Ok. Think about all the ways that people try to understand ACIM. All the opinions. All the "figuring out" what it means. All the discussion, debate, arguments and disagreements. And still it seems no-one quite knows the whole picture.

Well none of that is necessary. In fact, behind all of the words of ACIM there is a purely logical metaphysical structure and progression of thought, which if followed precisely will automatically reveal the components of separation, why bodies show up, what the world is, aspects of creation etc. All of it follows IMPECCABLE LOGIC.

All you need to do therefore is discern, from a completely sane and logically-sound starting point (God), what is the progression of logical outcomes or consequences. All of God's creation and everything about it proceeds according to perfectly logical rules. Additionally the separation from God, the ego, the ego thought system, sin and death, all proceed according to perfect logic.

For example, the idea of an "opposite" to reality, which is the separation idea, is a logical argument suggesting that something *COMPLETELY* opposite to God's nature can exist. And this for example is reflected "Earth, which is heaven's opposite in every way". .. because Earth is the logical outcome of the separation thought system and must be opposite to God's conclusion.

It is a "black and white", very clearly defined "state". And as the ego progresses in its thought system, it produces states of MIND, which correspond to logical conclusions and consequences.

All you need to do is learn this logical structure, what specifically MUST be the outcome and logical conditions that arise based on each step towards death, and the entire picture of existence is revealed, with everything in its right place and everything understood in its relationship to the rest.

This then forms "the metaphysics" of the course, which is kind of a living experiential description of the "states" of mind which have arisen, what they are based on, and how they are corrected. Once you get this underlying structure, which is deeper and less removed than words, you can take any statement in the course and fit it into the picture accurately and understand it far better than any other "random" or disjointed attempt to form an opinion.

You don't then even need an opinion. All you need is to comprehend the logical basis for things. This circumvents all discussions, debates, arguments and misinterpretations. You can also then USE the logical basis to evaluate any new statements, or to base expressions on that structure in order to "extrapolate" the course or say things about it which are completely in accord with the Course's teaching.

Jesus in the Course is extremely logical and clear. For example:

"Perfect love casts out fear. If fear exists, Then there is not perfect love. But: Only perfect love exists. If there is fear, It produces a state that does not exist."

This is a progression of pure logic. There are many many other examples. Below, Jesus talks about LOGIC and how everything proceeds according to logic...

"The Holy Spirit uses logic as easily, and as well, as does the ego, except that HIS conclusions are NOT insane. They take a direction EXACTLY opposite, pointing as clearly to Heaven as the ego points to darkness and to death. We have followed much of the ego’s logic, and have seen its logical conclusions. And, HAVING seen them, we have realized that they can NOT be seen but in delusions. "

"In one sense, the ego’s fear of the idea of God is at least logical."

"From the belief in sin, the faith in chaos MUST follow. It is because it follows that it seems to be a logical conclusion; a valid step in ordered thought. The steps to chaos DO follow neatly from their starting-point. Each is a different form in the progression of truth’s reversal, leading still deeper into terror, and away from truth. Think not one step is smaller than another, nor that return from one is easier. The whole descent from Heaven lies in each one. And where your thinking starts, there must it end."

"Upside-down logic produces this kind of thinking."

"Yet the logical outcome of your decision is perfectly clear, if you will LOOK at it. By deciding AGAINST your reality, you have made yourself vigilant AGAINST God and His Kingdom. And it is THIS vigilance that makes you afraid to remember Him."

"You HAVE carried the ego’s reasoning to its logical conclusion, which is TOTAL CONFUSION ABOUT EVERYTHING."

"Now take this personally, and listen to Divine logic: If, when you have been forgiven, you have everything else, and

If you have been forgiven

Then you have everything else.

This happens to be the simplest of all propositions.

IF P then Q

P

Therefore, Q

The real question is, is P true. If you will review the evidence, I think you will find this inescapable. I went on very personal record to this effect, and I am the only completely True Witness for God."

"This is perfectly logical, though clearly insane. The ego draws upon the one source which is totally inimical to its existence FOR its existence."

So if you have a "question" about something in the Course and you're sure where it fits in relation to something else, or what it means, or how it's structured, or whether something is on a certain level or another level etc... once you get a visual of the logical layout in your mind, you can quite easily determine where things go and what they MUST mean, due to logical conclusions that are sound.

But of course to do this you HAVE to develop a very clear sense of what logic IS, and be very careful to discern when you are making logical errors. This means you have to be careful with reasoning, be aware of skipping around in levels, beware of trying to make "glue" that ties stuff together that doesn't go together, etc. There doesn't have to be any fuzzy boundaries or blurry conclusions that you're not quite sure about. It all makes SENSE.

We have to be careful when using terms like "real world" and so on. There is a propensity to associate "real" with "ultimate reality", permanence, eternity, heaven etc. As though describing "places". Like you can be "in" reality or outside of it. If something is considered real, you might equate it with Heaven for example.

But this is not really what ACIM means when it refers to things as real. For example it tells you to "make the world real unto yourself", while in the next breath "there is no world".

Real, in these terms, really means "aligned with truth". Or let's say a person is insane, and to that insane person they experience things in an unreal way, a distorted way. When they return to sanity, they return to "reality". In other words, to "what is", or the truth about what is here, rather than the distorted view of it.

So the world we made, Earth, can "become real to you", in the sense that it it can be seen with Christ Vision from a perspective of real love, which lends it the meaning of love. Or moreso, truth. And so now the world is seen in the light of truth and for what it "really is". But this doesn't mean it's real as in ultimate reality. It means you're having what Jesus describes as "accurate perception" of it.

That accuracy, without distortion, is what it means when he refers to "the real world". A world as seen through loving eyes that reveals the "true nature of" the world. The true nature of the world, however, is that it is still an illusion of a world.

So when you make it real unto yourself, that means to love the world regardless of it being an illusion. To see it "with reality" or aligned with truth. Rather than seeing the "unreal world" which is seen through false perception, a distorted, condemned, dark version of the world. A misinterpreted world.

This is why "the real world" is called the real world. It doesn't mean it is reality as in, the location of Heaven. It doesn't mean it is "where ultimate reality is" either. But it does mean this is a state of mind and awareness in which the world is seen through vision, through sane eyes, recognized for what it actually is, rather than having bought into lies, illusions, deceptions or temptations. A clear mind, a right mind, looking with sanity upon simply what it is and nothing more or less.

We reach "the real world" through this process of sorting out perception and aligning with truth. Becoming able to see, without ego distortions and interruptions, what is actually there. What is there, as the world, without our projections of sin and guilt upon it. A forgiven world. A world seen through love's eyes. And in fact a world that God loves. BUT, this does not "make it real" in the sense of it being now some kind of permanent eternal reality. It just means it is now seen in the light, seen with truth, seen with sanity, and recognized. Its "true nature" or "the reality of it" is revealed. But the world's true nature is still that it is an illusion.

This is why "the real world still is but a dream". We move on from the real world.... the forgiven world... the world seen through "realities eyes" so to speak, to go "to reality", where we can now rightfully associate reality and location, or reality and permanence, or reality and eternal life. The Kingdom of God, where everything IS real, is recognized, and ALSO is eternal.

False perception is an illusory world seen in an "unreal way", which makes it seem like hell on earth.

The real world is an illusory world seen in a "real way". This makes it seem like heaven on earth.

Heaven is a real world, the Kingdom, seen in a real way.

The ego aligns with the physical world, and is completely backwards. It operates on the basis of how the physical works.

It says, if I give you something, I must lose it. We can't both have it. We could have a tug of war, or a compromise of lack, but we can't both have it at the same time.

This is completely backwards according to God's law. God says that if you give something you receive it because giving and receiving are one. So if I give something to you, there is no loss, and we both have all of it at the same time.

It then seems completely impossible to actually express God's law in this world on a physical level, because the physical laws themselves - which are laws of separation - say you cannot do it. That we can't both have the whole simultaneously.

However, a more advanced miracle worker can break the physical laws and demonstrate that giving and receiving are one. For example Jesus did this when he showed that he could multiply food and feed thousands of people. This violated the physical laws which said that if he would give the original bread and fish away, there would be none left to feed the crowd.

The ego believes entirely in physicality as being reality. It based its whole thought system on this model of separation. Objects which are kept apart by physical space (distance) and time (delay). Both of which are attempts to avoid the presence of God.

If for example in this world a person seems to die, their body is dead etc, the ego says that this evidence proves the person has been extinguished from existence. And if this is real, you should be horrified and upset. You should then experience loss and grief.

But the truth is that the person's spirit lives on in heaven and has eternal life, so there has not really been a death. And so the body isn't showing the truth. Spirit could demonstrate this fact for example by materializing another body, which is what Jesus did in his resurrection, and sometimes the angels do this also.

Similarly the ego believes that freedom means separation. In order to be free of something or someone it has to go away. You have to lose it. But in God's rules, you can have freedom and also have oneness shared with another at the same time. Being free doesn't mean you are separate whatsoever, it means you are also joined without strings attached. To the ego, freedom is imprisonment.

It then seems quite challenging for us to rise up out of the ego thought system - a system which aligns closely to how the physical world seems to work - and up into a higher path based on the laws of God. A state in which only the truth is true, and "I am under no laws but God's". A state from which the seeming laws of physical can be completely broken and ignored through miracles.

The higher state completely violates and reverses and ignores the physical order. It pays no attention to the seeming limitations of separateness, the illusion of objects and forms, the presentation of distance or time. Miracles pay no attention to what the physical says can or cannot happen.

"miracles violate every law of reality, as this world judges it. Every law of time and space, of magnitude and mass, of prediction and control, is transcended"

"Thus does the miracle undo all things the world attests can never BE undone. And hopelessness and death MUST disappear before the ancient clarion call of life. This call has power FAR beyond the weak and miserable cry of death and guilt."

In order to awaken to reality we have to move our mind into the higher order, into the higher mind and its higher thought system. This means aligning with God's laws and living by them. These are NON-PHYSICAL laws which run totally against the grain of the world.

And that means that you're adopting a belief system and perspective and relationship that is running totally contrary to the world. In fact the entire world's lower and backward thought system has to be totally reversed and denied.

This world, the physical world, space and time, Earth and bodies, operate completely opposite to how heaven functions. And we have to learn to wean ourselves off of its illusions and its ways, its nature and its limitations, and rise up to heaven in a celebration of joy and happiness that this world is completely false and does not apply to us.

We need to stop believing, perceiving, and functioning based on how the physical world operates. We need to function based on how God operates, and it is totally opposite to the physical world and all its ways. You are not of this world and never were.

"The world will end when its thought system has been completely reversed."

"This is the first idea we have had which is related to a major phase of the correction process; the reversal of the thinking of the world."

"Yet it is the final lesson in which Unity is restored. It goes against all the thinking of the world, but so does Heaven."

"The resurrection is the denial of death, being the assertion of life. Thus is all the thinking of the world reversed entirely."

"Today's idea, completely alien to the ego and the thinking of the world, is crucial to the thought reversal which this course will bring about."

"To give up all problems to one Answer is to reverse the thinking of the world entirely."

"Only be quiet. You will need no rule but this to let your practicing today lift you above the thinking of the world, and free your vision from the body's eyes."

"Here is the perfect statement of my freedom. I am under no laws but God's." "I am entitled to miracles because I am under no laws but God's."

I find that a lot of ACIM students read the book too fast and sloppily and then approximate what they think they read and think it's saying something it's not.

For example I hear quite often cropping up people saying that the idea of "miracles are spectacles" is a bad thing and therefore, miracles cannot be things like walking on water or raising the dead because that would be a spectacle.

That's a GROSS misunderstanding of what it ACTUALLY says in the book, and it's even grosser when people USE it as a way to AVOID any reason to perform a spectacular miracle:

"A miracle is a reversal of the physical order because it brings more love to the giver AND the receiver. (A miracle is misunderstood when it is regarded as a spectacle.)"

Here it is clearly stating that if you think that a miracle is MERELY a spectacle, BECAUSE it is spectacular, then you have MISUNDERSTOOD IT. Largely because you're probably focusing on the changes in FORM and physicality and are taking it to be spectacular and impressive and such.

It literally actually says that if you think miracles are spectacles, or that a spectacular miracle has to be AVOIDED, you have MISUNDERSTOOD. This does NOT mean that miracles cannot BE spectacular.

Secondly...

"The use of miracles as a spectacle to INDUCE belief is wrong. They are really used for and by believers."

Here it clearly specifically says that if you USE a miracle to try to INDUCE BELIEF. .... then you are making a mistake. It goes on to clarify that miracles are supposed to be used BY believers, FOR believers. In other words, the issue here isn't that miracles are wrong for being spectacular, it's that if you USE them as party tricks without the proper purpose of healing/teaching and they are just some empty "spectacle" for show, you're probably trying to INDUCE BELIEF in someone ie persuade and impress them to COERCE them into believing something, which is really against their will.

So all it's doing in both counts is warning you about a couple of MISINTERPRETATIONS of miracles and their use. It NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER SAYS that miracles must not be spectacular, or that all miracles that seem spectacular are wrong, or that you should never perform a spectacular miracle.

All it says is 1) if you are dwelling on how spectacular IT IS, you are missing the point. And 2) You shouldn't ABUSE miracles by trying to use them to manipulate people. Jesus is giving these warnings because he knows that miracles CAN DO SPECTACULAR THINGS, which COULD be a) misinterpreted by some people and b) abused by others. He knows that precisely because miracles CAN BE SPECTACULAR, he needs to make sure you are performing spectacular miracles for the RIGHT REASONS.

Never does it say in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER that you should not perform spectacular miracles.

This is another example of how people do not read carefully, skim over the words, get an impression and then ignore what it actually said and meant. So now you hear people pulling up this quote as a defense against miracles because they THINK that it said something like "spectacular miracles are wrong" and "miracles should not be spectacles so they shouldn't be spectacular."

It's a gross distortion of what it says, the purpose of Jesus saying it, the meaning of what he said, and what point he is making. We need to pay much more careful close attention to what ACIM ACTUALLY SAYS instead of listening to loosely interpreted second-hand impressions. Especially from people who are anti-miraculous and who want to keep pushing an agenda of never performing a miracle for anyone for any reason.

You can't solve a problem from within the same 'level' that the problem exists. This is because once you're inside the problem, you're unable to see clearly and cannot tell what is happening. This is why those who are insane do not realize they are insane and don't know how to get back to sanity.

This is why we need help from a higher level: Holy Spirit.

The whole world is spinning its wheels trying to solve problems using the same level that the problem is on. For example, the body is an illusion, and yet we ask the body to tell us what is real. The body is part of the dream, and we ask it to tell us how to fix stuff in the dream. The body can't fix the dream because it is itself a dream. It is limited.

All true HELP must come from outside of the dream from a higher level: Holy Spirit.

I accept correction.

Ok so this might be a bit controversial.

It seems to me, there MUST be "different things" in heaven, somehow. When you start to look at it, there's just too many different things happening there.

1) God created the one son or sonship, which comprises the sons of God. That's fine. If God were to have only created this we could perhaps say that everything God created is of one kind and its all like God and there are no differences. Except...

2) God also created the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not exactly identical to the sons of God and has his own function or role. Now ask yourself, how is it possible for there to be multiple roles in a reality that's supposed to be all equal and one?

3) Beyond this, God also created the angels. We're told for example that Lucifer was an angel who projected himself out of heaven in the separation. Which means he lived in heaven prior to the separation. So now we have this different 'type' of being. And we're also told that angels were created "below" the sons of God, with a function of protection, whereas the sons of God have a function both protection and creation. So doesn't this imply that angels do not have their own creations? So how is it not possible that God has created "different kinds of beings?"

4) This leads on to the fact that the sons of God were created to add to the sonship, and do so by creating their own children. And what's to say that all of these children are exactly the same like a bunch of clones? So now you've got the children of the sons of God, who presumably we can say are equal in every way to the sons of God, including the fact that the children also are co-creators. This doesn't necessarily violate the idea that God only creates one kind of thing though, as we're told there is one continuous line of creation.

"Nothing in either of these statements implies any sort of level involvement, or, in fact, anything except one continuous line of creation, in which all aspects are of the same order."

5) If you now look slightly further afield, for example in the bible and elsewhere, or through personal experience, you'll discover that there are allegedly many different KINDS of angels. For example there are the archangels, guardian angels, cherabim, seraphim, principalities, thrones, and these all have various "hierarchy" to them. It also appears that each of the archangels for example has a "special role" or function, whereby they focus on helping people in various aspects of life, be it healing or protection or guidance etc. And we're also told Lucifer was the light-bearer or one of the brightest/most beautiful angels and why would he be different to others in this way?

It seems to me that regardless of any attempt to force heaven's contents into a nice ego box, the reality is that God in fact has many thoughts ("heaven is the sum of all God's thoughts, in number infinite.") And some of these thoughts might in fact be different. Which suggests God is not just sitting there "radiating" like some fixed light bulb, but rather is a living, thinking being, that is capable of having "different thoughts".

After all, the thought that produces the sonship and sons of God, is in some manner different to the thought that produces angels. And that in turn is also different to the thought that produced the holy spirit. Just the mere fact that the holy spirit was created in response to the separation, and was added to the christ mind, as something that was not in the christ mind prior, tells you that God is CAPABLE of creating "different things with different functions."

Now don't be fooled by the idea of differences always means ego. It does not. Nor does the idea of separation always mean ego divisions. e.g. Ego separation is not well understood by many people and it does not mean that the removal of all hints of separation is "non-ego".

"God who encompasses all being nevertheless created separate beings who have everything individually and want to share it to increase their joy."

So we're told God created distinct individuals, who share everything with each other, which is fine. There's nothing ego about that, because ego is a problem of ATTITUDE and a breakdown in COMMUNICATION, it's not a problem of whether there are many beings or individuals. It's only an issue that they no longer want to SHARE EVERYTHING, which enters them into thoughts of selfishness and specialness.

It's quite plausible, if you think about it, that God is quite capable of very intelligently, unlimitedly, having various kinds of thoughts or thoughts which result in various kinds of creations, all of which are still living in harmony, all of which still possess divine holy properties, all of which share everything, but that nevertheless are distinct in some ways. Particularly in terms of their roles and capabilities. Because it does not sound as though angels are co-creators as such. That said, we ARE told that the holy spirit is also a co-creator.

What I want to be able to say is that God is one nature and one being and has one extension which is like a mirror image of himself and that's all he has created. But this just does not seem to correlate to what Jesus says in the course. Not only has he created more than one son in the sonship, in fact great numbers of beings, but also it appears he has created beings that have different functions and roles IN heaven, that has nothing to do with ego or separation. Which makes you wonder what ELSE God might have created.

We are also told that God created some manner of a universe or world, and so that now throws an additional "thought creation" into the mix. God has a kingdom, and he also mentions that angels have a kingdom, and so do you. And that your mind has the power to create worlds. Which all is starting to paint more of a picture that perhaps heaven is not just some big blob of light in which nothing is really happening, but rather than perhaps it is teaming with life and various different "stuff", that spirit beings are floating around having creative thoughts and conversations of some kind, and who knows what else.

What it boils down to for me is simple that God evidently has the power, ability, flexibility of thinking, and will, to be ABLE to create more than one kind of thing. Sons, angels, holy spirit, they are not all the same. And there IS a holy trinity which is real, and has distinct parts. There are so many statements in the course talking about parts and aspects of God. It does not appear God is a one-trick pony nor that he can only "burp out a single son of God". God appears to be much more versatile, unlimited, and quite capable of a plethora of creations. Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to create the holy spirit.

I was thinking about this and about the fact that "God did not create the body." And what came to mind was that perhaps in heaven, there are not bodies - which are walls of flesh and separation devices surrounding the mind - but that in fact in heaven we still have our mind/soul but WITHOUT the body SURROUNDING it, separating it off in a prison. Like, who you are within, your mind/soul/spirit, remains as a full being, and the outer-shell of the body which is made of sin is no longer there. We're like the oyster inside the shell.

Jesus tells us also that "to be without a body is to be in your natural state" and "minds need not bodies to communicate." Does this not imply that 1) we exist together as a family without bodies surrounding our selves, and 2) we interact through communication, and 3) we're having communication with other spirit beings in heaven through a telepathic mind-to-mind means? That doesn't exactly paint a picture of "nothing happening" in heaven.

While it's true there are no separation forms or spacetime-bodies or physical materials coming between us in reality, it is perhaps false to suggest that this means we don't have an individual difference. Our spirit being, let's think of it as perhaps a whisp of light, a spark of life, a shaft of being, perhaps does have some kind of unique "something" about it. What if God did in fact create all sons of God slightly differently? And what if this is not an ego thing? How is it that the angels have different abilities and functions? What if you actually have some kind of "personality" that is a little different to other personalities, in reality?

When you read stuff in other texts like the bible etc about the fall of man and so on, you hear about how there were things going on in heaven. There were arguments and conflicts, even a kind of war, and different individuals had different attitudes. In the course even, Jesus literally says that there was someone called ADAM, who started the tiny mad idea. How is it possible that people even had NAMES that are potentially different and potentially "human like"? And why does Jesus even refer to the sons of God as MAN?

Referring to people, sons of God, as 'man', or as souls that have choices and are co-creators, and different kinds of angels, etc certainly seems to hint at Heaven containing a plethora of different beings, who perhaps are distinct in some way, whereby their "spirit" has certain qualities or character. Beings of light are not just blobs. And just because we think of them abstractly doesn't mean they're non-descript and have no kind of personality. In fact, there are even statements in the course to suggest that God has feelings.

The jury is out, and more information is needed, but just based on what I've talked about, to me it sure sounds as though there's a whole lot more going on in Heaven than we might give it credit for.

"Loss is not loss when properly perceived. Pain is impossible. There is no grief with any cause at all and suffering of any kind is nothing but a dream."

I had to think a bit on this one.

It reminds me of denial, because Jesus says that denial when properly perceive attests to the thing being denied.

When you deny something, you're saying that you believe the thing DOES EXIST, but that you are hidden from it, seemingly unaware of its existence. Just because you are unaware of it doesn't however make it go away for real. The denial doesn't CHANGE what's there, it just changes how you look at it.

Similarly perhaps, loss is not loss, because if you believe you have lost something, you BELIEVE IN that thing existing. You're saying, I believe I have lost this real thing. If it is real, if it exists, if you COULD lose it, it must still exist and so is not really lost. The loss attests to the continued existence of the thing.

So if I say I'm having loss about someone being dead, for example, I'm really saying that I believe in the existence of what has died. The loss comes from the belief that I am being denied something that exists. I want it, believing it's there to be wanted, but cannot seem to have it. This produces suffering because I am out of alignment with reality.

Obviously for example the "loss of a body" is really a belief that the body is real and is the person, and that the body is "gone", and therefore lost. But I can't really truly be believing that the body is gone if I'm believing I have "lost it", because the loss is affirming the belief in its existence, its reality, its importance.

In a way then, loss is itself a denial, in which it i claiming to be an experience of "having lost something", but is really a way to try to "hold onto something" and let it NOT be lost. Because the so-called loss, really is an undercurrent of a "belief in having" the thing. It seems like loss, but it is an attempt to gain. So loss realise is the flip side of a coin, and on the other side is attachment.

The loss therefore is an illusion, a suggestion that only one side off the coin exists. That there is only loss, and that there is no actual belief in the existence of the thing. But you can't have loss without the belief in it, just as you can't have denial without the belief in the existence of what you are denying. To say I am feeling loss is to say I am pretending to believe something is gone while believing it hasn't. That I'm wanting it to exist even more but this wanting is disguised as not having.

It's all rather complicated. lol But as Jesus says, loss when properly perceived is not loss. When properly perceived it's really an assertion of having, of holding onto, of possessing. A grasping.

Jesus also goes on to say that grief and suffering are nothing but a dream. In this sense, what seems like a loss can't really be a loss because only dream-stuff seems to have gone away. There is no loss in God, nothing related can ever be lost, and no part of myself - one with everything - can be lost.

What our minds really need is a paradigm shift. That means a really radical sweeping upgrade in terms of premise, context and outlook. Some kind of system-wide "shift" out of an entire field of form into some radically greater perspective.

It's not enough to be dwelling in the realm of problems and trying to solve them. We have to get our minds out of the entire belief in problems. That's a paradigm shift, a refusal to engage with the level of suffering and a desire to completely transcend it.

This is why Jesus tells us for example to not to try to find freedom in the body, or in the world. It doesn't exist there. Or to not seek for love outside yourself, but within.

We've been looking to solve problems and suffering at the level of the problems and the suffering, which at best makes illusions of solutions but doesn't stop it happening. If you want it to all stop completely you have to stop the entire system, to not play the game.

The same applies with death and sickness. Questioning whether such things even exist at all, instead of dwelling on how to solve them. It's the withdrawal of power from illusions that undoes them, just as forgiveness is an entire perspective above the battlefield that renders the whole system obsolete.

The ego for example counsels that a war is real, and that you should play the game of war, and that if you take a side you will win, or alternatively you will lose. What it doesn't tell you is that both sides of the war is a loss, because to exterminate anyone is to lose yourself, because you are one. It is not interested in oneness only in separation. If you play the game, you lose, regardless of the outcome. The only way to shift the entire paradigm is not to play at all.

All reactions to a suffering world that you've made real, which compel you to change it so that you don't seem to suffer, are faulty. They might seem to produce some changes and make the illusion more palatable, but it doesn't really wake you up. What wakes you up is questioning the entire premise of the thing and whether or not it's even possible.

Shifting from a premise that this world is real, to a premise that it is just an unreal dream with no real consequences, is a total paradigm shift. It's always about adopting a much broader and higher context which completely reframes everything. A whole new paradigm, a new thought system, a new perception, a new truth, which is so far reaching and deep that it completely redefines the meaning of everything, and puts everything in its proper perspective.

"Freud was more clear-sighted about this, because he knew a BAD thing when he perceived it, but he failed to recognize that a bad thing cannot exist. It is therefore wholly unnecessary to try to get out of it. As you very rightly observed yourself, the thing to do with a desert is to LEAVE."

"Yet freedom of the body HAS no meaning. And so the mind is DEDICATED to serve illusions."

"Fear not to cross to the abode of peace and perfect holiness. Only there is the completion of God and of His Son established forever. Seek not for this in the bleak world of illusion, where nothing is certain, and where everything fails to satisfy. And, in the Name of God, be wholly willing to abandon ALL illusion."

"Judgment is but a toy, a whim, the senseless means to play the idle game of death in your imagination. But vision sets all things right, bringing them gently within the kindly sway of Heaven's laws."

It seems like a tall order to not believe this world is real. I've been immersed in believing it's real for so long.

A result of believing it's real, and trying to become more spiritual, is that I sometimes judge the world or label it. For example I'll say this world is bullshit. Well, technically it's true. But if I look carefully, I have actually made the world real first while believing that I'm taking a higher ground, and am then "separating myself" off from it by judging or labeling it as wrong.

I have to be careful now to notice whether my responses are to a belief that this world is real, like, "its really insane", versus, recognizing that it is not real. I see that many of my "spiritual" perspectives are actually based in pushing this world away.

I've felt a strong sense of inspiration towards the things of Heaven, wanting to be with God, etc.. .but at times the ego comes into this and uses it to try to create separation between me and the world. The world may not be real, but there is a difference between me understanding it intellectually, and whether I am actually recognizing and perceiving and experiencing it as unreal. And if it is unreal, then I have no real basis for having these "spiritual reactions".

Sometimes for example I've been labeling the world as wrong or insane or bullshit or an illusion or that sickness isn't real or there is no death etc, only to then turn around and "react" to a perception of the world by trying to move into a space of "being more spiritual". This is really a form of denial. If the world really isn't real, then it should not create these compulsions to "escape" from it.

Saying the world isn't real is one thing. Actually getting to the place where I believe it solidly and don't react to its appearances is another.

There is a series of workbook lessons which I feel encapsulate the whole transition from 'world is real' to 'world is not real' and the various stages.

128: "The world I see holds nothing that I want."

129: "Beyond this world there is a world I want."

130: "It is impossible to see two worlds."

131: "No one can fail who seeks to reach the truth."

In 128, Jesus highlights how we are not seeing 'this world' correctly, and instead are projecting 'hell' onto it. That means we are making separation real.

In 129, Jesus talks about another world - a perceptual world of true perception, in which this world is seen "as is", revealing the "real world" aka forgiven world. Coming to see this world as harmless and forgiven is the challenge I talked about above.

In 130, Jesus talks of how you can't see the world as sinful and innocent at the same time, or as real and not real at the same time, highlighting that we need to be careful to discern if we're making it real still.

In 131, Jesus talks about Heaven, a world beyond this world, which we can reach if we seek to do so, and cannot fail to do so. But coming to see 'this world' as innocent is required first as a stepping stone, a gentle dream of awakening, which prepares the way.

I do see at least that if I can discern that there is a world I'm making real that I react to, and that if I don't do that, then I will gradually learn that this world is NOT real, and the truth will emerge in my awareness that only heaven is real. And that seems to me to be a straight path which leads right to God.

It also means I have to stop believing the world is an enemy. It is nothing because there is no world.

For something to be special it has to have a value that is different to the value of something else. We give it its value by taking away value from something else.

So if I have an apple and an orange, which are essentially equal, and I say, well, I like apples more than oranges, I have to 'demote' the orange and withdraw some of its value and give it to the apple. Now I have a sense that the apple is more important or 'special' than the orange.

What this does, is it makes me have a 'special love' relationship with the apple, and a 'special hate' relationship with the orange. I've also turned the apple into an idol, and the orange into an enemy.

The Course also talks about how we use special love to cover up special hate. The ego has made a world from separation and has made everything in the world be separate. This is based on hate. It is an attack on God. However, the ego then comes along and tries to 'cover up' and deny this hate by creating the illusion that things are somehow joined. It does this by the illusion of 'sameness', things being similar, of like mind, or having minimal conflict.

Minimally conflicting individuals end up as 'friends and allies'. And as the Course says, these allegiances are formed because two people temporarily agree to be against something else. Thus their allegiance still 'includes' an idea of attack and rejection, because it can't exist unless 'everyone else' is not like them. Thus the friends become special and have a special love relationship. But this special love is at best temporary, and covers up the foundation of the relationship which is hate. Separation from others. Isolation. Exclusivity. And so if something takes away that veneer of special love, it 'reveals' the hate beneath it and the claws come out.

While we attempt to make certain parts of the world more important or valuable than others, we make them special. This is our attempt to 'spiritualize' the dream. We attempt to make some parts more spiritual than others, so that at least some of the parts seem sacred, spiritual, holy, valuable, rather than it all being equal and neutral. In this way the ego holds onto these parts of the dream to make it real and to be attracted to it. And of course, to be attracted to one part of the dream requires the formation of a 'shadow' attitude which is against other parts.

So for example, to me, Apple Mac computers are more special than Windows PC's. Green grass is more special than brown. Summer days are more special than winter. Certain TV shows are more special than others. The olympics are more special than regular team sports. And raspberry-anything is more special than most other flavors. These are things I've made special, at the expense of other things being despised and disliked.

This is where the Holy Relationship comes in. With a goal of true holiness, we recognize that instead of depending on another separate thing to 'get' what we lack, or to reinforce our own self-specialness, we instead become wholly dependent on God. It is now God who created us, not our parents. God now also created our children, and he is responsible for them, not us. This of course dissolves all family structures. Absolute equality is the only family - God's family. Equality dissolves specialness and sees everything with unconditional love.

You can still be having your relationships and your favorite foods and whatever, but eventually we will let Holy Spirit choose everything for us and we will live in freedom. We may well remain with those we had special love with and no longer see them with specialness. But this doesn't mean we don't love them. It means we love them even MORE. We love them with an unconditional, ego-free love. One where being together is voluntary and not forced, or maintained out of guilt. But not until we are truly ready to accept this. It can't be forced while we still value specialness or we will experience sacrifice and loss.

You can still be in a one-to-one parternship all the way to waking up. Just look at Jesus and Mary as an example.