A Course In Miracles

[pedro]

Hello my dear brothers and sisters

Im comming back here to ask your opinion about the above mentioned book (actually 3 books, about 1200 pages). It has dawn on me like a revelation, somehow answering my intuitive question that there had to be another way. I think only now was I ready to get into this ideas, after a long process of deconstruction of my false beliefs that I started some years ago. But as much as the Buddha's words, Taoism, the Yi, Zen, etc, have been a guidance to me, and enabled me to discard the coarse misconceptions I had accumulated in my (more) egotistic years, I still felt something was missing. That practice, meditation, renunciation, discipline, etc, alone were not enough, and that there should be a way that was gentler but yet more incisive, to attain the truth.

Well, I think I found what I was looking for in ACIM. I must say I was very suspicious at first, and the whole thing seemed to me like just another new-age fad, of the kind I usually run away from. A book channeled from Jesus? C'mon... would you think I'd fall for that? Furthermore because I though of Jesus like a holy man, yes, but I never believed in the miracles, and I though of Him as a kind of Buddhist disciple that hadnt quite pulled his act together, or whose buddhist message had been messed up by the church, rendering it useless as far as I was concerned. Although the basic message of chirstianity was one of love, and which I respected, it never offered me neither a way to understand the world, nor of freeing myself from it (unless I would bought that "afterlife" stuff, kingdom come, etc). In any case, in my mind catholic church was more or less synonim of lepracy or some infecto-contagious disease I could never be too far away from. I mean, if two weeks ago someone told me that I would be putting Jesus above Buddha shortly after, I would have laughed with contempt, as nothing was so unlikely for me back then.

But somehow, last week, something told me to give it another look (actually to give it a look in the first place, as I hadnt previously). And guess what, even though it seems hard to believe that Jesus would channel a complete course of "enlightenment" to an American jewish lady, as I started reading the materials, I couldnt help but to feel a strong conviction that this was indeed Jesus talking. I mean, respect is not something someone can take from you, its something that has to be earned from you, and not only "the Voice" displays an enormous clarity of thought and an incredible knowledge, but the metaphysiscs it proposes goes way beyond what I expected. The whole story about the father and the son, the original sin, the holy spirit, it all dawned on me like a revelation. THAT IS THE TRUTH, I couldnt fail to think, the complete truth of which I had only been looking at pieces. And what matters who the author is, if this teaching is so profound that we cant fail to acknowledge its validity? (in any case, the coherence of the author makes it rather impossible for him NOT to be Jesus; at least it must be someone that knows more about Jesus than any other person, dead or living, otherwise it wouldnt be possible to display such credibility and even explain the bible to us in the way it does; the material is of an enormous depth, and that cannot be reached by simple humans, only by the holliest, be them Jesus or any other sage of the same rank - does it matter? Incidentally, I have trouble believing the whole channeling of Jesus voice thing, like you may have as well, but when Im reading the material, that doubt never crosses my mind: its impossible to read it and not believe it IS Jesus, or at least the same source that Jesus tapped into).

Anyway, flashing back a little, so far what little I understood of "the truth" was only explained by the buddhist view, particularly Zen, and so I felt reassured that even if I couldnt grasp the Dharma entirely right now, it was THE truth that sooner or later would prove itself truthfull to me. But now I see that Jesus, unlike some other apprentice of the Buddha's word, was indeed a man (simply a man, he leaves no room for doubt) that had been able to go FURTHER than the Buddha himself. The Buddha had understood the nature of reallity, the illusion we think its true, and the essential quality of suffereing, impermanence and emptyness that that "reallity" had, but he never got to the why of it all. Why indeed is it like that, is God a sadist? Are we sadists? What can possibly be the point of "living" like this? Somehow I felt that the whole itchy feeling I had that still something was missing, was indeed provoked by my own intuition that there was something more. The Buddha's vision wasnt wrong, it simply didnt go as far. It was like I layed down all the barriers that I had put between me and Jesus, trying to convince me that I was an eastern thought adept, and not a western ignorant barbarian, and for the first time in my life I saw what Jesus really was. I started seeing Jesus in a completely different light, He suddenly became my teacher, and I somehow feel at ease with this belief that I rejected so many times in the past. It is like all the pieces f the puzzle finally came together, and it even agrees with some more or less vague notions I intuitively had (for instance, when I came to the conclusion that thoughts, reasoning, willing, etc, merely divert us from the goal). And guess what, I started believing in the resurrection! That was never something I bough, neither the holyness of Mary (which isnt in any way mentioned on the book, actually there is no reference to Mary as far as Ive seen, and that is a little suspicious... or maybe not). But even if Jesus claims to be no more than a man, he states inequivocally that he did resurrect (and He even says that is no big deal, that we can all perform not only that, but ANY miracle, as there is no degree of difficulty in miracles they are all equal in the end). I do now understand, that the resurection was nothing but another parabole of Christ, the ultimate lesson he taught us, the irrefutable proof that what He said was true and death is just another ego-illusion (and as such, you and I can see through it if we simply KNOW what the truth is). And finally I was able to understand the Christian trinity, and realised that it is indeed a metaphysics, and not simply a fairy tale (for instance, finally I understood what the holy spirit is)

I can tell you that Im still in a state of shock, my days go by with a strange airie nature that Im not sure what is. The process of deconstruction I had started, seems now to have taken whole new proportions, when I thought Ive reached an impasse. I feel sad sometimes that I have to give up some things (but that is just the ego trying to grasp all it can still), and incredibly joyous some others (when I realise that I wont be sacrificing ANYTHING, quite the opposite, what Jesus promisses is EVERYTHING). I am still letting it come, letting it settle, letting the trust in this TRUTH grow, trying to prevent the ego from resisting, and hoping this new light will guide me towards my goal. One thing I know is that I have changed, I cant argue with that, I AM different just from feeding on this thoughts. Somehow I see the world in a different light, and it is a different change still, even though I have changed so many times before. For the first time I have this profound conviction that I have found all there is that I needed to find, something I never felt before. I feel that now all I have to do is to put this ideas in practice, so I can realise what I really AM (what we really ARE, which is the same). But for the very first time I feel I reached the end of the search (its a strange feeling, specially if all your life youve been searching).
Maybe its the initial enthusiasm and it will fade away. Maybe I cant follow the teachings of the course, maybe Im simply not ready yet. But that could possibly just mean that I hadnt been able to accept the truth the Course proposes, or in other words, that I hadnt layed down the ego resistence, and that I had chosen to keep living the illusion. But can that be possible? Can I go back to the old ways when Ive seen so clearly that they are dead ends? Can I pretend that I still feel satisfied with the little they give me? Can we keep living in the matrix once we realise what it really is, or will the momentum of this new understanding impell us to brake free from the illusion sooner or later (even if we think we dont want to)?

Im still learning. Ive been reading a lot from ACIM (online through articles and excerpts), and I even came across some ugly matters that I had rather not have found (like the copyright wars - but if Jesus words were misused from 2000 years ago up to date, why would they suffer different fate now?, and even some people claiming the course was written by the devil and not Jesus - actually the author warns us frequently that our egos will do anything to convince us of the falseness of what the book says, that is their only chance of survival! and for fundamentalist catholics, some ideas of the book are blasphemy, but that is just the proof of their own illusion; in truth the arguments come mainly from discrepations between what the Jesus of ACIM says, and what the Bible tells us, but we all know the Bible was "tampered" along the times to suit the prevailing rulers, so I wasnt expecting this Jesus to say the same - yet he says no different either, once he clarifies what the real message behind the Bible's words is). I try not to pay much attention in order not to spoil my own perception of the material. And I see such a clear intention to remove our illusions and push us gently towards the good (not just for us, but specially for our brothers) that it seems preposterous to think that the devil would be behind it, even if the devil existed (oh, but this is probably the reason why people fear it - it denies the existence of the devil among other things, and we all know that is "satan's way" of convincing us to lower our guard; other polemic notions include the fact that God did NOT create the world - we did, and do, through our ego's magic tricks - and that Jesus was not a special person, merely the first to understand it all, but again, only people who are prone to dogmatic thinking and narrow mindedness can feel threatned by this).

Anyway, I can give you some links (you can start by this FAQ (http://www.miraclestudies.net/QuestIndx.html) which is quite nice), or even outline some key concepts of the material, if anyone is interested (I just havent gone into the actual ideas that appeal so much to me, because there is simply so much to say, and I hope we will have the chance of discussing them further on), but for now I just would like to know your honest opinion about it. Anyone has read it? tryed it? completed the course? Dont you feel it speaks the truth? Do you believe it is Jesus talking? In short, what do you think about it, and why (I want to hear both the conflicting and in favor arguments please).

Thanks in advance, and I'll be looking forward to reading your replies
Love to you all

pedro

[dharma]

Pedro,
i can hear the joy of discovery inside your words and between the lines and i am happy for you http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif !!!

i originally encountered ACIM a decade ago (a requisite study for my masters in counselling & divinity) and had a similar reaction as i commenced my journey through the books. the way i look out at the world stems and revolves a great deal around these teachings and probably always will.

unfortunately i have recently left the board, so aside from this short note, i will not be available to discuss the finer details ... i just wanted you to know that i share your delight at having found that special piece of the puzzle that brings it all into sharper focus for you.
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gifhttp://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[martin]

Hi Pedro,

I've read an introductory book by Marianne Williamson - the title is 'A Return to Love' IIRC - and I liked it very much.

As to the 'Course', the book is obviously written from a (corrected) Christian perspective and there are many good points in it.
I don't believe that the author is Jesus, though.
It somehow doesn't sound like him ...

Martin

[rinda]

I've encountered this also, too many years ago to remember specifics. My impression is that the bucket was intact, and that the rope was long enough and strong...

Rinda


http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/hex48.gif

[candid]

?The supreme revelation of God appears in prophets and holy men. To venerate them is true veneration of God. The will of God, as revealed through them, should be accepted in humility; this brings inner enlightenment and true understanding of the world, and this leads to great good fortune and success.? ~ 50 Wilhelm

Understanding the teachings of Jesus is not difficult if we rid ourselves of preconceptions and prejudice, and do the same with the written words which obscures it?s content. His words or no different than the Buddha, or any other enlightened master. A Zen master destroys illusion before truth can be received. So do all masters. But if a remnant of illusion remains, we fabricate another illusion from it, making it fit our existing structure.

I?ve not read ACIM but I have studied traditional Judeo-Christian scriptures for over two decades. I find no real contradiction between it and the Yijing. Both speak of heaven and earth. Both teach that the kingdom of Heaven or God is within. Even the fierceness of God is no contradiction. All one need do is see the horrible ignorance and suffering in this world to witness the reality of the fires of hell. Judgment of God is judgment of ourselves and others. Likewise is heaven and the love of God our own love.

Sorry if this sounds preachy but I have strong personal convictions concerning these things.

Pedro, thanks for bringing this up. Wishing you the best with your journey through it. I hope you continue to share your experience with it here for the rest of us.

[pedro]

Dharma: "the way i look out at the world stems and revolves a great deal around these teachings and probably always will."

yeah, I thought about you recently because I recognised some of your words on it, some that I hadnt related to (or understood, actually) when I heard them from you http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

"unfortunately i have recently left the board, so aside from this short note, i will not be available to discuss the finer details ... i just wanted you to know that i share your delight at having found that special piece of the puzzle that brings it all into sharper focus for you."

thanks, I apreciate that, but because delights are meant to be shared, and as you seem stubborn enough not to violate your own rules http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/wink.gif, would you mind mailing me directly so we could "discuss the finer details"? It would be a pleasure as well as a learning experience, and Im sure you have lots of things to teach me (and please pay no notice of how Im appealing to your ego and let yourself fall for that http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif)

[pedro]

Martin: "I've read an introductory book by Marianne Williamson - the title is 'A Return to Love' IIRC - and I liked it very much."

but have you read ACIM? I did a search here yesterday, and ACIM is mentioned in a couple of threads by you and Dharma. You said you didnt find that there was anything that you had to forgive, and I thought that merely shows how unaware you (we) are of how much unconscious guilt we carry. If not more we have the hidden guilt of believing in separation, but even in human terms we attack everyone, starting with ourselves, to an enormous extent that may be harder to notice than the literal name cursing and finger pointing. Believing you (we) are separated from anyone else, and from god is a "sin", and although we dont normally acknowledge it, it is the source of all our spiritual guilt, and a measure of how far we are from understanding the truth. Actually this guilt is what prevents us from seeing the truth

"I don't believe that the author is Jesus, though. It somehow doesn't sound like him ..."

let me try to argument that. Would you know how Jesus sounded on the first place? What you expect Jesus to sound like is what you heard from the bible and Easter re-runs, isnt it? We dont even have consensus on the gospels themselves, John's seems from a different source, with Luke's (if Im not mistaken) apparently being the source of the remaning two's.
And quickly becomes apparent that the author of ACIM has a very solid foundation for claiming who he claims to be. I dont find a shread of dubiousness in any word he actually says (although there are the matters of the form of the text, which seems to draw from Helen's - the scriber- skills, namely her love for Shakespeare (what is blank verse, btw?)). Where my skepticism rises is in what is not said. I mean, if you were able to talk to Jesus, wouldnt you ask him a bit more about his human life, like things about Mary, the apostolies, Judas, etc. This Jesus here is only concerned with conveying the message, and adds to the scenery only the very little needed for his demonstration. But I find a bit petulant of myself to question the authorship when the teaching is so profoundly rich. Its like people are offering me pearls and Im turning them away because I dont know how they got them in the first place. Pearls are pearls and will be pearls.

[pedro]

Rinda: "I've encountered this also, too many years ago to remember specifics. My impression is that the bucket was intact, and that the rope was long enough and strong..."

Well said http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif I wander if thats why Ive been drawing 48 so often just before I found it http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[pedro]

Candid: "Understanding the teachings of Jesus is not difficult if we rid ourselves of preconceptions and prejudice, and do the same with the written words which obscures it?s content. His words or no different than the Buddha, or any other enlightened master. A Zen master destroys illusion before truth can be received. So do all masters. But if a remnant of illusion remains, we fabricate another illusion from it, making it fit our existing structure.

Candid, there is an abyss of distinction between these teachings and the traditional scriptures. This abyss is not so much in the form, which uses the same symbols and proposes some of the same attitudes, but in the content, or rather in the way it allows us to understand that content. I could have studyed the scriptures for years and I would never have made this leap of understandment, because no matter how much I would study them, I would have always seen them as a dualistic teaching, heaven and hell, good and bad, and eye for an eye, all that is just the opposite of what I had already found to be the way: non-dualism. Sure I related more to Jesus teaching than to the old testament (to which I didnt relate at all), but even that is not wrong if we understand it under this new light. Even the original sin (once properly understood, and Eve had no more fault on it than Adam) is something that makes sense, once we see what was behind the "fairy tale". And what ACIM has made for me, was explaining how indeed the christian teaching was a non-dualistic one. Not only was I able to see that this metaphysics were not unlike the non-dualistic systems I knew (buddhism and zen), but it also dispelled my misconception about which encompassed which. In fact I see now that ACIM's Jesus goes further than the Buddha in his explanation of reality, and that evidence is what gives such value to this book. And who can go further than Buddha, that we know of? So maybe Jesus is indeed the author

"Both teach that the kingdom of Heaven or God is within.(...)Judgment of God is judgment of ourselves and others. Likewise is heaven and the love of God our own love."

That is what it says, but how different it is to understand this on the intellectual level, and on the level of actual perception. Words are one thing, but to see inequivocally that all the above is true because you and I and God are one same thing, is quite a different one. I guess that as much as I convince myself that is what I want, deep down I am still fearful of what that entails.

"Sorry if this sounds preachy"

oh, never mind that, we're all used to Rev. Candid by now http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

"Pedro, thanks for bringing this up. Wishing you the best with your journey through it. I hope you continue to share your experience with it here for the rest of us."

Thanks Candid, I will too http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[pedro]

Ok, I'll try to do a synopsis of the meaphysics ACIM proposes, but I warn you though that it would be better if you read it from the book, as Im not able to express it nearly as good, not to mention that I may misinterpret or forget parts of it. Anyway, this is how it goes...

First there was God. God is the One, complete perfection, ultimate universal love. God does not know of anything less than perfect, he is by definition all that is good and positive, without the least taint whatsoever of unperfecteness. So the first thing to remember is that each and every less than perfect characteristic that we find in our world or in ourselves cannot (by definition) be of God. Actually ACIM goes even further in stating that God know nothing that is not of his, and as such knows nothing that is unperfect, he is eternity and life, and so he cannot know anything of our world, which is obviously made of impermanence and death. So the first key idea is that God not only did NOT create the universe, as he knows nothing of it, but we'll get back to that.

So in the beginning it was God. We cant really understand God, because to think of God we must give him form, and God is formless, but think of it, if you will, as the universe before the big-bang, or the undivided Tao. Eventually, by some reason that isnt clear (maybe he got bored), God decided to create another entity out of himself, the Father, created the Son (Christ) or the One created the Two. At first everything was going fine, Father and Son, living together in eternal harmony, love and joy. But then one day something happened, the Son had this "tiny, mad idea", and whats worse, the Son remembered not to laugh (if he had laughed at that insane idea, things would have been different). That idea was the thought of separation. It seams the Son may have dreamt he was the Father, the Two thought for an instant that he was the One, the originator of everything, the creator. In other words, the thought has crossed the Son's mind, that there might be something other, or better than God. The Son forgot for an instant that God was everything, and had the crazy idea that there could be something else. This was the original sin.

Now, this mad idea the Son had was not a frivolous one. In fact its impact was such that by simply considering the thought that there might be something better than the father, a whole universe was born as a reflection of that thought (you may see this as the big-bang, or the One created the Two, and the Two created the 10,000 things, sounds familiar?). The thought was the cause, the universe the effect. Its like by thinking "is there something else?" the whole of the possible else's were created in that instant. The Son's mind was shattered by that thought into inumerous conscious fragments. Each of these fragments of the Son's mind is what we consider our mind, and so, we start to see that WE are the son, a part of Him, but also Him (and as such we are all one). So the mind of the Son projected a thought of an universe outside itself, and that illusory universe is no other than the ego. The ego's role is to sustain that the projection (the effect) is real, and that the Son's mind, which is no other than the fathers (the cause) is what's false. Like the Son we too believe that this world we project outside our minds is real, and our true essence as Son's of God, remains unnoticed in the process. The ego's role is basically to distract us from realising the truth.

So this whole drama then becomes kind of an experiment whose goal is to prove the insanity of the "tiny, mad idea". And how is this being proven? The fragments of the Son's mind are going through ALL possible situations, at an universal scale, in a process that is taking billions of years, and their goal is to be presented with each and every possible situation, and in each of those to CHOOSE God instead of the illusion. Then in the end it will be proved that there is nothing better than God, and the Sin will have been repaired. This process is not really happening in reallity, because it is an illusory process, happening only in our minds, but that through projection we believe to be happening outside of us. The body becomes the physical materialization of this projected universe, and the ultimate object of illusion. In reallity we are just watching movies, each life a different movie, but believing we are the characters of the movie, instead of the audience. We believe we are the effect, instead of the cause
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

The body's serial adventures, from the time of birth to dying are the theme of every dream the world has ever had. The "hero" of this dream will never change, nor will its purpose. Though the dream itself takes many forms, and seems to show a great variety of places and events wherein its "hero" finds itself, the dream has but one purpose, taught in many ways. This single lesson does it try to teach again, and still again, and yet once more; that it is cause and not effect, And you are its effect, and cannot be its cause.
Thus are you not the dreamer, but the dream. And so you wander idly in and out of places and events that it contrives. That this is all the body does is true, for it is but a figure in a dream<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now, the concept of time is also illusory, so this whole process has already happened. Actually it all took the same eternal instant that is all there is, and as such it has already been proved that there is nothing better than the Father, and that we, His Son, are still at home with him, dreaming we are away. Understand that separation never happened, that you are still home with the Father, dreaming you are here, and you would have attained the truth.

Like the Son we have commited the sin of prefering the illusion (the ego) to our true nature (God), and since we know we commited that sin, we expect God to punish us, and so we fear to approach him. But we already seen there is absolutely nothing unholly about God, and so, what we have to understand (and the ego will try that we dont) is that God still love's us, regardless of the sin we think we commited (but actually never happened).

And to prove that God is still with us (would He desert his Son?), God has given us the means to repair our wrongdoings (actually he repaired them himself, we wouldnt be able to, and shouldnt even try to make what only God can - thats another key-aspect). When the initial thought of separation emerged, God immediately created the counter-thought of Oneness. As the original sinful thought divided itself again and again into the whole of the universe, so God created one counter-thought to repair each little damage (remember we never left God's mind, separation never occurred). In our minds both these thoughts co-exist: the ego-thought, and the God-thought (which is called the Holy Spirit, and accords to the notion I had of an innocent-mind). So it is like we have not one inner voice but two: a good and a bad one. Our only faculty is then to be able to choose between one of these two scripts that have already been done. Our goal? to learn to choose the Holy Spirit's voice, instead of the ego's. The Holy Spirit knows the answer to all our questions, it knows what we should do in every decision we take, and if followed will lead us to become the best we can possibly be. Actually we DO NOT KNOW whats best for us, and as such we shouldnt pretend we do. God in turn knows what's best for us in any occasion, and he has placed that knowledge in our minds, if we just chose to listen to it. Whenever we do that, a miracle has happened, and that is our purpose in life: to perform miracles. The goal of ACIM is to turn that way of being into second nature, so there is no effort whatsoever to mainatin that correcteness.

One key point in this view, is that we should never fight ourselves (Dharma: http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/wink.gif), because believing we have done wrong makes us feel guilty, and guilt is what prevents us from realising our divine nature, and consequently it is what makes us unperfect, decaying and dying as a consequence (and if you see that all this is an illusion maintained by the ego, you too will be able to ressurrect, thats Jesus' point)

We have to become conscious of the choice we are making (this equates with the concept of mindfullness - sati - in buddhism), knowing whether we're choosing from the ego or from God.
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

No one can escape from illusions unless he looks at them, for not looking is the way they are protected. There is no need to shrink from illusions, for they cannot be dangerous. We are ready to look more closely at the ego's thought system because together we have the lamp that will dispel it, and since you realize you do not want it, you must be ready. Let us be very calm in doing this, for we are merely looking honestly for truth. The "dynamics" of the ego will be our lesson for a while, for we must look first at this to see beyond it, since you have made it real. We will undo this error quietly together, and then look beyond it to truth. What is healing but the removal of all that stands in the way of knowledge? And how else can one dispel illusions except by looking at them directly, without protecting them?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>
But as we innevitably prefer to choose the illusion and not (real-)reality, as we prefer the ego's seduction to the truth, we should not condemn ourselves, we should not judge ourselves and we should not feel guilty! In the end we will all choose God, He knows that, and since time for Him means nothing, in His eyes we have already done that. We are already forgiven by him, but we have to learn to forgive ourselves as well, because it us us that are doing this to ourselves. All that is of the ego ends up in being illusory, impermanent and painful. The ego's world is nothing but suffering, Buddha was right. But as long as we believe in our guilt, we will coninue to prefer the ego, out of our fear of God.

Thats why forgiveness is so important (and it doesnt matter whether we forgive others or ourselves, because ultimately that is the same thing, we are all the (one) son of God), because until we accept that God has forgiven us we wont be able to recognise that our fear of him ihas no fundament. The ego wants us to believe in a frightening god that will punish us for our arrogance, because the ego knows that once we overcome that fear go towards God (actually realise we are already with God), the ego will cease to exist. God has no prefered Son's, so we are not special in his eyes, none of us. But the ego wants to believe in specialness, in individualism, in separation. That is its role, but we can understand that the ego is not real, that the ego is an illusion, projected from our minds as a result of an insane thought that actually never happened.

Ask and it shall be given, so we just have to ask, and God will come to us. Jesus was the first man to understand all this, and has such he is the human form of the Son of God, but we all share that same quality of his. Nothing Jesus has done, he tells us, is unattainable by us mere mortals. We are like Him, and the only thing that prevents us from seeing that is our guilty consicence, that hides from the light in fear of being burnt.

Fear no more, Jesus tells us. It is all ours already.
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

How simple is salvation! All it says is what was never true is not true now, and never will be. The impossible has not occurred, and can have no effects. And that is all.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Simply do this: Be still, and lay aside all thoughts of what you are and what God is; all concepts you have learned about the world; all images you hold about yourself. Empty your mind of everything it thinks is either true or false, or good or bad, of every thought it judges worthy, and all the ideas of which it is ashamed. Hold onto nothing. Do not bring with you one thought the past has taught, nor one belief you ever learned before from anything. Forget this world, forget this course, and come with wholly empty hands unto your God.
Is it not He Who knows the way to you? You need not know the way to Him. Your part is simply to allow all obstacles that you have interposed between the Son and God the Father to be quietly removed forever. God will do His part in joyful and immediate response<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

[heylise]

Wrote an answer, and only now I see you long post above. I will post my answer anyway, hope it still makes sense.

First of all: I am VERY happy for you.

I hesitated to post, because it was so certain to you, that this was the Jesus of the bible. And another one than Buddha. And in that respect I cannot really say much.
I can only talk about how I feel it myself, and maybe it will turn out, that we agree quite a lot.

What one reads about Buddha are scriptures, like the bible is a scripture. Buddha, God, Jesus, the original face of zen-buddhism, they are all beyond any scripture. Sometimes one finds a scripture, like ACIM now for you, which enlightens. Most scriptures are close to fairy-tales, they use images and symbols, trying to bring their message. For many people these images are 'holy': they can understand them. You obviously need something different, like many people nowadays, like me too. We need words which give more freedom, which are hints, suggestions, which talk about freedom, guilt, love as the concepts themselves, not as an image or story. Words which show us the archetype, as far as that is possible. Or give an image which comes as close as possible to the abstract meaning.

Jesus is the son of God. That is the archetype of man, who has God inside, or who comes from God. It is the highest state, mentally, any human can reach. This human consists of ego and God, both, in an equilibrium. One cannot live without ego, it makes it possible to be here on the earth. But the same ego puts us apart from God, which is the real sin, or the original sin, however one calls it. It is the cause of being unhappy, of greed, fear, everything humanity wants so much to get rid of, and never succeeds.
Being closer to the formlessness of the divine (to use a more universal word than God) brings one closer to bliss, total openness, innocence, truth.

One's tao is the combination of God and ego. How much you can give God the command decides how blissful your life will be. God is what you are, and yet to merge with God is not possible, at least not before one dies, and there we all don't know anything about it, but in a life it is possible to come very close, to become Jesus.

LiSe

[pedro]

Beautiful as (you) always (are), LiSe, and Im happy for YOU that youre happy for me http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

I just disagree partially with your final comment, because that death you mention is indeed possible. It is the death of the ego, and yes we need the ego for operating within the dream, and we will always need it as well, but the ego that has to die is just the "bad" ego. Imagine if we could just, in a finger snap, discard all the part of our ego's we dont like. If I could live normally, keep on being me, but without any doubt, any fear, any sadness, and pain. We all have had days like those, when we felt wholly good, so it should be possible to be like that ALL the time. Wouldnt that be great? If I didnt drain myself so much fighting the ego's bad moods, wouldnt that leave me freer to work with the remaining of my ego, the good part of it to attain the real purposes that matter?
That is only what needs to go: only the painful part! Is that something we have difficulty in accepting? Who would not give all their pains and griefs away if given a chance? That is enlightenment, that is complete awareness of the truth. Because the truth is that we are perfect and joyful, and enlightenment is nothing more than giving up our will to suffer

[candid]

chuckles at Rev. Candid

Pedro, I'd love to respond to your (and LiSe's) last posts but time constraints forbid it at this time. Aren't y'all lucky? LOL

[martin]

Hi Pedro,

Yes, I've read the Course, at least most of it. It's a very interesting book, to say the least, but I felt (and feel) uncomfortable with its traditional religious (mostly Christian, with an eastern religious flavor sometimes) ideas and concepts.
Sin, forgiveness, atonement, God, Holy Spirit, the body/world is not real, our 'ego' misguides us, and so on.

I know that the Course often interprets these ideas and concepts in a new and refreshing way (applause http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif). But traditional views are still very much there. They are not really challenged and I think they need to be challenged. If you compare the Course with the Seth material you will perhaps understand what I mean.
Apart from that (well, not really, it is also traditional) the Course is a very authoritarian book. If you don't believe what it says you are fooling yourself, that is the message. Brrrr .....

As to authorship, of course you are right if you say that it really doesn't matter who gives the pearls. Pearls are pearls. However, the belief that Jesus is the author has been instrumental in creating a strange cult around the Course, not unlike a Christian revival movement, with the Course as the new infallible bible and special teachers (called master teachers, iirc) who are supposed to understand this bible better then others. The old story repeats itself ...
So, the issue of authorship is not unimportant.
I wrote that it somehow doesn't sound like Jesus. And you asked: "Would you know how Jesus sounded in the first place?"
Good question! In fact I'm quite sure that Jesus didn't write the Course and I've often asked myself how I can know that. It feels like I have picked up the sound (i.e. the frequency, the atmosphere, the 'vibe', the 'feel') of Jesus somehow, somewhere. And it has very little to do with what is written about him in the bible.
How to explain that? I don't know. If you have an explanation I'm all ears. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

All the best,
Martin

[dharma]

Pedro,<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

but because delights are meant to be shared, and as you seem stubborn enough not to violate your own rules , would you mind mailing me directly so we could "discuss the finer details"?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> the delight is already being shared by virtue of my having expressed it and my decision has less to do with stubbornness, violations and rules and more to do with respecting the soundness of the conclusions i've drawn as a result of my experiences http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif but for you Pedro i will make an exception http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/wink.gif<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

It would be a pleasure as well as a learning experience, and Im sure you have lots of things to teach me (and please pay no notice of how Im appealing to your ego and let yourself fall for that )<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>rest assured, flattery rolls off my back like water on a duck http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/wink.gif in any case, your own efforts at explaining and teaching to others what you are learning with ACIM is what will truly impregnate YOU more completely than anything i can say, my ideas would be second-hand compared to the succinctness of the books themselves and your quiet reflections on them... truly

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Imagine if we could just, in a finger snap, discard all the part of our ego's we dont like. If I could live normally, keep on being me, but without any doubt, any fear, any sadness, and pain. We all have had days like those, when we felt wholly good, so it should be possible to be like that ALL the time. Wouldnt that be great? If I didnt drain myself so much fighting the ego's bad moods, wouldnt that leave me freer to work with the remaining of my ego, the good part of it to attain the real purposes that matter?
That is only what needs to go: only the painful part! Is that something we have difficulty in accepting? Who would not give all their pains and griefs away if given a chance? That is enlightenment, that is complete awareness of the truth. Because the truth is that we are perfect and joyful, and enlightenment is nothing more than giving up our will to suffer<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> a good vs bad ego is just as illusory as the one ego. however, what we ultimately really experience as *painful* is the STRUGGLE we engage in to squelch and repress what we deem "bad" in the ego; THAT is everyone's main stumbling block.

we cannot maintain a steady focus on what is enlightening while we expend our time justifying and compensating for thought processes that rest in the belief in a divided ego and that needs constant supervising and refereeing; THAT is the mistake that keeps us forever caught up in the illusions of reality.

enlightenment is achieved when ALL struggle with ego is abandoned and ALL aspects of it are allowed to "breathe". to fully and completely come out of this closet means to give up the struggle at hiding ANY parts of yourself from others and/or especially yourself http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[candid]

Pedro,

What differentiates good ego from bad ego? The account of original sin, which you correctly define as separation from God and wholeness, was born of the word ?I?. The tree of knowledge in the garden bore the fruit of dualism, and is the separation and the original ?sin?. Even Jesus used the word ?I?; for example, when he said, ?I? and the Father am one. He who has seen ?me? has seen the Father. This is why Jesus is referred to as the second Adam. So then, what was the difference between the original Adam and Jesus? Jesus came to terms with his ego and thus became self-realized, whereas Adam felt ashamed of his ego, and thus was cast from the garden of Eden, the garden of innocence. He beheld his nakedness and was ashamed. Jesus, on the other, considered it not robbery to be equal with God. Quite a difference, no?

Equally symbolic was Eve?s sensual nature, to ?taste? of the fruit of knowledge. You mentioned to me that intellectual understanding isn?t enough, and to this I agree. We have to feel it experientially to gain true understanding of intellectual ideas. Eve was the original Yin, and the attraction to which Adam was tempted to experience self.

Equally symbolically, this is still what man wrestles with to this day: how to reconcile his duality with God. There are many forms of self-assassination designed to reconcile this human conflict. Ironically, Mojo doesn?t seem to wrestle with it at all. He needs no justification, and he needs no plans for redemption. He just is. Is there more than this?

C

[heylise]

HE JUST IS. How can I say anything after this??

Oh well, this is a forum, so here goes. .

Pedro said: That is only what needs to go: only the painful part! Is that something we have difficulty in accepting? Who would not give all their pains and griefs away if given a chance? That is enlightenment, . .

I would not. Of course there are things I would rather not have, but if I could wish them away, fff - gone, I would not do that. No thanks. They are my tools for living and learning. I am me, I don't discard any part of me, I try to live the best I can with this me. I also prefer others to be the way they are, without them trying to be something else (which is not the same as accepting everything they do).

I find enlightenment by finding this real me, the base of what I am. I don't discard fear, I go underneath. I still have the fear, but there is something else, which makes the fear lose its power.

And the sound of Jesus . . how does your love feel? How does mine feel? Maybe very much alike. But as soon as we explain it, talk about it, show it, there are huge differences. Giving form means creating differences. So we should look/live underneath the differences. Or above, if anyone prefers that different word for the same thing.

LiSe

[candid]

LiSe, living under is better than living over. Like a bird in her nest, over the ground but under leaves and branches. Small lives bigger when in a tree, and its lonely at the top anyway, and not very secure. That's why though its not robbery to claim one with God, its better to remain below.

[pedro]

Hey compadres, replying in order (please forgive me for not being online 24/7 http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif)

Martin: ?Yes, I've read the Course, at least most of it. It's a very interesting book, to say the least, but I felt (and feel) uncomfortable with its traditional religious (mostly Christian, with an eastern religious flavor sometimes) ideas and concepts.?

I quite agree, it freaks me out too (and specially in portuguese, where they sound even dreadfuller to my ears http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif)? But the book did a great deal in removing the ?bad? connotation of some of those symbols, and since I find this teaching so valid, and don?t want to scare people away by starting to sound like a tele-evangelist, I got sort out a nomenclature that does not pick on Christian jargon... I kinda dislike that smell of old dogmas, although this is mainly due to the long years of rejecting Catholicism, and as such a conditioning like any other

?However, the belief that Jesus is the author has been instrumental in creating a strange cult around the Course, not unlike a Christian revival movement, with the Course as the new infallible bible and special teachers (called master teachers, iirc) who are supposed to understand this bible better then others. The old story repeats itself ...
So, the issue of authorship is not unimportant.?

Yes, I cant disagree.I sense the cult thing around it and I dislike it. Yet, nothing could be more contrary to the teachings of the course, these cults are just ?mass specialnesses?, and these people are clearly not understanding the material, and resisting to accept it, and as such I pity them more than anything else

?In fact I'm quite sure that Jesus didn't write the Course and I've often asked myself how I can know that. (?) How to explain that? I don't know. If you have an explanation I'm all ears.?

Hum? let me see? you think you?re special? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/wink.gif

[pedro]

PS: Martin, what on earth is IIRC? you keep on iircing and I dont have a clue http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[pedro]

Dharma: ?for you Pedro i will make an exception?

Gee, I?m flattered http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

?your own efforts at explaining and teaching to others what you are learning with ACIM is what will truly impregnate YOU more completely than anything i can say?

yes, I understand that now, there no teaching without learning
Actually I think that one of the most important lessons Im gaining from the Course is that we cannot (without exception) reach ?salvation? alone... Salvation is intimately related to connection, and for instance, although I may have trouble recognizing the face of Christ when I look in the mirror, if I start to recognize it in each and every one of my brothers I cannot fail to recognize it in me sooner or later (recognizing it in others aint that hard, I can actually do this, even ? particularly ? for people I dislike; it is not that hard to recognize everyone is just suffering, particularly those that seem to be attacking you, are th ones that are scared the most... its hard to hold a grudge to someone you pity). And it seems that the mechanism of forgiveness cannot operate alone. We cannot forgive ourselves in a selfish way, but we can be forgived by forgiving others. Somehow, somewhere, each and everyone of us has to be able to connect, even if for an instant, to each and everyone else, and BOTH be able to perceive our goals as not distinct. We must see ourselves as one, in that ?holy instant?.


Interesting Im having Pluto trine my MC, which has the basic lesson of stating just that: I cannot ever reach my goals until I identify them with everyone else?s. Actually if I stop to think for a moment (not about me, I mean), I cant fail to recognise that my goals are indeed the same as everyone else?s. If I cant reach salvation alone, then this ultimate goal from which all others stem, is indeed quite literally the same as everyone else?s, for the simple reason we are all ONE.

?a good vs bad ego is just as illusory as the one ego. however, what we ultimately really experience as *painful* is the STRUGGLE we engage in to squelch and repress what we deem "bad" in the ego; THAT is everyone's main stumbling block.?

Yes, your words make more sense to me now, I admit... I also admit that I realise it was my self centeredness that prevented me from understanding them in the first place http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

?we cannot maintain a steady focus on what is enlightening while we expend our time justifying and compensating for thought processes that rest in the belief in a divided ego and that needs constant supervising and refereeing; THAT is the mistake that keeps us forever caught up in the illusions of reality.?

Oh yes, and that is why I pested you guys so often with the ultimate uselessness of reasoning as far as overcoming that (sand) barrier goes

?enlightenment is achieved when ALL struggle with ego is abandoned and ALL aspects of it are allowed to "breathe". to fully and completely come out of this closet means to give up the struggle at hiding ANY parts of yourself from others and/or especially yourself?

yes, it has to be a complete abandonment o resistance... actually that seems to have been the case with many documented awakenings of our times, it is usually a very traumatic experience that defeats our last strength and throws us on the mat so beat up that we have no option but to give up... Its like we?re looking for water, digging and digging without realising that is dry land, and we hit rock bottom... we cannot keep digging as much as we?d like to, and so we stop and think for the first time: ?what if instead I just pray god for rain??
Given an option, we will always choose the wrong one, we?ll keep on digging in search of something to satiate our thirst, and getting thirstier on the process. What Im saying is that very difficultly will we ever give up the illusion on our own, cause if we have a choice we?ll prefer to suffer. Like that dog that keeps chewing his own leg, intoxicated by the taste of blood. Sad but true

[pedro]

Candid, Im not really sure I understand what troubles you. Is it the arrogance of claiming to be one with God, one with Christ? Is it the original sin? I don?t see Eve as the tempting one, I think the temptation was not of a sexual nature at all, although that is the parallel that was drawn to describe it, and the women chosen as scape goats by some sort of post Zoroastrian, fundamentalist misogeny. I used to think that was the priests way of getting even on women, because they weren?t allowed to have sex with them.

?Equally symbolically, this is still what man wrestles with to this day: how to reconcile his duality with God. There are many forms of self-assassination designed to reconcile this human conflict. Ironically, Mojo doesn?t seem to wrestle with it at all. He needs no justification, and he needs no plans for redemption. He just is. Is there more than this??

Yes, that seems to be all there is indeed, all the other problems we may have are just a ramification, one more iteration of that initial division. And what?s ironic, is that division never happened, and so, if we can just realise that, laugh at the idea that there is a separation, then we will be at home, and everything will be solved.

[pedro]

LiSe: ?I would not. Of course there are things I would rather not have, but if I could wish them away, fff - gone, I would not do that. No thanks. They are my tools for living and learning. I am me, I don't discard any part of me, I try to live the best I can with this me. I also prefer others to be the way they are, without them trying to be something else (which is not the same as accepting everything they do).?

Well, I guess that is your right, and it seems to show he rebellious in you. I bet as you were a kid you had to do all by yourself http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif But I for one could be better off without my anxiety and my fear, the part of it that does not add anything to what I am, but merely prevents me from seeing who I am. I guess we don?t all see our bad side equally bad, and in any case I cant disagree that even our bad side is OURS, and as such can be used, and have a purpose in our own progression. There is no bigger lesson to be learned with the little obstacles, but the big ones, when surmounted, are the ones that shape our soul.

?I find enlightenment by finding this real me, the base of what I am. I don't discard fear, I go underneath. I still have the fear, but there is something else, which makes the fear lose its power.?

Oh, wait, I see now that even in the previous paragraph you are describing what I also believe. Words can be such a complication...
And a final note: loved your ?voice of love? metaphor, I couldn?t have thought of a better image


Gotta go now, Im starving http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif
Love to everyone

[candid]

Pedro, I'm not troubled, I'm excited by this topic! Its my single biggest priority in this life.

I'll add a simple observation, made over some time. When someone begins to view others as being off the mark, and perceive their own way as the other's answer; when the shortcomings of others seem obvious and clear - we have lost touch with the way.

Its great you?re finding truth in this course, whatever that means to you. I doubt it?s a different truth though. Just a different way of telling the story.

[pedro]

"Its my single biggest priority in this life."

honest? I can believe that, after all, we seem ALL to be geting more and more aware of our common goals, and less concerned with what's in it for us alone

"Its great you?re finding truth in this course, whatever that means to you."

is it truth? I dunno, maybe, it is certainly something that his helping me at this stage
but I dont care much about finding truth nowadays... I realise truth is what remains after we stop looking for alternatives... search for truth is then but a way to understand that truth is there once we stop searching for it

"I doubt it?s a different truth though. Just a different way of telling the story."

yes, youre right in your between the lines reasoning... I have already accepted that my need to be right is nothing but another illusion of separation, and that once I find "my truth" isnt at odds with everyone else's, then I'll be making some progress

[martin]

Hi Pedro,

IIRC stands for 'if I remember correctly'
Well, IIRC ... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/crazy.gif

And of course I think that I am special!

More later ...

[candid]

"I realise truth is what remains after we stop looking for alternatives..."

love that http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[heylise]

I have been thinking about 'getting rid of negative whatever'. I said I did not want to get rid of 'me', because I needed it to learn and live.
I should put it different: I don't want "to get rid", it does not matter of what, just the simple act of dividing myself from anything.
Deep down I am one with everything, but on the level of daily life, I am me as subject and the rest is not me, it is all object. If I get rid of whatever it is, I simply add another item to the long list of objects.
If I go beyond all subject and object, then there is nothing to get rid of. But no need either. It does not exist anymore as such. It did not go away, it rather becomes invisible.
It is not as if one gets rid of something, one takes another road.
Hm, wrong again: not taking a special road at all, being the ocean.

The hard part is, how to 'be'. Not by trying, it does not work. I have been trying a life long. Until I stopped trying. Not that it is all great now, but sometimes I get a glimpse, and somehow, in a way I cannot even describe, it becomes a larger and larger part of my mind, and it spreads in my life.
I don't bother too much about the times when it does not work (I could never be a poet ? what a choice of words!), because as soon as I do, I make a mess of everything. Then I am within minutes back to me-dummy.

LiSe

[rinda]

LiSe,

you write:
____________
I find enlightenment by finding this real me, the base of what I am. I don't discard fear, I go underneath. I still have the fear, but there is something else, which makes the fear lose its power.
____________

Yes, this is how I experience it also!

...and your last paragraph above is beautiful. No "dummy" evident there!! I slip in and out of this state all day long... being present to the Presence?

Being here at Clarity for me has felt like a kind of homecoming - all the experiences I've been through - "strange" things studied, ways of being, ways of seeing the world - y'all feel like brothers and sisters. Thank you. As public as this place is, I still feel comfortable and at home in a way that's different than I have ever experienced.

Rinda

[lindsay]

Actually I have given up thinking about enlightenment. What is it anyway, and what benefits does it offer? How would life be easier or better if I were enlightened? And what about all the bizarre practices said to lead to enlightenment?

To become a master of music, one plays music continuously, consciously, strenuously. To master a sport, the same is true, one concentrates on playing, playing, playing. Mastery of anything seems to involve full and constant engagement with the thing itself.

Except for mastery of life, so-called enlightenment, which calls for retreat and denial. Does that make sense? Shouldn?t mastery of life be achieved by living one?s life as fully as possible, learning to deal with every high and low along the way? Yet the enlightened ones seem pretty inept at grappling with life?s problems.

Instead, they call life?s hassles an illusion, but who is really deluded here? Sometimes they say the real point is not living life, but going beyond life to what really matters. Sort of like saying, the real point of mastering the violin is not to play music, but to go beyond music. I don?t think I would like to attend a concert in which all the players were performing beyond music. Why bother with playing musical instruments at all?

Does anybody out there understand this enlightenment thing (and why it?s a good idea)?

Lindsay

[void]

Well I think of the wish for enlightenment as a hunger for the ultimate high, the longing for satiety, peace and bliss. I don't actually know what enlightenment is because I'm not enlightened.
Although of course when I am enlightened I will realise I was enlightened all the time ?

I don't understand when someone says "I find enlightenment by...." I know it is not possible to find enlightenment by the holding of any particular attitude or mindset, as an attitude, or set of beliefs is not a state of being.

[candid]

I understand enlightening but not enlightenment. Doing is better than having. One may know how to swim but only swimming will save a drowning person, not knowing or having.

[heylise]

"enlightenment, which calls for retreat and denial", that is a theory of finding enlightenment, the idea of some people who turned it into a curse (this a typo, I wanted to say course, but maybe it is not so bad to leave it sitting there?)
The idea of 'enlightenment' has been turned into something one can acquire, like buying a car, if one has enough money. Buying enlightenment if one has enough endurance, to sit and stare and stare and sit.

I used the word, but should maybe use another expression. Too many caves and sages and cold attached to it.

When one opens the curtains, the light comes in. When one worries, broods, has fear, pain, problems with the tax manual, has been insulted, angry because the dog refuses to listen, dropped a glass, cannot find God in spite of searching in all the right ways, whatever, one can open the curtains and the light comes (back) in.
What I call enlightenment is this act, but also the ability to do it. Start with something small, don't try to tackle God right away. If you can do it with a broken glass, then after some time you will be able to do it with heavy things too.

Rinda (and Kevin too) do it in a beautiful way with people (in the 'love'-thread): find something in them you can love (which probably is identical to leave what you don't like about them). There is no risk, because your intuition will not allow you to give someone who is dangerous free reign. You will be able to discern between outrageous behavior and real meanness.
Same happens with 'things'. You will know if a pain has to be treated, even if you can go beyond it. If your dog needs correction, even if (or rather because) you accept his way of being.

So in my eyes enlightenment is not something big. Little grains in the course of the day, but of course there can also happen a huge one, to be remembered for years, and changing a life. Like light itself can be tiny, or big as the sun itself.

LiSe

[heylise]

Oh, course does not refer to the 'course in miracles'. I think courses can be great. I love theory - as long as it is not confounded with the result. Through theory and books and ideas I learned about everything I know. I agree with Lindsay: the mind is a valuable tool.

LiSe

[pedro]

Hey Lindsay, hope you dont mind the essay below, but you asked for it, so dont blame me http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

?Actually I have given up thinking about enlightenment. What is it anyway,?

The whole concept of enlightenment (actually even the word carries such a heavy burden of misconception that I would rather not use it, but I'll keep it for the sake of coherence) is heavily distorted and conducent to a lot of misinterpretations. I wont pretend to have complete first hand experience, but I do know that several things arent true. For starters, enlightenment isnt a process, a change, or a goal to be reached or avoided. If there were need to change, then that would mean we are imperfect and there is something better we can become. There isnt, we're already perfect. If it was a goal to be reached, it would mean we're not there already. We are, and will always be, thats the point. It is not necessarily a permanent thing, a lightening falling over our heads that makes us different, as many "holy" people have proven by their fall back into egotism. It is not something that we are not ready to, or that we need something or anything to attain. We are ready, and we just have to realise how easy and how close it is.

Enlightenment is simply the understandment of what and who we really are, as opposed to what we think we are. It is braking off of the illusion even if for a glimpse. This is not a mere intellectual understandment (thinking of swimming wont do, to use Candid's example), which will inevitably miss the point and try to judge it by the ego norms (for instance, thinking of enlightenment as a goal is already missing it), but the actual living of it, experiencing it beyond thought and form.

So it is basically the dispel of the ego illusion, even if for a moment, and the realization that we are god-like inside, or that actually we are god. Since we will avoid looking inside when given a choice, it is usually necessary to reach close to despair in order for us to try ?something else?. In other words, when we realize that we cannot find satisfaction outside, we will eventually understand that the only place left for happiness to lie would be inside, and if we are able to overthrow the ego tendency to prevent us from looking within, then we cannot fail to see it.

In that sense, it is merely an abandonment of everything that proved to be wrong. Sooner, or later, we will all reach a point when we realise that searching for our goals outside ourselves will only lead to frustration and suffering. When we give up hope in life, thats when we?re really close to getting it.

?and what benefits does it offer? How would life be easier or better if I were enlightened??

I'll get to this later on, but sufice to say that enlightenment is simply giving up all that is preventing you from living your life to the fullest. We are denying ourselves what we're entitled, while pretending that we're working towards our progress.

?And what about all the bizarre practices said to lead to enlightenment??

All bizarre practices are just that: bizarre practices. There are many many people embarking on those wild things that will die without reaching their goal, the Buddha recognised the futility of it, and so he gave up asceticism. Occasionally people will reach enlightenment by this or that practice, but was the actual practice responsible? or did that person simply reach some level of awareness, where that practice might have had no part at all?

Enlightenment is not a goal to be reached, and it involves no effort. It is quite the opposite: the abandonment of effort, the laying down of resistance, of our struggle against the world and ourselves. If we give up trying to change what is already perfect, we?re on the good track. If we lay down the barricades we have built around us (to protect us from God?s wrath), then god will come to us without us having to do anything! We just have to stop putting Him away. We thing this wall around us serves to protect us, that it prevents our richness from escaping away, but what it really prevents is the real richness from coming in.

?Mastery of anything seems to involve full and constant engagement with the thing itself.

Except for mastery of life, so-called enlightenment, which calls for retreat and denial.?

No it doesnt, actually this idea is quite absurd. Enlightenment is one thing, asceticism is another. Bizarre practices arent needed. Secclusion isnt needed. Whatever, isnt needed. The best way to practice is here and now, doing whatever youre doing, with whomever you are. Ironically, enlightenment is the easiest thing we can think of, but since it sounds so simple, since it demands nothing of us, we deduct it cant be true (and what effortless goal would be desirable, the ego opposes?). So, by not allowing the possibility that it is indeed just about giving up the effort, we discard the chance without giving it a thought.

One most important point (that again our ego?s will fight hard for us NOT to grasp), is that there is nothing lost, thee is no sacrifice, there is no giving up. God doesnt take away, but merely gives endlessly. We are once again clinging to our meager possessions, when there is a river of wealth wanting to flow in.

?Does that make sense? Shouldn?t mastery of life be achieved by living one?s life as fully as possible, learning to deal with every high and low along the way??

Of course, and that is already close to enlightenment. You and I cannot ?[live] life as fully as possible? if we keep on making wrong decisions based on fear, illusion and egoism. Enlightenment is simply becoming the very best you can be of yourself, or in other words, it is being able to live fully, as we are meant to live, without the constraints of our ignorant egos.

?Yet the enlightened ones seem pretty inept at grappling with life?s problems.?

Again, this is the opposite of what enlightenment is.

?Instead, they call life?s hassles an illusion, but who is really deluded here? Sometimes they say the real point is not living life, but going beyond life to what really matters.?

You are convince that you have to give up life and joy and pleasure and whatever it is youre after in order to reach enlightenment. It is the opposite: you cannot ever get what you want if you let your egotistic impulses govern you. The ONLY way to have all we want is by realizing truth and not illusion. Nothing changes! You just give up what?s preventing you from attaining your goals. It is just like chasing your stray horse: go home instead (or actually, realise that you are already home), and he?ll follow you.

?Sort of like saying, the real point of mastering the violin is not to play music, but to go beyond music. I don?t think I would like to attend a concert in which all the players were performing beyond music. Why bother with playing musical instruments at all??

John Cage has one emblematic piece where the piano isnt played at all. But that was a side note. If you want a parallel to this musical image, I?d think of it as being one with the music, and not beyond it. No good musician can play a moving piece without living the music, without being it. You are not playing a violin, thats the illusion, you ARE the violin and you are playing yourself.

?Does anybody out there understand this enlightenment thing (and why it?s a good idea)??

I dont. But think of it this way. If you were given the choice, by merely snapping your fingers, that all of your troubling thoughts and emotions be cast away, so that you could be free from all fear, all anxiety, all doubt and all pain, while remaining all the rest that you are, perhaps more. No change whatsoever, merely a clean up of all distressing and depressing thoughts. Would you want that? Wouldn?t the absence of those aspects of our being allow us to live our lives more fully, to reach our goals more efficiently, to give more to ourselves and others, in other words, to be more happy, more satisfied, more strong, more capable, more free?

Does this sound desirable? Would our lives make more sense like that?

It seems we are powerless against these thoughts, but we?re actually provoking them by our own choice. Stop holding on to your pain, and it will go away. The wall we built around us is not preventing more pain from coming in: it is preventing this pain from going away! Understand that for a moment, and you cant fail to feel the joy.

Actually, does it make sense NOT to be enlightened? Does it make sense to hold on to suffering like it is the whole of our life?s purpose?

[pedro]

LiSe, I didnt get your reply when I posted the above, I had alreay the browser open and didnt refresh it.
Just want to say that I think you described it beautifully. It is not a big thing, indeed, only the ego tries to make it so, hoping we never question and go beyond its smoke screen.
Lets open the courtains and let the light shine in http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[lenardthefast]

Beautiful post, Lise. Thanks.

Namaste,
Leonard

[lenardthefast]

Thanks for the 'essay', Pedro. One of the very few, long posts I've read thru recently. Although on an intellectual level I agree with everything you have said in the post, I am still puzzled by the 'mechanics' of the 'non-mechanics'. For forty years or so I have been reading about the 'letting go' process and with the exception of several landmark occasions, I can't for the life of me, understand what I did, (or didn't) do, to achieve that state. I have achieved 'it', but 'how' continues to elude me. And, when I am no longer 'in it', there is a lot of pain.

Last time it happened was last year about this time and in a personal email to Candid I told him I was elated, but, wished to understand how 'it' had happened. His reply was to just enjoy it and not question the 'how'. I took his advice and 'it' lasted about two and a half months, and then one day, 'it' just disappeared, as mysteriously as 'it' had arrived. Ughhh! Rats! Pain!

I want 'it' back!

Namaste,
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/hex04.gif
Leonard

[pedro]

Leonard, as far as I understand, there is no "how". Looking for a "how" again puts into "I need something" mode, and becomes an effort to find something that should be effortless. Stop telling yourself youre not there yet. You are still understanding this in the realm of conceptual thinking, and merely restating your illusion that you are either incomplete or in lack. Both are equally false, and its these conviction that you must allow yourself to grow.

If there was a "how", I sure would like to know it and apply it to myself. But how could there be a way to get what we never lost in the first place? Sounds like a person searching around for the glasses that are on top of her head...

What can help then? First of all, you have a simple way of knowing whether youre doing it right: if it hurts, if its painful, then you're NOT doing it right. It is by definition the absence of all pain. But that you know already.

Then, what? I cant answer that for you, but you seem to be honnestly willing to get there, and that is the most important thing. You may have only realised what you dont want right now, eg you dont want to be in pain, but as pointless as that seems, it is the beginning of the journey, because most people arent even aware of that, of how they are chosing to stay unhappy.

So what you have to do is sistematically pay attention to yourself, and realise the resistance you are putting off against it. Search yourself for the resistance cause its there, and the more unaware of it the more helpless you are in trying to change what needs not be changed.

It is not a matter of doing something, but its consciously NOT doing anything, and allowing the real doer to do it for us.

Takes a lot of effort to be effortless, but it is not an effort in the usual sense, it is more of an observance that removes the darkness by allowing the awareness of the light to grow.

If you had already tasted it, then it is only your lack of self confidence that prevents you from tasting it again. Im having the same problem, dont feel like youre different, and I havent even had such a long experience such as the one you describe. You may be priviledge, instead of helpless, if you put things into perspective.

So, feel trustfull that it is here already, allow that confidence to grow, surpassing everything else, even if at first it seems you are just convincing yourself.

Dont try to search it using the same tools you would use to search for your car keys, and then when you least expect it (actually when you forget to try for an instant) it will come back to you, from where it never left (although right now it may be deep buried under your seeming need to do something)

Hope this helps some, but I wish you (and I) can be better taught by someone more knowledgeable

[pedro]

One more thing, this resistance can be of various types. I find the hardest to be the fear of god. We think we want it, but deep down we fear it. We think we will be sacrificing something, or that god will punish us for coming home late. Do you see the absurdity of this? God is not our father, we're not teenagers anymore, and we need not fear coming home drunk after hitting dad's car into a tree

God wants us to have it all, is that so hard to accept? He is GOD, for christ sake, how mean can he be?

Realise fear is just another flavour of the illusion, fear no more, and there will be nothing standing between you and him

[candid]

Enlightenment is a puppy named Maggy.

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/786/2093.jpg