Quite often we are driven by a desire to stop being affected by the world. We all want to get away from suffering and find some peace.
We initially see ourselves as an EFFECT, and we see CAUSE as outside of us. We want somehow to get away from these causes. So we try to stop thinking of ourselves as being affected by the world.
This leads to a belief that if we can just stop being affected by things we'll be okay. It begins a journey of a kind of WITHDRAWAL, where we start rejecting and weeding out the world from our experience.
This can lead to what seems to be a place of peace, where we are convincing ourselves that we're "okay with" anything that happens, that we don't mind if there is sickness, we're okay with death, we don't want to change the world we just want to let it happen.
This seems like a form of acceptance, as though atonement, because when we stop resisting the world we can be more accepting of it, more allowing. And somehow there is some peace to be found by not fighting with it all the time.
In essence, you find a state of what seems like peace by "not minding what happens". But at the same time, there is something missing here.
Originally you were seeing yourself as EFFECT, and the world as CAUSE. As though you are dreamed by the dream. So you then sought to run away from the cause or find a way to try to transcend it. You wanted to stop being an effect, but you didn't necessarily want to take on being a cause.
This seems to happen quite a lot, where people focus so much on not being affected that they don't realize that they are supposed to be BECOMING THE CAUSE. If you're not going to be the effect, you have to be causal. But many people seem to gravitate toward not being an effect WITHOUT being causal.
"This is a course in CAUSE, and NOT effect."
This results in a state where a person seems to be okay with suffering, still has pains and sickness, does not prevent the body from dying, has no real ability to work miracles, does not heal others, and generally has an attitude of sitting on a fence minding their own business.
It's almost like a disowning of power in a whole other way. We are in fact supposed to be owning up to being the cause of everything, admitting to being the dreamer of the world, taking back the power of God, seeing ourselves as immortal beings that can't be victimized or hurt, having immense strength, reclaiming the power to work miracles, and proceeding to demonstrate this.
But the people who get themselves kind of backed into a corner hiding under a rock and calling it peace, don't seem to be interested in this. Their whole goal is to escape and get away from things and go on a spiritual vacation. There becomes great aversion to anything that looks like it might point in the other direction.
Going toward the world, going into the world, doing anything, performing any miracle, healing bodies, demonstrating the power of God, being supernatural, anything like that is written off as noooo... we don't want to go there, that's the path back into the darkness. That's going to take us back closer to the world again and we want to get away from it.
But that's what's asked of us. We can't pick and choose. We either have to be effect or cause. You can't just drop causation entirely. Sitting on a fence in peace and having no power to cause anything in the world to change is a whole new breed of victimhood.
I think people maybe don't realize how much power the power of God entails, how strong it is, what it is capable of. It is immense and vast and deep and unlimited. And we are to demonstrate this power on earth, using it as Jesus did to teach and to show that the laws of physics are a lie, that bodies can be healed, that suffering can be alleviated by this power.
Most of all we are to reach a point called resurrection. Resurrection is the surmounting of death. It means having so much power over death that death cannot happen. Also that so much life is being asserted through that power that it can convert dead things back into living things. If a person is reaching what they call a state of peace but cannot raise the dead or show that death has no power and no cause, they are not in a state of resurrection.
"There have been many healers who did not heal themselves. They have not moved mountains by their faith because their faith was not WHOLE. Some of them have healed the sick at times, but they have not raised the dead. Unless the healer heals HIMSELF, he does NOT believe that there is no order in miracles. "
There is no order of difficulty in miracles, which means raising the dead is supposed to be effortless for us. When miracles like this are not happening around a person and the person is claiming peace, if they are claiming peace while having a sick body still, if there is a double message of peace + suffering in any way, then that person isn't really claiming ownership of being Christ and they have not reclaimed the power of God.
They are still victims. They just are very quiet passive victims that don't want to take the leap to actually owning up to the power of God. We are meant to be strong powerful beings for whom nothing is impossible, nothing is too hard, nothing is too great. We are to be masters of our minds and masters of the world. If we can't stop death then we are still victims at the effect of the world.
"What do you think "the meek shall inherit the earth" MEANS? They will literally take it over because of their strength."
Innocence is not weakness. Innocence is power.
"There is nothing in the world which has the power to make you ill or sad, or weak or frail. But it is you who have the power to dominate all things you see by merely recognizing what you are."
Man must contribute to his readiness here as elsewhere. The readiness for faith, as for everything else that is true, entails the two steps necessary for the release from fear.
Denial of fear, in human terms, is a strong defense because it entails two levels of error:
1. That truth CAN be denied and
2. That absence of truth can be effective.
EXPERIENCING fear, which is more characteristic of Bill, involves only the second error. However, these differences do not affect the power of the miracle at all, since only truth and error are its concern.
YOU are both more miracle-minded, and less able to recognize fear because of your stronger, but split, identification. Bill, also characteristically, is less miracle-minded, but better able to recognize fear, because his identification is more consistently right but weaker.
Together, the conditions needed for consistent miracle-mindedness, the state in which fear has been abolished, can be particularly well worked out. In fact, it WAS already well worked out before.
Your idea about the real meaning of "possession" should be clarified. Your own denial of fear (this refers to a visionary experience of Helen Schucman) introduced some error variance, but not really a significant amount. However, there is always a chance that as the size of the sample increases, what was non-significant before may ATTAIN significance, so we had better get this out of the way now while you are still within the safety margin.
Fear of possession is a perverted expression of the fear of the irresistible attraction. (Aside. Yes, this DOES apply to homosexuality, among other errors, where the whole concept of possessing, or "entering" is a key fear. It is a symbolic statement of an inverted decision NOT to enter into, or possess, the Kingdom. In physical terms, which it emphasizes because of the inherent error of Soul avoidance, REAL physical creation is avoided, and fantasy gratification is substituted.)
The truth is still that the attraction of God is irresistible at ALL levels, and the acceptance of this totally unavoidable truth is only a matter of time. But you should consider whether you WANT to wait, because you CAN return now, if you choose. (Note to Helen Schucman: You are writing this with improper motivation, but we will try anyway. If you are to stop, do so immediately.)
Possession is a concept which has been subject to numerous distortions, some of which we will list below:
1. It (possession) can be associated with the body only. If this occurs, sex is particularly likely to be contaminated. Possession versus being possessed is apt to be seen as the male and female role. Since neither will be conceived of as satisfying alone, and both will be associated with fear, this interpretation is particularly vulnerable to psychosexual confusion.
2. From a rather similar misperceptual reference point, possession can also be associated with things. This is essentially a shift from 1), and is usually due to an underlying fear of associating possession with people. In this sense, it is an attempt to PROTECT people, like the superstition about "protecting the name", we mentioned before.
Both 1) and 2) are likely to become compulsive for several reasons, including:
a. They represent an attempt to escape from the real possession-drive, which cannot be satisfied this way.
b. They set up substitute goals, which are usually reasonably easy to attain.
c. They APPEAR to be relatively harmless, and thus SEEM to allay fear. The fact that they usually interfere with good interpersonal relationships can be interpreted, in this culture, as a lack of sophistication on the part of the OTHER (not the self), and this induces a false feeling of confidence in the solution, based on reliability NOT validity. It is also fairly easy to find a partner who SHARES the illusion. Thus, we have any number of relationships which are actually ESTABLISHED on the basis of 1), and others which HOLD TOGETHER primarily because of the joint interests in 2).
d. The manifestly EXTERNAL emphasis which both entail seems to be a safety device, and thus permits a false escape from much more basic inhibitions. As a compromise solution, the ILLUSION of interpersonal relating is preserved, along with the retention of the lack of love component. This kind of psychic juggling leaves the person (or juggler?) with a feeling of emptiness, which in fact is perfectly justified, because he IS acting from scarcity. He then becomes more and more driven in his behavior, to fill the emptiness.
When these solutions have been invested with extreme belief, 1) leads to sex crimes, and 2) to stealing. The kleptomaniac is a good example of the latter.
Generally, two types of emotional disturbances result:
a. The tendency to maintain the illusion that only the physical is real. This produces depression.
b. The tendency to invest the physical with non-physical properties. This is essentially magic, and tends more toward anxiety-proneness.
c. The tendency to vacillate from one to the other, which produces a corresponding vacillation between depression AND anxiety.
Both result in self imposed starvation.
3. Another type of distortion is seen in the fear of or desire for "spirit" possession. The term "spirit" is profoundly debased in this context, but it DOES entail a recognition that the body is not enough, and investing it with magic will not work. This recognition ACCEPTS the fact that neither 1) nor 2) is sufficient, but, precisely BECAUSE it does not limit fear so narrowly, it is more likely to produce greater fear in its own right.
Endowing the Spirit with human possessiveness is a more INCLUSIVE error than 1) or 2), and a step somewhat further away from the "Right Mind." Projection is also more likely to occur, with vacillations between grandiosity and fear. "Religion" in a distorted sense, is also more likely to occur in this kind of error, because the idea of a "spirit" is introduced, though fallaciously, while it is excluded from 1) and 2).
Witchcraft is thus particularly apt to be associated with 3), because of the much greater investment in magic.
It should be noted that 1) involves only the body, and 2) involves an attempt to associate things with human attributes. Three, on the other hand, is a more serious level confusion, because it endows the Spirit with EVIL attributes. This accounts both for the religious zeal of its proponents, and the aversion (or fear) of its opponents. Both attitudes stem from the same false belief.
This is NOT what the Bible means by "possessed of the Holy Spirit." It is interesting to note that even those who DID understand that could nevertheless EXPRESS their understanding inappropriately. The concept of "speaking in many tongues" was originally an injunction to communicate to everyone in his own language, or his own level. It hardly meant to speak in a way that NOBODY can understand. This strange error occurs when people DO understand the need for Universal communication, but have contaminated it with possession fallacies. The fear engendered by this misperception leads to a conflicted state in which communication IS attempted, but the fear is allayed by making the communication incomprehensible.
It could also be said that the fear induced selfishness, or regression, because incomprehensible communication is hardly a worthy offering from one Son of God to another.
4. Knowledge can also be misinterpreted as a means of possession. Here, the content is not physical, and the underlying fallacy is more likely to be the confusion of mind and brain. The attempt to unite non-physical content with physical attributes is illustrated by statements like "the thirst for knowledge." (No Helen, this is NOT what the "thirst" in the Bible means. The term was used only because of man's limited comprehension, and is probably better dropped.)
The fallacious use of knowledge can result in several errors, including:
a. The idea that knowledge will make the individual more attractive to others. This is a possession-fallacy.
b. The idea that knowledge will make the individual invulnerable. This is the reaction formation against the underlying fear of vulnerability.
c. The idea that knowledge will make the individual worthy. This is largely pathetic.
Both you and Bill should consider type 4) VERY carefully. Like all these fallacies, it contains a denial mechanism, which swings into operation as the fear increases, thus canceling out the error temporarily, but seriously impairing efficiency.
Thus, you claim you can't read, and Bill claims that he can't speak. Note that depression is a real risk here, for a Child of God should never REDUCE his efficiency in ANY way. The depression comes from a peculiar pseudo-solution which reads:
A Child of God is efficient.
I am not efficient.
Therefore, I am not a Child of God.
This leads to neurotic resignation, and this is a state which merely INCREASES the depression.
The corresponding denial mechanism for 1) is the sense of PHYSICAL inability, or IMPOTENCE. The denial mechanism for 2) is often bankruptcy. Collectors of things often drive themselves well beyond their financial means, in an attempt to force discontinuance. If this idea of cessation cannot be tolerated, a strange compromise involving BOTH insatiable possessiveness and insatiable throwing-away (bankruptcy) may result. An example is the inveterate or compulsive gambler, particularly the horse-racing addict. Here, the conflicted drive is displaced both from people AND things, and is invested in animals. The implied DEROGATION of people is the cause of the underlying EXTREME superstition of the horse racing addict.