I found the following question between Raj and a "teacher of ACIM" in the Inverness Gathering and thought it might be helpful in bringing clarity to any confusion surrounding ACIM's concepts about "World, Body, and teachers of ACIM'

also there was a question posed as to Raj's "Identity" which I found very meaningful So I thought I repost them both for any newcomers. 

Gathering Held at Inverness Scotland in 1996

 

QUESTION:  Hello.  I am having some difficulty between the term Raj and God.

RAJ:  What is the difficulty you’re having?

QUESTION:  The name Raj.  God to me is the infinite Being.  And when you said Raj spoke to you, or at least that’s what I understood you to say that He spoke to you as Raj, why didn’t He call Himself God and have been more specific?

RAJ:  I will put it this way:  historically speaking I am the one who was known as Jesus.  When Paul first opened up and asked for help, if I had said to him, “my name is Jesus and I have been awaiting the right time to speak to you,” he would have known he had gone crazy.  And because he was already engaging in something questionable in his own mind by asking for help and thinking there might be an answer, it would have meant that we would not have talked any more.  It would have been too much for him to take.  And so I give him the name Rajpur, which happens to mean “place of the Prince,” “place of the Son of the King,” in other words, which conveyed unbeknownst to him nevertheless that it was the Son of God speaking.  It wasn’t until almost a year later that I shared with him that I was the one known as Jesus, in other words, the Christ.

Now I am present with and available to every single one of you, everyone at every moment.  And so it is my intent in being with groups of people like this to make this fact known and by Paul’s presence and demeanor also convey the fact that my being available doesn’t require of anyone any special talent, because Paul is about as regular as anyone else on this planet and has no “special” talent in order to hear me.  Does that clarify that for you?

QUESTION:  Yes.

RAJ:  Okay.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

RAJ:  You are welcome. 

I would like to share for a moment that many of you—and this is not confined to this group, it is a global dilemma—many of you are too intelligent for your own good.  You have developed ways of interpreting the world that are highly complex.  And so in order to address you—either in this manner or directly—I am called upon to help you get past your education back to the simplicity of being, which is that God is Love, which is that you are literally the presence of God.  I am not saying that you are God.  I’m saying that God is All There Is of You, all there is to you and therefore when you arrive at a place where you’re willing to relinquish all of your highfalutin understanding and manage to be quiet within in an attentive listening mode then what God is being right where you are as Himself but it looks like you can have a chance to register with you so that you can begin to feel what you are, which is the presence of Love.  And in feeling that begin to be the embodiment of love with each other and with everything, you see. 

The idea that Love will change the world is as old as time because it’s the answer to time.  I mean by that that is what will undo time and uncover eternity now, here, as everyone’s conscious experience.  But when everyone is so sure about how everything works and all of its complexities and the genetics of things, and the cultural things and so on and that is the context in which one’s search for truth occurs then that is where I respond and slowly and gently encourage each of you to have a different vantage point, one which is free of your definitions, one which is free of your confidences. 

As much as you value your confidences they constitute a defense against enlightenment, they constitute a defense against learning of any kind, of revelation of any kind.  “I am quite sure that this is a glass, and that it has water in it, and that water is made up of H2O, hydrogen and oxygen, blah, blah, blah.”  Well that’s an interesting description but what is its meaning?  I’m not going to answer the question.  But be curious about the things that you’re so sure you know what they are.  Wonder what, what is…  is there a divine meaning here?  And don’t be so quick to say, “well, it’s an illusion and therefore it has no meaning,” anymore than you would say that this flower is an illusion and has no meaning.  I will tell you it does not have the meaning that you are so sure it has.  If there’s anything there at all it’s the presence of Love, and that means that you’re being loved by it because love radiates and embraces and it includes. 

And so it has meaning not just as something to observe and discern a beauty in it that it may be inspiring to you, it also means in a far more intimate way that at times when you feel unloved because of certain situations even the flowers are being Love that embraces you and you are able to feel it.  And in moments of illumination many of you have felt that the substance of everything around you was Living Love that was loving you and you felt it, and you felt the Oneness without division, even though there was variety of shape and color and design and so on. 

There is so much more here than anyone is experiencing, just in terms of what I’m going to call your world.  There’s also so much more just in terms of each other.  And there was a point at which I said to my disciples, “If you have seen me you have seen the Father.”  Well if that doesn’t imply that there’s a lot more to each of us than you think there is, I don’t know what can convey that to you.  If you have seen me you have seen the Father.  If you have seen each other you have seen the Father.  But we’re so sure that so-and-so is a hateful bitch, or so-and-so is a hard-nosed business man who will walk over anybody, and we have these definitions that we hold our fellow man to.   But if you have seen them you have seen the Father. 

That’s why it’s so valuable to not be so sure about everything.  That’s why it’s valuable to have the shock of the realization that nothing you see means anything.  Because in the willingness to see it as meaningless you’re not so sure, you’re not so confident, your concepts are not held too tightly and the opportunity to see more of the Father that is there in your brother and your sister and your mother and your daughter and your brother and so on, the more chance there is for the Father to be seen in them—the more chance there is to see the Father that is there where they are. 

And as each one begins to stop defending himself or herself against seeing the Father there, by maintaining this strong opinion about who they are, the more rapidly the world is going to change—I’m going to put it this way, cause the world isn’t going to change—the more rapidly you will begin to see the world clearly as it Is, which is the infinite variety of form of substance that is Love expressed in infinite variety loving you, including you in the potential of an experience of Oneness that will cause you to no longer fear conflict and feel a need to defend yourself against potential conflict.

I said that I am available to everyone.  And my relationship with everyone is a simple relationship because the truth that wakes everyone up is a simple truth that God is Love, and therefore Love is what you Are, and therefore Love is what your fellow man is.  And therefore, there is ample justification in just knowing that, for being curious to see more of the Father that is there, than who you were so sure your fellow man was.  You see?

So although we can speak in complex terms don’t misunderstand the elements of coming back into your divine Sanity is fundamentally simple.  A child can understand it.  And to tell you the truth those who are less highly educated have less junk standing between themselves and their clarity.

 

************

QUESTION:  I’m a student of “A Course In Miracles,” which also comes from Jesus.  And I just like to read a couple of lines from the Workbook, the comment here… Jesus says there that “the world was made as an attack on God.  It symbolizes fear and what is fear but loves absence.  Thus the world is meant to be a place where God could enter not and where His Son could be apart from him.”  Now as I listen to you and I value a lot of the words you’ve said, I also hear as you speak and as I read your newsletters that God  actually did create this world, this physical universe.  And earlier you talked about the world as an expression of love.  Therefore, I’m in the quandary that we seem to have two Jesus’ contradicting each other here.  And I’d like you if you would comment on this for me.

RAJ:   I would be more than happy to.  There’s really only one thing that God has created by virtue of being God and that is His infinite self-expression, if I can put it that way, called the Kingdom of Heaven.  The world that man made or that the ego made was an interpretation of the Kingdom of Heaven, a definition or a meaning applied to it that is not what the Father has Created. 

I’ve said before, that there is only one thing that can be confronting you because there’s only one thing going on and that is the Kingdom of Heaven, which must either be being seen clearly or through a glass darkly.  If it is being seen through a glass darkly and the dark image is being believed rather than the reality of it, and that image is being used as a means for maintaining a separate identity from the Father, then that image is as the Course says, an attack on God.  It is a denial of the Kingdom of Heaven.  But there is never a separate reality or a separate unreality that has ever been created called the world.  There is the Kingdom of Heaven being misinterpreted and called the world.  Because there’s nothing else to interpret, there is no other existent than God and what God is, which is called the Kingdom of Heaven.  You see what I mean?

QUESTION:   It’s not quite clear.  The Course refers to this world as a dream, as an illusion, a place that’s created in time and space so we could sort of play out the perverse game of separation, that God is not even aware of it.  And yet from your own words I feel that you’re saying that this world is Real and that God did create it.

RAJ:  I am saying look for the Kingdom of Heaven in the middle of the only experience you’re having.  Just as you are to look into the eye’s of your fellow man and remember God.  It doesn’t say to look to God to remember God.  I am saying look at the only thing you are experiencing, look there with curiosity to see the presence of God or to see the presence of the Kingdom of Heaven.  If there is illusion here, which of course sin, sickness and death are, those are going to disappear.  But what is Real here—and for sake of argument I will say, if indeed there is anything Real—what is Real here will, shall I say, come forth and what isn’t will disappear.  But the point is you have to start with the only experience you’re having, whether it’s a distorted ego experience or not, with the curiosity to see the presence of an omnipresent God right there, because that is the only thing that can be going on.  That’s the practicality of it.

To deny the world outright is foolish and I’m going to say unhealthy.  To deny that the body exists is foolish and unhealthy because in that attitude simple common sense and love will not be expressed.  And the regeneration that it’s each one’s birthright to be experiencing will not occur because the very denial of the world and the body is an attack on it.

The way through whatever illusion there is is to look for the presence of God right there.  To be curious beyond whatever the current definitions are that cause the Kingdom of Heaven to be defined as “the world.”  You see, I am not saying God created the world as you are perceiving it.  I’m saying that God being All constitutes the Kingdom of Heaven, which is the only event there is, the only thing there is to be experienced.  And if you’re not experiencing it when you’re right in the middle of it, and if you aren’t experiencing your Christhood right in the middle of your being the Christ, then you must look right where Reality must be going on with the curiosity to see It in order for what is illusion to fade, to dissolve and for the perceiver of it to yield or give way to the Christ that each one actually is.

QUESTION:  Can I reply to that?

RAJ:  Of Course.

QUESTION:  I’d agree with you that one shouldn’t use the metaphysical principles of the Course as the part to practice.  And Jesus actually comments that denial of the body is a particularly unworthy form of denial.  Perhaps to get clarity, would you say that when everyone at last has seen the Kingdom of Heaven in everyone else  that the physical universe, the planets and suns will no longer be apparent, just the unity of God and Christ?

RAJ:  Well, what does that mean to you?

QUESTION:  If I study the Course it means when the last person wakes up…

RAJ:  No, no, no, no!  I asked what that means to you, not what does the Course say about it.  What does that mean in your heart?  What does that mean that is attractive to you?  Do you understand what I mean?

QUESTION:  Um hum.  It means that I will experience a complete oneness, not with objects or things in time and space but a complete love for the God’s Creation, which is formless.  And at that point there could not be time and space and planets.

RAJ:  I would encourage you to engage curiosity coupled with enough humility to say, “I know what I’ve read in the Course, but I don’t know what unity would really mean.  And in the place of not-knowing what this would really mean I pray for or desire to have it revealed to me.”  Right up to the last, shall I say the last vestige of ego distortion that will disappear there must be the willingness to say, “nothing that I see, or nothing that I think I understand means anything.”  When you say nothing that I understand means anything, you’re talking about your mind.  But to say that nothing that you understand means anything doesn’t get rid of your mind and it is in your mind that ultimate clarity is going to dawn.  And so just as you would not abandon your mind, I am saying do not abandon your fellow man, do not abandon these flowers, do not abandon your world, but constantly look at it with the desire to see what is Real there, and I will say for sake of argument, if indeed there is anything Real there.

Why do you want the world to disappear, ultimately?

QUESTION:  It’s at this very moment… it’s the last thing I want to happen.  I’m very attached to this body.  While I’m doing this for the Course in Miracles, the first step is to intellectually understand these principles.  And my questions to you are only at that level.  I obviously see a discrepancy between the statements.  So I’m not wanting the world to disappear as what the Course says will eventually happen, in a long period down into the future.  My daily task is to undo denial, and forgiveness, that’s my part.

RAJ:  I have shared before that the only way the world will disappear is the way your underpants disappear after you have gotten dressed and gone to work.  They’re still there, but you’re not conscious of them anymore.  What I mean by this is that at the moment when the manifestation of God gets more of your attention than God does it’s like being preoccupied with your underwear when it should be out of sight and out of mind.  There will be a shift of where the attention, where the obsession you might say is given, where the commitment is given.

The infinite manifestation of God is not going to disappear, but no one is going to be identifying with the manifestation, you see.  In affect, it will be there but it will not hold the importance that is being given to it right now.  All I can tell you in practical terms is:  Continue to look at everything you see and say, “nothing that I see means anything.”  In affect, this helps move you to an awareness that nothing that you see means what you think it does.  If nothing that you see means anything then what does mean something?  It moves you to a curiosity that goes beyond what definitions you’ve given to everything.  It opens you up to revelation.  And let that curiosity be practiced with the only materials you have available to you to practice it on.

In the end you and I will stand together and look at what is Real and not see what wasn’t real but was thought to be real.  That’s the end of the answer.

QUESTION:  I really need to ask a question regarding the Course.  Helen Schucman has been chosen or was chosen as the scribe for the Course In Miracles.  And Jesus claims to be the author.  The main collaborator with Helen was Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, and he does seem to be teaching a fundamental difference between different interpretations of the Course, which says the whole phenomenal universe was made as an attack on God.  That’s a very clear teaching.  And we have two messages here.  We’ve got a message where Wapnick is saying very clearly that the metaphysics of the Course is essential to understand and that the world was actually made as an attack on God.  And we’ve got other teachings that seem to be implying something different. 

For the sake of clarity, and if you are the author of the Course we really need that clarity.  And it seems you are the only person that can answer that question.

Are they mistaken in their interpretation?  Was that interpretation given because Helen Schucman was a psychologist and was given in a psychological framework, or does it actually mean that the whole phenomenal universe was made as an attack on God?  In no circumstance have I heard Ken say we should deny the body or deny the world…

RAJ:  I’m sorry could you back up just a little bit and speak just a little bit slower.

QUESTION:  I thought maybe you, as you are Jesus, would really understand the question.  Anyway, the point I’m trying to make, when I was in India with Si Baba it seems as though he understands everybody's thoughts and everything that’s going to be said before it’s said.  He’s also an avatar and he seems to be teaching something different from the interpretation that Ken’s actually govern.  And I think it would be very helpful as Ken is certainly a chosen teacher of the Course he’s teaching a clear contradiction from what’s being said here. 

And for the sake of clarity and so many people who are studying the Course—and after all it’s a huge book—and to try and understand the metaphysics of any course I really would like to understand this.  And I’m still not getting the clarity on this question.  Was the phenomenal world made as an attack on God or not?  And it seems to be a fundamental question within the people who follow the Kenneth Wapnick approach, and it seems to be definite for the people who follow your approach.  And I’m really only asking for that clarity, if you can help there.

RAJ:  Well, I’m going to answer it this way:  The Course does not speak of teachers of the Course, the Course speaks of teachers of God.  The only teacher of the Course there is is the Holy Spirit, and that teaching of the Course goes on in the intimacy of your mind and the communication of the Holy Spirit.

Now, who is your teacher going to be?  I did not come here to be your teacher of A Course In Miracles.  The Holy Spirit will not only reveal to you the truth, but will also embrace you in a love of communion and unity that provides you with an experience of unity that whisks away the clouds, I will put it that way.

The issue of teachers and what they’re teaching is a straw dog, it can become a mighty distraction from your getting into that place within yourself, the secret place of the most high, the closet that you go into in the silence, where you abandon yourself to the Holy Spirit, “Thy will not mine be done,” and desire to know and listen for that teacher to reveal it to you. 

I will simply say without commenting on any other teachers or speakers validity or not, that there’s only one thing confronting you, as I said earlier, because there’s only one thing going on, it’s the omnipresence of God.  The omnipresence of God can be called the Kingdom of Heaven.  That is what you are experiencing because it’s the only thing available to experience.  If you are by virtue of unclear thinking defining what you are experiencing as “the world” then you are practicing ignorance.  And if you make commitment to your ignorance then your definition of everything does constitute an attack on what it Really is because you are denying what it is in favor of what you are choosing for it to be.

QUESTION:  I don’t actually deny the world.  I’m really interested in the metaphysics behind the Course.  I think the message of the love in the Course is the most important aspect of the teaching.  But you still have a very clear division and it makes no sense to me that if Helen was chosen as a scribe and Kenneth Wapnick was the main teacher that there’s such fundamental difference between what Ken is teaching and what we have here.  Now again for me, it really doesn’t make any difference.  The message is important and how we deal with day-to-day living.  But for people that are teaching The Course In Miracles there does seem to be a fundamental difference here.  And we’re having other problems over coffee right now in what’s going on.  And it still would be helpful if we had some clarity around that area.  And I don’t see that forthcoming.

RAJ:  I have spoken very clearly today.  If there is wheat and if there is chaff in the wheat let them grow side-by-side.  What is chaff and what is wheat will become obvious.  But I am not going to engage in trying to separate it while it’s growing.  And I encourage everyone not to get caught up in trying to make that kind of separation, but rather go within to the only teacher of the Course that there is.  And then trust.  Because it’s in trusting beyond your current sense of yourself that breaks the boundary of separation that makes everyone feel so limited and alone.  And it is the key step that is essential in the process of actually Awakening regardless of what different teachers are teaching, regardless of what is growing in the wheat field.

QUESTION:  Obviously, I mean I agree with that statement.  But the final question and maybe it’s slightly out of context, when I was at the Findhorn Foundation I had quite a profound metaphysical or  mystical experience, I would call it.  If you are the Christ can you say something about that experience and why it took place?

RAJ:  I will refrain from doing that.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

RAJ:  You’re welcome.

******************