Comment

Comment by Dalton Walls on February 11, 2013 at 6:21pm

No, it's okay, we don't have to debate it, I was just sharing my thoughts. And no harm done. The theoretical foundation of the course is rather simple, there aren't really any sub themes that differ from the main point of the course. It's basically the same message repeated over and over in a lot of different ways. And that's actually good. Our egos are complex and therefore it takes something complex to hold our interest at first. I don't think anyone would stick with it if the course was just a short pamphlet explaining that this is a dream, how the dream started, why we want to keep it going, and what reality is. 

That's the only reason for the course seeming to have different categories, sub themes, and so on. It's just a motivation factor. Different parts of the course impact different people in different ways. While one chapter might be effective in motivating you, another chapter might be effective in motivating me. There's nothing complex about the course. It's the ego that wants to make it complex.

Comment by Eric G on February 11, 2013 at 10:46am

Hi Dalton,

   After reading your last reply, I debated as to whether or not to answer. This is obviously a topic that can go on and on. I somewhat regret my last reply to you, not because of my own convictions on the subject, but  I don't either think either one of us is going to convince the other very much, but I'll answer your reply.

Dalton: I have no opinion on whether or not arten and pursah really appeared, it doesn't really matter to me, the book was straightforward and didn't embellish anything.

Eric: I think this is where we differ. If I read a book that makes such claims as DU or ACIM does, it really does matter if the foundation of the claims are true or not. The first rule of discernment is to not use the claims of something as the perimeter or rule to discern as to whether or not the claims are true.  Why would I accept such radical claims of something without being concerned if the authoritative voices making these radical claims are real or are some made up literary devices being perpetrated as real? In what other aspects of our lives do we use this same “reasoning” that it doesn't matter if a person is being honest or not, because it's the message (well I suppose that's common in politics and religion)? I do not believe in teaching through deception and that it does not matter, because the ends justifies the means. If the very foundation is deceptive, then what sense would it make to accept what comes from the center of that deception?

 

  Also, if Arten and Pursah are literary devices, then that certainly would be a case of embellishing. In fact, that would be quite an example of it.

 

Dalton: And when it comes down to it, none of us are saying anything original man. All of us are repeating something. The course has one message, not two, so there's not much room for originality when talking about it, unless you want to embellish. Whether DU is influenced by wapnick or not, I don't really know, but since Wapnick is probably the most straightforward teacher of the course it's plain to see why there are similarities.

 

Eric: The course has the central theme of forgiveness. Yet, as I said before, there are many many sub-themes in the course, which is why it is so comprehensive in scope and has such depth to it. Which is why there are countless books on the course, because books can be written simply focusing on certain aspects of the course.

 

   I should be more straightforward and clear. DU is not simply influenced by Wapnick. It has essentially repeated Wapnick's current interpretation, sometimes almost word for word, some of which are Wapnick's own ideas. I say current, because Wapnick's interpretation of the course has changed (sometimes dramatically) over the years. In fact, some of things Wapnick has said around the era of Helen Schucman and later on about the time the copyright was transferred to him, it would look like Wapnick is arguing with himself. So I wouldn't say that he is the most straightforward teacher, especially since he writes books to further is explanation of his sometimes convoluted explanations of his interpretation.

 

Dalton: To me, it doesn't take long to grasp or understand the course at all. The theoretical part is actually really simple. It's the practical application that seems to take more time. Studying the course isn't going to do anything, it's when we apply it that it is.

 

Eric: I think you're confusing with having a basic outline understanding through a 2^nd hand explanation given by an author or authors that you accepted as “truth” as really understanding  all the subtleties and intricacies of the countless sub-themes that run through the course. It is like one saying they understand psychology, because they know it is defined as “The scientific study of mental processes and behavior” when it fact there is much more to it than that. That is simply the foundational starting point to know what one is studying.

 

  I do agree that without practically applying the course, studying it will not do much of anything. Information without application doesn't lead very far. But I would say that studying the course is absolutely essential to learn how to apply it. This is an  actual course. It is not simply a play on words. And studying the course in conjunction with applying it, will help the student tremendously in uncovering the unconscious mind. A neurosurgeon wouldn't say that studying that particular subject wouldn't do anything and they simply just need to get out there and operate. No, the surgeon would make sure to have a solid foundation of the theoretical ideas of neurosurgery, before applying them. This is done through study and is a continuous lifelong study along with application.

 

Dalton: But I am curious why you dislike DU so much, it's spot on about the course and forgiveness. It explains it very straightforward and doesn't pull any punches. The only things in the book that aren't about forgiveness and the course are things about gary's life and J's life.

 

Eric: Actually, I found DU entertaining (kind of like bad TV on a lazy Sunday afternoon) and I don't completely disagree with what is said, obviously since it is derived from ACIM, but it is not spot on.  There are inconsistencies that I don't think “all knowing, ascended masters” should be making. Gary put ACIM under the same scrutiny, is it unfair that what he says should also be held to the same standard?

 

  That being said, what I particularly do not care for, is to see someone set themselves up as an authority figure, with “infallible facts” stating that only he and one or two others are actually teaching the course and diminishing other course teachers and other teachers of other paths to elevate his stature as a course teacher. Especially when “ascended masters” get the “facts” wrong about the person(s) they are criticizing. It seems very Orthodox Church to me.

 

Side note: Gary came to one of his friend's websites to promote himself. I asked Gary as to why his “ascended masters” when given the opportunity to expound on Gary's question about ACIM and the Now, they instead took the opportunity to criticize another path? That really makes no sense, in that if your teacher is teaching a subject, to not teach the subject, but instead focus criticisms on another path. As the course says, instead of saying don't do that, but do this, it is better to say do only this. There is so much in ACIM on this subject that should have been talked about, but instead the focus was to discredit another path.

 

   Interestingly enough, after our conversations, Gary's very next podcast after our discussion was about the Now.  I am making a prediction on Gary's next book which is long long overdue (it was overdue in 2009, what's the deal?) I speculate one reason is the plagiarizing issue of “Pursah's: Gospel of Thomas” Hay House, I'm sure doesn't want to publish another book until this is resolved, but also Gary saying that he was re-writing some of the book.  My prediction is that the Now will be in his next book in much more depth (if it ever comes out).

 

   Which brings me to the statement that other paths are just moving furniture around in a burning house. This statement is antithetical to what the course says and is IMO an attempt at making the course special by elevating it through the depreciation of other paths. Here again, is what religion does and I think as serious course students, this should be questioned.

 

  This statement is a statement of failure. It is a colorful way of describing something that ultimately will not work, but only gives the temporary appearance that it will. This also creates an implication that ONLY the course will work. Which is in complete contradiction to what the course actually says.

   You're making an assumption that Gary is talking about the Law of Attraction, when what was said was that the course is more advanced and other paths are simply moving furniture around in a burning house. If this were the case, then “Arten and Pursah” are very bad at communication, because they could and should have specified this is what they were talking about. But, I'm sure this wasn't their intent as they had already criticized other paths and even other teachers of the course. 

Comment by Dalton Walls on February 9, 2013 at 2:58pm

I have no opinion on whether or not arten and pursah really appeared, it doesn't really matter to me, the book was straightforward and didn't embellish anything. I don't see the difference between DU and ACIM's actual message. ACIM is only different in it's format. DU is a straightforward explanation of the course, while ACIM includes a workbook and a text, which isn't very straightforward but is more motivational. To me, reading DU before the course was extremely helpful.

And when it comes down to it, none of us are saying anything original man. All of us are repeating something. The course has one message, not two, so there's not much room for originality when talking about it, unless you want to embellish. Whether DU is influenced by wapnick or not, I don't really know, but since Wapnick is probably the most straightforward teacher of the course it's plain to see why there are similarities. And I like that. I like when people just come out and say what they're trying to say instead of beating around the bush.

To me, it doesn't take long to grasp or understand the course at all. The theoretical part is actually really simple. It's the practical application that seems to take more time. Studying the course isn't going to do anything, it's when we apply it that it is. And that seems to be the hardest part. Because we are extremely identified with the ego, and the ego doesn't want to practice the course. Have you ever thought about leaving the world and becoming one with God? Though I may not remember what it's like,  I found that imagining im actually going to do it - to 'leave' the universe and return to reality - well, I found it pretty frightening. It's plain to see the ego resistance we have. If not only just by seeing how much we aren't practicing what the course says. 

But I am curious why you dislike DU so much, it's spot on about the course and forgiveness. It explains it very straightforward and doesn't pull any punches. The only things in the book that aren't about forgiveness and the course are things about gary's life and J's life.

A&P saying other paths are just moving furniture around a burning house, well, I don't see what's wrong with that. When you think about the nature of what's actually happening in so-called reality, that's what other paths are doing. Now when I say different paths, though, I mean anything that doesn't share the same message. ACIM is not the only teaching system there is, and therefore not the only 'correct' one. ACIM is the form. It's the content that matters. There have been and will be other forms of teaching systems that share the same content, just come in different forms. I think A&P (or Gary) was referring to the idea that if you're following a path of illusions, trying to manifest, and make the 'world' better - you're rearranging furniture in a burning house. It's the same idea as when David Hoffmeister says - you're trying to paint rosy lips on a skeleton. They're just metaphors, and I find them extremely revealing.

Comment by Eric G on February 8, 2013 at 7:04pm

Dalton: I think the icing on the cake was when I ate some shroomies and had what we would probably call "a mystical experience".

Eric: LOL, one time I dropped acid and found the secret/meaning of life. Want to know what it was? There is no secret.  

Comment by Eric G on February 8, 2013 at 7:02pm

 

Dalton: I can't deny it, either. I was first introduced to the course through The Disappearance of the Universe by Gary Renard. And as you may know that book involves ascended masters appearing out of nowhere. What originally drew me to the book was it's claim that it was straightforward and had information provided by ascended masters. That's an extraordinary claim that I hadn't really ever seen in a book. It was at a time I was looking for answers and I thought, what the hey, what better source to get answers from than ascended masters.

 

So I read it, and of course it all made perfect sense and blew my mind. It was extremely straightforward and I appreciated that.I had never gotten straightforward answers before, just the usual "love and light" stuff. So even though it made sense, like you, I didn't take to it immediately. It was kind of like “how can i put all my trust in this one random book?"

 

But then I started to see and feel that it was undeniably the truth. In movies, songs, and on tv -I heard the message repeated everywhere I looked. Even in my daily life and interactions with people, everything they said and every way in which they acted made perfect sense. I think the icing on the cake was when I ate some shroomies and had what we would probably call "a mystical experience".

 

Eric: I think I read DU about 6 months after I began studying the course. I remember someone mentioning it, so I got it. At that point, I had been reading some Wapnick also. For me, it became clear fairly quickly that “Arten & Pursah” were literary devices, though it was claimed they were/are real. There is just no comparison in wisdom and profundity when it comes to ACIM and DU. DU's “ascended wisdom” is rather ordinary and very “human”.

 

The thing to remember also, is that DU is not really saying anything. It is repeating it. There is a big difference. Like Abraham-Hicks, it is very easy to see where DU pulled its “ascended masters” resources. The most obvious one is Wapnick's current interpretation of the course. DU is heavily influenced by Wapnick. Then of course, you have the course itself to gather information. The Gnostic aspect can also be seen as influenced by such prominent scholars like Elaine Pagels who had a focus on the Gnostic Gospels. The stories of Thomas' past can easily be filled in with the imagination. The quantum physics within the book can easily be seen from such pop-physics books such as “The Field” or “The Holographic Universe”. In fact, what DU says about quantum physics isn't much different from what Deepak Chopra says, but with an ACIM metaphysical/theological twist to it. The topic of Buddhism is rather superficial and one could read a synopsis to get the same thing and “A&P”'s description of the Vedanta writings is actually inaccurate.

 

“A&P”'s description of other course teachers and some teachers of other paths are also inaccurate and I question the motivation behind such assertions in the first place. Some statements are even completely antithetical to what the course says. Statements such as other paths are just moving furniture around a burning house is one of them.

 

I can see why DU hooks people. Reading it, people can relate to a person's own experience on such a unique path. They can also relate to the world's events described in the book. “J” sounds more cool and less stuffy than Jesus. That can help soften the resistance one may have to the Christianity language in the course. Plus western society is a fast food nation. We want results now. ACIM doesn't work that way. It is a difficult read that, IMO, takes years of study to begin to really grasp what it is saying and that can be frustrating not to understand something right away. DU is a much easier read than the course and even Wapnick's interpretation/explanations. That is attractive to many people. But like ACIM, I researched and scrutinized what DU was saying. Unlike ACIM, DU did not pass my skepticism. I'm glad it helped you find the course, though.

Comment by Dalton Walls on February 8, 2013 at 5:31pm

I can't deny it, either. I was first introduced to the course through The Disappearance of the Universe by Gary Renard. And as you may know that book involves ascended masters appearing out of nowhere. What originally drew me to the book was it's claim that it was straightforward and had information provided by ascended masters. That's an extraordinary claim that I hadn't really ever seen in a book. It was at a time I was looking for answers and I thought, what the hey, what better source to get answers from than ascended masters.

So I read it, and of course it all made perfect sense and blew my mind. It was extremely straightforward and I appreciated that. I had never gotten straightforward answers before, just the usual "love and light" stuff. So even though it made sense, like you, I didn't take to it immediately. It was kind of like "how can i put all my trust in this one random book?"

But then I started to see and feel that it was undeniably the truth. In movies, songs, and on tv - I heard the message repeated everywhere I looked. Even in my daily life and interactions with people, everything they said and every way in which they acted made perfect sense. I think the icing on the cake was when I ate some shroomies and had what we would probably call "a mystical experience".

So that's kinda what prompted me to take the course more to heart and go for it. And I'm really happy I did. At times it's kind of overwhelming but it also feels like a safety net, that no matter what I'm safe and I'm where I need to be, and in the end I will be in perfect bliss.

It's really crazy, man. I have mixed feelings about it all. But it's undeniably a good thing.

Comment by Eric G on February 7, 2013 at 3:18pm

 

Dalton: I don't know if everyone else has done this, but when I first started learning about the course it was almost like I wanted to tell everyone. It was amazing news. I told my whole family. of course, i came to learn that its something that cant even be shared.

Eric: For me, it was the complete opposite. I had heard of the course from reading other books. Before actually reading it, my initial reaction was that I would never buy/read such a “stupid” book. I'm not sure as to why I had such a negative reaction to ACIM, before ever reading it or laying eyes on it. One day, I saw it on a table featuring other books. For some reason I felt compelled to buy it, so I did.

I took it home and started reading the preface. When I read that it was scribed/channeled, I was furious! I felt duped and felt I should have listened to my initial instinct. I am a huge skeptic of “channeled material” as most of it may have some clever one-liners or a bit of insight on something, but there is nothing unique or extraordinary about the material and it is very easy to see where this “channeled” material is derived from. For example, Abraham-Hicks is nothing more than taking the ideas from authors such as Robert Collier's “The Secret of the Ages” (which by the way, the book “The Secret” basically plagiarized) , Charles F. Haanel's “ The Master Key System”, and Napoleon Hill's “Think and Grow Rich” and then throw in some ascended masters to make it seem mystical, authoritative, and spiritual.

So when I read the course was scribed/channeled, I was like, “Give me a break! Not another BS book!” After my initial feeling of anger subsided, I thought I might as well read some of it, since I threw down 30 bucks for a book. As I began to read it, I felt I was reading something very important, even though I wasn't completely grasping what was being said. This was beyond clever or insightful. I was still very skeptical, but I couldn't deny what I was reading was something profound! When I was done reading the text for the first time, something in me change or shifted. No, nothing close to “enlightenment”, but there was a recognition and a willingness to learn.

Yet, I was still skeptical about this scribing thing. So I started to research the course. I found articles on MKULTRA and such and read them. Yet this theory didn't hold much water. First off, the course's goal was/is not the CIA's M.O. And Bill was always forthright about being funded by the CIA, even joking they paid for the typewriter the course was being typed on. Another reason, was that the CIA was funding other psychologists such as prominent Carl Rogers at the time. This was not an uncommon practice throughout the country at that point in time.

I think what started to soften my skepticism was reading Helen's story. The one thing I found about “channeled work” is that it often fits into a neat formulaic approach. Besides the material itself not being very original or profound. Person(s) has experience where they are visited or channel an entity or entities, (usually while meditating). Person(s) has some shock, but it's usually subdued in relation to the situation. Person(s) quickly gets over shock. Person(s) embraces the experience. Material is channeled and written down. Person(s) are told that this entity will only appear to them (what I call verbal copyright). Person(s) looks to a publisher for the book. Book is published. Person(s) goes on to sell books, do lectures, embracing the fame and makes a living from this, etc.

While Helen and Bill did start meditating before the course came to be, I think this is where her story departs from the rest. As I read about people talking about Helen and her experiences, it just felt a lot more genuine. She didn't embrace it fully. She was really ambiguous about it all. She thought she was going crazy at first, which I think would be the normal reaction. Bill had to coax her to do it. She tried to stop writing the material down, though it caused her a lot of discomfort. She had a complete love/hate relationship with the course. Saying it was her life's work one moment, and then cursing it the next. She was embarrassed and afraid it would ruin her career as a psychologist. When asked about the course, she said she knew it was true, but didn't believe it. She pretty much stayed in the background and wanted to pretty much remain anonymous. There was no rush to go find a publisher and sell a million copies. And she died cursing that “goddamned book” as she called it. There is a realness to this.

Another reason was reading the UrText. Reading the conversations and the doubts and anger Helen had in the beginning just shed a whole other light on the story. It's funny to read how quick she was to at every moment to try and disprove “The Voice.” This wasn't a person embracing the experience. She was often times fighting against it. The UrText almost tells a story within itself.

But I think what most has softened my skepticism, is the course itself. The more I read it, the more I see just how brilliant and profound it is! The depth of the course is unbelievable. While the central theme of the course is forgiveness, to say it is just that, is to give it a great disservice. There are so many sub-themes within the course that it can extend to every situation that we perceive in life. I've read a lot of spiritual texts, such as The Dhammapada, The Tao Te Ching, The Bhagavad Gita, The Gnostic Gospels, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, The I Ching, parts of the Qur'an, the Bible, etc. I've taken psychology classes in college. I've read some Western Philosophy, and I have never read something as profound and comprehensive as A Course in Miracles.

As much as this book pisses me off at times. I cannot deny it. I don't think I could ever go back to the way my life use to be, even if I wanted to. But, I still don't talk about it to other people. Though I talk about the practical applications of it to other people, without naming where they came from. There's still a skepticism I have. I don't know why. The experiences I have had since studying the course have been extraordinary! I have had many experiences before then. I have countless dreams from the mundane to life altering come true again and again. I do know, that on a practical level through my own experience, that what the course says is true.

Comment by Dalton Walls on February 7, 2013 at 12:30pm

oh yeah. haha i love that video with ken. it happens all the time, in course communities and other spiritual communities. a lot of what are called spiritual forums are huge ego pits, all competing to see who is the most enlightened or spiritual. this has been a small but easy lesson for me to learn. I don't know if everyone else has done this, but when I first started learning about the course it was almost like I wanted to tell everyone. It was amazing news. I told my whole family. of course, i came to learn that its something that cant even be shared. you cant use it to be "right" either. imagine that, unlocking the secrets of the universe and it does nothing for you in the world of form. haha ill write more later i have like five seconds left

Comment by Eric G on February 7, 2013 at 12:21pm

It's funny, yesterday I wrote :One of the “spiritual” traps that can happen is when someone tries to be or speak at the level of Knowledge through the limited lens of the conceptual- perceptual mind. This happens all the time in non-dual circles, especially Neo-Advaita circles, which can cause level confusion, dissociation, and cognitive dissonance and sometimes even a sociopathic sense of spirituality.

   I was bored and surfing around the web yesterday evening and found this video from Ken Wapnick talking about this very thing. Though I'm not a student of his, I found this video to be (tragically) funny, but also very true. Though I laughed at the irony of him saying that nowhere in the course does it say anything about groups or formal teaching as he was formally teaching a group. :-)

   Wapnick called course students  the worst when it comes to metaphysical aspect of spirituality. I think that is a pretty strong statement.  He made a joke that the last person you'd want to call if your appendix was about to burst, would be a course student, because they would just cite Lesson 136 to the person that sickness was a defense against the truth.

  Sadly, I have seen this very example happen within the course community. I have seen this very lesson cited to someone who was dealing with illness. I remembered when I first began to study the course, I was on a general spiritual website and a woman was speaking about how her son was murdered. Two "course students" replied to her and told her it was her ego that did this. I was shocked! Why would somebody say that to another person?! Especially a person who wasn't even a course student? Was that compassion or spiritual? Or was it simply two misguided people believing they actually comprehended Truth at the level of the limited conceptual-perceptual mind? This is sometimes referred to as ego-enlightenment. Hugh Prather, another teacher wrote an article discussing this very thing.  

  This is one of the criticisms that people opposed to ACIM have about it. That it makes people aloof, apathetic, unemotional, uncaring, and disengaged. Yet, I don't believe this is what the course is about at all. Jesus was none of what opponents of the course say it makes its students, and I don't think the course teaches this at all. It is a misunderstanding of the course, either through one's own misinterpretation or reading, accepting, and adopting a "teacher's" interpretation.

  It is kind of like the popular term in Buddhism of being detached. Yet Buddhist scholars have discussed that this is not exactly a correct interpretation, because of time, culture, and the Sanskrit and Poly language, which are much richer and have a depth English does not.

  A more accurate interpretation of "detachment" would be correct engagement. To be in the world, but not of it.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTURXujg_T0

Comment by Dalton Walls on February 7, 2013 at 10:36am

right, well exactly, there is no use in trying to speak in line with the course. and I don't think any of us would be on this forum right now if we were coming from what the course calls "knowledge", so, I just kinda speak from what I'm thinking.. and I realize I'm not ready to give up all my illusions quite yet so it's all good

yea i totally agree with everything you say, though. I actually have lurked non-dual forums before like you mentioned, and participated on a 'spiritual' one before. Needless to say, I prefer miracleshare =p

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page