The Ontological and Psychological Approaches to ACIM

            Just as I began to study A Course in Miracles in 1984 at the age of 20, I had mystical experiences that showed me that the world is not real, just as the Course teaches. I saw another world, the “real world”, and through a direct occurrence of Reality, that even the real world is not real. Nothing in consciousness is real.

At the time, I was in a study group of Course students who had far more experience with the material than I had. But no one was discussing the kinds of experiences I was having. I didn’t want to mention them, partly because I was afraid that they’d think I was nuts, partly because I was afraid that they would not and would instead validate these experiences which so threatened ego. I now understand, of course, that I didn’t mention them because they were not going to be mentioned. I also now know that these were not my first mystical experiences. In a sense, they validated what was already known here from mystical experiences I had as a child, and this is why ego was already so threatened.

So, right away I became aware of two approaches to the Course. One I now call the ontological approach, which deals with consciousness as a false experience of existence, and which my experiences revealed to me. And the other I call the psychological approach, which the study group was taking, which deals with ego’s experience of consciousness. They could also be called the nondualistic and the dualistic approach, as the ontological approach is only God is real, so there is no ontological right or wrong or good or bad, while the psychological approach is to find a better way in a dualistic system—the ego thought system.

I struggled for decades to fully grasp and articulate what I saw and felt as these two approaches, and my writing often reflected this. What I did know is that by far most students were taking the psychological approach, and for good reason, as that is the path the Course lays out. But what I did not understand because my experiences led me to read the Course through the ontological approach, was that while the Course’s theory at times points past consciousness to Reality (God), its forgiveness practice is meant for psychological self-realization, such as Bill Thetford exemplified. Carol Howe describes this well in her biography of Bill Thetford, Never Forget to Laugh:

 

“Perhaps we should call forgiveness “Process X” to distinguish if from the misinformation we have learned. To paint a mental picture, imagine a thatch of many little twigs, sticks, and grass, like a bird’s nest…being tightly woven, is strong and impenetrable. All those little sticks and twigs, for our purposes, represent our incessant train of thoughts—judgments, future plans, grievances, regrets, defenses, learned behavior designed for our physical and psychological survival, worries, self-images, roles we play, and picture about how life is supposed to be. This omnipresent complex of thoughts, to which we are seriously addicted, has become like a solid wall that seems to surround us, separating us from the direct experience of life at the moment…A Course in Miracles…presents a process for relinquishing these “twigs”…”Strong and impenetrable” are wonderful attributes if you want to keep the rain out or the eggs in. However, they are a devastating liability if they impede experiencing the present moment, with its inherent joy, peace, insight, and reliable guidance.

The Course is designed for the overly active intellects of the Western world. It takes us through a process that systematically dismantles this barrier…Forgiveness, as ACIM defines it, untangles and removes this accumulated mental debris…the blocks to Love’s presence…When inner conflict is gone, the outer experience of hassle disappears. Love becomes known through all things…”

 

Even though the nondualistic teachings of the Course stood out to me because of my mystical experiences, this psychological process of ego taking back its projections and releasing its artificial structures and darker side was where I began, like all other Course students. But there came a point when this organically changed. When I attempted to deal with projections, the awareness would come over me that they did not matter because nothing in consciousness had any effect on Reality (God). This was not an intellectual practice, but an experiential awareness that shifted my mind away from being concerned with what ego was doing. It felt like dealing with ego’s structures and projections as I had been made them real to me. And I simply could not do it anymore.

Both approaches threaten ego, so it resists both. The psychological approach forces ego to face the shadow side it dissociates through projection to maintain a façade, for itself as well as others, of its own innocence. It makes ego question its structures, to see that they are not solid and impenetrable, but can be changed. This makes ego uncomfortable because if it can change, it is not solid, either.

The ontological approach threatens ego because as one’s awareness of Spirit grows, ego discovers it is not all that is in consciousness, and its version of reality is called into question.

With nondual teachings becoming well known through the internet and social media, the Course community has changed significantly. Course students started looking at other nondualistic teachings and students of nondualistic teachings were finding the Course. This sometimes leads to attempts at spiritual bypass, which means trying to apply the ontological/nondualistic approach (none of this is real) when one has not organically arrived at that awareness. If this is only an intellectual idea and not a living awareness, it becomes the means to suppress ego, not transcend it. It does not lead to relief and release, but to repression.

Many students try to blend both the idea that all in consciousness is an illusion and the practice of psychological undoing in the Course, and you cannot. You cannot seek to both transcend identity (self) and achieve self-realization. They are diametrically opposed approaches. The forgiveness practice of the Course is firmly in ego, in duality. It presents, by far, what most people want, which is a better way to be in the world, in consciousness. It leads to an advanced spiritual ego, to transcendence of ego’s shadow side, rather than to transcendence of ego. The Course is a better way, and it is a short-cut, as it says, to the relief from the pain of ego that most people want, when it is practiced with willingness and diligence. But it is not a course in enlightenment. What the Course means by “awakening” is an awareness of the Reality of God for ego, not Spirit coming to conscious awareness and knocking ego out of the center of consciousness. Ego is only transcended by Spirit, and no ego brings this about through any effort or practice.

You will take whichever approach to the Course that you are moved to take. It will be more comfortable for you if you do not resist the approach that is unfolding organically for you or try to blend diametrically opposed approaches. Don’t think ego’s resistance to the psychological approach means that you are meant to take the ontological approach. Don’t think that because the psychological approach is difficult for a few years that you are meant to take the ontological approach. The psychological approach gets harder before it gets easier. If you do not truly see that the world is not real and sometimes see the real world, then you are not taking the ontological approach—yet. The psychological approach is here before you in the Course. Deal with what is right in front of you, what is still real to you, with the tools (the Holy Spirit, the holy instant, the holy relationship) that the Course offers to mitigate the pain of ego as you grow your awareness of Truth.

 

>>>> 

If you have a question the answer to which you feel may be helpful to others, send it to Liz@acimmentor.com and indicate that you want it answered in this newsletter/blog.