Course In Miracles - CIA Manipulation Device

[Laura]

Another:

http://www.thomastwin.com/24%20A%20Renard%27s%20Stolen%20Gospel.html

Gary Renard’s Stolen Gospel
© Bruce Fraser MacDonald, PhD 2010

The evidence is incontrovertible. Gary Renard has plagiarized one of the most important parts of his book, Your Immortal Reality. What he calls “Pursah’s Gospel of Thomas” comes directly from Stephen Patterson and Marvin Meyer’s translation ofThe Gospel of Thomas fromThe Nag Hammadi Library,
available online at:http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html.

Renard has objected to my using the term “stolen” in regard to this Gospel. It is actually a title taken from a quote which precedes Pursah’s Gospel. Renard says, ““The Hugh Lynn Cayce version was obtained illegally, I guess meaning it was stolen, by someone who put it on the Internet” (p. 144). If he is justified in calling this version “stolen,” when it was actually tried in court and found not to be stolen at all, then it is certainly justified to call Pursah’s Gospel “stolen” when it is so obviously taken directly from the translators without their permission. It has not been tried in court yet, but other similar cases have been considered to be “theft of intellectual property.”

I know many people will find that what I have to say here brings them considerable hurt because they have benefited from Gary’s writing. They will be always grateful to him for that and will have to learn well the lessons of forgiveness he has been teaching them. It makes it doubly sad that, for some undetermined reason, Renard felt impelled to take someone else’s work and present it as his own – because he could have done it himself without the dishonesty.

I am not the only one who has found reason to doubt Renard’s truthfulness. Miracles Magazine, a Course in Miracles journal, recognized, in 2006, the serious nature of what they felt to be Gary’s lack of truthfulness, so they devoted a special issue to “The Extremely Dubious Tale of Gary Renard.” Jon Mundy, PhD, Greg Mackie and Robert Perry examined what they felt were extremely doubtful aspects of Gary’s claims (Sept/Oct, 2006).

Renard’s plagiarism from Patterson and Meyer is part of a pattern. In his article, “Why Don’t the Masters Have An Original Thought,” now at Circle of Atonement: http://www.circleofa.org/articles/DuOriginalThought.php?dig=renard(originally in Miracles Magazine) Robert Perry gives extensive evidence that Renard used the same phrases and ideas used by a teacher of ACIM named Ken Wapnick, without acknowledging the source. Perry has even presented the borrowings in graph form, first to show the parallels and, secondly, to demonstrate how Renard’s ideas are different from the actual teachings of ACIM. However, few people in the Course community have taken any of the three writers seriously and many have even attacked them viciously for daring to ask for honesty.

Renard has created a strange dynamic around himself, in which his many followers refuse to see what he is doing in his works. They attack anyone who demonstrates the truth to them. I think this time they will be forced to acknowledge that Renard has actually plagiarized almost the whole of “Pursah’s Gospel of Thomas.” Strangely, he and others argue that because “Pursah” left out 44 verses “she” changed it drastically. That is a bit like arguing that “I did not steal your jewels because I only took two thirds of them and left the other third in your jewelry box.”

I will present the evidence for the plagiarism first and then will look at some of the serious implications which arise from this plagiarism.

For those not familiar with Renard’s work, he claims in his books, The Disappearance of the Universe and Your Immortal Reality (Hay House), that Pursah and Arten, supposed Ascended Masters and reincarnations of Thomas and Thaddaeus, Jesus’ disciple, appeared in his living room and dictated lessons about ACIM. He says he recorded the conversations, copied them into his books and then destroyed the tapes. He has become a best-selling writer and speaker on the spiritual speaking circuit on the basis of these books and their claims.

In Your Immortal Reality, Renard claims that Pursah again appeared to him and recited a new version of The Gospel of Thomas. The same pattern is supposed to have been followed, Renard recording the text, copying it and then destroying the tapes. Pursah is quoted as saying the following:

“I consider it an act of completion to have J’s [Jesus’] words in The Gospel of Thomasrecorded accurately by a later incarnation of myself. I recorded J’s words 2,000 years ago, and now you will record them again. Thus will the Gospel be corrected and passed along in its original form.” NOTE: I [Gary] inserted the title below. Pursah spoke all 70 of the sayings. They were recorded for accuracy.

Pursah is referring here to “The Gospel of Thomas” which was found in Egypt in 1945 and is currently included in a collection of works called The Nag Hammadi Library, named after the town where the documents were found. There are several translations of the work. Pursah implies here that she will provide a new, corrected and original text which will differ considerably from any of the current translations because, as the reincarnation of Thomas, the original author, she has inside information not available to anyone else.

We now know, without any doubt, that all of this is fabrication because the work Pursah “recites” is an almost verbatim copy of Patterson and Meyer’s translation of the work. I include several passages here to demonstrate the exact nature of the plagiarism.

I have gone through all 70 verses of “Pursah’s Gospel of Thomas” and have the following surprising statistics on the composition of Renard’s work in relation to the original. I will present my findings as five categories with examples of each drawn from the original source (left hand column) and from Renard (right column).

Category One: 29 verses. Renard’s verses are identical to the original -- I have underlined the plagiarized text in the right column.

(Patterson/Meyer) 90. Jesus said, “Come to me, for my yoke is comfortable and my lordship is gentle, and you will find rest for yourselves.”


(Renard) 90. J said, “Come to me, for my yoke is comfortable and my lordship is gentle, and you will find rest for yourselves.”

(Patterson/Meyer) 91. They said to him, “Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you.” He said to them, “You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment.”


(Renard) 91. They said to him, “Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you.” He said to them, “You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment.”


Even in the following rather convoluted passage, Renard plagiarizes word for word from Patterson and Meyer. I have included a third column so you can compare this passage to Thomas O. Lambdin’s translation of verse 92 (similarities with Patterson/Meyer underlined) to see that the Patterson/Meyer translation is not somehow inevitable but their own careful choice which Gary has copied word for word.

A translator is a writer and, in the same way as styles of writers vary, so the styles of translators vary. There may be some minor similarities because they are using the English grammatical structures and wordings we all use, or even because they are drawing on a common cultural base. For instance, the first sentence in Lambdin’s translation is the same as Patterson/Meyer because the phrase “Seek and you will find,” has actually become part of the cultural heritage of the English language. The rest is almost completely different. The amount of actual identity (not similarity) between Renard and Patterson/Meyer is unheard of in any stylistic comparison of two writers without plagiarism being involved.

Actually, the difference should be greater than usual because Pursah has told us that she is going to give us a completely new, corrected and previously unheard version of the gospel drawn directly from Jesus’ words -- which would have been in Aramaic. We should have a new translation from Aramaic which would indeed provide a completely different linguistic original from which to translate, with strikingly new renditions arising from the different language base, rather than the Greek or Coptic origins of the Gospel of Thomas we now have.



(Patterson/Meyer) 92. Jesus said, “Seek and you will find. In the past, however, I did not tell you the things about which you asked me then. Now I am willing to tell them, but you are not seeking them.”


(Renard) 92. J said, “Seek and you will find. In the past, however, I did not tell you the things about which you asked me then. Now I am willing to tell them, but you are not seeking them.”


(Lambdin) 92. Jesus said, “Seek and you will find. Yet, what you asked me about in former times and which I did not tell you then, now I do desire to tell, but you do not inquire after it.”



Category Two: 18 verses: Identical except for one simple change as in “God’s Divine Rule” for “The Father’s Kingdom,” “Brother” for “mister,” “shall” for “will,” “fortunate” for “congratulations,.” Changes are in bold capital letters: plagiarized text underlined.

52. His disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets have spoken in Israel, and they all spoke of you."
He said to them, "You have disregarded the living one who is in your presence, and have spoken of the dead."


52. THE disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets have spoken in Israel, and they all spoke of you."
He said to them, "You have disregarded the living one who is in your presence, and have spoken of the dead."

72. A [person said] to him, "Tell my brothers to divide my father's possessions with me."
He said to the person, "Mister, who made me a divider?"
He turned to his disciples and said to them, "I'm not a divider, am I?"


72. A person said to him, "Tell my brothers to divide my father's possessions with me."
He said to the person, "BROTHER,who made me a divider?"
He turned to his disciples and said to them, "I'm not a divider, am I?"

Category Three: 12 verses: Minor phrase removed or changed, minor word added: the rest is identical. Text which was removed or changed is italicized in the left column. Added words in Renard’s text are in bold capitals on the right, plagiarism underlined.

(Patterson/Meyer) 23. Jesus said, "I shall choose you, one from a thousand and two from ten thousand, and they will stand as a single one."


(Renard) 23. "I shall choose you, one from a thousand and two from ten thousand, and they SHALL stand as a single one."

76. Jesus said, "The Father's kingdom is like a merchant who had a supply of merchandise and found a pearl. That merchant was prudent; he sold the merchandise and bought the single pearl for himself.
So also with you, seek his treasure that is unfailing, that is enduring, where no moth comes to eat and no worm destroys."


76. J said, "GOD’S DIVINE RULE is like a merchant who had a supply of merchandise and THEN found a pearl. That merchant was prudent; he sold the merchandise and bought the single pearl for himself.
So also with you, seek THE treasure that is unfailing, that is enduring, where no moth comes to eat and no worm destroys."



Category Four: 5 verses: Omits major parts of the verse but what remains is identical. Italicized bold words in the left column are those which Renard omitted.
Underlined text in the right column is plagiarized: bold capitals are added words.

61.Jesus said, "Two will recline on a couch; one will die, one will live."
Salome said, "Who are you mister? You have climbed onto my couch and eaten from my table as if you are from someone."
Jesus said to her, "I am the one who comes from what is whole. I was grantedfrom the things of my Father."
"I am your disciple."
"For this reason I say, if one is whole, one will be filled with light, but if one is divided, one will be filled with darkness."


61.



"I am the one who comes from what is whole. I wasGIVEN from the things of my Father."
"I am your disciple."
"THEREFORE I say, if one is whole, one will be filled with light, but if one is divided, one will be filled with darkness."

28. Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, forthey came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty.
But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways."


28. I STOOD in the world,
and found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty.
They came into the world empty.

But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, they will change their ways."



Category Five: 6 verses: major rearranging, sometimes using the same words or phrases as the original, but not always. It is only in these six verses that we see any original work. Note that there are very few similarities. This is the kind of difference which usually arises between versions of translations but is absent in 64 of the 70 verses in Pursah’s gospel. Underlining and capitalization as usual.

26. Jesus said, "You see the sliver in your friend's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye. When you take the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend's eye."


26. "You see the SPECK THAT IS in yourBROTHER’S eye, but you DO NOT see the LOG THAT IS in your own eye. When you take the LOGout of your own eye, then you will see CLEARLY enough to TAKE THE SPECK OUT OF your BROTHER’Seye."

54. Jesus said, "Congratulations to the poor, for to you belongs Heaven's kingdom."


54. FORTUNATE ARE the poor, FOR YOURS IS THE FATHER’S kingdom."

56. Jesus said, "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered a carcass, and whoever has discovered a carcass, of that person the world is not worthy."


56. "Whoever has come toUNDERSTAND THIS world has FOUND a CORPSE, and whoever has FOUND A CORPSE, of that ONE the world is NO LONGERworthy."

8. And he said, "The person is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!"


8. J said, "A wise fisherman cast his net into the sea. WHEN HE drew it up IT WAS full of little fish. Among them HEdiscovered a LARGE FINE [reversed]fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and HE chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears SHOULDlisten!"



The easiest way to see the extent of the plagiarism is to scan the underlined text in the right column and multiply by the number of verses in that category. We can see from these examples that almost the whole of Pursah’s gospel is plagiarized.

Statistics reveal another striking feature of Pursah’s gospel. In the first 39 verses of the gospel, Renard at least tried to make some minor changes. However, starting with verse 63, he stopped making changed almost entirely. Again, statistics prove the point. Of the final 31 verses
19 verses are identical
8 verses are identical with one word replacement
4 verses have a minor phrase omitted but the rest is identical

This can be presented in table form which is perhaps more revealing:

Categories


Total verses


First 39 verses


Final 31 verses

Category One


29


10


19

Category Two


18


10


8

Category Three


12


8


4

Category Four


5


5




Category Five


6


6




It looks like Renard got tired of revising about half way through the text because, in the last 31 verses of the total 70 verses, there are no “original” verses, nor are there any of the Category Four verses which required a bit more work than Categories 1, 2 and 3. All of the eleven verses which show signs of having had more work done on them are in the first 39 verses.

Surprisingly, this gospel, which was supposed to be a genuine, new, original and CORRECTED version, translated from a completely new language, has only 6 out of 70 verses (14 %) which might be considered original. At least 86% of the text is identical to the Patterson/Meyer translation. There is absolutely no doubt that Renard plagiarized at least 86% of his text.

One wonders why Renard omitted verse 6 from his gospel rendition, since its message is of tremendous importance. It reads as follows, again using the Patterson/Meyer translation:

Jesus said, “Don’t lie, and don’t do what you hate, because all things are disclosed before heaven. After all, there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed.”

There are several troubling implications which arise logically from the discovery of plagiarism in almost all of Pursah’s gospel.

First, at the beginning of the chapter in which the gospel appears, Renard comments about a version of ACIM over which there is considerable controversy. He says, “The Hugh Lynn Cayce version was obtained illegally, I guess meaning it was stolen, by someone who put it on the Internet. That’s why it is available” (p. 144, quotes are taken from the 2006 paperback edition). Renard is obviously opposed to plagiarism in any form so, I assume, would also condemn his own actions in having plagiarized almost his entire Thomas gospel from Patterson and Meyer. It is odd that this passage is introduced just before the “stolen” (to use his term) gospel. Was it designed to divert the reader’s attention away from the possibility of theft, by condemning theft, as part of an attempt to hide the plagiarized text which follows shortly after this passage?

We now know that Pursah is a fictional character because Ascended Masters do not plagiarize and lie to the world about such an important matter as a new translation of such an important work as the Gospel of Thomas. Thus, when Renard portrays Pursah as saying to him, before her recitation, that she has “a little surprise . . . for you,” we know it is not actually Pursah speaking but Renard constructing a dialogue for his own purposes. Is he intentionally trying to deceive the reader into thinking the gospel is real because an “on the spur of the moment” recitation could not have been carefully laboured over and therefore could not be plagiarized?

After the recitation is over, even though almost the whole of the gospel comes straight from Patterson and Meyer and is not new at all, Renard says, “Whoa, Pursah. That was incredible. It really rang true for me. And the whole thing has a much better flow to it now, too. I could picture J saying the words. In fact, the first time I really heard his Voice, he said a few of the words to me that you said near the end there, at number 110” (p. 171). We know this is also not part of an actual conversation because Pursah is not real. That means it was also planned along with the plagiarism itself. The troubling question here is whether this is another part of a carefully planned pattern of deception to make the reader think that what they have just heard is so new it would be futile to look for its source in a published document.

I suppose we will never know but, given our present knowledge that the gospel is plagiarized, these passages seem to be designed to deceive the reader, like the smoke and mirrors which magicians use to distract the audience from what is really going on. They are so strategically placed that one can’t avoid wondering if they were planned that way to distract the reader’s attention at key points in the fictitious dialogue to divert the reader’s attention. We know generally that plagiarism must be concealed carefully with whatever means are available because to be caught in the act is fatal to one’s reputation.

If these were planned or if they were not, the result has been the same. In the four years since the book was published, I am the only one (as far as I know) who has noticed that the gospel was actually plagiarized. Not even the editors at Hay House knew about it and even Rogier Van Vlissingen, who wrote a whole book about the contrast between Pursah’s gospel and the supposed ordinary, contemporary translations, did not notice that this one was plagiarized.

In 2006 Robert Perry outlined a fantasy of what it would be like for a writer to make up a fictional story and then pass it off as real: “Imagine you yourself going through all the steps to plan such a deception, carry it off, and then maintain it in the face of criticism, as you ride its wave of ill-gotten fame. It’s hard to imagine, isn’t it? And yet it is done.” It seems unquestionable that the fantasy has become truth, at least in regard to the gospel.

The Course community will have to come to terms with a number of serious questions. What is it about parts of the Community that has made it possible for Renard to get away with this kind of deception when so many voices have been warning about what was really going on?

We now know that Pursah is not real. As I have observed, Ascended Masters do not steal the work of others and lie about it to the world. And if Pursah is not real, we also know that Arten is also not real. It follows that they are both fictions invented by Renard. And since Renard made the claim to have heard the voice of Jesus in the context of this major deception, we can be quite certain that is false also.

It is also safe to assume that Renard is not a reincarnation of the Apostle Thomas, as he claims, even though Kevin Ryerson, spiritual guide to Shirley MacLaine has said he is. There are actually two disciples in the Bible named Thomas and Renard claims to be both of them at the same time. I have addressed that complicated question more fully in the sample chapter readings on this website.

Perhaps the most troubling question the community will have to address is how someone could work so carefully to deceive readers who bought books in good faith, and at the same time could stand in front of those same people and claim to teach them spiritual truths.

These are illustrations of the problems facing Renard’s many followers -- they will have to determine exactly what they can believe of what he has told them over the years.

If Renard had been writing on any other subject, he probably would have been exposed long ago. But it seems from the extremely negative reaction to his critics that people actually wanted to be fooled – and not just ignorant people. Many prominent people in the media and film and writing industries have been fooled. Perhaps people wanted to believe that what he was telling them was actually possible. The sad thing is that he answered some of the spiritual longings of his readers with untruths and now they are left with a great blank which had been filled by his fantasies. They will have to start over again to find the truth they thought they had found in him.

There are spiritual sources which are true but every time someone commits another fraud in the name of the things of the Spirit, it becomes harder to find the really true things. Those who plagiarize and commit fraud harm not just the authors from whom they have stolen. They especially cause harm to the spiritual Seekers who turned to them in good faith expecting truthful insight and meaning. And perhaps most important, plagiarists betray all of Spirit in Its attempt to make Its Presence known to the people of the world, because the frauds put yet another stumbling block in the way of trust.



[A number of people have asked questions which are related to the information which I have presented on this website. Instead of writing long, individual emails in answer to these questions, I have chosen to write two longer pieces which will address most of the questions. One is the following article, (click: “Jesus, God and A Course in Miracles” and the other follows this one (click here) and addresses some of the spurious ways people have found to try to defend what Renard has done with “Pursah’s Gospel.” I think they will answer most of your questions and at the same time introduce you to some profound ideas.


The article addresses directly the claim which Renard and others make, that “It's very clear that Jesus dictated A Course in Miracles to Helen Schucman.” On the contrary, I assert that it is very clear that Jesus did not write ACIM and "Jesus, Abba . ." article provides much information which will make that clear to most people who have not yet had their minds closed by the repeated exercises of ACIM.]

 

[AmethystArtist]

While this thread seems to be more about ACIM, I have to ask people here---has anyone seen the effects of what happens to people when they specifically follow Gary Renard's teachings??? (And I'm not talking about ACIM--I'm talking about DU and all his "seminars").

I'm asking this because I've seen 2 of my family members, who do not live together, delve DEEPLY into his book/seminars and they had no previous exposure to ACIM. (I have, albiet a very long time ago and not at any intense study.) I will give you my description of what I see.

1. They seem to feel they have a special knowledge, and, unless you too follow this knowledge, you are too simplistic to understand, "not ready" or have some other type of mental/spiritual malady that prevents you from seeing "the truth". I'm first and foremost served up a huge helping of disrespect and it's not something they are aware of at all.

2. Additionally, there seems to be a complete and utter aversion to discussions that involve anything perceived to be "negative". Because reality is all an illusion. We're all supposed to identify that any and all negative feelings and perceptions are simply "guilt" associated with our inability to "forgive ourselves". So anything slightly distasteful or contrary is easily shut down, anesthetized, ignored and not acknowledged. The feeling I'm left with is that only spiritual barbarians engage in paying attention to negative world news events or conflicts in personal relationships or daily interactions. If one is truly evolved, no need to look at the anything else going on in the world, especially if it is "bad".

3. Both family members seem to run to this thinking like a drug, it creates that cycle of comfortable mind/soul-numbing, temporary relief that graduates slowly to despair and/or anger, and then the cycle is "rinse and repeat". It seems to get people to focus entirely on themselves with a "free pass" on having to consider anyone or anything else in the universe, despite this mantra of "forgiveness". It's like forgiving the dog for crapping on the carpet because the dog doesn't know any better, so I forgive you doggie, because you are too unenlightened to know not to crap there yet. That's the gist I get.

So again back to Laura when she points out about the fruit of the tree, I'm seeing what the tree bears in this case. Has anyone else seen this? Again this is more about Renard than ACIM, even though that's where he got all his source material I honestly believe he's presenting it in such a twisted way that it can really damage caring people and on the flip side, empower people who have no empathy to feel superior over others.

After seeing that dance, it was very very easy for me to see that the people here are not a "cult"---but I'm wondering if that's what he is. Also I seriously question the money factor involved in this. A LOT of what is offered via the cassopians, Laura's work, the religious stuff is either free or offered at very reasonable prices. So I have a big problem with Renard's work being just a giant cash cow of expensive, exclusive seminars. Laura is not the first "channeler " who I've read about, she is just the one that offered the most verifiable information, and the only one to date who is open to revising theories based upon new incoming external information. Very much a key difference than most channelers. And I am wary of channelers who claim they were/are someone of great historical fame in the past---red flag! I haven't begun to read The Wave yet, I am still working on Secret History of The World. So I don't know if this is also the case with the cassopians, but so far I have not seen that.

I would love to get any feedback if anyone else has seen these traits in his true believers, this seems to be very similar to fundamental Christians of today and fundamental religious beliefs in general.

Also thanks for this thread, going to be studying Laura's refutations on this, but not to discuss with them. I realize they have committed to their chosen path the same way I did when I came here.

 

[CNS]

Laura is not the first "channeler " who I've read about, she is just the one that offered the most verifiable information, and the only one to date who is open to revising theories based upon new incoming external information. Very much a key difference than most channelers. And I am wary of channelers who claim they were/are someone of great historical fame in the past---red flag! I haven't begun to read The Wave yet, I am still working on Secret History of The World. So I don't know if this is also the case with the cassopians, but so far I have not seen that.

Very well said, that is precisely why I joined the forum as well. The work that Laura and the Chateau do, and the work done throughout this forum, is absolutely invaluable. To use knowledge and being and allow new information to enter one's reality on a daily basis is exceedingly rare, but we can find it here. New Agers just ponder their belly buttons, and as you said:

It seems to get people to focus entirely on themselves with a "free pass" on having to consider anyone or anything else in the universe, despite this mantra of "forgiveness".

And just looking at Renard's website made me queasy. The whole thing, from his look, to his message, to him "offering" two of his interviews for "free", just screamed HACK, in my opinion! He reminds me of that old Saturday Night Live skit, "Daily Affirmations with Stuart Smalley"...only Renard is trying to be taken seriously.

And, just wait till you get to The Wave, it really hits the nail on the head! I think you'll especially relate to the second book, Soul Hackers. In it, Laura recounts her efforts in New Age-land.

 

[Dragon Snacks]

Fascinating topic. I encountered ACIM in a Methodist church (yeah, go figure) and it gave me the creeps as did the group who was studying it. The only thing I recall is something about there being no need for forgiveness because there is nothing to forgive. I was out shortly thereafter.

I have to give credit to Laura for giving us, as far as we know, essentially unedited versions of the C's transcripts. Some of it resonates deeply with me, some of it disturbs me, and some of it makes me think, "ok, that's just kooky and ridiculous". She admits the signal is not always quite as pure as she would like, and the material never ever asks anyone to surrender to it's higher authority, intellect, or spiritual advancement. That means a lot to me, even if I don't accept everything she says or the C's say.

 

[Fluffy]

Fascinating topic. I encountered ACIM in a Methodist church (yeah, go figure) and it gave me the creeps as did the group who was studying it. The only thing I recall is something about there being no need for forgiveness because there is nothing to forgive. I was out shortly thereafter.

The fact you got the creeps first impression is certainly a sign that something was fishy. I was give acim by someone who when I initially met him there were breathtaking fireworks and synchronicities came hard and fast, I was blown away thinking we were a match made in heaven... As time went on he tried to exert his views on me and treated me like I was inferior to his supreme spiritual nature and I began to think he was sent to throw me off track because he always got frustrated that I wouldn't adopt his beliefs and tried so hard to make me 'follow' him... Soooo damn charming tho that it took me 8 months to decide that his presence I my life was a detriment.... Long story short- acim has no meaning nor does anything else he attempted to teach me- the devil always wears a disguise, and it's usually a beauty to behold.

 

[Thor]

In my opinion the problem with ACIM and also Gary Renard's way of teaching it is that it confuses levels of reality. I was very into ACIM and Gary Renard for 3-4 years and it can be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. I recall reading the Cs said that part of ACIM was 5th density STO, part STS which makes it like walking in quicksand to begin with and then there's the whole MK Ultra involvement through Bill Thetford.

First of all, most students of ACIM and Gary Renard don't understand what ACIM is actually saying. The forgiveness principle used is very akin to the one used in advaita vedantic philosophy that distinguishes between what is Real (Truth, God) and what is there (the tangible world that can be experienced through the senses) and the difference between the two is what is called Maya. Normally Maya is translated as Illusion but according swami who was a scholar in the Baghavad Ghita that I talked to a couple of months ago, using the term illusion is incorrect. His argument was that illusion refers to something that isn't there but you are fooled to believe that it is. The physical Universe IS there as seen from the perspective of humans, it's just not real (God, 7D). I'm not sure I understand it the way he meant it .

As Laura has written on several occasions it may very well be that "all is one" in 7th density but until we get there all is most definitely not one in 3D. While it's possible for humans to train their consciousness to access 4D most of us are not there. This is referred here:

January 21, 1995

<snip>

Q: (L) So, in other words, if you're a 4th density being, everything is more or less happening, excuse the term happening, everything is simultaneous, and if you wish to discuss or communicate or have any focus upon any particular aspect of this unified dimension, then what you do is you kind of extract it out, project it into 3d...

A: Close.

Q: (L) ... like a movie.

A: But you will not understand fully until you get there

Q: (T) Okay, so it's a concept that we can't completely grasp in 3d at this point.

A: Can a dog grasp algebra? You got it.

Q: (L) In other words, we're in bad shape! And these guys are playing games with us, so to speak...

A: Subjective.

Q: (T) Subjective to whether we're in bad shape or not. A:
Yes.

Q: (T) I was going to say that doesn't necessarily mean we're in bad shape... (L) Well, the situation we find ourselves in, is the only way of getting out of this time loop, so to speak, to move into another density, or is there a loop in the other density as well?

A: No.

Q: (L) No loop in the other density?

A: Yogis can do it.

Q: (L) Yogis can do it... (T) Transcend time. (L) Okay, let me ask this before we really start to go...

A: How they control their own physicality.

<snip>

So when new agers ask you to focus on only the positive things or ACIM or DU students focus on forgiveness that's all very well, but as I understand it, they've got the cause and effect switched around. It may be that as you progress in your personal Work you reach a state where you do indeed see everything as different faces of God but that is the result of hard tedious Work . I don't think you can skip the work by repeating a realisation that is the result that same Work. If you have a statement "if A, then B" it's not the same as saying B implies A, which is what I think they're doing.

As the Cs say "knowledge is protection". It may be that there are truths in parts of ACIM but if you don't have the right knowledge you run a high risk of being taken advantage of.

Just my two cents :)

 

[Dragon Snacks]

"I don't think you can skip the work by repeating a realisation that is the result that same Work."

Exactly. There's a big difference between hearing it or reading and living it.

 

[electrosonic]

As with most other lessons in life, the best way to discover the 'true intention' behind a situation (or a persons actions), is to analyze the subsequent behavior of the person involved (i.e. they talk the talk, but do they walk the walk?)

In Gary Renards actions we can determine that he most definitely does not practice what he preaches. Therefore either a) he is incapable of following the doctrine which he himself was given by higher beings, or/and b) the whole thing is a fantasy.

Looking at the level of attack he resorted to when confronted directly with different peoples misgivings about his story, doesn't fit at all with either the doctrine of the book, or with some of the experiences which Renard himself claims to have gone through (am thinking specifically of a story he tells in one of his books about a time when he goes to visit another ACIM teaching session, and claims he was slapped in the face on stage, and deliberately taunted in front of the entire class - and he merely smiled and left. Doesn't sound like the same bloke really does it?)

In fact, it sounds very much like the hallmarks of someone who is STS orientated, or possibly psychopathic. He seems to have less understanding of his material than his readers!

Anyhow, when all is said and done, The Disappearance Of The Universe' actually did me a great service, as it led me along other paths, that in one way or another eventually led me here. And in fact, the starting point of most of my journey was laid down by my introduction to Carlos Castaneda's books, and none of us here are going to knock him for having more or less the same agenda as Gary Renard, i.e. fake teachers leading to fame and notoriety.

When you look at Carlos's work, and Gary Renards too, you must realise that neither would have been read by such a huge worldwide audience if it wasn't for the fact that each author claimed the stories to of been 100% genuine. As soon as the cat is out of the bag, the house of cards falls. Most people then throw the baby out with the bath water and dismiss the entire writings. As we know with Castaneda, that would be a grave mistake as his books are full of great 'truths' and valuable info.

This brings me more or less to my stance on the ACIM book. Read it if you must, take from it the ideas that resonate with yourself. Just be sure to never except any set of teachings 100% - question everything You'll get so much more from a piece of knowledge if you come around to its conclusions through your own investigative capacities, than if you accept it at face value :)


PS. Have you ever noticed that your thought patterns are positively influenced during your life at key moments, almost akin to 'positive shocks'. And that these can be reflected in the particular book you were reading at the time? - i like to refer to these as stepping stones.
So just for fun, here are the stepping stones which led me along to where I am now:

Carlos Castaneda > David Icke > Robert Monroe (Far Journeys particularly) > Disappearance of the Universe / ACIM > Non-duality > The Wave

just mentioned it because Gary Renard helped me along the way, even if it was just a stimulator to think.


PPS. Just thought, we already know that it is not in STO's operandum to interfere with anothers free will and offer information if not asked for (unless continuously asked for in most cases) - so by that knowledge alone we can pretty much discount Mr Renards story as fiction. Case closed.

PPPS. Incidentally, if i was in my living room alone, and turned around to find two strangers sitting on the sofa, the only thing you'd be reading afterwards is my obituary .....

PPPPS. Sorry, things keep popping into my head! Lol. Last point - in regards to ACIM, why is it that if a higher density source takes the time and trouble to connect with someone and dispense knowledge that they feel is important to humanity as a whole, they do it in such 'hard to read' words & syntax. Doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, am done now! Bye.

 

[gottathink]

I just looked up to see what was on the forum on ACIM. It’s useful as I have a friend who is very engrossed in this material.
It has never resonated with me in fact it gave me the creep’s so never bothered with it any further. I also have concerns for my friend and I’m very wary.

 

[pinkfreud]

Hi all,

I had to peek at this thread, and my suspicions look to be shared.

A woman I work with - a mentor of sorts- opened up a lot to me about the Covid experience and everything that followed, and of course that led us to spiritual topics. She is Catholic, which I can communicate to and with to a point because Catholicism is my spiritual root in this life. I have a tendency to bring in ideas from other religions as a way of rounding out the discussions, and she always listens with curiosity and says she isn’t a stickler for dogma.

Well, one day she gave me this book, and she told me she does an exercise every morning and listens to a corresponding YouTube video (or something akin) before work.

I tried, but I didn’t get very far. I think my salt shaker turned rock solid at the point where I was told to never mind my thoughts or feelings, just do it.
Nope, not how I operate. Not these days.
I flipped through it a bit and found parts that I more or less agreed with, but even those were so mushy sounding that I couldn’t be sure the writer was saying anything. It was like a white noise that allowed my brain to fill in whatever sense it could make of it.

I still have the book, but I’ve warned the family about it and it remains on a shelf, barely visible.

Grateful for the confirmation.

 

[EmeraldR]

I came across his books about quite a while back - it seemed that he got most of his material from a course in miracles literature and added a fancy unprovable scenario whereby 2 ascended masters appeared on his sofa and gave him some new info .

for me it all appeared sts orientation masked a sto - he went on tours .did workshops published some books - I knew someone who went to attend one of his workshops in dublin and he was quite drunk and had been drinking alot in the hotel bar .

- russell brand did a similiar thing with the twelve steps of NA/AA and put that material in a nice package along with some of his personl experience got his book published and did a tour -- self promoting as i see it - altho some useful info within it -

 

[gottathink]

Fear Is Not The Opposite of Love: A Critique of A Course in Miracles​

Posted by Chris Dierkes in Emotions, Mystics, Philosophy, Shamanism, Spirituality, The Soul
“Fear is the opposite of Love.” –A Course in Miracles

A Course in Miracles is one of, if not the, most popular spiritual texts of The New Thought tradition. The back story of the writing of a the text is a bit complex and quite fascinating actually (see history here). Essentially A Course in Miracles is claimed to be the words of an inner voice, given to Helen Schucman. Schucman believed that voice to be the voice of Jesus. The text is often popularly shortened to The Course and I’ll use that shorthand throughout but important to remember the official title is A Course in Miracles (A, not The).

The Course or Course-inspired views of spiritual life have come into mainstream popularity, particularly through the writings of contemporary spiritual teacher Marianne Williamson. Those ideas have now extended to a new generation of spiritual teachers, particularly strong in what’s known as the spiritual but not religious community of seekers in North America. I encounter ideas who have their roots in The Course (and certain strands of New Thought theology more broadly) constantly in my private practice. Overall what I see are Course ideas and beliefs creating problems for practitioners. While it’s far too much to explore the entirety of the teaching of The Course, I do want to explore this quotation:

“Fear is the opposite of Love.”

This is the core claim of The Course. It’s also in my view misguided. In what follows, I want to explore why I believe that claim to be false, as well as what relationship, if any, fear and love should have to each other.

To explore this topic I’m going to use quotations from Marianne Williamson’s classic book Return to Love. Return to Love is a popular rendering of A Course in Miracles. Return to Love I think brilliantly portrays and clarifies the overall teaching of The Course. My disagreements are with elements of the teaching of The Course itself. But in order to understand what The Course is arguing for, Return to Love is, in my mind, the best entry point.

Here for example is a very important quotation from the beginning of Return to Love that lays out the overall vision of A Course in Miracles:

“A Course in Miracles calls itself a ‘mind training’ in the relinquishment of a thought system based on fear, and the acceptance instead of a thought system based on love.” (Return to Love p.20).

I want to be clear then about what my critique is because it’s a somewhat subtle point. I’m NOT arguing that The Course in Miracles fails to achieve what it sets out to do. I do see people who follow The Course moving from a thought system based on fear towards a thought system based in love. I do see The Course’s teaching fulfilling its stated mission. Of course no one ever completely follows that path in every moment of their lives, but as a teaching it does I believe succeed in its stated goal.

It’s that goal however that I believe is a problem. I think starting with the mind (‘a thought system’) is ultimately the wrong place to start spiritual teaching. The mind needs eventually to be incorporated into an overall integrated spiritual teaching yes, but I don’t believe it’s the place to begin. More importantly I don’t believe the ultimate aim or purpose of spiritual practice should be to move us from fear to love.

Not starting with the mind and not moving from fear to love. The two are related but distinct elements. The rest of this piece is an exploration of those intertwined critiques.

Now before diving fully into this topic, I realize I’m stepping into some tender territory here. I know plenty of people who have received enormous benefit from following The Course. For example, Marianne Williamson’s Return to Love is a testament to the grace The Course brought to her life. I acknowledge that I’m going to be touching some raw nerves.

It’s certainly true that people can (and do) receive benefit from following The Course. This isn’t an abstract proposition–I know people who fit this profile. They are friends, acquaintances, clients, and the like.

Nonetheless I still maintain that the benefits of The Course bring with them unforeseen shadows. It’s these shadows I want to explore. I believe it’s important to explore these shadows because they often go unspoken. Bringing the shadows to light allows us to retain the beauties of The Course while releasing it’s flaws (of which I think there are some significant ones).

So to the critiques….

A central reason I believe that the mind is a poor place to begin spiritual practice is that the mind inherently creates binaries: light versus dark, up versus down, truth versus falsehood, feminine versus masculine, the list of such binaries is endless.* This binary formulation is the very nature of the mind. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

In The Course the fundamental binary is between Fear and Love. Once that fundamental binary is set, then The Course becomes a mind training to move from fear to love. Very often when a binary is set up, one side will be seen as positive and one as negative. In the Course this is definitely the case. In the Course, Fear is wholly negative and Love is wholly positive. One is hell (fear) and one is heaven (love).

Since the teaching is sourcing itself in the mind and has created a binary, then the training has to focus on how to move out of one (fear) and into the other (love). If one views the world as divided between Fear and Love, with fear being evil and Love being holy, then obviously and rightly the next question to ask is:

“How do I move from the evil (fear) to the holy (love)?”

It’s in that context that we can understand The Course’s emphasis on the notion of “shifts in perception”. Perhaps the most quoted line of The Course is “a miracle is a shift in perception”. A shift that is from fear to love.

Having created the fundamental metaphysical binary between Fear and Love, The Course will then argue that fear is unreal. The illusory nature of fear is the key to moving from it to love. In the teaching of the Course, once we see that fear is not real and connect with what is real (Love), then fear melts away.

Unfortunately the human being is much more than simply a mind and fear is much more real than a thought. And here is where things begin to unravel.

The crux of the problem is this:

Fear is an emotion. It is also intimately related to the proper functioning of the human nervous system.

Love, on the other hand, is a choice.

Contrasting Fear with Love is contrasting an emotion with a choice. That’s not comparing apples to oranges. It’s more like comparing apples to 747s. Or apples to duplexes.

The Course teaches a way of mentally shifting from fear into the spiritual state of love. Unfortunately the shadow-side of that maneuver is that it bypasses human sensation and emotion.

Describing Fear as illusory may be true when looked at from the level of the mind, but it’s definitely NOT true when it comes to the level of the human body and emotional life.

Attempting to route around fear, rather than turning towards it, leaves the person subtly (or not so subtly) quite fearful and anxious. Paradoxically it is only when we turn towards and embrace our fears that fear stops controlling us.

But that is not what The Course teaches.

What The Course does is exploit a temporary short-circuiting mechanism of the human bodymind. That’s why it can and does work but only for so long and only in a partial way.

Williamson states:

“The Course teaches that fear is literally a bad dream. It is as though the mind has been split in two; one part stays in touch with love, and the other part veers into fear. Fear manufactures a kind of parallel universe where the unreal seems real, and the real seems unreal.” (p.23)

Fear is not a bad dream. At least it need not be. It’s no illusion. Fear is simply an aspect of human existence as a sensory, emotive, incarnate being. Realize this and the neat and tidy metaphysical system of strict separation between love and fear begins to blur and break down.

The Course is named a course for a reason. As a course, it uses imagery of training. There’s a method. Life is a school.

I’d submit that all these metaphors are a consequence of the fact that one is beginning the process at the point at which fear is most calcified, i.e. the mind. Fear begins as sensation, from which it takes on its emotional charge. When Fear is met at the level of our sensation and emotion then it can be worked with. Fear can be raw, even intense at times, or more garden variety. But fear in the sensory and emotional realms–when rightly worked with–is actually quite supple and fluid. It’s dream-like in its movement but it is literally not a bad dream. Fear is literally a sensation and emotion.

When we deny our fear such that it spreads from our nervous system through our emotional self into the mind, then we are too late. Fear in the mind is far too rigid. Therefore it takes the most forcefulness to undo it from that point. Hence a course, a training regimen.

Realistically there are only two options at the point at which fear has overrun the mind:

1. return back to the level of sensation and emotion and learn to work with fear (i.e. work on it where it originates)

OR

2. deny its reality and try to route around it.

The Course chooses the second option. It therefore does not undo fear so much as skips over it.

The second option–the one the Course chooses–would be a solution if one could maintain that state of Love 24/7. That however is wildly unrealistic. Consequently as soon as one falls back from Love then the fear will return, likely with more power attached to it.

If however we sink to the level of our sensation and our emotions, then fear is simply another aspect of our human existence. Fear has wisdom to teach us. If we set up our spiritual system as moving from Fear to Love, then we will never learn from Fear. We will never gain the gifts of Fear because we are always running from it, rather than turning toward and (intelligently) facing it.

It’s not possible to turn towards and embrace our Fear from the place of our minds. The Course is right about this point, but wrong in its assumption that therefore fear is to be denied altogether.

It is however very much possible to turn towards, to become intimate with, and to embrace our fear. It becomes possible for fear to be transmuted. It is possible–indeed I would argue essential–that fear be transmuted and its hidden light released.

“Fear is to love as darkness is to light.”–Return to Love, p. 22

The view of The Course is that there is only Fear and Love, Darkness and Light and we embrace the Light and deny the Darkness. I argue instead we should become darkwalkers, we should critique the bias towards The Light (aka “High Vibrations”) and instead learn to find the Light hidden in the darkness.

In the perspective of The Course, fear is never redeemed. Fear is never transmuted or turned into Light. No part of fear is connected to the Light.

But all those views turn out to be wrong. I would take the wisdom of Fear any day of the week (and twice Sunday) over the foolishness of such seeming profundity.

Fear is actually a word commonly used for three related but distinct emotions: fear, anxiety, and terror/panic.

–Fear is an emotional response to perceived threats.
–Anxiety is an emotion that warns us that we’ve entered a place of some instability in our lives, like a boat rocking on choppy waves.
–Terror/Pain is the wisdom that comes forth under great duress to take the hit of trauma for us.

From the point of the view of the nervous system, fear is a process intricately related to our flight, fight, and freeze responses.

From the point of view of the soul (or our energy), fear is often a harbinger, a call to enter the cave and descend into the underworld, to become initiated–like Batman.

From the point of view of our emotions, fear is an invitation to connect to our animal nature, to sharpen our senses, and attune to our environment.

Different teachings exist to cultivate this intimate relationship with fear–emotionally, instinctually, and energetically. We can learn to regulate and work with our fear emotionally, bodily, and energetically.

All of those are ways of wisdom.

The Course however does not offer us such wisdom, wisdom we so desperately require in our world. The amount of fear, anxiety, and terror in our world continues to rise. The Course offers no solution to working with those emotions, only a way to try to flee from it. Except, in trying to run from fear, we are bringing unconscious fear with us. 

As Williamson states quoting directly from The Course itself:

“The ego is literally a fear based thought.”

No it’s not. The ego is literally not at all a fear based thought.

We see here the problem of defining the central aspect of humanity as our minds. The Course is locked into a worldview characteristic of the 17th and 18th centuries European thought, e.g. that of Rene Descartes. A worldview in which the human being is a disembodied mind only marginally attached to a material object it possesses called ‘it’s body.’ Our minds are only one aspect of our incarnation which include our physical, emotional, instinctual, energetic, and spiritual aspects. What The Course does is take one aspect of us (the mind) and separates out of the context of the entire range of our humanity and declares it the center around which everything else orbits. This decision is deeply confused and problematic.

Since The Course defines the mind as the central aspect of our humanity (as opposed to one important aspect of our humanity) it has to turn everything into a thought. It turns Fear, which is an emotion, into thought. It’s turns Love, which is an aspect of will, into thought. It turns the ego–which is a feeling mechanism of being a human organism–into a thought. It even turns our spiritual nature into a thought:

As Williamson states, “The altar to God is the human mind. To ‘desecrate the altar’ is to fill it with non-loving thoughts.” (p. 24)

In so doing, The Course denies our souls and spirits as transcendent of our minds, which all the great mystical traditions will most certainly tell you they are. Our souls and spirits include our minds yes but they transcend them as well.

The human mind is not the altar to God. Saying so ends up convincing people that thinking about being spiritual is the same as actual spiritual realization (which by definition transcends the mind).

By defining us simply as minds, The Course cuts out our nervous systems, our emotional lives, as well as the aspects of us that are beyond our minds. It’s represses both the “lower” range of our incarnation (sensation, emotion) as well as the “higher” range of our incarnation (souls, spirits), leaving us claustrophobically trapped in the middle range of our incarnation (the mind).

Which brings us back to the ego. The ego is not a fear-based thought. The ego is what it feels like to be a bodily human organism. The ego is the feeling of being an individual homo sapien sapien. The ego is the feeling of being a bodily human self-conscious organism.

The human body is a feeling mechanism. The human organism feels and senses moment to moment. It feels and senses the environment, other beings, and its own internal state(s). Sensation is how your nervous system feels. Emotions are how your heart feels. Thought is how your brain feels. And the ego is how the bodymind as a total, single organism feels.

When understood this way the ego is not the enemy, just as fear isn’t either. When however we don’t understand the ego in its proper depth as the total feeling response of the human bodymind organism, then we come to experience ourselves as an isolated egoic subject separate from the body. And such a being is inherently fearful (in the negative sense). The Course starts from that isolated fearful stance and then tries to correct it by shifting out of it into Love.

The result of doing that however is that The Course doesn’t understand the deeper feeling reality of the ego. It takes a very immature form of the ego and then defines the ego only as its immature form.

This is why a spiritual system based on the idea of a mental training course is precisely unhelpful. Learning a mental training system does not teach anyone how to feel. In particular The Course does not teach us how to feel with and through our fear.

“Our work is the work of casting fear from the world.” –Return to Love

I don’t believe this is true. Franklin Roosevelt said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. I think he was wrong. The thing to fear is not knowing how to work with fear wisely. Not knowing how to transmute our fear is indeed a quite scary proposition. It’s one that rules our world.

But Fear as such is not our enemy. What we do with Fear–use it to abuse people, project it onto others, allow it to debilitate us–these must be cast out. What we do out of unconscious, negative, shadowed Fear that is negative.

Healthy conscious integrated fear however is the way to resolve those issues. It’s not Love that has an answer to negative, unconscious Fear. It’s only healthy awakened fear that can solve that problem. And we will never access awakened healthy fear if we have denied its very existence by labelling all fear as inherently illusory and destructive.

When we treat Fear as the enemy we make it into the scapegoat. We seek to purge it from ourselves and purify it from the world. That is a truly terrifying prospect (with terrible historical weight behind it).

Fear is very much real on the level of our nervous system and our emotions. To deny the reality of fear on the levels of our being on which it exists is a dangerous and ultimately foolish perspective. Any spiritual system like The Course that teaches that fear is not real is inevitably leading to anti-material spirituality, a spirituality that will deny body, flesh, and earth as the truly spiritual abode because fear is very much an intrinsic aspect of our bodily human existence. Fear is in our bellies, our hearts, our spleens, not just our brains.

Saying fear is the opposite of love and that we need to move from fear to love weirdly leaves fear forever unloved. The way fear is cast from the world is not by making it unreal, but rather by transforming it. It is Love, the choice to embrace Fear and transmute it in the heart, that alone can cast the negative expressions of Fear from this world. In the view of The Course there is no redemption, there is no transfiguration, no true liberation of physicality, materiality, earth, emotion, flesh, and blood. In the Course there is only a spiritual escape from it all, leaving fear further marginalized only to return in darker, more terrible forms. Fear needs to be transformed by being brought into the Heart of Love, not denying its reality.

Fear does not intrinsically lead to the dark side (contra Master Yoda). Fear can be our ally and it needs to be an ally in the struggle for goodness and love. This path we must walk.

—
* Though this isn’t my focus here, it is true that the mind can also do various forms of self or meta-reflection. In can work with binaries as dialectics. It can deconstruct the binaries. It can begin to integrate them in various complex ways. But no matter what it’s still within the basic whirl of the binary.