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Note: Topic threads that began before Nov. 13, 2005 (UTC) have been archived.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)

I think you are correct about the recent Advaita teachers; Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta not advocating hardly any specific physical practices, but the founder of Advaita, Sankara seems to have advocated many practical things as listed above, plus the abolition of the caste system and others. I will attempt to point this out in that section of the article. Thanks for pointing this out.

-Scott P. 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about my confusing edits...

I am curious about your use of the world "many" practical things. The question is how much of an emphasis did Shankara place on them? How much of his teaching dealt with right relations? 1%? 10%? 50%?

I honor that you think it is a significant enough percent to make it worthy of mention, however, I guess I would like someone who is more knowledgeable about Shankara or Advaita to comment. Any proposals for how we could accomplish this?Sethie 21:26, 8 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)

Actually, yes, I think you're starting to get it. From my understanding of the way Kenneth Wapnick and FACIM teaches it, personal identity is ultimately illusory (this includes the identities of "Helen Schucman," "Jesus," and everyone else), everything in the physical world is ultimately illusory, and every thought in the conscious mind is ultimately illusory. (I think that Kenneth Wapnick has written that even consciousness itself is illusory, which is one reason the term "Christ Consciousness" never appears in ACIM and he doesn't feel it's an appropriate term to use when describing the Course.) As Kenneth Wapnick has said, the main reason people have a resistance to accepting that Jesus is just symbolic is because what they then realize is that ultimately their own identities are only symbolic as well. So, you are actually right. On the "Ultimate" level, the Course would indeed say that everything in our physical world, and even everything on Wikipedia, is an illusion.

I don't know how much further we should go with this discussion here, though. FACIM has an entire bookstore devoted to this topic. I think this forum is meant more to discuss edits and whether they are appropriate, rather than to debate aspects of the Course. Like I mentioned, I am well aware that some "big names" in the Course world do not teach from this perspective (in fact, I think Kenneth Wapnick and FACIM are the only ones who do). So, if you would like you can edit in the opinions of others who do not agree with this. -- Andrew Parodi 01:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

hmm, despite how it comes off, and how i felt about it before, i think ill leave it be. thanks for the short discussion, though. Everything Inane 08:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of the Course to grasp for most people. And I think that this issue even came to light during the copyright controversy. I think there are documents circulating on the Internet wherein Kenneth Wapnick explicitly says that Helen never meant she literally communicated with the disembodied entity of Jesus Christ; she meant it symbolically. You may've also read about Helen Schucman's experiences which she described as being "beyond Jesus." I believe what that means is that she had experiences that were beyond the need of the symbol of "Jesus." Anyway, yes, there's really little to debate about this. One either takes this position or they don't. I'm blunt about the fact that I think this is the accurate perspective on the Course. But I don't "look down on" anyone who sees it differently. -- Andrew Parodi 08:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The reality of Helen's 'inner dictation'.

First and foremost, it seems to me that Schucman's repeated and widely published claim that she heard an 'inner voice' that gave her 'rapid inner dictation', 'that she soon recognized to be the voice of the person of Jesus', should take priority over the theories of others about whether or not she was telling the truth in this. Either she was telling the truth, or not. I cannot see how there can too many shades of gray in this, just like the woman who claims to be 'just a little bit pregnant'. I can't see how she could say that she actually only heard a 'little inner voice'. Either she heard it or she didn't. Now, if there are any first-hand published accounts of Schucman actually contradicting herself, then that would be noteworthy. But I know of none. Does anyone else know of any?

Perhaps after years of hearing this voice, her own thoughts and the things that this voice taught may have became co-mingled in her mind, but that seems to me to be quite different from claiming that she ever contradicted her first claim. If she did, then I would certainly appreciate a reference. If not, then I think that this section might need to state clearly that these are only Kenneth's theories, which are not substantiated by any of Schucman's statements to that effect. It eems to me that in many ways this theory is somewhat confusing and contradictory of Schucman's own statements, unless it can be backed by direct published quotes from Schucman herself, (or recollected and published by Kenneth as representing direct quotes from Schucman.) I don't think that hearsay from Kenneth is really suitable print for this article.

-Scott P. 04:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider my personal conversations with Kenneth Wapnick regarding this topic constitute hearsay, nor do I consider that his books do either, nor do I consider that court documents constitute hearsay. (I recall reading transcripts of a document regarding the copyright controversy wherein Kenneth said that Helen never meant that she literally heard the voice of a disembodied person known as "Jesus." She didn't have something akin to a seance; she didn't contact the dead. It was symbolic, the vein of Jungian and/or Freudian symbolism. Or, come to think of it, perhaps even symbolist symbolism.) But I'll set that aside ... (and I'm not saying I'm offended by those comments).

Again, it says right there in the Course that "the name of Jesus Christ as such is but a symbol...." then it says "the man was an illusion...." And in a portion of Absence from Felicity where Ken writes:

At first blush, and as the story of the scribing is usually told, it would seem as if the person of Jesus stood within Helen's mind with a microphone, dictating to her-word for word, in English!--the three books of the Course. It must be remembered, of course, that on one level this was Helen's experience. But similar to the misperception of the sun's rising and setting every day, one's experience , though valid for the individual, nonetheless, should not be taken for the actual truth, let alone as a model in form for other people's experience. [1]

A few other comments:

The phrase "Voice of Jesus" is a symbol. Kenneth has spoken extensively about the use of symbolism in the Course. He has stated that the Course has "consistent content" and "inconsistent form." For example, the Course refers to God being beyond gender, beyond the physical world, that the physical world is illusory and God has nothing to do with it. Then there are passages that refer to God as being so sad that He is crying. As Kenneth has pointed out, this doesn't mean we are to think that God has tear ducts. This is a symbol. It is metaphoric. The term "Voice of Jesus" is also a symbol. And, actually, all words are. As the Course says, "Words are but symbols of symbols...."

I don't really know how much further to go with this. I knew that when I opened this up I was most likely going to get into a very heated debate. I realize this is terribly controversial among Course students, and frankly I want no part in any such controversy because I think it's counter productive. But if everyone's perspective is welcome, then why not the perspective of the man who helped bring the Course to the world and who knew Helen Schucman personally and who was, though some don't like the word, Helen Schucman's heir? Further, there are many Course students for whom this is actually not a controversial perspective. True, such students are largely FACIM students and readers of Kenneth's books. But I still think it would be a mistake to excluse from this page the comments and insights of the man who helped bring the form of the Course to the world.

From my perspective, I find the idea that Helen Schucman literally communicated with the disembodied entity of a dead man to be quite creepy. That is putting the Course in the category of seanaces, ouija boards, Spiritualism, and other New Age-type things. (It might be interesting to note that I corresponded briefly with Gary Renard, and he made the same comments to me about his book. He told me that his contact with Arten and Pursah were symbolic, not literal.) (note on the preceding from Everything Inane 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC): now, you used the word literal as opposed to symbolic. since everything in the universe is symbolic, we can only assume that when you say literal, you mean the things that appear to happen in the universe. so if you say renard said arten and pursah were meant to be symbolic as opposed to literal, then you are saying, without mistake, that he made them up entirely in every regard, and that they never appeared to appear before him as bodies. however, although i may not be too knowledgable of schumans experience, I know for a fact that gary renard (who ive read his book, i read his message board at yahoo groups, and ive listened to several interviews of him) has many times explicitly said that this really did happen, as much as anything else in the universe happens. i suppose now that the section on all this has been removed i just typed out a lot for nothing, lol. but i thought if anyone else reads this talk they should know. anyways take care)

About the article and whether this topic should be included. Well, you obviously know where I stand. I think it is a mistake to exclude from this page something that the Course itself says. It says it right there, "The name of Jesus Christ as such is but a symbol...." "The man was an illusion...." But do as you will. I really don't feel too passionate about this topic one way or another. I simply thought it was worth mentioning on this page because others might find it interesting. If you find it too offensive, or "hearsay," then by all means remove it. I won't be offended. I'm not on a mission about this. Take it or leave it. It says this right there in the Course. People who want to see it, will see it. Those who don't, won't. -- Andrew Parodi 10:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I just reread what I wrote on the main article. The thing is, this very topic most likely deserves an entire page of its own. I think this is a terribly complicated and intellectual topic to try to sum up in three paragraphs. And, frankly, I don't think I did it very well in those three paragraphs. Ken might not agree perfectly with my word choice. I don't know if he would phrase it exactly the way I did. But then I am not Ken. I can only put it in the words I understand. But I do know that I spoke to him directly about this. I asked him explicitly if he believes the Course is "literally" channeled from Jesus. And he said, "Well, no." And he has written so many times. And the Course says so. The Course is not about seance-type things where dead people communicate with the living.

I once wrote Kenneth a letter where I said, "This might sound weird, but I feel very close to Helen." Kenneth wrote back and said, "That doesn't sound weird at all. I am delighted by it, as is Helen." I later asked Kenneth what he meant by this. He said, "It's a symbol." The only "Helen" I know is the Helen in my mind, and Ken was giving me a symbol by which to learn that it is okay that I am fond of the Helen that I know in my own mind.

This is perhaps a linguistic aspect of the Course that is overlooked by many students. As Kenneth has stated many times, when Helen was done "scribing" the Course, she said, "Finally, there is something for the intellectual!" Kenneth has also stated that Helen said that due to the non-dual metaphysics of the Course, its radical perspective on forgiveness, and the symbolic role of Jesus, the Course was suited for about 11 people. In other words, most who read the Course will not "get" all aspects to it. -- Andrew Parodi 10:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding symbolism and linguistics

I thought I might add something else to this discussion. I recently read a book called "Mathematics: Sience of Patterns." [2] This book said something that, after years of "not getting" math, helped me understand what it's all about. This book explained that the symbols used in mathematics -- "1" "2" "3" "=" "+" "-" etc. -- are completely constructs of the human mind. These symbols are very important to us. In many ways, they run our lives. But this book says that these symbols exist only in the human mind and nowhere in the physical world. Look out your window and see if you can find a big "5" staring you in the face. You won't. But you might find five geese flying overheard. That is, you might find the content of what "5" symbolizes; though you won't find the form of "5" out there. (The geese you see most likely have no concept of Arabic numerals and therefore most likely do not perceive themselves to be flying in a formation of five. It most likely was not their intention to form a group of five. They most likely cannot understand the concept. The symbols don't matter to them. But that doesn't change the property of "five-ness" in their formation.)

This book said that often this linguistic aspect of mathematics is overlooked and not taught in schools. Rather, what is focused on in schools is the “computational” and “procedural” aspect of math. In other words, math teachers say to the student, “This is what happens when you do this and that to these numbers….” The teachers don’t go further to explain, by the way, these numbers are only symbols and they themselves do not exist in the world out there. These symbols are constructs of the human mind.

As I had been corresponding with Noam Chomsky for some time by the point at which I read this book [3], and as Noam Chomsky is mentioned in this book, I wrote to Noam Chomsky and asked him his thoughts on this topic.

Chomsky told me that it is completely uncontroversial among mathematicians to say that the symbols used in math are man-made. However, he said that the laws expressed by these symbols are very real. It’s hard for me to explain, but basically the law that governs that 2 + 2 = 4 would govern the same even if we used different symbols to express this. The symbols are man-made; the laws they express are not.

I think that this is the same with “Jesus” in the Course. “Jesus” is a symbol that is completely man-made and, like numbers, is symbolic. But what “Jesus” stands for, love, is not. I don’t think we need to argue that love is real, because just about all of us have felt it at some point.

By the way, I asked Noam Chomsky why this linguistic aspect of math is not taught in schools. He told me that it is indeed taught in schools, but in the universities at advanced levels. Similarly, this linguistic aspect of the Course is indeed taught --- but primarily at the Foundation for A Course In Miracles. -- Andrew Parodi 11:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this great story about Chomsky and the upper level teaching of math. I think that this should also apply to ACIM and this Wiki article. While it is perhaps true that the number, '5' is purely a human concept, when one person is attempting to introduce the subject of math to another person for the first time, one does not bring up the point of the illusory nature of the number '5', knowing that one would only confuse one's audience. Similarly, in this article, which is not meant to be a debate about ACIM's fine points of the exact difference between illusion, and reality, but rather an introductory summary of it, it seems to me that the same principal might apply. Perhaps the best way to introduce a typical Wiki reader to the basic principals of ACIM might be to not immediately raise such a theoretical debate about the fine points about the supposed reality of (or the supposed unreality of) the historical Jesus.

I agree with you that there may be a place for such a discussion in a separate article in Wiki, but not in the main introductory article for ACIM in Wiki. Perhaps it could be cross-linked to from the main article, and titled, ACIM's teaching on the monistic nature of reality. Now that would be a nut to crack!

I hope you don't mind that I have temporarily removed the section on this. (Actually in your cross-reference Kenneth did write that Schucman did on one level actually hear the voice of Jesus as an inner voice, and that this was Helen's experience.) So until all of this can be put forth in a more clear fashion, perhaps in its own cross-linked article, I have removed it. I feel that more discussion, perhaps here, might be helpful before setting such a debate onto the front-page-Wiki-sphere of Wiki-articles.

Looking forward to reading your reply.

-Scott P. 12:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's probably true that for most Course students, and even moreso for people who don't know what the Course is, it is confusing to hear that Helen Schucman "channeled" (or "scribed") the Course from Jesus -- but only symbolically. Frankly, I'd say that about 90% to 95% of the Course students I've met do not come to this realization, and most likely never will. Likewise, most people who use math (and that is most people, after all) don't realize that "5" is a construct of the human mind and does not exist anywhere outside of the human mind. "5" works just as well for them whether they understand that it is merely symbolic.

I suppose I'm a weirdo. I think that I would've understood math much easier from the very beginning had someone explained it to me from the linguistic/symbolic aspect I mention above. And this aspect of ACIM is the aspect I love the most, actually. Like I said, I find it so disturbing to consider that Helen Schucman communicated with a disembodied spirit. If this is what some people have come to believe, then no wonder there are people out there that think the Course is wacko! [4]

About not including it in the article, well, I'm ambivalent. The article itself does refer to the means by which the Course came to be, so why not go a little further and clarify that that means was a symbolic means? On one hand you hear so many people doubting the Course is authentic, because they say that Helen Schucman could not have heard the voice of Jesus. But on the other hand, if you look closer and realize it's only a symbol, you realize that the controversy is over something that doesn't matter -- because it wasn't "literal."

Mainstream Christians, evangelicals, most certainly do believe in literal communication with disembodied entities, such as the person of Jesus Christ; ACIM, to my understanding, has nothing to do with this sort of thing. ACIM has nothing to do with, say, Sylvia Browne or any of those talking-to-the-dead kinds of people.

Shortly after my stepfather's death, I wrote Ken a letter where I told him that my stepfather's death made me realize that I had misinterpreted the "What is death?" portion of the Manual for Teachers. I told Ken that I had thought that it meant that the spirit lived on and people retained their individual identities after they died -- and their individual identities could be communicated with. But now I realize that what it really means is that people don't retain their individual identities after death, because no one ever has an individual identity. We're all made up of our past experiences, the people we've known, our influences, etc.

Anyway, I'd like to see it remain in the article. But we all know that if it does remain in the article, it is going to continually stir up resentment. So, maybe it's best to be taken out. Just as most who use math don't realize that the numbers characters are only symbols, most who use the Course don't realize this about "Jesus." It works just the same, I suppose.

About Helen Schucman's experience, I think that on some level she did understand that it was only symbolic. I'm pretty sure of it. Ken has mentioned many times that Helen never literally "heard" a voice. She never heard a human voice say words to her. The bit about "inner dictation" is, in my mind, akin to what a songwriter feels when he writes a song and feels it is just pouring out of him, or even the way an average person feels when they write a letter and it just pours out of them -- and then they look at it and wonder how it got there.

Obviously, Helen's work (the Course) is much more sophisticated than these examples, but that's because she herself was very sophisticated. As Ken has said many times, her main literary influences were the Bible and Shakespeare. She was a Freudian research psychologist and an educator. The Course is a textbook/workbook/manual, often in Shakespearian verse, with Freudian-based ego analysis woven througout, and with frequent references from the Bible. All of Helen's influences came together in the Course. I mean, it's really not hard to understand how this happens. I suppose the love in her is what tied it all together, and she used the word "Jesus" as a name for that love. -- Andrew Parodi 13:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

ACIM and the reality of the historical Jesus

On the level that you are speaking of, it really makes no difference whether we label the force that spoke through Helen as Jesus or Helen's God-Self. But as you say, for most of us here who still relate to the historical Jesus as a very real teacher of God's love, we still need to cling to the idea that the Historical Jesus was, as ACIM teaches, a man (in addition to being a symbol). This was apparently how Helen felt most of the time as well, but perhaps not Ken.

I've read Ken's court testimony about the copyright controversy, and in that I think there was one fine point that some might miss. Ken said that the Jesus of ACIM was not the Jesus of the Bible. Note that he did not say that the Jesus of ACIM was not the Historical Jesus. There is a very subtle difference here which I would bet that Ken would bear out if ever asked. I'm fairly certain that for Ken, the Jesus of the Bible means the Jesus of Paul. Namely the Jesus that was supposedly killed by God (with the aid of a few unwitting Romans and Jews) in retribution for our sins, and who kinda makes you feel a little guilty.

In my understanding of Ken's thinking, the historical Jesus was indeed a man, one who walked the earth, but whose teachings people like Paul nearly mangled beyond all recognition. So, in that sense, for Ken, the Jesus of ACIM is not the Jesus of the Bible. For me there are two very different Jesus' in the Bible. So different that any psychologist who tried to patch them together into the same person, would have to say that this person is a bonafide schizophrenic, a sort of a Frankenstein.

There is the Jesus who taught that we are each a child of God, and who, as such called those around him his brothers and sisters, and who taught that we ought to call no man on earth father, because our only father is God, then there is the Jesus whom Paul says is the only child of God, and that we are really not Jesus' brothers or sisters, and God's children, but we are really only some sort of adoptees of God. (Whom Paul might have believed to be our real spiritual fathers, I would not dare to speculate.)

There is the Jesus who taught that it is only through our forgiveness of the trespasses of others that we can be forgiven, as in The Lord's Prayer, then there is the Jesus who supposedly taught that it is only by believing the teachings of Jesus as interpreted by Paul (such as the belief that because God killed Jesus, to appease his apparent need for justifiable vengence to wreak on somebody because of our sins, that therefore God is no longer mad at us <demanding of retribution from us?> and will apparently not kill us). The list of the schizophrenia of Jesus as taught in the New Testament goes on and on.

In that sense I agree with Ken. I don't think that the Jesus of ACIM was schizophrenic. But I do believe that the Jesus of ACIM can be found in the Bible, if one sorts out the later interpretations of his teachings from his actual teachings as found in much of the Gospels themselves. I also do believe that Ken would probably agree with this. For whatever it might be worth.

As for Paul. It seems to me that his teaching, which he seems to have sincerely believed, might have served more to safely hide the more radical teachings of Jesus, in a package that the people of his day could more easily stomach, keeping the kernel of Jesus more radical teachings alive and well and waiting, for a day later on when others might be ready to un-wrap it.

-Scott P. 16:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In my personal conversations with Ken, and in his published writings, I think he makes it pretty clear that he does indeed believe that there was an historical Jesus. I once asked him, "And do you think that that historical Jesus is the source of the Course?" Ken said, "He was the Course!"

In other words, Ken does indeed believe that there was a real man named Jesus, an "historical Jesus." I think Ken also believes that the Course is a good representative of what that historical Jesus taught. But Ken has made it abundantly clear that he does not consider that the Course is literally the result of a communication between Helen Schucman (then living in the 1950s-60s) with the historical Jesus who supposedly died about 2000 years ago.

If that historical Jesus taught about love, or in Ken's view he was the very embodiment of love, and the Course teaches how to remove the obstacles to love's presence, then in a symbolic sense it is okay to say, "This Course is the result of Jesus."

As for me, I don't think an historical Jesus ever existed. I haven't seen enough evidence. I once asked Noam Chomsky about this. As I recall, Noam Chomsky said that there is actually evidence of a historical Jesus Christ, but whether he was the Son of God and all that is something that cannot be proven. (Chomsky once made the comment that much of the historical investigation that people have done to try to verify the Bible, has backfired and shown that much of what is in the Bible is in fact fictional.) However, for me, this is all a moot point. It's like saying, "There is no '5'. There never has been and there never will be!" I'm fine with the fact that the symbol/character '5' is a completely man-made symbol. But it represents something that is very real in the human mind and experience. That's the role "Jesus" fills in the Course.

On the other hand, I don't understand people who need to cling to the idea that Jesus Christ is the literal source of the Course, and that Helen Schucman had something akin to psychic communication, seance, clairvoyant communication with him. But that's just me, I suppose.

About Helen's experience, I can't say for sure because it was her experience and not mine. But I think that Ken makes a good analysis with the rising and setting of the sun. In our world, every day we refer to the sun as rising and setting. That event is a very real event in our lives, and in many ways governs our lives. All the while most of us realize this is not the case at all. The sun doesn't rise or set; we revolve around the sun. We speak of the rising and setting of the sun as though it is a literal occurrance, and we react to it as though it is. Meanwhile, it is understood to most of us that this is only "symbolism." This is a description of our experience, but not literally what happens. I think that as highly intelligent and sophisticated as Helen was, she related to her experience with Jesus in this way. She was able to speak of "Jesus" being the source of the Course, and she understood the two levels of that statement just as we understand the nuance in the perspective of the sun rising and setting. -- Andrew Parodi 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think one's belief in, or disbelief in, the existence of a historical Jesus need not be central to one's ability to gain from the study of ACIM. Clearly, 2000 years after the event (or supposed event) it becomes a very difficult thing to prove or disprove in any sort of a scientific sense. None the less, ACIM does teach specifically that there was a historical Jesus (or a man who was Jesus) and it would seem to me to be slightly challenging the wisdom of ACIM to dispute its teaching on this point.

It is my guess that probably the majority of the people in the world would seem to agree that a historical Jesus probably did exist, and that probably roughly half of the world's population (all professed Christians and Muslims combined) would take a relatively strong issue with anyone who would attempt to disprove this. But truth is not proved by the majority. It is only proved by fact, as history has consistently taught us.

The fact is that if Jesus did not exist, then all of the earliest Christians who began the Christian movement would have had to have created an extremely elaborate, coordinated, convincing, long lasting, and successful hoax, the likes of which history has never before or since seen, to the best of my knowledge. Considering the fact that most of the earliest Christians did not seem to exhibit any signs of intrigue or dishonesty of that type in any of their other life-aspects, it seems to me to be most likely that a historical Jesus probably did exist on that supposition alone.

Surely, if the power of reality is as great as it is described in ACIM, and if a man whom we now refer to as Jesus were to have once fully come in touch with such a power, then for that being or aspect of God, or whatever you want to call it, to have somehow caused ACIM to have come into existence as we know it would be nothing, whether it required somehow using the identity of the historical Jesus as a channel to reach Helen or not. All of this sort of talk of aspects of God and such is a bit much for this very much embodied and forgetful aspect of God, namely me, to fathom! Still, I do enjoy this discussion here with you very much.

-Cheers

-Scott P. 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be unprecedented at all. If you look at the myth of Jesus, you see that in some ways it is almost identical to many other myths that came before it. I think there are Greek and Roman myths about virgin births. I don't remember the exact myth, but I think there is some myth that is almost identical to the Jesus myth.

I don't think that it would be any great feat to have convinced an entire civilization that a man who never really existed had in fact existed. Have you ever seen any of those "revivals" people do where they "give their hearts to Jesus"? They are not presented with concrete, historical relics that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus Christ literally existed. Their emotions are built up to the point of a frenzy. It's all about emotions and spirituality.

I think that you are perhaps overlooking the power of the churches and institutions. Remember, the church and the state were closely aligned during many periods of history. If you were not Christian, there were circumstances where they would kill you. That's quite a bit of motivation to become a Christian. (I believe Nostradamus was actually Jewish, but due to persecution against Jews in France, his father converted the family and Nostradamus changed his name to a name that means "Of Our Lady".)

The reason the church and the state were so closely aligned was because of power. I remember talking to a rabbi about this, and the rabbi (Rabbi Rose of Temple Beth Israel in Portland, Oregon) told me that the Roman Empire realized that the Catholic Church was becoming very powerful -- and so they joined forces. He said it was called a "concordat" (sp?). I believe this is why, to this day, the Catholic Church is sometimes referred to as the Holy Roman Empire.

Don't under-estimate the power of government funded propaganda. Remember, it was used to fuel an entire nation to be afraid of the weakest nation in the middle east.

Anyway, I'm getting a bit off track. To state it bluntly, I think it's completely logical that an entire civilization for over 2000 years has been taught to believe in the existence of a man who might not have literally existed. (Remember, most devout Muslims and Christians also believe literally in things like the parting of the Red Sea, the Garden of Eden, etc. By your argument, the fact that so many believe it would mean that it must be true. But I hope you realize that such a thing as the parting of the Red Sea, the idea that the human race began by two people, the idea that the female gender was made from the rib of a man, is all myth.)

I don't recall anything in the Course that explicitly teaches about the reality of the historical Jesus. From what I've seen, the Course is trying to get people to reinterpret the beliefs they have about the historical Jesus. The emphasis is not on proving or disproving the existence of the historical Jesus. The Course is aimed at people for whom beliefs about the historical Jesus are very powerful -- which is about the entire western world, if not the entire world. The Course is aimed at getting us to change our perspectives on what we have been taught about the historical Jesus; not so much as to whether the historical Jesus really existed. This is why it is possible for someone like me, someone highly doubtful (though ultimately completely neutral about) as to whether the historical Jesus ever existed, to feel that the Course has done me a lot of good. Whether I believe the historical Jesus ever existed does not change the fact that my life has largely been shaped by the fact that most do believe he existed. I'm writing to you early in the new year of 2006 -- and, of course, that date is supposedly based on the year that Jesus died. Whether I believe that Jesus ever even existed does not change the fact that I will be faced with the number 2006 for the next 12 months. -- Andrew Parodi 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that entire civilizations have historically been misled about certain facts. You are also correct that the Holy Roman Catholic Church and several governments, starting with the Roman empire, have had a certain type of marriage of convenience regarding state support for Christianity. Still, I think you would have to agree that if Christianity were really some sort of a hoax, then by far it would have to qualify as the biggest and most successful of all hoaxes ever. In case you might be interested in the part of ACIM that teaches that Jesus was a man, it is from Clarification of Terms, 5, 2:1. Also, ACIM does teach that it is safe to use the name of Jesus Christ as one's symbol, and to believe that he has led the way for us to God, and that it is safe to be grateful to Jesus Christ (Manual for Teachers- 23:3-6).

-L'chaim

-Scott P. 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Exposing a hoax"

I think there is a huge misunderstanding here. I have never used the word "hoax." It appears to me that you and some others who have discussed this with me, seem to think I am attempting to expose the Course, and now Catholicism, as a hoax. If you understand what I am talking about with regard to symbols, then you understand that there is no intention to "expose a hoax" on my part.

Is math a hoax to use "5" all the while there are no "5" characters out there in our physical world? I could stand here and go, "Well, you know, math is all a lie, a hoax, because there really are no 5's. They've lied to you." Or I can say, "The human mind cannot comprehend the principles expressed in math without use of those symbols, such as the symbol '5'."

This is all I'm saying about the Course and Catholicism.

If, as I believe, there was never literally a man who lived and was known as Jesus (and I'm not passionate about this topic one way or another, actually), then what I am saying is that even for the Catholic Church, Jesus is ultimately just a symbol. If the Catholic Church can be seen as "math," then Jesus is their "5". Do you get what I mean? The symbol of "Jesus" stands for something that is very real, though the symbol itself might not have actually existed in concrete, physical reality.

The "Jesus" in Catholicism (and I'm a former Catholic) often stood for persecution, suffering, agony, pain, and there is little argument from most that Catholicism brought exactly this to the world in many ways. Look at the Inquisition, and all the other horrible things the church did. And, for them, they did it in the name of "Jesus." For them, Jesus symbolizes the need to do all these things. The things they did in the name of the symbol are very real; though the symbol might not have actually existed in concrete, physical reality on this planet.

What this is addressing is the power of the mind, and the power of belief. This is what the Course is getting at. The human mind is very powerful, the power of belief is very powerful.

I don't recall anything in the Course that says that Jesus Christ literally existed in the flesh. Whether he did or didn't is not important to the application of what the Course says. This is why some non-Christians use the Course. The Course using Jesus as a symbol.

I don't know if we should continue with this discussion, because this is most likely an aspect of the Course that the individual student has to take on for himself and learn in his own way and in his own time. It might appear that I am trying to "force" this on others. That was never my intention. I simply wanted to add this symbolic/linguistic aspect to the page. I thought it deserved to be there because it is very important to the Course. But I can see that you, and many other Course students, and certainly Christians, have a lot invested in believing that Jesus Christ literally existed. I don't have any intention of disproving this. I'm completely neutral on this topic. -- Andrew Parodi 02:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ as source of A Course In Miracles

Looking at the main page of this site, I see that the featured article of the day is somewhat in line with what we're talking about here: Omnipotence paradox. Certainly, it's not exactly the same. But it seems to address the issues of symbolism and logic in religion.

This made me think that maybe a page about this topic, whether Jesus is the literal source of A Course In Miracles or not, might be beneficial. And why can't I start it? So, here we go: Jesus Christ as source of "A Course In Miracles". So, I'll start the article, and if anyone else can come up with a better title, then they can change it, of course. But I think this topic deserves its own page. -- Andrew Parodi 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)