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.