Reviewing the ACIM teaching that God did not create body or the world

Joe Jesseph

unread,

Dec 8, 2003, 12:39:26 PM12/8/03

to

"What God did not create does not exist. And everything that
does exist exists as He created it. The world you see has nothing
to do with reality. It is of your own making, and it does not
exist" (W-pI.14.1:2-5).
______________________________

"God did not make the body, because it is destructible, and
therefore not of the Kingdom. The body is the symbol of what you
think you are. It is clearly a separation device, and therefore does
not exist" (T-6.V(A).2:1-3 [HLC T-6, p.76] ).
______________________________

Understanding the metaphysics and theology of the Course is important for
understanding and implementing its practical teachings about forgiveness.
Without this understanding, one is likely to attempt to practice
"forgiveness" on ones own from an ego frame of reference, without fully
appreciating the reality of mind (or spirit); what the Course means by the
terms "mind," and "Mind;" and what is involved in stepping back to let
the Holy Spirit or Jesus lead the way (see Workbook lesson #155).

It is a most important metaphysical teaching in ACIM that God did not
create the world or the body (include brain, which the Course clearly says
does not think -- W #92). That means that God created nothing of form;
nothing that can be perceived. The Course explicitly states that "God knows
not form" (T-30.III.4:5 [HLC T-30, p. 396] ) and what God does not know --
what is not included in what the Course calls "knowledge" -- is not real.
In many places throughout the Course it is stated that God creates only like
Himself and God does not perceive, is not located anywhere in time and
space, is changeless and is Spirit which is completely abstract or formless,
which means unable to be symbolized with words or measured with numbers.
Time and space are an illusion ("one illusion" - T-26.VIII. 1:3 [HLC T-26,
p.354] ). If God created the world (anything that has dimension and can be
measured -- this means the entire physical cosmos), then the ACIM Atonement
principle cannot be true. That's not an easy teaching to accept and many try
to avoid accepting it even at the intellectual level, let alone remove the
ego blocks to experiencing it at the spiritual or mind level.

Obviously, the student of ACIM should follow the Course rather than
attempting to make the Course follow the student. It's a very radical
Course which confronts us with ideas that are entirely different from what
we've come to believe. That is why the Course tells us, "To learn this
course requires willingness to question every value that you hold"
(T-24.IN.2:1 [HLC T-24, p.320] ).

In the paragraph that follows that sentence from the introduction to T-24
("The Goal of Specialness" [HLC title: "Specialness and Separation"] ), it
is clear that Jesus is talking about questioning our beliefs which do not
establish reality, but do determine the decisions that we make and what we
will experience within the illusion. Obviously, God does not depend upon our
belief for His Reality, nor does the truth of His non-separate,
non-perceptual One Creation depend upon our understanding and belief: "Nor
is belief in God a really meaningful concept, for God can be but known.
Belief implies that unbelief is possible, but knowledge of God has no true
opposite" (P-2.II.4-5).

A central point is that God does not perceive (W-pI.43.1). Perception is an
experience of separation. God does not know of separation (P-2.VII.1:11) or
perception. And God does not create what is unlike Himself (T-8.II.7:6
[HLC T-8, p.101]).

God is pure spirit, or mind, (C.1.1-4) and His Mind is completely abstract,
without form or perception of any kind.

To repeat, God is not form and does not know of form, which is an essential
element in the illusion of perception ("form" is a word for what is
perceived). The nature of God is the pure, formless, completely abstract
<content> of Love. And what God creates (Christ) is both like Himself and
not separate from Himself. God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are not form and
are not separate. They are not located anywhere in time and space.

God/Christ do not perceive. What is called the "Holy Spirit" is the thought
system of the Atonement which has remained in the split mind of the
seemingly sleeping Son of God (us), and which bridges the gap between the
mind that thinks it perceives and "knowledge" which is the Mind of God.
What is referred to as the "perception of the Holy Spirit" does not see
differences (T-6.II.12:4 [HLC T-6, p.72), yet is still an illusion which is
"without meaning in Heaven" (T-13.VIII.2:6 [HLC T-13, p.174] ).

"In God you cannot see. Perception has no function in God,
and does not exist" (W-pI.43.2:1-2).

According to the Course, God simply did not create a world of perception or
the body with its central nervous system that is the mechanism of perception
and learning. Even the "real world" is not a creation of God, but is the
Holy Spirit's forgiven world which is perceived with our right mind -- still
an illusion just as forgiveness is an illusion (W-pI.198.2:10; C-3.1-2).
God does not forgive because he does not know of evil
(separation/differences/perception/conflict) and has not condemned
(W-pI.46.1).

If God had created the perceptual world, He would be responsible for the
evil experienced in that world. The Course answer to the philosophical
question of evil (How could a loving God have created such an unloving,
murderous, miserable, painful and evil world?) is that God did not create
the world wherein suffering is experienced, therefore that world is an
illusion -- it has nothing to do with the pure Love that is God and His
Spirit.

So, the Course tells us that there is no world. Perhaps the clearest
statement of this is found in Workbook lesson #132. But the same teaching
is found in many different contexts throughout the Course. Again, there can
not be a world and perception if it is true that separation from the sublime
Oneness of Heaven is impossible -- if the Atonement principle of the Course
is true. If separation were possible, then it would be possible to act
apart from Love, and if God had made that possible, He would be responsible
for sin and evil as we experience it in what the Course calls our "dream of
separation." The Course's answer - Jesus' answer -- to the ancient "problem
of evil" is that evil is not truly possible. What we dream figures who seem
to inhabit an illusory world of perception regard as evil is not real
because the world is not real nor are the bodies that seem to populate it
and then to go about destroying one another.

From Workbook lesson #132 =>

"There is no world! This is the central thought the course attempts
to teach. Not everyone is ready to accept it, and each one must go
as far as he can let himself be led along the road to truth. He will
return and go still farther, or perhaps step back a while and then
return again. . . .

"There is no world because it is a thought apart from God, and made
to separate the Father and the Son, and break away a part of God
Himself and thus destroy His Wholeness. Can a world which comes
from this idea be real? Can it be anywhere?" (W-pI.132.6:2-5; 13:1-3)

And the kicker for all of this metaphysical stuff is that we cannot truly
understand it with the intellectual capacities of our brain which is part of
the central nervous system in a body which is not really alive, but which
symbolizes the ego and was specifically made to dissociate from the reality
of mind. The purpose of the body is to lie to the Son of God (us) about
what is real. (See: T-18.VIII - IX; T-27.IV.5; T-28.V.5; and Workbook
lesson #151. [HLC T-18 pp. 254-8; T-27, p.363-4; T-28, p.378ff]

"A perfect being, all-encompassing and all-encompassed, nothing
to add and nothing taken from; not born of size nor place nor time,
nor held to limits or uncertainties of any kind. Here do the means
and end unite as one, nor does this one have any end at all. All
this is true, and yet it has no meaning to anyone who still retains one
unlearned lesson in his memory, one thought with purpose still
uncertain, or one wish with a divided aim" (T-24.VII.7:3
[HLC T-24, p.330] ).

What we can understand and practice is forgiveness. Forgiveness is the
gentle path of love and peace offered by ACIM -- a path that leads to an
awakening where the Truth can be know in our mind -- a Truth which is beyond
perception, beyond the human intellect, "Beyond All Symbols" (T-27.III
[HLC T-27, "The Symbol of the Impossible" p.362] ).

"There is no need to further clarify what no one in the world can
understand. When revelation of your oneness comes, it will be
known and fully understood. Now we have work to do, for those
in time can speak of things beyond, and listen to words which
explain what is to come is past already. Yet what meaning can the
words convey to those who count the hours still, and rise and
work and go to sleep by them?

"Suffice it, then, that you have work to do to play your part.

"Forgiveness is the central theme that runs throughout salvation...."
(W-pI.169.10-11:1-2; 12:1)

- Joe

------------------------------------------
"Reality is an illusion; albeit a very persistent one!"
- Albert Einstein

www.dr4baxs.com

unread,

Dec 8, 2003, 2:37:37 PM12/8/03

to

Joe wrote: Without this understanding, one is likely to attempt to practice

"forgiveness" on ones own from an ego frame of reference, without fully
appreciating the reality of mind (or spirit); what the Course means by the
terms "mind," and "Mind;" and what is involved in stepping back to let
the Holy Spirit or Jesus lead the way (see Workbook lesson #155).>>>

sv; now this is the kind of rhetoric I especially appreciate from the course
talk crowd. You may have forgiven people in your life and come to a greater
sense of peace of mind, but if you did not understand Wapnick's version of the
course, you could not possibly have forgiven or be at peace. Joe has publicly
accused me of practicing a rudimentary form of forgiveness, I can only LOL,
because how on earth would he know, I ask? Frankly, he many find mine, and of
course, as he said, those on the ng are mostly confused, so may find that all
of us have a remedial understanding of ACIM. However, I have been a passionate
student of the course for many years now and find that it has truly changed my
mind and my life, as it has many others here on the ng. I feel confidence in
my inner teacher, and find it truly laughable that another *more superior*
course student would try to tell me otherwise based on quotes from ACIM, when
it was ACIM, that wrought such miracles in my life. Sheryl

Stephen Calder

unread,

Dec 8, 2003, 7:19:56 PM12/8/03

to

Joe Jesseph wrote:
> "What God did not create does not exist. And everything that
> does exist exists as He created it. The world you see has
> nothing to do with reality. It is of your own making, and it
> does not exist" (W-pI.14.1:2-5).
> ______________________________
>
> "God did not make the body, because it is destructible, and
> therefore not of the Kingdom. The body is the symbol of what you
> think you are. It is clearly a separation device, and therefore
> does not exist" (T-6.V(A).2:1-3 [HLC T-6, p.76] ).
> ______________________________

<snip>

> "There is no need to further clarify what no one in the world can
> understand. When revelation of your oneness comes, it will be
> known and fully understood. Now we have work to do, for those
> in time can speak of things beyond, and listen to words which
> explain what is to come is past already. Yet what meaning can the
> words convey to those who count the hours still, and rise and
> work and go to sleep by them?
>
> "Suffice it, then, that you have work to do to play your part.
>
> "Forgiveness is the central theme that runs throughout
> salvation...." (W-pI.169.10-11:1-2; 12:1)
>
>
> - Joe
>
> ------------------------------------------
> "Reality is an illusion; albeit a very persistent one!"
> - Albert Einstein

This is good stuff, Joe. There is no world! It's central, it's core, it's
important, it literally means what it says and it's almost impossible to
misinterpret.

Way to go.

Stephen

Douglas Thompson

unread,

Dec 8, 2003, 10:06:00 PM12/8/03

to

"Joe Jesseph" <jjes...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:dI2Bb.1714$SF2....@news.uswest.net...

>
> "What God did not create does not exist. And everything that
> does exist exists as He created it. The world you see has nothing
> to do with reality. It is of your own making, and it does not
> exist" (W-pI.14.1:2-5).
> ______________________________

So ... as the Course says "there must be another world." The Real World.
The one that the Course says God created as a teaching device for our minds.

"The world you see" was made by you as an attack on God. It's not the "Real
World." And for you and Ken we could add "the Course you see" was made as
an attack on God. It's not the "Real Course."

You have to, Joe, at least deal with ALL the Course! Think not you made the
world, illusions yes!

The "illusion" is the misperception of what is there, not what is actually
there. Correct perception corrects the illusion and what is seen with
corrected perception is not nothing, which would be the case if the physical
stuff were the illusion, but rather a "forgiven world" and a "happy dream"
which God then translates into Heaven.

Heaven and Earth are ONE! As Jesus says. The notion that they are
separate, or "dual" and that God is not present in both is simply not
supported by the Course. When God appears to us to not be present, as
happens, we have erected barriers to the awareness of love's presence. It
is not that "love" (aka God) is not present, it is that we have blinded
ourselves to God's (love's) presence. This results in our seeing an
"illusory world" in which God is NOT present.

Now you and Ken teach that this Godless illusion (or illusion of
Godlessness) is the true world, one in which God is not present. Jesus'
teaching (and I know you don't believe in Jesus or that he authored the
Course, but bear with me) is the exact opposite of your own. The
implications of that teaching are large and lead to the ultimate denial of
all truth, all love, all joy, all compassion, all forgiveness, all miracles,
all divinity, all healing. But as Jesus told Helen "never underestimate the
power of denial."

As I've pointed out to you before the basic refutation of your position is
experience itself ... the experience of those who have met God and who
experience God and miracles and love and joy and healing and forgiveness and
salvation leading to Atonement IN THIS PHYSICAL HERE AND NOW! The
experience of Jesus. Your teaching claims this is impossible. The status
of your claim and the entirely of Wapnickian theology is identical to that
of the Flat Earth Society. Experience proves that it is incorrect, an
experience you could have and would have if you'd stop insisting it could
not happen and one you certainly WILL have when you finally figure out that
"there must be a better way" and offer the Holy Spirit that "little
willingness" which you so energetically refuse to offer Him, denying His
existance actually. Sure you talk about something you call Holy Spirit but
your notion of the Holy Spirit bears no resemblance to the actual Holy
Spirit. You deny that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead,
and you deny that He is eternal, something the Course flat out asserts.

There is no universal theology but there is a universal experience and when
this truth is not denied, and blocked, and obstructed is an experience to
which the Course leads all who are willing. Wapnickian teaching, on the
other hand, simply erects barriers to the universal experience, going so far
as to deny its possiblity and attempting to block others, with lawsuits and
court injunctions and falsifying and abridging the Course, from entering
into the experience.

There is a better way Joe. Would you rather be right? Or happy? Does
persecuting people and lying to them and about them really make you happy?
Do you really think a world without God, one generated by your Ego to attack
God, is a better world than the Real World God created? A Real World in
which there is nothing but joy and harmony and happiness and the solution to
every problem? A Real World which is the gate of Heaven? A Real World
which is practically indistinguishable from Heaven? A Real World which God
then translates into Heaven?

You have a choice: the illusory world you created or the Real World God
created as a teaching device for your mind to bring you home. You have
chosen illusion and the illusion of attack on reality.

Choose again brother, there is a better way!

All the best,

Doug

Stephen Calder

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 7:25:39 AM12/9/03

to

Douglas Thompson wrote:

> You have a choice: the illusory world you created or the Real World
> God created as a teaching device for your mind to bring you home.
> You have chosen illusion and the illusion of attack on reality.
>
> Choose again brother, there is a better way!
>
> All the best,
>
> Doug

Doesn't the Course say the Real World, too will fade away, being an onject
of perception just as the world I see now is?

You can't maintain the fiction that space and time are eternal. They are
not, and therefore not real.

I don't think your conclusion about what that really means is valid either.
You seem to think that if God did not make the world then He is not present
in it, which does not necessarily follow. I made the world using the Mind of
God, so no matter how twisted is my perception, God is still in everything I
see, if I am willing to see with true vision, because God is in my mind. And
if I am willing to listen to the Voice for God, I get all the help I need to
ensure that the event sequences in my dream work together for my best
interests.

I think you're making up a contradiction when in fact none exists, and
allowing your preconceptions about Joe and Ken to reject everything they say
without considering it.

I appreciate your passion for the Course and your desire to follow its
principles as laid down by the author.

Thanks for your post.

Stephen

Steafán Annraoi

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 9:36:45 AM12/9/03

to

"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
news:7bjBb.1118$hX1....@news.optus.net.au...

> Douglas Thompson wrote:
>
> > You have a choice: the illusory world you created or the Real World
> > God created as a teaching device for your mind to bring you home.
> > You have chosen illusion and the illusion of attack on reality.
> >
> > Choose again brother, there is a better way!
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Doug
>
> Doesn't the Course say the Real World, too will fade away, being an onject
> of perception just as the world I see now is?

Stephen, "form" is an illusion. Of the "real world" the Course says:

"For as Heaven and earth become one, even the real world will vanish from
your sight. The end of the world is not its destruction, but its TRANSLATION
into Heaven. The REINTERPRETATION of the world is the transfer of ALL
perception to knowledge." (ACIM Urtext)

> You can't maintain the fiction that space and time are eternal. They are
> not, and therefore not real.

Again, ACIM reads: "And when correction is completed, time IS eternity."
(ACIM Urtext)

Previously on this newsgroup I've explained it like this: look at your
monitor closely with a magnifying glass and you'll see row after row of
little red, green and blue dots. Whatever 'form' you have on your screen
(and even if you turn it off) they're still there.

Now apply this metaphor to the physical world. You look around you and see
a 3D world that is ever changing in form and in time and space, just as you
see this in 2D on your monitor should you be watching a film on your PC or
whatever. And it all seems very real - and your mind relates to it as if it
is. Yet all of it, either in 2D or 3D is made up of something that doesn't
"change" - pixels in 2D and superstrings in 3D.

> I think you're making up a contradiction when in fact none exists, and
> allowing your preconceptions about Joe and Ken to reject everything they
> say without considering it.

I can't speak for anyone else but I centrainly don't reject everything that
Ken and Joe say and I don't think they would do the same to anyone else.
But there are some clear differences between their view of ACIM metaphysics
and theology and the view that I and other's present. What is important is
that we now have a level playing field - or will very soon.

~
Stephen

Douglas Thompson

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 11:07:52 AM12/9/03

to

"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
news:7bjBb.1118$hX1....@news.optus.net.au...

> Douglas Thompson wrote:
>
> > You have a choice: the illusory world you created or the Real World
> > God created as a teaching device for your mind to bring you home.
> > You have chosen illusion and the illusion of attack on reality.
> >
> > Choose again brother, there is a better way!
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Doug
>
> Doesn't the Course say the Real World, too will fade away, being an onject
> of perception just as the world I see now is?

It does indeed say even the real world will no longer "seem to exist."
Obviously, as our perceptual focus rises beyond perception itself in
eternity, "time as we know it" of which space is actually just a function,
will no longer "seem to exist" to us as it does now.

> You can't maintain the fiction that space and time are eternal. They are
> not, and therefore not real.

Well I want to share with you an "outside view" of this problem which may
help you understand what I'm going to say next:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation04.html

Have a read of that and then look at this statement:

Energy is eternal. Matter consists of swirls of energy. What is unchanging
about energy is that it is always changing form. This is not a fiction.
This is the correct answer on a Physics exam!

God is All in All. Everything. God is Light or energy. All matter is
energy. (that's now conventional physics). Time, like height and width and
length is a dimension of the universe. Physics isn't sure how many
dimensions there are but there is evidence of up to ten. We can perceive
three of them directly with our physical senses height, width and length
and we experience the fourth as time, a linear journey through it. Then we
can experience at the "psychic" level and many of us have had or know of
others who have had incontestible experiences of ESP, telepathy,
clairvoyance, synchronicity, clairaudience, psychokinesis, and even "luck".
This reflects some level of awareness at another dimension beyond time and
the veracity of claims to psychic ability is generally questioned because
they break all the rules of space-time neutonian physics. Yet they have
been well enough documented "scientifically" in the past century that their
"existance" and "reality" can no longer be credibly contested.

All that is is alive with the life of God. All that is is God. All that
is is energy. Even a stone is God, is energy, is alive, and is eternal. It
is in the nature of energy to constantly change its form but the First Law
of Thermodynamics tells us that energy cannot be destroyed, it is eternal,
and it cannot be created by any process we know anything about. There is a
fixed, permanent and eternal quantity of it in our universe. The interplay
of energy with energy generates ever new forms, this is the unchanging
nature of energy that it is always changing its form. Light strikes your
hand and turns to heat, for example. The heat radiates into the atmosphere
and turns to kinetic energy as it quickens the molecules of the air. And so
on.

What is "not eternal" are the values and interpretations we generate which
are not true. That is to say "mental worlds" each of us makes, at the level
of the Ego, whereby we imbue certain things with "specialness" and with our
minds generate illusions about what things are, what things are for, who we
are, what we are for, who our brothers are, who our enemies are, etc.

What is also not eternal is the specific FORM in which energy will manifest
in its eternal creative interplay with itself, as an emanation of the Mind
of God. For instance, the sky never looks exactly the same, minute to
minute. But you would not, therefore, say that the sky has ceased to be the
sky!

Energy is eternal and its eternal nature is to change form constantly.
There is a line in the Course, which I cannot find right now, that says as
much: that the changelessness of some things lies in the fact they are
forever changing.

> I don't think your conclusion about what that really means is valid
either.
> You seem to think that if God did not make the world then He is not
present
> in it, which does not necessarily follow.

That's not my argument, that's Wapnick's argument. I don't deal with the
hypothesis "if God did not create the universe" because it is simply too
silly to give serious consideration. To me it is a total non-starter mostly
because there is no viable alternative creator. I know God did and I know I
didn't and I'm pretty darned sure Ken and Joe didn't create the universe
either. The "alternative creator hypothesis" is a logical non-starter as
far as I'm concerned. To consider it you first have to take all we know
about the known universe which at most an infinitely small speck of all that
we can surmise must be knowable about the known universe and then postulate
a creator with the intelligence and power to actually generate that knowable
energetic phenomenon... at least 15 billion years ago ... and one who is
furthermore not divine and not God and in Wapnickian metaphysics, not even
created by God.

I mean the "leap of faith" required by that hypothesis makes the Flat Earth
Society look positively persuasive! It's simply not remotely plausible to
my mind.

> I made the world using the Mind of
> God, so no matter how twisted is my perception, God is still in everything
I
> see, if I am willing to see with true vision, because God is in my mind.
And
> if I am willing to listen to the Voice for God, I get all the help I need
to
> ensure that the event sequences in my dream work together for my best
> interests.

Well I will have to ask you "which world" did you make? The world of ego
misperceptions, of which the Course speaks eloquently, if sadly, or the
Real World which the Course says God created as a teaching device for your
mind (in so many words) which can only be seen with the help of the Holy
Spirit?

I'll grant you that you made the first one, and that it is pure illusion,
and that it does not exist. As to the second I believe what the Course
says, that God created it!

> I think you're making up a contradiction when in fact none exists, and
> allowing your preconceptions about Joe and Ken to reject everything they
say
> without considering it.

You are fully entitled to think whatever you wish! I think you'll find Joe
agrees with me as to the presence of a contradiction between what he teaches
and what the Course says. Otherwise he'd not work so hard to suppress the
dissemination of the unabridged, authentic Course!

There are, in ACIM, two worlds shown to us, and we are told we are in every
moment choosing between them. One is the illusory world of the ego which is
made by the ego with the unconscious and underlying purpose of attacking God
and making Him seem to disappear from our experience. Now this just happens
to be a statement that would also define Wapnickian Theology. It is a way
of making God seem to disappear from moment to moment experience in space
and time into an inaccessible abstraction with no connection to space and
time and certainly not The Creator of it. Now this Godless World generated
by ego is a very unhappy place, full of illusions of sin and death and
attack and loss. We are asked to choose another world and told there is and
indeed must be another, the Real World which IS created by God and which is
discernible to us only with the Help of God Himself in the person of God the
Holy Spirit. This Real World is a place of joy and harmony and happiness
and the answer to every problem.

Now are you suggesting you think your ego created this world too?? That's
giving a helluva lot more credit to your ego than the Course does! Or are
you still thinking there is only one world and that it is physical and "out
there" rather than mental and "in here?"

So anyway, we choose between these two worlds, which are also characterized
as "the unhappy dream" vs. "the happy dream." Still all "dream" levels, but
one is "real dreams" in that they reflect "reality" so closely as to become
translatable into it. That's the path the Course prescribes from "illusion"
through to "reality" ... making the unhappy dream happy by reflecting the
love of God in space and time so well that our consciousness rises right out
of space and time and into another dimension from which point of view space
and time no longer seem to exist as we know them now.

So you cannot speak of "the world" in Course terms without saying WHICH one
you are talking about and recognizing that while there is only one physical
"world" there are two radically different ways of perceiving it: One is the
ego's perception which comes up with the "world of illusion" and one is the
Holy Spirit's perception which comes up with "the real world." The latter
is very clearly the creative work of God the Holy Spirit! It has nothing to
do with Ego. We can't see it at all until or unless we are "of one mind"
with the Holy Spirit and open and willing to recieve "correction" so as to
"perceive correctly."

Now put this in Biblical terms and look at the two basic creation stories in
the Bible: Genesis 1 and John 1. Both the Old and the New Testaments start
with creation stories. So does ACIM. Chapter One is mostly an extended
commentary on Genesis One. Was that INTENTIONAL? I think so. Ok, Genesis
says the SPIRIT OF GOD (Holy Spirit) brooded over the face of the deep and
then SPOKE the physical universe into existence. John says "in the
beginning was the word" which is in Greek "logos" and a very complicated
philosopical concept but a lot more than conjured by the English word
"word." Logos is the "creative emanation" or breath (Gr, Spirit) of the
spoken word. And the Logos (reasonably, Holy Spirit) became flesh and dwelt
among us in grace and truth. But before that the Logos (creative emanation
or Spirit of God) created all things that were created and nothing that was
created was created without HIM.

Interestingly while Jesus in ACIM corrects the Bible, and even the Genesis
creation story on a few points, he doesn't correct either of those
foundational and fundamental Biblical concepts. Instead he builds on them
in ACIM, starting in Chapter One. Space and time and the Universe are the
work of God, God the Holy Spirit ... and in John we have God the Son or the
Christ playing a role in the Creation also. But still God, still divinity,
still "of one mind" with the Father.

Now it seems to me that when Jesus is spending most of Chapter One
explaining, expanding and correcting the first three chapters of Genesis
that if he didn't agree with the first and most important line in the Bible,
Gensis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" he
would have at least said so. Once. Wouldn't you think that if he thought
this were untrue he would have corrected this single most glaring, most
significant and most profound of errors? No. He doesn't mention it. He
accepts the idea and builds on it, frequently reinforcing and expanding upon
it.

I think generally it is the ignorance of the real world that leads ACIM
readers such as Ken and Joe to conclude that ACIM speaks of only one world
which is itself entirely illusory. They dismiss the real world material as
metaphorical or eschatalogical. This goes right along with their denial of
any active divinity in the world, the eternal nature of the Holy Spirit, the
authorship of the Course by Jesus, the existance of miracles, and even the
authentic Course itself! The Course, however, puts God very much in the
world as "corrector of perceptions" through His Holy Spirit and as Creator
whose Creation is purposive. The purpose of the material world is spelled
out, it is the training of our minds and is also called "God's Perfect
Plan." The Ego's purpose is the opposite of that, however, so if the
purpose of the phsyical world is God's purpose, how can Ego be its creator?

Besides, Ego only arises AFTER the body and is inherently the belief in and
identification with the body. As ACIM says "No one suggests the ego arises
before birth." Of course Ken took that line out too!! By then he was
already suggesting that ego arises before birth so he had to view that line
as "incorrect." It was correct in 1965 when it was dictated!

Well I'm wandering off on tangents here, just reviewing some of the hundreds
of arguments against the notion of a non-divine creator of the Universe. I
would point out mostly how often the Course tells us that God did create,
variously, earth, space, time, the universe and even now and then "the
world." And how that is consistent with what the Course teaches about the
two worlds and our awakening from the world of illusion into the world of
reality (unhappy dream to happy dream) and how this is the path to Heaven
(the real world is said to be Heaven's Gate). And finally, how difficult it
is to come up with a credible hypothesis of an alternative Creator which is
not flatly contradicted by the Course and/or just obviously absurd.

And where would that idea of God not being the Creator have come from in the
first place? It's certainly NOT an idea expressed in the Course unless one
removes or ignores the definition of the word "world" the Course itself
offers. Of course Ken did take the definition out allowing the illusion to
be generated that the Course means "the physical universe" or indeed
anything physical at all when it talks about the worlds we made to attack
God. It doesn't mean physical worlds at all, and it says it doesn't. It
means mental worlds. Illusions, in a word. Not matter, not molecules ...
illusions ... silly ideas that are mistaken, at which the Son of God
remembered not to laugh!

It is beyond the debatable that the Course says we "misperceive" when
working from the Ego and that the Holy Spirit "corrects our perceptions." I
think it is incontestible that "the world you made to attack God" consists
AT LEAST in part of those misperceptions. When corrected, we still
"perceive what is there" as we did before but we perceive it differently.
We perceive it correctly. we perceive it as it REALLY is with the Holy
Spirit's corrected perception.

This alone suggests rather strongly that the object of perception (the
matter being perceived) is not the illusion, since God the Holy Spirit can
perceive it "correctly," but rather the illusion is the error in perception
such that we see what is there but PERCEIVE something THAT IS NOT! With
misperception we perceive something that is not there and we fail to
perceive what is there. With corrected perception we perceive what is
really there. Now if Ken is right and the mountain we're looking at is the
illusion, with corrected perception we'd see what? Only what is real. If
the mountain were not "really" there we'd see nothing at all! But that is
not what we see with corrected perception. The real world is still a space
time world with no physical separatio from the world of illusion. Both look
upon the same stuff, one misperceives it according to ego purposes and one
perceives it correctly according to the divine purpose of its creator!

> I appreciate your passion for the Course and your desire to follow its
> principles as laid down by the author.
>
> Thanks for your post.
>
> Stephen

Likewise, and thanks for your post Stephen! It is possible to discuss these
questions without resorting to rudness and insults and lawsuits! :)
Personally I don't think the notion that matter itself is illusory would
ever have arisen had not the Course been edited to make it read that way and
then the original buried for 25 years. Put back the definition of "world"
as something mental rather than physical and all these references to
"worlds" then clearly refer to worlds of perception and not physical
planets!

Still I think it is clear that underneath the energy of which all physical
matter consists is consciousness or Mind, if you will. The mountain is a
thought. The question here is not about that, the question is whether it is
a thought of the Ego made to attack God or a thought of God created to train
our minds? The implications of the choice are enormous. If the physical
universe is a thought of the Ego whose purpose is to attack God then it is
our adversary and enemy. If it is a thought of God created to bless us and
train us, then it is a gift from God and a great blessing to be recieved
with unbounded joy and celebrated and gloried in as we receive the lessons
we need which it has been perfectly crafted by the Father Himself to deliver
to us!

Confusion enters frequently when we confuse our PERCEPTIONS of, well, really
any THING at all with the thing itself. Now the brain, be it your brain or
my brain or the brain of your dog, generates an analogue of sensory
perceptions which it treats as "the actual physical world." This is a
perception. You don't *really* see the computer screen you're reading now.
You see light emanating from it! Your brain decodes the signals your eyes
generate and makes an analogue or a mental map of what seems to be "out
there." This mental map is usually "good enough" to let us walk through a
room without tripping over the furniture and is sometimes very good indeed.
But it is not perfect as its data source is limited and it is sometimes very
imperfect and this map is never actually the thing mapped, however good a
map it may be!

This basic lesson in Perceptual Psychology 101 is very hard to grasp because
while logically obvious it is quite counter-intuitive. It SEEMS to us that
we can see or feel or hear or smell "what is really there." We never do.
We only sense certain chemical or physical emanations from what is "really
there" and our brains knit this fragmentary data together into a picture or
map of what is actually there. And dammit, the brain does it so well! It
very nearly convinces us that our map is reality itself. But it isn't, and
it is very prone to error. The amazing thing is that we don't trip over our
own feet more frequently than we do!

So this is the basic error of Wapnickian dualism. It is taking that
perception of the physical world, knowing that there is an "illusion" in
this somewhere, and seeing the illusion as "out there" in the physical stuff
itself rather than what the Course teaches, that the "illusion" is in the
mind of the perceiver and is a misperception. The "fault" or "error" that
needs correction is not in the mountain but in the mind of the perceiver of
the mountain.

Projection makes perception. Wapnickian metaphysics projects the error in
the mental perceptual apparatus onto the mountain and says the Holy Spirit
must correct the mountain, not the perceiver's misperceptions. It has
confused its "perceptions of the thing" with the "thing itself." It has
mislocated the "point of error" or illusion from the misperceptions of the
perceiver to the object of perception. So it goes about hiring lawyers to
fix what it perceives is mistaken "out there" having failed to notice where
the mistake actually is located and where the only useful fix can be
applied. And that is "in here."

Basically Wapnick has the whole process upside down which is why when you
shake it a bit it all falls apart. It has no foundation in anything true or
real and has to deny everything true and real to even appear to make any
sense. That's it's starting point, that truth is falsehood and falsehood is
truth. No wonder it bears the fruit it does!

Now a lot of Course students have come up with this idea that the physical
stuff of the universe is "the illusion." Wapnick may have started it and
encouraged it with his abridgement but a lot of people have picked up on the
idea.

Now there IS some truth to that idea! But only if you confuse your
perception of the thing with the thing itself. We ALL do that all the time
and arguably we'd not be able to walk across a room without tripping over
the furniture if we did not think of our perceptions as somehow "real."
What Jesus is trying to do for us is to explain the difference.

What Wapnick has done far better than most and I have to admit with more
intellectual honesty than most, is carry the idea to its logical
conclusions. Wapnick's logic is correct and I think pretty much flawless.
IF you start with the assumption that "the world" means "physical matter
and space and time" and that God didn't create it, but that some other
entity did to attack God then all the rest of Wapnick's conclusions follow
logically: God isn't in it, isn't accessible in it, doesn't know about it,
couldn't care less about it, forgiveness makes no sense within it and is
impossible within it, Jesus isn't Jesus, miracles are quite unthinkable in
this sort of place, and love can have no real manifestation in a place that
is unreal. This "world" which is an illusion cannot be "saved" and all the
injunctions in ACIM to "save the world" are poetic. We are indeed trapped
here with no exit, and it matters not if I attack you because you don't
actually exist!

All the conclusions which Wapnick reaches are, when I follow his logic back
to the first assumptions, perfectly logical. The error is not with his
logic but with his textual exegesis and his first assumptions about reality.
He has actually confused his perceptions of things with the things
themselves and an error made at the beginning of a logical train of thought
means that while the conclusions are logical, they are invalid.

The larger such errors become, (and they must grow over time as the
conclusions, while still logical, are more and more obviously invalid) the
more obvious they are to even a casual observer. Those who cling to such
positions and resist the evidence that some correction is needed end up in
more and more absurd situations and having to engage in ever deeper layers
of denial to hide from themselves the fact that becomes obvious to casual
passers-by: **THERE IS SOME MISTAKE HERE THAT NEEDS CORRECTION** and it's
not the mountain or the river that is in need of repair!! The fault lies
not in the substance of the universe itself, but rather in the projections
from the mind of the perceiver.

We ALL have some difficulty with that don't we? Ken and Joe are not alone.
And we are all each other's saviours here to help each other work it out.
"The Ark of Peace is entered two by two."

We are told the separation illusion took millions of years to occur and may
take even longer to undo. Impatience is not called for :):)

All the best,

Doug

J. L.

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 11:34:52 AM12/9/03

to

> I can't speak for anyone else but I centrainly don't reject
> everything that Ken and Joe say and I don't think they would do the
> same to anyone else. But there are some clear differences between
> their view of ACIM metaphysics and theology and the view that I and
> other's present. What is important is that we now have a level
> playing field - or will very soon.
>
> ~
> Stephen

Well said. In fact, a level playing field is the last thing many want who
would advance their interpretation while making claims on the Course. Which
is why for the most part, and too often, you have cliques and cults
advancing their Course agenda with abuse and intimidation rather than
rational discussion. Let hope the leveling of the playing field changes all
of this.

www.dr4baxs.com

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 1:20:21 PM12/9/03

to

Doug wrote: When God appears to us to not be present, as

happens, we have erected barriers to the awareness of love's presence. It
is not that "love" (aka God) is not present, it is that we have blinded
ourselves to God's (love's) presence. This results in our seeing an
"illusory world" in which God is NOT present.>>>

You are the maker of the physical. This is stated very clearly without
possibility of misinterpretation. I know you think that means God is not
here, and in a sense that's true. God is not in the dream I made up in
denial of Him. But since I can't be separate from Him, I am still in His
mind, and can still communicate with Him. In doing so, my perception of the
world changes until perception ends completely.

"The physical world exists only because man can use it to correct his
UNBELIEF, which placed him in it originally. He can never control the
effects of fear himself because he MADE fear, and believes in what he made.
In attitude, then, though NOT in content, he resembles his own Creator, Who
has perfect faith in His creations BECAUSE He created them. Belief in a
creation produces its existence. That is why a man can believe in what
no-one else thinks is true. It is true for him because it was made BY him."

Stephen

Gary D

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 3:57:40 PM12/9/03

to

"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in news:mnqBb.1120$hX1.38099
@news.optus.net.au:

> The physical universe is a mental construct. It is literally nothing...

Could we say it is a *shared* mental construct, at least being "shared" on
those lower levels where multiple minds appear to exist in the world?

Suzanne

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 4:01:14 PM12/9/03

to

"Douglas Thompson" <dthompso...@execulink.com> wrote in message news:<1_aBb.116396$PD3.5...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...

> So ... as the Course says "there must be another world." The Real World.
> The one that the Course says God created as a teaching device for our minds.
>
> "The world you see" was made by you as an attack on God. It's not the "Real
> World." And for you and Ken we could add "the Course you see" was made as
> an attack on God. It's not the "Real Course."
>
> You have to, Joe, at least deal with ALL the Course! Think not you made the
> world, illusions yes!
>
> The "illusion" is the misperception of what is there, not what is actually
> there. Correct perception corrects the illusion and what is seen with
> corrected perception is not nothing, which would be the case if the physical
> stuff were the illusion, but rather a "forgiven world" and a "happy dream"
> which God then translates into Heaven.

But there is actually nothing there. Reality cannot be perceived.
The real world is an illusion that can be perceived. The real world
is a *correction* for the illusionary world - not creation. I agree
that God (through the Holy Spirit) "created" (made) the real world as
a correction for the illusionary world, but the real world is
reparation, not creation. The real world is the healing of the
illusionary world. Healing is reparation, not creation.

The real world has nothing to do with reality. It exists only while
the illusion of a world separate from God lingers in the mind of the
Son of God. It is temporary. The loving thoughts, however, that make
up the real world are real and continue forever in creation.

The real world is a *reflection* of reality, not reality itself. It
can be perceived because that is its purpose. Perception needs to be
purified so that it can be translated/transfered to knowledge.
Perception has no purpose in Heaven and does not exist. Heaven can
only be known, not perceived. Heaven is God's creation, and ours as
co-creators with God. The illusionary world and the real world are
not creation - they are, respectively, miscreation and correction for
miscreation. We (the Son of God) made one; God (through the Holy
Spirit) made the other.

Our only function in this world is forgiveness - healing - which is
not creation but reparation. Our only function in Heaven is creation
- which is our true function as co-creators with God. The real world,
although "created" by God (through the Holy Spirit) is not true
creation, because it exists ONLY to heal the Sonship; that is its ONLY
purpose. So, when the Sonship is healed, it will no longer exist.
The real world is NOT God's creation; Heaven is God's creation. And
in Heaven - in reality - it doesn't exist at all.

The course is very clear about this.

> Heaven and Earth are ONE! As Jesus says. The notion that they are
> separate, or "dual" and that God is not present in both is simply not
> supported by the Course. When God appears to us to not be present, as
> happens, we have erected barriers to the awareness of love's presence. It
> is not that "love" (aka God) is not present, it is that we have blinded
> ourselves to God's (love's) presence. This results in our seeing an
> "illusory world" in which God is NOT present.

Heaven and earth become one when the Atonement is complete. Until the
Atonement is complete, earth *is* separate from Heaven because it was
made out of the desire of the Son to be separate from God. God *is*
present in this world in the form of the Holy Spirit, Who was created
by God as a protection for the Son's mind. The Holy Spirit is the
link between the separated Son and God. In Heaven, God and Christ are
one, and a link between them is not needed. But in this world the
Holy Spirit is needed to call us back home.

God is in everything we see because God is the only reality and there
is nothing else. God is spirit, and nothing but spirit exists.
Therefore, when we see God in everything, we are seeing spirit, not
flesh. God did not create flesh and the course says that it is
impossible to create flesh.

> You have a choice: the illusory world you created or the Real World God
> created as a teaching device for your mind to bring you home. You have
> chosen illusion and the illusion of attack on reality.

We all have that choice, and the only way to experience the real world
is through forgiveness of grievances. It doesn't matter if we believe
that the real world was created by God or not. Whatever we believe,
grievances hide the light of God from us and the only way to see the
light is to forgive. It's really very simply. Forgive, and peace and
happiness is ours. I know that I still hold grievances because I am
not at peace and happy. When I am consistently at peace and happy, I
will know what the real world is.

Suzanne

Stephen Calder

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 4:15:58 PM12/9/03

to

I have no problem with that.

Stephen

Corey

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 5:24:55 PM12/9/03

to

On 09 Dec 2003 18:20:21 GMT, sherylv...@aol.com (
www.dr4baxs.com) wrote:

>sv: yes again. this morning I thought about this on-going discussion. I think
>that even if Joe is right in the sense that there is no God present here on
>earth

I can assure you that God is indeed present everywhere all the time in
everything. The people who don't know just don't know. Some of us do.

It's absurd to believe the ones who don't know. Sheryl, you've
testified many times about the presence of God in your life. How can
you let someone who doesn't know, convince you that they are right?

How can someone who doesn't know of God, believe in the Course as a
path to salvation?

>So perhaps in Truth there is not world, no brother, no God,

Wow! You are really having a bad day!
There is no world in the sense that it's a dream we are experiencing.
But it is our own creation, and it has magnificent qualities, in spite
of the fact that it's easy to get bummed out about it.
In some sense, there is no brother, because everything is ourself -
Oneness.
There IS God, and we CAN be One with him - and I tell you this
emphatically from my own personal knowledge. I'm not guessing or
posturing on this. It's a fact.

Steafán Annraoi

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 5:26:51 PM12/9/03

to

"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message

news:jRpBb.1119$hX1....@news.optus.net.au...

> Steafán Annraoi wrote:
> > "Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:7bjBb.1118$hX1....@news.optus.net.au...
> >> Doesn't the Course say the Real World, too will fade away, being an
> >> onject of perception just as the world I see now is?
> >
> > Stephen, "form" is an illusion. Of the "real world" the Course says:
> >
> > "For as Heaven and earth become one, even the real world will vanish
> > from your sight. The end of the world is not its destruction, but its
> > TRANSLATION into Heaven. The REINTERPRETATION of the world is the
> > transfer of ALL perception to knowledge." (ACIM Urtext)
>
> Exactly. You can't make form real since it is temporary.

"Form" is temporary? Well, yes, in perception. But the stuff it is made of
(matter/energy) is not. Do you understand what I'm getting at here with the
monitor/tv screen metaphor? The finest 'stuff' of the Universe doesn't ever
become tables and chairs at all (neither temporarily or 'really') any more
than the pixles on a screen "become" 2D representations of tables and
chairs. The point I'm making Stephen, is that declaring 'form' as
transient, destructable or temporary is, technically, just as wrong as
saying it's 'real'. You should just be able to make out the pixels on your
monitor so you should be able to get a handle on this even though your eyes
could never see the finest 'stuff' of the Universe.

> > Now apply this metaphor to the physical world. You look around you
> > and see a 3D world that is ever changing in form and in time and
> > space, just as you see this in 2D on your monitor should you be
> > watching a film on your PC or whatever. And it all seems very real -
> > and your mind relates to it as if it is. Yet all of it, either in 2D
> > or 3D is made up of something that doesn't "change" - pixels in 2D
> > and superstrings in 3D.
>
> Right. There is no physical world.

Just as there isn't really a 'world' in your TV when you watch a film and/or
just as the pixels don't "become" that world when you watch said film - yes.
But, metaphorically, the "pixels" of the Universe are like that - they are
changeless and eternal - everything that God Created is One. It's all in
Lesson 184.

> My comments were addressed to Doug. I'm not saying anything about what you
> do or don't do with what Ken and Joe say, Steafan. Did I miss something?

No, don't worry about it.

Corey

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 5:29:45 PM12/9/03

to

On 09 Dec 2003 18:20:21 GMT, sherylv...@aol.com (
www.dr4baxs.com) wrote:

>I have never seen any *LIFE* in joe/ken,etc.'s
>teachings but just more dreariness

How can you be a "Teacher of God" if you don't believe in God? It's
no surprise that many Course students have problems with Ken and Joe's
mis-interpretation of the Course.

>~ jesus came that we might be free of such a
>state. Sheryl

Exactly. Joy and unconditional happiness are our birthright.

Steafán Annraoi

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 5:59:45 PM12/9/03

to

"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
>

> You're still trying to tell me there is a physical universe created by
God,
> and you're still trying to tell me that's what the Course says. It doesn't
> say that.

Here is what the Course says, Stephen:

"God created time so that man could use it creatively, and convince himself
of his own ability to create." (ACIM Urtext) (Qualified by: "And when
correction is completed, time IS eternity." ~ ACIM Urtext)

"In fact, both TIME and MATTER were created for this purpose." (ACIM
Urtext)

"His definitions ARE His laws, for by them He established the universe as
what it is." (ACIM Urtext)

"There are no beginnings and no endings in God, Whose Universe is Himself.
Can you exclude yourself from the Universe, or from God, Who IS the
Universe?" (ACIM Urtext)

The above quotes are all perfectly straightforward. Why disagree with them?

> God cannot create what is not eternal. You're going to say in
> reply that only the form changes, and the physical universe is just energy
> in an ever-changing form. It's not even that. It's no more than an idea in
> your mind.

Why? Explain that. If you accept the law of the conservation of
matter/energy then why do you exclude it from God's creation? You are going
from A to C without explaining B. In Lesson 184 the Author doesn't take the
illusion as far as you do - in fact He keeps it solely on the level of
'form':

"W-184.2. This space you see as setting off all things from one another is
the means by which the world's perception is achieved."

and

"W-184.8. Think not you made the world. 2 Illusions, yes! 3 But what is true
in earth and Heaven is beyond your naming."

and

"W-184.15. Father, our Name is Yours. 2 In It we are united with all living
things, and You Who are their one Creator. 3 What we made and call by many
different names is but a shadow we have tried to cast across Your Own
reality. 4 And we are glad and thankful we were wrong." (ACIM Urtext)

(Compare the above with any account of Enlightenment.)

> This is a dream. There is no universe. There was no big bang. There are no
> bodies, The world was not created because it does not exist except in
> perception, as a projection of your mind.

Not quite. From the Manual for Teachers:

"M-11.1.6 The world you see cannot be the world God loves, and yet His Word
assures us that He loves the world. 7 God's Word has promised that peace is
possible here, and what He promises can hardly be impossible. 8 But it is
true that the world must be looked at differently, if His promises are to be
accepted. 9 What the world is, is but a fact. 10 You cannot choose what this
should be. 11 But you can choose how you would see it. 12 Indeed, you <must>
choose this."

Note: "What the world is, is but a fact."

> The physical universe is a mental
> construct. It is literally nothing, just as the separation is nothing, the
> ego is nothing, and anything other than pure unadulterated love is
nothing.

No. Again, here is what ACIM says on the subject:

"Think but an instant on this; God gave the Sonship to you, to ensure your
perfect creation. This was His Gift, for, as He withheld Himself not from
you, He withheld not His creation. Nothing that ever was created, but is not
yours. Your relationships are with the universe. And this universe, being of
God, is far beyond the petty sum of all the separate bodies YOU perceive.
For all its parts are joined in God through Christ, where they become like
to their Father." (ACIM Urtext)

We are looking at the world wrongly.

> "12. Miracles are thoughts. Thoughts can represent lower-order or
> higher-order reality. This is the basic distinction between
> intellectualizing and thinking. One makes the physical and the other
creates
> the spiritual, and we believe in what we make or create."
>
> You are the maker of the physical. This is stated very clearly without
> possibility of misinterpretation.

Excellent point!! You *make* the physical and in the Authors own terms
there isn't any possibility of misinterpretation:

"Since the Separation, the words "create" and "make" are inevitably
confused. When you make something, you make it first out of a sense of lack
or need, and second, out of a something that already exists. Anything can be
that is made is made for a specific purpose. It has no true
generalizability." (ACIM Urtext)

You "make" your world out of something that *already exists*.

Perception, which *makes* the world does so by setting things off from one
another. "See" with knowledge instead of perception and you see the
Universe as One.

~
Stephen

Steafán Annraoi

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 6:37:06 PM12/9/03

to

"J. L." <webm...@jcim.net> wrote in message
news:br4tnn$2921cg$1...@ID-166031.news.uni-berlin.de...

It will give people a choice, John. There will still be sub-cultures in the
Course community just as there are within traditional Christianity - that's
just something which can't be avoided - and it's quite possible that some of
them will be every bit as nefarious as some of the Christian cults we've
seen in recent decades (though I sincerely hope groups like that won't last
long).

The main challenge now isn't with wapnickian metaphysics and theology or
even neo-wapnickian soliphsism and nihilism, it's with ourselves. What can
we create? We're entering into a new phase now.

~
Stephen

www.dr4baxs.com

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 6:37:43 PM12/9/03

to

Corey wrote: It's absurd to believe the ones who don't know. Sheryl, you've

testified many times about the presence of God in your life. How can
you let someone who doesn't know, convince you that they are right?>>>

sv; hey, hey corey, you must have misread my post, or maybe didn't read to the
end. I just wrote that I was "thinking" about how others interpret the course
and how such an interpretation would not lead them to the actual *experience*
of "there is no world" ~ There is no one that could convince me that God is
not real and active on this earth because it took me to many years to discover
it for myself. sheryl

Corey

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 6:42:34 PM12/9/03

to

On 09 Dec 2003 23:37:43 GMT, sherylv...@aol.com (
www.dr4baxs.com) wrote:

Cool. That's what I thought. That's why I was so surprised.
But I was happy to have a chance to express my own thoughts, anyway.

J. L.

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 7:11:13 PM12/9/03

to

Well you are right the challenge is always with ourselves. That certainly
takes to a place where the cults can't go. I never met a cultie yet with an
IQ over room temperture. Nevertheless, The Course lexicon under pinning a
spiritual nilhism will be a bigger problem than many forsee. And not
necessarily in Course world.

Nancy Lorieau

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 7:12:14 PM12/9/03

to

"Douglas Thompson" <dthompso...@execulink.com> wrote in message

news:yrmBb.116574$PD3.5...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...

Stephen:

> > I don't think your conclusion about what that really means is valid
> > either.

> > You seem to think that if God did not make the world then He is not
> > present in it, which does not necessarily follow.

Doug:

> That's not my argument, that's Wapnick's argument. I don't deal with the
> hypothesis "if God did not create the universe" because it is simply too
> silly to give serious consideration. To me it is a total non-starter
mostly
> because there is no viable alternative creator. I know God did and I know
I
> didn't and I'm pretty darned sure Ken and Joe didn't create the universe
> either.

> The "alternative creator hypothesis" is a logical non-starter as
> far as I'm concerned. To consider it you first have to take all we know
> about the known universe which at most an infinitely small speck of all
that
> we can surmise must be knowable about the known universe and then
postulate
> a creator with the intelligence and power to actually generate that
knowable
> energetic phenomenon... at least 15 billion years ago ... and one who is
> furthermore not divine and not God and in Wapnickian metaphysics, not even
> created by God.
>
> I mean the "leap of faith" required by that hypothesis makes the Flat
Earth
> Society look positively persuasive! It's simply not remotely plausible to
> my mind.

It's also not very "satisfying" spiritually or metaphysically (at least to
me). I wonder, of those who have investigated the course, maybe even studied
the course, and moved on... how many were exposed only (or mostly) to the
Wapnickian interpretation?

n.

mr bill

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 7:27:32 PM12/9/03

to

why?

as in; for what purpose?
:)

"nothing real can be threatened.
nothing unreal exists.
herein lies the peace of god."
*a course in miracles*

"Gary D" <gary...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns944C83D9...@130.133.1.4...

mr bill

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 7:30:50 PM12/9/03

to

then perhaps you would like to share your personal knowledge, as
in experience, rather than just proclaim it?
:)

"nothing real can be threatened.
nothing unreal exists.
herein lies the peace of god."
*a course in miracles*

"Corey" <noe...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:g2ictvc3ahr1km3kp...@4ax.com...

Gary D

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 7:54:40 PM12/9/03

to

"mr bill" <williamjcram...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:JTtBb.698
$2g.301@okepread05:

>>> [Stephen Calder:]

>>> The physical universe is a mental construct. It is literally
>>> nothing...

>> [Gary D:]

>> Could we say it is a *shared* mental construct, at least being
>> "shared" on those lower levels where multiple minds appear to
>> exist in the world?

> why?

> as in; for what purpose?

To answer the following objection to the notion of the universe as mental
construct, likely to come from our discussion partner who has taken the
position that some portion of the physical universe is God-created and
real:

"Okay, if the physical universe is only your mental construct and not
objectively real, why do the laws of Physics apply stably and evenly to
everyone, even when they are not consciously thinking about those laws?"

Douglas Thompson

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 8:02:47 PM12/9/03

to

"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message

news:mnqBb.1120$hX1....@news.optus.net.au...

You're still trying to tell me there is a physical universe created by God,
and you're still trying to tell me that's what the Course says. It doesn't
say that. God cannot create what is not eternal. You're going to say in
reply that only the form changes, and the physical universe is just energy
in an ever-changing form. It's not even that. It's no more than an idea in
your mind.

That's exactly right. It's no more than an idea in YOUR mind which is the
MIND OF GOD for you are the SON of GOD. And there is nothing that is other
than an idea. A thought. Mind stuff.

The distinction drawn in ACIM is between the thoughts we have which are
SEPARATE from God, illusions, and the thoughts we have which are "of one
mind" with God, which are real.

The physical/spiritual distinction is really a bogus one. God can think up
the physical as easily as you can. More easily, and more grandly. The
"illusion" is that there is a separation between you and "it." The
"illusion" is the notion of an "external reality" which is "separate" from
you or for that matter, from God. In truth God is all in all. God created
the Universe, and Space and Time and Matter and also you.

The "illusion" is any idea which is not thought WITH God. The mountain is
not such an idea! You didn't create the mountain or the river or the Earth
or the Sun or the Solar system or the Galaxy or the universe. Really! You
did not do that. To presume you did is to arrogate unto yourself the
attributes of God and to attack God. Nor is any of that SEPARATE from you!
We, you and I and the sun and the stars are all part of Creation, all of one
KIND!

Any Theology which makes you into the Creator is an attack on God. Any
Theology which removes God from His Creation is an attack on God. Any
attack on God is an illusion for God cannot be attacked.

Look again at Wapnickian Theology and its FRUITS ... God is removed so far
from humankind as to be unknowable, unreachable, and irrelevant. He exists
only as an intellectual abstraction which has no possible practical
significance to life on Earth in space and time. What could be more
delightful to the ego! Get rid of God! Admit his existence but confine him
in a box so far removed from our affairs as to be of no significance
whatsoever. What idea could anyone come up with which SEPARATED God and Man
more thoroughly?

Energy is an idea. Energy is eternal. Matter is energy. The physical
universe is, among other things, matter and energy. The Course does say
matter, space, and time were created by God. In so many words. "World" in
ACIM does not refer to the physical universe most of the time. That word
can have many meanings and we have to discern from context which is
appropriate in each use and it can get confusing in lines like "you made the
world as an attack on God." What that means is "you made the world AS EGO
PERCEIVES IT as an attack on God." That means you and I made up all kinds
of crazy ideas about what it is for and what it means. This is because we
fail to see it as it truly is, as it really is, we fail to see the REAL
WORLD. Without the Holy Spirit's help.

Wapnickian Theology teaches that there is no world to see and that the Holy
Spirit is a poetic metaphor and not a REAL presence and that there is no
real world.

If that turns your crank, go for it!

But if you have ever experienced love in this world, remember the Course
says "all love is of God." And also "God is Love." So if you have
experienced love you have experienced God. How then can you believe that
God is not "in the world?" Do you believe in miracles? Again, if there are
miracles then God is in the world which is why Ken and Joe are so adamant
that miracles do not exist. To admit the existence of miracles would be to
admit their whole system is profoundly flawed.

This is very odd when you think about it ... the self-proclaimed "Official
Teacher" of A Course in Miracles doesn't believe in miracles and says the
book isn't about miracles at all!

Work back from all the logical inferences Wapnick makes from his basic
dualistic assumption which, just to confuse us, he keeps calling "non-dual."
It's not remotely not dualistic. It is practically a dictionary definition
of dualism.

Jesus didn't write the Course. Jesus does not exist and never did. Jesus
is a mere "symbol Helen used to refer to the abstract love of God."

Miracles don't exist.

God doesn't exist in any way that is available to experience.

Forgiveness doesn't involve actually forgiving people

Love is lawsuits.

The world really is a sad, miserable unhappy place ... this is no ego
illusion, this is the way the world really is and furthermore the way it
must be because the Ego made it.

There is no "Real World."

Since the logic is sound and all the inferences are clearly balderdash, we
have to question the starting assumptions and ... it just happens to turn
out ... the starting assumptions are all flatly contradicted by the Course.

Now your basic problem is shared by many, I think, and is the confusion of
your perceptions of "the world" or, for that matter, anything at all, with
the thing itself. Your perceptions may sometimes be reasonably accurate
analogues of the things themselves but they are NOT the things themselves!
And frequently our perceptions are way off base.

We "see" or perceive the world as "external" to ourselves. It isn't. The
illusion isn't the world, but rather the mistaken idea that we are separate
from it!

The mistake isn't the world, it is our perception of it. What needs
correction is not the world, but our perceptions of it. The illusion is not
the world, but our perceptions of it!

WE are the ones who need "correction." The universe is doing just fine,
thankyou very much! :)

All the best,

doug

Douglas Thompson

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 8:10:31 PM12/9/03

to

"Gary D" <gary...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns944C83D9...@130.133.1.4...

Everything is mind. There is nothing else. Of course the universe, which
the Course says God created some sixteen times, is a "mental construct" or a
Creation of Mind. It could be nothing else. Nor could you nor I be
anything other than ideas in the mind of God.

The "illusion" of separation is the idea that there COULD be something other
than Mind! To say that a thing is a mental construct and therefore
"nothing" is to demonstrate a total lack of understanding of existance
itself. It is to suppose that there could exist something that is OTHER
than a mental construct. It is to imbue something that is not Mind with
powers greater than Mind.

This is the definition of the separation illusion ... the belief that there
exists anything that is "other" and that has powers greater than the powers
of Mind.

However Gary, you raise a very interesting question about "shared" ... i'd
say "shared illusions." We can empower each other's illusions by sharing
them and reinforcing them. We can as a group build particular illusions
together.

There is also "shared reality" when we join with God the Holy Spirit and His
Father in love. When we do that we know what's what, what is real and what
is not. And we know love. In fact we can know everything at that point! :)

All the best,

Doug

mr bill

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 8:17:52 PM12/9/03

to

because they are built into the mental construct.

they are root assumptions that most people never question, and
are therefore not subject to variation. as long as there is an
acceptance of the status quo in the form of no questioning of
said status quo, the status quo remains.

when when enough supposedly separate minds realize the lie of the
assumption of separateness, physics will be turned on it's ear.
:)

"nothing real can be threatened.
nothing unreal exists.
herein lies the peace of god."
*a course in miracles*

"Gary D" <gary...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:Xns944CAC07...@130.133.1.4...

Douglas Thompson

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 8:29:24 PM12/9/03

to

Actually Suzanne, the Course says "Heaven and Earth ARE one." It doesn't
say they "will become one." The notion that they are not one is the
illusion which must be corrected.

We may not "perceive" their oneness right now, but perhaps it is our
perceptions which are in error rather than Heaven or Earth or the Course
being in error?

Doug

"Suzanne" <suza...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote in message
news:46f508c3.03120...@posting.google.com...

Alan

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 8:31:27 PM12/9/03

to

:The world you see is an illusion of a world. God did not create it,
:for what He creates must be eternal as Himself. Yet there is nothing
:in the world you see that will endure forever. Some things will last
:in time a little while longer than others. But the time will come
:when all things visible will have an end. The body's eyes are therefore
:not the means by which the real world can be seen, for the illusions
:that they look upon must lead to more illusions. (of reality) And so
:they do. - Urtext

[snip digression into rant about the perceived
failings of that evil tyrant, Kenneth Wapnick]

> Energy is an idea. Energy is eternal. Matter is energy. The physical
> universe is, among other things, matter and energy. The Course does say
> matter, space, and time were created by God. In so many words. "World" in
> ACIM does not refer to the physical universe most of the time. That word
> can have many meanings and we have to discern from context which is
> appropriate in each use and it can get confusing in lines like "you made the
> world as an attack on God." What that means is "you made the world AS EGO
> PERCEIVES IT as an attack on God." That means you and I made up all kinds
> of crazy ideas about what it is for and what it means. This is because we
> fail to see it as it truly is, as it really is, we fail to see the REAL
> WORLD. Without the Holy Spirit's help.
>
> Wapnickian Theology teaches that there is no world to see and that the Holy
> Spirit is a poetic metaphor and not a REAL presence and that there is no
> real world.
>
> If that turns your crank, go for it!
>
> But if you have ever experienced love in this world, remember the Course
> says "all love is of God." And also "God is Love." So if you have
> experienced love you have experienced God. How then can you believe that
> God is not "in the world?" Do you believe in miracles? Again, if there are
> miracles then God is in the world which is why Ken and Joe are so adamant
> that miracles do not exist. To admit the existence of miracles would be to
> admit their whole system is profoundly flawed.

[snip digression into rant about the perceived
failings of that evil tyrant, Kenneth Wapnick]

Gary D

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 8:48:13 PM12/9/03

to

"mr bill" <williamjcram...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3vuBb.935
$2g.467@okepread05:

>>>>> [Stephen Calder:]
>>>>> The physical universe is a mental construct. It is literally
>>>>> nothing...

>>>> [Gary D:]
>>>> Could we say it is a *shared* mental construct, at least being
>>>> "shared" on those lower levels where multiple minds appear to
>>>> exist in the world?

>>> why?

>>> as in; for what purpose?

>> To answer the following objection to the notion of the universe
>> as mental construct, likely to come from our discussion partner
>> who has taken the position that some portion of the physical
>> universe is God-created and real:

>> "Okay, if the physical universe is only your mental construct and
>> not objectively real, why do the laws of Physics apply stably and
>> evenly to everyone, even when they are not consciously thinking
>> about those laws?"

> because they are built into the mental construct.

> they are root assumptions that most people never question, and
> are therefore not subject to variation. as long as there is an
> acceptance of the status quo in the form of no questioning of
> said status quo, the status quo remains.

> when when enough supposedly separate minds realize the lie of the
> assumption of separateness, physics will be turned on it's ear.

I would agree!

Gary D

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 9:07:33 PM12/9/03

to

"Douglas Thompson" <dthompso...@execulink.com> wrote in

news:6ouBb.116928$PD3.5...@nnrp1.uunet.ca:

>> > [Stephen Calder:]

>> > The physical universe is a mental construct. It is literally
>> > nothing...

>> [Gary D:]

>> Could we say it is a *shared* mental construct, at least being
>> "shared" on those lower levels where multiple minds appear to
>> exist in the world?

> Everything is mind. There is nothing else. Of course the universe,
> which the Course says God created some sixteen times, is a "mental
> construct" or a Creation of Mind. It could be nothing else. Nor
> could you nor I be anything other than ideas in the mind of God.

> The "illusion" of separation is the idea that there COULD be something
> other than Mind! To say that a thing is a mental construct and
> therefore "nothing" is to demonstrate a total lack of understanding of
> existance itself. It is to suppose that there could exist something
> that is OTHER than a mental construct. It is to imbue something that
> is not Mind with powers greater than Mind.

In these terms, then, I would say we were discussing a mental construct
in which God did not join, that is, a shared illusion, as you detail
below.

> This is the definition of the separation illusion ... the belief that
> there exists anything that is "other" and that has powers greater
> than the powers of Mind.

You know, I wasn't actually planning to get into the main fray on this; I
was just primping on a particular detail. On the core issue, I think Alan
speaks my position quite well, so I'll defer to him to carry the "team
ball." Yo, Alan...[mouth click, wink, and cocky fingerpoint]...take it
away, Dude!

> However Gary, you raise a very interesting question about "shared" ...
> i'd say "shared illusions." We can empower each other's illusions by
> sharing them and reinforcing them. We can as a group build particular
> illusions together.

I definitely agree. Now, I would say the physical universe is one of
those. Again, I would direct you to Alan for further detail and
continuing argument (in the good sense of that word).

> There is also "shared reality" when we join with God the Holy Spirit
> and His Father in love. When we do that we know what's what, what is
> real and what is not. And we know love. In fact we can know
> everything at that point! :)

I couldn't agree more!

Gary D

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 9:16:05 PM12/9/03

to

Gary D <gary...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:Xns944CB862A3FF5o42bd1@
130.133.1.4:

> ...On the core issue, I think Alan

> speaks my position quite well, so I'll defer to him to carry the "team
> ball." Yo, Alan...[mouth click, wink, and cocky fingerpoint]...take it
> away, Dude!

Whoops, didn't mean to omit anyone; I would also sign on to what Richard is
saying. Yo, Richard...[similar mouth click, wink, and cocky
fingerpoint]...you too, Dude!

Sharon

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 9:54:34 PM12/9/03

to

"Alan" <nos...@imeanit.com> wrote in message
news:3FD6777C...@imeanit.com...

> :The world you see is an illusion of a world. God did not create it,
> :for what He creates must be eternal as Himself. Yet there is nothing
> :in the world you see that will endure forever. Some things will last
> :in time a little while longer than others. But the time will come
> :when all things visible will have an end. The body's eyes are therefore
> :not the means by which the real world can be seen, for the illusions
> :that they look upon must lead to more illusions. (of reality) And so
> :they do. - Urtext
>

Nice quote Alan. To take this a little further.. the Course tells us in
more than one place that the real world is a state of mind .. not a place.

"There is a borderland of thought which stand between this world and Heaven.
It is not a place, and when you reach it is apart from from time. Here is
the meeting-place where thoughts are brought together; where conflicting
values meet, and all illusions are laid down beside the truth, where they
are judged to be untrue. This borderland is just beyond the gate of Heaven.
Here is every thought made pure and wholly simple. Here is every sin
denied, and everything that IS received instead.
This is the journey's end. We have referred to it as the real world.
And yet there is a contradiction here, in that the words imply a limited
reality, a partial truth, a segment of the universe made true." - Urtext

The way I understand this, is the words "real world" is a contradiction
because it implies that the part of the universe is made true (the world) --
but its not -- it is an illusion like all the rest of the physical universe.

Sharon

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 10:15:22 PM12/9/03

to

"Suzanne" <suza...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote in message
news:46f508c3.03120...@posting.google.com...

well put. the real world is a state of mind where the illusionary world is
seen for what it is. That is its function and the Answer that God gave His
son. But it is not Heaven or eternal.

> The real world has nothing to do with reality. It exists only while
> the illusion of a world separate from God lingers in the mind of the
> Son of God. It is temporary. The loving thoughts, however, that make
> up the real world are real and continue forever in creation.
>

yes.

> The real world is a *reflection* of reality, not reality itself. It
> can be perceived because that is its purpose. Perception needs to be

> purified so that it can be translated/transferred to knowledge.

> Perception has no purpose in Heaven and does not exist. Heaven can
> only be known, not perceived. Heaven is God's creation, and ours as
> co-creators with God. The illusionary world and the real world are
> not creation - they are, respectively, miscreation and correction for
> miscreation. We (the Son of God) made one; God (through the Holy
> Spirit) made the other.
>
> Our only function in this world is forgiveness - healing - which is
> not creation but reparation. Our only function in Heaven is creation
> - which is our true function as co-creators with God. The real world,
> although "created" by God (through the Holy Spirit) is not true
> creation, because it exists ONLY to heal the Sonship; that is its ONLY
> purpose. So, when the Sonship is healed, it will no longer exist.
> The real world is NOT God's creation; Heaven is God's creation. And
> in Heaven - in reality - it doesn't exist at all.
>
> The course is very clear about this.

yes .. it seems so to me too.

>
> > Heaven and Earth are ONE! As Jesus says. The notion that they are
> > separate, or "dual" and that God is not present in both is simply not
> > supported by the Course. When God appears to us to not be present, as
> > happens, we have erected barriers to the awareness of love's presence.
It
> > is not that "love" (aka God) is not present, it is that we have blinded
> > ourselves to God's (love's) presence. This results in our seeing an
> > "illusory world" in which God is NOT present.
>
> Heaven and earth become one when the Atonement is complete. Until the
> Atonement is complete, earth *is* separate from Heaven because it was
> made out of the desire of the Son to be separate from God. God *is*
> present in this world in the form of the Holy Spirit, Who was created
> by God as a protection for the Son's mind. The Holy Spirit is the
> link between the separated Son and God. In Heaven, God and Christ are
> one, and a link between them is not needed. But in this world the
> Holy Spirit is needed to call us back home.
>
> God is in everything we see because God is the only reality and there
> is nothing else. God is spirit, and nothing but spirit exists.
> Therefore, when we see God in everything, we are seeing spirit, not
> flesh. God did not create flesh and the course says that it is
> impossible to create flesh.
>

yes.

> > You have a choice: the illusory world you created or the Real World God
> > created as a teaching device for your mind to bring you home. You have
> > chosen illusion and the illusion of attack on reality.
>
> We all have that choice, and the only way to experience the real world
> is through forgiveness of grievances. It doesn't matter if we believe
> that the real world was created by God or not. Whatever we believe,
> grievances hide the light of God from us and the only way to see the
> light is to forgive. It's really very simply. Forgive, and peace and
> happiness is ours. I know that I still hold grievances because I am
> not at peace and happy. When I am consistently at peace and happy, I
> will know what the real world is.
>

I agree.. it probably doesn't matter if we believe the real world was
created (as in eternal) or as the Answer to the separation (temporary) ..
as long as our goal is forgiveness.

Sharon

Alan

unread,

Dec 9, 2003, 10:50:49 PM12/9/03

to

Much like forgiveness, though still a dream,
it's the dream that leads one beyond dreams.

Stephen Calder

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 12:13:14 AM12/10/03

to

Steafán Annraoi wrote:
>>> "For as Heaven and earth become one, even the real world will vanish
>>> from your sight. The end of the world is not its destruction, but
>>> its TRANSLATION into Heaven. The REINTERPRETATION of the world is
>>> the transfer of ALL perception to knowledge." (ACIM Urtext)
>>
>> Exactly. You can't make form real since it is temporary.
>
> "Form" is temporary? Well, yes, in perception. But the stuff it is
> made of (matter/energy) is not. Do you understand what I'm getting
> at here with the monitor/tv screen metaphor? The finest 'stuff' of
> the Universe doesn't ever become tables and chairs at all (neither
> temporarily or 'really') any more than the pixles on a screen
> "become" 2D representations of tables and chairs. The point I'm
> making Stephen, is that declaring 'form' as transient, destructable
> or temporary is, technically, just as wrong as saying it's 'real'.
> You should just be able to make out the pixels on your monitor so you
> should be able to get a handle on this even though your eyes could
> never see the finest 'stuff' of the Universe.

Sorry, I'm completely lost and I don't follow oyu at all. Pixels on a screen
DO become 2D representation of things, so that analogy is completely false.
This a dream. Nothing in a dream is real. I'm agreeing with you! Yes, Lesson
184 says it, and so does Lesson 132.

Stephen

Douglas Thompson

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 12:20:14 AM12/10/03

to

"Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:GVvBb.490167$Tr4.1338789@attbi_s03...

"There is a borderland of thought which stand between this world and Heaven.
It is not a place, and when you reach it is apart from from time. Here is
the meeting-place where thoughts are brought together; where conflicting
values meet, and all illusions are laid down beside the truth, where they
are judged to be untrue.

---

Interesting use of words ... it is "not a place" yet it is "the
meeting-place"

Well of course a "borderland of thought" is "not a place" in any physical
sense. This is not a discussion of "the physical" at all.

------

This borderland is just beyond the gate of Heaven.
Here is every thought made pure and wholly simple. Here is every sin
denied, and everything that IS received instead.
This is the journey's end. We have referred to it as the real world.
And yet there is a contradiction here, in that the words imply a limited
reality, a partial truth, a segment of the universe made true." - Urtext

---

"A borderland of thought" is obviously a geographical metaphor. "It is not
a place" or a physical or geographical location which can be mapped on the
face of the Earth. It is an attitude, and in that attitude the "real world"
can be seen as it is. Real.

ACIM explains to us clearly that "worlds" are mental worlds, not physical
ones. When Jesus wants to talk about the physical Earth he usually uses the
word "Earth" as in "Heaven and Earth are one." IF it doesn't appear to you
that they are one, the error is not in Earth or Heaven, but in your
perceptions!

As for "physical stuff" such as the body, and matter, he tells us these are
"neutral" and have only the value and meaning our minds give them. But he
says more, he says that matter, space, and time were created as "teaching
devices" for our minds.

Matter has no power in and of itself. It has no value. It is a blank slate
upon which our minds write the meaning we would give it. It is neutral in
and of itself, and ACIM tells us this time and time again. So if it is
neutral the understanding that we made it to attack God, and that the matter
(or body) itself is the illusion, must be an error. The Course is quite
clear that God created it for our instruction.

Like the potter's clay, it is nothing without the potter who gives it shape
and form.

The illusion lies in thinking the clay has a life of its own apart from the
mind which alone gives it meaning and which alone commands the behaviour of
the clay.

This is important. Just think about it. If you suppose the matter is NOT
neutral and has powers of its own, which is a central tenet of Wapnickian
Theology, then this is a denial of the power of mind. The matter will do
what the matter will do and there is nothing you can do about that. It is
"external" to you.

If you accept the Course's teaching, which Wapnick has never been inclined
to do, the matter is as the Course says "neutral" and mind controls it
totally.

It's a question of "who's in charge here?" Is it the matter itself, or the
body or is it the mind?

So now, let's look at "illusion." Can matter, which is neutral, be an
illusion? It's a non-sequitur. There is no possible way. Only a mind can
have illusions, and one illusion is to invest matter and bodies with powers
they do not possess, and in that investiture, dispossess the mind of the
powers it does possess.

So to say that the matter itself is the illusion is to deny the power of the
mind.

"The body, if properly understood, shares the invulnerability of the
Atonement to two-edged application. This is not because the body is a
miracle, but because it is not INHERENTLY open to misinterpretation. The
body is merely a fact in human experience. Its abilities can be, and
frequently are, overevaluated. However, it is almost impossible to deny its
existence. Those who do so are engaging in a particularly unworthy form of
denial. The term "unworthy" here implies simply that it is not necessary to
protect the mind by denying the unmindful. If one denies this unfortunate
aspect of the mind's power, one is also denying the power itself." HLC

Now I'm still not at all sure why the word "unfortunate" appears there but
it appears to refer to the denial of the unmindful.

The mind has the power not the body. If there is "an illusion" and I think
we can all agree there is, is the illusion something physical or something
mental? Is the illusion created by the physical stuff, which God created,
and which God created neutral, or is the illusion "in the mind?" My mind,
not God's mind. God knows what it is, it is neutral! Its a teaching device
for me to play with. I give it whatever meaning I choose.

To say that it is unreal and does not exist is, we are told, "an unworthy
form of denial" which is NOT NECESSARY! Yet every attempt to make the body
into the illusion is precisely that unworthy, and unnecessary form of denial
which ends up in denying the power of the mind itself!

The attributes of the mind, including the capacity to generate illusion, are
given over to the body, which is a "mere fact in human experience." It has
no illusory attributes or capacities, only the mind has those.

To say the body is the illusion is to totally misapprehend where the
illusion lies and how it can be cured. It is to suggest that the cure lies
in the physical, and can quickly lead one to suppose that attacks on the
body, such as lawsuits, are loving and curative when in fact they are simply
attacks.

The body is not only NOT an illusion, it is a "FACT."

Now we come to an interesting part. The Course does say "God did not create
the body." While Wapnickian Theology has to write off most of the course as
allegory or metapor or poetry, not to be taken literally, or scribal error,
there are seven lines in ACIM I have to write off as "scribal error." That
is one of them. I can't fit it into the rest of the material in its obvious
and most direct sense.

If not God, then who the heck created the body?

This is one case where I really do want to see Helen's original notes before
considering the matter further. I am LOATHE to use the "scribal error"
excuse for material that doesn't fit my hypothesis yet I concede that the
scribes likely made errors. The best candidates for errors are those
passages which "don't fit" all the rest.

Still, my interpretation of the Course only requires writing off a few
lines as likely error. Wapnick's requires, well estimates vary, somewhere
between a third and two-thirds of it.

The statement "God did not create the body" is pretty blunt, and for me
impossible to re-interpret as meaning "well God really DID create the body."
It's either a scribal error or a notable anomaly in my hypothesis suggesting
error in that hypothesis.

I will note that my hypothesis has enormously fewer textual problems of this
sort than does Dr. Wapnick's for those who are ready to jump on this one as
"proof" of anything.

Generally my approach is that if the text does not agree with me, I suspect
the error is in my understanding, not in the text. But we really cannot
completely exclude the possibility of scribal error.

That's all for tonight!

Thanks for all the many thoughtful contributions

All the best,

Doug

Douglas Thompson

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 12:26:44 AM12/10/03

to

"Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:edwBb.494938$Fm2.476353@attbi_s04...

well put. the real world is a state of mind where the illusionary world is
seen for what it is. That is its function and the Answer that God gave His
son. But it is not Heaven or eternal

---------

Welllllllll ..... if the world does not exist and we, with perception
corrected by the Holy Spirit see it as it truly is .... what we'd see is
nothing. For illusions are nothing. But the "Real World" is not nothing.
And it is seen.

So is the real world a state of mind? Or is the Ego's illusion of the world
a state of mind?

My money is on the real world being real and the ego's illusions of it being
the illusion.

Heaven and Earth are One. The Real World is Heaven. Here and now.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The real world is available to
be experienced. Have you ever experienced it?

All the best,

Doug

Stephen Calder

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 12:33:13 AM12/10/03

to

Douglas Thompson wrote:
> The "illusion" is any idea which is not thought WITH God. The
> mountain is not such an idea! You didn't create the mountain or the
> river or the Earth or the Sun or the Solar system or the Galaxy or
> the universe. Really! You did not do that. To presume you did is
> to arrogate unto yourself the attributes of God and to attack God.
> Nor is any of that SEPARATE from you! We, you and I and the sun and
> the stars are all part of Creation, all of one KIND!

I'm telling you, beyond any doubt on my part, that God did not create
anything that is not eternal. Tell me a physical object that is eternal and
then you can tell me God created it. God's creations are eternal, and the
world is false, no matter how true you want it to be. I fell asleep in
heaven and dreamed of a world. God knew nothing of that, even though of
course I am always using His mind, even when dreaming.

Stephen

>
> Any Theology which makes you into the Creator is an attack on God.
> Any Theology which removes God from His Creation is an attack on God.
> Any attack on God is an illusion for God cannot be attacked.

I'm not the creator, just the maker of an impossible dream.

>
> Look again at Wapnickian Theology and its FRUITS ... God is removed
> so far from humankind as to be unknowable, unreachable, and
> irrelevant. He exists only as an intellectual abstraction which has
> no possible practical significance to life on Earth in space and
> time. What could be more delightful to the ego! Get rid of God!
> Admit his existence but confine him in a box so far removed from our
> affairs as to be of no significance whatsoever. What idea could
> anyone come up with which SEPARATED God and Man more thoroughly?

I don';t agree that my proposition leads to this conclusion.

>
> Energy is an idea. Energy is eternal. Matter is energy. The
> physical universe is, among other things, matter and energy.

You are decived by the evidence of your senses. You're gonna believe the
scientists when they tell you the world is there?

The
> Course does say matter, space, and time were created by God. In so
> many words. "World" in ACIM does not refer to the physical universe
> most of the time.

"Universe" does not necessarily mean the physical universe. In fact, since
the physical universe is not eternal, it can hardly mean that, can it?

>
> Wapnickian Theology teaches that there is no world to see and that
> the Holy Spirit is a poetic metaphor and not a REAL presence and that
> there is no real world.

I've never heard him say the Holy Spirit is a poetic metaphor and not a real
presence. The Holy Spirit is a real presence in my life. As for the rest of
it, he's right; this is what the Course says

>
>
> But if you have ever experienced love in this world, remember the
> Course says "all love is of God." And also "God is Love." So if you
> have experienced love you have experienced God. How then can you
> believe that God is not "in the world?" Do you believe in miracles?
> Again, if there are miracles then God is in the world which is why
> Ken and Joe are so adamant that miracles do not exist. To admit the
> existence of miracles would be to admit their whole system is
> profoundly flawed.

There is no lasting love in this world. There are miracles in this world.
The miracle is that a communiation from divine mind could even reach us in
this nonexistent place. As our minds heal, the physical world, being a
construct of our minds, is undone, and yes, that is a miracle.

>
> This is very odd when you think about it ... the self-proclaimed
> "Official Teacher" of A Course in Miracles doesn't believe in
> miracles and says the book isn't about miracles at all!

If that's what he says, I don't agree.

>
> Now your basic problem is shared by many, I think, and is the
> confusion of your perceptions of "the world" or, for that matter,
> anything at all, with the thing itself. Your perceptions may
> sometimes be reasonably accurate analogues of the things themselves
> but they are NOT the things themselves! And frequently our
> perceptions are way off base.

Perception is the CAUSE of the world and not the other way around. It is you
that have it backwards.

>
> We "see" or perceive the world as "external" to ourselves. It isn't.
> The illusion isn't the world, but rather the mistaken idea that we
> are separate from it!

The world is literally not ehre, and we are seeing nothing. This is the
whole idea that we are dreaming and need to awake. It is the whole idea of
Vision that the Course keeps talking about, stressing every time that it is
true Vision we need, which has nothing to do with the body's eyes.

>
> The mistake isn't the world, it is our perception of it. What needs
> correction is not the world, but our perceptions of it. The illusion
> is not the world, but our perceptions of it!

The world IS the mistake and the illusion both at once. This is your
salvation.

>
> WE are the ones who need "correction." The universe is doing just
> fine, thankyou very much! :)

The universe, as God's eternal Creation, yes. The physical universe we think
we see? A gigantic illusion.

Stephen

Douglas Thompson

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 1:00:47 AM12/10/03

to

"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message

news:KXxBb.1141$hX1....@news.optus.net.au...

Sorry, I'm completely lost and I don't follow oyu at all. Pixels on a screen
DO become 2D representation of things, so that analogy is completely false.
This a dream. Nothing in a dream is real. I'm agreeing with you! Yes, Lesson
184 says it, and so does Lesson 132.

I realize you are lost Stephan but .... pixels on a screen become nothing
at all save in your perceptions. They are, really, just pixels on a screen.
It is your MIND that generates the 2D representation from them.

You think your perceptions of things are the things themselves. They are
not.

Keep doing the workbook again and again, you will eventually get that you
don't know what anything is for!

I know, it's a tough nut. But pixels are just pixels. Any meaning they have
for you is what YOU give to them!

All the best,

Doug

Douglas Thompson

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 1:04:44 AM12/10/03

to

Thanks for that Sheryl!

Some get it, some don't. It's good to hear that some do! :) Others are
determined that their perceptions are just fine and the fault lies in the
mountains and lakes and rivers. It's a nice ego ploy ... if the fault is
"out there" rather than "in here" ego never needs any correction!

But this is a required Course and eventually everyone will pass :):)

All the best,

Doug

" www.dr4baxs.com" <sherylv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031209132950...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> this is a fantastic post Doug! I really enjoy your posts and what you
write
> about feels and sounds true to me. I read a book recently by Dan Brown
called
> Angels&Demons, he also wrote the Da Vinci Code. Admittedly the book is
> fiction, but as in the Da Vinci Code he includes much factual information
about
> science and religion. He discusses "anti-matter" and evolves this into
the
> story about a scientist who is also a theologian who sets out to prove
that God
> created the universe. Very interesting. Also talks about how it has
already
> been scientifically proven that there is an invisible force, an energy if
you
> will, that binds us all together ~ some call it God. sheryl

Douglas Thompson

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 1:07:43 AM12/10/03

to

More like, there is nothing aside from mind. If mental constructs are
nothing, then everything is nothing because there is nothing aside from
mental constructs!

You, and I, and planet Earth and Heaven are all just thoughts of the mind of
God. Like it or lump it, that's the way it is. YOU are a "mental
construct" in the mind of your creator. Get used to it!

All the best,

Doug

"Gary D" <gary...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:Xns944CAC07...@130.133.1.4...

Douglas Thompson

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 1:14:56 AM12/10/03

to

Every physical object consists of energy. That's all. Energy is eternal.
Energy is thought. That's eterernal. Illusory perceptions of form are
not.

You are equating your own misperceptions of the thing with the thing itself.
This is an error. The thing is the thing quite aside from your
misperceptions of it. Generally speaking God is not dismayed by your
misperceptions of Him or His Creation nor your habit of equating your
misperceptions with reality.

The error the Holy Spirit can correct is the error in our perceptions.
There is no error in the mountains and the rivers. They cannot be
corrected, they just are ... as are you.

Kinda neat and liberating when you think about it eh? The world is ok, my
problem is my perceptions! A lot better than "I am ok, it's the world that
sucks."

All the best,

Doug

"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message

news:teyBb.1142$hX1....@news.optus.net.au...

mr bill

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 1:30:53 AM12/10/03

to

if it is not "out there" which needs correction, but rather "in
here,"

to whom are you speaking?
:)

"nothing real can be threatened.
nothing unreal exists.
herein lies the peace of god."
*a course in miracles*

"Douglas Thompson" <dthompso...@execulink.com> wrote in

message news:VHyBb.116997$PD3.5...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...

Nancy Lorieau

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 2:09:02 AM12/10/03

to

"Douglas Thompson" <dthompso...@execulink.com> wrote in message

news:UguBb.116922$PD3.5...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...

> "Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
> news:mnqBb.1120$hX1....@news.optus.net.au...
>
> You're still trying to tell me there is a physical universe created by
God,
> and you're still trying to tell me that's what the Course says. It doesn't
> say that. God cannot create what is not eternal. You're going to say in
> reply that only the form changes, and the physical universe is just energy
> in an ever-changing form. It's not even that. It's no more than an idea in
> your mind.

Hello? Time to crack those books again, Stephen.

This time, though, I'd recommend you check out the original.

n.

Deborah

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 2:16:11 AM12/10/03

to

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:26:44 -0500, "Douglas Thompson"
<dthompso...@execulink.com> wrote:

>Welllllllll ..... if the world does not exist and we, with perception
>corrected by the Holy Spirit see it as it truly is .... what we'd see is
>nothing. For illusions are nothing. But the "Real World" is not nothing.
>And it is seen.
>
>So is the real world a state of mind? Or is the Ego's illusion of the world
>a state of mind?

They are both states of mind, Doug.

(1) The world you see represents your state of mind.

(2) It is not the body's eyes that see.

(3) The body is the sole witness to the existence of the material
world and being part of the material world it is not an impartial
witness.

(4) To the extent that denial of the body is an unworthy form of
denial it is so because to deny the "existence" of the body is to deny
the power of the mind that made it. The mind invests in illusions and
bingo - it's 3D, technicolor, and it's all unfolding within the
parameters of something that is not real - namely time.

It's all in the course.

Deborah (BC)

clark_kent

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:03:26 AM12/10/03

to

"Joe Jesseph" <jjes...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<dI2Bb.1714$SF2....@news.uswest.net>...
> "What God did not create does not exist. And everything that
> does exist exists as He created it. The world you see has nothing
> to do with reality. It is of your own making, and it does not
> exist" (W-pI.14.1:2-5).
> ______________________________

right.....in many ways we are all behaving like schizophrenics.....or
split personalities...
the world we are born into and the life we live is painful so we
create yet another 'fantasy' world to escape from the pain of the
'original' one. we have split minds within our split mind. neither
one is real, the original painful world nor the fantasy life.
but in order to heal all the splits and pain we must first awaken to
(realize) and clearly see the split. i've spent my whole life running
around trying to make my fantasy life real
in a vain attempt to escape a pain that is imagined! sort of like a
cat chasing his tail while imagining he is hunting wild mice.

> "God did not make the body, because it is destructible, and
> therefore not of the Kingdom. The body is the symbol of what you
> think you are. It is clearly a separation device, and therefore does
> not exist" (T-6.V(A).2:1-3 [HLC T-6, p.76] ).
> ______________________________

this one is very difficult to get. atleast for me.
i'm still at the level of working on my errant perception,
but i have been catching glimpses lately of this one.....it's funny
how my perception of the world changes dramatically with the changes
in how my body feels.....hmmmmmmm
could my illusory perceptions and my body be closely tied
together?????? hmmmmmmmmmmmm........

>
> Understanding the metaphysics and theology of the Course is important for
> understanding and implementing its practical teachings about forgiveness.

right.....for people like us....who over analyze and over
intellectualize everything....
i'm sure there are simple minded (but smart) people all over the world
who forgive everyday and forgive quite well...........ACIM didn't
invent "forgiveness" and ACIM's type of forgiveness isn't
"special".....it's not as if those who don't undertand ACIM aren't
forgiving 'properly'....and thus the only real way to forgive is by
buying the book and studying for 70 years......having said that, i
agree that there are "false" ways to forgive....or sort of , sarcastic
ways to "forgive"......

> Without this understanding, one is likely to attempt to practice
> "forgiveness" on ones own from an ego frame of reference, without fully
> appreciating the reality of mind (or spirit);

right, but remember the Holy Spirit is in all of us and teaching us
all....whether we own a copy of ACIM or not.

what the Course means by the
> terms "mind," and "Mind;" and what is involved in stepping back to let
> the Holy Spirit or Jesus lead the way (see Workbook lesson #155).

my point exactly....

> It is a most important metaphysical teaching in ACIM that God did not
> create the world or the body (include brain, which the Course clearly says
> does not think -- W #92). That means that God created nothing of form;
> nothing that can be perceived. The Course explicitly states that "God knows
> not form" (T-30.III.4:5 [HLC T-30, p. 396] ) and what God does not know --
> what is not included in what the Course calls "knowledge" -- is not real.
> In many places throughout the Course it is stated that God creates only like
> Himself and God does not perceive, is not located anywhere in time and
> space, is changeless and is Spirit which is completely abstract or formless,
> which means unable to be symbolized with words or measured with numbers.

right. but this does not necessarily, imo, lead one to say that God is
just a symbol.
but a healthy skepticism about one's own idea (or conception) of God
is a good thing.
a good deal of doubt that *I* know what God is, what He looks like,
what His Will is, is a good thing.

> Time and space are an illusion ("one illusion" - T-26.VIII. 1:3 [HLC T-26,
> p.354] ). If God created the world (anything that has dimension and can be
> measured -- this means the entire physical cosmos), then the ACIM Atonement
> principle cannot be true. That's not an easy teaching to accept and many try
> to avoid accepting it even at the intellectual level, let alone remove the
> ego blocks to experiencing it at the spiritual or mind level.

this is where ACIM turns sort of Buddhist, imo, and the idea of
dependent origination creeps in....that is, that the cosmos and the
world originate because of the perceiver....take away the perceiver
and no more cosmos or world......
Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Hindu's don't believe this.....God
created the cosmos....to them.....even thought it's Krishna's
dream.....

> Obviously, the student of ACIM should follow the Course rather than
> attempting to make the Course follow the student. It's a very radical
> Course which confronts us with ideas that are entirely different from what
> we've come to believe. That is why the Course tells us, "To learn this
> course requires willingness to question every value that you hold"
> (T-24.IN.2:1 [HLC T-24, p.320] ).

i now wholeheartedly believe that the Spirit knew that "we" would take
ACIM and distort it and use it to fit our own ego beliefs.....but
that's a first and necessary step in learning something....getting it
wrong is a path to getting it right.

> In the paragraph that follows that sentence from the introduction to T-24
> ("The Goal of Specialness" [HLC title: "Specialness and Separation"] ), it
> is clear that Jesus is talking about questioning our beliefs which do not
> establish reality, but do determine the decisions that we make and what we
> will experience within the illusion. Obviously, God does not depend upon our
> belief for His Reality, nor does the truth of His non-separate,
> non-perceptual One Creation depend upon our understanding and belief: "Nor
> is belief in God a really meaningful concept, for God can be but known.
> Belief implies that unbelief is possible, but knowledge of God has no true
> opposite" (P-2.II.4-5).

this is where a healthy dose of agnosticism is useful....but i still
don't believe that God is just a symbol and that one should abandon a
belief in God if it's working to help the person grow
spiritually....this is not the main thrust of ACIM......and for every
passage like this there are a hundred which talk about believing in
Jesus, the Father, and Holy Spirit's Will.

> A central point is that God does not perceive (W-pI.43.1). Perception is an
> experience of separation. God does not know of separation (P-2.VII.1:11) or
> perception. And God does not create what is unlike Himself (T-8.II.7:6
> [HLC T-8, p.101]).

yeah but this is not a central point of ACIM, it may be a central
point of view for some, it may be a central point of this theological
argument or point of view....but clearly the main point of ACIM is not
to have all of us going around dispelling a belief in God.....it seems
to me that ACIM has an even greater main point.

>
> God is pure spirit, or mind, (C.1.1-4) and His Mind is completely abstract,
> without form or perception of any kind.

right, but let's not dwell on God toooooo much, "one world at a time,
fellows, one world at a time" as Emerson said.......

> To repeat, God is not form and does not know of form, which is an essential
> element in the illusion of perception ("form" is a word for what is
> perceived). The nature of God is the pure, formless, completely abstract
> <content> of Love.

this is where the argument for this particular theological point of
view breaks down,imo, and becomes somewhat of a catch 22.......first
you say that "God is not Form" and then you try to describe God with
forms (words) like "pure, formless, completely abstract, content of
Love" .....so you obviously believe God can be described with forms
(words) otherwise there would be no point in saying,thinking, or
writing this. It's hard to use the medium for which you are railing
against to convince others that they should abandon the medium because
it's unpure while you while continue to use the said medium to save
other 'unholy' ones......see my point?? there's an oxymoron in there
a moooot point....a mind fuck....a running around in
circles....etc.....

And what God creates (Christ) is both like Himself and
> not separate from Himself. God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are not form and
> are not separate. They are not located anywhere in time and space.

then why even write them separately?? in words, that is? God, Christ
and the Holy Spirit.....why not make that all one unseparate
word.....like "GOCHRISHOLYSPIRIT"
that's what i would do if i really was a true believer.

> God/Christ do not perceive. What is called the "Holy Spirit" is the thought
> system of the Atonement which has remained in the split mind of the
> seemingly sleeping Son of God (us), and which bridges the gap between the
> mind that thinks it perceives and "knowledge" which is the Mind of God.
> What is referred to as the "perception of the Holy Spirit" does not see
> differences (T-6.II.12:4 [HLC T-6, p.72), yet is still an illusion which is
> "without meaning in Heaven" (T-13.VIII.2:6 [HLC T-13, p.174] ).

right, but this point of view becomes very dry and sort of spiritless,
after a while....it starts to become, imo, 'nihilistic' or
'existentialist'.....in that it just rails on what God isn't and what
can't be known (doesn't that becoming depressing after a while?)
it seems to ignore the rapture of being alive, the joy of spiritual
awakening, the wonder of it all, the amazement of revelation and
miracle.......this narrow and isolated theology isn't the whole
mystery wrapped up neatly in a box -tied with a ribbon and
bow......there's a whole lot that's NOT in ACIM and a whole lot that
we just simply don't know......it's all a big fat mystery! cheers!

> "In God you cannot see. Perception has no function in God,
> and does not exist" (W-pI.43.2:1-2).

this may certainly be the end goal....but there's alot of stuff before
this...such as allowing the Teacher to show us how to go from
wrongmindedness to rightmindedness....

>
> According to the Course, God simply did not create a world of perception or
> the body with its central nervous system that is the mechanism of perception
> and learning.

ok

Even the "real world" is not a creation of God, but is the
> Holy Spirit's forgiven world which is perceived with our right mind -- still
> an illusion just as forgiveness is an illusion (W-pI.198.2:10; C-3.1-2).

right, we sort of hashed this with Lee Flynn not that long ago as Lee
was explaining his 'lucid' understanding of forgiveness and
perception......Lee sees the "real world" as the goal of ACIM and
isn't concerned with any other 'worlds' beyond it. not a bad
idea....especially since we really don't have to be too concerned with
all these other worlds.....one world at a time, fellas, one world at a
time.......

> God does not forgive because he does not know of evil
> (separation/differences/perception/conflict) and has not condemned
> (W-pI.46.1).
>
> If God had created the perceptual world, He would be responsible for the
> evil experienced in that world. The Course answer to the philosophical
> question of evil (How could a loving God have created such an unloving,
> murderous, miserable, painful and evil world?) is that God did not create
> the world wherein suffering is experienced, therefore that world is an
> illusion -- it has nothing to do with the pure Love that is God and His
> Spirit.
>
> So, the Course tells us that there is no world. Perhaps the clearest
> statement of this is found in Workbook lesson #132.

yeah, but what about actually DOING the workbook lessons instead of
using them to support a theological point of view???

But the same teaching
> is found in many different contexts throughout the Course. Again, there can
> not be a world and perception if it is true that separation from the sublime
> Oneness of Heaven is impossible -- if the Atonement principle of the Course
> is true. If separation were possible, then it would be possible to act
> apart from Love, and if God had made that possible, He would be responsible
> for sin and evil as we experience it in what the Course calls our "dream of
> separation." The Course's answer - Jesus' answer -- to the ancient "problem
> of evil" is that evil is not truly possible.

right, but staying lost in this highminded theology isn't the same as
spiritually awakening.....we can debate and philosophize about God and
what God created and what God didn't create and how many toes God has
and how many toes God doesn't have (i'm shooting for God having 7
billion toes, btw) all we want and still we haven't done a thing
toward actually growing spiritually.....anyway didn't you just say a
couple of sentences ago that all this belief stuff about God isn't
necessary? then it stands to reason that all this belief stuff about
what world God created, whether God created evil or not isn't
necessary? right?

What we dream figures who seem
> to inhabit an illusory world of perception regard as evil is not real
> because the world is not real nor are the bodies that seem to populate it
> and then to go about destroying one another.
>
> From Workbook lesson #132 =>
>
> "There is no world! This is the central thought the course attempts
> to teach. Not everyone is ready to accept it, and each one must go
> as far as he can let himself be led along the road to truth. He will
> return and go still farther, or perhaps step back a while and then
> return again. . . .
>
> "There is no world because it is a thought apart from God, and made
> to separate the Father and the Son, and break away a part of God
> Himself and thus destroy His Wholeness. Can a world which comes
> from this idea be real? Can it be anywhere?" (W-pI.132.6:2-5; 13:1-3)
>
> And the kicker for all of this metaphysical stuff is that we cannot truly
> understand it with the intellectual capacities of our brain which is part of
> the central nervous system in a body which is not really alive, but which
> symbolizes the ego and was specifically made to dissociate from the reality
> of mind.

then why even read ACIM? why post this long diatribe? why try to
convince anyone of anything? (oh dear, i'm becoming an
existianilist/nihilist again....time for my zoloft)

The purpose of the body is to lie to the Son of God (us) about
> what is real. (See: T-18.VIII - IX; T-27.IV.5; T-28.V.5; and Workbook
> lesson #151. [HLC T-18 pp. 254-8; T-27, p.363-4; T-28, p.378ff]
>
> "A perfect being, all-encompassing and all-encompassed, nothing
> to add and nothing taken from; not born of size nor place nor time,
> nor held to limits or uncertainties of any kind. Here do the means
> and end unite as one, nor does this one have any end at all. All
> this is true, and yet it has no meaning to anyone who still retains one
> unlearned lesson in his memory, one thought with purpose still
> uncertain, or one wish with a divided aim" (T-24.VII.7:3
> [HLC T-24, p.330] ).

if you'd just posted this passage this would've been the greatest post
ever!

>
> What we can understand and practice is forgiveness. Forgiveness is the
> gentle path of love and peace offered by ACIM -- a path that leads to an
> awakening where the Truth can be know in our mind -- a Truth which is beyond
> perception, beyond the human intellect, "Beyond All Symbols" (T-27.III
> [HLC T-27, "The Symbol of the Impossible" p.362] ).

yes, but in the meantime...for us grunts on the frontline....for us
scrubs doing the dirty work.....we need our beliefs, we need our
symbols, we need our words--inluding the words printed in ACIM to help
us along...because surely you would rather have us keep our good
symbols, thoughts, words, and ACIM books than throw them all into the
fire and just go with whatever comes along....right?

>
> "There is no need to further clarify what no one in the world can
> understand. When revelation of your oneness comes, it will be
> known and fully understood. Now we have work to do, for those
> in time can speak of things beyond, and listen to words which
> explain what is to come is past already. Yet what meaning can the
> words convey to those who count the hours still, and rise and
> work and go to sleep by them?

wonderful! especially after a long worded theological essay!

>
> "Suffice it, then, that you have work to do to play your part.
>
> "Forgiveness is the central theme that runs throughout salvation...."
> (W-pI.169.10-11:1-2; 12:1)
>
>
> - Joe
>
> ------------------------------------------
> "Reality is an illusion; albeit a very persistent one!"
> - Albert Einstein

seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things shall be added
unto you
Jesus....

my deepest desire is that we will experience this together......

When revelation of your oneness comes, it will be
> known and fully understood.

clark_kent

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:18:22 AM12/10/03

to

ps........a little bit about Budhist 'dependent
origination'...............

Buddhist Philosophy

1. Prelude
2. Causality
3. Diversification
4. Nirvana
5. Hinayana/Mahayana
6. Madhyamaka and Nagarjuna
7. Yogacara and Vasubandhu
8. Avatamsaka - Hua-yen
9. Buddhist Logic
10. Buddhism in China
11. Sukhavati: Pure Land Buddhism

Causality

Causality is another important key-concept found within the Teaching
of the Buddha. To understand it one needs to make a clear distinction
between two forms of causal relations :

Hetu : is the determinant 'root'-cause that acts as a necessitating
force; a cause without which nothing can come to origination (causa
necessitans).

Pratyaya : (P. paccaya, Skr. also pratitya) is a conditioning
circumstance, viz. a non-necessitating, but correlative inclining
cause (conditio causalis). This cause is non-determinant and therefore
leaves a chance for the expression of a 'free' (but in itself
conditioned) will (cetana).

"Dependent Origination" (pratitya samutpada, P. paticca samuppada),
literally "co-origination of causal conditioning" is worded as a
conditioning and is therefore by no means deterministic. This has its
repercussion on the Buddhist concept of karma : karma is neither
deterministic nor fatalistic, but offers room for the conscious or
unconscious volitional activity of man.

The 12 causal 'steps' or 'stages' (nidana) are usually summed up as
follows :
1. avidya
(avijja)
ignorance

2. samskara
(sankhara)
volitional activity, karma-formations

3. vijñana
(viññana)
consciousness

4. namarupa
(nama-rupa)
personality

5. sadayatana
(salayatana)
sense-functions

6. sparsa
(phassa)
contact, impulse

7. vedana
(vedana)
perception

8. trisna
(tanha)
desire

9. upadana
(upadana)
attachment

10. bhava
(bhava)
process of becoming

11. jati
(jati)
birth

12. jara-marana
(jara-marana)
aging and death

The stereotyped expression of Pratitya Samutpada is as followed :

"[...] By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as
its object) a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when
one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right
discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not
occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually
is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world
does not occur to one. By and large, Kaccayana, this world is in
bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), and biases. But one
such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments,
clingings, fixations of awareness, biases or latent tendencies; nor is
he resolved on 'my self'. He has no uncertainty or doubt that, when
there is arising, only suffering is arising; and that when there is
passing away, only suffering is passing away. In this, one's knowledge
is independent of others. It is to this extend Kaccayana, that there
is right view. 'Everything exists': that is one extreme. 'Everything
doesn't exist': that is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes,
the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:

"From ignorance as a condition come karma formations;
From karma formations as a condition comes consciousness;
From consciousness as a condition comes personality;
From personality as a condition come the six senses;
From the six senses as a condition comes contact;
From contact as a condition comes perception;
From perception as a condition comes craving;
From craving as a condition comes attachment;
From attachment as a condition comes becoming;
From becoming as a condition comes birth;
From birth as a condition, then aging and death, sorrow, lamentation,
pain, distress and despair come into play.

Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress and suffering."

(SN, XXII 90-12)

The importance of this formulation is that there is no mentioning
whatsoever of a permanent entity, of a concept such as atman, 'soul'
or 'ego'. The unceasing individuation process that runs through
Pratitya Samutpada is none else than the further-becoming or the
further-flowing of the pañca-skandha.

The enumeration in addition has no chronological meaning but is a
purely causal explanation of existential phenomena. One can therefore
picture the 12 nidana's as arising simultaneous and/or overlapping one
another.

One could also observe that the first six nidana's form an
epistemological structure, while the six latter ones show existential
characteristics. This clearly situates the relationship between the
functioning of the 'mind' and its effect on 'existence'. In this sense
it is understandable that the philosopher Nagarjuna concludes his
discussion of the Pratitya Samutpada with upadana, attachment, which
he views as the direct cause of suffering in the aspects of the
process of becoming, birth, aging and death. After all, attachment has
as its objects the five skandha's, which supply the building bricks
for the experience of suffering. Hence the mentioning of the term
'pañcopadana-skandhah (P. e.g. Buddhaghosa : pañc' upadanakkhandha)
literally the 'five aggregates of attachment', for the relationship
that links upadana to the five skandha's. This relationship however
also implies that the five skandha's are not only the object of
attachment, but that through attachment these five aggregates are made
into subject time and again.

The relationship 'ignorance-suffering-enlightenment' often reminds us
of the metaphor of the cave, used by Plato to indicate the
relationship between the world of shadows and the world of ideas. The
beings in the cave, who only see the shadows, are then people chained
to ignorance. If they could turn around towards the entrance of the
cave, they would experience the light and true reality. But as it is
with metaphors and parables, we should not infer to much from the
cave-metaphor.

The great importance that Buddhism has laid on Pratitya Samutpada,
becomes apparent from the multitude of text referrals which are
intended to show that Dependent Origination forms the central core of
the Teaching :

"He who sees pratitya samutpada, sees the Teaching; he who sees the
Teaching, sees pratitya samutpada." (MN I, 191)

"He, monks, who sees pratitya samutpada, sees the Teaching; he who
sees the Teaching, sees the Buddha." (Salistamba-sutra)

"Whoever perceives dependent arising also perceives suffering, its
arising, its ceasing and the path [leading to its ceasing]."
(Nagarjuna, MMK XXIV, 40)

ñ
© 2002 Akshin Web Design

Steafán Annraoi

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 7:04:08 AM12/10/03

to

"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message

news:KXxBb.1141$hX1....@news.optus.net.au...

> Steafán Annraoi wrote:
> >>> "For as Heaven and earth become one, even the real world will vanish
> >>> from your sight. The end of the world is not its destruction, but
> >>> its TRANSLATION into Heaven. The REINTERPRETATION of the world is
> >>> the transfer of ALL perception to knowledge." (ACIM Urtext)
> >>
> >> Exactly. You can't make form real since it is temporary.
> >
> > "Form" is temporary? Well, yes, in perception. But the stuff it is
> > made of (matter/energy) is not. Do you understand what I'm getting
> > at here with the monitor/tv screen metaphor? The finest 'stuff' of
> > the Universe doesn't ever become tables and chairs at all (neither
> > temporarily or 'really') any more than the pixles on a screen
> > "become" 2D representations of tables and chairs. The point I'm
> > making Stephen, is that declaring 'form' as transient, destructable
> > or temporary is, technically, just as wrong as saying it's 'real'.
> > You should just be able to make out the pixels on your monitor so you
> > should be able to get a handle on this even though your eyes could
> > never see the finest 'stuff' of the Universe.
>
> Sorry, I'm completely lost and I don't follow oyu at all. Pixels on a
screen
> DO become 2D representation of things,

???

I assure you they don't! They stay as red, green and blue pixels and that's
it. There only appears to be a 2D representation on your screen just as the
craters on the moon, from a distance, appear to be a face.

http://www.webstyleguide.com/graphics/displays.html

> so that analogy is completely false.

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 7:52:35 AM12/10/03

to

"Douglas Thompson" <dthompso...@execulink.com> wrote in message

news:tRyBb.116999

>
> You are equating your own misperceptions of the thing with the thing
itself.
> This is an error.

It's a massive error. Not only are images produced in the occipital lobe at
the back of the skull, you don't actually "see" the object in front of you
anyway. All that you "see" are the photons that are emitted from the atoms
that make up the object at a certain colour of the spectrum hitting the rods
and cones in your eyes. Light hits the table in front of me, the electrons
surrounding the atomic nucleous dance about a bit and then release a packet
of energy that reaches my eye.

Since we're all agreed that form is an illusion I still await something from
Alan, Richard or Stephen that explains why M/E is also an illusion when it,
first, cannot be destroyed and, second, is described as being created (along
with time) in ACIM.

~
Stephen

Steafán Annraoi

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 7:55:39 AM12/10/03

to

"Nancy Lorieau" <nancyl...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:yxtBb.629532$9l5.592503@pd7tw2no...
>
> It's also not very "satisfying" spiritually or metaphysically (at least to
> me). I wonder, of those who have investigated the course, maybe even
studied
> the course, and moved on... how many were exposed only (or mostly) to the
> Wapnickian interpretation?

Oh I'd say the vast majority of them (but I note that there has always been
a 'fifth column' who didn't quite buy the total illusion idea). Things will
change soon enough though.

~
Stephen

Steafán Annraoi

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 7:57:14 AM12/10/03

to

"Nancy Lorieau" <nancyl...@shaw.ca> wrote in message

news:iEzBb.635169$9l5.40384@pd7tw2no...

I'd recommend he checks out accounts of Enlightenment and near-death
experiences and explains how he reached the conclusion that M/E is also an
illusion.

~
Stephen

Sharon

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 8:45:48 AM12/10/03

to

"Douglas Thompson" <dthompso...@execulink.com> wrote in message

news:e2yBb.116991$PD3.5...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...

> "Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:GVvBb.490167$Tr4.1338789@attbi_s03...
>
> "There is a borderland of thought which stand between this world and
Heaven.
> It is not a place, and when you reach it is apart from from time. Here is
> the meeting-place where thoughts are brought together; where conflicting
> values meet, and all illusions are laid down beside the truth, where they
> are judged to be untrue.
>
> ---
>
> Interesting use of words ... it is "not a place" yet it is "the
> meeting-place"
>

right. It is not a place (as in physical) and it is apart from time. Yet,
it is the meeting-place where truth and illusion meet within our mind.

> Well of course a "borderland of thought" is "not a place" in any physical
> sense. This is not a discussion of "the physical" at all.
>

The "borderland of thought" is what the Course calls the real world.

> ------
> This borderland is just beyond the gate of Heaven.
> Here is every thought made pure and wholly simple. Here is every sin
> denied, and everything that IS received instead.
> This is the journey's end. We have referred to it as the real world.
> And yet there is a contradiction here, in that the words imply a limited
> reality, a partial truth, a segment of the universe made true." - Urtext
>
> ---
>
> "A borderland of thought" is obviously a geographical metaphor. "It is
not
> a place" or a physical or geographical location which can be mapped on the
> face of the Earth. It is an attitude, and in that attitude the "real
world"
> can be seen as it is. Real.
>

The above paragraph tells us about a borderland of thought, and then it
says: "This is the journey's end. We have referred to it as the real
world." It is referring to the preceding paragraph. The real world IS "a
borderland of thought" not an just an attitude in which to see the "real
world". There is no real world to see (with the bodies eyes) and it is
"apart from time". It goes on to say this about the "real world": "And

yet there is a contradiction here, in that the words imply a limited

reality, a partial truth, a segment of the universe made true." In other
words the word -real- is a contradiction when used with the word -world-
because it implies that a segment of the universe is made true.

> ACIM explains to us clearly that "worlds" are mental worlds, not physical
> ones. When Jesus wants to talk about the physical Earth he usually uses
the
> word "Earth" as in "Heaven and Earth are one." IF it doesn't appear to
you
> that they are one, the error is not in Earth or Heaven, but in your
> perceptions!
>

The physical earth is part of a manifestation of the thought of separation
.. along with our bodies.

> As for "physical stuff" such as the body, and matter, he tells us these
are
> "neutral" and have only the value and meaning our minds give them. But he
> says more, he says that matter, space, and time were created as "teaching
> devices" for our minds.
>

Matter, space and time are used by the Holy Spirit as teaching devices.
They are also used by the ego as well. They are temporary, so therefore I
cannot see how they could be eternal. According to the Course, everything
God creates is eternal like Himself. So, this would appear to be a
contradiction if they were in fact a creation.

> Matter has no power in and of itself. It has no value. It is a blank
slate
> upon which our minds write the meaning we would give it. It is neutral in
> and of itself, and ACIM tells us this time and time again. So if it is
> neutral the understanding that we made it to attack God, and that the
matter
> (or body) itself is the illusion, must be an error. The Course is quite
> clear that God created it for our instruction.
>

> Like the potter's clay, it is nothing without the potter who gives it
shape
> and form.
>
> The illusion lies in thinking the clay has a life of its own apart from
the

> mind which alone gives it meaning and which alone commands the behavior of

It an unworthy form of denial *IF* you still believe what you see. This
does not make it real though.

> The attributes of the mind, including the capacity to generate illusion,
are
> given over to the body, which is a "mere fact in human experience." It
has
> no illusory attributes or capacities, only the mind has those.
>
> To say the body is the illusion is to totally misapprehend where the
> illusion lies and how it can be cured. It is to suggest that the cure
lies
> in the physical, and can quickly lead one to suppose that attacks on the
> body, such as lawsuits, are loving and curative when in fact they are
simply
> attacks.
>
> The body is not only NOT an illusion, it is a "FACT."

No offense to you Doug .. but it appears that this, and a lot of your other
conclusions are completely backward from what I understand the Course to be
teaching.

>
> Now we come to an interesting part. The Course does say "God did not
create
> the body." While Wapnickian Theology has to write off most of the course
as
> allegory or metapor or poetry, not to be taken literally, or scribal
error,
> there are seven lines in ACIM I have to write off as "scribal error."
That
> is one of them. I can't fit it into the rest of the material in its
obvious
> and most direct sense.
>

In my opinion, it is the few quotes that you use out from the urtext that is
out of sync with what the rest of the Course teaches.

> If not God, then who the heck created the body?
>

The Course tells us that the "the body does not really exist except as a
learning device for the mind" .. or in other words a temporary illusion used
to bring us Home.

> This is one case where I really do want to see Helen's original notes
before
> considering the matter further. I am LOATHE to use the "scribal error"
> excuse for material that doesn't fit my hypothesis yet I concede that the
> scribes likely made errors. The best candidates for errors are those
> passages which "don't fit" all the rest.
>
> Still, my interpretation of the Course only requires writing off a few
> lines as likely error. Wapnick's requires, well estimates vary, somewhere
> between a third and two-thirds of it.
>

I don't see this.

> The statement "God did not create the body" is pretty blunt, and for me
> impossible to re-interpret as meaning "well God really DID create the
body."
> It's either a scribal error or a notable anomaly in my hypothesis
suggesting
> error in that hypothesis.
>

Lets keep in mind that Bill Thetford used the publish version in Course
meetings and he was ok with the verse "God did not create the body".

> I will note that my hypothesis has enormously fewer textual problems of
this
> sort than does Dr. Wapnick's for those who are ready to jump on this one
as
> "proof" of anything.
>
> Generally my approach is that if the text does not agree with me, I
suspect
> the error is in my understanding, not in the text. But we really cannot
> completely exclude the possibility of scribal error.
>
> That's all for tonight!
>
> Thanks for all the many thoughtful contributions
>

I appreciate your opinions here Doug .. but as you can see.. my
understanding is quite different than yours.

Sharon

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 9:03:00 AM12/10/03

to

"Douglas Thompson" <dthompso...@execulink.com> wrote in message

news:h8yBb.116992$PD3.5...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...

> "Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:edwBb.494938$Fm2.476353@attbi_s04...
>
> well put. the real world is a state of mind where the illusionary world
is
> seen for what it is. That is its function and the Answer that God gave
His
> son. But it is not Heaven or eternal
>
>
> ---------
>
>
> Welllllllll ..... if the world does not exist and we, with perception
> corrected by the Holy Spirit see it as it truly is .... what we'd see is
> nothing. For illusions are nothing. But the "Real World" is not nothing.
> And it is seen.
>
> So is the real world a state of mind? Or is the Ego's illusion of the
world
> a state of mind?
>

They are both a state of mind. The world is a reflection of the mind.
There is no world outside of the mind. There is only a mind dreaming of a
world ... not a real world being misinterpreted by the mind.

> My money is on the real world being real and the ego's illusions of it
being
> the illusion.
>

Both worlds in the Course are referred to as being illusions. These
passages are in the urtext as well.

> Heaven and Earth are One. The Real World is Heaven. Here and now.

The real world that is talked about in the Course is not the same thing as
Heaven. The real world is "is just beyond the gate of Heaven".

>
> The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The real world is available to
> be experienced. Have you ever experienced it?
>

I have experienced happiness and peace within dream, but I wouldn't go so
far as to say that I have experienced what is beyond the gate of Heaven.
But, the fact that the real world can be experienced shows us that
perception is involved .. which is not an attribute of Heaven..according to
the Course anyway.

Sharon

Steafán Annraoi

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 9:21:14 AM12/10/03

to

"Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:gsFBb.499870$Fm2.479157@attbi_s04...

>
> The "borderland of thought" is what the Course calls the real world.

Sharon, the way I think about this (for convenience sake) is: ego-world =
world outside of us, real-world = world at one with us, Heaven = world
inside of us. This seems to fit with the mystic path (though, ultimatly, is
probably only as useful as the solar-system model of the atom).

> Matter, space and time are used by the Holy Spirit as teaching devices.
> They are also used by the ego as well. They are temporary, so therefore
I
> cannot see how they could be eternal.

M/E is *not* temporary and it cannot be destroyed. If you want to really
get into it superstring theorists are claiming that M/E and spacetime are
all one 'thing' which, because it is changeless and eternal, they are using
to further the Atheist agenda (but that's another story altogether).

The point here is that we all agree that form is an illusion (in my terms,
just as the red, green and blue pixels on your monitor can display just
about anything) so what is M/E? Creation or illusion? You say it is
'temporary' (when it isn't) and the Course says:

"God created time so that man could use it creatively, and convince himself
of his own ability to create." (ACIM Urtext) (Qualified by: "And when
correction is completed, time IS eternity." ~ ACIM Urtext) and "In fact,
both TIME and MATTER were created for this purpose." (ACIM Urtext)

Let me be absolutely clear on this precise issue Sharon, so that there is no
mistake. Focussing on M/E (which is *not* temporary or destructible) we
have the Course saying that 'matter' was created for the purpose of the
Atonement. Why should we not believe that and instead choose to believe
what Stephen Calder, and now you, are asserting: that M/E is a temporary
illusion? Why are we going from A to C? There's nothing on the otherside
of the equals sign here.

> According to the Course, everything
> God creates is eternal like Himself. So, this would appear to be a
> contradiction if they were in fact a creation.

See above. All you've done is decided M/E is temporary without explanation.

> Lets keep in mind that Bill Thetford used the publish version in Course
> meetings and he was ok with the verse "God did not create the body".

Fair enough, but let's not read too much into it either. Even if Bill did
use the abridgement (which is perfectly acceptable) it doesn't mean
anything. It is the Author's mandate for the JCIM that attracts me to it.
And note this from "Double Vision" by Judy Skutch and her daughter Tamara:

"On Valentine's Day of 1976 Helen, Bill, Ken and I [Judy Skutch] were
discussing the apparent need to public the Course quickly. We were in a
quandary. We knew what we didn't want, but we didn't know what we should
do. We decided to consult the inner Voice as a group. Perhaps we would get
some answers. We agreed upon a question: "Should A Course in Miracles be
published now?" and each with closed eyes turned within for inspiration.
When we opened our eyes each of us felt that the internal answer was a
powerful affirmation. That was easy. Next step. The question was: "Who
should publish this material?" We canvassed ourselves for the reply. Helen
had heard that those who will devote their lives to this alone should do the
job. I had heard that it should be a nonprofit organization, so those who
could not afford the price could receive scholarship copies as a "gift of
love." Bill added that the Course should not be changed in any way from the
original, and Ken's directive was that somehow or other we must all be
involved." (Double Vision)

Looking at the JCIM (and the above) we can see that Bill didn't change
anything - that was his nature - and it seems to me that was why he was
chosen for the job of editing by the Author. I choose to go with the JCIM
even if Bill didn't.

> I appreciate your opinions here Doug .. but as you can see.. my
> understanding is quite different than yours.

I can't speak for Doug, but can we at least agree that the difference in
views centres on the nature of M/E and not on form (which we all agree is
'illusion')? To wit, we are saying God created M/E while you are saying
that it is an illusion?

~
Stephen

Steafán Annraoi

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 9:24:57 AM12/10/03

to

"Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:oIFBb.77213$_M.380564@attbi_s54...

>
> The real world that is talked about in the Course is not the same thing as
> Heaven. The real world is "is just beyond the gate of Heaven".

But when the Course speaks of Heaven it says:

"In YOU is all of Heaven; every leaf that falls is given life in you. Each
bird that ever sang will sing again in you. And every flower that ever
bloomed has saved its perfume and its loveliness for you. What aim can
supersede the Will of God and of His Son, that Heaven be restored to him for
whom it was created as his ONLY home?" (ACIM Urtext)

~
Stephen

Corey

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 10:39:20 AM12/10/03

to

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:03:00 GMT, "Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Here's my take on this subject:

>The world is a reflection of the mind.

There is Reality and there is the mind. Within the mind worlds appear
and disappear.

>The real world is "is just beyond the gate of Heaven".

>I have experienced happiness and peace within dream

That is not the same as experiencing the Real world. Experience of the
Real world involves seeing light itself, rather than only seeing the
objects that light reflects off of and is reflected by. To experience
the Real world is to be always aware of the presence of love (God). In
other words, the blocks to the awareness of love have been removed.

>, but I wouldn't go so
>far as to say that I have experienced what is beyond the gate of Heaven.

We can only go beyond the gate of Heaven when God takes us there. Once
He takes us there, we won't be coming back. That doesn't mean we will
die, it just means it's a permanent change from perception to
knowledge. Our eyes and ears will still work, but the result will be
knowingness.

>But, the fact that the real world can be experienced shows us that
>perception is involved .. which is not an attribute of Heaven..according to
>the Course anyway.

This idea that perception is not involved once we enter Heaven is
probably being misunderstood. We can experience Oneness (heaven)
before we die. In that state of Oneness, our eyes and ears, etc. will
still work, but the result will be knowledge. No matter what we
experience, we will *know* that it is an aspect of ourself that we are
experiencing.

Since the Course describes perception as projection and judgement, the
function of the senses will change when we enter the Real world, and
once again when we enter Heaven.

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 2:01:47 PM12/10/03

to

Doug wrote:The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The real world is

available to
be experienced. Have you ever experienced it?>>>

sv: yes I have. I've seen my world change dramatically in the moments when
I've exchanged grievances for the miracle of forgiveness~ but you know, those
damn trees were still there. ;) Sheryl

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 3:48:15 PM12/10/03

to

"Nancy Lorieau" <nancyl...@shaw.ca> wrote in message

news:RXHBb.645445$9l5.1733@pd7tw2no...

Hi Nancy,

I don't want this to be a I'm right and your wrong thing and if I come off
that way, I apologize. I enjoy discussing this stuff, and yes, of course I
share with others what my understanding is of the Course because it seems
right to me. Yet, I am not infallible in my understanding, and I am open
to listening to others opinions and ideas. So, with that said, I will show
you why I have reached the conclusion that I have by giving you an example
out of the Course. If you interpret this quote differently than me, I would
enjoy hearing another way of looking at it.

"Perception, at its loftiest, is never complete. Even the perception of the
Holy Spirit, as perfect as perception can be, is without meaning in Heaven.
Perception can reach everywhere under His guidance, for the vision of Christ
beholds everything in light. Yet no perception, however holy, will last
forever" - urtext
My interpretation of this is perception has no meaning in Heaven and so
therefore it would not be an eternal attribute of Heaven.

Sharon

Suzanne

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 3:56:50 PM12/10/03

to

"Douglas Thompson" <dthompso...@execulink.com> wrote in message news:<PFuBb.116940$PD3.5...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...

> Actually Suzanne, the Course says "Heaven and Earth ARE one." It doesn't
> say they "will become one." The notion that they are not one is the
> illusion which must be corrected.
>
> We may not "perceive" their oneness right now, but perhaps it is our
> perceptions which are in error rather than Heaven or Earth or the Course
> being in error?

"Heaven and earth ARE one" because the Atonement IS complete, time HAS
ended, and we are just reviewing the past. And because Heaven and
earth are one, earth does not exist - earth is perceived, and there is
no perception in Heaven, only knowledge.

Earth (as in the physical universe) isn't real. The course is clear
about this. When it talks about "what is real on earth" it is talking
about spirit, the truth that is "obscure but not absent" here. Spirit
is real. God (spirit) is everywhere because God (spirit) is in my
mind. We can't get rid of spirit no matter how hard we try.

The course clearly teaches that the physical universe was made by the
Son of God in error. It was made by taking seriously the tiny, mad
idea that God's creation (His Son) could somehow be separate from God.
But this is impossible, and that's why the physical universe does not
exist. There is, however, another "Maker" of the physical universe -
the Corrector of the error.

God is not absent in this world. Our mind made the world, and in our
mind, where God placed Him, is the Holy Spirit, Who perceives the
world as a reflection of Heaven instead of hell. The Holy Spirit
teaches us how to perceive the world as He does. The real world is
what Heaven would look like if Heaven could be perceived. But Heaven
can't be perceived; it can only be known. But we can't know Heaven
until we have perceived the real world, because the real world is the
stepping stone from illusions to truth.

Without the Holy Spirit in our minds, our unbreakable link with God
WOULD be broken and we would be forever lost in the world we made -
made by God's Son alone, not co-created with God. Because this is
impossible, the Holy Spirit exists as our unbreakable connection with
God and the world has two "makers" - the Son of God in error, and the
Holy Spirit. They are not, however, co-creators in the sense that God
and the Son are co-creators in Heaven, because the Son made the world
as a fearful place of suffering and death, where God is absent and the
Son is damned, and the Holy Spirit made the world as a
teaching/learning device for the Son's mind, to bring him home. Two
very different purposes. In creation, God and the Son's purpose are
one - the extension of love. In this world, God and the Son's
purposes are different - God's purpose for the world is a
teaching/learning device for the Son, and the Son's purpose is to
maintain the belief in separation from God. When we give up our
purpose for the world, the Holy Spirit's purpose becomes clear, and we
too see the world as the Holy Spirit does, as a teaching/learning
device and a place of love, not fear.

Suzanne

Nancy Lorieau

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 4:03:48 PM12/10/03

to

"Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:jELBb.301829$Dw6.1005155@attbi_s02...

> Hi Nancy,
>
> I don't want this to be a I'm right and your wrong thing and if I come off
> that way, I apologize. I enjoy discussing this stuff, and yes, of course
I
> share with others what my understanding is of the Course because it seems
> right to me. Yet, I am not infallible in my understanding, and I am open
> to listening to others opinions and ideas. So, with that said, I will
show
> you why I have reached the conclusion that I have by giving you an example
> out of the Course. If you interpret this quote differently than me, I
would
> enjoy hearing another way of looking at it.

You're absolutely not coming off that way. I appreciate hearing your take on
things.

> "Perception, at its loftiest, is never complete. Even the perception of
the
> Holy Spirit, as perfect as perception can be, is without meaning in
Heaven.
> Perception can reach everywhere under His guidance, for the vision of
Christ
> beholds everything in light. Yet no perception, however holy, will last
> forever" - urtext

I'm familiar with this quote and I absolutely agree.

> My interpretation of this is perception has no meaning in Heaven and so
> therefore it would not be an eternal attribute of Heaven.

I think the difference may be that my idea of Heaven is that it is a
perceptable state that occurs prior to our reunion with our Father -- prior
to our return to an awareness only of Oneness.

In other words, I don't see Heaven as the "end."

n.

Suzanne

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 4:16:25 PM12/10/03

to

"Douglas Thompson" <dthompso...@execulink.com> wrote in message news:<h8yBb.116992$PD3.5...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...

> Welllllllll ..... if the world does not exist and we, with perception
> corrected by the Holy Spirit see it as it truly is .... what we'd see is
> nothing. For illusions are nothing. But the "Real World" is not nothing.
> And it is seen.
>
> So is the real world a state of mind? Or is the Ego's illusion of the world
> a state of mind?
>

> My money is on the real world being real and the ego's illusions of it being
> the illusion.

Doug,

They are *both* states of mind. Are you saying that you think that
the real world is not a state of mind because it is real? The
implication of that is that the real world is separate from the mind
that perceives it. The course teaches that there is no separation
between mind/body. The body and all things physical are images in the
mind (like in a dream). They have no existence apart from the mind
perceiving them. Therefore, the real world must be in the mind of the
perceiver, not separate from it.

There is nothing but spirit and mind. Everything created is created
in spirit and mind.

> Heaven and Earth are One. The Real World is Heaven. Here and now.

The real world is not Heaven because it can be perceived. It is what

Heaven would look like if Heaven could be perceived.

> The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The real world is available to

> be experienced. Have you ever experienced it?

Not yet (or at least, not for long; I have, perhaps, had glimpses).
The real world can only be sustained in awareness through complete
forgiveness.

Suzanne

www.dr4baxs.com

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 4:38:17 PM12/10/03

to

Earth (as in the physical universe) isn't real. >>>

sv: but the course *doesn't* say that earth, the universe, the physical
universe, is not real. It says the world is not real. I agree with Doug that
it is talking about a "mental" world vs. a physical one because the course
predominately addresses us on the level of content, not form. sheryl

Sharon

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 4:45:34 PM12/10/03

to

"Steafán Annraoi" <ste...@miraclesHALO.plus.com> wrote in message

news:xZFBb.252$526....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...

> "Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:gsFBb.499870$Fm2.479157@attbi_s04...
> >
> > The "borderland of thought" is what the Course calls the real world.
>
> Sharon, the way I think about this (for convenience sake) is: ego-world =
> world outside of us, real-world = world at one with us, Heaven = world
> inside of us. This seems to fit with the mystic path (though, ultimatly,
is
> probably only as useful as the solar-system model of the atom).
>

Thats fine if you want to look at it that way. My point is that the
"borderland of thought" is also referred to as the real world. It is not a
physical place, and when you reach it is apart from time.

> > Matter, space and time are used by the Holy Spirit as teaching devices.
> > They are also used by the ego as well. They are temporary, so
therefore
> I
> > cannot see how they could be eternal.
>
> M/E is *not* temporary and it cannot be destroyed. If you want to really
> get into it superstring theorists are claiming that M/E and spacetime are
> all one 'thing' which, because it is changeless and eternal, they are
using
> to further the Atheist agenda (but that's another story altogether).
>

In the urtext, matter is mentioned once and energy is mentioned 3 times, but
not in the context that you are using it. Personally, I don't agree with
your conclusion that matter is eternal. What is eternal has no beginning or
end. I believe the universe was once pure energy and only later converted
into matter. It had a beginning, and it will have an end. I believe that
energy is enternal, but I don't consider it to be the same thing as matter.

Matter is a physical object that is subject to change and can be perceived
by the senses. The Course teaches that "Reality is ultimately known
without a form, unpictured and unseen." (urtext) So, what would be the
purpose of matter in Heaven, where form is unknown?

The urtext states that the body is an illusion as well.

> > I appreciate your opinions here Doug .. but as you can see.. my
> > understanding is quite different than yours.
>
> I can't speak for Doug, but can we at least agree that the difference in
> views centres on the nature of M/E and not on form (which we all agree is
> 'illusion')? To wit, we are saying God created M/E while you are saying
> that it is an illusion?
>
> ~
> Stephen
>

The Course teaches that form is not known in Heaven. Matter exists in the
physical manefestations of solid, liquid, gas or plasma form. Any Physical
manafestation of form is what I consider to be part of the illusion of
seperation, yes.

Sharon

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 4:56:09 PM12/10/03

to

"Nancy Lorieau" <nancyl...@shaw.ca> wrote in message

news:USLBb.648937$9l5.214828@pd7tw2no...

Ah.. ok, I didn't realize that. My understanding is that Heaven is where we
reside with God in perfect oneness .. and the real world is the final step
before Heaven.

Sharon

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:07:42 PM12/10/03

to

"Nancy Lorieau" <nancyl...@shaw.ca> wrote in message

news:USLBb.648937$9l5.214828@pd7tw2no...

> "Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:jELBb.301829$Dw6.1005155@attbi_s02...
>

> > "Perception, at its loftiest, is never complete. Even the perception of
> the Holy Spirit, as perfect as perception can be, is without meaning in
> Heaven. Perception can reach everywhere under His guidance, for the vision
of
> Christ beholds everything in light. Yet no perception, however holy, will
last
> > forever" - urtext
>
> I'm familiar with this quote and I absolutely agree.

I'm coming back to this post again because I'm still not clear on what you
are saying. This above quote was in response to your statement:

"The course is very clear that the body's eyes will not be involved, but I
do
believe the course does refer to experience (perception) in relation to
Heaven."

So, Are you saying that you "absolutely agree" that peception has no meaning
in Heaven or that we will experience (perception) in relation to Heaven. Or
both?

Sharon

www.dr4baxs.com

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:16:52 PM12/10/03

to

Sharon wrote: I believe that

energy is enternal, but I don't consider it to be the same thing as matter.>>>

sv: I don't know one way or the other. I found this in the urantia book:
133:5.9
Jesus says this:
"Matter and spirit and the state intervening between them are three
interrelated and interassociated levels of true unity of the real
universe....Reality of material existence attaches to unrecognized energy as
well as to visible matter. When the energies of the universe are so slowed
down that they acquire the requisite degree of motion, then, under favorable
conditions, these same energies become mass. And forget not, the mind which
can alone perceive the presence of apparent realities is itself also real.
'And the fundamental cause of this universe of energy-mass, mind, and spirit,
is eternal - it exists and consists in the nature and reactions of the
Universal Father and his absolute co-ordinates."

Mike

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:21:05 PM12/10/03

to

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:45:34 GMT, "Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"Steafán Annraoi" <ste...@miraclesHALO.plus.com> wrote in message
>news:xZFBb.252$526....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>> "Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:gsFBb.499870$Fm2.479157@attbi_s04...
>> >
>> > The "borderland of thought" is what the Course calls the real world.
>>
>> Sharon, the way I think about this (for convenience sake) is: ego-world =
>> world outside of us, real-world = world at one with us, Heaven = world
>> inside of us. This seems to fit with the mystic path (though, ultimatly,
>is
>> probably only as useful as the solar-system model of the atom).
>>
>
>
>Thats fine if you want to look at it that way. My point is that the
>"borderland of thought" is also referred to as the real world. It is not a
>physical place, and when you reach it is apart from time.

Now do you know this, Sharon?

Mike

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:22:00 PM12/10/03

to

On 10 Dec 2003 21:38:17 GMT, sherylv...@aol.com (
www.dr4baxs.com) wrote:

The world you see IS the earth and the universe.

Sharon

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:25:24 PM12/10/03

to

" www.dr4baxs.com" <sherylv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031210163817...@mb-m06.aol.com...

Hi Sheryl,

I appreciate hearing everyone's differing views about this... it makes for
interesting conversation. : )

One of the reason that I came to the conclusion that the the physical
universe (including the earth) is not real, is because the Course tells us
that all form is an illusion and that Heaven is without form. It is what
is beyond the form that is real, imo.

Sharon

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:30:39 PM12/10/03

to

"Mike" <M...@uptown.me.org> wrote in message
news:i27ftv0ebli94rrto...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:45:34 GMT, "Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Steafán Annraoi" <ste...@miraclesHALO.plus.com> wrote in message
> >news:xZFBb.252$526....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> >> "Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:gsFBb.499870$Fm2.479157@attbi_s04...
> >> >
> >> > The "borderland of thought" is what the Course calls the real world.
> >>
> >> Sharon, the way I think about this (for convenience sake) is: ego-world
=
> >> world outside of us, real-world = world at one with us, Heaven = world
> >> inside of us. This seems to fit with the mystic path (though,
ultimatly,
> >is
> >> probably only as useful as the solar-system model of the atom).
> >>
> >
> >
> >Thats fine if you want to look at it that way. My point is that the
> >"borderland of thought" is also referred to as the real world. It is not
a
> >physical place, and when you reach it is apart from time.
>
> Now do you know this, Sharon?
>

This is what I believe from what experience has showed me, and from what I
believe the Course teaches. I could be wrong .. but for me it fits.

Sharon

Nancy Lorieau

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:33:20 PM12/10/03

to

"Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:aOMBb.302412$Dw6.1006454@attbi_s02...

>
> > > "Perception, at its loftiest, is never complete. Even the perception
of
> > >the Holy Spirit, as perfect as perception can be, is without meaning in
> > >Heaven. Perception can reach everywhere under His guidance, for the
vision
> > >of Christ beholds everything in light.

> > >Yet no perception, however holy, will

> > > forever" - urtext
> >
> > I'm familiar with this quote and I absolutely agree.

> I'm coming back to this post again because I'm still not clear on what you
> are saying. This above quote was in response to your statement:
>
> "The course is very clear that the body's eyes will not be involved, but I
> do believe the course does refer to experience (perception) in relation to
> Heaven."

This is how I look at it: The perception of the HS is the perception that
heals. When our perceptions have been healed there is no longer any need for
healing. But still the course describes Heaven in terms of experience. If
ANY sort of experience is involved, so is perception.

This view, btw, is not set in stone. My personal conviction is that there is
no way we can comprehend the reality of Heaven and of God. We can only make
our poor attempts with words. I hold my particular view because it has
meaning for me -- it "fits" for me -- not because I believe it is more
nearly "right" than yours.

n.

Mike

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:34:32 PM12/10/03

to

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:30:39 GMT, "Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Do you see yourself as living in the real world?

Nancy Lorieau

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:38:12 PM12/10/03

to

"Sharon" <blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:2uMBb.302248$Dw6.1006371@attbi_s02...

> Thats fine if you want to look at it that way. My point is that the
> "borderland of thought" is also referred to as the real world. It is not
a
> physical place, and when you reach it is apart from time.

My own view is that THIS is the "real world"; we just don't see it.

n.

www.dr4baxs.com

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:37:48 PM12/10/03

to

some may find this of interest. In "the Revealing Word" is defines "world": a
state of consciousness formed through the belief in the reality of things
external. It leads one to follow standards of living based on man's opinions
rather than on Truth. The world is overcome by denying that it has any power
over us and affirming freedom in Christ."
When I first read this, I understood what Jesus meant when he said in the
bible, "on earth you *will* have trials and tribulations, but cheer up, I've
overcome the world." Jesus denied that the world had any power over him and
that is what he expounds on ACIM ~ my take on it anyway. Sheryl

www.dr4baxs.com

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:39:19 PM12/10/03

to

Sharon wrote: I appreciate hearing everyone's differing views about this... it

makes for
interesting conversation. : )>>>

sv: I agree. And I don't take it personally when others don't agree with me,
hell, I don't have it all figured out myself....yet! lol! Sheryl

Corey

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:42:41 PM12/10/03

to

On 10 Dec 2003 19:27:45 GMT, sherylv...@aol.com (
www.dr4baxs.com) wrote:

>I think some here may not read your posts because of preconceived
>ideas or whatever, but read with an open mind, they make a lot of sense.

I don't read them because they don't resonate with me. That is, I
don't get anything out of them. I don't think that means I'm not
open-minded. You seem to be saying that if people don't agree with
Doug, they aren't open minded.

I don't come here to read un-published spiritual books, regardless of
the subject matter. I come here for discussion. If Doug is unable to
summarize his thoughts, then I'll pass on reading them.

www.dr4baxs.com

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:44:00 PM12/10/03

to

nancy wrote: This view, btw, is not set in stone. My personal conviction is

that there is
no way we can comprehend the reality of Heaven and of God. We can only make
our poor attempts with words. I hold my particular view because it has
meaning for me -- it "fits" for me -- not because I believe it is more
nearly "right" than yours.>>>

sv: well put Nancy, this is how I feel as well. sheryl

www.dr4baxs.com

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:48:10 PM12/10/03

to

Corey wrote: I don't read them because they don't resonate with me. That is, I

don't get anything out of them. I don't think that means I'm not
open-minded. You seem to be saying that if people don't agree with
Doug, they aren't open minded.>>>

sv: I didn't say that you were not open minded, it was just a comment. For
whatever reason I am really resonating with Doug's posts lately. this hasn't
always been true for me. ;))Sheryl

Corey

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 5:50:36 PM12/10/03

to

On 10 Dec 2003 19:01:47 GMT, sherylv...@aol.com (
www.dr4baxs.com) wrote:

>I've seen my world change dramatically in the moments when
>I've exchanged grievances for the miracle of forgiveness~ but you know, those
>damn trees were still there. ;) Sheryl

Everything is going to be transformed into something Holy and lovely
and radiant with the joy of life. And you have, indeed, experienced
the beginning of this transformation.

In the Real world, there are no damn trees.

Nancy Lorieau

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 6:22:45 PM12/10/03

to

"Corey" <noe...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:kd8ftv48t1vnk2kv4...@4ax.com...

Rotfl!

n.

www.dr4baxs.com

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 6:28:00 PM12/10/03

to

Corey wrote: In the Real world, there are no damn trees.>>>

sv: LOL, all right allready~ Sheryl

www.dr4baxs.com

unread,

Dec 10, 2003, 6:29:13 PM12/10/03

to

Corey wrote: In the Real world, there are no damn trees.>>>

sv: oh. did you mean, no trees? or no "damn" trees? ;) Sheryl