Ask: Why can't both God and the world be real?

Why does it have to be “non-duality”? Why can’t duality be real? Why can’t both God and the world be real?

            It’s not that it “has to be” non-duality. It’s just the way it is! Truth, or Reality, Which is what is meant by “God” in A Course in Miracles, is an experience of Being extending infinitely and eternally. There is nothing else in the experience. It is whole and complete in Itself. It is one both in the sense that It is whole and that It is All-That-is.
            Once you have this experience, either in direct Revelation (only God) or in a higher miracle (an awareness that only God is real while still being aware of the world), you understand that Reality is really beyond the world that you thought was reality. It reveals to you that the world has no more substance than vapor.
            But aside from the experience itself, which is really the only thing that will convince you that there is only one Reality and It is God, logic shows that something cannot be something else and still be itself. For example, an apple cannot be an orange and still be an apple. Nor can it blend with an orange and still be an apple. A hybrid applange would not be an apple. It would be its own thing.
            So it is with God. Formlessness (God) cannot be form and still be Formless. Wholeness (God) cannot lack and still be Whole. Limitlessness cannot be limited and still be Limitless. Truth cannot be not-Truth and still be Truth. There can only be one Truth, or Reality. And It cannot oppose Itself and still be Itself. That’s why it “has to be” non-duality.

            Keep in mind that you experience duality only because you are in denial. You seem to be split against yourself. And this is what gives you the sense that there is an inside of you and an outside of you (the world, a god), right and wrong, Heaven and earth, subject and object, etc. when actually your Reality is an undivided Whole. When you experience This it is because denial has fallen away.

>>>>>
Learn about the books The ACIM Mentor Articles, The Plain Language A Course in Miracles, 4 Habits for Inner Peace, and Releasing Guilt for Inner Peace at www.acimmentor.com.

If you have a question the answer to which you think will help others send it to Liz@acimmentor.com and indicate that you want it answered in the ACIM Mentor Newsletter/Blog.

Comments

Sage Starfield said…
A lot of times the answer for me is just the realization of the distinction between the relative "real" which the ego perceives and the absolute REAL which Is Being) and is "Realized" or sensed as a Subjective(not objective) Truth. Since the Reality and the Realizer are all part of the same Oneness, the term non-dual describes the realization of this inseparability.
So, simply put, you CAN have both "God" and "the world" as separate concepts for the ego's relativistic analysis, but when you get more in touch with the Absolute (Truth, God, Universe, etc.) those distinctions fall away and unity conciousness ensues.
will said…
Something I read this morning: "The idea of sacrifice will show up with general thoughts...like being spiritual means the personal self living in poverty, giving up its relationships and desires, making choices that go against its nature, etc... Peace does not show up as poverty and lack. Peace shows up as comfort and supply.
4 Habits for Inner Peace pgs.40-41
Sage Starfield said…
Sounds good Will. Getting back to Mother Theresa, I'm willing to bet she was coming from Love/Peace/Truth rather than Ego/Sacrifice/Poverty/ Lack - actually a form of what's referred to as "spiritual materialism".
will said…
I'm sure she was. The thing I have to look out for in reading non Course material is to not get caught up in what other religions or practices are doing. It's easy to get confused and off track. Mother Theresa was practicing one of those many, many other ways of reaching the same goals as the Course. But what she was doing is almost the exact opposite of what the Course is teaching. Like spiritual materialism. There is nothing in the world negative about it but it isn't something the Course teaches, you could make the case that it teaches the opposite.
Christine said…
Sage and Will: I Googled what Ken Wapnick had said about what he thought about Mother Teresa (if in doubt, always Google it)...on a site www.miraclestudies.net/50P I read (and I quote): Ken Wapnick: "One of the values like Mother Teresa had was that she clearly transcended, in the love that she exuded, a spiritual path that is, on one level, filled with guilt and judgement. She followed that path perfectly, but you felt such a loving presence. I heard her speak on a number of occasions and knew her personally....She could be a member of what the Course would say is ego-based faith and yet she did it with such a purity of content that she transcended the form,and she then became a spokesperson for the love of Jesus." Then he stated..."her religion expresses judgement and specialness, but she did it with an attitude that transcends that." ...and "she was completely selfless and without pretense, she radiated joy of total spiritual commitment." I found another quote on some other site where Ken said, "To me, her life is a demonstration of the importance of total dedication and complete constancy on the spiritual path." I did remember reading that Ken Wapnick knew her.
will said…
Helen wrote her personal opinion on how to approach the Course in the preface to the text in the section What It Is. I’ve found it helpful as it removes the ego obsession with who is right, who is wrong blah blah blah…

“Although Christian in statement, the Course deals with universal spiritual themes. It emphasizes that it is but one version of the universal curriculum. There are many others, this one differing from them only in form. They all lead to God in the end.” (Text preface p. ix)
will said…
For more on what we are discussing here see lesson 154.

Popular posts from this blog

Ask: Can you comment on the satisfaction of accomplishment as a trap?

The Two Spiritual Goals

An Example of Misusing the Specificity of ACIM