A reader I’ll call “P” writes: “I’d say a straight reading of the course says the Father created multiple Sons. Whether these Sons somehow share mind, or created with minds, again is speculative. I’m inclined now to believe mind is shared.”

Since I try to stick to what can actually be known, I usually think of the whole “other” concept this way. I can believe that other minds, people, things exist outside my awareness of those things but I can’t know that they do. There is certainly plenty of evidence that there is something “out there.” I have no memory of writing the songs, books, television programs, etc that appear in “my world” but that evidence does not prove the source of that stuff is what I think it is. I don’t know what the source of anything I don’t recall making or doing is — and not really even that. So letting go of the belief that I DO know turns the world into a very different place.

What was formerly “Oh that’s just this or that …” Becomes “Wow! What is this and where did THAT come from?” It’s like being a child — looking at clouds for instance –having never been taught what a “cloud” is. Everything becomes extraordinarily interesting when I don’t presume to already know what it is and what it means.

As the Course says “come empty.” The way *I* see that however, is NOT the “anti-intellectualism” so often touted these days. It’s just a reversal of where thought comes from — or seems to come from. I often wonder why so many Course students seem to think the Holy Spirit can use just about anything except intellect. Actually, I don’t wonder. Seems to me if you can convince people the intellect is useless or bad, you can lead them like sheep to the slaughter. The difference — seems to me — in what the Course calls “Right mindedness” and “wrong mindedness” is in whether the intellect is used to serve an already established belief system or not. In my book, “I don’t know” is the door to right minded thinking. Not to replace old beliefs with new beliefs, but to let go of belief altogether and see what is AS it is.

Quite honestly, I don’t think A Course in Miracles can be understood any other way. But for it to be more than just another intellectual exercise it has to be used. One of the things I love most about it is that it does NOT claim to put absolute truth into words. In fact, it SAYS the text is a “theoretical foundation” and the workbook “need not be believed or even accepted.” It SAYS “this is only a beginning.”

And yet, I hear Course students all the time saying “this forgiveness process will take lifetimes upon lifetimes.” Really? If the forgiveness process will take lifetimes upon lifetimes and is only a beginning we should be in for an interesting ride here.

P: “Since minds are naturally in communication, separation would indicate a mind which has limited or eliminated communication.”

Yes, the question is “Why would the mind chose to limit itself.” I think the Course clearly gives us that answer. We did/do it for fun but then we forget. We CAN however remember any time we choose to do so. All that is needed is a willingness to let go of attachment to outcome.

P: “I couldn’t care less if someone says, “I am God.” What I object to is someone saying the course teaches “I am God,” if one just reads the text as metaphor and inserts their own beliefs or claims to direct knowledge.”

Well, I think the Course DOES say “I am the Savior of the world” and “You are the kingdom of God.“ That only becomes a problem — as I said — when it is taken personally to mean ‘Deborah is the savior of the world” when, in fact, Deborah is nothing more than a character appearing in the world.

But I think I understand what you mean about caring only when people claim their own beliefs are “what the Course teaches.” I don’t care who says “God didn’t create the universe” or “when the son of god wakes up the universe disappears” either. But I do care when they say that is what the Course teaches, when clearly it is not. *I* happen to think that is a rather mindless way of using the Course to answer the age-old question “How could a good God create such an evil world?” I don’t presume to know that IS where that interpretation comes from but it is about the only reasonable answer *I* have heard to why the Course is interpreted that way. To me, the Course becomes a very inconsistent and “crazy” thought system when it is used to prove “this is a kill-or-be-killed world where we can’t even breathe without attacking God.”

When I first began to converse with other Course students I spent quite a lot of time asking “Why does the Course say God is in everything I see” when what it really means is “God is in nothing I see?” And “Why does the Course say ‘God loves the world’ — in fact — ‘loves the world so much that He gave it to His Only Begotten Son’ when what it really means is “God isn’t even aware of the world.”

The ONLY answer I got to those questions was “it’s a different world” — usually a world that cannot be seen with the body’s eyes, making the “the real world” one that excludes anything and everything said to be “physical” and in so doing makes “the real world” as isolated and private as “the world ego made.“

That is also the answer I always got to why does the Course say God created the universe and the earth. “That’s a different universe — a spiritual universe. The Course itself, however, does NOT say that. It certainly speaks of two worlds — the world you see and the real or forgiven world. But it never speaks of two universes or two earths.

P: “If God gives life and creates it would seem to me awareness of being alive and existing would be a natural part of that gift.”

I‘m not convinced that God creates life. That He extends life and in so doing expands it, I have no doubt. But that life can be created, I’m not sure. The forms in which life appears I would say are created. But Life — I think — is just another word FOR God.

P: “I think souls are microcosms of God. I also think souls are created perfect but must learn to co-create with the Father and learn from their mis-creations.”

I think the Course says souls are not in need of healing, having never forgotten that separation isn‘t real. Only the mind needs healing. I will add, however, that having the word “soul“ returned to the Course in the urtext version was — for me — like opening a thousand windows. As was the return of the word “fact.”

P: “The way I understand it is spirit/soul is perfected God-mind. It projects, thinks, creates mind so that the soul creates and can experience through mind what it creates.”

I can’t really say for sure that there even is a thing called “mind” but can understand how the thought of a mind can be helpful in articulating where thought comes from and even more so in communicating the contrast between “right“ use of thought and “wrong“ use of thought. But apart from that I tend to agree with what you say here. Which is actually why I can‘t buy into the “God didn‘t create the physical universe, but only a spiritual universe.” I don‘t know how to tell what is “physical“ and what is “spiritual“ EXCEPT that what is called physical is changeable, what is called spiritual is not changeable but DOES expand through creation.

As the Course says ‘You can’t see the Holy Spirit but you can see his effects and unless you do you will not know that He is here.”

I CAN see the difference in “the world you see” — which is always private and can only be “shared” verbally and “the real world” — which is universally shared. But I can’t see a “spiritual universe.” Of course, people often tell me that’s because I am not as “spiritually advanced” as they are.

P: “Self is identification. In true creation identification with one’s creation is a good thing. This extends the Kingdom.”

Yes. Identification with the totality of what appears or is created in any given moment not with any specific part.

P: “In other words, the entire projected universe/world is a false creation and thus a false self. Not just the body and the sense, “I am so and so,” or “I am Deborah.” The entire dream is self and the ego self, not just the body and the immediate ego identity.”

This is where we disagree. I don‘t see the universe as false creation. “God IS the universe.” The false creation is belief in thoughts ABOUT the universe — what it is, what it means and what it is for, which to my way of thinking the Course calls “the world you see.”

P: “Are there real separate “I” in this scenario? Or other “I”‘s simply dream figures? Again, I inclined to think multiple Sons of God are participating in the same dream.”

I don‘t know whether they are or are not. I only know that IF they are, I can only know them in relation to myself. So I might just as well forget the question entirely and focus on that relationship.

“The miracle perceives everything as it is. If nothing but the truth exists (and this is really a redundant statement because what is not true cannot exist) right-minded seeing cannot see anything but perfection. We have said many times that only what God creates, or what man creates with the same will, has any real existence. This, then, is all the innocent can see.”
From A Course In Miracles, Ch 3, Sec IV Miracles as Accurate Perception par 2
God is in everything I see.

In a way, it is really the fear of death. Yes, our survival is often tied into jobs, relationships, money, virtually anything that is form. And survival is the survival of the “me.” So in a deeper sense it is all about identity, and “who I am.” Until there is a recognition of awareness as our real identity, we tend to look to thought for a sense of self. Jobs, relationships, money are experienced as thoughts. “I feel secure because I’m bringing home a paycheck.” “I’m scared because I just lost my job.” “What will I do if the economy crashes?” “I will be lost if my wife leaves me.” It is normal to believe that these thoughts are pointing to an objective reality. But these are first and foremost thoughts. Nothing more than images coming and going in awareness. They are not pointing to a reality beyond themselves. It is only by thinking the thought, “The future will be bleak” that creates the sense that the future will be bleak. Outside of that thought, there is no future and no “bleak.” This doesn’t mean that we don’t take practical steps like saving money, showing up for work and looking for a job when we lose a job. But when these steps are divorced from the psychological fear of future, they happen very easily, without worry or fear. Life lives itself.

Start noticing the script as it runs in your head. Notice the ways in which thought projects outward into future, creating scenarios of fear, threat, loss, suffering, sickness, and even death. This is the movement of the separate self, projecting outward into a dream of time. It’s thought. As long as you have a future, you have a separate self sense. And future is always thought. And thought is always an appearance occurring in present awareness, never outside of it. In that sense, there is no future. No one has ever touched anything called future except as a thought happening now.

What would it be like to have no future in a psychological sense? I mean to have no expectations. To know nothing about what is going to happen. That is freedom—freedom to live fully now. It’s quite natural actually because in fact we don’t know what is going to happen. All we have are thoughts that play various scenarios basically alternating between scripts involving hope (“The future will be better”) and fear (“The future will be worse”). In this invitation to start noticing the script, notice that whatever sees these thoughts as they appear IS already awareness. Awareness is already whole and complete. Awareness is outside stories of time, past, future, threat, survival, etc. That awareness is what you are. It is the only “thing” that does not come and go. It is untouched by these stories. It is like the opening through which the stories come and go.

By just making it a priority to notice that you are this awareness in all situations, regardless of whether you find the mind telling a good or bad story, this awareness is seen to have all the stability you are seeking. Do you see that the mind is seeking stability when these future stories are appearing? The self wants to know it will be ok. But there really is no stability in this future story. It is very shaky and always under threat. The mere thought of losing a job tends to shake one’s entire identity. This is because this thought-based self is not our real identity. Nothing real can be threatened. This is why it is important to recognize that your identity is awareness. This provides the stability you are seeking and provides a great capacity to handle anything from job loss, to sickness, suffering and even death of the physical body. This takes time out of the picture as this menacing force that always feels like it is haunting you.

Scott

I have seen 360 degree shots before, but nothing like this.

Look all the way up and all the way down and you don’t get

any decrease in the shot.

You can’t even see where the camera equipment is, it’s like

it’s not even there. Use your mouse to move around.

It takes practice.  ENJOY ! ! !

http://www.utah3d.net/index.html

Limitlessness.com

From Jim

Yes it can seem confusing. The belief in a separate self is all about the idea that the individual “I” has autonomous control (as if it exists separate and apart from awareness and from life), and that it can and should take action now to bring about something later. But the something later is almost always a personal benefit. There is nothing particularly wrong with this notion. What I mean is, for some, they only want the personal story—the want a happy ending. They want the belief that they are personally manifesting things in their lives. Great, let them have fun with that! But in really looking, we see there is no self separate and apart from life. And so every time we struggle against something, against the universe, against others, we bump up against conflict. Our self-centeredness has been teaching us that there is no self that exists separate and apart from life or freedom or whatever. There is no division or separation there. It’s a belief system that is perfectly designed to produce a time-bound story in which one seeks completion, union, non-separation. We might call it “a new job,” or “happiness,” but what we really seek is the recognition of non-separation. That ends the dilemma of seeking in all its forms.

In looking from awareness, rather that from the thought-based, time-bound self story, a whole new opportunity arises. This is the opportunity for real freedom. There is a personal will involved in the belief in the autonomy of the individual self. The self always seems to bump up against disappointment or at least lack of total fulfillment in the story. He keeps taking action to bring about certain things. And sometimes it appears his actions do bring about the desired result. This feeds the notion that he has personal will and control. Other times the desired result doesn’t seem to appear. Even when the actions do bring about the desired result (or appear to at least), it isn’t long before the seeking begins again. You see, it is not the result the self looks for. It is control. It is seeking. It is future. As long as the self has a future in which to search out something else, something more, the sense of a personal will continues operating. This is because the separation is still being believed. The self is looking for completion. This keeps the idea that “I am an autonomous person” alive. This is how the time-bound story keeps going. Freedom is always out there somewhere, in the future. This is perfect fuel for the idea that “I” have control and can bring the future freedom or whatever about, that I am an individually acting person with choice and control. Most don’t actually find contentment in the story for very long.

For me, the point is not whether there is ultimately free will. I will leave that to the philosophers. In recognizing awareness, rather than living from the belief in being an autonomous self who is in control, the notion of having to apply effort to bring about change falls away. This comes through the recognition of awareness, not through a philosophy about whether there is free will. A philosophy might help the mind relax a little. But the experiential recognition of awareness provides complete relaxation of all those efforts. As effort falls away, life is simple. From this standpoint, frankly, the idea of “choice” and “no choice” both feel like passing thoughts. There is no sense of self tied into either thought. In one sense, everything just arises–thought, emotion, experience–involuntarily. But when thought arises, it gives the appearance of choice. For example, the notion of wanting something to drink just appears involuntarily as a thought. But once the thought appears, it feels as if I chose the thought. I didn’t really choose it. It just appears that way. So I enjoy that appearance and grab a coke. Very simple. Not philosophical at all. Just drinking a coke! Not trying to grasp anymore whether “I” chose that or not.

How painful that was, to believe that I was this time-bound story that constantly needed to bring about change, to have control, to choose everything. This constant need to bring about change was, in a sense, a denial of what was presently happening. Life was always about the future, about what could be later, not ‘what is’ presently. You see, in this moment, all there is, is drinking a coke. No philosophy needed. It’s that simple. The mind just wants to complicate it. When that sense of separation falls away, and awareness is recognized as WHAT YOU ARE, there is an absence of a self there making a big deal about whether it has choice or not. It’s only, “Drinking a coke. Gulp. Gulp.”

In looking from and as awareness, the personal will just slips away. It is ONLY the personal will that even has a problem with the question of free will or no free will. These questions of free will are fun to play with, I’ll admit, but when there is intense seeking, the question is very serious and this just causes frustration and more seeking. The person wants to be in control, wants to find the answers, and believes the answer is in the mind, and in the future. It isn’t. The notion of having no personal will is very scary to the “person.” But this is only because the experiential seeing of what is being pointed to (non-duality) has not yet revealed itself. Do you see? The experiential recognition of awareness, for me, means applying no effort to live. The personal will cannot achieve that. Its game is a game of effort and will, and therefore frustration and more seeking.

From and as awareness, there is no longer moving to bring about change from the standpoint of a personal will. In a way that I have never been able to articulate, however, that is exactly what provides the capacity for real transformation. It’s the personal will (or the belief in personal will) that provides all the heartache, all the philosophical frustration over the question of free will, all the constant moving towards something else in some later moment, and frankly all the stagnation within a personal story that just repeats itself like an old record player skipping in a room.

Awareness is so simple that the mind can’t grasp it. There is nothing to repeat. Nothing to know. Life is fresh in this moment, totally new, as if the past didn’t happen and the future isn’t here. It is literally being surrendered to what is, like just drinking a coke. And that is perfect freedom. And, in my view, this is why there is pure potentiality, the capacity for transformation.

This is why it is paradoxical. Only by seeing through the notion of personal will can this freedom be realized. What a mystery…because the “person” is convinced that if they apply enough effort, if they engage personal will enough, they will be free. It won’t happen. You are already free as present awareness. We either recognize that or not. And when it’s recognized, it’s now. It’s always now. It’s always present awareness that is recognized. In this freshness, I feel totally and absolutely involved in life. 100%…in a way I never could when identity was lodged in the time-bound, personal story. So when action is taken, there may be an idea of where the action could lead, but there is freedom no matter what happens because there is no attachment to any particular result. It’s like playing…just playing with choice knowing that there really isn’t personal choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_4R0Ks54dg

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

“The Road Not Taken” by Robert Frost. Public domain.

For a while, on the path, witnessing can be extremely helpful. It allows a recognition that whatever appears comes and goes in what you are. It is not what you are. You are the witnessing presence.

As with all pointers, however, it loses its usefulness. Here is a quote from Wei Wu Wei illustrating the fact that pointers have a limited life span: ….”teaching can only be given via a series of untruths diminishing in inveracity in ratio to the pupil’s apprehension of the falsity of what he is being taught….Truth cannot be communicated: it can only be laid bare.”

Witnessing appearances (i.e., thoughts, emotions, states, sensations, and experiences) come and go can be helpful until one day you realize that the mind has created this massive split between the nothingness of awareness (i.e., the witness) and the everythingness of appearances (i.e., that which is witnessed). This can give the sense of detachment or even essentializing awareness (making it into something separate from what appears, something that has its own essential nature). Once something is thought to have its own essential nature, separation between that thing and other things seems real. So the witness can, for some but not everyone, become another form of separation.

This is exactly why I talk about inseparability or indivisibility. If you can hear these following pointers very directly and with a relaxed attitude of pure openness in the body and mind, they may help to avoid the trap of feeling as though the witness is separate from what is witnessed:

Recognize present awareness and see that all appearances are not separate from awareness.

Nothing that appears has an independent nature. Awareness is like the great space in which everything happens. But the things that happen never appear outside this space. So the things and the space are inseparable. And the things are mainly concepts. And concepts are empty images appearing within empty awareness.

There is no way to even know an apple without awareness. It takes awareness to conceptualize the experience of eating what appears to be this separate object called “apple.” Without awareness, there is no sense that there is a color there—red. Without awareness, there is no way to know of the smooth texture of this apple. Without awareness, there is no way to experience the sensory feeling of crunching the apple or tasting its flavor. And without awareness, the concept apple cannot appear. Awareness is inseparable from all appearances in that way. They are not two.

This applies to everything.

Take for example this post you are reading. It takes awareness to see what is here, to read these words, to conceptualize their meaning. The word “post” itself never appears outside awareness. That is because awareness conceptualizes this sensory experience and calls it a post. It is not a post (or I should say)…there is no way to know anything called a “post” without awareness and the concept “post” appearing in it. There simply is no post outside of awareness. Even if you walked away from the computer and thought about this post as having some independent existence “out there” somewhere, the post would appear as a thought within awareness. There is no way to separate the witness from what it THINKS it is perceiving as an object “out there.” This is to say there is no “in here” and “out there.” Those are ideas only, and they appear only because there is awareness. And there are no separate objects. There are only concepts appearing within awareness giving the appearance of separate things. “In here” and “out there” cannot be pulled apart any more than you can pull a cloud out of the sky it floats in. The universe (otherwise known as awareness) cannot be put into pieces. It has never been in pieces. Only thought creates the sense of parts or pieces.

So, although witnessing can be a great tool, the mind just likes to create two more pieces there—between awareness and what appears within awareness, between the witness and what is witnessed. The division is still conceptual, even though it feels totally real.

What I was saying with respect to “resting as emotion” is that, instead of witnessing things away or witnessing as if to push them away or treat them as real objects, there can be a practice where you let appearances be as they are. This means to let emotions, thoughts, experiences, sensations, and states to be as they are.

What does this mean?

Look at appearances. They are the energy of awareness. Out of nothing, an appearance seamlessly appears. It has its own lifespan and then it just comes naturally to rest in awareness. In letting each appearance, each thought, each emotion be as it is, it is not about pushing anything away. Pushing away is repression or denial. This is seeing that everything that appears is an expression of awareness, not something independent of awareness that must be “watched.”

There is a beautiful kind of allowing that can be realized in just letting a thought or an emotion have its entire lifespan, without moving to manipulate it in any sense. It’s like riding a wave until the wave diminishes to nothing, right back into the ocean. Witnessing often has a sense of wanting the wave to go away more quickly. It can be a subtle denial of the wave. But `letting’ is riding that wave, appreciating the fact that it has its own energy. There is no personal will in riding the wave.

It’s like looking for that line between awareness and what appears in awareness and not finding a line. Each time you find a line, what you really have is a concept. For example, it is only when you think the thought “apple” that it appears as something separate from the space around it and the table and chairs. It is only when you emphasize the views “in here” and “out there” that you have a witness separate from what is seen. There is a seamlessness to life that thought never reveals. Yet awareness sees it naturally. This is why I often talk about pure space or non-conceptual awareness as a good practice. It really is key, in my view. But it isn’t the whole story because even when concepts appear, they aren’t separate from that non-conceptual awareness.

For example, the steam metaphor. When a steam cloud appears in the bathroom, the steam is not separate from the space in which it appears. The space isn’t “witnessing” the steam as if they are independent. The space isn’t “learning” from the steam. It isn’t gaining insight from noticing the steam. The space is the steam appearing inseparably. The space is being the steam and the steam is being the space. No separation. You cannot pull steam out of the space. You cannot pull space out of the steam. In the same way, you cannot pull your awareness of an apple out of the apple or vice versa. The two arise together as one experience, so to speak.

And so, even “letting” an appearance be as it is… isn’t the right word. There are no right words. There are only pointers, as Wei Wu Wei said. Pointers are like little floatation devices in a body of water. You use them temporarily. You don’t treat them like solid islands to build your house upon. By treating them only as tools, instead of truths, you are open to the next pointer when it comes.

“Letting” is more like recognizing that every appearance is doing exactly what it is supposed to do on its own time, in its own way, without the personal will getting in there to do something with the appearance. The thought or emotion is appearing, hanging around a while, then disappearing inseparably within space. In no longer moving to do something with appearances (manipulate them, understand them, get rid of them, witness them away) they are allowed to be just as they are. And even the movement to manipulate an appearance is seen to be a movement of awareness. This leaves us nowhere to go. We are right here. That’s it. No personal will. No efforting. Just simple present being, in whatever way that is happening or appearing!

Scott

The person is always trying to stand apart from the present moment, from awareness, as something separate. The past is where identity is lodged, and because the past feels incomplete, there is this constant seeking towards completion, which is thought to be in future. So there is a looking into future for enlightenment, a new relationship, maybe the next drug, the right conceptual understanding, or a job promotion—whatever one happens to be seeking. Yet all of these are merely concepts and concepts appear and disappear within timeless awareness. In a sense, the separate self is longing for non-separation, but it is looking in the wrong place, so to speak. It is looking in concepts, and time is one of those concepts. Looking to concepts for completion only solidifies the separation because the self is mainly a story of thought. I say mainly because it seems to have a physical component also for some people, like a contraction somewhere in the body. The self just keeps fueling its own story as it seeks future. And thought is always dualistic and therefore incomplete. Thought cannot capture non-separation. This is why a good conceptual understanding of non-duality is only a good start. The recognition must be experiential.

This is why it is sometimes said that no one gets enlightened. The story of time is happening within awareness. When awareness sees time and this story as an appearance within it, the story is seen to be not real, like a dream. That is the recognition of non-dual awareness. It’s then realized that nothing stands apart from awareness. In other words, it is only because of awareness that the story can appear in the first place. It is only because of timeless awareness that time appears. So, although it is accurate to say the story of self cannot realize non-dual awareness, awareness is recognized, so to speak, but by no one. There is no one there to add, “I’m aware” to the story. The words “I’m aware” are merely concepts appearing in actual awareness. In this seeing, awareness is not something you see as an appearance. It’s like a knowing of what you are in the deepest sense, not as an idea, but as an actuality—as the awake, present space in which the entire world appears. And awareness is already complete as it is. It is seen that nothing has ever or could ever stand apart from awareness. In seeing that nothing is separate from awareness—from what you are—there is nothing left to seek.

Why is this not recognized in some people? …because of a persistent belief that it lies somewhere else, in some person, place or thing. But people, places, and things are concepts. There is a constant looking to concepts for completion. Happiness, enlightenment, the ideal partner, past, future, time, hope are first and foremost concepts. If they are pointing to anything, they are pointing to awareness itself, but awareness is what is simply awake right now. These concepts are appearances that come and go within what is awake right now. That recognition resolves the dilemma the seeker finds himself in.

Scott