MIRACLES SOURCE

Weekly Questions and Answers 12/18/2002

This week's questions:
Q #38
Q #39
Q #40
Q #41
Q #42

Q #38: What is the Course referring to when it says: "There will be no assault upon your wish to hear a call that never has been made" (T.31.II.8.5)?

A: The "call that never has been made" refers to the "call" to be separate from God, heard constantly in our wrong minds. It is impossible to separate from totality, from everything; therefore, the call "never was made." That is another way of stating the Atonement principle that the separation never happened in reality. And we will not be punished for wishing to hear the call that tells us that our individual, separate identity is real. In a different context, Jesus says basically the same thing: "Here is your promise never to allow union to call you out of separation" (T.19.IV.D.3). But he never tires of reminding us that it is not a sin deserving of retribution to prefer to exist as an individual being and make up a God in our own image rather than answer the call of the Holy Spirit to return to our true Identity as spirit, as Christ. This is what is meant by: "There will be no assault…" It corrects the traditional biblical views that an offended, vengeful God demands atonement through sacrifice for the sins of His children.

Q #39: I have heard you say numerous times that when we awaken, we don’t go poof, that we don’t disappear, etc. And yet, every time I seriously consider going home with Jesus, I think of the unfinished job I still have "here" and it stops me. I then remember you say that whatever needs to be done here would be done because my body would then be directed in the most helpful way, but that it wouldn’t be my concern any more. In fact, if it were my concern, it would be my ego doing it. Is that right? How do I reconcile that with the example of bodhisattvas who choose to maintain an attachment to something in this world–be it a loved one or chocolate, in order to maintain the body and do the work of helping that they came here to do? That is an investment in what we do from the point of view of the Course, isn’t it?

A: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you believe you are here and would like to go home, but you haven’t made that choice yet because you feel you are not finished here. That state of mind is distinctly different from the state of a mind that is healed, knows that it is not really here, but has become solely the instrument of the Holy Spirit’s Love. The starting points, in other words, are very different. The healed mind has already "left," you might say, and is "here" in a totally different way from the mind that is still on the journey and considering the choice to go home with Jesus. A healed mind is beyond any bodily identity and thoroughly identified with non- dualistic love. To be present in an illusory state, therefore, requires a focus on something to help ground it. It could be anything at all -- from a love of chocolate to following a certain baseball team. But there would never be a reluctance or resistance to returning home, because the healed mind knows it is already there; there is nothing to attain, no journey.

I believe you are expressing something entirely different in content from this state of mind. In form, both might experience that they are not yet finished with what they are here to do. But for those still on the journey and learning how to lessen their investment in their bodily identity, there would be tremendous fear to let go totally of the only identity with which they are familiar. It is a gradual process over many, many years requiring the commitment to look fearlessly with Jesus at the contents of their wrong minds, which rest almost immutably on the defiant choice to leave Home and never return. As Jesus poignantly reassures us: "I am leading you to a new kind of experience that you will become less and less willing to deny" (T.11.VI.3.6). It is a process, and the final choice will be made effortlessly. In fact, the attraction to Love will be so strong, that it will not even be regarded as a choice. There no longer is a concern about going "poof"!

Q #40: I have heard and read from some that the Course is not for everyone and some Course authorities go so far as to say that it is intended for a more intellectual/educated audience. I find this claim to be very dangerous. Are these claims true or are they nothing more than a form of seeking salvation through separation and a desire to create a level of specialness within a certain demographic namely those educated enough to understand, comprehend, live the Course? How do we reconcile these claims with the text statement: All are called?

A: Anyone at all can benefit from the Course. One does not have to be an intellectual to learn from it and use it as a spiritual path. Nonetheless, it is obvious that it is written on a high intellectual level with sophisticated metaphysical, theological, and psychological concepts integrated into the teaching throughout the three books. Much of it is written in blank verse. Thus, a reader/ student who is not intellectually inclined and has no background in these areas would have difficulty understanding a great deal of the material. This does not mean, though, that such a person could not be helped by reading through it and doing the exercises in the workbook. If the person comes away from the Course being more kind, more loving, and reassured of God’s Love, and less angry, depressed, and fearful, then its purpose has been fulfilled. On the other hand, there have been many highly educated people who were not able relate to the Course at all, for a variety of reasons. They will find another path more suitable to their needs and inclinations.

Thus, to say that the Course is not for everyone is not to say that it deliberately excludes people. The Course says of itself that it is only one among many thousands of other forms of the universal course (M.1.4). It does not have to be for everyone. Some religions have claimed that theirs is the only true religion, the only way to be reconciled with God. A Course in Miracles does not do that. Rather, the implication throughout the Course is that everyone will eventually find a path that will lead them to God. It does not have to be this one.

Q #41: The events, activities and relationships of our "waking dream" comprise our classroom and are the vehicles for learning our lesson of forgiveness. Is there any particular significance or value of our "sleeping dreams" in the process of learning forgiveness and should our response to these images be any different from our response to our "waking dream" classroom?

A: It is the same mind that is dreaming both our waking and sleeping dreams. And it is one of the ego’s many tricks to try to convince us that there is a real difference between the two so that we believe we are awake when we are really still asleep, just having a different form of the same dream of separation. One of the more important insights our sleeping dreams offer us upon our shifting to a seeming waking state is the realization that our mind has the power to make up a world in dreams that seems very real while we are experiencing it, a world made up solely to meet our own personal needs. Jesus elaborates on this aspect of our sleeping dreams in a very clear passage:

"Does not a world that seems quite real arise in dreams?...And while you see it you do not doubt that it is real. Yet here is a world, clearly within your mind, that seems to be outside. You do not respond to it as though you made it, nor do you realize that the emotions the dream produces must come from you...You seem to waken, and the dream is gone. Yet what you fail to recognize is that what caused the dream has not gone with it. Your wish to make another world that is not real remains with you. And what you seem to waken to is but another form of this same world you see in dreams. All your time is spent in dreaming. Your sleeping and your waking dreams have different forms, and that is all. Their content is the same. They are your protest against reality, and your fixed and insane idea that you can change it" (T.18.II.1:1; 5:2,3,4,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15).

In our sleeping dreams, we have the same choice of teachers that we have when we are "awake" and we may find over time that we can choose forgiveness while we sleep, recognizing that our judgments within the dream are not justified. We may even become a lucid dreamer, becoming aware, even as we are dreaming, that our sleeping dream is an invention of our own mind, presaging the awareness that will eventually come to us about our waking dreams. And our sleeping dreams also afford us the opportunity to understand the real meaning of forgiveness that Jesus is attempting to lead us towards, when we realize, upon awakening, that the source of any upset we experience in our sleeping dreams has nothing to do with what anyone else is doing to us. Our upset reflects nothing more than a decision in our own mind to be upset and then to attribute that loss of peace to a cause that seems to be outside of ourselves. The awareness that this is what we are also doing in our waking dreams is the foundation for the process of forgiveness as Jesus presents it to us in the Course: "I am never upset for the reason I think...I am upset because I see something that is not there" (W.pI.5,6). "Forgiveness recognizes what you thought your brother did to you has not occurred" (W.pII.1.1:1). When we can generalize this recognition from our sleeping dreams to our waking dreams, we will be well on the way to awakening from all of our dreams of separation.

Q #42: Does A Course in Miracles refer to "God" as an interactive god who makes changes and alterations to our physical and worldly existence in relation to our daily actions? The Course initially states that we are changeless but later refers to all the various changes which we make as we progress. I do not understand if we are capable of making any changes or not? If we are changeless, why bother doing anything at all because we are what we are anyway.

A: Although much of the Course refers to God in personal terms, as if He were a concerned Father, distinct from His children, who is watching over us, when we understand the basic metaphysical teachings of the Course on God, it becomes apparent that these kinds of personal, human references to God can not be meant literally. They represent the Course’s attempt to "use the language that this [finite] mind can understand, in the condition [of separation] in which it thinks it is" (T.25.I.7:4) and to correct the misperceptions we hold of God from our ego interpretation of God as an angry, vengeful Father who seeks to punish us for our attacks on Him.

The Course spends very little time on the impossible task of describing to our limited, finite minds the true nature of God, His creations, and reality -- "there is no symbol for totality" (T.27.III.5:1) -- but there are a few attempts. For example, from the workbook, "What He creates is not apart from Him, and nowhere does the Father end, the Son begin as something separate from Him" (W.pI.12:4). And acknowledging the impossibility of capturing in words That Which is beyond all concepts and symbols: "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 it is now aware of something not itself. It has united with its Source. And like its Source Itself, it merely is" (W.p.I.169.5).

So God, Who is "All in all" (T.7.IV.7:4), can not act on a part of Himself, as if it were separate from Him. And even to refer to Him as "Him" is to attribute a personal nature to the Source of all that in reality is totally abstract. The Course therefore does not describe God as interacting with his children in the world. That role is given to the Holy Spirit as the Voice for God, providing the Holy Spirit a symbolic function, unlike the Father and the Son (T.5.I.4:1). But since the world is all a projection of the basic ego illusion, which has no reality, there really is no world in which the Holy Spirit intervenes, only a mind that believes there is a world. And even then the Voice for God has no active function in the mind -- "It merely reminds" (T.5.II.7:4) us of the truth about ourselves and God, which has never changed.

The Course also refers to God as "the Changeless," (W.pI.112.2:2) and "Formlessness" (W.pI.186.14:1), Who creates "only the changeless" (T.6.IV.12:4). Consequently, it is inconceivable that He could be involved in making changes and alterations in a world of form.

And that brings us to the second question you raise about our changelessness. In our reality as spirit, nothing has changed and we remain sinless, perfect and at one with our Source -- this is the principle of the Atonement, repeated numerous times throughout the Course. It is in this sense that we are truly changeless. But clearly this is not what we believe or experience about ourselves. And so the Course does not simply assert what is real and true and leave it at that. That would not be of any help to us, trapped as we seem to be in the morass of our mistaken beliefs. So the Course accepts us where we think we are, acknowledging that we believe that we are each a separate physical being, living as a body in a world of time and space, struggling against forces that seem to be beyond our control. And it offers us the means -- forgiveness, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit -- to find the way out of this meaningless, senseless maze of beliefs in which we have imprisoned ourselves (T.26.V.4:1). Not because any of it is real, but only because we believe it is. And so long as we believe we have changed ourselves from our true reality as Christ, we will need to move through a seeming process of change that undoes all the changes we believe we have introduced into our identity, until we at last realize that in reality nothing has changed at all and we are back at home in the Heaven we never left, where we have always been. So this is a process of undoing, and not really doing at all. And any change we may seem to experience in the process of undoing our mistaken beliefs is as illusory as the initial thought of change that seemed to expel us from Heaven. But while we hold on to the belief that change is both possible and real, then change will be our experience. And our only choice will be whether to seek for change that reinforces guilt and separation and seems to take us even farther from our true home, or change that results from the practice of forgiveness in the context of our worldly relationships, allowing us to return.

Please give us your feedback on these questions and answers ...
Thank you.

Weekly Questions and Answers 12/11/2002

This week's questions:
Q #34
Q #35
Q #36
Q #37

Q #34: From what I understand, anyone who reaches or experiences the state of the real world would not need or do anything external. Still, is it possible to "create" something artistic in this world (like a piece of music, a poem, etc.) out of pure need to share the state of happiness?

A: Being in the real world means that you know that you are not a body and that the physical world is not real. You know that your identity -- as well as everyone else’s -- has nothing to do with either the body or the world. It is a state of mind in which the ego thought system is no longer present and therefore there is no decision-making aspect, because there no longer are two thought systems to choose between. The content of the mind is purely the Holy Spirit’s thought system of love.

Consequently, in this state of mind there would be no I that would experience a need to do something. It is not that your body would not do anything, but that "you" would not be the agent of the "doing." The Holy Spirit’s love would flow through you, and so your experience would be that "you" are not doing anything. Remember, our journey into "the far country" has been a journey away from the state of oneness and into a state of physical individuality. Therefore our journey back is a journey toward selflessness, characterized by our re-acceptance of the truth that God’s Son is one and invulnerable. Just before the dream of separation disappears totally, we would reach the state of knowing once and for all that bodies and the world are totally unreal. They are nothing other than the dreams of a mind that has fallen asleep, and therefore nothing happening in the dreams truly matters. It matters only to the figures in the dream. But a healed mind would know that even the dream itself never really happened.

If that is your state of mind, how then could there be any need to be creative? The love of the Holy Spirit would extend through you to those who still think they are separate from that love, and in some way are calling out for it. But you would not direct that process. There no longer is that kind of a "you." If the artist’s experience is "I am profoundly happy. I want others who are not happy to share what I am experiencing," chances are that that is coming from the ego, because there is separation in the perception. If you experience a need to share love, you are making the error real. If the artistic impulse is coming from the Holy Spirit or from Jesus, there would be no sense of urgency, and the artist would not experience himself or herself as the agent of the work produced, nor would there be any concern over whether and how it is received. Love naturally extends of itself, and that extension of love might be expressed through art in some form, but that is far different from "creating," as you stated, "something artistic in this world…out of pure need to share the state of happiness." That could well be the ego sneaking in the back door to retrieve part of its self-importance that was starting to slip away.

Q #35: It seems the more I study A Course in Miracles, I begin to think I am going backward instead of forward. My mind is more noisy than ever. Why is that?

A: The Course has a helpful perspective on this: "Put yourself not in charge of this [wakening to knowledge] for you cannot distinguish between advance and retreat. Some of your greatest advances you have judged as failures, and some of your deepest retreats you have evaluated as success" (T.18.V.1:5,6). The fact is we really do not know where we are in our progress; we do not even know if we are going backwards or forwards It is important to remember this in our study of the Course so as not to waste a lot of time and effort judging or evaluating ourselves. Most likely the "noise" in your mind that seems to be more than ever was there before your study of the Course; the difference is now you are aware of it. Now you know you have a mind and that it is a noisy mind, and that is exactly what the Course is helping us to learn. We begin our practice by learning not to deny that we are using our noise to drown out the "still small voice" (T.21.V.1:6) of the Holy Spirit. Since denial is part of our defense strategy as egos, beginning to hear our noisy minds is the beginning of undoing denial. As we deepen our commitment to study the Course, our noise may actually seem to get louder because of our resistance. Our ego identity feels threatened by what we are learning and puts up a fight in a variety of ways, one of them being a noisy mind. This is also a ploy of the ego to convince us to stop our pursuit of the truth, because it tells us we are "getting worse." Our task is to begin to pay attention to the chatter in our minds because it is telling us what we believe. The whole point of the mind training of the Course is to uncover the thoughts, judgments, beliefs and lies hidden in our minds causing us to feel guilty and fearful. The good news is that "The still, small Voice for God is not drowned out by all the ego's raucous screams and senseless ravings to those who want to hear It" (T.21.V.1:6). We will hear His promptings when we have heard and forgiven all of our objections.

Q #36: Are "angels" illusion? A Course in Miracles mentions "angels" (T19.IV.C.9; T26.IX.7, and in the workbook), but what is not clear to me is whether they are made by ego or part of reality.

A: Angels are part of the illusion, whether we speak of them in the usual sense as ephemeral bodies or as they are spoken of in the Course. In the Course’s teaching, reality refers only to the Oneness of God and His Son in Heaven, where there is only Unity and no distinction between Father and His one Son. There is no plural in this reality. According to the Course, everything else is part of the illusion of the dream. The Course speaks of angels as metaphor and symbol. They are symbols for the reflection of God’s thoughts, which are always with us. It is a loving, poetic use of a term that is familiar to us to teach us about the Love God extends to the Sonship, since we may still be too fearful to have a direct experience of His Love. We generally understand angels to be benign spirits who are comforting and helpful to us. In the Course, Jesus uses this form because we have this positive association, and he is helping us to gently let go of our fear in terms we are able to understand. You may notice that wherever angels are mentioned in the Course the language is beautiful poetry, with terms that are comforting and uplifting. These are words of encouragement that reflect the truth of God’s Love for us.

Q #37: This question is an edited combination of two separate questions that were submitted on the theme of choice and predetermination or destiny in A Course in Miracles:

As I understand it, in this dream of separation my only real choice is which teacher I choose in every situation I find myself: the ego or the Holy Spirit. As for the dream itself, we are told that the script is already written. But I wonder, can I, as the dreamer of the dream, change the dream in terms of the specific events that unfold. Or can I change the dream only in terms of my perspective on the situation? In other words, is everything that I'm experiencing predestined when it comes to situations and relationships, etc.? That would mean that I'm walking through an old dream of separation, like watching an old movie, that my marriage could never have lasted longer than it did, I could never have had more than the number of children I have now, and the relationship I'm in now is already fully defined in terms of time, etc. As I'm given the opportunity to 'save time' by choosing the Holy Spirit as my teacher, it would mean only that I'm allowed to skip certain parts of the story. Is it like this?

But it also seems that the Course encourages us not to exchange an unholy relationship for yet another unholy relationship with someone else, as we search for happiness we will never find outside of ourselves, but instead to make the relationship we are in a holy one. This seems to indicate that we do have choices in terms of the story, the people we're meeting, etc. So then there could be several possible versions of my lifetime. One might include two or more briefer marriages with different spouses while another might involve remaining in the same marriage for many years. But Jesus says that nothing is left to coincidence and that every meeting is planned. Or does the form simply not matter and do I just see shadows, projecting my own images on them? But then why is it that the script of my life, if it is already determined, seems to have such a significant effect on other people’s lives?

Jesus also says that what we see is the judgment we first passed on ourselves, and outside of that there is no world. Does that mean that, for example, if there is a war between the United States and Iraq, I could have done something to stop it? Did it already happen and was it corrected, so that if I'm seeing a war instead of peace, does that mean that my mind still needs to be corrected because I am still choosing the wrong teacher? Or could I have done nothing to avoid the war and do I just choose which teacher with whom to view the events. And would I see nothing but innocence on both sides if I choose the Holy Spirit?

A: To address completely all the questions and issues you’ve raised could take a book (and there is a book, A Vast Illusion: Time According to A Course in Miracles by Kenneth Wapnick, which you may find helpful to amplify some of the points that we’ll address briefly here).

The Course does say that our only real choice is between the ego and Holy Spirit, the emphasis being on "real." But within the dream, there are nearly an infinite number -- although not infinite, only nearly infinite, because the ego can not make anything that is either infinite or eternal (T.4.I.11:7) -- of alternatives we can choose among at the level of form. But their underlying content is all the same -- sin, guilt and fear - and so the Course emphasizes that there is no real choice among alternatives that are really all the same. Meaningful choice can be made only on the level of content and so the only real choice is between the guilt and fear of the ego and the forgiveness and love of the Holy Spirit. So, yes, there are many different forms or sequences of events that our lives may take as a result of our seeming choices, but so long as we are choosing with the ego, believing that happiness can be found outside ourselves, nothing will really change, although our circumstances and relationships may alter significantly. By the way, the Course does not actually encourage us to remain physically in a relationship in order to make it holy -- it never advises us on the level of specifics or form. When it cautions us about "getting rid of your brother" (T.17.V.7:2), it is speaking of how we are perceiving our brother in our mind, including in particular all of the special fantasies we have associated with him that are no longer being fulfilled.

Now the Course also says, as you remark, that the script is already written (W.pI.158.4:3) and that everything in time has already happened, so that our lives are nothing more than seeing "the journey from where it ended, looking back on it, imagining we make it once again; reviewing mentally what has gone by" (4:5). And while Jesus says that nothing happens by chance, he is clearly attributing the responsibility for choice for all the experiences of our lives to our own mind (T-21.II.3:1,2,3). But this does not mean that everything in our lives is predetermined, that the sequence of events is fixed. We are always choosing from an array of many possible events that have all already occurred, but the unique sequencing and the vast number of past events we’re choosing from, combined with our repressing any memory of any of them and our belief that time itself is both real and linear, add to the feeling that it is all new. And this is all part of the ego defense to mislead us into believing something new and meaningful is happening in our lives, reinforcing the foolish hope that somehow this time our ego choice in the world of form will have a better outcome.

To understand the seeming effect of our lives on each other, we need to step back and look from outside the dream of the world, and return our attention to the mind where all choices are really being made. The nearly infinite number of possible events in time was written in one instant by the one (collective) mind, joined with the ego, before the fragmentary projection out into the world of separate individuals and lives seemed to happen. As Jesus explains, "time but lasted an instant in your mind, with no effect upon eternity. And so is all time past...The tiny tick of time in which the first mistake was made, and all of them with that one mistake" (T.26.3:3,4,5, italics added).

Now my individual dream is separate and can not truly be shared with anyone else. But since all minds are joined, any decision that I make to interact as a body with you, or that you make to interact as a body with me, must always reflect an agreement we both have made together, at the level of mind outside of time and space, to replay certain events in time and space that have already happened. And this joint agreement must be kept buried in our unconscious if it is to be effective in supporting the ego’s purpose of separation and victimization.

Jesus speaks of this joint decision, specifically in the context of our agreement to be hurt by each other, as "the secret vow that you have made with every brother that would walk apart.…Unstated and unheard in consciousness...it is a promise to another to be hurt by him, and to attack him in return.…so that [the body] will suffer pain. It is the obvious effect of what was made in secret, in agreement with another’s secret wish to be apart from you, as you would be apart from him. Unless you both agree that is your wish, it can have no effects" (T.28.VI.4:3,6,7; 5:1,2,3). This hidden joint agreement to seem to be affected by each other must be the case, for otherwise we would be the victim of each other’s decisions. While this joint agreement about form is true at a metaphysical level, at a practical level it is much more helpful to focus on the fact that in the world, as the physical self with which I identify, I am not able to control what others do, but I nevertheless always have a choice about how I will perceive what is happening in my life. I can decide which teacher I will invite in, and whether I will see my peace of mind as dependent only on my own choice -- as the Holy Spirit would teach -- or whether I choose to see others as having power to take away my peace of mind -- accepting the ego’s teaching that I can be victimized and therefore am not responsible for how I feel.

As to whether or not a healed mind sees war and has any choice about it, it is apparent that Jesus recognizes the conflicts of our ego -- he spends a great deal of the Course pointing out the ego’s sick dynamics to us -- but that does not mean his mind is not healed. What is important is that he is not judging us as he uncovers our ego’s machinations. He sees everything as either an extension of love or a call for it (T.12.I.3:1,2,3,4). When we are joined with Jesus in our minds, we will see any conflict in the world, at either an individual or an international level, in that same light. We will not deny what our eyes see, but our interpretation will be different from the world’s interpretation. In the context of sickness, the Course observes that "the body’s eyes will continue to see differences. But the mind that has let itself be healed will no longer acknowledge them. There will be those who seem to be ‘sicker’ than others, and the body’s eyes will report their changed appearances as before. But the healed mind will put them all in one category; they are unreal" (M-8.6:1-4). And this healed perception can arise only after our mind has released its belief in the value of conflict and war as a means for projecting the guilt of separation outside of our own mind. We may have agreed to participate in a collective dream where an external war is played out in order to reinforce the ego’s perception of the world as one of victims and victimizers - but we can in any instant ask for help, first recognizing the ego’s purpose for war and then deciding we no longer wish to reinforce that insanity in our own mind. And before we would see innocence on all sides of the conflict, we would first see the insanity on all sides, and recognize it is the same insanity we share with everyone else when we are identified with the ego.

Please give us your feedback on these questions and answers ...
Thank you.

Weekly Questions and Answers, 12/04/2002

This week's questions:
Q #28
Q #29
Q #30
Q #31
Q #32
Q #33

Q #28: How do I forgive others for their horrible acts? How can I forgive the sniper? Is this not real? Is it the distraction of the ego? I also fear what is real. When I say, above all I want to see, I become terrified. I have a hard time giving up this world we created. I love some of my creations, like my family. Don't I need to die to return to my reality? Won't I be lonely?

A: The forgiveness the Course is teaching us is a process of looking at a situation such as the sniper killings and asking ourselves what this event is telling us about what we believe. We begin by looking honestly at our reactions to these killings which include all kinds of feelings and judgments about the victims and the victimizers. All these feelings and thoughts are useful in uncovering the hidden beliefs of the ego thought system; that the world is real, that we are bodies, that what we call death is the end of what we call "life", that we are vulnerable to attack…the list goes on and on. The Course then asks us to recognize that all these are feelings and thoughts about ourselves that we have projected on to the victims as well as the victimizers. We are learning that the feelings/thoughts along with the pain they cause were already with us before the event took place. The event only seemed to cause the feelings. This is why the Course says we forgive our brothers for what they did not do. "Be willing to forgive the Son of God for what he did not do" (T.17.III.1,5). The snipers did not cause our feelings, our mistaken beliefs did. If we are willing to look at any situation in this way we are beginning to question the ego’s lies. We are then in a position to ask for another way of seeing. This is sometimes very difficult to do, it takes practice and a lot of honesty, but it is the only way we can get in touch with the beliefs that are keeping us rooted in a thought system that is causing us a lot of pain. This pain is coming from believing the ego’s lies and not from the situation, in this case the killings. It is very important that we practice this without denying any of the feelings or thoughts we do have about the outrageous events in this ego world of fear and hatred and without forcing ourselves to try to accept a new belief system that challenges our usual ego perspective. This will only entrench us in our mistaken views and make us more afraid. If we are willing to just say "maybe I’m wrong about this", then the world we’ve made and all our relationships, including those we "love", become our classroom for learning the Holy Spirit’s interpretation of everything we experience rather than serving as a distraction. (Note: the Course uses the term "made" for the ego’s world. "Creation" refers to God’s extension of love on the level of the Mind only.) The Course tells us the Holy Spirit will not take any of our special relationships away from us but will instead give us a different interpretation and a different purpose for them. Without them we would not be aware of the mistaken beliefs about ourselves or the judgments (whether for good or for bad) that keep us in our deep sleep. We have made ourselves afraid of what is real and that is why we have a Teacher who is inviting us to take small steps with Him toward a new way of thinking. If we do this with Jesus or the Holy Spirit by our side we will not be lonely or dead. Eventually we will fully waken from the dream with the realization that we were in fact only dreaming, with no thought or need for dying. Meanwhile each step in forgiveness brings us more peace and takes us closer to our truth where our family will include everyone and we will not experience any sense of loss.

Q #29: When Jesus turned over the table in the Temple, it seemed to reinforce the ego thought system. He was angry, and ultimately was punished, by being crucified. I keep repeating in my mind, there must be a different way of looking at this, to speed up the healing I submitted this question to the Foundation.

A: In "Forgiveness and Jesus: The Meeting Place of A Course in Miracles and Christianity" and "A Talk Given on A Course in Miracles; An Introduction" (by Kenneth Wapnick, published by the Foundation for A Course in Miracles) this Gospel passage is discussed at length. The full explanation presented in these books is summarized here.

As you may know the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ sayings and actions are not necessarily historical fact. It is likely that the incident in the Temple did not happen in the way that it is depicted in the Gospel. This view is accepted even by many Christian Scripture scholars. It is also important to note that the Gospel account does not say that Jesus was angry, although in the movies of Jesus’ life he has been portrayed as angry. If something of this nature did occur in which Jesus appears to be angry, without truly feeling any anger, he would have been using this outburst as a teaching tool to make a point for the large crowd of people present in the Temple at the time of the Passover. In this case the point would have been that the "chosen people" had distorted the Old Testament teaching by using the Temple for purposes other than as a "house of prayer." This is close to the traditional interpretation of this incident by Christian scholars. As a good teacher Jesus acted in a dramatic way to more effectively draw attention to his message. One could also consider a final option; that Jesus was actually angry, having an "ego attack." If this were the case there are at least three conditions that would have to be present; Jesus would not be at peace, God would not be his in his awareness, he would perceive the money lenders as his enemy. It is inconceivable that Jesus, whose message and presence were filled only with love and peace, would have "lost it" in this way. It is also possible to believe that Jesus did have an ego attack, but if one chose to believe that, why would one then choose to identify with his ego, rather than with the love and forgiveness he teaches us in A Course in Miracles? Moreover, even if it were possible for Jesus to have such an ego attack, the Course tells us he would certainly not be punished for his "sin" by being crucified. "There is no sin." (T.26.VII.10:5) The central teaching of the Course is that God’s Son is innocent; "You are still My holy Son, forever innocent, forever loving and forever loved, as limitless as your Creator, and completely changeless and forever pure" (WpII.10:5). Since there is no sin there can be no punishment. The Course’s teaching on the crucifixion, therefore, is from a very different perspective. In Jesus’ words "The crucifixion is nothing more than an extreme example" (T.6I.2:1), much like the example of the Temple incident, if it did in fact occur. Jesus says later: "The message the crucifixion was intended to teach was that it is not necessary to perceive any form of assault in persecution, because you cannot be persecuted. If you respond with anger, you must be equating yourself with the destructible, and are therefore regarding yourself insanely" (T.6.I.4:6). Jesus would not regard himself insanely, and since he knew he was not a body he remained at peace during the crucifixion, fully aware that nothing was happening.

As we learn our true identity as God’s innocent Son, we also learn that we too can be at peace in the midst of seeming persecution. We, like Jesus, cannot be harmed in any way. This true identity is not to be confused with the ego identities we choose as bodies which do die. Since there is no real life here in the body, there is also no real death. This is what Jesus knew when his body was crucified. This is what he is teaching us.

Q #30: I play computer games, which I really like to do. I believe I have to quit playing these games one day, because I want the Holy Spirit’s alternative. There is another distraction I cherish, which is even an addiction. The addiction pulls me completely out of right-mindedness; it is a kick, a thrill, but with many side effects, disadvantages, the burden of anticipation etc. When I really look at it with Jesus, I do not want it anymore. And this is still not what I choose (up until now). There is an unwillingness to let go of these things. That they conflict with the Course…[Jesus] went shoe shopping with Helen for awhile, but then also advised her to let it go.

A: Keep in mind that this is a process, and that it takes a long time for most of us. Patience and gentleness with ourselves are key parts of this process; otherwise, we fall into the ego’s trap of making the error real. An important piece of advice Jesus gives us at the beginning of the "Rules for Decision" is: "Do not fight yourself" (T-30.I.1:7). Therefore, the most helpful approach would be to simply look at your reluctance to accept the Holy Spirit’s alternative, and your feeling that Jesus’ love is not enough for you, and then not condemn yourself for feeling that way. Just continue to be honest with yourself and with Jesus about how much you do not want to believe and accept what this Course is teaching you, and then don’t judge yourself for it. You will be practicing the Course in a very effective way if you can do this. That is what forgiveness is all about. You will be learning that the "sin" you have accused yourself of has had no effect, and that it was only a "tiny, mad idea" that has not changed love in any way.

Jesus is always and only interested in purpose. Thus, Helen was ready to change the purpose of her shopping sprees. She no longer needed to "protect" herself from Jesus’ love; therefore, she did not need to go shopping anymore. When our fear of accepting Jesus’ love lessens, our involvement in our defenses against accepting that love will lessen as well. While the specific activities may still be a part of our lives, their purpose will have changed entirely. It is always content, not form. The experience of peace or conflict has nothing to do with the activity or object itself. Peace and conflict are the result of our having chosen our ego or Jesus as our teacher.

Finally, speaking in general with regard to addictions: It often is necessary to deal with the behavior first -- to take whatever steps can be taken to curtail or stop the destructive behavior. This would reflect the mind’s decision to be more loving towards oneself and others. Then, when the behavior is more under control, the person can begin to deal with the cause of the addiction in the mind. Addictions most often are rooted in overwhelming self-hatred and guilt, which then gets projected onto one’s own and/or another’s body.

Q #31: Please explain how one is to interpret sin. What is it? Does it exist or not? Can one substitute the words "lack of love" when reading the text? Thank you

A: If you were to ask the ego to interpret sin, it’s meaning would be death (T.19.IV.A.17:3), while the Holy Spirit’s meaning would be a mistake to be corrected (e.g., T.19.II, III). The Course teaches us that to the ego sin is the death of God, or better yet the murder of God, and we are the murderers. Therefore, separation is a symbol of God’s death. We are reminded of our sin daily, whenever we see ourselves and others as separate, which is the only way we can see because the ego made the body to "see" this way. However, our attitude can yet be one of unity, even though our bodies’ eyes still see separation. This is one way the Holy Spirit can use what the ego made to serve another purpose (T.28.I.2:8).

Practically speaking, if we are identified with the ego, we interpret sin to be whatever takes away our peace, and the sinners we perceive outside ourselves are those who take it. No matter how big or small the situation, anything which "robs" us of our peace is called sin. It may even be ourselves who take away our own peace, but inevitably someone else made us this way, so we are once again made sinless.

As to whether sin exists or not, the Course teaches us that the separation never happened (M.2.2:6,8). And since separation is the entire foundation of the ego’s meaning of sin, then indeed it does not exist.

Finally, substituting "lack of love" will not necessarily have the same impact on a student as "sin." We all have conscious and unconscious beliefs around the word "sin," and by substituting other words for it, we deny ourselves the opportunity of forgiving all the associations we have made. "Lack of love" as a substitute makes it sound as if we are "lacking in love," something which, of course, would not be our fault. Words such as "withholding," or "selfish," would be more in tune with what we really believe sin means.

Q #32: I have read that Freud said the point of psychoanalysis is to make the unconscious conscious. I know that the Course is based in some ways on concepts of Freudian theory, but doesn't the Course say that all consciousness is inherently illusory? Doesn't this clash, then, with the main objective of psychoanalysis? Or am I having a case of level confusion?

A: The Course does indeed identify consciousness with what is illusory, describing it early in the text as "the level of perception, the first split introduced into the mind after the separation, making the mind a perceiver rather than a creator. Consciousness is correctly identified as the domain of the ego" (T.3.IV.2:1,2). But like all things the ego has made to support and maintain the belief in separation, the Holy Spirit can give it a different purpose. And so later, Jesus observes that "consciousness has levels and awareness can shift quite dramatically, but it cannot transcend the perceptual realm. At its highest level it becomes aware of the real world, and can be trained to do so increasingly" (C.1.7:4,5).

So yes, although consciousness metaphysically speaking is part of the illusion and so is not real, since we believe in its reality and experience it as an inherent part of ourselves, the Course provides us a way to use our consciousness in order ultimately to transcend it. The process of being trained to attain the real world is really a matter of making conscious what our ego has made unconscious through fear, so that the false perceptions of the ego can be healed and replaced by the true perception of the Holy Spirit, preparing us for our return to knowledge (the Course’s term for Heaven), beyond all consciousness and perception.

We have made the split mind -- where consciousness resides -- unconscious, and instead believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the body or, more specifically, of the brain. We have also made unconscious all the guilt in the mind that we have concocted as a defense of consciousness, projecting the guilt out into a world of form where we would never suspect its origin. So all of the ego’s defenses must be made conscious -- or as the Course more eloquently describes it, we must "be willing to bring the darkness to light" (T.18.III.6:2) -- so that their unreality can be recognized. And so we use the consciousness of the split mind to do this until, in the end, all of our false perceptions have been made conscious and healed, and consciousness is no longer needed. At that point, we are ready to leave the realm of consciousness and perception and "disappear into the Presence beyond the veil...not to be seen [perceived] but known" (T.19.IV.D.19:1).

Q #33: When I am "stuck" and don't feel I am being completely willing to let go of a well-established defense, I very often ask Jesus to help me with my unwillingness in the situation. I have experienced what I believe is success with this tool from time to time. I must also say that it doesn't always work -- I still feel the discomfort and unhappiness of retaining the grievance even though I've asked Him to help me with my unwillingness. Is this some kind of sophisticated ego ploy?

A: Being totally honest with Jesus about your unwillingness to let go of a grievance is helpful in itself, especially since you are experiencing the effects of not letting it go. This stubbornness does not make you sinful and does not affect Jesus’ love for you. So feeling like a failure, or any form of self-condemnation would be the only mistake at that point -- you already are aware of the price you are paying to hold on to the grievance. You can just stop with that, acknowledging that forgiveness is a process, and that when the underlying fear lessens, you will take another step. If you really wanted to forgive, you would. You might ask yourself what you would feel like, or what would happen, if you really did totally let go of the grievance. That might disclose the nature of the fear behind your unwillingness. Then you and Jesus could deal with that together. That would help to keep you honest, too.

There is no way of ever being totally sure whether you are listening to the ego or the Holy Spirit. After many years of experience, you become more familiar with your favorite means of self- deception, but usually you need someone who knows you well to help you discern. It’s a difficulty most students experience, because of the tremendous fear we all have of returning home to God.

Please give us your feedback on these questions and answers ...
Thank you.

Weekly Questions and Answers 11/27/2002

This week's questions:
Q #22
Q #23
Q #24
Q #25
Q #26
Q #27

Q #22: Chapter 30 I. Rules for Decision: I'm not sure I understand this. Are the decisions referred to just simple every day decisions like what to eat, or what to wear? Or, are they more along the lines of what you feel and think?

A: In a sense, they are both. We begin with the decisions or choices we make on a physical level, because that is where we believe we are. However, as students who are now beginning Chapter 30, we are familiar enough with the Course material to know that ultimately Jesus is always talking to us about what occurs on the level of the mind; in other words, choosing between the content of love or fear, and not choosing among the many forms the world presents to us.

The seven "rules" for decision are not to be taken literally, but are useful in remembering that the "right" decision-making is a process. That is, learning we have a choice with whom we make decisions takes time and practice. And "right" decision-making does not necessarily mean choosing Jesus or the Holy Spirit. What it does mean, is that we recognize we have a choice of choosing either of them, or choosing the ego. As egos, we really have no motivation to choose Jesus or the Holy Spirit, other than the Course telling us that we will feel better if we do. And that’s not reason enough to get us to choose them consistently. What is reason enough is to continually make decisions based on the ego, and becoming aware of the cost of such decisions. Rejecting the Love of God can only lead to guilt, since it is the shadowy fragment of our original decision to reject God by choosing to be separate from his Love, and be on our own. It is this guilt that is the source of all of our pain and suffering. As the Course says, "Of all the many causes you perceived as bringing pain and suffering to you, your guilt was not among them" (T.27.VII.7:4). Only when we link our pain with our decisions does choice become meaningful. And once we reach this point, the choice of whom to decide with becomes obvious: "Who with the Love of God upholding him could find the choice of miracles or murder hard to make?" (T.23.IV.9:8)

For a more in depth discussion of this important section in the Course, please see our excerpt series on the Rules for Decision.

Q #23: Can one be a student of A Course in Miracles and still be a part of a mainstream religion?

A: Yes, if it is helpful, for as the manual teaches us: "The curriculum is highly individualized, and all aspects are under the Holy Spirit’s particular care and guidance" (M.29.2:6). No one has the right nor the wisdom to determine what would be a help to someone on a spiritual path. That is why the Course always emphasizes the importance of asking the Holy Spirit’s help. That being said, however, it is true that on the level of their actual teachings, the Course differs markedly from mainstream religions. Indeed, we could say that one of the characteristics of A Course in Miracles is the contrast of its teachings with that of traditional Christianity. At this level, therefore, conflict would be inevitable at some point in one’s study; for example, other Western religions do not teach that "the world was made as an attack on God" (W.pII.3.2:1), and that our real terror is of redemption and not of crucifixion (T.13.III.1:10,11). It could become quite tempting to harmonize both thought systems, a compromise that could only be detrimental to both paths,

We are so filled with conflict as it is, that to intentionally build more into our daily lives seems an unloving act to ourselves. Taking an intellectual interest in mainstream religion for the purposes of comparing and contrasting such with the Course is one thing, but actually trying to live out both paths on a daily basis would be very difficult indeed. However, remembering the individualized nature of one’s curriculum, participating in both the Course and mainstream religion is nonetheless possible. The question to ask oneself, therefore, would be: what is the purpose?

Q #24: A Course in Miracles seems to allude to reincarnation. If we truly don’t die but instead just "lay this body" down, do we return in another or continue our lessons on another level?

A: Yes, in the Course, Jesus does seem to allude to reincarnation. But to understand what he is saying, and to address your question, we need to remember that in the Course, he is always speaking to us on the level of the mind, which is the only level where any true learning takes place. And specifically, he’s talking to that part of our mind which has to choose between the ego and the Holy Spirit, between hate and love, between death and life.

"But remember that understanding is of the mind, and only of the mind" (T.15.VI.7:5).

He tells us in the Course that this "life" is a dream, that the world is an illusion, that the body doesn’t die because the body doesn’t live (T.19.IV.C.5:2,3,4,5), and that our experience of time is simply a part of that illusion. Our "dream" always and only reflects the choice that we have made for either the ego’s purpose to reinforce our guilt and belief in separation, or the Holy Spirit’s purpose of forgiveness and undoing the belief in separation. Therefore, the form of the dream never matters, and when that form changes, the learning, or choosing, continues in the mind.

So when reading a passage that seems to imply reincarnation we could understand it not only on the level of our experience within the dream, but also as the idea of revisiting unforgivenesses. Perhaps it would be helpful to think of "simultaneous" dreams, or to use the model of a hologram where the whole is found in every part. When the mind "revisits" dreams or aspects of the hologram, this could be seen as experiencing different "lifetimes."

Jesus tells us in the manual that a belief in the concept of reincarnation is not a requirement for his Course. In fact, he says that it is only valuable to the extent to which it is "helpful" or of comfort to his students.

"In the ultimate sense, reincarnation is impossible. There is no past or future, and the idea of birth into a body has no meaning either once or many times. Reincarnation cannot, then, be true in any real sense" (M.24.1:1,2,3).

"Reincarnation would not, under any circumstances, be the problem to be dealt with now. It is certain, however, that the way to salvation can be found by those who believe in reincarnation and by those who do not. The idea cannot, therefore, be regarded as essential to the curriculum. There is always some risk in seeing the present in terms of the past. There is always some good in any thought which strengthens the idea that life and the body are not the same" (M.24.2:1,5,6,7,8).

When we can accept the fact that time is not linear, the concept of reincarnation becomes meaningless. But, as long as we believe we are separate individuals, the lessons continue in whatever form we can accept and understand until we truly learn that our reality is spirit and we have always been "...at home in God, [only] dreaming of exile" (T.10.I.2:1). In that acceptance of the Atonement for ourselves, all dreaming ends.

Q #25: I have been a Course student for a long while now. I am discovering that specialness is hollow and am beginning to see through the ego’s ploys, aversions and manipulations. I detect a sadness and/or fear, though, because of the void that is there when I let go of the specialness that wants to be maintained through material "stuff" or relationships, etc. What would you suggest to help one over the hump, or through the veil so one can see everyone with a healed perception? The void can seem wide and deep, hence fearful.

A. Trust is essential as you go through this. At one point Jesus pleads with us not to "breathe life into your failing ego" (T.17.V.8.4); and he reassures us that "the death of specialness is not your death, but your awaking into eternal life" (T.24.II.14.4). These, among many other passages, are helpful reminders when we are going through rough times that, first of all, Jesus knows what we are going through, and second that everything will wind up okay if we just continue to practice forgiveness.

Most students go through what you have described. One person likened it to standing on a dock with one foot on the dock and the other on the edge of a boat that suddenly starts drifting away from the dock. Unpleasant, to put it mildly! Sometimes this experience reflects the well-known "dark night of the soul" spoken of in spiritual literature. This is discussed in the manual for teachers in the "Development of Trust" section, where Jesus describes the fifth stage as "a period of unsettling." You are no longer firmly rooted in specialness but have not gotten beyond it entirely, because deep within your mind you know that to let go of specialness means letting go of your identity as a separate, independent individual. That is the underlying fear. If you simply acknowledge that and bring that fear to the love of Jesus in your mind, you will feel better.

There is no way around this stage of the process, if you want to wind up in the "right place." You never want to force yourself to give up a relationship or something in the world you still enjoy, nor do you want to force yourself to see everyone with a healed perception. If you really wanted to get beyond the perception of separate interests, you would be beyond it. Thus, being honest about your reluctance to let go of specialness is extremely helpful. You also can ask yourself what it would feel like to relate to others without specialness. Sometimes that reveals an element in yourself that you weren’t aware of, a source of resistance that you didn’t know was there. Finally, just be patient and trust the process.

Q #26: Can you explain the Holy Instant in more detail?

A: As defined in our Glossary-Index, the holy instant is the instant outside time in which we choose forgiveness instead of guilt, the miracle instead of a grievance, the Holy Spirit instead of the ego. It is the expression of our little willingness to live in the present, which opens into eternity, rather than holding on to the past and fearing the future, which keeps us in hell.

It is important to understand that the holy instant is outside time and beyond the body: "At no single instant does the body exist at all" (T.18.VII.1.1). It is a term given to our experience of oneness with someone else that completely transcends anything of the body. There is no separation between you and this other person. The conflicting, separate interests that characterized the relationship before have completely dissolved in favor of the recognition that there are only shared interests. All sense of competition and comparison are simply non-existent in the holy instant, which is when you have deliberately chosen not to see your interests as apart from someone else’s. There are many other ways in which this can occur, because there are so many ways in which we have expressed separation.

It is a chosen instant in which our fear has abated enough for us to accept the truth about ourselves and everyone else. It seems to be a fleeting instant that comes and goes only because our fear is still too great to allow ourselves to make this our permanent state. When that happens we are in the real world. Thus the term is also used to denote the ultimate holy instant, the real world, the culmination of all the holy instants we have chosen along the way.

Q #27: If consciousness was the first split introduced into the mind of the dreaming Son, what was the state of this mind before consciousness? Was the Son not conscious of His relationship with God or unaware of Unity with God? This may sound dumb, but it’s like saying are we aware that we are not aware or unaware that we are aware.

A: This question arises frequently, and is a natural one to ask, not a dumb one! The trouble is the question makes sense only to minds that cannot conceive of non-dualistic reality. And we have this difficulty because, briefly stated, we, as one Son, rejected oneness and substituted independent, individualized existence in place of our true reality. That puts us at a distinct disadvantage in trying to make sense out of all of the statements in the Course that speak of reality as non- dualistic, as pure oneness. Jesus must use language and concepts that we can understand -- which is the language of dualism -- to begin the process of getting us beyond duality. And he often reminds us that there is much that we cannot yet understand, but will eventually understand as our identification with the body diminishes.

Therefore, to answer your question, before the Mind of God’s Son seemed to split, i.e., before the separation seemed to happen, there was only a perfect unity between God and Christ: "What He creates is not apart from Him, and nowhere does the Father end, the Son begin as something separate from Him" (W.pI.132.12). The Course makes it clear that God created Christ, but this does not mean two beings in relation to each other, along the lines we are familiar with. Since it is a perfect unity, there cannot be consciousness. What this state without consciousness would be like is incomprehensible to us because of the present condition of our minds, and it is futile to speculate about it: "…while you think that part of you is separate, the concept of a Oneness joined as One is meaningless" (T.25.I.7). Similarly, in speaking about our function in Heaven of extending love as Christ, Jesus tells us that this also is meaningless to us, but what we can understand and practice is forgiveness: "Therefore, you have a function in the world in its own terms. For who can understand a language far beyond his simple grasp?…Creation cannot even be conceived of in the world. It has no meaning here. Forgiveness is the closest it can come to earth" (W.pI.192.1,2).

So we wind up humbly silent, yet hopeful that if we do what Jesus asks of us in his Course, we shall one day have the experience that will end all questioning and wondering.

Please give us your feedback on these questions and answers ...
Thank you.

Weekly Questions and Answers, 11/20/2002

This week's questions:
Q #17
Q #18
Q #19
Q #21

Q #17: I heard that in the real world the separation is seen, but separate interests are not. Is that true? What does that actually mean? Which came first the separation or the guilt? (I imagine the separation) Can the guilt be undone without undoing the separation or are they all tied together? You see I'd quite like to get rid of the guilt…and seeing my brothers interests as my own sounds good since it ends the terrible sense of conflict and competition…but losing my individuality does not feel like a price I am willing to pay. I would rather be a non-guilty non-conflicted non-competitive, non-frightened, happy, individual. Is that possible?

A: First, you are correct in concluding that the separation came before guilt -- guilt is simply the psychological experience of sin -- the feeling that results from being sinful.

Most students reach this same impasse that you have described. What you are feeling is quite normal and understandable, given the strength of our identification with our existence as specific individuals. For the most part, we know no other way of being and find it quite difficult -- to put it mildly -- to integrate Jesus’ teaching that this identity is a replacement for our true Identity as God created us. So Jesus emphasizes throughout the Course, that this is a gradual, gentle process, and we can take as long as we would like to complete it with him. He comforts us by saying: "Do not fear that you will be abruptly lifted up and hurled into reality" (T.16.VI.8:1), because he knows well that we are terrified of letting go of this identity.

As we choose to forgive more and more -- to let go of grievances -- we will feel better about ourselves, and therefore we will want to do that more and more. And as that process continues, we will begin to identify more and more with Jesus’ way of thinking and approaching our lives, which means that our point of reference for our lives will gradually shift from simply having our needs met to realizing that we all share a common interest, both in our wrong minds and in our right minds. As we become less and less preoccupied with using the world and other people to meet our needs -- i.e., as we see the purpose of our lives differently -- our self-concept will begin to shift, without our even having focused directly on that.

When we become totally identified with Jesus’ way of thinking, our only attraction will be to his love. And when all of our thinking and perceptions flow from that love, our sense of individuality will be meaningful only to the extent that it can be a means of extending Jesus’ healing love to other minds that are calling out for it. That is the state of mind known as "the real world." It is the natural outcome of the practice of forgiveness. So when we reach that advanced stage, we will no longer be thinking of ourselves as persons with needs and goals that have to be fulfilled. We will perceive from a vantage point "above the battleground" only people who are calling out for love, not knowing they are simply figures in a dream that they themselves are dreaming.

Q #18: The Course speaks throughout about will. It states that will is not involved in perception (C.1.7:2); that I have imprisoned my will (T.9.I:4.1); and that if I did not have a split mind, I would recognize that willing is salvation (T.9.I.5:4). Just what is will as it is related in the Course, and what purpose, if any, does it serve in the dream?

A: When the Course speaks of "will" it is always referring to God’s Will; "God's Will is all there is." (C.3.6:1). It is speaking on the level of the Mind where our will is one with God’s, where truth is true and everything else is false (T.31.I.1:7). This is an example of the Course’s non-dualism; there cannot be a will apart from God’s, His Will is our salvation, our true will is one with His. We are "willing," i.e., exercising the power of our will, only when we choose to accept the truth about ourselves, and this is our salvation. The Course distinguishes between willing and wanting. When we choose to make sin real, to believe the ego’s lie about who we are in the dream, we are "wanting" to make an illusory alternative to God’s Will and to defend this made up self. This is the imprisonment of our true will; this is how we deny it, and this is the origin of perception -- we see what we want to see.

To help us in our learning, the Course uses a related term, "the little willingness," in reference to our experience in the dream. Being willing, in this sense, is agreeing to choose to see differently; to accept a different interpretation; to question the meaning and value we place on all our relationships, and our entire experience in this dream; to see the effects of the ego choices we have made, and consider their cost. This is enough, the Course tells us, to turn us around in our journey, heading back in the direction of our home in God and the one Will we share with Him; He is our Father, we are His innocent Son. In this way we can make choices in the dream, in the practice and application of the Course that put us in tune with the Will we share with God.

Q #19: The Course, as I understand it, says that at the base of all our suffering lies guilt, and that this guilt is repressed. The Course then seems to suggest that this guilt be dealt with through forgiveness of the external world (rather than by means of a process of uncovering it such as psychoanalysis). If so, of what use at all is the idea of guilt, if it appears to remain at a purely theoretical level?

A: The guilt the Course is talking about is an ontological guilt that comes from believing that we could separate from God but in so doing He had to be destroyed -- separate individual existence and total Oneness are mutually exclusive states that can not coexist. Since the separation from God is only an illusion, and a fragile one at that, a seemingly powerful defense was needed to maintain its seeming reality. All-consuming guilt over our lethal attack upon the All became that defense, burying the question of whether in reality we had or could have attacked. But this guilt is not simply a theoretical construct according to the Course. The Course says that the external world was literally made from that ontological guilt, as a seeming projection outward of what was too horrible to maintain within the mind. So when we practice the process of forgiveness with our external relationships in the world, we are actually addressing, albeit in a piecemeal fashion, aspects of that original ontological guilt. It is an indirect approach with a practical and direct effect on the underlying problem. By seeing what we have made real in our external world as a projection of what is buried in our unconscious, we are actually making that buried guilt, over time, conscious. This undoes the ego strategy of distracting us from the guilt in our mind with the problems and associated guilt in the world. And it allows us to begin to recognize that the underlying premise, that we are separate and Love has been destroyed, from which that basic guilt has been generated, is simply not true.

The process of uncovering guilt within psychoanalysis, as generally practiced, actually plays into the ego’s defensive game plan, although it could be directed to the same end as the Course’s. The guilt it is seeking to uncover is still part of the external smokescreen of the world that the ego mind has constructed to keep us from getting back to the real problem in the mind. It is guilt still related to the body and its relationships to other bodies, and this guilt is still an effect and not the underlying ontological cause that the Course is addressing.

Q #20: I would like to understand why many of my relationships with men begin with a notion of romance but do not sustain themselves as friendships. I value the people I meet and I would like to develop and grow to the point where I can express brotherly love for women and men. As a single woman, I meet men who are often attracted to me, then we date or whatever, and then it ends. I'm responsible for what and how I am communicating. Is there a way to communicate "let's be friends" when something more was expected or desired and disappointment has set in?

A: Our egos are not proud and will use whatever forms of specialness work to get us involved in relationships that in the end do not meet our needs. Although we are usually not aware of this, we have an underlying goal of demonstrating that love can only fail us and that we are the unwitting victim of others’ misleading and confusing overtures. The Course is unique -- and for this reason probably also not that popular -- among spiritual paths in identifying this underlying intent behind all our relationships in the world, no matter how good we believe our intentions may be at the start, until they are given over to the Holy Spirit for healing.

And, often to our disappointment, the Holy Spirit only works with content and not form, so that there can be no guarantee of what will happen in our relationships except that we will be given another opportunity to get in touch with our own buried guilt and feelings of unworthiness and self-hatred so that they can be healed. But if we are able to put the Course’s principles of forgiveness into practice, we will find that over time we experience a sense of peace and joy in our relationships, regardless of whether our brothers or sisters reciprocate in any way on the level of form. And we will know that we are truly "friends" who have a shared purpose of healing the pain buried in our minds. But this is a process that can take time to achieve. So, in the meantime, just know that you are doing the best that you can and don’t stop trying. Jesus needs our special relationships to teach us the other way. It is only fear that ever stops any of us from allowing ourselves to experience greater intimacy in any form.

Q #21: If the art may be seen as a form of special relationship the artist makes as a substitute for God's Love, are forms of art to be considered as a call for love? And how do these forms differ from the forms expressed through "channeling" like Mozart's music? Can we say that the "channeled" art more of expression of love rather than a call for love? And how can we "justify" human distinction between great and mediocre art on Level two of our experience here in material world?

A: First, we cannot judge whether the specific work of a specific artist is a substitute for God’s Love, the manifestation of a special relationship. Only the artist would be able to discern that. We usually cannot tell just from the form whether it has come from the wrong (ego) mind or the right (Holy Spirit) mind. If the reflection of God’s Love is the source of a particular work of art, then, yes, it is an expression of love. Our mistake would be, then, to venerate the work, rather than to identify with the content behind the form.

All special love relationships are defenses against the searing pain in our minds that comes from the guilt we all feel over having rejected God’s Love in favor of giving ourselves existence on our own terms. Following the ego’s counsel, our attention gets directed away from our guilt-laden minds to specific individuals, substances, or activities that can shut out the pain and fill up the loneliness that is in our minds. In essence, our special love relationships are telling God that we don’t need His Love, and that we are perfectly capable of filling the void and experiencing completion and worth through relationships in the world. This is the content underlying the form of all special love relationships. The good feelings that come from these types of relationships hide the hatred that is their basis.

At the same time, in another part of our minds, we are longing to be told that this whole thing was just some silly mistake, that we have been forgiven, and therefore our guilt and our defenses against that guilt are no longer necessary. This is the "call" that is present in our minds that are split between these two attitudes or ways of thinking.

Any form can be used by the Holy Spirit to remind us of the truth about ourselves. One is not more or less inspiring than another, in this sense. In other words, once we believe the separation has occurred and we are here in the world as bodies, the world and our bodies are regarded as neutral. Therefore, anything at all in this world can become a means of leading us beyond the world, or more deeply into it, depending on whether we choose the ego or the Holy Spirit as our teacher. We can be enthralled with Michelangelo’s statue of David and be reminded of our perfection and oneness with God; but the same experience can occur while we are looking at a diseased tree in our yard. When we become dependent on a particular form in order to have a "spiritual" experience, then we have gotten caught in a special love relationship.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with having preferences in this world, provided we don’t take them seriously. We can say that one work of art is better than another, just as we can say that a particular musical composition is better than another, one method of education is better than another, one medical treatment is better than another, based on criteria we have set up in those fields. From the Course’s point of view, they all are equally illusory. Yet, it is natural to evaluate things in a somewhat objective way in the world. The lesson, though, is not to take seriously any conclusions we reach about things in the world -- we should do it with a gentle smile somewhere in our minds, because we know that it is all made up.

Please give us your feedback on these questions and answers ...
Thank you.

Weekly Questions and Answers, 11/20/2002

This week's questions:
Q #17: A question about undoing separation.
Q #18: A question about the meaning of "will."
Q #19: A question about the nature of guilt.
Q #20: A question about friendship & romance.
Q #21: A question about the meaning and purpose of art.

A: First, you are correct in concluding that the separation came before guilt -- guilt is simply the psychological experience of sin -- the feeling that results from being sinful.

Please give us your feedback on these questions and answers ...
Thank you.

Links

Recent Posts

Archieves

Weekly Questions and Answers 12/18/2002

Weekly Questions and Answers 12/11/2002

Weekly Questions and Answers, 12/04/2002

Weekly Questions and Answers 11/27/2002

Weekly Questions and Answers, 11/20/2002

Weekly Questions and Answers, 11/20/2002