Reconciling Conflicting Spiritual Beliefs- Steve and Erin Specifically.

[Andrew Michaels]

Hi. I've noticed that a lot of the spiritual books that Steve and Erin recommend are rather conflicting, or at least seem to be shooting towards a different goal. For instance, they recommend The Disappearance of the Universe as well as Ask And It Is Given, and The Power of Now. Now, I'm not criticizing their suggestions, and I've certainly found each of these books to be excellent myself, but you have to admit that they present very different spiritual pictures.

Disappearance of the Universe/A Course In Miracles is all about practicing forgiveness and deemphasizing the present world in order to break free of the illusions of the mind and reach heaven.

Ask and it is Given is about the teaching of Abraham, a spirit who wants to let humans know they they can get whatever will make them happy by merely adopting certain mindsets/habits. Their life will change and the material possessions they seek will appear before them, almost like magic. This one Steve really focuses on with the LOA. A much different emphasis and pantheon setup than ACIM

The Power of Now is all about reaching happiness by clearing the mind (though more in depth). It's somewhat similar to Buddhist teachings, but cuts out much of the trappings.


So anyway, specifically Steve and Erin, but also others, how do you reconcile all of this?

Thanks.

[absvan]

This is my take on this.

Whether you are a lightworker or a darkworker or combination of both (like me ), gathering the facts is good. You can later use the facts to construct your knowledge to suit your specific goals.

Also though the books talk about different topics, I can see myself implementing them in everyday life. I implement the Power of Now for everyday peace of mind and LOA to achieve my goals (material). At the same time I need to practice detachment and trust which will make my life easier.

I think the whole point is to understand your source or where you came form. Your source is nothing but love, joy, abundance, creativity etc etc (I cant recall it but its in the Power of Intentions in Wayne Dyer)

Hope that makes sense.

[Acting Like Godot]

I have not read "Disappearance" nor ACIM, so I shall not comment.

I have read "The Power of Now" and "Ask and It is Given". I really advise that you read them more carefully. In my opinion, the more you grasp their ideas, the more you will see that Abraham-Hicks and Eckhart Tolle are often talking about the same things, but using different terminology.

If you do any serious meditation at all, you will probably understand, in an experiential way, what both Eckhart and Abraham-Hicks are talking about. Otherwise it may be somewhat difficult to explain with words.

I hate to oversimplify, but just a few quick examples:

1. Eckhart tells you not to think negative thoughts at all. Whereas Abraham-Hicks tells you to only think positive thoughts.

2. Eckhart tells you that the part of your mind which he calls the "pain-body" is what is causing you all your anger, fear, worry, anxiety etc. Whereas Abraham-Hicks tells you that your negative thinking attracts into your life all the things that cause you all your anger, fear, worry, anxiety etc. You see, "pain-body" is just a term for "ingrained patterns of negative thinking".

3. Eckhart tells you that basically when you know how to stop thinking, you will discover the eternal source of joy and happiness that was deep inside you all along. Abraham-Hicks tells you that the Source of Wellbeing has always been there too, deep inside you.

4. Eckhart tells you that basically, it's all just illusion. Abraham-Hicks tells that it's all just vibration.

5. Eckhart consistently talks about (a) thought, (b) emotion, and (c) how the two interrelate. That's also very Abraham-Hicks.

If you really, really want to know the difference between Eckhart and Abraham-Hicks, this is it -

Eckhart tell you that this reality is illusion, and for many of us, a painful and difficult illusion. Eckhart then points you to something much more beautiful on another plane of consciousness, if you can access it. And you don't have to fear death, because the part of you that is really you is eternal, it doesn't die.

Whereas Abraham-Hicks tells you that this reality is fun, and joyful, it is good to be here, and nothing needs to be painful or difficult, once you understand how your thoughts create your reality. If you know how, you can magically create whatever you want to create (it's also like illusion) ... and eventually, when you die, you can just go on to another plane of consciousness, and do it all over again. Because the part of you that is really you is eternal, it doesn't die.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Andrew Michaels

The Power of Now is all about reaching happiness by clearing the mind

Abraham-Hicks urges you to always work upwards on your Emotional Guidance Scale - towards higher emotions like love, happiness, peace. In those states, you are at your creative best.

How do you work upwards on your EGS? By being observant to your own thoughts. Keep quashing the negative thoughts, or transforming them into better ones. Keep reaching for uplifting thoughts.

You see the similarity? Tolle tells you to cut off the pain-body too - the part of your mind that is always producing negative thoughts.

[BelleEnchanted]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

If you really, really want to know the difference between Eckhart and Abraham-Hicks, this is it -

Eckhart tell you that this reality is illusion, and for many of us, a painful and difficult illusion. Eckhart then points you to something much more beautiful on another plane of consciousness, if you can access it. And you don't have to fear death, because the part of you that is really you is eternal, it doesn't die.

Whereas Abraham-Hicks tells you that this reality is fun, and joyful, it is good to be here, and nothing needs to be painful or difficult, once you understand how your thoughts create your reality. If you know how, you can magically create whatever you want to create (it's also like illusion) ... and eventually, when you die, you can just go on to another plane of consciousness, and do it all over again. Because the part of you that is really you is eternal, it doesn't die.

Great post. I'd say this is the difference exactly. And if you look at it from another perspective, it's not really such a big difference. Because what Abraham is saying is that when you align with your inner being (the call of Source within you), life is fun and joyful. And if you see this alignment that they speak of as being in line with Eckhart's access to that other plane of consciousness, there really isn't a big difference, except in the approach.

Belle

[Steve Pavlina]

Every book offers its own perspective. A perspective is not truth. It is merely a tool for exploring reality. One of the biggest mistakes we can make in life is equating any fixed perspective with truth itself.

Multiple perspectives do not contradict each other unless you equate them with your identity and assume "there can be only one." To me this is like saying that your PC can only run a single piece of software and nothing else. How can one machine be a business tool and an entertainment machine at the same time? Don't those philosophies conflict? Yet a PC is perfectly capable of managing this apparent conflict because its identity is much more than the software it runs. It doesn't require itself to believe in a fixed perspective. So why do human beings do so?

This concept is explained in more detail in Podcast 13: Beyond Religion.

[Acting Like Godot]

Andrew:

One more thing I want to share with you -

if you really look at Abraham-Hicks' teachings, you will understand that the core principle is not about "getting material possession". Surprise - the core principle is not even about the "Law of Attraction".

The core principle is about living in joy. And joy comes from being a conscious creator, from being able to consciously create whatever you want.

In a sense, Abraham-Hicks is inviting you to play God, you see. In case that sounds blasphemous or offensive, you have to understand that I express that sentence, from the perspective that all of us ARE God. Or if you prefer Steve's formulation, there is only ONE consciousness in the entire universe - yours.

Abraham-Hicks uses plenty of examples involving "material possession" - cars, money, houses etc. What you have to understand is that these are just examples. You are not limited to creating such thngs. You can create anything you desire, including, if you wish, "non-materialistic" things.

The question is - what DO you desire? Clarifying your own intentions is a very, very important part of the process.

[torilink]

Originally Posted by Andrew Michaels

Disappearance of the Universe/A Course In Miracles is all about practicing forgiveness and deemphasizing the present world in order to break free of the illusions of the mind and reach heaven.

this is not exactly what ACIM is about. It is about belief - and choosing to believe with the spirit in thought and not with the ego.

Judgement is a function of the ego mind and we are asked to step away from that behavior so that we can free ourselves to manifest.

ACIM is not about Heaven, it is about entering into the KINGDOM, which is inside you - NOW, not in the future and not in some other level of reality.

It is a beautiful book that teaches the LOA and so much more -

[impaul99]

Eckhart and Hawkins are students of ACIM.

In fact, a lot of "spiritual" books are written by authors who studied ACIM as their source. If anyone has ever tried reading ACIM they'll know just how much "stuff" is in there. It's like each page can be written and expanded into a whole series of books by someone. It's crazy how much content is in there.

Sometimes I read just one sentence and it totally blows me away.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I have not read "Disappearance" nor ACIM, so I shall not comment.

I have read "The Power of Now" and "Ask and It is Given". I really advise that you read them more carefully. In my opinion, the more you grasp their ideas, the more you will see that Abraham-Hicks and Eckhart Tolle are often talking about the same things, but using different terminology.

Honestly, the more I experience life and the more I explore things, the more I see that really, everybody is talking about the same things, but using different terminology, concepts, etc. And that really is quite a profound realisation when you take the time to ponder the depth and magnitude of it.

(For the record, I've read The Power of Now and I'm just finishing up Ask and It is Given, but not the others mentioned. I actually wrote a post explaining my thoughts about The Power of Now and some other books. You can find the post here.)

[Journeyman]

Originally Posted by absvan

I think the whole point is to understand your source or where you came form. Your source is nothing but love, joy, abundance, creativity etc etc (I cant recall it but its in the Power of Intentions in Wayne Dyer)
Hope that makes sense.

I saw The Power of Intention video yesterday, by Wayne Dyer. I just like to share with you all if you haven't seen it. He talks about the 7 faces of the creative source (aka Spirit, God, You) and 12 ways that can help you connect to the source.

Wayne Dyer - Power of Intention pt 1 (remastered)

Wayne Dyer - Power of Intention pt 2 (remastered)

[Ree]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Eckhart and Hawkins are students of ACIM.

In fact, a lot of "spiritual" books are written by authors who studied ACIM as their source. If anyone has ever tried reading ACIM they'll know just how much "stuff" is in there. It's like each page can be written and expanded into a whole series of books by someone. It's crazy how much content is in there.

Sometimes I read just one sentence and it totally blows me away.

Impaul, I've read the entire text twice and I'm working on the daily lessons. After the first reading, the process of understanding gets much easier. I struggled through the first reading, but soared through it the second time and had many many AHA moments.

[Ree]

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

Honestly, the more I experience life and the more I explore things, the more I see that really, everybody is talking about the same things, but using different terminology, concepts, etc. And that really is quite a profound realisation when you take the time to ponder the depth and magnitude of it.

Lately I've done some reading on the Inner Path as opposed to the Outer Path. I think we have great intuition and can actually discern what is true and what is most useful and powerful for each one of us. Sometimes when I read something especially meaningful to me, I get goosebumps. Sometimes I get the feeling that I've just read something I KNEW but had forgotten. Those are the times I pay close attention.

[Max Power]

Why does Steve seem to contradict himself?...........He actually doesn't. I couldn't get past the fact that he indeed seem to say one thing and then say another thing that conflicted with the first thing..............it got really confusing.

Then I realised the truth............he wasn't actually saying anything at all.



Max

[mgrean]

Hi Andrew,

I searched google for 'disappearance of the universe+eckhart tolle' and found this wonderful forum. I was trying to reconcile the difference in teachings that keep niggling at me and have done for some time now. Imagine my surprise when I find that you have listed the exact three books that have caused me the most confusion!

Eckhart Tolle teaches awareness of the present moment and stresses the importance of consciousness.

The Disappearance of the Universe states in no uncertain terms:

"So we must make an enormous and firm distinction between a course in miracles and virtually every other spiritual thought system in existence...[including] neo-dualistic thought systems"

In the same chapter 'The Secrets of Existence' there is a quote from 'A Course in Miracles' which states :

"Consciousness, the level of perception, was the first split introduced into the mind after the seperation, making the mind a perciever rather than a creator. Consciousness is correctly identified as the domain of the ego. T42 (ACIM)"

It also talks about the difference of awakening within the dream (of the world) and awakening from the dream. It says that non-dualism was the level reached by Buddha in his known lifetime but that he reached a state of pure non-dualism (awakening from the dream) in another unknown lifetime.

It says that heaven is a state of 'unencumbered, boundless and unimaginable ecstacy'. It says 'In the beginning...There was only an awareness of unflawed oneness, and this oneness was so complete, so awe-striking and unlimited in its joyous extension that it would be impossible for anything to be aware of anything that was not itself.' It says that an extension of the whole (christ) had an 'innocent wondering in the form of a question - which unfortunately was followed by an apparent answer. The question, if it could be put into words was, "What would it be like if I were to go play on my own for a while?"' The answer was the imagined first split or separation and, for the first time - consciousness.

Ask and It is Given seems to miss out God for me. I found it wonderfully empowering, and I owe it a lot but when practicing exercises such as The Rampage of Appreciation I had a nagging feeling that something was missing. I believed I could achieve my goals but my goals never seemed to hold my interest really.

The Power of Now and a New Earth are absolutely amazing, and yet I think there is something missing here too...but im not sure. The bigger mind that Eckhart Tolle represents is still split, is still not ultimate. Its very, very advanced for sure but its not quite at the level of ultimate truth. Please forgive me if I sound superior here - I am not an enlightened master like Eckhart I am just exploring some ideas. (Sorry Eckhart, I love you)

I dont know but I am really coming round to the idea that A Course in Miracles is something really really different and special.

I would be very interested to hear anyones opinions in this matter.

Thank you!
Mikey

[mgrean]

Just realised that this isnt relevant to intention really. Sorry if its a little out of place

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by mgrean

I dont know but I am really coming round to the idea that A Course in Miracles is something really really different and special.

I would be very interested to hear anyones opinions in this matter.

Thank you!
Mikey

I agree... I think everything stems from ACIM. If the origin of it is true, meaning if the being that is being channeled in the course is who he says he is, he also states that ACIM is a complete course in "enlightenment". It's not the *only* course, but it is a complete course - unlike almost anything else out there.

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Multiple perspectives do not contradict each other unless you equate them with your identity and assume "there can be only one."

Perspectives are ideas. Ideas conflict with each other, or they don't. The conflict is certainly amplified and even turned into zero-sum games by egos identifying with the ideas, but the conflict itself just exists (or not). Granted, some conflicts are only apparent, based on misunderstanding of different terminology or the old "blind men feeling different parts of the elephant" problem. But not all.

For example, the afterlife can't simultaneously not exist, and be cyclic, and be linear. Only one of those things (or some other thing not on that list) can possibly be true (at least, only one at a time can be universally true). This is a fact whether or not I identify as a believer in any one of those perspectives. If I decide this morning to believe in reincarnation, this afternoon in heaven, and tonight in oblivion, still, whatever is actually true of the afterlife was true all day.

I think that the original poster's question is excellent. It can't be entirely dismissed as an exaggeration of differences that aren't real.

My way of handling it is to realize that although the circumstantial evidence is arguably strong that there is an Ultimate Truth, we humans just inherently lack the perceptive equipment and intellectual capacity to ever 100% comprehend it. Because of this, even our best teachers will be influenced by their personal confirmation bias and other such factors. It's not that I'm 5% enlightened and they are 95% enlightened. It's more like I'm 1% and they're 3%. As the Bible says, "we see through a glass darkly".

If you're not comfortable with that kind of uncertainty then you had best not look into this stuff at all. And it can be argued that this is actually a legitimate choice. Most people in my experience "don't look at it" or else they borrow some canned belief system for their own. Most of those people have at least rationalizeable lives. Sometimes I feel like a fool for reaching for more than that. Sometimes I wonder if it isn't hubris to do so. But I can't help it. I have to at least try.

--Bob

[mgrean]

Thanks for your reply Paul,

Yes, it certainly is not the only method - more than one way of climbing a mountain.

I was thinking about what Steve said about multiple perspectives:

"Every book offers its own perspective. A perspective is not truth. It is merely a tool for exploring reality. One of the biggest mistakes we can make in life is equating any fixed perspective with truth itself."

I think that this makes the assumption that what is being explored is reality. If The Disappearance of The Universe is to be believed, then ACIM is a gift brought from beyond perspective (from reality). The Great Illusion may have different perspectives, but ultimately 'they are all the same in their unreality'.

For anyone who is interested , ACIM says that this unreality in which we seem to reside is a metaphor for the seperation from God. Everything, if you look carefully, is playing out that seperation (e.g. babies been seperated from their Mother's at birth, every object seperate from each other, the very fact that everything seems to be outside of you is backwards to reality, we are all going to die). The reason that folks create and really cling to this reality is the unconscious fear of punishment from God and the guilt of giving up heaven. It is an egoic (insane) notion that is not at all real or based in reality. The world is a panic response to an imagined punishment. Something which we are all familiar with when we make decisions based on fear - they are usually the opposite to what we should do. To rid this massive guilt we create 'others' who we dump our guilt onto to make it seem as if its outside of us.

Does this not make any effort to better the illusion (Ask and It Is Given) an egoic action? Does it not reinforce the idea of seperation for us? Is it not better to stop exploring what we think of as reality - surely that reinforces this original mistake?

The stark truth that ACIM points to is that this illusion means nothing. In our fear of it having no meaning, we rush in with an explanation and so lose God and reinforce the illusion. This is why we are trapped here.

This isn't very positive (i.e. it does not honour the illusion) but hasn't that been our mistake. We have abandoned God to try and do things on our own. We are unconsciously and insanely terrified of God and so cling to our dying reality for fear of falling into a pit of fire (or however people have represented hell).

When I was studying Ask and It Is Given I found myself looking at people who were in war torn countries, and looking at people less fortunate than myself. It was their choice to be here, I said to myself, and they have attracted this violence, hate etc. I have chosen to attract positive things and I will ignore them and let them continue with their own misguided creations. Okay, this was mostly unconscious on my part, but the thoughts were still there.

That incompassionate reaction is necessary, I think, if you want to create big houses, cars, better organistions etc. If you see somebody suffering, look away and think of a happy thought. Is that not what your ego would want you to do? The world is dying and people are dying. Why is that? Its the complete opposite to what we are and is completely unsatisfying to us. We can learn not to be affected negatively by this, but that involves bringing the opposite of the illusion (the formless) into our lives.

Eckhart says that enlightenment is the merging of happiness and sadness into one and realising that there is neither. How are we to do that if we are running away from our pain. Moving Up the Emotional Scale is very empowering but it does not deal with why we feel this pain in the first place. i.e. it recognises pain then moves away from it. Eckhart teaches us to boldly face our pain and see through it. That seems more intelligent than running away.

I welcome any further comments or discussions.
Wow, long rant there, hope it makes sense!

Mikey

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by mgrean

I think that this makes the assumption that what is being explored is reality.

What can you explore, except what is accessible to you? For all practical purposes, what you can perceive and understand IS reality. Esoterica such as "knowledge beyond perspective", even it true, is like telling an ant about quantum physics. What good is quantum physics to an ant?

Originally Posted by mgrean

...ACIM says that this unreality in which we seem to reside is a metaphor for the seperation from God ... The reason that folks create and really cling to this reality is the unconscious fear of punishment from God and the guilt of giving up heaven. ... The world is a panic response to an imagined punishment.

This begs the question: why THAT metaphor? And why is it such a DURABLE and CONSISTENT metaphor? Normally a dream disintegrates the instant there is the slightest awareness that it's a dream. Yet the laws of physics, of gravity, of entropy, of cause and effect, endure seemingly on their own, no matter what my perspective or state of disillusionment or degree of presence.

Originally Posted by mgrean

Does this not make any effort to better the illusion (Ask and It Is Given) an egoic action? Does it not reinforce the idea of seperation for us? Is it not better to stop exploring what we think of as reality - surely that reinforces this original mistake?

This is perilously close to asceticism. Would you have us wearing hair shirts and flogging ourselves to avoid the trap of feeding the illusion? However, if I grant that the ACIM hypothesis is correct, it's hard to refute your argument. If it's all an illusion, then we'd want to escape it. The only question is, in practice, can we escape the illusion all at once? If not, then suffering within the illusion may be a distraction from escaping it, and may give it more reality. So avoidance of suffering may have an upside.

Originally Posted by mgrean

The stark truth that ACIM points to is that this illusion means nothing. In our fear of it having no meaning, we rush in with an explanation and so lose God and reinforce the illusion. This is why we are trapped here.

This strikes me as one of those seemingly deep insights which don't hold up to scrutiny. One does not need to be a particularly keen observer of the human condition to know that the search for meaning is inherent to it. You can conclude that the search is hopeless and abandon it, but then what? All that leaves you with is either living in despair or in a state of complete don't-give-a-sh_t detachment. Detachment could be considered an escape from the dream, although those around you who participate in the dream refuse to vanish and are likely to consider you as attempting to escape reality. Taken to its conclusion, that way lies the funny farm, no?

Originally Posted by mgrean

This isn't very positive (i.e. it does not honour the illusion) but hasn't that been our mistake. We have abandoned God to try and do things on our own. We are unconsciously and insanely terrified of God and so cling to our dying reality for fear of falling into a pit of fire (or however people have represented hell).

So what, exactly, according to ACIM, is the alternative to the illusion? How do we "let God do things his way"? In my experience, left to himself, God doesn't do a damn thing.

Originally Posted by mgrean

If you see somebody suffering, look away and think of a happy thought. Is that not what your ego would want you to do?

At last, someone is willing to admit this and tackle it. I was beginning to think I was the only one willing to discuss it. Yes, this is the dark side of LOA in particular and Zen in general. My version of it is that there seems to be a class of people who are Doomed, for lack of a better word, and nothing you do helps them. You can't even really offer them comfort -- comfort is ultimately not a kindness as it only gives false hope. Since you can't impact them for the better, it is best not to get caught up in their drama. BUT, I cannot and will never accept this as anything other than the obscenity that it clearly is.

Originally Posted by mgrean

Eckhart says that enlightenment is the merging of happiness and sadness into one and realising that there is neither. How are we to do that if we are running away from our pain. Moving Up the Emotional Scale is very empowering but it does not deal with why we feel this pain in the first place. i.e. it recognises pain then moves away from it. Eckhart teaches us to boldly face our pain and see through it. That seems more intelligent than running away.

If happiness and sadness were the same thing we wouldn't instinctively seek one over the other. This does not pass my bullsh_t filter. I've felt them both, and believe me, they are not the same. Not even close. However, I agree that stoking feel-good and adopting a "la-la I can't hear you" attitude to the less savory aspects of life is just running away from reality.

Where Eckhart has it right I think is that you can't be attached to either your pain or your pleasure. You can't identify with it. That doesn't mean you attempt to deny the reality of pain, though, and although I don't pretend to be a ninja in these matters, that is not something I've gotten from Eckart's teaching. He seems to be saying that you must observe whatever comes to your attention, and refrain from judging it as good or bad (making it a thing to strive for or to resist). This studied clinical neutrality is not the same thing as saying that there is no distinction between (for example) pleasure and pain. Nor is it the same thing as having no preferences, no plans, and no goals. He seems quite clear on this point, and I think he is right.

If there were no real differences there would be nothing to observe and philosophical discussion would be pointless. Indeed, consciousness itself would have no purpose. You can't be aware of anything but white noise if you don't make distinctions between one thing and the next.

--Bob

[mgrean]

Thanks for your reply Bob - I thought I would argue from ACIM miracles perspective. Thank you for your thoughts and comments :-)

>What can you explore, except what is accessible to you? For all practical purposes, what you can perceive and understand IS reality. Esoterica such as "knowledge beyond perspective"

ACIM, if true, is knowledge beyond perspective. It offers us a thought system which is beyond perspective. In this respect, I think it is unique.


>This begs the question: why THAT metaphor? And why is it such a DURABLE and CONSISTENT metaphor? Normally a dream disintegrates the instant there is the slightest awareness that it's a dream.

Because the universe is a creation of the bigger egoic mind. It seems as if it is me and the rest of the universe, including everyone else. But the bigger mind is responsible everything that is to be percieved. The world is a place to hide. If the law of attraction is anything to go by, then this world is a dream. The world responds to the thoughts that we have about it - and its percieved durability and consistency is a trick, which actually does not hold up to close scrutiny. Quantum physics has shown this.

>Yet the laws of physics, of gravity, of entropy, of cause and effect, endure seemingly on their own

Created by the bigger mind

>no matter what my perspective or state of disillusionment or degree of presence.

If your beliefs are that the dream is solid, has external laws, then the dream will gladly show this to you. If your beliefs change, then the dream will match your beliefs.

>This is perilously close to asceticism. Would you have us wearing hair shirts and flogging ourselves to avoid the trap of feeding the illusion?

No, because that would only make the illusion real. You can be very successful at your job and still have the belief that non of it is real. Causing yourself suffering is the opposite of what i mean.

This is why we are trapped here.

>All that leaves you with is either living in despair or in a state of complete don't-give-a-sh_t detachment.

This is exactly what you would imagine would happen, which is why so many people are frightened to stop searching. But many, including Eckhart, say this is necessary. If you have ever played sport and got into 'the zone', it feels like you're watching yourself playing. You aren't depending on results, something is just happening through you. You have given up searching, given up on a goal to win, and it is a beautiful and sought after state.

>Detachment could be considered an escape from the dream, although those around you who participate in the dream refuse to vanish and are likely to consider you as attempting to escape reality. Taken to its conclusion, that way lies the funny farm, no?

Your ego would like you to believe that.

>So what, exactly, according to ACIM, is the alternative to the illusion?

The alternative to the illusion is reality. It is heaven, oneness. It is a place where everything that we believe that we lack we have. The world is a lie because it is a dream of lack and limits. All this imply a lack of love. Heaven is pure love.

>How do we "let God do things his way"? In my experience, left to himself, God doesn't do a damn thing.

If we created this as an escape to God, as the course implies, then we are actively hiding and blocking out God from our awareness. The course says that we are at home with God but 'dreaming of exile', and that we need to awaken from the dream to experience reality.

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by mgrean

ACIM, if true, is knowledge beyond perspective. It offers us a thought system which is beyond perspective. In this respect, I think it is unique.

It's convenient to have a philosophical system that is beyond perspective. All questions are handled by the simple expedient of dismissing them as egoic thinking or dreaming.

Originally Posted by mgrean

Because the universe is a creation of the bigger egoic mind.

What, according to ACIM, is the "bigger" egoic mind. The mind of God? The corporate mind of mankind? Your own ego?

Originally Posted by mgrean

The world responds to the thoughts that we have about it - and its perceived durability and consistency is a trick, which actually does not hold up to close scrutiny. Quantum physics has shown this.

I realize that quantum physics is the last refuge of the New Age, but it doesn't override the law of gravity if I jump off a roof. As a practical matter, what difference does it make? If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, sounds like a duck -- it's probably best to treat it as a duck.

Originally Posted by mgrean

If your beliefs are that the dream is solid, has external laws, then the dream will gladly show this to you. If your beliefs change, then the dream will match your beliefs.

In what ways has reality changed for you, in response to any belief you've changed? Not your perceptions, mind you, or your attitudes -- I'm talking about your reality.

Originally Posted by mgrean

You can be very successful at your job and still have the belief that none of it is real. Causing yourself suffering is the opposite of what i mean.

This is why we are trapped here.

I have to admit that it feels like a trap for the express purpose of causing suffering.

Originally Posted by mgrean

>All that leaves you with is either living in despair or in a state of complete don't-give-a-sh_t detachment.

This is exactly what you would imagine would happen, which is why so many people are frightened [and] stop searching.

I think of it more as a game that I won't play anymore. That doesn't preclude observation / learning / growth but it does preclude having illusions.

Originally Posted by mgrean

But many, including Eckhart, say this is necessary. If you have ever played sport and got into 'the zone', it feels like you're watching yourself playing. You aren't depending on results, something is just happening through you. You have given up searching, given up on a goal to win, and it is a beautiful and sought after state.

The zone is something I experience in my work as a software developer on my better days. It is a nice escape but hardly qualifies as an alternate reality. More of an altered perception filter or a state of cathexis. The problem with such states is that they're not sustainable. They have one thing in common: they're a simplified living environment. There is just me and the code. Or you and the tennis racket. Or just a person with their new romantic interest. Alas -- "first, enlightenment -- then, laundry". It's the need to sh_t, shower and shave and the thousand other mundane demands of life that gets in the way of the zone.

Originally Posted by mgrean

The alternative to the illusion is reality. It is heaven, oneness. It is a place where everything that we believe that we lack we have. The world is a lie because it is a dream of lack and limits. All this implies a lack of love. Heaven is pure love.

If heaven is pure love, you'd think it'd create world that ran on pure love. I started out life thinking that the world worked that way. That belief did not serve me well at all. In fact, it caused me to tackle some rather ill-advised things and run smack into various brick walls until I learned from experience that life doesn't work that way. If you looked out back here you'd see the claw marks where I was dragged kicking and screaming away from a worldview that life was basically benign and just. I don't see that it'd be a step forward to go back to the cheery hopefulness of my youth. The universe has spent the past five decades flogging that out of me. I have no alternative but to conclude that was a naive, lousy adaptation to reality. And indeed, once I shed my major illusions and accepted what is, I seem to have entered a sort of personal golden age [shrug].

Originally Posted by mgrean

If we created this as an escape to God, as the course implies, then we are actively hiding and blocking out God from our awareness. The course says that we are at home with God but 'dreaming of exile', and that we need to awaken from the dream to experience reality.

I don't know what to say to that. I spent years actively embracing God, and that only produced intense suffering. The concept of exile never entered my mind until I had lost everything that mattered to me. Go figure.

I have to wonder if ACIM isn't actually a trap for people like me. It seems to want me to ignore the empirical evidence right in front of me and return to the illusion of a benign, caring, loving god.

Point of clarification: I'm not saying there isn't such a God, just that life works out more or less the same as if there weren't. I don't define myself in terms of what I don't believe in or am not sure of. But as a practical matter I limit my activities and interests to what demonstrably works for me.

Now I'm sure you or someone else will tell me that what I embraced wasn't really God, but just some flawed human concept of God; that I am disappointed with a dream of god, not the reality of god. ACIM, of course, has the correct concept of God. Just like my particular religious tradition did. Just like a thousand other traditions and philosophies have.

Good luck with that. I've awakened from that dream.

In my view, we all have stories that we use for lack of anything better to serve as a framework for living. Stories, hopes, nothing more. No actual data. Best guesses.

Some stories work better for me than others. Unless I completely miss the point, ACIM seems to be telling a story that has very ill served me.

--Bob

[mgrean]

Hi Bob,

Again from ACIM perspective...

>It's convenient to have a philosophical system that is beyond perspective. All questions are handled by the simple expedient of dismissing them as egoic thinking or dreaming.

ACIM answers many questions for me. It is very simple in its message. Its certainly hard to swallow - but it explains the reason for this as well. My experience with it (which is not a long time at all) is that it does not cop out of answers.

If you are interested, have a read of it, because I am now defending something I don't understand fully! )


>What, according to ACIM, is the "bigger" egoic mind. The mind of God? The corporate mind of mankind? Your own ego?

The claim is that we are all one. That we have split ourselves into different perspectives and live out the seperation from God over and over again.

This pain is so huge that we placed it outside of our awareness. Even in this place (which is supposed to be an escape) the pain crops up constantly in dribs and drabs - but this is just a leaks from a reservoir of pain. Someone being rude to you, enforces your feeling of seperation (bringing up unconscious guilt) and allows you to hold that person in your awareness as the source of the pain. This is the way the ego sees the world. The Holy Spirit looks at the ego created world and seeks to undo these mistaken perceptions (by forgiving). In ACIM, true forgiveness is what is known as a miracle. It is completely freeing someone from guilt and at the same time freeing yourself from guilt - by recognising that 1) The situation is not real 2) That the seperation from God never happened and then releasing yourself and the person from pain.

I use a line of forgiveness ( from Disappearance of the Universe) which I use all the time. As a result I am much, much happier and I am greatful for this course.

Its a different way of looking at a situation but it changes things. Personally, the people around me are much happier. Strangers smile at me in the street. I arrive at the right time for busses. My plants grow nicer. My life runs smoothly. Money comes when its needed. Im peaceful. :-)

Nothing that would turn any heads in the scientific community. My plants are looking pretty damn good though...

>I have to wonder if ACIM isn't actually a trap for people like me. It seems to want me to ignore the empirical evidence right in front of me and return to the illusion of a benign, caring, loving God

I can relate to what you are saying here and I dont have an answer for you. I just decided that I wasnt going to settle for a mundane existence. Refused is probably a better word here. I just knew that this can't be it. Its so pointless. What is it in me that sees how silly this whole place is! What is it in me that crave love?

From what you've said, I can see that I haven't explained ACIM properly to you. I feel like a bad ambassador for its message! Please don't judge it from what I have said. Thanks for your comments Bob,

Mikey

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by mgrean

The claim is that we are all one. That we have split ourselves into different perspectives and live out the separation from God over and over again. ... this is the way the ego sees the world. The Holy Spirit looks at the ego created world and seeks to undo these mistaken perceptions (by forgiving). In ACIM, true forgiveness is what is known as a miracle.

Hm. Forgiveness is certainly a positive force in the world. I don't know that a belief that we are not separated from god or that reality is not actually reality is a requirement to enjoy the substantial benefits of forgiveness. However, if by "the situation is not real" you mean that "because it's a dream nothing is really at stake so there's nothing to take personally", I think I have come at this same idea from a different direction. Basically, I regard all humanity's egoic striving, all the hue and cry, as essentially unconscious non-thinking that has no actual meaning. This allows me to give people the space to be where they are and not take it personally. To distinguish between, if you will, a person and their pain-body.

It is more difficult to do this the more you open your heart to trust someone, because when you trust someone enough, there IS something at stake because you ARE vulnerable to them, regardless of what you think about the ultimate nature of reality. The towering rage of a complete stranger is for instance quite a bit different from the careless cruelty of a soul-mate.

I don't see any remedy for that, other than passionless detachment from outcome. But again, that isn't really dependent on or necessarily helped in practice by dismissing everything that happens to you as unreal. At least not for me. I suppose I can see how it might be a useful calming mantra for most things, but some things just are wrong and/or just hurt and there's no sense papering it over. Beyond a certain point, it's a fool's errand.

There is a whole mechanism for grief / loss processing that seems designed to take care of those cases anyway. Suffering can be generated if you don't acknowledge when you are S.O.L. This hurts, but in the long run, accepting that which is irrevocably lost (trust, innocence, unrequieted love, youth, death of loved ones, etc) frees you from suffering. In such situations, dismissing pain as unreal will get you stuck in the pain. I have been through things where leaning into the pain is the ONLY way out of it.

Originally Posted by mgrean

I use a line of forgiveness ( from Disappearance of the Universe) which I use all the time. As a result I am much, much happier and I am grateful for this course.

Good for you. Whatever works, I say!

Originally Posted by mgrean

From what you've said, I can see that I haven't explained ACIM properly to you. I feel like a bad ambassador for its message! Please don't judge it from what I have said.

Don't worry, it isn't your responsibility. A philosophical system that is generally useful for practical living sells itself. I haven't met one yet that has people lined up around the block to get some. However you have prompted me to read The End of the Universe to glean from it what I can. There's that.

Best,

--Bob

[mgrean]

Thanks for your comments Bob, it was good to bounce some ideas around and hear your opinions. Glad that you can check out Disappearance of the Universe, I hope you enjoy it. If you have any recommendations it would be good to hear them.

All the best,
Mikey