Re: We are not the ones who .....Steve/Andy/LTW

March 24, 2006

*****Can we go a bit further please?

Previously you wrote, quite clearly, " God is all there is. " There is

no disagreement. We can start there.

Now, if I'm following you correctly, you seem to be saying that with

the sole exception of God, the following things do not

actually " exist " : the Son of God, the sleeping Son, Jesus, the world,

the " ten thousand things. " So all the hoopla about the sleeping Son,

Jesus, how " we " came to be " here " (which is actually no one being no

where), etc. is, to use your word, a " myth " constructed in ACIM, the

aim of which is to produce Awakening. Is this correct?

A few other thoughts...

....when you write that " the Son chooses this thought of being

separated from his Source, " am I correct in understanding that you

are not being literal, you are being poetical, since there is no Son,

and no choice is " actually " happening? It is all fantasy (all that

is Real is God), and ACIM is one (of several) dualistic attempts to

explain something that never happened. All that follows then, about

the mind, and its " choice, " etc. is not *really* happening at all; it

is simply a part of the mythology/story. How can it " really " be

happening since it is not Real? Is this more on target?

I'm not saying that the myth doesn't, for some, have its place,

purpose, or usefulness. ACIM appears to use dualistic language. For

example the Sleep son vs. God; or a " choice " freely chosen, as in " we

are told that we chose wrongly by choosing to believe the separation

occurred. " In a nondual understanding, there is no " we " separate

from God, so there is no " we " to actual " do " the choosing, right or

wrong. Choices may appear to happen, but appearances can be

deceiving. So I'm wondering if the reason for the apparent dualism

in the language is just that: dualistic language is being employed

here because it is the only way the myth can be communicated within

the " dream " ? What I'm getting from the stuff you supplied below is

that the myth, as it is, is not to be taken seriously; it is

a " pointer, " a tool employed to undo the confusion but not meant to

be taken literally. To take it as literal would be result in

thinking there is a dualistic universe since many of the comments you

quote below point to a " this " and a " that, " and that is not nondual.

Perhaps there is no other way to say it?

Your clarification is appreciated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

" Andy they key point to grasp is that the separation NEVER occured. As

it says in one of the Workbook lessons, there is NO world. The world

is not a manifestation of God, it does not exist! As I said before the

metaphysics of the Course is uncompromising in its non-duality.

However, because the Son dreams of a real world Jesus speaks to us in

a mythology that we can understand. Here is some more stuff from FACIM

to hopefully shed some light on our discussion.

" The Course teaches us that the separation never did occur. In fact,

it is impossible for the Son to separate from the Father. With this as

the starting point, the Course goes on, at great length, to explain

how we " got here, " since we believe we are here. The explanation it

gives us is a kind of myth, explaining something that could never

happen. It tells us that the Son of God fell asleep, and dreamed a

dream of separation: " You are at home in God, dreaming of exile but

perfectly capable of awakening to reality " (T.10.I.2:1). Our

experience as bodies in the world is a dream. Nothing has happened,

and we are in truth still at Home in God.

What A Course in Miracles tells us " happened " in the mind of the

sleeping Son is a wish for more than everything: " No one who comes

here but must still have hope, some lingering illusion, or some dream

that there is something outside of himself that will bring happiness

and peace to him. If everything is in him this cannot be so. And

therefore by his coming, he denies the truth about himself, and seeks

for something more than everything, as if a part of it were separated

off and found where all the rest of it is not " (T.29.VII.2:1, 2,3).

Enticed by the " rush " of being autonomous individuals, thinking this

will bring a happiness beyond the " peace and bliss " you mention, the

Son chooses this thought of being separated from his Source. Although

this seems to have occurred millions of years ago in some distant

forgotten past, it is actually occurring instant by instant each time

the choice is made to believe the separation is real. This is the

only " explanation " for how we seem to be here, so real, so " alive, " so

identified with bodies. It is a choice, and the Course tells us this

choice is purposeful. It establishes our separate identities, which we

have learned to prefer to the truth of who we are. We prefer this made

up identity because we very mistakenly believe this will give us

happiness. We have convinced ourselves that the ego is right and God

is wrong about who we are. Clinging to this belief keeps the

separation " alive and well " in our minds. This is what makes it

happen, over and over in our minds. Again, the thought that drives us

is that autonomy is better that unity, God is not enough, and the ego

will give us the " more " that we seek.

In summary, the foundation of the Course's teaching rests on this very

important recognition of the power of the mind to choose. We are told

that we chose wrongly by choosing to believe the separation occurred,

and we are urged to " choose once again " (T.31.VIII.). In every

situation where we find ourselves in conflict, pain or uneasiness we

find the opportunity to question our experience in the light of this

teaching and choose again: " The images you make cannot prevail against

what God Himself would have you be. Be never fearful of temptation,

then, but see it as it is; another chance to choose again "

(T.31.VIII.4:1,2). "

Have a beautiful day

March 24, 2006

Andy, I think the deal is we can choose to play the game of being

bodies and minds or we can choose to stop the play .

Everyone gets out of here enlightened-no soul is lost- but what i

understand is that how soon that happens is up to us.

It also seems to me that by doing the work a person gets clearer.

Maybe that is inaccurate but thats what i believe anyway.

love,roslyn

- In Loving-what-is , " Andy " wrote:

>

> *****Can we go a bit further please?

>

> Previously you wrote, quite clearly, " God is all there is. " There is

> no disagreement. We can start there.

>

> Now, if I'm following you correctly, you seem to be saying that with

> the sole exception of God, the following things do not

> actually " exist " : the Son of God, the sleeping Son, Jesus, the world,

> the " ten thousand things. " So all the hoopla about the sleeping Son,

> Jesus, how " we " came to be " here " (which is actually no one being no

> where), etc. is, to use your word, a " myth " constructed in ACIM, the

> aim of which is to produce Awakening. Is this correct?

>

> A few other thoughts...

>

> ...when you write that " the Son chooses this thought of being

> separated from his Source, " am I correct in understanding that you

> are not being literal, you are being poetical, since there is no Son,

> and no choice is " actually " happening? It is all fantasy (all that

> is Real is God), and ACIM is one (of several) dualistic attempts to

> explain something that never happened. All that follows then, about

> the mind, and its " choice, " etc. is not *really* happening at all; it

> is simply a part of the mythology/story. How can it " really " be

> happening since it is not Real? Is this more on target?

>

> I'm not saying that the myth doesn't, for some, have its place,

> purpose, or usefulness. ACIM appears to use dualistic language. For

> example the Sleep son vs. God; or a " choice " freely chosen, as in " we

> are told that we chose wrongly by choosing to believe the separation

> occurred. " In a nondual understanding, there is no " we " separate

> from God, so there is no " we " to actual " do " the choosing, right or

> wrong. Choices may appear to happen, but appearances can be

> deceiving. So I'm wondering if the reason for the apparent dualism

> in the language is just that: dualistic language is being employed

> here because it is the only way the myth can be communicated within

> the " dream " ? What I'm getting from the stuff you supplied below is

> that the myth, as it is, is not to be taken seriously; it is

> a " pointer, " a tool employed to undo the confusion but not meant to

> be taken literally. To take it as literal would be result in

> thinking there is a dualistic universe since many of the comments you

> quote below point to a " this " and a " that, " and that is not nondual.

> Perhaps there is no other way to say it?

>

> Your clarification is appreciated.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> " Andy they key point to grasp is that the separation NEVER occured. As

> it says in one of the Workbook lessons, there is NO world. The world

> is not a manifestation of God, it does not exist! As I said before the

> metaphysics of the Course is uncompromising in its non-duality.

> However, because the Son dreams of a real world Jesus speaks to us in

> a mythology that we can understand. Here is some more stuff from FACIM

> to hopefully shed some light on our discussion.

>

> " The Course teaches us that the separation never did occur. In fact,

> it is impossible for the Son to separate from the Father. With this as

> the starting point, the Course goes on, at great length, to explain

> how we " got here, " since we believe we are here. The explanation it

> gives us is a kind of myth, explaining something that could never

> happen. It tells us that the Son of God fell asleep, and dreamed a

> dream of separation: " You are at home in God, dreaming of exile but

> perfectly capable of awakening to reality " (T.10.I.2:1). Our

> experience as bodies in the world is a dream. Nothing has happened,

> and we are in truth still at Home in God.

>

> What A Course in Miracles tells us " happened " in the mind of the

> sleeping Son is a wish for more than everything: " No one who comes

> here but must still have hope, some lingering illusion, or some dream

> that there is something outside of himself that will bring happiness

> and peace to him. If everything is in him this cannot be so. And

> therefore by his coming, he denies the truth about himself, and seeks

> for something more than everything, as if a part of it were separated

> off and found where all the rest of it is not " (T.29.VII.2:1, 2,3).

> Enticed by the " rush " of being autonomous individuals, thinking this

> will bring a happiness beyond the " peace and bliss " you mention, the

> Son chooses this thought of being separated from his Source. Although

> this seems to have occurred millions of years ago in some distant

> forgotten past, it is actually occurring instant by instant each time

> the choice is made to believe the separation is real. This is the

> only " explanation " for how we seem to be here, so real, so " alive, " so

> identified with bodies. It is a choice, and the Course tells us this

> choice is purposeful. It establishes our separate identities, which we

> have learned to prefer to the truth of who we are. We prefer this made

> up identity because we very mistakenly believe this will give us

> happiness. We have convinced ourselves that the ego is right and God

> is wrong about who we are. Clinging to this belief keeps the

> separation " alive and well " in our minds. This is what makes it

> happen, over and over in our minds. Again, the thought that drives us

> is that autonomy is better that unity, God is not enough, and the ego

> will give us the " more " that we seek.

>

> In summary, the foundation of the Course's teaching rests on this very

> important recognition of the power of the mind to choose. We are told

> that we chose wrongly by choosing to believe the separation occurred,

> and we are urged to " choose once again " (T.31.VIII.). In every

> situation where we find ourselves in conflict, pain or uneasiness we

> find the opportunity to question our experience in the light of this

> teaching and choose again: " The images you make cannot prevail against

> what God Himself would have you be. Be never fearful of temptation,

> then, but see it as it is; another chance to choose again "

> (T.31.VIII.4:1,2). "

>

> Have a beautiful day

>

March 25, 2006

Hi Rosylan, thanks for writing.

You noted, " I think the deal is we can choose to play the game of being

bodies and minds or we can choose to stop the play . "

What I am pointing to is twofold and interconnected, intertwined. We

start with an agreed-upon given: God is all there is. All there is,

is God. So, given:

(1) God is all there is......there is, in reality, no " we " to begin

with and

(2) God is all there is so, even if there is an imaginary 'we' (like a

mirage in a parched desert, there really is no water there), how can

this imaginary 'we *choose* anything (one can't drink water out of a

mirage, right)?

If a choice does happen, it won't be 'we' that are choosing,

since 'we' don't exist! It can only be God that chooses (as God is

all there is).

March 25, 2006

Hi Andy, I do like the idea of no decision and no choice

But then that sounds like no responsibility.

You made me feel so much better when you wrote we are all doing the

best we can .

I tend to be very critical of myself for not being better.

And i like the idea of being one with God always. .

TO put another theory into the mix.. scientology says their are two

kinds of mind.. analytical mind and reactive mind. --

Operating as the reactive mind we are effect of our surrondings and

our past And being analytical we are at cause and in present time. The

whole idea of auditing therapy is to get a person operating from their

analytical mind. and ridding people of the reactive mind.

I havent had auditing but that is the goal of auditing.

it makes sense however i have not had auditing.

AT the same time the one who is viewing - the thoughts the spirit or

thetan (Greek for Spirit ) is the part that is one with God .

I guess it is all pretty much the same just different terms.

love, roslyn

- In Loving-what-is , " Andy " wrote:

>

> Hi Rosylan, thanks for writing.

>

> You noted, " I think the deal is we can choose to play the game of being

> bodies and minds or we can choose to stop the play . "

>

> What I am pointing to is twofold and interconnected, intertwined. We

> start with an agreed-upon given: God is all there is. All there is,

> is God. So, given:

>

> (1) God is all there is......there is, in reality, no " we " to begin

> with and

>

> (2) God is all there is so, even if there is an imaginary 'we' (like a

> mirage in a parched desert, there really is no water there), how can

> this imaginary 'we *choose* anything (one can't drink water out of a

> mirage, right)?

>

> If a choice does happen, it won't be 'we' that are choosing,

> since 'we' don't exist! It can only be God that chooses (as God is

> all there is).

>

March 26, 2006

Dear Rosyln ~

You wrote, " I do like the idea of no decision and no choice But then

that sounds like no responsibility. "

*****Much of the confusion that arises in these types of forums seems

to come from " mixing levels " of understanding. I think some of this

is what happens with lovetheworkofbk and me (although I suspect there

are some fundamental differences....perhaps not).

On the absolute level, there are NO individual entities. There is

Oneness (or, as some like to say, pure, unconditional Love, or God,

or Totality). This is operating at every moment.

Now, for some reason (there are a multitude of stories about it),

there is simultaneously a *relative* level: a level where separation

appears, distinctions arise, and there APPEAR to be individual

entities.

In the understanding I have gravitated towards (or it towards me),

this relative world is a construct of the absolute and has no

independent existence. Whatever " happens " on the relative,

phenomenal plane (where we eat, die, fight, think, etc.)....all the

happenings there, are " directed " or " scripted " by God (Source,

Totality, Love). We don't freely get to choose our actions,

feelings, or fate, since we, as separate, individual entities, don't

have any independent existence. We have the SENSE of independence,

and there is the APPEARANCE of separation. There's no getting away

from that. If we didn't have these things, we would end up driving

our car home to the local gas station instead of our house! We would

end up putting shit into our mouths instead of broccoli! So the

sense of separation is no mistake. It is the way things are in this

manifestation, phenomenality, born from the absolute. But the

absolute and the relative are IDENTICAL. One is not separate from

the other, since all there is, is the absolute.

Now...mixing these levels produces much confusion since the

understanding, on the relative plane, is different, much different,

than that on the absolute. It is therefore useful to preface any

discussion with a reference to the level from which one is talking

(and one level isn't " above " or " below " the other...in actuality,

there is only One...all the other apparent dualisms are conventional

tools so that dialogue can occur).

Now to your comment.

For there to be responsibility, there must be an agent that has the

freedom to choose. On the relative plane, most people see and fully

believe the separation. They fully believe that each apparent

individual is endowed with " free will " and makes concious, willful

choices. And thus many people hold others " responsible " for their

words and actions (some fundamentalists even hold others responsible

for their thoughts...I remember one chick saying, " For us, the

thought is equivalent to the deed. " ).

If you move to the absolute understanding...there is no individual

entity to be doing anything, thus no responsibility.

On a pesonal level, you will either " hold " another responsible or you

won't. You'll have to see, situation by situation, what thought

attaches to you. Why wait and see? Because on the absolute level of

understanding, it is Seen (by no one) that Rosyln isn't the Author of

any thoughts; she is the instrument and recepient only. She has no

say in what thoughts appear, get attached, nor get unattached.

You made me feel so much better when you wrote we are all doing the

best we can . I tend to be very critical of myself for not being

better. And i like the idea of being one with God always. .

*****Given the absolute perspective, it can even be said that each of

us, every sentient being, rock, tree, drop of moisture, molecule...it

is ALL God. Not " one with " with suggests separation. But simply:

each is a manifestation of God. God is all there is. There is only

God. But our everyday experiences in the relative plane suggest

otherwise. It is a *VERY* convincing illusion and in order to

function, it is my belief that the illusion must persist. But there

can simultaneously be a underlying Understanding that " all is one. "

TO put another theory into the mix.. scientology says their are two

kinds of mind.. analytical mind and reactive mind. --

Operating as the reactive mind we are effect of our surrondings and

our past.

*****The past does not exist. Time, with the exception of Now!, does

not exist. The past, the future, ... they are mental constructs.

Simply thoughts.

And being analytical we are at cause and in present time. The

whole idea of auditing therapy is to get a person operating from their

analytical mind. and ridding people of the reactive mind.

I havent had auditing but that is the goal of auditing.

it makes sense however i have not had auditing.

AT the same time the one who is viewing - the thoughts the spirit or

thetan (Greek for Spirit ) is the part that is one with God .

I guess it is all pretty much the same just different terms.

*****Perhaps. There's been no pull here to study Scientology so I'm

not verse in it at all. The differentiation, on the relative plane,

that I prefer is between the " working mind " and the " thinking mind. "

The " working mind " is that region of the brain which is responsible

for thoughts which are devoted to the proper functioning of the

organism (where it lives, what to eat, chores to be done, etc.). It

is factual data. The " thinking mind " is that part of the brain which

gives rise to a " sense of me, " what one meditation teacher calls

the " me-network. " At its base, it is where there is a belief (a

Divine Hypnosis) that we are the Authors of our thoughts, that there

is some enduring, persisting " me " present, kind of like a " soul " in

Christian theology. But if one looks closely, ... really, really

closely, at How Things Really Are, it will be Seen (by no one) that

there is nothing, anywhere, that persists in the same configuration,

from moment to moment. It isn't that there are things which are

impermanent, which come and go. It is that all there is, is

impermanence, flow. The notion that there is a " me " which changes

not, from moment to moment, is an illusion, and that is essentially

the essence of the " thinking mind. "

Cheers!

March 26, 2006

Ooops ... Sorry for the delay in responding Andy, but I have to

spend some time golfing The discussion continues below:

>

> Now, if I'm following you correctly, you seem to be saying that

> with the sole exception of God, the following things do not

> actually " exist " : the Son of God, the sleeping Son, Jesus, the

> world, the " ten thousand things. " So all the hoopla about the

> sleeping Son, Jesus, how " we " came to be " here " (which is actually

> no one being no where), etc. is, to use your word, a " myth "

> constructed in ACIM, the aim of which is to produce Awakening. Is

> this correct?

>

Well almost

As I read ACIM, God created the Son. However this DOES not imply

duality. Creation is extension, yet it is completely non-spatial,

non-linear, and non-quantitative. " True giving is creation. It

extends the limitless to the unlimited, eternity to timelessness,

and love unto itself. It adds to all that is complete already, not

in simple terms of adding more, for that implies that it was less

before. It adds by letting what cannot contain itself fulfill its

aim of giving everything away, securing it forever for itself "

(W.pI.105.4:2,3,4,5).

This world is the result of a tiny mad idea in the mind of the Son

of God at which he forgot to laugh.

>

> A few other thoughts...

>

> ...when you write that " the Son chooses this thought of being

> separated from his Source, " am I correct in understanding that you

> are not being literal, you are being poetical, since there is no

> Son, and no choice is " actually " happening? It is all fantasy

> (all that is Real is God), and ACIM is one (of several) dualistic

> attempts to explain something that never happened. All that

> follows then, about the mind, and its " choice, " etc. is not

> *really* happening at all; it is simply a part of the

> mythology/story. How can it " really " be happening since it is not

> Real? Is this more on target?

There is the Son, but as I explained above this can not be

understood dualistically. The Son is God's creation, but creation in

God's term is NOT what we understand as creation. Of course the ego

will ask if God is infinite how can he extend a Son? Good question,

but one which is impossible to grasp in the dream, because we have

no point of reference for understanding the true nature of God or

the Son.

As the Son was falling asleep God was aware of what was happening

and placed the Holy Spirit in his mind so that he could not sever

his contact with his father completely. This sound dualistic to us

here in the dream, but in truth it is not. The non-duality of this

discussion can ONLY be realized by direct contact with the Holy

Spirit.

>

> I'm not saying that the myth doesn't, for some, have its place,

> purpose, or usefulness. ACIM appears to use dualistic language.

> For example the Sleep son vs. God; or a " choice " freely chosen, as

> in " we are told that we chose wrongly by choosing to believe the

> separation occurred. " In a nondual understanding, there is

> no " we " separate from God, so there is no " we " to actual " do " the

> choosing, right or wrong. Choices may appear to happen, but

> appearances can be deceiving. So I'm wondering if the reason for

> the apparent dualism in the language is just that: dualistic

> language is being employed here because it is the only way the

> myth can be communicated within the " dream " ? What I'm getting

> from the stuff you supplied below is that the myth, as it is, is

> not to be taken seriously; it is a " pointer, " a tool employed to

> undo the confusion but not meant to be taken literally. To take

> it as literal would be result in thinking there is a dualistic

> universe since many of the comments you quote below point to

> a " this " and a " that, " and that is not nondual.

> Perhaps there is no other way to say it?

>

> Your clarification is appreciated.

Jesus in ACIM speaks to the " decision maker " in the Son's mind. As

long as the Son believes he is separate the ability to choose is

very real. There would be no reason to scibe a book like ACIM if it

did not serve a critical purpose in helping the Son remember that

there is indeed a choice between the voice (Holy Spirit or ego) he

listens to. Of course there are other paths which may lead the Son

to awaken, ACIM and the Work are but two of many. The hindu non-

dualistic approach is interesting, but basically incorrect because

it fails to recognise that God and the Son exist, and that this

world is nothing more than a dream in the mind of the Son. Again

please ... please do not try to understand the non-dualistic nature

of God and the Son using your intellectual mind, it can ONLY be

realized by listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit in your mind.

Have a beautiful day

" There's nothing between you and love but unquestioned concepts. "

Byron

March 26, 2006

Ooops ... Sorry for the delay in responding Andy, but I have to

spend some time golfing The discussion continues below:

*****No rush. It all gets taken care of in its own time.

> Now, if I'm following you correctly, you seem to be saying that

> with the sole exception of God, the following things do not

> actually " exist " : the Son of God, the sleeping Son, Jesus, the

> world, the " ten thousand things. " So all the hoopla about the

> sleeping Son, Jesus, how " we " came to be " here " (which is actually

> no one being no where), etc. is, to use your word, a " myth "

> constructed in ACIM, the aim of which is to produce Awakening. Is

> this correct?

>

Well almost

As I read ACIM, God created the Son. However this DOES not imply

duality. Creation is extension, yet it is completely non-spatial,

non-linear, and non-quantitative.

*****Bottom line.....creation, extension, whatever you wish to label

it: if God is All, then the Son must also be God. I prefer to say

that the Son is a manifestation, an arising, OF God, ... or, perhaps,

an expression of God. But in no way separate. And the movement of

all in phenomenality, or the dream, as you call it, is also the

movement of God. If it is not God's movement, then one has duality.

This world is the result of a tiny mad idea in the mind of the Son

of God at which he forgot to laugh.

*****Again: the mind of the Son of God and God must be one and the

same. Otherwise there is duality.

There is the Son, but as I explained above this can not be

understood dualistically. The Son is God's creation, but creation in

God's term is NOT what we understand as creation. Of course the ego

will ask if God is infinite how can he extend a Son? Good question,

but one which is impossible to grasp in the dream, because we have

no point of reference for understanding the true nature of God or

the Son.

*****This is the last refuge of all metaphysical explanations when

their backs are pushed up against an unmovable wall....It is also

used by all forms of fundamentalists to elude questions for which

they have no answers. One hears such evasions as " God's ways are

mysterious and can't be understood (by mere mortals). " Or the ever-

popular, " The question (or answer) is impossible for finite beings to

grasp. " Whatever the response, it avoids, it side-steps.

*****Please tell me....Are you saying that you, lovetheworkofbk,

personally KNOW what is, and what is not so, for God? Seems that way

when you categorically state " creation in God's term is NOT what we

understand as creation. " How do you come by this knowledge of what

is so for God? Does God speak to you, like he does to Bush?

As the Son was falling asleep God was aware of what was happening

and placed the Holy Spirit in his mind so that he could not sever

his contact with his father completely. This sound dualistic to us

here in the dream, but in truth it is not.

*****And you, lovetheworkofbk, know this, right? From what I can

see, ACIM, for whatever its reasons, takes a powerful and simple

understanding (God is all there is, all there is, is God), and

generates an extremely complex (unnecessarily complex) metaphysical

system. If there is no dualism, then there is simply Unicity,

whether it is called God, Consciousness, Totality. There may be

appearances of duality, but all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo aside,

if one accepts a nondual position, then there is only One. All the

other manifestions must, by definition, be an aspect -- and in no way

independent of -- that One.

Again please ... please do not try to understand the non-dualistic

nature of God and the Son using your intellectual mind, it can ONLY be

realized by listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit in your mind.

*****Yeah, I've heard this before from other True Believers. As I

see it, you are mouthing just another evasion. And I suspect this is

just not possible for you to see, so indoctrinated you are in the

metaphysical system of ACIM. I won't continue expending energy

conversing on this then. When dialogue is reduced to this level of

equivocation, no reasonable discourse is possible. When you state

something to the effect of " it's too complex for the rational mind to

grasp " the conversation is over. Done with. Kaput. Finis.

March 26, 2006

I think you would like wheeler he has a website. and Nirmala

I went to hear Nirmala who also has a website today ..

But i dont think you need either one.

In a nutshell.. he was saying we are all space. And if we are all

space that would mean the end of all problems.

And our awareness or our heart or our consciousness whatever expands

or contracts And our freedom lies in being ok with both expansion and

contraction.

Expansion is openness , spaciousness , love allowing everything.

When we do contract or when we are judgmental or limited whatever, we

will feel it .. like katie he says our built in feeling will let us

know we are believing something that isnt true.

And whatever we are experiencing is always perfect.

That was good to hear.,

love, roslyn

>

> Dear Rosyln ~

>

> You wrote, " I do like the idea of no decision and no choice But then

> that sounds like no responsibility. "

>

> *****Much of the confusion that arises in these types of forums seems

> to come from " mixing levels " of understanding. I think some of this

> is what happens with lovetheworkofbk and me (although I suspect there

> are some fundamental differences....perhaps not).

>

> On the absolute level, there are NO individual entities. There is

> Oneness (or, as some like to say, pure, unconditional Love, or God,

> or Totality). This is operating at every moment.

>

> Now, for some reason (there are a multitude of stories about it),

> there is simultaneously a *relative* level: a level where separation

> appears, distinctions arise, and there APPEAR to be individual

> entities.

>

> In the understanding I have gravitated towards (or it towards me),

> this relative world is a construct of the absolute and has no

> independent existence. Whatever " happens " on the relative,

> phenomenal plane (where we eat, die, fight, think, etc.)....all the

> happenings there, are " directed " or " scripted " by God (Source,

> Totality, Love). We don't freely get to choose our actions,

> feelings, or fate, since we, as separate, individual entities, don't

> have any independent existence. We have the SENSE of independence,

> and there is the APPEARANCE of separation. There's no getting away

> from that. If we didn't have these things, we would end up driving

> our car home to the local gas station instead of our house! We would

> end up putting shit into our mouths instead of broccoli! So the

> sense of separation is no mistake. It is the way things are in this

> manifestation, phenomenality, born from the absolute. But the

> absolute and the relative are IDENTICAL. One is not separate from

> the other, since all there is, is the absolute.

>

> Now...mixing these levels produces much confusion since the

> understanding, on the relative plane, is different, much different,

> than that on the absolute. It is therefore useful to preface any

> discussion with a reference to the level from which one is talking

> (and one level isn't " above " or " below " the other...in actuality,

> there is only One...all the other apparent dualisms are conventional

> tools so that dialogue can occur).

>

> Now to your comment.

>

> For there to be responsibility, there must be an agent that has the

> freedom to choose. On the relative plane, most people see and fully

> believe the separation. They fully believe that each apparent

> individual is endowed with " free will " and makes concious, willful

> choices. And thus many people hold others " responsible " for their

> words and actions (some fundamentalists even hold others responsible

> for their thoughts...I remember one chick saying, " For us, the

> thought is equivalent to the deed. " ).

>

> If you move to the absolute understanding...there is no individual

> entity to be doing anything, thus no responsibility.

>

> On a pesonal level, you will either " hold " another responsible or you

> won't. You'll have to see, situation by situation, what thought

> attaches to you. Why wait and see? Because on the absolute level of

> understanding, it is Seen (by no one) that Rosyln isn't the Author of

> any thoughts; she is the instrument and recepient only. She has no

> say in what thoughts appear, get attached, nor get unattached.

>

> You made me feel so much better when you wrote we are all doing the

> best we can . I tend to be very critical of myself for not being

> better. And i like the idea of being one with God always. .

>

> *****Given the absolute perspective, it can even be said that each of

> us, every sentient being, rock, tree, drop of moisture, molecule...it

> is ALL God. Not " one with " with suggests separation. But simply:

> each is a manifestation of God. God is all there is. There is only

> God. But our everyday experiences in the relative plane suggest

> otherwise. It is a *VERY* convincing illusion and in order to

> function, it is my belief that the illusion must persist. But there

> can simultaneously be a underlying Understanding that " all is one. "

>

> TO put another theory into the mix.. scientology says their are two

> kinds of mind.. analytical mind and reactive mind. --

> Operating as the reactive mind we are effect of our surrondings and

> our past.

>

> *****The past does not exist. Time, with the exception of Now!, does

> not exist. The past, the future, ... they are mental constructs.

> Simply thoughts.

>

> And being analytical we are at cause and in present time. The

> whole idea of auditing therapy is to get a person operating from their

> analytical mind. and ridding people of the reactive mind.

> I havent had auditing but that is the goal of auditing.

> it makes sense however i have not had auditing.

>

> AT the same time the one who is viewing - the thoughts the spirit or

> thetan (Greek for Spirit ) is the part that is one with God .

>

> I guess it is all pretty much the same just different terms.

>

> *****Perhaps. There's been no pull here to study Scientology so I'm

> not verse in it at all. The differentiation, on the relative plane,

> that I prefer is between the " working mind " and the " thinking mind. "

> The " working mind " is that region of the brain which is responsible

> for thoughts which are devoted to the proper functioning of the

> organism (where it lives, what to eat, chores to be done, etc.). It

> is factual data. The " thinking mind " is that part of the brain which

> gives rise to a " sense of me, " what one meditation teacher calls

> the " me-network. " At its base, it is where there is a belief (a

> Divine Hypnosis) that we are the Authors of our thoughts, that there

> is some enduring, persisting " me " present, kind of like a " soul " in

> Christian theology. But if one looks closely, ... really, really

> closely, at How Things Really Are, it will be Seen (by no one) that

> there is nothing, anywhere, that persists in the same configuration,

> from moment to moment. It isn't that there are things which are

> impermanent, which come and go. It is that all there is, is

> impermanence, flow. The notion that there is a " me " which changes

> not, from moment to moment, is an illusion, and that is essentially

> the essence of the " thinking mind. "

>

> Cheers!

>

March 26, 2006

>

> *****Yeah, I've heard this before from other True Believers. As I

> see it, you are mouthing just another evasion. And I suspect this

> is just not possible for you to see, so indoctrinated you are in the

> metaphysical system of ACIM. I won't continue expending energy

> conversing on this then. When dialogue is reduced to this level of

> equivocation, no reasonable discourse is possible. When you state

> something to the effect of " it's too complex for the rational mind

> to grasp " the conversation is over. Done with. Kaput. Finis.

>

Well Andy the reason I like ACIM so much is that it constantly reminds

me where the real answers are. In the Work it is the " heart mind " , in

ACIM it is the Holy Spirit. It doesn't matter what you call it, just

that you have a little willingness to hear the voice for God. I don't

see how this is an evasion of the truth, rather it seems to me to be

the way to the truth.

Looks like ACIM/Work is not your cup of tea and that is fine. I am not

indoctrinated into the metaphysical system of ACIM. I just cannot find

another metaphysical system which explains God, the Son and every

aspect of the dream so well. Our discussion has been awesome and I am

sure that it may have turned on a few light bulbs in minds of other

readers, so this conversation was not for nothing. At the very least

at has sharpened my knowledge of some of the more obscure aspects of

the Courses metaphysics. So thank you for that!

Have a beautiful day

" There's nothing between you and love but unquestioned concepts. "

Byron

March 27, 2006

>

> I do not see any attempt on the part of either one of you to

> understand the other. I only see two people that want to be right

> rather than be happy?

>

Thanks for that Steve, I can understand how you could see it that

way. Actually in some spiritual practices i.e. Tibetan Buddhism this

sort of opposing dialog is used to deepen the understanding of the

participants. One monk takes a seat and his job is to express his

understanding of no-self. A second monk walks around the seated monk

who's job is to attempt to prove that there is indeed a self. The

dialogue goes back and forth as each argues the validity of their

position. There is no winner or looser (no one who wants to be

right), but the participants come away from the experience with a

deeper understanding of how grounded or weak their metaphysical

position is.

It seems to me that Andy and I are engaged in a similar practice.

Andy states that all is God. I respond that in ACIM there is God and

the Son of God. Andy quotes the Hindu mystics, Zen masters etc. in

defence of his position. I quote ACIM in defence of mine. From the

outside it looks like we are trying to be right, but what is really

happening is that we are both testing and exploring the stability of

our metaphysical positions. As a result of the discussion I may

realize that the metaphysical position of ACIM is incorrect and

embrace Andy's line of thought. On the other hand maybe Andy will

see some validity in the ACIM metaphysics that he did not see before.

People reading our dialogue also benefit, because they may be

motivated to read the Hindu mystics or ACIM so that they can add

something to the discussion or just understand what the hell we are

talking about a little better.

Just some thoughts. Have a beautiful day

" There's nothing between you and love but unquestioned concepts. "

Byron

March 27, 2006

I could be wrong but i dont think andy is into hinduism.. at all

Just Zen Which is a type of Buddhism.. Right? andy

??? Im not sure..

Im the one who has followed Hinduism of -Yogananda who founded Self

REalization which is a combination of Christianity and Hinduism.

Also according to the book Disappearance of the Universe JEsus was

misinterpreted. I guess that is no surprise to anyone.

These days i think our ideas about Jesus are really changing

I suppose collectively our consciousness is raising or something.

love, roslyn

- In Loving-what-is , " lovetheworkofbk "

wrote:

>

> >

> > I do not see any attempt on the part of either one of you to

> > understand the other. I only see two people that want to be right

> > rather than be happy?

> >

>

> Thanks for that Steve, I can understand how you could see it that

> way. Actually in some spiritual practices i.e. Tibetan Buddhism this

> sort of opposing dialog is used to deepen the understanding of the

> participants. One monk takes a seat and his job is to express his

> understanding of no-self. A second monk walks around the seated monk

> who's job is to attempt to prove that there is indeed a self. The

> dialogue goes back and forth as each argues the validity of their

> position. There is no winner or looser (no one who wants to be

> right), but the participants come away from the experience with a

> deeper understanding of how grounded or weak their metaphysical

> position is.

> It seems to me that Andy and I are engaged in a similar practice.

> Andy states that all is God. I respond that in ACIM there is God and

> the Son of God. Andy quotes the Hindu mystics, Zen masters etc. in

> defence of his position. I quote ACIM in defence of mine. From the

> outside it looks like we are trying to be right, but what is really

> happening is that we are both testing and exploring the stability of

> our metaphysical positions. As a result of the discussion I may

> realize that the metaphysical position of ACIM is incorrect and

> embrace Andy's line of thought. On the other hand maybe Andy will

> see some validity in the ACIM metaphysics that he did not see before.

> People reading our dialogue also benefit, because they may be

> motivated to read the Hindu mystics or ACIM so that they can add

> something to the discussion or just understand what the hell we are

> talking about a little better.

>

> Just some thoughts. Have a beautiful day

>

> " There's nothing between you and love but unquestioned concepts. "

> Byron

>

March 27, 2006

Oh! I hadn't read this yet (I'm backtracking). That's helpful, about

the mixing of levels.

Thanks,

Karin

(snip)

>

> You wrote, " I do like the idea of no decision and no choice But

then

> that sounds like no responsibility. "

>

> *****Much of the confusion that arises in these types of forums

seems

> to come from " mixing levels " of understanding. I think some of

this

> is what happens with lovetheworkofbk and me (although I suspect

there

> are some fundamental differences....perhaps not).

>

> On the absolute level, there are NO individual entities. There is

> Oneness (or, as some like to say, pure, unconditional Love, or God,

> or Totality). This is operating at every moment.

>

> Now, for some reason (there are a multitude of stories about it),

> there is simultaneously a *relative* level: a level where

separation

> appears, distinctions arise, and there APPEAR to be individual

> entities.

March 27, 2006

Good answer Steve!

You are so sweet and loving.

Love you, T

> Dear Andy and LovetheworkofBK,

>

> I understand that waht I believe is completely irrelevant here but

I

> am going to share it anyway because I can.

>

> I noticed that Andy said soemthing here I agree with. He said:

> " no reasonable discourse is possible " .

>

> I see that this dissertation is continuing. May I suggest to you

> that you are giving us all a classic example of what ACIM refers to

> a " Level Confusion " . This reminds me of a couple of physicists

> arguing over whether an atom contains particles or waves? Well, of

> course, it all depends upon what you are looking for.

>

> I do not see any attempt on the part of either one of you to

> understand the other. I only see two people that want to be right

> rather than be happy?

>

> Oh well, whatever turns you on.

>

> Love to all,

> Steve D.

>

> >

> > Ooops ... Sorry for the delay in responding Andy, but I have to

> > spend some time golfing The discussion continues below:

> >

> > *****No rush. It all gets taken care of in its own time.

> >

> > > Now, if I'm following you correctly, you seem to be saying that

> > > with the sole exception of God, the following things do not

> > > actually " exist " : the Son of God, the sleeping Son, Jesus, the

> > > world, the " ten thousand things. " So all the hoopla about the

> > > sleeping Son, Jesus, how " we " came to be " here " (which is

actually

> > > no one being no where), etc. is, to use your word, a " myth "

> > > constructed in ACIM, the aim of which is to produce Awakening.

Is

> > > this correct?

> > >

> >

> > Well almost

> >

> > As I read ACIM, God created the Son. However this DOES not imply

> > duality. Creation is extension, yet it is completely non-spatial,

> > non-linear, and non-quantitative.

> >

> > *****Bottom line.....creation, extension, whatever you wish to

> label

> > it: if God is All, then the Son must also be God. I prefer to

say

> > that the Son is a manifestation, an arising, OF God, ... or,

> perhaps,

> > an expression of God. But in no way separate. And the movement

of

> > all in phenomenality, or the dream, as you call it, is also the

> > movement of God. If it is not God's movement, then one has

duality.

> >

> > This world is the result of a tiny mad idea in the mind of the Son

> > of God at which he forgot to laugh.

> >

> > *****Again: the mind of the Son of God and God must be one and

> the

> > same. Otherwise there is duality.

> >

> > There is the Son, but as I explained above this can not be

> > understood dualistically. The Son is God's creation, but creation

in

> > God's term is NOT what we understand as creation. Of course the

ego

> > will ask if God is infinite how can he extend a Son? Good

question,

> > but one which is impossible to grasp in the dream, because we have

> > no point of reference for understanding the true nature of God or

> > the Son.

> >

> > *****This is the last refuge of all metaphysical explanations

when

> > their backs are pushed up against an unmovable wall....It is also

> > used by all forms of fundamentalists to elude questions for which

> > they have no answers. One hears such evasions as " God's ways are

> > mysterious and can't be understood (by mere mortals). " Or the

ever-

> > popular, " The question (or answer) is impossible for finite

beings

> to

> > grasp. " Whatever the response, it avoids, it side-steps.

> >

> > *****Please tell me....Are you saying that you, lovetheworkofbk,

> > personally KNOW what is, and what is not so, for God? Seems that

> way

> > when you categorically state " creation in God's term is NOT what

we

> > understand as creation. " How do you come by this knowledge of

what

> > is so for God? Does God speak to you, like he does to

Bush?

> >

> > As the Son was falling asleep God was aware of what was happening

> > and placed the Holy Spirit in his mind so that he could not sever

> > his contact with his father completely. This sound dualistic to us

> > here in the dream, but in truth it is not.

> >

> > *****And you, lovetheworkofbk, know this, right? From what I can

> > see, ACIM, for whatever its reasons, takes a powerful and simple

> > understanding (God is all there is, all there is, is God), and

> > generates an extremely complex (unnecessarily complex)

metaphysical

> > system. If there is no dualism, then there is simply Unicity,

> > whether it is called God, Consciousness, Totality. There may be

> > appearances of duality, but all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo

aside,

> > if one accepts a nondual position, then there is only One. All

the

> > other manifestions must, by definition, be an aspect -- and in no

> way

> > independent of -- that One.

> >

> > Again please ... please do not try to understand the non-

dualistic

> > nature of God and the Son using your intellectual mind, it can

ONLY

> be

> > realized by listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit in your

mind.

> >

> > *****Yeah, I've heard this before from other True Believers. As

I

> > see it, you are mouthing just another evasion. And I suspect

this

> is

> > just not possible for you to see, so indoctrinated you are in the

> > metaphysical system of ACIM. I won't continue expending energy

> > conversing on this then. When dialogue is reduced to this level

of

> > equivocation, no reasonable discourse is possible. When you

state

> > something to the effect of " it's too complex for the rational

mind

> to

> > grasp " the conversation is over. Done with. Kaput. Finis.

> >

>

March 28, 2006

I could be wrong but i dont think andy is into hinduism.. at all

Just Zen Which is a type of Buddhism.. Right? andy

??? Im not sure..

*****I'll let others label the nonsense I'm spouting.

Many streams have been traveled: zen, vipassana, advaita, the work,

all of which are founded on a nondual understanding. (I'm still

floundering on how ACIM is nondual since it has both God and The Son.

Perhaps one day it will be clear to me.)

I would guess that the babbling that goes forth from here is a

combination of the many streams which have been traversed. But

always, at heart, the understanding is that ultimately, there is only

One Thing. Everything else is a manifestation of that One Thing and

all these apparent " separate " things (people, rocks, stars) have no

independent existence (in Buddhism this notion is referred to as

dependent co-origination; other traditions have other terms for it).

March 28, 2006