The difference between the "waking" dream and the sleeping dream is that in our perceived waking state, the dream is a collectively shared dream of all minds in the universe. Even all fundamental particles share some degree of consciousness – which is the domain of the ego. We are bound by these finite forms in physical reality in accordance with the collective ego's laws. The Kingdom of Heaven is formless which is scary to the ego but freedom for the spirit.
I understand the appeal of this genre of discourse but I think in the end the certainty it provides is illusory. There is no real consensus on "a universe" (vs. many universes or no universe etc); there is no real consensus on pan-psychism, etc. One can have an informed opinion on speculative matters, and be very passionate in its defense and extension, but it's still just another opinion.
It has also been my sense both personally and in dialogue with folks for whom this genre is the mode, that it is not necessarily helpful in terms of solving local problems of incoherence - e.g., violence, hunger, sickness, loneliness. For example, believing that every particle shares in consciousness isn't necessarily helpful in terms of figuring out how to connect with one another in mutually helpful ways which, again, feels more pressing to me than identifying and labeling this or that aspect of reality. We still have to figure out how to share and manage resources (space, time, attention, etc). Often, the highly theoretical work to which you allude is a distraction from what feels to me to be the more challenging, but ultimately more rewarding work, of cooperation and communication with my brothers and sisters.
Finally, I am also concerned with how readily this genre of discourse lends itself to authoritarian ideologies. I have no use for those thought systems or the ends to which they are typically put, and encourage others to have no use for them either.
If you are interested in folks who I think are doing good work at the intersection of theoretical physics, nonduality, coherence etc Chris Fields is a good starting place: https://chrisfieldsresearch.com/
Thank you again for sharing and being here, Travis.
Thanks Sean - I’ve heard of John Crossan but haven’t read him - will give him a look. I love the idea that no one is excluded from divinity. I SO much believe it’s true, and at the same time know there is so much to unlearn (thank you organized religion) in order for me to know it on a deeper level.
Your last paragraph described my experience pretty well. At first it was, “gosh I must be pretty special that God touched ME in such a profound way” to eventually experiencing some humility because it took something that profound to get my attention 😊.
Sean has helped me understand ACIM with his clear, common sense, practical approach in day to happenings. I have all his books and always consult this or that essays. His voice speaks to me. However, I read the Course metaphysics with another lens. It's not about letting go, but keeping it in the foreground, because the essence are precisely the Ideas (Plato, Plotinus) that sustain ACIM. Of course if you are visiting a friend in a hospital who is dying, it's really stupid or cruel to say "don't worry there is no death, no body, no cancer, you are perfectly fine ". No, you don't give an intellectual discourse on Metaphysics. But it does not mean you let it go. ACIM is very clear in the nondual teaching of Jesus, and paradoxically so, there is no body, no world, no Pedro writing this... in that sense, ACIM is very simple and very difficult
My 40 year old daughter has seen my many routes searching God. She has a photo of daddy as a young Jesuit professor of Philosophy in Dominican Republic... and now as a declared atheist she is curious of ACIM latest daddy's craziness. Today I gave her Shared Traits, told her to open any page and start there...A Way of Thinking (page 79) is the essay that opened her mind... Thanks Sean for helping her. And me. Love, Pedro
Hi Sean, thanks for sharing this. I’ve had some difficulty grasping the idea of the dream from the Course. What seems to be a helpful way of thinking about it for me is in terms of the past, present, and future. All of my “thinking” as far as I can tell is wrapped up in the past or the future - what’s happened or what might happen, and there can be discomfort in both those spaces. Where I never fail to find peace is in the present moment, in the presence of God (a la Emmett Fox’s Golden Key). There is no suffering, there is no worry, because if I’m truly present, I’m not THINKING. God IS presence. This helps me to accept that the past and the future are not good or bad, they’re just not real. Only the present is real. Of course I can’t stay there, none of us can. But recognizing the present as the only reality reduces the ability of the past and future to impact my serenity.
At one time in my journey, I used to read “My Utmost for His Highest”, a daily devotional by Oswald Chambers. I eventually put it down, because I found the language too convicting, the theology too doctrinaire. But just for grins I opened up this morning’s reading and came across a word he uses quite a bit - obedience. I’ve never liked that word😊. But as I read more, I began to think about obedience being simply another word for just being present, for listening to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That kind of obedience I can hang with.
Thank you, Mark. This is all consistent and clear, I'm with you, except with how the present includes a self who experiences it - who then USES the experience to reinforce the existence and utility of past and future. Why else are we here writing about it? We remember it, and based on that memory, we want it again. I am not arguing with you or anyone else but genuinely asking: if there is a self to HAVE the experience then was it REALLY an experience of God?
I am big on obedience these days, a kind of surrender of any and all of my claims to authority . . . surrendering even the comfort of finding value or purpose in surrender :) So much seems to come down to this, the end of ALL conflict accomplished by laying down ALL the arms I've taken up against the world and even God . . . It feels so counter-intuitive . . .
Hi Sean, Good points and I don’t know the answer regarding the reality of self. I was brought up to believe that Jesus for example was both human and Divine, and that’s always intrigued me. And if that’s true I am both human and divine as well. So perhaps (and again I don’t know) this experience I’m having is about holding both spaces, sometimes at the same time perhaps? Much of the time I feel very human, but there are times, like when I’m creating art, or doing something nice for someone, that I feel deeply connected to something outside myself, something very good.
I had a “road to Damascus” experience 29 years ago that profoundly changed me. .Shortly after, and for some time, I thought I had all the answers and that it was my responsibility to get others to believe what I believed. I then went to hear John Shelby Spong speak and he said something that led me to begin thinking differently. He said “beware of those who traffic in certainty.” Richard Rohrer also said something to the effect that the deeper he delves into the mystery, the less he knows. I’ve certainly found that to be true for me. But I still want to know!
I consider Spong, Rohrer, and in fact everyone I encounter and dialogue with a teacher, including you. Discussions around spirituality and the nature of reality are really meaningful to me. Thanks Sean.
I think recognizing that we don't know what we don't know is really important, though there is a kind of correlate - it's okay to know what we know :) One of my coming-to moments was many years ago when my kids were young still. I don't know why but while helping my son fall asleep one night I just realized that whatever else Jesus was, he was human, and that whatever else that meant, it meant nobody could be excluded from divinity.
In terms of thinking about Jesus, I have found Crossan most helpful - in part because he is a very good evidence-based thinker. I have not encountered anybody who is as rigorous with evidence re: Jesus as he is. I am hardly a professional Jesus scholar of course! I know there are other writers and thinkers out there but Crossan has been very clear and helpful for me.
One of the interesting points Crossan makes is that somewhere between John the Baptist's death and his own ministry, Jesus has a change of mind and heart that moves his away from apocalyptic eschatology (ver much John's mode, and Jesus was certainly a follower of John) to what Crossan calls "sapiential eschatology," a more wisdom-based understanding of how the world and its meaning would be transformed.
Just as I am fascinated by those peasants five thousand years ago who conceived of a single paternal god (polytheism is arguably WAY more helpful and functional), I am fascinated by the way that Jesus seems to have clearly understood that the human experience was one of collaboration WITH God in making tangible the Kingdom which not a future event or condition, but a present reality, presently unrecognized.
In rough ways, ACIM has always felt like it helps me to thread the needle of in-the-world transformative kindness with the VERY persuasive metaphysics of ADvaita Vendenta. Kind of like the love child of John Sherman and Dorothy Day :)
Yes, teachers everywhere! And students, too. It's a nifty subtext of the Course - or maybe not so sub - and Ken Wapnick was relatively good at pointing to this - that we "teach" others in a psychological way what they are by how we respond and interact with them. When we do this from a loving place - humbly loving - then their response to that teaching will in turn teach us that we ARE love itself. It is relationship all the way down.
By the way, the after-effect of the Road to Damascus moment - that sense of "I have to share this" - I eventually came to understand in my own life as simply the Holy Spirit bringing an underlying arrogance and selfishness to the fore so I could finally see it clearly and understand the need for genuine humility. Which is STILL a big lift for me, still a big spiritual challenge.
Thanks for reading & sharing, Mark. Hope all is well.
I can’t tell you the perfect timing of this! Synchronicities astound me. This topic has plagued me for quite some time now and reading many non dual teaching didn’t quite resolve it because I haven’t totally understood how to function in a dream. How to relate to others and go on as normal.
You somehow said exactly what I needed to hear in this moment. Thank you
The difference between the "waking" dream and the sleeping dream is that in our perceived waking state, the dream is a collectively shared dream of all minds in the universe. Even all fundamental particles share some degree of consciousness – which is the domain of the ego. We are bound by these finite forms in physical reality in accordance with the collective ego's laws. The Kingdom of Heaven is formless which is scary to the ego but freedom for the spirit.
Thank you for sharing, Travis.
I understand the appeal of this genre of discourse but I think in the end the certainty it provides is illusory. There is no real consensus on "a universe" (vs. many universes or no universe etc); there is no real consensus on pan-psychism, etc. One can have an informed opinion on speculative matters, and be very passionate in its defense and extension, but it's still just another opinion.
It has also been my sense both personally and in dialogue with folks for whom this genre is the mode, that it is not necessarily helpful in terms of solving local problems of incoherence - e.g., violence, hunger, sickness, loneliness. For example, believing that every particle shares in consciousness isn't necessarily helpful in terms of figuring out how to connect with one another in mutually helpful ways which, again, feels more pressing to me than identifying and labeling this or that aspect of reality. We still have to figure out how to share and manage resources (space, time, attention, etc). Often, the highly theoretical work to which you allude is a distraction from what feels to me to be the more challenging, but ultimately more rewarding work, of cooperation and communication with my brothers and sisters.
Finally, I am also concerned with how readily this genre of discourse lends itself to authoritarian ideologies. I have no use for those thought systems or the ends to which they are typically put, and encourage others to have no use for them either.
If you are interested in folks who I think are doing good work at the intersection of theoretical physics, nonduality, coherence etc Chris Fields is a good starting place: https://chrisfieldsresearch.com/
Thank you again for sharing and being here, Travis.
~ Sean
Thanks Sean - I’ve heard of John Crossan but haven’t read him - will give him a look. I love the idea that no one is excluded from divinity. I SO much believe it’s true, and at the same time know there is so much to unlearn (thank you organized religion) in order for me to know it on a deeper level.
Your last paragraph described my experience pretty well. At first it was, “gosh I must be pretty special that God touched ME in such a profound way” to eventually experiencing some humility because it took something that profound to get my attention 😊.
I loved this, thank you.
Sean has helped me understand ACIM with his clear, common sense, practical approach in day to happenings. I have all his books and always consult this or that essays. His voice speaks to me. However, I read the Course metaphysics with another lens. It's not about letting go, but keeping it in the foreground, because the essence are precisely the Ideas (Plato, Plotinus) that sustain ACIM. Of course if you are visiting a friend in a hospital who is dying, it's really stupid or cruel to say "don't worry there is no death, no body, no cancer, you are perfectly fine ". No, you don't give an intellectual discourse on Metaphysics. But it does not mean you let it go. ACIM is very clear in the nondual teaching of Jesus, and paradoxically so, there is no body, no world, no Pedro writing this... in that sense, ACIM is very simple and very difficult
Thank you, Pedro 🙏
~ Sean
My 40 year old daughter has seen my many routes searching God. She has a photo of daddy as a young Jesuit professor of Philosophy in Dominican Republic... and now as a declared atheist she is curious of ACIM latest daddy's craziness. Today I gave her Shared Traits, told her to open any page and start there...A Way of Thinking (page 79) is the essay that opened her mind... Thanks Sean for helping her. And me. Love, Pedro
You're welcome, Pedro - thank you for reading & sharing!
~ Sean
Hi Sean, thanks for sharing this. I’ve had some difficulty grasping the idea of the dream from the Course. What seems to be a helpful way of thinking about it for me is in terms of the past, present, and future. All of my “thinking” as far as I can tell is wrapped up in the past or the future - what’s happened or what might happen, and there can be discomfort in both those spaces. Where I never fail to find peace is in the present moment, in the presence of God (a la Emmett Fox’s Golden Key). There is no suffering, there is no worry, because if I’m truly present, I’m not THINKING. God IS presence. This helps me to accept that the past and the future are not good or bad, they’re just not real. Only the present is real. Of course I can’t stay there, none of us can. But recognizing the present as the only reality reduces the ability of the past and future to impact my serenity.
At one time in my journey, I used to read “My Utmost for His Highest”, a daily devotional by Oswald Chambers. I eventually put it down, because I found the language too convicting, the theology too doctrinaire. But just for grins I opened up this morning’s reading and came across a word he uses quite a bit - obedience. I’ve never liked that word😊. But as I read more, I began to think about obedience being simply another word for just being present, for listening to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That kind of obedience I can hang with.
Thank you, Mark. This is all consistent and clear, I'm with you, except with how the present includes a self who experiences it - who then USES the experience to reinforce the existence and utility of past and future. Why else are we here writing about it? We remember it, and based on that memory, we want it again. I am not arguing with you or anyone else but genuinely asking: if there is a self to HAVE the experience then was it REALLY an experience of God?
I am big on obedience these days, a kind of surrender of any and all of my claims to authority . . . surrendering even the comfort of finding value or purpose in surrender :) So much seems to come down to this, the end of ALL conflict accomplished by laying down ALL the arms I've taken up against the world and even God . . . It feels so counter-intuitive . . .
~ Sean
Hi Sean, Good points and I don’t know the answer regarding the reality of self. I was brought up to believe that Jesus for example was both human and Divine, and that’s always intrigued me. And if that’s true I am both human and divine as well. So perhaps (and again I don’t know) this experience I’m having is about holding both spaces, sometimes at the same time perhaps? Much of the time I feel very human, but there are times, like when I’m creating art, or doing something nice for someone, that I feel deeply connected to something outside myself, something very good.
I had a “road to Damascus” experience 29 years ago that profoundly changed me. .Shortly after, and for some time, I thought I had all the answers and that it was my responsibility to get others to believe what I believed. I then went to hear John Shelby Spong speak and he said something that led me to begin thinking differently. He said “beware of those who traffic in certainty.” Richard Rohrer also said something to the effect that the deeper he delves into the mystery, the less he knows. I’ve certainly found that to be true for me. But I still want to know!
I consider Spong, Rohrer, and in fact everyone I encounter and dialogue with a teacher, including you. Discussions around spirituality and the nature of reality are really meaningful to me. Thanks Sean.
Mark
I think recognizing that we don't know what we don't know is really important, though there is a kind of correlate - it's okay to know what we know :) One of my coming-to moments was many years ago when my kids were young still. I don't know why but while helping my son fall asleep one night I just realized that whatever else Jesus was, he was human, and that whatever else that meant, it meant nobody could be excluded from divinity.
In terms of thinking about Jesus, I have found Crossan most helpful - in part because he is a very good evidence-based thinker. I have not encountered anybody who is as rigorous with evidence re: Jesus as he is. I am hardly a professional Jesus scholar of course! I know there are other writers and thinkers out there but Crossan has been very clear and helpful for me.
One of the interesting points Crossan makes is that somewhere between John the Baptist's death and his own ministry, Jesus has a change of mind and heart that moves his away from apocalyptic eschatology (ver much John's mode, and Jesus was certainly a follower of John) to what Crossan calls "sapiential eschatology," a more wisdom-based understanding of how the world and its meaning would be transformed.
Just as I am fascinated by those peasants five thousand years ago who conceived of a single paternal god (polytheism is arguably WAY more helpful and functional), I am fascinated by the way that Jesus seems to have clearly understood that the human experience was one of collaboration WITH God in making tangible the Kingdom which not a future event or condition, but a present reality, presently unrecognized.
In rough ways, ACIM has always felt like it helps me to thread the needle of in-the-world transformative kindness with the VERY persuasive metaphysics of ADvaita Vendenta. Kind of like the love child of John Sherman and Dorothy Day :)
Yes, teachers everywhere! And students, too. It's a nifty subtext of the Course - or maybe not so sub - and Ken Wapnick was relatively good at pointing to this - that we "teach" others in a psychological way what they are by how we respond and interact with them. When we do this from a loving place - humbly loving - then their response to that teaching will in turn teach us that we ARE love itself. It is relationship all the way down.
By the way, the after-effect of the Road to Damascus moment - that sense of "I have to share this" - I eventually came to understand in my own life as simply the Holy Spirit bringing an underlying arrogance and selfishness to the fore so I could finally see it clearly and understand the need for genuine humility. Which is STILL a big lift for me, still a big spiritual challenge.
Thanks for reading & sharing, Mark. Hope all is well.
~ Sean
❤️
I can’t tell you the perfect timing of this! Synchronicities astound me. This topic has plagued me for quite some time now and reading many non dual teaching didn’t quite resolve it because I haven’t totally understood how to function in a dream. How to relate to others and go on as normal.
You somehow said exactly what I needed to hear in this moment. Thank you
You're welcome, Liz. Thank you for being here 🙏
~ Sean