Ask: Can you explain perception ending in time?

(This refers to the last article: (
“I had to draw a picture of this to begin to understand. It helped! The last paragraph I do not understand though. Could you start with that on your next newsletter and explain it a little more…” - HW
Here is the last paragraph from the last article:
“Perception (awareness, consciousness), desire, lack - these are all temporary (time-bound) experiences. They can be satisfied in time through an awareness (perception, consciousness) of Truth. But they, and the awareness of Truth, end in time. Only Truth Itself has nothing to do with time.”
Using the language of A Course in Miracles, “Knowledge” refers to God or Truth. In God there is only God and what God knows is God.  “Perception” (also “consciousness” or “awareness”) refers to our split-mind’s experience apart from Knowledge/God. Unlike Knowledge, where all is One, or the same throughout, perception has degrees, grada…

Why Don't I Just Kill Myself and Go To Heaven?

The usual way of thinking about getting into Heaven is to wait until the self dies. And often Heaven is something to be won through righteous living in the world. In this view there is a direct correlation between the self’s life in the world and Truth (Heaven). Even if one does not have to earn Heaven it is implied that It can only be experienced when the body falls away. The body is one’s obstacle to being aware of Truth and experiencing Heaven.
A Course in Miracles, however, teaches that Heaven is here within you now and all you have to do is choose to be aware of It. There is no intersection of the self’s life in the world and Truth. You can experience both, but never at the same time, because they are diametrically opposed. Each cancels out the other. So the body is not an obstacle to Truth. But your belief in the body as your reality is. Heaven, then, is what is left when you let go of the belief in the body as your reality. This is an action of the mind and it has nothing to do…

To Deny the Body is "Unworthy" of Your Mind

To Deny the Body is “Unworthy” of Your Mind (March 10, 2017)
All students come to A Course in Miracles identified with the ego (personal thought system), which is another way of saying that they come with their mind steeped in guilt. So when they read that the body is not real they think that they are guilty for identifying with it. Actually, they do feel, unconsciously or consciously, guilty for identifying with it, but that does not mean that they are guilty for identifying with it. However, reading that the body is not real only increases their guilt at first and they attempt to deal with this guilt by pretending that they do not identify with it (“I know I’m not a body, but…”) or by denying or repressing their body’s feelings or desires.
Denial is never the way to deal with guilt. It suppresses the source of guilt (the belief that the body is real) instead of undoing it. And denying your experience also denigrates the power of your mind, which leads to feeling powerless.
“The body …

Ask: How can I lead my study group out of comparisons to peace?

“In my ACIM study group, I notice that when we get to a passage with convoluted syntax or a concept that pushes us out of our comfort zone, we’ll quickly engage in an off-topic discussion, for example, about “the media,” “religion” or “churches.” This is usually prompted by a participant’s remark about how the world of illusions doesn’t understand or live by the Course we so much appreciate. Like the rest of the group, I want to think there is something outside of me that can make me feel “good" about the Course. I’m curious how I can find a way to let go of feeling either “good” or “bad” and help the group locate the source of peace within the Course text.” – GB

What you describe is very typical for new students. The ego’s (personal thought system’s) thinking is always evaluative: right/wrong, good/bad, better/worse, etc. It’s simply the way it works. But although this thinking is from the ego I suspect its source is actually the speaker’s way of expressing gratitude for having …

More on Emotional Satisfaction or Freedom

Last week’s article ( about the two possible approaches to spirituality and how one way to characterize them is the pursuit of emotional satisfaction for the self or transcending the self led to a lot of comments and questions that I will try to clear up here.
(The article was a follow-up to two other articles I had written on the same topic. Some of the questions readers had could be answered in those earlier articles and links were provided in last week’s article. If you still have questions I suggest reading those as well as last week’s article for a fuller look at the topic).
The emotional satisfaction I wrote about in the last article was not referring to what one seeks in relation to others. It was referring to the desire for an emotional connection with Truth (God) that one would characterize as “warm”. I was highlighting how which goal we pursue in spirituality can often be revealed by the experienc…

Emotional Satisfaction or Freedom

A few months ago I wrote a couple of articles about the two possible spiritual approaches (, The most common approach, the one of religions and most everyone else on a spiritual path, is to spiritualize the self and its life in the world. The other approach is to transcend the self.
A while later I was having a discussion with my wife, Courtney. Her path is to spiritualize where mine is to transcend. I have never put it in those words to her because from past experience I know that she doesn’t understand my desire for liberation from the limitations of the self. In this discussion she said, again, that she finds my spirituality to be cold and cerebral. She wants warmth; she wants emotional satisfaction. I understood, but did not explain to her, that she finds my path lacking because for her it is only an idea. She has not experienced what I have.…

Ask: Can you clarify "God created Love"?

“… I don't recall precisely where in ACIM, but I remember reading the sentence "God Created Love." This sentence struck me as, in my thought process, it implied at one point Love did not exist in God's Awareness or at least was not as Complete in His Awareeness as it is now. (Trying not to include "time" in this concept.) I also believe the statement was made "God IS Love" (emphasis I believe is mine).
After some attention on this (and I realize the disadvantage of trying to understand God from my particular viewpoint), I came to the conclusion that Awareness by Nature is expansive and seeks to increase. As such, it would explain a God that increases in Awareness - that is "Expansive" in Nature.
If this is True, it is logical to consider that God started at a point of Awareness and increased His Awareness from that point. It is also logical to conclude that any sane and logical expansion of Awareness would ultimately reach the Awareness …