Non-doership is not something we "do" or practice.

As a 4DU alum and LTC facilitator, I’ve recently received questions and heard confusion around the topic of non-doership and how it fits into the Course. This provides a fantastic teach/learning opportunity because almost any misunderstanding of non-doership will also serve as an example of what the Course calls “level confusion", which can be a challenging concept even for advanced students and teachers of the Course. This piece is intended to clarify what is meant by non-doership and how it relates to A Course in Miracles.

Non-doership is an advanced spiritual concept and perspective borrowed from Zen and eastern non-dual philosophies that Aaron Abke has incorporated into his 4DU, LTC and YouTube teachings. ACIM does not speak to non-doership directly and the likely reason is that a direct experience of non-doership typically occurs on part of the path just beyond the Course curriculum. The Course classically calibrates on the Hawkins Scale to the level of peace or 600 which is where we find salvation and the happy dream, although some calibrations now have it extending into the low 700s which is likely accurate in my view. Non-doership correlates with non-dual realization or enlightenment, which starts at around 750. Aaron brings the concept of non-doership into his teachings as a logic tool for releasing ourselves from guilt, which is a key concept in ACIM (i.e., guilt and blame aren’t necessary, real or meaningful). But the direct realization of non-doership does not come until after God takes the 'final step' the Course speaks of.

The ‘final step taken by God’ in ACIM can be thought of as the bridge between salvation and enlightenment. It’s the equivalent to “Kensho” awakening in Zen or the “no-self” shift discussed in non-duality circles. While the shift can occur spontaneously at any time (e.g. Eckert Tolle’s awakening story), it is often preceded by a period of salvation and the happy dream, and I would say this is especially the case for Course students. Two key aspects of what is revealed when God takes the final step are: 1) there is not and was never a personal, individuated self (there is no self or “no-self”) and 2) there is no agency or personal control over anything (there is no agency or “non-agency”). Note how the belief in a personal self and the belief in agency are interdependent illusions since there cannot be agency absent a self that has agency. Each implies the reality of the other, which is how the ego is so good at hiding the fact that it doesn’t exist.

These two realizations are why non-dual speakers, especially in the early days of YouTube, would say things like “There’s no one here” and “No one is doing anything” and “It’s all just happening.” They’re describing a world viewed through the Hawkins 750+ lens of non-dual realization and the direct experience of non-doership, which only occurs after dissolution of a separate self that can believe itself to be doing something. This is also why God takes the final step in ACIM, because when the shift happens there is no person there to “do” anything.

In the context of 4DU and LTC, where most students have not yet experienced this shift directly, non-doership simply means that since we intellectually understand there to be no self and no independent agency or will, then there can be no one “doing” anything, and therefore no rational justification for guilt or blame. From the Hawkins 600/700 lens of ACIM we would say that God is orchestrating everything, the good and the bad, or if we’re still early on our ACIM journey we might say that God or Spirit does the “real” or “good” things and the ego does the “unreal” or “bad” things, but what I truly am isn’t doing it.

Especially the latter is a form of what the Course calls “level confusion,” which means confusing aspects of the finite dream with the Infinite. In this case we’re confusing so-called “good” things with the Infinite or God, making parts of the dream real. While this is not correct from a more advanced or higher perspective, it is a perfectly allowable and temporarily useful perspective for transitioning us upwards toward the Hawkins 499+ forgiveness and salvation territory of the Course. Albert Einstein famously calibrated to 499 which Dr. Hawkins described as the highest calibration the rational thinking mind can achieve, so we can think of the conceptual understanding of non-doership as the rational mind’s springboard up the Hawkin’s scale and into 500+ (beyond the rational mind) forgiveness territory. This is how concepts around non-doership can be used to weaken the ego’s tendency toward guilt and blame and strengthen our tendency toward forgiveness, which moves us gradually into salvation and the happy dream.

The following ideas and statements about non-doership came from recent discussions in LTC and other Course-inspired conversations:

Non-doership is a practice we must learn to apply in our moment-by-moment experience.

Non-doership is not anything we do or practice, and nothing we learn or do or don’t do has any effect on it. The statement and activity “I understand non-doership!” is as equal a non-doing as “I’m totally confused by non-doership!” And while the statement “I’ve been practicing non-doership” suggests a misunderstanding of the term, even that is a non-doing since from the higher perspective there is no one here to understand or misunderstand or practice anything. This is an example of level confusion because any practice we learn or apply is part of the finite dream whereas non-doership refers to That Which animates the dream.

Non-doership is when facilitators and students ‘get out of the way’ and allow the Holy Spirit to channel through them on LTC calls.

Channeling Holy Spirit is just as much of a non-doing as the ego controlling and dictating. The higher truth is that there’s no independent self “doing” or choosing either activity, even though we attribute certain occurrences to ego and others to Grace. Regardless of who or what we attribute the activity to it’s all just happening. From the perspective of Hawkins 600/700, God is orchestrating all of it and by “God” we mean something bigger or higher than "me" that we haven’t yet seen or grasped. This statement is an example of level confusion because non-doership refers to That Which animates the dream at large and here we’re ascribing it only to one aspect of the finite dream, Holy Spirit channeling through us.

Non-doership is when I surrender to life instead of trying to control it.

The choosing to surrender, the desire to control and the decision to take no action and see what happens are all equally non-doing’s. The reality is that a choice is seemingly made but from the higher perspective no one makes it, and so the best we can do is attribute that activity to “God” or a higher power of animation we aren’t able to understand. This is level confusion because we’re attributing one narrow aspect of the dream (surrender to what is) to the Infinite but not to all the dream. We’re saying that surrender is an activity of the Infinite but controlling is an activity of the finite, when both are finite dream activities animated by the Infinite God.

Non-doership is when the ego’s patterning engages, because I’m not the ego.

Yes, but note how this statement implies a paradigm where non-doership is of the ego and therefore must be unreal and an illusion, and anything attributed to God or Holy Spirit in the dream must be a real doing. This is a form of level confusion where finite dream activities we deem “good” are attributed to the Infinite or God when they are as equally part of the dream as the “bad” things we don’t prefer. It's a classic religious belief found in the Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) and parts of ACIM, and it’s perfectly okay for the earlier parts of our journey. But it’s not non-doership. From the eastern perspective of non-doership, the ego’s patterning is just as much of a non-doing in the dream as Spirit channeling or performing a miracle in the dream. Anything that happens in the dream is a non-doing because there’s no one here to do anything.

ACIM Chapter 18.3’s “I need do nothing” is in reference to non-doership and means I should take no action and just let things happen on their own, how God wants.

To equate ‘doing nothing' in the dream with non-doing/non-doership is a form of level confusion because non-doership refers to the activity of the Infinite and must therefore apply to all things in the dream, whereas ‘doing nothing’ in this context refers only to an isolated activity in the finite dream. Chapter 18.3’s “I need do nothing” means that no action in the dream or changes in dream circumstances are required for me to become what I already am, which is the Christ. It means I’m already perfect and whole. That direct statement from the Course is a hard slap to the ego’s belief in lack and that salvation will be found in dream outcomes it wants. From the higher perspective of non-doership, taking an action in the dream is just as much of a non-doing as taking no action in the dream, because there is no one in the dream to take or not take an action.

'I'm not the doer' so I shouldn’t “do” anything such as make lists or plan. I should relax and let God handle it.

The statement “I’m/You’re not the doer” is simply a reminder that there is no justification for guilt or blame. It has nothing to do with taking action or planning or relaxing. Whether we take action or not, or plan or not, or stress or not, they’re all non-doing’s because there’s no one here to be doing or not doing any of them. The level confusion is more subtle in this one, but the statement suggests a paradigm where non-doership only applies to people and events beyond the separate self and its control. It overlooks that the dream doings of the personal, separate self are as equally animated by the Infinite God as the rest of the dream.

If we’re not skilled in our understanding of non-doership, it can just as easily appear to conflict with or contradict Course teachings. The Course often references our power of decision to choose between ego and Spirit, grievance and salvation. Lesson 138 states “Heaven is a decision I must make” and Lesson 152 says “The power of decision is my own.” These Course-prescribed choice points, which are aimed at the small “s” self, are relevant and important for the part of the spiritual path that the Course assists us with traversing. From the Hawkins 750+ realized perspective of no-self and non-agency, these teachings and instructions would be recognized as no longer relevant or useful. Simply put, a higher or ‘truer’ perspective and accompanying practices would supplant the previous.

It's important to be aware that having a direct realization of non-doership doesn’t mean we never make decisions or never take action again. It means only that we recognize our act of decision to be just as illusory and unreal as any other part of the finite dream, because it has been “seen” that there’s no one here to do any of it. We also need to be mindful to apply the concept of non-doership to support our forgiveness practice and not use it to bypass our own or others’ experience, or to deny or ignore the consequences of our actions. This is where the Neo-Advaita, non-dual tropes come in. “There’s no one here. It’s all just happening” (so I’m off the hook, no harm no foul!). This is actually how the negative polarity appropriates non-doership and if we’re ACIM students and teachers then that’s not us.

One final note is that, while we can intellectually grasp how there is no doer and therefore no guilt or blame, we will never truly understand how non-doership works or “why” it is. We can think up and discuss all kinds of interesting dream concepts and we might even assert some to be the truth ("What we are is God experiencing Itself!"), but from the higher 750+ perspective we’ll never know What It Is that animates the dream or why things in the dream happen the way they do. These are questions and concerns of the finite character in the dream only. From the perspective of the Infinite God or Absolute (realized non-doership), nothing can be known, because as soon as a thought appears that says there’s an “I” here who “knows” something, that’s no longer the Infinite and we’re back in the dream. This is how enlightenment is so beautifully described as ‘knowing I can know nothing.’

If we take the meaning of non-doership to be there is no sin, no guilt and no blame, then the implication for Course students and teachers is that we are saved by Grace in every holy instant, every life circumstance, and in every apparent doing or happening, no matter the outcome. That is the central teaching of ACIM and the very basis for salvation and the happy dream. Non-doership only becomes a direct, lived experience when God takes the final step, the veil is lifted and the dream ends. That is non-doership and the Course. 💜