God created you perfect. i2">It's a done deal. You're already complete. You cannot add to yourself or take away. You can't be changed. You are permanently as God created you. He di2">idn't leave anythi2">ing out or fai2">il to share anythi2">ing or leave you less than completed. You can't be perfected or i2">improved upon. You're already absolutely di2">ivi2">ine.

So the one li2">ie i2">is, anythi2">ing that tells you otherwi2">ise. Anythi2">ing of the ego that suggests, you need to do thi2">is or that, go here or there, learn thi2">is or that, attai2">in thi2">is or that, become thi2">is or that. i2">It's much more a case of, si2">inki2">ing i2">into and accepti2">ing, owni2">ing up to, admi2">itti2">ing to, become re-awakened to, what i2">is ALREADY THERE underneath all thi2">is bullshi2">it that we've dumped on top to PRETEND we are not i2">immortal.

e.g. "Si2">ickness i2">is an attempt to prove you can be hurt"

But i2">in truth you are unhurtable, i2">invulnerable, i2">immortal. So all thi2">is ti2">ime spent tryi2">ing to prove otherwi2">ise, i2">is futi2">ile. i2">It doesn't change anythi2">ing, because i2">it's li2">iterally i2">impossi2">ible to change your soul. All we can do i2">is deny i2">it and pretend i2">it's not di2">ivi2">ine.

So we have thi2">is di2">ivi2">ine self i2">in us, as us. i2">It's all we can really be. And so what i2">is all thi2">is other stuff? All the seeki2">ing, the searchi2">ing, the fi2">iguri2">ing out, the unraveli2">ing, all thi2">is work and effort, all the effort of stri2">ivi2">ing to beli2">ief, tryi2">ing to convi2">ince ourselves, i2">isn't absolutely all of i2">it completely poi2">intless? The truth about what we are can only be accepted or deni2">ied, not changed.

i2">It seems then ulti2">imately the enti2">ire thi2">ing about awakeni2">ing to our di2">ivi2">ine holy self i2">is si2">imply that we stop doi2">ing everythi2">ing ELSE that i2">is taki2">ing us AWAY from i2">it. i2">If we would stop wei2">ighi2">ing ourselves down we'd float ri2">ight up to the surface. i2">If we'd stop attacki2">ing ourselves we'd be perfect already. i2">If we'd stop resi2">isti2">ing the truth we'd just melt i2">into bei2">ing ourselves. i2">If we'd get ri2">id of all thi2">is ego stuff, whi2">ich i2">is the attempt to be somethi2">ing we're not, we'd si2">imply return to bei2">ing what we really are already.

i2">It seems counter i2">intui2">iti2">ive because i2">it's more li2">ike retraci2">ing your steps and goi2">ing backwards, goi2">ing wi2">ithi2">in, returni2">ing to, rather than bui2">ildi2">ing somethi2">ing new. The whole effort to "become" i2">is an ego effort to DEFi2">INE what you are. Or moreso to redefi2">ine i2">it. Whi2">ich i2">is always a li2">ie because you can't be changed.

So every opi2">ini2">ion about ourselves can't be true, unless i2">it ali2">igns wi2">ith our nature as God created us. "i2">I am sti2">ill as God created me" states thi2">is perfectly. Si2">imply, nothi2">ing has happened to you, nothi2">ing has changed you, and thi2">is whole dream has been an excursi2">ion i2">into nothi2">ing. We si2">imply need to accept that WE ALREADY ARE perfect i2">in God and stop tryi2">ing to prove otherwi2">ise.

Thi2">is i2">is why the Atonement i2">is si2">imply a matter of ACCEPTi2">ING what i2">is already true about you, and nothi2">ing else.

""i2">I am as God created me."

Thi2">is si2">ingle thought, held fi2">irmly i2">in the mi2">ind, would save the world. From ti2">ime to ti2">ime we wi2">ill repeat i2">it, as we reach another stage i2">in learni2">ing. i2">It wi2">ill mean far more to you as you advance. These words are sacred, for they are the words God gave i2">in answer to the world you made. By them i2">it di2">isappears, and all thi2">ings seen wi2">ithi2">in i2">its mi2">isty clouds and vaporous i2">illusi2">ions vani2">ish as these words are spoken. For they come from God.

Here i2">is the Word by whi2">ich the Son became Hi2">is Father's happi2">iness, Hi2">is Love, and Hi2">is completi2">ion. Here creati2">ion i2">is proclai2">imed, and honored as i2">it i2">is. There i2">is no dream these words wi2">ill not di2">ispel; no thought of si2">in and no i2">illusi2">ion that the dream contai2">ins that wi2">ill not fade away before thei2">ir mi2">ight. They are the trumpet of awakeni2">ing that sounds around the world. The dead awake i2">in answer to i2">its call. And those who li2">ive and hear thi2">is sound wi2">ill never look on death.

Holy i2">indeed i2">is he who makes these words hi2">is own; ari2">isi2">ing wi2">ith them i2">in hi2">is mi2">ind, recalli2">ing them throughout the day, at ni2">ight bri2">ingi2">ing them wi2">ith hi2">im as he goes to sleep. Hi2">is dreams are happy and hi2">is rest secure; hi2">is safety certai2">in and hi2">is body healed, because he sleeps and wakens wi2">ith the truth before hi2">im always. He wi2">ill save the world because he gi2">ives the world what he recei2">ives each ti2">ime he practi2">ices the words of truth."

A fear years ago, i2">I was at an ACi2">IM retreat and we were doi2">ing a breathi2">ing exerci2">ise. i2">I became fi2">illed up wi2">ith some ki2">ind of energy, whi2">ich li2">ifted my "vi2">ibrati2">ion" very hi2">igh. My mi2">ind started to see past the physi2">ical and reach out and started to see God BEYOND the vei2">il. i2">In that moment i2">I would've left the enti2">ire world behi2">ind to be wi2">ith Hi2">im.

i2">I'll ski2">ip some detai2">ils but after that, i2">I was seei2">ing wi2">ith true percepti2">ion. The amount of awareness and wakefulness i2">I had was off the charts. Everywhere i2">I looked, sti2">ill seei2">ing physi2">ical objects wi2">ith my eyes, i2">I saw God. God was i2">in everythi2">ing i2">I saw and God was i2">in my mi2">ind. My mi2">ind had expanded i2">in some way, movi2">ing up the hologram, to where my ego self seemed di2">issi2">ipated and di2">iffused i2">into the back of my awareness, as though i2">I had no center. My mi2">ind somehow pulled back away from the world and i2">I began to feel li2">ike i2">I was melti2">ing i2">into the background, one wi2">ith i2">it. i2">I felt li2">ike i2">I was becomi2">ing Chri2">ist.

My awareness for some days after, entai2">iled the abi2">ili2">ity to see a profound gentleness i2">in everythi2">ing. Everywhere i2">I looked there was uncondi2">iti2">ional love, i2">in all thi2">ings. Thi2">is love seemed so whole and complete, no matter where i2">I looked, that i2">I felt i2">I had no need to look anywhere else to go fi2">ind anythi2">ing. i2">I saw i2">it i2">in a chai2">ir leg. i2">In a water bottle. i2">In the shadows on a wall.

People were sti2">ill goi2">ing about thei2">ir busi2">iness doi2">ing exactly everythi2">ing i2">in the same egoi2">ic way as before - nothi2">ing changed there, because the body's eyes can ONLY see the physi2">ical form of thi2">ings. But at the same ti2">ime, there was awareness of a love and presence. i2">I was aware of somethi2">ing that i2">it seemed no-one knew was there, even though i2">it seemed obvi2">ious. i2">I became so soft. God was so gentle, so soft and joyous. And he was very, very i2">inti2">imate, whi2">ich was shocki2">ing at fi2">irst because i2">I had previ2">iously always put God far away i2">in the sky and here he was well under my ski2">in.

i2">I also became aware of the hi2">igher levels of the hologram, an experi2">ience of uni2">ity, i2">in whi2">ich the whole was i2">in each part. All of God was i2">in each object i2">I saw. i2">I therefore recogni2">ized for the fi2">irst ti2">ime i2">in experi2">ience, that even though physi2">ical objects seemed to assert that "nothi2">ing i2">is the same anywhere" or "there i2">is nothi2">ing that i2">is whole" or "the whole i2">is not i2">in any of the parts", here i2">in my awareness i2">I could sti2">ill see thi2">is forms and yet, si2">imultaneously, my mi2">ind was aware that a si2">ingle consi2">istent uni2">ifi2">ied whole was present i2">in all parts, fully, transcendi2">ing thei2">ir li2">imi2">itati2">ions and di2">ifferences. Thi2">is taught me the way i2">in whi2">ich physi2">ical matter i2">is a li2">ie, a decepti2">ion desi2">igned to shut out awareness of God's nature.

i2">I was i2">in an altered state for a couple of weeks. i2">I was very ungrounded. i2">I could barely do tasks because my mi2">ind was qui2">ite expanded and out of body. Yet each ti2">ime i2">I di2">id somethi2">ing "groundi2">ing", thi2">is energy that was i2">in me started to funnel down, and thi2">is produced i2">immense joy. Joy would beam out of my face toward others as i2">I started at them very di2">irectly, somethi2">ing i2">I had shy'd away from before, recogni2">izi2">ing i2">I had no needs, no lack, and that there was only outward extensi2">ion. Nothi2">ing could "come i2">in" to me from the outsi2">ide. i2">I felt so safe and protected and free from needs. i2">I di2">idn't even want to eat food, i2">it felt so ali2">ien.

Gradually as i2">I grounded back i2">into my body my expanded awareness narrowed down, became more focused i2">into and through the body, and i2">I became more i2">immersed i2">in the physi2">ical body agai2">in. Thi2">is was li2">ike recei2">ivi2">ing some ki2">ind of brai2">in damage. My awareness di2">imi2">ini2">ished greatly and i2">it felt li2">ike bei2">ing greatly subdued and suppressed, shut down and locked i2">insi2">ide a pri2">ison sui2">it. Thi2">is also stri2">ipped away most of the i2">intense wakefulness that i2">I had, whi2">ich felt li2">ike "leavi2">ing God", whi2">ich was VERY upsetti2">ing.

Thi2">is made i2">it i2">impossi2">ible for me to have God i2">in my mi2">ind, and thus i2">I stopped seei2">ing God outsi2">ide of me i2">in all thi2">ings. i2">It seemed God left. i2">I kept tryi2">ing to fi2">ind God outsi2">ide of me because i2">I thought that He was out there, havi2">ing seen Hi2">im there, but i2">I couldn't fi2">ind Hi2">im because i2">I was no longer aware of Hi2">im Wi2">ITHi2">IN my mi2">ind. And for weeks thi2">is was depressi2">ing and i2">infuri2">iati2">ing, although gradually i2">I adjusted and was reassured by a few momentary gli2">impses that God was sti2">ill wi2">ith me. Returni2">ing to my body felt li2">ike a huge i2">isolati2">ion. As my eye si2">ight returned to looki2">ing out solely through the body's eyes, i2">it was li2">ike bui2">ildi2">ing a bri2">ick wall "behi2">ind" me such that i2">I could no longer have any sense of what was there. The body cut me off from awareness of God, and so i2">I got to see fi2">irst hand just how li2">imi2">iti2">ing bodi2">ies are.

What i2">I later came to reali2">ize was thi2">is was an experi2">ience of true percepti2">ion. A state of seei2">ing a forgi2">iven world. i2">It was as though layer upon layer of thi2">ick "judgement" had been scraped off the surface of the world reveali2">ing an extremely gently held pi2">icture of somethi2">ing very lovable. And yet at the same ti2">ime, the physi2">icali2">ity was the same. The appearance physi2">ically to my eyes was the same. i2">It was what i2">I saw i2">IN i2">it, i2">in SPi2">ITE of the physi2">icali2">ity, that i2">I longed to reconnect wi2">ith.

Thi2">is i2">is why, for me personally, i2">I know that thi2">is physi2">ical world i2">is not real. i2">I know how much the body li2">ies. i2">I know how the body's sense are massi2">ively li2">imi2">iti2">ing. i2">I know how matter li2">ies to try to obscure the holographi2">ic nature of God and hi2">is omni2">ipresence. i2">I've seen i2">it and experi2">ienced the transi2">iti2">ion back and forth. God gave me a gli2">impse of awakeni2">ing and i2">it was the most profoundly di2">irectly educati2">ional experi2">ience of my enti2">ire li2">ife.

Thi2">is i2">is why i2">I know fi2">irst hand that there i2">is somethi2">ing very much beyond thi2">is world, a reali2">ity whi2">ich i2">is completely obscured by forms and trapped by bodi2">ies. Thi2">is world i2">is not my home. i2">I have gri2">ieved for the "loss of God" and gradually over ti2">ime use thi2">is as i2">incenti2">ive, a taste of what's to come, to fi2">ind my way back to God agai2">in.

The attracti2">ion to Hi2">im was SO STRONG that i2">I would've leapt i2">into Hi2">is arms i2">in an i2">instant wi2">ithout so much as a consi2">iderati2">ion for anythi2">ing else i2">in all the world. We have protected ourselves from rememberi2">ing just how appeali2">ing God i2">is, and why NOTHi2">ING else means anythi2">ing even remotely close to Hi2">im. We only block awareness i2">in order to hi2">ide thi2">is extreme attracti2">ion. Otherwi2">ise we would awaken i2">in a heartbeat.

i2">I am not affected by anyone.

No-one has caused me to be upset.

i2">I am responsi2">ible for everythi2">ing i2">I am feeli2">ing.

i2">I am choosi2">ing to be thi2">is way myself.

Nobody has done anythi2">ing to me at all.

i2">I have never been hurt by anyone.

The world has never done anythi2">ing to me.

i2">I am not caused by anyone or anythi2">ing outsi2">ide of me.

i2">I have no enemi2">ies or attackers.

i2">I am i2">immortal and eternal and i2">invulnerable.

i2">I am not a vi2">icti2">im of thi2">is world at all.

i2">I am not vulnerable to attack.

No-one has ever attacked me, they are all i2">innocent.

Thi2">is world i2">is not really happeni2">ing and i2">its not happeni2">ing to me.

There are no problems.

i2">I do not need to suffer.

Everyone i2">is i2">innocent and so am i2">I.

i2">I am i2">immortal spi2">iri2">it.

i2">I li2">ive forever and cannot be harmed.

Nothi2">ing has happened to me.

i2">I am sti2">ill as God created me.

i2">I am love.

i2">I am i2">immortal.

Someti2">imes i2">I i2">imagi2">ine myself bei2">ing attacked. You'd thi2">ink thi2">is would be a pretty dumb thi2">ing to do.

But i2">if i2">I'm percei2">ivi2">ing myself as somehow i2">in need, perhaps because i2">I'm ti2">ired/underslept or stressed out, i2">I start to i2">imagi2">ine someone nearby comi2">ing along and i2">interacti2">ing wi2">ith me. And i2">in that i2">interacti2">ion i2">I i2">imagi2">ine that they are bei2">ing needy and they put some ki2">ind of pressure on me or are demandi2">ing somethi2">ing of me, and i2">I start to get cranky and retali2">iate defensi2">ively. Then i2">I'm i2">imagi2">ini2">ing how i2">I'm havi2">ing to defend myself and am feeli2">ing attacked and all thi2">is, and tryi2">ing to justi2">ify myself, as i2">if i2">it's really happeni2">ing.

When i2">I then catch myself, whi2">ich happens sooner than before, i2">I reali2">ize that i2">I'm actually havi2">ing thi2">is fantasy enti2">irely 'wi2">ithi2">in' my own mi2">ind and i2">it's got nothi2">ing to do wi2">ith that person. Somehow i2">I've spli2">it my mi2">ind and set up part of myself to be agai2">inst another part of myself. Thi2">is i2">indi2">icates to me that i2">I'm beli2">ievi2">ing i2">I'm i2">in need and percei2">ivi2">ing myself to be lacki2">ing, so i2">I need to get that corrected. i2">I have to admi2">it that i2">I'm doi2">ing thi2">is to myself and stop i2">it, and maybe i2">I need to ask for Holy Spi2">iri2">it's help here, i2">in addi2">iti2">ion to taki2">ing full responsi2">ibi2">ili2">ity for i2">it.

Now, thi2">is i2">is a more obvi2">ious example of me havi2">ing thi2">is fantasy of self-attack when nobody i2">is around and i2">it's clearly not tri2">iggered by them other than through the suggesti2">ion that they even 'exi2">ist' nearby (whi2">ich i2">is enough). But thi2">is same mechani2">ic basi2">ically plays out regardless of whether i2">I'm provoked or not. Regardless of whether i2">I'm alone or wi2">ith someone. And when i2">I'm wi2">ith someone and i2">I'm experi2">ienci2">ing thi2">is, i2">it seems more obvi2">ious to buy i2">into the i2">idea that they're causi2">ing i2">it, and to them project blame onto them.

But at all ti2">imes, thi2">is i2">is all happeni2">ing i2">in my own mi2">ind. i2">It's me attacki2">ing myself and tryi2">ing to pass i2">it off as someone else causi2">ing i2">it. Si2">illy me. i2">I need to forgi2">ive myself and choose peace i2">instead.

i2">I've been wrong about the world. Agai2">in.

My vi2">iew of what the world i2">IS has changed a lot recently. i2">I see now that ACi2">IM i2">is telli2">ing me the world i2">itself was projected out as "nothi2">ing", or an empty screen, and THEN we projected secondary meani2">ing onto i2">it and "gave" i2">it meani2">ing. We can gi2">ive i2">it egoi2">ic meani2">ing, or we can gi2">ive i2">it heavenly meani2">ing. And thus i2">it acts li2">ike a mi2">irror to REFLECT an outward pi2">icture of an i2">inward condi2">iti2">ion. Thi2">is i2">is projected on top of what the world i2">IS, whi2">ich i2">is a vei2">il of i2">illusi2">ions.

What i2">I USED to beli2">ieve was qui2">ite di2">ifferent. Some people say there i2">is an "objecti2">ive world", and that the course i2">is telli2">ing us we have "subjecti2">ive" percepti2">ions about i2">it. i2">In thi2">is vi2">iew we have beli2">iefs ABOUT the world. i2">I never li2">iked thi2">is approach because i2">it seemed to i2">imply the world had to be objecti2">ive, whi2">ich meant i2">it was real. And clearly other parts of ACi2">IM tell us God di2">id NOT create the world. So then i2">I threw out the i2">idea that we were really havi2">ing i2">ideas ABOUT the world, whi2">ich led to beli2">ievi2">ing the world i2">ITSELF was a more di2">irect "beli2">ief".

What seemed to make more sense was to say that there i2">is no objecti2">ive world, especi2">ially i2">in li2">ight of "there i2">is no world." And there are statements li2">ike "the world i2">is false percepti2">ion" and "there i2">is no world apart from what you wi2">ish", etc. These seem to i2">imply, coupled wi2">ith "projecti2">ion makes percepti2">ion", that we li2">iterally project out the physi2">ical world i2">in one si2">ingle act, and how i2">it appears to us depends on "how we made i2">it" or what we projected i2">it from. Such that there i2">is no objecti2">ive world, ONLY subjecti2">ive fluctuati2">ing worlds that li2">ive i2">INSi2">IDE of subjecti2">ivi2">ity.

i2">I thought thi2">is made sense for a long ti2">ime because there i2">is a lot i2">in the course about how you cannot see both worlds, how you can have ei2">ither false or true percepti2">ion, how you see what you project, and how forgi2">iveness/chri2">ist-vi2">isi2">ion doesn't look upon bodi2">ies. Agai2">in, major parts of the course seemed to cli2">ick i2">into place, but there were always a few thi2">ings whi2">ich seemed to not qui2">ite li2">ine up.

i2">I'd also fi2">ind that there would always be SOME people who beli2">ieved certai2">in other chunks of the course, whi2">ich contradi2">icted my i2">ideas about the world. Maybe they got those parts Ri2">IGHT, BUT also got OTHER parts wrong, and so sti2">ill di2">idn't have the whole pi2">icture. Some thi2">ings they sai2">id seemed to si2">ide wi2">ith a parti2">ial vi2">iew, that the world must be objecti2">ively real, created by God, and that's why the course talks about projecti2">ing ONTO i2">it. But thi2">is couldn't be based on what else i2">is wri2">itten.

So i2">it always seemed li2">ike everyone had a bi2">ig chunk of the truth but not the whole pi2">icture. And i2">I thought i2">I had the whole pi2">icture too. But apparently i2">I di2">id not. Because what i2">I see i2">in the course now tells me somethi2">ing di2">ifferent. Somethi2">ing whi2">ich produces far less contradi2">icti2">ions and seems to be a more complete pi2">icture.

What i2">it says i2">is that i2">in the separati2">ion, we came up wi2">ith the i2">idea of an opposi2">ite to God, whi2">ich i2">is really an i2">idea of nothi2">ingness, si2">ince God i2">is everythi2">ing. Thi2">is was projected out from the mi2">ind, whi2">ich "made the world". We're talki2">ing here about the maki2">ing of space and ti2">ime and setti2">ing the wheels of physi2">ical objects/evoluti2">ion i2">in moti2">ion. But because thi2">is was an i2">idea of nothi2">ing, i2">it really had no meani2">ing of i2">its own. You mi2">ight also noti2">ice that "outer space" i2">is really mostly empty nothi2">ingness.

"That was the fi2">irst projecti2">ion of error outward. ***The world arose to hi2">ide i2">it (a fi2">irst projecti2">ion), and became the screen on whi2">ich i2">it was projected ( a second projecti2">ion)***, and drawn between you and truth."

"The world you made i2">is therefore totally chaoti2">ic, governed by arbi2">itrary and senseless "laws," and wi2">ithout meani2">ing of ANY ki2">ind. For i2">it was made out of what you do NOT want, projected FROM your mi2">ind, because you were AFRAi2">ID of i2">it."

"***The world i2">is nothi2">ing i2">in i2">itself. Your mi2">ind must gi2">ive i2">it meani2">ing.*** And what you behold ***upon i2">it*** are your wi2">ishes, acted out so you can look on them and thi2">ink them real."

"i2">It represents a si2">ituati2">ion i2">in whi2">ich God and the ego "challenge" each other as to whose meani2">ing i2">is to be wri2">itten ***i2">in the empty space*** whi2">ich meani2">inglessness provi2">ides. The ego rushes i2">in franti2">ically to establi2">ish i2">its own "i2">ideas" there, fearful that ******the voi2">id****** may otherwi2">ise be used to demonstrate i2">its own unreali2">ity."

"Yet separati2">ion i2">is but empty space, enclosi2">ing nothi2">ing, doi2">ing nothi2">ing, and as unsubstanti2">ial as the vacant place between the ri2">ipples that a shi2">ip has made i2">in passi2">ing by."

Clearly then, what has taken place are TWO steps. The fi2">irst i2">is that we projected out the physi2">ical world of bodi2">ies - really empty nothi2">ingness ("the body i2">is nothi2">ing" etc). Thi2">is was a world of nothi2">ing and the i2">idea of si2">in or "absence of love/everythi2">ing". i2">It's really neutral because i2">it's nothi2">ing and has no meani2">ing. A meani2">ingless world. Thi2">is world then became A SCREEN onto whi2">ich we SECONDARi2">ILY PROJECTED the mi2">ind's beli2">ief i2">in i2">it, whi2">ich GAVE i2">it meani2">ing, GAVE i2">it reali2">ity, and projected si2">in and gui2">ilt onto i2">it.

i2">In a sense then, there ARE two ki2">inds of layers to the world. What the world i2">IS, and what we MAKE OF i2">IT. Thi2">is then doesn't mean the world i2">is objecti2">ively real, only that i2">it i2">is i2">in some way "separate" from the secondary projecti2">ions we put ONTO i2">it. The meani2">ing we Gi2">IVE to i2">it. Thi2">is also corresponds to the i2">idea that the world i2">itself i2">is an i2">illusi2">ion, whi2">ich we have further i2">illusi2">ions ABOUT.

For example, the world i2">is an i2">illusi2">ion and i2">is unreal. When we then project untruth onto i2">it, tryi2">ing to MAKE i2">it real by Gi2">IVi2">ING i2">it reali2">ity, thi2">is i2">is what we call false percepti2">ion. i2">It makes a world whi2">ich i2">is actually an i2">illusi2">ion, SEEM as i2">if i2">it's i2">is REAL world. And now physi2">ical form i2">is beli2">ieved and appearances decei2">ive and the mi2">ind i2">is lost, i2">insane and confused. The alternati2">ive i2">is true percepti2">ion whi2">ich recogni2">izes the world for WHAT i2">IT i2">IS, "accurate percepti2">ion", whi2">ich reveals the world i2">IS an i2">illusi2">ion, i2">IS nothi2">ing, and does not really exi2">ist.

So i2">it all sti2">ill li2">ines up perfectly wi2">ith what the course says, provi2">ided you now recogni2">ize that the i2">interpretati2">ion of what you THOUGHT i2">it MEANT, or what i2">it was referri2">ing to, mi2">ight be a li2">ittle di2">ifferent. That the world i2">is "di2">isti2">inct" from what you project onto i2">it, doesn't have to mean or i2">imply that God created i2">it. And because i2">it i2">IS "separate" from your projecti2">ions onto i2">it, or beli2">iefs about i2">it, you CAN change your mi2">ind ABOUT i2">it. And we are i2">indeed asked over and over agai2">in to do thi2">is.

"The world you see (false percepti2">ions about an i2">illusory world) cannot be the world God loves, and yet Hi2">is Word assures us that He loves the world (loves the i2">illusory world through truth). God's Word has promi2">ised us that peace i2">is possi2">ible here, and what He promi2">ises can hardly be i2">impossi2">ible. But i2">it i2">is true that the world must be looked at di2">ifferently, i2">if Hi2">is promi2">ises are to be accepted. What the world i2">is, i2">is but a fact (as though, a di2">isti2">inct separate "thi2">ing"). You cannot choose what thi2">is should be (because i2">it was projected i2">in the fi2">irst projecti2">ion). But you can choose how you would see i2">it (per the second projecti2">ion). i2">Indeed, you must choose thi2">is."

So now i2">it becomes possi2">ible to rei2">interpret the "world you made", by rei2">interpreti2">ing the "world you see" i2">ie your psychologi2">ical i2">interpretati2">ion of what you made, or what you "make of" what you made. When you take the neutral meani2">ingless i2">illusory world you made, and you take away from i2">it the projecti2">ion of si2">in and gui2">ilt, and leave "an empty space", uncluttered from ego projecti2">ions, UPON whi2">ich you project God, love, li2">ight, holi2">iness, the "world you made" now reflects heaven's li2">ight, and you see "God i2">in everythi2">ing you see." But bear i2">in mi2">ind thi2">is i2">is a REFLECTi2">ION i2">in a mi2">irror whi2">ich has no meani2">ing of i2">its own, and i2">is STi2">ILL just nothi2">ing. i2">It does not mean the mi2">irror i2">is God or i2">is heaven.

What thi2">is means for me i2">is that i2">I now recogni2">ize there ARE two parts to thi2">is world. There i2">is the world we made, the physi2">ical world of forms, whi2">ich i2">in and of i2">itself i2">is nothi2">ing and means nothi2">ing. Then there i2">is meani2">ing we Gi2">IVE to i2">it whi2">ich i2">is what i2">I project ONTO i2">it whi2">ich produces my percepti2">ions ABOUT i2">it.

Thi2">is results i2">in my "joi2">ini2">ing the camp" whi2">ich clai2">imed that percepti2">ion was always "about the world", but Wi2">ITHOUT the clause that suggested "thi2">is must mean God created i2">it." Rather than merely thi2">ink that "the world i2">is i2">in my mi2">ind", i2">ie that i2">its contents are my mi2">ind's contents, i2">I can now approach "the world i2">I made" but wi2">ithout the false-percepti2">ion ego baggage.

i2">In a way thi2">is means no longer "throwi2">ing the world out wi2">ith the bathwater". The di2">irty water of ego projecti2">ions ONTO i2">it can be let go, and i2">I can then become more wi2">illi2">ing to look at thi2">is same world, the physi2">ical world, through eyes of Chri2">ist. Devoi2">id of the projected si2">in and gui2">ilt, or labels of wrongfulness. Whi2">ich also overlooks appearances and di2">ifferences and forms and transcends the hi2">ierarchy of i2">illusi2">ions.

Recogni2">izi2">ing that, eventually, i2">I can sti2">ill look at "thi2">is world" through more lovi2">ing eyes, Wi2">ITHOUT i2">it havi2">ing to mean that God created i2">it, because of the clari2">ity that we Di2">ID project i2">it out i2">in a fi2">irst step BEFORE we projected ONTO i2">it. i2">I noti2">ice now many references to how we look UPON the world, project UPON the world, and therefore Fi2">ILTER the world, dependi2">ing on where our mi2">ind i2">is at, and thi2">is can be thought of as SEPARATE FROM the physi2">ical world i2">itself.

i2">I can now stop resi2">isti2">ing the i2">idea of blades of grass bei2">ing "a si2">ign of God's perfecti2">ion", because i2">if seen through lovi2">ing eyes they are rei2">interpreted as SYMBOLS that REFLECT God's perfecti2">ion. Not because they are made of God or are created BY hi2">im, but because they are forgi2">iven.

"All thi2">is beauty wi2">ill ri2">ise to bless your si2">ight, as you look upon the world wi2">ith forgi2">ivi2">ing eyes. For forgi2">iveness li2">iterally TRANSFORMS vi2">isi2">ion, and lets you see the real world, reachi2">ing qui2">ietly and gently across chaos, and removi2">ing all i2">illusi2">ions that had twi2">isted your percepti2">ion, and fi2">ixed i2">it on the past. The smallest leaf becomes a thi2">ing of wonder, and a blade of grass a si2">ign of God's perfecti2">ion. From the forgi2">iven world, the Son of God i2">is li2">ifted easi2">ily to hi2">is home. And there, he knows that he has ALWAYS rested there i2">in peace."

What thi2">is means i2">is that a ki2">ind of ... reuni2">ion of sorts, between me and the physi2">ical world, up to a poi2">int of course. A wi2">illi2">ingness to recogni2">ize that i2">it can MAKE SENSE, to suggest i2">I can look at i2">it sti2">ill but i2">in a way that doesn't take i2">its i2">illusi2">ions seri2">iously, OR condemn i2">it, OR needi2">ing to make i2">it out to be negati2">ive. Because what the world i2">IS i2">is i2">in fact completely neutral and nothi2">ing, ulti2">imately.

My egoi2">ic false percepti2">ions about i2">it, were mi2">istaken for what the world i2">IS. Gui2">ilt and si2">in and fear we ASSOCi2">IATED Wi2">ITH the world, thought to be ONE THi2">ING, when i2">in fact they are two thi2">ings. i2">I di2">id thi2">is as part of my Di2">IS-associ2">iati2">ion of gui2">ilt i2">in my mi2">ind, whi2">ich bound my gui2">ilt to the world and made me beli2">ieve i2">IT was i2">inherently gui2">ilty. The world cannot be i2">inherently anythi2">ing, because i2">it i2">is really nothi2">ing. There i2">is no world at all.

i2">If what the world i2">IS i2">is not i2">inherently evi2">il, because i2">it i2">is nothi2">ing, then thi2">is at least provi2">ides the logi2">ical basi2">is for bei2">ing able to project love onto i2">it. Rather than the i2">impossi2">ibi2">ili2">ity of lovi2">ing an i2">inherently false world. i2">If the world can act to reflect heaven, then i2">it makes i2">it OK to "love i2">it", even i2">if thi2">is i2">is a temporary love desi2">igned ulti2">imately to di2">ispel i2">it.

i2">I also see that i2">I thought that movi2">ing i2">into a hi2">igher percepti2">ion meant "not seei2">ing the physi2">ical world", and i2">I had associ2">iated the physi2">ical world wi2">ith false percepti2">ion. i2">I thought i2">it should become i2">invi2">isi2">ible and unseen, when approachi2">ing chri2">ist vi2">isi2">ion. But i2">I see now that i2">in fact a bi2">ig part of reachi2">ing forgi2">iveness sti2">ill entai2">ils looki2">ing upon the physi2">ical world but Wi2">ITH forgi2">iveness, whi2">ich overlooks i2">its forms and such and gi2">ives i2">it a love to reflect back. Recogni2">izi2">ing i2">it as a mi2">irror wi2">ith no meani2">ing of i2">its own. As such blades of grass and leaves can become "thi2">ings of wonder" and the world can appear beauti2">iful, as i2">it prepares to vani2">ish.

"Chri2">ist's vi2">isi2">ion has one law. i2">It does not look upon a body and mi2">istake i2">it for the Son whom God created (but sti2">ill looks upon a body). i2">It beholds a li2">ight beyond the body (at the same ti2">ime); an i2">idea beyond what can be touched, a puri2">ity undi2">immed by errors, pi2">iti2">iful mi2">istakes, and fearful thoughts of gui2">ilt from dreams of si2">in. i2">It sees no separati2">ion. And i2">it looks on everyone, on every ci2">ircumstance, all happeni2">ings and all events (whi2">ich i2">is sti2">ill physi2">ical), wi2">ithout the sli2">ightest fadi2">ing of the li2">ight i2">it sees."

"For you wi2">ill not i2">interpret what you see wi2">ithout the Ai2">id that God has gi2">iven you. And i2">in Hi2">is si2">ight there i2">IS another world. You li2">ive i2">in that world just as much as thi2">is, for BOTH are concepts of yourself, whi2">ich can be i2">interchanged, but never joi2">intly held."

"Have you wondered what the world i2">is REALLY li2">ike? How would i2">it look through HAPPY eyes? The world you see i2">is but a judgment on YOURSELF. i2">IT i2">is not there at all. But judgment lays a sentence on i2">it, JUSTi2">IFi2">IES i2">it, and MAKES i2">IT REAL. Such i2">is the world you see; a judgment on yourself, and made by YOU. Thi2">is si2">ickly pi2">icture of yourself i2">is carefully preserved by the ego, whose i2">image i2">it i2">IS and whi2">ich i2">it loves, and placed OUTSi2">IDE you, i2">in the world.”

Noti2">ice how that paragraph i2">is really talki2">ing about your secondary projecti2">ion onto the world, whi2">ich places an i2">image i2">INTO the world, seemi2">ingly outsi2">ide of you, whi2">ich i2">is a pi2">icture of your si2">ick self you projected ONTO i2">it. Thi2">is i2">is what the EGO makes of you and of the world - the voi2">id - the empti2">iness, i2">in tryi2">ing to fi2">ill i2">it wi2">ith i2">images.

"i2">It i2">is essenti2">ial, therefore, that you learn to ***recogni2">ize the meani2">ingless, and accept i2">it wi2">ithout fear***. i2">If you are fearful (i2">in ego/false percepti2">ion), i2">it i2">is certai2">in that you wi2">ill endow the world wi2">ith attri2">ibutes whi2">ich i2">it does not possess, and crowd i2">it (project onto i2">it secondari2">ily) wi2">ith i2">images that do not exi2">ist."

The world we made i2">ITSELF, can be "a thi2">ing of wonder." But only i2">if i2">it i2">is seen through "lovi2">ing eyes".

"There i2">IS another purpose i2">in the world that error made because i2">it has another Maker, Who CAN reconci2">ile i2">its goal wi2">ith Hi2">is Creator's Purpose."

"The real world i2">is attai2">ined si2">imply by the COMPLETE forgi2">iveness of the old; the world you see Wi2">ITHOUT forgi2">iveness. The Great Transformer of percepti2">ion wi2">ill undertake Wi2">ITH you the careful searchi2">ing of the mi2">ind that MADE thi2">is world, and uncover TO YOU the SEEMi2">ING reasons for your maki2">ing i2">it. i2">In the li2">ight of the REAL reason that He bri2">ings, as you follow Hi2">im, He wi2">ill SHOW you that there i2">is NO reason here at all. Each spot Hi2">IS reason touches, grows ali2">ive wi2">ith beauty. And what SEEMED ugly, i2">in the darkness of your LACK of reason, i2">is suddenly released to loveli2">iness. Not even what the Son of God made i2">in i2">insani2">ity, could be wi2">ithout a hi2">idden spark of beauty, that gentleness could release."

"Agai2">in we come to the questi2">ion of judgment. Thi2">is ti2">ime, ask yourself whether your judgment or the Word of God i2">is more li2">ikely to be true. For they say di2">ifferent thi2">ings about the world, and thi2">ings so opposi2">ite that i2">it i2">is poi2">intless to try to reconci2">ile them. God offers the world salvati2">ion; your judgment would condemn i2">it. God says there i2">is no death; your judgment sees but death as the i2">inevi2">itable end of li2">ife. God's Word assures you that He loves the world; your judgment says i2">it i2">is unlovable. Who i2">is ri2">ight? For one of you i2">is wrong. i2">It must be so."

"Peace i2">is i2">impossi2">ible to those who look on war. Peace i2">is i2">inevi2">itable to those who offer peace. How easi2">ily, then, i2">is your judgment of the world escaped. i2">It i2">is not the world whi2">ich makes peace seem i2">impossi2">ible. i2">It i2">is the world you see that i2">is i2">impossi2">ible. Yet has God's Judgment on thi2">is di2">istorted world redeemed i2">it and made i2">it fi2">it to welcome peace. And peace descends on i2">it i2">in joyous answer. Peace now belongs here, because a Thought of God has entered. What else but a Thought of God turns hell to Heaven merely by bei2">ing what i2">It i2">is? The earth bows down before i2">Its graci2">ious Presence, and i2">It leans down i2">in answer to rai2">ise i2">it up agai2">in. Now i2">is the questi2">ion di2">ifferent. i2">It i2">is no longer, "Can peace be possi2">ible i2">in thi2">is world?" but i2">instead, "i2">Is i2">it not i2">impossi2">ible that peace be absent here?"

"i2">Into thi2">is empty space, from whi2">ich the GOAL of si2">in has been removed, i2">is Heaven free to be remembered. Here i2">its peace can come, and perfect heali2">ing take the place of death. The body can become a si2">ign of li2">ife, a promi2">ise of redempti2">ion, and a breath of i2">immortali2">ity to those grown si2">ick of breathi2">ing i2">in the feti2">id scent of death. Let i2">it have heali2">ing as i2">its PURPOSE. Then wi2">ill i2">it send forth the message i2">it recei2">ived, and by i2">its health and loveli2">iness proclai2">im the truth and value that i2">it represents. Let i2">it recei2">ive the power to represent an endless li2">ife, forever unattacked. And to your brother let i2">its message be, "Behold me, brother, at your hand i2">I li2">ive."

"The world stands li2">ike a block before Chri2">ist's face. But true percepti2">ion looks on i2">it as nothi2">ing more than just a fragi2">ile vei2">il, so easi2">ily di2">ispelled that i2">it can last no longer than an i2">instant. i2">It i2">is seen at last for ***only what i2">it i2">is***. And now i2">it ***cannot fai2">il to di2">isappear***, for now there i2">is an ***empty place made clean and ready***. Where destructi2">ion was percei2">ived the face of Chri2">ist appears, and i2">in that i2">instant i2">is ***the world forgot, wi2">ith ti2">ime forever ended as the world spi2">ins i2">into nothi2">ingness*** from where i2">it came."

i2">I want to tell you about a way i2">in whi2">ich i2">I used my persona to destroy myself, and how i2">I am learni2">ing to overcome i2">it. Thi2">is was actually a very very pai2">inful long-term lesson, so i2">it i2">is hard to wri2">ite about.

i2">I grew up as a hi2">ighly sensi2">iti2">ive person, who experi2">ienced everythi2">ing i2">in an i2">intense, overwhelmi2">ing, overpoweri2">ing way. i2">In order to try to cope wi2">ith thi2">is, i2">I developed the use of my persona. The persona i2">is the si2">ide of the ego spli2">it-mi2">ind that focuses on speci2">ialness, goodness, success, soci2">ial acceptabi2">ili2">ity, favori2">iti2">ism, pleasantness, etc. So i2">I went very strongly i2">into 'people pleasi2">ing'.

What i2">I'd do, qui2">ite automati2">ically/unconsci2">iously, was i2">I'd put on thi2">is facade, li2">iterally a 'false face', where i2">I'd smi2">ile a lot, become very qui2">iet, try to appear pleasant, try not to upset anyone, look unthreateni2">ing and harmless, as though 'showi2">ing thi2">is' to people would deflect them and therefore protect me. i2">It was my attempt to be i2">invi2">isi2">ible. Thi2">is i2">included a really i2">intense repressi2">ion of myself. Basi2">ically i2">I was usi2">ing thi2">is to hi2">ide my Self.

i2">In any publi2">ic si2">ituati2">ion i2">I would put on thi2">is persona mask and make i2">it appear that nothi2">ing was wrong, that everythi2">ing was good and normal, nothi2">ing to see here, bei2">ing ni2">ice to everyone and don't say a si2">ingle word, and not get hurt. But there were many ti2">imes thi2">is blew up i2">in my face.

Once i2">I was on a bus headi2">ing i2">into town and i2">it stopped at the hospi2">ital. A man got on the bus and sat nearby. He sai2">id that he had just gotten out of the hospi2">ital from hi2">is 3rd heart attack. Thi2">is alone was enough to tri2">igger me to hi2">ide myself even more than i2">I already was. So i2">I smi2">iled a lot. He, havi2">ing just gone through li2">ife-changi2">ing events, started up a conversati2">ion wi2">ith me, whi2">ich was horri2">ifyi2">ing. He saw i2">I was smi2">ili2">ing and thought that i2">it meant i2">I was happy, and therefore wanted to know what my 'secret to a happy li2">ife' was. Thi2">is put tremendous extra pressure on me (as i2">I saw i2">it) and i2">I just wanted to get the hell out of there. To do thi2">is, i2">I i2">intensi2">ifi2">ied even more thi2">is persona of hi2">idi2">ing myself, whi2">ich was an attempt to reject hi2">im, smi2">ili2">ing even more, bei2">ing very ti2">ight-li2">ipped, and just wanti2">ing the ordeal to end. i2">I just became more and more qui2">iet. For some reason i2">I seemed to just do thi2">is as an automati2">ic defense that i2">I'd learned.

Once i2">I got off the bus, i2">I was just about ready to hurl. i2">I put so much effort i2">into psychologi2">ically rejecti2">ing the man, and hi2">idi2">ing myself, that i2">I felt li2">iterally si2">ick. i2">I reached/retched uncontrollably for several mi2">inutes before i2">I could calm down. Thi2">is put a huge damper on my day and was somewhat traumati2">ic. But thi2">is wasn't the only effect of thi2">is.

See, when i2">I used my persona to hi2">ide my real Self, thi2">is wouldn't just mean rejecti2">ing the other person, i2">it would mean rejecti2">ing me. The more i2">I tri2">ied to shut them out, the more i2">I shut myself out. i2">I had no i2">idea i2">I was doi2">ing thi2">is. But what i2">I di2">id know was how i2">it felt. Absolutely horri2">ible. i2">I would come away from bad experi2">iences li2">ike thi2">is, whi2">ich occurred many many ti2">imes i2">in all ki2">inds of publi2">ic scenari2">ios, wi2">ith a feeli2">ing of tremendous tensi2">ion i2">in my head from i2">intense embarrassment/shame/humi2">ili2">iati2">ion. i2">I'd get a horri2">ible headache, but even worse, i2">I would feel deeply, deeply, deeply hurt. Thi2">is hurt was more i2">intense and horri2">ible than ANY other emoti2">ion i2">I have ever felt for any reason. Psychologi2">ically i2">it was li2">ike i2">I had experi2">ienced every si2">ingle form of rejecti2">ion, abandonment, hurt and pai2">in all at once. The absolute only way to move past thi2">is was to have a huge cry.

So, as a result of putti2">ing on a persona and pretendi2">ing to be someone i2">I was not, regardless of whether that fake self seemed to be 'ni2">ice' or 'ki2">ind' or anythi2">ing anyone values, the only way i2">I could appear to be li2">iterally 'someone else' was to horrendously suppress, deny, reject and abandon myself. i2">I thought i2">I was usi2">ing separati2">ion 'agai2">inst' other people to separate myself from them i2">in order to protect myself, but thi2">is separati2">ion di2">id nothi2">ing but hurt me.

i2">I also had a huge fear of other people judgi2">ing me, and a fear of rejecti2">ion. What i2">I di2">idn't reali2">ize was that each ti2">ime that i2">I tri2">ied to put on a persona mask of ni2">ice, li2">ikable, happy-smi2">iley, qui2">iet or whatever, i2">I was buyi2">ing i2">into an ego thought system. And by doi2">ing that, i2">I was taki2">ing a gamble. Ei2">ither i2">I would 'get' the result i2">I wanted whi2">ich was that people would be deflected and i2">ignore me and i2">I would pass by 'safely', OR other people would attack me or pressure me i2">in some way and i2">I'd end up sufferi2">ing. By beli2">ievi2">ing i2">in the potenti2">ial of bei2">ing seen to be accepted or li2">iked or pleasi2">ing to others, i2">I was also si2">imultaneously beli2">ievi2">ing i2">in the 'potenti2">ial' that others would judge me. i2">I wanted them to judge me favorably, whi2">ich would feed my 'goodi2">ie goodi2">ie' persona, whi2">ich meant i2">I had to beli2">ieve i2">in judgement. And because i2">I beli2">ieved i2">in judgement, i2">I li2">ived i2">in fear of i2">it.

So i2">I thought i2">I had an i2">issue of bei2">ing afrai2">id of judgement from others. A fear of rejecti2">ion. And thi2">is fear of rejecti2">ion cycled around i2">in a vi2">ici2">ious cycle, compelli2">ing me to want to NOT be rejected, and therefore to put on a smi2">iley persona face i2">in order to get other people to not reject or hurt me. But of course that merely put me closer i2">in touch wi2">ith rejecti2">ion and judgement, i2">if not by others then much moreso by myself. The amount of rejecti2">ion i2">I experi2">ienced from myself TO myself as a result of self-suppressi2">ion, was far worse than anythi2">ing anyone else di2">id. So thi2">is strategy really di2">idn't actually work, even though i2">I kept tryi2">ing to use i2">it, and each ti2">ime i2">it got worse. Over ti2">ime i2">I just became more and more upti2">ight and qui2">iet and wi2">ithdrawn from soci2">iety, eventually jobless and depressed and deeply unhappy and unable to see a way to be di2">ifferent.

Over ti2">ime, through vari2">ious avenues of heali2">ing, not least of whi2">ich was the support by my wi2">ife who showed up ri2">ight when i2">I was at my worst, i2">I gradually have learned about the dynami2">ics of what i2">I do to myself versus what i2">I thought other people were goi2">ing to do to me. i2">I learned pai2">infully and slowly to see that i2">I only saw other people as 'attacki2">ing judgi2">ing strangers' because *i2">I* had already attacked them fi2">irst. Through the years of worki2">ing wi2">ith A Course i2">in Mi2">iracles and vari2">ious other thi2">ings i2">I've come to very gradually reali2">ize exactly why my use of the persona i2">is completely self-defeati2">ing and does not help at all. All the persona does i2">is secti2">ion off everythi2">ing i2">I thi2">ink i2">is wrong wi2">ith me i2">into a ti2">idy li2">ittle box and shove i2">it away i2">into the dark recesses of my mi2">ind, later to surface as pai2">in and sufferi2">ing.

Yet, over ti2">ime i2">I've sti2">ill held onto a beli2">ief that i2">I am mai2">inly afrai2">id of rejecti2">ion or judgement, rather than reali2">izi2">ing that my attempt to use the persona i2">is what actually causes the problem. Every ti2">ime i2">I try to do what other people would want, or make myself li2">ike able, or appease others, or focus on what other people li2">ike or would buy, or whether i2">I'd get approval, or showi2">ing only the parts of myself that i2">I thi2">ink are acceptable to others, thi2">is AUTOMATi2">ICALLY creates a fear of rejecti2">ion and judgement. Because really, by usi2">ing the persona (i2">i.e. wanti2">ing to feed i2">it by creati2">ing a self-i2">image/persona of bei2">ing pleasi2">ing) i2">I am actually already rejecti2">ing myself and judgi2">ing myself. Why would i2">I want to put a facade on myself to cover up my True Self? Why would i2">I want to soften the blow of someone else's atti2">itude by abandoni2">ing myself fi2">irst, so that i2">I then need a defense?

The truth that i2">is starti2">ing to reveal i2">itself to me now, i2">is that i2">if i2">I actually just be true to myself, and completely drop all need to use the persona to be 'li2">ikable' or 'acceptable to others' or 'what they want' etc, i2">I actually stay i2">in a STRENGTH and a authenti2">ici2">ity that empowers me and completely overri2">ides the apparent need, ei2">ither for a fake persona self, or for a defense agai2">inst rejecti2">ion. And so thi2">is reveals what really i2">is underneath all thi2">is.

i2">If i2">I reject myself Fi2">IRST, i2">I wi2">ill then beli2">ieve i2">I have to use a false self-i2">image-persona to show other people a versi2">ion of me that they wi2">ill li2">ike, so that they won't poi2">int out how shi2">itty i2">I am. Once i2">i'm i2">in persona mode, i2">I cannot escape the fear of rejecti2">ion because i2">I've already rejected myself and more wi2">ill be forthcomi2">ing through the projecti2">ion of i2">it.

So the task i2">in front of me now i2">is, to learn to accept myself fully, to be true to the truth i2">in me, to open up to reveal and expose who i2">I really am, to 'let loose' wi2">ithout any shame or censorshi2">ip, to stop tryi2">ing to hi2">ide myself for any reason, and to basi2">ically 'be myself'. But i2">it also HAS to mean, a wi2">illi2">ingness to stop putti2">ing on a show, to stop presenti2">ing myself i2">in a fake way, to stop tryi2">ing to 'appear' li2">ikable, to stop people-pleasi2">ing, to stop tryi2">ing to feed my persona i2">image, to stop tryi2">ing to get everyone to approve of me, and to just drop that whole pi2">ile of horseshi2">it. i2">I only enter i2">into a percepti2">ion that i2">I need 'protecti2">ion' when i2">I have already judged myself and have seen myself as vulnerable. i2">I am not vulnerable i2">if i2">I am truth-fi2">illed. And i2">I don't need to please anyone.

So the key to FREEDOM i2">in all thi2">is, i2">is awakeni2">ing i2">into Holy Spi2">iri2">it's vi2">iew of me, i2">in acceptance of the truth of me, and i2">in completely surrenderi2">ing BOTH the fear of rejecti2">ion AND the attempt to 'wi2">in approval' through the persona. By stoppi2">ing usi2">ing a persona thi2">is solves every problem that ever arose out of i2">its use. What i2">I thought was helpi2">ing me was hurti2">ing me deeply. And stoppi2">ing the use of the persona stops the creati2">ion of the shadow (pai2">in) as well.

Standi2">ing fi2">irmly i2">in who i2">I AM, bri2">ings all of the certai2">inty, strength, asserti2">iveness, di2">isregard for other's opi2">ini2">ions, i2">invulnerabi2">ili2">ity, and empowerment, that seemed to be Mi2">ISSi2">ING when i2">I chose to use the ego. And whi2">ich could never be fulfi2">illed by usi2">ing the ego. Because once agai2">in, i2">it's a case of seek and do not fi2">ind. "i2">I don't have to worry about what to say or what to do knowi2">ing He goes there wi2">ith me" - ACi2">IM, i2">i.e. i2">I am i2">in my true self and my true self i2">is completely uni2">interested i2">in pretense or rejecti2">ion.

Who knew - tryi2">ing to please people makes you rejected!!!

Learni2">ing to love myself more. Learni2">ing to drop the ego more. Learni2">ing to be what i2">I am, i2">instead of tryi2">ing to be somethi2">ing i2">I'm not. And i2">in that, there i2">is no fear.

i2">I am gui2">ilty, i2">I wi2">ill only be able to see gui2">ilt i2">in other people. i2">I wi2">ill not be able to tell i2">if they are *really* gui2">ilty because i2">I am seei2">ing through a fi2">ilter of gui2">ilt, li2">ike a stai2">ined glass wi2">indow, whi2">ich only lets i2">in certai2">in colors of li2">ight.

i2">If i2">I take the fi2">ilter off my mi2">ind and stop bei2">ing gui2">ilty myself, recogni2">izi2">ing my i2">innocence, i2">I wi2">ill ONLY be able to see i2">innocence everywhere. i2">I won't be able to see gui2">ilt i2">in anyone because i2">I do not see gui2">ilt i2">in myself.

God i2">is i2">innocent and God i2">is i2">in my mi2">ind and i2">if God i2">is i2">in my mi2">ind then i2">I wi2">ill see God i2">in everythi2">ing - i2">innocence i2">in everythi2">ing - because God i2">is i2">in my mi2">ind.

i2">If God i2">is not i2">in my mi2">ind, because i2">I'm shutti2">ing out the awareness of God wi2">ith gui2">ilt, then i2">I wi2">ill see gui2">ilt everywhere because gui2">ilt i2">is i2">in my mi2">ind.

Therefore, your mi2">ind i2">is not CAPABLE of separati2">ing i2">itself from what i2">it percei2">ives. i2">If the mi2">ind contai2">ins gui2">ilt you Wi2">ILL see gui2">ilt, guaranteed, whether there i2">is any out there or not. i2">If the mi2">ind contai2">ins i2">innocence, you wi2">ill ONLY see i2">innocence no matter what i2">is out there or what other people are doi2">ing.

So you see, i2">it's ki2">ind of li2">ike, never i2">is i2">it possi2">ible to take a 'peek' behi2">ind the curtai2">in to fi2">igure out i2">if someone else i2">is actually gui2">ilty or not. You don't have a faculty that i2">is capable of doi2">ing that.

You can't sort of put your own i2">innocence on hold, retai2">in i2">it, and si2">imultaneously look at someone else to see i2">if there i2">is gui2">ilt i2">in them. You can't have both i2">innocence and gui2">ilt i2">in your awareness at the same ti2">ime.

So there really i2">is no way of knowi2">ing, i2">if other people are i2">innocent or gui2">ilty. There's absolutely no way to tell. You can only see what's i2">insi2">ide you.

i2">If you're gui2">ilty or you're havi2">ing a shi2">itty day, you wi2">ill see shi2">it i2">in everyone. Everyone wi2">ill be fi2">illed wi2">ith turds. i2">If you're havi2">ing a good day, you wi2">ill see goodness i2">in everyone regardless of what they seem to be doi2">ing.

You do not have the ABi2">ILi2">ITY to separately percei2">ive the true nature of another person, separate from your own nature. To beli2">ieve that you have thi2">is abi2">ili2">ity i2">is EGO.

The ego i2">is all about separati2">ion, and therefore i2">is all about somethi2">ing applyi2">ing to one PART of exi2">istence that does not apply to another part. That i2">is a complete i2">illusi2">ion and a li2">ie, because even whi2">ile i2">it i2">is pretendi2">ing that some rules can apply to one person and not another, the rules STi2">ILL apply equally to both. And thi2">is i2">is why when you thi2">ink you are hurti2">ing someone not yourself, you really are hurti2">ing yourself.

i2">I cannot tell i2">if anyone i2">is gui2">ilty or not. All i2">I can do i2">is choose whether to beli2">ieve i2">in gui2">ilt or i2">innocence. And whatever i2">I beli2">ieve i2">in wi2">ill apply to me, AND to everyone else. And i2">I wi2">ill SEE what i2">I have beli2">ieved i2">in, i2">in myself AND i2">in everyone else.

So really i2">I can't tell i2">is so-and-so i2">is gui2">ilty. The only thi2">ing i2">I can do i2">is choose i2">innocence for myself and therefore recogni2">ize the i2">innocence i2">is equally i2">in them, regardless. Or i2">I can choose to joi2">in i2">in gui2">ilt and be gui2">ilty along wi2">ith them. And then i2">I wi2">ill beli2">ieve and percei2">ive that we're both gui2">ilty, even i2">if they are not.

Ei2">ither way, i2">I have no way to di2">iscern the there i2">is some ki2">ind of 'truth' that they are gui2">ilty. i2">I cannot have that i2">illusi2">ion of objecti2">ivi2">ity or detachment. i2">I can decei2">ive myself to thi2">ink i2">I can, but i2">it doesn't really work.

As you do unto others you do unto yourself. They are you. i2">If you treat them as i2">innocent you are treati2">ing yourself as i2">innocent. i2">If you treat them as gui2">ilty you're treati2">ing you as gui2">ilty. There are no loopholes.

Often when i2">I'm i2">in the mi2">iddle of some ki2">ind of upset, or a pai2">in, or a si2">ickness, or a struggle wi2">ith someone or whatever, Jesus or Holy Spi2">iri2">it wi2">ill si2">imply say "i2">its a lesson".

When they say thi2">is, they aren't sayi2">ing "i2">its a puni2">ishment", even though that's what i2">I'm i2">interpreti2">ing i2">it as - some ki2">ind of unfai2">ir treatment. By sayi2">ing i2">its a lesson, i2">it lets me know i2">I have somethi2">ing to learn.

But i2">it also lets me know, that thi2">is i2">isn't somethi2">ing that they're tryi2">ing to hi2">ide from me. They're not bei2">ing assholes and conceali2">ing the answer to the lesson. i2">It's totally avai2">ilable, and i2">I'm aware somehow that the only reason i2">I'm havi2">ing the lesson i2">is because *i2">I* need to change i2">in some way. There's somethi2">ing about my percepti2">ion that i2">is faulty, or somethi2">ing i2">is unforgi2">iven, or some heali2">ing i2">is needed.

At the same ti2">ime, i2">I get thi2">is feeli2">ing li2">ike, there i2">is a pri2">ize... a gi2">ift... there's somethi2">ing valuable that i2">is 'mi2">ine' but i2">its hi2">idden from me, li2">ike a buri2">ied treasure or somethi2">ing. i2">I can have i2">it, and there's nothi2">ing stoppi2">ing me from havi2">ing i2">it, other than that i2">I need to learn the lesson. i2">It's not a lesson i2">in puni2">ishment or how i2">I need to suffer. So then thi2">is makes i2">it feel more li2">ike a challenge.

Also knowi2">ing i2">it's a lesson helps me to not see i2">it as 'agai2">inst me' or 'unwanted' li2">ike i2">I was before. i2">If i2">its just a lesson then thi2">ings are happeni2">ing for a reason, and there's just somethi2">ing i2">I don't accept or don't reali2">ize/recogni2">ize yet. Thi2">is sort of makes i2">it almost an exci2">iti2">ing challenge to fi2">ind out what i2">it i2">is that i2">I'm not 'getti2">ing' yet. Thi2">is then sends me on a journey of di2">iscovery to look wi2">ithi2">in and i2">investi2">igate what's really goi2">ing on here. i2">It's a call to do some radi2">ical honesty and i2">inqui2">ire wi2">ithi2">in.

And actually i2">it's not li2">ike Jesus or Holy Spi2">iri2">it are mean school teachers who put up walls or repri2">imand you or anythi2">ing. They are actually wi2">illi2">ing to HELP, wi2">ith the lesson. But i2">it entai2">ils a certai2">in amount of wi2">illi2">ingness on my part. i2">I can even ask them for gui2">idance and they can provi2">ide some.. sort of li2">ike clues... because they don't often just outri2">ight reveal the 'answer' or soluti2">ion or truth. But they're there to help as much as i2">I'm wi2">illi2">ing to learn. Ulti2">imately, how qui2">ickly i2">I learn the lesson i2">is up to me.

See we each have our own curri2">iculum and li2">ike ACi2">IM says, we get to deci2">ide when to learn - i2">ie we can delay or be wi2">illi2">ing - but we don't necessari2">ily set what the curri2">iculum contai2">ins. And usually when lessons come along they are always unwanted at fi2">irst. That's why they happen, lol. But they're there to help. They're nudges toward God. So i2">if somethi2">ing seems to have gone wrong i2">I need to become wi2">illi2">ing to at least accept that thi2">is i2">is tryi2">ing to help me somehow, and that i2">I need to open up to somethi2">ing because i2">I've made some mi2">istakes. i2">I need to learn the lesson. i2">It's not there to torture me but to free me. My mi2">ighty compani2">ions just want the best for me.

Thanks Jesus/Holy Spi2">iri2">it.

Thi2">is i2">is the ti2">itle of ACi2">IM lesson 125. The essence here i2">is to reali2">ize that everythi2">ing you gi2">ive, you recei2">ive, because gi2">ivi2">ing and recei2">ivi2">ing are one. Per the golden rule, whatever you "do to another", you li2">iterally and di2">irectly and personally do to yourself. Anythi2">ing at all that comes out of you, goes back i2">into you.

Thi2">is i2">is the law of God, and i2">it i2">is i2">inescapable. But i2">it seems to be very di2">iffi2">icult to recogni2">ize thi2">is law i2">is i2">in effect. i2">It seems possi2">ible that you do somethi2">ing to another and experi2">ience none of the consequences. That somehow there i2">is a separati2">ion between what appli2">ies to the gi2">iver and the recei2">iver.

The body i2">in parti2">icular makes i2">it seem possi2">ible to do somethi2">ing to another whi2">ile escapi2">ing the effects. One body can seem to hurt another, and yet come away wi2">ith no apparent harm. Thi2">is vi2">iolates the law of God and seems to suggest the golden rule does not apply. But the laws of God always apply.

i2">If you were aware that anythi2">ing you do i2">is done to BOTH yourself and others, you would be very careful i2">in choosi2">ing what to do. i2">If when you poked another's body, you felt a poke of your own body, you would hesi2">itate to poke them. i2">If you attacked thei2">ir body and i2">immedi2">iately felt the hurt and i2">impact and effects of the attack, you would i2">instantly recoi2">il and reconsi2">ider your acti2">ions.

i2">If i2">it were i2">impossi2">ible for you to do somethi2">ing to another wi2">ithout i2">it also bei2">ing done i2">instantly to you, you would reali2">ize that you cannot do anythi2">ing harmful wi2">ithout hurti2">ing yourself. You would li2">iterally fi2">ind i2">it i2">insane to suggest that you WON'T be hurt when you hurt someone else. You would know thi2">is i2">is not true, and that you are guaranteed to suffer when you i2">infli2">ict sufferi2">ing.

The moti2">ivati2">ion thi2">is gi2">ives you then i2">is the clear sani2">ity that, i2">in order to be happy and loved, your only opti2">ion i2">is to gi2">ive happi2">iness and love to others. i2">If for an i2">instant you choose to gi2">ive hurt or to make gui2">ilty, you know that you wi2">ill i2">instantly feel awful and would be qui2">ick to stop yourself. i2">If the very dagger wi2">ith whi2">ich you attempt to pi2">ierce the heart of a brother li2">iterally sti2">icks i2">into your own body, you would stop i2">in your tracks.

i2">In truth, when you are more aware of reali2">ity, you actually are i2">in touch wi2">ith thi2">is law. i2">It may not appear to apply at the physi2">ical level, but i2">it does apply at the level of mi2">ind. Any seemi2">ing psychologi2">ical state of attack whi2">ich you thi2">ink you project onto another, you do not escape. Any angry attempt to make another gui2">ilty rei2">inforces your gui2">ilt. Any desi2">ire to be murderous and hurtful threatens you and i2">insti2">ills fear.

v There i2">IS no escape from the golden rule. The ego counsels that you can easi2">ily escape i2">it, even that you can commi2">it the most horrendous attack and come away wi2">ithout remorse or damage. That you can get away wi2">ith murder. But the only way you would seem to convi2">ince yourself that you've done thi2">is, i2">is to be i2">in deni2">ial.

i2">It requi2">ires you to separate yourself off, di2">is-associ2">iate from your brother, form a separate i2">identi2">ity whi2">ich i2">is di2">ifferent and at war, beli2">ieve that your brother i2">is i2">in no way part of yourself, i2">isolate and i2">impri2">ison yourself i2">in the body, and then perhaps be convi2">inced that your acti2">ions won't hurt you. Only by severi2">ing yourself from the sonshi2">ip could you possi2">ibly convi2">ince yourself that thi2">is would work, but at the cost of maki2">ing you i2">impri2">isoned and alone.

i2">In truth, your real nature i2">is that you are one wi2">ith all others. That we are all joi2">ined together i2">in shari2">ing as a si2">ingle fami2">ily of equali2">ity. i2">I am you and you are me and we are each other.

"One brother i2">is all brothers. Every mi2">ind contai2">ins all mi2">inds, for every mi2">ind i2">is one. Such i2">is the truth."

Everyone i2">is everyone. We are each i2">indi2">ivi2">idually the whole sonshi2">ip. Everyone else i2">is a part of your self. Not one si2">ingle thi2">ing can occur agai2">inst a si2">ingle i2">indi2">ivi2">idual wi2">ithout i2">it happeni2">ing to the whole. When one suffers, the whole suffers, because the whole i2">is i2">in every part. We have a holographi2">ic relati2">ionshi2">ip and thi2">is i2">is the wi2">ill of God.

The fact i2">is then that i2">if we fall i2">into the ego delusi2">ion that we are separate from each other, we wi2">ill then automati2">ically beli2">ieve that we can i2">indeed attack wi2">ithout bei2">ing attacked. And so begi2">ins the spi2">iral down the sli2">ippery slope to hell i2">in whi2">ich you beli2">ieve and then percei2">ive that you are justi2">ifi2">ied i2">in murder, capable of revenge, and can get away wi2">ith i2">it unaffected. Thi2">is state of mi2">ind i2">itself i2">is mental i2">illness, sufferi2">ing, self-attack, self-abuse, and self-destructi2">ive.

The si2">imple truth then i2">is that everythi2">ing you gi2">ive, you are i2">included i2">in the recei2">ipt of. Anythi2">ing you do, you do to yourself. Anythi2">ing you gi2">ive or radi2">iate or share or express, i2">is bei2">ing expressed toward you as well. i2">It may seem on the physi2">ical level that somethi2">ing has to leave and travel and be sacri2">ifi2">iced and lost, i2">in order to be gi2">iven or done to another, but i2">in truth you always keep what you

gi2">ive, because shari2">ing i2">is reali2">ity and not separati2">ion. To recei2">ive what you gi2">ive i2">is the golden rule and the i2">inescapable law of God. i2">It i2">is functi2">ioni2">ing even when you don't beli2">ieve i2">it i2">is functi2">ioni2">ing. i2">It i2">is functi2">ioni2">ing when you beli2">ieve you are getti2">ing away wi2">ith separati2">ing yourself off from recei2">ivi2">ing. i2">It i2">is also the secret of salvati2">ion, i2">in the recogni2">iti2">ion that i2">if you are sufferi2">ing, you must have done thi2">is to yourself. You must have gi2">iven sufferi2">ing and then recei2">ived i2">it, beli2">ievi2">ing that you would escape the recei2">ipt.

i2">If you are sufferi2">ing, you have attempted to attack the sonshi2">ip. Not just yourself, but everyone. But just as every attack thought, and atti2">itude, angry gui2">ilt-mongeri2">ing, or outri2">ight vi2">iolence, i2">is always an attempt to gi2">ive yourself death. i2">It makes you unhappy to make others unhappy. i2">It hurts you to hurt them. You cannot escape thi2">is. Anythi2">ing you do to attempt to destroy a son of God wi2">ill have self-i2">infli2">icted repercussi2">ions. And as such, i2">if you are not at peace, you must have made a wrong deci2">isi2">ion.

To fi2">ind salvati2">ion therefore we have to learn the si2">impli2">ici2">ity of lesson 125 - that at all ti2">imes, what i2">I am gi2">ivi2">ing i2">I am recei2">ivi2">ing. i2">If i2">I do not li2">ike what i2">I am experi2">ienci2">ing, i2">I must recogni2">ize i2">I have chosen i2">it and have gi2">iven i2">it, and have therefore recei2">ived i2">it. And i2">I have done thi2">is to myself. i2">I must be mi2">istaken i2">if i2">I have gi2">iven myself sufferi2">ing, and i2">I made the deci2">isi2">ion myself, but i2">I want to choose otherwi2">ise because i2">I want to be at peace.

Thi2">is i2">is all ti2">ied together. i2">It i2">is the one law of God that everythi2">ing i2">is always shared, everyone i2">is always i2">included, and you wi2">ill never escape the consequences of your gi2">ivi2">ing. i2">If want to stop sufferi2">ing, learn to stop maki2">ing others suffer. i2">If you want to be happy, gi2">ive happi2">iness. i2">If you want to feel loved, learn to love. You wi2">ill heal as you let the Holy Spi2">iri2">it teach you to heal. And you wi2">ill fi2">ind God i2">in your brother as you learn that your brother i2">is a part of your shared i2">identi2">ity i2">in Chri2">ist.

As we heal others we heal ourselves, and as we heal ourselves we heal others.

"i2">I wi2">ill heal as i2">I let Hi2">im teach me to heal" - ACi2">IM

Just as teachi2">ing and learni2">ing are the same thi2">ing, so does heali2">ing apply both to who you thi2">ink of as a separate you, and who you thi2">ink of as not you. Heali2">ing i2">is the joi2">ini2">ing of the two i2">into one.

So i2">if we beli2">ieve i2">in si2">ickness, that si2">ickness i2">is real or that i2">it i2">is really happeni2">ing, or that there i2">is truth to i2">it, or that i2">it i2">is founded on evi2">idence or real causes that pretend to be the reasons why i2">it i2">is happeni2">ing, then we must be beli2">ievi2">ing that we also ourselves are si2">ick.

We cannot beli2">ieve on the one hand that we are not si2">ick whi2">ile others are si2">ick. Or that si2">ickness i2">is happeni2">ing to them and not to us. i2">If we beli2">ieve i2">in si2">ickness, we beli2">ieve i2">in i2">it peri2">iod, and i2">it appli2">ies everywhere.

Thi2">is i2">is why we have a vested i2">interest, a shared i2">interest, i2">in bri2">ingi2">ing heali2">ing mi2">iracles to others, because as ACi2">IM says, mi2">iracles help both the gi2">iver and the recei2">iver.

We have to recogni2">ize that i2">it i2">is the ego's thought system of separati2">ion whi2">ich convi2">inces us we are not the one who i2">is associ2">iated wi2">ith si2">ickness, and that i2">it i2">is someone else who i2">is separately si2">ick. Or that thei2">ir si2">ickness somehow belongs only to them and that therefore we want to keep our di2">istance unless i2">it i2">infects us.

Perhaps the person i2">is si2">ick because we beli2">ieve we are separate from them, and separati2">ion i2">is the cause of si2">ickness.

And i2">if they are si2">ick, and i2">if i2">it appears that we are not si2">ick, we sti2">ill must be si2">ick because i2">in some way we sti2">ill beli2">ieve that si2">ickness i2">is real. Only i2">if we are able to overlook si2">ickness i2">in others and recogni2">ize thei2">ir true nature, can we recogni2">ize our own true nature.

So ei2">ither way, we must learn not to be decei2">ived by appearances of si2">ickness i2">in ourselves or i2">in others, equally, and to look past sufferi2">ing to the truth of causali2">ity, cancelli2">ing out all of the arti2">ifi2">ici2">ial fake causes whi2">ich masquerade as reasons why the si2">ickness must exi2">ist.

There i2">is no truth other than the truth of God, and i2">in God's reali2">ity there can be no si2">ickness. There i2">is no separati2">ion. There i2">is only eternal li2">ife. All other beli2">ief systems of "real si2">ickness" are therefore arti2">ifi2">ici2">ial and untrue. All reacti2">ions to real si2">ickness are therefore unfounded. And a fai2">ilure to extend the truth and thus heal i2">is si2">imply evi2">idence of our own current unwi2">illi2">ingness to be healed also.

As you take steps on thi2">is heali2">ing journey, you wi2">ill be i2">included i2">in the heali2">ing. i2">It i2">is the pri2">ivi2">ilege of the forgi2">iven to forgi2">ive, whi2">ich means, those who have come to accept the atonement for themselves and thus are i2">in a forgi2">ivi2">ing atti2">itude of Holi2">iness, are also now shari2">ing that heali2">ing power wi2">ith others and are now pri2">ivi2">ileged to resurrect thei2">ir brothers. To bri2">ing all back to the eternal li2">ife.

My heali2">ing i2">is your heali2">ing. Your heali2">ing i2">is my heali2">ing. We are one.