Talk:A Course in Miracles

Note: Topic threads that began before Nov. 13, 2005 (UTC) have been archived.
To view earlier archived discussions of the A_Course_In_Miracles article, please see:

For topic threads started May 17, 2004 (UTC) - November 12, 2005 (UTC), see: Talk:A_Course_In_Miracles/Archive 1.

---

Rationale for revert of 'cause and effect' section.

Someone had recently re-titled the section to 'The unreality of the world'. The old section title which was: 'Definitions of cause and effect in the material world' seemed to me to be more germane here, as ACIM seems to me to be more about the reality of 'cause', than the unreality of the 'world' which it claims to be merely 'effect'. Also in this revert, I selected an earlier version that seemed to me to be more concise.

Thanks,

-Scott P. 07:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to work with the section you brought back. And maybe I will add a section on ACIM's teachings about the lack or realness of the world.

As for ACIM being MORE about the reality of the cause, then the unreality of the world, I cannot say! I believe ACIM says that until you deny the realness of the the world, you cannot see the real.

I am clear that ACIM is not about harnessing the understanding of cause and effect to somehow make a better world or better life, an idea which was in the section I took out in about 4 or 5 different places... so I will go through and rework it.

peace,

Seth

-Sethie 22:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that ACIM does not appear to have been intended to be merely a new method to 'better the world'. Still, ACIM does make some claims that the world can be 'bettered' in some ways by simply following its teachings. Ultimately, it seems to me that ACIM teaches that the world is made 'best' when it is recognized for what it is, namely a tool to return us to the awareness of God's love for us, that once recognized for what it really is, will gently fall away.

-Scott P. 23:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Sethie 09:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

knock it off!

quit changing the goddamn first article, it was looking great the way it was and then it keeps getting changed ...why would anyone want to do that!

also there IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ACIM SPIN OFF PUBLICATION! it doesn't exist....there isn't such a thing....there never was.... there is ACIM and that's it!

and quit changing parts of it that people have spent valuable time making look good ! jeeeeezus!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.139.175 (talk • contribs) (apparently by Graytooth at 22:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC))
[factored by Willmcw 23:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC), set to standard syntax format by Scott P. 12:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)]

sorry about that. i forgot to sign in.... i did not wish to remain anonymous. i believe anonymous "attacks" are cowardly. i'm not a coward.

while i think my comments were very strong, i don't think they were a "personal attack"... and i think they are much needed. certain individuals keep screwing up this article and don't seem to get the message. if you read more of the comments you'll notice that i'm not the only one who feels this way. certain individuals feel that they are the 'editor-in-chief' of this article and take what other people contribute and change it or "incorporate" it into their, often flawed, style. this is unnacceptable and thick-headed. it must stop. ACIM is a very important subject to a lot of people.

it shouldn't be re-edited by an ignoramus who isn't very well versed in grammar much less writing style, much less someone who doesn't know a lot about the subject matter. Certain individuals need to put their ego in check and think about the "other" person for a moment. Imagine working on a Wiki article and putting your time, effort, and attention into it and then a while later coming back and seeing that it's totally been changed! and changed for the worse!

shhhheeeeeeeeeeesh! give me a break already!

-Graytooth 17:52, 7 December, 2005 [UTC]

Myabe if you mention specific changes you don't like... some conversation could happen.

-Sethie 18:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Rationale for retaining the 'Spin Off Publications' section

Certainly ACIM is a book that has no equal for many people. In that sense, some could reasonably say that there could be no spin-off books from it. Still, one cannot deny that several subsequent books have been written by students of ACIM that are intended to be primarily based on the teachings of ACIM, and also that some of these types of books have been extremely successful and popular. While the study of any of these books alone might be likened to trying to study the Bible by only reading commentaries on it, still these ACIM commentaries and other ACIM based books have clearly had an impact on how many see ACIM. It seems to me that to exclude this section on Spin Off Publications only forces anyone who would seek to study commentaries on ACIM and other ACIM based books to have to look outside of Wikipedia for a list of the most popular amongst these publications. Perhaps there is a better term, other than the title 'Spin Off Publications' that could be used for this section. Any suggestions?

Looking forward to any comments on the value of (or potential problems with) restoring this section, and/ or suggestions on a better name for this section.

-Scott P. 17:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As nobody seems to have any further strong feelings about reinstating this section or not, I am reinstating it, but as per the suggestion that the old section title might be improved upon, I am renaming the section to: ACIM based publications of note. Thanks for the suggestion that this section title might be improved upon.

-Scott P. 16:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Archiving note...

As is generally the practice for Wiki discussion pages that grow to beyond 25 discussion threads, I have now archived the first 25 discussion threads of this talk page, which can still be accessed via the link at the top of this page. Thanks...

-Scott P. 16:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Is Advaita Hinduism is only a thought exercise?

Sethie,
          I noted that you recently deleted a section from the comparison of Advaita Hinduism with ACIM that read:

• The belief that Moksha cannot be achieved in the vacuum of pure thought, but that it must also be accompanied by right-relationships with one's fellows, based on selflessness and love.

Here is an example of a text written by the founder of Advaita: Sankara, upon which I based this summary:

"Non-violence, truth, non-theft, continence and non-possession, absence of anger, service to elders, cleanliness, contentment and honesty, non-conceit, candour, faith and non-injury – are the qualities (effects) of Sattva....

....First the waking state rests on the five organs of sense, the five of action and the four inner senses (being active)

--(from The Geocities Advaita Vedanta Library)

It seems to me that while Advaita Hinduism does ultimately teach that the world that we think we see is pure illusion (as does ACIM), still both also teach that the only way that we can be released from this illusion is to correct the mistakes of our wrong thinking and mistaken relationships with those around us, which involves not only thought, but also action as noted above. How could one achieve inner unity if his actions were not also unified? Comments?

-Scott P. 17:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sattva is considered a quality of mind. It is definalty not enlightenment, though it is considered the most helpful quality of mind for enlightement... however "good actions" is not the only one way to cultivate sattva. Eating a lot of fruit is another! :)

"The only way that we can be released from this illusion is to correct the mistakes of our wrong thinking and mistaken relationships with those around us."

That is a clear expression of ACIM, however, I have yet to read a Vedanta text that advocates anything like this.

Vedanta teaches that enlightement CAN in fact be found in the vaccum of pure thought, through completely abandoning and negating the world. This is the way of the sadhu or ascetic. It also teaches that enlightement can be found through service like Ammachi or Ghandi. I take issue with you saying right relation is "the only way" and by saying enlightenment "cannot" be found in the vaccum. Vedanta is more flexible then that.

If you read Ramana Maharshi or Nisaragadatta, two of the most well known 20th century Vedanta thinkers, you will be hard pressed to find them advocating "right action." When asked about service, Ramana said, "God created the world, let him take care of it!"

In fact, the ONLY worldy practice Ramana advocates is :) eating a sattvic diet, so as to make enlightenment easier! Sethie 05:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew's edits

Heya Andrew.

First off, wowsa, I dig what you are working on and doing... wish I would have said that in the edit field.

The facts you brought in are interesting, and i like them there, I just didn't like the first sentence: A Course In Miracles is not literally channeled from Jesus Christ. I may be wrong here, however I believe there are a LOT of opinions on that subject, and I hope the paragraph you are working on will bring in a few.

Another thing I don't like is that Wapnick isn't Helen's "heir," to me heirs are for Kings, Popes and for family to inherit stuff. But what is a way to state the relationship between them? Sethie 05:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that technically speaking it is correct to describe Kenneth Wapnick as Helen Schucman's heir, because I believe he did indeed inherit some of her personal belongings. I believe he inherited all of her religious momentos (which I believe Helen's widower demanded Kenneth remove the night that Helen died), and I believe that Kenneth holds the copyright to many of Helen's unpublished works. That copyright might have been transfered to FACIM by now. I'm not sure. But I believe that technically speaking it is correct to say that Kenneth was Helen's heir because he did indeed inherit some of her belongings.

Regarding Jesus' symbolic place in the Course, I realize that there are some people for whom this is a heated and controversial topic. But I quote directly from the Course where it says that "the name of Jesus Christ as such is but a symbol." And there are other places in the Course that refer to Jesus as ultimately being an illusion -- because he had an individual identity, and all individual identities are illusions. Further, in various talks (including a personal conversation with me, of which I do not have a transcript, of course) Kenneth has stated that the scribing that Helen undertook with regard to the Course was not the typical kind of "paranormal" scribing/channeling that comes to mind in the more New Age type of paths, or in the context of spiritualism and mediums and all that. I have heard Kenneth describe Jesus's place in the Course as a type of symbolism akin to what one finds in Jungian and other works. And I believe that in the book The Message of A Course In Miracles, Kenneth says that what we ultimately come to realize when we study the Course and Jesus's symbolic presence -- is that we ourselves, our own personal identities, are only symbolic.

I realize that it pretty much seems that it is only Kenneth Wapnick and the Foundation for A Course In Miracles that teaches from this perspective. I believe most of the other Course teachers take the "channeling/scribing" quite literally, as though Helen Schucman literally contacted someone who died many years ago (Jesus) and had something akin to a seance with him, or some form of metaphysical/paranormal communication. So, I think it's okay for me to quote directly from Kenneth and the Course on this topic, and then if others would like they are of course able to interject the perspectives of other teachers. I'll be completely blunt and state that I think Kenneth is correct on this issue. I don't think the Course makes sense any other way. But I understand others have differing opinions, and they, of course, have a right to include their opinions in this section if they like. -- Andrew Parodi 05:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"So, I think it's okay for me to quote directly from Kenneth and the Course on this topic"

Since I am in agreement with you about this, please let me know if anything I wrote gave you the opposite impression.

As for the heir, if you want that word in their, please be factual and say in what way he is the heir. like the ways you listed above. The reason I request this is because there are so many ways "heir" could be interpretted, especially in the context of a religious movement, like "Oh he's the HEIR, so he has the truth," or "He is next in succession" etc, in terms of some "special" status assigned to him. Sethie 08:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. I used that term in an attempt to quickly sum up his proximity to Helen and just to give someone who might not know who he is an idea of who he is. But this might not be necessary, come to think of it, since he is mentioned in the section just before the section I started. So, maybe I'll just take that out then. -- Andrew Parodi 17:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

on the symbolism - ehh, are you sure ken is really saying that this course came from schuman alone, because although jesus is a symbol, that doesnt mean it didnt come from the "holy spirit" using jesus as a symbol? i mean are you sure youre not just taking the symbolism point a little too far, or did wapnick really say clearly that it was all made up? this section pretty much says, or at least gives the impression that the course is man-made, and although i am agnostic entirely, i find that disturbing, as a course student, at the same time. so id just like to hear more follow up on this. Everything Inane 09:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding, even the "Holy Spirit" is only a symbol. These are all just words and concepts that we use and can relate to with our human minds. In other words, the word "Holy Spirit" is a symbol for something that is within us. So, if we are to say that Helen Schucman's scribing of the Course was aided by the "Holy Spirit," what this really means is that it was aided by that aspect of her mind that is compassionate and understands non-dual love, etc. This is a very different concept than, say, the standard and mainstream Christian concept that holds that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate from you and communicate with you in some circumstances -- but they are ultimately very real and very distinct. As to whether it is all "just made up," my understanding is that the Course is saying precisely that: that the world is all made up, the Course is all just made up, and our individual identities are all just made up. Like the Course says, "Ideas leave not their source." The idea of "Holy Spirit," "Jesus," "God," is all just in the mind.

I think this is where the Course bears a strong resemblance to Buddhism. I think Buddhism teaches that "God" is just a concept in the mind. And about being agnostic, I attended classes at FACIM last summer where Kenneth Wapnick said that the Course is actually atheist, at least in terms of the teaching that God has nothing to do with the physical world. I think that some have said this about Buddhism as well, that it's atheist because it doesn't teach about a "creator God."

I think that this is a very sensitive topic for many people, and I think a lot of it goes back to personal interpretation. I believe that I am correctly communicating what Kenneth Wapnick teaches, though I understand that others teach differently. So, in the context of the article I just refer back to Kenneth Wapnick and say, "Kenneth Wapnick says...." and then refer back to the Course and what it says. -- Andrew Parodi 17:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

oh, ok, see, this is what i think. yes the course says the whole world is made up, blah blah, but dont you see what youre doing? i mean, you mention helen schuman and then you go and mention jesus. both are equally illusary and yet you say helen schuman did not recieve inner dictation, its just symbols, as if helen is not a symbol. i mean if youre going to talk about the illusion you can't just say one part is real while something else in it is just a symbol. its like youre, no offense, but it sounds like youre really twisting things to make it sound like the course was just made up by helen. and i mean, shouldnt it be taken for granted that every historical fact or point or supposition made on wikipedia is based in the illusion of form anyways? Everything Inane 21:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)