(If you are willing).

You [insert fucker’s name], are not the cause of me. You are not causing me. You are my equal brother and God is the cause of both of us.

You have not done anything to me against my will. I am not the victim of you that I’ve come to believe you are. I have been using you to be my victimizer so that I can be upset as a victim and use you to project my sin. I wanted to make out you are the cause of me so that I can asuage my guilt and pretend to be innocent. I am the one who needs healing.

You have never done anything to me. You have never hurt me. You have never upset me. You are not the cause of anything I am feeling or experiencing. You have not put reactions in me. You have not changed me or made me upset in any way.

Everything I am experiencing, I have chosen for myself. All of my feelings are my own. Nothing has happened that I did not want. I have done this to myself.

You did not do anything to me, you cannot do anything to me, and you never will. All we can do is share love. Because you have not done anything to me, you did not cause anything that I am experiencing, which means you must be innocent. My upset isn’t even about you. You have nothing to do with what I am experiencing whatsoever.

I have not done anything to you. I am not the cause of you. I have not attacked you, hurt you, made you upset, changed you, caused reactions in you, damaged you or affected you in any way. I have not victimized you. You are not the victim of me.

Everything you are experiencing and feeling is your own stuff that you chose for yourself. I am not the source of any of your upset, confusion, hurt or problems. I have never caused you because God is your only cause. Therefore I must be innocent because I have not done anything to you.

We are both equally innocent. Neither of us has done anything to each other. There is no causality between brothers. You are not the cause of me. I am not the cause of you. Anything I am experiencing I must have chosen myself and done to myself.

No-one else has the power to do anything to either of us against our will. The power that I thought you had over me is my own power. The power that you thought I had over you is your own power. Neither of us has power over each other. I take back my power from you and give you back your own power to choose your own experience.

I am fully responsible for everything I am experiencing. You are fully responsible for everything you are experiencing. I can choose to experience something else and there is nothing you or anyone can do to stop this. You have not willed against me and I have not willed against you. We are both in accord with God’s will that we be forever equals in love and innocence.

I am not vulnerable to your attacks. Your attacks are your attempt to attack yourself. You are not vulnerable to my attacks. My attacks are my own attempt to attack myself. I can stop attacking myself and be happy. You can stop attacking yourself and be happy. We cannot and have not attacked each other.

I am completely free from your choice and you are free from mine. I am free from your wishes and intentions. I do not grant you the power to upset me. I do not displace my own power onto you. Nothing happens to me that I do not choose. Nothing happens to you that you do not choose. Neither of us is a victim. There are no victims. We have not victimized each other. I am not a victim of you. You are not a victim of me.

We are both innocent because neither of us has done anything to each other. We are both innocent because we are both still as God created us. Neither of us has sinned. I have not sinned against you. You have not sinned against me. We have not sinned against God. There is no sin. Nothing has happened.

We are both perfectly equal in God. We are both God’s children. We are both holy and innocent and forgiven. You are my equal brother and I am your equal brother. We are identical in God. We are one in love. There is no separation between us. I share everything with you as you share everything with me. We can both be at peace together and join in love as equals.

God loves us equally. I forgive you and love you. You forgive me and love me. We love everyone as ourselves. Love is all there is.

One time, I was exploring my relationship to the holy spirit and it occurred to me that perhaps I was misunderstanding by presuming he was "separate from me", since I always heard him as a separate voice. And this idea came to me that maybe he was not separate and that this separation between us wasn't there. This seemed harmless enough but this opened me up to the idea that I was now "exposed" to the holy spirit without any defenses or blocks or separations or walls, and my ego did not like that one bit.

The ego in me, which was playing with this idea but not really dropping the deeper walls, interpreted this to mean that the holy spirit had "access" to me (to my ego-identified self) and that this meant he could do anything to me and I would have no defense or way to stop it. I wasn't ready to accept this level of openness without the trust that's needed. I felt that if there was nothing to stop him, the fact he proves there is no ego would dissolve me and was therefore *perceived as* an attack or threat. Of course the holy spirit wasn't doing anything of the sort but that's how I interpreted it.

Instantly, within a split second, and without thinking of it at all, my mind attempted to push him away, or rather, to recoil. To distance myself from him by trying to increase the "gap" between us, trying to hide deeper in the body, and to try to go into denial/resistance/blockage to shut him out. The only defense really was the attempt to block my AWARENESS of him. This happened really quickly and I could really feel this recoil in fear. It's not something I "figured out" it's just something I did automatically. I saw the need for a defense to keep me (my ego self) "safe" from this threat of unity. I actually felt scared of what the holy spirit was going to do to me.

Within an hour, my head became congested, my ears started ringing, they became quite blocked, I was starting to get sinus drainage etc. This came on really quickly. Of course, I did not recognize that I had induced this myself, or chosen it. I was doing what is described here in "sickness is a defense against the truth":

"Sickness is not an accident. Like all defenses, it is an insane device for self-deception. And like all the rest, its purpose is to hide reality, attack it, change it, render it inept, distort it, twist it, or reduce it to a little pile of unassembled parts. The aim of all defenses is to keep the truth from being whole. The parts are seen as if each one were whole within itself.

Defenses are not unintentional, nor are they made without awareness. They are secret magic wands you wave when truth appears to threaten what you would believe. They seem to be unconscious but because of the rapidity with which you choose to use them. In that second, even less, in which the choice is made, you recognize exactly what you would attempt to do, and then proceed to think that it is done."

"Sickness is a decision. It is not a thing that happens to you quite unsought, which makes you weak and brings you suffering. It is a choice you make, a plan you lay when for an instant truth arises in your own deluded mind, and all your world appears to totter and prepare to fall. Now are you sick that truth may go away, and threaten your establishments no more."

So by the time the hour was up, my BODY was sick. I was not aware I'd caused it or the cause-effect relationship of the event with holy spirit versus what the body was doing. I just thought I was getting sick out of the blue. I started looking ELSEWHERE for causes, wondering if it was something I ate, something I contracted, some emotions coming up, whatever. I then proceeded to suffer with blocked ears, trouble hearing, ringing in the ears, headaches, sinus congestion, for the next couple of days. And you can bet not one single idea of what caused it was related to that event. In effect, the defense is put in place to shut OUT awareness and this blockage causes you to not be AWARE that you CHOSE the defense for this exact purpose to try to make the threat go away.

After a couple days of suffering - and my hearing issues were basically a symbolic representation of "I don't want to hear this truth", I started trying to figure out when it started. I realized that it started right around when I was having that interaction with the holy spirit. And then fortunately I remembered that it had frightened me. And so then I was able to put two and two together and realized that, or at least was open to the possibility, that maybe I had chosen this as a reaction to him. I also was not on "speaking terms" with the holy spirit at this point because I was feeling afraid and did not feel safe or trusting of him, so he hadn't been saying anything.

I started to tentatively realize that I needed to get past this fear. I needed somehow to find a way to re-approach the holy spirit again, without being afraid, having some kind of TRUST, and to find a way to relate to him in terms of that openness to him without it MEANING that I was threatened or under attack. I needed a different way of looking at it so that I wouldn't misperceive our "unity" as a dangerous thing. So I became willing, and I started to try to deliberately trust and to take baby steps towards communicating with him again. And as I did, I was willing to put aside the fear that had been induced.

When I did this, I saw clearly that I had created this defense as a way to try to protect myself and out of fear. And since I could now be willing to more carefully trust the holy spirit and not fear him, it became obvious that I had NO MORE NEED for this protection. Like, it was okay to let down my guard.

Within an hour, all the symptoms vanished completely.

"Healing will flash across your open mind as peace and truth arise to take the place of war and vain imaginings. "

"There will be no dim figures from your dreams, nor their obscure and meaningless pursuits with double purposes insanely sought, remaining in your mind. It will be healed of all the sickly wishes that it tried to authorize the body to obey."

"Now is the body healed because the source of sickness has been opened to relief. "

"No-one can heal unless he understands what purpose sickness seems to serve. For then he understands as well its purpose has no meaning. Being causeless and without a meaningful intent of any kind, it cannot be at all. When this is seen, healing is automatic. It dispels this meaningless illusion by the same approach that carries all of them to truth, and merely leaves them there to disappear."

One of the really tricky things about A Course in Miracles, is the way that Jesus writes in certain contexts and sometimes it SOUNDS AS IF He is saying something which is totally opposite to what He says somewhere else. He is very "extreme" in his writing, in order to be very clear and black-and-white in his impeccable reasoning. And this can lead people to become confused as to what he really means.

For example, he could be talking in one part about how the world can be forgiven, it becomes lovely and beautiful and a reflection of holiness, then in another passage, turn around and say, from a different context, that the world is entirely a dream of death and is totally illusory and will never make you happy. It seems totally opposite.

For example, he could talk about using the body as a communication device and to help others. But then in another passage he can turn around and say, the body doesn't exist and it's the idea of sin, totally an illusion made to attack the son of God. It seems like a totally opposite attitude.

For example, he could say that the meaning of love cannot be taught, then tell you to "teach only love". Seems like a contradiction.

For example, he could be saying in one place, that God only has one son. But then in another passage, is talking about all the children of God who are co-creators with you and are your brothers. Seems like a totally opposite contradictory statement.

So what happens is, people will read the course and will tend to see these contradictions. And then they will be confused. And then to try to "fix" the contradiction, they will select WHICH of the two things are "true", and will reframe the other thing and change its meaning to "fit". This is usually fairly random but mostly people will "side with" whichever statement SEEMS more true or "bigger" or "higher".

So then for example, "one brother is all brothers" would turn into "all brothers are one self and there aren't really many brothers", as an attempt to rectify the seeming contradiction. But this is INCORRECT. It's a mistake to change what IT means in order to fit with YOUR thinking. It is YOUR thinking that needs to change to accommodate and ACCEPT what He is saying. That it is literally true, there are MANY brothers, who are one. And that means you're going to have to learn an entirely different way of thinking in order to see WHY it makes SENSE the way it is, without having to change it.

See, Jesus is not contradictory, and to claim he is really is an attack on his uniformity and consistency. He is not confused. He is an awakened being. He knows everything. He doesn't teach conflicting messages. He even says "no one can learn through double messages." He doesn't give contradictory statements. He gives statements at various LEVELS and CONTEXTS, and within one context, it can seem to be saying one thing, while in another larger context, it can blow that out of the water. Or he can talk about aspects of creation where ego laws are broken entirely, and be TELLING THE TRUTH when he says God has many children who are "all one". It does not erase the many, it doesn't result in "only one". IT IS BOTH.

We are supposed to learn to open our minds and accept ALL OF THE COURSE and EVERYTHING JESUS SAYS in it, not just the parts we like, and not just the parts that seem to make sense, and we're definitely not supposed to be hacking it apart to try to MAKE IT FIT into a thought system that is, itself, broken. God is a creator. He has many children. They are all one. Such is the truth.

"Everything God created (many things) KNOWS its Creator (individually). For this is how creation (as one thing) is accomplished, by (producing many, who are one) the Creator, and by His creations (many). In the holy meeting-place are joined the Father and His creations (many direct creations/sons), and the creations of His Son (their many creations, as one), with them together (as one, yet many). "

We often talk about the versions of the course, the editing, whether all the facts are included etc. And then on top of that we try to understand its metaphysical model, its concepts and ideas, and argue over which model is the right one.

But what we should perhaps really be more concerned with is whether true information has been lost. ie whether we have the whole truth represented in word form, or whether key detail has been lost.Information is ... the minimum amount of detail that is needed to represent something with perfect logical accuracy.

In its simplest form, for example, let's say there are two squares next to each other. One is black and one is white. You can distinguish that there are two, because they contrast to each other. This contrast is information. If you were to, for example, color both squares white, you cannot tell whether its one square or two squares. Information has been lost.

In information theory, which is used for such things as data compression algorithms for example, and also in science, there is something called entropy. Entropy is a measure of the absolutely minimum possible size that the information can be, in order to fully and accurately represent something.

When you have files on your computer, or images for example, you can "compress" them. Usually this is based on representing larger repeated things with smaller symbols. You can get back exactly what you started with by "de-compressing" it based on the symbols. But this can only be done up to a point. There is a threshold at which you CANNOT compress the files any smaller, without losing information. All the "information" needed to fully describe the image must be retained in some form.

With images for example, the jpeg file format is not an accurate representation of the image. It LOSES ACCURACY as a trade-off for making the files smaller. The more accuracy it loses, the smaller the representation becomes, the blurrier the image is. It starts to develop artifacts which are visual errors. From that "overly reduced" data, you CANNOT get back the original full fidelity and quality of the original image. Key accuracy of information is LOST.

When we conceive of truth, when we try to describe reality, or talk about God and his creation etc, these lofty and rather abstract metaphysical ideas, the temptation is to make the representation of that truth, the symbol of that truth, be as SMALL AND SHORT as possible. We somehow think that less is always more, and that "simpler" must be more true. This is NOT true. TOO FEW words is INACCURATE.

When an accurate representation of something is reduced SO much, it has to in fact LOSE very important detail. The information becomes blurred, vague, generalized, overly abstract, and really does NOT contain the subtle nuances that are actual aspects of the whole truth. It may SEEM like it represents the whole of the truth but it doesn't. It's an APPROXIMATION, like a jpeg image, which is "sort of close" to being accurate and gives you some idea of it, but IS NOT accurate.

Examples of this happening include "reductionistic" statements like "Everything is God." Well now. For some reason that sounds all mystical and special and lofty. But, such a vague statement lacks enough detail to be accurate. You cannot GET BACK the full story when you BASE logical conclusions on this information. The reconstruction of the whole story is corrupted.

You could say for example, well, it seemed like the Son of God feel asleep and dreamed of death. But ... since ITS ALL GOD.... THIS MUST MEAN, logically, that God HIMSELF fell asleep and dreamed of death. That is absolutely what it implies. You can argue that "no it doesn't" but all you're doing is trying to pretend that it is accurate because the BS alarms are going off to indicate errors. The fact is that the information that's given is NOT ENOUGH, it DOES NOT accurately represent the whole truth, and it's too vague.

MORE WORDS IS BETTER! Or perhaps we can say, you want ideally the fewer number of words which FULLY AND ACCURATELY represent the whole truth. I you can be sure this is not going to be 3 words or even 20 words.

So yes, even in terms of thinking about abstract spiritual stuff, even in terms of oneness, god being all, everything is mind, son and father blending into each other, going beyond words and concepts... all this stuff.... when you are USING LANGUAGE and logical constructs to THINK about it..... and you strip SO much away that you start losing vital information, going BEYOND the entropy threshold, you are literally turning a detailed and nuanced truth into a blob of mush and mud and blurriness and meaninglessness. Because you think that is what spirituality is like .... this oneness thing... must mean, we only need to use one word. Not even close.

There IS an entropy limit beyond which you cannot go, in logical reasoning, in discussion, in theorizing, in metaphysics, in conceptualizing reality, where if you DO go beyond it, you have chopped out SO much information that you're not even really talking about the whole truth anymore. You're making a vague approximation which is NOT accurate enough. And it is therefore MISELADING. The more you push it towards eradicating as many words as possible, down to like "everything's God"... you have seriously censored significant major truths.

If for example I have a flower with 6 petals and I tell you that I have "a flower", but I don't tell you that it has 6 petals, in your mind you may envisage a flower with 8 petals. You are wrong. I did not give you enough information to represent the whole truth about what I have. There is information loss. I have been TOO VAGUE. I have reduced the accuracy of the representation of truth BEYOND the limit of information entropy, and have gone into the realm of a LACK OF TRUTH. A loss of precision.

It is funny then that when we talk about "its all one thing", we are actually LACKING truth, while pretending to talk about truth. We are not being accurate because we are not giving enough information. In fact we're trying to SPIRITUALIZE WORDS by having the fewest words possible. Less words is not more spiritual! In fact less words can be corrupting and destructive and a complete misrepresentation of the truth.

There are some people that go so far with their stripping away of any notion of anything informational - which usually means anything separate-sounding - any contrast or delineation or division or any notion of a "something" or two of anything.... that they enter a logical realm of total abstract bullshit. It devolves into meaningless drivel with specialness all over it. Ego loves to do this because it thinks a count of one is more spiritual than a count of two. It's concept of truth is flawed.

If for example it is true that God has at least one son. And if we say that this son IS God. And that is ALL that we tell you. If we tell you that is the WHOLE truth. Then someone is going to think ok.... the son IS God, so.... when the son fucks up and dreams of death and imagines murder, this must be God doing it right? Sure thing. God is now dreaming of death. We weren't specific enough or accurate enough.

It's a nice idea to imagine that God is this total 100% abstraction which is SO abstract that there is NO detail to it, no properties, no structure, no qualities, no characteristics, nothing. Just a nice blob of existence sitting there all by itself. That is NOT an accurate enough representation using words and symbols and language. It is a massive information loss. And God DOES in fact have properties, qualities, a "nature", a premise, law, mind, thought, causation, will, love, etc. The attempt to reduce truth to NOTHING, is an attempt by the ego to destroy the truth!

We HAVE to understand that God is for example infinite and absolute. We have to properly specify what God'e nature actually is before we can start basing conclusions on it. If you knew that God is causal and a creator, you would also know that God MUST have creations which MUST in turn have creations. The logic in this is utterly impeccable. But you can't see that or come to that conclusion is you DON'T specify that God is causal, or that his creations have to inherit through extension, or that he is a creator at all.

So when you become too vague, thinking it is spiritual, thinking you are representing truth more, thinking that "its oneness" is the most spiritual thing anyone has ever conceived of. ... it is not true. You CANNOT go that far into the loss of information and represent the whole truth using language and logic. But people are doing it all the time. "It's all God" ... well, sort of... but no. It's not. God has creations. "God is everything" .. well.. sort of, but no. God is not an illusion. Did you specify that? You need to.

So in terms of the editions of the course and the editing and the words in the book and the repetition of concepts and ideas and whether it contains ALL distinct information, fact, accuracy, precision and is "complete" informationally, you really need to think more in terms of ..... is there a full and accurate representation of the whole truth here. Is there ENOUGH words to represent the whole message. And that does NOT mean there should be too FEW words OR more than is needed. More words is not always an improvement either.

We might ask if something has been LOST, vital information, which is not repeated, which is missing, and that without it the picture is incomplete. It doesn't matter so much if the same ideas are presented many times, or if the concepts taught are built upon by others, etc. We need the whole accuracy and full scope of the truth, enough description to leave no loopholes, but we don't necessarily need 550,000 words to do that. But what matters is when you become SO reductionistic that you chop out VITAL information and disappear up your own arse.

So perhaps we can steer away from all these super-short ultra-vague trying-to-be-mystical statements of vagueness, and instead realize that you HAVE to use enough words in order to fully communicate an idea. You can't JUST say "God is" at this level and expect someone to understand that this DOESN'T imply that God is a piece of dog poop on the sidewalk. A more accurate, more detailed definition is needed, to close loopholes and stop logical errors from happening. This is why ACIM is presented as rather a lot of words, and not just one.

The course tries to represent a picture of the whole truth. It tries to talk about God and his nature. It doesn't do it in 2 words. It does it with a great many words because Jesus knows that you CANNOT represent the nuances of reality in such a small number of symbols. There is a certain level of entropy to this. You can't properly represent God, creation, kingdom, sonship, holy spirit, souls, your creations, eternal life, immortality, etc... in two words.

It has nothing to do with a person's inability to "grasp the truth of oneness" either. No one is grasping the truth of oneness by using the word oneness in a sentence. Oneness actually encapsulates rather a lot of details which you might not think are a part of it. Oneness doesn't forego God having a son. But it implies that there is no son at all. That is wrong. It is not an accurate representation and not enough information. The son is literally lost in that formulation.

Nor is someone being "all spiritual" just because they talk about God as if he's SO abstract that you can't say anything about him accurately at all. We might as well say that God is so beyond everything that you can't even say that God is beyond everything. What then? If you're GOING to use words, and language, and logical arguments, you CANNOT REDUCE IT beyond a certain point and expect to be accurately representing it.

God is ... much more than... just oneness.

Many course students believe that the physical world is a kind of heaven-in-disguise, but simply hidden behind their mistaken perceptions. It's as if to say, once they purify their mind of false perceptions, they will see it 'how God intended it' and that this is the same thing as being in heaven.

If you are setting out with the belief that the physical world is reality, and especially if you believe God made it, then that background acts as a 'context' in which you read all of the rest of the Course. There is so much in the course written about undoing false perceptions and becoming able to see the real world or forgiven world etc, that it's possible to read into that to mean the physical world is reality.

For example, the course does say things like.... you must undo your false perceptions.... your false perceptions are clouding your perception of reality.... once you undo false perceptions you will see clearly.... then you'll see you brother as Christ and will see the beautiful forgiven/real world.... etc.... and there isn't specifically anything in those 'pieces' of the Course - if taken out of its total context - to challenge the notion that the physical world is real. So that can lead you to believe that this fundamental idea that the world exists goes unchallenged by the Course.

Another example is that people heavily believe they are bodies. They read things about how they should just accept the world 'as it is' and change their mind, and this leads to this kind of 'separation' between the mind and body. i.e., that we should let the body do whatever because its not real (a level confusion) and we should let the world do whatever because it's not real (a level confusion). And that's really a kind of paralysis, and a lack of responsibility, and a total lack of power (especially over death, which is a key part of the Course).

It is very possible therefore to take most of the course and slot it into an existing belief system and have it seem to mostly make sense. So then in order to bring the truth into the world, instead of bringing the world to the truth (in which it dissolves), people will try to sort of 'glue together' the broken pieces of out-of-context metaphysics, such as to say God made the world, the world is heaven on earth, the body can live forever, God made beautiful stuff in the world and sustains it, etc... none of that is in the course, but those finer points are easy to gloss over and ignore.

As I go back through the ACIM text and read it slowly and really digest it and ask myself what it is saying, how is it consistent, I continually see evidence that it is quite literally saying "there is no world" and that heaven and the world are completely opposed, that God did not create it - we did, that the world is something we 'made' as an attack on God, etc. Its not just our perception OF the attack that is an attack on God. The world ITSELF is fundamentally an attack on God, down to the very fabric of spacetime.

And on the point about perception, it is CLEAR in the text that the only point of having true perception (right mindedness) is that it parallels the One mind and allows us to transition to the one mind, which exists entirely beyond the world. Everything Jesus says clearly indicates this physical world is an ILLUSION and a dream and is not reality and never will be reality. It is VERY difficult for us ego humans to accept this as truth, and that is why the ego is extremely careful to disguise the evidence of this and gloss over the truth.

I guess I'm making this point because I continue to see prominent people 'teaching' other students with statements that seem to exalt the world and make it seem spiritual, but which is in fact the complete OPPOSITE of what the Course is actually teaching. As clearly defined in the Disappearance of the Universe, for example, which IS aligned with the Course's message, the world is basically a giant turd, metaphorically speaking, it holds nothing that we want, it is not our home, it is nothing more than a nightmare or bad dream, and IT WILL DISAPPEAR because it is not eternal.

It is quite a severe distortion of the Course's message when, within the wrong context, it can seem to be saying that the world will transform into heaven or the the world is God's 'movement' or that bodies are a permanent form of identification etc. The idea that the world is exalted and filled with any kind of truth is the absolute opposite of what the Course says and a total misinterpretation of its meaning. Imagine you believe an interpretation of truth that is 100% false. That's what many people are doing. To believe the world is our spiritual home is an absolute farce, and is precisely how the ego wants to INTERFERE with the Course and absolutely distort it to its aims of KEEPING ITSELF GOING.

The world isn't real.

"You are NOT limited by the body, and thought CANNOT be made flesh. But mind can be manifested through the body if it goes beyond it and DOES NOT INTERPRET IT AS LIMITATION. Whenever you see another as limited TO or BY the body, you are imposing this limit ON YOURSELF. Are you willing to ACCEPT this, when your whole purpose for learning should be to escape FROM limitations?" UrT8G16

Bodies don't really matter in a relationship. The soul is androgynous and perfect. It isn't male or female. It has no limits and loves unconditionally.

It uses a body temporarily and then moves on. It might've had lifetimes as men and women, children and the elderly, as parents or alone. It could've had a gay body or a straight body, an overweight body or a skinny body. Whatever. Across its experience of so many different types of bodies, it cannot help but generalise the learning and detach from the specifics of each of them. It learns again to love regardless of form.

There could be a lifetime where two souls meet and they have certain types of bodies. They may or may not even be attracted to each other's bodies, or be compatible physically. Perhaps they are man and woman but one of them is gay. Perhaps they are from different cultures or races. It doesn't matter.

The body really is just a kind of tool that the soul uses. The body has its severe limitations and its limited scope of expression, which means that as the soul uses it, it has to work with what it's got. If it wants to talk, the words are likely to come out sounding the way that the body instrument allows to happen. If it wants to have intercourse, it has to work with whatever appendages or holes are available. If it wants to hug it has to deal with its length of arms and its roundness of belly.

If the soul is not heavily body identified, its view of the body is very detached and transcendental. The body doesn't really matter to it, nor does the bodies of others. When the soul is more identified with and lost in its current body, taking it to define itself and to be itself, this narrow perspective will inhibit relationship and make it more conditional. The bodies of others then matter more, relationships have more criteria, and everything has to be acceptable within limits. There is also more hell to pay when the rules are broken.

Ultimately we're meant to learn to love ourselves and everyone equally and fully, regardless of their bodies. We are to use the body as best we can to relate though and beyond, without placing so much emphasis on the body itself of what appear to be very limited categorisations of types.

Jesus suggests in the course for example that everyone should love everyone regardless of specific bodily appendages. A soul-to-soul communication is more important than cutting off a brother because their body is a certain type or style. This even applies to people having disabilities and sicknesses, learning to love them regardless of what their bodies are doing, and looking past the body to the immortal spirit within.

In my marriage for example, I was a male-gendered body person married to a female-gendered body person. She was 18 years older than me, which didn't matter. I had some attractions towards men as well, which didn't matter to her. She was from a different country thousands of miles away, which didn't matter. She grew up in a different culture, which didn't matter either.

Regardless of the sense of specialness and exclusivity in the relationship, there was also a more transcendental and unconditional element. I had some attractions to men for example, which she knew about, and she found it interesting and a curiosity instead of judging against it. She was willing even to encourage me toward it even if it meant her and I possibly not being together. Just as she at times wanted to be with other men.

We still had intimate relations which entailed a biological compatibility, even if in some way we might not have been entirely on the same page. We used what we had and made it work, because it was really more important that we were together and loving each other. A love that transcended the physical. A love between souls that spanned many lifetimes and many bodies. We could've been even more extremely different on the physical level and I think we would still have had a deep soul connection.

Ultimately what this has taught me is that the physicality of the body is not really that important. It is much more important to love a person and be open and honest and trusting. To share deeply and intimately, emotionally and psychologically. This can happen even if the bodies appear to be what the world would consider thoroughly incompatible. We turned heads with our weirdness and our age gap, for example. This can happen for gay or straight people, for people with any kind of body and any kind of persuasion. Every relationship has the potential to be holy.

What I realise now is that for any future relationship, it doesn't really matter if the person is male or female, or looks a certain way. It doesn't have to be a 'mr right' or a 'mrs right', or some kind of ideal model of perfection. The person is more important, the mind-to-mind is more important. If it comes with a certain type of body, and even if that body has certain limitations, it doesn't really matter.

Having a full whole relationship is more important than just some physical sexual hookup that's empty and cold and full of ego. If the person has certain genetalia, or types thereof, what does it matter, really, if the love transcends it? The two souls potentially relating on a higher and more whole level is what's important. This can even take place without any physical interaction or proximity or anything that the world might think of as a relationship. It can happen with strangers. It can happen anywhere, and beyond any type of body.

Looking past the body to the soul/mind is what's really important. The holy spirit's home is in our relationship to the christ in ourselves and others, which overlooks bodies and regards them as nothing but tools. If you still use them to interact then so be it, within the limits and specifics that the body allows. Sex is a limitation just as gender is but you can still use it while the mind is in a higher state. We're supposed to learn to love people as beings, as children of God, regardless of what their bodies are doing. Because ultimately no-one is really a body anyway.

Most of the time, people consider themselves confined to their bodies. The body itself forms a barrier around their mind, shutting it in. The only place on the body where it seems the mind is 'visible' if you will, is perhaps through the eyes. The mind can express through the body in terms of moving the body and expressing, but generally speaking the mind stays inside the body behind the scenes, hidden behind the flesh.

However, some people who are perhaps more open in some ways, either by being 'psychic' or 'empathic', have in some way awoken the ability to go beyond the confines of their own body. This means, they are capable of moving or extending their 'mind' to locations outside the body.

A person for example who is empathic, you can kind of tell (especially if you are also empathic), because you look at them and can feel and sense how some part of their mind is NOT blocked by the body, and instead flows outward past the physical form. Particularly out of the stomache and power-chakra area. In a way, it's almost as if being able to see the mind of the person shining out of this area, as if the physical form of the body isn't even there at all.

Similarly, folks who are psychic tend to be more skilled at projecting a part of their mind outward and locating it at any other location, therefore quite literally being 'aware' in that location and receiving sensations, images, perceptions etc from that location. For example I once experienced a person who claimed to have psychic abilities, and would notice how his mind would quite often come and 'visit', as though he wasn't just over there in a body, but also over here in my body.

This may sound weird at first. But, even these examples of going beyond the boundaries of the body are barely even scratching the surface of what it means to be in Oneness.

In Oneness, the body's boundaries have absolutely no limiting effects on the mind whatsoever, and mind then is effectively capable of being everywhere and anywhere. This is in fact our 'natural state', and it's in fact unnatural and a sickness to not be able to join with other minds, to experience Oneness all the time, or to blend with others.

In effect, humanity is really a large, collective entity which has upon its surface many many seemingly individual points of awareness, which we think of a separate people, and yet is still all connected. It would be NORMAL for any one person in that collective mind to experience things that other people are experiencing also, not only as if it is their own, but that it actually IS their own, because it is shared.

I can tell you from experience personally, in fact, that it is possible for all forms of energy, emotions, even physical sickness, to be transferred and shared between people. You think certain things are contagious? Well, for someone who is quite empathic it is possible to actually, literally, take upon themselves the energetic presence and form of another person's discomfort or illness. And that illness then manifests or plays out in your own body. This can happen on emotional or mental or physical levels. In effect, 'ownership' of matter or form of body stuff can actually be shared and transfer between people.

This shouldn't really be an unusual exception, it in fact should be the rule, that all of us are so connected and One that we share in everything together. And it should not be at all surprising when we experience things that other people are experiencing.

In fact, it would be far clearer and more accurate to say, that NOT experiencing what other people are experiencing means you are very SEPARATE from other people, which means you have disconnected yourself from Oneness and do not 'share well', which means ultimately that you are in a state of sickness. Lacking empathy for example is a sign of a sociopath who has barely any sense of what others are feeling. Isolation, separation, aloneness, loneliness, sickness, withdrawal, darkness, etc are all the same condition of disconnection from the whole.

It isn't healthy for people to be disconnected from each other. And in A Course in Miracles, Jesus clearly lays out how it is by JOINING MINDS that we are capable of healing sickness in ourselves and others, because it is the *separation* of minds and the perception of separation between individuals that causes ALL sickness.

This means, there is a healing that can occur if you are willing to step out and be part of a Oneness, to unite with others empathically, to join with them, to resonate with and unite with them in 'spirit' and in 'energy', and to then transmit and share love and light and truth with that person. Or in other words, to allow Holy Spirit to erase all sense of separation between you, such that wholeness and unity and light are restored to the person, producing what we call a 'healing'.

1) Get quite and join with Love/Holy Spirit/Jesus

2) Become one with another person/empathically tune into them

3) Invite Holy Spirit to heal the separation in them and to send them healing love.

It's as simple as that. We simply join minds with others, share love with them, and love does the rest.

"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.

When we categorise the world, or split it up, or label it as different, or use its form to dictate what it means, we're failing to recognise that ALL ILLUSIONS ARE THE SAME.

"Nothing I see means anything."

"Make this year different by making it all the same."

If we for example see a sick body and give it a meaning of being real and worse and bad and more frightening, we've driven a wedge between things to keep them apart.

If we see a dead body and we believe it is a picture of awfulness and tragedy and horror, compared to the other bodies, we're trying to push it and separate it off and designate that it means something different to the healthy ones.

All these psychological differences, all the ways we put things in categories and groups, all the extra meanings we pile on top of stuff to distinguish them and say they're not the same, causes us to get lost in the illusion.

One thing seems to be not the same as another thing. One form seems more important or more serious or more threatening than another. The shape of something seems to mean something different to the shape of something else. These all add up to a huge complicated hierarchy of categories.

If we for example think that people are bodies and not souls/minds, and we start valuing bodies, and start wanting bodies to continue indefinitely, that bodies are people. ... and then start to become afraid that the bodies are in danger, and are falling sick, and dying, we've now fallen for the illusion. We start trying to protect the body and keep it instead of recognising the big picture.

A dead body is no more real than a living one. A sick body is no more meaning something true than a healthy one. A large body, a small body, a young body, an old body, a male or female body, a body of a certain nationality or ethnicity, none of it really means anything.

"The death of an illusion means nothing."

The shift that has to take place is a change in perspective and premise. The whole system of spacetime, physicality, matter and bodies, has to be regarded as not real. The whole thing has to be put into ONE category, not divided up or pitched against each other. One single category that says that the properties of one thing is the same as another. That none of it is real.

There then can be no PREFERENCE for one thing over another, no favoritisms, no specialness, no special favour towards certain people, no marginalising or closing off or favouring one group over another. It all has to be ironed out and equalised. No special expectations, no special need to have certain things be a certain way, no resistance to things being in a given form, etc.

The perspective of miracles is that there is no order of difficulty, because there is no perceived structure in the world. The mind becomes unconditional, with one response of love to everything. One singular category, one mind, one will, one perspective, one vantage point, one self, one recognition of everything here as false.

All of the sense of one thing being more important or valid than another has to go. And while it's true that it does not matter whatsoever whether a body is alive or dead, it is also true that in terms of usefulness a healthy body can be a symbol of eternal life. A healthy body can testify an example or image that depicts a higher truth. But even the healthy body is still part of the same equality of unreality with a dead body.

In fear, we make life a one-way street, where we want to avoid anything and everything that might destroy us as a body. But in love, love allows bodies to come and go, suffer and die, shift back and forth between states, and has no actual real preference for any of them. It recognises that the soul/mind beyond the body is untouched, unchanged, perfect in all ways, eternal and can never die. And in that view bodies don't mean anything at all.

While recognising that bodies mean nothing, and it does not matter whatsoever whether they are sick and dead or healthy and seeming to represent immortality, we can still use them as teaching devices in which they do need to be in symbolically healthier states in order to demonstrate healing and forgiveness. But we must still remember that in the larger context, in the big picture, they are all equally nothing. Then we are not attached to whether they come and go or change their form, and no longer fear death.

The book, is an expression FROM truth, attempting to point to truth. It contains SYMBOLS of truth, twice removed from reality.

Because truth expressed the book, the symbols in the book are not necessarily all possible expressions from truth. Truth could conceivably express a million books, all from the same source or mind. They could all appear to take on different forms and use different words, yet essentially say the same thing.

The form of the book, the words used, the sentences, the sections/chapters, is only one collection of symbols, all coming from the same source.

It is entirely possible for that source of truth to continue to express itself in many, many more forms. It is possible that the Course could in fact be 1000 times larger, or a million. There is basically no limit to how many "forms" it could take, provided those forms express or symbolize a consistent source.

This is why it is then important to recognize that, of all the FORMS in the book, all of the words, you are not necessarily getting ALL words that can ever be said about truth, and you're not necessarily hearing every possible clarification.

For example, in the main Course itself Jesus doesn't really explicitly talk about making his body disappear. Yet, in the notes given to Helen later, from the same source/truth, he clarified further by adding extra information. That information is clarifying as to the meaning of various other parts of the Course, especially surrounding resurrection and how we might leave the dream without death being involved.

There are also times when Jesus says one little phrase somewhere in the Course and doesn't really expand upon it, and yet it's a very key phrase which puts many other things into perspective.

There are also times when I really wish Jesus would've gone into much more detail about certain things, especially miracles and some of the aspects of the end of the universe. In other words, if Jesus were present, there would be a lot of questions we could ask Him which would clarify many things. This is why it is VITAL to get in touch with Jesus/Holy Spirit and develop a relationship with them, so that you can learn from them DIRECTLY.

It's important then not to get too hung up on the specific exact WORDS which Jesus expressed, thinking that the FORM of those words is the truth. The form is not the truth, it's just one of MANY possible symbols and expressions. Further additional forms might possibly change your perception of those words and what they really mean.

If for example you will only accept something as correct if it has an explicit quote in the Course that you can point your finger at, then you are getting bogged down in form and are not seeing the metaphysics.

The form of the words of the Course are twice removed from reality. Once removed from reality is the metaphysics, and/or the symbols in the dream. For example, outer space, filled with seemingly nothing but emptiness, is symbolic for the ego's attempt to make God as absent as possible. Bodies are symbols of having an identity God did not create. etc.

When you look at the words and learn from the words, you should learn, or be able to infer/imply, what the metaphysics of the truth is. Stuff like the structure of the dream, the levels, what certain things mean, where they fit, etc... is not always necessarily 100% spelled out in words. You have to look deeper. As you "generalize the teaching", you will gradually build a clearer picture for yourself about how everything fits together.

Some of those clarifications will bring you insight into how, sometimes, Jesus uses words in certain specific contexts which, if taken verbatim, might imply or infer something which is incorrect. Also sometimes He speaks at certain "levels" and confusing those levels produces a lot of confused metaphysics. Some things apply at certain levels and not others.

Also sometimes Jesus uses words which He seemed to have build up quite a specific definition of elsewhere, but uses them quite loosely in "general conversation" in such a way that people then take this and think it's some kind of metaphysical fact. Sometimes Jesus is just simply talking casually and using normal language, how most people would, and not necessarily teaching doctrine in every word.

With enough exposure and learning you should be able to transcend the Course's words and get more in touch with the "core metaphysics" which is kind of hiding somewhat behind the words. The structure of the dream, the proper location of certain levels and their meaning etc, becomes more apparent when you go deeper into it, and Jesus hasn't necessarily "spelled it all out" directly.

We have to be careful not to get hung up on "where does it say that in the course" kind of approaches. Not everything IS said in the course. And yet, some things are true/logically consistent which may never have been expressed.

We also have to beware of thinking that only what is said in the Course is coming from Jesus's authority and therefore no-one else can say anything that Jesus hasn't said. As you transcend the words and get more of the metaphysics you'll be able to extrapolate it and come to conclusions which are completely consistent with Jesus's teachings.

That makes it possible to write additional content, additional words/symbols, based on the same metaphysical foundation, in order to be consistent with Jesus and not contradict his intentions. You don't need to be in his mind of authority to do this, you only need to grasp the basic logical structure of the separation.

There is a lot of material in the Course and it can become quite blinding through its sheer volume and seeming complexity. But we need to learn, in a sense, to forgive it, by learning to overlook its appearance and look deeper to see a closer or more accurate truth. The truth is simple, not complicated, but the ego has a field day with getting caught up in the form of things.