Re: God shouldn't lie and steal. Is that true?

[Guest guest]

Oh, lovethework... That's a good one!

.... :-)

Sounds like someone said Roslyn is God.

*lol*

The work is not about knowing. It's about un-knowing.

lovethework, you cite that the body does not exist.

AND you think you know who Roslyn is...

I love that!

But I hear that Roslyn wants to do the work.

So, Roslyn, lovethework tells us what he read in some book. And what someone

has writte may be the truth. Now, what if you did not know as much as

lovethework? I could ask: " which IS your proof? " or " what does your proof look

like? " . I know you have a proof, because you say you believe that thought. You

can be aware that you are not God, and STILL have a look at your proof!

So I ask: you are not God. - Is that true?

How do you feel, inside, when that thought comes up and you believe it? How

would you live your life if you could not believe that though?

This is not about wanting to be God. This is about analyzing a thought. It's

completely harmless.

And don't forget the turnarounds. You might come to some wonderful

realizations.

Love,

>

> [FCB] Roslyn said: Im not god...

> [FCB] : Is that true? What's your proof?

> [FCB] Hahaha. good one.

Roslyn you are right you are not God. The dreamers are all fragments

of the Son of God. The Son is an extension of the father (God). The

Son wanted to be God, but that was impossible so he created a dream

where the impossible became possible. This understanding is drawn

from the metaphysics of ACIM, which is satisfactory proof for me. I

don't know about and .

It is difficult to discuss such things, because our ego's have a deep

investment in believing they are God rather than just figures in a

dream.

" The body is the symbol of what you think you are. It is clearly a

separation device, and therefore does not exist. " (T.6.V.A.2:2,3)

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

this is interesting and i have to go to work..

will answer later..

I was looking at some old print outs of emails..

back in july 2004 marsha and eva wrote some

great work sheets.. I do want to go back to the

work .. I think i more than most get on other

topics..

OF course this is not alexanders fault..

Years ago this was more about the work..

but what happened to tami.. I do miss her.. too..

Nora if you want examples of the work.. you can

go to archives.. enjoy.. love, roslyn -

- In Loving-what-is , wrote:

>

> Oh, lovethework... That's a good one!

>

> .... :-)

>

> Sounds like someone said Roslyn is God.

>

> *lol*

>

> The work is not about knowing. It's about un-knowing.

>

> lovethework, you cite that the body does not exist.

>

> AND you think you know who Roslyn is...

>

> I love that!

>

> But I hear that Roslyn wants to do the work.

>

> So, Roslyn, lovethework tells us what he read in some book. And

what someone has writte may be the truth. Now, what if you did not

know as much as lovethework? I could ask: " which IS your proof? " or

" what does your proof look like? " . I know you have a proof, because

you say you believe that thought. You can be aware that you are not

God, and STILL have a look at your proof!

>

> So I ask: you are not God. - Is that true?

>

> How do you feel, inside, when that thought comes up and you

believe it? How would you live your life if you could not believe that

though?

>

> This is not about wanting to be God. This is about analyzing a

thought. It's completely harmless.

>

> And don't forget the turnarounds. You might come to some wonderful

realizations.

>

> Love,

>

>

>

> >

> > [FCB] Roslyn said: Im not god...

> > [FCB] : Is that true? What's your proof?

> > [FCB] Hahaha. good one.

> Roslyn you are right you are not God. The dreamers are all fragments

> of the Son of God. The Son is an extension of the father (God). The

> Son wanted to be God, but that was impossible so he created a dream

> where the impossible became possible. This understanding is drawn

> from the metaphysics of ACIM, which is satisfactory proof for me. I

> don't know about and .

> It is difficult to discuss such things, because our ego's have a deep

> investment in believing they are God rather than just figures in a

> dream.

>

> " The body is the symbol of what you think you are. It is clearly a

> separation device, and therefore does not exist. " (T.6.V.A.2:2,3)

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

The question becomes, are you the ego?

How could there be separation from that which knows no other?

Is the wave not the ocean?

It is possible that you haven't thought this one through LTW, or perhaps

there is a confusion somewhere between what you say and what I hear. You

yourself say that there was a tiny mad idea that one could be separate from

God. So first you say that it is a mad idea and then you declare that

separation is possible; that there is such a thing as fragments, and that

Roslyn is one of them. So, which is it, a mad idea or the reality of

fragments?

A little more inside

>

> [FCB] Roslyn said: Im not god...

> [FCB] : Is that true? What's your proof?

>

> [FCB] Hahaha. good one.

>

>

Roslyn you are right you are not God. The dreamers are all fragments

of the Son of God. The Son is an extension of the father (God). The

Son wanted to be God, but that was impossible so he created a dream

where the impossible became possible.

[FCB] I would say that the Son had a thought that he was separate from God,

and then wanted to be God, ignoring the reality that he already was. The

dream is that he is not God. That is the impossibility. And, I like

's query; where's you proof?

This understanding is drawn from the metaphysics of ACIM, which is

satisfactory proof for me. I

don't know about and .

It is difficult to discuss such things, because our ego's have a deep

investment in believing they are God rather than just figures in a

dream.

" The body is the symbol of what you think you are. It is clearly a

separation device, and therefore does not exist. " (T.6.V.A.2:2,3)

[FCB] This seems to imply that separation devices have no basis in Reality.

It seems that would go for a thought used as a separation device as well.

Ah, we do love our minds, don't we? --frank

[Guest guest]

> The question becomes, are you the ego?

*****That would depend on how " ego " is defined, yes?

> How could there be separation from that which knows no other?

*****If unicity, nonduality, is posited, there is nothing to separate;

there is simply One Unified Whole. There seems to be an appearance

of separation, but that is a " seems " not an " is. "

It is an illusion......albeit a very convincing one! ... and one which

evaporates not by any act of will on our parts ...

Something that many don't get (or are unwilling to

acknowledge)...... did not bring about the Understanding that she

teaches (and embodies). She did not " work " for it nor did she expend

any effort to actualize it. It was " delivered " unto her by...? As

the saying goes, Grace Happens. :-))

> Is the wave not the ocean?

*****Is the ocean the wave?

ACIM, at least the way I read the presentation of it by LTW, is a

dualistic perspective masquerading as non-duality. Just reading its

metaphysics gives me a headache! :-))) [Like the discussion about

" separation devices. " ]

As far as I'm concerned, nonduality, Advaita, is very, very simple:

Consciousness is all there is......all there is, is Consciousness.

Everything else is an apparent ~ and momentary ~ appearance.

[Consciousness can be replaced with God, or Reality, or the Unborn,

the Unconditioned, the Tao, the Unnameable, or Bozo the Clown...call

it what you will...]

> Ah, we do love our minds, don't we? --frank

*****Except when they generate suffering, misery, dis-ease. ;-)

[Guest guest]

> The question becomes, are you the ego?

*****That would depend on how " ego " is defined, yes?

[FCB] I don't know about that. It seems to me that you are beyond

definitions.

> How could there be separation from that which knows no other?

*****If unicity, nonduality, is posited, there is nothing to separate;

there is simply One Unified Whole. There seems to be an appearance

of separation, but that is a " seems " not an " is. "

It is an illusion......albeit a very convincing one! ... and one which

evaporates not by any act of will on our parts ...

Something that many don't get (or are unwilling to

acknowledge)...... did not bring about the Understanding that she

teaches (and embodies). She did not " work " for it nor did she expend

any effort to actualize it. It was " delivered " unto her by...? As

the saying goes, Grace Happens. :-))

> Is the wave not the ocean?

*****Is the ocean the wave?

[FCB] Of course, and the raindrop, and the cloud, and the moisture in the

cell.

ACIM, at least the way I read the presentation of it by LTW, is a

dualistic perspective masquerading as non-duality. Just reading its

metaphysics gives me a headache! :-))) [Like the discussion about

" separation devices. " ]

[FCB] Hahahaha. I understand. When in ACIM study groups I used to think,

Man, this is the perfect book for a discussion group because you need a

group to understand it. By the way, I had the same reaction to your

paragraph above about what we posit. :-)

As far as I'm concerned, nonduality, Advaita, is very, very simple:

Consciousness is all there is......all there is, is Consciousness.

Everything else is an apparent ~ and momentary ~ appearance.

[Consciousness can be replaced with God, or Reality, or the Unborn,

the Unconditioned, the Tao, the Unnameable, or Bozo the Clown...call

it what you will...]

> Ah, we do love our minds, don't we? --frank

*****Except when they generate suffering, misery, dis-ease. ;-)

[FCB] But even then we cling to them for salvation; except for when we

don't.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> ACIM, at least the way I read the presentation of it by LTW, is a

> dualistic perspective masquerading as non-duality. Just reading

> its metaphysics gives me a headache! :-))) [Like the discussion

> about " separation devices. " ]

>

> As far as I'm concerned, nonduality, Advaita, is very, very simple:

> Consciousness is all there is......all there is, is Consciousness.

> Everything else is an apparent ~ and momentary ~ appearance.

>

> [Consciousness can be replaced with God, or Reality, or the Unborn,

> the Unconditioned, the Tao, the Unnameable, or Bozo the

> Clown...call it what you will...]

>

Andy I think the problem comes in thinking we have some idea of what

non-duality is. We cannot really conceive of what a state of non-

duality outside of time and space really is, because our frame of

reference is locked in time and space. ACIM speaks of God extending the

Son and it looks like we are once again back in duality. The trouble is

we are applying the laws of the dream to something totally outside the

dream. Since ACIM is addressed to the sleeping Son it needs to come in

a form that he can understand, and since we only really understand

duality it must use that frame of reference. Not that that is the truth

its just the best form to express a content beyond human understanding.

If Advaita says that Consciousness is all there is then that is not

really non-duality. According to ACIM Consciousness was created at the

moment that the Son had the mad idea that he could be separate from

God. There is no Consciousness in God, because there is nothing to be

conscious of. The pure non-dual metaphysics of ACIM is so far beyond

Advaita that it is not even funny. The reason why there is so much

resistance to the metaphysics of ACIM is that it is such a threat to

our investment in duality, separation and fear. No one likes to hear

that their personality is just a figure in a dream, and that God

doesn't even know they exist. So the ego goes into defense mode and

dismisses ACIM as incorrect or too extreme. Not that defending against

the truth is bad, it just wastes time. Andy eventually everyone gets

tired of wasting time, that's when they pick up the blue book

" The world you see is the delusional system of those made mad by guilt "

(T-13.In.2:2)

[Guest guest]

>

>

> It is possible that you haven't thought this one through LTW, or

> perhaps there is a confusion somewhere between what you say and

> what I hear. You yourself say that there was a tiny mad idea that

> one could be separate from God. So first you say that it is a mad

> idea and then you declare that separation is possible; that there

> is such a thing as fragments, and that Roslyn is one of them. So,

> which is it, a mad idea or the reality of fragments?

>

I never said that the separation was possible. The Son has a

DREAM that it is possible to be separate from God in which the mind

appeared to fragment into billions of pieces. It could never happen

in reality but we could make it " real " in a dream, which is why ACIM

states that we are " …at home in God, dreaming of exile " (T.10.I.2:1)

Roslyn, , LTWOBK, Andy are just figures in the dream, created by

the sleeping Son once he identified with the ego thought system of

separation.

It is interesting to note that Helen (scribe of the Course) was

always trying to catch Jesus out by finding some error in ACIM. Jesus

gently pointed out that any " errors " were being caused by Helen's

unwillingness to listen to what he was saying rather than any flaw in

his presentation of the Course.

" …the separation never occurred " (T.6.II.10:7)

[Guest guest]

>

>

> The work is not about knowing. It's about un-knowing.

>

My 2 cents worth

The Work asks us to question our ego judgements caused by projecting

the guilt inside our mind out onto the world. The Work allows us to

reown our projections and undo the judgements/guilt by choosing to

listen to the Voice for Love rather than our ego ( " I know " mind).

It really has NOTHING to do with " un-knowing " it is about CHOOSING

which voice we want to listen to.

" Each day, each hour and minute, even each second, you are deciding

between the crucifixion and the resurrection; between the ego and the

Holy Spirit. The ego is the choice for guilt; the Holy Spirit the

choice for guiltlessness. The power of decision is all that is yours.

What you can decide between is fixed, because there are no

alternatives except truth and illusion " (T.14.III.4:1,2,3,4)

[Guest guest]

lovetheworkofbk schrieb:

> The work is not about knowing. It's about un-knowing.

My 2 cents worth

The Work asks us to question our ego judgements caused by projecting

the guilt inside our mind out onto the world. The Work allows us to

reown our projections and undo the judgements/guilt by choosing to

listen to the Voice for Love rather than our ego ( " I know " mind).

It really has NOTHING to do with " un-knowing " it is about CHOOSING

which voice we want to listen to.

Yes.

When I think I know something, I am not open to alternatives. I can't choose.

To un-know IS to become open to alternatives again. That is the opposite of

knowing. It has nothing to do with the unknown, neither with ignorance.

And I'd leave away the " guilt " part.

" Each day, each hour and minute, even each second, you are deciding

between the crucifixion and the resurrection; between the ego and the

Holy Spirit. The ego is the choice for guilt; the Holy Spirit the

choice for guiltlessness. The power of decision is all that is yours.

What you can decide between is fixed, because there are no

alternatives except truth and illusion " (T.14.III.4:1,2,3,4)

" yes " again. Each instant we decide between illusion and reality. When we

become aware that we choose we become free. We don't even have to " wake up " .

That choice is to be taken over and over and that's what I mean when I say

" enlightement is not a permanent state " .

Love,

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

It really has NOTHING to do with " un-knowing " it is about CHOOSING

which voice we want to listen to.

[And how does this...choosing...happen? I'd enjoy hearing your

explanation of this process.]

Each instant we decide between illusion and reality.

[We have some say in this? Really? And I suppose we have " free will "

also. ))))]

When we become aware that we choose we become free.

[Choices certainly do appear to happen. And so there must be a " me "

that does the choosing? I would suggest examining

that.......belief......closely.]

We don't even have to " wake up " . That choice is to be taken over and

over and that's what I mean when I say " enlightement is not a

permanent state " .

[i agree and would extend that to note that there are no permanent

states, enlightened or otherwise.

A question, now:

who, or what, is this " we " ( " I " ) that you assert chooses, that

" becomes aware, " that " becomes free " ? Since you know about this (you

assert that " each instant we decide between illusion and reality " ),

you must have some idea(s) about it. Please elaborate.]

[Guest guest]

Okay.

It seems like you are back peddling. What I heard you say before is that

Roslyn is not God. That she is a fragment of the Son of God.

I'd like to share something with you LTWOBK. In my listening, ACIM offered

through LTWOBK comes across like a religion with you as the preacher. 'Not

meant as an attack, just a report. That's how it lands over here.

I can't recall hearing something personal from you about you, what your

challenges are, what your discovering, where you have been mistaken, how The

Work is unfolding in your life. I presume you're human like the rest of us,

but the face I see presented is of one who knows the truth and is here to

clarify it for the rest of us.

On a tangent. A couple of years ago, a public speaking coach of mine told me

that her listening for me was " Hi, I'm , and I'm here to share deep

thoughts. " Hahahaha. It's not very flattering, but in her listening I was

someone who spouted philosophy while hiding who I really was, or thought

myself to be. I notice that I'm grateful for the feedback.

-frank

_____

From: Loving-what-is [mailto:Loving-what-is ]

On Behalf Of lovetheworkofbk

Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 5:16 PM

To: Loving-what-is

Subject: Re: God shouldn't lie and steal. Is that true?

>

>

> It is possible that you haven't thought this one through LTW, or

> perhaps there is a confusion somewhere between what you say and

> what I hear. You yourself say that there was a tiny mad idea that

> one could be separate from God. So first you say that it is a mad

> idea and then you declare that separation is possible; that there

> is such a thing as fragments, and that Roslyn is one of them. So,

> which is it, a mad idea or the reality of fragments?

>

I never said that the separation was possible. The Son has a

DREAM that it is possible to be separate from God in which the mind

appeared to fragment into billions of pieces. It could never happen

in reality but we could make it " real " in a dream, which is why ACIM

states that we are " .at home in God, dreaming of exile " (T.10.I.2:1)

Roslyn, , LTWOBK, Andy are just figures in the dream, created by

the sleeping Son once he identified with the ego thought system of

separation.

It is interesting to note that Helen (scribe of the Course) was

always trying to catch Jesus out by finding some error in ACIM. Jesus

gently pointed out that any " errors " were being caused by Helen's

unwillingness to listen to what he was saying rather than any flaw in

his presentation of the Course.

" .the separation never occurred " (T.6.II.10:7)

[Guest guest]

Im not god..

is that true.. yes

absolutley .. i dont know.. i keep reading we are god..

but i have not had that experience.

How do i react, i feel like god is not doing a very good

job sometimes.

I feel powerless

I feel confused

without the thought.. Im not god.

Im space and everything in it. Light..

TA I am god..

I dont feel this to be true. usually

we are all god.. and we are one

SO im told.

god is unknowable. ..to the mind. and i live in my mind mostly

and illusion.

I dont understand ACIM usually

I know they say read it from a deeper level. KAtie i think is easier

to understand ..

I cant go beyond my evolution.. here.. thanks rh

-

-- In Loving-what-is , wrote:

>

>

> > alexander you wrote..

> >

> >> And who would you be, if you could not believe that ANYONE is

> >> capcable of doing something he is not supposed to do?--

> >

> > That would feel so free..

> >

> > i would trust the universe and god.. and be fearless..

> Well, that's my experience, too.

>

> > But im usually not there..

> Oh really? You just were!

>

> > I can see how spending the money even on oneself could help

> > the economy..

> > better than saving it and not spending it according to

> > walsch.. ok what do i think..

> That's what separates you from trusting in the universe and God and

> fearlessness and feeling free: a thought.

>

> > Im not god...

> Is that true?

>

> What's your proof?

>

> > love, roslyn

> Love,

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > - In Loving-what-is , <olli_26@> wrote:

> >>

> >> Dear Roslyn,

> >>> alexander.. why do i want mary to have a writing job..

> >>> because shes good at it.. and becuase then she could

> >>> have a job she enjoyed..

> >>> and could make money also..

> >>>

> >>> what would i have ? satisfaction of knowing i thought of it..

> >>> or suggested it.. I guess.. . -although she has thought of it too

> >> Well, that's it: " satisfaction of knowing I thought of it " . Your

> >> answer.

> >>

> >> And instead of using her to satisfy you...

> >>

> >> You can get that without needing her!

> >>

> >> Feel that satisfaction you are looking for (that you get through her,

> >> if you want. If it works). Find how you would live your life, how

> >> you'd treat others if you had it. Find what kind of person you'd be

> >> if you had that.

> >>

> >> And if you want to leave out of the equation, do the work.

> >>

> >>

> >>> What do i get for mary manin morrissey should not of stolen..

> >>> well she just invested and used money personally.

> >> That's not the answer.

> >>

> >>> what do i get? I get to feel superior.. and better and separate..

> >>> .. i get to be critical

> >>> self righteous.. im somewhat annoyed and if it were my moeny i would

> >>> of been angry..

> >> It wasn't.

> >>

> >> So I hear " superior " , " better " , " critical " , " self righteous " ,

> >> " annoyed " .

> >>

> >> It's not good or bad, it's simply what you get for believing this

> >> thought.

> >>

> >> If that's what you reach out for, go with it. If you want to see what

> >> else is possible: Who would you be, thinking of manin morrisey

> >> stealing, if the thought " she should not have stolen " never even

> >> occured to you? How would you live your everyday life if the thought

> >> that ANYONE should not steal didn't exist?

> >>

> >> And who would you be, if you could not believe that ANYONE is

> >> capcable of doing something he is not supposed to do?

> >>

> >>> but i can look at it differently..

> >>> maybe she is being like st francis who told people to give

> >>> away all their material possessions....

> >> Yes, and does it work? Does it make anything better? And then you

> >> find out how she used that money all for herself and bought herself

> >> everything she desires. You think about all the things you could buy

> >> for yourself and resent her for that, don't you?

> >>

> >>

> >>> MAry Manin morrissey took money away from people..

> >>> and francis told people to give it away.. so i suppose

> >>> one could say they were doing a service..

> >>> EVerything happens for us not to us..

> >>>

> >>> feels better.. love, roslyn --

> >> Yes.

> >> for how long?

> >>

> >> Love,

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

lovethework

as i said before i dont get acim..

i like this quote of neale donald walsh

we are not apart from god we are a part of god.

same as yours..the son is an extension of the father.

but i dont really get it..

I have felt a spaciousness

and openness when i drop the illusion lies.

but it doesnt last.

im usually in my mind ego umbrella

consiousness

my ego doenst want to be god.. i want to blame god

or think i know more than god reality.

love, roslyn

-- In Loving-what-is , " lovetheworkofbk "

wrote:

>

>

> >

> > [FCB] Roslyn said: Im not god...

> > [FCB] : Is that true? What's your proof?

> >

> > [FCB] Hahaha. good one.

> >

> >

>

> Roslyn you are right you are not God. The dreamers are all fragments

> of the Son of God. The Son is an extension of the father (God). The

> Son wanted to be God, but that was impossible so he created a dream

> where the impossible became possible. This understanding is drawn

> from the metaphysics of ACIM, which is satisfactory proof for me. I

> don't know about and .

> It is difficult to discuss such things, because our ego's have a deep

> investment in believing they are God rather than just figures in a

> dream.

>

> " The body is the symbol of what you think you are. It is clearly a

> separation device, and therefore does not exist. " (T.6.V.A.2:2,3)

>

[Guest guest]

I appreciate your honesty Roslyn. -frank

_____

From: Loving-what-is [mailto:Loving-what-is ]

On Behalf Of mrcitrus6

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 3:13 PM

To: Loving-what-is

Subject: Re: God shouldn't lie and steal. Is that true?

lovethework

as i said before i dont get acim..

i like this quote of neale donald walsh

we are not apart from god we are a part of god.

same as yours..the son is an extension of the father.

but i dont really get it..

I have felt a spaciousness

and openness when i drop the illusion lies.

but it doesnt last.

im usually in my mind ego umbrella

consiousness

my ego doenst want to be god.. i want to blame god

or think i know more than god reality.

love, roslyn

-- In Loving-what- <mailto:Loving-what-is%40yahoogroups.com>

is , " lovetheworkofbk "

wrote:

>

>

> >

> > [FCB] Roslyn said: Im not god...

> > [FCB] : Is that true? What's your proof?

> >

> > [FCB] Hahaha. good one.

> >

> >

>

> Roslyn you are right you are not God. The dreamers are all fragments

> of the Son of God. The Son is an extension of the father (God). The

> Son wanted to be God, but that was impossible so he created a dream

> where the impossible became possible. This understanding is drawn

> from the metaphysics of ACIM, which is satisfactory proof for me. I

> don't know about and .

> It is difficult to discuss such things, because our ego's have a deep

> investment in believing they are God rather than just figures in a

> dream.

>

> " The body is the symbol of what you think you are. It is clearly a

> separation device, and therefore does not exist. " (T.6.V.A.2:2,3)

>

[Guest guest]

TA I am god..

I dont feel this to be true. usually

----->Roslyn: see the thoughts, the beliefs, behind these statements.

What are the thoughts out of which there generates the notion of

" what god is. " Do you KNOW what god is? How would you know this?

Also consider how would you feel if you did feel you were god. You

think something is missing now? What is missing?

[Guest guest]

>

> *****Well, we won't break bread on this one. The basic premise of

> all nondual teachings, that there is a Single One (God,

> Consciousness, It, the Tao, Buddha-Nature, Source, Totality), works

> fine for me.

>

> (I never could understand how ACIM was considered a " nondual "

> teaching. The minute one has God & the Son, and submits that they

> are in any sense whatsoever separate or distinct, is the minute

> that the teaching no longer qualifies as " nondual " since the one

> condition of all nondual teachings is the notion of a Singularity,

> a Unicity, a Sole Source out of which and connected to which, all

> manifestation arises).

>

Hey Andy, found the following question and answer on the Foundation for

ACIM Electronic Outreach service, which seems to speak to your concerns

about ACIM. Enjoy

Q #85: In Eastern Advaita/non-dualism there is no room for

relationships like Cause- Effect, Father-Son, Creator-Creation. Why

then maintain that A Course in Miracles is " non-dualistic " in essence?

Isn't that confusing?

A: The Course uses dualistic terms in its teaching only because Jesus

knows that the language of separation or duality is all that we can

understand right now. Jesus is very clear about his intentions with

language in the Course, so to answer your question we are simply going

to let the Course speak for itself by providing a few relevant

references:

The clearest is the following statement:

" Since you believe that you are separate, Heaven presents itself to you

as separate, too. Not that it is in truth, but that the link that has

been given you to join the truth may reach to you through what you

understand. Father and Son and Holy Spirit are as One, as all your

brothers join as one in truth. Christ and His Father never have been

separate, and Christ abides within your understanding, in the part of

you that shares His Father's Will. The Holy Spirit links the other part–

the tiny, mad desire to be separate, different and special–to the

Christ, to make the oneness clear to what is really one. In this world

this is not understood, but can be taught.…It is the Holy Spirit's

function to teach you how this oneness is experienced, what you must do

that it can be experienced, and where you should go to do it.

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. It is apparent that a mind so split could

never be the Teacher of a Oneness which unites all things within

Itself. And so What is within this mind, and does unite all things

together, must be its Teacher. Yet must It use the language [dualistic]

that this mind can understand, in the condition [separation] in which

it thinks it is " (T.25.I.5; 6:4; 7:1,2,3,4; italics added).

There are many other places where Jesus makes it clear that the

Course's metaphysical foundation is non-dualistic, despite the

dualistic nature of the language employed. For example, in speaking of

the Father and the Son, words which suggest two separate Beings, he

says, " What He [the Father] creates is not apart from Him, and nowhere

does the Father end, the Son begin as something separate from Him "

(W.pI.132.12:4).

And later in the Workbook he says, " Oneness is simply the idea God is.

And in His Being, He encompasses all things. No mind holds anything but

Him. We say `God is,' and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge

words are meaningless. There are no lips to speak them, and no part of

mind sufficiently distinct to feel that it is now aware of something

not itself. It has united with its Source. And like its Source Itself,

it merely is.

We cannot speak nor write nor even think of this at all. It comes to

every mind when total recognition that its will is God's has been

completely given and received completely. It returns the mind into the

endless present, where the past and future cannot be conceived. It lies

beyond salvation; past all thought of time, forgiveness and the holy

face of Christ [which are all dualistic concepts]. The Son of God has

merely disappeared into his Father, as his Father has in him. The world

has never been at all. Eternity remains a constant state " (W.pI.169.5,

6).

And in the context of Cause-Effect relationships, one of the dualistic

sets of terms you mention, Jesus begins in seemingly dualistic terms,

but then makes its true non-dualistic nature apparent:

" Father, I was created in Your Mind, a holy Thought that never left its

home. I am forever Your Effect, and You forever and forever are my

Cause. As You created me I have remained. Where You established me I

still abide. And all Your attributes abide in me, because it is Your

Will to have a Son so like his Cause that Cause and Its Effect are

indistinguishable (W.pII.326.1:1,2,3,4,5; italics added).

And so while much of the Course's teachings are presented in dualistic

language, it must be understood that their purpose is to lead us past

our belief in duality back to the oneness that is our only reality.

[Guest guest]

I am not god.. YEs absolutly .. I dont know.

How do i react..

i read a lot of spiritual books and self help..

I dont go within for the answers usually because

i tend to think i dont know anything.. although

when i read my mind thinks i do know something

i learned in a book. i look to others for answers.

i know on an intellectual level only..

Which Flo says is symbolized by john the baptist in

the Bible and he was beheaded meaning you cant know

GOd by the intellect.

what do i get.. i can blame god for

the mess i perceive the world to be in..

I wonder if things really do happen for me and not

to me.

Im worried about my future sometimes.

Without the thought .. I am not god..

i am one with all.

I really dont know anything and i dont need to know

says live out of dont know and cant know ,no need to know ,not

possible to know , nothing to know.

just being present in the moment.. as tolle would say

TA i am god..

WEll I am is the name god called himself to Moses.. at the burning

bush he said I am that i am..

i am being in the moment not i was or i will be..

I think Im not god..

i live in ego land..

any other turn arounds.. ??

thanks roslyn

-

-- In Loving-what-is , wrote:

>

> Oh, lovethework... That's a good one!

>

> .... :-)

>

> Sounds like someone said Roslyn is God.

>

> *lol*

>

> The work is not about knowing. It's about un-knowing.

>

> lovethework, you cite that the body does not exist.

>

> AND you think you know who Roslyn is...

>

> I love that!

>

> But I hear that Roslyn wants to do the work.

>

> So, Roslyn, lovethework tells us what he read in some book. And

what someone has writte may be the truth. Now, what if you did not

know as much as lovethework? I could ask: " which IS your proof? " or

" what does your proof look like? " . I know you have a proof, because

you say you believe that thought. You can be aware that you are not

God, and STILL have a look at your proof!

>

> So I ask: you are not God. - Is that true?

>

> How do you feel, inside, when that thought comes up and you

believe it? How would you live your life if you could not believe that

though?

>

> This is not about wanting to be God. This is about analyzing a

thought. It's completely harmless.

>

> And don't forget the turnarounds. You might come to some wonderful

realizations.

>

> Love,

>

>

>

> >

> > [FCB] Roslyn said: Im not god...

> > [FCB] : Is that true? What's your proof?

> > [FCB] Hahaha. good one.

> Roslyn you are right you are not God. The dreamers are all fragments

> of the Son of God. The Son is an extension of the father (God). The

> Son wanted to be God, but that was impossible so he created a dream

> where the impossible became possible. This understanding is drawn

> from the metaphysics of ACIM, which is satisfactory proof for me. I

> don't know about and .

> It is difficult to discuss such things, because our ego's have a deep

> investment in believing they are God rather than just figures in a

> dream.

>

> " The body is the symbol of what you think you are. It is clearly a

> separation device, and therefore does not exist. " (T.6.V.A.2:2,3)

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

It’s refreshing to me to hear you doing your work Roslyn. I think I’ll join

you just for fun and to see where it goes.

I am not God, Is it true?

* My truth in this moment is, I don’t know. I can find myself standing

on both sides of the fence. Sometimes I feel so decrepit… lazy, selfish, and

irresponsible, unworthy. How could I be God and feel all of these things?

I’m looking… Well, the obvious answer is I could have an opinion about

myself and then cling to it and let that opinion define frank, but only in a

story. For frank is certainly more than an opinion, and my experience is

that any opinion I have about frank is false, eventually. So, God is

decrepit, lazy, selfish, irresponsible, and feels unworthy. Well, if I’m

God, then that is sometimes true.

I am not God. Can I absolutely know that is true?

* I wouldn’t bet my life on it.

How do I react when I believe the thought that I am not God?

* I sometimes criticize frank.

* I doubt him

* I withdraw my support

* I try to hide him/protect him

* I feel sorry for him

Who would I be without the thought that I am not God?

* Someone who doesn’t know

* ‘Man sitting in chair, typing

* Open to what the truth appeared to be in this moment

* Open to being divine, welcome, a blessing and a gift

I am not God: TA

* I am God, could be as true or truer, I still don’t know. My

philosophy says yes. My heart shrugs its shoulders

* You are God, could be truer. “You” certainly impress me with your

creativity, your beauty, your immediacy, even glory

* They are God, could be truer. I went into a different environment

tonight and heard some musicians playing. I felt like I’d stepped through a

veil. There were two musicians in particular that I had a listening for as

not very good, and I had to face that my opinions had been bogus.

-frank

_____

From: Loving-what-is [mailto:Loving-what-is ]

On Behalf Of mrcitrus6

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 9:40 PM

To: Loving-what-is

Subject: Re: God shouldn't lie and steal. Is that true?

I am not god.. YEs absolutly .. I dont know.

How do i react..

i read a lot of spiritual books and self help..

I dont go within for the answers usually because

i tend to think i dont know anything.. although

when i read my mind thinks i do know something

i learned in a book. i look to others for answers.

i know on an intellectual level only..

Which Flo says is symbolized by john the baptist in

the Bible and he was beheaded meaning you cant know

GOd by the intellect.

what do i get.. i can blame god for

the mess i perceive the world to be in..

I wonder if things really do happen for me and not

to me.

Im worried about my future sometimes.

Without the thought .. I am not god..

i am one with all.

I really dont know anything and i dont need to know

says live out of dont know and cant know ,no need to know ,not

possible to know , nothing to know.

just being present in the moment.. as tolle would say

TA i am god..

WEll I am is the name god called himself to Moses.. at the burning

bush he said I am that i am..

i am being in the moment not i was or i will be..

I think Im not god..

i live in ego land..

any other turn arounds.. ??

thanks roslyn

-

-- In Loving-what- <mailto:Loving-what-is%40yahoogroups.com>

is , wrote:

>

> Oh, lovethework... That's a good one!

>

> .... :-)

>

> Sounds like someone said Roslyn is God.

>

> *lol*

>

> The work is not about knowing. It's about un-knowing.

>

> lovethework, you cite that the body does not exist.

>

> AND you think you know who Roslyn is...

>

> I love that!

>

> But I hear that Roslyn wants to do the work.

>

> So, Roslyn, lovethework tells us what he read in some book. And

what someone has writte may be the truth. Now, what if you did not

know as much as lovethework? I could ask: " which IS your proof? " or

" what does your proof look like? " . I know you have a proof, because

you say you believe that thought. You can be aware that you are not

God, and STILL have a look at your proof!

>

> So I ask: you are not God. - Is that true?

>

> How do you feel, inside, when that thought comes up and you

believe it? How would you live your life if you could not believe that

though?

>

> This is not about wanting to be God. This is about analyzing a

thought. It's completely harmless.

>

> And don't forget the turnarounds. You might come to some wonderful

realizations.

>

> Love,

>

>

>

> >

> > [FCB] Roslyn said: Im not god...

> > [FCB] : Is that true? What's your proof?

> > [FCB] Hahaha. good one.

> Roslyn you are right you are not God. The dreamers are all fragments

> of the Son of God. The Son is an extension of the father (God). The

> Son wanted to be God, but that was impossible so he created a dream

> where the impossible became possible. This understanding is drawn

> from the metaphysics of ACIM, which is satisfactory proof for me. I

> don't know about and .

> It is difficult to discuss such things, because our ego's have a deep

> investment in believing they are God rather than just figures in a

> dream.

>

> " The body is the symbol of what you think you are. It is clearly a

> separation device, and therefore does not exist. " (T.6.V.A.2:2,3)

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

Hey Andy, found the following question and answer on the Foundation

for ACIM Electronic Outreach service, which seems to speak to your

concerns about ACIM. Enjoy

----->Thank you. Let's look at this.

A: The Course uses dualistic terms in its teaching only because Jesus

knows that the language of separation or duality is all that we can

understand right now.

----->ALL verbal & written communication

in phenomenality (the relative world in

zen terms) is dualistic.

" Since you believe that you are separate, Heaven presents itself to

you as separate, too. Not that it is in truth, but that the link that

has been given you to join the truth may reach to you through what you

understand. Father and Son and Holy Spirit are as One, as all your

brothers join as one in truth. Christ and His Father never have been

separate, and Christ abides within your understanding, in the part of

you that shares His Father's Will. The Holy Spirit links the other

part–the tiny, mad desire to be separate, different and special–to the

Christ, to make the oneness clear to what is really one.

----->If the foundation is nondual,

then all these many " tiny, mad desires(s) "

are nothing but God. That is the Source

of all of it (since there is nothing BUT God,

or Consciousness).

In this world this is not understood, but can be taught.

----->What is being taught is a belief

system.

…It is the Holy Spirit's function to teach you how this oneness is

experienced, what you must do that it can be experienced, and where

you should go to do it.

----->All of this is God's movement:

the Holy Spirit teaching, you

learning...it is all, simply, God

unfolding in manifestation.

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.

-----> " You " didn't create the thought

of separation. It wasn't your doing.

" You " ARE God, in manifest form.

There's really nothing to be done.

Nowhere to go. Nothing to get.

It is apparent that a mind so split could never be the Teacher of a

Oneness which unites all things within Itself.

----->Nothing needs uniting. There's never

actually been any split.

And so What is within this mind, and does unite all things

together, must be its Teacher.

----->I repeat: there is NOTHING to unite.

Just that communication suggests that some...

things were un-united previously. They

never were, so there's nothing to " fix. "

There are many other places where Jesus makes it clear that the

Course's metaphysical foundation is non-dualistic, despite the

dualistic nature of the language employed. For example, in speaking of

the Father and the Son, words which suggest two separate Beings, he

says, " What He [the Father] creates is not apart from Him, and nowhere

does the Father end, the Son begin as something separate from Him "

(W.pI.132.12:4).

----->And that points out that not just

the Son, but all beings, the sentient and

the insentient, are not apart.

And later in the Workbook he says, " Oneness is simply the idea God is.

And in His Being, He encompasses all things. No mind holds anything

but Him. We say `God is,' and then we cease to speak, for in that

knowledge words are meaningless. There are no lips to speak them, and

no part of mind sufficiently distinct to feel that it is now aware of

something not itself. It has united with its Source.

----->Again, this phraseology, " It has

united with its Source " says that at some

previous moment it was not united. It has

always been united, as there is only

Source. A more accurate expression is " There

is Realization of unity " or " there is

Realization that the sense of separation is

illusion. "

We cannot speak nor write nor even think of this at all. It comes to

every mind when total recognition that its will is God's has been

completely given and received completely. It returns the mind into the

endless present, where the past and future cannot be conceived. It

lies beyond salvation; past all thought of time, forgiveness and the

holy face of Christ [which are all dualistic concepts]. The Son of God

has merely disappeared into his Father, as his Father has in him. The

world has never been at all. Eternity remains a constant state "

(W.pI.169.5,6).

----->Most of this I find no issue

with (although the language doesn't

resonate with me).

And in the context of Cause-Effect relationships, one of the dualistic

sets of terms you mention,

----->I did not. You are confusing

my posts with someone else's.

Jesus begins in seemingly dualistic terms, but then makes its true

non-dualistic nature apparent: " Father, I was created in Your Mind, a

holy Thought that never left its home. I am forever Your Effect, and

You forever and forever are my Cause. As You created me I have

remained. Where You established me I still abide. And all Your

attributes abide in me, because it is Your Will to have a Son so like

his Cause that Cause and Its Effect are indistinguishable

(W.pII.326.1:1,2,3,4,5; italics added).

----->OK. I prefer the simpler, more-

to-the-point, " I am my Father are One. "

Six words instead of dozens.

And so while much of the Course's teachings are presented in dualistic

language, it must be understood that their purpose is to lead us past

our belief in duality back to the oneness that is our only reality.

-----> " Our belief in duality " is not ours.

We didn't create this belief. " We " have

no will of our own. Why not? Because

there is no " we " here that has any power

to generate " our own thoughts. " Yes, there

is sometimes a sense of self. Yes, there are

thoughts which see a dualistic universe.

This isn't a mistake. It is how Totality

arises as phenomenality (how the Absolute

expresses as the relative world). It appears that

God/Source has elected (if one can ascribe such

motives to It) to express ItSelf in duality

(who knows the reason, or if there even are

reasons!). The relative world of comings-and-

goings is God, in phenomenal form. This may be

what the Buddha was pointing to when he said

that when awake there is an apperception that

" Samsara is nirvana, nirvana is samsara. "

[samsara = the relative world; nirvana = the

Absolute, God, Totality]

The preference here is for the prattlings

found in the " Verses on the Faith Mind "

sutra. If interest, here are some excerpts.

If you wish to move in the One Way

do not dislike even the world of senses and ideas.

Indeed, to accept them fully is identical

with true Enlightenment.

The wise man strives to no goals

but the foolish man fetters himself.

There is one Dharma, not many; distinctions arise

from the clinging needs of the ignorant.

To seek Mind with the (discriminating) mind

is the greatest of all mistakes.

Do not remain in the dualistic state.

Avoid such pursuits carefully.

If there is even a trace of this and that,

of right and wrong, the Mind-essence will

be lost in the confusion.

Although all dualities come from the One,

do not be attached even to this One.

When the mind exists undisturbed in the Way,

nothing in the world can offend,

and when a thing can no longer offend,

it ceases to exist in the old way.

To live in the Great Way is neither easy nor difficult,

but those with limited views are fearful and irresolute:

even to be attached to the idea of enlightenment

is to go astray.

Just let things be in their own way and

there will be neither coming nor going.

To come directly into harmony with this reality

just simply say when doubt arises, " Not two. "

In this " not two " nothing is separate,

nothing is excluded.

No matter when or where,

enlightenment means entering this truth.

And this truth is beyond extension or

diminution in time or space:

in it a single thought is ten thousand years.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> -----> " Our belief in duality " is not ours.

> We didn't create this belief. " We " have

> no will of our own. Why not? Because

> there is no " we " here that has any power

> to generate " our own thoughts. " Yes, there

> is sometimes a sense of self. Yes, there are

> thoughts which see a dualistic universe.

> This isn't a mistake. It is how Totality

> arises as phenomenality (how the Absolute

> expresses as the relative world). It appears that

> God/Source has elected (if one can ascribe such

> motives to It) to express ItSelf in duality

> (who knows the reason, or if there even are

> reasons!). The relative world of comings-and-

> goings is God, in phenomenal form. This may be

> what the Buddha was pointing to when he said

> that when awake there is an apperception that

> " Samsara is nirvana, nirvana is samsara. "

> [samsara = the relative world; nirvana = the

> Absolute, God, Totality]

>

Andy what really attracts me to ACIM is the fact that it says that

God DID NOT create the world, and better yet that he knows NOTHING

about it. The world is the exact opposite of Love, it is driven by

fear and guilt and it would be a cruel God indeed to place his

creations in such a nightmare. I much prefer the loving words of

Jesus in ACIM, which remind me that:

" There is no world! This is the central concept the course attempts

to teach " (W.pI.132.6:2,3)

" There is no world because it is a thought apart from God, and made

to separate the Father and the Son, and break away a part of God

Himself and thus destroy His Wholeness. Can a world which comes from

this idea be real? Can it be anywhere? " (13:1,2,3)

" There is no life outside of Heaven. Where God created life, there

life must be. In any state apart from Heaven life is illusion…Life

not in Heaven is impossible, and what is not in Heaven is not

anywhere " (T.23.II.19.1,2,6)

" God's laws do not obtain directly to a world perception rules, for

such a world could not have been created by the Mind to which

perception has no meaning. Yet are His laws reflected everywhere

[through the Holy Spirit]. Not that the world where this reflection

is, is real at all. Only because His Son believes it is, and from His

Son's belief He could not let Himself be separate entirely. He could

not enter His Son's insanity with him… " (T.24.III.2).

" The world you see is an illusion of a world. God did not create it,

for what He creates must be eternal as Himself. Yet there is nothing

in the world you see that will endure forever. Some things will last

in time a little while longer than others. But the time will come

when all things visible will have an end " (C.4.1)

[Guest guest]

Dear Roslyn,

Am 19.06.2007 um 23:40 schrieb mrcitrus6:

> Im not god..

>

> is that true.. yes

> absolutley .. i dont know.. i keep reading we are god..

> but i have not had that experience.

I did not hear a proof that you are not God, yet.

Write them down, all of them.

> How do i react, i feel like god is not doing a very good

> job sometimes.

That's another thought already. " I'm not God " doesn't mean that God

exists. But if you feel he is not doing a very good job, sometimes,

you postulate that there IS a God.

> I feel powerless

> I feel confused

>

> without the thought.. Im not god.

> Im space and everything in it. Light..

This again, is another thought.

Don't replace the thought you are investigating. Another form to ask

question 4 is: Who would you be, if you could not think that thought?

> TA I am god..

> I dont feel this to be true. usually

Of course not. You don't know how that would feel, would you? So if

you were, you wouldn't even notice.

And could it be as true or truer as the original thought?

Find out what IS God.

Don't look it up in a book. And don't believe what they tell you.

You have a definition. Find it. For yourself.

> we are all god.. and we are one

> SO im told.

And you can't make yourself believe it, can you?

> god is unknowable. ..to the mind. and i live in my mind mostly

> and illusion.

>

> I dont understand ACIM usually

>

> I know they say read it from a deeper level. KAtie i think is easier

> to understand ..

It's you you have to understand.

It's your world.

> I cant go beyond my evolution.. here.. thanks rh

That's true. I don't see you are trying, either.

So don't worry about that.

Love,

> -- In Loving-what-is , wrote:

>>

>>

>>> alexander you wrote..

>>>

>>>> And who would you be, if you could not believe that ANYONE is

>>>> capcable of doing something he is not supposed to do?--

>>>

>>> That would feel so free..

>>>

>>> i would trust the universe and god.. and be fearless..

>> Well, that's my experience, too.

>>

>>> But im usually not there..

>> Oh really? You just were!

>>

>>> I can see how spending the money even on oneself could help

>>> the economy..

>>> better than saving it and not spending it according to

>>> walsch.. ok what do i think..

>> That's what separates you from trusting in the universe and God and

>> fearlessness and feeling free: a thought.

>>

>>> Im not god...

>> Is that true?

>>

>> What's your proof?

>>

>>> love, roslyn

>> Love,

>>

>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> - In Loving-what-is , <olli_26@> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Dear Roslyn,

>>>>> alexander.. why do i want mary to have a writing job..

>>>>> because shes good at it.. and becuase then she could

>>>>> have a job she enjoyed..

>>>>> and could make money also..

>>>>>

>>>>> what would i have ? satisfaction of knowing i thought of it..

>>>>> or suggested it.. I guess.. . -although she has thought of it too

>>>> Well, that's it: " satisfaction of knowing I thought of it " . Your

>>>> answer.

>>>>

>>>> And instead of using her to satisfy you...

>>>>

>>>> You can get that without needing her!

>>>>

>>>> Feel that satisfaction you are looking for (that you get through

>>>> her,

>>>> if you want. If it works). Find how you would live your life, how

>>>> you'd treat others if you had it. Find what kind of person you'd be

>>>> if you had that.

>>>>

>>>> And if you want to leave out of the equation, do the work.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> What do i get for mary manin morrissey should not of stolen..

>>>>> well she just invested and used money personally.

>>>> That's not the answer.

>>>>

>>>>> what do i get? I get to feel superior.. and better and separate..

>>>>> .. i get to be critical

>>>>> self righteous.. im somewhat annoyed and if it were my moeny i

>>>>> would

>>>>> of been angry..

>>>> It wasn't.

>>>>

>>>> So I hear " superior " , " better " , " critical " , " self righteous " ,

>>>> " annoyed " .

>>>>

>>>> It's not good or bad, it's simply what you get for believing this

>>>> thought.

>>>>

>>>> If that's what you reach out for, go with it. If you want to see

>>>> what

>>>> else is possible: Who would you be, thinking of manin morrisey

>>>> stealing, if the thought " she should not have stolen " never even

>>>> occured to you? How would you live your everyday life if the

>>>> thought

>>>> that ANYONE should not steal didn't exist?

>>>>

>>>> And who would you be, if you could not believe that ANYONE is

>>>> capcable of doing something he is not supposed to do?

>>>>

>>>>> but i can look at it differently..

>>>>> maybe she is being like st francis who told people to give

>>>>> away all their material possessions....

>>>> Yes, and does it work? Does it make anything better? And then you

>>>> find out how she used that money all for herself and bought herself

>>>> everything she desires. You think about all the things you could

>>>> buy

>>>> for yourself and resent her for that, don't you?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> MAry Manin morrissey took money away from people..

>>>>> and francis told people to give it away.. so i suppose

>>>>> one could say they were doing a service..

>>>>> EVerything happens for us not to us..

>>>>>

>>>>> feels better.. love, roslyn --

>>>> Yes.

>>>> for how long?

>>>>

>>>> Love,

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

[Guest guest]

> my ego doenst want to be god.. i want to blame god

> or think i know more than god reality.

Yes, you would have to take the responsibility for your world.

And that would be good news.

Because you are responsible for your world. But only 100%.

So write down what you blame about God and what you know better than

reality, ask 4 questions and turn it around.

And I haven't heard a proof, yet.

> love, roslyn

Love,

>>> [FCB] Roslyn said: Im not god...

>>> [FCB] : Is that true? What's your proof?

[Guest guest]

'Nicely facilitated . -frank

_____

From: Loving-what-is [mailto:Loving-what-is ]

On Behalf Of

Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:56 PM

To: Loving-what-is

Subject: Re: Re: God shouldn't lie and steal. Is that true?

Dear Roslyn,

Am 19.06.2007 um 23:40 schrieb mrcitrus6:

> Im not god..

>

> is that true.. yes

> absolutley .. i dont know.. i keep reading we are god..

> but i have not had that experience.

I did not hear a proof that you are not God, yet.

Write them down, all of them.

> How do i react, i feel like god is not doing a very good

> job sometimes.

That's another thought already. " I'm not God " doesn't mean that God

exists. But if you feel he is not doing a very good job, sometimes,

you postulate that there IS a God.

> I feel powerless

> I feel confused

>

> without the thought.. Im not god.

> Im space and everything in it. Light..

This again, is another thought.

Don't replace the thought you are investigating. Another form to ask

question 4 is: Who would you be, if you could not think that thought?

> TA I am god..

> I dont feel this to be true. usually

Of course not. You don't know how that would feel, would you? So if

you were, you wouldn't even notice.

And could it be as true or truer as the original thought?

Find out what IS God.

Don't look it up in a book. And don't believe what they tell you.

You have a definition. Find it. For yourself.

> we are all god.. and we are one

> SO im told.

And you can't make yourself believe it, can you?

> god is unknowable. ..to the mind. and i live in my mind mostly

> and illusion.

>

> I dont understand ACIM usually

>

> I know they say read it from a deeper level. KAtie i think is easier

> to understand ..

It's you you have to understand.

It's your world.

> I cant go beyond my evolution.. here.. thanks rh

That's true. I don't see you are trying, either.

So don't worry about that.

Love,

> -- In Loving-what- <mailto:Loving-what-is%40yahoogroups.com>

is , wrote:

>>

>>

>>> alexander you wrote..

>>>

>>>> And who would you be, if you could not believe that ANYONE is

>>>> capcable of doing something he is not supposed to do?--

>>>

>>> That would feel so free..

>>>

>>> i would trust the universe and god.. and be fearless..

>> Well, that's my experience, too.

>>

>>> But im usually not there..

>> Oh really? You just were!

>>

>>> I can see how spending the money even on oneself could help

>>> the economy..

>>> better than saving it and not spending it according to

>>> walsch.. ok what do i think..

>> That's what separates you from trusting in the universe and God and

>> fearlessness and feeling free: a thought.

>>

>>> Im not god...

>> Is that true?

>>

>> What's your proof?

>>

>>> love, roslyn

>> Love,

>>

>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> - In Loving-what- <mailto:Loving-what-is%40yahoogroups.com>

is , <olli_26@> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Dear Roslyn,

>>>>> alexander.. why do i want mary to have a writing job..

>>>>> because shes good at it.. and becuase then she could

>>>>> have a job she enjoyed..

>>>>> and could make money also..

>>>>>

>>>>> what would i have ? satisfaction of knowing i thought of it..

>>>>> or suggested it.. I guess.. . -although she has thought of it too

>>>> Well, that's it: " satisfaction of knowing I thought of it " . Your

>>>> answer.

>>>>

>>>> And instead of using her to satisfy you...

>>>>

>>>> You can get that without needing her!

>>>>

>>>> Feel that satisfaction you are looking for (that you get through

>>>> her,

>>>> if you want. If it works). Find how you would live your life, how

>>>> you'd treat others if you had it. Find what kind of person you'd be

>>>> if you had that.

>>>>

>>>> And if you want to leave out of the equation, do the work.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> What do i get for mary manin morrissey should not of stolen..

>>>>> well she just invested and used money personally.

>>>> That's not the answer.

>>>>

>>>>> what do i get? I get to feel superior.. and better and separate..

>>>>> .. i get to be critical

>>>>> self righteous.. im somewhat annoyed and if it were my moeny i

>>>>> would

>>>>> of been angry..

>>>> It wasn't.

>>>>

>>>> So I hear " superior " , " better " , " critical " , " self righteous " ,

>>>> " annoyed " .

>>>>

>>>> It's not good or bad, it's simply what you get for believing this

>>>> thought.

>>>>

>>>> If that's what you reach out for, go with it. If you want to see

>>>> what

>>>> else is possible: Who would you be, thinking of manin morrisey

>>>> stealing, if the thought " she should not have stolen " never even

>>>> occured to you? How would you live your everyday life if the

>>>> thought

>>>> that ANYONE should not steal didn't exist?

>>>>

>>>> And who would you be, if you could not believe that ANYONE is

>>>> capcable of doing something he is not supposed to do?

>>>>

>>>>> but i can look at it differently..

>>>>> maybe she is being like st francis who told people to give

>>>>> away all their material possessions....

>>>> Yes, and does it work? Does it make anything better? And then you

>>>> find out how she used that money all for herself and bought herself

>>>> everything she desires. You think about all the things you could

>>>> buy

>>>> for yourself and resent her for that, don't you?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> MAry Manin morrissey took money away from people..

>>>>> and francis told people to give it away.. so i suppose

>>>>> one could say they were doing a service..

>>>>> EVerything happens for us not to us..

>>>>>

>>>>> feels better.. love, roslyn --

>>>> Yes.

>>>> for how long?

>>>>

>>>> Love,

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

[Guest guest]

I understand and appreciate your explanation regarding ACIM. I have

no issue with it. It's another belief system and you will believe ~

and be attracted to ~ what you believe and feel an attraction for.

It's not like you have any choice in the matter.

Just one other point. You quote ACIM:

" There is no world because it is a thought apart from God, "

That is the end of the discussion regarding whether or not ACIM is a

nondual teaching.

Based on the words above, ACIM is, BY DEFINITION, dualistic.

The sole requirement for a teaching to be NONdual is the unconditional

state of unicity (vs. duality). It can be simply put: there is

exactly One. For convenience it can be called God. God is ALL there

is. THAT is the premise of all nondual teachings (although some use a

term other than " God " for the One).

If there is anything " apart from God " (as in " a thought [which] is

apart from God " ), then there is not only God but, in addition, " a

thought apart from God. " By definition, what is being described is a

duality (God and " a thought apart from God " - i.e., a " twoness " ).

Thus ACIM is a dualistic teaching. QED

If ACIM is genuinely nondual, then it would attribute that " thought "

TO God and would understand that God is not only the Author of that

thought but is also identical to that thought. Nothing else is

possible since " all there is, is God. " Where there is a sense that

anything (including thoughts) is " apart " from God, then there is

simply a misunderstanding. How could anything be " apart " from the

Whole which encompasses and IS everything?

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Just one other point. You quote ACIM:

>

> " There is no world because it is a thought apart from God, "

>

> That is the end of the discussion regarding whether or not ACIM is a

> nondual teaching.

>

> Based on the words above, ACIM is, BY DEFINITION, dualistic.

>

> The sole requirement for a teaching to be NONdual is the

> unconditional state of unicity (vs. duality). It can be simply

> put: there is exactly One. For convenience it can be called God.

Andy I think that we explained before how ACIM seems dualistic in its

language but its core message is pure non-dualism. You may have

forgotten it so here is the question and answer again.

Q #85: In Eastern Advaita/non-dualism there is no room for

relationships like Cause- Effect, Father-Son, Creator-Creation. Why

then maintain that A Course in Miracles is " non-dualistic " in essence?

Isn't that confusing?

A: The Course uses dualistic terms in its teaching only because Jesus

knows that the language of separation or duality is all that we can

understand right now. Jesus is very clear about his intentions with

language in the Course, so to answer your question we are simply going

to let the Course speak for itself by providing a few relevant

references:

The clearest is the following statement:

" Since you believe that you are separate, Heaven presents itself to you

as separate, too. Not that it is in truth, but that the link that has

been given you to join the truth may reach to you through what you

understand. Father and Son and Holy Spirit are as One, as all your

brothers join as one in truth. Christ and His Father never have been

separate, and Christ abides within your understanding, in the part of

you that shares His Father's Will. The Holy Spirit links the other part–

the tiny, mad desire to be separate, different and special–to the

Christ, to make the oneness clear to what is really one. In this world

this is not understood, but can be taught.…It is the Holy Spirit's

function to teach you how this oneness is experienced, what you must do

that it can be experienced, and where you should go to do it.

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. It is apparent that a mind so split could

never be the Teacher of a Oneness which unites all things within

Itself. And so What is within this mind, and does unite all things

together, must be its Teacher. Yet must It use the language [dualistic]

that this mind can understand, in the condition [separation] in which

it thinks it is " (T.25.I.5; 6:4; 7:1,2,3,4; italics added).

There are many other places where Jesus makes it clear that the

Course's metaphysical foundation is non-dualistic, despite the

dualistic nature of the language employed. For example, in speaking of

the Father and the Son, words which suggest two separate Beings, he

says, " What He [the Father] creates is not apart from Him, and nowhere

does the Father end, the Son begin as something separate from Him "

(W.pI.132.12:4).

And later in the Workbook he says, " Oneness is simply the idea God is.

And in His Being, He encompasses all things. No mind holds anything but

Him. We say `God is,' and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge

words are meaningless. There are no lips to speak them, and no part of

mind sufficiently distinct to feel that it is now aware of something

not itself. It has united with its Source. And like its Source Itself,

it merely is.

We cannot speak nor write nor even think of this at all. It comes to

every mind when total recognition that its will is God's has been

completely given and received completely. It returns the mind into the

endless present, where the past and future cannot be conceived. It lies

beyond salvation; past all thought of time, forgiveness and the holy

face of Christ [which are all dualistic concepts]. The Son of God has

merely disappeared into his Father, as his Father has in him. The world

has never been at all. Eternity remains a constant state " (W.pI.169.5,

6).

And in the context of Cause-Effect relationships, one of the dualistic

sets of terms you mention, Jesus begins in seemingly dualistic terms,

but then makes its true non-dualistic nature apparent:

" Father, I was created in Your Mind, a holy Thought that never left its

home. I am forever Your Effect, and You forever and forever are my

Cause. As You created me I have remained. Where You established me I

still abide. And all Your attributes abide in me, because it is Your

Will to have a Son so like his Cause that Cause and Its Effect are

indistinguishable (W.pII.326.1:1,2,3,4,5; italics added).

And so while much of the Course's teachings are presented in dualistic

language, it must be understood that their purpose is to lead us past

our belief in duality back to the oneness that is our only reality.