Quote:


  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:


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


  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:


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:


  Perhaps.

Quote:


  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:


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


  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:


  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:


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:


  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. 

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.

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:


 Howard Storm said: Quote:

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:

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

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



  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.

  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.