Anyone study ACIM, etc.?

[Dragonseer]

I'm curious to know if anyone studies A Course in Miracles--or any other esoteric-leaning sources, such as the readings given through Edgar Cayce, etc.

Thank you,

DS

[wil]

Namaste Dragonseer,



Sure ACIM, Abraham, Kathy Odenino, Conversations w/G!d, Ramtha, Seth, all great sources of contemplation.

[Dragonseer]

Originally Posted by wil

Sure ACIM, Abraham, Kathy Odenino, Conversations w/G!d, Ramtha, Seth, all great sources of contemplation.

Of the sources you've listed, the only one unfamiliar to me is Kathy Odenino. I've read Ramtha's contributions to the book What the Bleep Do We Know!? but have not read other Ramtha-related sources. And I've heard of Seth but cannot recall through whom he communicates. (Please refresh me. )

I'm more familiar with ACIM and Abraham (I love Ask and it is Given). I've not yet read Conversations with God. (I hope that writing out the full label for our Source does not offend. I do understand why you write it as G!d.)

Have you ever read any excerpts of readings that were given through Edgar Cayce? It's powerful, mind-bending stuff.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dragonseer

Of the sources you've listed, the only one unfamiliar to me is Kathy Odenino. I've read Ramtha's contributions to the book What the Bleep Do We Know!? but have not read other Ramtha-related sources. And I've heard of Seth but cannot recall through whom he communicates. (Please refresh me. )

I'm more familiar with ACIM and Abraham (I love Ask and it is Given). I've not yet read Conversations with God. (I hope that writing out the full label for our Source does not offend. I do understand why you write it as G!d.)

Have you ever read any excerpts of readings that were given through Edgar Cayce? It's powerful, mind-bending stuff.

First I think they all communicate with source...although their interpretations are different based on their experiences and acceptablity paradigms...we create something that we both find acceptable and we think others will find acceptable so as to gain a wider audience...(Seth, Ramtha, Abraham....and Abraham, Moses, Jesus...Mohamed, Bhudda, and on and on....

Yes I've been down to A.R.E and participated in some classes/discussions and loitered in the library reading...not only incredible but incredibly prolific.

[Dragonseer]

Originally Posted by wil

Yes I've been down to A.R.E and participated in some classes/discussions and loitered in the library reading...not only incredible but incredibly prolific.

For lack of a better word, that is very cool. I've not yet had a chance to visit the A.R.E.'s library. One of these days...

DS

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dragonseer

For lack of a better word, that is very cool. I've not yet had a chance to visit the A.R.E.'s library. One of these days...

DS

One time I was down there with my wife...(Virginia Beach) on vacation, and she wished to spend the day tanning as a sun worshipper...well the rest of the days I can only be on the beach so long reading, swimming and ogling scantilly clothed women day upon day before it gets boring. So I left her at the beach and headed to ARE. As I walked in there was a buffet being set up of great looking veggie foods and folks were just returning into a meeting. I looked at the sign and it was some week long seminar that was going through its synopsis and keynote speakers... I asked the receptionist if I could sit in. She said 'oh no, they've each spent hundreds of dollars to attend, it wouldn't be right.' I asked are you actually in a position whereby you can make the decision to allow or disallow entry to anyone and if not could you please go in and ask someone who is to come out and talk to me. She came out a few minutes later and said, "You've been given permission to attend the remainder of the session."

Ask and it is given.

[Dragonseer]

Originally Posted by wil

I asked the receptionist if I could sit in. She said 'oh no, they've each spent hundreds of dollars to attend, it wouldn't be right.' I asked are you actually in a position whereby you can make the decision to allow or disallow entry to anyone and if not could you please go in and ask someone who is to come out and talk to me. She came out a few minutes later and said, "You've been given permission to attend the remainder of the session."

Ask and it is given.

Love it.

[path_of_one]

I wouldn't say I study any of these sources, but I've read a variety of them, including ACIM and Conversations with God.

I don't know that my take on it is exactly like Wil's, though I find such materials interesting and often useful. My difference in opinion is grounded primarily in thinking that these folks are probably not directly communicating with the source, if we wish to call it that, so much as actual disincarnate entities that have something to offer humanity.

In a way, all beings communicate with the source, whom I call God Herself, all the time. This is because all beings are extensions of Her. However, while we are all one in this all-encompassing embrace, we have chosen different existences and we each have a unique purpose and gifts to give to the broader whole. Some of these existences are disincarnate entities who wish to share their perspective with humanity. Whether or not this leads to wisdom, compassion, and other noble qualities depends on what people do with the messages.

My own belief is that channeled information is not exactly resting on paradigms or Jungian archetypes, yet it is filtered through the communicator's language and cultural construction, along with the human brain. Thus, it is a mix of an authentic message given by some entity (which may or may not be useful) and the various constructions and limitations of the human communicator.

In Paganism, quite a few people learn how to communicate with "Otherworld" entities. Each Otherworld individual, just like a human being, tree, or animal, seems to have its own perspective and wisdom. We can learn from them, but they can also learn from us. This is what I often feel is missing from the perspective of some New Age folks who lean a bit more on channeled information than I think is beneficial. Walking between the worlds, we can bring together what one of my teachers calls the "inner skeptic" and "inner mystic" in an integration, leading to a centeredness that allows us both openness to insight and critical analysis of what we receive.

[Dragonseer]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

My difference in opinion is grounded primarily in thinking that these folks are probably not directly communicating with the source...so much as actual disincarnate entities that have something to offer humanity.

I agree with this opinion because I suspect that most people (souls) are not spiritually evolved enough to communicate directly with the Source of All.

Some of these existences are disincarnate entities who wish to share their perspective with humanity. Whether or not this leads to wisdom, compassion, and other noble qualities depends on what people do with the messages.

It's like the biblical quote (Matthew 7:16) says: "By their fruits you shall know them." The end product of living according to "God's will"--what some call "spiritual law"--is discernable from living according to one's ego.

My own belief is that channeled information...is a mix of an authentic message given by some entity (which may or may not be useful) and the various constructions and limitations of the human communicator.

This is the precise reason that I cannot believe any sacred text is 100% accurate: human filters must always be factored into the translation.

Walking between the worlds, we can bring together what one of my teachers calls the "inner skeptic" and "inner mystic" in an integration, leading to a centeredness that allows us both openness to insight and critical analysis of what we receive.

I also agree that we shouldn't swallow something whole simply because it comes from a spiritual entity. We should really chew on the information given, consider it thoroughly, and observe its effects (should we decide to put it into action). In other words, never "check your brain at the door," whether it's at the door of an inspired text or a church.

[AndrewX]

One question you might ask is, What kind of information are you looking for? Then, based on how you answer that question, whom do - or would - you deem, or accept as an/the authority on such matter(s)?

This is what led me, twenty-some years ago, to be satisfied by and comfortable with the Theosophical presentation, and with specific Teachings given by the Theosophical Masters. I did not accept individual Theosophists then as ultimate authorities, nor do I now. But I did come to believe and accept that - frankly speaking - there are no more accurate presentations, in recent history, than these. The context is: for disciples and aspirants to discipleship, and it also assumes that we are willing and able to put into practice the instructions which have been provided for walking the path leading to Initiation.

After studying Theosophy for some time, I found that more recent presentations of the Ageless Wisdom also exist, some provided by those with Theosophical affiliations, others provided by individuals with no such affiliation. The books presented by Alice Bailey, Helena Roerich, Lucille Cedercrans, Francia A. La Due & William H. Dower, Cyril Scott, David Anrias, Geoffrey Hodson, H. K. Challoner, et al, have all proved to me to be trustworthy and reliable, as well as helpful and timely - even indispensable - for a certain type of disposition, as we are seeking to tread the path of discipleship.

Perhaps "a certain type of disposition" here is key. But if you want to know, are these books/authors/materials accurate, and do they actually come from the sources from which they purport to come, then I would answer strongly in the affirmative. I would even stake my life on it! Thus, in the case of an Alice Bailey, or a Helena Roerich, if one is asking whether or not they are truly the dictations from the Elder Brothers, I can affirm that indeed, they are. Whether or not such Teachings become helpful for us, personally, or even for anyone we know ... well now, that is another story. But the same can be said of the Bible, the Koran, or the Gita.

The only difference I might point out in the case of the more modern presentation of Teachings, is that they are often given out by Masters who speak English as well as (or far better than) you and I ... yet Who also have the benefit of - well - precisely those qualifications which make them (or have made them) Masters! So we can eliminate the many centuries of interpretation, distortion and intentional wrangling that have obscured the original intent of the Gospel authors, or of the authors of the Vedas, etc.

Cayce, I would say, is certainly a figure to study with some interest, although his teachings are all given out while the man himself is in a state of trance, and - unconscious. I do not say that this makes his teachings inaccurate automatically, or necessarily inferior. But I would point out that the Masters of the Wisdom do not typically make use of such unconscious mediums. Their Sibyls know in full (and quite heightened) consciousness precisely what is going on, and thus the service that they render to the Teacher as transmitting agents of the Wisdom is not unlike the service rendered by the Galilean Initiate 2100 years ago to His Master ... if perhaps, on a lesser scale.

As for the necessity of using spiritual discrimination, or viveka, in studying what has been received or presented ... most certainly!

[Dragonseer]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Cayce, I would say, is certainly a figure to study with some interest, although his teachings are all given out while the man himself is in a state of trance, and - unconscious. I do not say that this makes his teachings inaccurate automatically, or necessarily inferior. But I would point out that the Masters of the Wisdom do not typically make use of such unconscious mediums.

In Cayce's situation, his conscious mind (ego) "stepped aside," while his higher self (or Self) was given access to the Akashic Records. For this reason, he couldn't recall the info. that was given once he regained consciousness.

To borrow a quote from the Bible's NT, I'm a believer in knowing another's intention(s) by observing the fruits of his/her actions. The info. that came through Cayce resulted in thousands of people being healed--oftentimes of a malady on which doctors had given up; I don't mistrust the info. that came through him. (I've twice read The Edgar Cayce Companion and can't argue with the wisdom I've gleaned from it. Many advanced beings--namely Masters and angels--offered info. through Cayce, who was a pure channel for it.)

[Hermes]

I have looked into both, I am a publisher of the course in miracles and I admire and follow Casey. Now both are genuine article the acim has a little problem with extreme non-dualism that often carry them far. It is not without some caveats.
"Dogmatic non-duality is a mental illness. If not yet a full-blown psychosis it has a potential to become one for many people. It is socking to many seekers to explain the Hindu concept of Maya, (illusion) but with the advent of a Course in Miracle a new movement had sprung up in America. Some of the followers are extremists with dangerous ideas."
This is an excerpt of a blog I wrote on acim (after all I am responsible for my readers at least)

Dogmatic non-Duality is a Mental Illness

Originally Posted by Dragonseer

I'm curious to know if anyone studies A Course in Miracles--or any other esoteric-leaning sources, such as the readings given through Edgar Cayce, etc.

Thank you,

DS

[Hermes]

I am sympathetic to much of what the Course in Miracle(acim) teaches and I am even more fond of forgiveness and looking inward to solve problems of today. However as with all teachings that claim absolute solution to anything, the extreme way of looking at the world could have adverse effect on some people.