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.

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:

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....

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 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.

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 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:


  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.

 

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