Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
- DU
- Messages
Search
|
Re: Age
ideaofgod
--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., BBFBBN@a...
wrote: Keep in mind, Forgiveness has nothing to do with form or thoughtsassociated with the body or brain anything in this world. Arten and Pursahemphasized that in Gary's book.Are you saying you can "forgive" someone and have it mean absolutely nothing in concrete, here-and-now respects? The Mind/Decision Maker (the "collective separated sonship") andJesus/HS operate outside of time and space.The Course talks a lot about Jesus and also mind. It never mentions the "Mind/Decision Maker" nor identifies this with the "collective separated sonship". |
|
Re: Non-duality and Metaphor
ideaofgod
--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "garyrrenard"
<garyrrenard@y...> wrote: Helow Dr. Smith. I think the Course teaches that spirit and God areI use "soul" to mean exactly what the Course says it means--a creation of God and an integral part of the Sonship. As for your claim about what the Course says, I suggest reading it more carefully; it says nothing of the kind and in fact the entire Course would make no sense whatever if it were true, since it would say God was deluded into thinking he was separated from God, and therefore created the Holy Spirit so that God could communicate with Himself. In other words, God is completely insane and trying to cure His insanity with a mind that is insane. I suggest rather than tossing this kind of thing out there, you should give a citation--to the Course in some version, not Arten or Pursah. *Where*, exactly, does the Course ever say "spirit" is the same as God? usesThe Course teachesthat the desire to be self-existing and to father God is the is "Oneness"; I suggest sticking to it and not trying to rewrite itHow can the ego have a desire to usurp the power of God before it even exists? The ego is a *consequence* of the belief in the separation; it cannot be the basis for it. anyAs for "metaphor", Ken gets this wrong and even Ascended Mastersdon't seem to know what the word means. trouble knowing what was meant by the word metaphor in this case,If you have no trouble understanding what is meant, perhaps you can explain it. |
|
Re: Nonduality and Metaphor
Hmmm... a very meaty e-mail! I'm at work and can't answer anything that is going to take some big thinking and time to write. Will have to get back to it later. Thanks for a very thoughtful presentation here - no matter what I believe or not believe! Stephen wrote:
Do you Yahoo!? - Now only $29.95 per month! |
|
Re: Nonduality and Metaphor
Stephen
¿ªÔÆÌåÓý
It's an easy mistake to make, Linda,?but I
wrote "Panentheism" not "Pantheism" and the differences are important in
relation to ACIM.
"Pantheism" is more akin?to saying that God
*is* everything out there while?Pan*en*theism, as described by the links I
provided, suggests more?that everything is *in* God (which is the exact
reverse of your description of 'Pantheism').
?
A typically Pan*en*theistic passage in ACIM is
this one:
?
"Think but an
instant on this; God gave the Sonship to you, to ensure your perfect creation.
This was His Gift, for, as He withheld Himself not from you, He withheld not His
creation. Nothing that ever was created, but is not yours. Your relationships
are with the universe. And this universe, being of God, is far beyond the petty
sum of all the separate bodies YOU perceive. For all its parts are joined in God
through Christ, where they become like to their Father. For Christ knows of no
separation FROM His Father, Who is His One relationship, in which He gives as
His Father gives to Him."? (ACIM Urtext)
And it's correct!? To have an 'out there'
one needs an?'in here' - but actual accounts of Enlightenment take us to a
Oneness that is totally beyond that type of division.
This is a?misunderstanding.? To
believe fully that God neither created the Earth nor knows anything about it is
to totally deny the testimonies of near-death experiencers - and I just don't
see how they can all be denied (or even why they should).? Clearly, "God"
(at least for those who 'meet' the Divine) has a very full knowledge of life on
Earth (and of us) and most definately claims to be the Creator of the
Universe/world.
You have to think "outside of the box",
Linda.? Consider, the latest theory from physicists is that the Universe of
"matter" is actually produced by?vibrations on what they
term?"Superstrings" (much as music is heard when one plucks a guitar
string).? Thus there are actually several layers to the question of whether
or not the ego or God made or created the Universe.? I prefer to think of
"Creation" in terms of God's "Laws" (like 'gravity', etc.,):
?
"His definitions ARE His laws, for by them He
established the universe as what it is."? (ACIM
Urtext)
?
"Peace will be yours BECAUSE it is His Will. Can
you believe a shadow can hold back the Will that holds the universe
secure?"? (ACIM Urtext)
?
"The
light that joins you shines throughout the universe. And, BECAUSE it joins you,
so it makes you one with your Creator. And, in HIM, is all creation
joined."? (ACIM Urtext)
?
"There are no beginnings and no endings in God,
Whose Universe is Himself. Can you exclude yourself from the Universe, or from
God, Who IS the Universe?"? (ACIM Urtext)
?
~
Stephen |
|
Re: reality
Can we all agree to disagree - as in any great marriage or relationship? I believe as Jim does and differently than you do, but how you believe is ok with me. I do not have a desire to change your mind. I only have a desire to change my perception and no one else's. Stephen wrote:
Do you Yahoo!? - Now only $29.95 per month! |
|
Re: A + P used to mean something
Stephen, I know several students of ACIM who learned on their own
independently without studying Ken Wapnick who came to the same conclusion. If I were to read it independently, I would, too. I am curious as to whether you have you come to your conclusions independently or have you been influenced by someone else? I believe that Jesus is most of the time talking in symbols that we can understand where we are at now. At other times he is is stretching us closer to the truth. Love, Linda --- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "Stephen" <cracker.jack@n...> wrote: MessageFrom: Jim Dunnillusion that has been most strongly propagated by Ken Wapnick and FACIM is quite simply wrong. There's just no doubt about it at all. The evidence that can be amassed against it (and *for* the counter view) from ACIM itself as well as many other important and related sources is of mammoth proportions.
|
|
Re: reality
Stephen
¿ªÔÆÌåÓý
?Not quite, Jim.? Let's look at this exact quote of
yours:
?
"W-132.6.2??There is no world! 3 This is the
central thought the course attempts to
teach."
?
On the surface it does seem pretty clear, doesn't it??
The Course is, without question, saying "There is no world!" and it is quite
understandable why many might take this statement to mean much more than the
Author intended.? To understand it's limits you have to understand what
ACIM actually *means* by world - and to do this we need only look at Lesson 184
to find this?statement:
?
"W-184.8. Think not you made the world. 2 Illusions, yes! 3 But what
is true in earth and Heaven is beyond your
naming."
?
The "world" in ACIM is the world of Illusions - nothing
more and nothing less - and an "illusion" in the American Heritage Dictionary
(4th Ed.), Jim,?is "An erroneous perception of
reality".
?
But the *really* interesting thing about comparing these
two passages is that we can notice instantly how the?statements "There is
no world!" and "Think not you made the world.? Illusions, yes!" are saying
exactly the same thing - our egocentric world-view isn't real.? Yet,
crucially, "...what is true in earth and Heaven [and] beyond [our] naming." is
off-set against the "world of illusions" in L-184.
?
It's irrefutable.? 'Heaven and
earth' are placed over and against the world of illusions in L-184 and are
clearly stipulated?in the rest of that Lesson as *not* being part of the
illusion.? Here's the proof - just look at the first, second and then final
paragraphs of L-184:
?
"W-184.1. You live by symbols. 2 You have made up names for
everything you see. 3 Each one becomes a separate entity, identified by its own
name. 4 By this you carve it out of unity. 5 By this you designate its special
attributes, and set it off from other things by emphasizing space surrounding
it. 6 This space you lay between all things to which you give a different name;
all happenings in terms of place and time; all bodies which are greeted by a
name."
?
"W-184.2. This space you see as setting off all things from one
another is the means by which the world's perception is achieved. 2 You see
something where nothing is, and see as well nothing where there is unity; a
space between all things, between all things and you. 3 Thus do you think that
you have given life in separation. 4 By this split you think you are established
as a unity which functions with an independent
will."
?
"W-184.15. Father, our Name is Yours. 2 In It we are united with all
living things, and You Who are their one Creator. 3 What we made and call by
many different names is but a shadow we have tried to cast across Your Own
reality. 4 And we are glad and thankful we were wrong. 5 All our mistakes we
give to You, that we may be absolved from all effects our errors seemed to have.
6 And we accept the truth You give, in place of every one of them. 7 Your Name
is our salvation and escape from what we made. 8 Your Name unites us in the
oneness which is our inheritance and peace. 9
Amen."
?
And this is all fully confirmed in
the Manual for Teachers:
?
M-11.1.6? The world you see
cannot be the world God loves, and yet His Word assures us that He loves the
world. 7 God's Word has promised that peace is possible here, and what He
promises can hardly be impossible. 8 But it is true that the world must be
looked at differently, if His promises are to be accepted. 9 What the world is,
is but a fact. 10 You cannot choose what this should be. 11 But you can choose
how you would see it. 12 Indeed, you choose this.?
M-11.2. Again we come to the
question of judgment. 2 This time ask yourself whether your judgment or the Word
of God is more likely to be true.
That's not exactly true forgiveness or the?proper use
of denial in ACIM.
?
~
Stephen |
|
Re: age
Sue-chan wrote:
The mind goes VERY deep; thought is on the surface. Thoughts comeand go; they are superficial; they skim the surface of mind and are created with energy that we might not be consciously aware of. Just because we substitute one thought for another doesn't mean we're going down deep enough into the cause of the thought. That's why I don't believe in the "positive thinking" prescription for the long run: it's a band-aid; it just doesn't last long because it doesn't go deep enough. Hi Sue-chan. I agree completely, and I believe my teachers do also. On P.16 of "Disappearance" Arten makes the following controversial statement: "Perhaps the most overlooked error of all religions and philosophies, including the New Age models, is the failure to understand that although doing things like thinking positively, being "in the now," saying prayers, affirmations, denying negative thoughts and listening to famous speakers may have a temporarily helpful impact, they *cannot* release that which is locked in the deep canyons of your unconscious mind." That's why, as you point out, we need the Holy Spirit. By thinking with Him and letting our minds be trained to have His thought system take over, He can do what we cannot do for ourselves: heal the unconscious guilt that we were not even aware of. Love and peace, Gary. |
|
Re: Nonduality and Metaphor
I wondered about the pantheism idea once, and this is what I thought out about it. Pantheism means that God is in everything out there. But the way I see it, the Course says there is nothing out there. There is no world and God is not in the world. He also did not create it. He doesn't know anything about it. Was it on this board? Gary, I think? That it is just as if God the Father saw His Son having a restless dream and comforted him but did not know what the dream was about, because it wasn't real. Stephen wrote: From: "ideaofgod" Do you Yahoo!? - Now only $29.95 per month! |
|
Re: A + P used to mean something
Stephen
¿ªÔÆÌåÓý
This is not at all true.? There are
many?more statements in ACIM that affirm God as Creator of the
world/Universe than statements that speak of the ego's illusionary world.?
Why people still ignore this simple fact I just don't know.? And Lesson 184
is surely irrefutable in its claim that God is the Creator of the
world/Universe; particularly in this passage:? "W-184.8. Think not you made the world. 2
Illusions, yes! 3 But what is true in earth and Heaven is beyond your
naming."? And there is this from Lesson 263:
?
"W-263.1. "
?
Note "would I look upon what *you created* as if it
could bemade sinful...".? The only logical conclusion the evidence ACIM
provides is the obvious one - the Universe/world is God's Creation that we are
misperceiving.
?
And there is this from
Lesson 265 (Creation's gentleness is all I see.):? W-265.1. I have indeed misunderstood
the world, because I laid my sins on it and saw them looking back at me. 2 How
fierce they seemed! 3 And how deceived was I to think that what I feared was in
the world, instead of in my mind alone. 4 Today I see the world in the celestial
gentleness with which creation shines.
?
Outside of ACIM
there?are all the testimonies from near-death experience survivors that
strongly affirm the Universe/World as being God's creation to consider.?
And then there are actual accounts of Illumination to take into account such as
this one: ?
"Finally I turned my eyes to the
pine-covered hills behind the monastery and still, there was no division, only
something "there" that was flowing with and through every vista and particular
object of vision.? To see the Oneness of everything is like having special
3D glasses put before your eyes; I thought to myself: for sure, this is what
they mean when they say "God is everywhere." (Bernadette
Roberts)
?
Then there are centuries of literature
provided by mystics of all faiths throughout history concisely detailed on sites
like this:
?
No, Jim, this idea about Creation being
*nothing but* an ego illusion that has been most?strongly propagated by Ken
Wapnick and FACIM is quite simply wrong.? There's just no doubt about it at
all.? The evidence that can be amassed against it (and *for* the counter
view) from?ACIM itself as well as many other important and related sources
is?of mammoth proportions.
?
~
Stephen |
|
Re: Nonduality and Metaphor
Stephen
From: "ideaofgod" <gwsmith@...>
Gene wrote: ""Nonduality" comes from the Sanskrit "advaita", and means that Atman and Brahman are identical. In Western language, this would say that the Soul and God, or the Godhead, are identical. The Course teaches that the desire to be self-existing and to father God is the authority problem which lead to and sustains the separation, so it most certainly is not teaching "nonduality"." Quite true, ACIM does not teach "nonduality". A more accurate term, I believe, is "Panentheism" Gene wrote: "The word the Course uses is "Oneness"; I suggest sticking to it and not trying to rewrite it to say something else." A far more important term the Course uses is 'Sonship' clarifying that the 'Oneness' it discusses is not which is meant by advocates of "nondualism": "This appears to contradict another statement: "I and my Father are one." It doesn't. There are still separate parts in the statement, in recognition of the fact that the Father is GREATER. Actually, the original statement was "are of one KIND."" (ACIM Urtext) ~ Stephen |
|
Re: curious here.
And now this message?appeared in my box this morning?and wasn't here yesterday. I saw it when it first posted and now I'm seeing it again. Do-do-do-do. Do-do-do-doo. (Twilight Zone music)
mstreet wrote:
Do you Yahoo!? - Now only $29.95 per month! |
|
Re: Age
Sue-chan
Thanks, Gary.? If I could add something here,? I think there is a distinction between the level of mind and the level of thought.? The mind goes VERY deep; thought is on the surface.? Thoughts come and go; they are superficial; they skim the surface of mind and are created with energy that we might not be consciously aware of.? Just because we substitute one thought for another doesn't mean we're going down deep enough into the cause of the thought.? That's why I don't believe in the "positive thinking" prescription for the long run: it's a band-aid; it just doesn't?last long?because it doesn't go deep enough.?
?
Jesus/H.S.? knows?how to heal?the energy that creates the patterns of our thoughts and life.?Forgiveness =?healing on?this very deep level.???That's why I need a spiritual practise, because I don't know what needs to be healed.?? I am not?aware of these energies, or maybe I can't even go that deep.??
?
Just my musings for the day.
?
sue-chan
?
garyrrenard wrote:
Do you Yahoo!? - Now only $29.95 per month! |
|
Re: Age?
I think it's the other way around. I think Helen took it down as
Jesus gave it to her, in the first place. Where it says "if a brother asks you to do a foolish thing- even if it's insane (which it will be if he's in ego), etc" (from memory) Later, a few chapters on, maybe when they were rereading it or editing it, Helen read that and thought "oh no, people will be asking someone else to steal or kill someone and strongly insisting on it, and the person (if they have read the course) will feel they have to do it!" And added that afterthought, which doesn't even really fit in the place it's in, like "I have told you to do a foolish thing, but not if it might harm yourself or others". Which came from Helen's ego/fear Hello, Carrie - I would suggest that you read these two sections very carefully, with an open mind - then still your mind - let the Holy Spirit - Jesus - the Right Mind - whatever term you are comfortable using - communicate to you what these sections mean. Also I was fortunate enough to go to the 25 year anniversary of ACIM in Anaheim. I also have read much about the beginning years of the Course. It was a miracle how all the beginning students/teachers came together and worked to get this very important work to the "others" who seem to be "out there." I trust my brother who is One with me. (But I sure don't trust the ego.) Judy To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Disappearance_of_the_Universe-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to |
|
Re: Age
Hello suechantree@...,
In reference to your comment: ¨¨ Jesus/H.S.? knows how to heal the energy that creates ¨¨ the patterns of our thoughts and life. Forgiveness = ¨¨ healing on this very deep level.?? That's why I need a ¨¨ spiritual practise, because I don't know what needs to ¨¨ be healed.?? I am not aware of these energies, or ¨¨ maybe I can't even go that deep. Keep in mind, Forgiveness has nothing to do with form or thoughts associated with the body or brain anything in this world.? Arten and Pursah emphasized that in Gary's book. You do not go to the puppets? ("form"/"effect") to try to change things .. you go to the puppeteer ... currently called "the decision maker"/"cause")... then as the decision maker you decide to either side with the ego or with Jesus.? The Mind/Decision Maker (the "collective separated sonship") and Jesus/HS operate outside of time and space. The goal of the Course is to not fix the world or make it a better place, it is to awaken from this world of illusion we made. Peace Ossie |
|
Re: curious here.
Hello mastreet@...,
In reference to your comment: ¨¨ Could this possibly have something to do with Yahoo? I ¨¨ sort of like, a logical explanation. Don't suggest that I ¨¨ need a new computer (lol) as right now that doesn't ¨¨ seem like an option. I think it something to do with the way the your ISP interacts with Yahoo.? Even the font of your messages at times are different than the other postings.? All ignorance is actually repression that |
|
Re: Non-duality and Metaphor
IdeaofGod wrote:
"Nonduality" comes from the Sanskrit "advaita", and means that Atmanand Brahman are identical. In Western language, this would say that the Soul and God, or the Godhead, are identical. Helow Dr. Smith. I think the Course teaches that spirit and God are identical, and this would be in agreement with what you say, depending on your definition of "soul." The Course teachesthat the desire to be self-existing and to father God is the authority problem which lead to and sustains the separation, so it most certainly is not teaching "nonduality". The word the Course uses is "Oneness"; I suggest sticking to it and not trying to rewrite it to say something else. I have no problem with the word "Oneness." I think our major disagreement may be one of levels, because I think the Course is teaching that the ego's desire to usurp God's power, be something other than what it really is (spirit) and make a false image of itself is the authority problem. As for "metaphor", Ken gets this wrong and even Ascended Mastersdon't seem to know what the word means. Perhaps the word "symbol" would be more accurate, but I never had any trouble knowing what was meant by the word metaphor in this case, even if it's not technically correct. |
|
Re: Age
Carrie wrote:
Like Hugh Prather has said about forgiveness being a thought andnot (always) a behavior. You can forgive a murderer and still keep him locked up or an abusive spouse and not choose to live with them. Hi Carrie. I think you give a good example here of how to be appropriate when practicing the Course. Forgiveness is done at the level of the mind. And as you'll be reading in the book, my teachers say that on the level of the world we will probably do most of the same things we would have done anyway. It's just that now we're not doing them alone. We're doing them with the Holy Spirit and His forgiveness. BTW, I e-mailed Hugh Prather and asked him for some advice on public speaking, like how to not be nervous, how to not get sucked in by the glamour of it and stuff. He responded today and he was very nice and helpful. Seems like a great guy. Love and peace, Gary. |
|
Re: Age, Contradictions, Gellanonius.
Gene wrote:
You got it, Bro! I think I will begin a fact-finding program ofdiscovering which local establishments feature both Coors Light and Guinness on draught -- in fact, I think I may begin my investigations later this evening. I'm also going to email you some pictures of our Rickies... Hastalavistababy, Gene Just for you casual, non-musician type observors, a Rickie is a Rickenbacker guitar, one of the lightest and easiest to play guitars ever made, and popularized when it was occasionally used by the Beatles and the Byrds back in the 60's. Have fun, Gene! |
|
Re: Age?
--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., BBFBBN@a...
wrote: Hello starchild1124@y...,of changes in the Course early on, was due to Helen's fear. Early onHelen's ego would slip in and Jesus would later correct it. I think it's the other way around. I think Helen took it down as Jesus gave it to her, in the first place. Where it says "if a brother asks you to do a foolish thing- even if it's insane (which it will be if he's in ego), etc" (from memory) Later, a few chapters on, maybe when they were rereading it or editing it, Helen read that and thought "oh no, people will be asking someone else to steal or kill someone and strongly insisting on it, and the person (if they have read the course) will feel they have to do it!" And added that afterthought, which doesn't even really fit in the place it's in, like "I have told you to do a foolish thing, but not if it might harm yourself or others". Which came from Helen's ego/fear. I think (not that I was there or asked (LOL) that the first reference to it was clear and simple and could have stood on it's own. Just the idea of "trusting HS" would take care of it. Trusting that nobody would strongly insist you do something like kill someone. And it doesn't really mean you have to do it. If you felt it was wrong (which killing someone might be) you don't have to do it, even if it seems really important to someone else. But, look at the armed forces, who are trained to kill and ordered to in a war? Just look at it (whatever it is) and ask yourself WHY do I have a stronger investment in not doing it? Like giving in, as the most peaceful/joining way to be. Ask myself "does this really matter?" My brother is just as right as I am. Like Hugh Prather has said about forgiveness being a thought and not (always) a behavior. You can forgive a murderer and still keep him locked up or an abusive spouse and not choose to live with them. Even IF someone strongly insisted you do something that might hurt someone, or you didn't feel right about doing. You could look at it and why you might not want to do it (if it's just digging in your heels and not wanting to give in) without actually doing it. More of a thought/exercise than actually doing it. But I've always thought that was an ego/afterthought where it was later corrected "out of the blue" like that. If anyone believes differently and feels strongly about it, they can be right (LOL) Actually, I applied this myself, when I had a discussion board (not an ACIM based one but we sometimes wrote about this and quoted from it) and recieved an email from the foundation's lawyer (Carrie Fletcher) pointing out the copyright rules and guidelines and how "the other versions" weren't to be quoted at all, etc.etc. I was supposed to monitor and moderate the board (which I wasn't doing up till then and didn't want to) to make sure the copyright rules weren't broken. Because it was MY board and I was responsible for what was written on it. My board was a little "nothing" board that had been brought to the attention of the foundation (by the "ACIM police" (LOL) I did write about it on the board and suggested that people just give the reference number instead of using long quotes. I got accused of being "afraid of getting sued" but it was more like Ken and the foundation seemed to want so badly to own and control those words, the most peaceful thing to do was just allow them to. No big deal. We could put it into our own words if we needed to. Not that there weren't (and still aren't) boards that are openly writing about and quoting the course and don't even have copyright notices on. And the foundation is aware of this. But at the time it was something that felt right to me. If we don't at least try and live what we believe, what good is it? ~ Carrie |
to navigate to use esc to dismiss