Dear J,

I am more than happy to explain why I, among many students, have a strong
objection to Dr Wapnick's Course-alien "non-dualism" reductionism.

Let us start at the center of his conclusion. From Lighthouse Article, June
2006:

"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." ~Ken Wapnick

Which is completely and 180 degree opposed to Jesus' teaching in every
version of the Course.

1. The Godhead is Trinitarian, and describes a irreducible relationship of
Cause/Effect/Expansion

2. Without the necessary distinction of Creator and Sonship, and while
reducing everything to "only God", the Atonement principle is rendered
impotent (in theory of course).

3. The necessary distinction between Creator, Creation and reciprocal
Communication is central in the Course. Without it, you end up with a
sleeping, crazy God, Who dreams of separation and must awake Himself through
non-existing dream shadows, who will eventually vanish into the nothingness
they came from.

Wapnick, in his redaction, ie. erased approx. 130 instances of "Soul" as a
so-called ' controversial term', which is emblematic for his denial of the
Sonship as a collective. Clearly and without a doubt, Jesus describes the
Sonship as the transcended sum of all God-created minds/Souls, in which
every part contains the Whole, while the Whole transcends the sum of its
parts.

Jesus' Oneness is by all means a "Oneness of irreducible Relationship", and
not a " oneness of a thing", like a number 1 without any form of
relationship. What Wapnick and other "non-dualists" attempt to do is solve
the dilemma, which their egos cannot understand, by reducing everything to
"only God." This brings along a variety of problems, and is in fact the
declaration of total separation from Source - the dream of every ego.

On a personal level, I owe Ken only gratitude and friendship, as he was
instrumental in introducing me to Jesus, who is as real and as alive as you
and I. Although this is a matter of faith, I have collected evidence and
experience of his presence, authorship and literal, personal guidance, as
the instructor of the Course, and as someone who is not deceiving us in his
many statements about his indisputable Identity.

IOW, Wapnick's Course-alien non-dualism opposes every basic principle that
underlies the metaphysical and philosophical superior thoughtsystem of
Christ Jesus in the Course. In non-dualism, there is no place at all for
Holiness, and also not for sharing, expansion, and irreducible Cause-Effect
relationship. That is why students can become very confused and are
misguided by such reductionist monism forced upon the authentic teachings of
Jesus. Moreover, with Christ and Holy Spirit, and the Trinity as "merely a
set of symbols" the authority problem is actually not solved, but
reinforced.

Here are some relevant quotes (from the 2nd Edition):

T-4.VII.5. "God, Who encompasses all being, created beings who have
everything individually, but who want to share it to increase their joy. 2
Nothing real can be increased except by sharing. 3 That is why God created
you. 4 Divine Abstraction takes joy in sharing. 5 That is what creation
means."

T-4.VII.3. In contrast, [the Soul] reacts in the same way to everything it
knows is true, and does not respond at all to anything else. 2 Nor does it
make any attempt to establish what is true. 3 It knows that what is true is
everything that God created. 4 It is in complete and direct communication
with every aspect of creation, because it is in complete and direct
communication with its Creator. 5 This communication is the Will of God. 6
Creation and communication are synonymous. 7 God created every mind by
communicating His Mind to it, thus establishing it forever as a channel for
the reception of His Mind and Will. 8 Since only beings of a like order can
truly communicate, His creations naturally communicate with Him and like
Him.

Please also see this essential description of the "holographic" nature (in lack of better words) of the "part as whole, and of the whole in every part" <emphasis mine>

ACIM 2nd edition:

T-16.II.3. To you the miracle cannot seem natural, because what you have done to hurt your mind has made it so unnatural that it does not remember what is natural to it. 2 And when you are told what is natural, you cannot understand it. 3 The recognition of the part as whole, and of the whole in every part is perfectly natural, for it is the way God thinks, and what is natural to Him is natural to you. 4 Wholly natural perception would show you instantly that order of difficulty in miracles is quite impossible, for it involves a contradiction of what miracles mean. 5 And if you could understand their meaning, their attributes could hardly cause you perplexity.

 T-16.II.4. You have done miracles, but it is quite apparent that you have not done them alone. 2 You have succeeded whenever you have reached another mind and joined with it. 3 When two minds join as one and share one idea equally, the first link in the awareness of the Sonship as One has been made. 4 When you have made this joining as the Holy Spirit bids you, and have offered it to Him to use as He sees fit, His natural perception of your gift enables Him to understand it, and you to use His understanding on your behalf. 5 It is impossible to convince you of the reality of what has clearly been accomplished through your willingness while you believe that you must understand it or else it is not real. T-16.II.5. How can faith in reality be yours while you are bent on making it unreal?

>>... as I was on discovering there was no hundredth monkey. <<

Now, I surely trust and have faith that Jesus' teaching in the Course, and
the future he predicts for us, will prove you wrong on this point, dear.
IMO, the hundredth monkey effect is described in the early text as a
"sufficient number":

Original Edition, The Meaning of the Last Judgment: [...] Just as the separation occurred over many millions of years, the Last Judgment will extend over a similarly long period, and perhaps an even longer one. Its length depends, however, on the effectiveness of the present speed-up. We have frequently noted that the miracle is a device for shortening but not abolishing time. If a sufficient number of people become truly miracle-minded quickly, the shortening process can be almost immeasurable. It is essential, however, that these individuals free themselves from fear sooner than would ordinarily be the case, because they must emerge from the conflict if they are to bring peace to other minds."

peace

Atonement is mental healing

Miracles are not contingent on belief and work despite belief and despite beliefs heavily supported by investment and faith. Miracles work by changing fear thoughts to love thoughts, at the causal level, from the bottom up, not the top down. They work despite belief and are in no way contingent on actively, by one's own efforts, changing beliefs. That change in belief is the shift in perception and the consequence of a miracle.
This change or transformation from fear to love works by the law of cause and effect.

In short, if the cause doesn't change then the effect will never change. That is why in Chapter 3, Jesus says he can't correct the fear that we have miscreated, because if messed with the level of effect he'd be violating the most basic and fundamental law of the universe.

In other words, can't do it. No matter how much someone pleas and prays, and demands the effect be changed in "His Name," etc. As long as the person continues to think fear at the causal level the effect has to be FEAR.

However, what can be done consistently and in harmony with the Law of Cause and Effect, is the cause of fear can be changed. In other words, fear is lack of love and the Holy Spirit can supply the love the fear thought lacks thus changing the fear thought to a love thought.

Thus the cause changes and the effect MUST change. The causal level is prior to "belief." Jesus is clear that at this causal level we cannot possible know what fear thoughts need to be changed or how to change them. To think we do from a postion of wrong mindedness is self healing by one's own effort, which is NOT our job, nor within our ability, and is nothing more than interference with the Holy Spirit's job of healing, which could lead to a negation of the miracle. In other words, its the Holy Spirit's job to heal through miracles. Our job is to bring what needs healing to the Holy Spirit and with this little willingness allow healing to occur. Let's take an example of someone with cancer.

 

The presumption is that its God's will this person be whole and healthy. Jesus shares that presumption, but says even he cannot change the effect level of thinking. The person must be willing to allow the Holy Spirit to change his fear thoughts at the causal level. On the other hand, as healer, what the Holy Spirit heals may have little to do with cancer and maybe not manifest as the cancer cured. The Holy Spirit might decided to heal a fear of death, or the fear of loving, knowing in the grand scheme of things, the person has decided to die and healing the cancer is not important. As such its superficial to analyze illness in terms of belief, where the belief in illness is changed to a belief in health.

 

Changing beliefs at the level of cause to another belief of one's own choosing is not healing at the causal level and thus not a miracle. In other words there is much more than belief involved and much more than cancer. By the laws of mind one might indeed "heal the cancer," by faith and belief, but by the same laws of mind, if the underlying fear thoughts are not changed at a causal level, then the cancer will return or another illness will manifest, or perhaps a fatal car wreck could end earthly life. The cancer would in this case be healed, a "miracle" claimed, but no miracle occurred. All one did was shift from one belief to another at the level of effect and not deal at all at the causal level.

The idea here is the Holy Spirit is in actual control of the miracle, and what thoughts it corrects and when in time these thoughts are corrected, but certainly one can be an agent of the Holy Spirit and miracles and thus learn to heal as a miracle worker. The second notion from Chapter 4 and 5 is to ask or request healing/correction in the fairly precise and limited parameters described, and then allow the miracle to happen without insisting your further efforts are somehow needed or important for the miracle to work. In this sense the constant request for healing and correction of a problem, or with more precision, how one feels about a problem, violates this principle to allow the allow the miracle to happen and trust the miracle will occur.

The second error or mistake is the defining beforehand what must result from a miracle In other words, defining the cancer as "the problem," rather than the result or the consequence or the manifestation of "the problem," or "a problem," which is always and must be fear thoughts and fear thoughts often not at the conscious level of awareness. By defining cancer as the problem, this clearly interferes with both the miracles ability to heal and correct thought, and in addition, places one in a position not to recognize a "shift in perception," when one is looking for immediate dramatic results of healing.

The third error is equating belief with thinking, instead of belief as a property of, or consequence or condition of thinking. This in turn can lead one to understand a condition of illness, say cancer, is simply a matter of belief that the body can be ill instead of the belief the body can only be healthy, and thus the remedy or miracle is based on changing a negative belief to an alleged positive belief and largely by one's own effort.

This is a highly confusing framework for mental healing. After all, people who believe that they can get ill or could suffer from cancer are nevertheless well and healthy despite that belief, while people who profess to belive that they are not a body and illness is "just a belief," nevertheless can have cancer. In addition, in course metaphysics one cannot change a belief unless the fundamental causal thoughts attendant with that belief are not only "changed," but specifically changed from fear thoughts to love thoughts. Otherwise only the form of the belief changes, and not the result or effect.

 

Another error here in belief based miracles is it a type of white voodoo, or magical thinking. In other words, in voodoo, if someone filled with superstition and fear actually believes that a Witch doctor can cast an evil spell on him, by the power of the mind and belief, that person could actually begin to waste away and then die. This is similar to investing pills and medicine with the properties to heal. Similarly the person might soon get well once he believes the spell is lifted. So one has to ask how voodoo is any different from belief based healing in certain Christian Churches?

The point here is Course based miraculous healing is not defined by a remission of symptoms, but rather the mind's release from fear. Symptoms can clearly be "healed," while the mind itself is still very much filled with fear. As such, the type of miracles and methodology and belief/faith theory described and used by charismatic Churches seems very much a hit and miss deal, in the sense sometime what they do seem to work and other times not. And that is because much of this is magic and voodoo, because symptoms are often healed but the mind is still uncorrected and filled with fear.This is not to say the Holy Spirit and Jesus are superstitions and prayer and requests have no effect, rather that the Course teaches a much more precise and accurate and fool-proof method for miracles and mental healing. Indeed, the whole notion of the Atonement is mental healing, not physical healing. When the mind is healed then health as an expression of peace, follows naturally.

Why the Course was written to be read literally

"As far as I'm aware, every claim that the Course somehow cannot be understood largely literally within the accepted limitations of language, can be dismissed as agenda-driven religiosity, where the main complaint is a literal reading doesn't produce the pre-determined agenda, results and conclusions of the critic.

To be sure, in an academic sense, unclouded by religious passions and beliefs, a work written philosophically in a philosophical manner, concerned with philosophical issues is read literally, "as written" and stands on its on.

Why? Because the assumption is a writer who presumes to write in an exact, precise, philosophical manner assumes the burden of clarity within the accepted limits of language, and has no agenda or reason to be less than clear by the introduction of figurative or metaphorical language when unambiguous, clear language can convey the thought. In other words the purpose of philosophy and philosophical methods and methodology is extreme clarity of thought and not hiding, obscuring, or muddling thought to the extent a claim can be made that "as written," the philosophic thought or thought system offered is largely nonsense, or figurative/metaphor, or in short, simply does not and cannot mean what it says."

In the case of ACIM, the above notion is demonstrated by the author writing and presenting his work as a formal thought system.

What does this mean? It means the author writes in terms of given, but unproven axiomatic thoughts, introduces premises logically derived by logical rules of inference, then reaches clearly logically VALID conclusions based on the truth of his axiomatic thought. An example of unproven, axiomatic thought would be "God exists," and the attendant axiom, "that God created you and you did not create God."

An example of a valid conclusion reached would be that the Atonement works and can only work because God created you and you cannot create yourself.

The demonstration of a formal thought system in ACIM could be accomplished by placing key Course ideas in the form of either syllogistic or predicate logic, following accepted rules of inference. Which is the end would be unnecessary and trite, because its generally recognized and conceded that the author writes logically, in a logical manner, and is concerned with both his logic and fallacious logic.

As such and clearly, writers writing philosophically concerned with logic and reason, are NOT writing figuratively, poetically or metaphorically. Such methods and presentation of material are mutually exclusive, and I would challenge anyone of "ACIM as metaphor, school of thought," to give any example, anywhere of a poetic, figurative, metaphorical work presented as a formal thought system and concerned with formal logic. Such works don't exist and could never happened.

As such the counter claim that a formal thought system and rationality are the metaphor and thus demonstrate the allegedly figurative nature of ACIM, is non academic and contentious of the author presenting his thoughts in his own way and own manner, and clearly limits such a critic to non rational "proofs" that his meta-commenting is correct. In other words, by definition cannot be rationally proven, and thus self-refuting.

In short then, that for the above and other reasons, ACIM was written to be understood literally within the accepted limitations of language. This argument does make sense, and is pretty much irrefutable. I doubt anyone with any academic credentials or scholarly pretensions would attempt to demonstrate ACIM is not written and presented as formal thought system.

To be sure, a formal thought system as described is the gold standard for "making sense," and being intelligible. In other words, a formal thought system cannot NOT make sense or be "wrong," unless axioms and premises are first proven false, or that deductive rules of inference are violated or faulty. "When we talk about "making sense," in a formal way, making sense means valid logical inferences from premises.

This of course, challenges the "writing in language we understand," claim.

The author is clearly writing in language and logical structure we understand and largely cannot be critiqued or challenged without demonstrating that his axiomatic foundational statement are false.

That CANNOT be done because these axiomatic statements such as "God created you, and you did not create yourself," reflect God established Laws stated by a direct knower (Jesus) of these laws, not an interpretor of these laws. This is the author's claim. Furthermore his axioms cannot be in principle be proven or demonstrated false from the view point or context of an different, perception-based thought

As such a ACIM critic can reject the author's axioms but cannot demonstrate or prove them false. So in this sense, ACIM as written is all true or all false.

In short then, ACIM is a heavenly based, formal thought system reflecting heaven, while alternative interpretations such a Wapnick's  or Renard don't pretend to be a complete thought system, rather these interpretations are presented as a collection of beliefs, and pre-ordained, agenda driven conclusions, with no formal logical structure which could take scrutiny.

Moreover, Wapnick's assertion of non duality is irrational, and is for all purposes a categorical denial of rationally and formal thought systems as "duality," which leads him to the strange and highly peculiar position of refuting rationality by allegedly rational means. Wapnick assumed non duality and his definition of non duality, then made the non duality the first principle of course interpretation, so its hardly suprising that he concludes ACIM teaches non duality.

In Wapnick's critique and re-interpretation, "non duality," substitutes as first principle and axiomatic statement. Which by the law of allegiance to premises, must read and interpret all passages in ACIM as consistent with this first, inviolate principle. As such his conclusion of non duality is certain  and ordained, though clearly because he changed axioms of the Course thought system and not because he had allegiance to the author's pure, holy, absolutely true, God-established axioms.

Let's say some dislike "stop think" commands like "duality," especially in a religious context, and especially when uttered [by sloppy thinkers]. In a course context "duality," is misused by people who either can't understand perception involves interpretation unlike the natural condition of knowledge, or can't explain a simple comparison and contrast, even though many claim to be teachers."

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.