So impressed that you two are tackling this very controversial topic. Would love to see you interview Rupert Spira who is such a eloquent teacher of non-duality and who might be able to correct some misconceptions. For example, I believe non-duality does teach that there are separate selves, but that these separate selves are interconnected elements of awareness. It also teaches that an illusion of a separate self is created by our false belief that our thoughts are who we are. The work is in allowing awareness to flow through our separate selves rather than our thought/emotion created false selves. In other words, we can have thoughts and we can have free will, but the key is not believe that these thoughts are who we are.
@@sonyaparkin7841 Would be good to hear this discussed with Rupert as I don't believe that nonduality believes there is no decision maker or thinker. I believe it does posit that we are a free will decision maker who can choose awareness vs. the separate self (belief that we are our thoughts).
@@OurFamilyInMotion@OurFamilyInMotion The one mind is the decision maker, not the made-up individual self. Nonduality or Advaita Vedanta does say that it is one consciousness and everything is a functioning within that consciousness. It is the one son of God. Consciousness will eventually disappear into the heart of God once atonement is complete in time. There's hardly any difference between ACIM and nonduality but ACIM goes one step further and directly teaches forgiveness instead of going round and round and talk about maya, awareness, etc like nonduality does. Course gives us a practical approach. The best teacher of Advaita Vedanta or nonduality I found on YT is Swami Sarvapriyananda. I've watched hundreds of his video lectures, the best teacher out there! He has one discussion with Deepak Chopra on consciousness. Look it up on YT.
Lovely. I am a student of both and value this discussion. ‘Particularly towards the end of the video, the beauty of caring for each other as a natural and divine expansion. Thank you both.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I knew intuitively what you are saying is true, but never had the concepts clear enough to express it. I too came to this understanding by watching near death experience and studying the Course. Thanks for your voice and bringing it forward!
Thank you Robert and Emily, very much enjoyed your insights. I have been a student of the Course since 1993 and since 2012 I also listened to the various non-dual teachers you specifically mentioned. I totally get your point of making a distinction between these two views of reality. I greatly appreciate the non-dual teachers, but deep inside i felt for a while that there’s something missing, something that the Course is giving, so i felt a strong pull lately to deeply immerse myself again into studying the Course. In trust and peace. Rolf
There’s a lot of similarity (according to my study and understanding) between the Srimad Bhagavatam and A Course In Miracles.the SB describes the personal and impersonal features of Godhead and us as united spirits. It’s really helped me understand ACIM and the SB seems to corroborate with ACIM. Really interesting to see that the same truths are expounded in both (again, according to my study).
Thank you for an excellent discussion of this subject that is of fundamental importance to a true understanding of the Course’s message. It goes to the heart of the ages-old philosophical dilemma between being and nothingness. Which one we assign to ultimate reality is crucial to both the direction of our spiritual journey and way we live our life. I’ve long thought that you don’t need to go much further than the very term ‘non dualism’ to see that there is an inherent contradiction here. Non dual implies ‘not two but one’, however if the one is defined by a negation of the two (or many), then this itself creates a dualism between the one and the many! The only way duality can be dissolved is if the one embraces it, which is without a doubt the way that God is described in the Course. It is also the way we reawaken ourselves to Him. Interestingly, this attitude of dissociation/withdrawal (negation of self) rather than extension/joining is characteristic to those who practice non dualism in its most radical form, such as neo advaita. These people often become totally detached from all of their relationships, sometimes to the point of no longer recognizing their own children. There are even associations to help people recover from deep depression and other issues resulting from such practices. The error of denying the self is cautioned against throughout the Course. Clearly the undoing of the ego is a very important first step, but this is only in order to allow our awareness to be filled up with the love of God: a state of certainty, joy and expansiveness which naturally leads us to join with other minds. To get stuck on the first step of ego-watching is an error that Jesus repeatedly warns us against! And it seems to me that this is the fundamental error in Ken’s teaching, as well as in non duality. The paradox of the coexistence of the one and the many in the kingdom of God is one that I have pondered a great deal, and I think you’re right in stating that it is simply beyond the grasp of our linear thinking brains. However I do think that there is a key way in to approaching an understanding of it in the important distinction Jesus makes between knowing and perception. This is introduced early in the Course and continues throughout as a core concept. God, heaven and our true Self are defined by knowing, whereas perception is a characteristic of our separated self. (“4 Consciousness was the first split that you introduced into yourself. ²You became a perceiver rather than a creator in the true sense. ³Consciousness is correctly identified as the domain of the ego. [CE T-3.VI.4:1-3]”) This state of pure knowing is one of fullness, certainty, eternally changeless but perpetually giving of itself. In this state it’s possible to know others, but not to perceive them. It’s equally impossible to perceive separation. Creation dictates that there is more than one, but no difference could ever be perceived, instead only likeness is known and shared. Perhaps it is through pure knowing, so hard for us to imagine, that the many can exist within the one. Non dualism often refers to consciousness or awareness as the ground state of reality, but this again stops too soon at the first stage of separation. I totally agree that NDE’s are a very significant proof of love, fullness and joy as the ultimate Truth of all existence. Fittingly, today’s lesson is all about taking the step beyond the dismissal of the world, and it contains a beautiful description of what lies beyond: 4 Yet even they will be exchanged at last for what we cannot speak of. ²For you go from there to where words fail entirely, into a silence where the language is unspoken and yet surely understood. ³Communication, unambiguous and plain as day, remains unlimited for all eternity. ⁴And God Himself speaks to His Son, as His Son speaks to Him. ⁵Their language has no words, for what They say cannot be symbolized. ⁶Their knowledge is direct and wholly shared and wholly one. [CE W-129.4]
Thank you for this topic of discussion. It sparked so many open questions and avenues for further exploration. I hope there will be a part two.😊 I am curious about your thoughts on the “happy dream “, “projection creates perception” and the Course idea that everything is an illusion, including our bodies, and how we allow the Holy Spirit to re-purpose what we made as a communication device for love. All of these ideas in relation to non-dual teachings. 🙏 with much gratitude.
Ooooh I can’t tell you how deeply this resonates with me and how much I appreciate your work in embracing and illuminating the Course’s perspective on this. I especially love the reminder that we need to focus on egoless relationships with our brothers and sisters in the world. I think it means so much to me to celebrate the magnificence of our individuality within the equality of one mind because I have had many experiences of animals in my life leaving their body and returning in spirit to celebrate our journey together and they share wisdom they have now beyond their body. Every time this has happened their individual nature and being has been so clear and so utterly knowable for me, that there is no doubt in my mind that we stay ‘ourselves’. The animals have no ego in this state, and they have been so joyful and so expansive and so unlimited in their love, it is quite remarkable. One time one particular animal had been one species in her relationship with me, and when she returned I somehow knew, without any doubt that her ‘natural’ species as a separate animal was different and she presented herself as that, maybe because she had embodied again already, I don’t know, and she shared with me all kinds of fascinating things about that species, and somehow the characteristics came through her spirit. And there was no separation in our minds.. that was obvious. So I would say there is a lot we don’t usually experience directly and therefore understand fully in a body. I also feel from my own process with my awakening, that the ego is less threatened by Non Duality, perhaps because of the less intimate nature of it.. so it is a phase to get through on the path to accepting ourselves. 💛
There is no place or time where God ends and I begin as there is no point where the Sun ends and the ray of its light begins. My Father and I are one yet my Father is grander than me.
A lot of non-dual teaching talks about the absolute and the relative. "Absolute" being the unbound, formless, complete unity, "relative" being the appearance of forms and separate individuals. Non-duality, at least as Adyashanti for example teaches, is that the absolute formless emptiness and the separate forms are actually not two separate things. There seems to be a modern appearance, from my view, that "non-dual" means only the absolute formless emptiness side, rather than formless AND form paradoxically are there and not separate from each other. The Heart Sutra says form is emptiness, emptiness is form. I'm not an expert on these matters by any means but it is an interesting distinction, and it does seem like a lot of this conversation is taking from the view that 'non-duality' only refers to the absolute (which plenty of modern teachers seem to put out), what do you think?
I can't really say whether today's nondual teachers are reflecting that principle from the Heart Sutra. But either way, I don't think it's particularly germane to the conversation we are having, since either way, there is no self to think, choose, or do, either on the level of the individual or on the level of the Ultimate. That's the defining characteristic of nonduality that we are highlighting and that is fundamentally different from the Course.
@@CircleOfAtonement thanks! That makes sense to me. I've always loved Adyashanti and taken several of his workshops (including the no-self one, lol) and found him to be someone more nuanced on the subject, but certainly different than ACIM. All I can say with any confidence is that it's been SO much more helpful to me to just do the workbook as it actually suggests for once, and not try to shoe-horn my own ideas from other teachers in order to make it "all say the same thing" or try to figure it all out!
I'm not convinced that ACIM is not a non-dual teaching. Two passages come to mind: 1) From T.30.III.3-7&8 "For sin is the idea you are alone and separated off from what is whole. 8 And thus it would be necessary for the search for wholeness to be made beyond the boundaries of limits on yourself." 2) From T.27.VIII.8.2 "Into eternity, where all is one, there crept a tiny, mad idea, at which the Son of God remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting did the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment and real effects. Together, we can laugh them both away, and understand that time cannot intrude upon eternity." These two passages seem to confirm that eternity is a place of non-duality while this place where time seems real confirms a belief that we think we're separated but are not. I'm open to be convinced that I'm mistaken even after 30+ years of study.
What I would say is that the Course absolutely teaches that Heaven is a place of oneness, but within that oneness is some kind of differentiation, some kind of individuality. For example, "God, Who encompasses all being, created beings who have everything individually, but who want to share it to increase their joy" (T-4.VII.5:1--FIP edition). Once you understand this idea of oneness yet also some kind of differentiation within the oneness, you will see it everywhere in the Course.
@@CircleOfAtonement Thanks so much for continuing this conversation. I truly appreciate it. I'm checking out that part of the text before continuing with my thoughts. So... here goes. I think the first paragraph of that section is hugely relevant . It says, in part: "³Part of the mind becomes concrete, however, when it splits. ⁴The concrete part believes in the ego, because the ego depends on the concrete. ⁵The ego is the part of the mind that believes your existence is defined by separation." It's simple... for me. Separation is but a belief, not real nor concrete. Referring back to your quote, I think of "beings" as not human and not separate. I believer non-dualism uses the metaphor that we're like waves in the ocean... not separate in any way. I think it's a pretty good metaphor for the "beings" referenced in Course... little drops in the ocean, believing they're separate. Increasing joy is a function of Love, not separation. While I believe in the illusion of separation, I also hold in the Oneness where there is none. I await your thoughts...
Thank you both very much, I am also very grateful that you addressed this issue. I have a bunch of thoughts on what you presented, but I'd like to start with a little joke: "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." ; ) That out of the way, let me really start by saying that I really feel to have a truly fruitful discussion about this and other controversial Course topics, it really would be best to have a dialogue with someone on the other side of the issue, someone who is qualified to talk about it and would do so in a respectful way. This would actually bring the discussion that much further along, partly because I'm not sure that the two sides of this thing are really dialoguing together about it, let alone listening to what the other half has to say or even caring how the other half lives. As far as non-duality goes, I do feel that it is correct to say that ACIM presents a non-dual metaphysics, and I think we can all agree on that in the sense that ultimately, reality (according to Jesus in ACIM) is not dual, there is no separation. The real issue, then, is what that reality actually looks like, and that's where there are differences of opinion. And let's be clear: that's really what they are. Why? Because, at least with ACIM, Jesus does not tell us what "Heaven" looks like, and he makes a point to say that he cannot. You could certainly adduce any number of passages that seem to be saying that in the Oneness of God's reality there are still separate selves, separate entities (God, Christ, Holy Spirit, Son of God...), albeit they are without egos and unified in a wholeness that transcends the sum of their parts. And yet, for any such passages, someone (like me) could come and try to show why those passages seem to be symbolic, metaphorical, and if taken literally, one would be missing the deeper message. So it could well be that the Oneness is a non-dual reality, but there is still some separation, it's just not egoic separation. Again, Jesus does not say one way or another -- he ain't telling. Yet he does seem to imply or say outright in any number of places that God is beyond form, and that the "formless" state is somehow where we're headed in our work with the Course. Does that just mean that in Heaven there are no bodies, or is it going deeper to suggest that there are not even "somebodys" (personalities, selves), which would seem to suggest no separate selves, at least not as we think of it... ? Let's also keep in mind that this whole discussion has been around a very long time, this is not new with ACIM. In the Hindu tradition, for example, Shankara taught advaita vedanta (radical non dualism) in the 8th century, but then others came along to show how, to put it in Course terms, God and His Son are separate entities and there will always be a distinction between them. For example, the Hare Krishnas see non-duality as actually a lower rung on the ladder, as for them the highest achievement and bliss is in worshipping Krishna for all eternity in loving devotion. And the non-dualists say: Well, to each his own. There's no debating preferences! But you guys just can't deal with abstraction! I'm glad that you brought in psychedelics and Stanislav Grof. I actually came to ACIM through my work with ayahuasca and have by this point imbibed the brew around 200 times, and have also been facilitating ceremonies. While I think that ayahuasca has the potential to get you close to the non-dual experience, generally it's not DMT but 5MeoDMT that seems to get people to that. Grof himself has written about his own experience of non-duality with 5Meo. I think if you asked him, he would agree with the ACIM non-dualists. And I'm not sure if you can understand why without having that experience yourself. One thing I really do think it's fair to say is that to even try a psychedelic takes some courage, some willingness to go beyond fear. Think of the fear involved with a substance that you sense might dissolve your whole identity? That is why many people are quite nervous before doing the more potent psychedelics, and why the "ego-death" experience can feel so traumatic. So when the non-dualists say to the dualists that they're afraid of losing their sense of separate selfhood and thus prefer a more comfortable metaphysics, there really might be something to that. And it could very well be that one cannot truly understand ACIM without having that non-dual experience. Which, by the way, like with NDEs, is not something that someone has been conditioned to think is possible before having that experience with a psychedelic substance. And just because so many people have the NDE experience does not necessarily mean that all of those people have experienced the highest reality. "All are called, but few choose to listen," seems to suggest that it is a minority that go all the way due to the great fear and resistance involved. Krishna tells Arjuna something like this in the Bhagavad Gita: Of many seekers, only a few actually realize the undying, eternal Self. Is this all making sense, and are you really listening? Because I'm really speaking for the Course non-dualists here, and trying my level best to present the other side of the picture. I might have said more, but this is already quite long and there is always another day. I'm very happy to dialogue about this issue. Ultimately I feel it comes down to remaining in a humble place of "I-Don't-Know" as none of us really do, not as long as the ego is still alive and kicking. After all, is the Course not about seeing our brother -- all of our brothers -- as our loving self, and not reinforcing separation? Thank you again, and thank you for listening. Peace ~ Allowah
ps. On the issue of reading the Course literally vs. metaphorically, I think the more literal reading that one might call the surface level is there because of Jesus' basic methodology: He does not want to scare us or "terrorize" his students in any way. And thus he puts things in ways that we would only see the deeper meaning once the fear/resistance is no longer there. And the connected point is what he is saying all along: We will see what we want to see, and disregard the rest. Not that Jesus was quoting Paul Simon, but I am ; ) (And the Christ in Paul probably inspired that line...)
Thank you for your very thoughtful response. The main topic I want to focus on, and the main one from the standpoint of this episode, is the issue of what the Course says about Heaven. You say "he [Jesus] ain't telling," but I think he is, to the extent that things can be said about Heaven in this world. There is a very consistent view in the Course: Everyone in Heaven is one; there is no separation. But there is some kind of eternal, real multiplicity. There is God and His one Son, and the one Son contains many, many Sons--"in number infinite," and then there is the Holy Spirit, and angels fit in there somewhere. We can't understand any of this "multiplicity in oneness" in our current condition--that is said many times. And we can't. I certainly can't. But the idea that the Course is truly open to an interpretation in which there is literally no differentiation in Heaven is, I believe, simply incorrect. I think the influence of Ken Wapnick has been very strong here, and has swayed many people in this direction. But it honestly doesn't work. The Course is constantly referring to that multiplicity in Heaven--no separation, but some sort of differentiation. To say that it doesn't mean it needs to be recognized, I believe, as a very audacious move that gives one license to simply reinterpret everything however one wishes. And at that point, we might as well just toss the book. So yes, we can talk about psychedelic ego-death vs. NDEs, and we can talk about nondualism vs. dualism in Eastern thought. Those are interesting and important subjects. But I think where A Course in Miracles is concerned, its viewpoint is very consistent and is not open to a "nondual" interpretation in the sense of contemporary nonduality. I think Ken bent everyone's heads on this level, unfortunately. The Course itself, I believe, is quite clear and consistent.
@@CircleOfAtonement Thank you, too, I very much appreciate your taking the time to address my comments. There's a lot to be said about all of this, of course, and maybe that's part of the teaching -- that we are meant to wrestle a bit with the material and really train our minds in the process, plus learn forgiveness of each other along the way. And that gets to the more fundamental question of whether the Course truly is coming from the highest source and is not itself mistaken. I feel that even this (perhaps especially this) should remain an open question, and yes, the possibility that we even toss the book as offering a false message. I say that, of course, knowing full well that all of us who have been seriously engaged with the Course would not do that. Why? Because it has already helped us, and clearly it seems to be helping many others. But connected to that question is whether "the Voice" that dictated the Course to Helen knew what it/he was doing. Clearly it speaks with an authority and intelligence that seems to far exceed our own, as you have noted. Perhaps it somehow truly did orchestrate the whole chain of events and knew what it was doing from the get-go. Including choosing Helen, Helen choosing Bill, Bill and Helen choosing Ken, etc. But perhaps it also knew, and wrote the Course specifically in such a way, that there would be these different ways of interpreting it, and that would all be part of the teaching and the learning process. (And this is why, for example, he clarified things by saying, "A universal theology is impossible...) What I really don't think it's fair to say is that Ken somehow is at fault for leading ACIM students astray with a teaching that was different than what Jesus and Helen originally meant. My sense is that you can partly account for Ken's theoretical shifts in his later years to the fact that he saw so many ACIM students who were still misunderstanding some things and in suffering even after years of working with the Course. So instead of seeing him as taking ACIM in a whole other direction, we can actually view what Ken was doing as a course correction on his own part, and really wanting to help people to understand the deeper message of the Course. Given what I have just said, and please forgive me if I overstep my bounds here (you'll have to forgive me anyway ; ), I would say that the community is largely divided because Ken has been made out to be a villain, a fall guy. Or you could say, a scapegoat. But really, he was just bringing up the things that we all don't like to look at because they are uncomfortable. Maybe he went a bit too far in that. But the thing is that everyone will find the teacher that they resonate with, and the presentation of ACIM which resonates most with them. Or they will only rely on Holy Spirit as their guide. Or some combination. I just feel that the mistake is in making Ken anything other than the great teacher and person that he truly was. Because after all, these theological differences really do not make such a big difference in the end, because ultimately it comes down to the practice of seeing the Christ in everyone and everything. I mean, we can all agree that God is Unconditional Love, so why does it matter what that looks like in the final analysis? Last night I wrote a response to your video on Oneness and ACIM (good one!), and I just noted that, despite what you insisted, there are enough places in the Course where Jesus does seem to point to a pure non-dual reality. Methodologically speaking, he would seem to be making those passages fewer and farther between merely because he does not want to "terrorize" his students who would be too scared to go on if they really sensed what ego dissolution really means in terms of personal identity. I just don't think you can discount those passages, such as when Jesus says that you will go even beyond the holy face of Christ and the Son will disappear into the Father, and the Father into the Son; or that the Son will fade into the Holy Will of God. Those are just too good for the non-dualists to not jump on and say that Jesus is pointed to something deeper -- and they are not mistaken in that, just as you are not mistaken to point to the many other places in the Course where Jesus seems to be saying something else. I like what you said about how it could be a both/and kind of thing. Certainly it can. But my point is/was that Jesus never really spells it out. He only gives us some indications, but he doesn't come right out and say that Heaven is going to look like this, this, and this, so get ready for it. He's a bit elusive in that regard, perhaps purposefully so. Let's not also forget Jesus' sense of humor and playfulness with words -- he seems to have known just what he was saying and doing. Once again, more to say but thank you for listening and peace! : )
Holy Brother, Jesus states the Course is simplistic, but you Brother have managed to make it appear more convoluted than first year students of the Course I have met. In the Urtext Jesus speaks about Edgar Cayce struggling because of indiscriminate Miracles he is doing, so he is having to enter trance states to try and get guidance. Your ayahuasca appears to be doing the same, this trying to use form to reach higher levels will only usurp your own natural ability to experience this. I have met many ayahuasca users ego suffer from this, the Course is supposed to end questions and confusion, but Brother your like a dog chasing its tail with all these different interpretations. Once you experience the higher levels with Jesus, the metaphorical and literal components are easily identifiable and make complete sense. Jesus explains God created many souls, He even speaks about Our Creations waiting for us to return. He explains We have Created many Worlds to enjoy through eternity and All was created so we would not be alone. Think of an ocean made up of many droplets, We are Complete And Whole Individual Souls, all in the One Mind (Gods) connected and We All have a part of each other within us, so we can COMMUNICATE, in other words a part of me is in you, and a part of you is in me. Another helpful part is where Jesus explains only a small aspect of Christ accepted the ego, so a very small part of Christ appeared to separate, if we were just one self like non dualists claim, then as being only One, we ALL would have had to fall, not an aspect. Finally your point about merging with GOD, is because when we resurrect the mind, we go to the Real World, where we join Jesus, this is a replica of Heaven, where we join Jesus in the Great Crusade to Awaken the Brothers/Sisters who still sleep. Being a replica, it is as close to Heaven as you can get, it's to prepare you for the Last Step taken by GOD, but it also allows you the experience of HEAVEN as you wait and help the others to awaken and choose to ascend. Being an illusion also, the Holy Spirit knows we were used to vision and a body, So to make us feel comfortable He replaces the ego body with a Light Body, ego physical vision with Christ Vision. Christ Vision and Light Body are illusions, in Heaven You are Formless, so when you merge beyond back into God, these disappear and you become pure awareness, which as Jesus states can never BE SEEN OR PICTURED. You mention non dual think we may fear our individual self or awareness being obliterated, actually Jesus comforts Us by Counselling that won't happen, BUT the ego will use this LIE, to prevent You Awakening In GOD, because it will be its own demise. Yes the Awareness will be different, but You will still be a part of it, same way your still a part of your Awareness once you've awakened from a dream in this physical world.
@@ericwallis8690 I feel that what you wrote to me exemplified what I was getting at in my previous response to Emily and Robert's video. What I was saying, and I felt I was being very clear, is that when we make someone else wrong or mistaken, we tend to stop listening to them. For example, once Ken has become the guy that distorted the pure and original Course teaching, then why listen to anything he has to say? And therein seems to be the danger in staying too fixed on one interpretation versus another -- we stop listening. We think we know, and that tends to mean (not always), that others don't know, or got it only partially correct. Robert mentioned "oneupmanship." I was going to say that, while some may be caught in that kind of egoic mindset, others are not and are actually just sincerely attempting to understand what Jesus is saying in his Course. I can only speak for myself, and I know that I am not trying to make anyone wrong and stoke the fires of controversy, but merely seeking greater clarification. I carefully read what you wrote, thank you. I did that even though you began your message by basically putting me down. Was what I wrote convoluted, or making the Course seem convoluted? Not to these eyes. Am I really like a dog chasing my own tail and proposing many different interpretations of ACIM? Only in your eyes if you see that of me. Am I just lost in the world of psychedelics, or is it perhaps that I was guided to begin the process of using ayahuasca by Spirit? Perceptions, perceptions... I could just as easily cast doubt on what you wrote, especially because you seem so sure of yourself but without much to back it up beyond your own reading of ACIM and inner guidance (nothing wrong with that, per se), but I will not do that. I will only say that there is a way that we can discourse with each other that is truly honoring and respectful of the other, not denigrating or belittling in any way. I think Ken had it right when, at the end of his life, he began to give the message: "Above all, be kind." This means, for us Course students, not putting the theology above the unconditional love that we all are and share. For if we are not in that place, I highly doubt that we have fully understood ACIM, and that our ideas of what Heaven looks like are really going to be fully accurate. Why? From what Jesus seems to be saying, we must let go of all of our concepts and be in the place of not knowing. Yes, even after having our own holy instants. The last thing I will say is that you seem to have presented us with a defense of non-dualism in the last part of what you wrote. With all that out of the way, I do appreciate what you wrote and will be reading it again to make sure that I did not miss anything. Finally, I will also just note that a very similar debate is happening in the world of Hindu philosophy. Robert, if you listen to Dr. Edwin Bryant (he's got a lot of stuff on CZcams), you will see someone who is also seeking to show that non-duality (at least as it is commonly presented) is not the final word, nor is it the highest understanding. Not that I necessarily agree with him, but he sure does speak with a great deal of authority and persuasiveness and passion. Thank you all for listening. I know what I wrote may have sounded a bit harsh, but it's all for the purposes of greater clarification and a correction to any unkindness that still lingers within ourselves. Peace
I understand why something like "this is beyond words" might sound evasive, coming from so-called "non-dualists". The "issue", however, is that any formed appearance of/in what you guys call "reality" appears to be contracted, including words. That does not mean that concepts are really real. If they were, separation would be real as well. Words/concepts are sort of like a maze of mirrors-every concept's meaning is simply its relations to other concepts-there's no ground truth, no starting point, no real source to our conceptual networks, nothing that can truly be grasped onto consistently. To me it feels like both the course and (some) non-dual messages are not a philosophy, and in that regard, it is indeed not *really* about words, and the philosophical differences are kinda not the point. There's nothing wrong or bad in "staying open" to see which philosophy is "closer to truth", but the most one can get from philosophical debates is a better-fortified belief system for a while, which is by definition imbued with doubt. Doubt can, however, fall away, taking the energy out of these philosophical "problems".
One of the main reasons I dislike nonduality is the tendency they have to indulge in guru worship. I want to worship God, not some guru! And it's even worse when the gurus have a sex cult surrounding them.
Really enjoyed this video. However, I still believe the Ken Wapnick view the Course is written on two levels with one level being nondual (ultimate reality) and the other level being dual (physical world). I respect Robert and Emily for being the "reform" wing of the Course community with Wapnick/Kavanaugh/Morgan/Renard being the more orthodox wing. There's plenty of room for all views.
Much appreciated! I like the comments on the different worldviews, different truths. For me, I tend towards a relative worldview that seeks to optimize my FELT EXPERIENCE from my chosen worldview and the language I use to attempt to describe said worldview. The key question is, does my chosen definition for "truth" lead to a congruent, consistent model, and does it support the desired felt experience? Asserting that my chosen model IS reality would be a misstep in my view. A model is only a model... "a story," as you say. It seems that the central FELT EXPERIENCE of practitioners of The Course and Non-Duality both can experience inner peace. The words they use to describe their experience is just a model of experience, not the experience itself. The Course seems to be a congruent model. Non-duality also seems to be a congruent model. It's always too much to unpack everything, because it always repacks itself and unpacks again, in my model, and the others as well. ;) What seems fundamental to me is Mystery. Making a choice (which I could call consciousness) seems to delineate a polarity; it calls something "this, not that;" it moves this direction, not that direction. What is the Mystery and what is it that is calling the Mystery this, not that? How would I know? I don't. It becomes all Mystery again. Words may very well all be only fearful questions, disguised as confident statements, intended to help us ignore our uncertainty and navigate the Mystery. Mystery abounds. Getting used to it. And, so appreciative of how ACIM has helped to heal my wounding around the words of the Christian Trinity. I experience Mystery now as Love, God now as Love. This choice for Love is my best choice, and I'm here practicing until my choice is so complete that the Mystery disappears. Thank you for practicing with me! In Love, Dear Friends!
Around 32:30. Robert: the non-dual people are playing at one-upmanship, like we all do,saying our world view is the best. Stop. - the answer is less along the lines of “this teaching is right” and more along the lines of “I don’t know.” Utter bottoming out. The wisdom of insecurity, Alan Watts called it. Come from experience, rather than staying in the conceptual realm - this is the path of the mystic. (Christianity, Catholicism, ACIM, those were my mental/spiritual environments - my entire worlds - for about 20 years each, now non-duality. It fits my experience more closely. But it’s not about thinking, it can’t be held by thought! When the question is asked, to go into thinking is to stop listening. 💓
As we continue to be able to live the course (defencelessness) the questions cease. So words of any contension are ego based. The course lived truer every day ends the discussion. I enjoy your utubes and Thank you
Excellent video! Truth is one, the wise describe it in different ways. Those of us who have studied Vedanta know that there are several versions of it not just Advaita. The author of the Course says that it is about experience and not theology. IMHO we should use the theology (personal/impersonal) that most appeals to us for our experience and that can vary from time to time. I like the way the Urantia Book explores the impersonal versus the personal in sections 105.0-1, 106.9.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. During the years that I’ve practiced the workbook, my spiritual practice is pretty much defined via the course. But I don’t always do the workbook every year and I don’t think the course necessarily suggests endless repetition of the WB. I know the course focuses heavily on guidance and the relevance of direct personal guidance. The last WB lesson strongly emphasizing this. And yet the quality of practice is so different during WB years vs non WB years, the former offering a very solid anchor for the mind. Would just love to hear your thoughts on anchoring daily practice when the concrete direction of the WB isn’t being practiced. I think I heard you Robert once refer to it for yourself as “post workbook practice” or something of the likes. Thank you both for this talk
Brilliant discourse you two nondual Course teachers!🙏 I enjoy the foundational similarity of Jesus's modern Course with ancient yet traditionally interpreted non-dualty. My mind with or without ego in fluence, uses symbolic language to differentiate these ideas. Perhaps a follow up question will reveal comparative worldviews of nondualistic and Course perception in awakening Knowledge of SourceSelf. And: Are Holy Spirit's thoughts symbolized in duality?
Hi Robert, thank you again for this video. I believe that you are interested in helping to heal the fractured ACIM community. I noted in the CE edition of ACIM that you acknowledged that Helen was really the one who edited most of the Course, and she was the primary one responsible for taking out most of those 45,000+ words that has become such a topic of heated discussion. As you know, for years now it has been claimed that it was in fact Ken Wapnick that was the one who swooped in and took over the editorial process, taking the Course in a whole other direction from the trajectory it was on. What I would challenge you to do is to make a public statement to help quell the misinformation that is out there in the Course community. I urge you to clearly state on video, once and for all, that Ken Wapnick did not edit the Course to fit his own preconceptions of what it was. That would be a good start (though just a start) in healing the community as I know that your word would carry weight with many. Otherwise, the situation is somewhat analogous to Donald Trump not actively denying the QAnon conspiracy, and even giving some indication that he favors it. Please forgive me if you have already done this somewhere. I don't think you have as one of your followers (who is prominent in the ACIM world) maintains that Ken was essentially a wolf in sheep's clothing from the start who re-made the Course in his own image to suit his own nefarious ends. Which most of us who know anything about Ken know is just a boldfaced lie, as is much of the negative press he has received over the years. Thank you for hearing this appeal. Peace.
How interesting that you would suggest this. Emily and I are in the beginning stages of preparing a presentation on the CE and why we made it. The evidence is extremely clear that Helen was the main editor. It's sad that people lay that at the feet of Ken, who came onto the scene after the vast majority of the editing had been done. In terms of the Trump/QAnon anology, though, I've already come out more than once and denied that myth about Ken being the main editor and will keep doing so. This podcast is one relatively recent place where we clearly state that Helen was the main editor: czcams.com/video/bKnfzhCILHs/video.htmlsi=C0MekIQpAySy87du While I would like to agree with everything you say here, I do believe that Ken remade the Course in his own image--but as an interpreter, not an editor. So while I sincerely decry the negative tone of much of what's been said about him, I think if you extract the aggressive tone, there is a point in there. But that's part of a different story, not the story of the editing of the Course. In terms of the editing, I will say that I have discovered three areas where the editing was skewed in a direction congenial to Ken and where this happened only in the final editing process--the one he was part of. These three areas are: all references to the Holy Spirit as the Voice OF God changed to Voice FOR God; many references to behavior changed or removed; and many references to the word "will" changed. I think there is good reason to suspect that this was Ken's influence (with Helen's consent, of course). That being said, I think they are really a minor element of the editing story, hardly more than a footnote. If we don't like the editing, Helen is really the one responsible.
@@ACIMRobert Thank you for taking the time to respond, it was good to hear all that. I'm also glad you didn't take me the wrong way. I'm a relatively new Course student, so I was not witness to much of the controversial happenings in the ACIM community that occurred more than 10 years ago. My sense is that people look at the copyright case and other legal actions that were taken by Ken and extrapolate back that he must have been distorting and screwing with things from the very beginning when he came on the scene. But I would take it the other way and say that if Ken is essentially exonerated from having tinkered with the Course at the beginning (except for a few minor things, as you mentioned, and those are somewhat conjectural), then maybe we can also see his later actions in a more positive light, too, particularly in regard to his teaching and his taking the legal actions that he did. After all, he was human and made mistakes, just like the rest of us, it's just that he was in a position such that the smallest mistake he made would come under intense scrutiny, and in his case, intense judgement of his character. But I feel that we can let go of that now, and we can even learn to love him and learn from him. Yes, we have made of Ken an unloving brother. Let us see this brother through the eyes of forgiveness and understanding, and not judgement. I don't completely agree that Ken re-made the Course in his own image. I feel that's an open question. We would really need someone who is completely impartial to say one way or the other. As I'm sure you know, at one point Helen asked Jesus why Ken wasn't struggling with the Course so much when she and Bill were. The answer apparently was that there was no time for that. The implication seemed to be that, yes, Ken was there to fill a very essential role in the whole process, and he had to be fully on board to fulfill that function. I would suggest that to doubt Ken's very essential role is to put the whole thing in question. The best response to that that I've heard is that none of that original group really fully listened to Jesus and carried out his intentions for the Course in full. That's definitely a good point, but still an open question that is really unanswerable. In the 20/20 vision of hindsight, some of us might say that if we were there, we would have listened and carried Jesus' plan out to a t, but who is to say that Jesus did not pick the perfect people for the job -- people who were all imperfect, but that's the point and part of the teaching and forgiveness process. As always, it's really about looking within at our own investment in it being one way or the other. What purpose is it serving? Thank you again for your response and for listening. Peace
@@allowah To be honest: I'm glad that I'm not a member of any Course community or Course Circle, so I can stay above the battleground of items like these. I have no reason to think that Ken remade the Course in his own image, nor as an editor, nor as an interpreter. First: we are all interpreters as soon as we open our mouth and share our take on the Course, Robert, Ken and every other teacher and student of the Course included. Interpreting the Course is not remaking it. What take on the Course works for someone is all that matters. Second: we must never forget, that whatever version of the Course we are using, the overwhelming vast majority of the material in every version is exactly the same. So no version is remaking the Course and it's a rather heavy accusation to say that someone remade the Course in his own image. Third: as I said earlier elsewhere: different students are attracted to different teachers. We are all coming from a different background, so we all deal with the Course in different ways. There is nothing wrong with that. The goal is the same for all of us. So sharing is always better than fighting. In my view the whole controversy around Ken serves no purpose at all, except the ego's. Your points make perfectly sense to me. Thanks for bringing them up. 🕉Shanti.
@@harrypeijs5915 Thank you for chiming in and making all good points. : ) Yes, it would seem difficult to stay free of bias in situations like this if one has any investment in things being one way versus another. In a sense, one's own bias really needs to be addressed first before even addressing the issue in question. My own bias is that I was introduced to ACIM and Ken via Gary Renard, so I do tend to see things through that lens. That is why I am definitely open to hearing the other side of things. In fact, after reading Gary's Disappearance, I immediately looked online to find a critique of it and quickly discovered the Circle of Atonement stuff. It did make me take a step back from the truth of Gary's book, though not completely. Clearly these issues are not easy or uncomplicated, otherwise there wouldn't be such heated debate. I do want to make the suggestion that maybe it's the case that Ken really never went anywhere. Maybe he all along was just doing his best to faithfully serve the greater ACIM community, and to preserve the materials with which he had been entrusted. Perhaps it was that at some point along the line, a kind of mutiny happened (not that he was the captain and he did not present himself as such), and Ken was made to be, as I noted, an unloving brother. Or one who was interpreting the Course in a way that seemed to be imposing his own ideas upon it. And so all he did after that was to stand his ground, which had the effect of making him appear to be attacking others, but really he was just responding to the "mutiny." And as you noted, the mutineers were reacting to Ken's interpretation, but they did not acknowledge that they were just substituting one interpretation for another and essentially doing the very same thing that they found problematic with Ken's approach. This is not to say that Ken did not make any mistakes, nor that he was always completely forgiving and compassionate to those who appeared to be attacking him. I'm just questioning the current narrative about Ken that I see online, even among prominent ACIM teachers. There seems to be a lot of misinformation and also an attempt to make Ken look as bad as possible. We know what happens when the ego gets in, right? It just distorts and twists things to make the strongest case in its favor. So now Ken lied about all of these things, tried to bring down all of these other Course teachers, did this and that, etc. Hey, let's calm down and try to look at all of this reasonably, and if we do, we will see it's not so easy to make any kind of judgment one way or the other. So yes, Harry, and what you said is really all things that Ken himself said -- that you will get the Course whichever version you use, and everyone is free to follow the teacher/interpreter they most resonate with and if it's working for you, then awesome, because that's what it's there for. The only caution here is to not make other Course teachers wrong in order to promote your own interpretations. You may have valid points, but when expressed in any kind of categorical or dogmatic way, one seems to be missing a key ingredient of what Jesus is leading us to: open-mindedness and the willingness to see that maybe you don’t have as great a handle on things as you think. Peace to all 💫💕💫
@@allowah Thanks for your reply and shedding light on your background. I started doing the Course in 2014 together with my beloved wife and with no teacher at all. She read a few exerpts of the Course online and told me that sounds great, let's order that book. First time doing the Workbook took us one and a half year. First time doing the Text took us much longer. In 2017 she discovered Gary's Disappearance and reading that book was an eye-opener for both of us, for by reading it we got finally what the Course was really about. Just as you, through Gary's books we got more interested in Ken's teachings on the Course. So you see we have a similar background as you have (although I wouldn't use the word "bias" in this context for both my wife and I can only be grateful for the the light both Gary and Ken shed on the Course) with one exeption: all the time we knew not that there was such a "heated debate" over Ken. I got to know about that only by listening to this podcast we both are writing on now. The title "Is ACIM nondual?" drew my attention. Honestly I don't want to explore this debate further, for I see it as an ego distraction which prevents us from doing the work of the Course itself: forgiveness is our only function here as Sons and Daughters of love and still dreaming the silly ego dream of separation. Besides, the Course says clearly that it is a beginning, not the end and that we learn to rely on and follow the inner teacher and not any outer one. Now I know about this debate, I can imagine what happened inside the community of the followers of the teachings of the historical Jesus two thousand years ago in this ego dream of separation, when their brother, friend and teacher was gone and the ego took over. Last word about open-mindedness: it's guaranteed when we follow the instruction and exercise from my favorite lesson 189. I will quote it as a whole here: "7 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. ²Empty 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. ³Hold onto nothing. ⁴Do not bring with you one thought the past has taught, nor one belief you ever learned before from anything. ⁵Forget this world, forget this course, and come with wholly empty hands unto your God." (W-189.7:1-5) It's a great remedy against all dogmas as well as against all "heated debates". Peace, joy and love to, with and for all! 🕉Shanti
For my own clarity if you don't mind, even non-duality that embraces the "absolute and the relative" as one says: yes, a form appears from nothing that looks like Emily with unique attributes, and is both emptiness and form, she is basically a mirage in essence. Just an appearance that mind makes into something separate that isn't really there. Whereas in ACIM, while minds are interconnected and 'one,' Emily (not the body but the mind) actually was created by God and both 'exist.' Does this match?
You missed the pointing of all these teachings pointing to the same understanding beyond concepts and language. The point of these teachings is to disolve the conditioning put in place by life which causes the experience of psychological suffering by putting into question the prior unquestioned beliefs experienced as absolute. Once the past conditioning is seen to be at best a perspective, rather than the truth both the past conditioning as well as the new spiritual concepts (ACIM or nondual labelled) are free to fall away as their purpose has been fulfilled and no longer necessary, exposing the truth of who ONE is that has always been present but overlooked. They simply are pointing at the same center from different perspectives with the same intention. What is important is that they point to the same center and it is not important how one gets there. Just a perspective, not the truth
“Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God.” Love Robert and Emily and respect their teaching, but doesn't this line above from the Course show that ACIM is a non-dual system. Certainly, our lives in the physical world are usually dual, but our true existence beyond the physical world is non-dual and connected as one. What am I missing?
@@OurFamilyInMotion You’re missing that two seemingly paradoxical things can be true at the same time. We are one with God AND He is the greater one so there is some distinction there. Both can be at once. - Emily ♥️
@@CircleOfAtonement Thanks. So interesting. Love how you and Robert study the Course with such thoughtfulness. To me, the first represents our true oneness while the second is the separate self/ego in the physical world. One is real and one is the ego.
Where in the course does it say that reality in heaven is made up of "persons" (unbounded or not)? I think this is a misunderstanding and perhaps even a last-ditch attempt by the ego to hang on to specialness. I usually love Robert Perry's take on things but this one is off. If you have been working the lessons and course and meditating with the Holy spirit, I'm not sure how you can come to such conclusions that there are separate distinctions of any kind in reality. The position of non-duailty is misconstrued. The most I can think of regarding this is that we are creations of God and also have our own creations, so in the extension or shining oneness of creation there is some distinction as to creator and created, however this does not indicate "personhood" as we experience on earth.
That's what they are saying - what you described. I don't think by "person" he means a human, but a being. I can see where using "person" can be an issue. The word person derives from persona or persone which means mask or cover.
I tend to agree. This is very confusing and I don't think Robert fully understands nonduality. Also, nonduality is much more consistent with the Wapnick view of ACIM, which I know Robert has not agreed with. Wapnick talked about Level One which is essentially nonduality while Level Two which is the arena of the physical world which is where Robert likes to focus. If you see ACIM as Level Two then it's not similar to nonduality. If you see ACIM as Level One then it is.
@@OurFamilyInMotion I tend to agree with you also , especially what you say about the Levels. Before I studied and practiced the Course I studied and practiced the non-dual teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi and the non-dual Buddhist tradition of Dzogchen and the nondual teachings of Jesus in the gospel of Thomas. Thanks to that I could relate immediately to what Ken Wapnick calls Level One of the Course. In fact I recognized the Oneness of the essence of these teachings, without saying these teachings are the same. I like what Gary Renard in his book The Lifetimes When Jesus and Buddha Knew Each Other calls 'The Ladder of Enlightenment'. We all in a way climb that ladder when we go from dualism via semidualism to nondualism and ultimately to pure nondualism before the ladders disappears and we finally awaken completely from the dream. Concerning the near death experiences I would like to remark that they are still experiences in the dream of separation and, however precious they seem to be, they are still not the ultimate Reality or the Heaven the Course is talking about. According to the Course death is an illusion and near death is also an illusion and to experience Heaven we don't have to "die", for Heaven is a state of mind. For me Cindy Lora-Renard is correct in what she writes in Heaven is Now and what the Course says: "The world is not left by death but by truth..." (T3.VII.6:11)
@@harrypeijs5915 Interesting. Robert and Emily are doing a great job shinning the light on these important topics. I'm hoping they're willing to do an interview and discussion with someone like Rupert Spira as that tends to be how we learn and how we get closer and closer to the truth.
@@OurFamilyInMotion I agree with Robert and Emily having a conversation with someone like Rupert Spira. There are people in the Course community who already had a conversation with him. Like Lisa Natoli and Bill Free. I also could welcome a conversation with someone in the community who can shine the light on Ken Wapnick's take on the Course.
Regarding the paradox of distinct individual entities being One. I understand that all these entities are God's creative thoughts, and therefore, Sons of God. I don't understand why there is distinction between all these created entities i.e. the Son of God, the Holy Spirit, the Angels...(not to mention the creations of the Son of God). Is the distinction based in function? That appears to be true for the Holy Spirit, created as God's answer to the separation, but Angels are much less clear to me.
Who knows why God created things that way? But the basic idea is that He created "beings" who are each themselves yet who are also one with everything and even contain everything within themselves--the whole is in each part. It takes a while to get used to this idea. But the upshot is that, in this view, you will spend eternity still being yourself, yet completely one with everyone else, and containing everyone else within yourself, while being in perfect relationship with them. One might see that as the best of both oneness and individuality.
So impressed that you two are tackling this very controversial topic. Would love to see you interview Rupert Spira who is such a eloquent teacher of non-duality and who might be able to correct some misconceptions. For example, I believe non-duality does teach that there are separate selves, but that these separate selves are interconnected elements of awareness. It also teaches that an illusion of a separate self is created by our false belief that our thoughts are who we are. The work is in allowing awareness to flow through our separate selves rather than our thought/emotion created false selves. In other words, we can have thoughts and we can have free will, but the key is not believe that these thoughts are who we are.
@@sonyaparkin7841 Would be good to hear this discussed with Rupert as I don't believe that nonduality believes there is no decision maker or thinker. I believe it does posit that we are a free will decision maker who can choose awareness vs. the separate self (belief that we are our thoughts).
@@OurFamilyInMotion@OurFamilyInMotion The one mind is the decision maker, not the made-up individual self. Nonduality or Advaita Vedanta does say that it is one consciousness and everything is a functioning within that consciousness. It is the one son of God. Consciousness will eventually disappear into the heart of God once atonement is complete in time. There's hardly any difference between ACIM and nonduality but ACIM goes one step further and directly teaches forgiveness instead of going round and round and talk about maya, awareness, etc like nonduality does. Course gives us a practical approach. The best teacher of Advaita Vedanta or nonduality I found on YT is Swami Sarvapriyananda. I've watched hundreds of his video lectures, the best teacher out there! He has one discussion with Deepak Chopra on consciousness. Look it up on YT.
Beautiful nuanced talk and VERY well framed introduction.
Lovely. I am a student of both and value this discussion. ‘Particularly towards the end of the video, the beauty of caring for each other as a natural and divine expansion. Thank you both.
I too am a student of both, and value this discussion.
So glad that someone is speaking about this
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I knew intuitively what you are saying is true, but never had the concepts clear enough to express it. I too came to this understanding by watching near death experience and studying the Course. Thanks for your voice and bringing it forward!
Bernado and Rupert are excellent examples to pick! Well done! 🔥
Thank you Robert and Emily, very much enjoyed your insights. I have been a student of the Course since 1993 and since 2012 I also listened to the various non-dual teachers you specifically mentioned. I totally get your point of making a distinction between these two views of reality. I greatly appreciate the non-dual teachers, but deep inside i felt for a while that there’s something missing, something that the Course is giving, so i felt a strong pull lately to deeply immerse myself again into studying the Course. In trust and peace. Rolf
Thank you, Robert and Emily ❤
There’s a lot of similarity (according to my study and understanding) between the Srimad Bhagavatam and A Course In Miracles.the SB describes the personal and impersonal features of Godhead and us as united spirits.
It’s really helped me understand ACIM and the SB seems to corroborate with ACIM. Really interesting to see that the same truths are expounded in both (again, according to my study).
Yes. Thank you for the clarity, wisdom and sanity of this discussion🙏💖
Thank you for an excellent discussion of this subject that is of fundamental importance to a true understanding of the Course’s message.
It goes to the heart of the ages-old philosophical dilemma between being and nothingness. Which one we assign to ultimate reality is crucial to both the direction of our spiritual journey and way we live our life.
I’ve long thought that you don’t need to go much further than the very term ‘non dualism’ to see that there is an inherent contradiction here. Non dual implies ‘not two but one’, however if the one is defined by a negation of the two (or many), then this itself creates a dualism between the one and the many!
The only way duality can be dissolved is if the one embraces it, which is without a doubt the way that God is described in the Course. It is also the way we reawaken ourselves to Him.
Interestingly, this attitude of dissociation/withdrawal (negation of self) rather than extension/joining is characteristic to those who practice non dualism in its most radical form, such as neo advaita.
These people often become totally detached from all of their relationships, sometimes to the point of no longer recognizing their own children. There are even associations to help people recover from deep depression and other issues resulting from such practices.
The error of denying the self is cautioned against throughout the Course.
Clearly the undoing of the ego is a very important first step, but this is only in order to allow our awareness to be filled up with the love of God: a state of certainty, joy and expansiveness which naturally leads us to join with other minds.
To get stuck on the first step of ego-watching is an error that Jesus repeatedly warns us against! And it seems to me that this is the fundamental error in Ken’s teaching, as well as in non duality.
The paradox of the coexistence of the one and the many in the kingdom of God is one that I have pondered a great deal, and I think you’re right in stating that it is simply beyond the grasp of our linear thinking brains.
However I do think that there is a key way in to approaching an understanding of it in the important distinction Jesus makes between knowing and perception. This is introduced early in the Course and continues throughout as a core concept.
God, heaven and our true Self are defined by knowing, whereas perception is a characteristic of our separated self.
(“4 Consciousness was the first split that you introduced into yourself. ²You became a perceiver rather than a creator in the true sense. ³Consciousness is correctly identified as the domain of the ego. [CE T-3.VI.4:1-3]”)
This state of pure knowing is one of fullness, certainty, eternally changeless but perpetually giving of itself. In this state it’s possible to know others, but not to perceive them. It’s equally impossible to perceive separation.
Creation dictates that there is more than one, but no difference could ever be perceived, instead only likeness is known and shared. Perhaps it is through pure knowing, so hard for us to imagine, that the many can exist within the one.
Non dualism often refers to consciousness or awareness as the ground state of reality, but this again stops too soon at the first stage of separation.
I totally agree that NDE’s are a very significant proof of love, fullness and joy as the ultimate Truth of all existence.
Fittingly, today’s lesson is all about taking the step beyond the dismissal of the world, and it contains a beautiful description of what lies beyond:
4 Yet even they will be exchanged at last for what we cannot speak of. ²For you go from there to where words fail entirely, into a silence where the language is unspoken and yet surely understood. ³Communication, unambiguous and plain as day, remains unlimited for all eternity. ⁴And God Himself speaks to His Son, as His Son speaks to Him. ⁵Their language has no words, for what They say cannot be symbolized. ⁶Their knowledge is direct and wholly shared and wholly one. [CE W-129.4]
Thank you for this topic of discussion. It sparked so many open questions and avenues for further exploration. I hope there will be a part two.😊 I am curious about your thoughts on the “happy dream “, “projection creates perception” and the Course idea that everything is an illusion, including our bodies, and how we allow the Holy Spirit to re-purpose what we made as a communication device for love. All of these ideas in relation to non-dual teachings. 🙏 with much gratitude.
Ooooh I can’t tell you how deeply this resonates with me and how much I appreciate your work in embracing and illuminating the Course’s perspective on this. I especially love the reminder that we need to focus on egoless relationships with our brothers and sisters in the world.
I think it means so much to me to celebrate the magnificence of our individuality within the equality of one mind because I have had many experiences of animals in my life leaving their body and returning in spirit to celebrate our journey together and they share wisdom they have now beyond their body. Every time this has happened their individual nature and being has been so clear and so utterly knowable for me, that there is no doubt in my mind that we stay ‘ourselves’. The animals have no ego in this state, and they have been so joyful and so expansive and so unlimited in their love, it is quite remarkable. One time one particular animal had been one species in her relationship with me, and when she returned I somehow knew, without any doubt that her ‘natural’ species as a separate animal was different and she presented herself as that, maybe because she had embodied again already, I don’t know, and she shared with me all kinds of fascinating things about that species, and somehow the characteristics came through her spirit. And there was no separation in our minds.. that was obvious.
So I would say there is a lot we don’t usually experience directly and therefore understand fully in a body.
I also feel from my own process with my awakening, that the ego is less threatened by Non Duality, perhaps because of the less intimate nature of it.. so it is a phase to get through on the path to accepting ourselves. 💛
Thank you, being a near death experiencer myself, I agree with Robert’s perspective. Love how course feels true to my death experience. 💝
There is no place or time where God ends and I begin as there is no point where the Sun ends and the ray of its light begins.
My Father and I are one yet my Father is grander than me.
A lot of non-dual teaching talks about the absolute and the relative. "Absolute" being the unbound, formless, complete unity, "relative" being the appearance of forms and separate individuals. Non-duality, at least as Adyashanti for example teaches, is that the absolute formless emptiness and the separate forms are actually not two separate things. There seems to be a modern appearance, from my view, that "non-dual" means only the absolute formless emptiness side, rather than formless AND form paradoxically are there and not separate from each other. The Heart Sutra says form is emptiness, emptiness is form. I'm not an expert on these matters by any means but it is an interesting distinction, and it does seem like a lot of this conversation is taking from the view that 'non-duality' only refers to the absolute (which plenty of modern teachers seem to put out), what do you think?
I can't really say whether today's nondual teachers are reflecting that principle from the Heart Sutra. But either way, I don't think it's particularly germane to the conversation we are having, since either way, there is no self to think, choose, or do, either on the level of the individual or on the level of the Ultimate. That's the defining characteristic of nonduality that we are highlighting and that is fundamentally different from the Course.
@@CircleOfAtonement thanks! That makes sense to me. I've always loved Adyashanti and taken several of his workshops (including the no-self one, lol) and found him to be someone more nuanced on the subject, but certainly different than ACIM. All I can say with any confidence is that it's been SO much more helpful to me to just do the workbook as it actually suggests for once, and not try to shoe-horn my own ideas from other teachers in order to make it "all say the same thing" or try to figure it all out!
@@InnerWorkWithEvan That's exactly what we're saying. Thank you. ❤
I take great joy in the clarity with which you speak. Love is the way I walk in gratitude.
I'm not convinced that ACIM is not a non-dual teaching. Two passages come to mind: 1) From T.30.III.3-7&8 "For sin is the idea you are alone and separated off from what is whole. 8 And thus it would be necessary for the search for wholeness to be made beyond the boundaries of limits on yourself." 2) From T.27.VIII.8.2 "Into eternity, where all is one, there crept a tiny, mad idea, at which the Son of God remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting did the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment and real effects. Together, we can laugh them both away, and understand that time cannot intrude upon eternity." These two passages seem to confirm that eternity is a place of non-duality while this place where time seems real confirms a belief that we think we're separated but are not. I'm open to be convinced that I'm mistaken even after 30+ years of study.
What I would say is that the Course absolutely teaches that Heaven is a place of oneness, but within that oneness is some kind of differentiation, some kind of individuality. For example, "God, Who encompasses all being, created beings who have everything individually, but who want to share it to increase their joy" (T-4.VII.5:1--FIP edition). Once you understand this idea of oneness yet also some kind of differentiation within the oneness, you will see it everywhere in the Course.
@@CircleOfAtonement Thanks so much for continuing this conversation. I truly appreciate it. I'm checking out that part of the text before continuing with my thoughts. So... here goes. I think the first paragraph of that section is hugely relevant . It says, in part: "³Part of the mind becomes concrete, however, when it splits. ⁴The concrete part believes in the ego, because the ego depends on the concrete. ⁵The ego is the part of the mind that believes your existence is defined by separation." It's simple... for me. Separation is but a belief, not real nor concrete. Referring back to your quote, I think of "beings" as not human and not separate. I believer non-dualism uses the metaphor that we're like waves in the ocean... not separate in any way. I think it's a pretty good metaphor for the "beings" referenced in Course... little drops in the ocean, believing they're separate. Increasing joy is a function of Love, not separation. While I believe in the illusion of separation, I also hold in the Oneness where there is none. I await your thoughts...
Thank you both very much, I am also very grateful that you addressed this issue.
I have a bunch of thoughts on what you presented, but I'd like to start with a little joke:
"Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." ; )
That out of the way, let me really start by saying that I really feel to have a truly fruitful discussion about this and other controversial
Course topics, it really would be best to have a dialogue with someone on the other side of the issue, someone who is qualified to talk about it and would do so in a respectful way. This would actually bring the discussion that much further along, partly because I'm not sure that the two sides of this thing are really dialoguing together about it, let alone listening to what the other half has to say or even caring how the other half lives.
As far as non-duality goes, I do feel that it is correct to say that ACIM presents a non-dual metaphysics, and I think we can all agree on that in the sense that ultimately, reality (according to Jesus in ACIM) is not dual, there is no separation. The real issue, then, is what that reality actually looks like, and that's where there are differences of opinion. And let's be clear: that's really what they are. Why? Because, at least with ACIM, Jesus does not tell us what "Heaven" looks like, and he makes a point to say that he cannot. You could certainly adduce any number of passages that seem to be saying that in the Oneness of God's reality there are still separate selves, separate entities (God, Christ, Holy Spirit, Son of God...), albeit they are without egos and unified in a wholeness that transcends the sum of their parts. And yet, for any such passages, someone (like me) could come and try to show why those passages seem to be symbolic, metaphorical, and if taken literally, one would be missing the deeper message.
So it could well be that the Oneness is a non-dual reality, but there is still some separation, it's just not egoic separation. Again, Jesus does not say one way or another -- he ain't telling. Yet he does seem to imply or say outright in any number of places that God is beyond form, and that the "formless" state is somehow where we're headed in our work with the Course. Does that just mean that in Heaven there are no bodies, or is it going deeper to suggest that there are not even "somebodys" (personalities, selves), which would seem to suggest no separate selves, at least not as we think of it... ?
Let's also keep in mind that this whole discussion has been around a very long time, this is not new with ACIM. In the Hindu tradition, for example, Shankara taught advaita vedanta (radical non dualism) in the 8th century, but then others came along to show how, to put it in Course terms, God and His Son are separate entities and there will always be a distinction between them. For example, the Hare Krishnas see non-duality as actually a lower rung on the ladder, as for them the highest achievement and bliss is in worshipping Krishna for all eternity in loving devotion. And the non-dualists say: Well, to each his own. There's no debating preferences! But you guys just can't deal with abstraction!
I'm glad that you brought in psychedelics and Stanislav Grof. I actually came to ACIM through my work with ayahuasca and have by this point imbibed the brew around 200 times, and have also been facilitating ceremonies. While I think that ayahuasca has the potential to get you close to the non-dual experience, generally it's not DMT but 5MeoDMT that seems to get people to that. Grof himself has written about his own experience of non-duality with 5Meo. I think if you asked him, he would agree with the ACIM non-dualists. And I'm not sure if you can understand why without having that experience yourself. One thing I really do think it's fair to say is that to even try a psychedelic takes some courage, some willingness to go beyond fear. Think of the fear involved with a substance that you sense might dissolve your whole identity? That is why many people are quite nervous before doing the more potent psychedelics, and why the "ego-death" experience can feel so traumatic.
So when the non-dualists say to the dualists that they're afraid of losing their sense of separate selfhood and thus prefer a more comfortable metaphysics, there really might be something to that. And it could very well be that one cannot truly understand ACIM without having that non-dual experience. Which, by the way, like with NDEs, is not something that someone has been conditioned to think is possible before having that experience with a psychedelic substance. And just because so many people have the NDE experience does not necessarily mean that all of those people have experienced the highest reality. "All are called, but few choose to listen," seems to suggest that it is a minority that go all the way due to the great fear and resistance involved. Krishna tells Arjuna something like this in the Bhagavad Gita: Of many seekers, only a few actually realize the undying, eternal Self.
Is this all making sense, and are you really listening?
Because I'm really speaking for the Course non-dualists here, and trying my level best to present the other side of the picture. I might have said more, but this is already quite long and there is always another day. I'm very happy to dialogue about this issue. Ultimately I feel it comes down to remaining in a humble place of "I-Don't-Know" as none of us really do, not as long as the ego is still alive and kicking. After all, is the Course not about seeing our brother -- all of our brothers -- as our loving self, and not reinforcing separation?
Thank you again, and thank you for listening. Peace ~ Allowah
ps. On the issue of reading the Course literally vs. metaphorically, I think the more literal reading that one might call the surface level is there because of Jesus' basic methodology: He does not want to scare us or "terrorize" his students in any way. And thus he puts things in ways that we would only see the deeper meaning once the fear/resistance is no longer there. And the connected point is what he is saying all along: We will see what we want to see, and disregard the rest. Not that Jesus was quoting Paul Simon, but I am ; ) (And the Christ in Paul probably inspired that line...)
Thank you for your very thoughtful response. The main topic I want to focus on, and the main one from the standpoint of this episode, is the issue of what the Course says about Heaven. You say "he [Jesus] ain't telling," but I think he is, to the extent that things can be said about Heaven in this world. There is a very consistent view in the Course: Everyone in Heaven is one; there is no separation. But there is some kind of eternal, real multiplicity. There is God and His one Son, and the one Son contains many, many Sons--"in number infinite," and then there is the Holy Spirit, and angels fit in there somewhere. We can't understand any of this "multiplicity in oneness" in our current condition--that is said many times. And we can't. I certainly can't. But the idea that the Course is truly open to an interpretation in which there is literally no differentiation in Heaven is, I believe, simply incorrect. I think the influence of Ken Wapnick has been very strong here, and has swayed many people in this direction. But it honestly doesn't work. The Course is constantly referring to that multiplicity in Heaven--no separation, but some sort of differentiation. To say that it doesn't mean it needs to be recognized, I believe, as a very audacious move that gives one license to simply reinterpret everything however one wishes. And at that point, we might as well just toss the book.
So yes, we can talk about psychedelic ego-death vs. NDEs, and we can talk about nondualism vs. dualism in Eastern thought. Those are interesting and important subjects. But I think where A Course in Miracles is concerned, its viewpoint is very consistent and is not open to a "nondual" interpretation in the sense of contemporary nonduality. I think Ken bent everyone's heads on this level, unfortunately. The Course itself, I believe, is quite clear and consistent.
@@CircleOfAtonement Thank you, too, I very much appreciate your taking the time to address my comments. There's a lot to be said about all of this, of course, and maybe that's part of the teaching -- that we are meant to wrestle a bit with the material and really train our minds in the process, plus learn forgiveness of each other along the way. And that gets to the more fundamental question of whether the Course truly is coming from the highest source and is not itself mistaken. I feel that even this (perhaps especially this) should remain an open question, and yes, the possibility that we even toss the book as offering a false message. I say that, of course, knowing full well that all of us who have been seriously engaged with the Course would not do that. Why? Because it has already helped us, and clearly it seems to be helping many others.
But connected to that question is whether "the Voice" that dictated the Course to Helen knew what it/he was doing. Clearly it speaks with an authority and intelligence that seems to far exceed our own, as you have noted. Perhaps it somehow truly did orchestrate the whole chain of events and knew what it was doing from the get-go. Including choosing Helen, Helen choosing Bill, Bill and Helen choosing Ken, etc. But perhaps it also knew, and wrote the Course specifically in such a way, that there would be these different ways of interpreting it, and that would all be part of the teaching and the learning process. (And this is why, for example, he clarified things by saying, "A universal theology is impossible...)
What I really don't think it's fair to say is that Ken somehow is at fault for leading ACIM students astray with a teaching that was different than what Jesus and Helen originally meant. My sense is that you can partly account for Ken's theoretical shifts in his later years to the fact that he saw so many ACIM students who were still misunderstanding some things and in suffering even after years of working with the Course. So instead of seeing him as taking ACIM in a whole other direction, we can actually view what Ken was doing as a course correction on his own part, and really wanting to help people to understand the deeper message of the Course.
Given what I have just said, and please forgive me if I overstep my bounds here (you'll have to forgive me anyway ; ), I would say that the community is largely divided because Ken has been made out to be a villain, a fall guy. Or you could say, a scapegoat. But really, he was just bringing up the things that we all don't like to look at because they are uncomfortable. Maybe he went a bit too far in that. But the thing is that everyone will find the teacher that they resonate with, and the presentation of ACIM which resonates most with them. Or they will only rely on Holy Spirit as their guide. Or some combination. I just feel that the mistake is in making Ken anything other than the great teacher and person that he truly was. Because after all, these theological differences really do not make such a big difference in the end, because ultimately it comes down to the practice of seeing the Christ in everyone and everything. I mean, we can all agree that God is Unconditional Love, so why does it matter what that looks like in the final analysis?
Last night I wrote a response to your video on Oneness and ACIM (good one!), and I just noted that, despite what you insisted, there are enough places in the Course where Jesus does seem to point to a pure non-dual reality. Methodologically speaking, he would seem to be making those passages fewer and farther between merely because he does not want to "terrorize" his students who would be too scared to go on if they really sensed what ego dissolution really means in terms of personal identity. I just don't think you can discount those passages, such as when Jesus says that you will go even beyond the holy face of Christ and the Son will disappear into the Father, and the Father into the Son; or that the Son will fade into the Holy Will of God. Those are just too good for the non-dualists to not jump on and say that Jesus is pointed to something deeper -- and they are not mistaken in that, just as you are not mistaken to point to the many other places in the Course where Jesus seems to be saying something else.
I like what you said about how it could be a both/and kind of thing. Certainly it can. But my point is/was that Jesus never really spells it out. He only gives us some indications, but he doesn't come right out and say that Heaven is going to look like this, this, and this, so get ready for it. He's a bit elusive in that regard, perhaps purposefully so. Let's not also forget Jesus' sense of humor and playfulness with words -- he seems to have known just what he was saying and doing.
Once again, more to say but thank you for listening and peace! : )
Holy Brother,
Jesus states the Course is simplistic, but you Brother have managed to make it appear more convoluted than first year students of the Course I have met.
In the Urtext Jesus speaks about Edgar Cayce struggling because of indiscriminate Miracles he is doing, so he is having to enter trance states to try and get guidance.
Your ayahuasca appears to be doing the same, this trying to use form to reach higher levels will only usurp your own natural ability to experience this.
I have met many ayahuasca users ego suffer from this, the Course is supposed to end questions and confusion, but Brother your like a dog chasing its tail with all these different interpretations.
Once you experience the higher levels with Jesus, the metaphorical and literal components are easily identifiable and make complete sense.
Jesus explains God created many souls, He even speaks about Our Creations waiting for us to return.
He explains We have Created many Worlds to enjoy through eternity and All was created so we would not be alone.
Think of an ocean made up of many droplets, We are Complete And Whole Individual Souls, all in the One Mind (Gods) connected and We All have a part of each other within us, so we can COMMUNICATE, in other words a part of me is in you, and a part of you is in me.
Another helpful part is where Jesus explains only a small aspect of Christ accepted the ego, so a very small part of Christ appeared to separate, if we were just one self like non dualists claim, then as being only One, we ALL would have had to fall, not an aspect.
Finally your point about merging with GOD, is because when we resurrect the mind, we go to the Real World, where we join Jesus, this is a replica of Heaven, where we join Jesus in the Great Crusade to Awaken the Brothers/Sisters who still sleep.
Being a replica, it is as close to Heaven as you can get, it's to prepare you for the Last Step taken by GOD, but it also allows you the experience of HEAVEN as you wait and help the others to awaken and choose to ascend.
Being an illusion also, the Holy Spirit knows we were used to vision and a body, So to make us feel comfortable He replaces the ego body with a Light Body, ego physical vision with Christ Vision.
Christ Vision and Light Body are illusions, in Heaven You are Formless, so when you merge beyond back into God, these disappear and you become pure awareness, which as Jesus states can never BE SEEN OR PICTURED.
You mention non dual think we may fear our individual self or awareness being obliterated, actually Jesus comforts Us by Counselling that won't happen, BUT the ego will use this LIE, to prevent You Awakening In GOD, because it will be its own demise.
Yes the Awareness will be different, but You will still be a part of it, same way your still a part of your Awareness once you've awakened from a dream in this physical world.
@@ericwallis8690 I feel that what you wrote to me exemplified what I was getting at in my previous response to Emily and Robert's video. What I was saying, and I felt I was being very clear, is that when we make someone else wrong or mistaken, we tend to stop listening to them.
For example, once Ken has become the guy that distorted the pure and original Course teaching, then why listen to anything he has to say? And therein seems to be the danger in staying too fixed on one interpretation versus another -- we stop listening. We think we know, and that tends to mean (not always), that others don't know, or got it only partially correct.
Robert mentioned "oneupmanship." I was going to say that, while some may be caught in that kind of egoic mindset, others are not and are actually just sincerely attempting to understand what Jesus is saying in his Course. I can only speak for myself, and I know that I am not trying to make anyone wrong and stoke the fires of controversy, but merely seeking greater clarification.
I carefully read what you wrote, thank you. I did that even though you began your message by basically putting me down. Was what I wrote convoluted, or making the Course seem convoluted? Not to these eyes. Am I really like a dog chasing my own tail and proposing many different interpretations of ACIM? Only in your eyes if you see that of me. Am I just lost in the world of psychedelics, or is it perhaps that I was guided to begin the process of using ayahuasca by Spirit? Perceptions, perceptions...
I could just as easily cast doubt on what you wrote, especially because you seem so sure of yourself but without much to back it up beyond your own reading of ACIM and inner guidance (nothing wrong with that, per se), but I will not do that. I will only say that there is a way that we can discourse with each other that is truly honoring and respectful of the other, not denigrating or belittling in any way.
I think Ken had it right when, at the end of his life, he began to give the message: "Above all, be kind." This means, for us Course students, not putting the theology above the unconditional love that we all are and share. For if we are not in that place, I highly doubt that we have fully understood ACIM, and that our ideas of what Heaven looks like are really going to be fully accurate. Why? From what Jesus seems to be saying, we must let go of all of our concepts and be in the place of not knowing. Yes, even after having our own holy instants.
The last thing I will say is that you seem to have presented us with a defense of non-dualism in the last part of what you wrote.
With all that out of the way, I do appreciate what you wrote and will be reading it again to make sure that I did not miss anything.
Finally, I will also just note that a very similar debate is happening in the world of Hindu philosophy. Robert, if you listen to Dr. Edwin Bryant (he's got a lot of stuff on CZcams), you will see someone who is also seeking to show that non-duality (at least as it is commonly presented) is not the final word, nor is it the highest understanding. Not that I necessarily agree with him, but he sure does speak with a great deal of authority and persuasiveness and passion.
Thank you all for listening. I know what I wrote may have sounded a bit harsh, but it's all for the purposes of greater clarification and a correction to any unkindness that still lingers within ourselves. Peace
I understand why something like "this is beyond words" might sound evasive, coming from so-called "non-dualists". The "issue", however, is that any formed appearance of/in what you guys call "reality" appears to be contracted, including words. That does not mean that concepts are really real. If they were, separation would be real as well. Words/concepts are sort of like a maze of mirrors-every concept's meaning is simply its relations to other concepts-there's no ground truth, no starting point, no real source to our conceptual networks, nothing that can truly be grasped onto consistently. To me it feels like both the course and (some) non-dual messages are not a philosophy, and in that regard, it is indeed not *really* about words, and the philosophical differences are kinda not the point. There's nothing wrong or bad in "staying open" to see which philosophy is "closer to truth", but the most one can get from philosophical debates is a better-fortified belief system for a while, which is by definition imbued with doubt. Doubt can, however, fall away, taking the energy out of these philosophical "problems".
Great discussion. I know its a good one when i have to listen to it a couple of times. Thanks for explaining this in a way thats understandable.
This is one of the best acim video I have ever watched.
As someone who's not very fond of nonduality, this video is refreshing.
One of the main reasons I dislike nonduality is the tendency they have to indulge in guru worship. I want to worship God, not some guru! And it's even worse when the gurus have a sex cult surrounding them.
Really enjoyed this video. However, I still believe the Ken Wapnick view the Course is written on two levels with one level being nondual (ultimate reality) and the other level being dual (physical world). I respect Robert and Emily for being the "reform" wing of the Course community with Wapnick/Kavanaugh/Morgan/Renard being the more orthodox wing. There's plenty of room for all views.
Very Insightful discussion, thank you 😇🙏
Much appreciated! I like the comments on the different worldviews, different truths. For me, I tend towards a relative worldview that seeks to optimize my FELT EXPERIENCE from my chosen worldview and the language I use to attempt to describe said worldview. The key question is, does my chosen definition for "truth" lead to a congruent, consistent model, and does it support the desired felt experience? Asserting that my chosen model IS reality would be a misstep in my view. A model is only a model... "a story," as you say.
It seems that the central FELT EXPERIENCE of practitioners of The Course and Non-Duality both can experience inner peace. The words they use to describe their experience is just a model of experience, not the experience itself. The Course seems to be a congruent model. Non-duality also seems to be a congruent model. It's always too much to unpack everything, because it always repacks itself and unpacks again, in my model, and the others as well. ;)
What seems fundamental to me is Mystery. Making a choice (which I could call consciousness) seems to delineate a polarity; it calls something "this, not that;" it moves this direction, not that direction. What is the Mystery and what is it that is calling the Mystery this, not that? How would I know? I don't. It becomes all Mystery again. Words may very well all be only fearful questions, disguised as confident statements, intended to help us ignore our uncertainty and navigate the Mystery.
Mystery abounds. Getting used to it. And, so appreciative of how ACIM has helped to heal my wounding around the words of the Christian Trinity. I experience Mystery now as Love, God now as Love. This choice for Love is my best choice, and I'm here practicing until my choice is so complete that the Mystery disappears. Thank you for practicing with me!
In Love, Dear Friends!
Fantastic talk! Thank you both!
Around 32:30. Robert: the non-dual people are playing at one-upmanship, like we all do,saying our world view is the best. Stop. - the answer is less along the lines of “this teaching is right” and more along the lines of “I don’t know.” Utter bottoming out. The wisdom of insecurity, Alan Watts called it. Come from experience, rather than staying in the conceptual realm - this is the path of the mystic. (Christianity, Catholicism, ACIM, those were my mental/spiritual environments - my entire worlds - for about 20 years each, now non-duality. It fits my experience more closely. But it’s not about thinking, it can’t be held by thought! When the question is asked, to go into thinking is to stop listening. 💓
As we continue to be able to live the course (defencelessness) the questions cease. So words of any contension are ego based. The course lived truer every day ends the discussion.
I enjoy your utubes and Thank you
Excellent video!
Truth is one, the wise describe it in different ways.
Those of us who have studied Vedanta know that there are several versions of it not just Advaita. The author of the Course says that it is about experience and not theology. IMHO we should use the theology (personal/impersonal) that most appeals to us for our experience and that can vary from time to time. I like the way the Urantia Book explores the impersonal versus the personal in sections 105.0-1, 106.9.
Non-dualism: “Nothing has meaning. You have no worth.”
ACIM: “Nothing you see has meaning. You (plural) are god’s most treasured creation.”
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. During the years that I’ve practiced the workbook, my spiritual practice is pretty much defined via the course. But I don’t always do the workbook every year and I don’t think the course necessarily suggests endless repetition of the WB.
I know the course focuses heavily on guidance and the relevance of direct personal guidance. The last WB lesson strongly emphasizing this. And yet the quality of practice is so different during WB years vs non WB years, the former offering a very solid anchor for the mind.
Would just love to hear your thoughts on anchoring daily practice when the concrete direction of the WB isn’t being practiced. I think I heard you Robert once refer to it for yourself as “post workbook practice” or something of the likes.
Thank you both for this talk
Non duality is just kicking the bucket further down the road.
Brilliant discourse you two nondual Course teachers!🙏
I enjoy the foundational similarity of Jesus's modern Course with ancient yet traditionally interpreted non-dualty. My mind with or without ego in fluence, uses symbolic language to differentiate these ideas. Perhaps a follow up question will reveal comparative worldviews of nondualistic and Course perception in awakening Knowledge of SourceSelf. And: Are Holy Spirit's thoughts symbolized in duality?
Hi Robert, thank you again for this video. I believe that you are interested in helping to heal the fractured ACIM community. I noted in the CE edition of ACIM that you acknowledged that Helen was really the one who edited most of the Course, and she was the primary one responsible for taking out most of those 45,000+ words that has become such a topic of heated discussion. As you know, for years now it has been claimed that it was in fact Ken Wapnick that was the one who swooped in and took over the editorial process, taking the Course in a whole other direction from the trajectory it was on.
What I would challenge you to do is to make a public statement to help quell the misinformation that is out there in the Course community. I urge you to clearly state on video, once and for all, that Ken Wapnick did not edit the Course to fit his own preconceptions of what it was. That would be a good start (though just a start) in healing the community as I know that your word would carry weight with many. Otherwise, the situation is somewhat analogous to Donald Trump not actively denying the QAnon conspiracy, and even giving some indication that he favors it.
Please forgive me if you have already done this somewhere. I don't think you have as one of your followers (who is prominent in the ACIM world) maintains that Ken was essentially a wolf in sheep's clothing from the start who re-made the Course in his own image to suit his own nefarious ends. Which most of us who know anything about Ken know is just a boldfaced lie, as is much of the negative press he has received over the years. Thank you for hearing this appeal. Peace.
How interesting that you would suggest this. Emily and I are in the beginning stages of preparing a presentation on the CE and why we made it. The evidence is extremely clear that Helen was the main editor. It's sad that people lay that at the feet of Ken, who came onto the scene after the vast majority of the editing had been done. In terms of the Trump/QAnon anology, though, I've already come out more than once and denied that myth about Ken being the main editor and will keep doing so. This podcast is one relatively recent place where we clearly state that Helen was the main editor: czcams.com/video/bKnfzhCILHs/video.htmlsi=C0MekIQpAySy87du
While I would like to agree with everything you say here, I do believe that Ken remade the Course in his own image--but as an interpreter, not an editor. So while I sincerely decry the negative tone of much of what's been said about him, I think if you extract the aggressive tone, there is a point in there. But that's part of a different story, not the story of the editing of the Course.
In terms of the editing, I will say that I have discovered three areas where the editing was skewed in a direction congenial to Ken and where this happened only in the final editing process--the one he was part of. These three areas are: all references to the Holy Spirit as the Voice OF God changed to Voice FOR God; many references to behavior changed or removed; and many references to the word "will" changed. I think there is good reason to suspect that this was Ken's influence (with Helen's consent, of course). That being said, I think they are really a minor element of the editing story, hardly more than a footnote. If we don't like the editing, Helen is really the one responsible.
@@ACIMRobert Thank you for taking the time to respond, it was good to hear all that. I'm also glad you didn't take me the wrong way. I'm a relatively new Course student, so I was not witness to much of the controversial happenings in the ACIM community that occurred more than 10 years ago.
My sense is that people look at the copyright case and other legal actions that were taken by Ken and extrapolate back that he must have been distorting and screwing with things from the very beginning when he came on the scene. But I would take it the other way and say that if Ken is essentially exonerated from having tinkered with the Course at the beginning (except for a few minor things, as you mentioned, and those are somewhat conjectural), then maybe we can also see his later actions in a more positive light, too, particularly in regard to his teaching and his taking the legal actions that he did. After all, he was human and made mistakes, just like the rest of us, it's just that he was in a position such that the smallest mistake he made would come under intense scrutiny, and in his case, intense judgement of his character. But I feel that we can let go of that now, and we can even learn to love him and learn from him.
Yes, we have made of Ken an unloving brother. Let us see this brother through the eyes of forgiveness and understanding, and not judgement.
I don't completely agree that Ken re-made the Course in his own image. I feel that's an open question. We would really need someone who is completely impartial to say one way or the other. As I'm sure you know, at one point Helen asked Jesus why Ken wasn't struggling with the Course so much when she and Bill were. The answer apparently was that there was no time for that. The implication seemed to be that, yes, Ken was there to fill a very essential role in the whole process, and he had to be fully on board to fulfill that function. I would suggest that to doubt Ken's very essential role is to put the whole thing in question. The best response to that that I've heard is that none of that original group really fully listened to Jesus and carried out his intentions for the Course in full. That's definitely a good point, but still an open question that is really unanswerable. In the 20/20 vision of hindsight, some of us might say that if we were there, we would have listened and carried Jesus' plan out to a t, but who is to say that Jesus did not pick the perfect people for the job -- people who were all imperfect, but that's the point and part of the teaching and forgiveness process.
As always, it's really about looking within at our own investment in it being one way or the other. What purpose is it serving?
Thank you again for your response and for listening. Peace
@@allowah To be honest: I'm glad that I'm not a member of any Course community or Course Circle, so I can stay above the battleground of items like these.
I have no reason to think that Ken remade the Course in his own image, nor as an editor, nor as an interpreter.
First: we are all interpreters as soon as we open our mouth and share our take on the Course, Robert, Ken and every other teacher and student of the Course included. Interpreting the Course is not remaking it. What take on the Course works for someone is all that matters.
Second: we must never forget, that whatever version of the Course we are using, the overwhelming vast majority of the material in every version is exactly the same. So no version is remaking the Course and it's a rather heavy accusation to say that someone remade the Course in his own image.
Third: as I said earlier elsewhere: different students are attracted to different teachers. We are all coming from a different background, so we all deal with the Course in different ways. There is nothing wrong with that. The goal is the same for all of us.
So sharing is always better than fighting.
In my view the whole controversy around Ken serves no purpose at all, except the ego's.
Your points make perfectly sense to me. Thanks for bringing them up.
🕉Shanti.
@@harrypeijs5915 Thank you for chiming in and making all good points. : ) Yes, it would seem difficult to stay free of bias in situations like this if one has any investment in things being one way versus another. In a sense, one's own bias really needs to be addressed first before even addressing the issue in question. My own bias is that I was introduced to ACIM and Ken via Gary Renard, so I do tend to see things through that lens. That is why I am definitely open to hearing the other side of things. In fact, after reading Gary's Disappearance, I immediately looked online to find a critique of it and quickly discovered the Circle of Atonement stuff. It did make me take a step back from the truth of Gary's book, though not completely.
Clearly these issues are not easy or uncomplicated, otherwise there wouldn't be such heated debate. I do want to make the suggestion that maybe it's the case that Ken really never went anywhere. Maybe he all along was just doing his best to faithfully serve the greater ACIM community, and to preserve the materials with which he had been entrusted. Perhaps it was that at some point along the line, a kind of mutiny happened (not that he was the captain and he did not present himself as such), and Ken was made to be, as I noted, an unloving brother. Or one who was interpreting the Course in a way that seemed to be imposing his own ideas upon it. And so all he did after that was to stand his ground, which had the effect of making him appear to be attacking others, but really he was just responding to the "mutiny." And as you noted, the mutineers were reacting to Ken's interpretation, but they did not acknowledge that they were just substituting one interpretation for another and essentially doing the very same thing that they found problematic with Ken's approach.
This is not to say that Ken did not make any mistakes, nor that he was always completely forgiving and compassionate to those who appeared to be attacking him. I'm just questioning the current narrative about Ken that I see online, even among prominent ACIM teachers. There seems to be a lot of misinformation and also an attempt to make Ken look as bad as possible. We know what happens when the ego gets in, right? It just distorts and twists things to make the strongest case in its favor. So now Ken lied about all of these things, tried to bring down all of these other Course teachers, did this and that, etc. Hey, let's calm down and try to look at all of this reasonably, and if we do, we will see it's not so easy to make any kind of judgment one way or the other.
So yes, Harry, and what you said is really all things that Ken himself said -- that you will get the Course whichever version you use, and everyone is free to follow the teacher/interpreter they most resonate with and if it's working for you, then awesome, because that's what it's there for. The only caution here is to not make other Course teachers wrong in order to promote your own interpretations. You may have valid points, but when expressed in any kind of categorical or dogmatic way, one seems to be missing a key ingredient of what Jesus is leading us to: open-mindedness and the willingness to see that maybe you don’t have as great a handle on things as you think.
Peace to all 💫💕💫
@@allowah Thanks for your reply and shedding light on your background.
I started doing the Course in 2014 together with my beloved wife and with no teacher at all. She read a few exerpts of the Course online and told me that sounds great, let's order that book. First time doing the Workbook took us one and a half year. First time doing the Text took us much longer.
In 2017 she discovered Gary's Disappearance and reading that book was an eye-opener for both of us, for by reading it we got finally what the Course was really about. Just as you, through Gary's books we got more interested in Ken's teachings on the Course.
So you see we have a similar background as you have (although I wouldn't use the word "bias" in this context for both my wife and I can only be grateful for the the light both Gary and Ken shed on the Course) with one exeption: all the time we knew not that there was such a "heated debate" over Ken.
I got to know about that only by listening to this podcast we both are writing on now. The title "Is ACIM nondual?" drew my attention.
Honestly I don't want to explore this debate further, for I see it as an ego distraction which prevents us from doing the work of the Course itself: forgiveness is our only function here as Sons and Daughters of love and still dreaming the silly ego dream of separation. Besides, the Course says clearly that it is a beginning, not the end and that we learn to rely on and follow the inner teacher and not any outer one.
Now I know about this debate, I can imagine what happened inside the community of the followers of the teachings of the historical Jesus two thousand years ago in this ego dream of separation, when their brother, friend and teacher was gone and the ego took over.
Last word about open-mindedness: it's guaranteed when we follow the instruction and exercise from my favorite lesson 189. I will quote it as a whole here:
"7 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. ²Empty 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. ³Hold onto nothing. ⁴Do not bring with you one thought the past has taught, nor one belief you ever learned before from anything. ⁵Forget this world, forget this course, and come with wholly empty hands unto your God." (W-189.7:1-5)
It's a great remedy against all dogmas as well as against all "heated debates".
Peace, joy and love to, with and for all!
🕉Shanti
For my own clarity if you don't mind, even non-duality that embraces the "absolute and the relative" as one says: yes, a form appears from nothing that looks like Emily with unique attributes, and is both emptiness and form, she is basically a mirage in essence. Just an appearance that mind makes into something separate that isn't really there. Whereas in ACIM, while minds are interconnected and 'one,' Emily (not the body but the mind) actually was created by God and both 'exist.' Does this match?
Yes, as long as you mean my (Emily’s) mind and God by “both”, then that’s correct. 👍♥️
You missed the pointing of all these teachings pointing to the same understanding beyond concepts and language. The point of these teachings is to disolve the conditioning put in place by life which causes the experience of psychological suffering by putting into question the prior unquestioned beliefs experienced as absolute. Once the past conditioning is seen to be at best a perspective, rather than the truth both the past conditioning as well as the new spiritual concepts (ACIM or nondual labelled) are free to fall away as their purpose has been fulfilled and no longer necessary, exposing the truth of who ONE is that has always been present but overlooked. They simply are pointing at the same center from different perspectives with the same intention. What is important is that they point to the same center and it is not important how one gets there. Just a perspective, not the truth
Explain what Jesus meant by the script is written, please.
“Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God.”
Love Robert and Emily and respect their teaching, but doesn't this line above from the Course show that ACIM is a non-dual system. Certainly, our lives in the physical world are usually dual, but our true existence beyond the physical world is non-dual and connected as one. What am I missing?
@@OurFamilyInMotion You’re missing that two seemingly paradoxical things can be true at the same time. We are one with God AND He is the greater one so there is some distinction there. Both can be at once. - Emily ♥️
@@CircleOfAtonement Thanks. So interesting. Love how you and Robert study the Course with such thoughtfulness. To me, the first represents our true oneness while the second is the separate self/ego in the physical world. One is real and one is the ego.
Where in the course does it say that reality in heaven is made up of "persons" (unbounded or not)? I think this is a misunderstanding and perhaps even a last-ditch attempt by the ego to hang on to specialness. I usually love Robert Perry's take on things but this one is off. If you have been working the lessons and course and meditating with the Holy spirit, I'm not sure how you can come to such conclusions that there are separate distinctions of any kind in reality. The position of non-duailty is misconstrued. The most I can think of regarding this is that we are creations of God and also have our own creations, so in the extension or shining oneness of creation there is some distinction as to creator and created, however this does not indicate "personhood" as we experience on earth.
That's what they are saying - what you described. I don't think by "person" he means a human, but a being. I can see where using "person" can be an issue. The word person derives from persona or persone which means mask or cover.
I tend to agree. This is very confusing and I don't think Robert fully understands nonduality. Also, nonduality is much more consistent with the Wapnick view of ACIM, which I know Robert has not agreed with. Wapnick talked about Level One which is essentially nonduality while Level Two which is the arena of the physical world which is where Robert likes to focus. If you see ACIM as Level Two then it's not similar to nonduality. If you see ACIM as Level One then it is.
@@OurFamilyInMotion I tend to agree with you also , especially what you say about the Levels. Before I studied and practiced the Course I studied and practiced the non-dual teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi and the non-dual Buddhist tradition of Dzogchen and the nondual teachings of Jesus in the gospel of Thomas. Thanks to that I could relate immediately to what Ken Wapnick calls Level One of the Course.
In fact I recognized the Oneness of the essence of these teachings, without saying these teachings are the same.
I like what Gary Renard in his book The Lifetimes When Jesus and Buddha Knew Each Other calls 'The Ladder of Enlightenment'. We all in a way climb that ladder when we go from dualism via semidualism to nondualism and ultimately to pure nondualism before the ladders disappears and we finally awaken completely from the dream.
Concerning the near death experiences I would like to remark that they are still experiences in the dream of separation and, however precious they seem to be, they are still not the ultimate Reality or the Heaven the Course is talking about. According to the Course death is an illusion and near death is also an illusion and to experience Heaven we don't have to "die", for Heaven is a state of mind.
For me Cindy Lora-Renard is correct in what she writes in Heaven is Now and what the Course says: "The world is not left by death but by truth..." (T3.VII.6:11)
@@harrypeijs5915 Interesting. Robert and Emily are doing a great job shinning the light on these important topics. I'm hoping they're willing to do an interview and discussion with someone like Rupert Spira as that tends to be how we learn and how we get closer and closer to the truth.
@@OurFamilyInMotion I agree with Robert and Emily having a conversation with someone like Rupert Spira. There are people in the Course community who already had a conversation with him. Like Lisa Natoli and Bill Free. I also could welcome a conversation with someone in the community who can shine the light on Ken Wapnick's take on the Course.
Regarding the paradox of distinct individual entities being One. I understand that all these entities are God's creative thoughts, and therefore, Sons of God. I don't understand why there is distinction between all these created entities i.e. the Son of God, the Holy Spirit, the Angels...(not to mention the creations of the Son of God). Is the distinction based in function? That appears to be true for the Holy Spirit, created as God's answer to the separation, but Angels are much less clear to me.
Who knows why God created things that way? But the basic idea is that He created "beings" who are each themselves yet who are also one with everything and even contain everything within themselves--the whole is in each part. It takes a while to get used to this idea. But the upshot is that, in this view, you will spend eternity still being yourself, yet completely one with everyone else, and containing everyone else within yourself, while being in perfect relationship with them. One might see that as the best of both oneness and individuality.
David bing man too teaches this on u/tube❤
❤️