Post by DeborahPost by r***@tahoe.blueI can understand this point of view from an ego standpoint, but
certainly the Holy Spirit would endorse our time "here" as the
opportunity to learn the lesson of forgiveness. It is either a prison
or a classroom, and we get to choose which. The world is a "shitball"
or the "Royal Road to Heaven," and we <have> to choose which.
Nice to hear your down-to-earth take on things again, Richard.
And, nice to see that you're still around. The place has kind of
emptied out since my last visit. I hope it wasn't something <I> said.
Post by DeborahI agree that those without blocks to the awareness of Love's Presence
would have no need of ACIM.
Like you, I've been around the newsgroup, the lists, and 3-d meetings
for a long time, which I guess, if nothing else makes me a very slow
learner. From time to time, these groups attract "graduate" or "post-
graduate" students of the Course. For whatever wisdom and insight they
can offer, we should be grateful, but (for some) there is a tendency
to sneer at those who are not as far up the illusory ladder of
understanding.
I think there are some thought systems where that is a valid approach
(I remember long, drawn-out discussion on "karmic slaps," etc).
Reading the Course, I just don't get that attitude from Jesus, who,
while not compromising, is the most gentle of teachers. If only I
could be that gentle and <understanding> with/ of myself... the ego
not caring whether I beat you up or myself, just as long as someone
takes a beating.
Post by DeborahOne thing I always keep in mind is what
the course says about how we have everything upside down, and how
sometimes what we see as our greatest failures are actually our
greatest strides forward, and vice versa. It's as easy as pie to make
an image of myself where I am progressing just wonderfully with course
teachings and have much wisdom to share with others, but the objective
is really to peel off the layers and layers of images and get down to
the reality of what I am, which is beyond images and concepts.
This resonates with me. The Course is only about how <I> see and
relate to the world. I know that it's never about only 1 person's
issues, but it is only my thought(s) that needs changing. And, as my
best thinking is what got me here, trusting my best thinking is always
in question, or should be. I look at the very earliest of lessons and
have to look at my desire to dismiss them as so rudimentary as to be
beneath my (re)consideration. Certainly, I've progressed beyond Lesson
1, right? Not really. If I truly grasped any of the lessons, I will
have grasped them all.
On the other hand, I am learning Lesson 1 by realizing that I still
believe there is meaning here. <That> is the lesson; not that this
place doesn't have any intrinsic meaning, but that I believe it does.
If I grasp <that,> I'm half way home.
Richard
:-) Minds are joined. Yesterday, Lee shared the following:
Thoughts on the 1st Review of the workbook lessons, and its
single-paragraph, capsule review of Lesson One..
W-pI.51.1. (1) Nothing I see means anything.
2 The reason this is so is that I see nothing, and nothing
has no meaning. 3 It is necessary that I recognize this,
that I may learn to see. 4 What I think I see now is taking
the place of vision. 5 I must let it go by realizing it
has no meaning, so that vision may take its place.
As we look over that first lesson title, it's a wonderful line to begin
the review with imo. It's a wonderful line to begin the workbook with!
"Nothing I see means anything."
It introduces a dilemma and it establishes two key concepts to
frame that dilemma. Sight and meaning. The dilemma is that my
sight is presently divorced from meaning.
Note please, that I'm NOT at all being told there is nothing
meaningful TO see. Only that the meaning is lacking in what
I now see.
The lesson identifies the solution as restoring my sight of the
meaning<ful>, through vision. But it begins by explaining why
nothing I see means anything, in sentence 2, where I'm told
it's because I see "nothing," and "nothing has no meaning."
Now if I start with that last half of sentence 2, I find a definition
of "nothing"ness -- as that which "has no <meaning>." And as
we recognize from the Course, all things created have meaning
as an essential attribute given in their creation. If what I see has
no meaning, then what I 'see' is illusory. Thus I 'see' nothing.
The third sentence says it's necessary that I recognize this, in
order that I may "learn to see." So I'm introduced here to the
concept of "learning to see" as the remedy for the bedrock
dilemma, "Nothing I see means anything." I'm assured that
I can <learn> to see.. once I recognize that I don't yet see,
at all. Learning to see is where I will find meaning.
In the 4th sentence this is clarified. I'm introduced to the
concept of vision.
"4 What I think I see now is taking the place of vision."
Nothing <I see> means anything, BECAUSE vision has been
replaced by what I think I see now. This 4th sentence also
introduces the idea that vision is not just the act or faculty
of seeing correctly, but also includes the meaning imparted
(or restored) by corrected sight. This is conveyed by the
sentence structure itself, where on one side we have
<what I think I see now>, and on the other side we have
vision. Vision represents the meaningful alternative to the
meaninglessness of <what I think I see now>.
The concluding sentence reads,
"5 I must let <it> go by realizing <it> has no meaning,
so that vision may take <its> place."
Ok, I must let go of <what I think I see now> by realizing <what
I think I see now> has no meaning.. SO THAT vision may *take
the place* of <what I think I see now.> So we have vision again
representing not only a corrected faculty of sight, but signifying
what that corrected faculty of sight will meaningfully behold.
Sight and meaning are presently divorced, then.. but vision will
restore that meaning and lead to wholly different understanding
and experience of everyone and everything.
Check !