The Missing Step between non-duality and duality

[Rogier van Vlissingen]

Coming from a perspective of ACIM, it seems to me there is a missing step that I stumble into with BK. To me the world is not the manifestation (outward appearance) of the mind of God, but it is the manifestation of the dualistic thought that it would be possibe to be separate from God, once we entertain that thought, it is projected out as the world. In some gnostic systems this is explained as a "creator God, as opposted to the real God, who is the completely non-dual source of everything. So the step from nonduality to duality is missing then you say that the world is the outward appearance ( manifestation) of the mind of God. As the Course would have it, if that were the case, God would be quite insane. I find this step a helpful part of the overal explanation. By the same token, ACIM also says that God does not know about the world - it is merely a thought in the mind of the son.

[Robert Arvay]

ACIM also says that God does not know about the world

And so there we part ways, my friend.

.

.

[Rogier van Vlissingen]

Right, we agree to disagree, that much was obvious by me raising the question in this forum.

I raise it simply because I think it is an interesting question.
It is the same as did God create the world or not. So, the gnostics and ACIM think the world is the manifestation of the thought of separation (the ego), which arose within the oneness of God. So in a symbolic fashion that myth explains the step from non-duality to duality, which is logically necessary because one comes before two. The moment of separation from the oneness of God is the moment duality begins, and you then have a limited mind, which projects a physical world in which everything is observable, measurable and therefore limited.

[Scott Roberts]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:43:59 AM UTC-10, Rogier van Vlissingen wrote:

Coming from a perspective of ACIM, it seems to me there is a missing step that I stumble into with BK. To me the world is not the manifestation (outward appearance) of the mind of God, but it is the manifestation of the dualistic thought that it would be possibe to be separate from God, once we entertain that thought, it is projected out as the world.

While I can agree that the world exists as a consequence of entertaining the idea of separation from God, I don't see how this is sufficient to explain the world in all its variety. So it is a necessary but not sufficient cause.

 

In some gnostic systems this is explained as a "creator God, as opposted to the real God, who is the completely non-dual source of everything. So the step from nonduality to duality is missing then you say that the world is the outward appearance ( manifestation) of the mind of God.

Strictly speaking, BK says it is the outward appearance of Mind-at-Large, which doesn't need to be interpreted as the nondual God. All that is required for idealism is that it be "mind other than human egos". In BK's idealism, the step from nonduality to duality is covered in the idea of alters, and there is no reason not to view alters as explorations in the idea of separation. One can then view the world as the manifestation of ideas of non-human alters.

 

As the Course would have it, if that were the case, God would be quite insane.

My opinion is that the idea of separation is used as a step in creating images of God. We go insane (thinking ourselves separate) for a while so that we can acquire a will of our own, thus becoming creations that create.

 

I find this step a helpful part of the overal explanation. By the same token, ACIM also says that God does not know about the world - it is merely a thought in the mind of the son.

That sounds dualist to me. Doesn't it imply that the Son is not God? Also circular: if duality arises from the idea of separation, doesn't the idea of separation have to be produced by the nondual?

[Rogier van Vlissingen]

Thanks for the feedback... interesting.... in Brief Glimpses, he says literally that the world is the outward manifestation of the mind of God. Which to me equates to the notion that God created the world. When you merely say it is the outward impression of the mind at large then he sounds closer to what ACIM says. So I was a bit confused by this.

The mythology of ACIM has it that in Heaven (Eternity, Infinity, Spirit, Mind, Oneness, etc.) the father and the son are one - "there is no place where the father ends and the son begins," but then "Into eternity where all is one, there crept a tiny mad idea, at which the Son remembered not to laugh." In short, one day the son suffered some sunstroke and dreamt up this silly idea, that he could set out on his own and be separate from God. HIs "mistake" (not a "sin!") was  to take this stupid idea seriously, and then to imagine himself having a mind separate from God, and therefore something less than everything - limited mind (lowercase m) - still one, until the son flees the mind by projecting the physical universe of bodies in a world, where he can hide from God, who he presumes is furious that he ran away from home. In short, the lower case "m" mind is really already a dream, for it is based on mistakenly taking an idea (separation) seriously and then projecting out the consequences in the form of a world of separate identities and separate bodies.

What appeals to me about this sequence is what I said before that it explains symbolically the step from nonduality to duality (for separation is duality) which the Course then further explains was not real to begin with and our only problem is that we forgot our true reality: "You are at home in God, dreaming of exile but perfectly capable of awakening to reality." (ACIM:T-1.I:2) So, the way the progression is viewed here is from oneness (Heaven) to opposition (separation and individuality), and then going from one to many for if I look at myself as an individual, I see everything else the same way.

[Robert Arvay]

To Rogier:

As an evangelical Christian, it seems to me that your theology is unnecessarily complicated, and without adding any value to the Biblical account.

It is also antithetical to the Bible.

While I find myself much in agreement with Idealism, there are some here who regard me more as a physicalist.

My basic statement in this regard is that

life, consciousness and free will are foundations of physical reality.

Without those three, physical reality could not exist.

With them, it can.

I also think that Gnosticism is in error,

but perhaps that is another subject.

If you wish, you might glance at my blogs:

http://thegodparadigm.blogspot.com/

and

http://thegodparadigmdiscussion.blogspot.com/

for further details. 

[Rogier van Vlissingen]

Thanks for your thoughtful explanation.

You and I would have to agree to disagree. At age 6 in Bible class, I asked the teacher if she expected me to take the creation story literally, in particular when it came to God creating Eve from Adam's rib. She said yes, I said no, it should obviously be taken symbolically, so I did not want to be in the class. I turned around and got my parents to take me out of the class. I guess, that would clarify how I would consider you a physicalist, for if God created the physical world, it would be objectively real, instead of merely a perceptual temper tantrum.

Evidently, it stands to reason that you would find gnosticism in error. That again is where we get to agreeing to disagree, for I found Christianity to be in error from very early on, even though I read my Bible very thoroughly in Hebrew and Greek, but when it came to Christian theology is was on the outs with them and basically avoided them. I was more like Thomas Jefferson, interested in what Jesus actually taught, but not in the Christian commentary about him. Paul right away turned Jesus on his head when he said the resurrection was in the body ("en sarx" in Greek), not in the mind. I believe Jesus was a teacher of non-duality, for once you accept that all the "mysteries of the faith" of Christianity are resolved. In this context it also makes sense I should become very interested in the Thomas gospel also - see www.acimnthomas.com

So this also leads me to clarify my confusion with BK's language, for if indeed "the world" is directly the outer manifestation of God's thoughts, that is tantamount to the same thing as saying God created the world, and elevates it to objective reality and would be a physicalist position. This is where I find that the mythology of A Course in Miracles make much more sense.

[Robert Arvay]

when it came to God creating Eve from Adam's rib.

As a curiosity, it should be noted that, the only bone which, when

entirely removed, and then grows back, is the rib.

Hmmm.

.

[RHC]

Rogier thanks for posting this. 

I dont agree with your interpretation of ACIM, in this regard, which may just amount to semantics:  ACIM is a true idealist monism, in that God is all there is. When the son wondered, and the Universe came into being, it still did so within God. That God is unaware of what goes on in a portion of itself, seems a little weird but who is to say what God can and cant do or choose to do. True dualism means more than one ontological primitive which ACIM doesnt suggest.   Boy I suddenly got a strong feeling of deja vu writing this.

[Rogier van Vlissingen]

Hi:

I am not sure what you mean with my interpreting ACIM, so please point out to me how that is the case. I meant merely to summarize, not to interpret. To me it seems that non-dualism is what the Course says on the most abstract level. "God is and then we cease to speak," etc. It makes it very clear that Oneness, "Heaven," is the only reality worthy of the name - other terms you could put at that level would be Infinity, Love, Eternity, Spirit, Mind, and it even makes the comment that there is no place where the Father ends and the Son begins. However on the more practical level the book is entirely directed to the process of our "returning home,"  from this dream of duality, which we are having while we are safely sleep, but perfectly capable of waking up to reality.

How the Course handles Maya and the making of the world is very different from other systems though, and critically so in the context we are discussing. I.e. even if Maya (the world of perception, as opposed to reality) is merely a game that the godhead (Brahman) is playing, that still grants the world reality. The subtle difference that the Course makes in this regard is that it explains the unexplainable by saying that not God (as a Whole), but the Son had this silly little idea of what if I could be separate, and in his dream now lives out the consequences of having a separate (and by devinition limited) mind, which however is still one - i.e. there is one ego, one thought of separation, one consciousness, however its nature is such that once the son thinks he is a separate individual, by a process of refraction he MUST perceive everything as individuals and he projects this out into a world of separate individualities and bodies. Furthermore it explains the difference between creating and making - i.e. the world of perception (duality) is made by the separated mind (lower case m), as opposed to the mind of God.

The operative point of this mythology is that the explicate order, the world of perception, the physical universe which we love so much to study is the manifestation of that thought of separation and differences, whereas in the Course's language, God only creates, which is explained as a process of never ending extension, while consciousness, the separated mind, can only project, in what is the son's attempt at mimicing creation, but the Course calls that "making," as opposed to creation. But to use a gnostic term, that observable world is an abortion, a still birth - the Course says about that: there is no life outside of Heaven.

Advaita vedanta fails to provide an expalanation of the same cailber, and the Course gets around it by explaining that it cannot be understood, because it only happened in a dream, and God (Reality, Heaven, Oneness) does not even know about the world. These steps account for the transition from Oneness, absolute and perfect non-duality, to a dualistic world of duality, and consciousness is the first step in that process, for consciousness is of something, i.e. the ego one it imagines being separate from God, is now conscious of God, The logic is purely that oneness must of necessity precede twoness (duality), and only one of them can be real. Therefore in terms of the Course, only truth is true and everything else is a lie, only Oneness is Real, there is no Life outside of Heaven, etc. Oneness is reality, perception is dualistic, and therefore not real, so Maya is the implicit choice of the separated mind that it implicit in the choice for separation. The Course also helpfully points out that this explanation is not completely satisfactory, but can really only be experienced whenever our mind returns to oneness.

Ergo, in these terms, BK's notion that the manifest, observable world is merely what the thoughts of the mind-at-large (which he equates to "God΅) look like to an observer of them, is equivalent to thinking that God created the manifest world and makes this approach a closet dualism, not a non-dualism. That said, I am absolutely enjoying the clarity of BK's work, which is very refreshing indeed, except that I would insert that extra step - i.e. the manifest world is the observation of the workings of the separated mind, as opposed to the Mind of God. Once I do that the whole thing makes sense, and that simple step makes it non-dualist in the end, while acknowledging that our day to day experience indeed seems to be within this very dualistic world of perception and when I shave in the morning, I still think that the face I see in the mirror is me.