Holy Spirit and Kundalini: Are they the same thing?

Brian Young76 said:Peace be with you.🙂

And peace be with you too, dear—sending seven blessings your way!

hiddenpuma75 said:Since you have those Christian roots but also love diving deep into all sorts of different spiritual paths, I’d actually recommend something that hits right in that sweet spot for you.

Honestly, I really think this book is exactly what you need right now. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...api_tkin_p1_i1

As a Catholic scholar, I found myself caught completely off guard when I experienced a spontaneous Kundalini awakening. Honestly, I had no idea what was happening to me at first, but once the dust settled, I dove headfirst into a deep investigation of the experience. I eventually decided to pull everything I learned together and share that journey with all of you in my book.

2)

This is such an informative, insightful spiritual forum covering just about everything under the sun.

You’ll find plenty of discussions on this page centered around Kundalini, all viewed through a Christian lens. 😉

http://shalomplace.org/eve/forums/a/frm/f/25010765

3) Ahead of those fifteen pages of intense debate under that title you came up with...
The relationship between Kundalini and the Holy Spirit is such a fascinating, deeply layered topic. When you start looking at how these two forces interact within the human experience, it really opens up a whole new dimension of spiritual understanding. It’s not just about one or the other; it’s about how they weave together to create a complete picture of awakening. http://shalomplace.org/eve/forums/a/...765/m/68310806

I actually came across this author because I personally knew him; he used to attend retreats led by Bernadetta Roberts, who is quite literally the only female genius I’ve encountered on my spiritual journey. He wrote about her quite extensively—offering plenty of praise, though he wasn't afraid to voice his criticisms, too.
I find myself being called out on the forum quite often for my lack of knowledge, too.

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about our recent discussions regarding the nature of reality versus what we perceive through our senses. It feels like we often get caught up in the "noise" of daily life, forgetting that the physical world is essentially just a projection. I was reading some thoughts on how we can bridge that gap—how to move from being reactive participants in this material drama to becoming more conscious observers. It’s not always easy; I certainly find myself tripping over my own ego more often than I’d like to admit! But there is something profoundly liberating about the idea that our internal state dictates our external experience. A few people have mentioned different approaches to this, and while I don't necessarily agree with every perspective, I think the common thread is the need for deep, intentional inner work. Whether you lean toward certain meditative practices or follow a path like *A Course in Miracles*, the goal remains the same: finding that center where the noise fades away. What do you all think? Are we actually capable of shifting our perception so radically, or are we just kidding ourselves? I'm curious to hear your honest take on whether this kind of mental restructuring is truly attainable for the average person.

I managed to buy via Kindle and I've already spent the last two hours flying through a good chunk of it—this is honestly EXACTLY what I needed right now. Thank you so much! 🙂 🙂 🙂

Even if I don't get any other advice from this thread, just finding this one thing made opening this topic totally worth it! 🙂

Brian Young76 said:I managed to buy via Kindle and I've already spent the last two hours flying through a good chunk of it—this is honestly EXACTLY what I needed right now. Thank you so much! 🙂 🙂 🙂

Even if I don't get any other advice from this thread, just finding this one thing made opening this topic totally worth it! 🙂

1)
Go ahead and ask hiddenpuma75 🙂 and he’ll point you in the right direction. 😬
But remember, you're the one who actually has to walk the path!

2) Just listen to what both the omnipresent Kenji—aka bluemason3
—has to say. He actually knows quite a bit (though, let's be honest, he knows a little less than hiddenpuma75 🤣).

3) If bluemason3 has a flaw, it’s that he’s become hyper-critical, overly skeptical, and a total reductionist-verificationist at heart. 😲
Take a look here:

4) Beyond that, we’ve practically proven through pure philosophy that Blake has turned into a bit of an eccentric—basically a man without dimensions. 😲

Check this out:

Brian Young76 said:I managed to buy via Kindle and I've already spent the last two hours flying through a good chunk of it—this is honestly EXACTLY what I needed right now. Thank you so much! 🙂 🙂 🙂

Even if I don't get any other advice from this thread, just finding this one thing made opening this topic totally worth it! 🙂

Just a few thoughts and some internal processing on my end...
Since I don't know anything about your personal life, this is really just my initial impression.

You are incredibly thorough, sincere, subtle, detailed, valuable, open, emotional, and all of those things are quite fascinating...

If I could offer one small word of caution, it would be this: try not to tether yourself too tightly to any specific experience.
That little warning comes from my background in Buddhist and Advaita training.
The core tenet of both systems is that we shouldn't cling too heavily to our emotions, ideas, or thoughts, as they are all transient, unstable, and ever-changing...

That said, you seem to be "predominantly" an emotional person/artist, and you lean toward Christianity, which is largely a Bhakti path.

Raman Maharshi wisely noted that eventually, both the Bhakti path (the path of the heart and "emotion") and the Jnana path (the path of the mind) converge at the peak of realization...

So, the goal is to find a way to BALANCE Bhakti (the heart) and Jnana (the mind) within yourself.

Ultimately, just be who you are and follow wherever your inner guide leads you.

I'm basically just rambling online and thinking out loud here. 😬

I am truly happy to see your progress and glad you found a theoretical framework that explains your practice and experiences.

My teacher always says that realization can be reached through both theory (Jnana) and action (Karma)...

Philosophy became trendy, so now you feel the need to act all hysterical here? 😁

bluemason3 said:Philosophy became trendy, so now you feel the need to act all hysterical here? 😁

It’s pretty clear that I have a knack for helping people out; I tend to hit the nail right on the head every single time. Plus, I’ve gotten quite good at navigating those tricky, heavy questions without breaking a sweat. 😁

And people are actually being grateful to me for it.
This really gets to the heart of what this forum is all about—and more importantly, the very essence of how we all connect here. 🙂

But honestly, it’s just like you—always ready with another one of those dismissive little remarks about everything and everyone. It really doesn't amount to much.

It’s honestly a little sad, bluemason3—it feels like you've let this wave of negativity take over, and you've turned into a total Grinch. 😢

Aside from that, does it really matter whether there's a moderator somewhere or not?

bluemason3 used to be a moderator too, but he decided to step down. 👋 ...
hiddenpuma75 stayed. 😉
And once again, it will remain standing, outlasting any moderator you throw at it.

Moderators come and go, but the true writers, those gem-like posts, and this community? They’re what actually last. 😉

Moderators come and go, and honestly, they're just as incidental as bad writing or petty criticism.

Internet forums and their legendary gems truly live forever. 🙂

bluemason3 said:Philosophy became trendy, so now you feel the need to act all hysterical here? 😁

Honestly, it’s almost impossible to top someone who is that much of a hothead—not to mention the jealousy. No comment there!

hiddenpuma75 said:It’s pretty clear that I have a knack for helping people out; I tend to hit the nail right on the head every single time. Plus, I’ve gotten quite good at navigating those tricky, heavy questions without breaking a sweat. 😁

And people are actually being grateful to me for it.
This really gets to the heart of what this forum is all about—and more importantly, the very essence of how we all connect here. 🙂

But honestly, it’s just like you—always ready with another one of those dismissive little remarks about everything and everyone. It really doesn't amount to much.

It’s honestly a little sad, bluemason3—it feels like you've let this wave of negativity take over, and you've turned into a total Grinch. 😢

Aside from that, does it really matter whether there's a moderator somewhere or not?

bluemason3 used to be a moderator too, but he decided to step down. 👋 ...
hiddenpuma75 stayed. 😉
And once again, it will remain standing, outlasting any moderator you throw at it.

Moderators come and go, but the true writers, those gem-like posts, and this community? They’re what actually last. 😉

Moderators come and go, and honestly, they're just as incidental as bad writing or petty criticism.

Internet forums and their legendary gems truly live forever. 🙂

This forum won't last much longer.
And as for the mods—getting a diagnosis is a mandatory requirement.

hiddenpuma75 said:Just a few thoughts and some internal processing on my end...
Since I don't know anything about your personal life, this is really just my initial impression.

You are incredibly thorough, sincere, subtle, detailed, valuable, open, emotional, and all of those things are quite fascinating...

If I could offer one small word of caution, it would be this: try not to tether yourself too tightly to any specific experience.
That little warning comes from my background in Buddhist and Advaita training.
The core tenet of both systems is that we shouldn't cling too heavily to our emotions, ideas, or thoughts, as they are all transient, unstable, and ever-changing...

That said, you seem to be "predominantly" an emotional person/artist, and you lean toward Christianity, which is largely a Bhakti path.

Raman Maharshi wisely noted that eventually, both the Bhakti path (the path of the heart and "emotion") and the Jnana path (the path of the mind) converge at the peak of realization...

So, the goal is to find a way to BALANCE Bhakti (the heart) and Jnana (the mind) within yourself.

Ultimately, just be who you are and follow wherever your inner guide leads you.

I'm basically just rambling online and thinking out loud here. 😬

I am truly happy to see your progress and glad you found a theoretical framework that explains your practice and experiences.

My teacher always says that realization can be reached through both theory (Jnana) and action (Karma)...

I just wanted to say thank you so much for those kind words and all the thoughtful advice you shared. I really appreciate it. 🙂

I just wanted to circle back and offer some compliments, and I really want to express my gratitude once more for the advice that truly helped me navigate things. Please, feel free to quote bluemason3 or anyone else regarding this—I don't mind one bit. 😁 )

Regarding the idea that we need to strike a balance between the intellect and our emotions—something I absolutely agree with, by the way—I’ve always felt that my musical idols are those who possess both flawless technique and profound knowledge, yet manage to channel incredibly deep emotions through their work. Pure technique on its own can feel quite tedious, almost like a mechanical grind, whereas relying solely on raw emotion often lacks any real substance or direction. On a personal note, back when I was in college, I actually managed to ace my nuclear physics course (getting a straight A!), which sparked a lasting fascination with theoretical physics. Even though I don't pursue it professionally, nor do I play music for a living, I still find myself drawn to it. I suppose I don't have enough free time to dive deep enough into the math to truly master all the equations or perform complex calculations, but... if I may quote my previous post to bluemason3 regarding the topic of Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality:

So, if I’m following the latest breakthroughs in physics correctly—and I could be wrong, of course—it seems we’re looking at a reality where everything we can actually see or detect, all that matter and energy that our instruments can pick up, makes up only about 5% of the entire universe. It’s honestly quite staggering to think about. Even within that tiny 5% sliver, we don't even have a single, unified theory that explains how it all works together; we really just have these various partial theories floating around, trying to make sense of the pieces. It feels like we're staring at a massive puzzle while only holding a handful of fragments.

Beyond that, there’s about 27% of the universe consisting of what scientists have dubbed dark matter—this mysterious substance that nobody truly understands, though we're certain it must possess some form of mass to account for its effects.

Based on data gathered by the Hubble telescope back in 1998, it seems that roughly 68% of everything out there is what scientists have labeled dark energy. To be perfectly honest, I guess we don't actually have the slightest clue what it really is; the only thing we can say for certain is that it appears to be driving the accelerated expansion of the universe.

I’ve been sitting here wondering lately—and please, bear with me if this sounds a bit out there—but is it possible that dark matter is actually alive? I mean, could dark energy perhaps be some kind of spiritual essence or a presence, like a spirit? It makes me wonder if there might be some sort of deeper, more organized influence behind it all... maybe even something involving the Freemasons? I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around whether what we can't see is truly empty, or if it's something much more profound.

Are you actually suggesting that there is some kind of exact, empirical proof available? I mean, I guess it’s a bit of a heavy thing to ask for, isn't it? Maybe we should consider whether such a thing even exists in this realm.

That was my response to the part of the post where bluemason3 says:

I suppose once you truly grasp the underlying mechanics of how suggestion works, how those trance-like states are triggered, and how memory itself functions, it becomes quite apparent that all of these experiences can be manufactured on demand. It’s almost frighteningly easy to induce them if one knows the right levers to pull. You see people going through these intense regressions, experiencing vivid sensations of energy, or—in cases where someone is particularly suggestible—even undergoing full-blown hallucinations with their eyes wide open. It really makes you wonder about the authenticity of those moments.

I’ve always felt that, perhaps a bit controversially, nothing carries any real weight unless it can be backed up by exact, empirical proof—and if that’s the case, I suppose personal experiences are the least significant of all.

I suppose if we look at it from a purely scientific perspective, physics—as the foundational science it claims to be—essentially admits that it’s completely in the dark regarding about 95% of the matter and energy that actually constitutes our universe. Even that tiny 5% slice that we think we understand? Well, I guess you could argue that our current knowledge isn't even remotely complete or comprehensive. So, when you consider all of that, it seems to me that trying to demand exact, empirical proof for spiritual phenomena might be... well, let's just say it feels a bit naive, doesn't it? 🙂

Another thing I’ve been wanting to share... one particular fact that honestly terrified me was when Kasparov, back when he was the world chess champion, lost to a computer. That was in 1997; it was roughly even, a very close call, but he ultimately lost. Since then, computers—specifically chess engines—have advanced so much that today, a world champion playing ten matches against a machine would likely lose all ten, and top-tier grandmasters now study not just tactics from computers, but deep strategy as well. A machine is capable of devising strategies that humans (including every single chess world champion and genius, from Bobby Fischer onwards) have never even conceived of. Anyone who follows the development of artificial intelligence (which I try to keep up with, though perhaps less intensely than theoretical physics) can fully grasp the gravity of Stephen Hawking's warning: that the greatest danger to humanity as a civilization comes precisely from artificial intelligence (if we set aside the possibility of an invasion by advanced aliens). In this context, I suppose humanity will either realize that in any material game where only reason and raw facts matter, we have absolutely zero chance against a computer (in any field whatsoever), and finally understand that spirituality and the spiritual path are the only things ensuring a future for mankind; or, we will all collectively perish and be replaced by AI machines. A machine never gets sick, never makes mistakes, has no emotions, never feels tired, and never sleeps... and the experience of chess shows us that even in areas requiring creative thinking, such as strategy, the machine outperforms the human. So, in any game of pure intellect or mind, man against machine results in a loss. This is true everywhere except in spirituality, which isn't reducible solely to the intellect (or to things that can be measured and 'scientifically' proven), and especially not in games played with winners and losers.

This is just my personal take on why spirituality is so vital in the world we currently inhabit.🙂

hiddenpuma75 said:Since you have those Christian roots but also love diving deep into all sorts of different spiritual paths, I’d actually recommend something that hits right in that sweet spot for you.

Honestly, I really think this book is exactly what you need right now. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...api_tkin_p1_i1

As a Catholic scholar, I found myself caught completely off guard when I experienced a spontaneous Kundalini awakening. Honestly, I had no idea what was happening to me at first, but once the dust settled, I dove headfirst into a deep investigation of the experience. I eventually decided to pull everything I learned together and share that journey with all of you in my book.

2)

This is such an informative, insightful spiritual forum covering just about everything under the sun.

You’ll find plenty of discussions on this page centered around Kundalini, all viewed through a Christian lens. 😉

http://shalomplace.org/eve/forums/a/frm/f/25010765

3) Ahead of those fifteen pages of intense debate under that title you came up with...
The relationship between Kundalini and the Holy Spirit is such a fascinating, deeply layered topic. When you start looking at how these two forces interact within the human experience, it really opens up a whole new dimension of spiritual understanding. It’s not just about one or the other; it’s about how they weave together to create a complete picture of awakening. http://shalomplace.org/eve/forums/a/...765/m/68310806

I actually came across this author because I personally knew him; he used to attend retreats led by Bernadetta Roberts, who is quite literally the only female genius I’ve encountered on my spiritual journey. He wrote about her quite extensively—offering plenty of praise, though he wasn't afraid to voice his criticisms, too.
I find myself being called out on the forum quite often for my lack of knowledge, too.

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about our recent discussions regarding the nature of reality versus what we perceive through our senses. It feels like we often get caught up in the "noise" of daily life, forgetting that the physical world is essentially just a projection. I was reading some thoughts on how we can bridge that gap—how to move from being reactive participants in this material drama to becoming more conscious observers. It’s not always easy; I certainly find myself tripping over my own ego more often than I’d like to admit! But there is something profoundly liberating about the idea that our internal state dictates our external experience. A few people have mentioned different approaches to this, and while I don't necessarily agree with every perspective, I think the common thread is the need for deep, intentional inner work. Whether you lean toward certain meditative practices or follow a path like *A Course in Miracles*, the goal remains the same: finding that center where the noise fades away. What do you all think? Are we actually capable of shifting our perception so radically, or are we just kidding ourselves? I'm curious to hear your honest take on whether this kind of mental restructuring is truly attainable for the average person.

I suppose I should take a moment to express my sincere gratitude for this as well. 🙂

I recently picked up and started reading some of Bernadette Roberts' work in *The Real Christ*, and I have to say, what she’s laying out feels almost identical to how Jesus and Christ are portrayed in *A Course in Miracles*. It seems to me that Jesus was essentially an "ordinary" human being who achieved a total, profound realization of God, and through that process, he transitioned into Christ. In this sense, Christ isn't just a separate entity, but rather the specific state of consciousness and awareness that blossomed within him—a state that, I suspect, can (and perhaps even must!) be developed within every single one of us. It really points to the idea that we are all, in essence, the Son of God, existing together as one.

Everything she writes—and she’s certainly quite critical regarding the Catholic Church—really hits on the exact same points that bother me about the Catholic Church and its core theological tenets, which, I suppose, have ultimately rejected ACIM as being non-Christian literature.

But... I still find myself stuck on this one nagging question that's been hovering over me since the very moment I first picked up ACIM. It’s a question I haven't been able to truly resolve or find a satisfying answer to... so, who exactly was the author of this book?

Based on everything I can gather, ACIM was transcribed by Dr. Helen Schucman, an American psychologist who maintained that an inner voice dictated the entire book to her over the course of about seven years. It’s actually quite a fascinating anomaly when you compare it to almost any other "New Age" literature—which, for what it's worth, is how the Catholic Church tends to categorize ACIM. What makes it truly peculiar is that the author (or perhaps more accurately, the scribe?) didn't want her name publicly linked to the work as long as she was alive; it wasn't until after her passing that it was officially revealed that she was the one behind the transcription. From that perspective, it seems incredibly clear that her intentions weren't driven by a desire for financial gain or even a pursuit of fame. So, if that was the case, I suppose we have to wonder: what exactly was her goal?

*A Course in Miracles* is written in such a way that it addresses the reader directly in the first person, and it’s incredibly clear that the voice speaking to you is presenting itself as the risen Jesus. To my mind, *ACIM* is nothing short of a masterpiece from an artistic standpoint; it’s composed in iambic pentameter, featuring sentences so dense and words so heavy they feel like stone, which gives the entire text this almost hypnotic power. As I mentioned before, while I was working through one specific exercise, I actually had this sensation akin to being struck by lightning—perhaps a moment of temporary enlightenment? It was truly something I’ve never experienced with any other book, and I’ve certainly read quite a few. Normally, I can fly through a book pretty quickly, but I just can't do that with *ACIM*, whether it's reading fast or even trying to get through much at once. It usually takes me anywhere from thirty minutes to an hour just to digest four or five pages. For comparison, in that same amount of time, I could easily breeze through fifty to a hundred pages of a "standard" book—like when I was reading that first volume you recommended, *Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality*. With this text, though, I simply hit a wall; I have to stop and rest for a significant amount of time just to process it.

I am fully aware of how vital Buddha’s advice regarding the "raft" truly is—the idea that once you have successfully crossed to the other shore, there is absolutely no need to cling to the vessel that carried you there. However, I suppose I haven't quite reached that far shore just yet, so for the time being, I find myself still very much tethered to my boat. As for Bernadette Roberts... honestly, it is all so deeply confusing. No matter how much my rational mind struggles with the sheer impossibility of it, her book, *The Real Christ*, seems to point me toward a conclusion I can't quite shake: that the author of *A Course in Miracles* is indeed the one being presented there.

Well, let’s say for a moment that the identity of the author isn't actually all that vital. If I recall correctly, there is a section in ACIM where it suggests that the core purpose lies within the exercises themselves; it basically implies that if a reader doesn't care to dwell on how the author presents themselves, they shouldn't have to. One could simply focus on performing the exercises and then, perhaps, judge their own effectiveness based on those direct results. So, I suppose I will just keep moving forward with reading and practicing the lessons from ACIM, because, in my own experience, they clearly seem to be working.

That’s all I have to say for now; I think I might have rambled a bit too much today 🙂

hiddenpuma75 said:Just a few thoughts and some internal processing on my end...
Since I don't know anything about your personal life, this is really just my initial impression.

You are incredibly thorough, sincere, subtle, detailed, valuable, open, emotional, and all of those things are quite fascinating...

If I could offer one small word of caution, it would be this: try not to tether yourself too tightly to any specific experience.
That little warning comes from my background in Buddhist and Advaita training.
The core tenet of both systems is that we shouldn't cling too heavily to our emotions, ideas, or thoughts, as they are all transient, unstable, and ever-changing...

That said, you seem to be "predominantly" an emotional person/artist, and you lean toward Christianity, which is largely a Bhakti path.

Raman Maharshi wisely noted that eventually, both the Bhakti path (the path of the heart and "emotion") and the Jnana path (the path of the mind) converge at the peak of realization...

So, the goal is to find a way to BALANCE Bhakti (the heart) and Jnana (the mind) within yourself.

Ultimately, just be who you are and follow wherever your inner guide leads you.

I'm basically just rambling online and thinking out loud here. 😬

I am truly happy to see your progress and glad you found a theoretical framework that explains your practice and experiences.

My teacher always says that realization can be reached through both theory (Jnana) and action (Karma)...

Just a little early morning reflection 🙂

Experience... is essentially a 'raft.' (I think I used the wrong word for boat in my previous post because the right term wouldn't come to mind—in English, we call it a 'raft,' something you construct from basic materials to float and carry you across water, and since I read almost exclusively in English, my brain just sort of locked up on the American equivalent 😁). It serves as a temporary means to reach the other side, much like books or any other material things. It’s basically Buddha's advice regarding non-attachment.

That's more or less what you were getting at, isn't it?

Well, would you mind elaborating a bit on this Advaita thing? I've read that ACIM is remarkably similar to it; I did some Googling and found various texts, but honestly, it all felt a little too complicated when I first looked into it. I was wondering if you might be interested in putting together a comparative analysis of the fundamental tenets of Advaita and ACIM? You take Advaita, and I'll take ACIM. I'm just purely curious, I guess.😉

Anyway, I'm off to do today's practice now. 🙂

Exercise No. 47: God is the strength in which I trust.

Effects: Oh man, wow! Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!!! This is IT! This is the absolute TRUTH! I truly believe it!!!

🙂

Brian Young76 said:Just a little early morning reflection 🙂

Experience... is essentially a 'raft.' (I think I used the wrong word for boat in my previous post because the right term wouldn't come to mind—in English, we call it a 'raft,' something you construct from basic materials to float and carry you across water, and since I read almost exclusively in English, my brain just sort of locked up on the American equivalent 😁). It serves as a temporary means to reach the other side, much like books or any other material things. It’s basically Buddha's advice regarding non-attachment.

That's more or less what you were getting at, isn't it?

Well, would you mind elaborating a bit on this Advaita thing? I've read that ACIM is remarkably similar to it; I did some Googling and found various texts, but honestly, it all felt a little too complicated when I first looked into it. I was wondering if you might be interested in putting together a comparative analysis of the fundamental tenets of Advaita and ACIM? You take Advaita, and I'll take ACIM. I'm just purely curious, I guess.😉

Anyway, I'm off to do today's practice now. 🙂

1) Back somewhere between 1995 and 2000, I actually wrote to the ACIM Foundation, and they sent me a copy of A Course in Miracles for FREE.🙏 I'm not sure if they still do that nowadays.

2) I was in such a great headspace back then; I read through it, but I didn't really grasp much of it. I didn't even touch the exercises.

3) I picked up some other literature regarding ACIM, but it didn't help all that much. I ended up knowing quite a bit about the history of ACIM, yet I never actually practiced the lessons.

4) Around the year 2000, while I was in San Diego, I visited the famous Peter Vasiljevic with a moderator named Baphomet. He told us he was working on an American translation of ACIM at the time.😲

5) But that was just a side trip; we weren't there specifically for ACIM. Vasiljevic sold spiritual books very affordably, so we took advantage of the opportunity. If my memory serves me right, though, Baphomet was actually there to help him fix his computer.🤔

So, why am I even bringing all this up? Honestly, I just felt like sharing a few interesting tidbits about A Course in Miracles, since I know it's one of your favorites.

To answer your question directly: I don't actually know a whole lot about how much Advaita and A Course in Miracles overlap. I’m fairly certain there's a deep connection there, though—that they share a massive amount of common ground. If you ask me, nondualism is the single thread that weaves them both together.

So, I did a little digging on Google, and I actually stumbled upon this link about it. I’ve been spending some time with this video lately, and I honestly can't stop thinking about it. It touches on those deep, existential questions that we all grapple with at some point—the kind that make you pause and reconsider everything you thought you knew about reality. The way the speaker navigates the intersection of spirituality and our everyday experience is quite remarkable. There’s a certain weight to the arguments presented, yet they are delivered with a clarity that keeps you engaged rather than overwhelmed. It really makes you lean in. For me, the most striking part was how it bridges the gap between ancient wisdom and our modern psychological struggles. It isn't just abstract philosophy; it feels incredibly relevant to the actual lives we lead here in the States. If you've ever felt like there's a deeper layer to existence waiting to be uncovered, I think you'll find this deeply resonant. It’s definitely worth a watch if you have a quiet moment to sit with it.

To be honest, I’m still finding *A Course in Miracles* a bit fuzzy and hard to wrap my head around. But then again, maybe that's just because I haven't really rolled up my sleeves and dove into the actual exercises yet.

On the flip side, even though Advaita can be quite a heavy lift—both philosophically and in terms of actual practice—it comes with some truly incredible role models. I’m talking about legends like Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj. When I dive into their teachings, their words, their dialogues, and those spontaneous exchanges, I find them incredibly clear and deeply inspiring. Honestly? They are nothing short of IMPRESSIVE. 🙏
On the other hand, I find *A Course in Miracles* to be quite a challenge; it’s definitely more philosophical and dense than what I usually dive into.

It occurred to me recently that *A Course in Miracles* doesn't really provide us with nearly as many heavy-hitting "realization" role models as you find in the world of Advaita.

Thank you so much for getting back to me with that response. 🙂

I was wondering, what language did you actually use when you first started reading A Course in Miracles? I’d imagine it was English. For me, English feels almost like my native tongue, yet even so, I have to say that ACIM remains the most demanding book I’ve ever attempted to get through. It honestly requires so much more time and intense concentration than anything else; sometimes it feels less like reading a spiritual text and more like trying to work through incredibly complex mathematical equations. When I’m deep into those pages, I find myself thinking entirely in English. I did eventually track down an American translation, but I can't help feeling it just doesn't quite hit the same way as the original. I mean, please don't get me wrong—I have nothing but the utmost respect for Peter Vasiljevic's translation work, though I haven't had the privilege of meeting him personally.

I’ve already made my way through the first theoretical section of A Course in Miracles once, but I’m currently diving into it for a second time—and honestly, I suspect I’ll need to circle back through these pages several more times before everything truly begins to click. It’s quite fascinating, actually, because this second pass feels like an entirely different experience compared to the first; it's almost as if I'm seeing the concepts through a completely new lens. I must admit, though, that I haven't been particularly disciplined with the workbook exercises. I suppose I’ve realized that without actually sitting down to do the work, all this theory doesn't offer much practical value, and it can become rather exhausting to read just for the sake of reading, which makes it all too easy to lose momentum and give up entirely.

Well, let me try to lay out the basic framework of the theology—if you can even call it that—as I personally understand A Course in Miracles, because honestly, it feels quite different from anything else I’ve ever come across in my reading. Now, I know everyone says the exercises are the most vital part of ACIM, but I truly believe that attempting those exercises without grasping the underlying theory is just as difficult as trying to digest all that theory without actually doing the work. In my view, one really must go hand in hand with the other.

So, here is the thing:

I’ve been reflecting quite a bit on this lately, and I truly believe that anything which possesses actual, fundamental reality simply cannot be threatened or undermined by any force whatsoever. On the other hand, everything that we perceive as unreal—all those fleeting shadows and illusions—doesn't truly exist in any meaningful sense. It is precisely within that realization, I suppose, where we find the true peace of God.

I guess it’s worth noting that *A Course in Miracles* actually opens by stating that its very first principles serve as a concise summary of the entire curriculum. I feel like we should probably keep that core idea at the front of our minds whenever we sit down to read; if we hold onto that central premise throughout the process, it might just make everything feel a whole lot more intuitive and easier to grasp.

I’ve been reflecting quite a bit on this lately, and I truly believe that God is the only absolute reality. In my view, everything that God brings into existence carries that same fundamental reality; it's part of that divine fabric. Everything else—all those illusions we get caught up in—simply isn't real at all.

I’ve been reflecting quite a bit on this lately, and I truly believe that the fundamental essence of God is Love, which finds its ultimate expression through the act of creation itself. It seems to me that everything God brings into being—what we might call the Son of God—possesses qualities that are essentially identical to God's own nature; therefore, everything created is inherently an act of Love and carries that very same quality within it. In my view, God and the Son of God are completely inseparable, existing in a state of direct, seamless communication within the timelessness of eternity.

God and Love, of course, can't really be pinned down by mere words, nor can they ever be fully grasped through the intellect alone, though I suppose some expressions manage to capture the essence of reality much more effectively than others. In that regard, I’ve always felt that Saint Paul’s description of what Love truly is provides a remarkably beautiful and accurate way to frame that reality.

I’ve been reflecting quite a bit on this lately, and I truly believe that God and everything He brings into existence exists entirely outside the constraints of space and time; it’s a realm without a beginning or an end, possessing a nature that is fundamentally unchanging.

The universe we find ourselves inhabiting exists within the framework of space and time—that much seems obvious, doesn't it? Within this realm, everything is in a constant state of flux; things are perpetually shifting, emerging from nothingness, only to fade away, being born and eventually dying. It feels as though the dominant characteristic of this entire cosmos is a pervasive sense of separation and intense individuality. We tend to perceive ourselves as fundamentally isolated beings, where every single person is just a solitary, disconnected entity drifting through the void.

In that light, I suppose one could logically argue that this entire universe—and everything contained within its vastness—wasn't actually brought into being by God. It seems to me that if you look closely, the very nature of the cosmos stands in direct opposition to the essence of God and the things He truly creates. Consequently, it feels as though this universe, along with everything we perceive within it, might not possess any true reality at all.

It seems to me that *A Course in Miracles* constantly challenges the reader with these heavy, unsettling questions—you know, the kind that really make you stop and think. It asks something like, "Do you honestly believe that God would create His Son only to be mortal, to suffer through endless pain, or to witness killing and being killed?" I suppose if one assumes that God is the architect of this entire universe, then the logic follows a pretty dark path: it would imply that such a God is inherently cruel and lacks any true love for His Son. It’s a profound dilemma, isn't it?

So, this leads us to the big question—who or what actually brought this entire universe and everything within it into being? If we look toward *A Course in Miracles* for an answer, it suggests that what God created (the Son of God) somehow, for reasons that remain somewhat mysterious, "thought" itself into a state of separation and individuality. I guess you could say it was an emergence of perceived isolation. To put it in more symbolic terms, it’s much like the story of Adam and Eve; they existed in a state of total, seamless union with God until they conceptualized the idea of being separate—which is often represented by that moment they bit into the apple. *A Course in Miracles* doesn't really dwell on the "why" behind this shift, suggesting perhaps that such an explanation belongs to a different realm entirely.

It seems to me that this whole concept of separation—this nagging question of "what would it actually look like if I possessed a personality and an identity entirely independent of God"—is essentially the spark that ignited the entire universe. It’s as if that single inquiry acted as the catalyst for everything we see around us. At the very same time, I suppose this cosmic ego emerged, which is really just nothing more than that fundamental thought of separation and individuality, which, if we are being honest, is also just another illusion.

I suppose it could be said that the moment that thought of separation—that fundamental error—ever surfaced, God provided an answer that was instantaneous in a truly timeless sense. It’s as if the correction was issued at the exact same moment as the mistake itself. In truth, that error doesn't actually exist anymore; if you really look at it, it likely never truly existed to begin with. The response God offered is the Holy Spirit, which I view as the Word of God. The Son of God can never truly be separated from God, nor will he ever be, simply because that is the essence of God's will.

In that sense, if you look at things from God's perspective, this entire universe doesn't really exist anymore. I mean, no matter how many billions of years this cosmos might seem to endure, within the context of timelessness, it all effectively amounts to zero—it’s almost like trying to divide any massive number by infinity. Perhaps, if we follow that logic to its conclusion, it’s as if it never truly existed in the first place.

Consequently, if we look at things from the perspective of God, I suppose neither we nor any other conscious beings in the entire universe actually exist. What we perceive as the passage of time is, in essence, just an illusion.

9) The Holy Spirit, who—from the viewpoint of God—instantly (and timelessly) corrected the error, continues to exist within this universe, and it is possible to hear Him and establish a connection with Him.

A Course in Miracles places a heavy emphasis on the idea that there are two fundamental systems of thought that are entirely contradictory and fundamentally incompatible. One is the system of the ego (the Cosmic ego), which is rooted in the concept of separation; from this foundation, things like sin, guilt, fear, anger, and death inevitably arise. The other is the system of the Holy Spirit, which is based on our indivisible oneness with God. From that state, immortality, Love, and forgiveness flow.

10) This sense of individuality and separation that seems so real in this universe is, I think, merely an illusion. We are all—not just humans, but every self-aware being—manifestations of a single Mind (the Son of God) that conceived of separation and was subsequently 'seduced' by the Cosmic ego. But perhaps that seduction exists only within this perceived universe; in truth, it has already been rectified and, in a sense, never truly happened! The Cosmic ego also manifests within each of us, constantly reinforcing this illusion of being separate.

11) Jesus was a man who fully realized God, someone who saw through and dissolved the illusion of separation. I believe about two-thirds of the exercises found in A Course in Miracles are centered on shifting our perception, which is ultimately intended to lead us to a direct vision or realization of the illusion itself. In other words, the goal of A Course in Miracles is—as it says—to remove every obstacle standing in the way of a direct experience of Love. And once someone directly experiences Love, they become one with Jesus, essentially becoming Christ (the mind of the Son of God).

12) A Course in Miracles emphasizes that the only way to truly know Love is to see all our brothers and sisters as ourselves; that by forgiving others, we are actually forgiving ourselves, and that by loving others, we love ourselves, whereas hating others is really just hating ourselves...

13) The third part of A Course in Miracles (since the first part is the text/theory and the second consists of the exercises) is titled the Manual for Teachers.

Why is it so vital to help others 'awaken' and see clearly? Well, I guess it's because others are simply us, since we are all manifestations of the very same Mind.

14) A Course in Miracles suggests that once all individual consciousnesses 'awaken' and recognize the ego's illusion, the universe will vanish. In reality, the universe has already vanished (from the perspective of God, from which it never truly originated).

15) The only thing we can actually change is time from our own subjective perspective—that is, how long it takes for everyone to awaken. How long we continue to suffer, to die, to kill one another... that ultimately comes down to our free will.

So, why does helping others awaken matter so much? It’s because by doing so, we shorten the amount of time we all spend suffering together (and since we are all one anyway, it is a collective experience within this universe's perspective).

I suppose this serves as my current attempt at summarizing the theology of A Course in Miracles, based on how I’m perceiving it right now.

Do you think you could offer some kind of comparison between this and Advaita?

Does any of this actually make sense to you? When I try to process everything using my rational mind—you know, the ego—it honestly feels completely nonsensical. But then again... on a much deeper, more intuitive level, things seem to be slowly clicking into place. I can't help but wonder, am I losing my mind?

As for a way to gauge my progress, I guess I look at the fruits of my life (since a tree is known by its fruit, right?). So far, the fruits appearing in my world—my family, my career, my relationships with others—all seem to be good. And even this experience with the Holy Spirit and Kundalini... well, it feels like a positive fruit as well, for the time being.

What kind of metrics do you personally use to judge your own path?

Thank you so much in advance for any thoughts or guidance you might share.🙂

Here’s what Advaita says...;

The Ribhu Gita... Chapter 23...
The nectar of knowledge—it’s all well and good to talk about it, but let’s be honest: most people are just thirsty for the idea of it. Real wisdom isn't some light refreshment; it’s a total saturation. It’s that state where the mind isn't just "aware" of truth, but is absolutely drenched in it... completely soaked through until there's no room left for anything else. No more searching, no more grasping—just a mind overflowing with the essence of what is.

I’m going to talk about Existence-Consciousness-Supreme Bliss—which, naturally, is always overflowing with joy. It is, quite simply, the essence of the essence found within all the Vedas and Puranas...

There are no distinctions here—no duality, no opposing forces. Nothing exists that is separate or lacking in unity. This entire reality is, quite simply, the supreme Brahma, untouched by desire or rage. One reaches That through Jnana...

There is never any such thing as an "I." There isn't anything else. There is nothing indestructible, and there is no "higher than the highest." This is all—truly—the untouched, supreme Brahma. One reaches That through Jnana...

There is no external reality, no internal reality—no patterns, no forms. It is all just this: the untouched, supreme Brahma. And one reaches That through Jnana.

There is no existence, no renunciation, no words—no such thing as "wrong" meanings either. This is all just the untouched, supreme Brahma. One reaches That through Jnana...

There’s no quality—no indirect statements, no certainty regarding mental modalities, no ego, no boundaries... nothing pervasive and certainly no unreal results.

There is no guru, no student, no fixed anything—no good, no bad, no variety of forms... there is no separate shape, no liberation, and certainly no slavery.

There is no such thing as "I"—no word for "it," either. No senses, no objects, no doubt... nothing trivial remains. There’s no security left, and certainly no "action" that needs getting done...

There is no nature to peace—no duality, no highs, no lows. No characteristics, no segments defined by sadness or joy... no indecision.

No body, no phallus, no cause or lack thereof—no sadness, no finality, no "I," no secrets, and certainly no "highest state"...

There is no karma—neither the kind from the Agamas nor any other sort. There is no truth, no "you," and no "me." No ignorance, no empirical data... no fools, and certainly no one left who claims to know.

There is no heaven, no hell, no liberation, no holiness—no desire, no teaching, no you, and no me... No philosophy, and no God.

There are no indicators of good or bad—no death, no life, no satisfaction, no nothing worth enjoying... there isn't even a single undivided essence, let alone duality.

There are no sankalpas, no manifested world, no ruler over the waking state—no such thing as "equality" either... and certainly no misunderstanding of what we count as the fourth.

There is no such thing as "everything"—no impurity, no desire, no laws, no worship... no manifest world, no pluralism, and certainly no chatter from others.

There is no such thing as a satsang—or the lack thereof. There is no Brahma, no seeker, no endeavor, no speaker... no ritual washing, no holy waters...

There is no virtue, no sin, and no such thing as an action that causes error—nothing stemming from our inner nature, our outer reality, or even the divine...

There is no birth or death here—no waking, no sleeping, no deep slumber... there is no earth, no afterlife, no victories, and certainly no defeats.

There is no weakness—no fear, no craving, no desperate longing for death. There is nothing unthinkable... no sinner, and no misunderstanding of the Vedas or religious wisdom.

There is no sattvic state, no rajasic state, no tamasic state—none of those qualities exist. There is no Shaivism, no Vedanta, no studying their doctrines, and certainly no wasting time thinking about them...

21. There is no slavery, there is no liberation—no clever little aphorisms about the identity of the individual versus the supreme self... there is no masculine form, no feminine form, no state of being that is either male or female, and certainly no permanent state...

22. No praise, no criticism, no eulogies, no hymns—no worldly chatter, no religious dogma, no sacred scriptures, and no commandments...

23. No fasting, no drinking—none of that stuff... there’s no luck, no entertainers, no stances or lack thereof, no family lineages, no names, no form...

24. There is nothing excellent, nothing corrupt—no blessings or curses, no purity or cleansing, no individual soul, no such thing as mind control...

There is no such thing as "invoking peace"—there is no peace to invoke. There is no mind control, no sensory deprivation, no "play," no states of being, no modifications, and certainly no defects...

There isn't really anything left—nothing of who "I" am, nothing of this whole Maya illusion, and certainly none of the consequences that come with it. There isn't even the slightest trace of dharma remaining... nor any need to cling to it.

There is no youth, no childhood, no senility—no death or anything like it. No relatives, no strangers, no friends, no brothers...

There is no "everything," there is no "nothing"—no Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva... no guardians of the eight directions, and certainly no cosmic observer drifting through waking or dreaming states...

There is no cosmic observer lurking in deep sleep—no fourth state, no Brahmin, no warrior, no scholar... none of that. It’s all just supreme Brahma: the nectar of Jnana, completely untouched by suffering.

There is nothing like that which reappears or that which follows; there are no events destined to repeat themselves, no markers of time, no "I," and no cause for conversation...

There is nothing above—no inner faculties (intellect, ego, thought), no grand narratives about Consciousness, no duality suggesting I am Brahman, and no duality claiming I am merely Consciousness...

There is no food wrapper (physical body), no pranic or mental sheath, no shroud of intellectual knowledge, and no covering of Bliss...

There is no such thing as innate knowledge—nothing to be perceived, nothing to be learned. And "learning" is just a fancy term for getting it wrong in the first place. There’s nobody here to worry, no one to be worried about, no illusion... there isn't even a definition for this supposed triad of knowledge.

There is no observer, no observation, no objects being observed—not even the appearance of results. It is all just supreme Brahma, the nectar of Jnana, completely free from any kind of suffering.

There is no realm of inner capabilities—no mind, no misunderstanding of reality, no world of thought, nor any manifested landscape of intellect...

There is no world of the individual—no separate "jiva" existence. There are no memories that are inherently repulsive, no world built upon distinguishing characteristics, and no memories rooted in ignorance...

There is no world of Vedic nature—no clinging to Shastras or Agamas... there is no world that could possibly demonstrate the existence of something separate. There is simply no division between things...

There is no perception of differences or non-differences—no imagining whether defects exist or don't... there is no world characterized by peace or a lack thereof—no dwelling on qualities or the absence of them...

40. There is no male gender, no female gender, nothing neutral, nothing static, nothing in motion—no sadness and no joy, ever...

There is nothing that is inherently virtuous or unvirtuous—no certainty regarding what is mature or immature—no activities possessing a dual nature, and no modalities belonging to the witness...

There is no duality here—no dual nature at all. There’s nothing of that joy found in a single, undivided essence... no concept of being trapped in this body, and certainly no revelations claiming I am Brahma.

There is no security in the indivisible—no grand, undivided essence, no emergence of any modality, and certainly no destruction of them all...

There is no questioning of all modalities—no liberation from them, no ultimate destruction of them, and certainly no voiding of them...

There is nothing left of those thousand modalities—all of which are being obliterated moment by moment. There is no witness to these modalities, and there is certainly no requirement for the individual to be Brahma...

There is no universe, no mind, no finite existence, no action—ever. No criticism, no praise, no escaping from chains...

There’s no label for a person full of virtue—no mark of someone possessing true goodness, no sign of being lost in deep meditation, and certainly no tally of accumulated sins...

There are no thoughts of Brahma or the Self—no traces of the Almighty's presence, nothing desirable to grasp at, nothing to reject... there is no "best," no "supreme," and the very phrase "the Almighty" loses all its meaning.

49. Anyone living without Knowledge of the Self is truly a lost soul—deeply misguided, at best. To be stripped of such Knowledge is to live in a state of profound spiritual sickness.

50. I am Brahman. There is absolutely no question about it. By my very nature, I am an indivisible essence. I possess the unshakable certainty of direct experience: Brahman is everything.

51. Such a person is liberated right now—no doubt whatsoever. In this very moment, they become the embodiment of the highest Knowledge. They are, quite simply, the world's sage. They are Parameshwara.

52. This entire truth is the supreme Brahman—a nectar of wisdom that saturates the mind. Whoever hears and understands this explanation is, in truth, Brahman.

53. Neither the state of oneness nor the state of many; neither the atom nor the infinite; neither cause nor effect; neither the universe nor its mastery; eternally without taste, without scent, without form, neither bound nor free—let us become that radiant Light. Let us be untouched by birth, aging, or illness... existing eternally in the joy of ultimate Bliss, that glorious Sadashiva.

translated by Anant

Thanks 😉

On my first pass through this, it all seems remarkably similar to me.

But... I can't help but feel there's a fundamental distinction here, specifically regarding how ACIM places such heavy emphasis on the idea that experiencing Love in isolation isn't really possible; rather, it has to be realized through our connection with others—that whole concept of us all being the Son of God. There’s also this profound insistence that suffering won't truly dissipate until everyone, and I mean absolutely everyone, reaches enlightenment. It’s not enough to just wake up for yourself, I suppose.

I wonder, what would the perspective from Advaita be on a point like that?

Furthermore, I'm curious about how one actually goes about practicing Advaita. With ACIM, you're provided with these incredibly specific exercises and very detailed instructions, which makes it feel like you don't necessarily need a teacher or a guru to guide you. In the context of Advaita, how much weight does the presence of a guru actually carry?

Brian Young76 said:Thanks 😉

On my first pass through this, it all seems remarkably similar to me.

But... I can't help but feel there's a fundamental distinction here, specifically regarding how ACIM places such heavy emphasis on the idea that experiencing Love in isolation isn't really possible; rather, it has to be realized through our connection with others—that whole concept of us all being the Son of God. There’s also this profound insistence that suffering won't truly dissipate until everyone, and I mean absolutely everyone, reaches enlightenment. It’s not enough to just wake up for yourself, I suppose.

I wonder, what would the perspective from Advaita be on a point like that?

Furthermore, I'm curious about how one actually goes about practicing Advaita. With ACIM, you're provided with these incredibly specific exercises and very detailed instructions, which makes it feel like you don't necessarily need a teacher or a guru to guide you. In the context of Advaita, how much weight does the presence of a guru actually carry?

There is no "me" and no "others"... when you identify with a persona (the ego, the self-myth), you perceive everyone else as separate individuals. But once you recognize your True impersonal nature—the Truth of your own Being—everything is ONE. This doesn't mean everyone is physically "one," it means there is no "me" vs. "them"—there is no duality at all. Duality is just a mental construct; ONENESS is what is experienced through the lens of the mind,,,

By the way, I ran into A Course in Miracles years ago—much like hiddenpuma75 did—and I noticed immediately that, fundamentally, it’s indistinguishable from Advaita. It’s just different terminology... basically Advaita for the dummies... even Christ's teachings are non-dual at their core.

Advaita is the only true teaching, regardless of the form it takes. All other teachings aren't necessarily wrong, they're just tailored to various temperaments and states of being. Truly, Advaita isn't for everyone—but if the teachings are correct, they must inevitably lead to Jnana (realization or direct insight).

THE CORE OF ADVAITA FOR THE UNINITIATED

1 There is no such thing as bondage, and therefore, there is no such thing as liberation.
2 If you don't get that after being told, then meditate on it.
3 If it still hasn't clicked, spend time with saints and listen to what they say.
4 If it still hasn't clicked, read the sacred texts.
5 If it still hasn't clicked, chant the name of God (mantra).
6 If it still hasn't clicked, pray for true insight.
7 If it still hasn't clicked, don't worry—it will click eventually.

Brian Young76 said:Thanks 😉

On my first pass through this, it all seems remarkably similar to me.

But... I can't help but feel there's a fundamental distinction here, specifically regarding how ACIM places such heavy emphasis on the idea that experiencing Love in isolation isn't really possible; rather, it has to be realized through our connection with others—that whole concept of us all being the Son of God. There’s also this profound insistence that suffering won't truly dissipate until everyone, and I mean absolutely everyone, reaches enlightenment. It’s not enough to just wake up for yourself, I suppose.

I wonder, what would the perspective from Advaita be on a point like that?

Furthermore, I'm curious about how one actually goes about practicing Advaita. With ACIM, you're provided with these incredibly specific exercises and very detailed instructions, which makes it feel like you don't necessarily need a teacher or a guru to guide you. In the context of Advaita, how much weight does the presence of a guru actually carry?

Saying suffering only ends once everyone awakens is just some silly Bodhisattva nonsense—it reeks of those exotic Theosophical ideas from Madam Blavatsky. In Advaita, that's total gibberish. It’s like saying, "I won't wake up from this dream until everyone else does"—as if you don't have to wake up yourself first before you could ever hope to help anyone else. Being awakened is the greatest gift to the world, even if you have zero intention of helping anyone else wake up, or even if you couldn't care less about the rest of humanity. Not every awakened person becomes an instant guru, nor does every awakened person possess the capacity (siddhi) to awaken others.

And this whole idea that it's impossible to experience Love by yourself is based on a fundamentally flawed interpretation of ecumenism, because it’s clearly referring to impersonal, unconditional, absolute Love...

Everything starts and ends with the grace of the guru.
The guru has no intention of making you realize anything.
He doesn't actually care whether someone wakes up or not.
He’s like the sun, shining equally on everyone, maintaining
life on Earth without having any specific intention to do so.
What touches him is your true longing.
His spontaneous response is Love.
That Love is precisely what wakes you from the dream of conditioning.
Without that initial spark of Love, there is nothing.
Technically, he doesn't "wake" you, because you are already wakefulness itself...
but he helps you clear away the obstacles preventing you from seeing it.