A Question About ACIM and why the world exists.

[roopepa]

I'm reading a book which heavily leans on the teaching of the course.

I have not read ACIM itself, even though it's waiting on my bookself. It has this weirdly strong 'energy' to it and I'm not sure what to think of it. I feel like there is something extremely powerful going on there and I fear it a little.

I know it's kind of stupid to ask anyone stuff like this, since it really seems to be the case that I can't in full honesty rely on any other source than my own authority. But here it is:

It seems that the course explains the dream/reality in a very different manner than most other teachings. As I understand it, the course says that the dream/world/sensory experience is due to a single "thought" in the mind of God/Oneness, which is basically that of being separate. The thought of being separate is the "sin" and feels "guilt" for losing the unity with God. This then causes the Mind to divide itself to multiple parts, even though it never actually happens, but only seems like it. The course says that it is the guilt that creates the world, sensory experience itself, by projecting it's own guilt and fear on "the other", hence creating a world to "hide" in. Something in this 'explanation' resonates a lot, though it brings a weird anxiety. I always had this idea that the world would be a playground, a place for Love's expression, rather than a projection of this "guilt" or something.

I don't know if it's just my own interpretation, but this seems very different from what I've heard others say. How come it is still possible for the world to exist, or for me to "create my own reality", if the guilt is recognized and made undone? I'm just weirded out on how different this seems to be from other sources. It makes it seem like Oneness/awakening would be just total nothingness and that's it. No creation, no 'experience', no fun and games in the dream world, no expression.

Why do I feel like I'm missing on something super obvious and being really stupid?

[Shmurda]

Well, yes it would be total nothingness but total nothingness is completion, it is total bliss and it is the very fulfillment that the ego seeks but which cannot be achieved through the paradigm of separation. 

[Leo Gura]

The dream is not a function of guilt. That's just silly.

The dream is not a thought or even a collection of thoughts. It's much more substantial than that.

[Shmurda]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The dream is not a function of guilt. That's just silly.

There is a lot to be said for the function of guilt. Guilt arises from the experience of being a subject that opposes itself to the objective reality aka survival. Yet, at the deepest level, we know that we are no different from the very things we label as other. Guilt arises because of this self-bias. Therefore this type of guilt exists because God splits itself into a multiplicity as OP suggested. 

Edited July 23, 2021 by Shmurda

[Leo Gura]

You can drop all your guilt but you still won't awaken. Not even close.

[Mason Riggle]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The dream is not a function of guilt. That's just silly.

'guilt' is just a word, a map.  It's like saying, electrons have a 'desired state'.. clearly electrons don't have 'desires' in the exact same sense of the word we use to describe human urges, but it's a decent enough metaphor. 

The map is not the territory.. and while this particular map may be kind of blurry and a little simplistic, with the proper meta-understanding, it might not be as 'silly' as you think. 

The dream is a function of guilt, as much as it is a function of Love.. depending on your understanding of the words 'guilt' and 'Love'. 

[Leo Gura]

As far as maps go, this is a shitty one.

Ego is a function of state. Plain and simple. Stop dancing around with cute metaphors that just feed the ego.

Change your state and there will be no more ego.

[Mason Riggle]

@Leo Gura 'dancing around'.. cute metaphor. 

Language is metaphor, and shitty is subjective. 

'raining cats and dogs' and 'pouring out' point to the same thing.. but if you think 'raining cats and dogs' means that actual cats and dogs are falling from the sky, then obviously you will think that's a pretty shitty metaphor for what's actually occurring with the weather.  If you understand the metaphor, it's a perfectly good one. 

[Shmurda]

1 hour ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Leo Gura 'dancing around'.. cute metaphor. 

Language is metaphor, and shitty is subjective. 

'raining cats and dogs' and 'pouring out' point to the same thing.. but if you think 'raining cats and dogs' means that actual cats and dogs are falling from the sky, then obviously you will think that's a pretty shitty metaphor for what's actually occurring with the weather.  If you understand the metaphor, it's a perfectly good one. 

It is a good one, but not perfectly. I think fear is much closer to the truth than guilt as an example. Guilt is a luxury if you're fighting for your life and I sure won't be feeling guilty right after escaping. 

[roopepa]

@Leo Gura The book I'm reading gives a map like this:

'Before' any duality, there is Oneness/God/Infinity. Because it is infinite, there must also occur "a thought" of "what if there is something else than all that is". This resulted in the first division, that of a Big Mind and a small mind.

The second division is the small mind dividing into "the right mind" (holy spirit) and "wrong mind" (ego).

The third division is when the ego recognizes that it separates from Oneness and thinks the separation "actually happened" and is now separate from God. This results in fear and guilt that is so huge that the ego thinks it deserves to be punished somehow, even though any separation has never occured. This creates a division of guilt/punishment. An image of a condemning god.

Now, the ego identifies itself as 'being guilty'. The fourth division is body/world, where the ego "hides" because it fears the god's punishment. All the suffering, terror and chaos is due to this 'forgotten' or 'unconscious' guilt we feel and the fear of a punishment we think we deserve. We project our fear/guilt outside, creating (or perhaps identifying with) the dream.

Do you think any of this makes sense?

Also, @Nahm @allislove

[Nahm]

3 hours ago, roopepa said:

I'm reading a book which heavily leans on the teaching of the course.

I have not read ACIM itself, even though it's waiting on my bookself. It has this weirdly strong 'energy' to it and I'm not sure what to think of it. I feel like there is something extremely powerful going on there and I fear it a little.

I know it's kind of stupid to ask anyone stuff like this, since it really seems to be the case that I can't in full honesty rely on any other source than my own authority. But here it is:

It seems that the course explains the dream/reality in a very different manner than most other teachings. As I understand it, the course says that the dream/world/sensory experience is due to a single "thought" in the mind of God/Oneness, which is basically that of being separate. The thought of being separate is the "sin" and feels "guilt" for losing the unity with God. This then causes the Mind to divide itself to multiple parts, even though it never actually happens, but only seems like it. The course says that it is the guilt that creates the world, sensory experience itself, by projecting it's own guilt and fear on "the other", hence creating a world to "hide" in. Something in this 'explanation' resonates a lot, though it brings a weird anxiety. I always had this idea that the world would be a playground, a place for Love's expression, rather than a projection of this "guilt" or something.

What you are reading from the book is spot on. What you are misunderstanding is that there is literally no guilt. The world literally is the playground.  It does not seem like it if you blame the world. Such as the world could make you mad, the world could make you sad, or the world could make you corrupt.  If you are experiencing this, recognize this is reactionary projection, and when you experience the reaction focus on breathing from your stomach, and experience the reaction without reacting in terms of behavior, actions, and words.  Only if then is it clear the reactionary projection was the averting of feeling.

Quote

I don't know if it's just my own interpretation, but this seems very different from what I've heard others say. How come it is still possible for the world to exist, or for me to "create my own reality", if the guilt is recognized and made undone? I'm just weirded out on how different this seems to be from other sources. It makes it seem like Oneness/awakening would be just total nothingness and that's it. No creation, no 'experience', no fun and games in the dream world, no expression.

Why do I feel like I'm missing on something super obvious and being really stupid?

Not sure where you could be coming from on the course in miracles being different from what pretty much every spiritual teacher is saying. That’s very odd. A course in miracles is a fundamental staple of spirituality and non-dual theory, as much as and synonymous with the immutable laws.

As to why you are worried about nothingness, and some kind of loss, like fun etc., it is because you are seeing material which is opening your eyes to the truth, so misunderstandings and beliefs you’ve been holding are coming up and out, and being projected onto the very material which is helping you.

Your idea of nothingness is not the actuality of nothingness. It’s an idea. Nothing this is far better and greater than any thing.  Nothing / not-a-thing is appearing as all “things”. 
 

50 minutes ago, roopepa said:

@Leo Gura The book I'm reading gives a map like this:

'Before' any duality, there is Oneness/God/Infinity. Because it is infinite, there must also occur "a thought" of "what if there is something else than all that is". This resulted in the first division, that of a Big Mind and a small mind.

The second division is the small mind dividing into "the right mind" (holy spirit) and "wrong mind" (ego).

The third division is when the ego recognizes that it separates from Oneness and thinks the separation "actually happened" and is now separate from God. This results in fear and guilt that is so huge that the ego thinks it deserves to be punished somehow, even though any separation has never occured. This creates a division of guilt/punishment. An image of a condemning god.

Now, the ego identifies itself as 'being guilty'. The fourth division is body/world, where the ego "hides" because it fears the god's punishment. All the suffering, terror and chaos is due to this 'forgotten' or 'unconscious' guilt we feel and the fear of a punishment we think we deserve. We project our fear/guilt outside, creating (or perhaps identifying with) the dream.

Do you think any of this makes sense?

Also, @Nahm @allislove

Yes, it makes perfect sense. It is almost word for word what just about every spiritual teacher is saying. Specifically, if you have not heard of or listened to Rupert Spira, definitely check him out on YouTube. His teaching is basically synonymous with course in miracles.

 

If memory serves, that book talks about doing one thing at a time, presence, mindfulness. Doing one page, or teaching, in one day. Try to abide in that rather than thinking ahead. Get your meta bang for your buck.  

[Leo Gura]

49 minutes ago, roopepa said:

Do you think any of this makes sense?

You are certainly imagining all that nonsense as a story.

It has nothing to do with guilt. You simply lack the proper state of consciousness.

[roopepa]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You are certainly imagining all that nonsense as a story.

You simply lack the proper state of consciousness.

Is "me lacking the proper state of consciousness" not a story?

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, roopepa said:

Is "me lacking the proper state of consciousness" not a story?

Practically speaking, no.

You aren't awake. And there is a reason for that.

[lmfao]

@roopepa What book would that be? I'm just doing ACIM workbook. I'm honestly unsure if it's doing anything, but that's probably because I haven't actually been committed to it and I'm engaging with it half heartedly. 

ACIM is in vicinity to David r hawkins to my thoughts. Things they don't cover is meditation, zen, yoga or psychedelics. 

[roopepa]

11 hours ago, lmfao said:

@roopepa What book would that be? I'm just doing ACIM workbook. I'm honestly unsure if it's doing anything, but that's probably because I haven't actually been committed to it and I'm engaging with it half heartedly.

The book is from a finnish author. I don't think it has been translated.

[roopepa]

23 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It has nothing to do with guilt.

Just a thought... Maybe what ACIM refers to as "guilt" can also be called "denial". Ringing any bells?

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, roopepa said:

Just a thought... Maybe what ACIM refers to as "guilt" can also be called "denial". Ringing any bells?

Certainly there's a lot of denial going on. But calling it guilt is horribly misleading, if that is what is meant.

And still, state runs the show.

[roopepa]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

And still, state runs the show.

Why is consciousness "stuck" in a certain state?

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, roopepa said:

Why is consciousness "stuck" in a certain state?

Survival

"Being stuck in a certain state" is what you call "life" and "sanity".

The problem is you don't want to be stuck, on the other hand you want to keep being a human self. Well, this is an absurd contradiction. You can't have it both ways. Human and God identities are mutually exclusive. Pick one.