many similar atrocities; or
(4) one of the great genocidal programs, the Inquisition (see
The History Channel’s documentary for a survey of this horrific
episode of barbarity), lasting for some hundreds of years,
during which, as Eckhart Tolle points out, a woman could be
tortured and burned at the stake as a witch simply for loving
art and nature, even for walking alone in the woods, which,
to a threatened religious elite, constituted a seditious act of
“ownself” (see Adrian’s Foreword); (5) and, in recent times,
the sordid episode of priestly pedophilia and its cover-up at
the highest levels of church government; (6) and also a less
dramatic example of propaganda and prevarication, close to
home for our purposes, concerning The Wedding Song. Before
the song became widely known, the Church had labeled
it “secular music” and would not allow it at wedding ceremonies;
however, with the great surge of popularity of The Wedding
Song, with more and more couples demanding that it be
part of their wedding, the political Church reversed course;
not only did it now suddenly deem the song to be spiritual
but began to preach that The Wedding Song constituted a virtual
message from Jesus, to all “gathered in his name,” such
that, the RCC is the true church with Jesus granting, to the
church, authority to bind couples in marriage. But, as we’ll
see, this is not the message of The Wedding Song. (7) We
could go on for some time offering other examples.
Footnote: Allow me to digress for a moment as I amble,
via a “back door,” into what I consider to be an important
related item. In “Prometheus” I introduced the concept
of the “group soul,” a loving relationship of spirit-persons
on the other side who live in close-community. The following
quotations are from The Role of Affinities and the
Group-Soul, a chapter from the book, “Electronic Contact
with the Dead: What Do the Voices Tell Us?” by Anabela
Cardoso. The author offers testimonies from discarnates
about their lives:
“Experience shows us that spirits of the same degree,
of the same character, and animated by the same sentiments,
are united in groups and families ...”
“Let us remark again that spirits are attracted to each
other by the similarity of their qualities and that they,
thus, form sympathetic groups or families.”
“When you pass away the trans-entities [those on the
other side] to which you belong, because of your soul,
will await you.”
Notice this. We “belong” to a family-group of loving beings
- because of our “soul,” because of who we are on
the deep inside, because of a common bond of love. The following words are from the other side:
“...and I go down to my group, I go to the soul!”
“It’s we all.”
“It’s your father speaking, all together… It’s your father,
it’s all of us!”
“It’s your mother, it’s all of us!”
“... they live in communion.”
How sweet are the words “we all”! I know what Anabela
Cardoso is talking about as I’ve experienced it, too.
During the last 15 years, in my investigations of psychic-mediums, six members of my “family in heaven” have communicated with me; some of them, repeatedly. They’ve identified themselves, at times, by name or
by referencing incidents in my life that only we would know about.
More than once, the attending psychic-medium informed me that the responding relatives exuded great joy in having finally made contact with me. I could feel their intense fervency in wanting to get a message to me. These closest relatives share with me a bond of affection that feels like a glowing ember tucked away in my deepest person. Over time this sense of warm familial affection has grown and grown.
A curiosity to me, five of these soul-group family members are from my mother's side of my family: grandparents, an aunt, a cousin father-figure, a cousin former priest. In any case, in my thoughts and prayers, I often “talk” to these closest loved ones, and I sense their answers. They sometimes come to me in dreams, and not long ago I had a waking “vision” of my grandfather beckoning me, wanting me to come over to
his side of life, so desirous was he of my company.
As the years have passed it’s become increasingly obvious that the “family in heaven” is very much part of my life. I do not feel closer to one more than another as the “we all” bond of love is quite intense; that said, I now count my older double-cousin John, a former RCC priest, as a closest brother. John has communicated with me several times by means of different psychic-mediums. I featured him in the “Dedication” of the “Prometheus” book. He specifically wanted me to know that he works with me now in all of these books and articles. It’s important to John that the truth be known, especially in the area of religion, which has burdened and deceived its victims -- the family and everyone -- in their legions. This negative influence does not exist on the other side; not in the “better neighborhoods.”
Religion -- as opposed to spirituality -- constitutes a vast and terrible curse upon humankind, soon to be expunged from our lives. We shall not mourn its passing.
But here’s what will never be set aside:
You belong to a soul-group. You have a loving family waiting for you. There are people, “somewhere out there,” who love you very much and long to see you and be with you. This is the great reality. This is where you will live. This is your eternal future. And consider this: your own Twin Soul is also part of that close-knit family group. They can’t wait for you two to finally be together so that “we all” can rejoice in your happiness.
my cousin John, 1943
a seminary student
troubadour – a brotherhood and sisterhood of Spirit Guides
On what I call the “lower levels” of the initial port-of-entry to the astral
realms, we find a patchwork of mismatched congeries, all sorts of competing groups, clubs, churches, philosophical societies, cliques, “isms,” assemblies, organizations, and the like. People gather together, as in our world, for advantage, to multiply strength in numbers. But all this rank egoism doesn’t work out so well for them.
I say “lower level” of Summerland because most of these groups are just
collective-egos trying to “beat’em and show’em,” as they always did, in
a display of jockeying for position and power. This tawdry way of life is
not far removed, only one small step higher, from the stark “me-ism”
we find in the Dark Realms; it’s something that’s allowed, tolerated, but
not encouraged, by the Spirit Guides who superintend activities over
there. No one in these “hurray for our side” groups is allowed to proselytize, bother, or invade the space of another; no one has permission to “get in your face,” as these groups are strictly regulated and must keep
to themselves. And that’s where they’ll remain, in their own insulated,
self-congratulating little groups, until they wake up one day, realizing the
sorry state of their own blinded hearts – and how much they’ve been
missing in the “real world.”
Andrew Jackson Davis, the great mystic and spiritual teacher of the latter
1800s, speaks of his visions of Summerland. (See his book, “Death and
the Afterlife.”) He tells of a wild-west commotion, all shapes and sizes,
concerning what he terms “brotherhoods” dominating the lower sectors
Jackson reports of groups representing the Catholics, the Muslims, the Shakers, and indeed every religious sect; some of these groups go back thousands of years to the Gnostics, and to the ancient Egyptian mystery cults, ones who still believe in Ammon Ra; groups devoted to philosophies of ancient Greece, Babylon, and other early civilizations; groups representing primitive peoples, such as the American Indian and the Australian Bushman; there would also be the Flat-Earthers, the New-Agers, the Pythagoreans, and the Platonists; groups promoting atheism, polytheism, or animism; groups divided according to country: the Germans, the British, the French, and every nation; groups who live like Gypsies, just wanting to travel all the time without putting down roots. We could list many more; it’s a zoo.
It should be noted, as well, that Emanuel Swedenborg, one of the most
accomplished and famous persons of the eighteenth century, also reported of these multitudinous groups and brotherhoods in his own mystical visions of Summerland.
But not all groups in Summerland are dysfunctional. As one matures in the next world, begins to throw off the parochial and nationalistic narrowness, the fear-and-guilt based mentality, one will move into “better neighborhoods” where people come together in order to multiply strength, this time not for private advantage, but for the greater good of all.
Elizabeth Fry, one of my favorite afterlife reporters, speaks of those within her circle of activity who sometimes work together on various service projects:
There is, in a sense, organization here [on the other side] --
there is a feeling that everything is in its place, but there is no
conscious organization here… there is always the realization
of greater possibilities… because nothing is static here, everything
has the opportunity for change; and when a person
begins to seek, begins to change in themselves, begins to desire
things of a better order, so, automatically, gradually, they
will find those things – it’s all a state of being, a state of mind.
Every existence in which one might find himself is a state of
mind, a state of awareness, a consciousness…
There are no actual leaders [here] as such – we have an
organization which is so subtle and yet so natural – because,
a person here, for instance, does not, in a sense, ‘give orders’;
we have groups of souls who do special work – but
we all realize, automatically, within ourselves, what our part
is, what work we have to do; and we realize that we are all
interwoven, one with another – I think it is [that] we are all
very conscious of this oneness of spirit. Here, [in these ‘better
neighborhoods,’] no one glories in being a leader – whereas
in your world [in various organizations] you do get this sort of
glorification of the individual [leader]; the first thing a person
must learn here, if they are to progress, is to lose this idea of
The brotherhood and sisterhood of the Spirit-Guide Troubadours are a
service group devoted to human evolvement. It is their studied belief and
opinion that Authentic Sacred Romantic Love is the best way forward,
most likely to produce good developmental results for human
beings – as opposed to other service groups, also well intentioned, who
might advocate different approaches to helping the immature. These
others are welcome to their views, but I think the Troubadours got this
Kairissi. There’s a saying that “love creates its own morality.”
Many people are afraid of this kind of talk as it strikes
them as libertinism. But I don’t think so. I think it’s part of
Elenchus. How would you counter the skeptics?
K. Those who are afraid, let’s say, of a self-directed path, I
would count as children psychologically. They think that “the
good” is written in stone somewhere, that we can codify it,
that it came from “on high,” from some august father-figure,
brought down to lesser beings, and now all we have to do is
memorize the rules.
E. So, then they’ll say, what’s wrong with memorizing rules if
they’re good rules?
K. This is a very large subject, but I’ll say this: two people can
perform the same act, but, for one it might be “good” while
for the other it could be “evil.”
E. What makes the change?
K. Different situations, different intentions, and different
people requiring different things. The boy scout helping the
little old lady across the street is “good” only if she wants to
cross the street.
E. Hit him with your purse.
K. (small smile) But even if she’s wanting to go, there’s the issue
of his motives. If he’s truly trying to help, that’s one thing, but if he’s just trying to earn a merit badge to be “better” than the other scouts, or maybe attempting to impress a 13 year-old girl watching him be a hero, now we have problems.
E. I think your point is well taken.
K. Things are not always what they appear to be. When we
say that “love creates its own morality,” a certain measure
of honest intention is assumed. But, granting this, we will
find that if one’s deepest being cries out for something, then
we must conclude that a natural, authentic desire has been
activated – which means that it deserves to be satisfied. But,
wait, I know what you’re going to say.
E. I was going to say, all people who want something really
badly will make this claim that the feeling deserves to be satisfied.
K. The claim is made but not convincingly. I said it must be
done with honest intention. This means we must access a
deeper part of ourselves and not just the transient emotions
that want something one minute and something else the
next. The feeling, in order to be honored, has to represent
authentic need and desire.
E. That sounds tricky.
K. It’s not for children and the immature. It’s for the spiritually
minded, for those who’ve come to know themselves in an
honest and realistic way. And this is how natural law in the
afterlife works; here, too, if we’re able to perceive it.
E. Alright, I’ve been playing devil’s advocate to draw out your
best understanding. I agree. The authority of Authentic Sacred
Romantic Love is a beautiful concept. And really it’s all we have in determining who’s a true mate and who’s just after "cheap thrills," as Mary mused on her wedding day.
K. Our “internal guidance system” is all we’ll ever have, even a
million years from now, to determine right and wrong. People
don’t tell us what to do over there. We have to “go within” to find out what’s real.
E. What advice would you give to all of the “Marys” trapped
in bad marriages who hear from the Sunday pulpit that God
hates divorce, and that you need to work on your marriage,
and this is your cross to bear, and to do less means you’re a
bad person, and God won’t be happy with you - now, go have
a nice Sunday afternoon.
K. I would say, first of all, you must honestly access the “real
you,” the true self within, and listen to your own soul’s whisperings.
This is your communication with God. You must learn to trust yourself – not the conniving ego, but the true self within, linked to God. Don’t be afraid to trust yourself. Don’t let church politicians, falsely claiming to represent God, run your life. Learn to trust yourself, your true self.
In a brief song constituted of only 189 words, we presume that every
word counts. We learn from many afterlife testimonies that it’s not so
easy for a person on the other side to transmit, to channel, a message
to a receiver on this side. Therefore, acknowledging this systemic difficulty, even the little word “this” might be purposeful in conveying some
meaning for us.
The Guides who inspired the lyrics of The Wedding Song could have said “a troubadour,” which would have been easier and more straightforward, but, instead, we are given “this troubadour.” Such particularizing injects an element of question and complexity into the proceedings – because, if it’s “this troubadour,” one, it seems, we are to take note of, well then, where is this person?
In addition to "this," we notice several other terms denoting a sense
of immediacy, present moment, live and real, and eye-witness. Let’s list
I am now to be among you…
Rest assured this troubadour…
The union of your spirits, here…
has caused Me to remain…
As it was in the beginning is now…
Is it love that brings you here…
the marriage of your spirits here…
It would appear that Love would have us envision, with this song,
that we’ve suddenly opened a door to find a wedding ceremony already
in progress, here and now, right this moment.
In effect, we’re asked: Can you see the Spirit-Guide Troubadour, “this
troubadour,” standing as witness to the couple’s happy event? The troubadour is here, right now, her glorious Spirit-Being self, right out in
front, a representative of high Heaven, lending her august personage to
the holy and celestial proceedings in process. And we’ve all come to celebrate “the union” of the couple’s “spirits” – and where would that be happening? Why, of course, it’s right “here” and "now."
Love Personified, too, informs us that she will certainly “remain” – remain
where? Well, funny question, that would be “here,” and “now,” and, indeed, forevermore, with this sacred romantic couple – where else
would True Love be?
Why all this emphasis on the immediacy of this moment? I believe the
answer is this: The Wedding Song, as we will see in verse two, heavily promotes “life” as an advanced level of consciousness. And this consciousness is centered upon “the now,” the present moment. The dysfunctional ego, wanting more time to work on itself, tends to focus on the future where it believes salvation will be found; or on the past where it loves to “play sad movies in the mind” of its victim-story. But advanced consciousness lives in the present moment as it accesses the “one life” of God within (see the discussion below).
This is a large subject, but vital to understand. You'll want to study Eckhart Tolle’s “Power Of Now” for a more complete instruction on this important issue.
For whenever two or more of you are gathered in My name
I struggled to understand this phrase for a long time, some years, in fact. “Why would Love say two or more,” I wondered, “since we’re talking about a wedding ceremony which involves only two?”
My first efforts to rationalize attempted to define all this as “agape” love,
a generalized Christian love (see Dr. Campbell, above), a sacrificial love,
which would certainly apply to a romantic “two,” but would not exclude
“more,” that is, any number of others who might also want to devote
themselves to Christian love; all of whom would be “gathered in My
name,” which, at first, I presumed was a reference to Christ.
But I would learn that none of this is the case here. The Wedding Song’s
intended meaning is quite different. We must guard against injecting
private interpretations into the text but must carefully search for clues,
within the context of the song’s lyrics and also in relevant related material.
To do otherwise, to insert personal opinion, is to inflict a violence
of private agenda upon the text and to misunderstand Love’s intended
Editor’s note: There is a term, “eisegesis,” which speaks to this
mishandling of the writings of others. Eisegesis, whose Greek root-words denote “leading” and “into,” suggests a diseased literary
analysis of injecting one’s own prejudices and private viewpoints
into another’s message. It’s a propaganda technique, and we see it
everywhere in society - as opposed to “exegesis,” a “leading out,”
an extraction of the author’s original intended message. We find
eisegesis commonly employed by the “fake news” industry, ever
yearning to make things seem to be what they’re not. It’s especially
ubiquitous when the stakes for power-and-control are high; therefore, do not be surprised when eisegesis becomes standard practice, for example, when interpreting the Bible (among squabbling and competing denominations), the scientific evidence for the afterlife (by materialistic scientists), the U.S. Constitution (in the hands of totalitarians), or what the President said today (as reported by a disloyal opposition). It’s all pretty predictable once you understand how the eisegesis game is played.
Kairissi. The phrase “union of your spirits” reminds me of a lover's phrase,
something said by a friend of Spirit-Guide Margaret - “You are
mine,” which the friend believed to be the sweetest words.
K. I can tell this troubles you.
E. No… it’s nothing, Dear… just a momentary pang from the
old days before we were together… you know, my old terror
of losing you.
K. (softly) The Guides say that Twins can never be truly separated,
Dear, but… it can feel that way.
E. I know, but… what did you want me to know about “you
K. I was going to say something different, but now, sensing
your old sorrow, I’d just like to encourage you… (very softly)
… you can’t lose me, Ellus… you know that can’t happen.
E. (deeply sighing) I know, Dear… it’s just the “black dog,”
my old despair, trying to pull me down.
E. This notion of “you are mine” is rather provocative.
K. Even John and Mary use it at times. “You belong to me” is
in many love songs.
E. And what is “ownership” anyway? It’s something in our
heads, a thought-form. It’s the concept of “me” joined to
another thought-form. “Me” and “lover” attach themselves
K. There seems to be a healthy and a not-so-healthy way of
doing this. What’s the difference?
E. Well, when John and Mary say “you are mine,” they attempt
to add something to themselves, to make themselves
"more,” in order to quiet an inner whispering of “I am not
enough.” They virtually use each other as proxy for spiritual
growth. It is said that brain-chemicals fuel the “love” of John
and Mary, but it’s more than that. The “love” felt by the dysfunctional
ego, reduced to core essence, is just neurotic wanting and needing.
K. And what’s wrong with wanting and needing? I might say
that I want and need you, as well.
E. But, Dear, the important word is “neurotic.” The wanting
and needing of Twins is based on sacred destiny and authentic
desire, that for which we were made to seek. But the wanting and needing of the ego is founded upon “I don’t have enough because I am not enough.” It’s a huge chasm of difference.
K. And so, when we as Twins say, “you are mine,” what does it mean?
E. I think it has to do with perceiving each other in exclusive
terms, that sense of “one particular woman loving one par-
K. This seems a “bridge too far” from John and Mary’s notion of “there’s more than one fish in the sea.”
E. Twins are not even allowed to come together until their
sense of self has been cleansed. When this happens, they’ll
no longer be tempted to use each other as unwarranted enhancement.
K. And yet Twins do feel a sense of wholeness in each other’s
presence, of no longer being alone.
E. The sense of wholeness comes from within each mate’s
own soul; it only seems to be coming from the other person.
K. Darling Dear, isn’t it intriguing that in the Genesis story,
the love relations between the first Twins, Eve and Adam, is
called a “knowing.” I think the psychic-shaman author of Genesis was trying to say that Twins help each other to know one’s own soul.
E. I think that’s a very important insight, Baby Doll.
K. Can you expand on this, Dear?
E. The “union of spirits” means many things, not to exclude
lovers’ sense of “you are mine.” But this “ownership” is
not an attempt by the ego to add something to itself in order
to satisfy an inner neediness of “I am not enough.” Instead,
with Twins, their cognition of “you are mine” relates to perceptions
of destiny and God’s will for them, each as aid to the
other, to explore the riches of the soul.
two or more … gathered in My name … There am I
Ok, hang on now. This business of getting at the original intended meaning of The Wedding Song is about to get a little intense. To a cursory, too religious view of things, this section of the song might seem to be saying, “Jesus loves us, Jesus is at this wedding ceremony, Jesus is blessing this couple’s marriage, Jesus gives authority to the church to marry couples, and all those gathered in Jesus’ name today are offering well-wishes to the happy couple.”
Well, it’s a really nice sentiment. And while we are happy for the smiling
couple, the above kumbaya-eisegesis takes us in the wrong direction.
This standard-bromide interpretation is not the meaning of The Wedding
Song. Rest assured, the song does offer a most encouraging message,
but we’ll have to go deeper to get at it, that is, the real message.
Let us quickly become aware now that “two or more … gathered in My
name … There am I” are direct references to scriptures lifted from both
the Old and New Testaments. The Troubadour Guides who channeled
the text of The Wedding Song, we must remind ourselves, did so employing only 189 words. Every word counts, we presume, within such
short compass, and not a single word, likely, was to be wasted in terms
of delivering a specific message.
The phrases, “two or more … gathered in My name … There am I,” carried precise significance in their original biblical settings. A college instructor from many decades ago warned, “A text out of context is a pretext.”
Quite so. And we’ll need to determine the original contextual meanings
of these phrases in order to understand why the Troubadour Guides
embraced them here in The Wedding Song.
two or more … gathered in My name … There am I -- from
the Gospel Of Matthew
The Gospel of Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. As such, we
find the author frequently using the following argument: “I believe such-and-such, and you can know what I say is true because the Old Testament preached the same thing, and here’s chapter-and-verse for you to look it up.”
This formulary might mean something to the Jewish mind, those schooled in the authority of the Torah. Gentile readers, however, would be unimpressed, and, for them, the logic would fall flat. Therefor, you won’t find Paul, “the apostle to the Gentiles,” very often referencing Old Testament precepts. That kind of reasoning would cut no ice to those outside of the synagogue.
Why is this important here to our discussion? “Two or more … gathered
in My name … There am I” allude directly to Matthew chapter 18, verses
15 through 20. These phrases have been, "cut and pasted," transplanted in The Wedding Song. However, the larger context of Matthew 18 is important, too. Let’s look at it now:
Matthew chapter 18 begins with a question, “Who will be greatest in the
kingdom of heaven?” – it will not be the worldly powerful, not those of
“pomp and revenue,” as Thomas Paine used to say, but ones emulating
a humble little child.
Beginning in verse 6 we find a warning to those wielding worldly power:
if you injure, become a detriment to, these “little ones,” the humble
(spoken of in the first verses), then beware as it will not be well for you,
especially in coming realms.
The parable of the lost lamb is then offered, the meaning of which, in
the flow of the chapter’s discussion, becomes, “The humble, the little
ones, might appear as lost sheep and unimportant, but God knows who
and where they are, and they will not be lost to him – your ‘pomp and
revenue’ posturings, notwithstanding.”
And now we come to Matthew’s phrases in question. In verse 15 we find
instruction to the church concerning how to deal with members who cause offense, the overbearing and haughty, who give little heed to proscriptions against injuring “the humble, the little ones.”
This section of Matthew is often used by churches to create basis for
ecclesiastical authority. It seemingly gives them a big gun. We find directive here to go to the sinning brother or sister, point out the sin of pride and division, and attempt to win them over to a better view. Every effort is to be made to keep this from escalating into a bigger problem: “Try to handle it just between the two of you.”
But, if the sinning church member “will not listen” to sweet reason, the
next verse continues, then go and find one or two other mature Christians
and revisit the recalcitrant brother or sister. At this point, the author
of Matthew, characteristically, supports his advice with a scripture from
the Old Testament, Deuteronomy chapter 19, which speaks of multiple
witnesses, whose job is to establish the fact of a matter.
By including others, the author of Matthew insists, “every situation in
question can be given legal standing,” that is, by “the testimony of two
or three witnesses.” Notice, these two or three witnesses are not eyewitnesses of the original offense but witnesses to the fact that the sinning brother or sister continues to act in a wrong-headed manner. With
this “two or three,” this “two or more,” we’re getting closer now to understanding an important element of The Wedding Song.
And here’s the dramatic conclusion: if the obstreperous brother or sister
will not listen to the good advice of two or three emissary Christians, acting on behalf of church leadership – reminiscent of The Wedding Song’s “acting on My part” – then, take this bad report of insubordination to the elders of the church. And, we are not surprised to learn – we can see it coming – if the sinning brother or sister rejects even the elders, the
authority-structure of the church, then he or she is to be excommunicated and treated as pariah.
In verse 18, purportedly from the lips of Jesus, a directive bestowing
great authority upon church officials, we learn that “whatsoever church
leaders decide in such matters will be backed up in the high courts of
heaven.” Imagine that! - “whatsoever” they decide is just fine with God!
Well, that’s a pretty open blank check, such a handy tool for churchmen
who might run toward totalitarian purposes.
And then, finally, in Matthew 18:20, we come to the famous quoted
words. Here’s a paraphrase: “Whenever two or three witnesses come
together in my (Jesus’) name, that is, by my authority, in terms of strictly
ruling over the church, with my word as law, as I delegate authority to
my agents, the church elders, then, there I am.”
Elenchus. This romantic-love stuff is serious business. It can be life or death. I’m thinking of the sonnet by Edna St. Vincent Millay:
“Love is not all: it is not meat nor drink, nor
slumber nor a roof against the rain... Love can-
not fill the thickened lung with breath, nor clean
the blood, nor set the fractured bone; yet many
a man is making friends with death even as I
speak, for lack of love alone.”
Kairissi. Yes, love is not “roof against the rain; yet many a
man” leaves the safety of home and hearth, “making friends
with death” – and why? “for lack of love alone.” Romantic
love, in effect, is listed here as a staple requirement of life,
along with food, shelter, and clothing.
E. She should have come with warning labels.
K. Many men have learned this too late. And consider this.
During the Civil War, Confederate commanders forbade the
playing of the love-song “Lorena” because it made the men
so homesick for lost lovers that they would desert and just
E. I can think of one, too. Victor Frankl, in his concentration-camp
memoirs, speaks of a fellow-inmate who attempted
to make a pact with Heaven, such that, he would willingly
endure whatever brutality might come his way, if only his
beloved might be spared, wherever she was.
K. What is this thing we call love, Elenchus? What
gets hold of us on such a deep level that makes everything
else not worth our while, even to continue living, if we cannot
be with a beloved?
E. It’s a question the best minds have pondered for a very
K. And I think some people are scared of this great power
of love. They run away from it.
E. Why do you think they run?
K. I think it makes the “in charge” people feel out of control.
They don’t like it when they’re not “running the show.” Moreover,
as love teaches us about ourselves, people are afraid of
what they might find in those secret dungeons of the heart,
long kept under lock and key.
E. That’s a great insight. I think people are afraid of finding
out that they might be a bad person way down deep. They’ve
been taught they’re intrinsically bad by the churches.
K. And some people hide from this scariness by acting as if
love isn’t important. I’m thinking of the Star Trek movie, Generations.
Picard is an “in charge” kind of guy, “running every
show.” He lives an austere life, not much pleasure for him;
he’s a man under duty and postures that being a captain is
a highest goal. And then suddenly he’s sent to the Nexus –
a vague form of Summerland – and he’s automatically given
his heart’s secret desire. He’s now exposed, required to
view what he really wanted all along. And what is that? Is it sitting in captain's chair? No, none of that. The “in charge” man finds himself thrust into a family setting, with little children scampering about on Christmas day, opening presents, with his pretty wife preparing the holiday meal. And so, with all of his officious bluster about, “I can’t make a difference unless I sit in the captain’s chair,” all of that was just
empty talk as he hid from himself. His real heart was with his
furtively longed-for wife and little children in a distant world.
E. It is astounding to come face-to-face with what we’re made
of, and made for. Several reports from Guides in Summerland
say that there will be no real heaven for us, no real joy and
happiness, without finding true love. Picard had repressed this truth.
K. Repression works for a time; but eventually, it becomes
a worn out tool. We cannot run from our truest desires indefinitely.
E. Which means that we cannot run from ourselves, our true
K. That’s right, and Mary, especially, tries to do this, in her
great efforts to make something work that was never meant to work.
E. The afterlife is known for many things, but a major purpose
of that coming realm is to provide venue for facing the hidden
person of the heart.
K. It’s a place where we can’t hide from ourselves anymore.
E. In that world where the principle of “thoughts are things”
takes to high flight, we are finally required, if we are to advance
ourselves, to enter what is known as “the mandated
solitude and introspection.”
K. Darling Dear, as you spoke just now I realized something.
It is often said that we are to grow in consciousness – and
sometimes I’ve asked myself, just what are we to become
conscious of? But now I think I know – we are to become
aware of our destiny of love; we are to know that we require
love as much as the air we breathe.
E. I will just add… For me, that object of consciousness has a
goddess-face, a melodious voice, and comes into view before
me just now.
K. Millay wrote of leaving hearth and well-ordered life in
search of true love. This is a universal calling. The Wedding
Song, too, speaks of this embarkment as “leaving father and
mother” and all formative relationships. Mary is very tardy
to obey this latter directive. It’s so difficult for her. All of her
womanly instincts cry out for the successful home life and
protest against any threat to it; all of her dreams intermingle
with present family. Mary believes herself to be under duty;
in this, she is like Picard and enjoys little pleasure in her life.
But even Mary will yet admit to another, more insistent, “cry
of the heart,” this time, calling her to authentic desire and
destiny; like Picard, she will yet find herself delivered to her
true mate, her true purpose for living.
two or more … gathered in My name … There am I – where’s the kumbaya in all this church authority?
So, what’s with all this dark-spirited chatter about church authority in
The Wedding Song? - this heavy-handed approach, this “my way or we’ll
excommunicate you”? How does this kind of talk make you feel? I
thought we were all going to have a jolly good time today and have a big
party. I mean, there’s the bride, she’s so effusively happy, and the groom
over there, well, he’s smiling the biggest wolf-smiles of his life, and all the
guests, getting fidgety now, can hardly wait to break open the bottles of
bubbly and start the tinkling of glasses and the risqué jokes. And now we
learn that The Wedding Song has referenced all of this depressing church
draconianism! We’re just not having so much fun yet.
This isn’t what the bride signed on for when she insisted that The Wedding Song be played just after the exchanging of vows. But someone
needs to get a message to the bride – tell her not to worry, she was
correct after all in her instincts about this song: it does come with a very
happy theme, happier than we know; but, we’ll have to go deeper to find
out what’s going on here.
two or more … gathered in My name … There am I – the Troubadours
as artful teachers
We’ve spoken of the historical troubadours who virtually invented the
modern concept of romantic love. But there is another reason why a
brotherhood and sisterhood of Spirit Guides took to themselves the title
of The Troubadours.
The historical troubadours were poets, musicians, writers, artists, and
they invented, as they went along, as purpose required, all manner of
creative and artful expression to promote their philosophies. And I think we’re looking at a most creative, even whimsical, means by which The Troubadours decided to publish and promote their teachings in The Wedding Song.
Editor’s note: Before I proceed here, I would advise you to read on
the Word Gems site my articles concerning the Bible as without
infallibility. This topic is far too large to be addressed here, but allow
me to say, as one small point among many that could be made, Matthew has no dropped-from-heaven authority. It is not God’s word;
hardly. It was written nearly a hundred years, possibly, more than
a hundred, after the time of Jesus. The author of Matthew never
heard Jesus speak. And the “Jesus” of Matthew says things that the
real Jesus would never have said. See the discussion in the Word
Gems articles on fake and forged biblical documents – just as we
have a blizzard of “fake news” today - orchestrated back then by The
Worldly Church, growing in, and becoming drunk on, “pomp and rev-
enue,” and now wanting to put into the mouth of Jesus justification
for its totalitarian policies. See the testimony of Dr. Elaine Pagels,
Harvard New Testament scholar, who reports of the doctoring of
the Matthew text - hundreds of years after the time of Jesus - the
insertion and deletion of material to give the impression that the
so-called church fathers had been given blank-check totalitarian authority. The author of Matthew, and a host of scribes in his wake,
had a political agenda, with the authentic teachings of Jesus given
short-shrift. It’s just more fake news, designed to give power to a
church-elite with worldly ambitions. As Dr. Campbell stated, many
of the great institutions of the world, feeding off the rest of us, have
no right to survive, and we’re looking at such instance here.
The Troubadour Spirit-Guides care nothing for little kangaroo courts of
“two or three witnesses,” consigning those who disagree to a church-created hellfire; for these ancient and sophisticated Troubadour Spirit Beings, the Matthew document concerns not "two or three witnesses" but becomes a comedy, a farce, in two or three acts.
And the Guides would also have a big horse-laugh at the idea of Jesus mouthing pompous declarations of authority – as the Guides well know the real Jesus personally and frequently joke with him, as he’s probably their “chairman of the board.” The Troubadour Guides spurn and utterly reject all cultish ways, all power-and-control techniques, such as excommunication and treating others as social lepers.
Alright then, so what about this reference to Matthew in The Wedding
Song? I think it’s like this: while the Guides would lampoon the aforementioned cultish ways, there is one principle they would have us rescue from the dustbin of bad ideas. It is a general principle, a general concept, with no reference to any church or any power structure of this world.
This general principle, to seemingly contradict myself, is that of authority
and witness to authority. And why is this important in The Wedding
Song? It’s important because Authentic Eternal Romantic Love is virtually
unknown in this world. Most don’t even believe it exists or can exist.
Even John and Mary, on their own wedding day, did not truly believe in it! As we’ll see, The Wedding Song injects elements of authority and witness
to authority in order to overcome near-pandemic skepticism regarding
the existence of permanent True Love.
The Troubadour Spirit-Guides provide answers here to universal questions, answers that are nuanced, poetic, playful, mystical, symbolical, and light-hearted – we shall yet learn not to be shocked by such sublime and didactic method from the artful Troubadours. They don’t mind using an off-the-wall reference to Matthew, even though much of it is “fake news,” if it will help them to clarify their own teachings. These Guides are not just Spirits but Free-Spirits.
Tell the bride and the guests not to worry at all, the earlier scuffle in the back was just a brief little misunderstanding, we're ok now, and feel free to pop the bubblies for the impatient guests.
two or more … gathered in My name … There am I – the authority of
Authentic Sacred Romantic Love
I warned you that this discussion would turn very intense. But we’ve
hardly begun. Wait till you feel the full impact of the Troubadour’s message. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
We have looked at the internal, contextual evidence indicating that the
narrator of The Wedding Song is none other than Love Personified. And
she borrows, without embarrassment or concern of untoward source,
phrases from Matthew, in her whimsical artful way, in effect, asserting
“I put the full weight of authority of where I come from, who
I am, and what I am, which is the power of True Love, behind
what is say here, what is done here, at this ceremony, in
progress before us. I certify as fully authentic, as expression
of ultimate reality and truth, and celestial destiny of every
human being, the importance of all that happens today with
this representative sacred couple.”
Well… that’s it then… there you have it… Love Personified, as emissary
from Heaven, agent of God’s divine will, gives us her personal affirmation
of truth and authority concerning the message of The Wedding Song.
But, what’s that you say? Something seems to be missing? You’re not
totally convinced? You’ve heard all this before from many couples who
thought they had the real thing, but “the fever” lasted hardly through
the honeymoon? You say that romantic love, as the Beatles sang, has
a “nasty habit of disappearing overnight,” and that we just need to be
mature and understand that it’s a temporary thrill, and just get over it,
and get down to the real business of life - you know, taking care of the
babies, sharing the cost of the mortgage, and deciding who takes out the
garbage. This is the jaded position of John and Mary.
However… if John and Mary are correct, if that's all there is, if that’s the dispiriting case here, well then, maybe we should ask the guests to kindly not pop too many bottles of bubbly as they’re a little expensive, for, suddenly, we’re not so inclined to celebrate quite so unreservedly. (The bride’s aged Uncle Remus will be the most disappointed. He likes to get a little tipsy at these gatherings.)
But wait. Is this mundane and sterile view of John-and-Mary romance
the message of The Wedding Song? Is the disconcerting joke about “30
days of pennies in a jar” really the way it is and all there is? Well, Love
Personified seems pretty excited and animated about something, and appears to be very adamant. Does she know something we don’t? – “something never seen before”?
There would be no need for Love Personified to reference the concepts
of authority, and supporting witness to authority, unless Love’s authority
is being challenged. Is it being challenged? It’s being challenged every
day, every moment of the day, by billions of people on this planet
who dismissively think they have Love all figured out – these, in their
legions, who, if older than sixteen, no longer believe any such thing as
permanent romantic love exists. How many people do you know who
are absolutely certain that fervent romantic love is the sacred destiny,
the permanent, eternal reality, for every human being? We presume, in
this poll-taking, the affirming number to be exceedingly small.
You see my point then; and also Love’s purpose here, deeming it necessary, in the face of near-universal doubt, to offer her authoritative stamp of approval and confirmation.
Notice now the implicit calculated irony of the Troubadour lyric-writers of The Wedding Song: Despotic Ecclesia, by means of “fake news” biblical documents and unwarranted interpolation of the text, “write themselves a blank-check” of church authority with Matthew’s term “whatsoever”; that is, they pridefully assert, “whatsoever” we decide or do, Heaven will back us up. Quite a modest little proposal. However, True Love, not to be outdone, insists that it is she, not they, who enjoys full latitude of Heaven’s blessing. It is she, alone, who might rightfully claim use of “whatsoever” and its broad discretionary powers-of-agency with full backing of the high courts of the celestial realms. What a great poetic, but subtle, allusion to Matthew we see in this artful reference slipped into the discussion by the Troubadour Guides!
When these allusions to Matthew, with all of its philistine talk of church
authority, are stripped of their negativity, we understand True Love to be
"I put down my full weight of authority here, with highest
Heaven on my side, as it’s the very will of God for humankind,
to declare the supremacy of Eternal Authentic Sacred Romantic
Love. Not one in a hundred million, I well understand,
knows what I'm talking about. How can you, as
you’ve “never seen it before”? You’re so blinded right now by
lower levels of consciousness and mere biological impetus.
But I stand before you today as herald of your splendiferous
empyreal destiny. You will yet know Authentic Eternal Romantic
Love in your lives. And as my witnesses, I call to the
stand, first, 'this troubadour' who knows; yes, she knows,
and represents My authority, and is 'on My part' - just as
the misguided church members represented 'the part' of the
even more-misguided elders in Matthew’s account. In addition
to 'this troubadour,' there are two other witnesses to
True Love, the 'spirits' of this sacred couple kneeling before
me. They are not deceived… no, they have seen, and they
know; within their deepest persons, they know… and, therefore, for them, it is all very real, an enduring eternal reality."
The union of your spirits, here
But, why will this particular couple be able to serve as witness to Love’s
kingdom? All over the Earth, even this moment, a great many are entering
what they hope will be holy, unending matrimony. Why does Love
Personified single out and call these two as her witnesses? The many
other couples getting married today are also smiling and happy on their
special day. What is different about this couple kneeling before True
Kairissi. The “union of your spirits” is not what people might expect.
Elenchus. And what might they expect?
K. They might be expecting a typical non-event religious
experience; what I mean is, think of people getting baptized or confirmed or blessed at church - but they feel nothing special has happened to them.
E. Or the religious marriage ceremony, too.
K. Well, yes, and that’s the big one for our discussion
here. A couple submits themselves to this religious ritual, and then the priest or minister proclaims that the holy spirit, like “Love Potion
#9,” has done its magic. But the recipients of said-blessing feel nothing – not at that moment nor in times to come.
E. All of these rituals are just legal fictions. Nothing really happens. Only the sacred soul, only a vivified consciousness, can offer what they're looking for.
K. You and I have come to understand the truth of this, but Big Religion expects its devotees to applaud this ritualism and stagecraft and "praise God" for having done a great work in their lives; and those who object and ask for evidence are branded as trouble-makers, heretics, and atheists.
E. That's funny. This is a clear example of “The Emperor Has No Clothes.” The crime became not the public nakedness but the cultish insistence on
avoiding the truth. It took the honesty of a little child to break the spell.
K. As with all religious rituals, people are required to
“believe” that something important has happened
when nothing has happened. And, in your “Emperor”
example, the citizens were required, by decree and
peer pressure, to believe and blather that all was well with the Emperor, though he was quite insane.
E. People are led to trust that the religious ritual of a wedding ceremony effects some magical change, a blessing that, surely, we’ve now
K. But then, to their dismay, they feel nothing’s happened, nothing’s different. I want our readers to know that “the union of spirits” is not a quiet and unobtrusive thing. It’s not an empty church ritual as
non-event and legal fiction. It is life-altering and paradigm-shattering.
It will turn your world upside down, jerk you around, and you will never be the same again.
E. All I need do, Babe, is bring to mind what happened to us.
K. Yes, exactly, Dear, and I’d like to offer everyone
some detail on this process. You’ve read the Word
Gems article on what Carl Jung said about “trust,” so
why don’t you explain it to our readers?
E. Well, as you’ve stated, “the union of spirits” is not
something that happens in a hidden corner. It will
rock your world. And I don’t mean like John and Mary
thinking they’ve fallen in love. It’s nothing that transitory;
not a fragile butterfly that leaves and dies so quickly. “The
union of spirits” is referred to by Spirit-Guide Silver
Birch as something utterly life-defining. He said it’s “so
magnetic, so overwhelming.” It happens only once, he
said, that is, with one person only, and when it does,
you’ll know it's happened. You might leave this world
and eventually forget most of what happened “down
here in hell,” but you will never, ever, even a million years from now, forget those first moments of coming-to-awareness of the Sacred Beloved.
K. It’s important to understand that this experience
will lead and guide us, not just in this world but, endlessly.
E. It is soul-shaking, a profound transcendental event.
And Carl Jung very insightfully explained that such mystical
experience, especially one of this magnitude,
forms a basis of one’s spirituality, of coming to know
God. The churches make a caricature of this process
by commanding people to “believe,” but it’s just more of
“The Emperor Has No Clothes.” There’s nothing
substantive to believe in with empty church rituals:
people are “confirmed” or “blessed” or “married” and
then they wonder what’s different. Nothing happens. This is the classic
“distinction but without a difference.” It’s a grand charade.
K. And Dear, I think the important point, as you’ve
said, is that the mystical experience forms the basis of
our spirituality, as it also does for authentic romance
and marriage. It’s like this: those who’ve come to
know God via mystical experience – not just “believe”
in God as a gossamer thought-form – do not run
around wondering whether spirit essence is real;
likewise, those couples who have known the mystical
“union of spirits” do not harbor doubts of, “I wonder
if he’s my true mate,” or if “this is true love?” It’s not possible to doubt after the stunning and jarring coming-alive to one’s Twin Soul; or, as the Spirit Guides say, the experience of true love can never be mistaken when it finally happens for you.
E. And when we say, with Carl Jung, that our “union
of spirits” forms the basis of both our spirituality and
our perception of true love, we mean that this event
becomes a foundational memory, even a foundation of one's reality; in that, we’ll keep mentally coming back to it, and coming back to it,
over and over again, in our eternal lives. It’s so real, so substantive, so life defining, that we trust in it, and build our lives around it. This is no legal fiction. We keep going back to it as our source of conviction and of "what's real" in our lives. I do this every day regarding our love; actually, several times a day. This is what Jung meant by “trust” as a foundation for one’s spirituality.
K. It becomes the moment when we find “proof” both
of God and of true love. It’s a mystical experience that
serves as basis and foundation of who we are to each
other and our assurance that we are children of God.
This is such a heavy concept and cannot be overemphasized.
And how sad that people try to substitute this shocking and jarring experience with the typical empty god-talk of “faith” and “believe.” As the great Spirit Guides inform us, you don’t have to “believe” when you “know.” The mystical experience of coming-to-awareness regarding a Sacred Beloved becomes the “knowing.” The Twin Soul couple, each for the other, becomes a portal of knowing of things not of this world.
E. And this is what Love Personified is getting at in The
Wedding Song. The sacred couple stands as witness to
True Love, the love that will “remain.” The world may
continue to scoff and be deceived on this issue – and
will suffer this delusion, until the “union of spirits”
happens for them – but this couple is not deceived.
And now, Dear, I will ask you a question, and I know
you can answer it: what precisely is the veridical basis,
the authority, for their love? – how do they know it’s real?
K. They know it’s real by what's happened to them and
by how they feel about each other, way down on the
deep inside, that “union of spirits.” This is no summer infatuation. It’s so real and shattering that they trust in it, and build their eternal lives around
it; it lasts and lasts. On that deep level of “knowing,” it’s not possible
to entertain a lie; this is no John-and-Mary fling or mere call to
procreation. The life-jarring mystical event of discovering a Twin is
their “title-deed” to love, their "ownership papers," and to perceptions of reality itself. Though they were to doubt everything else in life, they would
never doubt the authenticity of their love – especially, that first mystical experience of realizing who they are to each other. They never recover from that first moment. For them, it was a cosmic explosion, the heavens opened, creating their own private universe.
E. mmm... “Love Potion #9” – “I’ve been this way since 1956.”
K. I remember you as a little boy, and I knew, though I was quite young, and despite your "comatose" ways, that you did love me.
E. It was a closely-guarded secret, especially from myself. But, for you, you felt so bold as to come to me, and with such animation and excitement. I still feel, even this moment, "the joy" so effusive in your spirit. Today I sense that somehow you felt you had a right to come, with a kind of "legal standing" with me, which became your "knowing," a beginning perception of "the union of spirits."
K. You are funny, buddy. You see so clearly today, but back then you were so half-baked.
E. My warp-drive hadn't been installed yet.
The union of your spirits…
Editor’s note: In a 1960s channeled work of Spirit Guide, Abu, the phrase “union of spirits” is applied to authentic, sacred marriage. I was surprised to hear him use this term. The phrase is employed exactly in the same sense found in The Wedding Song. While one supporting occurrence is a slender thread with which to weave a general rule, I suggest that the phrase “union of spirits” is not mere poetry but a kind of technical term used among the Guides in referencing the authentic marriage. For them, the heart of the matter is a “union of spirits” not a “union of bodies.”
On the Word Gems site you will find excerpts from Andrew Jackson Davis’s classic work, “The Great Harmonia,” featuring his view on seven levels of marriage. The chasm of difference between marital unions, low and high, becomes astonishingly vast.
On the lowest rung, we find as basis for worldly marriage mere physical
attraction, a “union of bodies,” simply biology and nature having their
way in terms of call to procreation. We have no objections to biology
and nature, unless there’s nothing more – which deficit quickly devolves
to perceptions of emptiness, transitoriness, and futility. If that’s all you
have, then it’s just what all mammals feel when “the fever” takes them
over. We’ve now entered the unsatisfying realm of the love with “nasty
habit of disappearing overnight.” Once Mother Nature has been satisfied,
she does not “remain.” Why would she? Her job is done.
As I recall, Davis, in his day, asserted that 40% of all marriages fall into this animal-spirits category. This seems a good estimate to me.
Elenchus. I can tell you want to say something.
Kairissi. Ellus, this “40%” really bothers me. It reduces
marriage and romance to something animal-like, so
mechanical, just “bull in the pasture” stuff.
E. It turns romantic love into mere instinctual response,
just as any mammal does it.
K. In a way, it’s even less substantial than that. It’s said that
a male can “fall in love” a dozen times a day – or as
many times as he sees a different pretty face; actually,
just photos alone will set him off. It’s just animal preprogrammed
E. He doesn’t even need to see a face. The photos
might be of strategic female body parts, and that’s
enough, and now he’s cooking and ready to go. He’d
get married in a fever like that; and, of course, John does.
K. She’s no different, really, if she’s operating
on that purely physical level. I’m reminded of what
the very handsome Rudolph Valentino once said of
the hordes of swooning women who wanted him: “I
am merely the canvas on which women paint their dreams.”
E. Pure sexual attraction is simply Mother Nature having
a field day in her relentless quest to preserve the
species. She cares nothing for the heart-intimacy of
true love, but only that the egg and sperm might get together and have a picnic.
K. The weather's so nice today, so why not. But Mother Nature’s involvement here is more invasive than generally perceived. For example, there’s a saying that a woman past age 50 has a better chance of
getting struck by lightning than finding a mate. Why should this be the case? – as she can make herself available, as might
a young woman, to the fevered male; however, he usually
doesn’t want the older female and won’t look twice in her direction.
Why doesn’t he want her? Men are virtually programmed,
in terms of instinctual response -- the famous ethologists call it "super stimulus" -- programmed to want young females, especially with well-formed breasts. These are like big red flags to get his attention. Again, this is merely Mother Nature on parade and the result is more than predictable. He's programmed to pursue the young well-endowed female, who not only has the energy, but the biological capacity, to bring into being and to care for offspring, and, with this in view, Mother Nature pushes and shoves the male into mindless, autonomic craving for younger short skirts and tight blouses. It’s all so formulaic once you see the game Mother Nature is playing.
E. Reducing the mating process to clinical terms this way
drains a good deal of sizzle out of the illusion.
K. And I think it’s important for John and Mary to
understand how raw biology can so easily lead them
astray – none of this low-level animal stuff has the
foggiest linkage to true romance. And Ellus, I’ll tell you
what else this reminds me of – the fast-growing industry
of sex robots or sex dolls. These full-sized “Silicon
Barbies” already are very life-like, but in a few decades we’re going to enter “Blade Runner” country of fully functional, android sex-partners, with ever youthful “perfect bodies,” equipped with artificial intelligence,
such that, a sex-doll will talk to her “partner” and be virtually indistinguishable from a flesh-and-blood counterpart.
E. When that happens, and it’s just a matter of time, a
very large number of men “named John” will not even
bother to negotiate with Mary. If it’s just sex he’s after
in the “meat market,” why would John complicate
his life by interacting with a woman he doesn’t truly
love? A “Blade Runner” “sex-slave” might be crafted
with super-model good looks; or, more provocatively,
let’s say, if John likes the looks of Mary but doesn’t
want to put up with her, he can order his sex-doll with
Mary’s face! This perk is available right now. Plus, he
can order his simulated Mary with enhanced features,
“factory installed” female body parts in whatever size
K. That’s disgusting. But Ellus, there’s an old
song, “Sweet Cream Ladies,” with the line, “Let them
fabricate success to those who fail.” That’s what this
is really about: a fabrication of success for men named John
who fail at love.
E. That’s true, Dear, but, let’s keep in mind, during
days of unenlightenment, we all take turns playing
John and Mary, and we all fail to find true love; eventually,
as the saying goes, “we all sleep alone”…
K. Or wish we could -- just ask almost any Mary out
E. The coming sex-doll invasion will offer John more
than sex, and will soon be able to supply services in
the “domestic-business contract” area of life, as well.
Robots are already taking jobs away from humans,
and we can see a time coming when John’s sex-doll will be able to earn money for him.
K. She – I’m already calling her a “she” – will be able
to share the cost of the mortgage. It's a tough deal for John to turn down: money and sex, and she doesn’t talk back – what a “perfect mate.”
E. And if John is concerned about legacy and family
line and all that, he’ll be able to arrange for a
gendered-child of his choosing by use of artificial
fertilization and surrogate-mother techniques that are
coming, and are already here.
K. Dear God… (sighing) … this “brave new world” is all
so terrible… Let me ask you a question, Ellus… if you
didn’t have me, and didn’t know when you could be
with me, maybe, with the prospect of living alone for
a great many years or even for the rest of this mortal
life… would you buy a “20 year-old” super-model,
“Blade Runner” sex-doll?
E. No… I would not.
K. Why not?
E. Because… my name is not John… and I've experienced the love that transcends mere biology; moreover, I would see this "substitute" as a form of disloyalty to you; as, one day, when I’d finally be with you, it would hurt you to know what I did. And I won’t do anything that hurts you, that indicates that I do not cherish and treasure you above all else in the universe. I would rather suffer in my aloneness than hurt you, in any way.
Next, Davis said, are the marriages of domestic business contract. This
level of so-called marriage includes an expansive array of negotiated concerns related to legacy and family line, sharing of household costs, peer-group and parental-family pressures to conform, fears about growing
old alone and not being chosen, desire for children and animal impulse,
social advantage, wealth accumulation, and many other factors – the list
is long, and most people named John and Mary live here.
None of this union, welded by domestic concerns, is wrong, of and by
itself, although it can easily become wrong if we marry someone in order
to get something else. Then, on a deeper spiritual level, it all becomes
wrong very quickly. We’re not allowed to “use” people as secondary
means to a goal; penalty flags fall very fast when we do this. Troubadour
Spirit-Guide Margaret, featured on the Word Gems site, asserts
that such Machiavellian thinking, a merchandizing of another’s life and
body for private pleasure and purposes, will land more people in the
Dark Realms after transition than any other single reason. However, this
kind of conduct and approach is considered normal in our world. Ask
any John and Mary.
I’m reminded of what Abbess Heloise in the twelfth century, whom I have
referred to as “the patron saint of Twin Soul lovers,” said about marriages
of this sort, to the effect: if you marry for these “domestic business”
purposes, like interviewing for a job, then you should not expect
love but wages; and, as we know, in most cases, you won’t even get the
Similarly, there’s a phrase, “the sinful marriage,” by mystic-poet
Kahlil Gibran in The Beloved -- “sinful,” in that, the soul’s whispering testimony and pledges, meant to guide us, are stifled and ignored. These
“marriages” become an exchange of gold for lead, a denial of True Love
in pursuit of merely animal pleasures and worldly concerns.
Jackson Davis thinks that these first two levels of “marriage” make up
about 70% of all unions in this world. He maintains, however, that as we
move up the line in this progression, marriage becomes more refined:
unions are now based on friendship, common interest, desire to serve
God, and service-mindedness. All of these are fine, as are the first two, if
one is mindful of proper proportion. But none of these, per se, will take
us to the true, eternal marriage. Something is missing.
Editor’s note: Some will insist that a desire to “serve God” or a religious motivation should form a basis for ultimate marriage. The
sentiment is alright, but it all falls apart in practice; that is, if ill-founded.
The question becomes, how do we serve God? “God” for
most is just a thought-form of the mind, just empty religious “godtalk,”
a very poor substitute for “knowing” God within one’s deepest
person. Jesus said, not belief in God and the truth, but “knowing”
these will set us free. Your true cosmic mate is linked to you on the
soul-level, and when you find her on that deepest level, there you
will also find God. Let us not be surprised at this confluence. After
all, she was “made in the image” just for you; Heaven’s gift, just to
you, in terms of revealing God’s mind, the most salient feature of
which is joy of Oneness. Consider this note from John Welwood in
Journey of the Heart:
“The troubadour poetry of twelfth-century France taught that
the romantic feeling between man and woman was a vehicle
for connecting with the divine. The deep human urge to connect
with something greater than ourselves - which had been
the exclusive province of religion - now took a secular form…
fervent devotional sentiment [once issued only to God,
was now directed] toward his Lady.”
Yes, there is a reason why a man desires to “worship and adore” the
woman he loves.
At the very top of Davis’s rankings we find the Authentic Eternal Romance, the Twin Soul marriage – what The Wedding Song refers to as “the union of your spirits.”
Unless two lovers share not only a union of bodies but a union of spirits and souls, there is no true marriage; nothing merely materialistically based will last beyond transition to the next world, if that long.
Kairissi. Ellus, I’m still really put off by that “40%,”
marrying “in a fever” due to biology. It’s so demeaning.
How unsatisfying for a woman to be with a guy
who chose her just because of her measurements. Woman is so much more than a collection of body parts.
Elenchus. And yet a high percentage of marriages
come together this way.
K. I’m thinking of what Elizabeth said to Robert,
that she wanted him to choose her “not for a reason.”
That is so beautiful and this is what is lacking in
the meat-market approach to marriage. Elizabeth said,
if you choose me “for a reason,” then what happens
someday when that reason goes away – will you go
away with it? How foolish for women to allow themselves
to be chosen solely on a basis of “the prettiest.” What happens
when he finds a prettier one, or when she loses her
beauty? - which will come soon enough.
K. How I dislike the idea of being categorized for a particular
attribute, talent, or trait! It’s so limiting! I am so much more
than what I do or what I offer! I want to be loved “just because,”
for no particular reason, just for the person I am, and especially not for some animal reason like body parts, as if, in a gratuitous reductionism, you could define and quantify the infinite wonder of what I am! I
want my lover to be stunned into speechlessness by my totality,
unable to verbalize why he loves me, and just caught up
in the dizzying mysticism of the fullness of what I am to him... I’m sorry to have made a speech out of this.
E. No… it’s all exactly right, Dear. And your sentiments are well in-line with that of ancient wisdom literature. I’m reminded just now of
purported sayings of Jesus in the Gospel Of Thomas; a warning
against placing too much emphasis on “the beauty of the
body that perishes.”
“Thomas said... What instruction shall we give to these
miserable mortals?... Jesus said, Do not think of them as
human beings, but consider them as animals [driven by
blind passions and mere survival needs]... the kingdom
is taken from [their perceptions] since they love the delights
Editor’s note: The “fire” here likely points to animal
sex-drive, although, in a larger sense, Thomas
also refers to the unstable needy ego that just
wants “more” of what it wants, no matter what
it is. Dr. Daniel Robinson of Oxford informs us
that the ancient Greeks called this mental aberration
“pleonexia” (literally, “more – to have”), a
ruthless and insatiable acquisitiveness. William
Barclay, one of the best New Testament scholar-linguists,
featured on the Word Gems site, defines
pleonexia as an “accursed love of having” pursuing
“its own interests with complete disregard for
the rights of others, and even for the considerations
of common humanity.” Pleonexia devolves
to “unbridled lust which takes its pleasure where
it has no right to take.” All this is the inner “fire”
of which Thomas’ Jesus warns against. Tolle would
call it the dysfunctional ego or the “false self.”
Thomas: “They are slaves of death... these people, being foolish
and mad, are happy in the anxieties of this life... they are
drawn to the beauty of the body as if it would not perish,
their minds turn to themselves, their thoughts are
on their own pursuits, but the fire will consume them...
Thomas answered, these sayings are ridiculous to the
world… Jesus said, Woe to you who hope in the flesh, in
the prison that will perish. How long will you sleep? [i.e.,
in a spiritually unconscious state.]”
The RCC, in characteristic totalitarian method, attempted to destroy all copies of these Gnostic documents, but failed. The Gospel Of Thomas – a favorite Gnostic writing of mine – tends to emphasize
one’s personal freedom to access God directly, without third-party intermediary; therefore, The Great Worldly Church, threatened
by this message of personal spirituality and independence
from nanny-religion, employed violence to eradicate its competition.
Dr. Willis Barnstone, non-canonical literature scholar, reports that ancient Gnostic writings attributed to the apostle Thomas,
“perhaps the prince of the rejected [documents],” an exclusion
based upon “fierce political and religious
rivalry among sects,” is often called “the Fifth Gospel.”
Barnstone’s research indicates that “Thomas
precedes by at least two decades the canonical
gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John], and, as
such, is our earliest extant record of the words of
Jesus, son of Joseph.”
E. Physical love is so deceptive, Babe. Eros deceives before she slays.
When John chooses pretty Mary, swept along by “the fire,”
he imagines that her beauty and body will be enough to satisfy him for the
next 50 years. But this delusion cannot be sustained, hardly for the first month together – hence, the joke about “30 pennies in a jar.” To counteract this well known disability of declining interest, the sex-doll industry offers John an option of purchasing interchangeable heads
for his voluptuous “Silicon Barbie Doll,” allowing him to have sex
with an array of “different” pretty females.
K. That’s really grotesque.
E. It is grotesque, but in “the heat of battle,” for a while, it
doesn’t seem so to John. In his animalistic fantasies, he imagines
that a super-model “Barbie,” with exaggerated
body parts, along with many different pretty faces, will be his
source of lifetime happiness. But in the history of the world,
no man named John has ever been totally satisfied, or even
partially so, with one particular female body, no matter how
alluring. Think of all the movie stars, ones with “perfect bodies,”
who divorce. The perfect body parts weren’t enough.
K. It’s what Jesus in Thomas warned against; and pleonexia becomes their undoing.
E. And Dear, I’d like to share a thought about a remedy to
all this sexual chaos.
E. This won’t help John and Mary right now as “the fire” presently
consumes and blinds them, but I’d like to introduce a concept for
their future, when, in better frames of mind, they will be able
to enter into a kind of ultra-romantic rest and peace. There’s
a quote on the Word Gems site:
“A man reserves his true and deepest love not for the
species of woman in whose company he finds himself
electrified and enkindled, but for that one in whose company
he may feel tenderly drowsy.” (George Jean Nathan)
K. I love this quote, Ellus. It helps us see that there’s something
even more delicious than being “electrified and enkindled.”
E. While we understand that “mad-love” and “extreme delight”
will never go out of style and is part of the fullness of
Twin romance, we also know that true love is a great deal more.
K. There is a lover, in whose intimate company one
might feel unconditionally safe, satisfied, and secure, such
that all psychological defense mechanisms fall into disuse;
vulnerability is suddenly allowed for oneself in a sweetly careless
way, permitting the luxury to “feel tenderly drowsy.”
E. The quotation is correct. “A man reserves his true
and deepest love” for the woman who grants him license
to be unguarded, to be his true self, to not have to do or be
anything, except completely present to her. And Dearest…
that’s why one of my favorite ways to express love is just to
lie together, face to face, touching foreheads, without necessarily
K. (near-whisper) It sounds like a “union of spirits” to me, Darling Dear.
As Love Personified presides over the wedding ceremony of the couple
kneeling before her, she refers to them as witnesses to the power of True
Love. This is no ordinary couple; at this point in the process, having been
prepared for cosmic romantic union in terms of heightened consciousness, they are very aware that their love is something substantial and no common infatuation. Their names are not John and Mary. They have come together on a basis far superseding that of pleasant physiognomy. External packaging might initially arrest attention, but, if marriage is to be worthy of the term, an enduring cohesive element must be added, a mystical affinity on the soul-level, a “union of spirits.”
Kairissi. I’d like to say a word more about “tenderly drowsy.” It’s such a beautiful concept, and I don’t want to take anything away from its importance, but, I think a small modification is in order.
Elenchus. What are you seeing, Kriss?
K. The problem with “tenderly drowsy” is that more than one woman might offer this to the same man. Granted, “tenderly drowsy” is rare enough and not easy to find, but there are many women – a “perfected” Mary – who are wise enough, sensitive enough, and committed enough to their man, John, such that, a skilful Mary will know how to give him what he wants. And he will feel safe and unthreatened in her presence; and he will experience the “tenderly drowsy” sensation with her.
E. And so, if this is true, and I suddenly see that, theoretically, this could be received from a number of women, the question is begged, “Is there anything wrong with this? What’s not to like about experiencing the ‘tenderly drowsy’?” – even if it is with Mary.
K. There’s nothing wrong with it, other than, without a missing element, it won’t take you all the way to where you want to go in terms of finding eternal romance.
E. I think you have everyone’s attention now, so explain this, Baby Doll.
K. The fact that “tenderly drowsy” might be offered by more than one woman to the same man should immediately tell us there's something awry here. This is part of the "many fish in the sea” way of looking at love and marriage. John and Mary firmly believe in “many fish” because, they well know, they probably “settled” when they chose each other. And they also know that if, for any reason, they were to lose each other, they’d very likely try to find someone new to sleep with. But Twin Souls don’t think that way; they realize they’d just be causing suffering for everyone involved; and so they wait for each other.
E. It’s one particular man for one particular woman – as Dr. Campbell reminded us.
K. One particular “fish,” and not more than one. But I think the heart of the confusion rests in this, and it’s something we learned from Day Star and Lateece a long time ago: the most essential component of true love is neither “tenderly drowsy” nor “thrill,” as wonderful as these perceptions are, but – it’s “the joy,” the sacred joy of oneness.
E. Yes, of course – we can get the “thrill” from a great many, and the comforting “tenderly drowsy” from a few, but “the joy” comes via the agency of only one.
K. The real problem with receiving the "tenderly drowsy" without "the joy" is that, eventually, it won't be enough; it will work for a while, but a sense of emptiness and aloneness lurk in the shadows if there is no joy. And now you're in existential crisis, and searching for a reason to continue living -- and not even competent and pretty Mary can satisfy John enough to avoid that.
Elenchus. Would you say that the “calling of the heart” affects everyone, even the “strong silent types”?
Kairissi. I think it goes not too far to say that all, or
virtually all, of human activity is an attempt to satisfy the
“calling of the heart.”
E. It’s true. People want to be happy, and that’s the
bottom line. This quest drives the world economy,
builds empires, and creates marriage.
K. Dr. Mortimer Adler commented on the ancient
precept of the summum bonum, the “highest good.”
He offered an interesting thought-experiment. Think
of the many things people desire: money, sex, travel,
houses, family, cars, the list goes on. And then he said,
for each of these ask yourself the question, “Why do I
want such-and-such?” Invariably, as we go deeper, the answer will be,
“Because I want to be happy.” But if, at the end of this regression, you ask “Why do I want to be happy?” now we’ve hit a
wall, as the only answer is, “I just do, I just want to be
happy” – which means that with “happiness” we’ve
arrived at the summum bonum, the highest good. And
the “calling of the heart” is humankind’s universal
plea for happiness.
E. Darling, I believe you are correct. It’s a “call” to fill a
“hole in the heart”; but I’m seeing that there’s a right
and a wrong way of trying to satisfy that “call.”
K. Please share your thoughts, Babe.
E. Those who are led by the dysfunctional ego, the
inner neediness of “I am not enough,” try to fill that
“hole in the heart” with all sorts of goods and services.
K. This would be the materialism of society.
E. A material solution for a spiritual need -- it doesn’t
work out so well.
K. That “material” solution could take the form of a
E. Right. But the authentic remedy lies with a “union
K. I was reading about Genghis Khan. This warlord of
the 1200s is reputed to have fathered many hundreds
or maybe thousands of children in his raping and
pillaging across Asia and Europe. Look at what he did
-- all the atrocity and murdering, just to feed the voracious
“calling of the heart,” his diseased attempt to be happy.
E. But people will say, Genghis Khan is an extreme example.
K. Yes, he’s an extreme example in his raping of thousands
of girls and women. But my point is this: he’s
different in degree only, not in kind, relative to the other egos in society.
When people hear of these super-despots
of history, the tendency is to say, “Well, the Genghis
Khans, the Hitlers, the leaders of the RCC Inquisition, are
just aberrations, just extremely evil people – not like
the rest of us ‘good guys,’ of course.” But this is illusion.
We all live on the same continuum. We all share a common humanity. We all harbor the same “one life” and the same “calling of
the heart.” While each of us occupies different points
on the continuum, that is, some are more insane than
others, it’s a sliding scale, meaning, under sufficient
provocation or opportunity or temptation or command of resources, if thoroughly unconscious and unenlightened, any human
being is potentially able to commit any crime of history.
E. In other words, you would say that “the calling of
the heart” might be, or could be, egoically answered by
means of atrocity, in its endless varieties, if one has at
his or her disposal unlimited means, such as hordes
of money or an army of thousands of soldiers.
K. I don't think "the calling of the heart" is really answered by these untoward means, just a misguided attempt. Elenchus, look at what happens with the typical unenlightened “rich and famous” person of the world – the movie star, the sports celebrity, the politician – look at what
they do in modern times. They know they can’t get
away with having an army bringing them thousands of girls
to devour, but we could make a very long list of those
with money and power who buy gigantic quantities of
sex on the market at wholesale rates. A recent notable
example is the posthumous taped-testimony of Marlon
Brando, his DVD “Listen to Me, Marlon.” Therein,
with lament and disillusioned spirit, he describes how
he ruined much of his life by giving himself over to
wanton sex in near-unlimited amounts. In his own
words, he explained, when he was hot young movie
star, he had “women coming in the front door and going
out the back window.”
E. Darling, what are we really trying to say in all this?
How does this relate to The Wedding Song?
K. It relates directly, Dearest. In order to quiet and satisfy
the universal “calling of the heart,” one must not
turn to materialism. The playboy will not feel more
satisfied with a thousand girls as opposed to bedding
a hundred, or ten, or two. It doesn’t work that way.
The problem has to do with “structure” not “content.”
Even unlimited “content” of endless sex will not
satisfy the neurotic “structure” of the needy ego. The
hunger within is fundamentally a spiritual hunger, and
it cannot be sated with anything physical, no matter the quantity. It is only the “union of spirits” that finally makes us feel whole and complete.
K. And, if I may, I would like to say something to the “Marys” of the
world. My Dears, you will not find that for which you so
earnestly seek by the methods you’ve allowed. That
inner “call,” which yearns to satisfy the womanly
unfulfilled heart, cannot be addressed by anything
material and physical. Your true mate, “somewhere
out there,” as the song goes, is not primarily a physical
body to you. But John is. And that’s the problem
with John; to you, he’s just part of the materialistic
world. But that true one, just for you, is primarily in love
with your soul, not just your body. The true marriage is
a “union of spirits” not a union of anything physical.
The physical element, fundamentally, impacts the
true marriage not at all. How could it? – we’re headed
for “the real world,” Summerland, wherein common
“flesh and blood” no longer exist. You must prepare
for that coming real world. And you must prepare
yourself to find that true one who, to you, is primarily
a spiritual entity, and no mere mortal body.
E. It’s a powerful concept, Babe – “Your true mate is
not primarily a physical body to you. But John is.”
K. I find it very comforting to know that the boy God
meant for me to be with is in love with my soul, the person I
really am on the deep inside, and not just the external packaging.
The union of your spirits… the marriage of your spirits -- the basis of true love
Since ancient times, Big Religion, imposing its ample frame into the proceedings, has tried to “write itself into the script” of wedding ceremonies with its audacious blank-check of “whatsoever we say will be rubber-stamped with approval in Heaven.” This is abject and gross prevarication.
Despotic Ecclesia stands apart and outside the entire process of authentic
marriage. Marriage is a spiritual union, a nexus of destined souls, and
no external other will be allowed to comment. Jackson Davis helps us to
understand when he says that each one of us was “born married,” that
is, each person was created to be romantically with, is soul-calibrated to
find union with, just one other particular person.
The issue before us is one of recognition, of “opening the eyes,” not that of uniting people. No “uniting” in marriage is required, or even possible. Lovers, in potentia, were as united in marriage, that is, in their spirits, as ever they would be, even at the moment of their creation. True lovers are already permanently united, even before the wedding ceremony.
Authentic, eternal marriage is indissoluble, can neither be undone nor
created by so-called church authority; the “union of spirits” is what it
is, and was brought into being a very long time ago. The true marriage
fulfills the ancient prophecy decreeing that it cannot, and will not, be
“sundered” in this world or the next. The word “sundered” is an Old
English word meaning “separated.” The sacred couple, despite possible irregularities at the surface of life, in fact has never suffered separation; are one, are already one, have always been one, as united in their spirits as ever they shall be, even since they were pesky little children, and even before coming to this world. The true marriage represents a permanent nexus, a harmony and affinity, a melody of soul-energies, as enduring as the eternal soul itself, as, indeed, their union issues from the soul itself.
The Great Church, one of the darkest forces of history, stands as interloper to the proceedings. (See Adrian's “Foreword” comments.) It has no function in the process. It cannot bind, it cannot loose. It cannot
bless, it cannot condemn. It can only stand in your way with attempts
to obfuscate with its “pomp and revenue” disingenuities. Its tawdry little
magic hand-signs and magic words avail nothing but to bedazzle the
credulous. Its victimizing rituals and formularies become parody and caricature of reality, a terrible mockery and sham of Truth’s simplicity: all
that is needed for a couple to be “married” is to enter a state of elevated
consciousness allowing them to mutually recognize each other as a sacred beloved. The Church has no part in any of this spiritual awakening.
Granted, entering a state of heightened consciousness is not so easy;
rather, it’s so easy – to be gained, forever, in one blazing moment of cosmic clarity – that people miss it, or fail to mentally connect, as they distract themselves with materialistic, fear-based thinking. But this can be remedied. For many, healing will be accomplished via a long road home, a path of disillusionment with the ego's status quo, a suffering our way into wisdom. It doesn't have to be a long road home, but many insist on it.
I am now to be among you
Why does Love Personified choose this couple, and not another? The answer is, there is no choosing, as such. These particular two, these Twin Souls, experience eternal marriage in a natural way. Love comes to them when it's their time for eyes to open. It’s all a direct and natural result of the “union of spirits,” which, for these two, has always existed, but, in earlier days, without their awareness.
What we, in our limited perspective, term romantic love is but “the joy
of oneness,” two souls coming into harmony -- rather, a realization of an underlying accord that was always there -- a blending of soul energies,
like two musical notes suddenly in-phase. But this “suddenly” cloaks
the greater vista of a love that was simply waiting to be perceived and stirred to action; but now, at its vivification, lovers find themselves utterly overwhelmed by a sense of wholeness, completeness, of “coming home,” of cosmic integration, of “you are just like, you are me in another form."
And when Love Personified says, “I am now to be among you,” she means to say,
“You have sufficiently quieted the ego-static in your minds which was blinding you to each other. Your romantic love had always existed, deep inside your souls, but you were blocking it. Because you’ve now grown in consciousness to have discovered each other, along with your own truest selves, you will be blessed with my presence, eternally so - because I've always been there. True Love will always be part of your lives; there will be no 'nasty habit of disappearing overnight.' I will remain.”
Editor’s note: This “blazing moment of cosmic clarity,” the unveiling
of “secret identity” of one’s eternal other half, might occur not just wholly
unexpectedly but inconveniently. Our surface-personalities will not be asked for permission for this invasion of shocking perception. One's "higher self," not the ego, controls the realization of the true mate's presence.
The sacred beloved is one’s Twin Soul not a Twin Ego, and will not necessarily be the latter's "choice." Andrew Jackson Davis spoke of Twins sharing a hidden similarity, “an inwrought adaptation,” which serves as impetus to attraction:
“The human Soul is capable of inconceivable expansion; its
sensibilities are pure and almost immeasurable. The female
Spirit feels a boundless, undiminishable love; the male is
conscious of a high and insurmountable wisdom; and these
embodied principles irresistibly seek and implore the presence
of one another. To every individual, its counterpart - the
one most loved - is the purest, the greatest, and the most
beautiful, of all human beings; others may be beautiful and
attractive, and may possess in reality many more accomplishments;
but, to the lover, the one beloved is the most beautiful; because there is felt an inwrought adaptation of desire to desire, impulse to impulse, organization to organization, Soul to Soul!”
Kairissi. Davis' term "inwrought adaptation" conceals much understanding about the hidden nature and development of true love.
Elenchus. Tell me what you see.
K. First, let's define the words. "Wrought" is Old English for "work." "Inwrought" means to "work in," in the sense of combining something with something else. And "adaptation" has to do with adjusting or modifying according to a new situation.
E. So what does this give us?
K. Look at Davis' comment again. He begins by saying that the soul is virtually infinitely expansive. And toward what will it alter itself? Each Twin has a "default setting," if you will, in terms of occupying certain domains of strength. She naturally becomes Love, and he has to get by only with Wisdom. (small smile)
E. The arrangement suits me just fine.
K. I keep telling you you're so lucky. But let's not distract ourselves for the moment. Davis says that each Twin, each for the other, expands, reaches out to receive, strives to incorporate, the domain of the other.
E. It's quite beautiful, isn't it?
K. Truly, yes. Notice, too, Davis instructs that each will "irresistibly seek and implore," each from the other, the tremendous gift brought to the romantic relationship. But Davis isn't done. Now he says that these gifts of Love and Wisdom, as they are contemplated, so dazzle the receiver that each suddenly judges his or her counterpart as "the greatest, and most beautiful" of all human beings in the universe.
E. And now we are forced to ask, is this superlative just a sweet deception? - and, probably, a self-deception?
K. Psychologists would say yes, it's only a fevered idealization. But I'm not so sure. I think... if you're a Twin Soul... it's true -- true for you.
E. Is this "truth" in a subjective sense?
K. I believe it happens like this - and it's at this point that Davis introduces his "inwrought adaptation." When each Twin is given "eyes to see," not just the identity of the heretofore hidden Twin but, the primary field of virtue, the Love or the Wisdom, each is so stunned into a bedazzlement at these expressions of spiritual excellence...
E. Darling, if I may interrupt for a moment to add something that I'm suddenly getting.
E. These spiritual virtues, Love and Wisdom, in the final analysis, reveal the hidden nature of God - because - that's what Twins do for each other. These gifts of spiritual excellence do not issue, in the truest sense, from the Twins themselves but reflect the Divine Parents who made and empowered them.
K. Yes, of course, and this is another reason why Twins are so shaken and dazed by the beauty of these virtues, which, by way of their "made in the image" status, becomes a de facto unveiling of the divine essence; in similar vein, you and I have often stated that Twins reveal the hidden face of God, each to the other.
E. Darling, let's point out, too, that true love doesn't mean that one isn't aware of possible apects of immaturity in a mate.
K. That's right; however, it also does not mean that you "settle" for less than the perfection you need and want in a mate; she has to be perfect - perfect for you, or you will never make it through eternal life! Let's talk about this: We all know of a street-savviness which says, “You can’t expect to get all you want from a mate. She’s not going to be Miss Perfect. You have to be willing to take less than you wanted, or you’ll never get married.” There’s a Seinfeld episode where Jerry’s parents are visiting. The mom asks if he’s found a good girl yet, and what happened with that last one. Then dad adds, “Maybe you want too much. You have to learn to settle for less. I had to, when I married your mother”; said he, blandly looking at his wife. This was supposed to be funny, I guess - but Ann Landers’ ranks of the “miserably married” are chock-a-block with legions of couples who “settled,” and spent the next years sincerely repenting for their lack of good judgment.
E. Explain how this works out for Twins, Kriss.
K. They are not unrealistic, they are not blinded to imperfections – their spiritual eyes are well open, or they wouldn’t even have been able to recognize each other as Twins. However, though they may be aware of a point of immaturity, they look beyond the “spot or wrinkle” and see the glorious potential of the one they love. This is the reality for them. There’s no “settling,” not at all. Each gets exactly what he or she always wanted in a mate; truth be told, far, far more, because, as we’ve said, we didn’t even know what we wanted until the sacred beloved presented it to us.
E. I interrupted you earlier, Dear. Now tell us how the "inwrought adaptation" becomes part of all this.
K. Davis says that the soul expands, that is, reaches out to incorporate the wonder and beauty of these primary-domain virtues. And a soul that "expands" is a soul that "adapts" to the new riches revealed by the counterpartal mate. To state it plainly, the fellow thinks she's so beautiful because his soul has been "modified" or "adapted" to perceive her in all her glory; mainly, a potential glory.
E. And then the newly perceived gift is "worked into" the receiving soul. It's quite a software upgrade.
K. The graphics are awesome. No other guy would view her as beautiful as this! - not to this extent; she needs to realize this. This peak perception is just for him; and, in truth, just for her, too, as she will take her own turn in seeing him in this same sparkling and beguiling light. Let me also say that, because these perceptions need to be "worked into" the soul, this is why, in their immature states, Twins don't necessarily, right off the bat, see each other as the "greatest" or "most" this-or-that. They might not be so crazy about each other from the start.
E. Common wisdom of society suggests that any two pretty "fish in the sea" can fall in love or rekindle early attraction just by dating, spending time together, doing things together, or "working on their marriage." Lots of marriage counselors preach this. But it's not like that. John and Mary tend to believe that the "inwrought adaptation" can be effective for any two willing parties. But that's not how it works.
K. In the history of the world it's never worked. You have to be Twin Souls for the "inwrought adaptation" to kick into high gear. And when it does, you can't shut it down. Next thing you know, he's walking around in a near-perpetual astonishment for all that she means to him. And this won't go away.
E. Be kind to animals.
K. (small smile)
E. Love and Wisdom -- these are the new spiritual riches, a newfound wealth, something awesome to receive to oneself.
K. For the receiving lover, each in his or her own turn, the superlative judgment, the "most" and the "greatest," is quite accurate - because, there is no one, no one else in the entire universe, who is able to perceive the grand human potential in the other; further, as each was "made in the image," there is no one else to facilitate the revelation of the beauty of God's mind - the Love and the Wisdom.
Kairissi. Sweetheart, in “Prometheus” we talked about
the song, “Darling Be Home Soon” written by John
Sebastian. But I’d really like to discuss it a bit more in
reference to the “union of spirits.” Do you think the
author will mind if I bring up old material?
Elenchus. I won’t tell if you don’t.
K. Ok, then, it’ll be our little secret. Dear, it’s just that the
statement, “the great relief of having you to talk to,” says so
E. I think I’ve commented before but I believe John Sebastian is one of the
great songwriters. He couldn’t have written some of the
mystically-wise phrases in “Darling Be Home Soon” without he himself
having experienced at least some hint of the true love.
K. I would say that most love songs, in one way or another,
focus on the love of the body and the drives of the ego. But,
to my way of thinking, the “Darling” song hits it out of the
park with its unspoken reference to the “union of spirits.”
E. Krissi, tell me what moves you particularly.
K. I think the operative word is “relief” – it’s so beautiful –
“the great relief of having you to talk to.” We all know about
the sexual tension that demands the relief of brain-chemical
orgasm, but the “Darling” song directs us to a much higher-level
“relief.” It’s the soul yearning and longing to escape the
prison of its aloneness, the relief of mind-to-mind contact
with the beloved.
E. It’s not possible to experience this kind of great joy with
just any mate – she has to be a “soulmate.”
K. And that’s why “Silicon Barbie” will begin to disappoint.
“Relief” in the “Darling” song speaks to mental and spiritual
relief related to the “union of spirits.”
E. Notice how he feels that he’s been waiting for her since he
“toddled.” That very early introduction may in fact be true, as
this happens sometimes, but in any case, now that his eyes
are open to her, a sense of always having been in love with
her fills his being.
K. It’s part of “God as Singular Pervasive Reality.” (see the
E. And his “goddess,” too, is part of that divine ubiquity.
K. And I like how they “laugh about our funny little
ways.” As you know, Dear, that’s just about the most important
thing to me with our love. We have our little jokes throughout the day about all of life, and it lifts my spirit just to be with you and to share all things with you. I appreciate it so much when you try to make me smile and laugh.
E. But, Dear, there’s a little something in the song that makes
me smile, too. He says “a quarter of my life is almost past.”
This means he’s probably 19 or 22 and is now waxing philosophical
about his long wait for her coming.
K. That is funny, and the question is begged, what if he had
to wait for his true love for 60 years?
E. Serves him right when he toddled away from her.
K. However, even if he’s 19, we respect this young man because of his wisdom regarding “the great relief.” If he knows that, then, yes, he will wait for her that 60 years, or as long as it takes; because,
once you’ve experienced “the great relief,” there’s no getting
over you, Babe, and there’s no substitute for you.
E. He’s a wiser man than I was at 19. And here’s something
else that’s profound in the song: “I think I’ve come to
see myself at last, and I see that the time spent confused was
the time that I spent without you, and I feel myself in bloom.”
K. This is so wonderful, Ellus. He’s come to understand himself
– and this is what true love does. It allows the soul to
know itself. And how gracious he is, making himself vulnerable, to admit that an earlier time without her was his time of confusion.
E. I like it, too, Babe, how he says, “I feel myself in bloom.” In her presence, in the radiant and warming sunlight of all that she is to him,
he’s a rose that opens and blossoms, his person comes to
full flower. He senses his own soul unfolding and becoming
what it was meant to become. He’s starting to know himself,
and all things important.
K. That is wonderful.
E. But let me say a word about a cryptic element of the “Darling”
song: “Go and beat your crazy head against the sky, try,
and see beyond the houses and your eyes, it’s ok to shoot
K. You’re the philosopher in the family, Dear, tell me what
E. Well, we have little information, but let’s see how far we
get. One thing, these words seem to be totally out in left field
and do not fit the context of the rest of the song. Earlier, he
spoke profusely of their intimacy, but now he injects a hint
of trouble in paradise.
K. You know what I think, Babe? I think John Sebastian wrote
this for a particular someone, someone with whom there
was an issue he wanted to address. This song was his way of reaching
his own “Darling.”
E. I think you might be on to something.
K. “Shooting the moon” generally means “taking a big risk”
or “going for broke,” that sort of thing.
E. He’s telling her it’s ok to come out of herself, to take what
she might view as a big risk.
K. He wants her deeper person to open and blossom for him,
as he’s done in her presence. But she’s afraid of something.
And this “something” he’s trying to talk her out of, which
means, their relationship is being set back in some manner
by her fears.
E. “Shooting the moon” suggests a goal that’s way out there.
It’s ambitious and will change their lives. And I think it’s scary
for her. Allow me to interrupt myself to say that there must
be a reason for the songwriter’s very unclear way of expressing
K. This song is a gift to her, all of his artwork is a gift to her,
but, as the lyrics would find their way into the public marketplace,
he didn’t want their personal lives so utterly on display.
She’ll immediately know what his message is, but the public
will be confused. This is by design.
E. I think this method by an artist furtively communicating
to a lover via multi-layered meaning is not so unusual. As
I recall, the original troubadours, in fact, did this with their
poetry and love songs.
K. That’s very interesting. I think we're starting to have a good working
hypothesis. What else can we know here, Babe?
E. She can’t “see beyond the houses and your eyes.” Her concerns
take the form of a desire to “play it safe.” She won’t “shoot the moon” and take a risk but lives within views of the world which are restrictive and parochial. She’s a little narrow-minded right now. Her fears have done it to her. We’d say that “she can’t see farther than the end of her nose,” or beyond the confines of her neighborhood, the “houses” of her small world.
K. Good. What else?
E. He speaks of her “crazy head.” He loves her desperately,
but in her fears right now she doesn’t always make sense and
can’t cogently defend her beliefs. The reference to “the sky”
seems to offer the same idea as “the moon” which aligns
with his wish for her to expand past a narrow provincial viewpoint.
He wants her to break out of, and extend beyond, old
thought-forms that are holding her back.
K. Ellus, I’ll tell you what this is shaping up to be: I’m betting
she’s either of a different political persuasion, or a different
religion. Likely, he’s not religious and she is. He sends his artwork
into the world for all to enjoy and to receive wisdom,
but in reality his song-writing is a cloaked love-letter just for
her. The clues offered by the song indicate that he’s trying to
wake her up and into a better state of mind.
E. He’s a pretty good troubadour. And as we begin to frame
this entire situation, it all suddenly takes on a cast of familiarity.
I’m seeing “universal principle” here.
K. Baby, I think it sounds familiar because every true-love
story has elements of this out-of-phase confusion. One of them sees more, gets ahead of the other, and then tries to help the laggard catch up. This is normal and happens in this world, but especially in the next.
you say, go slow, I've fallen behind, the drum beats out of time...
Cyndi, Lauper, Time After Time: “Lying in my bed I hear the clock tick and think of you, caught up in circles, confusion is nothing new, flashback to warm nights, almost left behind, suitcase of memories, time after sometimes you picture me, I’m walking too far ahead, you’re calling to me, I can’t hear what you have said, that you say, go slow, I’ve fallen behind, the second hand unwinds, if you’re lost, you can look, and you will find me, time after time, if you fall I will catch you, I’ll be waiting, time after time, I will be waiting, after my picture fades and darkness has turned to grey, watching through windows, you’re wondering if I’m ok, secrets stolen from deep inside, the drum beats out of time, I will be waiting, I will be waiting…”
“Among” is generally used to refer to unnamed elements of a group,
usually, three or more.
While Love Personified is addressing a particular unnamed couple at a
wedding ceremony, in a larger sense, she is also instructing each of us,
those who will yet enjoy her influence and presence. While the couple kneeling before True Love remains unidentified, we do know this much - they’re not named John and Mary.
the calling of your hearts
This phrase speaks to the universal, existential cry for love, for meaning
to life, for purpose of existence. It’s what everyone wants, but virtually
no one finds; not yet.
True Love will come to us, live in our relationships, when we enter that
“union of spirits.” The heavens will open for us in that moment of revelation, and we shall be granted answer to our long-standing cries. We will yet find what we’ve always been looking for, the calling of our hearts
will finally know its satisfaction, and a sense of romantic rest and relief, of secret-garden intimacy, will suffuse our deepest persons.
Over the years, as I’ve listened to the music of The Wedding Song, I’ve
attempted to discern its central question, its primary purpose. For a long
time I felt that a core focus might be ascribed to the question in the third
verse, “what’s to be the reason for becoming man and wife?” Certainly,
getting at the raisin d’etre of marriage should strike very close to what’s
important in the song. However, I now see this question being edged out by something more viscerally close to home. It’s the “calling of our hearts.”
The "reason" and purpose of marriage is good to know, and we’ll make our way to it, but that question could be a bit clinical and academic. We might find its answer but then shrug our shoulders with “so what” if we leave unattended that which keeps us awake at night, the far more poignant “calling of our hearts.” What we really want to know is, “How will I ever feel happy? How will I ever find love in my life? I mean, real love and real happiness, not just some brain-chemical induced euphoria lasting but seconds.”
This is what we want to know.
And it is Love Personified who comes to us in The Wedding Song, with all
authority of Heaven, to proclaim that she is the one to answer our cry in
the night. She wants us to know that God created us to be happy, that
it’s God’s will for us to be happy, and that we will yet take possession of
every delight our “calling heart” requires.
Editor’s note: I must share with you one of my very favorite Word
Gems articles, The Holodeck Worlds: How We'll Find Wholeness in Summerland from the Traumatic Sufferings of Planet Earth. You will be happy to learn of the amazing good things in store for us.
True Love will come to us, not merely visit but will move in and “remain,”
will be our permanent source of comfort and joy, eternally so – and all
we need do to avail ourselves of this wonder is to initiate the “union of
spirits,” which will summon the sacred beloved to our lives.
Rest assured this troubadour is acting on My part - the Spirit Guides
bring true lovers together
Silver Birch and Abu assert that it is they, the fraternity of Guides, who orchestrate the coming together of destined lovers.
The question might then be asked, “If they know who my Twin is, why
does it take so long, why can’t they just bring my destined lover to me
It’s not that simple. People have free will, and they can delay, and long
delay, their happiness; and they do. Stubbornness, anger, fear-and-guilt,
spiritual immaturity, fear of the opinions of others, fear of Big Religion,
and a host of other insanity elements, deny true lovers their due. As Silver
Birch himself said, in this world a vast array of “hindrances, obstacles,
and impediments” keeps destined lovers apart – with their biggest enemy
as themselves. The Guides, however, attempt to lessen the sorrow
for each, as practicable.
But you can’t force a cake to bake faster, and you can’t make people grow up and abandon their fears in a minute; it takes time, time for disillusionment, that gateway to wisdom, to alter the course of minds, redirecting them toward that which “should have been.”
Rest assured this troubadour is acting on My part – the assurance
Why are we given assurance? Assurance is given when it’s in question.
Why is it in question?
It’s in question, not due to failings of the Guides but to our own blindness
and immaturity. That said, maybe you are seeing more now, and
maybe you are getting your act together; and that’s good, but even if
you’re now more sane than you’ve been, two are needed to make this process work.
Possibly your destined one has “overdue homework to turn in,” if you see what I mean. If that’s the case, you’ll need to wait for her to wake up, and catch up. You are required to wait for her, even, “for a thousand summers,” as she’s your only hope regarding that “calling of the heart”; unfortunately for you, if she delays her coming, they made only one for you. And if you disregard this reality, if you try to be with another, all you’ll accomplish is to increase the suffering for everyone involved and, worse, probably extend the time of her absence.
Why would she come to you soon when you’ve not waited? - and have
not communicated, via your spirit, that you treasure and cherish only
her by how you live your life – by living alone, and touching no one, until
she comes. This is Jesus’ point in the distressing, shock-value phrase, “becoming a eunuch for the kingdom’s sake” (see a full discussion on this under the Word Gems “Divorce” icon).
Rest assured this troubadour is acting on My part – no vows but personal conviction
Troubadour Spirit-Guides, typically many hundreds of years old, volunteer
and agree to be with a mortal for all or part of a human lifetime. Doubtless, the traditional story of the "guardian angel" is based on the reality of the Spirit Guides
They engage in this work because they want to.
Why do they want to?
Many reasons. One is a generalized level of heightened spirituality causing them to willingly suffer and deny themselves, as “Christ figures,” in a thankless job of serving immature mortals. But the Guides know the ropes. They were once messed-up humans, too, as any of us, living down here in the muck-and-mire as we do now. And so they empathize.
As I explain in my Word Gems article on “Forgiveness,” the Guides become living parables of the meaning of that term, literally “giving before,” that is, even before the offense happens, as they know it will occur; this means that they’re not surprised by anything, and they never sink to, “How could you have done that? I would never have done that.” Mercifully for us, the Guides don’t think that way; not any more. That’s why they’re allowed, by the "higher-ups," to work with us.
Another factor that increases empathy is that the Guides tend to work
with mortals who, to some degree, emulate essential personality and
interests of the Guides. It’s a “birds of a feather” principle.
But, I think there’s a bigger reason for this “rest assured.” Recall that
there are many brotherhoods and sisterhoods of Spirit Guides. Not all
of them believe that true love is the best way forward in human evolvement.
As this is the case, I submit that some Spirit Guides, even those
who’ve been on the other side for many hundreds of years or much longer, might not yet have met their Twin Souls. And if they’ve not had this wondrous experience, then of course they would place less emphasis on
romantic love as mystical teaching aid.
Here’s what I’m getting at. Silver Birch said this about Twin love:
…the real love, that only comes once to each man or woman,
whether on earth or in the world of spirit, is always reciprocal...
the two halves instinctively, because they are two
halves, must recognise one another. That does not happen
in your world always because your vision, regarding things
of the spirit, is often blind... Physical things [circumstances in
this world of suffering] could stop it [temporarily] ... but the
real love is so magnetic, so overwhelming in its attraction,
that it must find itself and claim itself, when once you have
got rid of the imperfections of the earth which were the deterrents
Notice: “the real love … is so magnetic, so overwhelming in its attraction,
that it must find itself and claim itself.” If an event of one’s life is “so magnetic, so overwhelming,” as to virtually define one’s existence, then assuredly it will affect one’s philosophy of living. Those Guides who’ve personally experienced the true love assuredly will join the Troubadour brotherhood and sisterhood; those who have not, will not.
But, in receipt of the “so magnetic, so overwhelming” experience which
is Authentic Eternal Romantic Love, a Guide will then enter a new state
of consciousness, one in which intense joy and bliss, along with the image
of one’s beloved, are never far removed. These are they, now, who
are dedicated and consecrated to helping their charges come to know,
for themselves, the joy and marvel of true love.
Editor’s note: This is a very important point: the Spirit Guides who have not personally experienced Twin Soul love, naturally, will not – will not be able to -- promote it as a primary causal factor of human evolution. There are Guides, resident in the next worlds for thousands of years, who have not yet found their eternal mates; for some, it would seem that such quest is either unimportant or ill-conceived. They don’t believe in Eternal Romantic Love. A newcomer to this subject might assume that if one does not find his or her Twin in this world, it will happen shortly after crossing over. It may, but not necessarily. Certainly, if one values romantic love, and is sensitized to the issue, love might be found sooner rather than later. It’s no different for the Spirit Guides. I’m thinking of a particular example of a well respected Guide, not a Troubadour, who has channeled much wisdom, but, when he speaks of the joy of marriage, I can tell it’s just a theoretical subject for him. He doesn’t really get it. I will not mention his name as he offers good advice on other subjects, but his comments on eternal marriage do not always “ring true”; they’re measured, tentative, calculated. He doesn’t want to say too much or endorse too whole-heartedly. He’ll affirm the sacredness of marriage in one breath but then mitigate the effect of his statement in the next. He’s seen authentic marriage for others, seen it from afar; he’s “read about honey, has heard that it’s sweet, but hasn’t actually tasted honey”; and so he reserves judgment, and with a tone of skepticism. How ironic -- though a Guide for a very long time in the astral realms, he too becomes poster-boy for Love Personified’s need to assert “authority and witness to authority.” Authentic love is “something never seen before,” even in certain respected sectors of heaven. Be careful the source from whom you accept information. Always put-to-test everything you hear, discerning whether it resonates with the deepest whisperings of your own soul. Accept no external authority -- no matter how august the personage, even if it were to be a flaming angel blotting out the sun -- if its message contradicts that of the “still small voice” within. This “inner oracle” is our final arbiter of truth, and so shall it be a million years from now and beyond. To do less, to discount one's own internal guidance, is to forfeit one’s claim to sacred humanity and to deny one’s heritage of having been “made in the image.” If you are a sentient being, then you have the same “spark of divinity,” exactly the same, as anyone else in the universe, and therefore the same access to truth. Don't be afraid to acknowledge what you have.
Unlike John and Mary, attempting to forge and cement a commitment by means of beggarly vows at a typical wedding ceremony, the Guides, "rest assured," represent a new, advanced humanity of the utterly motivated and consecrated-to-task.
Has it ever occurred to you that vows are an insult to true love? Vows
are for people who doubt. Vows imply untrustworthiness. Vows are for
people who already know there’s a problem coming. Vows are used in the absence of absolute reason to believe. Vows represent an artifice, a flimsy contrivance, a propping up, a poverty of spirit, an external attempt to make certain a dubious internal commitment.
True lovers, however, enjoying the true marriage, perceive that their
union can never be “sundered.” That would be impossible; and so to inject
the notion of “vows” into the proceedings is to totally misunderstand
the essence of the process. Vows represent utter anomaly, an absurdity
for the true marriage. This custom was invented by religion, or the religious spirit, as it mirrors the insubstantiality of all rituals of religion,
requiring one to “believe,” an exertion of will-power. Twin Souls do not need to “believe” as they effortlessly “know,” and, therefore, vows have no place in their coming together.
Editor’s note: After my fine little speech here, let me throw it all to
the wind by saying that if two lovers would like to incorporate vows
as an element of their public wedding ceremony, they are certainly
allowed to do so. We are free. We can do whatever we like on the
“sunny side” of natural law. There’s no problem with “vows” as long
as we understand that they’re merely ornamental with no power to
effect the slightest degree of union. The enlightened bride will likely want them as a romantic touch for her special day. “What Lola wants, Lola gets,” and she may have them. The groom doesn’t really care. (smile)
The Guides, too, for their part, require no vows to “keep them honest”
in their work; for them, there are no contracts, no prodding, no supervisors, no “accountability,” no “promise keepers,” no signed documents, no magic hand-signs from a clergyman, no element of externality at all, because, “rest assured,” they live and act in conformance to their own soul pledges and, with utmost yearning and longing, strive to share their own insistent, joyful, inner life with as many who will accept it. It is their pleasure to do so. They still, and always will, remember, in their own personal lives, that first moment of true love's coming -- that instant of "so magnetic, so overwhelming" -- and they joyfully work to help others know the same.
A competent psychic-medium, David, instructed me regarding the deep
commitment of the Guides who work for the enlightenment and joy of
"You should understand that these Guides who are working
with you are just as excited, or even more excited, regarding
your writing project. They are highly motivated Spirit Entities
who have a mission to teach and help the world, and all of
this is very important to them."
Yes, of course, it would be that way. The Troubadour Spirit-Guides are no mere hirelings needing to be told when to show up for work or to keep
coffee-breaks to a minimum. They are self-motivated, dedicated, and
consecrated to helping the world find its joy.
Rest assured this troubadour is acting on My part – love, true love, the great motivator and energizer
There is something about true love which motivates us, draws from the depths, as no other agent of vivification. We have said that part of the qualifying resume of the Troubadour Guides to enter their work is that of having experienced the real romantic love in their own private lives. The sacred couple, too, in receipt of this joyful awareness, is so happy and energized that they would like to “shout it from the rooftops.” But the Guides, even as third-party observers, share in this jubilation. They are so motivated. They so very much desire for all peoples, everywhere, to know the lofty felicities engendered by Authentic Eternal Romantic Love. This high-level motivation toward love and life is further developed later in the song with the phrase “Woman draws her life from Man, and [he] gives it back again.”
There is a proverb, “love will find a way.” It won’t give up. True love never
surrenders or goes away. John and Mary, in their vast numbers, despite solemn vows of assurance to the contrary, often divorce or otherwise emotionally isolate themselves from each other; but true love “remains” and never dissipates. The great psychologists, flanked by the messages of countless love songs, affirm as much. But anyone who has known the authentic love needs not another’s testimony to perceive this.
Some believe that “evil” will never give up; some people are more
impressed with the power of “evil” than with love. In the book of Revelation, we find “evil” resurrected “seven times.” See my Word Gems
articles for discussion on this symbolical number, with “seven” indicating
a fullness, a complete number of times.
The history of the world might be told in terms of "seven revivals of evil," that is, a series of endless revivals. It goes into hiding for a time,
seemingly vanquished, but then returns with renewed strength. But the
writer of Revelation seems not to have known about the fate of the most
“evil” in the Dark Realms. The worst of them, the hard-core, sink lower
and lower on the scale of humanistic essence and take on a bestial appearance. And some of them, the most hard-core, though they might leave the first day, remain in the horrid conditions of the “rat cellar” for thousands of years.
But eventually, even archfiend sociopaths buckle under a relentless torrent of misery and utmost suffering. And when they do, they finally cry out for help, a “calling of the heart.” A Spirit Guide will then come to advise them, helping them to enter a time of restitution and reconstruction; eventually, after a lot of hard work, possibly, over a considerable period of time, they will finally enter the “real world” of Summerland, their true home, and their “real lives.”
And so, “evil” eventually spends itself, burns itself out, stewing in its own juices of self-inflicted misery, and gives up. But true love never gives up. God never gives up, and those linked to God’s spirit never give up. True love, with the true lover, waits and waits and does not give up. True love is not purchasable and venal, not dissuaded by threat of suffering, as “evil,” in its destitution, finally raises the white flag.
Editor’s note: Somewhere in my Word Gems collection of quotations
there’s a memo written by a Civil War officer in charge of a strategic
military installation. He wrote to President Lincoln surrendering his
command, to the effect: “Agents of General Lee have just offered me
$100,000 in gold and the most beautiful woman I have ever seen
if I will compromise my duties to the Union. They are getting near
to my price.” And therefore, to his credit, this honorable man asked the President to remove him from command. But true love has no “price,” will not countenance, enter into negotiations with, temptation, nor be turned away.
And if, presently, you have lost someone, or even if, in your egoic delusion, you cannot admit to this loss, someone else might realize – realizes for both of you - that you have lost the one who should have been yours. Do not be deceived that you will never see this destined one again. With once-dormant soul pledges now having come alive, the sighted mate will not be put off forever. He has no “price.” He will not be turned away. And though Silver Birch’s “hindrances, obstacles, and impediments” make it seem impossible, all such detriment will yet crumble along with the present world. A day will come when, no longer impeded and restrained, he will find you, and come to you.
Elenchus. Sweetheart, I was listening to Floyd Cramer’s
piano-rendition of “Last Date.” The melody is so
haunting. Even the title stops me cold.
Kairissi. I know what you mean. If the title were
“Rained Out At A Baseball Game” or “My Job Interview
Bombed,” we’d say, “Oh, well” and move on. But
“Last Date” causes us to hesitate.
E. That hesitation is especially disquieting when set to music.
The emotional impact is intensified because music magnifies
K. Yes, but I would just add that not only does music magnify
our feelings, it might require us to feel them when we’d
rather put them away.
E. What is “Last Date” making you think of, Dear?
K. Nothing new, Ellus… we’ve talked about this before…
I’ve told you that losing you, or the threat or even the
hint of it, sends me to a dark place.
E. You know you can’t lose me, Krissi – we’re Twin
K. I know, but… part of me is terrorized by the
K. I’ve asked myself, why does this foreboding hurt me so
much? – especially, as we are Twins and, in truth, cannot lose
each other. I don’t know, Dear. What I do know is that nothing
can so readily plunge a lover into most profound despair
as can the loss, or the threat of loss, of one’s beloved. It just
makes me go crazy.
E. Darling Dear… maybe part of the answer of why
it hurts so much is that, with all other kinds of loss, it’s something
external to us. That can be bad enough, but none of
that kind of loss would be anything like losing a Twin. A Twin
is not something outside us but part of who we are, our own
selves. With great effort, a diligent person might recover from the loss of
one’s house or money or job and possibly even one’s health;
but how would one recover from the loss of essential being?
And if she is so close to you, so much a part of you, as to
constitute a complementing element of self, one’s own “half”
of person, how does one recover from that kind of loss? It’s
an existential impossibility. There’s no capacity to recover if
you’ve lost yourself.
K. That explanation feels right to me. And I think our
own souls understand this ultimate horror. The concept of
“Last Date” is such an ominous one; that is, if two are meant
to be together. (sighing) … It’s like staring into the pit of hell.
All one can see is an endless abyss of bleakness and darkness
for an entire future… without you.
E. It’s ominous, too, because… we remember Day
Star and Big Water’s instruction, how we would need to be
K. I would come to learn, Dear, that a most sorrowful
aspect of “Last Date” would be all those lost years, the
forfeiture of all those joyous times of love together which
“should have” been.
The union of your spirits, here ... there is Love - the true wedding ceremony as witness to authentic love
As we've seen, no wedding ceremony is required to unite Twin Souls in marriage. They’ve been as married as they shall ever be since their time in the "soul nursery.”
But, how can we know this? What stands as primary witness to the reality
of Twins’ love? There is really only one way. It is a simple test that will
convince them, but no one else. Revelations and mystical experiences are
non-transferable. Each person must seek for his or her own.
How shall they themselves know that they are Twins? – simply by this: the
test is how they feel about each other, way down deep, on the deep
The “union of spirits” itself is the witness, the point of evidence; it becomes the uniting agent, the true “wedding ceremony” for each couple as it speaks to realization of what they’ve always secretly shared and wanted.
When the True Love comes to you, you will perceive that this “glass of
spiced red wine” could never be mistaken for the John-and-Mary “cup
of lukewarm milk.”
Editor’s note: But some will say, this subjective test can easily fail as many are mistaken. Many say they’ve found true love, but virtually all of them will soon take it back and fall into disillusionment. But, near-universal failure in this area does not obscure the fact that a mystical test of truth is all that we shall ever have to determine authenticity. A veridical process requires absolute honesty with no “games that people play.” In this world, almost everyone, every John and Mary, will play these games, but this pandemic self-deception will not deny the fact that truth, ultimately, can only be substantiated on the soul level, and this, by each person individually.
Kairissi. Dear, I feel so deeply moved by Love’s
promise to “remain,” that she will now be “among” us
Elenchus. Who believes in permanent romantic love?
To assert this in the world is to mark oneself as naïve
and out-of-touch. And yet the “calling of the heart”
will settle for nothing less than eternal romance.
K. Egos both ruin love and do not believe in it. I’m reminded
of Einstein’s comment that problems cannot be solved on the
same level that created them.
E. We need a higher level of consciousness – “something
never seen before.”
K. How to get from here to there is the question. But, poor
John and Mary. Many of them try so hard to make a happy
life, but the harder they try, the more it eludes them. Here’s
a paradox: John and Mary experience the sweet feelings of
falling in love, and then try to solidify and make permanent
those feelings by “getting married”; which, maddeningly,
seems to make the feelings fly away even faster, that “nasty
habit of disappearing overnight.” Contrast this with Twin romance.
Their souls recognize each other, with no "choice" on their part and often in spite of themselves, and, in that blazing moment of cosmic clarity, they are met with a sense that they “are married,” and have always been married, and this leads them to know the Love that “remains,” the permanent romantic feelings.
E. Dear, no one in the world will understand what you’re talking about. It sets John and Mary on their heads. They’re hit with a blast of temporary brain-chemical fever and, next thing you know, they want to get married in an attempt to hold on to the good feelings; as opposed to Twins who are hit with a blast of recognition that they’re already, and have always been, married.
The union of your spirits, here - the most erotic moments of your life
Kairissi. Ellus, we’ve said a lot about the “union of spirits,” but, I have to say, I’m not happy with the discussion. I don’t feel we’ve really gotten to the heart of it. We haven’t made ourselves clear.
Elenchus. Maybe it’s like seeing a beautiful sunset, and then trying to convey what it really felt like.
K. It's really difficult to explain, even though we've pointed out some things. We said that “union of spirits” is not a “legal fiction,” it’s not like getting confirmed or baptized or married at church, and then you feel nothing, and nothing changes.
E. However, we did say that the “union of spirits” will rock your world and knock your socks off.
K. That’s getting closer, but – I don’t know – I want to give something more on this - but, it’s hard to put into words.
E. Are you afraid of putting it into words?
K. Maybe I am.
E. Just relax, Kriss – the right words will come to you.
K. I want our readers to know that, I’m not trying to engage in sensationalism for the sake of it, or use words with shock value just to get peoples’ attention. And yet – the truth is – the way this really works, it is sort of shocking. It’s not what we’ve been led to believe.
E. It’s shocking because most of us have had our perceptions and sensibilities ruined by religious terminology.
K. That’s a big part of it. I mean, even the phrase “union of spirits” can be a let-down – we want to mentally tune-out when the word “spirit” is used.
E. It’s a real conversation stopper.
K. A real problem with trying to explain anything of a higher order is that no one even believes there is a higher order. Not really. We talk about all the good things coming in Summerland, and many people are glad to know about them, but – there’s a nagging hidden fear that the real fun, the real good stuff, is only to be found in this world.
E. Going to Summerland, in the view of many, is about as meaningful as one of those “legal fictions” at church.
K. Yeah, that's right.
E. So, Baby Doll, why don’t you tell them what the “union of spirits” really means – I dare you.
K. Alright… I’ll try. As I begin here, let’s keep in mind that whatever good thing we have in this world, it’s just the “pale, black-and-white copy” compared to the “original mold” in the “real world” over there. This principle extends to all that is most important to lovers who love each other – and who desire and crave to make love to each other. Here's the deal: physical love, the love expressed by bodies in union, is but a “pale, black-and-white copy,” only a "plain-vanilla" version, just an uninspired "rehearsal before opening night," of a higher-order, celestial means by which Twin lovers make love in the astral worlds. And that higher order of erotic love is called the “union of spirits.”
E. Now you have everyone's attention.
K. But – I should say a little more. This higher level form of erotic love is utterly unavailable, unattainable to any couple named John and Mary; moreover, they have no idea that there is anything else. Little do they know that their “pale, black-and-white copy” form of love is so paltry, so insipid, so wonderless, compared to the good stuff, within reach only to Twin Souls. What John and Mary have is like splashing in a kiddie pool compared to jackknifing, with twists and triple flips, off the high dive into a fifteen-foot deep pool.
E. Tell them why it's like the kiddie pool.
K. What John and Mary have is so… so… gutless, so empty, so not worth it, so unsalted, so unsatisfactory, and so… so temporary. And now let me tell you something else about the real erotic love – you and your lover can experience it even without bodies in contact!
E. You’ve now lost everyone, Dear, with "no bodies in contact."
K. Traditional love-making, "bodies in contact," will still be available, but, increasingly, it will be superseded by something more shattering. This is so because the real eroticism is not centered in the body, but in the soul, in an authentic meeting-of-minds, in a "union of spirits." Yes, I know – this sounds unlikely to everyone; but a reader’s incredulity here is fostered by a lifetime of sterile religious propaganda which has neutered the concept of spirit,” such that, no one wants anything to do with it. But I will tell you this… you and the one you love will become believers when you experience the real eroticism. It will rocket both of you to the stratosphere, and you won't come back down! - and it won’t just last five seconds, but will become a level of consciousness for you to inhabit, together - permanently. The heights of erotic climax will engulf and immerse you for a long time, as long as you want the apex of intoxication to last; but, beyond that, when you're ready to "catch your breath," there will be a lingering, stepped-down, afterglow which will never altogether leave your awareness. It will define who and what you are, serve as portal to divine perceptions of beauty and joy, shape and give hard edges to your reality, supply meaning to your "made in the image" and "One Person" status before God, and become the essence of your life – your eternal life, your eternal lives; together.
Summary of Verse One
©1971 Public Domain Foundation
I am now to be among you at the calling of your hearts
Rest assured this troubadour is acting on My part.
The union of your spirits, here, has caused Me to remain
For whenever two or more of you are gathered in My name
There am I, there is Love.
If Authentic Eternal Romantic Love were a person, she would bring us a
fervent message. Despite common jaded views that romantic love cannot
be trusted to provide enduring happiness, Love Personified seeks to
allay these cynical fears:
“Your problem,” she gently chides, “is that you take your limited
experience with love as a universal principle.”
Humankind’s cry of the heart for true love, while not a stranger to physical
expression, will find no rest and relief in a union of bodies but must seek for the enduring and satisfying “union of spirits.”
“Marriage, in its highest form,” True Love preaches, “has no
part with domestic-business concerns, socially and culturally
defined mores, mammalian impulse to procreate, or church
rules and vows.”
Sensing our steady disbelief, Love persists:
"I know you have trouble accepting what I say here. I know
you don’t believe me. I know you think you have love all figured
out and have already dismissed it. But, it is not my testimony that is in question but your own blindness to Love’s existential purpose. You have never known the true love, have never experienced it, and so you do not believe it exists.
"But I stand before you today speaking with the full authority
of highest Heaven. It is God’s will for you, ‘made in
the image,’ to find supreme delight, to enter a permanent,
romantic love relationship. It is God’s will that you adventure
and share eternal life with one particular Darling Companion.
It is God’s will that you should find complete happiness for
your distressed hearts - but none of this will be possible until
you enter a better level of consciousness; that is, until you
see the importance of ‘spirit union’ over ‘body union.’
"In affirmation of what you consider to be my radical view, I call
as my witness 'this troubadour,' who works as my agent in
the world, effecting my purpose; and also, this couple before
me today, at this wedding ceremony. These sacred two have
experienced authentic romance, and they are no longer deceived
by ‘pretty faces’ as ultimate value. Their eyes have opened to what’s real. And that’s why they’re here before me today, now able to serve as witnesses of true love to the rest of you.
"All shall yet receive the tremendous gift which is theirs, but not until a new and higher perspective is brought to the process."
Editor’s note: Recently I reread the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg,
his “Conjugial Love and Its Chaste Delights” (1768). Swedenborg was
one of the most famous and influential persons of the eighteenth
century; he was also an accomplished afterlife researcher and psychic-
medium. See the page devoted to him on the Word Gems site.
In one of his visions of Summerland, a Spirit Being had delivered
a pronouncement of the importance of True Love, very much in line with what we find in The Wedding Song.
Notice, too, in the following excerpts, a parallel emphasis on authority (a “commission”) and overcoming the doubts (“no one on earth as yet knows”) of those who presume to know everything about love:
I addressed [the Spirit Being] and asked him his errand...
He replied, “My commission is ... to declare ... in the natural world,
respecting HEAVENLY JOY and ETERNAL HAPPINESS... there is not a single person throughout the whole ... world that is acquainted
with the true nature of heavenly joy and eternal happiness ...
that heavenly joy and eternal happiness constitute the very life of
heaven; so much so that whoever enters heaven, enters, in regard
to his life, into its festivities...”
“We are aware that no one on earth as yet knows what true conjugial
love is... and yet it is of importance that it should be known:
therefore [we will] open the heavens to you in order that illustrating
light, and consequent perception may flow into the interiors of
your mind. With us, in the heavens, especially in the third heaven
[Summerland, and beyond], our heavenly delights are principally
derived from conjugial love.”
How remarkable – “not a single person… no one on earth as yet knows
what true conjugial love is.” In other words, as The Wedding Song asserts, it’s “something never seen before.”
“Conjugial” or “conjugal” love, in modern usage, refers to a generalized
love that causes people to want to be together, to come together. But
Swedenborg, as we learn from his discussions, uses this term in a narrow
sense; for him, “conjugial love” means the romantic-spiritual love
between one particular man and one particular woman, drawing them
together, inexorably, in soul-knit erotic relationship. In other words, in
his terminology, we infer, it is the love between Twin Souls. Hardly one
person on Earth, he says, knows about Twin love, even though this kind
of super-intimacy constitutes the principle and chief delight and even the
“very life” of heaven; as we've seen, Spirit-Guide Margaret concurs that true love is the main part of Summerland's blessing.
These Troubadour Guides are proclaiming to us, though the astral realms are the ineluctable destination for all, without the marvel of Twin-Soul love, there will be no heavenly happiness for us. Is this not amazing? This should be basic information for all human beings. It’s like knowing we’ll have to make a stop in France, but we’ve never heard of defining sights such as Chartres Cathedral, Versailles, or the Avenue des Champs-Élysées.