Talk:A Course in Miracles

ACIM and Monism

Regarding a request for a citation source for the assertion that ACIM is monistic: Monism holds that the universe/ reality is comprised of a single indivisible substance. ACIM holds that God and His love are one and the same, and are all that there really is. I see no contradiction here. Further comments welcome. Thanks,

-Scott P. 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC) -This discussion copied from archive as it remained as an active discussion after the archive was closed- -Scott P. 17:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This gets into the fine points of ACIM philosophy. ACIM uses the word "oneness". Althought it does state that God is Love, it also speaks of God's Love. It also speaks of the relationship of the Father and the Son, angels, as well as 'our creations being kept safe for us in Heaven'. This seems to suggest a diversity in oneness. I think "Attributive Monism" and "Idealism" (see Monism) apply.—Who123 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization of ACIM as monistic. ACIM repeatedly states that the physical world is illusory and not a part of the reality of God. According to Ken Wapnick the metaphysics of ACIM is nondualistic and I have edited the summary section of the article to add a Wapnick quote and reference citation. See the wikipedia entry for nondualism for a brief description of the difference between nondualism and monism. Although monism and nondualism appear to be similar, they are actually different. In Wapnick's two part volume "The Message of a Course in Miracles" Part One, Chapter One, he states "the metaphysics of A Course in Miracles is non-dualistic, as it expresses one pre-separation state: God. In fact, the Course can be said to represent what we may call a perfect or pure nondualism. This form of non-dualism holds not only that God is truth, and all else illusory, but that God is in no way involved in the illusory and unreal world of perception." Later in Chapter three of this same volume it is stated that "A Course in Miracles is unequivocal on this point that God did not create the physical universe. No compromise is possible here without rendering ineffectual the Course's entire thought system." More information about Wapnick can be found on the FACIM website and in the many books he has published about ACIM. Wapnick has written extensively about ACIM and its meaning. Zopupa 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To my understanding of Monism, it would agree with ACIM that the physical world where multiplicity appears to be real is illusory, and that in the unseen world of true spirit, where there is only One, God, or one Being, that this One Being has somehow forgotten It's One-ness. Thus the appearance of the illusory world that most scientists would call 'reality'. -Scott P. 17:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

I readded part of the Criticisms section. It is entirely appropriate to include sourced/published criticisms within an article (part of ensuring a balanced treatment of the subject). And these are particularly notable, especially since one of them is from a former ACIM teacher. Not a dog 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie concurs, they seem reasonably notable, and Sethie likes how you sumarized a couple different ones briefly... if people want to find out more, they can. Sethie 01:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The only criticism that I think should be removed is: "Anton van Harskamp, a German scholar of religion, says that the Course contains, "...endless variation on some universally meant insights in life..." that, "...brings readers of the book, [or] in any case this reader, [to] a mood in which bewilderment and boredom take turns"." This is lame. It is a personal opinion in which the author states that he does not understand the material and is, of course, bored by it. It speaks more to the ignorance of the author rather than the material itself.—Who123 02:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether he is ignorant or not is your opinion. If he is indeed a scholar of religion, his criticism has value. Not a dog 12:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Anton van Harskamp states that he was in a state of "bewilderment". My dictionary defines this as confusion. If we stick with the authors own words then I think we can say he, personally, was bewildered or confused by the material. My opinion is that this is not a valid critism.—Who123 14:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read the quote it is clear that by saying the reader was in a state of "bewilderment," he meant that the text was convoluted. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

ObiterDicta is correct on this. Not a dog 20:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie proposes we look at the man and not try to verify or deny the veracity of his words, nor evaluate his mental state! :) A a look at the article linked to shows a pretty impresive bibliography at the end of the article, and this page does list him as faculty and a proffessor. [[1]]

Maybe we need to find a different quote from him, however, Sethie is actually stoked to find an actual academic who has looked at the course!Sethie 16:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That is good but did he just look at it to arrive at his state of "bewilderment" or did he really put the time into studying it to end his state? ACIM is a very difficult read that is very hard to understand with a simple read. I am sure we could find professors that would find the bible (or any serious religious text) boring and/or confusing. Is that listed as a criticism in those articles? Just my 2 cents (which are getting worth less and less day by day).—Who123 03:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

lol good one. All Sethie knows is that this is what he said.... and it sounds like you almost agree with him! "ACIM is a very difficult read that is very hard to understand with a simple read." Granted this is quite different from what he wrote, however, it sounds like a similar ball-park idea to what he was trying to express! :) Sethie 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Upon reading the cited source of Prather's comments I was very surprised at how those comments had been taken out of context and thus misrepresented the tone of the essay. In the cited essay Prather does not denigrate ACIM, rather he expresses disappointment in the human propensity to either misinterpret or fail to live up to the philosophy's tenets due to the ego. He rather humbly includes himself as an example of an ego at large. Prather's criticisms/comments about some particular individuals who were present at a specific gathering or meeting had been taken out of context and generalized to a much larger group of students of ACIM by the wikipedia author's insertion of his/her own phrases "ACIM students often become" and "with many ultimately" preceding the quotes. The author's choice of quotes from this rather lengthy article imply a critical bias that just isn't there. Read the Prather essay for yourself. It is a lament of how even the best religious and philosophical teachings can be misunderstood and misused by individuals. Also how formal organization of such teachings almost always leads to organizational splits and conflicts, which Prather attributes to personal ego. Anyway, my point is that the "criticisms" section is supposed to contain criticisms of the topic itself (ACIM), not comments or criticisms of how the behavior of specific individuals might illustrate the misunderstanding or misuse of the topic. [It would be equally disappointing to find in the criticisms section of the wikipedia Islam entry quotes from a muslim cleric explaining that his practice of Islam made him act violently and destructively. Individuals are responsible for their behavior, not religions or philosophies.] Is Prather a true critic of ACIM? If so, there should be ample evidence of this from multiple sources. I don't see the evidence based upon the cited article and other Prather works I've read. Perhaps a distinction needs to be made between form and content, i.e., the organizations affiliated with ACIM and the ACIM material itself. If the author intended to express that Prather is a critic of the ACIM affiliated organizations, that should be clarified. Prather expresses admiration for the teaching itself and possibly criticism for the organizations, but let's not confuse form with content. Anyhow, I am sure that there are enough real critics of ACIM out there that this kind of contrivance is unnecessary. I believe that citing the Prather article as evidence that he is a critic of ACIM is inaccurate and misguided so I edited this section to give a better depiction of the tone of the article. Wikipedia users deserve clarity and accuracy of information. Zopupa 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking up on that! Sethie 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with criticism for the course as long as it does something to add to the knowledge of the course and dosen't call the course Heresy, or tries to represent it as brainwashing.Tcrichards (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion re reinstating the Kenneth Wapnick article...

I have recently contacted the administrator who deleted the Kenneth Wapnick article in the summer of 2006. I feel it is time to reinstate this article. Your opinion regarding this request would be appreciated on this administrator's talk page. The discussion can be found at: Request to rescind your decision to delete the Kenneth Wapnick article on July 6, 2006. Any followup comments that you might have regarding this re-instatement request on the admin's talk page would be most appreciated.

-Thanks,
-Scott P. 16:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC) .

Hi Scott. I do not spend as much time on WP as I used to. I am not opposed to having additional ACIM related articles including ones about Ken, Judy, Robert Perry, and more. It has been some time, but as I recall, the article about Ken was very poor, had little sourced information, and seemed very self-serving. As you know, there is much controversy regarding Ken and the course and whether he was helpful or not. Many disagree with his interpretation of the course. Many consider his behaviour to exemplify the actions of the ego as discussed in the course. Best wishes.—Who123 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT UPDATE Re: the Kenneth Wapnick article discussion

As the administrative closer who originally chose to delete the Kenneth Wapnick article has asked that a discussion be opened at Reconsidering inclusion of an article on Kenneth Wapnick, the discussion on re-instating this article has now moved to this new location. Please post any further comments regarding this article there. Thanks, Scott P. 02:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have created a wapnick page for us to work on User:Sethie/wapnick, along with a talk page for discussing how we can improve the article User:Sethie/wapnicktalk Sethie 01:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO and academic titles

Thetford and Schuchman's academic titles seem to have reappeared in the article. Just for clarity's sake (and to avoid an edit war over this, let me reproduce the relevant language from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic titles:

Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead.

Removal of these titles is not intended to slight the two scribes in any way, simply to comply with the Manual of Style. Please do not add them again. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Kenneth Wapnick & the article

There is much controversy regarding Kenneth Wapnick and the Course. Many do not agree with his interpretation. Many consider his behaviour to exemplify the actions of the ego as discussed in the course. I believe that any information included in the article with Wapnick's opinions should be balanced with those of another such as Robert Perry to avoid bias, or avoided altogether.

It was mentioned in the article that Wapnick abandoned his Jewish faith and converted to Catholicism. This is not true. The only reason Wapnick began the process was apparently to become close to the Catholic monk Thomas Merton. Wapnick retains his Jewish origins.

In Journey Without Distance - The story behind A Course in Miracles, Robert Skutch describes how Wapnick forced his way into 'the inner circle' through Helen. Wapnick's actions and writings seem to show his desire to eliminate William Thetford and replace Thetford with himself.

—Who123 17:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

To Who: You make some rather astonishing claims regarding Wapnick. 1) Please cite your sources for the “many” who disagree with Wapnick’s interpretation. It is a given that there will be “many” who disagree with any interpretation of a philosophy or spiritual path. If there are many specific, documented skeptics you are referring to then please list them here. This is rather unimportant, but I am curious. 2) I have read "Journey Without Distance" and have a different impression than yours. Could you please specify where it is described how Wapnick “forced” his way into the “inner circle”? As I recall, what I read describes “Father Michael” introducing Wapnick to Bill and Helen of his own accord because he was impressed by an article of Wapnick's that he had read (given to him by Bill); (Chapter 6) then Bill invited Ken to look at the Course but he “politely demurred” when he saw the length of the text as he was about to leave for Israel and could not give it his full attention. Wapnick later decided that he did want to review the text when he had more time. I would be happy to look this up and quote it verbatim. Since Skutch dedicates his book “lovingly” to “Helen, Bill, Ken and Judy” it would be unusual for Skutch to characterize Wapnick as someone who "forced" himself upon others (assuming the “Ken” in the dedication is Wapnick).

3) Your comment that “the only reason” Wapnick considered converting to Catholicism was to become close to Thomas Merton is a very strong statement and suggests somewhat obsessive behavior on Wapnick's part and omniscience on your part about Wapnick’s motives. How could anyone but Wapnick know his own motives? Citation of sources would be appreciated. 4) You also appear to be denying Wapnick's conversion to Catholicism! However, "Journey Without Distance" (which you appear to have read?) describes his conversion and baptism (page 86) and according to his own words excerpted from his book "Forgiveness and Jesus" (this is cited on the website www.miraclestudies.net, and I intend to verify the source myself) he was baptized as a Catholic. Am I missing something here? What's your source? (Incidentally, is this the kind of misstatement of fact that you would characterize as "self-serving"?) This same citation of "Forgiveness and Jesus" states that he briefly visited Merton's Trappist monastery in Kentucky and then traveled to Israel to spend an extended amount of time there in two monasteries. This seems to contradict the idea of an obsession with Merton. Why travel to Israel when Merton was located in Kentucky? Wapnick does state that he was very influenced by Thomas Merton's books, but I fail to see evidence of that as his sole reason for converting when in fact Wapnick himself gives several reasons for his conversion. By the way, of course Wapnick “retains his Jewish origins” as a person's "origins" by definition cannot be changed.

As for “controversy” and “interpretation”, these are always based upon subjective opinions. You don't explain what "controversy" you're referring to. I am ignorant about the controversy regarding Wapnick and genuinely curious to know. If you could kindly point me in the direction of some of your many sources I would appreciate it. I am looking for true controversy, not simple disagreement with his theories. Anyone adhering to any of the currently popular ACIM "teachers" theories could and probably would find the theories of other "teachers" to be controversial. This however does not justify misstatements or twisting of fact about a specific "teacher". Regardless of personal opinions about which ACIM teacher is the “best”, Wapnick warrants an article for purely objective reasons: his unquestionable role in bringing ACIM to publication, his important ongoing work in assisting with translations of ACIM and his subsequent extensive writings on the subject. Please cite sources or this discussion will degenerate into a volley of personal opinion. Let’s strive for accuracy. Individuals’ opinions on this matter should not stand in the way of an objective article on Wapnick. Also, perhaps the objective way to handle the fact that there are multiple popular teachers of ACIM is to add a section to the ACIM article on that subject, listing each teacher and briefly summarizing their theories or interpretation of ACIM. This will merely prove (as have many other philosophies and religions) that each person will have their own interpretation. However, it may be useful to students of ACIM to assist them in finding the teachers and theories that best suit their current stage of development.Zopupa 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: Your comments above state that "many" find Wapnick's behavior to "exemplify that of the ego". Again, who are the "many"? Please specify. This kind of comment or accusation is interesting. I don't know who set themselves up as the experts, but who among us is qualified to make the judgment that someone is acting from the ego? Perhaps a psychiatrist or psychologist? Judging others' behavior is a slippery slope and is one of the things the Course cautions against. I would be especially wary of "teachers" who criticize the behavior of other "teachers". As for your claims that Wapnick desired to "eliminate" Thetford, well, again, you must be omniscient. But who can tell? According to the Course our ego wants to "eliminate" all other egos. That is one of the things we are supposed to forgive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zopupa (talk • contribs). Zopupa 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(To original poster): Some of the most unusual comments I've ever read. There is no indication anywhere that Dr. Wapnick wants to eliminate Thetford. Why would he want to do such a thing and how could he do such a thing? And Journey Without Distance contains absolutely no reference to Dr. Wapnick forcing his way in to any inner circle. He was already in the so-called "inner circle" because he was there when the Course was being scribed. Any anger towards Dr. Wapnick really just stems from the copyright controversy, which had been entrusted to him; which is mentioned in the article. -- Copy Editor 06:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary

The sentence "The Course teaches 'forgiveness' as the one practice that will lead to spiritual awakening" to me seems to suggest a claim to being the only path to spiritual awakening. It might be useful to include somewhere that ACIM characterizes itself as one of many paths and not per se the most suited for everyone.

Also, in the archives of this page I've seen some discussion concerning the definition of 'forgiveness' as ACIM uses the term. To me it definitely looks like ACIM makes a big point of purposefully and actively redefines the term 'forgiveness' as NOT granting pardon for an offence or stopping to resent enemies, but instead as not judging for yourself (or letting go of prior judgement), by leaving all judging to the holy spirit (or "love's presence in oneself"). The point being that in the holy spirit's judgement no offences or enemies are ever percieved so no pardons need be granted nor resentments stopped. Would not the summary be more clear and telling if it would mention this in some way?

Orebor 14:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You make two extremely important and accurate points regarding 1) That ACIM clearly states it is just one of many paths and 2) The meaning of forgiveness. It is my understanding that whenever our ego "forgives" a perceived offense it is actually based upon a form of judgment (judgment that someone did something negative that requires forgiveness), but that it is a first step in the right direction to breaking down the ego's anger, resentment and defensiveness. We need practice in forgiving, this will help us to weaken the ego and move on to attempting to see reality with the eyes of the spirit and "overlooking" offense and error because we realize that they do not actually exist except in the eyes of the ego. Both of these points can be supported with multiple citations taken directly from ACIM and from teachers' commentaries. I will try to find some supporting quotes. Zopupa 23:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of all but one external link, please do not do this.

While links for purely commercial advertising purposes are not permitted in Wikipedia, links to large related student organizations, and other such things are. Please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is room enough in Wikipedia for links that might be found to be helpful to the reader and which are not of a primarily commercial nature, but rather intended as a reference to anyone who would wish to study ACIM, whether from a scholarly point of view, a critical point of view, or as a student of ACIM. Please respect this.

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

elaboration

maybe "Author and Yogi, Joel Kramer, states that the Course could be considered a classic authoritarian example of programming thought to change beliefs." should be elaborated upon or taken out.

why? how? what is his logic? --Emesee (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I elaborated a bit on this per your suggestion. I didn't want to take the quote out as I think his criticism, while perhaps a bit off the mark, is still somewhat noteworthy, and therefor worthy of keeping.

Scott P. (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why omit Alstadt? By the way, I consider their criticisms of ACIM one of the weakest parts of their book. Andries (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgiveness as means to authoritarian - apparently the logic behind the claim...

It comes into a bit more into focus. Please see: Forgiveness#Forgiveness_as_a_foundation_for_authoritarian_control --Emesee (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality template rationale

The "Disputed-Neutrality" template was placed on this article on Mar. 20 without any supporting reasoning provided for the template insertion on this talk page. Unless some reasonable rationale for the template insertion is provided here for discussion by April 1st, the template will be removed.

Scott P. (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of this mistake, I can't say that I am well enough aware of the subject material to make definitive statements against the neutrality. From reading over the article the general tone (inherent POV of authors) does not seem to fit up to the standards of Wikipedia at the time, this is what I was referring to when stating neutrality issues. You can remove the tag and I will go over the article when I get the chance in the near future, sorry for any confusion.Bronayur (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag, and will look forward to your specific comments about exactly which parts of the article you feel could stand improvement regarding POV issues. Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thetford

To point out that there are differing perspectives on Thetford:

"Those individuals we know intimately who we believe are close to being awake, seem to have no interest in contrasting themselves with other people. Generally speaking, they live simple, ordinary lives. They are comfortable if not restful to be around. Their time is usually devoted to unimportant things and their hearts to "unimportant" people. They have no inflexible concepts or rigid patterns and there is nothing particularly unusual about the subjects they choose to talk about or anything outstanding in the personal mannerisms they exhibit. They are easily pleased, and often they are happy for no apparent reason. Because their own egos are no longer destructive, they find other people's egos amusing and endearing. Above all, they are equal and familiar. They would not be good subjects for a magazine profile. And yet, into the mundane, everyday circumstances of their lives, they quietly pour their comfort and their peace.

Bill Thetford was such a person. He didn't talk the Course. He didn't write books about the Course. He very seldom made public statements about the Course, and then only because someone had pleaded with him to do so. What Bill did was quietly and happily live the Course. And even though he saw that this was the best approach, he never said to his Course friends: "You can either teach the Course or live it, but you probably won't succeed in doing both." In this way he was truly a "teacher of God" because he taught in the way the Manual defines teaching." (emphasis added) source, already referenced in the article

This may or may not be appropriate to integrate. However, considering one reference refers to him as "perhaps this most sinister person [the commenter ever met]"... well, there are differing opinions about the late man. --Emesee (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that this quote was a misinformation or a misquote. Please see: Setting the Record Straight: How Did Father Groeschel Really Feel About Bill Thetford?. Accordingly, I've since deleted this misquote as a reference in the article.

Cheers, Scott P. (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Last few paragraphs of the criticism section...

At its heart, the origins of ACIM remain suspect and subject to validation. The work claims to be a channeled book. [2] There is debate about the true origins of this work. It has been established that Schucman was a distinguished clinical psychologist working at Columbia University. By her own admission, the environment was extremely stressful and challenging. The origins of her voice were never verified or explained.

Some claim that the likely source is either a complete fabrication or the result of a complex delusional syndrome. The criticality of the origins of Dr. Schucman's work is worthy of discourse as it provides a necessary critical aspect to understanding the writings

Despite the anti-religious labeling by many critics of Schucman and her work, there is value in determining the state of mind of the author and whether her own extensive knowledge and mental condition were the actual generating elements for the work.[3]

These are the last three paragraphs of the criticism section. Aside from the last sentence of the first paragraph here, it seems like it may be Wikipedia:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_which_advances_a_position and maybe outside of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. What do others think? --Emesee (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)