Ego projections boil down to a very, very simple dynamic.

1) I decide what I want to see in someone.

2) I interact with what I now see in them as if I did not put it there.

The way I interact with what I see in others, is quite bizarre. It's really insane. I'm trying to accomplish two opposite goals at once.

1) I want other people to be what I say they are, by projecting my sin and guilt onto them, "convinced" that they really are that way.

2) I then demand that they stop being what I am seeing them being, and that they be the opposite, and that they are the one who has to choose differently. This is "forgiveness to destroy".

So right off the bat, this is a state of conflict. It's me who is seeing other people are doing "something wrong", and then it is me who is insisting that they change their behavior. So now I'm holding it against them when they don't change "for me". And they won't.

I'm literally demanding two separate outcomes simultaneously. I want people to be what I decide they are, and then I want them to not be what I've decided they are, simply because I'm in denial of being the one who has laid down the ground rules to begin with.

So I'm going around basically projecting shit onto people, deciding ok, you are doing this and that wrong and should be doing this and that instead. And then the rest of my "play" is to react to that accusation. It tends to go one of two ways.

1) They are wrong and they shouldn't be doing what they're doing so they are the ones who need to change, not me, and if they don't, I will victimize them. I will hold it against them.

2) They are wrong and they shouldn't be doing what they're doing, but in a hero savior role I will now swoop in and save them from "themselves", those sorry bastards, since they refuse to change themselves and seem 'helpless' and needy.

Each time I react to something being incorrect or unacceptable in another, who exactly is it who has made that person out to be wrong in this way? Are they inherently wrong in this way or have I actually decided to see them this way, and therefore it's my judgement of them? And now that I am responsible for what I'm seeing, having put it there to see, it's now my responsibility to admit that I'm interacting with my own projection.

As Jesus says in the course, generally speaking we will project our own sin outward and try to disown it (disassociate) and then we will attack what we've projected, accusing it of being sinful and bad, in order to create a sense of separation between it and ourselves, so that we can keep it away from our identity.

We will attack our own sin, thinking that we're attacking it in another person, believing that to do so causes them to receive the punishment and not us. Except it doesn't work because the sin never leaves our own mind (ideas leave not their source), it just seems external because we are in denial of it.

So it really all boils down to this. Whatever interaction I seem to be having with "the world", if I don't like it, it's because I'm the one who is deciding on what I am seeing "in" it, and am reacting to it as though it's really out there. And regardless of whether I am liking to do that or am feeling frustrated or upset or whatever about "what they are doing", I am the one who is making them out to be doing that to me. Because I want to. Because it gives me an opportunity to disown some sin.

ie, I love to suffer. I choose suffering on purpose and position myself as a victim on purpose, so that I can seem to be at the effect of the world, so that I can then explain that the world has caused me and therefore the world is the sinner, not me. I might suffer and be sick or afraid or upset as "effects" of what they supposedly did to me (even though I invented those effects in myself, by myself), but I secretly am getting away with murder by "using" the person as an outlet for projecting my own sin. Now they are the sinner and not me, and I'm suffering... poor me, but at least I am not the sinner any more.

So the ego's mantra is, I wish to suffer in order not to suffer. Or rather, I will see the world as attacking me and attack myself with it so that it seems that I'm not attacking myself with it.

We are to demonstrate that we cannot be hurt, or made sick, or caused to die, as a result of this world. And whenever these things seem to be happening, you can be assured that you've positioned yourself as a deliberate victim, in order to pretend that the world is responsible for what you are experiencing. You may be suffering, you may be sick, you may even end up dead, and it will conveniently seem as if the world made this happen against your will, but nothing could be further from the truth.

No-one dies without their own consent. And anyone who dies has secretly arranged to make it appears as if they did not choose it at all. Death is an attempt not to choose, by pretending that you have no choice, by pretending that others have taken all your power away from you, making you an "unwilling" victim, in a state of unwillingness, such that it appears death happens to you against your will. How convenient. It's a total lie.

Death is unwillingness to admit that you are pretending to die and are blaming everything on anyone other than yourself. This is why death is failure, and death is failing to wake up from the dream. Death is impossible for anyone but self-imposed victims. Death is not life. It is not success or graduation. It is the total opposite of life. It cannot happen without being severely against yourself and against the will of God. Therefore it cannot happen "peacefully" nor can it happen AT ALL unless you attack yourself.

We can reduce a lot of what the Course teaches seemingly down to simple statements such as "god is". But then when you try to extrapolate that back out to properly describe what we're experiencing, it doesn't work. Information has been lost. "God is oneness" or "there is no separation" is WAAAY too vague as a starting point.

If "God is", then when we try to explain what's happening in this world, or why I was woken up this morning at 7:30 by an alarm clock made of plastic and metal with electricity running through it, the "God is" teaching simply does not cut it. If we rely just on that, it's going to mean, God is an alarm clock.

All manner of false conclusions come from OVER SIMPLIFYING the metaphysics. This simplification is too basic to BASE an entire thought system on, or to structure an entire set of metaphysics on. It's all very well going one direction to make things more simple, but when we then turn around and use that simplified version to draw conclusions, it's just too basic. You won't end up with the same conclusions.

"God is" is an extremely high-level aspect of the truth, and conclusions drawn from these super-simplified ideas can be very much in error. God is not the one dreaming, and God did not create death or this world, which would be natural conclusions drawn from this. It's not accurate enough.

This is also why ideas of oneness and nonduality are severely prone to all kinds of false conclusions which STEM FROM the overly basic nature of these concepts. They simply do not properly or accurately describe God's nature and lead to so many "implications" that are false, that basing all kinds of conclusions on "there is only God" or "there is no self" or "there is one self" etc simply produces a huge amount of error.

The truth is supposed to be simple. But in terms of conceptualizing it, it's not simple, and without enough accuracy in the definition or what reality is or is not like, we just are going to find ourselves confused and mistaken. This is partly why the Course itself is SO HUGE and detailed, because there are so many nuances that CANNOT Be properly communicated using such simple terms. It's unfortunate but concepts, being of the ego, can become much more complex the closer you get to the truth, if you want them to be accurate. "God is" is nice, but it's too basic.

This overly basic reduction of the Course and the false conclusions which come from it, has unfortunately HAPPENED, and a huge percentage of the ACIM community has been somewhat misled into false teachings and false conclusions based on massively over-simplified concepts. There are countless statements in Jesus's words to demonstrate this.

As a result, we now have concepts of non-duality and having no self and the idea that the sonship is of the ego and that there are no souls and that there is only one person responsible for the dream and that you are responsible for other people's choices and so on, which are all false, which result from STARTING AT a way too basic concept or starting point.

Great teachers and poor teachers alike have fallen into this trap in a big way. There is huge portions of Jesus's teachings which have been misrepresented. Particularly in the areas of identity/responsibility, the performing of miracles, and overcoming death. The "natural conclusions" drawn from faulty logic has basically glossed over significant major teachings, and has turned A Course in Miracles into a sanitary and watered-down way to fix yourself and get out of here.

This is a Course in performing miracles, becoming very powerfully minded, reversing literal death, and being one of many sons of God who temporarily demonstrates perfect health in the dream while teaching and helping all brothers to wake up through miraculous demonstration.

This message has been largely destroyed by well-meaning but misguided teachings and poor reasoning. We need to almost start over with a much more accurate and all-encompassing view of the Course which does not omit things Jesus said, does not see contradictions where there are none, does not turn a blind eye to things that don't seem to make sense, and does not filter OUT the very heart and soul of the Course itself.

"And reason now can lead you to the logical conclusion of your union. It must extend, as you extended when you joined."

Some of us like to describe reality as oneness, or perhaps that "its all God", or "non-duality". A state with no separations or differences. But there is a problem with this.

If you take something and you "boil it down" to something else, you end up with this idea of something very simple. Something seemingly singular. Perhaps even a single word which represents it. So maybe we'll say that there is just oneness and that's an entire description of reality.

But the problem is this. If you can't take that boiled-down simplified concept, and arrive at the original state, condition, nature, contents, of reality by building upon it, extending it, then something has become lost in the process. If you START WITH e.g. "God is all there is", you can't logically get to "God has a son".

There is an analogy in the world of data compressionm like when you "zip" some files on your computer. When you try to compress a file, you can do so losslessly or with some acceptable loss. If you want to get every single byte of the file back in its original condition when you decompress it, you have to use a lossless algorithm or process.

Whatever it "boils down to" or compresses to, it has to be detailed enough that when you reassemble the original file, every single detail is still there. If you omit even a tiny bit of "information", you can't get the original file back. How much it can boil down is determined by how much information there is, and relates to the "entropy" of the data. This is why your big image file cannot be compressed below a certain level. It has to maintain enough information to get the original back.

What happens is, if your method of boiling down leaves out some details, omits some information, doesn't fully and accurately represent the original data, then when you go to re-expand the file you don't get back the same data you started with. It becomes "inaccurate." Something has been lost in translation. That means, whatever you boiled it down too was too generalized, too simplified, too basic, and not descriptive enough. Trying to get back the original data is then impossible because too much information is lost. So the simplified file no longer accurately REPRESENTS the "actual reality" of the file.

The same thing happens when we try to describe reality and use concepts or terms which are TOO simple, too basic, and omit too much information. They seem like nice handy symbols but logically they are lacking too much information. You should be able to take a simplified description of reality and derive the full contents of reality from it, by "decompressing it" or reversing the boiling-down process.

You should get back what you started with. So if your description is the "starting point" you MUST be able to fully ACCOUNT FOR every possible detail or characteristic of that reality. And your description of reality in its "most condensed" or most simplified form MUST have enough descriptive information, otherwise you simply cannot end up with what you started with. And when you try to do so, you will produce massive errors.

Particular culprits of this kind of loss of information are conceptual terms such as oneness, "its all God", "God is", "non-duality", "no differences", "no separation" "no self" "unity" etc. These all sound plausibly realistic or representative of the full details about reality, but they're not. They in fact are too generalizing, too basic, and not accurate enough. They leave out some details. And so when you then try to base the description of heaven, for example, on this "premise", on this basic generalization, you CANNOT get back the details of heaven. And in fact you will get back conclusions you did not bargain on.

So if you say ok, it's all oneness, or one thing. Well, now you cannot get a son of God out of that. At all, in any way. Or if you say "its all God", you cannot get out of that an accurate description of why the son of God dreamed and God DID NOT because God has been too mixed in or included in the tiny mad idea. Or if you say it's non-duality and there are no separations, you can't get back the fact God has a Son, yet alone that there is a holy trinity and a bunch of creations.

So there is a big risk, actually an error, in using these really super basic ego-logic-derived terms and concepts to try to describe the reality or God. There is such a thing as something being TOO lacking in detail to accurately describe it. Yes God HIMSELF is one, and reality itself is singular, and there is no opposite to reality, but this unfortunately is not the WHOLE STORY. And so major aspects of the picture become lost in the process of over-simplifying. To the extent that they BLOT OUT key characteristics of reality's true contents.

When you look at what ACIM says about the contents of reality, it is a very different picture to just "its all one" or "there's only God there" or "there are no separations". Yes, there are aspects of reality which ARE only one, or that it IS all just God, but that is only PART OF the story. There are more facts, there is more information needed, and more has HAPPENED in reality because God is a creator. Just the fact God creates results in these ideas being not sufficient to ACCURATELY AND FULLY describe reality.

So if God is to for example have even one son, we cannot JUST say that it's all one because that's now illogical. Yet it IS all one, and that is always true, but it MUST also be true that there is SOME WAY for there to be a son. Otherwise God is not a father or a creator and he is alone and cannot love and there is no extension of life and so on.

In fact the PUREST possible non-duality concept logically ends up with the conclusion that God is dead because He has nothing to give or extend or share or create. It makes him lifeless. You get all kinds of utterly nonsense conclusions deriving FROM that "basis" of what reality IS, when you leave out some facts. So if you start out your reasoning based on things like "its all God" you WILL end up with some horrendously wrong conclusions.

So if you take for example what ACIM says, which is that God has one son, which is also many sons, who have their own sons ad infinitum, and also there is the holy spirit and the angels, apparently in many legions and with a hierarchy, and who knows what else you've created, to describe that ACCURATELY, you can't JUST say "its one thing". A blob is one thing. A state is one thing. A singular entity like God is one thing. But there is MUCH MORE going on in reality than that according to what Jesus tells us. And we should be trusting his word.

So describing it as oneness, or generalizing too far and blotting out the details, or boiling it down so much that the nice soup mixture of various key ingredients becomes just a singular meaningless slush, is actually an error in logical reasoning. It does NOT accurately describe reality or what is happening in reality. It does not accurately describe God's nature either.

It in fact in some ways it can be far better to be MORE DETAILED in describing the nature of God and His Kingdom than it is to be LESS detailed. Just saying "God is" is a premise SO BASIC that it is massively open to huge false conclusions when you try to derive the Kingdom out of it. If God is were the WHOLE story, God would not have a creation at all.

The ego only leans towards less detail because it reasons, if I remove all sense of separations and divisions and multiplicity, I will end up with ONE THING, and this one thing SEEMS like it might most accurately describe the idea of what is all encompassing and infinite. Except that it doesn't. Its a total fail.

It does not take into account that God has a mind, has thoughts, creates beings, or that there are relationships, or that the beings he creates have their own children, minds, and will, or that there are millions of angels for example, or that God doesn't will to be alone. That all goes out the window because the EGO'S conclusion about God IRONS OUT all the details to the point of nothing - the loss of information. It's a great way to become BLIND to what reality is really like.

In the ego's thought system, its sense of logic is that something is either this or that, but not both. This results in differences, and it sees the existence of the separation between those differences as "separation". It even labels that separation as "ego". And then it seeks to get rid of those separations, to attack itself, to remove all separations, in order to end up with "no separation", thinking that this is what it will be like when you have "undone the separation", and must therefore describe God.

And so it reasons, reality is one thing, a oneness, a pool of singularity in which nothing happens and there is no creation. This is only PARTLY correct because it loses too much information. And so the ego cannot accurately describe reality with THIS thought process. You have to become open to thinking outside the box and using God's reasoning in order to describe what God and His creations are like. And since God does have at least one son, it certainly is not a state of logically pure non-duality, nor is it "only oneness", and certainly it's not "just God" because he has ADDED you to Himself.

"YOUR creations add to Him, as YOU do. But nothing is added that is different, because everything has always BEEN."

If you end up with "it is oneness" or "its all God", and then you decompress that idea to address for example the issue of the making of death, you have to conclude God is death, or God is a body, or God separated from God, or God is a pile of shit, or God went insane, or even God is an illusion that doesn't really exist. Without enough information you cannot "get back" the full picture of what God is, what has happened, what we dreamed, and what has not really occurred, without making some CRAZY false conclusions.

Let's say you're in a regular situation, maybe you're around someone you know. And there's something this person is doing that you 'describe' or 'label' as something. You think you're just making a basic observation, like it's obvious.

So maybe you 'see' that the person has a sickness, or they're angry, or scared, or whatever. So to you, you think you're just observing this like..... my friend Jane seems to be sick right now.

In this situation, I bet you believe that you're not actually 'doing' anything to Jane right? And you believe that you're just seeing her neutrally, right? And that there is not really anything to forgive here, because Jane really is sick, right?

Well... even in what seems like an 'ordinary' everyday perception of a 'normal' condition that someone is experiencing, there is unforgiveness. But you may not realize this especially because, IF you are seeing this and believing it's real or true, you have forgotten to forgive, and have lost sight of the REAL person - therefore yourself.

When this happens for me, I at first feel as though this isn't really 'my' problem. It's not 'me' that's got the issue. Whatever the other person is experiencing, it seems to be 'theirs' and is 'actually happening'. And here I am, in my ego, believing that I can perceive this so-called 'reality' without actually contributing to it at all, like I'm a completely neutral party. But this is of course the ego's deception.

The ego is not capable of seeing neutrally. "I have no neutral thoughts". "My meaningless (skewed) thoughts are showing me a meaningless world." etc. The ego believes it can do something to others and NOT be in any way associated with the outcome or the consequences. It thinks something can apply to someone else that does not apply to yourself. It thinks it can observe neutrally someone else in pain or any other suffering, and not suffer, and be having nothing to do with its presence.

But the ego is always actively involved. It's always attacking with attack thoughts and distorted perceptions. It's always judging. It's always projecting something onto someone.

So even though the situation seems to have no issues in it that have anything to do with 'me', separate me, is that really true? If we are all one and all laws apply equally to all people, then if the other person is seemingly in pain - or at least, if my perception has 'stopped' at "sight of form" or has made it real or believes it's true or agrees with it at all, then my ego IS active in this situation and IS using it. Instead of healing my brother, I must be condemning him or her by not overlooking 'their issue'. So what I'm seeing in them, or what they seem to be experiencing, SOMEHOW, it is MY issue.

What I did in a situation like this recently, even though it didn't SEEM like "I" had anything to forgive, as though there wasn't anything 'wrong' with me, but the other person was upset or sick, and I was accepting that they were actually sick, was to step back and do a forgiveness.

The basic fact of a need to forgive is that I'm seeing something that I think is separate from me (in another person, its their problem or fault, their sickness, etc), DISASSOCIATED from it.

Another basic fact of a need to forgive is that I see something in someone else that I don't believe is in me. That HAS to mean, that what I see in them IS my own stuff that I've projected onto them. Even if the other person seems to be the one with the sickness or the anger or whatever issue, I have to realize - it's really MY issue. If I am perceiving that anything applies to anyone that doesn't apply to myself, that we are not one or equal in every way, I have waking up to do.

Even if that sounds ridiculous. And it does sound ridiculous. To the ego it is ridiculous to suggest that something 'clearly' nothing to do with me, is actually somehow something about or in me that I need to forgive. You could boil it down to, ... if I'm seeing it, it's me. If I am seeing Christ, I am being Christ. If I am not seeing Christ, I am not being Christ. Right? Even if it seems like someone else's problem, if I see it and think it's really there, *I* (the One Son of God/Christ) have a problem.

So I did a forgiveness. I took back ownership of the sickness or anger that I saw in the other person, as though it were my own. I took back the guilt I thought the person had for believing they were sick. I took back ownership of the fear and anger. I even claimed it to be 'mine'. I took all of these labels, judgements, perceptions, impressions, evaluations, analyses, etc off of the person, to where I could moreso see THEY are innocent. THEY don't have any of these issues really. THEY are none of this. This whole 'perception' of them even having an issue, is MY error. Sounds ridiculous. Sounds like taking the world on your shoulders. Sounds like some kind of martyrdom. Sounds like taking possession of 'other people's problems' and making them your own on purpose. But is it REALLY not your problem?

I took it back. Then I went to Holy Spirit with it. I unconditionally surrendered the need to be right or wrong about any of these issues. I surrendered unconditionally any desire to decide FOR MYSELF whether any of these things were true or not. Thus I opened up to accepting whatever Holy Spirit would decide. I asked for His decision, and he reported instantly that NO, I am not guilty of any of these things, none of them are true.

Then, instantly, there began a healing process within me, Holy Spirit came in, body parts vibrated, 'energy' whirled around, things shook, and several seconds later all of the sensation or experience of those 'things' was gone.

Now, what was the result of this?

Next day, around this person, *I* was noticeably much happier, clearer, much less engaged with taking their situation seriously, much more detached, lighter, smilier, stronger. I accessed a 'light' and a sense of security and certainty that I did not know was available. I also believe that by my being in a higher state of awareness, this 'helped' the other person in some way. Not saying it was a miracle as such, or that it had observable effects, but for sure *I* was transformed.

How would I have been transformed if this wasn't all about me to begin with, or issues within me that needed healing? How would I have experienced greater light if I hadn't had any need to forgive? Even though it didn't seem like the issue outside of me had anything to do with me, *I* was the one perceiving it, *I* was the one believing it. *I* needed healing.

There are some major mistakes some people make with the course with regards to how perception works.

Many people start out with believing they're a person in a body, having perceptions of an objectively real physical world. And then they read the course and it seems to be saying that they're supposed to change their mind about the world.

So they think ok, in this real world there is a different way to look at things, so I should find another way to look at this SAME world. Which means there's a layer of interpretation between me and this world, and if I change my mind I'll see it in a different way.

One problem here is this in no way questions whether the world is even real or not. It also glosses over a major ACIM teaching - that projection makes perecption.

So then people encounter this idea and they interpret it to mean, I'm projecting some bad shit onto the objectively real world and I need to stop "projecting my stuff" onto it and see it in a friendlier way.

But this bypasses the fact that Jesus is telling you how perception works. We're practically saying that 1) I perceive the world to exist 2) Then I project onto it 3) Then I see my projections. Jesus doesn't say that.

He says projection MAKES perception. Which means that 1) You project, 2) THEN you perceive. "Perception is a RESULT, not a cause." Not that I first perceive a world then project onto it.

Many people seem to think that they first perceive that there is a world, and then you project on top of it. This is backwards. There IS no world there UNTIL you project a world. That's the whole point of this teaching. You are making up the world with your mind.

"You maintain the world in your mind with your thoughts."

Rather than consider that the physical world does not exist AT ALL beyond YOU dreaming it up, YOU making it, YOU hallucinating it entirely, people will rather stay far within the confines of a very basic worldview - that this world and universe are real and exist and this is all there is.

So what happens is people keep firmly ahold of basic assumptions. 1) That they are a small little weak limited person in a body who can't possibly have made this world. 2) This world and universe is real existence.

This ego-based worldview is not questioned whatsoever, the person doesn't even conceive if there being another reality, nor do they want to question whether bodies are real or whether this world could possibly be "just a dream."

"The body is a dream." "God did not create the body."

This results in a strangely adjusted view of ACIM that basically is locked into spacetime, does not question the reality or validity of anything physical, is threatened by any suggestion to the contrary, and wants to just focus on "seeing this world in a better way."

While this approach has some merit, in that the person might form at least a partially more loving approach to their life, it also falls short and is necessarily "capped" at how far they can go. Holding onto the reality of the world and body makes it impossible to rise up out of the dream, or to even consider that the world is a dream.

So there are some people doing some semblance of ACIM who are not really breaking out of the ego illusion. And their entire approach to the course is one that stays squarely within this world, in this body, finding ways to twist the course to make it "fit" into this narrow worldview. And that's a huge distance away from what the course is really trying to say.

"There is no world apart from what you wish" doesn't merely mean that your wishes project interpretations onto the world. It means that you WISH the world exists and so you make it up and dream it. And when you dream something else you make a different dream. And eventually you'll stop making up these dreams and return to heaven.

But that's not what these people want. They want to keep the world as their home and reality and never leave. And all of this is because of unquestioned assumptions. And nothing's really changes since they started the course because they just kept what they believed already and never doubted it.

There is an interpretation of ACIM that I run into quite often, which has nothing to do with it.

In the world in general, many people have the idea that "the world" is duality. And then at some point they get the idea that "behind the world" there is a oneness.

So here you have two basic sort of levels, a oneness and a twoness. Usually this idea suggests that all the "things" in the world are actually joined together as "one thing". That it's all God. As if the "forms" of objects are some way in which the "formless God" is manifesting or showing up.

This is a variant of what some people call a non-duality idea. And many people think that for example, space and time are "the universe", ie all of existence, and that the universe "as a whole" is God, a oneness that makes up the stars and planets.

For these people, there is usually no notion of any existence beyond space time, beyond this "universe", any other dimension, or anything but what is front of their faces.

Many of these people bring this "model" of reality to ACIM with them and do not let it go. Instead they try to fit ACIM into this model. I've seen some pretty severe cases of this where a person studying ACIM for decades still believes this basic arrangement of reality.

It seems like a simple enough idea.... and also seems to be supported by science for the most part. It's the idea that physical matter is somehow a sort of illusion, and it's really all made up of energy or some lower-level substance, which at the lowest level all seems to be one big thing.

There are various statements in ACIM which, if read with this model of the world in mind, might seem to validate it. Such as God being in everything you see, or reflections of heaven on earth, or heaven not being a place but a condition, etc.

Some people have really dug into this model and believe it's the whole of what ACIM is teaching. But, in my opinion, it's far from it. One of the major problems with it is that it gives credit to the illusory world as "God's creation", it shifts an entire level of existence down a notch so that the physical world becomes part of reality, even the Kingdom. Then people want to forgive the world in terms of lifting away from it unfair judgements "of God's Kingdom", as if Earth is God's creation. And this couldn't be more mistaken, leading to making illusions real.

In ACIM's definition of reality, heaven is an unlimited realm which is hosted within God. It is God's creation or kingdom. It hosts many beings etc. In ACIM, this sonship is synonymous with references to "universe". In this view, there never was a planet Earth or space or time or physical matter or bodies or quantum fields or dark matter or any of the rest of it. There's just God's being and its divine light-based contents.

It then tells us there was a major event, sometimes called "the fall of man" and sometimes "the separation" or "descent into hell" or "detour into fear", which seemed to split the minds of some of the occupants of heaven. And this resulting in the illusory hallucinated making of a whole other seeming realm, a lower-order reality, another "universe", space and time, physical matter, planets, bodies and so on. None of this existed before, and in reality does not really exist now. And it's certainly not a creation of God.

That's very different than saying that all of the physical contents of spacetime are joined together in a oneness. It's really saying that all of the contents of spacetime, and space and time themselves, are really a single illusion, covering up ANOTHER reality beyond them. In effect, 1) the illusory world of objects, 2) the world of objects is all one big dream - but not the oneness of God, and 3) beyond this unified singular illusion is ultimate reality - actual God and heaven.

Three seeming layers, not two. Not just duality and non-duality, or duality and oneness, but separate illusions (false perception), singular illusions (true perception), and oneness (no perception). We need to open our minds to listen to what ACIM is telling us about the structures of existence, rather than dragging our baggage and preconceptions and assumptions into it, trying to force ACIM to justify and prove some pre-held beliefs. We have to surrender all prior beliefs and listen and let ourselves learn a new truth.

Space and time and matter and all of these contents that we call "the universe" is not the universe. It is an illusory realm of separation and an attack on God. It exists only as a dream in the minds of those who are asleep and in denial of actual reality. You can at best change how you look at it and see a reflection of light in it, in order to prepare for leaving it, but you cannot turn it into reality. It is fundamentally not really there. It is not existence. And it is not secretly oneness. "There is no world."

"I cannot seen in darkness but in light."

Instead of thinking of the ego, think of two thought systems or two minds. Jesus refers in ACIM to us having a higher mind and a lower mind. A portion of mind became 'lower' in the separation from God, and focuses on being separate.

"The Separation is NOT symbolic. It is an order of reality, or a system of thought"

"I AM working with your higher mind whether you are asleep or awake, (just as your ego does with your lower mind.."

"Thought can create lower-order or higher-order realities. This is the basic distinction between intellectualization and thinking. One creates the physical, and the other the spiritual, and we believe in what we create."

When you are in the higher mind, you are in the light and you can see. You recognize what everything is, nothing is hidden, and you are not deceived.

When you are in the lower mind, you cannot see, you cannot recognize, and you are deceived. It's like being unconscious. You cannot tell that you are in the lower mind because it is a place of darkness.

When you are in the lower mind you lose perspective and lose sight of where you are, lost in the woods. You may not even realize you are in the lower mind at all, and think everything is normal, and may forget completely that there even is a higher way to see.

This is because the lower mind is the realm of egotism, separation, darkness and confusion, narrowness and closed-ness and limitation. It's a mind level that perceives falsely, makes illusions real and believes in the physical world. It is where you are deceived and distracted and reacting as a victim.

So really when you are in the "ego-mind" (thought system) you have a kind of loss of awareness that makes it much much harder to recognize that you are in the ego. The whole thought system of that mindset is like being in a dark prison cell, lost and alone, and not even remembering that there even is a light outside.

When you get back out into the higher mind, into the light, you can see again, you can recognize things, and you can tell where you are. You also, when in the higher mind, suddenly have the perspective that recognises where and what the lower mind is, and that there even is a lower mind within you.

This allows you to realize that you WERE in the lower mind, because you know that it was a state of ego. From the perspective of being in the higher mind, you have a sense that you have a kind of "lower self" within you that is very primal and basic and victim-oriented and fearful.

This is the "self you made", the ego-oriented thought system. Like a child that throws temper tantrums and screams at the universe. It's a whole system of thinking and perceiving.

If you slip out of the higher mind you lose sight of even HAVING a "lower self" within you, that you need to be vigilant against, and you fall back into it. Then you lose sight of the big picture and it seems like the lower self is all that exists and all that you are. Then it's a scramble trying to get yourself back out of it into the light.

It's like, you need the light of the higher mind in order to be able to tell that you're in the lower mind, but when you're in the lower mind you don't have that light so you get lost and stuck in it easily. Trying to get yourself out of the darkness into the light is the best thing you can do to give you perspective and help you to recognize where you are and what you're doing.

The aim is to be in the higher mind as much as possible so that the lower mind is ultimately dissolved. Or rather, that that portion of mind is freed from its egoic focus and its belief in separation so that that mind can be reintegrated as part of the higher mind.

Also note that the lower mind includes the intellect, which is a seemingly 'higher' function within the lower mind that uses separation to split things up and analyse and judge. Jesus says in ACIM that this intellectual lower mind actually produces the physical world of space and time. The higher mind rises above the battlefield and transcends it.

"Miracles are the absence of the body. They are sudden shifts into invisibility, away from lower order reality. That is why they heal."

Honesty is the basic machinery of awakening. It means you have a willingness to accept what is true regardless of whether it suits your ego or makes you look good. It means putting the truth before your own personal position, and being willing to be seen in its light.

All parts of any forgiveness process entail honesty. You have to be honest to admit to and discern what is true and what is false. You have to be honest with yourself in accepting responsibility for having chosen everything you are experiencing. And it takes a lot of honesty to admit that you are not being victimized by anyone but yourself.

So honesty is really all about putting aside all of the ego pursuits, perspectives, and self-serving and face-saving attitudes, which are really all *lies*, and owning up to what's really going on. It's a matter of owning up to what is real rather than what you want to make of the situation.

Honestly also requires us to surrender every ego activity that we're using to try to win favor or defend ourselves or make ourselves look better. It means being what you really are, admitting to what really is, and accepting reality without you changing it.

Honesty is the best policy, because it is sanity. It is awakening. It is awareness of truth. It is allowing and accepting God's nature and presence. Sometimes it will take for you to really examine what you're doing and why and to have a 'little willingness' to admit the ways that you're mistaken or are trying to deceive. So really it all boils down to... is it really true... is it really factually real and true as in Holy Spirit's truth.... or is it false.

Honesty is the truth. Dishonesty is the lies.

So if we're to wake up to God and truth and reality, we're going to have to be really really really really really completely willingly honest at all times. Otherwise we're kidding ourselves, and fooling ourselves, and deceiving ourselves, and then we are the ones who end up suffering.

In all honesty, we are still as God created us. It we are willing to completely admit and accept that, it's game over for the ego.

Honesty gives you access to the truth which sets you free.

Often when you're having emotional reactions to situations, you can't for the life of you remember how to forgive or where to start.

There could be so much unconsciousness going on that all you are aware of are the intense feelings you're having and all the stress that's unfolding.

If you remember to forgive at all, it will probably seem like a stupid idea, that it won't be helpful and there isn't even anything to forgive here.

If you're particularly convinced that someone or something other than you is the problem, and are all caught up in the drama of it, you may even refuse to forgive, or it may not even pop into your mind until you've had time to cool off.

The ranting, vicious, violent ego can be hell-bent on finding someone else guilty, and in those times it seems completely justified in holding its viewpoint, convinced that what it's seeing is completely true and obvious.

When I get into these kind of mindsets I don't even know where to start with forgiveness. It's like my mind is just all numb and forgetful. My awareness has become blocked and I can't even remember how to forgive at all.

To forgive, I find myself starting with some really basic and probably not very effective statements, to just try to start *somewhere*. Like, "I remember I'm dreaming". Like, sometimes you just need to START even if you can't remember what the truth is at all. Just start saying something even remotely forgiving with at least a tiny bit of truth to it - A LITTLE WILLINGNESS - and gradually it will chisel away at the psychological insanity and begin to reveal and remind you of a greater awareness.

As that awareness then starts to return to you, you will start to remember a bit more solidly the learning that you've achieved long-term, and you'll start to remember greater truths, become more confident in your clarity, and be able to get toward what the "real" problem is, is what you're doing to yourself. As your forgiveness process progresses, it actually opens you up more to reveal a greater awareness of HOW to forgive more effectively and with more truth and certainty.

A willingness to just go on this forgiving adventure at all is all you need to get the motor started. It will be all sloppy and vague and seemingly in effective at first, but keep going. All will be revealed. And you can come all the way back to peace through surrender.

If you make problems real, your prayer is "I want this problem", and so it is given you. Your prayer is answered. Even if in words it seems your prayer is "I do not want this problem", your actual prayer is that you do.

When your prayer is sincerely not focusing on "I have this real problem" and is instead truly acknowledging the perfection of God, God's perfection will be what you are asking for, and God's perfection will be what you are given.

This is what the whole "Song of Prayer" pamphlet for ACIM is about. It's telling us to sing a higher song. To express the basic prayer "this is what's true for me", which is more of an expression of affirmation or acknowledgement, than it is a question. And that's because there are no real questions, only assertions.

So whatever you are asserting, that is what you are expressing as what you want and believe in, and that is what you will get.

So if you assert and acknowledge the truth of God and the presence of divine health and perfection and happiness, that is what God will happily share with you, and will move mountains that you would have it to extend to others.

God does not fail to "answer prayers". It is YOU who decides what you will give to yourself. God is ALWAYS providing the fullest love, and when your prayer is actually saying "I don't really want love" God is honoring that, to honor your free will.

This is the true meaning of "God helps those who help themselves." - you must be willing to be PART OF the atonement, to be the GIVER of the miracle that you would receive, to position yourself seeing things with God's eyes, not through the ego's eyes. To acknowledge and be grateful for the abundance of God's blessing. If you are not willing to participate in the extending of love, how can you receive it?

God is always fully giving. Fully giving is creation. It is sharing. It is how God created souls and made each of them complete and full in and of themselves, endowed with completely free will, because they are given fully as expressions of unconditional love and freedom.

If prayers seem broken or not heard, you are not asking for what you think you are asking for, and so you are in fact receiving more of what you are actually asking for, and thinking it is not what you asked for. Ego must be let go and out of the way in order to "accurately" pray and have your receiving line up with your expressing.