Conflict Again
MikeRyder
Well, what do ya expect among those who think they know what they're talking
about
LOL
Carrie
attention and some I skip over and don't even read a all. like those with
the "new" names I don't really know who they are, where they came from, or
why they are here. I know one is John, and he seems to be giving attention
to another of the new ones. Those are the ones I'm not interested in. Let
those who want to play, play....
expires
"As You Like It", believed to have been written
in about 1600 and first published in 1623:
" All the world's a stage,
" And all the men and women merely players;
" They have their exits and their entrances;
" And one man in his time plays many parts,
" His acts being seven ages. [...]
In limerick by the Robert Conquest:
" Seven ages: first puking and mewling,
" Then very pissed off with your schooling,
" Then romances and then fights,
" Then judging chaps' rights,
" Then sitting in slippers, then drooling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_world%27s_a_stage
;-))
Mike
wrote:
> Beginning a monologue from William Shakespeare's
> "As You Like It", believed to have been written
> in about 1600 and first published in 1623:
> " All the world's a stage,
> " And all the men and women merely players;
> " They have their exits and their entrances;
> " And one man in his time plays many parts,
> " His acts being seven ages. [...]
> In limerick by the Robert Conquest:
> " Seven ages: first puking and mewling,
> " Then very pissed off with your schooling,
> " Then romances and then fights,
> " Then judging chaps' rights,
> ;-))
>
>
>
> Carrie wrote:
> > You must be seeing something I don't. But then, I haven't been paying close
> > attention and some I skip over and don't even read a all. like those with
> > the "new" names I don't really know who they are, where they came from, or
> > why they are here. I know one is John, and he seems to be giving attention
> > to another of the new ones. Those are the ones I'm not interested in. Let
> > those who want to play, play....
>
> > MikeRyder wrote:
> >> I see the conflict is ramping up again in here.
>
> >> Well, what do ya expect among those who think they know what they're
> >> talking about
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
the ng seems to attract more than it's
fair share of those 'very pissed off with
their schooling'.
expires
(often/always?) deceiving :)
Mike wrote:
> the ng seems to attract more than it's
> fair share of those 'very pissed off with
> their schooling'.
Mike
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
yes, many are not what or who they appear to be "-)
Ted
It is not conflict to point out a mis-creation of ego/mind, but sometimes
the ego/minds reaction seems like conflict as it tries to continue the
belief in separation. It has always been that way through the ages as any
new ways of seeing are rejected as heresy by the ones who "think" they have
all the right answers. Jesus called these "thinkers" the Pharisees. For me
it is more like a child who "thinks" they know all there is to know.
Thinking about something is not the same as the experience, but without the
experience one can not know that it is not.
Debinski
I don't know that they don't KNOW the difference, Ted. I'd say it's
more that they prefer not to notice the difference, In so-called
physical matters, it's not likely the "spiritual thinkers" would
substitute a description of what it's like to eat chocolate for the
actual experience of eating chocolate. Nor would they expect words to
adequately describe a tree to someone who has never seen a tree, but
when it comes to so-called "spiritual matters" they seem to believe
that what the words point toward is so very far removed from where
they think they are that the actual experience here/now is overlooked
for a promise of something better in an imaginary future. "When we all
get to heaven what a day of rejoicing that will be" and all that.
<smile>
Debinski
Ted
I have no disagreement with what you say here, and I am enjoying hearing
your voice here.
It takes a bit of humility and willingness to recognize that the ego/mind is
just a tool for separation and survival with in the illusion of separation.
I suspect that knowing the taste of chocolate or the feeling of orgasm does
not threaten the separation that the ego/mind must see in order to perform
the function that it has. To admit that it is an illusion however, does
threaten that sense of separation until one sees it as just a stream of
thoughts flowing by, and realizes that there is no need to attach to any of
them because they are all equally unreal. At that point one sees through the
veil and can look upon a forgiven world.
Mike
> I suspect that knowing the.... the feeling of orgasm does
> not threaten the separation
I have seen a picture of you and so have to ask:
How would you know?
that the ego/mind must see in order to perform
> the function that it has. To admit that it is an illusion however, does
> threaten that sense of separation until one sees it as just a stream of
> thoughts flowing by, and realizes that there is no need to attach to any of
> them because they are all equally unreal. At that point one sees through the
> veil and can look upon a forgiven world.- Hide quoted text -
Ted
I do not understand your question Mike. I do not understand what your seeing
my picture has to do anything being discussed here. All I can say is that
knowing the taste of chocolate or the feeling of orgasm has never threaten
any sense of separation that my ego/mind felt, and I used to be as much of a
spiritual thinker as the next guy, but when it all fell away then seeing was
effortless and thoughts were just thoughts passing by. If your question was
about something else, then I will need more clarification to answer, and
even then we will be using language and that is always imperfect to create
the question and formulate an answer. In the end the only way one can know
is to experience it themselves. So we are back to a discussion of revelation
and there are no words that can take one there.
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ahahahahahahahahaha
Ted
Ahahahahahahahahaha ;-))
MikeRyder
> Perhaps, but appearances are
> (often/always?) deceiving :)
Duh. lol
MikeRyder
LOL
MikeRyder
> On Dec 3, 9:29 am, expires <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de>
> wrote:
>> Perhaps, but appearances are
>> (often/always?) deceiving :)
Is that another spiritual zinger?
lol
MikeRyder
LOL
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Havin a good time lolling and :-)ing
Carrie
You can point out all you want, but most people are either going to argue
with you about it, or skim over it and ignore it. And maybe whatever you say
from now on.
It doesn't seem especially peaceful, joining or uplifting.
Though that might not be your intent with pointing out what you perceive
as errors in someone else and lecturing them about it and what Jesus
supposedly (allegedly) did.
MikeRyder
Well of course. ------> LOL
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just pulling your chain, Cletus. Tit for tat - as it were.
Mike
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 10:30:39 -0800 (PST), Debinski
> experienced. I don't know about you. How would I know? What leaves
> me kind of put off, Deb, is the way you assume you know what others
> do/do not know.
>
> Deborah (BC)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Me, too.
Debinski
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 10:30:39 -0800 (PST), Debinski
>
>
>
>
>
> <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> experienced. I don't know about you. How would I know? What leaves
> me kind of put off, Deb, is the way you assume you know what others
> do/do not know.
>
> Deborah (BC)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes. I've noticed most people here seem to believe that *I* am
responsible for their reactions. I think IF you were willing to look
at what is actually written rather than believing your reactions to
it, you just might change your mind about who is assuming to know what
others do not know. Who has repeatedly asserted that she has a special
communion with God that most people do not have or an "expanded
consciousness that only some brothers" share? Even going so far as to
assert "I can only think you have never communed with God." Was that
me or was that you? Who has repeatedly said "Please don't take my
word for anything. Find out for yourself if it's true or not?" Was
that you or was that me? I know the Course is about me. You seem to
think it's about me, too. It never ceases to amaze me how people who
believe they have a special relationship with God also seem to believe
that relationship entitles them to judge their brothers and sisters
with impunity. Even failing to notice when their judgments have no
factual basis. Who needs a factual basis when you have a special
relationship with God, hey?
Debinski
Debinski
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 10:30:39 -0800 (PST), Debinski
>
>
>
>
>
> <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> experienced. I don't know about you. How would I know? What leaves
> me kind of put off, Deb, is the way you assume you know what others
> do/do not know.
>
> Deborah (BC)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why not describe for us how YOU experience the following, Deborah. For
instance, how do you know -- from experience -- that consciousness is
not shared?" How does that "knowledge" relate to the Course statement
that "there are no private thoughts?" How do YOU experience that "...
what seemingly happens with the Son has no impact on the Godhead?" I'm
not assuming you don't know anything, I'm asking how you know what you
say you know. In fact, in this very thread, *I* wrote "it's not that
they don't know" and gave a factual basis for that statement. So why
not give me more facts to support my "assumption" that you do know?
>> It is if you don't differentiate between the One-Mindedness of Christ
and the Godhead, yes. It is my understanding, per the course, that
it
is only the One-Mindedness of Christ that has (seemingly) been
fractured - consciousness having been the first split. I see very
graphically how that split engenders belief in separation, because,
as
I've pointed out many times, I do not share your consciousness nor do
you share mine. That is why communication (with words) is necessary
in this state. It's a pisspoor substitute for the natural
communication of One-Mindedness, but it's all we've got right now.
However, what seemingly happens with the Son has no impact on the
Godhead. Indeed, that is our saving grace. God has never ceased to
know His Son as He created Him. God preserves our truth no matter
what labyrinthian detours we take away from it, in dreams. <<<
Debinski
Debinski
I'm going to add here that I wonder how the statement "consciousness
is not shared" relates to the statement that "the first chaotic law is
that truth is different for everyone?" If consciousness is not shared
how would anyone ever know that truth is not different for everyone?
Verbal agreement? Illusion can only be shared verbally because there
is no factual basis for it. Truth -- when it comes -- is always
automatically shared. How can that be if consciousness is not shared?
Debinski
How do YOU experience that "...
> what seemingly happens with the Son has no impact on the Godhead?" I'm
> not assuming you don't know anything, I'm asking how you know what you
> say you know. In fact, in this very thread, *I* wrote "it's not that
> they don't know" and gave a factual basis for that statement. So why
> not give me more facts to support my "assumption" that you do know?
>
> >> It is if you don't differentiate between the One-Mindedness of Christ
>
> and the Godhead, yes. It is my understanding, per the course, that
> it
> is only the One-Mindedness of Christ that has (seemingly) been
> fractured - consciousness having been the first split. I see very
> graphically how that split engenders belief in separation, because,
> as
> I've pointed out many times, I do not share your consciousness nor do
> you share mine. That is why communication (with words) is necessary
> in this state. It's a pisspoor substitute for the natural
> communication of One-Mindedness, but it's all we've got right now.
>
> However, what seemingly happens with the Son has no impact on the
> Godhead. Indeed, that is our saving grace. God has never ceased to
> know His Son as He created Him. God preserves our truth no matter
> what labyrinthian detours we take away from it, in dreams. <<<
>
> Debinski- Hide quoted text -
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
What is meant by the statement that what happens with the
Son seemingly has no impact on the Godhead is another way
of saying that God does not share our illusions. That's all,
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Consciousness is described as 'the state which induces
action...it does not inspire it. Also, 'Neither (revelation or
miracles) emanates from consciousness, but both are
experienced there.' Revelation and miracles are experienced
by the single individual. My revelation was personal. It was
directed to me specifically and thus was not shared on a
conscious level by the entire sonhood. Miracles are directed
by Jesus toward a specific individual. Therefor it is accurate
to state, as Deborah did, that consciousness is not shared.
You pose a good question, however, when you ask if Truth
is automatically shared how can it be that consciousness is
not shared. The answer is that consciousness in this sense
is a level ll experience in the world of everyday reality while
truth is shared on Level 1, the level of the Absolute. Proof of
this lies in the fact that Jesus, having completed his part in
the Atonement and having chosen God over the world, has
made that same choice for all of us yet we all still remain
here in this world of individual dream consciousness while he
exists in the world of the Absolute beyond illusion and dreams.
The truth is shared but not yet experienced.
Philomene
>>> Debinski
>> Well, I certainly haven't been talking about anything I haven't
>> experienced. I don't know about you. How would I know? What leaves
>> me kind of put off, Deb, is the way you assume you know what others
>> do/do not know.
>>
>> Deborah (BC)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes. I've noticed most people here seem to believe that *I* am
> responsible for their reactions.
Lol. Now why would offer you such a screw ball notion of responsibility
together with an "I" in asterisks and -- most people -- written without
asterisks?
You might explain how you take responsibility for your reactions, and
how you know that most people around here are not taking responsibility
for their reactions in the exact same manner you implying you are doing?
Philomene
> What is meant by the statement that what happens with the
> Son seemingly has no impact on the Godhead is another way
> of saying that God does not share our illusions. That's all,
"God does not share our illusions," therefore implies that the narrative
that a tiny, mad idea emerged out of One Mind is either wrong or
inadequate.
Mike
Yes, it does. I would tend to think it is inadequate in the
sense that it is incomplete. I am unsure if we have enough
information to definitively complete it, either. If our fall from
Communion was a lack of faith and a betrayal, of sorts, of
a relationship then perhaps the gaining of faith and the re-
storation of the relationship is the purpose of life. And I
think that ACIM is a path to accomplish both of those things,
and I think it teaches both of those things. Not just teaches
them but primarily teaches them.
ellie
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 06:19:22 -0800 (PST), Debinski
> just wing it, huh? Yes, I did say "I can only think you have never
> experienced communion with God." Care to dig up what I said it in
> reply TO? You had just asserted that the mere fact that our awareness
> encompasses everything our body's senses tune us into equals oneness
> with the universe and God. Am I supposed to agree with an assertion
> that I know to be incorrect?
>
> As for a lot of the other stuff you have attributed to me, here, I
> think you may be confusing me with Deb, who is from Texas.
>
> Deborah (BC)
>
> Deborah (BC)
Why would you attempt to drag deb into this? She hasn't been on here
in a week and has not even been in the same thread with either of you
two Deborahs
Carrie
> course for me to even begin sorting it out for you. I don't have the
> energy.
>
> Deborah (BC)
Everyone should sort out their own confusion anyway.
It's enough just to deal with our own (LOL)
Pieter
> fell out of communion with God we also fell out of communion with our
> Self, which all of our brothers are part of. And I guess that's why
> the Holy relationship is the particular path that the course offers
> us, in place of the diciplines offered by other paths. I'm not sure
> what a Holy relationship is, though...
>
> Pieter?
Ok, I'll accept the challenge! :-)
Ken Wapnick gives a very good definition, imo:
"The Holy Spirit's means to undo the unholy or
special relationship by shifting the goal of guilt
to the goal of forgiveness or truth; the proces of
forgiveness by which one who had perceived
another as separate joins with him in his mind
through Christ's vision."
>
> Deborah (BC)
>
Pieter
"Carrie" <starch...@charter.net> schreef in bericht
news:drfSm.51657$X01....@newsfe07.iad...
> Everyone should sort out their own confusion anyway.
> It's enough just to deal with our own (LOL)
- And it is only effective when
we let the Holy Spirit do the job.
We *cannot* do it ourselves.
Carrie
Maybe can
At least some of the time
Debinski
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:25:16 -0800 (PST), Debinski
> course for me to even begin sorting it out for you. I don't have the
> energy.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks anyway, Deborah. I wasn't really asking you to sort anything
out for me. I was just throwing the question out there. It's
interesting to notice you are so certain the confusion you see is mine
not yours. There seems to be little understanding of projection around
here or that truth doesn't require or ask for belief. Truth is what
you are, when beliefs have been questioned and seen to be false. A
holy relationship is one in which you stop projecting guilt, allowing
the relationship to be what it is. Or as the Course says the only
secret left to be revealed is that your innocence does not depend upon
the world's guilt. Love can't be thought or thought OF. Even to say it
is experienced is only a manner of speaking. Where Love is, there is
no experiencer. I'm not saying you don't know that. Just a reminder.
And I'm not asking anyone to tell me again how wrong I am. Although
you are free to do that if you like.
"T 27 I 13. How differently will you perceive the world, when this is
recognized! When you forgive the world YOUR guilt, YOU will be
free of it. Its innocence does NOT demand your guilt, nor does YOUR
guiltlessness rest on ITS sins. This is the obvious; a secret kept
from
no-one but yourself. And it is this that has maintained you
SEPARATE from the world, and kept your brother SEPARATE from
you. Now need you but to learn that BOTH of you are innocent OR
guilty. The one thing that is impossible is that you be UNLIKE each
other; that they BOTH be true. This is the only secret yet to learn.
And
it will be NO secret you are healed."
Debinski
deb
"ellie" <miracl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1a505ded-6430-45ae...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
LOL, I see Deb BC is up to her usual.
deb
"Mike" <gurus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:958d93b9-2319-4dec...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Revelation is shared, just not with words. It is known. In my experience
anyway. :))
Carrie
Well, she attracted you back and that's good!
Did you get snow? I hear it's coming from there and going up the coast.
We are going to get light snow, the edge of it (the coastal storm).
You don't usually get much snow there, do you?
Pieter
According to the Course we cannot:
2385. Prepare you NOW for the undoing of what
never was. If you already understood the difference
between truth and illusion, the Atonement would have
no meaning. The holy instant, your holy relationship,
the Holy Spirit's teaching, and all the means by which
salvation is accomplished, would have no purpose.
For they are all but aspects of the plan to change your
dreams of fear to happy dreams, from which you waken
easily to knowledge. *Put yourself not in charge of this,
for you cannot distinguish between advance and retreat.
Some of your greatest advances you have judged as
failures, and some of your deepest retreats you have
evaluated as success.*" (T-18.V.1)
Pieter
"Deborah" <deb...@anywhere.ca> schreef in bericht
news:o8clh55i9fa411tr1...@4ax.com...
> work has to be done by me, the actual joining is a matter of looking
> through the Holy Spirit in myself to the Holy Spirit in another. I
> think the Holy Spirit would have to orchestrate that.
- That is how I see it as well.
> Small wonder I
> feel it's an experience I haven't had yet.
>
> Deborah (BC)
>
maz
is that 'coded' language or sumthin'? rotfl.
deb
"Carrie" <starch...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:2YxSm.99969$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
the next front moved South and Houston got snow. Even more weird. That's
my kind of snow, you get he visual effect without all the mess that goes
with it.
I try to catch up on my emails on the weekend.
deb
"maz" <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote in message
news:4b1ad7b3$0$22413$703f...@news.kpn.nl...
It is Carrie saying hi!
>
>
Carrie
Yes
It means I'm moving on to another subject.
Carrie
Yes,that is it!
I didn't analyize it when I wrote it, it just came to me.
And, I did see on the weather it looked like your area was getting snow.
Carrie
Carrie
>>
>> According to the Course we cannot:
>>
>> 2385. Prepare you NOW for the undoing of what
>> never was. If you already understood the difference
>> between truth and illusion, the Atonement would have
>> no meaning. The holy instant, your holy relationship,
>> the Holy Spirit's teaching, and all the means by which
>> salvation is accomplished, would have no purpose.
>> For they are all but aspects of the plan to change your
>> dreams of fear to happy dreams, from which you waken
>> easily to knowledge. *Put yourself not in charge of this,
>> for you cannot distinguish between advance and retreat.
>> Some of your greatest advances you have judged as
>> failures, and some of your deepest retreats you have
>> evaluated as success.*" (T-18.V.1)
>
> Let that be a warning to anyone who thinks they have made great
> advances...
>
> Deborah (BC)
But, maybe we have made great progress, and should know and accept
this.
maz
Whatever you do, whatever you say, you take good care of your Soul, dear.
1love, zam
Mike
> "Mike" <gurustom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for responding, Deb. When I
first read your response I thought you
were wrong, and that I was right. But
after re-reading the passages in ACIM
that I had in mind when I gave my above
answer I think each of us might be only
partially correct.
Chapter I, paragraph II, Revelaltion, Time
and Miracles says, 'Revelation is intensely
personal and cannot be meaningfully
translated. ...any attempt to describe it
in words is impossible. ... Miracles are
'interpersonal'. Be definition then they
are shared - consciously. But not with
the entire sonhood consciously - only
those involved directly in the miracle.
That's how I read it.
Mike
> work has to be done by me, the actual joining is a matter of looking
> through the Holy Spirit in myself to the Holy Spirit in another. I
> feel it's an experience I haven't had yet.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You and Pieter agree that the Holy
Spirit has to orchestrate the joining
of It's Self between individuals. Why
do you say that? Isn't this joining
you refer to the holy instant? And
doesn't the holy instant come about
when one sees a common interest
with another?
Philomene
>> I'm going to add here that I wonder how the statement "consciousness
>> is not shared" relates to the statement that "the first chaotic law is
>> that truth is different for everyone?" If consciousness is not shared
>> how would anyone ever know that truth is not different for everyone?
>> Verbal agreement? Illusion can only be shared verbally because there
>> is no factual basis for it. Truth -- when it comes -- is always
>> automatically shared. How can that be if consciousness is not shared?
>>
>> Debinski
>
> Debinski, there is too much level confusion in your treatment of the
> course for me to even begin sorting it out for you. I don't have the
> energy.
>
> Deborah (BC)
Lol. Well yeah. That's clear enough when someone makes an elaborate
argument for the impossibility of individuality and then in the next
post affirms "salvation," which is predicated on and must assume
individuality. After all, salvation implies something must be saved and
it is necessary to do so.
A little thinking reveals the notion that God, or "All that is," or "One
Mind," must be saved is a very strange idea. This would certainly imply
God is imperfect, somehow in conflict, and not whole or Holy. As such
the notion of salvation cannot be applied to God or God sans creation
without first assuming God, One Mind, All that is, is UNHOLY.
Hence Holiness is pretty much short hand and axiomatic to a particular
understanding of God/Reality/All that is. Axiomatic in the sense,
Holiness asserts perfection, and the impossibility of God fragmenting
Itself into separate, competing parts, or separate, competing gods,
which in any way compromises the fundamental, essential Holiness of God.
As such we see Holiness directly linked and associated with salvation in
Course metaphysics, and the great monotheistic religions of the West,
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, where a created soul, or created
individuality is asserted.
Its unclear to me whether salvation would be an operative term or even
make sense in a Polytheistic religion, where the Holiness of One God is
denied for the notion of many gods.
Nor do we see the Holiness of God and salvation operative concepts in
the great religions of the East. Instead we see "Oneness," and
enlightenment," as operative terms.
"Oneness," however asserts unity, it does not necessarily assert
"Holiness."
As such one must ask how a paradigm of God, One Mind, All that is,
apparently manifesting Itself in infinite parts and countless dream
figures is in any way an assertion of "Holiness," and not in fact a
denial of Holiness? One could argue this paradigm stills somehow asserts
God's Oneness as "unity," but is must be a very peculiar notion of
"unity," as it clearly asserts apparent fragmentation while denying real
creation.
In contrast --Holiness steadfastly denies any possible or even apparent
fragmentation of God or essential reality while affirming creation.
Hence its pretty much impossible to impose an reductionist, Eastern
paradigm of God/Ultimate Reality on course metaphysics without first
ignoring or denying the course paradigm of "Holiness," and Holiness'
always attendant concept -- "salvation."
More -- the confusion between Holiness/salvation, and
Oneness/enlightenment is more pronounced when "course students,"
improperly attribute the imperative inherent in the notion of salvation
to the Eastern notion of "enlightenment."
There is no imperative to be enlightened.
Especially when both creation and soul/individuality is denied as part
of the illusion manifest by the One Reality. No imperative in the sense
that clearly it makes no difference if "one" makes the effort necessary
to become enlightened, or if "one" simply lives for the immediate
pleasures of life. Clearly both the enlightened and earthly man in the
end will be but drops returning to the great Ocean of Ultimate Reality.
As such it seems to me then if there is in fact any real reason to study
and apply course teaching, that such effort must imply Holiness and
salvation, and not simply Oneness and Enlightenment.
Carrie
Well, there's no point to the course, then.
Actually, it does say this, too, doesn't it?
W-189.7. Simply do this: Be still, and lay aside all thoughts of
what you are and what God is; all concepts you have learned about the world;
all images you hold about yourself. 2 Empty your mind of everything it
thinks is either true or false, or good or bad, of every thought it judges
worthy, and all the ideas of which it is ashamed. 3 Hold onto nothing. 4 Do
not bring with you one thought the past has taught, nor one belief you ever
learned before from anything. 5 Forget this world, forget this course, and
come with wholly empty hands unto your God.
maz
"Philomene" <ph...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:hfgj09$dul$1...@aioe.org...
Amen. If I ever graduate this Courtse, I will be happy to have had such
generous study companion material, which helped save time and invite
Grace upon the Sonship in an immeasurable way. Thank and Bless you.
peace, maz
Philomene
Thanks maz.
Holiness and salvation are axiomatic to Christianity. To the extent that
Holiness/salvation are axiomatic to Course study, then clearly
Christianity and Course study cannot be artificially separated by
partisan argument. Which is one reason why the notion of "non-duality,"
is pushed rather than Holiness as a transcendental standard of wholeness.
But consider the issue from this angle. I'm sure you have experienced
the High Holy Mass of the Catholic Church on Christmas Eve, where the
mystery of God's Holiness and unfragmentated Oneness is celebrated.
In contrast what is there to celebrate about a God, Ultimate Reality,All
that is, which willfully chooses to play cosmic hide and seek with
Itself with countless dream figures?
If I am cold, hungry, in pain and despair, what exactly is there to
celebrate about a God playing what appears to be a very cruel game of
hide and seek, while maintaining Cosmic bliss in Ultimate Reality?
Clearly in this scenario I'm not even accorded a soul and individuality,
life and free will which can be directed by efforts to salvation. Rather
"I" am simply a dream figure of a crazy God.
Nothing at all to celebrate.
>
>
george
> If I am cold, hungry, in pain and despair, what exactly is there to
> celebrate about a God playing what appears to be a very cruel game of
> hide and seek, while maintaining Cosmic bliss in Ultimate Reality?
I would ask myself, is it possible that a perfect loving God would
make me or anyone else, " cold, hungry, in pain and despair". That
certainly doesn't seem like a perfect loving God to me. So then I
would ask myself and have asked myself, how can this be true then and
the answer I get is it's not true. Those bodies and minds that think
they are cold hungry and in despair don't understand that the body
isn't them or they couldn't be cold hungry and in despair.
My next question would be, but it seems so real. And my next answer
would be, so does death. If death IS real then God can't be a perfect
loving God.
And here is my ultimate choice, where do I want to put my faith? God
is mean and cruel or God is love and I have deceived myself about what
I'm seeing when I see, cold hungry and despair. Can those things that
seem cruel actually be looked at a different way. For God to be love
there HAS to be a different perception and there IS. My ego might say
that's insane just look at all the evidence and yet my Spirit calmly
tells me evidence always points in two directions depending on which
God I choose to put my faith in. The one of love or the one of hate.
IOW in my experience with my drug addiction it could be looked at and
it was looked at by me as a disaster and a ton of suffering. Now I
know better that it was exactly what I NEEDED to understand drugs and
alcohol or any mind altering substance can never make me happy.
It was an illusion to think they could and it led to unhappiness. God
was teaching me my happiness comes from within me and has nothing to
do with any outside curcumstances or substances I put in my body. In
truth how could my happiness ever depend on something outside of me
and be at all dependable? It can't because things outside me are not
under my control. Only my choice of perception is and that come from
within me and is completely dependable.
So from a timeless point of view I wasn't suffering, I was learning to
be happy and what I am in truth. Just as the world will fade away in
time so did my suffering and the true learning is understanding that
in hindsight it was a good thing so it couldn't have been suffering
but instead was a wonderful learning experience. I was just mistaken
when I thought it was at the time because I didn't know better yet.
Now I do and I'm glad for the addiction and the learning it gave me.
The Holy Spirit has changed what seemed like disaster into the truth
that it wasn't. Just one mans opinion and where I place my faith.
deb
"maz" <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote in message
>> It means I'm moving on to another subject.
>
> Whatever you do, whatever you say, you take good care of your Soul, dear.
>
> 1love, zam
deb
We don't have to be either one. :) I have not met one person
that has experienced revelation that even though
could not expressed in words, it was known. I'd say
that it is a true nature. Of course this may not be put in
Course terms.
Carrie
How will you know if you do?
Pieter
This does not in the least contradict
what is said in the quotation above.
W-189.8 "Is it not He Who knows the way to you? You need not know
the way to Him.Your part is simply to allow all obstacles that you have
interposed between the Son and God the Father to be quietly removed
forever. God will do His part in joyful and immediate response.Ask and
receive. But do not make demands, nor point the road to God by which
He should appear to you.The way to reach Him is merely to let Him be.
For in that way is your reality acclaimed as well."
We have "to allow all obstacles to be quietly
removed", and that is done by giving them to
the Holy Spirit, in Who's light they are gone.
When they all are removed, which means
having "wholly empty hands", then "God will
do His part in joyful and immediate response."
In the Introduction is already said:
"The course does not aim at teaching the meaning of love, for that is
beyond what can be taught. It does aim, however, at removing the
blocks to the awareness of love's Presence, Which is your natural
inheritance."
Any obstacle "to the awareness of love's Presence"
has to be consciously acknowledged, and then
consciously given to the Holy Spirit, or He cannot
remove it. The following is said with respect to hatred,
but of course it is true for all the blocks in our minds:
"You may wonder why it is so crucial that you look upon your hatred
and realize its full extent.You may also think that it would be easy
enough for the Holy Spirit to show it to you and dispel it WITHOUT
the need for you to raise it to awareness yourself." (T-13.III.1:1-2)
Pieter
"The Holy Spirit can use all that you give to Him
for your salvation. But He cannot use what you
withhold, for He cannot take it from you without
your willingness. For if He did, you would believe
He wrested it from you against your will. And so
you would not learn it IS your will to be without it."
(T-25.VIII.1:1-4)
Carrie
> it's not "a common interest". There's nothing holy about me and
> someone else joining in a love of playing 8-ball.
Who decides what joining is "holy" and what isn't?
Does the Holy Spirit decide that some things people join in aren't holy
enough for joining?
That seems to be ego, in the world stuff.
It's when you
> realize that "your interests and another's are the same". I have
> always taken it to mean realizing that I can have no interests that I
> may pursue at the expense of another, without pursuing it at my own
> expense as well. It's lose-lose rather than win-win.
>
> Deborah (BC)
Carrie
I'm sure my soul is perfect and can't be harmed.
Mike
God.
> Does the Holy Spirit decide that some things people join in aren't holy
> enough for joining?
Doing that emphasizes form over content. So, the Holy
Spirit does not give meaning to the world; the world is
neutral; He knows this. Wherever any two share a common
interest that can be used for healing, He comes when invited.
> That seems to be ego, in the world stuff.
It is the ego that thinks like that
prefering form over content. Seek
but do not find.
>
> It's when you
>
>
>
> > realize that "your interests and another's are the same". I have
> > always taken it to mean realizing that I can have no interests that I
> > may pursue at the expense of another, without pursuing it at my own
> > expense as well. It's lose-lose rather than win-win.
>
> > Deborah (BC)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Philomene
> On Dec 6, 11:39 am, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If I am cold, hungry, in pain and despair, what exactly is there to
>> celebrate about a God playing what appears to be a very cruel game of
>> hide and seek, while maintaining Cosmic bliss in Ultimate Reality?
>
> I would ask myself, is it possible that a perfect loving God would
> make me or anyone else, " cold, hungry, in pain and despair". That
> certainly doesn't seem like a perfect loving God to me.
How so? In a paragraph below you reframe " cold, hungry, in pain and
despair" as "learning to be happy." Hence in your reasoning, " cold,
hungry, in pain and despair" as learning, ie, suffering as learning is
something a perfect,loving God would lay on you and others.
If you wish to convey the thought that suffering is learning, or we
learn through suffering, why not say this directly? This is a common
idea and not rocket science. Better than a long, rambling
rationalization which lacks consistency of thought and confuses the reader.
Besides you beg the question, why a perfect, loving God would have his
creations learn through suffering. As you attempt to answer this
question you should "learn," that "perfection," and "loving," are loaded
terms. In other words, high level abstractions which are understood or
mis-understood in various ways depending on who is using these terms.
As such I could use the form of your argument to counter your argument.
I could write:
"I would ask myself, is it possible that a perfect loving God would make
me or anyone else, " cold, hungry, in pain and despair", in order to
learn. That certainly doesn't seem like a perfect loving God to me."
Now how are you going to address this without digressing into a
discussion about what is meant by "perfect," and "loving"?
Which shows the form of the argument is rhetorical--or meant to persuade
by appealing to emotions, and not logical -- or convincing other through
reason.
If my remarks give you a headache, consider this an example of learning
through suffering.
Mike
funny
george
> george wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 11:39 am, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If I am cold, hungry, in pain and despair, what exactly is there to
> >> celebrate about a God playing what appears to be a very cruel game of
> >> hide and seek, while maintaining Cosmic bliss in Ultimate Reality?
>
> > I would ask myself, is it possible that a perfect loving God would
> > make me or anyone else, " cold, hungry, in pain and despair". That
> > certainly doesn't seem like a perfect loving God to me.
>
> How so? In a paragraph below you reframe " cold, hungry, in pain and
> despair" as "learning to be happy." Hence in your reasoning, " cold,
> hungry, in pain and despair" as learning, ie, suffering as learning is
> something a perfect,loving God would lay on you and others.
>
> If you wish to convey the thought that suffering is learning, or we
> learn through suffering, why not say this directly?
Because here is where what's true and what's false comes into play and
a very important part of my learning. The suffering is false and comes
from ego perception and the learning and seeing the suffering as never
being true comes from the Holy Spirit's eyes and is true. This is how
healing is accomplished IMO. Letting go of the false and accepting the
truth.
This is a common
> idea and not rocket science. Better than a long, rambling
> rationalization which lacks consistency of thought and confuses the reader.
>
> Besides you beg the question, why a perfect, loving God would have his
> creations learn through suffering.
As I said it's not suffering except to the person that doesn't
understand yet. From God's POV IMO it never was and never is. I've
learned in my life that when I thought I was suffering I wasn't and I
was mistaken to think I was as all I was doing is learning and that's
a good thing and no reason to cry over.
As you attempt to answer this
> question you should "learn," that "perfection," and "loving," are loaded
> terms. In other words, high level abstractions which are understood or
> mis-understood in various ways depending on who is using these terms.
>
> As such I could use the form of your argument to counter your argument.
> I could write:
>
> "I would ask myself, is it possible that a perfect loving God would make
> me or anyone else, " cold, hungry, in pain and despair", in order to
> learn. That certainly doesn't seem like a perfect loving God to me."
>
> Now how are you going to address this without digressing into a
> discussion about what is meant by "perfect," and "loving"?
>
> Which shows the form of the argument is rhetorical--or meant to persuade
> by appealing to emotions, and not logical -- or convincing other through
> reason.
>
> If my remarks give you a headache, consider this an example of learning
> through suffering.
LOL they are hard for me to follow and I do appreciate the opportunity
you give me to think. They seem to make sense but I'm not sure what
you are trying to say. Can you rephrase this part for me,
Now how are you going to address this without digressing into a
> discussion about what is meant by "perfect," and "loving"?
>
> Which shows the form of the argument is rhetorical--or meant to persuade
> by appealing to emotions, and not logical -- or convincing other through
> reason.
Thanks, I do appreciate your thoughts and any help you can give me to
learn. I always say if I can't get an answer to a question from inside
and there seems to be a dead end I need to rethink my position as It
might need to be changed.
Debinski
I can't help wondering if your ideas about Eastern philosophy come
ONLY from what you call "neo-advaita." Would you look to mainstream
Christianity for the truth about "the notion of salvation?" If not,
why look to mainstream "eastern theology" or "westernized eastern
theology" for the notion of "enlightenment?" Ramana Maharshi often
referred to the ancient Shakara in a way that -- to me -- exactly
describes the three step process outlined in the Course. It went like
this:
Step 1: The world is illusory
Step 2. Brahman alone is real
Step 3. Brahman is the world.
Translated into Course terms, that would be:
Step 1: The world you see is illusory.
Step 2. God alone is real.
It seems to me that is where what you call "reductionist neo-advaita"
stops, But ancient non-dualism allows the same final step -- which can
only be taken by God -- that the Course outlines:
Step 3: God IS the world (as it was created.) Or more precisely "God
is the universe” or “The Kingdom of God is you.”
There is no reductionism in that view. The only thing it denies is the
"fevered imaginations of ego" which never effected Creation in the
least.
“T 11 D 10. You were willing to accept even death to deny your Father.
But He would not have it so, and so it is NOT so. You still could not
will against Him, and that is why you have no control over the world
you made. It is NOT a world of will, because it is governed by the
desire to be unlike Him. And this desire IS NOT WILL. The world you
made is therefore totally chaotic, governed by arbitrary and senseless
“laws,” and without meaning of ANY kind. For it was made out of what
you do NOT want, projected FROM your mind, because you were AFRAID of
it.
T 11 D 11. Yet this world is ONLY in the mind of its maker, along with
his REAL salvation. Do not believe it is outside of yourself, for only
by recognizing WHERE it is, will you gain control over it. For you DO
have control over your mind, for the mind is the mechanism of
decision. If you will recognize that ALL attack which you perceive, is
in your own mind, and NOWHERE ELSE, you will at last have placed its
source, and where it began it must end. For in this place also lies
salvation. The altar of God, where Christ abideth, is there.
T 11 D 12. You have defiled the altar, but NOT the world. But Christ
has placed the Atonement on the altar FOR you. Bring your perceptions
of the world to this altar, for it is the altar to truth. There you
will see your vision changed, and there you will learn to see truly.
From this place, where God and His Son dwell in peace, and where you
are
welcome, you will look out in peace, and behold the world truly. But
to find the place, you must relinquish your investment in the world as
YOU have projected it, allowing the Holy Spirit to project the real
world TO you, from the altar of God.”
***
T 6 C 14. The difference between the ego’s use of projection and
projection as the Holy Spirit uses it is very simple. The ego projects
to EXCLUDE and therefore to deceive. The Holy Spirit projects by
RECOGNIZING HIMSELF in EVERY mind, and thus perceives them as ONE.
Nothing conflicts in this perception, because what the Holy Spirit
perceives IS the same. Wherever He looks He sees Himself, and because
He is UNITED, He offers the whole Kingdom always. This is the one
message which God gave TO Him, and for which He must speak because
that is what He IS. The peace of God lies in that message, and so the
peace of God lies in YOU.
T 6 C 15. The great peace of the Kingdom shines in your mind forever,
but it must shine OUTWARD to make YOU aware of it. The Holy Spirit was
given you with perfect impartiality, and only by perceiving Him
impartially can you perceive Him at all. The ego is legion, but the
Holy Spirit is one. No darkness abides ANYWHERE in the Kingdom,
so your part is only to allow no darkness to abide in your OWN mind.
This alignment with Light (“Enlightenment”) is unlimited, because it
is in alignment with the Light of the world. Each of us IS the Light
of the world, and by joining our minds IN this Light, we proclaim the
Kingdom of God together and AS ONE.”
Debinski
>
> Especially when both creation and soul/individuality is denied as part
> of the illusion manifest by the One Reality. No imperative in the sense
> that clearly it makes no difference if "one" makes the effort necessary
> to become enlightened, or if "one" simply lives for the immediate
> pleasures of life. Clearly both the enlightened and earthly man in the
> end will be but drops returning to the great Ocean of Ultimate Reality.
>
> As such it seems to me then if there is in fact any real reason to study
> and apply course teaching, that such effort must imply Holiness and
> salvation, and not simply Oneness and Enlightenment.- Hide quoted text -
Philomene
So where in this formulation is the imperative to be enlightened?
After all, an imperative would mean something must be enlightened and it
is necessary to do so.
If Brahman alone is real, then only Brahman could be enlightened, a
claim which is as counter-intuitive as the notion God needs to be saved.
More, and clearly if enlightenment is an imperative for Brahman then
this can only mean that Brahman is not Holy.
>
> Translated into Course terms, that would be:
>
> Step 1: The world you see is illusory.
> Step 2. God alone is real.
Well since we are talking in course terms and what the author actually
writes, Step 2 would be God, God's co-creators, and the real creations
of God's Son's would alone be real. In other words, Course metaphysics
affirms creation and the reality of what God creates.
In short then God and His Kingdom, which necessitates the notion and
affirmation of "Holiness," absent in Ramana Maharshi formulation where
there is a claim God alone is real, "one," perhaps, but not whole or Holy.
Holiness in the course sense, where even apparent fragmentation of God
or Godhead is impossible and denied.
So no. I don't think Ramana Maharshi translates well or accurately into
course terms.
>
> It seems to me that is where what you call "reductionist neo-advaita"
> stops, But ancient non-dualism allows the same final step -- which can
> only be taken by God -- that the Course outlines:
>
> Step 3: God IS the world (as it was created.) Or more precisely "God
> is the universe� or �The Kingdom of God is you.�
Step 3, eh? Clearly all the above phrases and claims have different
connotations depending if one denies God creates, or affirms God creates
real creations.
You are begging the question here, or assuming what you attempting to prove.
Besides, the term "non-dualism," is never mentioned in the course, while
the term "Holiness," is often used to describe God and the Godhead.
As such, it seems to me if someone wishes to apply the term
"non-dualism" to course interpretation, then it would be incumbent on
that person to show "non-dualism," means the same thing or certainly
does not contradict the course notion of "holiness."
Which is unlikely. Since non duality is a reductionist term and holiness
is not reductionist.
>
> There is no reductionism in that view.
If you are mixing the notion of creation with reductionism, it pretty
clear you don't understand the term, reductionism as applied to course
metaphysics or metaphysics in general.
Reductionism
�noun
1. the theory that every complex phenomenon, esp. in biology or
psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic
physical mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon.
2. the practice of simplifying a complex idea, issue, condition, or the
like, esp. to the point of minimizing, obscuring, or distorting it.
In course metaphysics reductionism is the denial of The Son. The Son of
God, Christ is viewed or explained as a metaphor, symbol, or apparent
creation, not in any way a REAL creation.
As I read Wapnick's interpretation, Christ and the Father are one being,
where one cannot determine where one ends and the other begins.
As such, as one being, Father and Son are one being and THE SAME being.
Christ therefore must be an apparent creation, metaphorical and
symbolic, because the reductionist imperative is to reduce everything to
the simplest whole, which is God without creation and God without a son.
Hence the denial of creation and denial of the Son. What for years
around here has been called "The Blob."
The reductionist Blob is supported by the suspect and alien notion of
"non duality," and the type of Eastern metaphysics you claim applies
accurately with course metaphysics.
Yet one can search Eastern metaphysical writings and those of Ramana
Maharshi and never find mention of God's Son. In other words, in Eastern
metaphysics creation and especially creation of Christ is denied for God
sans creation.
Which is exactly why when these above ideas are applied to course
metaphysics they must and inevitable lead to reductionism applied to
course metaphysics.
In contrast to reductionism is the superior course metaphysic of
irreducible relationship.
The only thing it denies is the
> "fevered imaginations of ego" which never effected Creation in the
> least.
>
> �T 11 D 10. You were willing to accept even death to deny your Father.
> But He would not have it so, and so it is NOT so. You still could not
> will against Him, and that is why you have no control over the world
> you made. It is NOT a world of will, because it is governed by the
> desire to be unlike Him. And this desire IS NOT WILL. The world you
> made is therefore totally chaotic, governed by arbitrary and senseless
> �laws,� and without meaning of ANY kind. For it was made out of what
> you do NOT want, projected FROM your mind, because you were AFRAID of
> it.
>
> T 11 D 11. Yet this world is ONLY in the mind of its maker, along with
> his REAL salvation. Do not believe it is outside of yourself, for only
> by recognizing WHERE it is, will you gain control over it. For you DO
> have control over your mind, for the mind is the mechanism of
> decision. If you will recognize that ALL attack which you perceive, is
> in your own mind, and NOWHERE ELSE, you will at last have placed its
> source, and where it began it must end. For in this place also lies
> salvation. The altar of God, where Christ abideth, is there.
>
> T 11 D 12. You have defiled the altar, but NOT the world. But Christ
> has placed the Atonement on the altar FOR you. Bring your perceptions
> of the world to this altar, for it is the altar to truth. There you
> will see your vision changed, and there you will learn to see truly.
> From this place, where God and His Son dwell in peace, and where you
> are
> welcome, you will look out in peace, and behold the world truly. But
> to find the place, you must relinquish your investment in the world as
> YOU have projected it, allowing the Holy Spirit to project the real
> world TO you, from the altar of God.�
>
> ***
>
>
> T 6 C 14. The difference between the ego�s use of projection and
> projection as the Holy Spirit uses it is very simple. The ego projects
> to EXCLUDE and therefore to deceive. The Holy Spirit projects by
> RECOGNIZING HIMSELF in EVERY mind, and thus perceives them as ONE.
> Nothing conflicts in this perception, because what the Holy Spirit
> perceives IS the same. Wherever He looks He sees Himself, and because
> He is UNITED, He offers the whole Kingdom always. This is the one
> message which God gave TO Him, and for which He must speak because
> that is what He IS. The peace of God lies in that message, and so the
> peace of God lies in YOU.
>
> T 6 C 15. The great peace of the Kingdom shines in your mind forever,
> but it must shine OUTWARD to make YOU aware of it. The Holy Spirit was
> given you with perfect impartiality, and only by perceiving Him
> impartially can you perceive Him at all. The ego is legion, but the
> Holy Spirit is one. No darkness abides ANYWHERE in the Kingdom,
> so your part is only to allow no darkness to abide in your OWN mind.
> This alignment with Light (�Enlightenment�) is unlimited, because it
> is in alignment with the Light of the world. Each of us IS the Light
> of the world, and by joining our minds IN this Light, we proclaim the
> Kingdom of God together and AS ONE.�
Carrie
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 01:09:05 +0100, "Pieter" <hrdo...@zonnet.nl>
> meditation. That particular quote is not concerned with any process
> that takes time. You simply drop ALL of your own ideas for a moment,
> no matter where they came from - even if they came from the course -
> and come with wholly empty hands unto your God.
>
> where they come from, that compose the wall of defence against direct
> communication with God.
>
> Your own ideas will return of course, as soon as the meditation is
> over, but at least now you know what it is you have to give to the HS:
> every single bit of past learning. New learning will takes its place
> and as soon as it does it becomes past learning. Eventually you will
> get to the place where you are wholly open to the present and staying
> that way. And that's when there will be nothing to block the
> awareness of Love's Presence.
>
> My two bits, anyway, for what it's worth...
>
> Deborah (BC)
Yes, it's the beginning of one of the lessons.
Debinski
There IS no “imperative to be enlightened” in non-dualism any more
than there is an “imperative to be holy or saved” in A Course in
Miracles. YOU are the one imposing these imperatives and then asking
ME to explain what doesn’t exist except in your own mind. The Course
itself says it does not attempt to teach what Love is because that is
beyond what CAN be taught. If you want to know the “mystery” of
Creation the words of a book -- even A Course in Miracles -- can only
suggest where to look. To find out, you have to be willing to look to
Creation. Although you consistently ignore every passage I offer to
show what the Course actually says about what you claim, I’ll throw
another one in any way.
T 27 I 12. Bring, then, all forms of suffering to Him Who knows that
every one is like the rest. He sees NO differences where none exist,
and He will teach you how each one is CAUSED. None has a DIFFERENT
cause from all the rest, and ALL of them are easily undone
by but a SINGLE lesson truly learned. Salvation is a secret you have
kept but from yourself. The universe proclaims it so. But, to its
witnesses,
you pay no heed at all. For they attest the thing you do not
WANT to know. They seem to keep it secret FROM you. Yet you need
but learn you choose but NOT to listen, NOT to see.
T 27 I 13. How differently will you perceive the world, when this is
recognized! When you forgive the world YOUR guilt, YOU will be
free of it. Its innocence does NOT demand your guilt, nor does YOUR
guiltlessness rest on ITS sins. This is the obvious; a secret kept
from
no-one but yourself. And it is this that has maintained you
SEPARATE from the world, and kept your brother SEPARATE from
you. Now need you but to learn that BOTH of you are innocent OR
guilty. The one thing that is impossible is that you be UNLIKE each
other; that they BOTH be true. This is the only secret yet to learn.
And
it will be NO secret you are healed.
>
>
> > Translated into Course terms, that would be:
>
> > Step 1: The world you see is illusory.
> > Step 2. God alone is real.
>
> Well since we are talking in course terms and what the author actually
> writes, Step 2 would be God, God's co-creators, and the real creations
> of God's Son's would alone be real. In other words, Course metaphysics
> affirms creation and the reality of what God creates.
>
> In short then God and His Kingdom, which necessitates the notion and
> affirmation of "Holiness," absent in Ramana Maharshi formulation where
> there is a claim God alone is real, "one," perhaps, but not whole or Holy.
>
> Holiness in the course sense, where even apparent fragmentation of God
> or Godhead is impossible and denied.
>
> So no. I don't think Ramana Maharshi translates well or accurately into
> course terms.
>
>
>
> > It seems to me that is where what you call "reductionist neo-advaita"
> > stops, But ancient non-dualism allows the same final step -- which can
> > only be taken by God -- that the Course outlines:
>
> > Step 3: God IS the world (as it was created.) Or more precisely "God
> > is the universe” or “The Kingdom of God is you.”
>
> Step 3, eh? Clearly all the above phrases and claims have different
> connotations depending if one denies God creates, or affirms God creates
> real creations.
>
> You are begging the question here, or assuming what you attempting to prove.
>
> Besides, the term "non-dualism," is never mentioned in the course, while
> the term "Holiness," is often used to describe God and the Godhead.
>
> As such, it seems to me if someone wishes to apply the term
> "non-dualism" to course interpretation, then it would be incumbent on
> that person to show "non-dualism," means the same thing or certainly
> does not contradict the course notion of "holiness."
The Course does not define “holiness” as “goodness” but “wholeness.“
I’m not attached to the term “non-duality” YOU are. Back when I first
began to try to converse with you, you were attached to the word
“hologram.” Someone else pointed out that the word “hologram” doesn’t
appear in the Course either, so now you seem to have exchanged that
word for the words “holiness” and “salvation.” To understand ANY of
those terms you have to look beyond them to what they point toward.
Only then will you recognize just how limited ALL concepts are.
>
> Which is unlikely. Since non duality is a reductionist term and holiness
> is not reductionist.
>
So YOU say.
>
> > There is no reductionism in that view.
>
> If you are mixing the notion of creation with reductionism, it pretty
> clear you don't understand the term, reductionism as applied to course
> metaphysics or metaphysics in general.
>
> Reductionism
>
> –noun
> 1. the theory that every complex phenomenon, esp. in biology or
> psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic
> physical mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon.
>
> 2. the practice of simplifying a complex idea, issue, condition, or the
> like, esp. to the point of minimizing, obscuring, or distorting it.
>
> In course metaphysics reductionism is the denial of The Son. The Son of
> God, Christ is viewed or explained as a metaphor, symbol, or apparent
> creation, not in any way a REAL creation.
>
> As I read Wapnick's interpretation, Christ and the Father are one being,
> where one cannot determine where one ends and the other begins.
>
> As such, as one being, Father and Son are one being and THE SAME being.
> Christ therefore must be an apparent creation, metaphorical and
> symbolic, because the reductionist imperative is to reduce everything to
> the simplest whole, which is God without creation and God without a son.
>
> Hence the denial of creation and denial of the Son. What for years
> around here has been called "The Blob."
>
Well, then the choice seems to be to continue to equate “non-duality”
with “The Blob” and argue against “the blob theory” or LOOK to
Creation to find out for yourself if the concept of “non-duality“ is
applicable to the Course concept of “Oneness“ or “Wholeness“ doesn’t
it? No one can do that for you. To me, all the concept of “non-
duality” does is show that the “gap” between subject and object only
SEEMS to exist, which as I keep saying the Course says as well -- “God
is in everything you see.” and “The difference in vision and the way
you see is that vision seeks to join with what you see rather than
keeping it apart from you.” Or, we say “God is and cease to speak.”
Anything that can be SAID or written beyond “God is” is partial and
relative to time/space. So it isn’t that we stop telling stories, it’s
just that we recognize the limitations of those stories.
.reductionist Blob is supported by the suspect and alien notion of
> "non duality," and the type of Eastern metaphysics you claim applies
> accurately with course metaphysics.
>
> Yet one can search Eastern metaphysical writings and those of Ramana
> Maharshi and never find mention of God's Son. In other words, in Eastern
> metaphysics creation and especially creation of Christ is denied for God
> sans creation.
>
Creation isn‘t denied. It is returned to the Creator.
Debinski
> Which is exactly why when these above ideas are applied to course
> metaphysics they must and inevitable lead to reductionism applied to
> course metaphysics.
>
> In contrast to reductionism is the superior course metaphysic of
> irreducible relationship.
>
> The only thing it denies is the
>
>
>
> > "fevered imaginations of ego" which never effected Creation in the
> > least.
>
> > “T 11 D 10. You were willing to accept even death to deny your Father.
> > But He would not have it so, and so it is NOT so. You still could not
> > will against Him, and that is why you have no control over the world
> > you made. It is NOT a world of will, because it is governed by the
> > desire to be unlike Him. And this desire IS NOT WILL. The world you
> > made is therefore totally chaotic, governed by arbitrary and senseless
> > “laws,” and without meaning of ANY kind. For it was made out of what
> > you do NOT want, projected FROM your mind, because you were AFRAID of
> > it.
>
> > T 11 D 11. Yet this world is ONLY in the mind of its maker, along with
> > his REAL salvation. Do not believe it is outside of yourself, for only
> > by recognizing WHERE it is, will you gain control over it. For you DO
> > have control over your mind, for the mind is the mechanism of
> > decision. If you will recognize that ALL attack which you perceive, is
> > in your own mind, and NOWHERE ELSE, you will at last have placed its
> > source, and where it began it must end. For in this place also lies
> > salvation. The altar of God, where Christ abideth, is there.
>
> > T 11 D 12. You have defiled the altar, but NOT the world. But Christ
> > has placed the Atonement on the altar FOR you. Bring your
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Philomene
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:20:06 -0600, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Step 3: God IS the world (as it was created.) Or more precisely "God
>>> is the universe� or �The Kingdom of God is you.�
>> Step 3, eh? Clearly all the above phrases and claims have different
>> connotations depending if one denies God creates, or affirms God creates
>> real creations.
>
> 2 You do not know your joy because you do not know your own
> Self-fullness. 3 Exclude any part of the Kingdom from yourself and you
> are not whole. 4 A split mind cannot perceive its fullness, and needs
> the miracle of its wholeness to dawn upon it and heal it. 5 This
> reawakens the wholeness in it, and restores it to the Kingdom because
> of its acceptance of wholeness. 6 The full appreciation of the mind's
> Self-fullness makes selfishness impossible and extension inevitable. 7
> That is why there is perfect peace in the Kingdom. 8 Spirit is
> fulfilling its function, and only complete fulfillment is peace."
>
> John, I cannot dismiss the idea that the Kingdom is in the Mind of
> God.
Where else would the Kingdom Be in a Universe of thought/mind?
On the other hand I would caution drawing a big circle around everything
and calling that the Mind of God.
It seems to me extension is ontological, rather than pushing into or
past some imagined boundary which somehow separates God from Not-God or
nothingness. I could say the extension is internal. But that's not what
I'm trying to convey. Internal would imply there is somehow an external
to God and I don't wish to imply this. So extension is ontological.
I seems to me what is being described is a planned, lawful, orderly
morphing of God from the simple to the complex. Ontological in the sense
extension of the Kingdom changes the structure of God within a larger
plan of lawful, orderly and purposeful change.
When you say "from this perspective," God's creations are God. Hence
collectively, "God is," or "All is God," you are right, but these
notions are incomplete relative to the above information given by the
author.
From the text we get this formulation:
God is you and the Holy Spirit, You are God and the Holy Spirit, and the
Holy Spirit is You and God.
As such if you simply plug in this formulation for "God," in your
sentence, "God's creations are in God," you get:
"you and the Holy Spirit's creations are in you and the Holy Spirit."
Which certainly demands some contemplation, but again suggests to me
that what we are being told is "God," began as a singularity or Blob,
then morphed through thinking/creating into what I call a irreducible
relationship, between Father/Son; mind/thought. In other words, after
creation one can no longer reduce "God," to the Blob. Creation morphed
His ontology or existential structure. And that was the plan.
Just a thought.
Pieter
"Deborah" <deb...@anywhere.ca> schreef in bericht
news:rrjqh59j43ip2er12...@4ax.com...
> meditation.
Agreed!
> That particular quote is not concerned with any process
> that takes time. You simply drop ALL of your own ideas for a moment,
> no matter where they came from - even if they came from the course -
> and come with wholly empty hands unto your God.
Yes.
> And the lesson inherent in this is that it is our own ideas, no matter
> where they come from, that compose the wall of defence against direct
> communication with God.
>
> Your own ideas will return of course, as soon as the meditation is
> over, but at least now you know what it is you have to give to the HS:
> every single bit of past learning. New learning will takes its place
> and as soon as it does it becomes past learning. Eventually you will
> get to the place where you are wholly open to the present and staying
> that way. And that's when there will be nothing to block the
> awareness of Love's Presence.
>
> My two bits, anyway, for what it's worth...
Very well said; thanks!
>
> Deborah (BC)
>
Philomene
> There IS no �imperative to be enlightened� in non-dualism any more
> than there is an �imperative to be holy or saved� in A Course in
> Miracles.
Lol. Only someone of the persuasion she knows the course better than the
author could have written such a wacko sentence.
1) You are holy. There is no imperative to be holy, and also no claim
on my part that there is any imperative to be holy.
2) Atonement, undoing, correction of errors, all of which is described
as salvation is necessary to end the apparent separation. Necessary as
in Atonement matters. Necessary in the sense, if we continue believing
in and thinking our errors the apparent separation will continue.
Necessary and an imperative in the sense, that correcting errors and not
correcting errors do not have the same result.
YOU are the one imposing these imperatives and then asking
> ME to explain what doesn�t exist except in your own mind.
Hmmm ... hardly.
If we are talking about what the author writes and not what you choose
to believe, you can hardly charge me with imposing imperatives on the
authors notion of Atonement/salvation.
I'd say it stands to reason if ACIM was an elective course not a
required course, there would be little concern among course students
about the non-requirement and non-imperative of Atonement/salvation.
The Course
> itself says it does not attempt to teach what Love is because that is
> beyond what CAN be taught.
So what? This certainly is not evidence the author does not claim to
teach, or that somehow Atonement/salvation cannot be learned and
applied, or that the author does not teach Atonement/salvation must be
learned, applied and accomplished to end the apparent separation.
If you want to know the �mystery� of
> Creation the words of a book -- even A Course in Miracles -- can only
> suggest where to look. To find out, you have to be willing to look to
> Creation. Although you consistently ignore every passage I offer to
> show what the Course actually says about what you claim, I�ll throw
> another one in any way.
>
> T 27 I 12. Bring, then, all forms of suffering to Him Who knows that
> every one is like the rest. He sees NO differences where none exist,
> and He will teach you how each one is CAUSED. None has a DIFFERENT
> cause from all the rest, and ALL of them are easily undone
> by but a SINGLE lesson truly learned. Salvation is a secret you have
> kept but from yourself. The universe proclaims it so. But, to its
> witnesses,
> you pay no heed at all. For they attest the thing you do not
> WANT to know. They seem to keep it secret FROM you. Yet you need
> but learn you choose but NOT to listen, NOT to see.
>
> T 27 I 13. How differently will you perceive the world, when this is
> recognized! When you forgive the world YOUR guilt, YOU will be
> free of it. Its innocence does NOT demand your guilt, nor does YOUR
> guiltlessness rest on ITS sins. This is the obvious; a secret kept
> from
> no-one but yourself. And it is this that has maintained you
> SEPARATE from the world, and kept your brother SEPARATE from
> you. Now need you but to learn that BOTH of you are innocent OR
> guilty. The one thing that is impossible is that you be UNLIKE each
> other; that they BOTH be true. This is the only secret yet to learn.
> And
> it will be NO secret you are healed.
Great quotes. So how do these quotes invalidate the idea that the author
teaches salvation, and teaches salvation is necessary?
>
>
>>
>>> Translated into Course terms, that would be:
>>> Step 1: The world you see is illusory.
>>> Step 2. God alone is real.
>> Well since we are talking in course terms and what the author actually
>> writes, Step 2 would be God, God's co-creators, and the real creations
>> of God's Son's would alone be real. In other words, Course metaphysics
>> affirms creation and the reality of what God creates.
>>
>> In short then God and His Kingdom, which necessitates the notion and
>> affirmation of "Holiness," absent in Ramana Maharshi formulation where
>> there is a claim God alone is real, "one," perhaps, but not whole or Holy.
>>
>> Holiness in the course sense, where even apparent fragmentation of God
>> or Godhead is impossible and denied.
>>
>> So no. I don't think Ramana Maharshi translates well or accurately into
>> course terms.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It seems to me that is where what you call "reductionist neo-advaita"
>>> stops, But ancient non-dualism allows the same final step -- which can
>>> only be taken by God -- that the Course outlines:
>>> Step 3: God IS the world (as it was created.) Or more precisely "God
>>> is the universe� or �The Kingdom of God is you.�
>> Step 3, eh? Clearly all the above phrases and claims have different
>> connotations depending if one denies God creates, or affirms God creates
>> real creations.
>>
>> You are begging the question here, or assuming what you attempting to prove.
>>
>> Besides, the term "non-dualism," is never mentioned in the course, while
>> the term "Holiness," is often used to describe God and the Godhead.
>>
>> As such, it seems to me if someone wishes to apply the term
>> "non-dualism" to course interpretation, then it would be incumbent on
>> that person to show "non-dualism," means the same thing or certainly
>> does not contradict the course notion of "holiness."
>
> The Course does not define �holiness� as �goodness� but �wholeness.�
Oh, geez. That's certainly a Barney the Dinosaur moment.
Nowhere have I defined holiness as goodness. Everywhere I have asserted
holiness speaks to wholeness.
The argument which zings right over your head is Eastern metaphysics
claims "Oneness," for God but not wholeness.
Nor can wholeness be credibly claimed for Brahman when Brahman is
fragmenting Itself or apparently fragmenting Itself into innumerable
dream figures. That's pretty much the definition of an Unholy God.
> I�m not attached to the term �non-duality� YOU are.
Well Debrinski, I never apply the term non-duality in course study. You
have several times.
So who's attached to the term?
Back when I first
> began to try to converse with you, you were attached to the word
> �hologram.� Someone else pointed out that the word �hologram� doesn�t
> appear in the Course either, so now you seem to have exchanged that
> word for the words �holiness� and �salvation.�
To understand ANY of
> those terms you have to look beyond them to what they point toward.
> Only then will you recognize just how limited ALL concepts are.
Well sure. It like Brahman, when people try to equate a claim of
Brahman's oneness with wholeness, and this doesn't fly. Got to watch
where these concepts point.
>
>> Which is unlikely. Since non duality is a reductionist term and holiness
>> is not reductionist.
>>
>
> So YOU say.
Well I can say because I can make a rational argument for the above claim.
You are certainly welcome to make a rational counter argument against
the claim.
>
>
>>> There is no reductionism in that view.
>> If you are mixing the notion of creation with reductionism, it pretty
>> clear you don't understand the term, reductionism as applied to course
>> metaphysics or metaphysics in general.
>>
>> Reductionism
>>
>> �noun
>> 1. the theory that every complex phenomenon, esp. in biology or
>> psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic
>> physical mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon.
>>
>> 2. the practice of simplifying a complex idea, issue, condition, or the
>> like, esp. to the point of minimizing, obscuring, or distorting it.
>>
>> In course metaphysics reductionism is the denial of The Son. The Son of
>> God, Christ is viewed or explained as a metaphor, symbol, or apparent
>> creation, not in any way a REAL creation.
>>
>> As I read Wapnick's interpretation, Christ and the Father are one being,
>> where one cannot determine where one ends and the other begins.
>>
>> As such, as one being, Father and Son are one being and THE SAME being.
>> Christ therefore must be an apparent creation, metaphorical and
>> symbolic, because the reductionist imperative is to reduce everything to
>> the simplest whole, which is God without creation and God without a son.
>>
>> Hence the denial of creation and denial of the Son. What for years
>> around here has been called "The Blob."
>>
>
> Well, then the choice seems to be to continue to equate �non-duality�
> with �The Blob� and argue against �the blob theory� or LOOK to
> Creation to find out for yourself if the concept of �non-duality� is
> applicable to the Course concept of �Oneness� or �Wholeness� doesn�t
> it? No one can do that for you. To me, all the concept of �non-
> duality� does is show that the �gap� between subject and object only
> SEEMS to exist, which as I keep saying the Course says as well -- �God
> is in everything you see.� and �The difference in vision and the way
> you see is that vision seeks to join with what you see rather than
> keeping it apart from you.� Or, we say �God is and cease to speak.�
> Anything that can be SAID or written beyond �God is� is partial and
> relative to time/space. So it isn�t that we stop telling stories, it�s
> just that we recognize the limitations of those stories.
>
> .reductionist Blob is supported by the suspect and alien notion of
>> "non duality," and the type of Eastern metaphysics you claim applies
>> accurately with course metaphysics.
>>
>> Yet one can search Eastern metaphysical writings and those of Ramana
>> Maharshi and never find mention of God's Son. In other words, in Eastern
>> metaphysics creation and especially creation of Christ is denied for God
>> sans creation.
>>
>
> Creation isn�t denied. It is returned to the Creator.
Are you sure?
How does that follow your posted axiom that everything you see is
illusionary. And only Brahman is real?
Besides, and clearly this would be another blatant divergent from course
metaphysics where creation is eternal, not recycled.
Philomene
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:07:25 -0600, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In other words, after
> >creation one can no longer reduce "God," to the Blob. Creation morphed
> >His ontology or existential structure. And that was the plan.
>
> bringing the concepts of time and change to God.
Yes, that's true. On the other hand we are cautioned that God does not
change by creating because creating is what God does.
There are also remarks that in creation God became dependent on the
Son and the Son dependent on The Father.
If this is outside of time and must be understood as changeless,
nevertheless what is this but an ontological shift to dependence,
indicative that God creates his own rules and laws by which He
creates?
What are we to think of the Kingdom of Heaven consisting of
innumerable Sons and sons of Sons, all Gods and somehow all existing
in perfect harmony, and somehow each adding to the ever increasing
Kingdom and the totality of the Father?
I suggest these remarks wouldn't have been made by the author unless
he wished us to contemplate these remarks so we have a hint of what
we are.
Not taught by the
> course. God is changeless and what He created has always been ansd
> will always be, being eternal, like God.
>
> Deborah (BC)
Carrie
>
> Just pulling your chain, Cletus. Tit for tat - as it were.
Good thing this is an unmoderated ng. I know some discsussion boards
you'd be banned for something like that LOL
Debinski
>>> Great quotes. So how do these quotes invalidate the idea that the author
teaches salvation, and teaches salvation is necessary? <<
It’s beyond me how you can assume my purpose in posting those quotes
was to invalidate salvation. The purpose -- as it always is -- was not
to invalidate anything except your illusions that salvation is
something that can be achieved or attained through belief in concepts
or through “learning/teaching the right metaphysics.” The “argument’
-- which isn’t an argument at all -- that consistently “zings right
over your head” is that salvation isn’t a secret, isn’t hidden and can
be observed by anyone, anywhere, anytime who is willing to look,
whether they have ever read A Course in Miracles or any other “sacred
book” or not. The universe proclaims it. But to SEE/understand it, you
have to be willing to look beyond the words to the Reality the words
point toward.
> Debinski: I’m not attached to the term “non-duality” YOU are.
>> Philomeme: Well Debrinski, I never apply the term non-duality in course study. You
have several times. So who's attached to the term? <<
I don’t know about “several times” but I did use it a couple of times
because you seem so obsessed with arguing against it. I don’t know why
I thought you might be willing to consider the possibility that just
because YOU think “non-dualism” portrays a “fragmented and unholy God”
doesn’t mean it does.
Until I read your other post yesterday I didn’t understand that
obsession. It’s pretty clear now though. If I believed my creator had
a beginning as a blob, I would be terrified of returning to blobness
and putting forth great effort to argue against blobness, too.
T 10 B 4. To be alone is to be separated from INFINITY, but how can
this be, if INFINITY has no end? No-one can BE beyond the limitless,
because what has NO limits, must be everywhere. 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?
I and my Father are one with YOU, for you are part of us. Do you
REALLY believe that part of God can be missing or lost to Him?
> > Deb: Creation isn‘t denied. It is returned to the Creator.
>
> Philomeme: Are you sure?
>
> How does that follow your posted axiom that everything you see is
> illusionary. And only Brahman is real?
> ...
I didn't post an axiom that "everything you see is illusionary" and
"only Brahman is real." What I suggested was that the "neo-advaita
proponents" you argue against and your misunderstanding of non-dualism
seems to stop at the second step of "everything is illusion" or "there
is no world." What *I* posted was "God IS the world (or universe), God
is in everything you see" and the difference in vision and the way
you see is that vision seeks to join with what is seen instead of
keeping it apart from you. As usual, you ignored what I actually wrote
and argued against what you think I meant.
Debinski
george
> > How so? In a paragraph below you reframe " cold, hungry, in pain and
> > despair" as "learning to be happy." Hence in your reasoning, " cold,
> > hungry, in pain and despair" as learning, ie, suffering as learning is
> > something a perfect,loving God would lay on you and others.
>
> > If you wish to convey the thought that suffering is learning, or we
> > learn through suffering, why not say this directly?
>
> Because here is where what's true and what's false comes into play and
> a very important part of my learning. The suffering is false and comes
> from ego perception and the learning and seeing the suffering as never
> being true comes from the Holy Spirit's eyes and is true. This is how
> healing is accomplished IMO. Letting go of the false and accepting the
> truth.
I wanted to add a few comments on this because I think it's so
important to my learning.
The split mind does believe that, "that suffering is learning."
The thing is I'm trying to let God heal my split mind. If I choose to
hang on at ALL to the notion that I suffered in the past instead of
replacing that perception COMPLETELY that it was perfect and what I
needed to learn then I'm choosing to not let God shine away my ego and
my split mind.
Why because both perceptions are available NOW. The difference being
that one perception leads to PEACE and acceptance of the past that is
was perfect and as it was supposed to be. Thus leading to joy in the
present.
The other perception that I suffered in my struggles drags the past
into the now that it wasn't perfect BECAUSE I suffered. To choose to
believe that it was suffering at all condemns the present instead of
releasing it to the glory that is the now. The word suffering means,
"endure (emotional pain) " and this means God HAS to be cruel. He did
this to me! Instead of understanding I did it to myself by believing I
could suffer INSTEAD of learn.
Both perceptions ARE available so why now that I understand would I
CHOOSE to ever believe that I CAN suffer in the past? So I can bitch
and play God that it "should have gone this different way" instead of
accepting what happened and being at peace? I was just mistaken when I
thought I was suffering but actually I was learning a lesson.
I'm not perfect but I do know now what to do when I've chosen insanely
to suffer. I have to ask within to see things differently and I always
get an answer that leads to peace.
This is one of the reasons I'm so much happier now than I used to be.
I used to suffer and rethink how it should have been over and over
dragging and reliving a sad suffering past into the present. Now I
learned how to let God take it from me and see whatever happened as it
actually was. A good thing and nothing to be upset or suffer over.
Philomene
> On Dec 7, 7:34 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Great quotes. So how do these quotes invalidate the idea that the author
> teaches salvation, and teaches salvation is necessary? <<
>
> was to invalidate salvation.
Its beyond you because this isn't my assumption.
you wrote
"There IS no �imperative to be enlightened� in non-dualism any more than
there is an �imperative to be holy or saved� in A Course in Miracles."
This denies any imperative attached to salvation in ACIM, but does not
deny salvation.
What's beyond me is why you would write such a self-evidently wrong
claim and then attempt to support it by wild accusations that I'm
imposing this imperative on the writings of the author of ACIM.
The purpose -- as it always is -- was not
> to invalidate anything except your illusions that salvation is
> something that can be achieved or attained through belief in concepts
> or through �learning/teaching the right metaphysics.�
Lol !!! Its always amusing to see an irrational spiritual know-it-all
savaging the concepts of others with a barrage of concepts.
There seems to be much confusion in your mind about my concepts.
I look around and see no imperative to be either "enlightened," or
"saved." Instead, my immediate perceptual apprehension is a physical
world where living things, eat, sleep, shit, and die.
True, this is a concept. But clearly its also true anything adding to,
disputing, or invalidating this concept is also a concept.
Take the concept of Brahman, or better lets examine what the word
Brahman purports to point. Perhaps a direct, awesome revelation
experience of "All there is," happening "All at the same time," is proof
of a unifying reality which is the source of all being.
On the other hand, perhaps all a so-called direct revelation of
God/Brahman proves is an over production of serotonin produces strange
effects in the brain.
If you accept the former interpretation and reject the latter, what are
you doing but accepting and investing in a concept?
If you wish to further compound the error by insisting your beliefs are
not concepts at all but true and "The Truth," then you are claiming
Gnosis or direct knowledge of The Truth.
With a claim of Gnosis, one enters the realm of the irrational, which at
first might seem like the peachy keen, anti-concept,
anti-intellectualism you are attempting to convey, until one gets that
the realm of the irrational is peopled by sociopaths, psychotics, mass
murderers and religious/spiritual fundamentalists of all persuasions.
When you start spouting and ranting about other peoples illusions and
concepts as compared to your truth and your alleged direct apprehension
of truth, and "The Truth," without concepts, you miss that Gnosis and
the claim to Gnosis are also a concepts and can only be a concepts.
In philosophy, this type of circular, irrational claim is generally
referred to as "self-refuting bullshit."
george
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:13:31 -0800 (PST), george
>
> <georgeculol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Both perceptions ARE available so why now that I understand would I
> >CHOOSE to ever believe that I CAN suffer in the past? So I can bitch
> >and play God that it "should have gone this different way" instead of
> >accepting what happened and being at peace?
>
> choices and suffer the consequences without blaming God. And that is
> how people usually learn.
>
> Deborah (BC)
This is how I learned also. Now I understand to take the next step in
my learning I need to accept that there was no consequences to SUFFER
over but only great outcomes to rejoice over because they taught me
something about myself.
Since I believe God is a perfect loving being it would be impossible
for him to have me suffer. I was mistaken when I thought I was
suffering in the past. I realize this now as I choose to see things
with the Holy Spirits loving gaze that sees learning INSTEAD of
suffering. One perception heals the past and my split mind and one
doesn't. Both perceptions are available so it only a choice of which
one I want. The best part is one perception comes from the Holy Spirit
and is true and one doesn't and isn't true.
This is a key point because it leaves out the ego's perception
entirely, as it teaches me the ego doesn't exist in truth and neither
do it's insane perceptions. This IS healing of the split mind and
leads to sanity, while trying to accept both as true is maintaining
the split and my insanity.
Philomene
> You are using a strange word with "dependence" there.
What you might mean is the author uses a strange word with "dependence."
"Yours is the independence of creation, not of autonomy. Your whole
creative function lies in your complete dependence on God, Whose
function He shares with you. By His willingness to share it, He became
as dependent on you as you are on Him. Do not ascribe the egos arrogance
to Him Who wills not to be independent of you. He has included you in
His Autonomy. Can you believe that autonomy is meaningful apart from
Him? The belief in ego autonomy is costing you the knowledge of your
dependence on God, in which your freedom lies. The ego sees all
dependency as threatening, and has twisted even your longing for God
into a means of establishing itself. But do not be deceived by its
interpretation of your conflict."
More --the phrase, "He became as dependent .. " indicates a state where
He (God) was not dependent.
Philomene
> eternal - that He had a beginning and ergo, will have an end. UYou
> sure you want to say that?
Well how do you read, "He became as dependent .. "
When clearly the author could have written, "always dependent," or
eternally dependent,"
At any rate, it makes no sense to hold me responsible for interpreting a
time dependent phrase as a state dependent phrase, on the charge of
time dependence.
george
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:28:40 -0800 (PST), george
>
> <georgeculol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Since I believe God is a perfect loving being it would be impossible
> >for him to have me suffer. I was mistaken when I thought I was
> >suffering in the past.
>
> your little "m" mind, George.
Or perhaps it is :)
There is a crucial question in the
> course I wonder if you have ever asked yourself: "Who is the you who
> is living in this world?"
This is another one of those questions and statements like, time
doesn't exist. There is no world. To say I'm not living in this world
to me makes no sense to me. Maybe in time and in truth it's true and I
don't know it yet but it makes no sense FMPOV now and to say it does
would be lying to myself. The question then would be since I do
believe I live here now. How do I find my true self, if this isn't it?
That is what healing of the split mind and my choice of perception is
all about. Finding my way back to my true reality. This is why IMO
ACIM was written and why I need it.
If it's not the you who God created, then
> perhaps you need to look to the you who God created to see if there
> has ever been any suffering there. I doubt it. The Holy Spirit is
> the part of the split mind that is said to be our own right mind. Do
> you think the Holy Spirit suffers?
No I don't. That's why the Holy Spirit sees things as they are in
truth, that there is never any REASON to suffer. Only my choice to not
see through his eyes can ever lead to suffering.
>
> You are twisting course teachings in a way that, to me, is grotesque,
Can you explain to me how you think I'm twisting ACIM teaching? What
do you think I'm saying that's not in agreement with ACIM?
> because the idea that you are not who you think you are, this illusory
> self that lives in this world, is one that you are not able to make
> any sense of.
>
> But I would ask you to consider a lesson that was a very powerful
> lesson in my life. I got to this lesson on the day I had major
> surgery, nearly 20 years ago.
> _______________________________________________
> Lesson 248
>
> Whatever suffers is not part of me.
>
> I have disowned the truth. 2 Now let me be as faithful in disowning
> falsity. 3 Whatever suffers is not part of me. 4 What grieves is not
> myself. 5 What is in pain is but illusion in my mind. 6 What dies was
> never living in reality, and did but mock the truth about myself. 7
> Now I disown self-concepts and deceits and lies about the holy Son of
> God. 8 Now am I ready to accept him back as God created him, and as he
> is.
>
> [Father, my ancient love for You returns, and lets me love Your Son
> again as well. 2 Father, I am as You created me. 3 Now is Your Love
> remembered, and my own. 4 Now do I understand that they are one.]
> ________________________________________________
>
> The thing is not to deny that the body suffers. Of course it does.
The body CAN'T suffer. Only the mind can. the body can send signals to
the brain but without the mind they mean nothing. It's the mind that
chooses suffering when it's mistaken about what it is in truth.
> The story of the body's life is often filled with loss and suffering.
This is how the ego and it's perceptions are dragged into the present
IMO. If I choose to drag these perceptions into the present I'm not
letting the Holy Spirit heal my mind that only learning and gain are
possible in truth and that loss and suffering come from my
misperceptions. I could ALWAYS find a different perception that
doesn't include suffering and loss if I ask for one and in the new
perception comes peace and joy instead of pain and sorrow.
> The thing is to remember that I am not a body but a spiritual being.
> I know you know this, but you don't seem to know that this is how
> simple it is to see that God does not cause suffering.
God doesn't cause suffering because in truth it doesn't exist even in
this world EXCEPT in the mind that hasn't figured it out yet by it's
own experience. I've explained how the Holy Spirit took my suffering
away with my drug addiction in the present AND in the past by
reinterpreting my perceptions with truthful ones. Now I know it was a
good thing and nothing to be sad about. When I was sad in the past it
was because I was mistaken and didn't know better yet that I got a
wonderful gift with my drug addiction. The opportunity to KNOW my
happiness doesn't come from drugs and alcohol but from within myself.
The course
> states very clearly that God did not create bodies. It is our own
> miscreations that suffer and suffer they sure as hell do.
Only the mind that wants to suffer does and only until it understands
that suffering doesn't exist in truth and that there is ALWAYS another
way to look at things that doesn't lead to suffering but to joy.
The lesson
> is to quit identifying with our miscreations - the body and the false
> self associated with it. They are but illusion.
And by understanding that the body and the ego is the false self all
my mis-creations are shined away by my choice to see them with the
Holy Spirit's eyes that see ONLY the truth. Only what God created
exists in truth. Truth is EVERYWHERE so it has to be here.The God of
love didn't and doesn't make anyone suffer that is always each minds
choice on how they want to see the world.
Debinski
> Debinski wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 7:34 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Great quotes. So how do these quotes invalidate the idea that the author
> > teaches salvation, and teaches salvation is necessary? <<
>
> > was to invalidate salvation.
>
> Its beyond you because this isn't my assumption.
>
> you wrote
>
> there is an “imperative to be holy or saved” in A Course in Miracles."
>
> This denies any imperative attached to salvation in ACIM, but does not
> deny salvation.
>
> What's beyond me is why you would write such a self-evidently wrong
> claim and then attempt to support it by wild accusations that I'm
> imposing this imperative on the writings of the author of ACIM.<
>
> The purpose -- as it always is -- was not
>
> > to invalidate anything except your illusions that salvation is
> > something that can be achieved or attained through belief in concepts
> > or through “learning/teaching the right metaphysics.”
Since I never made the claims you are arguing with and refuting, what
does any of this have to do with me? Someone is certainly confused.
<smile>
Debinski