Attached below is an interesting article about A Course in Miracles. If anybody has read my past posts on the course, they know I have a lot of doubts about it. It might say some nice things, but there are various things about it that tell me it doesn't come from Christ. I've also received a number of spiritual messages that unless my interpretive skills are really bad, the book isn't what it claims to be. For example, one day I was shown the cover of the book, and the letters were intentionally messed up so I couldn't read that it is a "course in miracles."

This morning I wondered about why some of the things it says sound true. I thought that perhaps the authors understood that people wouldn't choose to believe in it if it didn't say some things that sound true. I asked my spirit guidance: "If intentional deception is involved, please provide me with a page number in my dictionary that shows that this is so. This page number method has worked before. Shortly after as I continued to get ready for work, the number "222" came through loud and clear. I looked at page 222 of my dictionary, and the words "deceptive" and "deception" could be found on this page.  Is this just a coincidence?

A while back I read the book for a while with the thought of giving it a good chance. It seemed to have a brainwashing effect.  The first time I sat down to read it I saw and heard a little lady say: "He's gone!" This was a message from my guidance. Nevertheless, I continued to read it and give it a chance.  One night I had a dream and at the end of the dream a man shook me vigorously and asked: "Why did you do it? Why did you allow yourself to be brainwashed again? He was speaking about ACIM.

Here is what course instructor Hugh Prather had to say about the course:

So could the book be part of some mind control experiment? Author and Yogi Joel Kramer states that the Course could be considered a classic authoritarian example of programming thought to change beliefs. Long time teacher of the Course, Hugh Prather, notes that the Course students often become, "far more separate and egocentric", with many ultimately, "[losing] the ability to carry on a simple conversation". He admits that he and his wife Gayle, "had ended up less flexible, less forgiving, and less generous than we were when we first started our path!"

From this article:

http://www.conspiracy-times.com/content/view/104/37/

Regarding Hugh Prather's comment about the course making people far more separate and egocentric," one night my spirit guidance responded after I asked about the validity of the course: "Drop it. It makes the ego bigger." Considering how it speaks about the ego over and over and over again, the answer I received makes sense.    

Hi recoverer,

Interesting post.

So a book with some good and useful stuff in it is a fraud, but a method of divination involving disembodied voices and a dictionary is not. OK, accepted.

Based on an attempted oneness with your belief system, I tried the same. I said to my guidance, "in oneness with recoverer, allow me to also use the number 222" My disembodied voice said "count". So using your method of dictionary divination I simply counted entries.

The 222nd entry is "absolute" meaning perfect and complete.

Now I have to ask my voice whether that refers to ACIM, or my attempted oneness with you or, OMG.......both?


be well,

- u

Ultra:

One definition of count is "to take into account." It's funny when I receive words, because sometimes they come in loud and clear and it is obvious they don't come from my own mind, and sometimes they come in a manner that isn't as loud an clear. As I wrote before, "222" came in loud and clear. I also saw it with my mind's eye. Whatever the case, whenever I've asked about ACIM, I've received a message that didn't afirm it. Some were more clear than the messages I've shared.

Once I asked a lady who is good at receiving spirit messages what she thought about ACIM, and she was shown red flags.



ultra wrote on Nov 19^th, 2007 at 5:24pm:

Hi recoverer, Interesting post. So a book with some good and useful stuff in it is a fraud, but a method of divination involving disembodied voices and a dictionary is not. OK, accepted. Based on an attempted oneness with your belief system, I tried the same. I said to my guidance, "in oneness with recoverer, allow me to also use the number 222" My disembodied voice said "count". So using your method of dictionary divination I simply counted entries. The 222nd entry is "absolute" meaning perfect and complete. Now I have to ask my voice whether that refers to ACIM, or my attempted oneness with you or, OMG.......both? be well, - u

recoverer-

I don't put much stock in conspiracy theories.  

However, that aside, I am very leery of ACIM as I am of any channeled material.  There is a theme throughout ACIM.....namely, that none of us are accountable for anything we do.  That is definitely not what Jesus preached.  

Specifically, ACIM says that all sin is just an illusion, therefore sin does not exist.  

Now, ask yourself why "Jesus" would say such a thing.  There can be only one answer, and that is to undermine teachings of not only the Christian faith but others as well.  

Yes, ACIM is very seductive and can easily compel persons to think that it is the word of Jesus Himself.  I bought the book, read it, studied it, and at one time really thought it was the inspired word of Jesus Christ.

No longer.

There are also some serious flaws in the book.  Here is the most obvious:  ACIM says that God is Perfect, and therefore is incapable of creating anything other than perfect.  Seems to make sense.  But consider....God also created us.  Therefore, we too must have been Perfect.  And yet we did something that was totally imperfect, namely by choosing to separate from God.

The reason we separated?  ACIM never says, other than it was a "mad" idea of ours.  

Doesn't quite compute, does it.  As perfect beings, we sure made an imperfect decision!

Also, "Jesus" trashes the earth over and over again.  So much so that he must be in favor of global warming or anything that would hasten its destruction.

And if you read it with a discerning mind, you will also see how the tone varies substantially, from comforting words in one chapter to hectoring and almost belittling in another chapter.  

I don't buy the notion that the CIA was behind the book.  No one in that agency has the creativity and imagination to put together a book of that length.  But that's another story  :)

ps- obviously these are my own opinions, I am in no way criticizing anyone who believes in ACIM.  

Whatever you think of it ACIM is a wonderful and remarkably well written book. I'm far from an ACIM specialist, but don't buy your point on its definition of forgiveness R which I think is a bit of a misinterpretation of what it teaches and sells it way short.

The book itself explains that it will inevitably seem to take conflicting positions on things. It explains if I remember it correctly that this is because the same thing is different depending on the level of the view. (as in earthly/physical versus God/absolute)

It's very clear for example that harming others is wrong, and that we shouldn't do it, and that at this  level of reality it has consequences which can be and are very painful for both ourselves and the victim. But points out that the error is forgiven before it happened by a loving God who never would impose punishment.

That absolutely does not let us off the hook - we are advised to wake up (that we must, that we will), to start living from love, to open to come to see the consequences of our actions and so stop harming both ourselves and others. That harming ourselves and others amount to the same thing.

The 'not mattering' part arises out of the view that says that God has all under control, that while we have freedom at this earth level to do wrong that at the absolute or God level that since our awakening must eventually occur and the ultimate outcome is already determined. (cannot be altered) That it doesn't matter, that we somehow have freedom to fiddle about a bit without influencing what truly is.

It points out that it's our self loathing/guilt and fear of a God mistakenly presumed to be vengeful that creates karma - that karma is not punishment by God but a natural cause/consequence driven event in this the reality we have ourselves created.

This it says is why knowing we are forgiven is so important - that all that's required of us that we do our best to improve our ability to live from love. Forgiveness is not practically that different from having compassion for ourselves as it's taught in Buddhism. Carrying a load of fear and guilt around drives us away from God and into love-deficient isolation, and hence into behaviours that cause more pain and further wrongdoing beyond even the inevitable/karmic consequences of the action. Taking us deeper again into pain and separation, further from God.

Offloading of guilt can and does on occasion lead to a resurgence of ego and to wrongdoing. But that's no argument to avoid the spiritual path - free will and the need to take responsibility for ourselves  mean we can and do from time to time get off the path.

This by the way is terminology aside pretty much what Buddhism teaches too. That our task is to awaken - to gain confidence that both ourselves and the reality we experience are essentially good and loving, and that if we can accept this and find the courage to live from this view that we move towards awakening/realisation and hence progressively free ourselves from karma.

I can't remember what Jesus is quoted as teaching in the book on the earth - but it's wholly consistent that he should view as imperfect a reality created by a chunk of sentience that somehow got itself a bit separated from a loving God  - a God who wants and knows we will find our way back, but who will not impose his power. But he'd not suggest it's destruction, at least not except in keeping with what love requires for its inhabitants.

The ACIM view that absolute truth is always true but that relative truths are only sometimes true makes sense from the right view too - because truth at this level is only relative. It's only at the God or absolute level that you get absolute truth. But it's very clear that the inter-mingling of the realities means that there are aspects of the God realm that leak through into this one - most obviously love and the whole reality it creates.

Now if one is fixed on  belief in an authoritarian and vengeful God ruling a perfect creation mucked up by sinful beings (loaded with original sin) who have to be punished (infinitely no less) then we're talking oil and water and have to agree to disagree here.

But I'd say that ACIM while a sophisticated teaching requiring a multidimensional view is to the limits of my knowledge internally consistent. It's very much in keeping with Buddhist thought too.

Is it all true? I truly don't know any more than anybody else does. It's written by a human who at best was channelling meaning that in my view it has to reflect a little of that person's view or limitations. But weight of the centuries aside that's no more than can be said about any religious text.

But I have to seriously question the 'one strike and you're out' view. The one whereby we read seeking knowledge, but as soon as we find something that we can question (bearing in mind that our understanding may be wrong) we throw the whole lot out. I'm not suggesting gullibility or anything like it, but if a text conveys a lot that makes sense then a wiser view may be to conditionally take the message on board, or at least keep it in mind until experience and further insight tests the problem point a little more.

ACIM is quite a sophisticated and nuanced teaching and I'd suggest not for those seeking a simple understanding, rigid beliefs and black and white universally applicable rules for living in this world. Even if every word was 'true' variations in interpretation mean we'd receive mixed messages.

Pardon me if I've misquoted ACIM anywhere, it's a while since I've spent any time on it.

After that it's over to you guys  -we each have to make our own call on these things....

Rondelle:

As far as ACIM contending that God didn't create the universe because everything God creates is perfect, I have a hard time with this premise. This viewpoint sort of goes along with the Eastern viewpoint that the universe is nothing but a big mistake, illusion.

If something other than God created the universe, then didn't God create that something? If that something ended up creating something that is imperfect, then where did it get the imperfection to do so, if it was created by God?

My feeling is that everything comes from the perfection of God. It is just that as opposed to creating us as a bunch of robots, God created us so we would have the freedom to determine our own way. This doesn't mean that the presence of God isn't available and can't be found within the World. It simply means we are free to create in a manner that doesn't reflect his omnipresent presence.

This weekend some doubts about this came up. I closed my eyes, prayed to God, Christ and my higher self, and asked if I'm correct about God being involved with the creation of this universe. I was shown the cover of Don Piper's near death experience book 90 minutes in heaven. Don Piper's NDE is clearly Christian in nature, so I figure this was a way of telling me that God did play a role in creating this universe.

Since this is a Bruce Moen site, I'd like to consider this matter in a manner that relates to what he and Robert Monroe found. Both Robert and Bruce visited what they referred to as the aperture.  From this aperture this and other universes are projected.  According to Robert Monroe the creator used this aperture to carry out a very definite plan of creation.  I don't get the impression that this creator made a big mistake when it decided to project the universes it projects.  It basically knew what it was doing. This makes sense considering how incredibly sophisticated and vast this projection is.

My feeling is that the creator Robert wrote about isn't something other than God. He wasn't able to see what was on the other side of the aperture. If one took a look, perhaps one would see that there is much more to God than this side of the aperture reveals.  It may be that the creator/aperture was just one part of God. The part that was involved with creating this and other universes. Who knows how many others have been created?

Bruce Moen wrote of the planning intelligence.  This planning intelligence is responsible for the creation of this and other universes. I figure in a manner that is subordinate to the creator/aperture Robert Monroe spoke of, because how many creators can one universe have? Whatever the case,  it seems to me that when the planning intelligence proceeded with using its own being to create this and other universes, it wasn't making a big mistake, because before it had done so it had gone through a process of evolution that enabled it to realize what higher truth is. Why would it proceed with creating disks that in turn create probes, if the creation of life in this and other universes is nothing but a big mistake that was done independently of God, as ACIM states?

There is another factor to consider. Perhaps this universe seems like a mistake when you consider it from the imperfections you find in this World, but perhaps trying to judge the entirety of what was created according to how things are in this World, is similar to trying to judge the elegance of a hotel by looking at its dumpster. If one were to take a trip into the spirit realms and perhaps other planets, one would find that not all beings have messed things up as much as we have here in this World. Plus it is important to remember that the eventual fate of the human race can't be determined by what physical life and history have revealed thus far. Going by my night in heaven experience, everything works out wonderfully in the end.

Vajra:

First of all, if a source claims to come from Christ but doesn't, this in no small infraction as far as I'm concerned, no matter how many wonderful things it says. I believe that Christ has done far too much for this World for a source to have the odacity to claim that it comes from him when it doesn't.

One of the problems with doing so, is if a person tries to form an actual relationship with Christ, Christ has to work his way through the false concepts this source includes.

I had the book in mind for about a year before I got around to checking it out. I didn't do so earlier, because whenever I looked at the book on a bookstore bookshelf, it would be wrapped in plastic.  One day I went to a book store and it wasn't wrapped in plastic.  I decided to check it out. As soon I opened it I felt a lot of energy in my lower chakras come to life. Nevertheless, I went ahead and bought it. When I arrived home, I saw the image I wrote of above, the lady who said: "He's gone!"

Nevertheless, I continued to give the book a chance. I have the ability to sometimes see images when I read words. The letters I look at will appear as letters and words at the same time. Sometimes I receive spirit messages this way. When I would read ACIM, the letters would sometimes appear as both letters and minature demonic images. If one reads what I wrote on the recent demon thread one will see that I'm not a big believer in demons, but this is what I saw when I read ACIM. This doesn't happen with other books. I would often click out while reading the book. Ahso had the same experience. Sometimes when I would click out I would see a demonic image. These are funny things to see when one is reading a book that supposedly comes from Christ. This has never happened while reading the gospels.

I didn't want to dismiss ACIM just like that.  If it actually came from Christ, I didn't want to think of it in an irreverent way.  Therefore, on a number of occasions I prayed and asked if it comes from Christ. Every time I would ask this I would in some way be told "no, it doesn't." One time I saw an image of the book coming towards me (while my eyes were closed), but before it reached me it moved back into the darkness. Next the holy Bible came into view and reached me so I could see its cover clearly. This gave me the impression that if you want to read the words of Christ, then stick to the gospels.

On another occasion when I asked, the title of the book was shown so the words "A course in miracles" weren't shown. I could feel that this was clearly a way to show that the book "isn't" a course in miracles.

I've had dreams which told me that the book doesn't come from Christ.  At the end of one dream a man fervently shook me and asked me: "Why did you do it? Why did you allow yourself to be brainwashed again?" He was speaking of ACIM.  There is a forum member who had a dream which suggested that she consider what I say about ACIM, but she decided to not see things that way.

1. Does it really make sense that Jesus Christ would choose to channel information is such a manner for many years?
2. If he did, would he basically repeat the same thing over and over again, rather than explain many things?
3. Would he really dictate a 365 day one size fits all course?
4. Would Christ use afirmations as much as the course does? I've found that spiritual growth is obtained when one focuses one's attention on getting rid of the thought patterns that limit one's self, rather than making a bunch of affirmations.
5. Would he emphasize the ego as much as the course does? I already addressed this issue before.
6. Would a lady who was exposed to Christ's presence as much as Helen Schuman was, end up in the angry deppresive state she ended up in at the end of her life? She herself, the "author" cursed the book!
7. Would Jesus choose a vehicle of communication that creates yet another schism between those who believe in him?
8. Why do the words in ACIM, seem so different that Jesus' words in the gospels?
9. Doesn't it seem like words such as forgiveness, attonement, and heal are used in a manner that are robotic, rather than the reflection of a being who abides in a state of ultimate spiritual freedom?

I know practically zero about ACIM, but what exactly are you claiming Recoverer? That this whole book is written as some cunning deception to lead people astray by mixing some seemingly good teachings with less good ones? Why would the authors do that? What did they get out of it? I understand you are saying it is claimed to have been channelled by Christ. Well that sounds a big claim, but perhaps the authors did believe that was the ultimate source of their inspiration (whether true or not)? It would not be the first book with big claims and a mix of good and less good ideas - I should think, for example Conversations with God comes under that category too, and makes an even bigger claim in its very name (even though I seem to remember the author does not quite claim it is really all verbatim from God these days). It must be true for other less controversial books too. I don;t suppose there are many "perfect" books about, as there aren;t many perfect people either.

I invite anybody who really wants to find out, to pray to God and Christ, and ask them if ACIM comes from Christ. If they have the same results as I have received every time I did so, they will find that it doesn't come from Christ.

Regarding people relying on discrimination alone, the reason so many false sources of information get away with misleading people, is because discrimination isn't simply a matter of how intelligent and well meaning a person is. Often it takes experience and a real willingness to question before a person is able to discriminate in an effective manner.

Orlando:

The problem is, through this forum, another forum, and people I have met in person, when people get into ACIM, they often get to the point where they just won't question it. This causes them, whether they realize it or not, to view things according to some of the limiting and false ideas the course includes.

I'm not the only person who has found this. Above I provided an example of a man who found the same with himself and others as he taught the course.

If a non new age belief system was being questioned, I don't believe people would have a hard time seeing the shortcomings of limiting one's self according to such a belief system. Why view a new age belief system such as ACIM differently? If it limits and misleads a person in some way, then it is worth questioning.

I used to belong to a group that taught Advaita Vedanta and Chan Buddhism. Some of the things this group taught were true. The problem is that the teachings were packaged in a manner so that both false and true viewpoints became one stream of thought. It wasn't until I found my way free of such a way of thinking, that I found how limiting this way of thinking is. It was as if I was living in a phantasy World.

Going by what I've found, ACIM has the same effect.  I could feel myself getting brainwashed as I read it.  As the dream I shared above shows, my spirit guidance let me know that reading it had a brainwashing effect. I've provided an example of how other people have been brainwashed by it. Just go to ACIM forum, and see what happens if you try to speak of the course in an honest critical manner.

Regarding the motivation behind the teaching, the article I provided and other articles have found that it was an experiment in mind control by William Thetford.  If one looks at how the U.S. Government tries to mislead its citizens, it isn't hard to believe that they would take part in such an experiment. Perhaps with the thought they would use a similar method to mislead people from other countries. According to their way of thinking, the end justifies the means.

I'm not able to say for certain if William Thetford's involvement with the CIA actually has anything to do with ACIM.  It isn't important to know this for certain. What is important is that the course claims to be something it isn't, and can have a limiting effect.









orlando123 wrote on Nov 19^th, 2007 at 8:06pm:

I know practically zero about ACIM, but what exactly are you claiming Recoverer? That this whole book is written as some cunning deception to lead people astray by mixing some seemingly good teachings with less good ones? Why would the authors do that? What did they get out of it? I understand you are saying it is claimed to have been channelled by Christ. Well that sounds a big claim, but perhaps the authors did believe that was the ultimate source of their inspiration (whether true or not)? It would not be the first book with big claims and a mix of good and less good ideas - I should think, for example Conversations with God comes under that category too, and makes an even bigger claim in its very name (even though I seem to remember the author does not quite claim it is really all verbatim from God these days). It must be true for other less controversial books too. I don;t suppose there are many "perfect" books about, as there aren;t many perfect people either.

well apaprt from the conspiracy theory, I am just not sure that what you say couldn;t be applied to a lot of different religious or spiritual books and belief systems [ it is written persuasively and presented as being true even though we might find, on reflection, that some aspects of it don;t seem helpful to us or true to our way of thinking; it's followers are protective about it and don't particularly like people criticising it etc]. But I guess I would need to read it first to comment sensibly

Hi again R. The most fundamental response I can make is to say that we each have to make our own mind up on what we accept, and what we reject. And that we each may respond very differently to the same material. I can't second guess your insight or your response any more than anybody else has the right to impose beliefs on me or anybody else.

I haven't a clue where ACIM came from any more than any other of the holy books we like to quote or elevate to become sources of absolute truth to be quoted at each other in a 'so there, lets see if you can trump that' tone. For all I know it was written by the CIA.

My own experience with ACIM has been that I especially value it as a source of insight into how to practically handle life issues. That said it's heavy going and I can see how somebody reading it from an intense mindset (as sometimes happens in study groups if my experience is typical) could get overly focused on single phrases which if read in isolation seem to say things that are not (to me at least) what's meant.

There's an old Buddhist saying around this issue of meaning in spiritual writings: 'don't mistake the pointing finger for the moon'. Or put another way - I'm sure we've all had the experience of the not so bright dog who when we throw a stick for him to catch gets hung up on watching our hand and can't seem to see the stick is the point. (or maybe he's a smart dog that has better things to do than run after sticks thrown by some silly human! :))

Another take on this is contained in this quote from early Zen master Bodhidharma. He described Zen (Buddhism) as:

"Not reliant on the written word,
A special transmission separate from the scriptures;
Direct pointing at one's mind,
Seeing one's nature, becoming a Buddha."

What he's saying here is that the essential ingredient that's transmitted by spiritual teachers or revealed as we move along the spiritual path is ultimately indescribable in words. The teachings, writings and so on are only the finger pointing at the moon.

That the real message is essentially a state of mind or maybe a way of seeing that while unmistakeable when you experience it (like the taste of say a good beer) can only be pointed to. We can't directly describe say a flavour, we can only point to shared experience that others may use to form some idea of what we mean. (nutty, almondy, hoppy, lingering - doesn't tell you 'taste' does it?)

Don't mistake the circular treatment of topics as brain washing - it's an absolutely standard approach common to spiritual traditions dealing with multi faceted topics like these using our inherently dualistic language. The idea is to circle a core principle that's as above not easily expressed directly to map out the territory, to minimise the risk of misunderstanding.

It also helps to prevent our getting hung up on single phrases or sentences/rushing to rigid conceptual interpretations and promotes a more fluid, less dogmatic and open state of mind. (you have to stay open almost indefinitely) Bearing in mind that if we allow ourselves to get hung up, dogmatic or rigid in our interpretation of spiritual writings we've already missed the point. The only certainty at this level seems to be that there are none.

Another perspective is the thought that Jesus seems ultimately to have been a human vehicle grounding or manifesting the energy that is Christ consciousness. Point being that it wasn't just about the literal individually existing person. (any more than Buddhism is just about the individual that manifested as the Buddha) Many Buddhists would for example probably consider Jesus to have been a manifestation of the Buddha Avalokiteshvara (Chenrezig). (the compassionate aspect of higher mind).

This opens the possibility that Helen Schuman's (??) role was just to do something similar - to ground a message. In her case perhaps no more than the book - perhaps it wasn't her role to live an exemplar life. I seem to remember too that the instructions that came with book on its publishing were to keep the author secret - the plan was that the words should stand on merit alone, and that meanwhile the creation of another 'world teacher' would be counter productive at this time. (when arguably we're being asked to each take responsibility for ourselves)

Point being we all to one degree or another channel or receive higher guidance - it's a very human capability. It doesn't mean that Jesus literally had to materialise to whisper in her ear, that she had to in some way be divine. Although conventional Christian teaching of a divine and personalised Jesus has imbued many of us with this sort of expectation.

The bottom line is that we're each captains of our own soul, and responsible for making our own calls. Depending on our abilities, insight, intellect, judgement and so on we'll each react differently to different blocks of material. What suits the needs of one at this stage of their path may not suit another. What one draws from a teaching another may not see at all and instead concludes something else.

The big issue is that forcing our views on others is usually (even always?) a matter of ego, or an unwillingness to accept that everybody at some level possesses a true nature of basic sanity, compassion and wisdom - which given space will assert itself.

Compulsion does not work because in the same way as violence breeds violence people far from opening to views will actually close and resist even more strongly - disconnecting themselves further from their true nature . Or switch off and go brain dead - at best some form of blind unthinking belief which may be useful for controlling populations but delivers little by way of spiritual development.

 Hi R, thank you for starting this thread, though honestly i do think it belongs a bit more in the Off  Topic section than not.  


orlando123 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2007 at 3:32am:

well apaprt from the conspiracy theory, I am just not sure that what you say couldn;t be applied to a lot of different religious or spiritual books and belief systems [ it is written persuasively and presented as being true even though we might find, on reflection, that some aspects of it don;t seem helpful to us or true to our way of thinking; it's followers are protective about it and don't particularly like people criticising it etc]. But I guess I would need to read it first to comment sensibly

 You bring up some good points and questions, and a position that i myself took for awhile on this teaching.  

 But, i feel compelled somewhat to mention my own experiences with this book and teaching. And before i begin, i would like to point out that which seems material, isn't as material as one thinks...its all info, vibrating energy, and consciousness so even a simple book can have an energetic affect on us, especially on those more innately sensitive.  

I can relate to a lot of what R has said about his experiences and thoughts on it.

  I originally became very excited about ACIM, i had met someone and became friends with this person.   This person was a very enthusiastic person, and couldn't say enough good about this teaching and how much it had helped them.    In general, i was enthused to find a new spiritual teaching and one supposedly channeled directly by Jesus whom i've loved and deeply respected for a long time.    

  So, i bought the book.   First impression before even reading it, i thought it was odd that they were all wrapped up in plastic so one couldn't even open it and see what it was all about before one bought it.   But that thought didn't last very long.    

 When i started to actually read the book, a strange thing would happen to me.   Almost every time i would read it more than say 5 or 10 minutes at a time, i would start to get incredibly tired and sleepy (and often falling alseep).   I have read many, many spiritual and metaphysical type books and never had this happen like this before.  

 Occasionally while reading a very indepth book, at some points when it went over my head in a conceptual/mental or spiritual way, i'd might get a little tired after reading for awhile...a form of "clicking out" in a sense, but many of the spiritual books i've most liked also would energize me after initial click out type feelings and tendencies.    I never got energized by ACIM, just always tired to the point of wanting to go to sleep.   And its not like this book is complex or telling me anything i don't know like perhaps some of Bruce's or Monroe's books did.   We usually 'click out' when we come upon an unfamiliar belief, or way of looking at things.   ACIM is the same thing over and over again, very simple in its message, and most of the actual concepts i already know and believed in.   Mainly, that we have a True self aspect to us, and a false self.  The True self comes from Source, the false self is temporal and is self created.   The more one lives and operates from the True self, the more one attunes to Source which is reality.  

 So, nothing really new here for me and so this constant energy reaction was very odd.   One thing that i noticed about ACIM and which is something R noticed and mentions too, is its strong and consistent emphasis on the ego.   Plenty of spiritual teachers and teachings address the ego, but it is not the core or focus of their teachings.   If ego and ego concepts is too concentrated on, it can actually increase it.    We need to be aware of our shadow selves, both individually and collectively, not repress or ignore it, but the focus needs to be on that which fosters reality, mainly what Bruce calls PUL.   Like attracts and begets like, this energy law is found in so many different spiritual teachings, and my own experience also suggests that this law exists independently of what we as individuals and the collective actually believe.   This makes it in a sense, and objective and absolute "law" of the Universe, until at least we phase completely out of this Universe and become Co-Creators with Source of others systems, etc.

 Anyways, back to my more direct experiences.   When still actually reading ACIM, well i had an interesting dream around the time when i was still actually reading it (that didn't last too long), and in the dream i was climbing a tree, and i got to a limb which didn't support my weight like i thought it would, and it and i started bending down--i remember feeling in the dream that this wasn't a good sign.  I don't remember much more, and since i had it a long time ago, its kind of vague and hazy anyways, but i remember connecting that dream to ACIM after i woke up...but at the time i was active friends with the enthusiastic friend and somewhat caught up in the enthusiasm they expressed and in the enthusiasm of coming upon a new and supposedly good spiritual teaching--so i ignored my own dream guidance.

 Even though i ignored my own conscious guidance for a bit, i soon became rather disinterested in ACIM and stopped reading it.   A few times i would think to myself, "i really should get back to reading that book", but i would always put it off.  

Anyways, like Albert, i now believe this book can actually foster one's ego, but it's also very subtle.   I'm not against positive hypnotic teachings, that mostly concentrate on love, service, and the like since i do know that the false self is such a consistent barrier for so many, but if we look to Yeshua's example and teachings, in some ways they were quite different than ACIM.

 Problem with ACIM is that there is just enough real spiritual truth in there, to deceive even real and more intune spiritual students.   Christ himself warned us about false teachers and teachings in the future, and said that even the elect (those spiritually attuned by constructive use of freewill) could become deceived and mislead.      And this teaching becomes that more attractive to more people, when the sources is labeled as "Jesus himself" talking to us.  

 As R. pointed out, if this was such a constructive teaching, then why did the channel herself become so imbalanced, bitter, and "unspiritual" acting even after many years of being involved in it?    Why have others found a similar pattern?    Perhaps because it actually can foster the ego.    Now, no teaching or teacher can make us do anything, nor can they do the spiritual work for us (which is why i am wary of the guru-disciple relationship so strong in India and now in the west).     But everything does influence everything else to some extent or another.  

 Another person who use to be on this site, and who actively supported and liked ACIM said that she would often become quite angry while reading this book.   Why?   Is it really just an 'ego reaction'?

 Most people because they are innately good hearted and tend to trust others, can get caught up in false teachings and false teachers because of that innate good heartedness and trusting quality.   So many well known guru and mainstream Christian preachers and priest figures have shown this to be the case, and so many people have become deceived at some point by such false sources of spiritual info.   And when i say "false" i mean more specifically a particularly slow vibrating energy pattern.   That which is truly spiritual, is very fast vibrating in its consciousness and energy patterns.    

 It is true that one's ego can react in a negative or reactive emotional manner to a particularly pure and fast vibrating pattern/source, because the false self doesn't want to be regenerated. But at the same time, such a source over a time and if held too, will eventually foster feelings and attitudes of lovingness, peace, joy, temperance, balance and moderation and other fruits of the Spirit.    For example, when Rosiland McKnight was having her experiences with her guides, she would start to feel really good about life, others, and herself, and she also perceived their energy as a pure golden light at one point.   These were pretty intune consciousnesses, and thus had a mostly positive affect on her and others.    And because everything influences everything else, both unconsciously and consciously (more often unconsciously though), this is why its important to align in a conscious way to more true teachers and teachings, those who have at least regenerated a good chunk, most, or all of the false self.    

 Let's just say for a moment, that Jesus was really the source behind ACIM.   Well, Helen was the channel, the conduit.   Unless the channel itself is closer to purity, or goes in such a deep trance state wherein the conscious personality ego is more submerged (like with Edgar, his source said he wouldn't have been able to give the readings properly while more awake), then that channel, their ego, their emotional, mental, and spiritual distortions will influence and affect the information coming through.  

 Helen doesn't seem to have been a person who lived a deeply spiritual and loving life, particularly not right before the channeling of same, or well after.   She was not a pure conduit, and so how could the info itself be even close to pure?   By and through the law of energy resonation, and the phenomena where everything relative thing affects every other relative thing, it couldn't have been the case.  

 There are plenty of other good and accessible spiritual teachings out there.   Bruce's books are great, though  i wouldn't say he is fully enlightened, but i have and do pick up on some rather fast vibratory patterns in relation to him and his work--more so than many guru type teachings i've come across for example.

 Anyways, both R. and i are not just speaking from left brain type reasoning, thinking, etc. or just right brain type feelings, but from experience and guidance with ACIM.    Don't take our word for it though, try to go deeply within, bring up feelings and a state of PUL, and ask your own guidance to show you in various more unmistakable ways of whether or not this is a more helpful/constructive teaching independent of the relativity of the individual, or not.  Our  guidance and Greater selves know us pretty darn well, and if one is sincere, they can and will try to get across the more true message.

 

I have already discussed how the "Jesus" of ACIM perverts the real Jesus' teachings in such a way as to prey on the biblical illiteracy of a gullible New Age readership.  ACIM repeatedly implies that it promotes true sanity.  But not long after the completion of ACIM, its channeler, Helen Schucman, was victimized by the worst case of depression psychosis her good friend, Benedict Groeschel had ever seen.  As the real Jesus taught, "By their fruits you shall know them,"  i. e. know the difference between true spirituality and its various seductive counterfeits.      

Few people are more qualified than Dr. Benedict Groeschel to assess Helen Schucman’s 7-year odyssey in which ACIM was dictated to her by a spirit impersonator passing itself off as Jesus Christ.  Groeschel had been one of Helen Schucman’s grad students.  He later became a good friend, and so, was asked to conduct her funeral service and deliver her eulogy.  

Helen Schucman had briefly become a Catholic after visiting Lourdes.  She then asked to be baptized, attended Mass regularly, and prayed the Rosary.  Then she left the church. Grosechel reports:

“Schucman’s mother had been a Christian Scientist, one who read the girl from the writings of Mary Baker Eddy all during her childhood…I decided that A Course in Miracles was a fascinating blend of poorly understood Christianity inspired by her visit to Lourdes and poorly understood Christian Science inspired by the memory of Mary Baker Eddy’s writings, ALL FILTERED THROUGH SOME PROFOUND PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS AND PROCESSES.”

Helen's friend Benedict was shocked by the contradiction between Helen's stated convictions and the content of ACIM.  She often complained to him, "I hate that dam-n book," and she regularly disavowed its teachings.  “She became frightening to be with, Groeschel recalled, “spewing psychotic hatred not only for A Course in Miracles, but “for all things spiritual.”  When he sat at Schucman’s bedside as she lay dying, she cursed in the coarsest barroom language you could imagine, “That book, that goddamn book."  She said it was the worst thing that ever happened to her.  I mean, she raised the hair on the back of my head.  It was truly terrible to witness.”

Don

Don,

Is Father Groeschel without his own agenda in these quotes and descriptions?  If the Church took a negative view of ACIM, could not his motivations in speaking this way be suspect?

In any event, I have read the criticisms, and conspiracy theories aside, I do think that there are many flags for caution here about the book's source (JC).  Recoverer and Justin's experiences too give me pause.

Still, the concepts taught; those of love, forgiveness, and the dangers of ego - these beliefs are also taught in Judaism and christianity.  Which begs the question - if this were a channeling of a "low level" entity masquerading as Christ, what would be the gain?

The teachings generally are to love one's fellow man and God (as I understand it).  How would this further the end of one bent on misleading others?

The topic though, and the criticisms are interesting and compelling, and I must admit, I have no immediate urge to pick up ACIM at the present time.


Matthew

Interesting stuff. I've just had a dig on the web regarding Helen Schucman's life and this by Ken Wapnick is what came up: http://www.miraclestudies.net/Absence_Epilogue.html He addresses the problem of her difficult life.

Funnily enough I've had the same experience of finding ACIM hard to spend a lot of time on without clicking out. I'd put it down not so much to anything energetic or of spiritual import, but rather to the fact that it's not a book that's about providing more 'mind food' - interesting and exciting reading that enthuses one and draws one in. It's circular style is almost inevitably boring.

I've no axe to grind on the book and would be interested to hear what you guys have to say regarding exactly why it's spiritually wrong in places.

As I said I've not made a close study of it (not unrelated to the above reason) but I'd have to say that it's triggered no problems for me other than that it doesn't really position meditation as a useful tool.

What am I missing???

Doc:

I don't know whether Helen channeled a low level entity, channeled her subconscious, or if the whole thing was made up.

I believe it is completely inappropriate for a source to claim that it comes from Jesus Christ, even if it does have some good things to say.  I've seen too many people who could've chosen to obtain guidance from Christ in an actual way, get caught up with ACIM instead. If deceptive beings were involved, I believe they would consider it a big joke (hardy har har) and great accomplishment to get people to believe that a course comes from Christ when it doesn't. If the course didn't include words that seem genuine in some way, nobody would be taken in by it.

Regarding the negatives of the course, besides its lie about where it comes from, below is a list of some of these negatives. Some of which I've already mentioned.

1. It is written in a manner that has a brainwashing effect.  I ignored the early signals my spirit guidance gave me about the course. Fortunately, it didn't take long before I noticed that it was brainwashing me. I noticed this when occasions would occur where instead of thinking for myself, my mind would come up with a line from the course. Why did I recognize this when others don't? Possibly because I had been brainwashed by false teachings before and recognized the signs. I believe that if a course of instruction is genuine, one will have enough clarity of mind to completely question it.  One certainly won't have any resistance to doing so.

On an earlier thread I provided an example which shows that I'm not the only one who has been brainwashed by the course(the example about a man who taught the course to others). Additionally, at a new age fair I visited an ACIM booth. The three people I spoke to each had a brainwashed look in their eyes.

2. The course borrows from Vedanta in a way that is unhealthy. It can breed indifference to the World.  Ramana Maharshi is one of the most famous Vedanta teachers of the 19th century. I used to be a big fan. Anytime somebody would ask him about the problems of the World, wars and such, he would always tell them the World is nothing but a dream. I agree to this extent. All of time happens in the same "now." Therefore, the problems of yesterday and the problems of tomorrow, are happening during the same now that today's problems exist.  But this doesn't mean that they don't take place. People have to suffer in the past and the future, just as they have to suffer today.  When people take steps to make life in the World better today, not only do they help people who live now, they help people who live in the future.  Some of the Vedanta people I used to know went from being politically active people to being people who didn't even vote.  "Why worry about what goes on in the World, when it is only a dream? (I'm speaking in a third person sense here.) Try telling that to a mother who saw her kid's limbs get sliced off in increments in a place like Sudan. I've seen this attitude reflected on this forum. When I've tried to point out false teachings on another thread, an ACIM's fan basically wrote as ACIM says nothing is real, so lighten up Albert.

Like Vedanta, the course doesn't do much to acknowledge the creative aspect of being, which just as much a part of God as awareness is a part of God. In line with this, the course says that the universe wasn't created by God.

3. As I wrote before, the course places way too much emphasis on the ego. To an extent where a person might take on a belief system that gives his or her egotistical tendencies of mind too much power. As I wrote before my guidance said to drop the course, because it makes the ego bigger.  I've found it is better to approach spiritual growth in a manner that allows us to work on our unwanted tendencies on a tendency by tendency basis, rather than thinking too strongly in terms of an ego monster that needs to be defeated.

4. There are so many things the course doesn't talk about.  Yet the course has soooooooooo many pages. I've heard of people who read the course over and over.  It would be better if they moved on and found additional approaches.

5. As I wrote on another post, belief systems tend to be assembled as a package deal. Therefore, even if the course has some good things to say, the elements that are false are liable to give a person some difficulty when he or she tries to find a way to spiritually grow.

6. The spirit guidance I've received has been very specific. There is no way what I went through could be packaged as a one size fits all course for others to follow. Contrary to this, ACIM is packaged as a one size fits all course. Especially the 365 day part.

7. In various places the course makes statements that basically add up to saying that a person isn't capable of questioning the course so don't bother.

8. Sometimes people like courses such as ACIM because it delays their getting to the point of doing what is really required: "looking at themselves." I've found that doing so takes a time commitment. A commitment that could be hard for a person to make, if this person spends a lot of time following a lengthy course that somehow fits everybody.






DocM wrote on Nov 20^th, 2007 at 4:18pm:

Don, Still, the concepts taught; those of love, forgiveness, and the dangers of ego - these beliefs are also taught in Judaism and christianity.  Which begs the question - if this were a channeling of a "low level" entity masquerading as Christ, what would be the gain? Matthew

Vajra:

I just want to let you know that I'm not ignoring your participation in this dialogue. Hopefully enough of what I wrote applies to what you wrote. I would address what you wrote on a point by point basis, but golly gee, I think I've already written quite a bit. :)

I hesitate to criticise something I don;t know, and that some people find helpful, but, I did read on Wikipedia - like Recoverer says in one point - that there is an emphasis on the world not being "real". I can see the probably Christian Science influence there, and I'm not convinced that kind of idea is especially helpful, even if, eg you find the idea of the world as "illusion"in Buddhism too. I personally feel that the physical world has it's plusses and is probably not just here as an accident, trap or illusion.  Anyway, as I say I am not really qualified to judge something I've not read

Hi Oliver, when ACIM says the world is not real, it is referring to our scientific observations about the energy construction of objects, that there is nothing really solid as we may think it is solid, therefore it is real to us, but real has only the meaning we attach to real,  everything is in a state of energy vibration, and from a spirits viewpoint, they will see quite a different image to what is real. so thats one way to understand what its saying. It is not a book built around science or physics, but rather around psychology.
also the other way of looking at that is that we know that our years are numbered. in eternity nothing on that side is in process of degrading, such as here, our table, our housing, cars, etc, they all require maintenance, as well we age,  over time, breaking down, a natural course here, but not on the side of eternity, things do not wear out or break nor do we experience aging.

so hope that helps a little, and thanks for being so honest, that you are reluctant to make quick judgments.

ACIM states that the universe we find ourselves in wasn't created by God.  This contradicts what Robert Monroe states when he wrote about the Creator, and when one considers the real meaning of his Loosh story (the INSPEC's version, not BB's version).  ACIM's viewpoint also contradicts Bruce Moen's experience with the planning intelligence. It also contradicts many other sources of information who state that this World and universe aren't just a big mistake that were created independently of God. My response to Rondelle on this thread provides more details.


LaffingRain wrote on Nov 20^th, 2007 at 11:43pm:

Hi Oliver, when ACIM says the world is not real, it is referring to our scientific observations about the energy construction of objects, that there is nothing really solid as we may think it is solid, therefore it is real to us, but real has only the meaning we attach to real,  everything is in a state of energy vibration, and from a spirits viewpoint, they will see quite a different image to what is real. so thats one way to understand what its saying. It is not a book built around science or physics, but rather around psychology. also the other way of looking at that is that we know that our years are numbered. in eternity nothing on that side is in process of degrading, such as here, our table, our housing, cars, etc, they all require maintenance, as well we age,  over time, breaking down, a natural course here, but not on the side of eternity, things do not wear out or break nor do we experience aging. so hope that helps a little, and thanks for being so honest, that you are reluctant to make quick judgments.

I think the difficulty in interpreting much of this sort of stuff R is as I said to connect with it.

I for example made a sandwich for my lunch today. Does that mean that God or primordial mind was not involved in it too?? That God did not create it? That both realities don't simultaneously exist?

It'd be easy to interpret my statement above to that effect, that I've somehow taken on Godly powers of creation. But that's not what I mean, or what any of us mean when we say that.

There's a very old Buddhist principle in this stuff I've mentioned before. That being that truth usually lies somewhere between the polarities (the yin/yang) in anything but is best expressed by reference to a higher principle. To fasten on to either polarity means missing the higher truth, and probably getting stuck in a sterile is/isn't argument at the (lower) level of the polarity.

This is another take on the 'finger pointing at the moon' idea i outlined before. I'm really sorry if I'm being pushy and don't mean to offend, but I don't think that you can successfully tap the meaning of much of ACIM by fastening on sentences and interpreting them in isolation and in very literal terms.

Any more than you can do that with the Bible either. That doesn't stop lots trying, but it's at least a part of what has resulted in it's use to justify some very unpleasant actions.

It's absolutely correct that you steer clear of ACIM if it doesn't feel right for you, but as I've said before it reads well to somebody seeing it through a  more Buddhist frame of mind. I've not studied it closely enough to have a firm view, but so far I've not seen a really convincing argument put up as to why it's wrong.

:)Maybe we should just agree that we (possibly) differ..

Vajra asked:  "I for example made a sandwich for my lunch today. Does that mean that God or primordial mind was not involved in it too?? That God did not create it? That both realities don't simultaneously exist?"


Albert (Recoverer) replies: "The ironic thing is that ACIM borrows from Vedanta, which contends that everything is the one self. If this is so, it would be false to do as ACIM does and state that this universe wasn't created by God, because only God/the one self exists.

Hi Albert,

Ok then, lets explore this assertion.
But to be fair to everyone, both who have and have not read the book, can you cite, or better yet, quote the passage, or even a brief excerpt of the one in question so we may all examine it?
Unless you've discarded the book.

That would be most appreciated.
thanking you in advance,


- u

Thanks for the clarification Alysia

Recoverer, you seem quite interested in debunking various gurus and books etc/ I think you mean well and want to steer people away from teachings you think can be harmful or unhelpful. However, I'd like to know if there are any teachers/books etc you completely endorse, or do you go more for the "truth is a pathless land" type of thinking?

I'm confused what Vedanta is. I suppose Dave knows what that is.
ACIM does not have that word in it; you seem to be mixing up philosophies here.

If as you say, Vedanta is contending that everything is the one self, I don't see a conflict there with ACIM, but I see you are upholding Vedanta, and not ACIM.

I think I know what you're getting at.  In ACIM it says God did not make this world.

this is very very simple to explain. ACIM is not saying god is dead or that there is no god. not at all. ACIM is saying We made this world, and that god is in the heavens watching his children endure a nightmare.

Now, it's not so bad to have a life, but if we take the holocaust, do u suppose that was god's idea? No. We made the holocaust, we can undo that.

ACIM goes along with Bruce's vision of Voyage to Curiosity's Father.
http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/vision.html

This particular vision was the first thing I read when I came to this site which took me further than ACIM could explain. ACIM is right brained stuff, I needed more left brained stuff. but that doesn't mean ACIM is not valuable. it is.

What this means to continue, God is. Man is. It does seem man is separated from his god when there is a war or a famine or a disaster.

Man will cry out where is god? well, god is where he always was, letting us run the show down here and make our own mistakes, as a whole, as humanity, and we go along feeling we are indeed separate from god. the truth is war and death that evolves from war is what we have made. We made hell, we can unmake hell, but it's a process to heal the separation we think is there between god and man.

but we can only do that from the inside job of what we choose to believe in, so to create on the outside.

and god is defined within our own image. this is idolatry to make god in our image.
God is All That Is, but he gave us free will to make our own reality, yet it cannot compare, what we make here, with our true home from whence we came.

fact is, we have our memory wiped out for a new life to begin. we need new experiences as spirit, we need to know how to stop being a warring people overall. we are discussing ego on another thread, so this all ties in with ACIM discussion of how the ego will strive to separate rather than make as one.

Ego can be heartless on this planet, without compassion, we are a people still capable of killing one another. God is not capable of killing and making war, nor punishing, god is, the only thing I know what god is, is life itself, like a grace which descends that tells you, you are going to be ok, you did the right thing, I am with you, that sort of thing comes into meditation with you. that would be god to me.

we should not try to make god into our own self image, and I agree with ACIM,
this place, if it be without love, it is not my home, and god did not make this world.
because only love is real.

But play your part on the stage of life well, whatever that role, and know that one moment with the truth that you are loved is worth all the books you may have read.

A book, any book is inspired by a person's soul searching. Helen who channelled ACIM was at the end of her rope in life. as so often happens, before big changes of a transformational kind can come in, one has to be at the virtual end of one's rope in order to open up to the truth.

Helen and her associate psychologist worked daily together in the same office and fought like dogs and cats. Finally, one day they decided they needed to stop fighting. They had no religion. Funny, one doesn't need a religion to sit down and pray together. So they were not atheists. Maybe agnostics. At any rate even an atheist crys out in their soul to a god they do not believe in, when push comes to shove.

The prayer worked. I believe it was around 1957. ACIM took some years to get done. Helen would do some of the channelling at night, her partner would take the notes and type them up. They stopped fighting at the time because the material was drawing them together in a new struggle. To understand it. Helen was disturbed by this new channelling business. a voice was in her head, as well, she didn't like that. She needed her former enemy to stabalize her emotions, what was happening.
Since they had prayed together, they knew the channelling had come after the prayer and so they started to look at the material together and learn from it, but it took many years.  It is instrumental to note here the power of prayer. The bible says where two or more of you are gathered, there I am in the midst.

we can find many examples how prayer does work, so I am not surprised that this book was given to two people who work in the mental health field and is all about the ego of man and belief systems, for Helen had the necessary back ground into human psychology so that even thought she had difficulty with it, with the words seeming so lofty and flowery, as she was left brained, she would get better at jotting down what the spirit told her to. she did argue and try to change the text.
The spirit said it must not be changed, not even one word, and so she had to place her own ego by the wayside in order to write this thing, if any of you know how hard it is to set the ego aside, please tell us about it. it is very difficult to be a channeller.

ok, enough! lol.  in essence, ACIM says don't defend the material. So I'm seeing Recoverer is seeing understanding, I'm just trying to pass on my understanding and hope that it may help, but know that there are other paths to take besides ACIM, but it is a path, not like overnight transformation, but takes at the least a year, then I know ACIM students and teachers, who start reading it again because they missed something the first time through.

No book should be critiqued though until you read the entire book and have an overview of the entire thing.
there will never be a church of ACIM. It is the church is your own closet. thats what I like about it the most.
Churches, religions, they get distorted with different viewpoints. Since ACIM is a self study, it can never be a religion and does not separate you from your brothers and sisters of any affiliation.

Alysia wrote:
"Now, it's not so bad to have a life, but if we take the holocaust, do u suppose that was god's idea? No. We made the holocaust, we can undo that."

The argument is,
if God is all, then God is in everything, what we call good or bad, no exception.

If God created man, and is all-knowing, and man is commiting bad deeds, then it can't be said God has nothing to do with it. When it is stated that man has free will, the all-knowing creator would have known what man is going to do. And if physical life is called a dream, well then, in the last consequence, God is responsible for this dream. Considering us selves as part of God, this is even more true, and then we can't even blame something to God without meaning us.

If God created man, and is not all-knowing, that would leave space for regions without God, and even other Gods.

-------------------------------------------------

So, from this, I can't follow the reasoning that an all-aware, all creating God has nothing to do with what we call the evil. This argument comes from seeing God all too humanlike.

Quote Alysia: "ACIM is saying We made this world, and that god is in the heavens watching his children endure a nightmare."
 Formulated differently taking the above example, God is watching his children being overpowered, tortured, put to death in concentration camps. It's plain to see that God isn't what we call a nice guy. Learning the hard way, maybe it's called. The relief might come from the outlook to awake from this nightmare when we die.

Spooky

ok you can look at it that the Jewish people have this sacrificial lamb type of oversoul..follow me so far? The Jewish people are a segment of god, meaning they broke off from god and wanted experiences on Earth. They had a mission to fulfill to teach how man can be cruel to man, due to no love being practiced and learned on Earth.

but still WE are all God. the collective mind is also god. The individual mind is god. Together, when we find oneness we are with the one in consciousness then.

god is watching but god is you and me and everyone is god but the illusion stands that we believe we are separate from god, and whatever we believe that is what outpictures into the physical reality. just belief. or mind.

we do have light beings who watch over us and come when asked for help, or when we pray, where two or more are gathered there is god in the midst of you.

but I believe it is impossible to see god as a single, individual personage being, just does not compute. Spirit is spirit, man is spirit permeating the structure of the body as spirit, thinking it is a body, for the experience, and we are getting ready to shift into a different dimension of awareness with the aid of spirit.

so in that sense god is aware of when bad things happen, but theres always a reason for the wars..and now I think theres a reason for not having wars but theres this thing called free will. so you have to think that we are able to make choices as a whole, as the majority, towards controlling our environment better than we have in the past, I dare say no light beings can interfere in what we must take responsibility for the world we see around us, we can undo our mistakes, meaning we stop killing, god does not make us stop killing. god is not a man. he is our inner voice angel.


hi back again, lol. Spooky, I have to take you in chunks  :)

I can't give u all that I learned, but consider that when we incarnate man comes in, he has a plan, he experiments, he has intentions. Monroe says we make loosh in a successful life. when we come in for a dive, we automatically have this "split" mind. meaning we forget the previous life.
so we are "new" but we have been here so many times before. the mind is split because it is a duality world. dual is synonamous with word to be split, a subconcious mind and a conscious mind. when we integrate the two sides of the brain as in hemisync, we are tapping into memories, just like the Course said, we start remembering who we really are. We are in essence, without the distortions of all our belief systems, whether they be religious or political, we are pure as the driven snow, a part of god, we are basically good people behind it all.


ACIM says our essence is PUL.

I believe this despite any wars we have had and sometimes there are spirits who enjoy fighting, and yet they learn from the fight.
you should read Voyage to Curiosity's Father as it shows how we broke off from another being and were on a scouting mission, saw Earth and dived in. God is still waiting for his scouts to get back home. see, this is Bruce's vision, that we started out as Curiousness. Something innocent. Curious. So, here was this planet and we started the process of evolution upon it and got a little attached to it. addicted even to life here. so if we broke off from another huge portion of some being of light called Curiosity's Father, I can understand this much better than to try to visualize some being sending us here knowing we would self destruct with free will. that doesn't make a lot of sense either.

I'll go read u some more...I'm not blaming the germans btw for the holocaust, no way, they were a single act with the Jewish, it was planned the way it happened. nobody will understand it that way but I do.

more chunks. you said the relief might come from waking up from the nightmare. yes, thats about it, but it's you and I that do the waking up part by the right choices we make in our lives.
ACIM says the ego has endless questions. just when you get some questions answered the ego has more. It is never satisfied. ACIM says go and seek an experience. Since you are here, since C1 doesn't know everything, seek an experience.
which means to me, stop bugging your head with so many questions no one can answer without attaining experience.
with the split mind, the ego, the selfish part of us does the question part. the other part of our mind, connected with right perception, with what we call universal consciousness it will tell you about everything, like love, what it is, what is isn't, etc but it is necessary that we do a walk through linear time to attain this experience we came here for, so we don't have to come back and repeat the same lessons.

I rarely think of what god is, because he has to be inside me, if I saw him outside me, that would be saying I'm separated. so it's not real, this world is not the real one, but it will do for now! lol. so hard to talk about these things. what we should look at is our own heart, our own fabricated worlds of belief, and take care of our relationships one to one, to not be making karma to clean up.
we can do this by forgiveness, the Course says to forgive automatically, each one, then we are not making karma or war.

now I suppose your going to cite some example where forgiveness is impossible?  ::)
I would just say take as much time as you need to work out things, because sometimes time is all we have.

we can be quick in our progress or we can spread it out over life times, just depends on how much you meditate, read, make efforts, love your neighbor, etc.

be kind to dogs, lol, be kind to alysia if you want.  :-/

don't worry Spooky, surely the universe is unfolding exactly on schedule despite there are moments we wonder!
ACIM does not explain the beginning of the universe as there is no way to figure out infinity as having a beginning and an ending.

It's a book about love. PUL. Love just is. It doesn't need to be defined, but felt, and allowed to be.

now, why didn't I just say that in the beginning? ::)

someday Spooky, you're going to have to stop singing the blues as good as you do, and you'll sing some fine love tunes, wait and see! me too I hope!

Sounds consisting to me, Alysia. I'm not sure though that I do believe the same, with some things I'm cautious and would believe them only if I had personal experiences about it.
 Yes, questioning often will not lead to satisfying answers, and even lead to more questions. But intellectual things, like for example a thread of thoughts on this board here, can only be replied intellectually, while I agree, the fullness of existence cannot be encompassed with intellectual means.

Thank you for taking the time for this long reply.

And yes, regarding singing the blues, believe it or not, sometimes indeed I need the softer tunes, and listen to the greatest hits of The Carpenters  :) .

Spooky

wrote on Nov 20^th, 2007 at 4:35pm:

Interesting stuff. I've just had a dig on the web regarding Helen Schucman's life and this by Ken Wapnick is what came up: http://www.miraclestudies.net/Absence_Epilogue.html He addresses the problem of her difficult life. Funnily enough I've had the same experience of finding ACIM hard to spend a lot of time on without clicking out. I'd put it down not so much to anything energetic or of spiritual import, but rather to the fact that it's not a book that's about providing more 'mind food' - interesting and exciting reading that enthuses one and draws one in. It's circular style is almost inevitably boring. I've no axe to grind on the book and would be interested to hear what you guys have to say regarding exactly why it's spiritually wrong in places. As I said I've not made a close study of it (not unrelated to the above reason) but I'd have to say that it's triggered no problems for me other than that it doesn't really position meditation as a useful tool. What am I missing???

 Hi Vajra, i agree with Albert, it just simply has too much consistent emphasis on ego, as in a big ego monster type outlining.     I guess i would recommend the practice section a bit more than the teaching section between them there seems a bit less focus on the big ego monster in the latter part.  

  There is truth and beauty in same, but to change the subconscious mind you have to focus more or primarily on the reality, the positive, the "what i want to become and am at the real core".   I don't do this enough myself, and that's because i'm not fully attuned to Source, like
ACIM claims to be.    It's possible that ACIM is more from Helen's subconscious than anything else.   This doesn't make it "evil" or misleading on purpose, but could make it incomplete, imbalanced, and not fully Source attuned.

 Also, the specific dream guidance i had while reading the course.   I intuitively connected that deceptive bending branch and not so good feeling to ACIM even though consciously i wanted to believe in the authenticity of same at the time.   I quickly ignored that feeling and thought.  

 Also, ACIM totally disregards the body physical, and its role while actually incarnated regarding its potential and oft actually influencing either negatively or positively the emotional and mental aspects.  

  A lot of guidance connected to TMI, particularly Rosiland McKnight's guides, and also Cayce's guides teach quite differently.   They say that while we are physically incarnate, its important to keep the body physical-- the Temple strong, harmonized, clean, and clear in a physical, diet, health way so that the faster vibrating aspects of self can shine through more strongly, clearly, and consistently.   Not to become over attached to or over concentrate on same, but to be mindful and to practice physical discipline just as we should practice mental/emotional discipline. They stress a constructive holistic balance between the physical, mental, and spiritual.   They point out that a really imbalanced body and self, from even just more purely physical influences, can have a detrimental and imbalancing affect on the Whole of the energy system.

  And while i do believe that the physical and the body is ultimately unreal (such as ACIM teaches), i don't believe its constructive to totally disregard the physical, and the body while actually incarnate like ACIM seems to stress.  

 I don't believe its black and white.   ACIM seems to 'teach' people to totally disregard the body.  If this is the case, and i'm perceiving this accurately, then it means it is imbalanced inherently.   Again, this doesn't make it sinister, evil, or purposely misleading necessarily--though i also consider that possibility too.

 As far as the 'clicking out' thing in relation to ACIM.   It was more a constant tiredness and drained feeling when reading same.   Not simple boredom, it was way too fast for that.   I've read A LOT of books of all kinds, and many spiritual type ones, and i've never had this extreme and consistent reaction to another book of any kind.  

 And last, and least is that i've gotten guidance in relation to Albert, and while i know he is not infallible all the time, i very much trust him and his connections to guidance.  Him and Bruce Moen are two of the most intune people i've interacted with in some capacity and tuned into. Albert has gotten consistent, repeating guidance telling him to leave ACIM alone because of its potentially ego increasing affect.    

 I don't just take his word for it, but after the the feelings and guidance that i have had (before i knew about his), it more than gives me pause to consider his own experiences, feelings, and guidance.   It's pretty simple to find out for oneself.   Get very relaxed and receptive, bring up feelings and state of being of PUL,  intend to surround oneself with pure Source consciousness, intend no preconceived beliefs, ask to communicate with Yeshua/Christ and ask him if it came directly and purely from him or not.    Chances are that one will get an answer in some way.    Also ask to  have dream guidance about it, or for the answer to be verified in other ways for you.

 Either way, no one needs ACIM to wake up and become fully attuned to Source again.    It appears from having known various people into ACIM, that many become quite over attached to and over dependent on same, and tend to get over reactive when others honestly question it.    This is true of people and belief systems in general, but it seems particularly extreme in those who have invested a lot in this teaching.    

 And why the hey do they package the new books completely wrapped in plastic so that no one can preview the book?  

P.S., i went to that link you posted, and i tried to read that article.   After reading awhile, and constantly hearing how much on a pedestal the author of same was putting her on, and not seeing the explanations for her difficult and rather troubled life too clearly, i stopped reading it.   It seemed too much like personality and messenger worship.    It reminded me of a lot of the stuff and tone i've read in relation to the whole guru disciple relationship amongst Eastern beliefs, Gurus, and the like and people strongly into same.   It seems that sometimes people are too quick to make excuses for certain teachers and teachings, to so automatically attribute a negative type pattern to something completely positive and 'transcendent".

 For example, somewhat synchronistically, Osho came up on another group i'm at.   There is a  person on that group who is really into eastern teachings, gurus, and the guru-disciple relationship.    For another person who didn't seem to know much about Osho, and the guru guy was strongly recommending him to this person (a woman), i spoke up and directed them to this site and earlier discussion about this particular figure.    The guru guy seemed to get over reactive towards this (and over personal towards me), and possibly because he is good buddies with the leader, the guy who started the group, well my post got erased with no prior notice to myself.  
I persisted a bit after, and the guru guy seemed to at first support Osho's own sayings about himself, that he was completely enlightened, etc., but then later as a defense of Osho, he quoted his own gurus' (Amma's) words about Osho, that he was a fool, but a harmless fool.   Such extreme and obvious contradictions makes me wonder about people's ability to discriminate and balance the right brain aspect of self with the left brain.   First he is enlightened as he claimed, then he is a fool, but a harmless one.    Actually, it's probably more about over attachment, particularly emotional over attachment to ones beliefs (which the huge percentage of us have to some extent or another, but the consciousness or unconsciousness of it is the most important aspect).  

  I say, thank Source for folks like Albert who aren't hung up on projecting a spiritual image, who are honest, sincere, and care about people and speak from that space.   There is way too much dishonesty, hypocrisy, image projecting and attachment, negative over concern about what the group or others will think about self, etc. in the spiritual, New age world.   I respect Albert because he seems not to try to get personal about it, and tries to stick more to the general concepts, ideas, etc. at hand.  

As mentioned before Justin my personal question mark about ACIM is that it at my superficial level of reading seemed not to emphasise meditation as a part of the path. (correct me if I'm wrong).

The two groups I encountered both actively downplayed meditation ('we don't do meditiation') and instead emphasised essentially intellectual discussion of sections of the book. They had what for me was an overly serious and earnestly studious vibe. Not to mention quite a few damaged and needy members looking for something to grasp on to. (not healthy)

The Buddhist view of this (and I support it from personal experience) is that intellectual debate alone without practice cannot ever lead to realisation - it just pours energy into the ego. (much as just described in the thread on ego) This might explain the sense you guys get from it.

I didn't pick that up from the book itself,  but as a 'semi-detached' Buddhist I made no effort to study it intensely and instead used bits more as a prompt for insight into aspects of my life. I've found it very  useful and profound in that regard (and consistent with aspects of Buddhist thought), but it's possibly this distance and my natural reluctance to get 'heavy' on the intellectual side (I'm much more strongly driven by intuition) that prevented this.

Not to mention a certain refusal to take stuff too seriously (laziness and lack of application some would call it), and a willingness to take what I can accept and drop what I can't without feeling the need to reject the whole book. ('pearl fishing' I think it's called)

That said the vibe about those groups was enough to keep me away, so at some level we seem to agree.

Put another way. Some get very intense about study, and can get very hung up about trying to literally remember it all, about believing, and about trying live from some intellectual model. And misinterpret. Couple it with a need for something to believe in and it can get very messy.

This doesn't work, at least not for me anyway - I'd end up stuck in my head buried in obsessive thought that blocks the heart and ultimately with a nervous breakdown. (that's where I was headed 20 years ago, I've spent the years since releasing some of it) My style is to read more lightly, to stay more open and rely on more subconscious means of absorbtion. I'll never make a scholar that way, but somehow the insights that matter do seem to permeate my consciousness.

I'm not trying to knock anybody's guidance. (I'm really sorry Albert if it feels that way) For example you'd expect to get steered away by your guidance if the book was not going to help you personally for whatever reason.

ACIM is not necessarily perfect, and is not necessarily right for all. If nothing else it's just one style of delivery of the message, and as such by definition will suit some better than others. Differing study groups can have very different vibes which will influence a lot too.

But that doesn't mean it suits nobody or can't help some either.

What I was trying to say above though (and I think Alysia too) is that it can probably be very helpful indeed if approached the right way. But that as in approaching any teaching the right view is necessary or the result may not be what might be expected.

Perhaps the best way to put it is that there's horses for courses, and that by definition we don't have to should and should not try to agree on a one size fits all view of ACIM... ..

wrote on Nov 24^th, 2007 at 9:26am:

As mentioned before Justin my personal question mark about ACIM is that it at my superficial level of reading seemed not to emphasise meditation as a part of the path. (correct me if I'm wrong). The two groups I encountered both actively downplayed meditation ('we don't do meditiation') and instead emphasised essentially intellectual discussion of sections of the book. They had what for me was an overly serious and earnestly studious vibe. Not to mention quite a few damaged and needy members looking for something to grasp on to. (not healthy)

 Seems to be the case, but it's been quite awhile since i read it so i may be off.  If it is the case, then very good point.  I've come to understand that some form of meditation, is in a universal sense, almost necessary for a fuller Source attunement while incarnated.   On a more personal level, all the sources that i've really resonated at a deep level with, repeatedly emphasize the importance of regular practice of meditation and prayer.   This has a centering, strengthening, and balancing affect on the total human energy system, and when practiced regularly it more facilitates living in ones daily life the principles and livingness that ACIM seems to expound.

 Way back when, the enthusiastic person and ACIM fan i was friends with, essentially told me that they don't do meditation, and that they don't need it.   I didn't understand this and was one of the red flags in relation to this teaching and those who promote it at the time.  I kind of forgot about this until you brought it up.



Quote:

The Buddhist view of this (and I support it from personal experience) is that intellectual debate alone without practice cannot ever lead to realisation - it just pours energy into the ego. (much as just described in the thread on ego) This might explain the sense you guys get from it.

I couldn't agree more, and for the second part--perhaps.

Quote:

I didn't pick that up from the book itself,  but as a 'semi-detached' Buddhist I made no effort to study it intensely and instead used bits more as a prompt for insight into aspects of my life. I've found it very  useful and profound in that regard (and consistent with aspects of Buddhist thought), but it's possibly this distance and my natural reluctance to get 'heavy' on the intellectual side (I'm much more strongly driven by intuition) that prevented this.

 I dunno.  Could be that you are getting unconscious nudges from your own guidance to not invest or concentrate on it too much yourself, rather than it just being your own style?


Quote:

Not to mention a certain refusal to take stuff too seriously (laziness and lack of application some would call it), and a willingness to take what I can accept and drop what I can't without feeling the need to reject the whole book. ('pearl fishing' I think it's called)

I'm a believer that we shouldn't always throw out the baby with the bath water, but at the same time only when we have a more clear insight into what is constructive and not so, from both the individual and more universal perspective.    Once we can and have more clearly discerned and discriminated, then we can effectively and constructively go "pearl fishing" as you put it.   As i've said, there IS truth and beauty in ACIM.    If one is well centered, well balanced, and already living that which brings reality, then i would say its easier to separate the wheat from the chaff.  


Quote:

That said the vibe about those groups was enough to keep me away, so at some level we seem to agree.

 Perhaps.


Quote:

Put another way. Some get very intense about study, and can get very hung up about trying to literally remember it all, about believing, and about trying live from some intellectual model. And misinterpret. Couple it with a need for something to believe in and it can get very messy.

 Yup, seems to happen all the time.   I'm part of a meetup group that meets in physical to talk about and discuss 'spiritual' subjects and issues.   On a personal level, i don't particularly agree with the direction of the group, because it seems to be so limited to intellectual discussion.  When i or others try to shift the group to more practice oriented things like doing some volunteer work, protest certain things going on, or incorporate more regular meditation in the meetings, well we pretty much get completely ignored.   It's like they want to keep it on an intellectual plane more so.   This to me, is one of the ways of avoiding regenerating the false self.  
Quote:

This doesn't work, at least not for me anyway - I'd end up stuck in my head buried in obsessive thought that blocks the heart and ultimately with a nervous breakdown. (that's where I was headed 20 years ago, I've spent the years since releasing some of it) My style is to read more lightly, to stay more open and rely on more subconscious means of absorbtion. I'll never make a scholar that way, but somehow the insights that matter do seem to permeate my consciousness.

I'm glad to hear that you avoided that stagnant pattern.

Quote:

I'm not trying to knock anybody's guidance. (I'm really sorry Albert if it feels that way) For example you'd expect to get steered away by your guidance if the book was not going to help you personally for whatever reason.

 I didn't think you were, and in any case i usually don't and try not to take things too personally.   I recently came out of a more self sensitive and 'take things too personally cycle" when Saturn was near my ASC point.   I feel a lot lighter lately, and have been working on some of the issues that my Greater self in the guise of Saturn brought up for me.  It has helped a lot.  I'm very grateful for the intense pressure, challenge, and difficulties of that cycle.


Quote:

ACIM is not necessarily perfect, and is not necessarily right for all. If nothing else it's just one style of delivery of the message, and as such by definition will suit some better than others. Differing study groups can have very different vibes which will influence a lot too. But that doesn't mean it suits nobody or can't help some either.

 I agree, and having studied astrology for a long while, i've developed an attitude, a thinking pattern which looks, perceives, thinks and feels more in terms of probabilities and tendencies.   After all, that's what astrology is all about, probabilities and tendencies.  Nothing written in quartz crystal (quartz is one of the only materials that we know, which doesn't naturally degrade with time).
 The question to me, is ACIM what it claims to be?  Is it really direct from Jesus with no distortion affect?   So far, i'm leaning to believe first that its not from Jesus in actuality, and at the very least that if it is from Jesus then it is not pure and undistorted.  



Quote:

What I was trying to say above though (and I think Alysia too) is that it can probably be very helpful indeed if approached the right way. But that as in approaching any teaching the right view is necessary or the result may not be what might be expected.

Certainly its important to approach any teaching with the right attitude, and that any teaching which has truth and beauty within same, can potentially be helpful.   I wouldn't argue that at all.   At the same time though, beliefs, teachings, books, etc. aren't completely neutral energies.  There are degrees of purity, there are degrees of distortion, there are degrees of faster and slower vibratory patterns, there are degrees of balance and imbalance.    It's just pragmatic and practical in my viewpoint to try to align to those sources, those energies, which are innately more balanced, faster vibrating, and more pure.    Yet this is a world, a dimension of where "the lesser of error" seems to be a common choice as well.  


Quote:

Perhaps the best way to put it is that there's horses for courses, and that by definition we don't have to should and should not try to agree on a one size fits all view of ACIM... ..

 Well, even though i'm not a practicing Buddhist, i rarely see in black and white.  Again, to me, its more about average tendencies and probabilities.    People as a whole are much more similar than they are different when you really get down to it.  Therefore, there is both a relativistic, individual experience, but at the same time universal averages, tendencies, and probabilities also need to be considered and are important.  

 If you really think or rather feel about this point, then one might perceive that is perspective is even less "black and white" than the more purely relativistic approach and attitude, because it allows for both relativity and at the same time universal averages, probabilities, and tendencies.    
 Now, if Albert and i am perceiving accurately that ACIM is not purely from Yeshua like it claims to be, then it is inherently misleading and deceptive from the get go.   Not that much different than the many Guru's out there who have proclaimed themselves as fully enlightened, but who weren't really (those who took advantage of others materially, sexually, or otherwise).    Such very contradictory and deluded sources are probably best to be avoided in the more universal and average sense, wouldn't you say.  

As the Master of Masters once said, "as the tree falls, so doth it lie".    This is him pointing to the law of like attracts and begets like.   Real self innately begets and attracts Real self dynamics.  False self innately begets and attracts false self.   It would seem that certain teachings and teachers come more from the false self than the real self, and this is why discrimination and left brain balancing is so important in this world of illusion, deception and half truths.   One's best bet, speaking again on average in a more universal and probable sense, is to go more so deeply within.      Be cautious of any source which ignores or speaks against this universal necessity.  

 Another issue i have with ACIM is its grossly over simplification of channeling and the channeling process.  I believe it is a lot more complex than the picture that ACIM, Helen, and their followers have conveyed.  

 There are so many factors-- interweaving, intertwining, somewhat relative and at the same time certain universal probabilities, averages, etc that any group or source who would over simplify same, is doing a real disservice to people and the issue of channeling or any obtaining of info in any kind of psychic or intuitive manner.  

 One of the longest, and universally well known regular practicing channels, whose almost entire work was recorded for any or everyone to look at, is Edgar Cayce.   Not surprisingly, the issue of and questions about channeling came up quite a lot in these readings.   Many people came to him curious about this process, many asked many questions about channeling in general, or about what was going on more specifically with Edgar.

 Another source which talks about issues and the complex factors around same, is Rosiland McKnight's guidance when they were over at The Monroe Institute.   Both of these sources seem to indicate that channeling is a complex and many factored issue.  

 One cannot just all of a sudden download and then purely express the thoughts, feelings, and concepts of say "Jesus" just like that, without any distortion, skewing, or what not.    

 The channel plays an important role in relating the info, and to over simplify it somewhat for a moment, the clearer, more harmonized, and spiritually intune the channel, the more clear, balanced, and accurate the info coming through will be.  

 For example, Cayce's guidance was occasionally a bit gently critical of him at times.   Occasionally things like, "there is much more spirituality needed in the life of this channel"  or, when the issue of his over eating, eating too much unhealthy food, or over smoking came up more than once and people asked the source how to remedy that and that they wanted to remedy that, they said rather dryly, "How will you get him to do it?"   Or, "that he needs to stop eating so much like a pig."  

 Cayce's source realized, recognized, and emphasized that the balance and vibrations of the channel, can either positively or negatively affect the info coming through from more pure sources.   Not only that, that the most consistent and strongest motivations, intentions, and ideals have a lot to do with the type of sources one tunes into in the first place!  

Cayce, despite his many faults and lacks, particularly his lack of physical discipline in diet, exercise, and for a while regular consistent meditation, was still a service soul who at the young age of 8 or so, was praying to be of service to his fellow man.   That is not that usual in our today's world, and it wasn't any more common back in the backwards south that he grew up in.  

 These more constant and consistent inner ideals, intents, motivations allowed him to "hook up" to those more constructive and expanded sources.    
He certainly wasn't seeking material wealth, nor ego notoriety for the most part (he wasn't completely beyond glamour and attention seeking tendencies).  

 Yet, there were and are other factors beyond these more important and obvious ones, that we see in the Cayce readings and phenomena.   His best readings were given when the people who came to him or seeking readings were sincerely seeking info in a more helpful manner, particuarly so that they could grow or balance themselves to be of better service to others.   Cayce's own more temporary motivations, intents, and deeper desires also had an influence in any particular reading.  

 His physical health or lack thereof, affected the depth, breadth, or accuracy of the readings.  The attitudes, emotions, and thought patterns of those around him when he was giving the reading affected the readings.  

 When these all lined up and were balanced in a more constructive and spiritual seeking kind of way, then the readings accuracy and depth were amazing.    Oft times, one or more factors wasn't fully aligned or balanced, and therefore they suffered somewhat.  

  Also consider the very important factor that Cayce unlike many channels, had the energy advantage of being so deeply relaxed and tuned out of the conscious world which is strongly involved in with the ego, and personality energies.    This depth, and consistent tuning so strongly out of these energies, allowed him to be a more pure channel than he would have normally been if he had tried to give the readings when awake.     His own source said that until he got more intune and balanced, he wouldn't have been able to give such accurate and holistically balanced readings like he did while so unconscious.    

 Anyways, my point is that the channeling phenomena is not cut and dry, not black and white.  It's very complex and there are many factors to consider, and need to be considered from a very holistic perspective which involves the physical, the mental, and spiritual energies.

The question is, in relation to Helen and ACIM, did she more consistently than not, hold that balance and attunement within self.   Did she fit her body Temple as a clean, clear, and purely resonating channel such as a piece of pure clear quartz crystal is?

 These are important questions in understanding the relativity of this and of ACIM's supposed complete accuracy.   I am the first one to agree with people when they say there are errors in the Cayce readings, and that he was not a perfect channel by any means even though the source once emphasized that Cayce's work was the work of the Master of Masters--Yeshua/Christ and under the overall direction and guidance of him.  

 

AhSo-

You make an excellent point:  <<the most consistent and strongest motivations, intentions, and ideals have a lot to do with the type of sources one tunes into in the first place!>>

And re. Helen, this point is especially relevant.  We know that she was in a state of inner turmoil and anger when this book was channeled.  She certainly was not balanced in her mental and emotional state.

So, while in this conflicted state of mind, she began to channel an entity who identified himself as Jesus.  And from that channeling came a very long book called A Course in Miracles (ACIM).

Obviously the whole book rises or falls on the key question of authorship.  Was it or was it not the historical Jesus?

Why would the author claim to be Jesus if, in fact, he was not?

To me, it is fairly obvious.....that claim gives the entire work a huge amount of credibility, not to mention a huge amount of publicity.  Not too many people have heard of Seth or Elias, but Jesus is pretty much universally known.

Keep in mind that we have to take the author at his word.  We don't have any independent way of verifying that claim.  

However, in the Bible, we have his disciples in the Gospels who each wrote about Jesus and the things he did and said.  In other words, we have eyewitnesses.

The ACIM Jesus tells us sin doesn't really exist, it's just an illusion.  Wrongdoing doesn't exist, we just think it does, and it's our job to recognize the illusory nature of all sin, all guilt, and in fact ourselves.  The real "us" is still residing with God.  We think we are real, but we are just illusions that came about from when we separated from God.

That's cool, but that's not what the biblical Jesus taught.  

Also, it's not just that the biblical Jesus and the ACIM Jesus taught different things.  The tone of the two Jesus' is also markedly different.

In ACIM, the tone fluctuates.  At times Jesus is comforting and caring, other times he is hectoring and even somewhat sarcastic. He seems to be vulnerable to bad hair days.

Another strange thing.....in the back of ACIM, there are daily lessons.  In one of the lessons, Jesus actually refers to himself in the third person.  Instead of saying "I", he instead says Jesus.  Strange huh?  Slip of the tongue?  Typo?  Peculiar for sure.

Bottom line- as AhSo points out, we need to be wary of channeled material.  It is truly complex, as he says.  There is no one template.  

We need to be very careful in accepting channeled material as true.  It may be, or it may not.  Truth is, none of us can prove it one way or the other.  

Some of us are more vulnerable to it than others.  That's fine.  But we really should refrain from continually promoting it as the truth.  

Hello Ultra:

Sorry for the late response.

ACIM is a huge book, so it would be difficult to go through the whole thing and look for passages. I did so randomly and found the following sentence under lesson 240 part 3:

"The World was made as an attack on God.""

Contrast this with what Howard Storm wrote in his book "My Descent Into Death." He didn't claim to channel Christ for about seven years as Helen did. Nor did he end up in an angry depressive state. Rather, he had a near death experience and communicated with Christ during this experience. From page 68.

"Question: Where did the creation come from?
Answer: There was never time, space, or matter before God. The angels refer to God in many ways, but the term most often used is the One. God is the One because God is the source of everything.  There is NO THING other than God. Everything came from God and everything returns to God.

They explained to me in a way I could understand that God is like an artist who creates for the sheer pleasure of creating. One of our attributes that is in the image and likeness of God is our desire to create......God creates universes, which in turn became procreative. There are countless intelligent beings in the universe we inhabit and infinitely more in universes that occupy other dimensions. God is present to all the creation.

The creation is entirely in the now to God. God's consciousness is the entire creation.  Everything that was, and everything that will be, is this moment to God.  Our understanding of past and future, space and separateness, is not how God comprehends creation."

Clearly this is different from how ACIM speaks of things. ACIM states in various ways that this World has nothing to do with God. Numerous sources of information agree with Howard Storm that this World was created intentionally and is a part of the divine plan. I guess it is up to each to person to decide how they want to feel about the World in which they partake.  If one sees similar to how Howard Storm states God sees things--in a non linear time and space manner--one might be able to see that this World is just one piece of the puzzle, not a gigantic mistake that exists independently of God.

Below is from page 133 of Howard's book:

"The best way to grow spiritually is in service to others. We will find purpose and development in relationships to other people. We imagine that we are isolated from others, but the opposite is true. How we interact with others is our soul journey. What we think we are is not who we are. How we live lovingly with our brother and sisters is who we really are. If you want to grow spiritually, examine how you are expressing love, joy, peace, kindness, generosity, patience, and faithfulness toward others

Jesus and the angels told me, "God wants us to care for one another." We are responsible to God for changing the world by changing ourselves. How you give your attention to the person you are with is the way you change the world. The greatest commandment is to love one another."

This message is similar to what numerous near death experiencers have found. The most important thing is that we grow in love and share love with others. I have yet to read a near death experience where an experiencer was told that they need to find out that the World is nothing but an illusion that God doesn't have anything to do with.

On page 55 Howard also wrote the below. It seems to me Howard took great care when he chose his words. Some people might find it upsetting because it might remind them of things fundamentalists say.  Ahso and I believe it is possible that the planning intelligence Bruce met is the same principle some of us refer to as Christ. In fact, I possibly received a couple of spirit confirmations while writing this. Anyway, here's what Howard wrote. It relates to how this World was created.

"In our progression toward God we will meet the Divine Acitivity of God, who is known to Christians as Jesus Christ. People who were not Christians must know the Christ as well. No one approaches God who does not know the mediator of God. The Christ is the creative action by which the world was created. This personification of God has been everywhere throughout all time and space--creating, restoring, and sustaining us in the divine will.  The Christ has been in our world and adopted our human nature to help return us to God. The Christ, in the man Jesus of Nazareth, lived, suffered, died, and was raised to new life to restore us to God. He has identified with us so that we can identify with him. Jesus took upon himself all of our failings so that we can become complete, whole, and perfect, as he is perfect. We do not have that power, but when we want to be perfect, he will make us like him in perfect love of God.""








ultra wrote on Nov 21^st, 2007 at 9:55pm:

Hi Albert, Ok then, lets explore this assertion. But to be fair to everyone, both who have and have not read the book, can you cite, or better yet, quote the passage, or even a brief excerpt of the one in question so we may all examine it? Unless you've discarded the book. That would be most appreciated. thanking you in advance, - u

Hi recoverer,

No Problem.

While I would hardly call one small out of context excerpt from an entire book (is that the best you could do?) an indictment of its alleged invalidity or harmfulness, and while the Howard Storm excerpts may be inspiring, I do not find the comparison of the two as any definitive validation of your assertion. However if you want to insist on such a comparison, I would say that for the purpose of this discussion, the two respective excerpts seen below seem to be saying pretty much the same thing, somewhat equivalent in meaning, and certainly not representative of a big philosophically controversey - from my pov, of course.

be well,

- u


From ACIM
Quote:

"The World was made as an attack on God."

 Howard Storm said:
Quote:

Our understanding of past and future, space and separateness, is not how God comprehends creation."

Can I jump in here and just ask those folks who accept ACIM a direct question?

Specifically, why did we separate from God?

That is a central premise of the book, and it would be wonderful to know how the ACIM's Jesus explains it.

Anyone have a reference?

R

Sorry Ultra, but there are a lot of pages in ACIM, and I don't believe it would be worth my time to search for every instance in which it speaks as if the World is nothing but a big mistake that God has nothing to do with.

I will state that one of the course's main premises is that this World wasn't created by God, because everything God creates is perfect. Clearly the Howard Storm words I provided show a completely different way of thinking.  


ultra wrote on Nov 28^th, 2007 at 5:10pm:

Hi recoverer, No Problem. While I would hardly call one small out of context excerpt from an entire book (is that the best you could do?) an endictment of its alleged invalidity or harmfulness, and while the Howard Storm excerpts may be inspiring, I do not find the comparison of the two as any definitive validation of your assertion. However if you want to insist on such a comparison, I would say that for the purpose of this discussion, the two respective excerpts seen below seem to be saying pretty much the same thing, somewhat equivalent in meaning, and certainly not representative of a big philosophically controversey - from my pov, of course. be well, - u From ACIM Quote: "The World was made as an attack on God."  Howard Storm said:[quote]Our understanding of past and future, space and separateness, is not how God comprehends creation."

[/quote]

Here are more words from ACIM teacher Hugh Prather.  I must add, that despite what he found and wrote, he blamed the results of the course on how a person's ego gets involved, rather than on the course itself.  Perhaps he was still too caught up in the course when he wrote what he wrote, to see differently. As I already stated on other posts, my spirit guidance let me know that the course makes a person's ego bigger. Related to this, I've found that effective spiritual instruction serves the purpose of helping a person get rid of the limiting ideas he or she already has, rather than giving he or she a bunch of afirmations and such that causes he or she to take on more limiting thought patterns.

"What effect does the long-term study of such a teaching have on its students? I was surprised that after twenty years it was the opposite of what I expected. With two or three exceptions, everyone I saw at the gathering was far more separate and egocentric than they were when Gayle and I first met them. In fact, their egos were so large that many of them had lost the ability to carry on a simple conversation. They made pronouncements and listened deeply to no one. I was appalled, and when I returned home, I said to Gayle, "If this has happened to most of our Course friends, is there any chance it hasn't happened to us?"

The answer was that indeed it had happened to us. Even though we had long noticed the unhelpful effects of most religions and spiritual teachings on their students, we had thought that as Course students we were immune -- because the Course emphasizes reversing this very dynamic. If the dynamic is not the fault of the teaching or religion itself -- and in most cases it clearly is not -- what mistakes do students make that cause it?

When Gayle and I finally looked at ourselves honestly, we discovered that although we had been ministers and spiritual teachers for many years and had written over a dozen books on spiritual themes, we personally had not become kinder or even more sane through our devotion. We, like most individuals, started a spiritual path with the intention of becoming better people and finding ways to be truly helpful, only to move in the opposite direction. The more time and thought we had put into teaching and writing about our path, the more self-absorbed we had become. We had ended up less flexible, less forgiving, and less generous than we were when we first started our path!

What we had actually learned was how to mask our egos, act spiritual, and make our own thoughts less conscious. In addition, we had accumulated hundreds of new spiritual concepts, which, unfortunately, is the primary standard by which spiritual teachers are judged (as well, of course, as TV pundits, columnists, politicians, non-fiction authors, talking-head experts, and the like.). "

ACIM says over and over again that God did not create this world nor did he create our bodies.

What God creates is eternal and perfect.  Our bodies (and our physical minds) along with the earth are neither.

Ergo, per ACIM, God could not possibly have done these things.

In fact, ACIM more than once actually trashes this planet.  I had an e-mail exchange with Robert Perry, a huge ACIM promoter, and he agreed with that assessment.

Again, there is clearly another agenda behind this book.  We need to read it with discernment.

R

Hi recoverer,

I find it strange that someone so concerned about the value of their time, seems to spend a significant portion of it publicly finding fault with something deemed not to be useful for their chosen purposes.

Is this an illustration of 'getting rid of limiting ideas', or some bizarre type of affirmation that isn't working? I wonder, because like you I am also interested in effective spiritual instruction.

Also when your spirit guidance tells you that ACIM 'makes a person's ego bigger', would that be referring to just your own ego, or every human beings ego? And if the latter, are you claiming to be an intermediary between your guidance and the world in warning us all against this travesty of publishing? And if so, has your guidance approved this activity? No need to answer, but these are questions I would be asking.

I'm sure your guidance has shown you how spiritual pride is endemic to all traditions and practices, regardless of the source. It is a universal problem in seekers - and has to do more with errors of the seeker, rather than necessarily the originating source. Otherwise that means that the world would indeed be separated from God. Then how would we post here?

According to your premise, someone coming to this forum and observing the same negative phenomenon here should rightfully conclude that Bruce Moen and his books are responsible for the ego expansion, divisiveness, and intolerant fundamentalism we see occasionally on this forum. Somehow I don't see that as being true.

Then of course, there is the very obvious conclusion one might make about your own source, regarding this dilema, which I do not need to state. It is a pretty self-limiting proposition, don't you think?

Well, sorry to you too, for I am always just a little cautious when the self-appointed emissary of any particular source is one who is vociforously denigrating it - even as others (who have demonstrated some integrity imo) here have said it has been helpful to them and has value.

Of course you don't have to see eye to eye with them.
In that case, just don't read the book.

Be well,

- u

ultra wrote on Nov 28^th, 2007 at 9:51pm:

Hi recoverer, I find it strange that someone so concerned about the value of their time, seems to spend a significant portion of it publicly finding fault with something deemed not to be useful for their chosen purposes. Is this an illustration of 'getting rid of limiting ideas', or some bizarre type of affirmation that isn't working? I wonder, because like you I am also interested in effective spiritual instruction. Also when your spirit guidance tells you that ACIM 'makes a person's ego bigger', would that be referring to just your own ego, or every human beings ego? And if the latter, are you claiming to be an intermediary between your guidance and the world in warning us all against this travesty of publishing? And if so, has your guidance approved this activity? No need to answer, but these are questions I would be asking. I'm sure your guidance has shown you how spiritual pride is endemic to all traditions and practices, regardless of the source. It is a universal problem in seekers - and has to do more with errors of the seeker, rather than necessarily the originating source. Otherwise that means that the world would indeed be separated from God. Then how would we post here? According to your premise, someone coming to this forum and observing the same negative phenomenon here should rightfully conclude that Bruce Moen and his books are responsible for the ego expansion, divisiveness, and intolerant fundamentalism we see occasionally on this forum. Somehow I don't see that as being true. Then of course, there is the very obvious conclusion one might make about your own source, regarding this dilema, which I do not need to state. It is a pretty self-limiting proposition, don't you think? Well, sorry to you too, for I am always just a little cautious when the self-appointed emissary of any particular source is one who is vociforously denigrating it - even as others (who have demonstrated some integrity imo) here have said it has been helpful to them and has value. Of course you don't have to see eye to eye with them. In that case, just don't read the book. Be well, - u

 Hi Ultra, both Albert and i have already explained pretty well and simply about what the more 'archetypal' offness of ACIM actually is.  

Two main things need to be considered, from a more universal standpoint.  ACIM is designed in such a way, that it tends to facilitate a light hypnotic state, the conscious mind gets bored and inactive from the constant repetition.   Ok, nothing off about that in and of itself.   In fact, to affect lasting change on a person's mind, attitude, and behaviors, the best way is to more directly reach through to the subconscious as in a hypnotic state.  This is why hypnosis is potentially such a powerful tool.  Dave here can vouch for that, having been a hynpotherapist for quite a long time.  

  What the issue and offness is about, is simply that the course talks way too much about the ego in general, and in such a polarized way.   It's so constant and repeated.  

 Plenty of real spiritual teachers and teachings have and do address the ego, the false self, or whatever one wants to call it, but they don't make such a huge focus of it like ACIM does.   They seem to more emphasize what we need to do, how to affect positive change, what we need to focus on.   It then becomes a positive suggestion more so.

 A good example is Yeshua, his teachings, and life.   He occasionally addressed the issue of the false self, and even occasionally addressed the errors and false self projections of others (mainly those who had set themselves up as spiritual teachers for others), but all in all, he taught by focusing on the Reality, on the positive, and more so by living that as an example in daily life.

 The subconscious mind doesn't process negatives at all.  It doesn't hear no, can't, won't, shouldn't, etc.     However, the subconscious can be programmed towards negativity, false beliefs, or 'false self' type energies and dynamics, if one keeps injecting it (particularly during a hypnotic type state) with active and constant use of ego, especially in the sense of a big ego monster out to get everyone, God, and you.  

 So, i find it interesting that this particular course is set up in the manner to facilitate a hypnotic state wherein the conscious mind becomes suppressed so that the subconscious mind comes more to the fore and then constantly, repeatedly talks about, focuses the ego in general, and in such a God/Reality vs ego/unreality/false self kind of way.      

 This may possibly relate to the fact that someone deeply involved with the CIA was also deeply involved with the course.   That may seem very "conspiracy" oriented, but we live in a  world filled with fear filled, overly materialistic, control freaks--many of whom happen to be in positions of power and influence in the world--umm Bush admin. ring a bell for example.    And the U.S. government has never been above doing mind, body, and other experiments on people.  
Take LSD and its history for example.   There are plenty of people very strongly invested in keeping the world in a state of fear, materialism, ego, and false/limiting belief systems.   This keeps the status quo intact, it keeps the rich and materially powerful, rich and powerful, and keeps the poor, poor.  This is why Yeshua was put away so hastily in his times, which minus technology, isn't so different than our times and collective spiritual development.   Humanity has had these same old, same old issues from day one of the beginning of space/time illusion. Greed, fear, power lust, and need for control.    

 I honestly don't know if the CIA actually had anything to do with this, but in all honesty i would not be surprised.   So far, i lean more to this course being mostly from Helen's subconscious/unconscious and certain repressed childhood issues, trying to work itself out, almost like when a teenager writes poetry to work out half conscious and half unconscious issues.   Except that she was particularly OCD about it, and perhaps convinced herself that it was completely from a divine source, for whatever reason.

 As i outlined in a very detailed and holistic manner in one of my last posts, channeling isn't so clear cut and simple as what Helen and other involved in this course seem to imply about this phenomena.  

 Albert and i speak out against the course because we care about people and we realize that false and limiting belief systems can take years and even lifetimes to change/replace and regenerate, and we realize how well the course was designed to subconsciously and hypnotically program the subconscious mind, which in the huge majority of people is the ruling part of self at the end of the day when all is said and done.   This is why my Greater self would constantly put me asleep while reading same, because it didn't want me to be reprogrammed by this course, and that's why i had the dream about going onto the deceptive and weak branch while still very much actively reading same.  

 If the course put much less consistent emphasis on the ego, and what's wrong, the problems, and if my guidance also hadn't warned me about it, then i would not speak out against ACIM.   As i mentioned, i was originally very excited and enthusiastic about ACIM.

 Do i hope and desire to steer people away from it, yes i do.  If i knew about a well known and influential Guru who was trying to mislead people, i would point out issues with them as well.   Yeshua did this in his times with the Pharisees, Sadducee's, and Scribes.    Do you consider yourself more spiritually intune and balanced than he?  You hint, imply, insinuate all kinds of things about Albert's ego, pride, false sources but are you completely free from same like Yeshua was?  

 I've noticed that lots of times, when people can't debate intelligently, clearly, and directly about the concepts, ideas, etc. at hand, they start to resort to more personal remarks, put downs, and the like.   Not once did Albert say anything about you and your perceived character in a personal manner, but he is the one with the pride, the ego, false sources, etc. because he is doing what he believes is right?  Sure, the manner in which you did this such was rather subtle which seems to be your style, like your super sarcastic, judgmental, but very subtly put remarks to me on the aura thread.  

 Whose the guru and personal psychoanalyst here?  The one talking more generally and impersonally about a belief system and spiritual teaching that has various red flags around it (like the channels extreme imbalance and depression for one), or the master of super subtly negative and judgmental insinuations about the personal character and delusion of actual posters here?  Like attracts like, and isn't interesting that you promote, talk about, and seem heavily invested in Gurus and guru teachings, as if they were free from ego, misconceptions, or limiting or incomplete beliefs.   I've heard that Sri Chinmoy had plenty of red flags around him and his life as well.  So many gurus did or do.   And like always attracts and begets like, both consciously and especially unconsciously.  

 Are you that unconscious to yourself and tendencies or do you have a deeper agenda of some kind?    Btw, do i know you from somewhere else, did you use to post on Bob Marks Astrology forum?  I ask because your writing style, grammar/vocab usage, tone, manner, and the specific spiritual sources you recommend are remarkably similar to someone i knew over there who seemed to have completely disappeared after i left that site--and i must say that all the former is pretty unique.  I had recommended Bruce's site over there a couple of times.  

AhSo-

Kudos to you for exposing the falseness of ACIM.  I too had initially very positive reactions from it.  I highlighted various passages and then typed them out in a Word document for further reference and reflection.

In fact, I was convinced the author, if not Jesus, was truly a highly evolved spiritual entity who had only the best intentions and only our best interests at heart.

I even have the Concordance for the course.  I had every intention of making ACIM the roadmap for my own enlightenment.

Now I have almost the exact opposite opinion.  I have no clue who the author really was, but I have no doubt that it surely wasn't the biblical Jesus.

Yes, there is an agenda but I don't buy the CIA involvement.  I guess I've worked too many years in the Fed Gov't in DC.  There were folks who thought my own agency had conspiracies when in fact they were nothing more than the result of either mistakes or different officials making different comments that were taken totally out of context.  

The further one is removed from the Feds, the easier it is to conjure up all sorts of conspiracy theories.  The CIA is not a monolithic agency.  It is led by political appointees who come and go.  The career folks who are there are, by and large, bureaucrats who are desk-bound.  Yes, there are "off the books" employees for covert operations but these guys can barely put a subject and verb in same sentence, much less write a book as eloquent as ACIM.

Same thing regarding the theories that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration.  On the one hand, Bush is called stupid but on the other hand, he was so incredibly shrewd that he managed to pull off one of the biggest conspiracies in the history of the country.  All the while suppressing any leaks.  And doing all of this after being in office a little over 7 months.  No, I don't buy conspiracy theories!

Personally I am reasonably sure it was channeled and not the product of Helen's own writing.  The real question is by whom and for what purpose.

As to the book's real agenda, I have my own opinion which I've already expressed.

AhSo, I have a question for you.....have you ever read any of the Seth or Elias channeled stuff?  If so, what do you think?  So many people are vulnerable to anything that is channeled.  They somehow think it is all wonderful and without any kind of agenda.  It's not a matter of intellect, because lots of otherwise thoughtful people have been sucked into it.

R

 Hi Ron, while i understand what you are saying about the CIA specifically, well i can't help but observe the well known and documented fact that some part of the U.S. government had a psychic spy program going on for awhile.  When the freedom of information act was finally enacted, it was found that the F.B.I had an official case file on Edgar Cayce from when he was still alive.   And close friends and family members relate that once in awhile an agent would come down to visit and talk to Edgar.  

 There is also Monroe's account of running into some brutish psychic bodyguards of one of the Presidents back in the late 60's i believe.  

 Now, during these times, i don't things were quite as corrupt as they are now.   The way that i look at it, that even now there are plenty of decent and good folks that work for such organizations, but not being the true powers in same, they don't fully know what's going on either.   The Federal government is much, much more in bed with private interest groups, than it use to be during Cayce's time.    A lot more people are bought and sold to the highest bidders.   One only has to look at lobbyists and all the back door deals made between politicians, corporations, world banks, and the likes.   There is a lot of greed in the world, and where there is a lot of greed, there is a lot of fear, and where there is a lot of fear, there is a lot of control issues.   Basic, human psychology 101 and not "conspiracy theory".    

 I'm not one of those people who is overly paranoid about everything that is government related, and i more than realize that plenty of good people have and do work for same, and that its not all bad.   My own aunt, just retired from being an U.S. Ambassador but i think she got fed up with the Bush Admin. shenanigans, and horrible foreign policies.   Some people theorize that my uncle, her husband, is and has been in the CIA or a similar organization because he is so darn secretive and tight lipped about certain things.  

Neither my uncle or aunt are 'evil' or overly negative people trying to bring down the American people, trying to line the pockets of a private interest group, or what not.  Actually, i perceive my aunt to be a very powerful and intune light being in the guise of a simple and kind mannered female Chinese body (i'm not saying i think she is fully enlightened or anything like that, just a rather positive service soul).     I've always gotten good feelings from being around her.  

 As far as Seth, and the like, i've occasionally talked about what i picked up in relation to these.  I once started reading a Seth book while in a store.   As i was reading it, intellectually i thought, "hmmm, there is some interesting info in here", but more and more started to get strong feelings that it was very "off", and i got a strong sense of selfishness and rebellion against Source when Seth was speaking.   Rather slow vibratory patterns.  

  Then i came to the parts where it talks about Jesus and his life, and Seth saying that Jesus did not go to the cross, that he had someone drugged to take his place, and that Jesus was just rather psychic compared to the average, etc. and all that stuff.  

 I knew Seth, or Jane Robert's shadow side, was trying to discredit this beautiful and pure pattern and example.   They were trying to bring his attainments down, because neither Seth or Roberts understood the concept of self sacrifice for the greater good of others and the collective.    

 But so many people are so quick to make excuses for Seth and Jane Roberts, even though Seth at times contradicts even his own info!    They say well maybe Seth/Jane were seeing parallel realities and all that.    I say, hey, maybe they were just not that attuned to Source like Christ was, or other psychic sources like Rosiland McKnight, Bob Monroe, Swedenborg, Cacye, and Bruce Moen were or are?   If Robert's really channeled a nonphysical entity, then she channeled either an ignorant/soap box one, or one purposely trying to mislead people from the very real and helpful example, life, and teachings of Christ.  

I honestly don't know what exactly were the intents, motivations, etc., someone whom i know and respect, recently got guidance that Seth and Jane have recently ascended to faster vibrating consciousnesses than they were at while all this stuff was being channeled.   I hope so, and i'm very gladdened to hear that.   Maybe Jane's Greater self will project another physical life to right or balance some of this misleading stuff, or is herself acting as a guide to help bring people to Christ?    

Ultra:

First of all, I believe that a lot of souls have incarnated into this World who could really make a diffference. The problem is that it is quite a tangled web down here.  There are so many people who are led off course by the many false sources that exist.  Because I have taken the time to find out what these sources are about, I feel compelled to share what I've found with others. For the people my doing so helps in some way, wonderful. For those who want to think poorly of me, I don't mind as long as I know I am motivated by love.

In the spirit of love, here are some links about Sri Chinmoy, other than the links you provided on another thread. I've visited one of his book stores a couple of times, and also one of his restaurants. I could tell that when I spoke to his followers who worked at these places, they had a cult like mentality. Yet they seemed to be well meaning people. If only they would've found a better role model.

A key method of meditation with Sri Chinmoy's group is staring at his photo. I hope people don't do so too much today, because who knows what kind of realm he abides in now after his recent death.  If you read the attached links, you'll see that he didn't live according to love and light.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/srichinmoy/srichinmoy38.html

The above article refers to Carlos Santana. Did you ever see that album he did with Jazz Fushion guitarist John Mclaughlin "Love, Devotion, and Surrender?" Mclaughlin left Chinmoy's group after Chimoy made a pass at his wife.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/srichinmoy/srichinmoy20.html

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/chinmoy.asp

These aren't the only articles that exist. There are a bunch if one wants to take the time to find them.

Kundalini was a part Chinmoy's teachings. One night I had this experience. First I saw a life size image of a heavy metal rocker dude. I could see kundalini flowing within him. He said: "I use my kundalini for evil." Next I saw a lifesize demonic image of myself. Next I saw the face of Jesus Christ. The message was clear, if one is going to go through the kundalini unfoldment process, one needs to make certain one does so with Christ consciousness/love in mind.

Besides Chinmoy, there are a lot of false kundalini gurus who didn't choose Christ consciousness and love, and therefore were gurus who didn't have control of their sex drive. Swami Muktananda was one of the most famous. He used to have attractive young girls located in his ashram near his room, so he could easilly have sex with them. Sai Baba was another famous one. He used to sexually molest the male children of his followers.  Does it really make sense that such gurus can help people, even if they can come up with some flowery words now and then?

P.S. to Ahso. Thank you for what you wrote.

Yes, Don also pointed out specific examples where Seth was either contradictory or just plain historically wrong.

It's also interesting to compare Seth with Elias.  Both claim to be highly evolved entities.  Seth claims that earth is a school and we are all here to learn.  The point of multiple incarnations is to gradually evolve in a spiritual manner.

Elias, however, claims that we are not here to learn but rather to "experience."  For instance, we might choose to see how it feels to be a career criminal (my example).  Not in order to learn anything from it, but to add such an experience to our portfolio of other earthly experiences.

I think these channeled entities give just enough stuff that is true to make us think the whole thing is true.  Sort of like a classic Ponzi scheme.  You give the folks a nice return on their investment, making them invest even more.  Then you take the money and run.  

By the time the folks wake up, the fraudulent characters are long gone.  "Due diligence" is not just for those who invest money, it also applies to those who invest their faith and beliefs in so-called advanced entities.

Greetings,

Ultra said:
"According to your premise, someone coming to this forum and observing the same
negative phenomenon here should rightfully conclude that Bruce Moen and his books
are responsible for the ego expansion, divisiveness, and intolerant fundamentalism
we see occasionally on this forum.  Somehow I don't see that as being true. "

I agree, Ultra, by seeing the opposite:  It seems the more closely we refer to Bruce's work, the more immersed in PUL we become.  That is the important effect of Bruce's work to me, although he's definitely a pioneer in exploring consciousness as well.
Conversely, the more we try to prove or disprove other sources, the more contentious our comments become. People who have been unified by PUL in the past are aggravating each other by trying to determine what's 'right.'  Let me correct that: it seems from my POV that these efforts are aggravating, since I sure  >:( feel aggravated by them and saddened.

What if every thread on this site had to refer to how it relates to Bruce's methods and story?
To do that posters would have to have read Moen and therefore have the base of knowledge and experience
that he teaches. Diverse ideas would still be exciting, it's just that they would be cross-referenced with Moen's topics. Because of the breadth of experience and knowledge you all possess, such cross-referencing would place Bruce's work in context with great spiritual traditions as well as exciting current personal explorations.

Even those of us who've read Moen would have to reread him, and perhaps keep the books nearby for reference when we want to post.  It sounds limiting but it is very much like what this site was like about two years ago when it was also a site illuminated by PUL.

This current crap of trying to prove/disprove every spiritual idea under the sun is just silly !  ::)

Grumpy Bets

Betson:

If you believe it is loving to just stand by and do nothing as people promote false sources of information such as Seth, Elias, ACIM, Osho, Trungpa and Chinmoy, this is your choice.

When it comes to PUL motivated activity, I refer to what Pratekya wrote on another thread. How dare us judgemental types try to be helpful! Boy do we have a thing or two to learn about PUL!

From Pratekya (I hope he doesn't mind me using it):
"Again it seems as if there is more anti judgment vibe here.  In other words, nobody has a right to tell me how to live my life only God does.  Let me ask a few questions about this then.

(1) If I wanted to live my life as a Muslim, and make my wife and daughters stay at home and not be educated, would that be acceptable to you?
(2) If I wanted to live my life as an Confucian last century, and wanted my wife's feet bound, basically crippling her (as my actual wife's great grandmother was), should people still remain silent and stand by and watch?
(3) If I lived in India and I died, should my wife be expected to throw herself on my funeral pyre?  Who are you to tell my family and their belief system that it shouldn't be done?
(4) If I lived in an African country that believes female circumcision is wise, should I stand up to stop it?  With this relativistic mindset you would be consistent if you told me that yes, if female circumcision is deemed wise by local religious leaders, then it should be practiced.  If you disagree on this point, you are being inconsistent - on what grounds do you have to say female circumcision should be stopped?
(5) Should have Martin Luther King Jr. stopped harassing white America during the civil rights era because he was telling other people they were behaving badly and should change their ways?
(6) Should militant Muslims be told to stop teaching young children to hate the West and specifically the U.S. at religious schools in Pakistan?"

P.S. If one doesn't believe that the false sources of information I write against are in the same ball park as what Pratekya wrote, then one doesn't understand what the false sources of information are really all about.

Perhaps one main argument begins with the assumption that an individual position regarding a teacher actually matters.

Does it matter?

Additionally, can one's position (point of view) ever be conveyed to another with absolute clarity?

Or is there another way?


love, blink :)

Responses below within double quotation marks. The boxing didn't work out correctly:



wrote on Nov 29^th, 2007 at 3:05pm:

Perhaps one main argument begins with the assumption that an individual position regarding a teacher actually matters. Does it matter? ""Perhaps the positions of Seth, ACIM, Chinmoy and Osho shouldn't be shared. Yet they are shared with sooooooooooo many words."" Additionally, can one's position (point of view) ever be conveyed to another with absolute clarity? ""Shall we just give up?"" Or is there another way? ""Yes. False sources of information can no longer represent themselves as valid sources of information. That way people such as myself won't have to spend time pointing out what they are really about."" love, blink :)

""If people really understood how the sources of information I speak against intentionally deceive people, they wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what I and others write.""

Some people believe they have found a way to distinguish truth from falsehood....it seems that it always has to do with letting go....always it is about letting go.....just letting go.

The more we let go, the stronger we become....or so it seems to me.

love, blink :)

:( I have to say I'm starting to struggle with this too. It makes no sense to dismiss whole traditions based on closed, narrow and partial perspectives. Nor is there in my opinion much positive or credible about those links R.

Lightness and opening indeed are the key B. Otherwise we're just stuck circling in a belief system.

Anyway. We each have to make our own mind up....

Vajra:

Perhaps one takes a narrow view when one isn't willing to take a complete look at a source of information, but instead picks and chooses what enables one to cling to such a source.

Regarding there being nothing credible about the links I provided, these links don't stand in isolation. One can find others. I guess one could say that anybody who writes about their bad experiences with Chinmoy are just liars, but wouldn't that be negative? Why would there be something positive to say when people are speaking about a guru who intentionally misled and used people?   Perhaps people share their experiences with false gurus such as Chinmoy, with the hope that other people won't end up making the same mistakes.  It is also possible that they help people who are currently entrapped by a false source of information.  Unfortunately, some people don't recognize the good heartedness of their intentions, and instead assume they are nothing but a bunch of malcontent liars.  What a "negative" way to view the good intentions of others.

Regarding openess,  because there are so many false sources of information, one doesn't have the luxory of "not" being discriminitive, with the belief that this is what being a loving and hip person is all about. All one does when one takes on such an approach, is give those who want to mislead the power to do so. The fact of how so many false sources of information have been able to mislead so many people, shows that this is the case.

Regarding being light, I guess if we lived in a world where so many false sources of information didn't exist and so many people weren't misled by them we could be light, but the fact of the matter is that we live in a world where we need to be careful.

My findings on false sources of information aren't based on their inappropriate behavior alone. Once one finds one's self out of the limited way of thinking such sources expouse, it becomes much easier to recognize their short comings. When a person is caught up in such a way of thinking, it is hard to clearly see what such teachings are all about. This is how it is no matter what belief system a person is limited by.

Regarding discrediting an entire tradition, I usually speak of specific sources of information. An exception is Vedanta. I've found that this tradition has some shortcomings.


wrote on Nov 29^th, 2007 at 4:18pm:

:( I have to say I'm starting to struggle with this too. It makes no sense to dismiss whole traditions based on closed, narrow and partial perspectives. Nor is there in my opinion much positive or credible about those links R. Lightness and opening indeed are the key B. Otherwise we're just stuck circling in a belief system. Anyway. We each have to make our own mind up....

If then, we let go of the teachings of another, for freedom's sake, for truth's sake, for love's sake...how do we let go of what our minds continue to try to teach?

Can we really trust our own minds?

How do we let go?

love, blink :)

betson wrote on Nov 29^th, 2007 at 2:37pm:

Greetings, Ultra said: "According to your premise, someone coming to this forum and observing the same negative phenomenon here should rightfully conclude that Bruce Moen and his books are responsible for the ego expansion, divisiveness, and intolerant fundamentalism we see occasionally on this forum.  Somehow I don't see that as being true. " I agree, Ultra, by seeing the opposite:  It seems the more closely we refer to Bruce's work, the more immersed in PUL we become.  That is the important effect of Bruce's work to me, although he's definitely a pioneer in exploring consciousness as well. Conversely, the more we try to prove or disprove other sources, the more contentious our comments become. People who have been unified by PUL in the past are aggravating each other by trying to determine what's 'right.'  Let me correct that: it seems from my POV that these efforts are aggravating, since I sure  >:( feel aggravated by them and saddened. What if every thread on this site had to refer to how it relates to Bruce's methods and story? To do that posters would have to have read Moen and therefore have the base of knowledge and experience that he teaches. Diverse ideas would still be exciting, it's just that they would be cross-referenced with Moen's topics. Because of the breadth of experience and knowledge you all possess, such cross-referencing would place Bruce's work in context with great spiritual traditions as well as exciting current personal explorations. Even those of us who've read Moen would have to reread him, and perhaps keep the books nearby for reference when we want to post.  It sounds limiting but it is very much like what this site was like about two years ago when it was also a site illuminated by PUL. This current crap of trying to prove/disprove every spiritual idea under the sun is just silly !  ::) Grumpy Bets

 Hi Bets, some people seem to believe that disagreement, debate, or conflict of any kind is somehow inherently wrong or 'unspiritual'--particularly Venusian, Air, and Water (with the exception of Scorpio) types seem to take that standpoint.    I don't, and i realize that in such conditions, difficult or challenging ones, is where our souls tend to grow the most.    This is why so many of us come here for Earth lives, not because its super harmonious, everyone agrees, and there is not challenge.   We don't have to agree, but we should try to keep the more personal jabs and remarks out of it.    

 I see truth in many belief systems, and i see plenty of errors, distortions, etc. in plenty of belief systems.   Yet, i rarely speak out against a particular belief system, but i will address the ones i find to be particularly deceptive and negatively influential.    I realize that i cannot make anyone to believe or see what i believe or see.   But, that doesn't mean i won't try to outline my perceptions in the most holistically logical way that i can.  

 For those who respect Christ, does anyone here besides Albert, a couple others, and i actually look at the example that he lived?    Did he sit idly by while the false spiritual sources and 'teachers' of his day where misleading, ripping off, or deceiving others and themselves?   Did he say, "well i can't say anything to them or to those listening to them because gee golly whiz it's just not 'spiritual' to do so".   "What will people think of me?"   "Lord knows i should act how they want me to."    


 The answer to these questions above is an resounding NO, he did not sit idly by, he was occasionally a loud mouth who kept getting himself in social trouble with the accepted groups and ways of acting, spiritual beliefs, believing and living in his times.   I will follow him and his example only.  Not Bets, not Blink, not Ultra, not Vajra, not even Bruce Moen or Bob Monroe, and not anyone here who does not maintain full Source attunement like he did.   And i will speak out towards any and all sources who teach a different way than what he perfectly lived.  Particularly in regards to those sources like ACIM, Seth, and the like.  


 Too many of us are too concerned with with our projected and inner image of spirituality.  We carefully craft and design a concept, an image of what a spiritual person is suppose to act like, or be like, and then when others not so concerned with their projected images come along and act differently, we point fingers and call them "aholes" or the like.    Plenty of people called John the Baptist and Yeshua overly outspoken aholes in their day, do you realize that?      Did they give it a moments thought?  NO.   I get the very strong sense that some of us here are way too attached to this forum.

 What i will agree with Bet's, is that this topic is getting pretty old fast.  I outlined all that i could possibly outline and its time to let it go.   We always have the responsibility for the aggravated, grumpy feelings that we feel, not anyone else here.   I have not felt anything negative, except for a couple moments of brief frustration, while reading or writing on this thread.   Because i choose not too.

   

Oh, yes, now I remember what he said, one teacher I recall.....he said to go into your room and close the door and pray.

Meditate.....meditate....in silence are all of our answers. It is the heart that knows how to let go.

love, blink :)

in silence are all of our answers.  [smiley=dankk2.gif]

Love is in the silence
Love is who you are
Love is all there is that is real
Love is where we came from
Love is where we return

there is only this
there is no gain
there is no loss
there is only love
Love is your heritage
Love is your refuge

and we circle back around
until we come back to the place we started
then we remember who we are.
you are love
you are loved greatly
you will remember who you are
soon. very soon.

I really appreciate what Ah So and Recoverer have to say oftentimes, and this thread is no exception.  Maybe thats lame of me to say since Recoverer quoted something I said, but I guess I just find myself 'resonating' with so much of what they have to say.  Aside from astrology stuff.

Much of this discussion overlooks one of psychiatrist Scott Peck's important insights into the psychodynamics of evil.  Evil is deceptive: evil expresses several truths to gain credibiilty for its lies.  This means that important insights about the Light can ber gained during one's subtle descent into the Darkness.  Also, evil infects the human recipient of channeled materials.  For example, Helen Schucman became a psychotic debunker of ACIM and all things spiritual after her 7-year odyssey as a channeler.  In her riveting book, "The Beautiful Side of Evil," Johanna Michaelsen recounts how thrilled she was to play a role in the channeled healings of a Mexican shaman--before she began to sense the evil origin of these healings!  The protest, "But it really helped me,"  is irrelevant to the potential danger lurking behind channeled materials.

Don

Hi Don,


Related to your above post i wanted to offer the following link, which if you are not already familiar (and you may be since it is quite well known in some circles), may be a further contribution to this issue you brought up.

I have no idea if this applies directly to ACIM, since I have not read ACIM.

In any case it may and likely does apply to much of the discussion on these forums in general.
Many people may find increasing relevance in this material.

I personally found it to be quite helpful.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Aurobindo/intermediate_zone.htm

(see 'The Original Letter')


- u

Sort of related to what Don wrote, some people might be interested in the below book.  

http://www.amazon.com/Siren-Call-Hungry-Ghosts-Investigation/dp/1931044023


http://www.paraview.com/fisher/


Here's a link with reader reviews.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1931044023/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending




Berserk2 wrote on Nov 30^th, 2007 at 7:03pm:

Much of this discussion overlooks one of psychiatrist Scott Peck's important insights into the psychodynamics of evil.  Evil is deceptive: evil expresses several truths to gain credibiilty for its lies.  This means that important insights about the Light can ber gained during one's subtle descent into the Darkness.  Also, evil infects the human recipient of channeled materials.  For example, Helen Schucman became a psychotic debunker of ACIM and all things spiritual after her 7-year odyssey as a channeler.  In her riveting book, "The Beautiful Side of Evil," Johanna Michaelsen recounts how thrilled she was to play a role in the channeled healings of a Mexican shaman--before she began to sense the evil origin of these healings!  The protest, "But it really helped me,"  is irrelevant to the potential danger lurking behind channeled materials. Don

Seems to me that we're back into solid territory now. While the terminology differs a bit,  the major traditions seem to emphasise the importance of and simultaneously share caution about gurus and guidance.

Buddhism no less than any other - it for example very carefully progresses the student. Especially where  Vajrayana is concerned which you could probably say amounts to engagement with entities (mostly aspects of mind) to help deliver rapid progress. This it's taught requires complete trust in and commitment to the teacher if it is to work - it's in a sense a radical technique for training in the setting  aside of one's ego.

If I had to try to summarise the thinking I think it amounts to the view that it's very important to develop very high levels of stability of mind through meditation and study before going anywhere near this territory. To that point that premature engagement in paranormal phenomena of any sort is generally regarded as potentially dangerous indulgence.

But as they say it promises (for students who complete very demanding preliminaries and hence  readiness to engage in that path) the possibility of 'enlightenment in this very lifetime. The trouble is that it's also regarded as a high risk strategy - students are said to become like a snake in a bamboo tube - there's only two directions available to them. Rapidly up, or rapidly down...

The conundrum I think remains though that at some level we need guidance (especially as we move towards higher teachings), at some level we have to trust and ultimately we cannot at that stage know for sure whether we are right or wrong. The skilled teacher will theoretically assess readiness, but since we can't truly be sure of this the decision to engage consequently becomes one that entails a mix of caution, commitment and risk.

There are some signs that there are teachers around who are pretty indiscriminate.

It gets very difficult in practice when the vagaries of geographic dispersion are taken into account too. There's very few who unless they live in a major population centre have a choice of credible teachers. And that's viewed across several traditions, never mind the one.

I worry a little about the unquestioning acceptance of teachers I see sometimes - it's hard not to think that a little caution even if it were to cost one a lifetime or two is probably wise.....

I have to say that I am for the most part in agreement with what Don and others are saying here, though I admit that I am knee deep in reading ES Heaven and Hell so this I’m sure influences my thoughts.  If we do create our own heaven or our own hell how careful do we really need to be about the things we believe and/or don’t believe?  Right off hand I’d say we probably do need to be more careful, more discerning.  Yet on the other hand, by doing so, do we invite this type of influence?  And can we really take someone else’s word over what we feel in our own heart?  It truly is confusing and perhaps that is why/how evil/fear gains a foothold within us.  We all no longer remember much about who we really are and yet we all yearn for the truth of this knowledge.

It is not that the intentions of various authors are not necessarily above board.  I think it’s possible that they truly believe what they write/teach to be the truth, as they understand it.  I believe Dave pointed this out in one of his posts on another thread.  I read a book recently where I felt the author (a very credible researcher) had bought into a few popular ideas mentioned in the book, thereby repeating the beliefs of others because it made sense in the context of the book.  I recall Boris at one time mentioning something about the numbers of people believing in a particular belief has the effect of escalating the result of that particular belief.  That’s interesting when you consider the power in smaller groups within larger groups, and the impact this has dynamically.

At any rate, if we do choose to speak out in regards to something that doesn’t agree with us perhaps it would benefit us all to do so with words that speak with love and compassion.  In HH, ES talks about the interior of man and man’s love and affection that leads either to heaven or hell.  It’s interesting stuff that makes you wonder what is truly within your own heart or if you can even really know for sure.  For me, it’s food for thought.  :-/

Love, Kathy  :)

well goodness sake. we are still hashing around on discernment and whether it's true or not and the world keeps turning.

for me the transformational value of ACIM, in regards to the things it says about our belief systems, our perceptions (2 different things) will always mark my turning point in life, where I could get ahold of my emotions, produced by my belief systems, and finally realize, what my priorities were in life.  the priority was the attainment of peace of mind.

it seems this world has many distractions within it towards anything so sublime as peace of mind. so I learned to be focusing on what it means exactly to have and hold peace of mind.

I thought about what might happen in our world, what if there are further calamities, would I be able to serve life? would I be prepared? would I have trained myself to be prepared to assist? If I could not control my depressive state, hold my center, would I be any good for anyone at all?
and so I let the voice in the Course tell me I did want peace of mind. then I came upon this idea of free will. how much free will do we have? not to change the world do we have free will. BUT! each of us can have one of two choices:
to listen to the voice of ego which says you are right, or to listen to the voice which says we are one and all are my brothers, and we share an ideal for peace of mind.

if you attain peace of mind through whatever means you see fit, then if and when the world is turned upside down, you will be ready to step forward and help those who need you. you will be calm and know exactly what to do, when and where, in whatever small or large capacity, as to extend love, is a maximum spiritual action. any act of love is maximum. there will be many needed perhaps, perhaps we wont have a WW3. I hope not! I don't want to think about it, but if we do, we need everyone to get ready, just in case spirit wants us to be the strong ones for others to lean on.

so its a matter of taking yourself into control, your emotions, your reactions, because if another is screaming in pain, you are going to be the one to sooth them and get them thru it, because of the peace of mind you know about.

many roads, many services we do for one another, but divided we fail, united we stand. be ready. be listening to your heart intelligence 24/7 and we all have this heart intelligence.

love, alysia

Hi Kathy-

Great post.  You raise an excellent point, or as an old TV show was titled "Who Do You Trust?".  Remember Johnny Carson?

Anyway, yes discernment is the key.  But then, what exactly does that mean?  What if I were a Muslim extremist in the Sudan right now, calling for the execution of that UK teacher because a child in her class named a teddy bear Mohammad?  

I suppose in my heart I would think that would be the right and proper course of action.  And further, that Allah would approve!

And to me anyhow, that's pretty scary.  The killers would go thru life convinced that they did the right thing in their hearts, while most non-Muslims would think they are cold blooded fanatics.

So I dunno about trusting in what my heart tells me.  

But I don't think our intellect is any better.  Many intellectually astute folks do some pretty awful stuff.

So what do we do?  What's the answer?  In fact, IS there an answer, a one size fits all answer?

Like I said in another post, why not just put all of these things aside (for one thing we will never in this lifetime really know the answers anyway) and just follow the golden rule?  

Maybe the answer is just in treating others with compassion and understanding and the rest will be sorted out in God's own way.

R

ps- Alysia, most of us have not attained your level of enlightenment, so pls forgive us for "hashing around" on this subject. Peace of mind is not necessarily a great thing if it's obtained via false teachings.  I'm sure you would agree.

This I too think is the core of the whole thing. Perhaps the greatest leap of trust of all is to reach for comfort in the fact that everything is precisely the way it should be.

That whether this is a matters of God's omnipotence, or Grace or simply the way things are wired that ultimately even the guy who puts his trust in a nutter fundamentalist will experience exactly the life lesson he/she needs to bring him/her back to living through love.

It's not pleasant for him or for those he hurts, but  presumably the victims too are experiencing exactly what they need.

The hardest bit to accept is perhaps the idea that this is ultimately not an issue. We'd really be in trouble should that prove not to be the case.......

vajra-

Yeah, whether it's a fundamentalist or an Islamic terrorist, they both probably have peace of mind thinking their way is God's way.  And that they will be rewarded in the afterlife with 72 virgins or whatever floats their boat.

Peace of mind, therefore, does not seem to me to be an objective worth pursuing.  I'm sure you know, as do I, people who are totally smug and self-righteous, thinking they have the keys to the kingdom.  Their peace of mind comes at a pretty high price.  

Comforting someone who is upset or lonely, or helping a neighbor do his grocery shopping....far more real than being an expert on the teachings of some guru or some channeled entity.

Hi R.  :) True, but if the karmic perspective is applied then it'd maybe be fair to presume that consequences will surface later - in a subsequent birth or life if you kill yourself.

You're right about happiness not usually being a sign of spiritual progress. There will probably be bits but if my experience (I hope!) is anything to go by emotional or heart opening means it gets pretty raw and even painful at times too.

There's an egotistical and ersatz version of happiness where we may well be working very hard to convince ourselves that we are happy (with say the classic trophy wife, fancy car, big bank account) but that's usually accompanied by a nagging sense of dissatisfaction. Which manifests as for example the 'can't be rich enough' phenomenon. That's not to say a comfortable life is not pleasurable, but I guess Alysia's 'enthusiasm (translate as enjoyment) without expectation' (of continuity or anything else) is probably key.

It'd be nice to hear the views of others, but my experience has been that over time that the periods of emotional rawness which were probably my personal first experience of some opening have become mixed occasionally with periods of a non specific and unattributable whole body sense of energy and joy which pops up for no particular reason. Plus a sense of equanimity compared to where I was. I'm rather hoping that it's the real thing, and that it's not that my wife is not slipping something in my breakfast....

PS Re. the above. It's maybe the case that while it always works out allright in the end that there's many routes available through existence. That if we (humanity) prove slower to awaken than might have been the case we can make life a lot harder for ourselves and everybody else....

Hi Alysia,

On the surface this thread may appear to be about ACIM, Gurus, false teachings, etc., but if we were to take what appears on the surface to a deeper level of our being we might view this thread in a different way.  You know me well enough to know that my view of things usually has to do with healing.  That’s been my lifelong path that has taken me into my greatest fears and back out of them through pain and suffering.  And hopefully I’m gaining more and more understanding because I think that is key to remembering who we really are in more meaningful ways than what we previously knew.  (I’d also like to see us get back to Don’s heaven thread with all of us participating in it.  Sure we might argue a bit, but the truth is chaos can be a good thing.  Chaos destroys the old order so that a new order can emerge.  And from my perspective, that’s what ascension into the fifth dimension is all about.  That’s what we see happening in our world right now.)

I’ve never read ACIM so I can not speak of it’s teachings specifically, but it seems to me that within every truth that mankind can conceive of, that truth also contains within it falsities.  And as Roger asks: Is there a one size fits all answer?  On the surface most of us would probably say no, but if we dig deeper we might be able to say yes.  

I think it’s great that ACIM helped you heal.  Albert may or may not realize it, but ACIM helped him heal also.  See that’s the thing about each of us.  We are all unique individuals.  We all view things from our own unique perspective depending of what we need at any given moment in time.  Even our discernment, which I have always considered to be a gift of the spirit, is unique and this unique gift guides us to as Ian mentions, exactly where we need to be for our own personal transformation.

Our life is the way it is because of all the choices we make throughout every moment of our life.  We might judge those choices to be either positive or negative based on whether or not they give us pain or pleasure.  We avoid pain if at all possible in search of pleasure.  But if we are human, there is no real avoidance of pain.  It is through suffering, patience, and endurance that we make conscious the knowledge of who really are.  But even that knowledge I suspect will be individualized as well.  The beauty in that is each of us is a portion of the whole and all of us together produce a greater, clearer, fuller whole.  

Love, Kathy

PS to Ultra:  I’ve been meaning to thank you for adding your voice here and the links you’ve provided.  I have only had time to briefly glance at a couple of them and I’m sure there is information that is of value to me personally.  So thanks!  And thank you to everyone else who participates here with his or her voice.  I’m always learning a lot from each of you.  I love and appreciate all of you!

AOK Kathy.  :)

To apply an Irish slang saying: 'now you're sucking diesel'.

Kathy-

You go girl!!

All too often we get bogged down by either advocating a particular book or guru or by criticizing the book or guru.

But even as we go back and forth on these things we are learning, either directly or indirectly.

I have learned more from Don than from most anyone else, and yet there are folks who compare him to the anti-christ!  Goes to show how diametrically different some of us are.

As you say, from chaos we can learn (altho what may be disguised as chaos may not be).  

I'll go back and re-read Don's heaven thread as you suggest.  I highly value his input to things.

R