http://acourseinmiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c?format=rss Tribe.net. Local Connections http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#b34b35e7-9f01-4119-a2d3-2683bc586170 I got my first copy in 1988, so it was un-numbered. It was a Wapnick edit published by FIP. I wore it out. I now use a numbered edition by FIP. I have also used the Thetford edition, and frankly, I really like it. It is not really all that different. The main thing is it is not as closed-- it has a more open feel to it. Remember the Wapnick edition was edited for clarity and sequence was changed there too (not just in the Thetford). So both were edited for clarity but along different lines. I agree that the UR text is for course scholars. I enjoy reading it because it gives insight into what HS was saying. The differences between UR and Published editions is striking. Sequence is very differemt. I think it'd be a wonderful thing if some scholar produced a UR-Text concordance so that course nerds could explore deep nuances. Scholars of religion (and mysticism) like to look at layers of meaning. Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:38:15 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#b34b35e7-9f01-4119-a2d3-2683bc586170 Mark 2008-02-28T06:38:15Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#9f0a385e-b75d-4ea6-bcc5-7d0873cbebc2 JahaRa posted this link above: http://www.miraclestudies.net/HLV.html I believe what is written here. The version intended by Helen, Bill and Ken is the original published version. Not the UR Text. And apparently not the Hugh Lynn Cayce version either. That version was given to Hugh Lynn Cayce before the complete and accurate Text was finished and, according to what is written in the link by Ken Wapnick, the Hugh Lynn Cayce version was not to be shared with others for study. Since I was around somewhat in the beginning (I was introduced to Helen once, met Ken at least once, and Bill a number of times) my thinking is biased towards the intent of Helen and Bill. I understand my own preferences may not be the accepted ones amongst others. I am not necessarily saying there is a right or wrong version, I just prefer to study the one that is less confusing, which imho is the version intended by Helen Schucman to be A Course In Miracles. The UR Text may be of interest to study after doing the original Course, for some people who want an in depth understanding of how the Course came about. Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:44:20 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#9f0a385e-b75d-4ea6-bcc5-7d0873cbebc2 Christie 2008-02-28T00:44:20Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#1c1f56e2-8180-4f90-ad92-34a6c52a6cee In re-reading this thread, it seems the Thetford version is the UR (un-revised) version. That simplifies things a bit. So many versions are confusing. Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:20:23 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#1c1f56e2-8180-4f90-ad92-34a6c52a6cee Christie 2008-02-28T00:20:23Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#b37def86-e248-4d08-818b-9b9a38ef2e56 I'm bumping this thread up, because for me the version of ACIM that we are going to use as a base may influence which ACIM group, or leader, I ultimately want to put my attention on. I joined the Yahoo ACIM group yesterday, only to find out today when receiving e-mails about the first chapter of the text that they are using the UR Text version. I'd rather not study the UR version. I like the version I have, the first bound and published books from 1975. I believe all the earliest published versions are like this first version, and from this thread I take it that the newer "Hugh Lynn Cayce" version is also the same or very alike to the original version from Foundation for Inner Peace. If I am going to enter into an active ACIM study group, I'd rather the leader not be using the UR text, nor the Jesus's Course in Miracles (what is that?) nor the Thetford version (which I have not seen, but read about in this thread.) I liked Bill Thetford just fine, I met him numerous times many years ago, but if he changed key words around, I'd rather not study that version. Any version of ACIM that is the most similar to the 1975 - 1985 editions are the ones I'd like to study from. Mark it seems to me from this thread that you also use the original edition of ACIM. Is that true? And CG, which version do you use? Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:07:09 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#b37def86-e248-4d08-818b-9b9a38ef2e56 Christie 2008-02-28T00:07:09Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#8066f62d-a1c4-4fa8-9db4-74872bb7b494 I think that version (wapnick) is still in print. But I think it is re-paginated and versified. Thu, 26 Jul 2007 05:20:25 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#8066f62d-a1c4-4fa8-9db4-74872bb7b494 Mark 2007-07-26T05:20:25Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#9e24da79-972f-4296-9dff-50328b7ec8c8 Do you know if there is a version that separates the Workbook, Text, and Manual for Teachers in to three separately bound books, like in the early days? I'm not shopping for a new set, just curious. I really like the large print and regular paper thickness of the 1976 version, for ease of reading. Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:34:51 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#9e24da79-972f-4296-9dff-50328b7ec8c8 Christie 2007-07-25T22:34:51Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#988a672e-2f72-43af-ac4e-3f564d3e33cf I don't know what independent spiritual themed bookstores they have in Albuquerque. Maybe you could order it online from Community Miracle Center in SF. (Link above) I generally don't suggest people buy books online because I want to encourage and support local booksellers. I've seen it at the various East-West Bookshopes here in Northern Ca. The FIP version is the wapnick edition; the "jesus" is the "cayce" which was Bill's edit. The URtext is unedited. Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:18:03 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#988a672e-2f72-43af-ac4e-3f564d3e33cf Mark 2007-07-25T19:18:03Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#cc7ec079-6fc4-482c-b62e-9c86dff04ec4 I have never seen any version in bookstores but the Foundation for Inner Peace version, which is the Jesus version, isn't it? What bookstores have the "cayce" edition? Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:59:37 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#cc7ec079-6fc4-482c-b62e-9c86dff04ec4 JahaRa 2007-07-25T17:59:37Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#6f5a0c83-e78a-4e29-aaec-c5725d16d04f Jack and Layle Luckett are still alive and kicking in Honolulu-- They live an awesome life of spreading joy to everybody they meet. I'm glad you've joined our little conversation. I think it's useful to compare versions, because I'm very reticent about a trend that I've observed over the years of "Course Orthodoxy" or ACIM Fundamentalism. I like to demonstrate similaraities to other paths even as I can point out distinct features of ACIM. I think Bill considered the material to be a form of Vedanta philosophy, but maybe it was Mahayana Buddhist philosophy-- I don't remember which Jack said was his view. Seems that was a debate at one time. I have no complaint with the Jesus designation. Helen only thought of herself as a scribe. And since the terminology is so stongly Christianesque, people who approach this material from other backgrounds simply need to be ok with that metaphor. I know there are a lot of Jews who do the course and don't see a problem... Anyway in my observation, texts in print with the Jesus designation are rare. Among the aternative versions in print, the current "cayce" edition seems to be the one mot commonly in bookstores not the "jesus" version. Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:05:26 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#6f5a0c83-e78a-4e29-aaec-c5725d16d04f Mark 2007-07-24T16:05:26Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#cb631733-c7af-43d1-a490-9f878385bfbb I came to this tribe only recently and found this thread about the different versions of ACIM interesting. I still have my copies of the original edition, bound in cloth. When I first did A Course in Miracles, the books were not yet ready and I was sent xeroxed copies of the lessons a few weeks worth at a time, along with the first few chapters of the text. This was in 1975. I was a teenager and my father sent me the lessons, he was also doing them and was a little ahead of me in the Course. My father wanted my opinion about it. I took to the Course, and know it was a very important part of my early life. When the books were published I received the three books. They were the same as the xeroxed pages as far as I could tell. For a while when people I knew bought the books, they were bound in cloth. Very soon it changed to a plastic like cover, still the same words inside. Years later I noticed at a Library a newer version that had all three volumes in one book. Although I was happy to see it so readily available to the public, I didn't think the small print and the numbered lines were appealing at all. It seemed too much like the Bible. Now reading this thread and checking out the links, I really don't like that one version says it is "by Jesus". This may very well be true, but that is not how Helen and Bill originally wanted to present it. And how do we know it is "by Jesus"? Maybe "Jesus" was just the name Christ (or Our Brother) used that one lifetime. Also, I think it would turn aside a lot of people who really don't like the Christian Church to say it is "by Jesus". And vice versa, people who would start the Course thinking it is Christian would probably not continue it, as it is so different than what the Christians teach today. Nothing against Christians, mind you, but I think they must have misinterpreted over the many years the original teachings they were given. Sort of like the game telephone, when you say something into someone's ear and they tell the next person and after it travels around the circle of people it comes out as something else entirely. The Course in Miracles comes to us directly. Probably any version is close enough to do its purpose, I am thinking, and glad there are people who are still taking this course. Very glad, in fact. And some of you are on Tribe, too! This kind of communication on the internet is something we didn't have back in the 1970's. It might possibly be a just the thing for helping unite like minded people and helping each other understand our many different ways and cultures. In fact, after reading these threads a few days ago and joining your discussion group here I have decided to do the course again. I started yesterday, and am now on lesson 2. I just want to add that when I did A Course in Miracles the first time I was not told *who* had written the course. One of the things I am most grateful for is when I discovered for myself who it was that was teaching me through A Course in Miracles. It was wonderful, a nearly overwhelming flood of love and understanding when I read and realized for myself. That cannot happen to someone who is told on the cover that the three volumes are written by "Jesus". I come from a Protestant family that only went to church on Christmas Eve and Easter. We were actually agnostic, or at least that's what my mother said when I asked her long ago. In a post above, Mark says there are few around who remember the beginnings. I am sure that is true, as the ones who are still alive are getting older. But I have to say, the three I know in that generation are still very alert and wise people, still shining after all these years. My dad is one of them, he knew Bill and Judy and even introduced me to Helen once a long time ago. I could ask him a question or two about the beginnings as he remembers them if you guys have one... Thank you all for being here on Tribe! Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:16:07 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#cb631733-c7af-43d1-a490-9f878385bfbb Christie 2007-07-24T07:16:07Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#a121a0ca-0299-4690-b678-9bac25d93634 I'm posting this artilcle completely because it gives examples. I don't think Tony will mind as gives him credit, and I posted before that his price the best for the book. #~~~~~~~#~#~~~~~~~# First Thoughts About *ACIM Original Edition* -or- "How Do You Like 'Dem Apples" -by- Rev. Tony Ponticello #~~~~~~~#~#~~~~~~~# At the beginning of this year, 2007, my long standing *A Course In Miracles* Text reading class switched from the standard Foundation for Inner Peace (FIP) edition to the NEW, but actually OLDER, *A Course In Miracles Original Edition*. My class reads about 12 pages a week, aloud, during the class and discusses what has been read as we progress through. In a complete calendar year, 52 weeks, we complete the Text. In March, I added a second class which meets over the phone lines as a telephone conference call class so I am now reading the same 12 pages of the *A Course In Miracles Original Edition* twice, every week. Many of the students in these classes are long time *ACIM* students who have read the FIP edition many times and studied with numerous other teachers. We are always amazed, amused and sometimes even bewildered by what we read. Whatever one thinks about this edition, it has perked up interest in the *Course* for many long time students and new students have no trouble taking to it at all. If you have heard that most of the differences are in the first five chapters -- well that's right and wrong as well. Yes there is a substantial amount of material different in the first five chapters which means that the second edit just plain removed lots of material. However, the differences continue all through out and every week little gems pop out to ponder. Recently we read this in the *Original Edition*. It is from Chapter 8, section "The Acceptance Of Reality." Read these two paragraphs: "No mind can believe that its will is stronger than God's. If, then, a mind believes that its will is different from His, it can only decide either that there is no God or that God's Will is fearful. The former accounts for the atheist and the latter for the martyr. Martyrdom takes many forms, the category including all doctrines which hold that God demands sacrifices of any kind. Either basic type of insane decision will induce panic, because the atheist believes he is alone, and the martyr believes that God is crucifying him. Both really fear abandonment and retaliation, but the atheist is more reactive against abandonment and the martyr against retaliation." (ch.8.par.97) "The atheist maintains that God has left him, but he does not care. He will, however, become very fearful and hence very angry if anyone suggests that God has not left him. The martyr, on the other hand, is more aware of guilt and, believing that punishment is inevitable, attempts to teach himself to like it. The truth is, very simply, that no one wants either abandonment or retaliation. Many people seek both, but it is still true that they do not want them. Can you ask the Holy Spirit for "gifts" such as these and actually expect to receive them? He cannot make you want something you do not want. When you ask the Universal Giver for what you do not want, you are asking for what cannot be given because it was never created. It was never created because it was never your will for you." (ch.8.par.98) In the FIP edition this section, "The Acceptance Of Reality" is actually in Chapter 9. However, the two paragraphs above have been shortened to one paragraph. 261 words has been edited down to 160 words. 39% of the original material has been lost. One has to wonder "Why?" This removal qualifies for the "bewilderment" I mentioned above. "No right mind can believe that its will is stronger than God's. If, then, a mind believes that its will is different from His, it can only decide either that there is no God or that God's Will is fearful. The former accounts for the atheist and the latter for the martyr, who believes that God demands sacrifices. Either of these insane decisions will induce panic, because the atheist believes he is alone, and the martyr believes that God is crucifying him. Yet no one really wants either abandonment or retaliation, even though many may seek both. Can you ask the Holy Spirit for "gifts" such as these, and actually expect to receive them? He cannot give you something you do not want. When you ask the Universal Giver for what you do not want, you are asking for what cannot be given because it was never created. It was never created, because it was never your will for ." (T-9.I.8) I wouldn't mind this so much if the material that was removed was superfluous, but it is not. It is sometimes very significant. This line was removed from the *Original Edition* above: "The martyr, on the other hand, is more aware of guilt and, believing that punishment is inevitable, attempts to teach himself to like it." (ch.8.par.98) Considering the problems we have in our world with fundamentalist martyrs who kill themselves, and many others in the process, might this line possibly be important for us to read and contemplate? I'm not just thinking about Islamic fundamentalists, the "terrorists" who cause so much bloodshed in the Middle East, but even closer to home with the April 2007 deadly shootings at Virginia Tech with 33 people dead, killed by a young man who identified himself religiously as a martyr. Did this young man teach himself to like the inevitable punishment he believed was going to happen? The *Original Edition* has many references to "soul." Most of these have been changed to "spirit" in the FIP edition but the two words have different meanings to me and I question the propriety of making these changes. Freud is spoken about frequently in the *Original Edition*. Defenders of the FIP version may say that these were taken out because Helen Schucman and Bill Thetford were psychologists and these references were part of the personal material. In the *Original Edition* we find this: "The levels which man created by the separation cannot but conflict. This is because they are essentially meaningless to each other. -- Freud realized this perfectly and that is why he conceived the different levels in his view of the psyche as forever irreconcilable. They were conflict-prone by definition because they wanted different things and obeyed different principles." (ch.3.par.38-39) The above reference to Freud seems in no way "personal." Neither does the following which appears in Chapter 4 in the section named "Love Without Conflict." "The ego therefore experiences threat and not only censors but also reinterprets the data. However, as Freud correctly pointed out, what you have repressed can retain a very active life beyond your awareness. -- Repression thus operates to conceal not only the baser impulses but also the most lofty ones from awareness because both are threatening to the ego and, being concerned primarily with its own preservation in the face of threat, the ego perceives them as the same. The threat-value of the lofty is actually much greater to the ego because the pull of God Himself can hardly be equated with the pull of human appetites." (Ch.4.par.45-46) Not only is this not "personal" it finally helped me truly understand a passage from the FIP version that I have struggled over for years. Oddly enough, in the FIP edition the passage I'm talking about does not appear in the section "Love Without Conflict" but in a later the section named "The Ego Body Illusion." Why was the order of the sentences and paragraphs rearranged so severely? The FIP editing makes the passage much less understandable to me. These sections appear to be so vastly re-written that it is hard to piece together where the individual text fragments even came from to begin with. We are not talking about simple editing, or merely the removal of some material. Is many places we are talking about things being completely re-written. "A major source of the ego's off-balanced state is its lack of discrimination between the body and the Thoughts of God. Thoughts of God are unacceptable to the ego, because they clearly point to the nonexistence of the ego itself. The ego therefore either distorts them or refuses to accept them. It cannot, however, make them cease to be. It therefore tries to conceal not only "unacceptable" body impulses, but also the Thoughts of God, because both are threatening to it. Being concerned primarily with its own preservation in the face of threat, the ego perceives them as the same. By perceiving them as the same, the ego attempts to save itself from being swept away, as it would surely be in the presence of knowledge." (T-4.V.2) I have struggled for years to make sense of "'unacceptable' body impulses" however I cannot find this in the *Original Edition*. It was something that we re-written into the FIP edition. A continuation of the *Original Edition* passage mentioned above has this in it: "The upper level of the unconscious thus contains the Call of God as well as the call of the body. That is why the basic conflict between love and fear is unconscious; the ego cannot tolerate either and represses both by resorting to inhibition. Society depends on inhibiting the latter, but salvation depends on disinhibiting the former." (ch.4.par.47) I find this fascinating and this is nowhere to be found in the old, standard FIP edition. Here we find a discussion about inhibitions, the concept of "dis-inhibiting" and the relevance of these ideas to society. Why was this removed? In the beginning of this article I said that I have been "amused" by some of the differences. I was thinking of the following passage which exists in the *Original Edition* but is nowhere to be found in the FIP version. Being a person who studied college level math for years I found that this discussion about negative numbers put a smile on my face. Maybe it will do the same for you or possibly this is merely a very personal idiosyncrasy. "It is like negative numbers in that the concept can be used theoretically, but it has no application practically. It is true that if you put three apples on the table and then take them away, the three apples are not there. But it is not true that the table is now minus three apples. If there is nothing on the table, it does not matter what was there in terms of amount. The "nothing" is neither greater nor less because of what is absent." (ch.7.par.19) HOW DO YOU LIKE 'DEM APPLES!? It is only April and I am only on page 191 of the *Original Edition* but I can already tell that it is making a vast difference on my study of *A Course In Miracles*. It has given me new material to contemplate and fleshed out passages that seemed obtuse before. It has broken up rigid old *Course* definitions and caused me to approach the teaching much more abstractly and, possibly, creatively. The *Original Edition* is not precise when it uses the words "make" and "create". It is not precise on how it uses the words "extension" or "projection" and sometimes uses them interchangeably. Its attitudes toward the body and the world itself seem much more fluid and open to different interpretations. The discussions in the classes are lively and students can no longer appeal to old authorities on *Course* definitions and meaning. The rigid *Course* definition "Gestapo" can't operate in this new era of the *A Course In Miracles Original Edition*. The book doesn't lend itself to it. Alas, some will possible miss being able to beat someone over the head with the book because they were not using the terms "correctly." I find the absence of these not too veiled attacks refreshing. It's a whole new *Course*. It's a whole new era in the teaching of it. Old ideas have to be reexamined. Entrenched attitudes will have to be challenged and as I said above .. HOW DO YOU LIKE 'DEM APPLES!? (c)2007 Rev. Tony Ponticello, San Francisco, CA All rights reserved. Fri, 25 May 2007 04:59:12 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#a121a0ca-0299-4690-b678-9bac25d93634 Mark 2007-05-25T04:59:12Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#b02536e9-e99b-46ce-8a4c-02bfe7347fff Who was it ? Sartre I beleive who said that all suffering is caused by "the others." Not really, but there's a valid point here. Actually we (subsconsciously) cary around suffering looking for those who can who can activate it. That way we can experience what we think we deserve, or give it to others in order to escape what we think we deserve. So on the one hand forgiveness (like generosity) is for ouselves, but involves others because even hermits are connected to all others. We know we're accomplishing things spiritually by how we treat others. So these others are the mirror in which we see ourselves. They either push the buttons we have, or they try to push buttons we don't have. In our cave, we're all happy. But in relationship we have a fast-track lab-course for what we are learning (or un-learing) from ACIM. Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:28:57 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#b02536e9-e99b-46ce-8a4c-02bfe7347fff Mark 2007-04-13T02:28:57Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#b0e32a17-3d80-43a2-a71c-22001b12c85b Yes, a course in forgiveness, but the forgiveness is for self, not others; so maybe it is about relationship to oneself. And for the rubber meeting the road, that is different than a retreat or specific study group. Feeling compassion for the person who cuts you off in traffic or drops a 1000 page report with a 24 hour deadline on your desk is the litmus. I have seen a big difference in behaviour and thinking in people in a retreat atmosphere. They are not in what they consider the 'real' world. And when it all comes down to it, all our relationships are based on whether we have forgiven ourselves for what ever and how our thinking attaches meaning to others based on our guilt. That is the deprogramming I see in the course, and yes the daily exercises help when we take them to work with us or where ever we are going. Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:14:35 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#b0e32a17-3d80-43a2-a71c-22001b12c85b JahaRa 2007-04-12T23:14:35Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#f54d4b44-0f95-4853-a227-384031da834a >I have some good friends that I study the course with as well, but I still don't think the course is about relationships, I think it is about relationship to God, a deprogramming of the belief in separation. That'll do. BUT. I know a lot of people who don't believe in God who can use ACIM just as well. Returning to my teachers J&E, they used to say "you can substitute anything you like for "god" for example Zucchini." If that is so, then its not about God. Since the books say that it's a course in forgiveness, I might ask "why?" Well, because stuff from the past involving brothers and sisters keeps us stuck in the past and limits our access to the Infinite. Sounds like its about relationship to me, but hey, call it "peanut butter" if you like! Correct, it is a self study course. But if you can't apply it in life-- where the rubber meets the road, what's the point? One of my Buddhist teachers says: "If I can't get along with they person I'm in retreat with, what's the point of talking about Universal Compassion?" Yup, there're definately some crazy people doing course, but same is true of 12 step meetings, churches, etc. They are still useful. In the end we only really get it by taking the medicine, which is doing the 365 daily lessons. Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:14:52 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#f54d4b44-0f95-4853-a227-384031da834a Mark 2007-04-12T06:14:52Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#aac1c2dc-9e81-4051-9f38-c4a53ec20503 Or he really wants light speed learning. :) I agree with you about Jamplowsky and Wapnick. Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:45:27 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#aac1c2dc-9e81-4051-9f38-c4a53ec20503 JahaRa 2007-04-11T23:45:27Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#007883e9-b3fe-40f2-b8c6-5c80386d1e40 I suppose he serves those who still need a guru, but we have talked about that before. I have some good friends that I study the course with as well, but I still don't think the course is about relationships, I think it is about relationship to God, a deprogramming of the belief in separation. They may or may not be the same thing. I have attended groups where one person was looked at as 'the one who knows' and it was very silly. That one didn't know any more than any one else in the room, just decided he did and it was all about some mystical experience he had that he could not accept anyone else having. I have attended a group where a drama queen dominated , talking about all the wrong things her ego made her choose. That one had more men than usual and they adored her. And I have been to groups, and gone back, that actually read the material, allowed questions and discussions on it. It is a self study course, and the interactions with others in relationship to the lessons or understanding the text does not have to be in a course study group. The study group serves a purpose, if for nothing else than seeing what kind of mental manipulations people will go through to avoid themselves. (we all do it, some less than others) Your friend's saying is a good one. Thanks for sharing it. This conversation has helped me realize that I have not really read all of the ACIM, text, teachers manual or workbook., even when I keep reading I can get a peice of it stuck and run around declaring it like an idiot, in or out of context. It seems so convoluted sometimes when it states the same simple concept over and over. That's why I think it is a deprogramming. Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:39:04 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#007883e9-b3fe-40f2-b8c6-5c80386d1e40 JahaRa 2007-04-11T23:39:04Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#2f83f32e-55af-4a6b-95d7-6e90f2c2b9f1 "A universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary." -- Manual pg. 73 I agree with Robert Perry that the different schools of ACIM thought are clearly apparent from the language, terminology and underlying assumptions of their authors. There are many "course ideas" out there that simply don't jibe with the books. Dr. Wapnick's understanding isn't my cup of tea. I don't think of ACIM as a theoretical system of Spiritual Psychology, an alternative 12 step program, etc. I'm much more of the heart based Jampolsky group. The UR texts doesn't lend itself to study. It's rather unstructured. But it is an excellent resource to compare to any of the edited versions. Master teacher-- well-- I don't know. Like Peace Pilgrim who gave up her name. I think he just didn't want to be identified with his past. I think his students say he's enlightened and gave him the new name. Maybe, maybe not. Who benefits but the students in question. Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:11:01 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#2f83f32e-55af-4a6b-95d7-6e90f2c2b9f1 Mark 2007-04-11T18:11:01Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#7132d672-2cc5-478f-bdd7-5d2ecff99540 Never met him. Heard some tapes. I don't know that he says anything especially that's not in ACIM, he just takes the books at face value. He's very clear about what it says and what it means. But that's what any teacher is. My good friends and teachers Jack and Eulalia Luckett say that the big deal --"the hardest 12 inches" is from head to heart. Just reading the books gives one an intellectual appreciation, but not the doing of the path and integrating it. Since ACIM is a mystic path that uses relationship as its method, it is best to learn it with others-- especially when one or two really live and embody it. They will speak the truth to you honestly, unalloyed, cut through your B. S. and excusses. They will keep you honest. So, it might be odd for someone to move to be near a "master teacher" but its not completely out of the question. As for me, I can phone my teachers. :-) Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:51:22 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#7132d672-2cc5-478f-bdd7-5d2ecff99540 Mark 2007-04-11T17:51:22Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#0cefb944-d97f-4828-be36-3c8e7d11d8fc OK. I get it. So Helen worked with Ken W. to edit it before publishing. In my opinion though, any editing done after that (except to correct typos) would be messing with something that is done. That is why I have a problem with Ken W. He won't leave it alone, and some of the books he's written do not match what is actually in the course. Also, how can a human on planet earth call himself 'Master Teacher' in realtion to the course. That is also ridiculous because it says in the course "When the teacher is ready, the student will come..." The student is for the learning of the teacher, not the teaching of the student. Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:49:24 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#0cefb944-d97f-4828-be36-3c8e7d11d8fc JahaRa 2007-04-11T17:49:24Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#2c07d364-ecb5-48d6-b9fd-7354b2a39ebc Correct. UR-text is the manuscript. "This is a Course in Miracles, please take notes..." "I want you to know that there is no order of difficulties..." (note that "I want you to know" is edited out) It is the direct transcript of Helen's shorthand as she heard it. What Bill typed (now called the URtext) is what she read back to him verbatim from her shorthand. Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:40:01 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#2c07d364-ecb5-48d6-b9fd-7354b2a39ebc Mark 2007-04-11T17:40:01Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#c9d55e53-7886-487c-b790-028cbd3840b2 Also, am I to understand that what you call UR is not the same as the 3 book edition that was published in 1976? Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:29:33 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#c9d55e53-7886-487c-b790-028cbd3840b2 JahaRa 2007-04-11T17:29:33Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#f2918d73-fb8e-4267-b580-f991745b611d do you know him (master teacher)? I belonged to a study group that was run by two interesting women, I think they were retired teachers. They sold their house and moved to Wisconsin to be with master teacher. What does he teach that isn't already in the course? Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:27:20 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#f2918d73-fb8e-4267-b580-f991745b611d JahaRa 2007-04-11T17:27:20Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#fd51d48e-e620-4bec-903e-83664f7d5f80 Got it the same way I got the UR text, from the hand of another. :-) There are some things in the UR I'm sure you wouldn't really want. There's good reason they edited-- a lot of stuff on Freud and "errant sex." Remember, Bill T was a semi-closeted gay man. Master teacher is a bit odd, I agree. But his teaching, I must admit is very interesting. Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:02:59 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#fd51d48e-e620-4bec-903e-83664f7d5f80 Mark 2007-04-11T01:02:59Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#b408bfed-f05f-4e2b-91b4-cccfbbf28d67 Where did you get your copy of "the Thetford edition"? My friends and I are interested in this. I have always felt that this particular writing should not be messed with, but since we are on planet earth in human bodies, of course it will be. I have even met people who sold all their stuff and moved to wisconsin to 'train' with a man who called himself 'Master Teacher' using ACIM as his platform. One man I met left after 6 months. For him it was an opportunity to finish writing his book. But he said that it was like any other cult, the same bizzare stuff going on. Later, a woman I was aquainted with paid 2000.00 to spend a month there, locked in a room for 8 hours a day meditating. When she was not meditating she was working in 'Master Teacher's' restaruant. Sometimes it all seems so hilarious what humans will do to keep from taking responsibility for themselves. Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:02:12 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#b408bfed-f05f-4e2b-91b4-cccfbbf28d67 JahaRa 2007-04-10T23:02:12Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#38020331-b58e-438a-b69a-4f88c4efea50 I don't know. I've read from a hard back copy of "the Thetford edition" It is quite different from the Wapnick and clearly edited, because I have a copy of the URtext. I think that whoever the author of this website is, they are wapnicj-ites. My reason is that they say that his book is authoratative on Course history. But Judith Skutch's history "Journey without Distance" is generally considered "authoratative." Even so, I love all the ariticles from Bill and Helen on there. I have a lot of respect for Jon Mundy, Robert Perry, Jerry Jampolsky and others who hold the middle ground and don't say this work is psychoterapeutic but mystical. Maybe if I write Jack Luckett, he'll know the details. The people associated with the beginnings are few and getting up there in years. Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:27:41 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#38020331-b58e-438a-b69a-4f88c4efea50 Mark 2007-04-09T18:27:41Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#d59ad68b-8f54-4cab-9593-dd0492203ac3 Yeah, but capitalizing words inappropriately is not useful, it is a set up for the next edition that came out mid 90's that actually has different wording in places and also has added and deleted sentences. Another thing I found: http://www.miraclestudies.net/Thetford.html So what is the Thetford version? And whose website is this, Thetfords or Wapnicks? And what is CIMS? Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:39:05 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#d59ad68b-8f54-4cab-9593-dd0492203ac3 JahaRa 2007-04-09T17:39:05Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#56f89886-2b9f-45ac-b8d6-5c4c1057b4bf First of all...holy resurrection day to all. " There is no external Divinity. The Spiritual Eye, like the HS is a way of seeing, a point of view which is The Truth as knowable by those caught between false beliefs in separation and correct perception of our inherent Divinity as it is." What external divinity? Who said that? Teacher...your explanation defines two separate things ("Spiritual Eye and Holy Spirit") while denying separation. As stated in my post it seems to me that the Spiritual Eye is an aspect of the Holy Spirit (therefore no separation but a line of communication between each child of God and the Holy Spirit). So can you please give me an example of how or in what way both the Spiritual Eye and the Holy Spirit has helped you in your own personal life to further my understanding of your statement? I would like to also add that I have read (I say again...read) that there is a Holy Watcher (Spiritual Eye) within each soul and the Watcher is an aspect of the Holy Spirit. Because of this it bears witness, yes, but does not judge or intervene, just records and sees all. Which is why your previous post about it sparked such an interest. So that is why I carry the subject further Teacher to understand it more. :) uhmmm...maybe I should have made this a different post or topic since now everything is going under the title, "Hugh Lynn Cayce" edition of ACIM (jeez). Namaste TJ Sun, 08 Apr 2007 07:45:03 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#56f89886-2b9f-45ac-b8d6-5c4c1057b4bf Tony 2007-04-08T07:45:03Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#5fbc05fe-d880-4287-9ee6-9b0ed0314574 Since ACIM presents that there is no difference between the Source and the One Child of God, and whereas ACIM also teaches that the Source does no know our mistakes that prevent us from seeing our Unity with our Source, the HS is then, a means of communication between those having mistaken separation and the Unity they always had. It follows that this HS is always, only within. There is no external Divinity. The Spiritual Eye, like the HS is a way of seeing, a point of view which is The Truth as knowable by those caught between false beliefs in separation and correct perception of our inherent Divinity as it is. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 02:16:10 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#5fbc05fe-d880-4287-9ee6-9b0ed0314574 Mark 2007-04-08T02:16:10Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#210934d6-da80-4a43-b00f-e1c1a067dd00 copied this from the urtext (referencing the spiritual eye mentioned earlier in these posts): Corrective learning always begins with awakening the spiritual eye, and turning away from belief in physical sight. The reason this entails fear is because man is afraid of what his spiritual eye will see, which was why he closed it in the first place. We said before that the spiritual eye cannot see error, and is capable only of looking beyond it to the defense of Atonement. There is no doubt that the spiritual eye does produce extreme discomfort by what it sees. The thing that man forgets is that the discomfort is not the final outcome of its perception. When the spiritual eye is permitted to look upon the defilement of the altar, it also looks immediately toward Atonement. Nothing which the spiritual eye perceives can induce fear. Everything that results from accurate spiritual awareness merely is channelized toward correction. The Holy Spirit was also mentioned in the urtext. It sounds like the Holy Spirit is one thing while the Spiritual Eye is within us and when influenced by the Holy Spirit it awakens or opens (he that has eyes let him see--hey), that comes under the function of the Holy Spirit. Being new at this I could be wrong. Any suggestions? Again (as mentioned before) for anyone interested, the urtext version can be download from the internet at: www.miraclevision.com/acim/urtext/acim-urtext-2003-upe-ready-edition.pdf Namaste to all here (for the record...namaste can mean: I honor the place in you which is of Love, of Truth, of Light and of Peace or When you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, we are One) any of the interpretations means love and respect :D TJ Sat, 07 Apr 2007 20:00:56 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#210934d6-da80-4a43-b00f-e1c1a067dd00 Tony 2007-04-07T20:00:56Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#b69f94d1-db2b-44d6-ac20-686ea766e242 The current version does look a bit Biblesque, however the intention was to create a convenient system for students to use in quoting and group study. The pagination is different but the content is the same. In a goup setting typically people read a paragraph at a time and comment on individual sentences, so a member says: "I think the essence of this paragraph is in sentence 7." Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:53:01 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#b69f94d1-db2b-44d6-ac20-686ea766e242 Mark 2007-04-07T16:53:01Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#a9c1e895-7c3e-4c4b-8560-dc63bf17b818 Thanks for the information Mark. My friends and I have been comparing the 1985 Foundation for inner Peace version & 1992 version. Very weird, words are not changed, just randomly capitalized mid sentence and each paragraph is numbered, as well as each sentence in each paragraph. What does that sound like to you? Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:43:44 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#a9c1e895-7c3e-4c4b-8560-dc63bf17b818 JahaRa 2007-04-07T13:43:44Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#ea00a2d1-621b-4b92-b72e-964b8a089f44 That would be the UR text, I gather. I've not heard that designation. Untill recently all unofficial vesrions passed from hand to hand, since they were unpublished. NOw they are being published and posted on the internet-- since the copyright issues have been largely cleared up. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:53:57 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#ea00a2d1-621b-4b92-b72e-964b8a089f44 Mark 2007-04-06T23:53:57Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#cb43b05f-22ae-46fd-9289-1f2892f24081 Does anyone know where the book you can now buy that's advertised as "A Course in Miracles by Helen Schucman" falls among these various versions? Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:08:10 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#cb43b05f-22ae-46fd-9289-1f2892f24081 Cathy 2007-04-06T17:08:10Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#f667240f-e5f1-42a3-b294-ade6f4eb3ee1 Spirtual Eye is language found in the UR. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:24:28 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#f667240f-e5f1-42a3-b294-ade6f4eb3ee1 Mark 2007-04-06T03:24:28Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#8b1530d8-56b3-4fc1-b6ec-4ff91c52111a Hi Mark, So...where exactly would one buy the Thetford unrevised edition? And is Dr. Thetford in using the term "Spiritual Eye" directly referencing correctly Dr. Shucmann's shorthand? extremely curious about this, TJ Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:08:08 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#8b1530d8-56b3-4fc1-b6ec-4ff91c52111a Tony 2007-04-05T22:08:08Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#06cba10b-a446-4d3a-9015-1b48c960bab5 UR means Un Revised. Somebody on another thread here posted the link. What it is is the direct manuscript that Dr. Thetford typed from Dr. Shucmann's shorthand. The Standard version (FIP) in general use is the Wapnik edition. The Thetford edition reads very differently-- for example-- Thetford doesn't use the term "Holy Spirit" rather he calls it the "Spiritual Eye." The Thetford edition, generally has different emphasis. Eg. Different breaks, Chapter and Section headings, italics, etc. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:02:16 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#06cba10b-a446-4d3a-9015-1b48c960bab5 Mark 2007-04-05T20:02:16Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#12c1159d-f84e-493c-b82e-a72893bf6f1a The copy I have from the foundation for Inner Peace was published in 1985. It is identical as far as I can tell to my friends copy from 1976 (which I understood to be the original). The 1992 version seems to be when Wapnik started changing things. Too bad for him. The few changes that I saw were not congruent with the original nor useful in my opinion. When you say UR-Text which one are you referring to? I also didn't know that Bill Thetford had a different version. I would be interested in reading that one. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:23:12 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#12c1159d-f84e-493c-b82e-a72893bf6f1a JahaRa 2007-04-05T17:23:12Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#aea97c63-8f81-4c59-b0e9-dcc4bf14d202 When I compare the UR-Text with the Wapnik edition the Differences are extraordinary. When I look at the Theftord edition, the emphasis is different from the Wapnik but the order is similar... This Cayce edition is distinct from any of them -- Somewhere between the UR and the Thetford. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 05:23:09 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#aea97c63-8f81-4c59-b0e9-dcc4bf14d202 Mark 2007-04-05T05:23:09Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#49105aa8-1437-4cee-bd9a-36b23bf9040e Thanks for the link. I never heard of this edition. Didn't know the search for god people were involved with ACIM. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:57:07 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#49105aa8-1437-4cee-bd9a-36b23bf9040e JahaRa 2007-04-04T17:57:07Z http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#375fb096-a79d-407f-b0c1-b0f943b17291 News from my friend and fellow teacher Denis Moore: Here is the web address for ordering the new "original edition" of A Course In Miracles from the Community Miracles Center. This is a brand new publication of the Hugh Lynn Cayce version of the Text along with the Urtext version of the Workbook and the Manual for Teachers. The only thing missing from this edition is the "clarification of terms," which remains under copyright. The Community Miracles Center offers the best price. I got it for just under $28.00 including postage. http://www.miracles-course.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=bookstore&Product_Code=Ori0010&Category_Code=Ori On the "copyright page" in the new edition, it reads: "A Course In Miracles is a public domain document, and the reader is free to read, enjoy, and share all or any part of it without the permission of any person." A refreshing change! Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:34:34 GMT http://aCourseInMiracles.tribe.net/thread/cc211e58-154d-4d02-a98d-bec504c6b18c#375fb096-a79d-407f-b0c1-b0f943b17291 Mark 2007-04-03T21:34:34Z