A Different Approach to the Body
Last week I wrote about how I learned to put aside expectations
that arose from spiritual study and to allow myself to be led from within. An
example of this would be how I was led to an approach to the body that was
different from what I read in A Course in
Miracles.
When I first became a student of ACIM I was, like everyone,
filled with guilt (but didn’t know it). So I read ACIM through a filter of
guilt. I read a lot of love and release (forgiveness) in ACIM, too, but in many
ways I felt condemnation when I was reading. I vaguely knew this was coming
from me but my belief in guilt was so strong that I couldn’t look at this
directly for many, many years. One of the topics over which I felt tremendous
guilt while reading ACIM was the body, especially when it came to physical
illness.
ACIM teaches that the universe of form, which of course
includes bodies, was not made by God. Therefore, the body is not real. However,
I experience a body and denying that I experience the body would denigrate the
power of my mind. So I do not have to deny the experience until that happens
naturally. The body is only an idea in the mind and everything that happens in
the body, including reflexes, instincts, illness, etc. is actually a choice of the
mind. The body is neutral and in its neutral state it manifests perfect health.
Illness in the body is caused by the guilt and fear of God I experience in my
identification with the body. So if I do not identify with the body it will
manifest perfect health. (You can read in detail what ACIM teaches about the
body and illness and physical healing at my website: www.acimmentor.com/acimandbodydisorders.html).
However, from the beginning I was often told something else
by the Holy Spirit in my mind as I read ACIM. Sometimes I would think that I
was only being given an interpretation. But later I’d discover that it was not
only an interpretation. I was experiencing something very different from what
ACIM said. For example I would read in ACIM that illness in the body is caused
by my identification with the body. In my guilt I would feel fearful when I
read this. But later when I would think of those passages the Holy Spirit in my
mind would explain that I experienced illness because of my identification with
the body. This, of course, makes perfect sense. I would not experience illness
otherwise. The clarity with which I experienced this made me think that my
original, fearful interpretation was being corrected. But later I’d come across
the same passage or one like it and I’d see that I was given more than an
interpretation. I was given a whole other approach. This happened often when I
read about the body and illness. And it only happened when I read about the
body and illness. No other topic in ACIM was changed for me.
ACIM says that using form (medicines, treatments, etc.) to
heal the body is “magical thinking”. The body can only be healed by the mind.
But the Holy Spirit told me that the remedies for form are at the level of
form. Cause and effect applies at the level of form. Genes, environment,
attitudes, behavior, choices, and energy all affect the body at the level of
form. So at the level of form medicines and treatments are not “magic”. They
are manifestations of the choice to be relieved of physical symptoms at the
level of form. The Holy Spirit told me that I am mind and that “magical
thinking” is not thinking that medicines can help the body. “Magical thinking”
is the belief that healing the body would heal mind. You can see that there is
a big difference here.
Once when I was thinking about sickness the Holy Spirit
explained to me that when a lion takes down a gazelle it is not personal. The
lion is only trying to survive. It’s the same with a virus, like a cancer or a
‘flu. The virus is only another organism in the world. It is not personal when
it attacks a body. It’s only doing what viruses do to survive. So a virus is
not “wrong” or “bad”. It’s neutral. It has no meaning in itself. It’s just part
of the experience of the world. The
whole experience of the world is one of guilt and fear. Illness is not a
special case of this. The body does not have a neutral state of perfection. The
whole of the universe of form, as the opposite of Perfect Truth, is inherently
dysfunctional. This dysfunction is not wrong or bad. It is just the way that the
opposite-of-Truth is. Again, this is very different from what ACIM teaches.
What ACIM had to say about the body and illness always felt
off to me. However, the Voice of ACIM was always consistent to me so I never
felt that Helen had let in other voices or her own ego. So for a long while I assumed
that the “off” feeling was just a projection of my own guilt. This other, clear
approach that I have received from the Holy Spirit came over a very long time
because in my guilt and fear my mind was closed. It also confused me. Was it different from ACIM? Fear made it
hard for me to sort them out. I expected that when I was less fearful and
therefore open what ACIM teaches would become clear to me. And it did (see link
above) but it still felt “off” to me. I thought I must still be blocked. It
took me a long time to see that I had actually been led to a different
approach.
When I asked the Holy Spirit about the difference between
ACIM and where I have been led I was told that Helen had a different goal from
my goal. I cannot speak to her goal. But mine has always been to know Truth and
be at peace. Helen was told that if she healed the body of illness by simply
choosing against illness it would demonstrate the power of mind. She would
learn that the mind decides how the body feels. She would learn that she is not
the victim of the universe of form. Last year during a brief illness I caught a
glimpse of the level of mind where the choice of illness is made. When I saw
this I simultaneously saw that that level of the mind is not real, either. The
body, illness in the body, the part of mind that causes responses in the body –
all of that is not-Truth. I was not led to change that level of mind to heal
the body. I was led to let it all go.
All along I’ve been led to detach from the body – indeed, all of not-Truth -
not to seek to change my mind to heal the body.
When I translated ACIM into plain, everyday language I kept
its message about the body and illness the same though it conflicted in many
ways with what I was learning directly from the Holy Spirit. In fact, that was
when I began to enquire into the difference. But it was not my place to change
ACIM’s message. What I teach now is what I have learned directly from the Holy
Spirit. When students contact me to learn how to heal the body by changing
their minds I direct them to other ACIM teachers whose interest seems to lie in
that direction.
This approach to the body is still unfolding for me. I will
continue to be led from within rather than from a book or another person in the
world. Teachers and teachings are not ends in themselves. They are means to my
goal of being aware of Truth but only when viewed through the Teacher of Truth
(Holy Spirit) in my own mind.
>>>>>
Learn about the books The ACIM Mentor Articles, The Plain Language A Course in Miracles, 4 Habits for Inner Peace, and Releasing Guilt for Inner Peace at www.acimmentor.com.
Comments
Michael
" Helen was told that if she healed the body of illness by simply choosing against illness it would demonstrate the power of mind. She would learn that the mind
decides how the body feels. She would learn that she is not the victim of the universe of form."
Can you tell me where that came from? Is it from the Urtext? I ask because it is so highlighted for me...I would like to read it firsthand. thanks so much, Deborah
Isn't it close to the idea of the current blog?
Michael
I was contemplating sickness, viruses, etc....and how we are not separate from them, there is still a oneness there, so how can they attack? They are also neutral. And that when we choose to attack - or feel attacked - that's when stuff seems to happen. Then when I read your statement - "let it all go", I remembered years ago reading in Mary Baker Eddy's "Prose Works" (or some other book!) where she wrote about sickness, "Better to forget the whole thing!" I never forgot this statement...so many steps/lessons in between reading this and believing it.
Could it be that because we are experiencing the dream from the point of it already being over but believe that we are reliving it once again, that if illness is in the script then it is in the script? Our only 'job' is to not let the illness (or any other thing) become the cause of our lack of peace. That's my take on it anyways.....
"For example I would read in ACIM that illness in the body is caused by my identification with the body. In my guilt I would feel fearful when I read this. But later when I would think of those passages the Holy Spirit in my mind would explain that I experienced illness because of my identification with the body. This, of course, makes perfect sense. I would not experience illness otherwise. The clarity with which I experienced this made me think that my original, fearful interpretation was being corrected."
im also wondering if ive understood the rest! because as i understand the course, it DOES say exactly what you say here..
"When I saw this I simultaneously saw that that level of the mind is not real, either. The body, illness in the body, the part of mind that causes responses in the body – all of that is not-Truth. I was not led to change that level of mind to heal the body. I was led to let it all go. All along I’ve been led to detach from the body – indeed, all of not-Truth - not to seek to change my mind to heal the body. "
its just that it leads up to that understanding!?
the course (as i understand it) isnt actually a course in healing as such at all, (though it seems to be when we start reading it, due to what we think we are) but one in knowing true Self, in changing our identification from something thats not true to what is true, and it leads us to that knowledge by speaking on different levels.. its has something to say to ease the attachments of the strongly ego identified right, and continues to do this right up to the point where we are hardly identified with ego at all, even to the point where we dont even make the final choice, because truth is known so there is no more choice to make.
i thought it only spoke of body healing at all in the parts where it was speaking to the strongly separate-self-identified, but that it becomes clear as your own identity layers are let go of, that those parts of the course were talking of 'nothing' to 'nothing'.. meaningless but very needful as a starting place for those who think they are what they are not?
i thought ACIM says that if we are focusing on body healing at all, we are experiencing level confusion, trying to make the problem be where the problem isnt? (but to go right ahead and use any 'magic' that works for us; be kind and gentle, be loving, dont try and deny what we think we are at the level our thought seems to be 'manifesting' it). and that even, after we have dropped strong body identification, and we are focusing on mind healing, we are STILL just making our way 'back up the ladder' seeming to fix what doesnt exist, (a fearful, separate, decision making mind which is suffering because its torn between the guilt of having split oneness/Mind/love apart, destroyed peace, and so fearing punishment, and yet still really really wanting to keep existing), but that we are at least working at the non-existent problem at the level where waking up can occur. or seem to!
i guess im saying that as far as i understand, what you say is a whole other approach IS actually what acim is saying, but that it leads our minds to that understanding, as most people starting the course are pretty much, if not totally, identified as a separate self.
have i totally not understood you!?
Healing the mind is the only meaningful practice and once I no longer choose the ego, my split mind is aligned with my will and God's ( the real world).
Unless it's the Urtext you are reading which has confusing text and why Helen was guided to edit it further, this level confusion is not ACIM but our own mis-creation ( mis-perception.
Also, ACIM does not suggest a course of healing the mind to heal the body (though many read it that way). And I never said it said to do that. However, it states outright that the cause of illness in the body is one's identification with it. See the link in my article to the link at my website where I culled quotes from ACIM about the body and healing.
I also want to make clear that the point of my article was not so much what ACIM does or does not teach. It was to point out the importance of being led from the Holy Spirit within rather than from a book.
Anyway, despite having read the complete ACIM works many times, I somehoe missed this distinction, which was summed up in this: "For example I would read in ACIM that illness in the body is caused by my identification with the body. In my guilt I would feel fearful when I read this. But later when I would think of those passages the Holy Spirit in my mind would explain that I experienced illness because of my identification with the body"... the part that is so easy to miss (and misinterpret) is "illness in the body is caused by...", which means that my identification with the personal thought system/ego/body CAUSED the illness, rather than this statement " I experienced illness because of my identification", which means that I have the EXPERIENCE of illness because of the guilt I'm feeling from my erroneous perceptions... the first phrase makes the error the CAUSE of the ILLNESS... the second phrase makes error the source of the EXPERIENCE of illness... a very subtle yet powerful distinction (at least from my POV... LOL)
Anyway, it brought a lot of clarity to my illusory self... ;-)
I understand the importance of not making an idol out of the Course or any teaching.
im still confused as to there being any difference in what youre presenting. i know this confusion doesnt matter at all, clarity always arrives in some perfect way! and sometimes the questions just fall away anyway, other experiences make the question redundant. i am trusting my own inner teacher and seeking outside reassurance less often. i am still curious though, as to what the difference youre talking of is, as everything youve presented seems to me to be one coherent path. maybe trusting my own inner voice is the only way to understand what youre speaking of, and most certainly any differences in helpful approach the inner guide will lead me to!
As long as we believe we are "here"; in form and separate, no matter what the "problem" is, we have mistaken the dream figure/ego for the dreamer/HS. Once we get back to our right mind we can find the peace of God and overcome whatever we think is "wrong". The body was made as an attack on God and so each breath we draw says Id rather be here than with Him. We now have the choice to heal that illusion;replaying what never happened and forgiving ourselves for that "mistake". As I listen to my ego less and let my script happen without judgement, I feel the peace of God in those moments between thoughts and know its all OK! except when I succumb to some very serious problem that sucks me back into the dream.
George
It is always about inviting the HS (Voice for Truth) to heal the guilt/split mind... everything else is just "fluff'...
"True healing is the realization you were never sick*
So as I was about to post this comment, no kidding, I suddenly started to experience a kind of weird pain in my throat chest area. Ego feeling threatened you think? Do not fear, do not give it power. Went back within, looked at it with the Holy Spirit knowing not to judge and I ask for release. Pain gone.
I am so glad that you shared this. I have had misgivings about the Course teachings on healing the body, but, like you, had decided that Helen was asking for something different than what I was asking for. Like you, I wanted the direct experience of peace without concern for the level of form.
And like you, I accepted the teaching that form is untruth, so it seemed inconsistent to adopt a goal of healing the body as a goal consistent with peace, since it seemed to hold peace hostage to the belief that it is important to be concerned with the body. I do not need to have truth 'proved' to me by way of a demonstration that the body is subject to a part of the mind, despite the fact that I was raised in Christian Science.
However, more recently I have taken a slightly different take on form. The Course teaches or seems to imply that form represents a denial of truth. I think that is a distortion. Form itself is not a denial of truth but in our minds we have used it to be such. If form is 'neutral' then it cannot itself be a denial of truth. Form can also be a means of representing truth. In fact, to allow form to serve this purpose is very useful, given that all of us now perceive form. Therefore to allow form to represent truth is to give new purpose to form. In fact, we cannot say that the original purpose of form was to deny truth. The past is simply a perception in the present. We can more usefully say that the original purpose of form was to represent truth; not because it was needed, but simply as an act of love expressed.
In a sense the Course teaching of the creation of the Son of God is a teaching of loving, creative expression through form. Form is based on distinction. If God created the Son, this implies a distinction, some degree of individuation, however slight. The Son may be one with the Father, but a distinction is still implied in the teaching. Thus form is seen in this teaching as an expression of love and truth.
We too can see form differently. We can see that the ONLY loving purpose of form is to express or represent truth. This is the only interpretation of form consistent with peace. This does NOT mean that form IS truth! Certainly not. But what is represented by form when we are guided only by love and in devotion to truth and peace IS true.
So what the 'Holy Spirit' is guiding you to see is a very direct path to truth. I am much inclined to that path as well. But reinterpreting the meaning of form can be a very useful adjunct, given that we still perceive form anyway. Reinterpreting the meaning of form can be a very effective means of healing. But to do so we have keep in mind that we have given form the meaning of guilt. When we see some bodies attacking other bodies we simply have to see this as a reflection of the purpose we have given form thus far; and choose to no longer give form that purpose. Every little act of love in form speeds us along the way of the new purpose.
Jeremy
Form is not a denial of anything. Form is simply form, of itself nothing. But nothing does not deny All.
The reason I bring this up is that it is often said that form is the denial of truth; then in our sense of guilt we use this statement to believe that in our perceiving form we are denying truth, redoubling our guilt. This is all non-sense, of course. Perceiving form is not a denial of truth unless it is our intention to deny truth. And, of course, it most likely IS our intention until we undo our guilt. But guilt NEED NOT BE and seeing untruth in form NEED NOT BE.
Instead of seeing form as truly being, we can see form simply as a medium of communication and representation, representation of truth.
I think we are in agreement, Liz. It is just that the way you (and ACIM?) words it creates a logical conundrum that can confuse.
Jeremy
When ACIM says or implies that form is the denial of Truth (Formlessness) it is stating a fact, not making a judgment. If a reader feels guilt when they read that it is because they are projecting guilty meaning - judgment - onto the statement of fact. (As in: "It is *wrong* to deny Truth."). The guilt is not in the material but in the reader. As is *always* the case.
Well, if that is the case, then I simply do not accept the teaching. Form is neutral. What does neutral mean? I think that the term neutral means that form is neither truth nor denial of truth. It falls in neither 'camp'.
Of course God is formless and God is truth. But God's expression is also truth. And God does express in form: in Its creation of the Son. And the Son is of form to some extent, even without ego. And it may well be true that there is much form that does not deny truth, whether or not we are aware of it. The world as we know it will disappear, but that does not mean that form will be no more in the awakened mind of the Son.
Ego is identification with form. This IS a denial of truth. But form does not necessarily imply identification with form. So form itself is not the denial of truth.
There. So you see? I am not in agreement with ACIM or you, I suppose. :-)
The real issue is the oneness of God and the fact that God is All THAT IS. Form does not imply the denial of the oneness of God. Identification as a _separate_ form does indeed imply the denial of the oneness of God.
All of us on the blog are stuck with using the ego. You can't work out what Liz is saying here (in this case) with the ego. It's about this time when I'm wrestling with this stuff that I get pissed off. LOL
However, if we are going to use words to have a discussion, we have to try to check to see if words are pointing to truth. As we know, words are twice removed from reality: they symbolize ideas or concepts that themselves are symbols, not meaning itself. Still, words can either point toward truth or away from it, according to the meaning that we give or receive through them.
To say that we are 'stuck' with ego implies a degree of ego-imprisonment that would seem to rule out all hope of seeing any meaning beyond fear and separation. I don't accept that, and I hope you will reconsider. Otherwise what is the point of participating here? Will, you not stuck with ego, nor is anyone else.
I sum it up this way:
Identifying with or experiencing a body, whether it's "healthy" or "ill" (and just think of the many ways people define those terms) is identifying with not-Truth, with not-Peace. This mis-identification is nothing to feel guilty about, though that is a tempting temptation I continue to experience.
Rather, we simply need to remain aware of what we're doing. That we're temporarily, mistakenly, "Looking for Love in all the Wrong Places." (Love being Peace being Truth – whatever your preferred term.)
Keeping this mis-identification in awareness will help to make room for Peace to come into awareness.
Thank you.
One word that came through for me this Sunday morning is gentleness. I keep being led to the characteristics of a Teacher of God and remember an earlier post from Liz that said, do not forget the Manual For Teachers.
With that shared, today I will be vigilant to gentleness.
Much gratitude to all my brothers and sisters.
maybe i see this 'different approach' as what the course is actually teaching because i found ken wapnicks online videos around the same time i found liz' mentor newsletters, and ken teaches the same approach that liz shares here, (for example i learned from ken (not in this form but the same content) "The Holy Spirit told me that I am mind and that “magical thinking” is not thinking that medicines can help the body. “Magical thinking” is the belief that healing the body would heal mind. You can see that there is a big difference here.
Once when I was thinking about sickness the Holy Spirit explained to me that when a lion takes down a gazelle it is not personal. The lion is only trying to survive. It’s the same with a virus, like a cancer or a ‘flu. The virus is only another organism in the world. It is not personal when it attacks a body. It’s only doing what viruses do to survive. So a virus is not “wrong” or “bad”. It’s neutral. It has no meaning in itself. It’s just part of the experience of the world. The whole experience of the world is one of guilt and fear. Illness is not a special case of this. The body does not have a neutral state of perfection. The whole of the universe of form, as the opposite of Perfect Truth, is inherently dysfunctional. This dysfunction is not wrong or bad. It is just the way that the opposite-of-Truth is.") but ken also teaches how acim leads to this understanding. who knows what my interpretations would have been of the course without ken and liz!
I won't say when but a while ago I went into a defensive mode about the Course that in 20-20 hindsight left me just mystified on how insane my personal mind is. My forte when crazy is to bring as many people as I can with me so there is the maximum embarressment when it passes. Yes, you've got to roll with it:)
and you made me laugh again will, at mention of the embarrassment factor.. its been a big part of the extra layers of learning to just be honest here, even if it made me feel like a twonk! bless ya!
it's surprising how much is removed from each version as it went through it's progression from the original notes helen wrote.
sometimes it felt like it was truly misc. stuff that was removed.
most of the time thought each editing removed insights that ... did lots to help students
-the course became harder as it lost much clarifying info
-the course became more strict, less personal
-sometimes personal, sometimes insightful, sometimes little things that gave one hope that we truly are wonderful and loved when we have forgotten
all these were removed, sometimes it felt the removal was because the notes were revealing things that were very personal to only helen and bill. but other times what was removed showed a biased view that information being talked about wasn't confortable to someone along the editing timeline.
talk of what to look for in a partner, that it shouldn't be based on something superficial, but to look for someone who is likewise focused on building a family
... which is a very polite way, as mentioned in the notes and urtext it was talking about what genders people limit themselves too.
"homosexuality is only a sin to the degree it emphasizes exclusion"
well something like that, ...
there were many small, sometimes large sections devoted to understanding acceptance and equality, these were removed into such a general focus it becomes hard to see how the course can relate to specific areas of our live. it makes it hard going forward to see it all, ... sure, once you get it you can see in hindsight how it applies to everything else, but for many, having a place to start is the best place to start instead of giving something that is very general that applies to a general view of ones life with nothing specific
"For example I would read in ACIM that illness in the body is caused by my identification with the body. In my guilt I would feel fearful when I read this. But later when I would think of those passages the Holy Spirit in my mind would explain that I experienced illness because of my identification with the body. This, of course, makes perfect sense. I would not experience illness otherwise."
I was reading this today and I can't see the difference in what you're saying here in the first sentence that reads "I would read in ACIM that illness in the body is caused by my identification with the body." and where you said "the Holy Spirit in my mind would explain that I experienced illness because of my identification with the body."
Both seem to say the same thing to me. Can you explain the difference which made the difference clear to you? Has it got to do with the idea of "experiencing"?
thanks Liz
What I learned from the HS is that the body is inherently imperfect. Illness is just part of the experience of the body. I would not experience illness if I did not identify with a body. This does not get to the cause of the illness, but rather to why I experience illness.
this is what i thought you meant.. so, bodies just DO experience pain and pleasure. health and sickness. you also wouldnt experience pleasure if you did not identify with a body? i thought you meant that the choice for illness and pleasure was the same choice.. the choice to identify with a body. and so, when you experienced illness was simply going to be down to environmental factors, same as with pleasure. only this makes it seem like illness is more.. well.. random than pleasure.
then i was confused again when i read this
'Last year during a brief illness I caught a glimpse of the level of mind where the choice of illness is made. When I saw this I simultaneously saw that that level of the mind is not real, either.'
what that last part sounds like to me is that the level of mind that chooses illness is NOT the same as the level that chooses to identify with a body?!
i do get that no level or aspect of mind that involves choice can be real, but other than that.. is it possible to clarify?
The level of mind that chooses illness IS the level that chooses to identify with a body. How else would you experience illness? The choice to experience the body is the choice to experience it all - pain, illness, injury, pleasure, etc. But that level is nothing. Meaning, there's no reason to attend to that level. You don't have to worry about identifying with the body or not identifying with it. Identify with a body until you NATURALLY do not. Until then, just ask the HS to help you in caring for the body.
I don't "go to" the HS the way I used to with anything. The line between the HS and me has blurred. It's just here. It's just sort of a given with me that I will come from that place in my mind.