Category: A Course in Miracles

Buddha Enlightenment

Experiments in Personal Identity

Leave a comment

Personal Identity, Ecsomatics, A Course in Miracles, Buddhism, Science, Philosophy

By Darryl E Berry Jr

Published: 6/13/20 | Updated: 7/14/20

As a kid I began having out-of-body experiences – what were once predominately called “astral travels” or “astral projections”, and what are becoming in fashion to call “ecsomatic experiences”. Most of my experiences early on were spontaneous. And a common occurrence was floating towards the ceiling, and hovering there, my nose inches from the plaster as my physical body slept on the bed below. I was apparently in an amazing nonphysical form that can move through walls and ceilings with an inherent glow that lights my surroundings. It could move about the physical world invisibly – as well as visit various otherworldly or nonphysical dimensions. I could perceive and interact with other people also out of their bodies, as well as various nonhuman entities and otherworldly beings. Amongst my early experiences:

“Multiple Bodied We. One brief but enormous experience was to become conscious hovering in the out-of-body state near the ceiling on the opposite side of my bedroom as a point or field of consciousness. I (as point of consciousness) could see over my bed a nonphysical body floating near the ceiling. On the bed I could see my physical body. I concluded that we travel in (at least) three different forms: 1) integrated into the physical body, 2) as a nonphysical body, and 3) as a point or field of consciousness apart from both the physical and nonphysical bodies. It seems that the consciousness-nonphysical body combo can leave the physical body, and the point or field of consciousness can leave both the physical and nonphysical bodies” (Berry, Travel, 31).

Premise, Question: My experience is that I… “I”… am the point or field of awareness that was hovering in the corner, watching my nonphysical body hovering, and also watching my physical body slumbering, like watching my car in the parking lot, or my bicycle in the living room. So that is my position. Based upon this experience – and others since – I posit that the “I”, the animating, incarnating “I”, is a point or field of consciousness. And here comes the question – in academia is this position considered a philosophical claim or a scientific observation if not hypothesis? When I think if philosophy, or the “love of wisdom” (Hoofard, Intro, 03:00-04:10), I think of pure idea engagement. One might have a philosophy of this or that, and even live by it. But it’s not based upon evidence or experimentation. It may be based upon logic and reason. But what makes a claim philosophical rather than scientific; for instance, Buddha’s claims and position based upon experiences and perceptions through higher states of consciousness (Haecker, 16)?? What I conclude thus far is that the position of the originator is scientific if not simply experiential, e.g., the Buddha’s claims based upon direct experience, and my position based upon direct experience. But generation after generation others add, subtract, embellish, codify, and out comes a philosophy or religion (or both). Or something else??

Another of my experiences:

“The Desert World. I was around 7 years old when I spent a week in The Desert World. I became aware in a world totally unlike the world we physically live in. The entire world was apparently a desert, with sand dunes visible beyond the meagre nearby manmade structures. I worked selling wares and pottery items on an outside table covered by canopy. When not working I lived in a small sand-colored dome and had my own room to one side of the dome, though I don’t remember any adults or parental figures. Initially I was surprised and taken aback at this place. It seemed like a dream I couldn’t awaken from. But after a few days there I thought that this waking physical world was the dream. My waking physical life seemed like some crazy dream so ludicrous to have believed. Things we take for granted, including much of the technology we have, seemed so farfetched and fanciful from my newly acquired perspective of the desert world… After about the seventh night of sleep in the desert world I woke up there, and then I woke up again here. I thought several days had gone by here as well and was frantic to find my parents and let them know I was OK. When I found them, they seemed like nothing happened. School was in an hour. This all happened in one night! But it took several days of living here in this physical waking world to see the desert world as the ‘dream,’ and this world as ‘real'” (Berry, Travel, 27-28).

For instance, I went to school the next morning (in this world), and I knew where I regularly sat, and I remembered everyone’s names and our relationships. I remembered the subjects we covered. All these things came back or were there when I thought of them. But it was like remembering someone else’s life and living it temporarily – like remembering the life of a television character. This world felt strange and remote – like a dream that I couldn’t wake from – for a few days. I can see that when I could no longer remember this reality while living the desert world perspective, I was no longer this person in a very substantial way. This world was a forgotten dream, and that world was reality. I could also say that I was still the same person in another sense, e.g., my attitudes and dispositions and such. Just in a different world, with a different past (both the world and I), and a different lifestyle. But I can/could still recognize the same sense of “I”.

Considering John Locke’s notion that identity is tied with memory (Hoofard, Buddhism (B), 4:30-4:51; 26:00-28:28), from this experience I can see some veracity in that position. Yes, a person born in America would be a different person than if that same person were born in Syria, or Africa, or Spain, or Morocco. Their language would be different, and likely even their likes and dislikes to an exceptionally large extent – informed as we are by those around us. Foods that taste good to us might taste strange to them, with taste buds and eating habits trained to different spices and dishes. Who they think of as family, and country, would be different. Likely also, values and notions of right and wrong, normal and odd, would be quite different. Their religion – something people seem to cherish greatly – would likely be different.

But from the same experience I can see or recognize that there is something endemic to both experiences – both the desert world memory perspective and this world memory perspective. Even having completely forgotten this world, and having identified completely with the desert world, but looking more closely at the state of self I experienced in both, I can still recognize an essence of “I” that was there before the desert world, existed in the desert world, and remains afterwards.

This experience – and others of mine – at the least suggests that there’s some facet or core of identity that remains despite a complete or partial, intentional or accidental, shift or transplant of memory identification or disidentification (CrashCourse, 5:04-8:26), apparently able to access at least some degree of identity or memory even across lifetimes. Could this be the consciousness that I referred to in my first experience, and is it the infamous “soul” or “atman” of various Eastern and Western religions and philosophies (Haecker, 4)? My hypothesis, if I can call it that, is yes. And again, I ask: From the perspective of a professional philosopher, is this a scientific hypothesis or a philosophical claim??

Experience:

“Perhaps the most profound metaphysical experience thus far was experiencing the entire universe disappearing. That’s right. I was applying [A Course in Miracles’] thought system to a cherished idol of mine, and when I really established the unreality of the idol, I must have starkly destabilized an underpinning of my identity. The world disappeared and for a “time” there was only being, and then a discernable “I” re-arose. “I” was able to perceive from afar the individual self that I apparently am now, and I and all the activity around it (the world, the universe) seemed as meaningless activity. And according to [A Course in Miracles] the entire universe is an illusion, projected by one universal mind that in the end doesn’t exist either. The stark fear at realizing that this individual self that seems so real and so “me” is in truth ‘meaningless activity’ along with all the world – along with a quiet recognition that the mind perceiving it all is meaningless too – condensed me back into an experience of being an individualized “me,” in a body, within a seemingly boundless external universe” (Berry, Classes, Introduction).

So, what is to be made of this experience? It seems quite like experiences had by great sages such as Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha (Hoofard, Buddhism (A), 25:15-27:23) – apparently except that instead of maintaining some manner of identification with this universal perspective, whatever level of “I” tucked tail and ran back to individual “I” perspective (and sometimes with greater fervor than before “I” focusedly decided to undo my individual self). So, when Professor Haecker points out that “when, in a deep state of consciousness, Buddha ‘looked’ at himself, he did not see Atman. Instead he saw what he came to call ANATMAN, literally ‘Not-Atman’” (Haecker, 16-17), I can relate. From the perspective of the universal mind that is dreaming the universe, the individual consciousness that seems so real when we’re identified with it is instead recognized as an illusory projection. The atman is not real; the “I” is not real. The incarnating, animating field of consciousness is not real. And so is everything else in and of the universe not real, whatever the frequency or dimension. To me the realization is quite frightening – clearly, I have some growing to do. But this claim doesn’t to me seem to be a philosophical claim, but simply an observable fact – if one can manage to observe from the perspective of universal mind. But again, as a professional philosopher, I ask you: Is that seen as a philosophical claim? Or being that it’s a position based upon direct experience, does it then become a scientific observation if not a scientific hypothesis? My interest is in bringing these things more into a scientific light. Or being that these are all “subjective” observations do they fall outside of the standard scientific definition of an observation – even despite at least some corroboration?

Works Cited

“Arguments Against Personal Identity: Crash Course Philosophy #20”. YouTube upload, CrashCourse, 11 Apr. 2016, https://youtu.be/17WiQ_tNld4

Berry Jr., Darryl E. Classes on A Course in Miracles: Contemporary Pure Non-Dualism, 1st ed., (Version 3 2019), Darryl E Berry Jr / Next Density Center, 2016, p. 27-28, 31.

Berry Jr., Darryl E. Travel Far: A Beginner’s Guide to the Out-of-Body Experience, Including First-Hand Accounts and Comprehensive Theory and Methods, 1st ed., (V4 2020), Darryl E Berry Jr / Next Density, 2015, p. 27-28, 31.

Haecker, Dorothy A. Adventures in Philosophy: A Study of Ideas That Change the World, edited by Peter Van Dusen, 4th ed., Dorothy A. Haecker, 2020, pp. 4, 16, 17.

Hoofard, Nathan Michael. “Buddhism & Personal Identity (A))”. YouTube upload, 10 Jun. 2000, https://youtu.be/hYD4ZHnf2rA.

Hoofard, Nathan Michael. “Buddhism & Personal Identity (B))”. Loom upload, 6 Jun. 2000, https://www.loom.com/share/fd93c79dc0324dc985b670909120261a.

Hoofard, Nathan Michael. “Intro (A)”. YouTube upload, 2 Apr. 2000, https://youtu.be/-FHfayETo2c.

Schucman, Dr. Helen. A Course in Miracles (ACIM), 3rd ed., Foundation for Inner Peace, 2007, Text Chapter 6. Section I. Paragraphs 11 & 13; Text Chapter 21. Introduction. Paragraph 1; Text Chapter 27. Section VIII. Paragraph 9.

Copyright © 2020 Darryl E Berry Jr | www.darryleberryjr.com

This article may be re-posted provided: 1) re-posted in full, 2) full attribution, including active link to this webpage (if on a website), and 3) prior notification of and confirmation from Darryl E Berry Jr. Contact me at debj@darryleberryjr.com.

The Thirsting Child and the Water Cache

Leave a comment

Karma & Suffering

By Darryl E Berry Jr

Published: 6/10/2020 | Updated: 7/14/20

A scenario was presented at the end of the recorded lecture “Karma & Suffering (B)” in which a child, who is dying of thirst, happens upon the meager water cache of a small family that happens to be away at the time (Hoofard, 45:30-47:20). The question is – given that according to Hinduism, karma will punish the child for stealing the water and causing harm to the family – if it’s too difficult for the child to make the honest choice is it then unjust for karma to punish him further, i.e., with an even worse and more difficult next lifetime (Hoofard, 49:25-33)?

“If anyone ever got to that point where we could not reasonably expect them to choose the right thing because they’re in such a devastating circumstance… that means the next time they are probably going to come back in an even worse situation. And if this situation was too much to ask and expect them to do the right thing the next situation is going to be even worse. We can’t expect them do the right one there. It’s like you’re circling the drain getting lower and lower and lower. How can you ever pull out of it” (Hoofard, 48:10-37)?

Hoofard goes on to mention a charge I’ve seen levied against Christians in relation to Christianity many a times – that this hypothetical thirsting Sudanese boy might never have even heard of karma and doing good in this lifetime to ensure better karma next lifetime (Hoofard, 49:00-18). Just as someone from any culture prior to about two millennia ago might not have heard about the man we often refer to as Jesus Christ. How can they even consider getting “saved,” right?

Philosophically speaking – regarding the idea of subsequent lives being harder and thus even more difficult regarding the karmically established trials one must face – I suggest that over time the being and will gets stronger. The first analogy that comes to mind is weightlifting. The first day a bodybuilder trains they might not be able to lift 300 pounds of weight. But starting where they are, they build up and get stronger. But alas, they still can start somewhere – with a lighter weight. The child could either steal water or not, whether some or all of it. And the scenario presented is, it’s too hard for him not to steal water. Even if he steals a lighter amount of water there’s still more karmic debt, and a slightly worse life (unless balanced out by other deeds in that life, perhaps; an alternative I’ll discuss).

Perhaps we can refer instead to something more relevant, like pullups. I remember times when I’ve tried to do a pullup but couldn’t. But I kept trying and after so many days I could, and then could do multiple. And the same thing with people doing pushups. I propose that, given the above scenario, philosophically speaking, the atman would become ‘stronger’ in a sense in future lives, and thus more able to choose a more karmically sound response. This (or something just as practical) would have to be the case; otherwise, only those who ever had only good karma – or at least above a certain amount of bad karma – would ever be able to achieve moksha. And conversely, everyone with bad karma of a certain degree, and thus experiencing an exceedingly difficult lifetime, would inevitably have worse and worse karma and thus worse and worse lives. I present an argument to illustrate:

  1. If making karmically sound choices leads to good karma and better life conditions,
  2. And if not making karmically sound choices leads to bad karma and worse life conditions,
  3. And if good karma leads one to exit samsara via moksha,
  4. And if bad karma leads one to even more difficult life experiences,
  5. If life experiences of a certain difficulty make it impossible to make karmically sound choices,
  6. _________________________________________________________________
  7. Then those with a certain difficulty of life experiences will inevitably remain stuck in samsara.

But to the contrary, it seems that Hinduism philosophy entails that everyone can and eventually will reach Brahman: “From BRAHMAN our soul has come and to BRAHMAN it will ultimately return, in a reunion called MOKSHA” (Haecker, 10). Therefore, it must be possible for everyone to respond karmically soundly to their life situations. That means however difficult those live situations are, and if not this lifetime then next lifetime. It must ultimately be possible for everyone, regardless of how bad karma gets, and thus how difficult life circumstances get, to make karmically sound choices and thus generate good karma, and eventually achieve moksha or liberation from samsara.

I must state that my perspective is no doubt influenced by my adherence to (to the extent I can) and my experiences through (a few of which being quite profound) the teachings of A Course in Miracles (ACIM), which state that:

“You are not persecuted, nor was I. You are not asked to repeat my experiences because the Holy Spirit, Whom we share, makes this unnecessary. To use my experiences constructively, however, you must still follow my example in how to perceive them. My brothers and yours are constantly engaged in justifying the unjustifiable. My one lesson, which I must teach as I learned it, is that no perception that is out of accord with the judgment of the Holy Spirit can be justified. I undertook to show this was true in an extreme case, merely because it would serve as a good teaching aid to those whose temptation to give in to anger and assault would not be so extreme. I will with God that none of His Sons should suffer… The message of the crucifixion is perfectly clear: Teach only love, for that is what you are.” (ACIM, T-6. I. 11, 13).

Regarding the proposed situation, it would mean that someone fully embodying these principles, even in the face of physical death, would respond with love. This section of the course specifically mentions anger, but the principle applies equally to fear, and greed, and scarcity.

A Course in Miracles doesn’t address what actions to take in the world, but simply informs us that no scenario would or even could ever cause us to respond fearfully. The world from the course’s perspective is our own illusory projection (ACIM T-21.in.1, T-18.I.4). And thus, being our effect, the world has no influence upon us regardless of how well we make it seem to be the contrary.

“In gentle laughter does the Holy Spirit perceive the cause, and looks not to effects. How else could He correct your error, who have overlooked the cause entirely? He bids you bring each terrible effect to Him that you may look together on its foolish cause and laugh with Him a while. You judge effects, but He has judged their cause. And by His judgment are effects removed. Perhaps you come in tears. But hear Him say, “My brother, holy Son of God, behold your idle dream, in which this could occur.” And you will leave the holy instant with your laughter and your brother’s joined with His.” (ACIM, T-27.VIII.9)

This of course seems a tall order from our everyday perspective – that is, looking past the apparent experience of being moments from dying of thirst. But given that the phenomenal world is an illusory effect, then recognizing its lack of affect upon our inner peace simply becomes a matter of choice. And having made that choice, neither fear nor pain of death would remain to drive any action or inaction. The inner choice for peace doesn’t address whether the child would or wouldn’t steal the water. It’s simply that having made that choice, only inner peace would remain, and thus whatever choice is made wouldn’t be a fear-based decision. Karma doesn’t exist as such from the course’s perspective, as the focus is on our thinking rather than our actions. The course recognizes that different and even apparently disparate actions can equally be expressions of peace and love given the scenario.

What someone totally in peace and love would do in that scenario I can’t exactly say. For one – while I do have my moments – I’m not perfectly in peace and love. And two, I’ve never been in that situation. And again, the course doesn’t specify actions. Perhaps the person would die. Perhaps steal the water. Perhaps wait until the family returns, and – if still alive when they do – ask to share the water and work together to find more. Or ask to work to replace whatever he had already drank to stay alive. But whatever decision is made would still be from a place of inner peace and fearlessness and love.

That would be a ‘perception that is in accord with the judgment of the Holy Spirit,’ to paraphrase a verse from the first quoted ACIM section. Such a perception is an interpretation or choice made from a place of inner peace and love. Such a choice, using Hinduism terminology, would be a karma free or karma alleviating or good karma yielding choice; and that again is however it looks or plays out in the world. The point is that, however bad the scenario, from the course’s perspective at least, it’s never so bad that it’s ultimately impossible for what could be in Hinduism termed a karmically good choice to be made. And as quoted from Haecker, it seems the precepts of Hinduism would agree (10).

And to the point I touched upon briefly: Surely, that incident in the life of the child, however few years he may have lived, isn’t the only incident he’s lived, nor the only choice he’s had to make. Who’s to say how many karmically good choices he made until that point? It seems entirely possible that that choice – if he fearfully or greedily stole the water – could have been the only karmically bad choice he made that entire lifetime. It’s entirely possible, as I understand the Hinduism karma concept, that he could still be balanced more towards good karma overall that lifetime, and end up with a better life scenario next lifetime – even if he steals the water with the worst of intentions. The thought then comes, can people then just do some good stuff to balance out the bad stuff they’re planning to do? In my understanding thus far, it seems that having such a karmically bad intention for karmically good actions negates the good karma of those actions. But I’m no expert on Hinduism.

Works Cited

Hoofard, Nathan Michael. “Karma & Suffering (B)”. YouTube upload, 2 Jun. 2000, https://youtu.be/6OGjsiajW7E.

Haecker, Dorothy A. Adventures in Philosophy: A Study of Ideas That Change the World, edited by Peter Van Dusen, 4th ed., Dorothy A. Haecker, 2020, p. 10.

Schucman, Dr. Helen. A Course in Miracles (ACIM), 3rd ed., Foundation for Inner Peace, 2007, Text Chapter 6. Section I. Paragraphs 11 & 13; Text Chapter 21. Introduction. Paragraph 1; Text Chapter 27. Section VIII. Paragraph 9.

Copyright © 2020 Darryl E Berry Jr | www.darryleberryjr.com

This article may be re-posted provided: 1) re-posted in full, 2) full attribution, including active link to this webpage (if on a website), and 3) prior notification of and confirmation from Darryl E Berry Jr. Contact me at debj@darryleberryjr.com.

Determinism, Illusion, Reality, and the Mind

Leave a comment

By Darryl E Berry Jr

July 1, 2020 Updated

Determinism | Mind | ACIM Cosmology

In my paper titled “The (Non-Existent) Problem of Evil” (I’ll post that as an article soon) I stated in part:

“Whatever is not love, whatever is in absence of love, every single expression, whatever form that takes, is murder. This is because the world is entirely illusory (Miracles, P-xi). Two illusory things are equally illusory. So, from the perspective of its source in our mind – the murderousness or lack of love behind it – calling someone an unflattering name, or trying to undermine someone, or carting them off to the gas chambers, are all the same thing.”

The key to this passage, which I might not have made clear before, is the thought behind the illusion. When I say, “from the perspective of its source in our mind.” That’s the key phrase and must be included in any linear or logical telling of the argument in order to be complete. And perhaps I didn’t explain that point strongly enough.

Yes, the entire world is illusory. And yes, at the world’s level, both an apparently kind act and an apparently unkind act are equally illusory. That’s at the world’s level. Then there’s the mind level. This is what I referred to in this quote as “the perspective of its source in our mind”. Though illusory as well, the mind level is the level that projects this level. There is where the thoughts of fear/murder and love are shown to have you can say qualitatively different beginnings and endings because of the nature of those thoughts at that level.

“Illusion makes illusion. Except one. Forgiveness is illusion that is answer to the rest. Forgiveness sweeps all other dreams away, and though it is itself a dream, it breeds no others. All illusions save this one must multiply a thousandfold. But this is where illusions end. Forgiveness is the end of dreams, because it is a dream of waking. It is not itself the truth. Yet does it point to where the truth must be, and gives direction with the certainty of God Himself. It is a dream in which the Son of God awakens to his Self and to his Father, knowing They are One.” (Miracles, From Workbook Lesson 198).

So, for instance, I can shake someone’s hand, and with a smile on my face. But in my mind – even consciously – I can utterly hate this person. And maybe I’m just trying to save face or manipulate this person into getting into the car with me so I can rob him or murder him, or what have you. I had someone try to do something like that to me in New Orleans (instead of a car it would have been a ferry boat). Another time I mistook someone for someone I knew. The resemblance was remarkable. At first, he was open about not knowing me. Then suddenly this smile came on his face. ‘Oh yeah. I know you! How are you? Where do you live??’ But I could still see the deception behind his fake smile, just enough. I just walked off. But on the surface, maybe someone looking from further way, would have thought he was being friendly with me. This is a worldly level appearance of love, but with the mind level actuality of fear/murderousness.

On other hand, I could punch someone in the face, who’s trying to rob me for instance. Not out of hate or malice. But to stop myself from getting robbed – and to stop that person from robbing me. This might be considered setting “limits on your ability to miscreate” (Miracles, T-2.III.3). How many times have we done something wrong, or said something wrong, and regretted it later? That’s the result of murderousness. Guilt. Because “your hate is really self-hatred” (Renard, 176). And that’s why “every criminal secretly hopes to get caught and to be punished” (Renard, 176). So, stopping someone from doing a horrendous act – even if it takes apparent violence to do so – can be an act of love. And what if you started singing kumbaya instead and the would-be robber ended up killing you, and then had to deal with the guilt of apparently wanting to rob, and then robbing and murdering. They might have an easier time just forgiving the attempted robbery. So, we’re dealing with two levels.

So yes, the world is 100% illusory, and the mind dreaming it is 100% illusory. This is speaking at the ultimate level. What we could call the Level One perspective. What’s real is 100% eternal, changeless, whole, and one. It has nothing to do with this universe at all, nor the mind dreaming the universe. In a sense it’s the Reality we awaken to when we’re done with the dream world. And what is not real is 100% illusory. And when I say “illusory” I mean doesn’t really exist at all on any level in any way, shape, form, field, dimension, frequency, or what have you. I know of course it doesn’t seem that way. I don’t expect this to be intellectually satisfying; but it’s what A Course in Miracles teaches, and what I perceived/experienced briefly as universal mind.

And from our perspective supposedly here the world seems quite real. This is Level Two perspective. The perspective from which we seem to be here in the world. And there are two ways of looking at the illusion from this level. There’s a way of looking at the illusion that can reinforce the belief and experience of illusion, AND there’s another way of looking at the illusion that can gradually break us from the investment in illusion and allow us to awaken to Reality. Both are perspectives in an illusory mind, dreaming itself to be in an illusory world. But as quoted earlier, the perspective or interpretation of love or forgiveness is an illusion that dispels our believe in illusion.

You’d be right to say that acts of love (by this I mean expressions in the world representative of caring, concern, friendliness, etc.) and murder (by this I mean expressions in the world indicative of hatred, spite, violence even to the point of actual murder) are equal in the sense of being that both are equally illusory. But it doesn’t stop there. The vital component at this level (Level Two) is which thought is activating the action from the level of the mind (also Level Two and illusory). Love or murder. In this sense “love” can be interpreted as the investment in the perspective of oneness. In this sense “murder” can be interpreted as the investment in the illusion of separation.

If someone broke into your home at night to rob and kill you, and in self-defense you killed them. That killing could still be an act of love – love for oneself, and the last resort to not get murdered. And it can be carried out without hate and malice toward the would-be robber/murderer. And it would even be not considered a crime in our court system. At the same time, a person could very angrily in self-defense kill the would-be robber/murdered, and still not have committed a worldly crime, but still later feel guilty because of it. Because of the thought that they chose in the carrying out of the act. The fact that we have an internal experience that is quite different depending upon which thought we choose (love or fear/murder) illustrates their qualitative differences.

If the action or inaction is activated based upon the fear/murderousness in the mind – regardless the form that act/inaction takes the world, because the world is 100% illusory, and thus all worldly forms are equal – then it will inevitably reinforce guilt, and the belief in separation, and perpetuate illusion. Even an apparently “kind” or “generous” act. We’ve been there. Done some apparently “kind” thing for selfish reasons and felt guilty because of it; or even some overtly unkind thing out of spite or revenge – and felt bad or guilty later, even though it seemed so justified at the time. But conversely, worldly actions/inactions activated by the love in the mind – again, regardless of the form it takes – will inevitably, because of the thought activating the act, bring inner peace. And the choice for that thought will also forward the full recognition of the illusion and the awakening from the dream. Regardless of the form that thought takes in the world as far as its expression.

The ‘investment in the perspective of oneness’ can take the form of a smile, a handshake, a punch, a kick, or a lawsuit, etcetera. The investment in the illusion of separation can take the form of a smile, a handshake, a punch, a kick, or a lawsuit, etcetera. But the internal results will always be diametrically different. One results in inner peace and the recognition of wholeness/oneness (love) – and ultimately the awakening from the dream of separation. And the other results in fear, pain (physical and/or psychological), guilt, anger, malice, etc. – as well as continued belief in and immersion in the world of illusion.

Now let’s talk about determinism, and how “others” factor in, in a world of complete illusion. The “dreamer of the dream” (Miracles, Chapter 27, Section VII) aspect of the Level Two perspective represents the dreaming mind that is projecting the universe. The level of mind I briefly got in touch with. The dreaming mind is projecting or “dreaming” this level. And thus, this level reflects the dreamer. This is mirrored at the individual level, in that the dreams we have at night reflect the characteristics of the dreamer (us). Psychologists – in my current, limited understanding of psychology – don’t dismiss nocturnal dreams as just illusions and figments of the imagination and then ignore them. No. Though they are fragments of the imagination, the mind is dreaming them for a reason. They bear the characteristics of the dreamer. And they can be examined to learn about turmoil and hang-ups that the conscious mind is going through – and may not even be aware of.

So back to “dreamer of the dream” level that we are reflections of: Just like at this individual level our nocturnal dreams are reflections of us, we are all projections of and thus reflections of the dreamer of the universal dream. Thus, when I see fear and hatred in my mind, that’s a reflection of what’s in the mind of the dreamer. When I see fear and hatred in your mind, being that you’re equally being dreamt by the dreamer, that’s a reflection of what’s in the dreamer’s mind too. But when I see a being of perfect peace and love – Y’shua, or Mother Teresa, for example – then guess what? That must mean that love and peace are somewhere within the mind of the dreamer, too. They are equally projections of the dreaming mind. And that also means that love and peace must be present in MY mind, too. I’m also a projection of the same dreamer.

Thus, A Course in Miracles while recognizing the world as illusory, is hardly dismissive of the world. In fact, we pay quite close attention to the world as course students. To see how I’m judging and condemning the world – recognizing that the hatred I’m projecting onto you is really my own self-hatred. I’m not saying I or anyone else does this perfectly all the time. But this is part of the practice. And by forgiving you I’m really forgiving myself. They’re a projection of the dreamer of the dream (ultimately you), just as I am. So by forgiving us both (the “I” and the “other” at this level), I really forgive the dreamer (ultimately you). And when you learn that you ‘the dreamer’ is in fact innocent of separation, you’re free to awaken (rather than running back to the illusion, tail tucked, out of guilt and fear of having supposedly sinned against Oneness by supposedly separating). And that’s anything that’s not love is murder. The choice for separation reflects or represents that initial moment when we supposedly separated from Oneness, supposedly fracturing it into non-existence (oneness and separation/duality can’t co-exist).

Because the world is the effect – it’s being dreamt by a universal dreaming mind – everything is in fact already written. Every single action and inaction are already written. But there’s not just one experience chain:

“The whole business is just a recording playing itself out… even though it’s a closed system, there are different scenarios open to you in each lifetime. Making a different choice that doesn’t involve the Holy Spirit [choice for love] within the dream won’t undo your unconscious guilt and get you out of the system, but it can result in a temporarily different experience. It’s like a multiple choice script.” (Renard, 186)

Imagine one of those novels where at the end of a chapter it’s like, ‘If the hero saves the day now go to page 133, but if the hero fails right now go to page 152.’ Both of those paths are already written, but we do have some say so in WHICH path we’ll end up in. But it’s all already written, already laid out the moment the dreaming mind projected the universe in one instant. It’s all happened all at once, and we’re just going through the motions like watching a movie for the second time and hoping for a different result.

So, in that sense its ultimate determinism. It’s all already written. But on another level, it’s not ‘other’ determinism, because we are the dreamer who wrote the dream. We wrote it in such a way to act out separation and perpetuate fear/murderousness and the guilt it reinforces, and the separation that that reinforces. This protects us from recognizing the reality of oneness, by making the world very real to us. Thus we protect our illusory existence. But the pain of that become unbearable. And then making a choice for love/forgiveness becomes more sought after. And this is a choice that heals the mind of guilt and pain and dis-ease. With such a choice we can potentially experience an alternate ending (already written but newly chosen) with less pain. OR, we might have the same ending or “worse” from the level of the world – remember, Y’shua was crucified – but our inner peace won’t be affected. Because again, every outcome at the world’s level is equal, all being equally 100% illusory. But by choosing love/peace at the level of the mind, we’ll feel peace and wholeness and innocence regardless of how it plays out at the world’s (illusory) level.

Works Cited

A Course in Miracles (ACIM), 3rd ed., Foundation for Inner Peace, 2007.

Renard, Gary R. The Disappearance of the Universe: Straight Talk About Illusions, Past Lives, Religion, Sex, Politics, and the Miracles of Forgiveness, Hay House, Inc., 2003.

Copyright © 2020 Darryl E Berry Jr, Founder of DEBJ-NDC.

www.nextdensity.org

This article may be re-posted provided: 1) re-posted in full, 2) full attribution, including active link to this webpage (if on a website), and 3) prior notification of and confirmation from Darryl E Berry Jr. Contact me at debj@darryleberryjr.com.

The Right Mind

Leave a comment

By Darryl E Berry Jr | 6/22/20

Objective Moral Law | Divine Command Theory | God | A Course in Miracles | Mind

There’s a question in religious and philosophical circles that goes as follows: “Do you think that there could be objective moral law, that is to say moral law independent of human opinion, if there is no God? And the answer is yes, – on both accounts. There can be and is objective moral law independent of human opinion. And God doesn’t exist – at least not in whatever ilk of religious sense of God.

**

I’m a student of a teaching called A Course in Miracles (sometimes called simply “the course” throughout). And through this teaching I’ve learned a great deal. And when I say “learned a great deal” I don’t just mean intellectual learning from reading. I mean learning in the sense of the experiences I’ve gained and perspectives I’ve partaken in through its application. As brief and fleeting as some of my spiritual experiences have been, the validity of the experience remains inviolate.

One of the things I’ve learned through the course is that we ultimately have two parts to our mind (A Course in Miracles, Ch. 12). We have what’s called the wrong mind, or the ego, which is the part of our mind based upon and predicated on fear. Identifying with this part of the mind has us hate, and scorn, and believe in and experience scarcity and lack, and see and perceive separation and competition and division. The other part of our mind is called the right mind, or the “Holy Spirit,” which is the part of our mind based upon and predicated on love. Identifying with this part of the mind has us forgive, and extend compassion, and believe in and experience wholeness and abundance, and see and perceive oneness and shared interests and sameness.

What is called enlightenment or total spiritual awakening can be described as completely relinquishing the ego perspective and wholly identifying with the right-minded perspective. And this right mind is completely beyond the perspective of the individual. One identified with the right mind is not a human being, not a man nor a woman, but a pure manifestation of love and inner peace. Both this aspect of our mind, and the one totally identified with this aspect of mind, are totally beyond human opinion and frailty and distortion.

Another experience I have had through applying A Course in Miracles, via tapping into the perspective of the right mind, is briefly experiencing the perspective of the universal mind that is dreaming the universe. It’s clear that there is no universal God that created us all and will welcome us into Heaven. No God of any religion exists. There is simply an insane mind dreaming a meaningless dream, and upon its awakening this entire universe or multi-verse or what have you “will disappear into the nothingness out of which [it] was made” (A Course in Miracles).

This means that any moral law or choice not made from the perspective of the right mind is human opinion. And any moral law or choice that is made from the right mind is objective, i.e., completely free of and beyond human opinion. Therefore, Jesus was such a great man. He wasn’t some special son of some all-powerful being running about the universe. He’d simply achieved what all of us can and ultimately will achieve: enlightenment. And thus, he was the embodiment of the right mind. “His Love, like God’s, was total, impersonal, non-selective and all-embracing. He treated everyone equally, from rabbi to prostitute. He was not a body. He was no longer a human being” (Renard, 41). And God – an in-universe God – being nonexistent, is never involved in any of this. And to explain these last statements, the course does mention the word “God” quite frequently. But it’s a word used symbolically to refer to “Reality” – what is beyond all form, and perception, and change. It alone is what’s real and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the illusory universe of duality and form. As the course refers to God, It’s not a being that created the universe, but an unblemished and perfect and ultimately indescribable Reality having nothing whatsoever to do with the illusory universe. In a sense it’s what we finally recognize after we’ve woken from the dream of nothingness; like waking from a dream a night.

**

I imagine some non-religious folk might object quite like I might object to religious folks’ positions. I might challenge the religious to provide proof of God before trying to engage me in some banter about a non-existent God being involved in some moral dilemma. Non-religious skeptics might challenge me to provide proof of the Holy Spirit, or of the right mind. Both the religious and non-religious might challenge me to prove that – whether or not it really exists – this “right mind” is or can be really some higher or separate part of mind, i.e., distinct enough from the individual personality to be distinct from personal opinion.

**

I really don’t know if it’s possible to prove to someone the existence of the right mind. I don’t know if it’s measurable, even by the most advanced technology possible in the universe. But I know it’s possible to prove it to oneself. And I am certain that we have all experienced it at one point or other in our lives. My learning informs me that that everyone’s mind is composed of the right and wrong mind, and however identified someone is with the wrong mind still the right mind is there and informs them at least a bit at some point in their life (Renard, 399). And I’ve learned from experience that if one finds a pure spiritual path like A Course in Miracles and applies it, to the extent that one applies it the awareness of and gradual identification with the right mind is accentuated.

And similarly, I don’t think I can prove to anyone else that this or that person is really listening to the right mind, or is an embodiment of the right mind, and not just deluding themselves or fooling others. And apparently, it’s easy enough to delude ourselves that we are more advanced in that regard than we are. I’ve been through my periods of ‘spiritual specialness’. And I’ve spoken to several people over the years who had convinced themselves they were embodying or ‘speaking for the Holy Spirit,’ when it was clear they were mired in fear in whatever form it entailed at the time. And sometimes it’s been recognized by that one directly.

The good thing is, we don’t have to find someone who is or believe that anyone is enlightened. We can simply work on becoming enlightened ourselves. And by and by we’ll become more and more able to ‘hear’ and embody that voice for ourselves. And until then, it’s clear that the world has been slowly but surely moving towards higher standards of morality through the everyday maneuverings of progress. We can use reason and logic and everyday experience to better purify our moral landscape. For instance there’s apparently less slavery in the world – at least overt slavery – than there was in decades prior. At least in theory (or propaganda) our societies are moving towards greater and greater respect for freedom and liberty and life. The good news is that nothing in or of the world can affect the mind, which is ultimately outside of the world and in fact dreaming the world. Thus, we’re always empowered to get in touch with the level of mind and choose the right mind and experience its truth for ourselves.

Works Cited

Hoofard, Nathan Michael. “Judaism & Divine Command Theory”. YouTube upload, 14 June 2000, https://youtu.be/fUSIpDTPRBI.

A Course in Miracles (ACIM), 3rd ed., Foundation for Inner Peace, 2007, Excerpted from Text Chapter 10, Section IV, Paragraph 1; Text Chapter 12, Section I, Paragraph 9-10.

Renard, Gary R. The Disappearance of the Universe: Straight Talk About Illusions, Past Lives, Religion, Sex, Politics, and the Miracles of Forgiveness, Quoting ascended masters Arten and Pursah, Hay House, Inc., 2003, pp. 5-6, 41.

Copyright © 2020 Darryl E Berry Jr, Founder of DEBJ-NDC.

www.nextdensity.org

This article may be re-posted provided: 1) re-posted in full, 2) full attribution, including active link to this webpage (if on a website), and 3) prior notification of and confirmation from Darryl E Berry Jr. Contact me at debj@darryleberryjr.com.