Vajra,

This is the danger of a text like ACIM - that it can convert intelligent thinking individuals into petrified inactive zombies.  Sorry to put it that way, but I couldn't think of a nicer way of saying it.

You make a few erroneous assumtptions - the first being that you can not correct an error out of love (PUL).  If a child in first grade tells his teacher 2+2 =5, he/she is corrected.  Not out of ego, but out of what we commonly agree on as reproducible truth in the earth plane.  Now you can also show the child by taking two marbles and adding another two, then asking them to count up the total.  Evenso, 2+2=4, and to teach the child in our real world, we correct them, to benefit them.  This is more out of love, then of ego. 

The idea of ACIM that we should not correct the error because when the person spouting garbage relinquishes his ego and opens up to holy spirit he will be corrected "automatically", is just rubbish.  We are here, in the earth school to learn from each other, and that education requires correction. 

The assumption you state in ACIM, that all healing comes from God, has an inherent error, in that assumes that what we teach each other, human being to human being doesn't come from God.  In this way, ACIM is fostering the duality or separation from man to God. 

If I correct someone on this forum, or someone corrects me, our egos will only get in the way if we let them.  If we concentrate on what our "gut" and intellect tell us is truth, then we can leave our egos at the door, and move on - integrating the real knowledge we need from the encounter. 

This only confirms to me that ACIM truly stems from a deceptive source, not a truly loving one.  In an earlier post, Lucy and others asked, why it mattered, if a source is deliberately  deceiving us, as long as they still had loving ideas to convey (to paraphrase).  This then is the answer.  That they can get such a fundamental issue wrong and teach not to correct errors when we find them.

Matthew

Vajra: I read your post yesterday but it went right over my head. Today it sounds crystal clear to me. Funny how that can happen.

I think you are right, that there is a connection between our own spiritual freedom (our 'forgivenness') and our ability to detach from any competitively driven model of self. It is not that it is wrong to 'know better' than someone else, and to offer another a different viewpoint. But how we share with each other is important.

In one version of the Tao (#27) it states:

What is a good man but a bad man's teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man's job?
If you don't understand this, you will get lost,
however intelligent you are.
It is the great secret.

Interesting, seeing as the section in this verse, immediately above it states:

...the Master is available to all people
and doesn't reject anyone.
He is ready to use all situations
and doesn't waste anything.
This is called embodying the light.

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

So, any clearer now? Ha ha.

I believe the instruction that I respect (although cannot put into practice with ease) suggests that each situation has value, and it is a wise person who sees that for what it is.

If we end up suppressing our egos (as Kathy seems to urge), how then do we retain our individuality?

Leaders in any endeavor, whether it be military or political or religious, are those who stand up and state their position.  Otherwise, by definition they cannot be leaders.  

If we want to keep our backbone, we need to stand up for our opinions.  That's not to say we are necessarily correct.  We may be wrong as rain.  But to say that we should avoid correcting others when we think they are wrong, and to suppress our egos, is to take away the very thing that makes us human.

Actually that's the very kind of thinking that has infiltrated our public school system.  Teachers are reluctant to give failing grades.  Every other car has a bumper sticking saying their child is on the Honor Roll.

This philosophy will not lead to a good end.  We need leaders in every field, and by definition those leaders will have learned the difference between right answers and wrong answers.

Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."  However, had Reagan been an ACIM devotee, no doubt he would have said something like this:  "Please, if you don't mind, could you maybe think about taking down the wall?  But hey no problem if you don't, it's all good.  Whatever."

R

I believe that a valid source of information will influence us to look within for the answers, rather than become reliant on the source.

It is hard for us to have faith in ourselves when we view things in an all or nothing manner, such as, either I'm enlightened, or I'm egotistical.

Despite this World's many problems, I've found that there are many people who share love in significant ways.  They do so without obtaining the state of consciousness ACIM claims we have to obtain. If we can live according to love to varying degrees, then perhaps we can find error to varying degrees. We don't have to become egotistical judgmental beings in order to do so. We simply see that it isn't right for people to do some of the things they do.

It is possible for a source to lead us to believe that it is teaching us one thing, when in an underhanded way it is striving to do the opposite.

When we speak from our heart a lot rather than from what a source of information says, perhaps this is a sign that we are on the right track.

Hi all I have made many errors because i have not listened sometimes to spirits guidance,they can try and help us to walk on the right path but we have freewill and dont always take the help given so lovingly from spirit.

Love and God bless  love juditha

Thank you guys, lots of views there - all with validity

You could read the teaching very literally and take the sentence in isolation as advising that we teach nobody anything, and that we should instead set our own intelligence aside and float about waiting for divine inspiration/intuition to strike.

Not as you say Doc and others very likely to be all that practical. It's possible to draw misleading conclusions from this sort of material.

The book itself, the teaching and life of Jesus and the Buddha, and indeed the approach of all the spiritual traditions would be a lie if that was truly the case. That's a lovely set of verses Moons.

The whole premise of ACIM is that we each should teach, much as in the verses. For example the latter 2/3 of the book is made up of the workbook for students, and a manual for teachers.

The question though is what is meant by teaching, and how is it to be done.  There is i think a deeper truth it's pointing to, one which Lucy was perhaps thinking of too. That said i'm still working my way through it, the following may or may not be an accurate representation of what ACIM means.

Ego as ever is central to our situation.

First to Spooky's point: 'when someone corrects another, it's just a thing between both's egos, so doesn't matter much as it's illusion'.  This it seems in the absolute or at the highest (God) level is true - what we do at the ego level is ultimately not real - the basis of why ACIM says that 'sin' is a concept  entirely originating in our own belief system. Where it does matter though is in terms of the effect it has on ourselves and others. When we behave in an egocentric (aggressive to whatever degree) manner, the problem is that we are both energising our own ego, and triggering escalating ego responses in others. This is the nature of ego.

The problem with this is that by creating life situations that increase the mental noise that blocks our hearing (of intuitive/Spirit guidance) and seeing (of realities as opposed to inaccurate perceptions) it slows our spiritual opening and hence progress. 'Correction' for example includes anything from good humoured argument up to war - and it's damn hard not to be sucked into reacting in kind if you feel (even moderately) under attack.

Secondly ego and individuality are not the same thing - transcending ego does not imply loss of individuality. It's clear that to function in this world that we have to have a sense of what we are - of how we interact with others, and the apparent reality we find ourselves in works. This framework is inevitably personal or individual - the result of the orientation we bring into the world, of our conditioning/education and of our life experience and how we respond to it.

Realisation (or the dropping of ego)  does not imply the loss of what we have learned or will learn about this 'reality' and how to handle it. It instead implies (in light of experience of higher realities, as well as the realisation that the way we typically view our existence is not the only possibility) the ending of our attachment to the belief that we are individual selves comprised of physical bodies with mind attached existing in a hostile and aggressive reality - the ending of our belief in the separation of 'self' and 'not self', and its replacement as a result of higher experience with the knowledge/knowing that ultimately all is one.

The problem in a sense is that most of us see at various levels at differing times. There's times we're dominated by ego (for example when threatened), and other times (for example during peak spiritual experience, or when we open our hearts to others) when we experience something more closely approximating to true seeing. The two realms do not overlap, so seeing excludes perception - and vice versa. The problem is that (by ACIM and Buddhist views) only seeing/guidance through the heart/ intuitive/Spirit channel and thought based on this that can be true - everything ego inspired while seemingly logical is unreliable. (although highly trained perception can it seems approximate to seeing)

What i think ACIM is driving at is that correction should not be via means that will trigger ego responses in others, and indeed potentially in ourselves. Because if we do so the resulting ego response makes it impossible to 'see' what we are being taught. We instead end up perceiving through the self centred lens of ego, and miss the point.

This (while going against societal conditioning) is not as far fetched as it may sound. For example: how often does aggression/compulsion result in people buying intoeducation with their hearts and minds? It's of course possible to force compliance, but that's a very different matter. This applies whether it's children and parents, or whole populations under the control of dictatorships - there's something innate that means that we can't and won't buy into forced change.

Its perhaps a matter of trust - if somebody is attempting to force us to do something it amounts to a breach of trust (or non-loving behaviour) in the terms that i described it above. The primacy of free will too seems one of the highest principles there is, one not even overridden by God. Precisely because its non loving behaviour.

This is the view i've worked my way to, it may or may not make sense but it seems to fit with Buddhist and other teaching on these topics. It perhaps makes no sense to you guys at all in which case my apologies.

What i was trying to get at in raising the question of correction is that if it's unworkable to teach through ego (and there's many teaching strategies that involve ego - not just compulsion for example, but also the setting up of oneself as a false guru) then what means are acceptable? We're very used to teachers being placed in positions of authority, but i suspect that ACIM is basically saying that this is hogwash. There are alternatives - by example or state of being for instance: this is very powerful as we somehow are drawn to centred people exuding wisdom and compassion. Indirect means also seem an option, for example making teaching accessible without forcing it on people.

It's perhaps the case that what matters is the perception of the student. A less than perfect teacher can do good provided what's imparted is positive, and provided the student buys into it. A more insightful student may sense the falsity of the same teacher, and not buy in - so it's not an fixed scenario.

The closest i can get to it is that it's situation specific - that if we trigger resistance/a sense of compulsion and ego inspired responses (even if this is for other reasons accepted) that we've stepped over the mark..

Pardon me if this seems rather opaque, it's subtle territory. What it means in practice is not easy to get to. Loving behaviours can be very tough indeed (the rose tinted variety is not for real), but equally we're very conditioned to think in ego inspired terms - terms which don't stand up when you look closely at them.

Whatever the ideal we end up living as what we are at a given time, so we inevitably make mistakes. Perhaps it's importance is in providing a view that helps us to learn from life with, that reduces the amount of trial and error....

I have to add that listening to your higher self often isn't that hard of a thing to do.  Sometimes it is simply a matter of listening to your sense of what's right. Therefore, if a person does something such as beat his kid you don't have to come to the conclusiong that because you haven't overcome your ego, you aren't qualified to see that person's error. Forget about the book, and do what you need to do to help the kid. The kid's suffering is real, despite what the course claims.