So impressed that you two are tackling this very controversial topic. Would love to see you interview Rupert Spira who is such a eloquent teacher of non-duality and who might be able to correct some misconceptions. For example, I believe non-duality does teach that there are separate selves, but that these separate selves are interconnected elements of awareness. It also teaches that an illusion of a separate self is created by our false belief that our thoughts are who we are. The work is in allowing awareness to flow through our separate selves rather than our thought/emotion created false selves. In other words, we can have thoughts and we can have free will, but the key is not believe that these thoughts are who we are.

Lovely. I am a student of both and value this discussion. ‘Particularly towards the end of the video, the beauty of caring for each other as a natural and divine expansion. Thank you both.

Beautiful nuanced talk and VERY well framed introduction.

So glad that someone is speaking about this

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I knew intuitively what you are saying is true, but never had the concepts clear enough to express it. I too came to this understanding by watching near death experience and studying the Course. Thanks for your voice and bringing it forward!

Thank you, Robert and Emily ❤

There’s a lot of similarity (according to my study and understanding) between the Srimad Bhagavatam and A Course In Miracles.the SB describes the personal and impersonal features of Godhead and us as united spirits. It’s really helped me understand ACIM and the SB seems to corroborate with ACIM. Really interesting to see that the same truths are expounded in both (again, according to my study).

Yes. Thank you for the clarity, wisdom and sanity of this discussion🙏💖

Thank you for an excellent discussion of this subject that is of fundamental importance to a true understanding of the Course’s message. It goes to the heart of the ages-old philosophical dilemma between being and nothingness. Which one we assign to ultimate reality is crucial to both the direction of our spiritual journey and way we live our life. I’ve long thought that you don’t need to go much further than the very term ‘non dualism’ to see that there is an inherent contradiction here. Non dual implies ‘not two but one’, however if the one is defined by a negation of the two (or many), then this itself creates a dualism between the one and the many! The only way duality can be dissolved is if the one embraces it, which is without a doubt the way that God is described in the Course. It is also the way we reawaken ourselves to Him. Interestingly, this attitude of dissociation/withdrawal (negation of self) rather than extension/joining is characteristic to those who practice non dualism in its most radical form, such as neo advaita. These people often become totally detached from all of their relationships, sometimes to the point of no longer recognizing their own children. There are even associations to help people recover from deep depression and other issues resulting from such practices. The error of denying the self is cautioned against throughout the Course. Clearly the undoing of the ego is a very important first step, but this is only in order to allow our awareness to be filled up with the love of God: a state of certainty, joy and expansiveness which naturally leads us to join with other minds. To get stuck on the first step of ego-watching is an error that Jesus repeatedly warns us against! And it seems to me that this is the fundamental error in Ken’s teaching, as well as in non duality. The paradox of the coexistence of the one and the many in the kingdom of God is one that I have pondered a great deal, and I think you’re right in stating that it is simply beyond the grasp of our linear thinking brains. However I do think that there is a key way in to approaching an understanding of it in the important distinction Jesus makes between knowing and perception. This is introduced early in the Course and continues throughout as a core concept. God, heaven and our true Self are defined by knowing, whereas perception is a characteristic of our separated self. (“4 Consciousness was the first split that you introduced into yourself. ²You became a perceiver rather than a creator in the true sense. ³Consciousness is correctly identified as the domain of the ego. [CE T-3.VI.4:1-3]”) This state of pure knowing is one of fullness, certainty, eternally changeless but perpetually giving of itself. In this state it’s possible to know others, but not to perceive them. It’s equally impossible to perceive separation. Creation dictates that there is more than one, but no difference could ever be perceived, instead only likeness is known and shared. Perhaps it is through pure knowing, so hard for us to imagine, that the many can exist within the one. Non dualism often refers to consciousness or awareness as the ground state of reality, but this again stops too soon at the first stage of separation. I totally agree that NDE’s are a very significant proof of love, fullness and joy as the ultimate Truth of all existence. Fittingly, today’s lesson is all about taking the step beyond the dismissal of the world, and it contains a beautiful description of what lies beyond: 4 Yet even they will be exchanged at last for what we cannot speak of. ²For you go from there to where words fail entirely, into a silence where the language is unspoken and yet surely understood. ³Communication, unambiguous and plain as day, remains unlimited for all eternity. ⁴And God Himself speaks to His Son, as His Son speaks to Him. ⁵Their language has no words, for what They say cannot be symbolized. ⁶Their knowledge is direct and wholly shared and wholly one. [CE W-129.4]

Thank you for this topic of discussion. It sparked so many open questions and avenues for further exploration. I hope there will be a part two.😊 I am curious about your thoughts on the “happy dream “, “projection creates perception” and the Course idea that everything is an illusion, including our bodies, and how we allow the Holy Spirit to re-purpose what we made as a communication device for love. All of these ideas in relation to non-dual teachings. 🙏 with much gratitude.

Bernado and Rupert are excellent examples to pick! Well done! 🔥

I take great joy in the clarity with which you speak. Love is the way I walk in gratitude.

Great discussion. I know its a good one when i have to listen to it a couple of times. Thanks for explaining this in a way thats understandable.

Ooooh I can’t tell you how deeply this resonates with me and how much I appreciate your work in embracing and illuminating the Course’s perspective on this. I especially love the reminder that we need to focus on egoless relationships with our brothers and sisters in the world. I think it means so much to me to celebrate the magnificence of our individuality within the equality of one mind because I have had many experiences of animals in my life leaving their body and returning in spirit to celebrate our journey together and they share wisdom they have now beyond their body. Every time this has happened their individual nature and being has been so clear and so utterly knowable for me, that there is no doubt in my mind that we stay ‘ourselves’. The animals have no ego in this state, and they have been so joyful and so expansive and so unlimited in their love, it is quite remarkable. One time one particular animal had been one species in her relationship with me, and when she returned I somehow knew, without any doubt that her ‘natural’ species as a separate animal was different and she presented herself as that, maybe because she had embodied again already, I don’t know, and she shared with me all kinds of fascinating things about that species, and somehow the characteristics came through her spirit. And there was no separation in our minds.. that was obvious. So I would say there is a lot we don’t usually experience directly and therefore understand fully in a body. I also feel from my own process with my awakening, that the ego is less threatened by Non Duality, perhaps because of the less intimate nature of it.. so it is a phase to get through on the path to accepting ourselves. 💛

Thank you, being a near death experiencer myself, I agree with Robert’s perspective. Love how course feels true to my death experience. 💝

Fantastic talk! Thank you both!

A lot of non-dual teaching talks about the absolute and the relative. "Absolute" being the unbound, formless, complete unity, "relative" being the appearance of forms and separate individuals. Non-duality, at least as Adyashanti for example teaches, is that the absolute formless emptiness and the separate forms are actually not two separate things. There seems to be a modern appearance, from my view, that "non-dual" means only the absolute formless emptiness side, rather than formless AND form paradoxically are there and not separate from each other. The Heart Sutra says form is emptiness, emptiness is form. I'm not an expert on these matters by any means but it is an interesting distinction, and it does seem like a lot of this conversation is taking from the view that 'non-duality' only refers to the absolute (which plenty of modern teachers seem to put out), what do you think?

I'm not convinced that ACIM is not a non-dual teaching. Two passages come to mind: 1) From T.30.III.3-7&8 "For sin is the idea you are alone and separated off from what is whole. 8 And thus it would be necessary for the search for wholeness to be made beyond the boundaries of limits on yourself." 2) From T.27.VIII.8.2 "Into eternity, where all is one, there crept a tiny, mad idea, at which the Son of God remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting did the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment and real effects. Together, we can laugh them both away, and understand that time cannot intrude upon eternity." These two passages seem to confirm that eternity is a place of non-duality while this place where time seems real confirms a belief that we think we're separated but are not. I'm open to be convinced that I'm mistaken even after 30+ years of study.

There is no place or time where God ends and I begin as there is no point where the Sun ends and the ray of its light begins. My Father and I are one yet my Father is grander than me.

This is one of the best acim video I have ever watched.

Very Insightful discussion, thank you 😇🙏

I understand why something like "this is beyond words" might sound evasive, coming from so-called "non-dualists". The "issue", however, is that any formed appearance of/in what you guys call "reality" appears to be contracted, including words. That does not mean that concepts are really real. If they were, separation would be real as well. Words/concepts are sort of like a maze of mirrors-every concept's meaning is simply its relations to other concepts-there's no ground truth, no starting point, no real source to our conceptual networks, nothing that can truly be grasped onto consistently. To me it feels like both the course and (some) non-dual messages are not a philosophy, and in that regard, it is indeed not *really* about words, and the philosophical differences are kinda not the point. There's nothing wrong or bad in "staying open" to see which philosophy is "closer to truth", but the most one can get from philosophical debates is a better-fortified belief system for a while, which is by definition imbued with doubt. Doubt can, however, fall away, taking the energy out of these philosophical "problems".

Thank you both very much, I am also very grateful that you addressed this issue. I have a bunch of thoughts on what you presented, but I'd like to start with a little joke: "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." ; ) That out of the way, let me really start by saying that I really feel to have a truly fruitful discussion about this and other controversial Course topics, it really would be best to have a dialogue with someone on the other side of the issue, someone who is qualified to talk about it and would do so in a respectful way. This would actually bring the discussion that much further along, partly because I'm not sure that the two sides of this thing are really dialoguing together about it, let alone listening to what the other half has to say or even caring how the other half lives. As far as non-duality goes, I do feel that it is correct to say that ACIM presents a non-dual metaphysics, and I think we can all agree on that in the sense that ultimately, reality (according to Jesus in ACIM) is not dual, there is no separation. The real issue, then, is what that reality actually looks like, and that's where there are differences of opinion. And let's be clear: that's really what they are. Why? Because, at least with ACIM, Jesus does not tell us what "Heaven" looks like, and he makes a point to say that he cannot. You could certainly adduce any number of passages that seem to be saying that in the Oneness of God's reality there are still separate selves, separate entities (God, Christ, Holy Spirit, Son of God...), albeit they are without egos and unified in a wholeness that transcends the sum of their parts. And yet, for any such passages, someone (like me) could come and try to show why those passages seem to be symbolic, metaphorical, and if taken literally, one would be missing the deeper message. So it could well be that the Oneness is a non-dual reality, but there is still some separation, it's just not egoic separation. Again, Jesus does not say one way or another -- he ain't telling. Yet he does seem to imply or say outright in any number of places that God is beyond form, and that the "formless" state is somehow where we're headed in our work with the Course. Does that just mean that in Heaven there are no bodies, or is it going deeper to suggest that there are not even "somebodys" (personalities, selves), which would seem to suggest no separate selves, at least not as we think of it... ? Let's also keep in mind that this whole discussion has been around a very long time, this is not new with ACIM. In the Hindu tradition, for example, Shankara taught advaita vedanta (radical non dualism) in the 8th century, but then others came along to show how, to put it in Course terms, God and His Son are separate entities and there will always be a distinction between them. For example, the Hare Krishnas see non-duality as actually a lower rung on the ladder, as for them the highest achievement and bliss is in worshipping Krishna for all eternity in loving devotion. And the non-dualists say: Well, to each his own. There's no debating preferences! But you guys just can't deal with abstraction! I'm glad that you brought in psychedelics and Stanislav Grof. I actually came to ACIM through my work with ayahuasca and have by this point imbibed the brew around 200 times, and have also been facilitating ceremonies. While I think that ayahuasca has the potential to get you close to the non-dual experience, generally it's not DMT but 5MeoDMT that seems to get people to that. Grof himself has written about his own experience of non-duality with 5Meo. I think if you asked him, he would agree with the ACIM non-dualists. And I'm not sure if you can understand why without having that experience yourself. One thing I really do think it's fair to say is that to even try a psychedelic takes some courage, some willingness to go beyond fear. Think of the fear involved with a substance that you sense might dissolve your whole identity? That is why many people are quite nervous before doing the more potent psychedelics, and why the "ego-death" experience can feel so traumatic. So when the non-dualists say to the dualists that they're afraid of losing their sense of separate selfhood and thus prefer a more comfortable metaphysics, there really might be something to that. And it could very well be that one cannot truly understand ACIM without having that non-dual experience. Which, by the way, like with NDEs, is not something that someone has been conditioned to think is possible before having that experience with a psychedelic substance. And just because so many people have the NDE experience does not necessarily mean that all of those people have experienced the highest reality. "All are called, but few choose to listen," seems to suggest that it is a minority that go all the way due to the great fear and resistance involved. Krishna tells Arjuna something like this in the Bhagavad Gita: Of many seekers, only a few actually realize the undying, eternal Self. Is this all making sense, and are you really listening? Because I'm really speaking for the Course non-dualists here, and trying my level best to present the other side of the picture. I might have said more, but this is already quite long and there is always another day. I'm very happy to dialogue about this issue. Ultimately I feel it comes down to remaining in a humble place of "I-Don't-Know" as none of us really do, not as long as the ego is still alive and kicking. After all, is the Course not about seeing our brother -- all of our brothers -- as our loving self, and not reinforcing separation? Thank you again, and thank you for listening. Peace ~ Allowah

As someone who's not very fond of nonduality, this video is refreshing.

As we continue to be able to live the course (defencelessness) the questions cease. So words of any contension are ego based. The course lived truer every day ends the discussion. I enjoy your utubes and Thank you

Much appreciated! I like the comments on the different worldviews, different truths. For me, I tend towards a relative worldview that seeks to optimize my FELT EXPERIENCE from my chosen worldview and the language I use to attempt to describe said worldview. The key question is, does my chosen definition for "truth" lead to a congruent, consistent model, and does it support the desired felt experience? Asserting that my chosen model IS reality would be a misstep in my view. A model is only a model... "a story," as you say. It seems that the central FELT EXPERIENCE of practitioners of The Course and Non-Duality both can experience inner peace. The words they use to describe their experience is just a model of experience, not the experience itself. The Course seems to be a congruent model. Non-duality also seems to be a congruent model. It's always too much to unpack everything, because it always repacks itself and unpacks again, in my model, and the others as well. ;) What seems fundamental to me is Mystery. Making a choice (which I could call consciousness) seems to delineate a polarity; it calls something "this, not that;" it moves this direction, not that direction. What is the Mystery and what is it that is calling the Mystery this, not that? How would I know? I don't. It becomes all Mystery again. Words may very well all be only fearful questions, disguised as confident statements, intended to help us ignore our uncertainty and navigate the Mystery. Mystery abounds. Getting used to it. And, so appreciative of how ACIM has helped to heal my wounding around the words of the Christian Trinity. I experience Mystery now as Love, God now as Love. This choice for Love is my best choice, and I'm here practicing until my choice is so complete that the Mystery disappears. Thank you for practicing with me! In Love, Dear Friends!

Excellent video! Truth is one, the wise describe it in different ways. Those of us who have studied Vedanta know that there are several versions of it not just Advaita. The author of the Course says that it is about experience and not theology. IMHO we should use the theology (personal/impersonal) that most appeals to us for our experience and that can vary from time to time. I like the way the Urantia Book explores the impersonal versus the personal in sections 105.0-1, 106.9.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. During the years that I’ve practiced the workbook, my spiritual practice is pretty much defined via the course. But I don’t always do the workbook every year and I don’t think the course necessarily suggests endless repetition of the WB. I know the course focuses heavily on guidance and the relevance of direct personal guidance. The last WB lesson strongly emphasizing this. And yet the quality of practice is so different during WB years vs non WB years, the former offering a very solid anchor for the mind. Would just love to hear your thoughts on anchoring daily practice when the concrete direction of the WB isn’t being practiced. I think I heard you Robert once refer to it for yourself as “post workbook practice” or something of the likes. Thank you both for this talk

Hi Robert, thank you again for this video. I believe that you are interested in helping to heal the fractured ACIM community. I noted in the CE edition of ACIM that you acknowledged that Helen was really the one who edited most of the Course, and she was the primary one responsible for taking out most of those 45,000+ words that has become such a topic of heated discussion. As you know, for years now it has been claimed that it was in fact Ken Wapnick that was the one who swooped in and took over the editorial process, taking the Course in a whole other direction from the trajectory it was on. What I would challenge you to do is to make a public statement to help quell the misinformation that is out there in the Course community. I urge you to clearly state on video, once and for all, that Ken Wapnick did not edit the Course to fit his own preconceptions of what it was. That would be a good start (though just a start) in healing the community as I know that your word would carry weight with many. Otherwise, the situation is somewhat analogous to Donald Trump not actively denying the QAnon conspiracy, and even giving some indication that he favors it. Please forgive me if you have already done this somewhere. I don't think you have as one of your followers (who is prominent in the ACIM world) maintains that Ken was essentially a wolf in sheep's clothing from the start who re-made the Course in his own image to suit his own nefarious ends. Which most of us who know anything about Ken know is just a boldfaced lie, as is much of the negative press he has received over the years. Thank you for hearing this appeal. Peace.

For my own clarity if you don't mind, even non-duality that embraces the "absolute and the relative" as one says: yes, a form appears from nothing that looks like Emily with unique attributes, and is both emptiness and form, she is basically a mirage in essence. Just an appearance that mind makes into something separate that isn't really there. Whereas in ACIM, while minds are interconnected and 'one,' Emily (not the body but the mind) actually was created by God and both 'exist.' Does this match?

Brilliant discourse you two nondual Course teachers!🙏 I enjoy the foundational similarity of Jesus's modern Course with ancient yet traditionally interpreted non-dualty. My mind with or without ego in fluence, uses symbolic language to differentiate these ideas. Perhaps a follow up question will reveal comparative worldviews of nondualistic and Course perception in awakening Knowledge of SourceSelf. And: Are Holy Spirit's thoughts symbolized in duality?

Non duality is just kicking the bucket further down the road.

You missed the pointing of all these teachings pointing to the same understanding beyond concepts and language. The point of these teachings is to disolve the conditioning put in place by life which causes the experience of psychological suffering by putting into question the prior unquestioned beliefs experienced as absolute. Once the past conditioning is seen to be at best a perspective, rather than the truth both the past conditioning as well as the new spiritual concepts (ACIM or nondual labelled) are free to fall away as their purpose has been fulfilled and no longer necessary, exposing the truth of who ONE is that has always been present but overlooked. They simply are pointing at the same center from different perspectives with the same intention. What is important is that they point to the same center and it is not important how one gets there. Just a perspective, not the truth

Around 32:30. Robert: the non-dual people are playing at one-upmanship, like we all do,saying our world view is the best. Stop. - the answer is less along the lines of “this teaching is right” and more along the lines of “I don’t know.” Utter bottoming out. The wisdom of insecurity, Alan Watts called it. Come from experience, rather than staying in the conceptual realm - this is the path of the mystic. (Christianity, Catholicism, ACIM, those were my mental/spiritual environments - my entire worlds - for about 20 years each, now non-duality. It fits my experience more closely. But it’s not about thinking, it can’t be held by thought! When the question is asked, to go into thinking is to stop listening. 💓

❤️

Explain what Jesus meant by the script is written, please.

Non-dualism: “Nothing has meaning. You have no worth.” ACIM: “Nothing you see has meaning. You (plural) are god’s most treasured creation.”

David bing man too teaches this on u/tube❤

Regarding the paradox of distinct individual entities being One. I understand that all these entities are God's creative thoughts, and therefore, Sons of God. I don't understand why there is distinction between all these created entities i.e. the Son of God, the Holy Spirit, the Angels...(not to mention the creations of the Son of God). Is the distinction based in function? That appears to be true for the Holy Spirit, created as God's answer to the separation, but Angels are much less clear to me.

Where in the course does it say that reality in heaven is made up of "persons" (unbounded or not)? I think this is a misunderstanding and perhaps even a last-ditch attempt by the ego to hang on to specialness. I usually love Robert Perry's take on things but this one is off. If you have been working the lessons and course and meditating with the Holy spirit, I'm not sure how you can come to such conclusions that there are separate distinctions of any kind in reality. The position of non-duailty is misconstrued. The most I can think of regarding this is that we are creations of God and also have our own creations, so in the extension or shining oneness of creation there is some distinction as to creator and created, however this does not indicate "personhood" as we experience on earth.