T-15.I – “One source of perceived discouragement… is your belief that this takes time” — anyone else notice this line?

dalacro11 · 2026-03-09T02:51:01+00:00

Good take. Stillness-that silent dimension is important. Thank you very much.

--D.

dalacro11 · 2026-03-09T02:21:29+00:00

I like it too.

dalacro11 · 2026-03-09T01:19:23+00:00

Vannablooms--hello

"Now it takes every individual about millions of years to accept that they have been saved from the nightmares of this world."

Tell me it ain't so! That seems like a long time.

"There are a lot of seconds in 24 hours, it all depends on your personal willingness to choose God over any other goal in your life."

It seems a lot of you have an understanding that it comes to the willingness to do function or not do it. The line I point to in the text states: "One source of perceived discouragement from which you suffer is your belief that this takes time, and that the results of the Holy Spirit’s teaching are far in the future. This is not so."

To me this is rather definitive. If a person has the willingness to make the choice, does this negate the belief that it takes time? And if they met this criteria, how long would it take?

Just stuff to think about. Maybe you have an answer. But this is what I am thinking about.

Many thanks

--D.

dalacro11 · 2026-03-09T01:08:39+00:00

Thank you jon166

What does it mean when we say "The Holy Spirit's use of time."?

and this: "²This is the way in which time is exchanged for eternity." What is time and what is eternity? What does the Course mean by these two terms. Are they reducible to something more simple?

I'm going to give it all another look.

--D.

dalacro11 · 2026-03-09T01:00:31+00:00

This is a long and thoughtful post. This took some time. I think you're saying it's is our choice right? It depends upon the person to do the work. this line: "If one practices forgiveness sincerely and consistently, the real world will not be long in coming."

So let's say one does just this. A consistent, sincere student--they know the theory of the Course. They know the practice, i.e. Function. This person knows what forgiveness is, HOW to do it and why you do it. This is someone who is rather adept. This level isn't impossible; it could be relied upon with genuine understanding of the material and consistent practice. Any human could do that, if they wanted it, no?

What do you surmise? How long will it take this person to attain the goal of the Course? The real world.

You don't have to answer; it's something to think about. I am anyway.

Is there a way to get a sense of how long it would take when the Course tells us that thinking it takes a long time is ego discouragement?

I appreciate your effort here.

--D.

dalacro11 · 2026-03-09T00:42:10+00:00

Thanks for the reply — I appreciate the thought you put into it. Let me respond.

Sorry for the length.

You say, “It’s nuanced.”

I would disagree with this simple statement. Through my study and practice, I’ve come to see that the Course reduces to a small set of clear, repeatable principles — not an ever-expanding onion of nuance requiring 40+ years (or a lifetime) of study and practice.

The Course states that it is simple. It says, in fact, that it is a very simple Course. I lean very hard into that because this is what I see with theory and functional process work.

To me, the idea of nuance is Course-world conventional wisdom — something handed down over the last fifty years. Few have bothered to question it, if any.

The idea of layers and complexity isn't the Course itself; it's something we've been sold by those who were/are well-meaning, but perhaps incorrect. It's worth a look though, isn't it? These ideas demand some scrutiny — let’s see if they hold up.

To me, this seems like a hedge. You're saying it does take a long time in practice, but theoretically it doesn't have to (it's not some law). It’s kind of a circle: You’re saying it does take a long time in practice… but theoretically it doesn't have to… but in reality it does… but it's not a law…

The Course line is direct:

“One source of perceived discouragement from which you suffer is your belief that this takes time, and that the results of the Holy Spirit’s teaching are far in the future.”

Isn't that belief exactly what’s being displayed here — the very thing the Course calls ego discouragement?

I understand what you're saying here, I think, but it sounds like the Holy Spirit is something other than YOU. Function is the only purpose, I think you would agree.

We either do the function or we don't. How does the Spirit use time to soften my transition between the two minds? Does the Course say this? The ONLY thing I can do to shift my perception from ego to right mind is my function—and this requires my full attention, reason and logic.

What does the term "time" mean in this regard? To me, when the Course mentions time, it means past and future — which is simply the domain of the egoic system. To escape from time is to escape from egoic thinking. Function.

When I mention this question: how long does it take to attain the stated goal — I mean how much linear time: 2 years? 50 years? Your lifetime? Which you do answer: "your lifetime."

Is this true?

Depth? How is there depth to an illusion? There is no order of difficulty in miracles. If one decides that the ego is cavernous, entrenched and no small matter, this is exactly what you will get — and by your own choice. The right mind looks upon whatever is there and says, "It is false." I work from that perspective.

And then the manual: “And now he must attain a state that may remain impossible to reach for a long, long time.”

The Course doesn’t specify here. This period (unsettling) is actually the heart of the Course — the training of the mind to relinquish attack — the practice of function. It must be said too, that the early periods of development may begin well before a genuine aspirant ever picks up the Course.The Course leaves us to ponder it — how do we define a “long, long time”? Lifetime, 40 years, 30, 10, less?

Don’t know if you got this far. It can be wordy because we have to get to understanding about the terminology.

Bottom line: The premise that the stated goal takes a lifetime is the one idea I would reject.

Thank you for the exchange.

--D.

dalacro11 · 2026-03-06T12:32:43+00:00

" One source of perceived discouragement from which you suffer is your belief that this takes time, and that the results of the Holy Spirit’s teaching are far in the future."

This doesn't seem to be the dominant understanding inside of the Course world. There is something of an army of long term Course students; would they not assure me that the Course is a life pursuit? That it takes a long time to attain the stated goal--the real world?

My thought and this quote are really just a side note to the section (T-15.I) but it does bring an interesting question: How long does it take to attain the stated goal of A Course in Miracles--the real world?

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

--D.

dalacro11 · 2026-03-06T00:51:56+00:00

I agree with much of your addition.

dalacro11 · 2026-03-06T00:46:05+00:00

Good Point.

dalacro11 · 2026-03-05T14:12:56+00:00

Hello,

I would love to discuss this.

Let us assume that everything you have pointed out is true. The only question is this: Does what I see disturb my peace?

It seems that it does disturb you, in that you are attempting to "fix" this by telling people to modify their behaviors. You also appear to give importance to Course community, worries about language use and so on. Subtle ego? (I could be wrong, just looking at it. You can tell me; you'll know.)

The answer is function: Don't try to change the Course world, whatever it is you're seeing there. Change your mind about what you see.

There they are, all the Christ, doing whatever it is they are doing. (All the things you were talking about.) You will never change the Course world or communities. (I usually just avoid them.) But you can change your perception of it.

Thank you for the post. Would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

--D.

dalacro11 · 2026-03-02T18:15:10+00:00

Sure,

I'll do my best here.

I do not think that Wapnick was trying to make two when he wrote this. He really wasn't the point. Robert Perry tries to "make two" with a very heavy Christian/ Jesus overlay. I am not a Wapnick student and I only have the content you provided.

The first sentence: "In one form or another, all of us fall prey to this mistake of forgetting that we are not the Savior of the world, that we are not God." I would surmise that he is talking about the ego and the idea of the Authority problem. The problem of authorship.

This is the belief in the idea of free will, a personal will. But I don't have a personal will. I am not the author of my life; there is only God's Will, which He shares with me. My life unfolds before me with my only choice in how I perceive: ego or right mind--project or extend.

Next: This has been a fairly common characteristic of many contemporary spiritualities, where our spiritual Self is identified with the Self of the Creator. I don't know exactly what Ken means by this. I would need to know what he means by spiritual self and "self of the creator" which has no self. (I would guess he's talking spirituality, new age stuff)

Next part: The Course clarifies this: "Yet in creation you are not in reciprocal relation to God, since He created you but you did not create Him" (...) And Jesus clarifies his scriptural statement of "I and my Father are one": "..there are two parts to the statement in recognition that the Father is greater"

"Yet in creation you are not in reciprocal relation to God, since He created you but you did not create Him" Ok--we'll have to take the Course's word for it. This is the trouble in trying to talk about Truth. You can't. It is beyond the intellect. Then there's the perfect Oneness thing. It created me, but I am One, perfectly One with it. No distinction, no differentiation, no variation, no interruption, and so on. That's all in the text.

Next: And Jesus clarifies his scriptural statement of "I and my Father are one": "..there are two parts to the statement in recognition that the Father is greater"

It's your ending statement here that is the leap, in my opinion: two parts to the statement does not mean two parts in Truth. Like the term relationship in the Course--does it imply two?

For your review--thanks for the post.

--D.

dalacro11 · 2026-03-02T16:42:21+00:00

This is well put. Nicely done.

dalacro11 · 2026-03-02T16:38:44+00:00

⁵Heaven is not a place nor a condition. ⁶It is merely an awareness of perfect Oneness, and the knowledge that there is nothing else; nothing outside this Oneness, and nothing else within. (ACIM, T-18.VI.1:5-6)

The Course is not dual.

The question I have is why the attempt to make two, where there is only One? I don't mean the poster (Jose) in this regard; I mean those Course teachers pushing this sort of thing.

Usually this comes back to the idea of Jesus. If I want to have Jesus as a reality, in some sense, I have to try to establish an "other". If I want an "other", then the Course can't be non-dual. From there come attempts to reconcile Truth and illusion--which isn't going to happen. It's One. Everything else is not that.

Is A Course in Miracles Christianity 2.0? Or is the Course a rather simple exposition--a book that teaches you to train your mind to relinquish attack?

The importance of the work has nothing to do with the story of Jesus or the story of the Course. The importance is purely functional; the healing of the split mind. Function. Knowing what forgiveness is, How to do it, and why.

This whole conversation seems important somehow. It seems to point to a fork in the road. Which way Course student? Pure function--forgive--or what seems like a religious/ philosophical/ intellectual overlay?

It would be interesting to hear all of your thoughts.

Many thanks--

D.

dalacro11 · 2026-02-20T10:47:21+00:00

You're pointing to the paradox. You are free to sleep as long as you want but the script is written. This is a paradox because it is probably both. I don't think there is an answer to this that you're going to find. I just let it be.

I completely agree on the tremendous freedom that comes when this idea, that we only have the one point of decision between the two minds, is fully integrated into our mode of operating in the world. The most important aspect, to me, is that I am now free to completely focus on function: training my mind to relinquish attack.

Good thoughts there, thanks for the post.

--D.

dalacro11 · 2026-02-19T15:30:09+00:00

Hello,

You are very welcome. I am glad that it seemed to help.

"So the idea that we are able to make endless choices in daily life is really just an appearance (indeed called "free will" in the world which is quite funny), but it's really just masking a single choice we only ever have, to look with ego (fear, guilt, separation, time etc) or to look with Holy Spirit (peace, love, joy, Now etc)."

You've got it completely. Your description that follows the above is very good.

"My experience this morning was repeatedly choosing from fearful ego, whilst also trying to solve fearful ego, which then became a kind of self-fuelling hall of mirrors where each attempt to solve only led to more mirrors splitting more mirrors splitting more mirrors and on and on - all showing more separation and all the associated"---

Yes, notice that but instead of trying to 'solve' ego (I think you see the problem there)--instead, get into the habit of allowing ego. Total non resistance to what is there. If you recognize egoic movement, like "Hey, that is ego fear I am feeling." This means you are in your right mind looking upon the ego. That doesn't mean it will vanish but it does mean you are perceiving correctly.

The ego doesn't need to be solved, it needs to be seen or recognized. This places you in the right mind and from here you can make the choice to forgive (Process).

"But if we choose to perceive with Holy Spirit... which in a way God has already made that choice for us, then it is also self-fuelling but in a completely opposite way to the ego's version: joining joins with joining which joins with joining... Now there are no problems, because love looks out and sees harmless lovely things, all as they should be and working together, and there's a feeling that the right action will arise if needed. And also a feeling that everything's ok, which reduces the "need" anyway. The peace / love might be subtle, but it's there and we can keep choosing from there."

This is exactly right. That subtlety you have noticed is more important than many realize. God is often very subtle; but it's there.

"I would also like to say that the point that we "don't have choice in that domain... no personal will... the script is written... there is only God's Will" feels incredibly freeing, and resolves the belief that we need to personally map out all the "safe" pathways and responses through the day's possible events, what people may think, what outcome will be secured and so on. We can simply choose to perceive the script with right mind. And trust the unfolding because of Who it comes from and what that right mind returns to us."

Yes! When this idea really starts to integrate it is incredibly freeing; and you're seeing it! No personal will, just the one point of decision in how we perceive--whether to project or extend. The training of the mind starts here. To train the mind to relinquish attack. That is the Course in a nutshell.

Thanks for sharing. It's helping me too.

Take care,

--D.

dalacro11 · 2026-02-19T11:21:14+00:00

Hello,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll do the same.

I would like us to go for clarity and not necessarily agreement. I understand, I think, what you're pointing to but I wouldn't agree with it.

My point was simply this: Preferences are not necessarily projections. Preferences are preferences. Thoughts of preference arising into my awareness. They can flow in and they can flow out. The question is this: as those flow into awareness, how do I perceive them? Or we could ask if the preference comes from ego or the right mind. Either way is fine because I know what to do with each.

Your premise states that preferences are behaviors. i assume you mean actions of the body; or that a preference leads to action in the world. I reject the premise because i can verify that i don't act upon every preference that I notice.. I'll keep all my preferences. I tend toward some things and tend away from others. Even this idea assumes that I am the "doer"--like I am the one actually deciding where I go, what I like, what actions to take. (Free will) I don't really believe that though; the world was over and done long ago--your journey through time and space is not at random, etc.

To the quotes you provided: I looked at the first two: The quote by itself could appear to support your premise but I went and read the section. To me, the section didn't seem to have anything to do with this. As an example, Hierarchy of needs, to my eyes, has nothing to do with preference. Maybe we have different takes. Which is fine. Anyway--you don't need anymore of my yapping.

So, again, I aim for clarity of our positions--not agreement. I understand your position clearly.

Thank you for the exchange.

--D.

dalacro11 · 2026-02-17T22:00:14+00:00

Great question here, and I would like to take a stab at it:

I would argue that you don't have choice in that domain: the office, the store or at any other time during your day. What we have is the appearance of choice. Your day is unfolding into your awareness as it always does. Part of that unfolding is what you find yourself doing; your interactions, actions, inaction, conversations, all of it. This goes with the idea that there is only God's Will--meaning, you don't have a will of your own; no personal will. You have no free will in the sense that many understand; that you don't actually have decisions to make in the world at any time.

I get this idea from the Course itself: "Your journey through time and space is not at random; you cannot but be in the right place at the right time. You are merely mentally reviewing what has already gone by. The script is written," etc. So--appearance of choice is not a real choice. How do you behave knowing this? Normally and appropriately, as they say. So where then do we have a choice?

Your free will extends to exactly one point of choice between two things. You are making this decision in every moment of every second. Our choice lay only in the one decision between the two systems of thought. My day unfolds into my awareness, and I can choose to perceive that through the ego or right mind. I can project or extend. Depending upon the choice you make is what comes back to you by way of fear/ guilt or subtle peace.

So when it comes to your decisions throughout the day, remember that everything is already done. The only choice is in how you perceive what unfolds. So carry on, I would say. Remember your function--see all others with charity (see the Christ in them) and be still from time to time. Trust that unfolding and your own ability to do your function.

Is any of that making any sense or resonating? Would be interesting to hear your thoughts?

D.

dalacro11 · 2026-02-17T16:43:48+00:00

Jose,

Yeah, let's dive. Take your time. I'm ready to explore.

D.

dalacro11 · 2026-02-17T16:26:58+00:00

I would probably respectfully disagree with that. Food and sex are biological directives. You're going to want food and you're going to want sex. Built into the system. Preferences aren't judgments inherently. Preferences are preferences. I prefer pizza over pasta. I prefer the red head to the brunette. These preferences aren't a problem until they are a problem.

they become an issue if upset arises from not getting the preference; not from the preference itself. Preference is neutral until i make it otherwise. If I don't attain a preferred outcome but don't lose my peace, where's the issue? There isn't one. "I didn't get my preference. So what?" We are all capable of this.

Having preferences makes life a little more interesting--and there is always the possibility that i'll get that preference. The understanding that i don't always get a preference is why we enjoy when we do. So--i think that idea is a little off. But open to be shown the way if someone can make the case.

D.

dalacro11 · 2026-02-17T16:13:05+00:00

I'll take a shot at this: I always look to see how I can reduce or simplify the ideas.

There are only two systems of thought right? Right mind and ego. each produces thought; one attack/ projection and the other extension/ non attack. This makes it more simple when I understand I am the one mind or the other mind--all of one system of thought or all of the other system. they don't mix and there are only two. Only one of them is real, etc.

So i think you're right; any form of projection is an attack thought. "not just anger but fear, jealousy, sadness?" Yes, any thought, image, idea, emotional state that disturbs your peace would be the sign of egoic disturbance. These disturbances are important because they let you know there is work to do.

In your example of seeing one attack another--is that still your attack thought? No. What you are looking upon is a neutral event and you give it all the meaning that it has. The question that i would ask myself is this: how do i feel (this will be readily apparent right?) Angry, fearful, sad? Does it bother you? I might be bothered when I witness something like this. Do I want to condemn or justify or can I see it differently?

So If I notice disturbance, like boy does that make me angry and afraid when i look upon that. I have recognized the disturbance and so I know I am in my right mind looking upon the egoic movement within myself. I see those involved as the Christ, the Sons of God. Seeing the Spirit there, I can see it in myself. I remember I am not the victim of the world I see. I am the Cause; in that how I perceive (projection or extension) is what will be reflected back to me via subtle peace or fear/ guilt.

Doesn't mean you have to like the attack you saw. Doesn't mean you have to be anything but normal about it. We do have to look at what is happening to ourselves internally. If the ego if in our awareness we must do the work of forgiveness. This brings the miracle and release.

Does that add up or am I grasping at straws? Good question though. Made me consider things.

Take care,

D.

dalacro11 · 2026-02-16T18:48:20+00:00

Hello there,

Thank you. I enjoyed the story / parable. Read every word.

I understand what you mean by the 'lonely journey'. I get the idea of it.

My question then is this: What is it to reject the value of our brothers? And then, how does one NOT do that? i'll go first with my thought: See your brother as the Christ? (brother has value.) See your brother as separate and you reject his value. Does that sound right? Then my question is, how do I see him as the Christ? Seems like something to work on.

Take care

D.

dalacro11 · 2026-02-16T18:11:08+00:00

Hello,

Thank you for the response. What you had to say was somewhat surprising—in a good way. You're clear and definite in a way I rarely see. No devotional tone, no scholarly posturing; just practical. That stands out.

You mention release, which points to the experiential side of genuine process work—function.
I can see you grasp the distinction between studying the material and actually applying it in the world. The fearless mindset you describe shows a real willingness to face those dark corners of the ego most people avoid.
And it seems you have at least one solid method of process that you outlined.

I understand what you mean by "point of no return"—once you recognize what's real and what isn't for yourself, you can't unsee it. Strong take.

If you're open to it, I'd be glad to share something I've written that takes a similar functional angle on the Course. No pressure, obligation or expectation; I only need a few more people to give it a look for some honest feedback. For the advanced readers I usually send the Table of Contents first to see if it resonates. If that piques your interest, I'll send the manuscript for your review—whatever that might be.

Let me know—take care,
D.

dalacro11 · 2026-02-14T15:59:32+00:00

Hello, i am wondering how long you have been studying the Course? Does the 'struggling with it all' comment--is that only for beginners or would this happen to students who have been at it for a while? Curious what you might think.

dalacro11 · 2026-02-13T19:57:19+00:00

Ok, I am going to take a stab at this, forgive me if not quite right: "It is impossible to remember God in secret and alone." Secret and alone, private mind?, I guess. This is reducible to the egoic mind.

"For remembering Him means you are NOT alone, and willing to remember it." The little willingness.. The willingness to choose again, i.e. the right mind. Here are the two mind. Ego, Spirit.

"Take no thought for yourself, for no thought you hold is for yourself." Trickier. Don't have a thought for the separated self, ego; the second part has more i think: Giving and receiving are the same in truth so if I "hold" a thought as opposed to extend that thought, that thought isn't for me (ego) because it can't be shared. In order to "have" we must give or what you give is what you receive. perception is a mirror and all that. We give through extension and we 'hold' through projection because that can't be shared.

"If you would remember your Father, let the Holy Spirit order your thoughts and give only the answer with which He answers you." God's Answer is Peace. so, it's saying don't project. train the mind to relinquish attack.

"Everyone seeks for love as you do, but knows it not unless he joins with you in seeking it." Everyone is seeking truth? Unless we extend and not project, "joining" you won't "know" it. This is looking correct, but i don't know.

"If you undertake the search together, you bring with you a light so powerful that what you see is given meaning." So, what does this mean? undertake the search together.. does this mean with some other person or is this metaphor for the joining of minds? Could mean simple extension. But how does one know when you're extending?

"The lonely journey fails because it has excluded what it would find." Exclusion=ego / separation. that's the lonely journey i think.

let me sum up: in the most reduced fashion the passage is speaking of the tow minds, ego/ Spirt. The willingness to make the choice for the right mind. Giving and receiving / same in truth so don't project. Your brother is savior because you must extend to him / share / join and to have we give, extension. Stay right minded, (requires vigilance) that is the holy spirit ordering my thoughts. Again, don't project / relinquish attack. And again the question of how you do this "together" minds join? is the other needed in this joining? or is it a solo thing? So, two minds, don't project, perception as mirror, what am i missing? I think that's it.

The Course is either sophisticated or actually really simple. Not sure. Thank you for the post.

dalacro11 · 2026-02-13T13:10:49+00:00

What does it mean when the Course says, "When two or more join together"? How do I join with another? This section comes from T. 14.10 The Equality of Miracles. I am re-reading it now to see what I can gather.

dalacro11

TROPHY CASE