Vmarco

How so? Is not even beautifully perceived music can exist outside the vibratory nature of duality, what would the strongest chain in the world be supported upon?

Yes, I appear to live in another consciousness than many,...I'm consistantly on subject, as the above shows, yet the Spoilers consistantly jab about my being off-topic,...go figure! The topic is critiquing dwai's narrative. To me, critique implies a meaningful review of what an author/artist is attempting to convey. Most often, written stories are really for the author,...their creative expression,...which most authors would of course like others to enjoy. For me, a really good story shines light upon something that was in the dark so-to-say,...especially something pointing to truth. Yes, such things are disturbing for many,...as someone once said, if truth upsets belief, then believers will kill the truth. Personally, I haven't considered how to break-through the belief systems, or even discuss the belief systems of Southern India,...although my hero would certainly be a hijra, or family of hijra, devoted to Yin Awakening. Maybe Bhadramanu, the old stupid vagabond is on a pilgramage to the Temple of mother Chamundeshwari to be a hijra. But then, that would be more dishonesty, because an old stupid vagabond would not have the non-stupid goal of dedicating him/her self to the Mother.

If you were to look up the definition of "god" it has no commonality to the Tao, Tathagata, or Unborn Awareness. God (god), n., 1. A being (condition) conceived as the omnipotent (condition), omniscient (condition) originator and ruler (condition) of the universe (condition), the principal object (condition) of faith and worship (conditions) in monotheistic religions (conditions). 2. The force (condition), effect (condition), or a manifestation or aspect (conditions) of this being (condition). 3. A being of supernatural powers (condition) or attributes (conditions), believed in and worshiped (conditions) by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality (conditions). 4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol (conditions). 5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed (conditioned). 6. A very handsome man (condition). 7. A powerful ruler or despot (conditions). 8. Used to express disappointment, disbelief, frustration, annoyance (conditions). For a Buddhist view of god, try: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/beyond-belief02.pdf

My understanding may be somewhat different,...we already have a consciousness that is aware of emptiness,...no infinite process is necessary. As soon as we snap beyond the 6 lower consciousness' of sentience, relative emptiness begins to be realized,...but for absolute emptiness, the Other Emptiness, another consciousness is understood, which is beyond what Buddhists call alaya. My grip as it were, with Non-dual practicioners, is that they believe Oneness is Non-dual,...Oneness is not Non-dual,...it's merely the coin, that has two sides. There is no One without a Many,...no Here without a There,...no Center without a Boundary. The Tao is not One, nor is the Tao the perceived illusion of Yin and Yang. Lao-tzu correctly said, "The Tao gives birth to One. One gives birth to yin and yang. Yin and yang give birth to all things....The Tao gives rise to all form, yet is has no form of its own." The Tao did not "cause" One,...the One effects its motion upon the Tao,...like a lever upon a fulcrum. Yin and Yang are the harmoneous balanced interchange of the lever,...like a childs seesaw. Wholeness is beyond the sum of opposites. The sum of opposites does not uncover One,...it uncovers the Tao.

If during your cultivation, you see the belief of "god" in everyone, such is a great hint that your cultivation is mired in mud. Nevertheless, keep in mind that a muddied diamond has not lost its luster. Mud is merely the ignorance of clinging to beliefs for one's identity. Seeing the Buddha (that is, the diamond) in people is much different than seeing a belief. I observe the Buddha in everyone I meet,...I also observe the beliefs that they obscure themselves with. Sometimes I bring attention to those beliefs,...and sometimes, when on-line, people get very upset if their beliefs are mentioned, for they believe that they are their beliefs. The truth is this,...people are not their belief. God is a belief,...let it go,...you'll never see one's Unborn Awareness through such ignorance.

My post #10 is very much on topic. A critique was asked by dwai,...The stranger Bhadramanu could be a good lesson in groupthink stupidity. He said, "I am just an old homeless vagabond",...the people took that to mean he was a Sadhu. If the story continues and shows he was actually more than an old homeless vagabond,...1. he is a liar, and 2. it encourages the disgusting groupthink that those who don't know, and feign humility, are wise. The Spoilers here that like to say I drag all or any threads off topics is utterly ridiculous,...and points to a larger neurosis,...of people not wanting light shined on anything that may contradict their beliefs. Dwai can create all the dishonest, humble heros he wishes,...and zillions of followers of one who claims to be a homeless vagabond, although the folks in the story see his humility as proof that his countenance and presence is really a sadhu. So, is Bhadramanu a manipulative liar, or are the folks the dishonest one's,...believing that someone who claims he is not a sadhu, must be a great sadhu. For me, I have thus far learned much from the dialogues in this this thread,...which is way I interact in threads. For me, as with Wei Wu Wei, "humility is just a degree of pride." This is quite threatening for sheeple who value humility as some grand character to possess. On a very fundamental level, a humble person is a heartless person,...because the threshold of the heart is end of belief. Not only is Bhadramanu an old vagabond, but as he claimed, a stupid vagabond without any knowledge to share. Why can't the Srirangapura villages just accept the old vagabond for who he claims to be? Why can't they enjoy his company without projecting dishonest qualities to him? Would a truth realized being claim to be a stupid vagabond without any knowledge to share, when asked? Such would be lie, would it not? Nevertheless, Madappa continues to see Bhadramanu as the presence of a powerful sadhu. In a way, Madappa could be considered as the President of the United States, and Bhadramanu as Chance the Gardener, in the film Being There.

Yes, Tathagata's have sympathy for those who perceive themselves as living beings,...but do they lie? Are Tathagata's dishonest? Do they feign humility for the sake of the ego's around them when asked a question? Is the sense of timing from 2500 years ago the same as today? Would a Tathagata promote dishonesty out of sympathy for those who believe themselves to be living beings. "The Tathagata cannot be destroyed, killed or annihilated, but also it cannot be seen very clearly within the alayas"

What gets old are Spoilers, who, stuck with neurotic ideas for their identity, want to suppress any honest discussing. If you (konchog uma, and other Spoilers) believe that only those who say they don't know are really wise,...fine,...but insisting that everyone should believe like you, that if someone says they are an old homeless vagabond, they must be a Sadhu, is both insane, and fully inconsiderate of others. As the Spoilers seem to have missed the message of my first post here, I'll repeat it:

From the above statement, I must assume your definition of tolerance is faith-based, not neccessarily descriptive of what is tolerance and intolerance. For example, real compassion (in contrast to a relative compassion like Mother Teresa) is, according to those, like Avalokitesvara, the Bodhisattva of Compassion, impossible with an wareness of emptiness. Most, like Mother Teresa, would negate a compassion that only arises through the realization of emptiness, that is, to see things as they really are. Real compassion is contrary to egoic thinking. A Bodhisattva's compassion for example, actually arises not because the 5 skandhas are not real, but because of the imagined suffering of sentient being. If you saw your child having a nightmare, on a relative level you may wish to comfort her,....a bodhisattva see all of perceived life as a nightmare for sentient beings, and wishes to see them liberated from thier neurotic delusions. A Bodhisattva is intolerant of that which brings about neurotic delusions,...whereas ordinary egoic folks, caught up in their belief systems, preach tolerance of faith and belief,...tolerance of neurotic delusions. Tolerance of neurotic delusions is not compassion,...except for ego. What is "beauty in the world?" How does a Bodhisattva see the world? The Heart Sutra is rather specific about how a Bodhisattva sees. For another example, what does ACIM say about it? What about the beauty and goodness in the world? (a question posed to ACIM) Following the above answer, we can see that the so-called positive aspects of our world are equally as illusory as the negative ones. They are both aspects of a dualistic perceptual universe, which but reflect the dualistic split in the mind of Man. The famous statement "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is also applicable here, since what one deems as beauty, another may find to be aesthetically displeasing, and vice versa. Similarly, what one society judges as good, another may judge as bad and against the common good. This can be evidenced by a careful study of history, sociology, and cultural anthropology. Therefore, using the criterion for reality of eternal changelessness that is employed in the Course, we can conclude that nothing that the world deems beautiful or good is real, and so it cannot have been created by Reality. Therefore, given that both beauty and goodness are relative concepts and thus are illusory, we should follow the injunction to always ask ourselves: "What is the meaning of what I behold?" (text, p. 619; T-3I.VII.13:5). In other words, even though something beautiful is illusory, it remains neutral, like everything else in the world. Given to the ego, it serves its unholy purpose of reinforcing separation, specialness, and guilt. Given to the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, it serves the holy purpose of leading us to an experience of truth that lies beyond perception. For example, a sunset can reinforce the belief that I can find peace and well-being only while in its presence, or it can help remind me that the true beauty of Man is my Identity, and that this beauty is internal, within my mind and independent of anything outside it.

If an enlightened person were asked if they were awake to the dream of the 6 senses, and said no, they are awake. For such a Truth Realized being would not spew such a dishonesty. Most today would not recognize an enlightened person if they saw one,...the faith and belief-based seek faith and belief, and would thus desire to kill an enlightened being. "Anyone who gives you a belief system is your enemy"...and certainly not enlightened. You can recognize a truth realized being by the fact that they are intolerant of anything that steps between a sentient being and their direct experience.

Bodhisattvas let go of pride, thus humility no longer can exist,...like the letting go of fear, dissolves all hope. There can be no hope without fear,...just as there is no yang or form, without yin or emptiness. Could you imagine the Heart Sutra if Avalokitesvara was suffering the egoic need of humility. The Bodhisattva of Compassion is beyond humility. For relative focused beings, the focus on humility, near always a dishonest enterprise, does allow for the observation of pride,...which is helpful,...although uneccessary. In honesty, neither humility nor pride can manifest. Humility and pride are always a lie.

The vocabulary is sufficient, but where will the message be going? The stranger Bhadramanu could be a good lesson in groupthink stupidity. He said, "I am just an old homeless vagabond",...the people took that to mean he was a Sadhu. If the story continues and shows he was actually more than an old homeless vagabond,...1. he is a liar, and 2. it encourages the disgusting groupthink that those who don't know, and feign humility, are wise. The truth is, as Wei Wu Wei said, humility is just a degree of pride. Without pride, humility is impossible. Can you imagine approaching Buddha or Lao Tzu, and asking if they are enlightened, only to hear, "no, I am not a Buddha, I'm just old homeless vagabond" The message that humanity needs is that not only do those who know, don't know, but that those who don't know, don't know either,...in addition, those who "gnow" are not dishonest about their gnowing.

"In recent years, those who lecture on sitting meditation all understand Taoism, and understand Esoteric Buddhism, and are full of things to say. But when we take a look to see how they really are, it doesn't seem that way at all. As for whether they have achieved anything or not, whether they have found realization or not one glance and it is obvious that they have not." Nan Huai-Chin "99.9% of the World's so-called wisdom, East and West, for the purposes of awakening, is about as useful as a glass of warm spit with a hair in it." Jed McKenna In the above "non-dual cottage industry" list, most are theists,...how can a believer in theism have any truth to offer? How is it that these so-called experts cannot even define duality in any honest way, yet are articulating a variety of nonsense on non-duality? There is truth, and there are lies,...all theists filter their experiences through lies. Any experience born of belief, can only be experienced through the condition of that belief. All belief are lies.

Gurdjieff said: “The Moon is actually a fragment of this Earth, which must now constantly maintain the Moon’s existence.” Colin Wilson's 'Mind Parasites' was built upon that idea. I don't read much fiction, but that was an awesome book. As for Icke,...OK entertainment,...the kind that encourages the pondering of ideas beyond the limitations of Newtonian science and Aristotelian logic,...even if all his lines don't connect.

Backpacking in Oregon in January? Not a good idea for a beginner. However, just because it's January doesn't mean wait. Start hiking with a local meetup. Check out the REI bulletin board for classes. Learn from those who have gone before you. Remember "Cotton Kills!" Leave your cotton stuff for shopping and hanging around at home. Don't get a backpack that rests directly on your back,...it will make you sweat, even with proper thermals, and cause hyperthermia. This time of year, even for a few hour hike, wear foot and hand liners under socks and gloves. Carry an extra pair of quality socks and windproof gloves. Carry instant heat toe and hand warmers. Carry a self-inflating thermal cushion to sit on when taking a break,...breaks lower body temp enough, without the ground sucking additional warmth out of you. Get excellent thermal unders,...I use Cuddl-Duds Thin Layers,...wicks moisture and keeps you 30% warmer. Each layer should have dri-logic. Get a winter and summer tekking hat,...I like Tilley's. Use trekking poles,...great in a variety of circumstances,...watch some youtubes on how to use them. Carry a balaclave in winter,...plus lip balm,...a poncho w/pants. Good gor-tex hiking boots are necessary,...and carry spikes or YaxTrax in case of snow and ice. GPS's are neat,...but don't count on them,...the best orienteers use compass and topo. Get a compass with a mirror for signaling. Carry bear pepper spray, works on lions and wild dogs too. Keep track of your equipment weight,...the lighter the better. Of course the cheap stuff is heavier,...but the ounces add up. Carry a medical kit,...with a multifunction knife. Have two flashlights for late afternoon hikes,...a high lumen Blackdiamond headlamp, and a Surfire E2D defender pen light would be excellent (I have 3 of them). I've taken weekend workshops using the surfire as a martial arts weapon. Whistles are great too,...I scared off a large lion 25' away on a rock about 10' above me at 1am looking at me as dinner, using a whistle. On longer hikes, 14 miles plus, change your socks halfway,...your feet will love you for it.

Martin Luther King stated in 1967, "My government is the world's leading purveyor of violence." It doesn't take much research to understand what Martin was saying. From the Native American massacres to the current times, America is indeed a leading purveyor of violence. Yes, the 9-11 tragedy was shocking and horrible to watch as the WTC Twin Towers were attacked by "faith based initiative" terrorists, resulting in the deaths of thousands. However, was it not equally as shocking and horrible when Bush's father attacked Baghdad and the rest of Iraq, and killed 200,000 people during that "war", which includes the infamous "highway of death" in the last days of the slaughter when U.S. pilots literally shot-in-the-back retreating Iraqi civilians and soldiers. Was it not Shocking and horrifying when the sanctions on Iraq, which have resulted in the death of over 1,000,000 Iraqis, including over 500,000 children, about whom former Secretary of State Madeline Allbright has stated, their deaths "are worth the cost". What about the U.S. sponsored coup against democracy in Guatemala in 1954 which resulted in the deaths of over 120,000 Guatemalan peasants by U.S. installed dictatorships over the course of four decades. What about the events when the U.S. overthrew the government of the Dominican Republic in 1965 and helped to murder 3,000 people. Or the shock in 1973, when the U.S. sponsored a coup in Chile against the democratic government of Salvador Allende and helped to murder another 30,000 people, including U.S. citizens. How about the shock and horror in 1965 when the U.S. sponsored a coup in Indonesia that resulted in the murder of over 800,000 people, and the subsequent slaughter in 1975 of over 250,000 innocent people in East Timor by the Indonesian regime, with the direct complicity of President Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. What about the shock and horror of the U.S. sponsored terrorist contra war (the World Court declared the U.S. government a war criminal in 1984 for the mining of the harbors) against Nicaragua in the 1980s which resulted in the deaths of over 30,000 innocent people (or as the U.S. government used to call them before the term "collateral damage" was invented--"soft targets"). Anyone remember the horror inflicted by the U. S. war against the people of El Salvador in the 1980s, which resulted in the brutal deaths of over 80,000 people, or "soft targets",...or the shock and horror during the U.S. sponsored terror war against the peoples of southern Africa (especially Angola) that began in the 1970's and continues to this day, and has resulted in the deaths and mutilations of over 1,000,000. What of the shock and horror as the U.S. invaded Panama over the Christmas season of 1989 and killed over 8,000 in an attempt to capture George H. Bush's CIA partner, now turned enemy, Manual Noriega. What about how the Shah of Iran was installed in a U.S. sponsored brutal coup that resulted in the deaths of over 70,000 Iranians from 1952-1979. What about the shock and horror of the how the U.S. has "manufactured consent" since 1948 for its support of Israel, to the exclusion of virtually any rights for the Palestinians in their native lands resulting in ever worsening day-to-day conditions for the people of Palestine. What of the hundreds of towns and villages that were literally wiped off the face of the earth in the early days of Israeli colonization,...or the horror in 1982 as over 17,000 civilians were massacred by Israeli. No, those scenes were not repeated over and over again on the national media to inflame the American public. What is shocking and horrifying how mainstream commentators refer to "Israeli settlers" in the "occupied territories" with no sense of irony as they report on who are the aggressors in the region. Isn't it strange that the Israelis are always "retaliating", but the Palistinians are always commiting terrorism. Of course, the largest and most shocking war crime of the second half of the 20th century was the U.S. assault on Indochina from 1954-1975, especially Vietnam, where over 4,000,000 people were bombed, napalmed, crushed, shot and individually "hands on" murdered in the "Phoenix Program" (this is where Oliver North got his start). Was anyone shocked and horrified as the U.S. attacked and bombed with impunity the nation of Libya in the 1980s, including killing the infant daughter of Khadafi. Was anyone shocked and horrified as the U.S. bombed and invaded Grenada in 1983,...or horrified by the U.S. military and CIA actions in Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, Brazil, Argentina, and Yugoslavia. The deaths in these actions ran into the hundreds of thousands. America needs to realize that the tragedy of 9-11 was not an unsolicited attack, nor a "sucker-punch",...it was a "faith based initiative" by those who agreed with Martin Luther King, that America is the world's leading purveyor of violence. Once Americans begin to realize this, then the healing can begin,...the healing of this Planet can begin, but not before. V Oct 2001

Reminded me of this youtube:

We know that Nancy Lanza was an anti-abortion, gun enthusist, Tea Party Catholic who was supported by alimony payments which left her very well off. She often took her son to a shooting range to indoctrinate him of the need to protect her family against left-wing advocates of Health Care, Women's Rights, and LGBT issues. She was a regular viewer of Fox News, and spoke of the god foresaken liberals at Sandy Hook Elementary, and the poor children of those liberals being brainwashed with open-minded ideas. Perhaps Carl Rove, Rush Limbough, and Dick Army were aware of Nancy Lanza's predicament through her generous donations (via her substantial alimony payments) to Tea Party causes, and thus, to deflect attention from their own anti-American, social fascist agenda, changed the dates on those mentioned accounts to promote a conspiracy theory, and undermine Taoists conversations on TTB.

"All that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once." René Descartes

Yes,....an intention, and attention, towards being open to all possibilities is an admirable path. Jim Walker, in "The Problems with Beliefs," mentions: Aristotle believed in a prime mover, a god that moves the sun and moon and objects through space, and that with such a belief, one cannot possibly understand the laws of gravitation or inertia. Isaac Newton saw through that and developed a workable gravitational theory; however, his belief in absolute time prevented him from formulating a theory of relativity. Einstein, however, saw through that and thought in terms of relative time. Therefore, he formulated his famous theory of general relativity, yet his own beliefs could not accept pure randomness in subatomic physics and thus barred him from understanding the consequences of quantum mechanics.

Please define "open minded." Some would say being open or receptive to new ideas, arguments, theories, facts the challenge belief, etc. For example, many Christians profess having an open mind, however, if a Christian was ever open or receptive to new ideas, arguments, theories, facts that challenge belief, etc., they would no longer be Christians. Same with Tea Party people,....not an open mind among them. There are conspiracies,...and so-called conspiracy theories. The book ACIM I mentioned in my last post above is a conspiracy,...a very Buddhist book, written for a christian theists, with an underlyng message that there is no god. A theory on the other hand, is a coherent proposition to explain something. Who could argue against, that most conspiracy theories are not even proper theories? I have to concur with Ralis,..."conspiracy theories" usually arise from the weak-minded, not open-minded,...although instead of weak-mind, it might be kinder to say an earnestless mind. Buddhda's last words are said to be about earnestness. "And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!" "Handa dani bhikkhave amantayami vo: Vayadhamma sankhara appamadena sampadetha."However, to "strive with earnestness" does not necessarily point to the essence of appamada, but more to an ego concept. Appamada is synonymous with the Mind at the threshold of the gates of the Six Senses,...that is, our Unborn Consciousness or unindoctrinated Awareness,..not the sense organ of thinking. Appamada is primarily yin or feminine in nature, and as such can only be fully recognized through Heart-Mind. Pamada on the hand, is yang or masculine, and associated with form. Appamada means not pamada. Appamada is difficult to understand by way of the 6 senses. But what is appamada? In the Shurangama sutra Buddha said, "From beginningless time until now, all living beings have mistaken themselves for things and, having lost the original mind, are turned around by things." This is a clue to appamada; the Mind at the threshold of the gates of the Six Senses,...that is, our Unborn Awareness. Thus, when considered along with pamada, appamada, is pointing to a primal feminine aspect of nature that can only be recognized through Heart-Mind, which is beyond the 6 senses. Pamada is the masculine, or form (skandhas) based mind.

What is the Real World? The book A Course In Miracles begins: Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God. Sentient beings interprete that according to their various indoctrinations,...however, reading this text cover to cover, in an open-minded way, those 3 lines above can be rewritten as this: Nothing real exists in phenomena. Nothing unreal exists in Reality. There is no god. Reading ACIM was ego shattering. The day after finishing ACIM, I had the opportunity to talk with Tara Singh, the world's foremost authority on ACIM. He said, "yes, the punch line of ACIM is that there is no god, although the book uses god as a fundamental theme." He told me that less than 2% of those who have done the class realize what I did. I list ACIM as one of the 5 most significant books (including all sutras) of my life. Those knowledgeable of ACIM have responded to the following 3 questions as such (which you "No Right, No Wrong" may find interesting): 1. If a God did not create the world or the body, who did? Moreover, who are we and how did we get here? This is among the most commonly asked questions, and is certainly an understandable one. Almost all people believe that they are physical and psychological selves, living in a material universe that pre-existed their coming, and which will survive their leaving. The difficulty in understanding that this is not the case lies in the fact that we are so identified with our individual corporeal selves, that it is almost impossible to conceive of our existence on the level of the mind that is outside the world of time and space. When the thought of separation seemed to occur, A Course in Miracles explains that man seemed to fall asleep and dream a dream, the contents of which are that oneness became multiplicity, and that the non-dualistic Mind of man became fragmented and separate from its Source, split into insane segments at war with themselves. As the Course explains, these fragments projected outside the mind a series of dreams or scripts that collectively constitute the history of the physical universe. On an individual level, the serial dramas our ego personalities identify as our own personal lives are also projections of our split and fragmented minds. Thus we are all actors and actresses on the stage of life, as Shakespeare wrote, living out a dream that we experience as our individual reality, separate and apart from Who we really are as Real Self. Moreover, our minds have projected many different personalities in the collective dream of the fragmented little self, complicating the whole process. Therefore, the question "How did we get here?" must be understood from this perspective of the collective and individual dream. In other words, we are not truly here, but are dreaming that we are. As A Course in Miracles states: "[We] are already home, dreaming of exile" (text, 169; T-10.1.2: 1). And this is how the dream seemed to happen: Into eternity, where all is one, there crept a tiny, mad idea, at which man remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting [to laugh] did the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment and real effects (text, p. 544; T-27.VITI.6:2-3). These "real effects" constitute the physical world we think is our home. The following passage is perhaps the best description in the Course of the process whereby this effect came into existence, once man took seriously the tiny, mad idea that there could be a substitute for Love. As we shall now see, this resulted in the making of the physical universe which is believed to be an opposite to our true Home: The physical universe substitutes an illusion for truth; fragmentation for wholeness. It has become so splintered and subdivided and divided again, over and over, that it is now almost impossible to perceive it once was one, and still is what it was. That one error, which brought truth to illusion, infinity to time, and life to death, was all you ever made. Your whole world rests upon it. Everything you see reflects it, and every special relationship that you have ever made is part of it. You may be surprised to hear how very different is reality from what you see. You do not realize the magnitude of that one error. It was so vast and so completely incredible that from it a world of total unreality had to emerge. What else could come of it? Its fragmented aspects are fearful enough, as you begin to look at them. But nothing you have seen begins to show you the enormity of the original error, which seemed to cast you out of Home, to shatter knowledge into meaningless bits of disunited perceptions, and to force you to make further substitutions. That was the first projection of error outward. The world arose to bide it, and became the screen on which it was projected and drawn between you and the truth. For truth extends inward, where the idea of loss is meaningless and only increase is conceivable. Do you really think it strange that a world in which everything is backwards and upside down arose from this projection of error? It was inevitable (text, pp. 347-48; T- 1 8.1.4:1-6.-5) But A Course in Miracles further states that the world was made as an attack on Reality (workbook, p. 403; W-pIl.3.2:1), and this was accomplished, again, by the collective split mind of man that believed in its hallucinatory dreaming that it had usurped First Cause. This is the beginning of the ego's unholy trinity that was mentioned above in question 4 on page 4. The guilt over his seeming sin of separation and usurpation demanded that man be punished. Consequently, the fearful man sought to flee from his own insane projection of a wrathful, vengeful Reality who wished to destroy him. Therefore man projected his illusory guilt and fragmented self out of the mind, thereby miscreating a physical world of time and space in which he could hide from the non-physical Reality he believed he had dethroned and destroyed. Within these multiple dreams, the one man appeared to split into billions of fragments, each of which became encased in a body of individual insane dreams, believing that this would render personal "protection" against the ego's image of a wrathful Reality's ultimate punishment. It is important to note still again that we are speaking about the collective mind of the separated man as the maker of the world. Every seemingly separated fragment is but a split-off part of that original one mind that sought to replace the One Mind of Man. Thus, the individual fragment is not responsible for the world, but it is responsible for its belief in the reality of the world. 　 2. Does A Course in Miracles really mean that a God did not create the entire physical universe? We answer this question with a resounding affirmative! Since nothing of form, matter, or substance can be of Source, then nothing of the physical universe can be real, and there is no exception to this. Workbook Lesson 43 states, in the context of perception, which is the realm of duality and separation: Perception is not an attribute of Source. Perception has no function in Source, and does not exist (workbook, p. 67; W-pI.43.1:1-2; 2:1-2). In the clarification of terms we find the following crystal clear statement about the illusory nature of the world of perception, which Source did not create: The world you see is an illusion of a world. Source did not create it, for what Source manifests must be eternal as Itself. Yet there is nothing in the world you see that will endure forever. Some things will last in time a little while longer than others [e.g., the greater cosmos, as we shall see below in a passage from the text). But the time will come when all things visible will have an end (manual, p. 8 1; C-4. 1). And finally, a similar statement in the text: Source's laws do not obtain directly to a world perception rules, for such a world could not have been created by the Mind to which perception has no meaning. Yet Sources laws reflected everywhere [through the Holy Spirit]. Not that the world where this reflection is, is real at all. Only because Man believes it is, and from Man's belief He could not let Himself be separate entirely. (text, p. 487; T-25.111.2; italics ours). These passages are important, because they clarify a source of misunderstanding for many students of A Course in Miracles who maintain that Jesus is teaching that God did in fact create the world. They assert that all the Course is teaching is that he did not create our misperceptions of it. Statements which contain the phrase "the world you see," as in the above passage from the manual for teachers, do not apply simply to the world we perceive through our wrong-minded lens, but rather to the fact that we see at all. Again, the entire physical universe, the world of perception and form, is illusory and outside the Mind of Reality. Therefore, nothing that can be observed -- nothing that has form, physicality, moves, changes, deteriorates, and ultimately dies -- could be of Source. A Course in Miracles is unequivocal about this, which is why we speak of it as being a perfect non-dualistic thought system: It contains no exceptions. And so the seeming majesty of the cosmos and perceived glory of nature are all expressions of the ego's thought system of separation, as we see in this wonderful passage from the text: What seems eternal all will have an end. The stars will disappear, and night and day will be no more. All things that come and go, the tides, the seasons and the lives of men; all things that change with time and bloom and fade will not return. Where time has set an end is not where the eternal is (text, p. 572; T-29.VI.2:7- I0). To attempt to make an exception to this fact is to attempt a compromise with truth, exactly what the ego wants in order to establish its own existence. As it states in the workbook: "What is false is false, and what is true has never changed" (workbook, p.445; W-pII.10.1:1). And again in the text: How simple is salvation! All it says is what was never true is not true now, and never will be. The impossible has not occurred, and can have no effects. And that is all (text, p. 600; T-31.1.1:1-4). In conclusion, therefore, no aspect of the illusion can be accorded truth, which means that absolutely nothing in the material universe has come from Reality, or is even known by Reality. Reality is totally outside the world of dreams. 　 3. What about the beauty and goodness in the world? Following the above answer, we can see that the so-called positive aspects of our world are equally as illusory as the negative ones. They are both aspects of a dualistic perceptual universe, which but reflect the dualistic split in the mind of Man. The famous statement "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is also applicable here, since what one deems as beauty, another may find to be aesthetically displeasing, and vice versa. Similarly, what one society judges as good, another may judge as bad and against the common good. This can be evidenced by a careful study of history, sociology, and cultural anthropology. Therefore, using the criterion for reality of eternal changelessness that is employed in the Course, we can conclude that nothing that the world deems beautiful or good is real, and so it cannot have been created by Reality. Therefore, given that both beauty and goodness are relative concepts and thus are illusory, we should follow the injunction to always ask ourselves: "What is the meaning of what I behold?" (text, p. 619; T-3I.VII.13:5). In other words, even though something beautiful is illusory, it remains neutral, like everything else in the world. Given to the ego, it serves its unholy purpose of reinforcing separation, specialness, and guilt. Given to the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, it serves the holy purpose of leading us to an experience of truth that lies beyond perception. For example, a sunset can reinforce the belief that I can find peace and well-being only while in its presence, or it can help remind me that the true beauty of Man is my Identity, and that this beauty is internal, within my mind and independent of anything outside it. 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　

Yes,...and after the 6th day, when the Elohim (gods) made male and female,...and sometime after the 7th day Tea Break,...the Elohim put Adam in a deep sleep and made Eve from his rib. Go Figure!

I don't see the problem of fundamentalist Christians as a problem of fundamentalist Christians, but a problem exasperated by Moderates who enable their agenda http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2009/03/do-moderate-christians-enable.html If you read that article,....use the underlying message, relook at most groupthink,...even the bullying on TTB. "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion." That declaration was drafted in 1796 under George Washington, unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate, and signed into law by President John Adams on June 10, 1797. And even though that document, less than two pages long, was read aloud in Congress without dissension and well-publicized at the time, there were no complaints, and there was no public outcry, as would be media-ted today. Before the testimonium clause is this paragraph of ratification and proclamation, published in several national newspapers of the time: "Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof" The people of that era knew well that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution said: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law the Land." The people of that time wrote Article VI of the Constitution. Despite that indisputable event, Christian revisionists continue to media-te their faithful towards the reactionary side or the far right of even an appearance of religious neutrality. The past sixty years have shown that they have been quite successful in forcing their theo-beliefs on the common citizenry. They cleverly removed the original national motto, E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one," which was coined by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, from U.S. currency and public places. They successfully proselytize that the U.S. was founded as "One Nation under [their] God" and one nation under their religion. However, the historic truth is, according to people such Herman C. Weber, DD, an expert in religious censuses and statistics, that few early Americans were members of a Christian church. In the 1933 Yearbook of American Churches, for instance, it says that just 6.9% of U.S. citizens belonged to a church in 1800. By 1850, religious membership had risen to 15.5%. By 1900, Christians had doubled their percentage to 37%. However, not until 1942 did Christian affiliation exceed 50% of the U.S. population. The United States was established through common law. On February 10, 1814, Thomas Jefferson wrote that common law "is that system of law, which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England . . . about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century. . . We may safely affirm that Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." Christian values are not American values. Christian values are not nature’s values. Christian values can never lead the world towards an era of peace." VMarco