The Forgiven World and Space-Time
Lee Flynn
I'm going to take advantage of our lull here, to just offer up this
retouched essay, from Feb this year, in hopes of perhaps stirring
a little more discussion than it generated, last time through.
I've mentioned before that I have some unconventional opinions
about the Course's message and purpose, and this piece stakes
out alot of that territory, with strong reliance on Course quotes.
Anyway, it's not light reading, but hopefully worth it to some. And
any willingness to challenge the reasoning that the essay builds
upon, of whatever critical nature, is most welcome.
So have at it, or don't. Take what ever is useful, and leave the
rest. I can only promise that I'm not spouting, and that there is
an internal logic to both the quotes, and my exploration, that may
be of interest.
I'm just fishing for the possibility of a stimulating exchange that
will refine or develop my presentation of this relatively 'uncommon'
perspective.
Thanks in advance to any who comment (even you, Joe ;)
~ Lee
=================
Hi all,
Given that we have once again been quoting from the passage
about man being "placed" in the world of space-time, I
thought it might be useful to offer this analysis of what I take
the Course to actually *mean* by that very important concept,
so that we don't mistakenly apply the phrase as descriptive
of <God> having "placed" man within the realm of space-time.
I will show that the Course describes both our initial, *pristine*
experience of space-time, and a <subsequent>, qualitative shift
in man's *awareness* of space-time that introduced an
illusory *experience* of both the realm and his own identity.
It's the onset of this mistaken, illusory *version* of both self
and realm that the Course refers to as having " placed " man
' within ' the physical world.
Before I begin, I'd like to offer an underlying thought that I've
found especially helpful to my understanding of the Course,
and that I find informs every encounter with its message :
: The meaning most fruitfully assigned to the Course's use
: of the term 'illusion' is that it addresses the mistaken nature
: of my *relationship* to that which I experience, rather than
: being descriptive of the elements, themselves.
: Further, every distorted relationship - or illusion - originates
: with a distorted sense of * identity *.
___________________________________________________
Taking two key selections that address the world of space-time,
"The world WAS a way of healing the Separation, and the
Atonement is the GUARANTEE that the device will ultimately
do so."
______________________________ and
"Ultimately, of course, space is as meaningless as time.
The concept is really one of space-time BELIEF. The
physical world exists only because man can use it to
correct his UNBELIEF, which placed him in it originally.
As long as man KNEW he did not need anything, the
whole device was unnecessary."
... I find these two passages to present a *major* epistemological
statement regarding both the nature of the Separation, and the
nature of the "physical world."
The first selection addresses what I refer to as the *utility*
(or usefulness) of the world -- being the failsafe design that allows
the mis-perceived version of the world to be <used> by Holy Spirit
as a *device* to <heal> the Separation. It's perhaps useful to keep
the sentence in mind as we proceed:
"The world WAS a way of healing the Separation, and
the Atonement is the GUARANTEE
that the device will ultimately do so."
So the Atonement GUARANTEES that the world we experience
will ultimately serve its designed utility as a **device** to heal
the Separation.
Turning now to the space--time paragraph, above ... It is certainly
a bit daunting, but so very rich! 'So much wrapped up in just a few
sentences. Let's go through the sentences one by one to see
what we can discover.
"Ultimately, of course, space is as meaningless as time.
The concept is really one of space--time BELIEF."
OK ... the Author is telling me that neither 'space' nor 'time' are
what he chooses to speak of. Rather, he is addressing the
**concept** of BELIEF in space -- time. It's this BELIEF that is
the key concept he wishes to develop for us.
The sentence that follows, at once 1)describes our mistaken
relationship with the space-time realm, 2)reveals the intrinsic
' utility ' embedded into our distorted -- or illusory -- version of
'the world' and 3)explains the initial <cause> of that illusory
perspecive, as well as its <result>:
"The physical world exists only because man can use it
to correct his UNBELIEF, which placed him in it originally."
Thus, its utility is to correct " UNBELIEF, " which was error's <cause>.
The <result> was to "place" man within "the physcial world".
As is often the case with what I read in the Course, I find it helpful
to go to the end of the passage and work backward for clues
as to the clearest understanding of the thought. So here, if we
start in earnest with the fourth and final sentence of the paragraph,
"As long as man knew he did not need anything, the whole
device was unnecessary.",
I'm told here that the whole device (of using the physical world to
correct man's UNBELIEF) only became necessary when man *forgot*
that he "did not need anything".
So man's prior awareness of his perfect condition, free of need,
was impacted by a *forgetfulness* that led to his experience of
needs.
#A related passage that clarifies this point about *needs* and
the Separation, is this one:
"Until the Separation, which is a better term than the Fall,
nothing was lacking. This meant that man had no needs at all.
If he had not deprived himself, he would never have
experienced them."
Now, working back again, across the last two sentences of our passage,
"The physical world exists only because man can use it
to correct his UNBELIEF, which placed him in it originally.
As long as man knew he did not need anything, the
whole device was unnecessary."
... I learn that man's 'forgetting of what he knew' is a working
*definition* of UNBELIEF -- the first cause, as it were, that led to
man's prevailing and wholly illusory space--time BELIEF.
(This is the profound <dissociation> that the Course describes
as the mechanism of Self-forgetting, which in turn spawns the
ego identity.)
At this point, I can almost equate the three concepts:
UNBELIEF = space--time BELIEF = Separation.
#The passage's paradoxical framing of BELIEF and UNBELIEF is easier
to grasp if we remember the Course's admonition that the mind cannot
serve two masters. In that sense, man's BELIEF in space--time becomes
the <nature> of man's UNBELIEF (or forgetting of his timeless Home
and boundless Truth).
OK, now ... The Author explains, above, that man's space--time BELIEF
is what originally " placed " him "within" the 'physical world' -- which is
nonetheless adorned with endless means to coax his memory.
I understand that to mean that man became *ensnared* specifically
by the onset of "space--time BELIEF", and thus became seemingly
rooted into a dense and *illusory* experience of the physical world --
including his identification with the body. And the counterfeit 'reality'
of the ego arises.
OK, so are we done?
Not quite. ;) Let's really mix it up now, get in and swim among its
thoughts. Again, we have,
"Ultimately, of course, space is as meaningless as time.
The concept is really one of space--time BELIEF. The
physical world exists only because man can use it to
correct his UNBELIEF, which placed him in it originally.
As long as man knew he did not need anything, the whole
device was unnecessary."
What began as mind-numbing paradox is feeling much more inviting. ;)
Recapping quickly, I glean that man's UNBELIEF *placed* him originally
within a BELIEF in the physical world ... a 'world' that can nevertheless
be used to <correct> the erring UNBELIEF. Also, I'm told that PRIOR
to the Self-forgetting that <led> both to man's UNBELIEF, and to the
restorative value of the "physical world" as device to GUARANTEE the
mind's Atonement, man KNEW he did not NEED ANYTHING.
His awareness and Identity were aligned with his Truth, and there
was no dimension, whatever, of lack or 'need'. That is, until he
<deprived> himself via the dissociation described in the Course --
which left his splintered mind and experience 'guided' by the utter
seduction and distortion of the egoic identity.
So .... ' KEY question, here: Is it correct to assume that while man
knew nothing of needs, he did not walk this realm? Or that when
he remembers, he'll depart ?
Most Course students would say, "Of course." Right?
Well, hold the phone. What if we can believe man capable of
experiencing this realm *without* the BELIEF in space-time, and
while *remembering* what most have forgotten ?
Well, isn't that what we're told in the Course that Jesus
demonstrated !?
Is it possible that Jesus <proved> the pristine innocence of
space-time, itself, when he overcame "the world", by overcoming
the UNBELIEF that had "placed" (or 'ensnared') him in it, originally" ?
Could it be, after all, merely this distorted BELIEF in space-time,
and the egoic <version> of the world that results, which is being
most meaningfully described in the Course as * illusory * -- rather
than the entire realm of space--time, itself ??
What if the Course is actually saying that it's <only> this mistaken
BELIEF that perceptually distorts and *transforms* a pristine and holy
realm of space-time into this mad, consensus version of the "world" --
that in no way is 'real' ( i.e., no longer reflective of the truth ) ??
What if the Course's purpose is precisely to persuade us that a
radiantly blessed and forgiven realm attends our awareness -- here,
or 'anywhere' that mind engages its creation -- and that it's only our
mistaken, illusory *construct* of the world that is NOT real, and
thus does NOT 'exist'. ... Simply because it *misperceives*
space-time. ... and seems, as well, to make of this psycho-physical
sensory unit a separated, encapsulated 'body' ?
What if every *common* understanding regarding "the world" or
"the body" -- including our most "spiritually informed" notions of
either, reflects this baseline, *illusory relationship* with all we
behold or contemplate -- including our Course interpretations ??
Maybe the "real world"' describes what would become of this realm
were its authentic relationship to our minds and Identity suddenly
restored or Remembered. Maybe having chosen to *experience*
this realm is only mistakenly thought to <equate> with Separation,
and the realm of space-time, itself, innocently awaits our full
re-cognition, the restorative of Christ's vision -- and the mind's
guaranteed Atonement.
In that event, it isn't at all our innocent 'dreaming' excursion across
the space-time 'realm', but merely the *forgetful condition* of our
awareness <amidst> the realm, that the Atonement addresses
through the GUARANTEED *device* of the world's saving grace
( that of it's failsafe utility, when used by Holy Spirit ).
The greatest gift -- and greatest challenge -- of the Course is to
know that heaven on earth ABIDES, every precious moment, and
awaits only my sufficient willingness for Holy Spirit's restoral of
the fully lucid, holy awareness I denied _myself_.
Love and miracles abound, Heaven abides !
Lee
( all quotes are urtext of ACIM )
Noggin
throne of a bloated cult apologist.
What else is there to discuss?
"Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net> wrote in message
news:zksdb.161742$3o3.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
~Deborah
~Deborah
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Noggin"
Nancy Lorieau
I enjoyed reading your essay. Thank you. It certainly makes one reflect. My
view is that the course's PURPOSE is our healing here in the world. And it
seems to me that it says that what is beyond this world is also beyond our
concern at this time. Here's a quote:
"T-25.I.7. All this takes note of time and place as if they were discrete,
for while you think that part of you is separate, the concept of a Oneness
joined as One is meaningless. 2 It is apparent that a mind so split could
never be the Teacher of a Oneness which unites all things within Itself. 3
And so What is within this mind, and does unite all things together, must be
its Teacher. 4 Yet must It use the language that this mind can understand,
in the condition in which it thinks it is. 5 And It must use all learning to
transfer illusions to the truth, taking all false ideas of what you are, and
leading you beyond them to the truth that is beyond them. "
Love,
Nancy
"Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net> wrote in message
news:zksdb.161742$3o3.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Noggin
"Nancy Lorieau" <nancyl...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:QNDdb.27375$O85.9080@pd7tw1no...
> Hi Lee,
>
> I enjoyed reading your essay. Thank you. It >certainly makes one reflect.
My
> view is that the course's PURPOSE is our healing >here in the world.
Do you think there might be some reason to expect evidence of some form of
healing?
Or is it enough for you to just say "I'm better (than everyone else) because
of ACIM" and that's enough healing evidence for you?
If there are indications or signs of any kind of healing whatsoever beyond
that which one could expect from a box of Band-Aids I'm interested in
knowing about it. Odd though, that I seem to be just about the only one
who is.
Lee Flynn
Thanks for writing. I'm not sure I understand your comments,
though -- and I'd like to.
Nancy Lorieau <nancyl...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Hi Lee,
>
> I enjoyed reading your essay. Thank you. It certainly makes one reflect.
> My view is that the course's PURPOSE is our healing here in the world.
I agree, completely. I can't think of a better one-line statement of
the Course's purpose. I would go so far as to say that the Author
speaks almost entirely of a healing <shift in perspective> that is
entirely within our capacity to verify by direct experience -- here in
the world. I also feel that he's pretty consistent about clarifying
when it is that he speaks with authority about elements of our truth
that are beyond what can be verified during our worldly lifespan
( beyond the scope of the Course's curriculum).
> And it seems to me that it says that what is beyond this world is also
> beyond our concern at this time.
This is where I'm unsure of what you're saying. Did something in
my piece suggest a reference to what is beyond this world, or
maybe touch on issues that you feel are best considered beyond
our concern, for now ?
> Here's a quote:
I really like this passage. Joe Jesseph quite often offers up this
paragraph -- though for reasons that I don't feel the quote supports.
I wasn't able to really make a connection between this and your
comments that preceded it, though. The only apparent tie-in was
the use of the word "beyond" in both your comments and this
passage. Are you perhaps reading this passage to imply that
the truth that is beyond the pervasive illusions of this world, is
also part of what is beyond our practical concern, as we pursue
the healing offered by the Course ?
>
> "T-25.I.7. All this takes note of time and place as if they were discrete,
> for while you think that part of you is separate, the concept of a Oneness
> joined as One is meaningless. 2 It is apparent that a mind so split could
> never be the Teacher of a Oneness which unites all things within Itself. 3
> And so What is within this mind, and does unite all things together, must
> be its Teacher. 4 Yet must It use the language that this mind can
> understand, in the condition in which it thinks it is. 5 And It must use
> all learning to transfer illusions to the truth, taking all false ideas
> of what you are, and leading you beyond them to the truth that is beyond
> them. "
Thanks again, for your thoughts
~ Lee
>
> Love,
>
> Nancy
>
Gary D
@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> Hey everyone,
> I'm going to take advantage of our lull here, to just offer up this
> retouched essay, from Feb this year, in hopes of perhaps stirring
> a little more discussion than it generated, last time through.
> ...the realm of space-time, itself, innocently awaits our
> full re-cognition...
Lee, what would be the ramifications of the existence of this "innocent"
space-time?
Pieter
When you deem
"the entire realm of space--time, itself"
to be real, then why not believe in it?
What is real, we can put our faith in.
Yet you correctly state:
"UNBELIEF = space--time BELIEF = Separation."
To me this means: the separation is
the belief that time and space are real.
So at least <you> mean,
in your attempt to save 'space-time itself':
<false> space-time belief.
I'm looking forward to your comment.
Pieter.
clark_kent
> Thanks in advance to any who comment (even you, Joe ;)
>
> ~ Lee
>
btw, i meant to publicly apologize to Joe Jesseph for my meaness and
somewhat childish behavior...so this is it....Joe, if your out
there....i truly apologize for going onto course talk and acting like
a troll a couple of months ago and ranting about you in this group...i
had some bug up my ass bout you for some reason and it was
unwarranted....
even though i may not like your style....that's no reason for me to
rant like a hemmoroidal babboon.
(jason)
clark_kent
> =================
Noggin
"clark_kent" <clark...@fbx.com> wrote in message
> even though i may not like your style....that's no >reason for me to
> rant like a hemmoroidal babboon.
>
LOL...no, you have to save all that for the women who piss you off.
Gee, what a mystery that you have a missing love life. Maybe you shouldn't
have been so hasty to slag off Ms. Jesus.
Gary D
news:485fe85d.03093...@posting.google.com:
> btw, i meant to publicly apologize to Joe Jesseph...
Two apologies in one day! Our cybercup runneth over!
Carrie
Since you are apologizing to Joe here, for something that happened on
Course_Talk, does this mean you are no longer a part of that group?
They get rid of people so easily there, they never give them a chance to
apologize THERE for things that might have happened there?
~ Carrie
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/03
clark_kent
i've always loved Jesus and The Ms.
clark_kent
>
> Since you are apologizing to Joe here, for something that happened on
> Course_Talk, does this mean you are no longer a part of that group?
>
> They get rid of people so easily there, they never give them a chance to
> apologize THERE for things that might have happened there?
>
> ~ Carrie
i believe i am still on 'filtered/monitered' status over there....
Carrie
Sounds like something that might tickle (LOL)
clark_kent
> Hey Lee,
for me, these kinds of things end up going back to 'which came first,
the chicken or the egg?' type questions...but i shall comment
anyway....btw...appreciate your deep and philosophical mind..........
> =================
>
> : The meaning most fruitfully assigned to the Course's use
> : of the term 'illusion' is that it addresses the mistaken nature
> : of my *relationship* to that which I experience, rather than
> : being descriptive of the elements, themselves.
>
> : Further, every distorted relationship - or illusion - originates
> : with a distorted sense of * identity *.
>
(i hope, that most people 'get it' that ACIM isn't talking about
physical illusions.....or the space between nucleus and
electron...etc...........)
> ___________________________________________________
>
>
> Is it possible that Jesus <proved> the pristine innocence of
> space-time, itself, when he overcame "the world", by overcoming
> the UNBELIEF that had "placed" (or 'ensnared') him in it, originally" ?
(based on the quotes.... i would not conclude that Jesus proved the
pristine innocence of space/time.......i couldn't make that
conclusion......i don't believe space/time has any qualities....it is
neutral....like the body....)
> Could it be, after all, merely this distorted BELIEF in space-time,
> and the egoic <version> of the world that results, which is being
> most meaningfully described in the Course as * illusory * -- rather
> than the entire realm of space--time, itself ??
(not necessarily, the quote isn't only concerned with belief in
space-time....it also describes the result. it is not clear which came
first....the chicken or the egg....or, rather....the belief in
spacetime, the ego, the separation, etc......they could have all
arisen in one instant....so with one goes them all)
> What if the Course is actually saying that it's <only> this mistaken
> BELIEF that perceptually distorts and *transforms* a pristine and holy
> realm of space-time into this mad, consensus version of the "world" --
(from the quotes given, i would not necessarily conclude this....i
wouldn't necessarily conclude that the realm of space/time is
inherently pristine and holy....or inherently anything....it is as it
was defined in the quote....a healing device)
> that in no way is 'real' ( i.e., no longer reflective of the truth ) ??
( a healing device never reflects the truth....it is only a tool used
to heal)
>
> What if the Course's purpose is precisely to persuade us that a
> radiantly blessed and forgiven realm attends our awareness -- here,
> or 'anywhere' that mind engages its creation -- and that it's only our
> mistaken, illusory *construct* of the world that is NOT real, and
> thus does NOT 'exist'. ...
(now, with this i would spot on concur....and i do believe that this
is an aim of ACIM.....i wouldn't agree with this however, because i
thought that the realm of space/time was inherently holy and pristine
....i would agree with the above based on other passages)
Simply because it *misperceives*
> space-time. ... and seems, as well, to make of this psycho-physical
> sensory unit a separated, encapsulated 'body' ?
>
> What if every *common* understanding regarding "the world" or
> "the body" -- including our most "spiritually informed" notions of
> either, reflects this baseline, *illusory relationship* with all we
> behold or contemplate -- including our Course interpretations ??
>
> Maybe the "real world"' describes what would become of this realm
> were its authentic relationship to our minds and Identity suddenly
> restored or Remembered. Maybe having chosen to *experience*
> this realm is only mistakenly thought to <equate> with Separation,
(in the quote i was led to believe that space/time came into being as
a corrective device for the correction of the separation)
> and the realm of space-time, itself, innocently awaits our full
> re-cognition, the restorative of Christ's vision -- and the mind's
> guaranteed Atonement.
(sure, this could be a step on the path.....but alot of folks believe
that this space/time realm is only one of the planes, and we are
working toward attaining higher ones than this)
>
> In that event, it isn't at all our innocent 'dreaming' excursion across
> the space-time 'realm', but merely the *forgetful condition* of our
> awareness <amidst> the realm, that the Atonement addresses
(i don't see the big difference in the two....it seems they are both
saying the same thing in slightly different ways......ACIM uses a
variety of different metaphors to explain these things....one isn't
more true than the other)
> through the GUARANTEED *device* of the world's saving grace
> ( that of it's failsafe utility, when used by Holy Spirit ).
>
> The greatest gift -- and greatest challenge -- of the Course is to
> know that heaven on earth ABIDES, every precious moment, and
> awaits only my sufficient willingness for Holy Spirit's restoral of
> the fully lucid, holy awareness I denied _myself_.
(amen to this!!!! "113 His disciples said to him, "When will the
kingdom come?"
"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look,
here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out
upon the earth, and people don't see it.")
Yashah
>"Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net> wrote in message news:<zksdb.161742$3o3.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>> Hey Lee,
>
>for me, these kinds of things end up going back to 'which came first,
>the chicken or the egg?' type questions...but i shall comment
>anyway....btw...appreciate your deep and philosophical mind..........
>> =================
>>
>> : The meaning most fruitfully assigned to the Course's use
>> : of the term 'illusion' is that it addresses the mistaken nature
>> : of my *relationship* to that which I experience, rather than
>> : being descriptive of the elements, themselves.
>>
>> : Further, every distorted relationship - or illusion - originates
>> : with a distorted sense of * identity *.
>>
>
>(i hope, that most people 'get it' that ACIM isn't talking about
>physical illusions.....or the space between nucleus and
>electron...etc...........)
>
well, the Course assures you are NOT a body. Thus, what electron are
you talking about?????????????????
Ped
Yashah
wrote:
>On 2 Oct 2003 20:13:34 -0700, clark...@fbx.com (clark_kent) wrote:
>
>>"Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net> wrote in message news:<zksdb.161742$3o3.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>>> Hey Lee,
>>
>>for me, these kinds of things end up going back to 'which came first,
>>the chicken or the egg?' type questions...but i shall comment
>>anyway....btw...appreciate your deep and philosophical mind..........
>>> =================
>>>
>>> : The meaning most fruitfully assigned to the Course's use
>>> : of the term 'illusion' is that it addresses the mistaken nature
>>> : of my *relationship* to that which I experience, rather than
>>> : being descriptive of the elements, themselves.
>>>
>>> : Further, every distorted relationship - or illusion - originates
>>> : with a distorted sense of * identity *.
>>>
>>
>>(i hope, that most people 'get it' that ACIM isn't talking about
>>physical illusions.....or the space between nucleus and
>>electron...etc...........)
>>
>
>
>well, the Course assures you are NOT a body. Thus, what electron are
>you talking about?????????????????
>
>Ped
>
>
PS. in between WBL260 & 261
"What is the body?
1.The body is a fence the Son of God IMAGINES he has built,..."
what you imagine is just illusory thingies.
can you imagine reality or reality simply is there, not requiring you
imagining it....???
Yashah
wrote:
3. the body is a dream"
dreams are ONLY fantasies....!!!
do yourself a favor, Jason, pal, READ the Course....!!!!!!!!! you
constantly talk about what the Course DOESN'T teach.
Ped
Lee Flynn
These are great questions, and comments. Thanks !!
I'll take a little more time to work up the response, but
I wanted to let you know I appreciate the time you spent
with the post ...
Love n miracles abound,
~ Lee
Noggin
"Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net> wrote in message
news:mTifb.168058$3o3.12...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Noggin
news:<zksdb.161742$3o3.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > Hey Lee,
>
> for me, these kinds of things end up going back to 'which came first,
> the chicken or the egg?' type questions...but i shall comment
> anyway....btw...appreciate your deep and philosophical mind..........
That's one way to make yourself seem smarter than you actually are.
Declare some idiot to be "deep and philosophical" and then have a little
mutual mental masturbation session with them.
It seems to be a "boy thing". Kinda creepy.
Pieter
"Noggin" <pir...@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:Myjfb.20345$5r1....@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> What, no time for a quick wank?
An adolescent speaking here?
Isn't it time for you to grow up at last?
Sharon
"Pieter" <hrdouwe...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:3f7de4d6$0$567$edd6...@news.versatel.net...
The problem is, an adolescent is usually not aware that they need to grow up
.. in fact, they think that they *are* grown up and the rest of the world is
just stupid for not realizing it yet. ; )
Sharon (mother of a "grown up" 13 year old)
Yashah
wrote:
define the growing up thingie in the first place. Most of the
Katie's remarks concerning the PRETENDING attitude of acimers are very
very so very and very accurate...!!
so, seems we the acimers are who need the growing up
thingie.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!
just look on the Jeanette's PRETENTIOUS attitude accurately pointed
out by Katie however defended a lot at first by Jason. Recently he
realized he was defending a fake PRETENDER...!!!
who needs to grow up is ONLY the one who is expecting others must grow
up.....!!!!!!!!!
it's why the Course aims ONLY to change oneself's mind, not others'.
ultimately, everyone is fully free to grow up or not....!!!!!!!!
unless you believe God SHOULD enforce the growing thingie???
God is TOTAL FREEDOM, like it or not...!!!!
Ped
clark_kent
> Hi Jason,
>
> These are great questions, and comments. Thanks !!
>
> I'll take a little more time to work up the response, but
> I wanted to let you know I appreciate the time you spent
> with the post ...
>
> Love n miracles abound,
of course they do! what else!!
>
> ~ Lee
sure thing.......
clark_kent
> That's one way to make yourself seem smarter than you actually are.
actually, cosmic biker babe, i was thinking last nite about how
spiritually stupid i really am.....about how much spritual knowledge i
don't have.....about how much spiritual wisdom i lack...... I and
others may have some intellectual skills (or analytical skills), but
this is not the same as spiritual wisdom. in fact, intellectual
insight or knowledge may be a hindrance to acquiring (or awakening to)
real spiritual wisdom.
clark_kent
> > i believe i am still on 'filtered/monitered' status over there....
>
> Sounds like something that might tickle (LOL)
>
> ~ Carrie
joe's a real tickler
Noggin
Good, you've definitely graduated Zombie 101, and are well on your way to
complete sheepdom.
Now you can learn from the really "spiritually smart" folks, like Lee, Gary,
and Nancy. The Ugly Clown will take you on as a student too, no doubt.
Then you can be an A level student, just like Ms. Jesus.
What holey identity do you think you'll assume? Clark Kent doesn't seem
very "spiritual", if you know what I mean.
Maybe you can be Moses. You seem to have a bent for Old Testament kind of
morality when it comes to others.
Or maybe we will call you simply Muhammed. That seems even more
appropriate. Then Lee can smirk condescendingly as you tie on the
illusionary bomb vest and go out on martyr duty to the cause time and time
again.
Yes, you are shaping up to be a most useful idiot.
Corey
The intellect is what makes it possible to experience both the Real
Self and the world of the ego at the same time.
clark_kent
> I will show that the Course describes both our initial, *pristine*
> experience of space-time, and a <subsequent>, qualitative shift
> in man's *awareness* of space-time that introduced an
> illusory *experience* of both the realm and his own identity.
more.......thoughts.......
it is not evident, based on the quotes provided, that *we* had an
'initial, *pristine* experience of space/time'......
look at this curious passage from ACIM..........
"I have spoken of the ego as if it were a separate thing, acting on
its own. This was necessary to persuade you that you cannot dismiss
it lightly, and must realize how much of your thinking is
ego-directed. We cannot safely let it go at that, however, or you
will regard yourself as necessarily conflicted as long as you are
here, or as long as you believe that you are here. The ego is nothing
more than a part of your belief about yourself. Your other life has
continued without interruption, and has been and always will be
totally unaffected by your attempts to dissociate it." (Text 4.6.1)
WOW!!!!!!!
this seems to be a rare and forgotten ACIM statement.................
"Your other life has
continued without interruption, and has been and always will be
totally unaffected by your attempts to dissociate it."
this is a power-packed quote indeed......
it would, imo, dispell any notion that the end goal is to awaken to
the corrected belief in a pristine space/time.....among other
things.....it's also got a whole heckuvalot of other connotations that
we could prattle on about at length.
for one, it brings up in me a sort of science fiction like (remember
the show The Twilight Zone...now on the SCI FI channel late nites)
curiosity as to the nature of my existence.....
who am I, then? if my other life has continued w/out interruption
where am I, really?
how the hell can I have 2 lifes going on simultaneously?
what do i look like in my 'other life'?
what am I doing there?
why am i aware of this life and not the other?
why the hell am i toiling in this life, thinking it's me, when my
'real' life is over there?
where is over there?
is 'over there', here?
etc......
clark_kent
> > and the realm of space-time, itself, innocently awaits our full
> > re-cognition, the restorative of Christ's vision -- and the mind's
> > guaranteed Atonement.
sure thing.....perhaps this is what is meant by the happy dream....
the happy dream is in ACIM a step in the process of awakening.....
first, we need to have our unhappy dreams translated by the HS to the
happy dreams of the forgiven world....on the way to ending dreaming
altogether.....
clark_kent
>
> "T-25.I.7. All this takes note of time and place as if they were discrete,
> for while you think that part of you is separate, the concept of a Oneness
> joined as One is meaningless. 2 It is apparent that a mind so split could
> never be the Teacher of a Oneness which unites all things within Itself. 3
> And so What is within this mind, and does unite all things together, must be
> its Teacher. 4 Yet must It use the language that this mind can understand,
> in the condition in which it thinks it is. 5 And It must use all learning to
> transfer illusions to the truth, taking all false ideas of what you are, and
> leading you beyond them to the truth that is beyond them. "
this is a good explanation of the intellect...and intellectual
learning vs. spiritual knowledge.....
the language that this mind can understand could be the intellect...an
ego machination.....and while *we* believe we are intellectuals the HS
uses this language to meet us at our own level and teach us.....only
because this is the only language that we choose to speak and learn
by....for now.....
clark_kent
spiritual pursuit and language.........
this is why scienctific pursuit can never lead to salvation
clark_kent
>
> The intellect is what makes it possible to experience both the Real
> Self and the world of the ego at the same time.
it is?
i guess i've never heard this before...do you have any ACIM passages that say this?
Corey
I don't think ACIM addresses this issue, but the Vedic tradition of
spiritual knowledge calls ignorance of the true Self "the mistake of
the intellect". The way I see it is that ACIM is so voluminous,
because it is using every method to train the intellect to see that
the ego is false. And that the world of the intellect is necessarily
painful. Even in the happy dream, one experiences pain.
Lee Flynn
I have been trying to remember the original vedic term that
you understand as "the mistake of the intellect". Do you recall
which term that is ?
(Deon, do you recall the term ?)
I have never heard it translated in quite that way. The only one that
I'm familiar with was mentioned by Deepak Chopra in very first book,
about his own journey, entitled "Escaping the Prison of the Intellect".
The two translations, 'mistake' of intellect and 'prison' of intellect, impart
somewhat different notions of the intellect -- with yours suggesting it
is correctable, and Deepak's highlighting the closed loop that typifies
the intellect's blind arrogance.
I tend to agree with you, however, that the Course 'seduces' the intellect
with its own, phenomenal system of internally consistent logic, and thus
"trains the intellect to see that the ego is false". Perhaps, in that sense,
it could be said that the intellect makes a good servant, but a poor master.
Incidentally, one site offering the book for sale had this to say:
"Deepak Chopra challenges our assumptions about the nature of reality,
and answers age-old questions about the meaning of our existence.
With remarkable insight, Dr. Chopra reveals how the intellect creates
prisoners of us by mistaking images of reality for reality itself. As a result,
we lose touch with our true nature and become trapped in a suffocating
web of space, time, and causation. But we can escape the prison of the
intellect, come to know our true nature, and experience unbounded
freedom."
Deepak, incidentally, is a long-time student of the Course. ;)
Love n miracles abound, this lucid moment
~ Lee
Deon
wrote:
I believe the Sanskrit term is pragya aparad - mistake of the
intellect.
You may have heard of the concept "lamp at the door" - that's what the
intellect is. When we are unaware of our Source, it is as though the
lamp is only shining out from the door onto the world of the ego. When
we meditate and experience pure consciousness, it is as though the
lamp is only shining in. When we experience our Source and the world
at the same time, then the intellect is balanced. It sees inward and
outward at the same time, and stops identifying itself with the
illusionary world of the ego. That's when suffering stops. But pain
continues until one is still closer to home.
Lee, I wish you would support my desire for anonymity.
Sheryl Valentine - www.dr4baxs.com
sv: yes ~ while the intellect is valuable in learning the course, *practicing*
the course in a sense, demands a withdraw from the intellect to be at one with
Love. BTW, I didn't know that Deepak was a course student. Sheryl
Noggin
and supporter of Deepok Chopra, yet another fake guru with a good handle on
what people want to hear, and a somewhat helpful healing modality to
exploit?
"Indeed, if one were picking a Billy Graham of the New
Age movement, Chopra would be a candidate.... In
Creating Affluence, a book of alphabetical aphorisms,
'"V" stands for Values: Truth, Integrity, honesty,
love, faith, devotion.... Without values, there is
confusion and chaos.'"
"...According to Judy Bangert, a former San Francisco
call girl who says she's now a college student....
Chopra paid her for sex on three different occasions in
the summer of 1991 -- two times by credit card and once
with cash....
"Then in 1995, she saw him on PBS. 'It seemed like very
time I turned on the TV, they were promoting him,' she
says. 'I thought it was disturbing because I know how
he treated me.' She describes him variously as 'an
arrogant man,' 'supercilious,' 'argumentative, abrasive
in conversation, dismissive and insulting.'..."
Read the full dirty story here:
http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/consbio/96/0240.html
Chopra is slime.
"Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net> wrote in message
news:hTSfb.165037$0v4.12...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Lee Flynn
clark_kent <clark...@fbx.com> wrote:
>> I will show that the Course describes both our initial, *pristine*
>> experience of space-time, and a <subsequent>, qualitative shift
>> in man's *awareness* of space-time that introduced an
>> illusory *experience* of both the realm and his own identity.
>
> more.......thoughts.......
>
> it is not evident, based on the quotes provided, that *we* had an
> 'initial, *pristine* experience of space/time'......
Well, there was this,
"Until the Separation, which is a better term than the Fall,
nothing was lacking. This meant that man had no needs at all.
If he had not deprived himself, he would never have
experienced them."
Note that the sentence does not say, "This meant that <_the Son_>
had no needs at all. " Rather, <man> had no needs or sense of lack,
<until> he " deprived himself ".
It certainly seems to imply that before the Separation, <man> had
a pristine experience of wholeness. For man to experience anything,
suggests a drealm of time and space by which to do so.
Where, then, was <man> enjoying the knowledge that he lacked
nothing, experiencing only perfect safety and right-minded completion
in God, if not within this realm ?
Referring again to the example of Jesus' own Atonement, in what sense
are we to imagine that his experience of space-time was other than
pristine and innocent ?
My essay's proposal is that the mind's Atonement, and the resultant
restoral of one's Identity as Dreamer of what innocently unfolds as
though across time and space, is the return to that condition described
as <prior> to Separation, with the experience of this realm graced by the
restoral, as well, of what man deprived himself of, with the Fall.
Enjoying the pre-Separation condition of mind, man's dream of this realm
would be marked by Christ's vision of holy innocence. And neither time
nor space would be seen as OUTSIDE one's holy mind, at all ...
>
> look at this curious passage from ACIM..........
>
> "I have spoken of the ego as if it were a separate thing, acting on
> its own. This was necessary to persuade you that you cannot dismiss
> it lightly, and must realize how much of your thinking is
> ego-directed. We cannot safely let it go at that, however, or you
> will regard yourself as necessarily conflicted as long as you are
> here, or as long as you believe that you are here. The ego is nothing
> more than a part of your belief about yourself. Your other life has
> continued without interruption, and has been and always will be
> totally unaffected by your attempts to dissociate it." (Text 4.6.1)
>
>
> WOW!!!!!!!
>
> this seems to be a rare and forgotten ACIM statement.................
It's an excellent find. I came upon it last night, also -- while doing a
word search for how the Course uses the word "wrong" (almost always
descriptively, btw, rather than as part of any behavioral command).
The context of this whole quote helps to clarify it, and applies very
well to my proposal regarding the pristine innocence of this realm.
>
> "Your other life has
> continued without interruption, and has been and always will be
> totally unaffected by your attempts to dissociate it."
Just before this quote, Helen is told that "CORRECTING perception is
merely a temporary expedient." Its whole value, she is told, is to arrive
at removing Misperception's BLOCK to knowledge, "entirely" .
" You may ask how this is possible as long as you appear to be living
in this world. ... it has a sensible answer. But you must be careful that
you really understand the question.
What IS the you who are living in this world ? " - urtext
In explaining the answer to that *KEY* question, the Author tells Helen that
he needs to explain the ego more fully than he has, to that point. He says
that the fuller explanation is specifically to assure that she not
"regard yourself as necessarily conflicted as long as you are here,
or as long as you believe that you are here."
And how is Helen told that she need not feel *conflicted* about remaining
here, despite learning of ego's BLOCK to knowledge, and Separation's
distortion of this realm's experience ? By clarifying for her that there is an
alternate YOU "who are living in this world", whom slumbering dissociation
has blocked from her/our awareness, and the ego identity has merely
obscured. And whose lucid remembrance will reveal that its healed 'version'
of our "living in this world" has been
"unaffected by [our] attempts to dissociate it".
Restored awareness of one's authentic Identity (" the you who are
living in this world ") would naturally restore as well, an undistorted --
or awakened -- experience of this realm as wholly safe and utterly
innocent.
>
> this is a power-packed quote indeed......
> it would, imo, dispell any notion that the end goal is to awaken to
> the corrected belief in a pristine space/time.....
Unless, as I've suggested, such a corrected relationship to a pristine
space/time were part and parcel of the restoral to our awareness of
the * I * that dissociation had blocked, via the Self-forgetting within
this dream, known as the Separation.
> among other things.....it's also got a whole heckuvalot of other
> connotations that we could prattle on about at length.
Prattle away ;)
>
> for one, it brings up in me a sort of science fiction like (remember
> the show The Twilight Zone...now on the SCI FI channel late nites)
> curiosity as to the nature of my existence.....
> who am I, then? if my other life has continued w/out interruption
> where am I, really?
> how the hell can I have 2 lifes going on simultaneously?
> what do i look like in my 'other life'?
> what am I doing there?
And your train of thought is deluxe, bringing it all back home to
what I consider the Course's answer to your questions. My 'real' life
continues, unaffected by ego's obliviousness, I'm told.
> why am i aware of this life and not the other?
> why the hell am i toiling in this life, thinking it's me, when my
> 'real' life is over there?
These are central questions of the Course, imo. Their answers
provide the means of our healing, here in the world.
> where is over there?
> is 'over there', here?
Bingo !
'Round the horn and home again. Perfect ! ;))
> etc......
Yep. ;)
Love, laughter and miracles are ours, this lucid moment
~ Lee
Lee Flynn
Deon <noe...@noemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 11:02:37 GMT, "Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> I believe the Sanskrit term is pragya aparad - mistake of the
> intellect.
Yes, I had forgotten it, altogether.
> You may have heard of the concept "lamp at the door" - that's what the
> intellect is. When we are unaware of our Source, it is as though the
> lamp is only shining out from the door onto the world of the ego. When
> we meditate and experience pure consciousness, it is as though the
> lamp is only shining in. When we experience our Source and the world
> at the same time, then the intellect is balanced. It sees inward and
> outward at the same time, and stops identifying itself with the
> illusionary world of the ego. That's when suffering stops. But pain
> continues until one is still closer to home.
Much better ! What a consummate explanation of the vedic understanding.
I was struggling, there. ;)
>
> Lee, I wish you would support my desire for anonymity.
Done, my friend. And please accept my apologies if I've overlooked
or forgotten an earlier request, in appearing less than thorough
in that support.
Thanks again for the help,
~ Lee
(let's plz let this apology sit quietly, Gary)
clark_kent
disagreeing, in an 'attack-free zone'!!....of course the 'attack-free
zone' is all up to me anyway!)
> Well, there was this,
>
> "Until the Separation, which is a better term than the Fall,
> nothing was lacking. This meant that man had no needs at all.
> If he had not deprived himself, he would never have
> experienced them."
>
> Note that the sentence does not say, "This meant that <_the Son_>
> had no needs at all. " Rather, <man> had no needs or sense of lack,
> <until> he " deprived himself ".
>
> It certainly seems to imply that before the Separation, <man> had
> a pristine experience of wholeness. For man to experience anything,
> suggests a drealm of time and space by which to do so.
"drealm"? i like that...sort of a combination of the words 'dream'
and 'realm'.....
i guess, i don't get that implication from that quote...i don't know
for sure that the world/space-time existed (in any form) before the
separation....
but i could have.... in Autobiography of a Yogi, Parahamansa sp.?
talks about his gurus discourse on Adam and the presexual,
preseparation man........imagine that ! a man that doesn't know about
sex!
> Where, then, was <man> enjoying the knowledge that he lacked
> nothing, experiencing only perfect safety and right-minded completion
> in God, if not within this realm ?
but, is this realm a pristine and holy world/space-time realm? i
don't know.
> Referring again to the example of Jesus' own Atonement, in what sense
> are we to imagine that his experience of space-time was other than
> pristine and innocent ?
>
> My essay's proposal is that the mind's Atonement, and the resultant
> restoral of one's Identity as Dreamer of what innocently unfolds as
> though across time and space, is the return to that condition described
> as <prior> to Separation, with the experience of this realm graced by the
> restoral, as well, of what man deprived himself of, with the Fall.
man's restoral to his pre-separation condition may include a stop
in the 'happy dream' phase...which would include perceiving the
world/space-time as pristine and holy...it's not clear, to me, whether
this state is pre-separation or not...
> Enjoying the pre-Separation condition of mind, man's dream of this realm
> would be marked by Christ's vision of holy innocence. And neither time
> nor space would be seen as OUTSIDE one's holy mind, at all ...
or perhaps...not seen at all.....i have always thought that our
pre-separation condition of mind meant NO dreaming at all...no
dreaming of a pristine and holy world, no need for Christ's vision....
# # #
> here, despite learning of ego's BLOCK to knowledge, and Separation's
> distortion of this realm's experience ? By clarifying for her that there is an
> alternate YOU "who are living in this world", whom slumbering dissociation
> has blocked from her/our awareness, and the ego identity has merely
> obscured.
i haven't seen the 'who are living in this world' part of this......
it is in the 'official printed' or SWV or in one of the earlier
thingies...?
> And your train of thought is deluxe, bringing it all back home to
> what I consider the Course's answer to your questions. My 'real' life
> continues, unaffected by ego's obliviousness, I'm told.
but, it is not made clear, to me, yet in the version of ACIM that i
study....'SWV' or the final printed version....that this 'other life'
is in the realm of world/spacetime....unless i missed something (which
is highly possible)
either way, i must , it seems to me, accordingly, be restored to a
holy and pristine view of the world/space-time....this is
certain....ACIM isn't fuzzy on this....this would be the definition of
the happy dream or the defintion of the atonement.....i think....
peace.
clark_kent
i have been thinking of the 'intellect' as a pure ego machination.....
i suppose one could use the word 'intellect' in a spiritual manner.........
Noggin
"clark_kent" <clark...@fbx.com> wrote in message
> i have been thinking of the 'intellect' as a pure ego >machination.....
Yes, and it shows. Do you include that thought on the personal details
section of your resume?
Jeanette
"Sheryl Valentine - www.dr4baxs.com" <sherylv...@aol.com> wrote in
message news:20031005125119...@mb-m23.aol.com...
Really, no wonder I like the guy.
Jeanette
Noggin
"Jeanette" <jeanette...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fx7gb.28559$f11....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Sheryl Valentine - www.dr4baxs.com" <sherylv...@aol.com> wrote in
> message news:20031005125119...@mb-m23.aol.com...
> > Lee wrote: Perhaps, in that sense, it could be said that the intellect
> makes a good servant, but a poor
> master.>>>
> >
> > sv: yes ~ while the intellect is valuable in learning the course,
> *practicing* the course in a sense, demands a >withdraw from the intellect
to
> be at one with Love.
When are we going to see some signs of that happening?
>BTW, I didn't know that Deepak was a course >student.
Who says Chopra is a Coursie?
>
> Really, no wonder I like the guy.
Of Course you like him, he's a known asshole, self-promoting, posing fraud
who abuses his employees and family in his quest for status and credibility.
Now isn't this a surprise? Regarding now proven allegations that Chopra
plagiarized the work of one Professor Robert Sapolsky of Stanford
University <b>Dr. Chopra is reported to have questioned Dr. Sapolsky's
motives and character during a call-in show to NPR radio station KQED San
Francisco.</b>
(When all else fails you good and holey new-age self-promoters know just
what to do.)
When trancenet.org requested a transcript of this show, Shiv Ramachandra of
KQED replied there was a "strange story about this one. Apparently Mr.
Chopra said something not too accurate about ... Dr. Sapolsky and there was
talk of a lawsuit. And we were instructed not to make any tapes of this
interview." It is worth noting that KQED uses Dr. Chopra's tapes extensively
in their fundraising drives.
Lee Flynn
clark_kent <clark...@fbx.com> wrote:
> (this is kind of fun! talking about things--even, perhaps,
> disagreeing, in an 'attack-free zone'!!....of course the 'attack-free
> zone' is all up to me anyway!)
Don't be so sure. There are more than a few reading this exchange
who are on the very verge of letting me know what a thorough mess
I'm making of well-established 'baseline' assumptions regarding
where the Course stands on these issues. I should maybe take this
opportunity to welcome comments from those who think I took a wrong
turn back at Ego Junction and HS Hwy. ;)
I am enjoying your questions and open-minded comments, though. Many
thanks to ya, buddy .... 'Hope you're up for continuing.
>>
>> "Until the Separation, which is a better term than the Fall,
>> nothing was lacking. This meant that man had no needs at all.
>> If he had not deprived himself, he would never have
>> experienced them."
>>
>> Note that the sentence does not say, "This meant that <_the Son_>
>> had no needs at all. " Rather, <man> had no needs or sense of lack,
>> <until> he " deprived himself ".
>>
>> It certainly seems to imply that before the Separation, <man> had
>> a pristine experience of wholeness. For man to experience anything,
>> suggests a drealm of time and space by which to do so.
>
> "drealm"? i like that...sort of a combination of the words 'dream'
> and 'realm'.....
;^D
> i guess, i don't get that implication from that quote...i don't know
> for sure that the world/space-time existed (in any form) before the
> separation....
One of the surprising commonalities among most Course students is
the largely unexamined presumption that our collaborative dream of this
realm is wholly the <result> of the Separation thought.
My experience and study of the Course suggests that the Son's
dream is actually a holy benign creative enterprise, when experienced
in its pristine creative innocence, with fully lucid awareness and
Self-remembering intact, amidst the dream.
This, I believe, provides the fullest understanding of "the forgiven world"
and the holy world that Christ's vision beholds.
The dream only becomes clouded *afer* a subsequent onset of
Self-forgetting, whose result is a slumbering *version* of the Son's
dream. Jesus can be said to have experienced a fully lucid version
of the Son's individuated dream of his life, across this drealm.
What I hope to achieve by the pieces I offer, here, is to explore whether
a 'lucid approach' to the Course's central metaphor of dreaming can
possibly resolve some of the more troubling of the paradoxes that
students encounter, as they try to reconcile the Course's vision of
the world with that of their own practical experience.
> ....
>> Where, then, was <man> enjoying the knowledge that he lacked
>> nothing, experiencing only perfect safety and right-minded completion
>> in God, if not within this realm ?
>
> but, is this realm a pristine and holy world/space-time realm? i
> don't know.
The Course applies the most holy of descriptors to the forgiven
world that Christ's vision beholds. I don't find a description of
'neutral' territory, at all.
>> Referring again to the example of Jesus' own Atonement, in what sense
>> are we to imagine that his experience of space-time was other than
>> pristine and innocent ?
>>
>> My essay's proposal is that the mind's Atonement, and the resultant
>> restoral of one's Identity as Dreamer of what innocently unfolds as
>> though across time and space, is the return to that condition described
>> as <prior> to Separation, with the experience of this realm graced by the
>> restoral, as well, of what man deprived himself of, with the Fall.
>
> man's restoral to his pre-separation condition may include a stop
> in the 'happy dream' phase...which would include perceiving the
> world/space-time as pristine and holy...it's not clear, to me, whether
> this state is pre-separation or not...
My position would be that for the most part, it is only unexamined
<presumptions> that assert that the "happy dream phase" would amount
to merely a 'stop' en route to some other Condition. Jesus, after all,
presumably experienced more than a brief episode of the happy
dream, or the real world. ;)
>> Enjoying the pre-Separation condition of mind, man's dream of this realm
>> would be marked by Christ's vision of holy innocence. And neither time
>> nor space would be seen as OUTSIDE one's holy mind, at all ...
>
> or perhaps...not seen at all.....i have always thought that our
> pre-separation condition of mind meant NO dreaming at all...no
> dreaming of a pristine and holy world, no need for Christ's vision....
I understand. And so I'm suggesting another way to approach the
question.
My premise is that our understanding of the Course may be assisted
by examing our hidden biases against "time-space", against
'dreaming', against 'the world' , against the 'happy dream', and
even against the 'forgiven world'.
>> By clarifying ... that there is an alternate YOU
>> "who are living in this world", whom slumbering dissociation has
>> blocked from her/our awareness, and the ego identity has merely
>> obscured.
>
> i haven't seen the 'who are living in this world' part of this......
> it is in the 'official printed' or SWV or in one of the earlier
> thingies...?
It's from this same quote:
" You may ask how this is possible as long as you appear to be living
in this world. ... it has a sensible answer. But you must be careful that
you really understand the question.
What IS the you who are living in this world ? " - urtext
>> And your train of thought is deluxe, bringing it all back home to
>> what I consider the Course's answer to your questions. My 'real' life
>> continues, unaffected by ego's obliviousness, I'm told.
"Your other life has continued without interruption, and has
been and always will be totally unaffected by your attempts
to dissociate it."
> but, it is not made clear, to me, yet in the version of ACIM that i
> study....'SWV' or the final printed version....that this 'other life'
> is in the realm of world/spacetime....unless i missed something
> (which is highly possible)
We both may be missing something (which would be par for this
Course ;-), but I'm hoping to have others help to point out where
the Course presents information that is not accomodated by this
Lucid Approach.
You see, the extra dimension that is provided by accounting for a
*lucid* version of the Son's dream of this realm makes <imagining>
that the 'other life' suggests a "somewhere else, or sometime
else", entirely unnecessary! That's because both an exalted and
afflicted version of <this> dream exist, simultaneously. I'll
explain how that is ...
Any dream offers two principle locus points of identity, by which
the dreamed realm may be experienced: either as *dreamer* or
as mere *dreamed one*.
Exalted awareness amidst a dream finds the locus of identity always
that of the *dreamer*, whose awareness merely *attends* a dream-body
as a means of skating across a designated continuum of dreamt
time/space. This is the unblemished, lucid version of an ongoing
dream. The dreamer's awareness amidst the dream is clear and fully
awakened, and 'chooses into' the dream's innocent, ongoing
experience. So, in this waking (or lucid) dream, the locus of
identity remains that of the *dreamer*, who voluntarily creates both
the realm to explore, and the sensory 'dreambody' with which to
explore it.
[ Full lucid awareness within a dream does not <allow> for the
experience of fear, and is marked by unbroken awareness that what
one 'IS' (as dreamer) cannot <be> assailed by circumstances that
unfurl *within* one's 'dream'. In the unafflicted, fully lucid condition,
the locus of identity is always centered at the *dreamer*. ]
The second principle locus of identity possible within a dream <only>
appears when the afflicted condition of self-forgetting clouds the
awareness, leading to the separated sense of body-identified
identity, as dreamed one.
Where the onset of slumbering dissociation overtakes a waking, or
lucid, dream, the experience of the drealm is then mediated through
a false, fractional identity -- namely, the identity of the now
body-identified 'dreamed one', which is forced to construct a
pseudosanity, despite having the full awareness of its reality as
Dreamer profoundly dissociated, and forgotten. This is the slumbering
identity, within the dream, that we know as ego.
Now, since the abiding, overarching 'reality' of the dream is unaffected
by ego's whole misguided sense of 'what' and 'where' it is, the egoic
'version' of the dream 'world' is merely a mistaken <overlay>, whose
trauma and horror and grievance of whatever persuasion is readily
'erased' (forgiven), with the restoral of exalted, lucid awareness of
Self-remembering. Thus, the lucid condition of restored awareness
is capable of rushing in to heal every shadowed facet of the false
identity's experience of the realm, revealing the miracle behind
each defining grievance of the ego's slumbering identity.
This restored awareness of identity as Dreamer, rather than 'dreamed
one', with its healed and whole recapitulation of every delimited
aspect of one's 'past' across the drealm, cleanses one's experience of
all fear, guilt, shame or grievance and saves only the Love that one has
known, in reclaiming one's "other life" that
" has continued without interruption, and has been and always will be
totally unaffected by your attempts to dissociate it."
And thus, in regard to the question,
" What IS the you who are living in this world ? " ...
The lucid approach would offer that the 'you' who are experiencing
this world is authentically a Son of God ... co-Dreamer of a realm, whose
awareness is temporarily clouded by a Self-forgetting that has created
a false, delimited substitute identity known as ego.
> either way, i must , it seems to me, accordingly, be restored to a
> holy and pristine view of the world/space-time....this is
> certain....ACIM isn't fuzzy on this....this would be the definition of
> the happy dream or the defintion of the atonement.....i think....
>
> peace.
Same back atya, Jason
Thanks for the great questions and comments.
~ Lee
Nancy Lorieau
> My position would be that for the most part, it is only unexamined
> <presumptions> that assert that the "happy dream phase" would amount
> to merely a 'stop' en route to some other Condition. Jesus, after all,
> presumably experienced more than a brief episode of the happy
> dream, or the real world. ;)
That makes sense to me. Doesn't it say somewhere in the course that we
rejoin our Father when we're *ready.* I don't think we're going to be
dragged kicking and screaming into the eternal Blob. ;-)
Awesome essay.
n.
Jeanette
"Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net> wrote in message
news:635hb.173836$3o3.12...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"The second principle locus of identity possible within a dream <only>
appears when the afflicted condition of self-forgetting clouds the
awareness, leading to the separated sense of body-identified
identity, as dreamed one."
I donno.
I'm a bit tired trying to read an excellent commentary. ;-)
That said.
In all my metaphysical experiences, whether they be revelatory, or simply of
light and color, I never felt I was an observer looking upon my world,
except in the specific instruction by Jesus, of using my world as metaphor,
yet, in all others, I felt myself so much a part of everything else, that I
was unified.
IOW, the embracement of Love=God I have felt isn't about me being lucid in
the dream, yet me finding myself in dream transformed and feeling the
Reality of me, as part of the trees, the sky, the illuminating colors, and
more.
There doesn't seem to be a comparative value to it, except in the
metaphorical experiences of life review with Jesus, instead there feels a
wholeness with everything, that I am simply an extension of what I am
seeing, and what I am seeing is an extension of me, and the common thread is
Creation and God.
I think the Holy Instant is about a comparative value, a looking upon, and
realizing of comparison, because that is what the body and illusion are for,
yet, within an experience of revelation or Reality, there seems to be a step
beyond, a merging with, instead, and concurrently, I will add, a
recognizance of eternal personality, as well--->which makes many shudder, I
know, but that is what I find to be true.
Jeanette
Amminadab
lee wrote:
{{My experience and study of the Course suggests that the Son's dream is
actually a holy benign creative enterprise, }}
Nice post. It nicely explains my experience and understanding too.
100% agreement on this one.
Amminadab
Lee Flynn
Amminadab <am...@amminadab.com> wrote:
> lee wrote:
>
> {{My experience and study of the Course suggests that the Son's dream is
> actually a holy benign creative enterprise, }}
>
> Nice post. It nicely explains my experience and understanding too.
That's good to hear. I'd be interested in exploring a googlink that highlights
your past posts, discussing your experience/understanding along these lines.
Is there perhaps a keyword or two that is somewhat unique to those posts?
>
> 100% agreement on this one.
100% is good. ;) 'Glad to hear I didn't wander too far astray, to your mind.
>
> Amminadab
Thanks for checking in,
~ Lee
Lee
Jeanette <jeanette...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:635hb.173836$3o3.12...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "The second principle locus of identity possible within a dream <only>
> appears when the afflicted condition of self-forgetting clouds the
> awareness, leading to the separated sense of body-identified
> identity, as dreamed one."
>
> I donno.
>
> I'm a bit tired trying to read an excellent commentary. ;-)
Why, thank you. I'm tired, too.
I very much enjoyed your comments, and description of your experiences.
May I respond to your them, tomorrow ?
>
> That said.
>
> In all my metaphysical experiences, whether they be revelatory, or simply
> of light and color, I never felt I was an observer looking upon my world,
> except in the specific instruction by Jesus, of using my world as
> metaphor, yet, in all others, I felt myself so much a part of everything
> else, that I was unified.
>
> IOW, the embracement of Love=God I have felt isn't about me being lucid in
> the dream, yet me finding myself in dream transformed and feeling the
> Reality of me, as part of the trees, the sky, the illuminating colors, and
> more.
>
> There doesn't seem to be a comparative value to it, except in the
> metaphorical experiences of life review with Jesus, instead there feels a
> wholeness with everything, that I am simply an extension of what I am
> seeing, and what I am seeing is an extension of me, and the common thread
> is Creation and God.
>
> I think the Holy Instant is about a comparative value, a looking upon, and
> realizing of comparison, because that is what the body and illusion are
> for, yet, within an experience of revelation or Reality, there seems to
> be a step beyond, a merging with, instead, and concurrently, I will add, a
> recognizance of eternal personality, as well--->which makes many shudder,
> I know, but that is what I find to be true.
>
>
> Jeanette
All excellent points, Jeanette. Thanks for reading, and for replying.
I'll write more, tomorrow.
G'nite,
~ Lee
Jeanette
"Lee" <leef...@att.net> wrote in message
news:HYSdnVpZ1aY...@giganews.com...
"G'nite,
~ Lee"
Sweet dreams, and me too.
Jeanette
Lee
Much obliged, Nancy. ;)
~ Lee
Amminadab
lee wrote:
{{ That's good to hear. I'd be interested in exploring a googlink that
highlights your past posts, discussing your experience/understanding along
these lines. Is there perhaps a keyword or two that is somewhat unique to
those posts? }}
Hmmmmmm...... i've had specific private discussions of this view...... but i
can't remember any specific posting. I would suggest looking under "dreamer
of the dream"...... "dream a dream worth dreaming"........ "this is not our
first creation"
It is certainly the best model to explain the unlimited power and
possibilities within the physical miracle.
Frankly, Raj says the same thing as well. He says that everything we see is
a distortion of reality....... but there is reality behind all of our
distortions. In order to make illusions...... there must be something real
for you to distort. And so the illusions...... or better DELUSIONS (as the
HLC refers) are merely our distortions or reality by giving things meanings
and definitions that omit God. And these mutually agreed upon definitions
are what hold our delusions in place.
The delusions....... the distortions come from taking the wrong
perspective....... the perspective of "dreamed-one" rather than "Dreamer".
Amminadab
Deborah
But the course also suggests that the real world will only be
experienced briefly before the bridge that it is, is crossed. It is
so close to Heaven.
I just don't think Heaven is a "place" where earth goes "poof!".
Heaven is described as a "condition" where there is nothing *else*
outside and nothing *else* within, or IOW, identification with
Christ. Seems to me that can happen "anywhere" once the ego identity
has been dismissed as illusion and the body no longer serves the
purpose of being a "fence".
Seems to me it is simply (!!) a recognition of universal wholeness.
And I don't see why one can't go from there to using the body to
communicate to others, in a language they can understand, the peace
that comes from that recognition.
Not that I've had that experience myself...
Deborah (B.C.)
Nancy Lorieau
news:5p2aovgh9nrkhqos2...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 06:09:36 GMT, "Nancy Lorieau"
> <nancyl...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >"Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:635hb.173836$3o3.12...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >> My position would be that for the most part, it is only unexamined
> >> <presumptions> that assert that the "happy dream phase" would amount
> >> to merely a 'stop' en route to some other Condition. Jesus, after all,
> >> presumably experienced more than a brief episode of the happy
> >> dream, or the real world. ;)
> >
> >That makes sense to me. Doesn't it say somewhere in the course that we
> >rejoin our Father when we're *ready.* I don't think we're going to be
> >dragged kicking and screaming into the eternal Blob. ;-)
>
> But the course also suggests that the real world will only be
> experienced briefly before the bridge that it is, is crossed. It is
> so close to Heaven.
Here's a paragraph that seems to support your view:
T-13.V.9. Do not seek vision through your eyes, for you made your way of
seeing that you might see in darkness, and in this you are deceived. 2
Beyond this darkness, and yet still within you, is the vision of Christ, Who
looks on all in light. 3 Your "vision" comes from fear, as His from love. 4
And He sees for you, as your witness to the real world. 5 He is the Holy
Spirit's manifestation, looking always on the real world, and calling forth
its witnesses and drawing them to you. 6 He loves what He sees within you,
and He would extend it. 7 And He will not return unto the Father until He
has extended your perception even unto Him. 8 And there perception is no
more, for He has returned you to the Father with Him.
My own view is that the length of time spent in an awareness of reality will
be up to us.
Love,
n.
Deborah
<nancyl...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> But the course also suggests that the real world will only be
>> experienced briefly before the bridge that it is, is crossed. It is
>> so close to Heaven.
>
>Here's a paragraph that seems to support your view:
>
>T-13.V.9. Do not seek vision through your eyes, for you made your way of
>seeing that you might see in darkness, and in this you are deceived. 2
>Beyond this darkness, and yet still within you, is the vision of Christ, Who
>looks on all in light. 3 Your "vision" comes from fear, as His from love. 4
>And He sees for you, as your witness to the real world. 5 He is the Holy
>Spirit's manifestation, looking always on the real world, and calling forth
>its witnesses and drawing them to you. 6 He loves what He sees within you,
>and He would extend it. 7 And He will not return unto the Father until He
>has extended your perception even unto Him. 8 And there perception is no
>more, for He has returned you to the Father with Him.
Oh, there are much better quotes than that one to support my view.
Trouble is that after my computer got dismantled by a virus a couple
of months ago, my electronic version of the course has been
dysfunctional, so I can't go get the quotes myself. Unless I
re-purchase the electronic version.
>My own view is that the length of time spent in an awareness of reality will
>be up to us.
The "real world" is not reality. It is also an illusion. But it is
the bridge. I don't think how long we spend in it is up to us, but
like I said, I do not think "Heaven" cannot exist on earth. It is not
a place, but a condition.
Deborah
clark_kent
> I am enjoying your questions and open-minded comments, though. Many
> thanks to ya, buddy .... 'Hope you're up for continuing.
likewise, and sure thing.............
>
> One of the surprising commonalities among most Course students is
> the largely unexamined presumption that our collaborative dream of this
> realm is wholly the <result> of the Separation thought.
>
> My experience and study of the Course suggests that the Son's
> dream is actually a holy benign creative enterprise, when experienced
> in its pristine creative innocence, with fully lucid awareness and
> Self-remembering intact, amidst the dream.
>
> This, I believe, provides the fullest understanding of "the forgiven world"
> and the holy world that Christ's vision beholds.
>
> The dream only becomes clouded *afer* a subsequent onset of
> Self-forgetting, whose result is a slumbering *version* of the Son's
> dream. Jesus can be said to have experienced a fully lucid version
> of the Son's individuated dream of his life, across this drealm.
yes, as i understand you, you have a keen focus on the Course
describing 'the separation' in strict terms of 'here and now'.....and
that this 'other life' is not in a realm or plane 'other' than right
here and now.....
i appreciate the thought....and shall ponder it.....
i had assumed that this 'other life' was in a different
realm/plane....
...
> My position would be that for the most part, it is only unexamined
> <presumptions> that assert that the "happy dream phase" would amount
> to merely a 'stop' en route to some other Condition. Jesus, after all,
> presumably experienced more than a brief episode of the happy
> dream, or the real world. ;)
this could be so.....but perhaps the way the Course is worded could
tend to lead to one thinking or presuming what i have presumed....
......
>
> My premise is that our understanding of the Course may be assisted
> by examing our hidden biases against "time-space", against
> 'dreaming', against 'the world' , against the 'happy dream', and
> even against the 'forgiven world'.
>
very interesting.....indeed.....
i'll read more later.....
Jeanette
"Amminadab" <am...@amminadab.com> wrote in message
news:bm30p8$ibpf7$1...@ID-160166.news.uni-berlin.de...
"a distortion of reality....... but there is reality behind all of our
distortions. In order to make illusions...... there must be something real
for you to distort. And so the illusions...... or better DELUSIONS (as the
HLC refers) are merely our distortions or reality by giving things meanings
and definitions that omit God. And these mutually agreed upon definitions
are what hold our delusions in place."
The first common reference is The World Exists. The second common reference
is each one of us has a mind which makes our own reality, and our own lens
through which we see. The third common reference is all thought manifests
itself. Therefore, we tend to make what we want to see. When we realize
there is another way of seeing, we begin to see another World. And then we
deem to want to join with the recognizance of Creation.
"The delusions....... the distortions come from taking the wrong
perspective....... the perspective of "dreamed-one" rather than "Dreamer"."
There are also mass consciousness choices as well. The making of an
erroneous world isn't a singular plan.
Fish raised to be shown in aquariums only learn their world is limited. Yet,
then continue to swim along the glass, trying to escape their limited box.
Human beings, also, seek to escape their surroundings and their lives,
intuitively knowing their exists another world, and another way of
existence. The answer is to keep the faith, to re-choose everyday, to be
open minded to realize if the box you live in is getting smaller something
is terribly wrong, yet if your surroundings are changing, if your
relationships are extended to many, you most certainly are witnessing
miracles. As for fish, people tend to buy bigger aquariums hoping the fish
will feel better.
Jeanette
Nancy Lorieau
> Oh, there are much better quotes than that one to support my view.
> Trouble is that after my computer got dismantled by a virus a couple
> of months ago, my electronic version of the course has been
> dysfunctional, so I can't go get the quotes myself. Unless I
> re-purchase the electronic version.
Mine died, as well. I'm not nearly as quick off the block with quotes as I
used to be.
> The "real world" is not reality. It is also an illusion. But it is
> the bridge. I don't think how long we spend in it is up to us, but
> like I said, I do not think "Heaven" cannot exist on earth. It is not
> a place, but a condition.
True. I think the Text uses the word "ready." Somehow, I expect that
willingneess will precede, or at least coincide with, readiness. Mind you,
we will all know one day.
n.
Nancy Lorieau
news:635hb.173836$3o3.12...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Hey Lee,
I'm still mulling over some of the things you wrote this morning.
> One of the surprising commonalities among most Course students is
> the largely unexamined presumption that our collaborative dream of this
> realm is wholly the <result> of the Separation thought.
>
> My experience and study of the Course suggests that the Son's
> dream is actually a holy benign creative enterprise, when experienced
> in its pristine creative innocence, with fully lucid awareness and
> Self-remembering intact, amidst the dream.
>
> This, I believe, provides the fullest understanding of "the forgiven
world"
> and the holy world that Christ's vision beholds.
I think you may be on to something.
> The dream only becomes clouded *afer* a subsequent onset of
> Self-forgetting, whose result is a slumbering *version* of the Son's
> dream. Jesus can be said to have experienced a fully lucid version
> of the Son's individuated dream of his life, across this drealm.
Would this, then, the "enlightenment experience"?
> What I hope to achieve by the pieces I offer, here, is to explore whether
> a 'lucid approach' to the Course's central metaphor of dreaming can
> possibly resolve some of the more troubling of the paradoxes that
> students encounter, as they try to reconcile the Course's vision of
> the world with that of their own practical experience.
I think it's important to look at the views we hold of "illusion" and
"reality" and ask ourselves if the way we apply these words to the course is
valid, given the concepts presented by the course.
Thanks, Lee.
Nancy
Noggin
> Oh, there are much better quotes than that one to >support my view.
No doubt. But are there any facts or evidence?
Pieter
"Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net> schreef in bericht
news:635hb.173836$3o3.12...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> One of the surprising commonalities among most Course students is
> the largely unexamined presumption that our collaborative dream of this
> realm is wholly the <result> of the Separation thought.
What about the following quote:
"The world..will remain no longer than
the thought that gave it birth is cherished.
When the thought of separation has been
changed to one of true forgiveness,
will the world be seen in quite another light;
and one which leads to truth, where all
the world must disappear and all its errors vanish." (W-pII.3.1).
Imo this needs no comment.
> My experience and study of the Course suggests that the Son's
> dream is actually a holy benign creative enterprise, when experienced
> in its pristine creative innocence, with fully lucid awareness and
> Self-remembering intact, amidst the dream.
I already asked for quotes which suggest this.
> This, I believe, provides the fullest understanding of "the forgiven
world"
> and the holy world that Christ's vision beholds.
>
> The dream only becomes clouded *afer* a subsequent onset of
> Self-forgetting,
A <subsequent> onset of Self-forgetting?
Can you give any evidence of this in the Course?
Evidence <against> this is:
"..you are either sleeping or awake.
And dreaming goes with only one of these." 29.IV.1:7-8.
> whose result is a slumbering *version* of the Son's
> dream. Jesus can be said to have experienced a fully lucid version
> of the Son's individuated dream of his life, across this drealm.
Isn't Jesus' aim: salvation? And of this is said:
".. salvation is the end of dreams", 17.II.7:4.
> What I hope to achieve by the pieces I offer, here, is to explore whether
> a 'lucid approach' to the Course's central metaphor of dreaming can
> possibly resolve some of the more troubling of the paradoxes that
> students encounter, as they try to reconcile the Course's vision of
> the world with that of their own practical experience.
What are the troubling paradoxes
that students encounter?
Please call them; tia!
> The Course applies the most holy of descriptors to the forgiven
> world that Christ's vision beholds. I don't find a description of
> 'neutral' territory, at all.
The forgiven world does mean
there was a separated world,
experienced as real.
In Heaven (our true Home)
there is nothing to forgive,
so the term doesn't exist there.
Without the thought of
the separation as being real,
the whole concept of a
'forgiven world ' would not
have been necessary.
> My position would be that for the most part, it is only unexamined
> <presumptions> that assert that the "happy dream phase" would amount
> to merely a 'stop' en route to some other Condition. Jesus, after all,
> presumably experienced more than a brief episode of the happy
> dream, or the real world. ;)
Compared to eternity it was a <very> brief episode.
> My premise is that our understanding of the Course may be assisted
> by examing our hidden biases against "time-space",
Isn't our, not at all hidden, bias
against the realm of "time-space(-matter)"
that it is indubitably real?
As real as any thing can be?
against
> 'dreaming', against 'the world' , against the 'happy dream', and
> even against the 'forgiven world'.
> We both may be missing something (which would be par for this
> Course ;-), but I'm hoping to have others help to point out where
> the Course presents information that is not accomodated by this
> Lucid Approach.
(Is 'par' an English word?
I don't know what you mean,
and the word is not in my dictionary)
I think I do what you are asking here.
> You see, the extra dimension that is provided by accounting for a
> *lucid* version of the Son's dream of this realm makes <imagining>
> that the 'other life' suggests a "somewhere else, or sometime
> else", entirely unnecessary!
In Heaven, our Home,
there is no time nor space, so It cannot be
"somewhere else, or sometime else".
Because we, as we are in truth,
are (part of) Heaven, is
Heaven 'here' and 'now' as well.
"The Kingdom of Heaven <is> you." 4.III.1:4.
> That's because both an exalted and
> afflicted version of <this> dream exist, simultaneously. I'll
> explain how that is ...
>
> Any dream offers two principle locus points of identity, by which
> the dreamed realm may be experienced: either as *dreamer* or
> as mere *dreamed one*.
>
> Exalted awareness amidst a dream finds the locus of identity always
> that of the *dreamer*, whose awareness merely *attends* a dream-body
> as a means of skating across a designated continuum of dreamt
> time/space. This is the unblemished, lucid version of an ongoing
> dream. The dreamer's awareness amidst the dream is clear and fully
> awakened, and 'chooses into' the dream's innocent, ongoing
> experience. So, in this waking (or lucid) dream, the locus of
> identity remains that of the *dreamer*, who voluntarily creates both
> the realm to explore, and the sensory 'dreambody' with which to
> explore it.
"The realm to explore"?
Is there anything to "explore"
in the dream/illusion/nothingness
of the separation?
>
> [ Full lucid awareness within a dream does not <allow> for the
> experience of fear, and is marked by unbroken awareness that what
> one 'IS' (as dreamer)
Who is aware of what he "IS"
no longer dreams.
(NB I know what you mean
with 'lucid dreaming'.
I have experienced it several times.
That is: when dreaming to realize:
"I am dreaming now!".
Still is dreaming but illusion.
Why 'day-dreaming'?)
I acknowledge this is a nice and useful description!
But only from the bottom up.
(Starting with the belief in separation).
> ... co-Dreamer of a realm,
Sorry, I cannot buy this.
The fear-dream of the separation
has <nothing> positive in itself.
Even the happy dreaming is
<only> because direct awakening
from the fear-dream would entail fear,
which means that direct awakening
is impossible.
(Imo 'dreaming' in the Course means:
the belief that the separation is real).
Nancy Lorieau
news:3f88949f$0$20471$edd6...@news.versatel.net...
> "Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net> schreef in bericht
> news:635hb.173836$3o3.12...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > One of the surprising commonalities among most Course students is
> > the largely unexamined presumption that our collaborative dream of this
> > realm is wholly the <result> of the Separation thought.
>
> What about the following quote:
> "The world..will remain no longer than
> the thought that gave it birth is cherished.
> When the thought of separation has been
> changed to one of true forgiveness,
> will the world be seen in quite another light;
> and one which leads to truth, where all
> the world must disappear and all its errors vanish." (W-pII.3.1).
> Imo this needs no comment.
Fmji... my own belief is that (as in everything else) we will experience
what we expect. I think that each thought gives our experience birth in this
moment and therefore, if we release our hold on experience, perhaps simply
becoming bored with desire (which could be another way to think of
forgiveness), the world will fade.
No. That isn't in the course. ;-)
n.
Pieter
news:De4ib.74519$pl3.26190@pd7tw3no...
> "Pieter" <hrdouwe...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:3f88949f$0$20471$edd6...@news.versatel.net...
>
> > "Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net> schreef in bericht
> > news:635hb.173836$3o3.12...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > One of the surprising commonalities among most Course students is
> > > the largely unexamined presumption that our collaborative dream of
this
> > > realm is wholly the <result> of the Separation thought.
> >
> > What about the following quote:
> > "The world..will remain no longer than
> > the thought that gave it birth is cherished.
> > When the thought of separation has been
> > changed to one of true forgiveness,
> > will the world be seen in quite another light;
> > and one which leads to truth, where all
> > the world must disappear and all its errors vanish." (W-pII.3.1).
> > Imo this needs no comment.
>
> Fmji... my own belief is that (as in everything else) we will experience
> what we expect.
"Any decision of the mind will affect
both behavior and experience.
What you want you expect." 5.V.8:3-4.
I think that each thought gives our experience birth in this
> moment and therefore, if we release our hold on experience, perhaps simply
> becoming bored with desire (which could be another way to think of
> forgiveness), the world will fade.
"Your mind <does> make your future,
and it will turn it back to full creation
at any minute if it accepts the Atonement first.
It will also return to full creation
the instant it has done so.
Having given up
its disordered thought,
the proper ordering of thought
becomes quite apparent." 5.V.8:6-8.
> No. That isn't in the course. ;-)
The quotes are. :-)
> n.
Lee
I'm up early, this morning. Will you be around, for a bit ?
~ Lee
Pieter
"Lee" <leef...@att.net> schreef in bericht
news:svadnako_7i...@giganews.com...
> Good morning, Pieter !
>
> I'm up early, this morning. Will you be around, for a bit ?
>
> ~ Lee
Hi Lee,
Sorry, but I don't understand
what you try to communicate here.
What do you mean?
Pieter.
Lee
Heya Pieter,
I wrote the above about a half hour after you last posted,
about 12 hrs, ago. It was early, here, and I was hoping
we might exchange some thoughts across the quiet
hours of the n.g. -- if you were going to be around.
Anyway, now that you're back, I'll send on a response to
some of what you've offered.
~ Lee
Pieter
After I had sent the post
which is copied above,
I composed some posts
in the topic "individual vs separate",
and then had to go to bed quickly (11.53 pm;
was tired, and had to wake up early).
In the day-time I can sometimes
spend some time on the ng,
but often only in the evening.
Direct communication on line
is hardly ever possible for me.
Above that: writing posts
usually costs me lots of time
(English is still not my native language! :-) ),
and time pressure does not help me at all.
>
> ~ Lee
>
Lee
Pieter <hrdouwe...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
....
> In the day-time I can sometimes
> spend some time on the ng,
> but often only in the evening.
OK.
> Direct communication on line
> is hardly ever possible for me.
Same, here.
> Above that: writing posts
> usually costs me lots of time
> (English is still not my native language! :-) ),
Again, same here. 'Writing' is not my native tongue.
'Accesses a different part of the brain, I think. ;)
> and time pressure does not help me at all.
I've made my peace with time pressure and have
come to love deadlines ... I just love the sound they
make as they go whizzing by. ;-D
I'm really happy you're with us, Pieter
~ Lee
btw, I'd like to know how to pronounce your name ... is it
different than just Peter ?
Pieter
> btw, I'd like to know how to pronounce your name ... is it
> different than just Peter ?
It is nearly the same as
the English pronunciation of 'Peter'.
But in English there is a time accent
on the first 'e': as though you say Peeeter.
In Dutch there is less of a time accent there.
But without the 'i',
in Dutch the first 'e' sounds like the 'a' in 'table'.
So in Dutch 'Peter' and 'Pieter' are two
different names, both very common in use.
Noggin
The vortex to hell is opened once again. Suck, suck, suck.
"Lee" <leef...@att.net> wrote in message
news:lcKdneHTepO...@giganews.com...
Nancy Lorieau
news:U8Xib.4030$En4....@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> There's that sickening sucking sound again.
>
> The vortex to hell is opened once again. Suck, suck, suck.
The above paragraphs are 1) false, 2) an attempt to shame, 3) crude, 4)
bullying.
n.