The Value of ACIM's Imprecision
Forgive A Course in
Miracles for not being perfect. No spiritual teaching is.
One source of confusion is
its imprecise use of terms. For example, the term Son of God may refer
to consciousness in its identification with ego, consciousness as the learner
or decision maker, or Christ, which is not consciousness at all!
Why would it use one term for
all of these? Because of your experience of “I”, which does not change
but can shift in its application. It is always speaking to that “I” and
sometimes that “I” is right where you are, sometimes it is where you were, and
sometimes it is where you will be. The Course remains the same while you
change and you must learn to discern what applies to you, what no longer
applies, and what does not yet apply.
There’s value in the Course’s
imprecision in that you are forced to turn to Spirit when you do not
understand, or your reading leads to an increase in guilt and fear—the sure
sign that you are misreading it. And that it brings you to Spirit through its
direct teaching and your incomprehension is the real and lasting value of the Course,
not its words and concepts. The Course states outright that it is not
concerned with theory, which deals in symbols that are open to interpretation,
but rather with experience, which is the only thing that can lead to
consistent understanding.
All terms are potentially
controversial, and those who seek controversy will find it. Yet those who seek
clarification will find it as well. They must, however, be willing to overlook
controversy, recognizing that it is a defense against truth in the form of a
delaying maneuver… A universal theology is impossible, but a universal
experience is not only possible but necessary. It is this experience toward
which the course is directed. Here alone consistency becomes possible because
here alone uncertainty ends.
This course remains within
the ego framework, where it is needed. It is not concerned with what is beyond
all error because it is planned only to set the direction towards it. Therefore
it uses words, which are symbolic, and cannot express what lies beyond symbols.
It is merely the ego that questions because it is only the ego that doubts. The
course merely gives another answer, once a question has been raised…
…The ego may ask, "How
did the impossible occur?", "To what did the impossible
happen?", and may ask this in many forms. Yet there is no answer; only an experience.
Seek only this, and do not let theology delay you.
You will notice that the emphasis on structural issues in the course is brief and early. Afterwards and soon, it drops away to make way for the central teaching...” (C.in.1-5)
>>>>
If you have a
question the answer to which you feel may be helpful to others, send it to Liz@acimmentor.com and indicate that
you want it answered in this newsletter/blog.
Comments
Helen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace be to you. There is no instant when
You stand alone; no time when God will fail
To take your hand; no moment when His Love
Does not surround you, comfort you and care,
Along with you, for every wish you have,
Each little joy or tiny stab of pain.
At one with you forever, He remains
Your one relationship; your only Friend.
You are the holy Son of God Himself.
Peace be to you, for what is His is yours.
The Tao which can be spoken of is not the Tao, the Tao Te Ching tells us. Stated in Buddhist terms, the finger that points to the moon is not the moon.
Deepening the understanding of the Course message given, the definition of theology is the study of the nature of God in religion.
The search for universal truth, and the common experience thereof, holds with the belief that all religious traditions originate from a single metaphysical truth or origin.
Given the nature of controversial terminology expressed through religious and ACIM version divergences, a universal theology must remain impossibly elusive, as is stated in the Course, leading exponentially away from the truth of universal experience.
We find we can talk and think about universal theology, and disagree existentially about the meaning thought and word forms appear to represent. But, as we’re asked to ask; what is the purpose of any discourse on universal theology, given that we’re told such is impossible for the reasons stated?
The redirect provides a course correction for this that tasks us with experiencing the only true universal, the possible and necessary “universal truth”. Avoiding controversy that runs counter to the direction of the curriculum, one may well ask; what do we know, and how do we know we know? further spot lighting what it is we’re asked to consider here.
The first question; what do we know? leads one into the database of controversy where one can reference a substantive knowledge base of information, semantics and interpretation, in this case, specific to religious theology or the Course “proper”.
The second question; how do we know we know? can only be known experientially, can’t be extrapolated, requires no language, and cannot be known independent of the experience of knowing.
How can we come to know the requisite universal experience of knowing?
We’re also told in many ways in the Course that we can’t get there except by joining, turning away from the “foolish thoughts of the world” and joining in Christ.
"I have forgotten what I really am, for I mistook my body for myself."
The page doesn’t matter, it could be any page. But I won’t leave you hanging. It was the first page of Lesson 139.
In short, controversy is a lack of agreement. Religions can and do hold contrary belief systems that are often contradictory within the world’s major religions.
A universal experience is both “necessary” and “possible”, we’re told in Course terms.
The impossible universal theology, controversial by nature in its agreement lacking underpinnings, cannot be universally experienced because it is not universal by nature. What exists as universal in experience cannot co-exist with what is universally impossible and still be possible. Where the nature of God is found to be universal, religion is not, making clear that “theology” itself is the study of what is universal--God--through the lens of that which is not universal, i.e., religion.
In the religions of Buddhism and Taoism sin is not a concept, where in Christianity and Judaism it is.
In Buddhism and Taoism there are no distinctions between men and women as both are seen to be equal in the Sangha and as manifestations of the Tao, contrary to the status ascribed to women in Judeo and Christian religions that also make similar distinctions with respect to homosexuality. Both Taoism and Buddhism accept homosexuality as a natural phenomenon.
Looking more closely at the teaching directive quoted in the blog it inspires one to ask;
What is a universal experience?
Today’s lesson 42 makes clear we are “studying a unified thought system in which nothing is lacking that is needed (nothing left out), and nothing is included that is contradictory or irrelevant.”
With respect to undertakings we may engage in, we’re taught in the Course to ask; “What is the purpose, in this case, of studying the Course’s unified thought system?
We are learning a universal thought system through the lens of an egoically framed language structure in much the same way that theology studies the universal aspect of God’s unchanging nature through the highly contradictory belief systems of world religions.
Understanding this lends itself well to seeing where in the curriculum the Course’s messaging has been co-opted by egoic language framing overwriting (the Authority problem) the “established curriculum”. We are alerted to this in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph of the Introduction:
1. This is a course in miracles. ²It is a required course. ³Only the time one takes it is voluntary. ⁴Free will does not mean that one can establish the curriculum.
The truth teaching imparted to us to aid in our awareness of egoic abduction tendencies is the cultivation of consistency in recognizing where the Course message is contradicted by its egoic language structure.
Where we view the unified thought system as it is found in Taoist and Buddhist belief systems, we can see (using the Holy Spirit’s preferred teaching method of using opposites), the contradictory belief systems governing Judeo-Christian religions, also reflected in the Course, NOT in its unified teachings, but in the contradictory language structures reflective of the framework it's interpreted through. Keeping our ego based thought system and its non-unified language structures contradicts the stated directive of the Course.
In essence, we’re being told it’s not about substantiating the “irrelevant” or controversial, which goes no where and doesn’t exist anyway, it’s about cultivating a unified, non-differentiated way of thinking by applying it everyday through 365 days of workbook lessons so that we learn to live the unified teachings consistently.
That is its purpose.
A slow reading and rereading of Lesson 42 that you are on, will answer most of your thoughts.
"You will see because it is the Will of God. It is his strength, not your own, that gives you power. And it is His gift, rather than your own, that offers vision to you."
It takes years and years of effort to realize those three sentences.
All humans have a personal mind run by the ego.There's that resistance again:-) The ego (us) believes it is smarter than God. Our actions and what we say is proof of this. At some point we will have to come to terms that God is smarter than we are. This may sound silly, but in reality it is a very difficult thing to come to terms with.
That is what I was thinking about when I said we need to come to terms with God.
How can we look on the expulsion of certain churches from the Southern Baptist Convention community for what church authorities of "biblical authority" deem to be gender inappropriate pastors in accordance with biblical teachings attributed to Jesus referenced from 1st Timothy 2, and overlook entirely the same gender omission in the Course, again attributed to Jesus?