Danger is the expression (through one’s circumstances) of your feelings of fear and sense of being threatened. As fear and attack are tied together into one bundle, with one feeding the other, but a seeming separation between them existing also, the truth tends to be difficult to see. In actuality danger and the actualization of danger in loss and harm represents the dynamics of attack as they are expressed symbolically in the consciousness of the experiencer as external experiences in conjunction with internal experiences. In other words, one internal event expresses itself in two different ways, as circumstances that are "dangerous" as well as fear and feelings of being attacked.

Do disassemble attack, one must simply see the root cause that holds it together. Like dissecting a frog, we can see a central heart that keeps the creature going, and likewise we can dissect attack and we find that it is separation from others that keeps it going.

Separation is a state of mind brought on by the idea of Truth or God being removed from one’s own existence. That is to say, that even if you believe in God overall, there is within you a belief in some real separation between yourself and God. This gap can be understood as the symbolic manifestation of the idea that one can oppose the Truth (or God's Will, depending on how you want to frame it verbally.) So, the singel overall idea is the basis for all experiences in which one can be attacked and feel attacked.

The Truth cannot be “acted against,” because everything that happens is made of consciousness only and because that consciousness ultimately occurs in the Truth. Nothing exists that does not exist firstly (and only) in Truth. No matter what degree of separation appears to exist between self and Truth, no level of separation is either real or possible.

The perfection of the Truth seems to be sullied by the reduced nature of physical level experiences. One could then falsely conclude that God’s will contains “evil,” an intent to do harm. This is not the case. The imaginary separation between self and God/Truth is then spun out into a perceived separation between self and others, and a seeming opposition and possible conflict between their best interests.

For example, if a person catches the bus after the bus has waited for them to run to the stop, the perception is that the person has inconvenienced the whole bus by means of slowing down the bus driver. Blame could then be cast upon the driver or the person who is late for making everybody late. Secondly, a person could see that a person does something that is definitely helpful to them, but then sees other people become injured by that help.

The perception and the activity described are all one event. What is seen (the inconvenience being created) and what is experienced and all the internal states of everyone involved are all one idea bound together, but experienced separately. But, in reality, they are all one. For, in actuality, the “reality” experienced is a symbolic expression of the idea that we are separate from God/Truth, so that then in turn we are separate from and sometimes at odds with each other.

So, we attempt to get out of the shadow cast by these broad and untrue ideas, and as we do so we see that our experiences, as seen in Truth, are in no way, shape or form negative or at odds with the Truth, but are simply part of the explanation of an idea that is not true. As we willingly went into this idea, so in turn we willingly leave it, returning to the Truth.

It is not necessary to prove that the “opposite” of an untrue idea is true, because the untrue and the opposing true idea are not connected in Truth. In fact, there is no real link between an untrue idea and the Truth at all. This brings up the necessary question of what allows the question to be experienced in this way. As the mind does not disallow any idea as in a form of censorship, it will willingly explore any idea at all, to its limit. But, it has to do so in a way that does not contradict the Truth, which would be impossible. So, it requires that the mind pretend to sever the connection between the self in Truth and the self locked in ignorance. This allows then the journey away from Truth and ultimately the journey back to it.

But, if it were really possible to sever the self in that way, one would have disrupted the Truth and trapped one’s self outside of it, thus changing the Truth and making it into something else. In actuality, the self in Truth and the self not in Truth are not severed at all. The self in Truth imagines the self not in Truth. In imagining what is not possible in Truth, the mind seems to split when in actuality the mind willingly submits to a seeming split in experience. That illusion is sustained on a moment-by-moment basis, with each moment contacting the self in Truth and then ignoring only those fragments of consciousness that make up the illusory self and experience being created. That split ends the very moment the self in Truth loses interest in the idea of separation between self, others and God’s will.

The experience proves to hold no information whatsoever about the Truth, but the individual in Truth must be convinced of that through having the imagined experience. In turn, on reexamining the experience in hindsight, the person in Truth discovers that they never suffered at all, but that the mind manipulated its own form to actualize the illusion of separation, suffering, conflict and fear.

In seeing what the imagined self did not see in the experience, he or she sees that no information was really withheld from that identity, but that this identity had to choose to simultaneously ignore the Truth while imagining that it could suffer and in actuality knowing that it could not.

So, in the final analysis, the person in Truth is not left with a memory of suffering, but in fact a memory of an experience very different from the one seemingly had by the false self. In all its suffering, that self never suffered and was unable to have any experience outside of Truth, and those experiences revealed nothing about the Truth at all, being untrue.

To emerge from the imagined identity, the individual in Truth must create a resolution experience that draws the individual out of false ideas by a matter of degrees. As the Truth is shown to be True, each false idea the person holds loses its hold over the false self by degrees. However, that loss is not so pronounced as to eject the false identity from its experience until it has an experience that it cannot process in terms of its old ways of thinking. When that happens, the dissonant idea forces the individual to think one True thought, and when that happens, essentially the boundary mechanism idea is activated and the person returns to the Truth.

The ejecting idea is a True idea in the sense that it contains no idea that is not True. However, such an idea introduced too soon would only create confusion. The individual must identify with partially True ideas enough to discern a path home.

The idea of Truth that is encountered always happens when the timing is perfect, not before or after. It is the logical end to an illogical experience. The cascade of this idea is a stepping away from or rejecting of one false idea after another with no event of pulling attention away from the idea or of turning back onto false ideas to resolve the question without really resolving it.

How can the false self tell what is True? The false self discerns the Truth through a seemingly outward process of questing (or questioning) that leads ultimately to the Truth. Of course such a process is totally inside consciousness and is internal. The Truth manifests in the “untrue” world as consciousness that is clear and high. If it illuminates other ideas, one is naturally drawn to it, and by degrees this illumination is increased.

Ultimately, the Truth beckons very vigorously. That allure is felt as a need to finally give up on untruth. But, the mind in untruth remains attached to certain untrue ideas. Despite the certainty of the majority of one’s consciousness in the value of Truth, the attachments must be dealt with on an individual basis. As much as one or two attachments can bind the psyche to false experience.

Attachments to false ideas tend to fall into groupings that are common and identifiable between individuals. First, there is attachment around the idea of having a “separate” identity. This idea tends to draw one into experiences that are both negative and positive around one’s own uniqueness, one’s personal “qualities,” or of one’s contribution to society, a person, a cause, etc. Accomplishment, conflict and heroism and sacrifice are common themes. This idea is undone through the truth that there is no real self separate from God, and that we do not even exist separately from God.

There are attachments relating to desire. That is to say, one wishes to have pleasures or experiences that involve danger, fear, risk, darkness, debauchery, all with an implicit undertone of one’s being separate from God/Truth.

There are experiences of human relationships, such as falling in love, but with the overtone of separateness, that people can become attached to. They can be attached to the up and down cycles of arguing and reconciliation or of new infatuations or the conflict between love and sacrifice.

To understand any of these attachments, across the board, one must ultimately understand that we do not really want them. They are to some degree a distasteful experience that is less than the experience as it exists at higher levels. It offers us nothing we really want.

Your self in Truth is responsible for all of your moods and feelings, including feeling separate from your Self in Truth. If you grasp this at a logical level, you will identify with your self in Truth whenever you wish to. When you understand that your desire or lack of it to be your self in Truth is their responsibility, you will immediately want to be your self and Truth and then you will identify with him or her.

When you have an “untruthful” or “negative” thought and place the responsibility for that thought back on your self in Truth, then you will immediately understand that this happens in response to your underlying state of desire. Then, when you realize that your self in Truth determines what you want to think, then you will immediately have the thoughts associated with your degree of identification with your self in Truth.