Gene wrote:

You got it, Bro! I think I will begin a fact-finding program of

discovering 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!

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., BBFBBN@a...
wrote:

Hello starchild1124@y...,

In reference to your comment:

è Actually it is a "correction" (and Ken Wapnick is the
è one who pointed it out to me and called it this, when I
è was new to the course and asked him about the
è "foolish thing" passage)

One of the things that have been consistent with Ken when he speaks

of

changes in the Course early on, was due to Helen's fear. Early on

Helen's ego would

slip in and Jesus would later correct it.

Peace

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

开云体育

开云体育

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "mstreet"
<mastreet@t...> wrote:

Don't suggest that I need a new computer (lol) as right now that

doesn't seem like an option.

Fry's here in Silicon Valley is selling new computers today for $170.
They work well.

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "mstreet"
<mastreet@t...> wrote:

I was trying to find something that Gary wrote, and perhaps it was

in his book, and he can correct me. But he said ... (and I am going
by memory now) ... That everything that is eternal should should
taken literally. Non duality is the only absolute truth, and
everything else in the Course is meant to be taken as a metaphor. And
that is what I believe.

"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". The word the Course uses
is "Oneness"; I suggest sticking to it and not trying to rewrite it
to say something else.

As for "metaphor", Ken gets this wrong and even Ascended Masters
don't seem to know what the word means. Here is what the American
Heritage Dictionary says about it; if you want more, entire books
have been written about it and about religious language as well.

met·a·phor n.

1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily
designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an
implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles" or "All the world's a
stage" (Shakespeare).

2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: "Hollywood
has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the
crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven" (Neal Gabler).

开云体育

开云体育

> First, I think God should shake the hell out of us and
> wake us up now! So what if we crap a brick? LOL.

I keep sayin', "I'm READY already!"

> Also, the ascended guys said, "In the end,
> everything except for God is metaphor."

Another one I'm going to print out (in reverse) and nail to my forehead, so I can stop forgetting all the crap the ego throws at me!

> Arten and Pursah
> expressed the same idea, saying that the parts of it that express non-
> duality (oneness) should be taken literally, but not the rest of it.
> That's how we know that Jesus isn't an idiot who constantly
> contradicts himself. The guy's an artist, and the Course is a
> complete presentation.

I've got to say that from my first exposure to the Course, I have never felt anything "out of place"... ?Nothing like my earlier readings from the Bible -- don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the Bible -- but there were always so many things that just never rang true; just didn't make sense ("Really, would God actually DO this??") -- and the constant inconsistencies and contradictions.... ??And I have never felt this way about the Course! ?Jesus really IS an artist, as you say, Gary; and I'm constantly impressed and moved by the magnificence of this work! (Even though he tells us to "forget this course"... ??Ahh; what does HE know?? ?;)

> As Martha pointed out, (and Arten and Pursah)
> all its parts have to be taken within the context of its larger
> teachings rather than dissecting the individual parts.

Martha, when you mentioned the "being an authority on the Course" issue (about yourself), I want you to know I always hear so much humility coming from you, I could never think you were claiming authority!! ?You certainly do know what you're talking about (as Gary mentions above), and I always enjoy and benefit from your posts, both here and at CT.

> Now, "Thessa-2k." I love that! Wouldn't it be funny if I met
> someone named that? (LOL)

Sounds like maybe a new "rap" artist... (?)

> In any case, I like your observations and
> questions. This is hardly needed, but let me add another dimension to
> it. Pursah said on P.404, "We visit you now from *outside* of
> time." ... they talked about the details of this
> briefly on P.389.

See..? ?Now, those pages are from near the end of the book, the part I've sort of been "saving" before reading... ?So now I went to look at those references... ?and ouch, I think I've "spoiled" something for myself..... ?(ooooh, thanks a LOT, Gary...) ?I'm kidding, of course(!) ?Looks like I'll be finishing off the book rather quickly, now, though. ?All the better to get started on reading #2!

But it seems that the "questions" I posed in my previous posting might well be answered for me! ?(All without violating the Prime Directive...)

> Thanks again Gene. I hope we get to play our
> guitars and drink a brew together sometime. Later, Gary.

You got it, Bro! ?I think I will begin a fact-finding program of discovering 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

开云体育

Hi Martha, you wrote:

I was trying to find something that Gary wrote, and perhaps it was

in his book, and he can correct me. But he said ... (and I am going
by memory now) ... That everything that is eternal should should
taken literally. Non duality is the only absolute truth, and
everything else in the Course is meant to be taken as a metaphor. And
that is what I believe.

Yes, we must have been writing our last posts at the same time, so
please see my previous post. Also, I believe the part of the book
you're referring to is the second half of P.92. BTW Gene, I forgot to
mention to read P.287-288 as an additional explanation of how the
bodily images of masters are projected. Love and peace, Gary.

开云体育

Hey Gene. First, I think God should shake the hell out of us and
wake us up now! So what if we crap a brick? LOL. But O.K. Maybe He
knows what She's doing. Also, the ascended guys said, "In the end,
everything except for God is metaphor." So I have to think that this
Wapnick guy has the right idea when he says the only way to get the
Course is to realize that the parts of it that express duality
(twoness or division) must be taken as metaphor. Arten and Pursah
expressed the same idea, saying that the parts of it that express non-
duality (oneness) should be taken literally, but not the rest of it.
That's how we know that Jesus isn't an idiot who constantly
contradicts himself. The guy's an artist, and the Course is a
complete presentation. As Martha pointed out, (and Arten and Pursah)
all its parts have to be taken within the context of its larger
teachings rather than dissecting the individual parts.
Now, "Thessa-2k." I love that! Wouldn't it be funny if I met
someone named that? (LOL) In any case, I like your observations and
questions. This is hardly needed, but let me add another dimension to
it. Pursah said on P.404, "We visit you now from *outside* of
time." In other words, they were speaking to me from after they were
already enlightened, out of those bodies and outside of the dream of
time and space completely. Thus only their love (spirit) remains, and
the bodily images I saw of them were projections of their final
incarnation's bodily images that were coming through the part of mind
that knows everything unconsciously, filtered by the love of the Holy
Spirit. So it's not like they were really visiting me from the future
or from their actual lifetimes as Arten and Pursah. They were
manifestations of the love they had returned to, which is beyond
time, space and form. BTW, they talked about the details of this
briefly on P.389. Thanks again Gene. I hope we get to play our
guitars and drink a brew together sometime. Later, Gary.

---

Do you Yahoo!?
- Now only $29.95 per month!

> ~ Martha (wrote):
> ... believe that there are condradictions, for instance. Here is just one
> instance.
>
> (P-2.VII.1:11-12). ?
> "God does not know of separation. ?What He knows is only that He has one Son."
>
> (T-5.II.2.5.3)
> "The Holy Spirit is God's Answer to the separation; the means by which the
> Atonement heals ?until the whole mind returns to creating."
>
> So why would God give an answer to what he knows nothing about?

Hi Martha,

Here's my thought on this, as to why I don't see this as a contradiction:

If my wife is asleep, and is having a nightmare, I "do not know" of what her nightmare is (similar to "God does not know of separation") -- yet I do know she is dreaming, disturbed, and not in her right mind. So if I gently stroke her hair, I may be able to "heal" her from her nightmare - even thought I know not of the nightmare itself - and my healing may be able to bring her peace, and return her to being more in her "right mind".

In the same way, God (while knowing not of separation) is aware that his son is dreaming, disturbed, and not in his right mind; so God can provide the Holy Spirit as an Answer to the "separation" that we are having a nightmare about -- while God is not aware of the nightmare (the separation) itself.

What do you think? ?:)

Gene ??("Livin' La Sue?o Loco")

Simon wrote:

Hi Gary,

Today as i was mowing the lawn and thinking about your book,it came
to mind how utterly astonishing it must have been to your
friends,family and especially Karen when you finally got around to
explaining the appearence of Arten and Pursah in your life.I wondered
how one could approach such a subject and the reactions you got....
(clipped to save space)
At the start of this year as I was making my list of "to do's" the
course was not even a distant thought on my mind,now having been
thrown for a loop since reading Disappearance I'm still feeling
bemused about how quickly i've crossed a threshold of sorts and how
it has all become very important to me.
thanks,
Simon

Hey Simon. First, the second part of what you said. One of the
happiest things for me (and D. Patrick Miller of Fearless Books, the
publisher) about "Disappearance" has been hearing from people whose
Course books were gathering dust and who are returning to a study of
it as a result of reading the book. That's really exciting. Thanks.
As far as telling people I know about it, it's been a gradual
process. Arten and Pursah told me not to tell anyone about it until
after the visits were over, which I stuck to. I think the reason for
that was so I wouldn't be distracted, could pay attention to what
they were teaching and concentrate on my forgiveness lessons and
perhaps gradually get into a pattern of true forgiveness rather than
judgment. I've never pretended that I've been perfect in that regard,
but I do think the process is proceeding very well. I think I may
have let it slip at one of my Course study group meetings (I've been
going to the same study group in Leeds, Maine for the last ten years)
that I was being visited in person by two ascended masters and a
couple of people looked at me like I must be joking. Karen never read
my manuscript until it was published by Fearless Books, even though
the typed written pages were available to her. So there was over a
year before the appearances stopped and Karen saw the book. She liked
it, although she wasn't always happy about the way she was portrayed
(I pointed out to her that the book wasn't always flattering to me
either) and she had no problem with my story of what happened. We
were talking with Vicki Poppe last month when we all went out to
Peak's Island here in Maine. Vicki asked Karen about this and Karen
said, "I'd trust Gary with my life." I think that pretty much sums up
her attitude towards me and the whole thing.
Most of my relatives are in Massachusetts. My parents are no
longer in this incarnation, but they were cool musicians and I know
they'd be right behind me. I think artists have the easiest time with
spiritual themes, because such ideas appeal more to the artistic mind
rather than the scientific one. My communication with relatives has
been mostly by e-mail. Some of it has been positive, but there are a
couple of cousins who won't speak to me anymore. I'm not sure of the
exact reason, but I'm sure it isn't pretty. (LOL) I'm going to be
going to a big family reunion in Salem, Massachusetts on August 16
and I'll get to see all my relatives for the first time in years. It
should be interesting!
My family of in-laws in Maine think it's cool that I wrote a
book and got it published. No one on either side of my family has
done that before, so it makes me unique in that respect. Most of them
don't care what it's about. They're just happy I'm doing something
sucessful. They're down to earth, hard working people and to put it
kindly, they've always seen me as being more, shall we say, abstract?
(LOL)
My close friends have been completely supportive, as has my
brother in Florida. They're all reading or have read the book and are
having a good time with it. So far, most of my lessons have been
gentle. Thank the Holy Spirit for small favors. I'll keep you posted.
Love and peace, Gary.

开云体育

Doesn't really matter, whatever anyone believes is true is true.<<

As long as they don't promote it as what A Course in Miracles

teaches. :-)

~ Martha

And, of course, YOU know what ACIM teaches better than anyone
else, right?

And you are promoting your belief in what it teaches.

You seem to have missed the chapter that says everyone is just
as "right" as anyone else, and ego can see and try and correct ego in
anyone else.


I know it's my ego pointing this out to you.

And that I don't see/believe there are contrdictions and
corrections anywhere in ACIM except that one place, that seems to
be "just stuck in", not even all that relevant to what else is being
discussed there.

But, thanks for sharing your beliefs on it.

Something to remember next time I think about discussing something.

I'll have to check it out with you first and make sure it's what
ACIM really says- and means.

~ Carrie