The Course as a re-articulation of Christianity

student a: The Course deconstructs Christianity. Christians seem to resist accepting a different meaning for Christian language.

student b: First, there are all kinds and varieties of "Christians." Despite short sighted cultural prejudices Christianity is not limited to Catholicism or Protestianism.

Articulation and expressions of Christianity range from the very basic and simple to the highly sophisticated, from the concrete to the highly mystical.

To be precise, The Course doesn't "deconstruct" Christianity. Deconstruction is a radical denial or radical questioning of foundation and premises of a thought system.

Instead The Course is a re-articulation of Christianity, consistent with the general themes and concerns of a broad class of religious articulation claiming to be and generally consdered "Christian."

"Forgiveness," is an historical concern of Christianity and not at all a concern of non dualism, where "forgiveness," makes no sense and is NOT a means for realizing God/Self.

As I read non dualism, the means for realizing God/Self is long periods of deep meditation for the purpose of clearing the mind of thought, or alternatively, disciplined rigorous introspection leading to realization or a non dual state.

As such course methods for correcting thought through miracles and forgiveness are consistent with a literal, Jesus based reading of ACIM, and not at all consistent with any known non dual method of enlightenment where thought itself is understood as illusionary and cannot in principle be corrected.

For the simple reason if I was SERIOUS about non dualism as a spiritual path and not just as a fashionable alternative to Christianity, atheism or agnosticism,  I would study and follow an authentic, direct non dual path such as Buddhism or Advaita, where I wouldn't have to redact Christianity and dualistic metaphysics from nearly every sentence to get to non dual teachings.

After all you can't be claiming that somehow A Course in Miracles is a superior non dual path and teachings to say Buddhism or Advaita. As such, if ACIM is not a superior non dual path, then why not simply study Buddhism or Advaita?

I suspect some are making an argument for the cognitive understanding method of inquiry and enlightenment, without fully understanding or appreciating the profound difference between cognitive understanding and traditional non dual methods of understanding such as meditation, or the error correction methods of ACIM.

To be sure cognitive understanding of truth is not what the Course teaches nor is it course methodology, In fact to the extent cognitive understanding is essentially understood as self correction by inquiry, the course rejects cognitive understanding of truth as self delusional.

A Course in Miracles is profound, and extremely important as a full articulation of Christianity.
As an advancement in Christianity, ACIM has great, highly profound and highly significant theoretical, historical and spiritual importance for the unbroken 1700 year old history of Christian civilization which is Western Civilization.

Significant in the sense, that ACIM has the potential and promises over time to unite Christianity and advance Christianity as important and relevant in an increasingly high tech world civilization.

After all, ACIM explains the Matrix like virtual world paradigm of the emerging world civilization better than any existing metaphysics.

As such, and as Christianity, A Course in Miracles is arguably the most profound spiritual book ever written and also the most profound, and literate book ever written. In fact, there is no comparison.

In contrast, interpreted or presented as non dual Advaita, a syncretic A Course in Miracles is at best second-rate non duality and hardly important at all, and obscure and unimpressive to either Christians, or non dualists.

As such and clearly, it doesn't take a brain to see the future and promise of The Course is in its literal Jesus-based, Christian understanding and presentation.

~~"Wapnick Metaphysics" as an oxymoron~~

From (Ken Wapnick, Phd, Lighthouse, Volume 17 Number 2 June 2006)

>> One Mind: 1 + 1 = 1
Heaven -- the true reality -- is a state of perfect Oneness in which God and His one creation dwell as one, for such they are:

The Kingdom of Heaven is the dwelling place of the Son of God, who left not his Father and dwells not apart from Him. Heaven is not a place nor a condition. It is merely an aware­ness of perfect Oneness, and the knowledge that there is nothing else; nothing outside this Oneness, and nothing else within (T-18.VI.1:4-6).

This means that though we speak of one God and His one Son, in truth there is only the One. Even the Trinity -- Father, Son (Christ), and Holy Spirit -- is a set of symbols, for there is no dif­ferentiation or distinction within the Godhead of truth. Thus Jesus teaches us:

The first in time means nothing, but the First in eternity is God the Father, Who is both First and One. Beyond the First there is no other, for there is no order, no second or third, and nothing but the First (T-14.IV.1:7-8).

In other words, in God's living Oneness there is no Father and Son, and so 1 + 1 = 1. Of such undifferentiated unity is truly the Kingdom of Heaven:
As it [love] is one itself, it looks on all as one. Its meaning lies in oneness. And it must elude the mind that thinks of it as partial or in part….

 

Love is a law without an opposite. Its wholeness is the power holding everything as one, the link between the Father and the Son which holds Them Both for­ever as the same (W-pI.127.3:2-4,7-8).

Or, as the text says: we are a “Oneness joined as One” (T-25. I.7:1).

(Ken Wapnick, Phd, Lighthouse, Volume 17 Number 2 June 2006) <<
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTARY:

 

Student A: >> "1 + 1 = 1" seems totally off the mark. The context of the quote proves the flawed and incorrect understanding of Dr W <<

Student B: Let's see. Its not that hard to demonstrate the flaws.

First, the equation,1 + 1 = 1 clearly does not and cannot accurately represent Wapnick claim that The Son is symbolic. If the Son is symbolic and not real then the equation should read:

                                                                                           1=1

Second the symbol of addition, "+" is clearly flawed and self-refuting. Because, Wapnick's equation, 1 + 1 = 1 is a denial any relationship is possible. As such Wapnick is making a clear, unambiguous claim any "relationship" as an ontological reality is impossible.

Which in turn causes great, disastrous problems for Wapnick's theory on a theoretical level. This denial of relationship is a metaphysical "dead-end."

a) because it puts Wapnick in a position where he cannot explain anything, without contradicting himself. It's unclear how a "Godhead of Truth," without dif­ferentiation or distinction can possibly do anything, without the "doing," demonstrating dif­ferentiation or distinction.

(1) This forces Wapnick into a position of irrationality, or position where he cannot explain anything without either contradicting himself, or demonstrating his premises and conclusions are flawed. In this sense, "Wapnick metaphysics," is an oxymoron. Attempting to salvage this dead-end metaphysics by postulating categories such as, "real," and "unreal," only exacerbates the inherent irrationality of Wapnick attempting to explain the irrational by rational means.

(2) In turn, Wapnick's irrational metaphysics ultimately forces him into a position of unexplainable and incomprehensible mysticism, but a flawed mysticism. Flawed because his alleged means for attaining this mystical state of "Oneness," --atonement and forgiveness -are clearly predicated on the very differentiation and distinctions which he denies. In other words and clearly, Atonement is predicated on the distinction and differentiation of Creator and created.

Wapnick's mysticism is flawed in another sense. Wapnick wishes to assert Oneness but not Holiness, or Wholeness. In other words, Wapnick's God is One but not Holy, and clearly DOES NOT assert Holiness as an attribute of God, which is the distinguishing characteristic of between Wapnick's assertion of oneness and the author of The Course's assertion of Oneness. Holiness, or Wholeness certainly implies relationship(s) and "oneness," as unity, rather than "oneness," as "one thing."

As such Wapnick admission of a "mad idea," into the "no dif­ferentiation or distinction within the Godhead of truth," is incomprehensible without the attendant assertion that this God or Godhead is also Holy.

After all, how is it possible that a "mad idea," arises out of "perfect Oneness," without it being self-evident that this "Perfect Oneness," is hardly "perfect"?

In addition, introducing the notion of "illusion," and immediate self-correction is hardly consistent with a notion of perfect oneness with no dif­ferentiation or distinction, and no notion of unity or wholeness. And this is true whether God or Godhead is presented as either a "thing" or as "awareness."

As such Wapnick is forced to compromise his notion of perfect oneness and refutes his own premise from the very beginning of his metaphysics in order to attempt to explain anything. However and clearly, the "mad idea," can easily be explained and articulated by simply asserting Holiness in addition to Oneness, and allowing the basic, primitive notion of unity to unify relationships, difference and distinctions into an expanded notion of "Oneness."
In short then, Wapnick places himself in an untenable position.

His metaphysics clearly cannot explain anything, so he is forced to argue that a literal reading of A Course in Miracles also cannot explain anything, which Wapnick claims by way of making a literal reading of The Course "metaphorical."
A claim, however which Wapnick cannot demonstrate or prove, and is counter intuitive to the implicit claims of the author who clearly asserts his metaphysics is explanatory and useful.

And yet again, Wapnick refutes himself, by way of pragmatism. Clearly his assertion and teaching that Atonement and forgiveness or somehow useful spiritual methods to attain a state of Oneness is predicated on the usefulness and explanatory power of a literal reading of A Course in Miracles.

As such if Atonement and forgiveness in fact works, and their efficiency leads to the Real World, Dream of Forgiveness and then to Oneness, or the "awareness of perfect Oneness," this can clearly only mean that a literal reading of A Course in Miracles is in fact useful and explanatory, and thus must be a superior metaphysics to Wapnick's which, as we have seen, cannot possibly explain anything.