Is A Course in Miracles a Non-Dual path?? #nonduality #acim

In our A Course in Miracles community it is clear that many (majority?) of students think of this Course as Non-dual. I have been asked by a fellow student/teacher my thoughts on this topic. Below I have shared with you what he asked me. Then I share with you my response to him.

I also (after I wrote this blog) did a video with fellow scholars of the Course Tom Glod (my husband), Robert Perry and Emily Bennington from the Circle of Atonement. The four of us tackled this question “Is A Course in Miracles non-dual?” I have added that video below my writing.

What are your thoughts on this topic?
Is the Course non-dual?
Would love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.

Love,
Britney

His Question:

So all that I’m going to say here I know you already know. It just sort of came together for me particularly in the light of the past few days in the light of our coming together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Also, before saying anything, to bear in mind that all this, according to the teaching of the Course, is just a part of the dream, and going by the lesson we read this morning, is actually nothing at all, doesn’t even exist. What is really happening is something much more amazing and way beyond it. Again, I know you know this!

This ‘schism’ that appears to divide Course students and teachers has been in existence almost since day one, and appears eventually and inevitably in almost every group and discussion. It is between those who believe the Course’s essential teaching is non-dualism, and those who don’t. The first mainly follow the teachings of Ken Wapnick, and the main exponent of the second is probably Robert Perry. A word about Ken. In my opinion he is certainly the greatest intellectual teacher of the Course. But I don’t think he was an ‘enlightened’ or ‘awakened’ teacher (and I know that’s a huge judgment on my part!) You just have to compare videos of him with those of David Hoffmeister, for instance, to see the difference. Same with Robert Perry. I have the greatest respect for Robert as a teacher. It was his commentaries that I read when I first started studying the Course. I saw your interview with him last week, and his emphasis on the person and incarnation of Jesus and the moral precepts he taught for living in the world.

My Response:

The schism that you speak of that divides the Course HAS been there from the beginning. I’ve learned that since observing the community and through my research for the acim documentary. I have found in my acim study group however (the one that you are now part of) we have been meeting for 3 years and we’ve never run into this schism problem. We’ve never had a conflict or anything that remotely divides. In fact, we have as a group, and individually in our relationships within the group, have been experiencing miracles together. We all seem to see the Course the same, as we all take Jesus as the teacher of the Course. (I am not the teacher even though I lead the group. I am just sharing what Jesus is teaching me and has taught me. In my mind I see myself as equal to everyone in this group and they know that.)

So… to lead into the convo about this Course being a non-dual Course.

Personally, I have never seen ACIM as a non-dual Course. I see it as a Course in Oneness, yes absolutely. But oneness and non-dual is NOT the same for me. When we think in terms of dual vs non-dual that’s, to me, still in a box of good and bad. Its still part of the dream and is a way that humans try to understand something outside the dream. Oneness is equal to UNITY for me, not non-dualism or duality. Its beyond both those concepts and is found and understood ONLY through the experience of unity/oneness.

I look to Jesus to tell me what the Course is and what Truth is, and not once in all of ACIM does he use the language “non dual”. He uses “dual” once in the clarification of terms where he talks about Holy Spirit having a dual function in our minds to both correct (forgive) and extend love (give miracles)…and dual then shows up over 61 times in the course, as part of the word individual!! If this course was non-dual it would say that first of all .. and second of all… it would not speak of the individual, but it does. It would not speak of God and Son either. It would not speak of brothers. But it does. It speaks to all this, and to me being God’s son/child will forever be my reality. “I will forever be an effect of God” (lesson 326 in acim). I believe Jesus when He tells us this, and all my experiences point to this being my power, truth and reality.

Because of this I am not trying to live as “nothingness” or see you as “nothingness”, as non -dual teaches teach us to do. I first made myself empty (nothingness) so that I had no ideas or thoughts of what I was or what you are or what God is to block the truth. THEN everything was given me and I came to know myself AS everything (that is loving) and see you as everything (that is loving) which IS the Truth of unity and the effect of forgiven perception. So freedom or truth or oneness is NOT in the absence of a relationship or identity, as non dualism suggests, but rather the nothingness or non duality is there temporarily, only until we are filled with the truth of everything/oneness through direct God/Christ contact.

This quote, that was edited out of FIP version is pretty clear on how Jesus sees this topic: “²I wanted you to think of yourself as a distinct consciousness, capable of direct communication with the Creator of that consciousness. ³You must begin to think of yourself as a very powerful receiving and sending channel. [CE T-4.VIII.8:2-3] ….distinct consciousness is pretty clear. 🙂

In regards to Ken being the greatest intellectual of ACIM of all time, yes he was an intellectual about the Course, but in my research he is incredibly contradictory as a Teacher. He will some times say “ask Jesus for guidance” and then say “Jesus is an illusion don’t ask him for specifics”. Sometimes he will say use “Holy spirit to correct your perception,” then some times he says “holy spirit is a metaphor and there is nothing to correct”. He also interprets ACIM in his own way, that then opposes what Jesus says in the Course in others places. It was also Ken that inserted the idea that ACIM is non-dual into our community, and with the 45,000 words he and Helen took out of the first 4 chapters of the Foundation for Inner Peace version of the Course, it looks like it *might* be non dual. But it was edited that way, it is NOT that way, and Jesus did NOT intend for it to be that way. I have endless lists of research and proof to show that the editing that Ken and Helen did for the Foundation for Inner Peace version was NOT guided by Jesus. Your right though, Ken was not awakened or enlightened, in fact, I have tried to find stories, examples, experiences of him sharing his own miracles, forgiveness experiences, awakening experiences… anything! And there is nothing. In all those years, he never talked about how he applied it to himself….. I don’t understand how we can teach and not share what we have learned. Jesus tells us that “to teach is to demonstrate”. I have not found Ken to be a good demonstrator of what the Course teaches at all. He has some good intellectual ideas on it… but learning ACIM and especially living it does not come from the intellect….

A big part of my mission on this planet is to correct the record of what Jesus taught. And what Jesus’ true message is. And I am certain his message is not non-dual.. its about others, our brothers, and loving our neighbors as ourselves. That’s unity to me. That’s true oneness expressed as love. Expressions of Love are miracles. There is nothing non-dual about this way of seeing and living.

You are totally correct in your experience, that even though ACIM seems to use this dual language, the experience is of oneness that is beyond the words. This oneness though still includes a clear understanding that God is Source and I am His Son/child, made in His image and likeness. This may appear to keep duality in tact, but it doesn’t. Its our True identity. We will never be the Creator God because He made us, not the other way around. But our unity and oneness with God and each other can be fully understood and experienced, even here. (Which is the goal of ACIM in my opinion, as in this experience of oneness IS the source of the peace and joy you speak of (and Jesus speaks of 🙂 )

So to conclude, no A Course in Miracles is NOT a non-dual Course. But YES it is a Course that leads us to the experience of our perfect oneness and unity with God and our brothers and sisters and all living things.

I will leave us with this quote from the Course that speaks to our unity in God, but also that this unity is expressed through giving and saving the world, which is salvation:
“Spirit am I, holy child of God,
free of all limits, safe, healed, whole,
Free to forgive and free to save the world”

Spread the Love

5 2 votes

Article Rating

15 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Kib

9 months ago

Really like this article.
Thanks !

Best from Denmark

Britney Shawley

Author

Reply to Kib

9 months ago

Thanks so much! I am glad you like it 🙂

Allowah

6 months ago

Thank you for this, Britney. I think you would have to give some examples of how you know that
the editing of the Course was not guided by Jesus. I’m really not sure that anyone can really prove that either way. Nor can anyone truly say what the “Oneness” is that the Course refers to. Appeal to one’s own sense and sensibility in this matter is not enough given the fact that this is such a tendentious issue in the world of ACIM. The lesson you mention reads:

I am forever an Effect of God.
W-pII.326.1. Father, I was created in Your Mind, a holy Thought that never left its home. 2 I am forever Your Effect, and You forever and forever are my Cause. 3 As You created me I have remained. 4 Where You established me I still abide. 5 And all Your attributes abide in me, because it is Your Will to have a Son so like his Cause that Cause and Its Effect are indistinguishable. 6 Let me know that I am an Effect of God, and so I have the power to create like You. 7 And as it is in Heaven, so on earth. 8 Your plan I follow here, and at the end I know that You will gather Your effects into the tranquil Heaven of Your Love, where earth will vanish, and all separate thoughts unite in glory as the Son of God.
W-pII.326.2. Let us today behold earth disappear, at first transformed, and then, forgiven, fade entirely into God’s holy Will.

It seems that the line, “And all Your attributes abide in me, because it is Your Will to have a Son so like his Cause that Cause and Its Effect are indistinguishable,” suggests that in Heaven there is no more cause and effect. Perhaps what Jesus is getting at here is written for us who are still in the world of perception where cause and effect are meaningful concepts. We need to think of ourselves as forever an effect of God, because we have gotten so off course in thinking of ourselves as our own cause. This lesson is merely there to correct that mistaken idea. But once we have learned the lesson, we won’t need it any longer and are free to return home to the Oneness. But what that Oneness looks like seems to be anyone’s best guess, and Jesus ain’t telling.

One way we might approach this is to simply ask ourselves the question: Do I have any fear in regard to one way of seeing this versus another? If I do, then that is something for me to look at.

The last thing I would suggest here is that as soon as we put labels on anyone, in this case other Course teachers like Ken, it would seem that we do them an injustice — and ourselves, because we have blocked our own openness, and failed the lesson of truly staying open to what our brother has to say. We are no longer in the place of “I don’t know, but am open,” and are thus blocking our own way in this process. And that’s not a judgement — I say that to myself as much to you!

Thank you for listening ~ Peace ~ Allowah

Britney Shawley

Author

Reply to Allowah

6 months ago

Hello. Thank you for your comment. I appreciate the opportunity to communicate about this. The way I know the editing was not guided is to follow the trail that Ken and Helen and Bill left behind. There is support in what the 3 of them offer us, for this conclusion, and I will be flushing it out in detail in the book I am writing about it.

And yes, In heaven cause and effect is indistinguishable, yet until we are there we cannot claim to know what that means at all. What we CAN know is that I AM an effect of God, forever, and when I accept THAT… then all can come into accord with his Will. His Will is Joy. Joy can only come from oneness. So oneness is not a concept, its an experience that comes along with the acceptance of the atonement (the one self / Christ / Son) I say this all based on my experience… and because its what I see in ACIM.

I am not sure what labels you are feeling are being put on Ken, I am only seeking to look to what his role was and who ascribed that role to him and what he did in that role. I don’t have to have any of my own thoughts in that, I just need to show the facts of what took place….and that’s what I am trying to do

ACIM can teach us true guidance with our inner teacher and how to have a miraculous relationship with other, our selves and with this interactive universe.
Its hard to have relationships when we are told Oneness means there are no relationships and nothing is here and nothing is happening.
Its the conclusions that WE make about what Oneness means or acim means, that we must we mindful of and vigilant against. [like acim is non dual]
All answers/conclusions must be given us through guidance for them to be wholly accurate.

Thanks again for your thoughts and comments here. Much Love to you brother and friend.

Allowah

Reply to Britney Shawley

6 months ago

Thank you, Britney, I appreciate you and this opportunity as well. I know that we’re all doing our best to make sense of things here. I know that you will not read my words as attack or to stoke the fires of controversy, but rather for the sake of greater clarification.

I sense that at the heart of this discussion is a question of who Helen was and what was the true source of her inner voice. If it truly was Jesus, and I think most of us would like to believe that this is true (or that the message was coming from the highest source, perfect love), then we can ask: Who was Helen to have been the medium for this? Was she merely the fallible instrument through which the Course came through, or was she, as some have suggested, essentially Jesus herself. And if that is indeed a possibility, one would then be led to wonder who was really running the show? If we don’t think that Jesus was, or that he would allow his “channels” to misrepresent his message, then that really puts into question the entire Course itself. For after all, Jesus could have chosen more worthy channels from the get-go who would not distort his message. I realize that some actually do maintain that the original group got off track and did distort the message, but again, you would have to answer the question of why Jesus would have allowed that to happen in the first place? That is, if you think that Jesus is infallible and the source of the Course is truly the highest source…

To respond to what you wrote:

I do think we can at the very least say that the idea that cause and effect are “indistinguishable” in heaven is at the very least pointing to the idea (stated elsewhere, in Workbook Lesson 169) that ultimately the Son will disappear into the Father, and the Father into the Son. If that is not pointing to a non-dual reality (a Love that encompasses all, so that there are no more opposites), then I’m not sure we can even have a fruitful discussion about this.

As far as “labels,” I was mainly referring to the label of “intellectual,” which seemed to be used somewhat pejoratively, or that Ken was “merely intellectual” when it came to the Course, and that he had no inner realization himself. Otherwise, how could he contradict himself so? Actually, on face value, Jesus’ Course also seems to contradict itself in a number of ways. Does that mean that Jesus was mistaken? No, what it means is that we did not read carefully enough to truly understand his message so that those seeming contradictions could be reconciled.

I do think if one honestly looks at all of what Ken wrote and said about ACIM, one cannot help but see a brother who not only must have been not just an intellectual but a true mystic, and a Teacher of teachers. Perhaps if we don’t see that, it is because we are resisting what he had to say because it is too threatening. For example, his insistence that there really is no one else out there, there’s only one of us here. There’s no world to do anything about, the only thing we truly need to focus on is the acceptance of the Atonement, which is, as you know, that the separation never happened. Which of course means that there’s really nothing to change here except our own mind. We are only one that needs to awaken — there’s only one Son of God! Any other course of action is a denial of truth. Ken was merely uncompromising in that, as is Jesus in the Course. Another way to say this is that if you build your argument or foundation upon even one faulty premise or presupposition, the whole thing will never fly, it will fall apart.

Bottom line: I would at the very least question the idea that Jesus, and Helen, did not know what they were doing in having Ken be an integral part of their team. Ken said that Helen was of “impeccable integrity,” and I would say: It takes one to know one.

I believe that Ken was also correct in questioning people’s “guidance.” Such guidance can indeed be truly inspired by Spirit, and it can also be colored by ego, as Ken acknowledged that even Helen’s guidance was at the very start of the process. So inner guidance is not necessarily enough. Sounds crazy to say that, but as the Course says, the ego is definitely a force to be reckoned with, and given the power that we have given it, we cannot underestimate the power that it still has over our minds, advanced as we might think we are in this whole journey of awakening. And that is why not listening to what Ken had to say (meaning to truly try to understand it) may actually be quite an obstacle in getting to the final goal.

This is not to say that Ken never made any mistakes (or Helen, or Bill, or Judy, etc), but as far as specifics go, we all make mistakes. Overall, though, you would either have to accept that Jesus’ overarching/general plan was/is correct, or you would have to just throw the whole thing out.

Thank you so much for listening and for this communication. Only here to be truly helpful, Peace!

Britney Shawley

Author

Reply to Allowah

6 months ago

I have no confusion about who the Author is. Its undeniably Jesus Christ for me…. and Helen was also NOT a fallible scribe. In fact Jesus called her a “near perfect” scribe and she was prepared by Jesus for 6 months before she began her scribing journey…..

Speaking of nonduality beyond this world is pointless. Its concepts you or others speak of when its comes to that. Jesus in that same lesson169 says “. It (experience of Love without opposite) comes to every mind when total recognition that its will is God’s has been completely given and received completely” We MUST learn to give and receive/ do Gods will completely before we are ready for the experience of Revelation that Jesus is talking about here. So its not concepts, and its not something we need to even concern ourselves with. Our concern is mind training, listening to Gods voice and giving as this voice directs so we can receive. I am not interested in non duality, I am interested in doing ACIM as it teaches us… and in this very lesson 169 it says to NOT concern yourself with nonduality or love without opposite as the time….because when that EXPERIENCE is to come to us, is already SET.

Yes, Ken is VERY intellectual…no heart… no reason… just all concepts around these ideas of the Course. His teachings lack experience and the energy of Spirit and Joy.

Jesus says His words in the Course do NOT contradict… which they don’t. He says that its human minds that see contradiction but that’s not coming from Him, its coming from the confusion in ones own mind. I have seen ZERO contradictions in the Course or Jesus words….zero.

What in Kens demonstration shows he is a true mystic?? Did you see all his lies, and abuse and suing and court cases he instigated and all the tearing down he did of other course teachers? Thats not even including all that he added and deleted in the Course through his human and unguided editing. He is the opposite of a mystic from what his fruits demonstrated to us……

The example you gave from Ken here when you said “ For example, his insistence that there really is no one else out there, there’s only one of us here. There’s no world to do anything about, the only thing we truly need to focus on is the acceptance of the Atonement, which is, as you know, that the separation never happened” is INSANE. These are NOT the conclusions we are to be making on what Jesus is teaching. Yes we are asked to accept the atonement for ourselves, but when we do, we GIVE the atonement / answers we’ve received to others….which in Kens view the giving is not there as there is no one to give too… so he CUT the atonement process in HALF and proclaims that he is right. This is one example of Ken classically usurping Gods Authority and Christ Vision. The Course says that there is One Self, and that one self is both individual (soul/son) and collective (sonship/humanity) at the same time. This one self is our one self FOREVER “I am forever an effect of God” Lesson 326. Jesus also teaches us to GIVE and BLESS and SERVE to our brothers who ARE here with us. Jesus also tells us we ARE here for the salvation of the world and to bring this world to heaven (so the REAL WORLD can reflect here) Its this “no one is here and nothing is happening thing” that I will never side with… it confuses people and leads them away from each other which leads them away from God. Kens views are NOT threatening…. they INSANE and not true. And these old conclusions on ACIM must be taken off for future generations to become miracle workers like Jesus is urging us to do.

Ken is not my authority… nor should he be anyone’s on Truth/ the Course. Defending him is only defending his beliefs about Truth, which are erroneous. Its time for us to side with what Jesus says truth is, and ASK HIM so we can offer forgiveness to our brother who knew not what he was doing….and offer miracles to the world as He guides us to do.

Hope this response suffices. God Bless you.

Allowah

Reply to Allowah

5 months ago

Hi Britney, thank you for your response to my last message. For some reason, I only see it on my phone, so I will just respond here on my laptop and refer to what you wrote on my phone…

I want to say again that we are all doing our best to just understand and practice ACIM to the best of our ability. We are all on the same team in this, and I believe we can all agree that God is Love, and at the end of the day, all we need to do is to live such that that is indeed the case. All else will follow. Let us be kind above all, and attempt to be truly helpful to our brethren.

So I am not here to fight. If anything, I just want to get clear myself about what the record really is, so if you want to set me straight on that, please do…

So far, however, nothing you have said has convinced me that the official record is incorrect, more or less. And if you took a survey of all of the ACIM people in the world, I believe you would have difficulty convincing many of them, the majority of them. So if your purpose is to somehow unite the ACIM world under “One God. One Course. One Interpretation” or something of that sort, I would say good luck. I am just representative of a whole large swath of the ACIM community who would not give your conclusions the time of day, let alone talk to you about this.

I don’t say this to put you down, but rather, I do want to be helpful to you, if I can. You have taken a fringe position, and one that is essentially the ACIM version of a conspiracy theory.

So, even if you do write a book and do a documentary “proving” your side of things, it is highly doubtful that you will succeed in revising history as you would want it to be, or as you think that Jesus would have it be. I highly doubt you will present an open and shut case that would ever fly in a court of law and that would prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. You see, in this matter, you really can’t. But you will try, God knows (so to speak ; ) you’ll try.

For all the people that you will convince that Ken was a liar and a villain, you will have so many other people who will learn from him, and see him as the great soul and person he truly was. And you know, when you see him that way, there’s a projection there on your part that you’re really not addressing. “One brother is all brothers.” See only the Christ in all, even if your brother has done something that you consider “outrageous.”

Have you ever really seriously engaged with anything Ken wrote? Did you ever really read his book The Message of A Course in Miracles? If you had, you would see that he addressed every single “danger” of misinterpreting and misusing the Course that you all brought up in your video, and then some. He even talked about the dangers and misuse of the non-dual approach. To make it seem as though you all are the first to see these things is not honoring, not honest, not humble, and not acknowledging that you stand upon the shoulders of giants.

Long story short, it’s your loss if you don’t listen to Ken. He was a badass — in the best possible way. You’re missing out.

And worse (speaking on the level of form), you have committed character assassination of your brother, you’ve defamed his character. Now, you might think that he himself did this to others. Maybe so, and let’s just say that he did for a moment. But don’t we all make mistakes? I believe that he was able to admit his mistakes, such as not listening to his wife and putting a copyright on the original material. But he probably wasn’t willing to admit that he made a mistake in regard to doing his best to protect the legacy that Helen and Bill entrusted him with. Knowing Helen as he did, he probably thought she would never have stood for the shenanigans that happened after her death. Ken was heroic in attempting to defend her life’s work and her legacy.

_The sole responsibility of the miracle worker is to accept the Atonement for himself._ (https://acim.org/acim/en/s/65#5:1 | T-2.V.5:1).

What is the meaning of “sole”? It means that’s really all the miracle worker need do. Please carefully read the Psychotherapy supplement in which Jesus clearly says that healing one’s own mind will have a beneficial influence on all minds whether that individual actively helps others or not. And by the way, Ken never told anyone not to try to help others who were in need, or deny others or the world, just as Jesus does not in the Course. Most of your claims against Ken are, as I said in my response to your video, straw man arguments against a misrepresentation of Ken’s teachings. As with the Course itself, you have to take Ken in context — full context. Unless you do that (and you will do that if are wanting/trying to see something wrong with him), you will only make a mockery of him and his ideas. And in the process, guess what? You will make a mockery of yourself, and dare I say, Jesus and his Course, because I do not think he chose his channels wrongly.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. You can’t fool all of the ACIM people out there. You can try. But you will only be fooling yourself. And again, it will only be your loss.

Thank you for listening, it is all coming from a place of love and not judgement — we’re all slowly, slowly learning our lessons in forgiveness here, but because time is an illusion, however long it takes does not matter one bit! Peace : ) Allowah

Britney Shawley

Author

Reply to Allowah

5 months ago

The reasons why I have not laid out my side of this with you, is because I am doing it wholly and completely in a way that has quotes and research and documentation attached. If I do not do that, it will be passed off as opinion or “fooling others” like you say.. when its not. I never said Ken was always erroneous in his teachings of the Course. His early material I quite like. However, Ken has made up his own Course in many ways such as claiming there is a decision maker outside ego/spirit, that there is no one here and nothing happening so we do not have to do anything, that we are not to ask for specifics, that Jesus and Holy spirit are symbols, that we don’t exist, that we aren’t to set up habits etc etc.

I also have been in a position of Spiritual Psychotherapy for 15 years, I have students come to me who have studied under Ken and who have been incredibly harmed by how he teaches it. There are many like you have been helped by him of course! But I promise you there is another side to this story….

Not sure if you know that Ken spent 6 million dollars of the Foundations money to sue fellow teachers for copyright…. but he lost the court case. He also sent cease and desist letters to teachers, including Robert Perry and his team, but anytime they tried to communicate with ken, Ken would ignore it or respond very coldly. Here is one example of what I mean: https://www.jcim.net/Copyright/Robert.html

Speaking of Robert, as you will see from this article… Robert already received enough backlash from Ken back then that he is unwilling to trample on that ground anymore and so he is very cautious about what he says about Ken. Helen did delete a few paragraphs from the Course in early years without Bill knowing…. but the majority of the deletes happened when she was editing with Ken. And not only was it deletions, it was changing and rearranging of words and paragraphs that happened. Ken also admits in his book absence of felicity that Helen would often sleep and he would keep editing.

This to me is not defaming anyone, Ken has chosen to be a public figure and teacher and for that reason he is open for critique and questioning. To me this is a loving thing to do… especially if we are dealing with something like ACIM here. Ken has never been my idol or my teacher, but always my brother…. and so for these reasons I can look objectively at him and his teachings. Most people have made him into an idol, its hard to see both side of the coin (self concept) when we see through those eyes.

But I am doing the same thing. Putting myself out there to be critiqued… so that’s why I respond to you and welcome what you share. As I want what I am saying to be closely looked at…I expect it and welcome it.

So I can promise you that my book and Doc is NOT about Ken. He is the smallest part of this story, but he is in the story.. .and I will talk facts and whole truths about him and the whole story…. and I will use it as an opportunity to teach how to love as the Christ loves and see as Christ sees…. but also how to look at errors without defense so we can bring them to the light for correction, healing and release.

Lastly….I am not trying to unite the Course community, I am trying to bring JESUS to the front as THE teacher of the Course for present and future generation Course students.

Peace to you brother. Thanks for this conversation. x

Allowah

Reply to Allowah

5 months ago

Thank you for your last response. I don’t want to belabor the issues here, perhaps we can end this dialogue soon, but I do want you to know that I am available for a video dialogue on these issues that would be done in a respectful way.

I am glad to hear you toned down your rhetoric about Ken in your last message. You can connect with Robert about this more, but Ken really had a very minor role in the editing of ACIM, at least in the sense that you suggested. It was always Helen’s baby. And as Ken said, she was a very strong-willed person who no one could get to do something that she didn’t want to do. And also from what Ken said, Helen seemed to know from early on how the Course was supposed to look and read.
Most of the edits of the first 5 chapters happened before Ken ever showed up on the scene. Even if you make Ken a relatively minor figure in your presentation, you really do need to get certain agreed upon facts straight. You can talk more to Robert about all that and see what he says.

As for all the things you mentioned about how Ken later distorted the Course, to that I would say this: Ken was merely a good teacher who wanted to give everything to his students (as you know Jesus says early on in the Text). He taught in a humorous and gentle way, but also a way that was pretty damn firm and uncompromising. He wanted his students to fully get it. He did not want to water down the message. If the Oneness of Heaven is our only reality in truth, then that means it’s here and now, too. Thus our way of living in the world but not of the world means that our living is informed by that highest truth in every moment. Ken really was not mistaken in that. Again, only someone who wants to see a problem with that would find fault in it. But if you want to learn from him and be blessed, you will, and many are, to this very day. If others find his teaching to be harmful, it merely means they are not ready for it yet and need a more compromising approach. This is no doubt why he came up with “Level One” and “Level Two.”

And I hope you know by now, that nothing can truly harm you, unless you let it. As Gandhi correctly stated: “No one can harm me without my permission.” So again, if people feel harmed by Ken’s teaching, they are just not ready for that uncompromising truth quite yet and are still in victim mentality. That is not to say that Ken did not, perhaps, make some mistakes in his presentation. But we all make mistakes, and he was on his own journey like the rest of us. I will say this, though, that to this day I have not heard anyone speak about the Course at his level. This is not to put him on a pedestal, but just to acknowledge that the brother really did his homework.

Also, when he was uncompromising, he was speaking to an audience, but in his one-to-one teaching, his guidance was specific to that person.

As for as all of the legal wrangling goes, I would just say again that Ken for sure made some mistakes, but I highly doubt it was one-sided, and I also can only think that Ken was trying to do his best to be true to Helen and Bill and the materials with which they entrusted him. He felt he was doing the right thing at the time. Maybe later he could look back and see it was a mistake, but such is life, no? At least he admitted that he was wrong about copyrighting those materials in the first place.

Yes, you might just see the same dynamic happen more or less to you if you ever become one of the more prominent ACIM teachers. Perhaps you already are very prominent, I’m not sure. Any public figure or celebrity will tend to have lovers and haters, it’s just the way the world spins. For example, Taylor Swift will have her downfall, too, just you wait and see. Most of the world will still love her, but she will have her vociferous detractors. She already has.

Yes, it’s all for the love of Jesus, but I’m not sure all of us even agree on who Jesus is, and who the Voice that Helen heard really was. You might think it blasphemous to say that, but in this game, everything must remain open to question, because it is.

Thank you for listening, too. I really hope your project and everything else goes well and is successful. Peace <3 Allowah

Alan Lowenschuss

Reply to Allowah

5 months ago

Hi Britney 💫You’ll have to forgive me if you’re a Swiftie and I offended you, lol. You’ll have to forgive me anyway 😉 I forgive you for not responding to my last message 🤗 Its all in the name of being truly helpful. I want to see you succeed, but in the highest possible way, not by skewing the facts to fit a one-sided narrative. I feel I provided you with a service by suggesting you look deeper into the issue of the editing of the Course before publishing or putting anything out there. You seemed to be unaware of things that even Robert had written about (in his CE edition), specifically that Helen was the primary editor of the Course, and that most of the major edits had been done before Ken ever came on the scene.

And I will say also that I wouldn’t give Ken a minor role in it all as he did not play a minor role. He was the first Course teacher, and many still see him as the pre-eminent teacher par excellence of ACIM. My view is that it was not Ken that really changed over the years, it was that others did not want to accept his interpretation and the FIP tradition that had been established. I am open to being wrong, but like Taylor said, I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history. Peace 💫💕💫Allowah

Britney Shawley

Author

Reply to Alan Lowenschuss

5 months ago

Hello. I can promise you I am doing all my research and editing through guidance and will stick to the facts. I am very aware of what Robert wrote, but again, I am looking to the facts and some may align with Roberts views and some may not. Either way Robert and I have joined together in purpose and are on the same team. I have showed him what I am doing and writing, and he is in agreement with all of it. Helen left out / deleted material from the Course… but the truly erroneous editing happened when Ken was on the scene. If you take the Sparkly (which Helen edited with Bill) and place it next to FIP (the one edited with Ken) …. look at the miracle principles and the first 8 chapters and you will notice the MASSIVE editing differences…absolutely massive. Showing you that even though Helen deleted somethings the from the UR text to the Sparkly….. it was when Ken was on board that not only deletions happened, but changes, and rearranging of material that was NOT guided by Jesus. Why would we accept Kens interpretations on the Course when they contradict what Jesus teaches in the Course? We shouldn’t. Those who take Jesus as their teacher come to the same conclusions about what it teaches…those who take Ken as their teacher do not. Check out this video I made to show you the two different approaches to ACIM. https://youtu.be/GdMqjnK_vV4?si=h49ao1vYowlXk8WX If you do not want to be on the wrong side of ACIM history then I encourage taking Ken off the pedestal and really look into WHY this has been such a drama in our community for decades… it goes ALOT deeper then what you are currently seeing. Lastly… I wouldn’t be doing what I am doing if I wasn’t told to do it by Jesus. My whole life has unfolded in a way to make this happen…. Miracles and hundreds of people have come to support me and this endeavors… its been a miracle all the way along… and it will continue to be one. “A miracle undoes the past, in the present and thus releases the future” Peace.

Britney Shawley

Author

Reply to Allowah

5 months ago

Robert and I are on the same team. We just did a video together, with his partner Emily and mine Tom, and we see everything in acim the SAME. He is literally helping me with this doc/book too. But I am not sure how you interpreted that most of the edits happened before Ken arrived, as that’s just not true. You can check this out yourself. If you take the Sparkly (which Helen edited with Bill, I can send you a PDF or book if you want) and place it next to FIP (the one edited with Ken) …. look at the miracle principles and the first 8 chapters and you will notice the MASSIVE editing differences…absolutely massive. Showing you that even though Helen deleted somethings the from the UR text to the Sparkly….. it was when Ken was on board that not only deletions happened, but changes, and rearranging of material that was NOT guided by Jesus and NOT what was supposed to happen. Ken even admits in AofF that Helen fell asleep when he edited. Ken didnt fully get the Course himself either. Did you know that he “read the Course over twice” in 3 months before editing and teaching? Yep. Its a year long Course, and meant to undo our own thoughts about it… but Ken did not do the Course or mind training…. Which means he did NOT even DO the Course, before he edited and taught it. Which really should be taken into consideration when you make statements about what a great teacher he is. He also silenced all other teachers who taught differently then him in the 90s and early 2000s…. if thats “uncompromising” I am not interested in that. With Ken, its much more than haters…people are harmed by his rhetoric… some are helped, or they think they are helped… but many many are harmed. Lastly.. yep…our community does NOT agree on Jesus… the teacher and author of the Course! and thats a problem too. Instead people believe what Ken taught about Him which is that J is a metaphor.. which is so not true. But its all good…. correction is happening…and I am grateful for it. If you want to see more of what I teach, you can check it out here: https://www.youtube.com/@MiraclesOfMind

Thank you for your blessings and your peace. I dont think there is much more to say on this topic. But love and blessings to you brother.

Allowah

Reply to Britney Shawley

5 months ago

Hi Brtiney,

Thank you for your messages. You’re right, I’m not sure there is much more to say here. I do feel that I would be able to get more across in an open video dialogue, so that offer to you still stands. And that video would mainly be for informational purposes for the viewing audience to make a more informed decision one way or another about these things — or perhaps better, to see that there are no answers, only questions.

All I can say is (and I believe the Course supports this line of thinking) that when you want to see things a certain way, that’s what you will see. So, if you somehow have an axe to grind against Ken, or want to see him as the one that messed things all up, then that’s what you’ll see, and you’ll be more or less hell-bent on that line of thinking. And yes, you’ll make your case and some people will find it plausible enough. But for those who are a bit more discerning about these things, they will see that what you are doing will be just another attempt at making your brother out to be something that he is not. I believe it’s called scapegoating. And it’s what Jesus seems to be teaching us not to do, but then we go and do it anyway. And hey, it’s forgivable, because everything is.

You can point to differences between the Sparkly and the FIP edition, but again, you can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ken was the one responsible for all of those changes and/or that Jesus did not approve of them. Apparently, Helen once asked Jesus why Ken was not having such a hard time with the Course when everyone else was, and Jesus’ answer was simply because there was no time for that. Meaning that Ken, being an advanced teacher of God, did not necessarily need to do the Course as other people do, just like Helen really didn’t need to either.

Again, I know this is probably falling on deaf ears, so I’ll shut up now, but you’re jumping to conclusions and I’m not sure if you realize you’re doing that. Better to just say “I don’t know” and leave it at that, then to make a case for something when you really don’t know whether it’s the 100% truth or not. And I really don’t care if you tell me that Jesus himself told you that things are one way or another. Why? Because I doubt that many of us here, or even any of us, are completely free of ego so that we would be such a pure channel for Jesus or the Holy Spirit’s voice, especially when it comes to specifics. Even Helen made some mistakes in her scribing, and even she was seemingly incorrect when it came to specifics.

The bottom line for me here is that while you think you are doing the ACIM community a service by ratting out the rat and purifying it of its errors, you may be doing the very thing that you are accusing Ken of doing, which is breeding divisiveness. I’m not saying that you would be, because I really don’t know. I’m just sayin’. At the very least, what I don’t think you will succeed in doing is changing everyone’s minds about who Ken was, or what ACIM really is. You haven’t changed my mind, and like I said, I’m just representative of a lot of ACIM people out there.

That said, I wish you the best with everything & peace.

Shalom <3 Alan Lowenschuss

Allowah

Reply to Allowah

5 months ago

Hi Britney,

I am writing one last time. I’m not sure if you are hiding or not approving my responses here or what’s going on, but I did post a couple of responses that have not shown up on the feed. Nor have I received a response from you to the message above. I feel that all of my responses have been civil and worthy of being seen by others, as well as deserving of at least some comment. Today I read through the open letter that Robert sent to Ken way back when (which you included in your remarks to me above), and I found it a very thoughtfully written letter. I would like to include here the following paragraph that comes from the tail end of the letter, as it applies to our dialogue as well:

“I believe that the Course stands at a crossroads in its history. Will you dialogue with me about the issues central to its welfare? Will you clarify to all of us why you are taking the actions that you are, and why you think these are not in conflict with the Course’s principles? I know that you and I have deep disagreements, but in talking there is the potential for discovering areas of agreement, clarifying misunderstandings, and bringing about a meeting of the minds. I look forward to your response.”

Well-said, Robert. The tables have turned a bit. Ken is dead and gone and various versions and interpretations of ACIM have been proliferating. Even though I greatly respect Robert and his scholarship and dedication to the Course, I do feel that he and the Circle were not completely right in how they approached the whole situation with Ken. And I’m not sure that they fully understood him — they definitely did not do full justice to his views. While we no longer have Ken to speak for himself, we do have others, like me, who have been engaged with Ken’s body of work, as well as the Course itself, and I for one am very willing to have a dialogue with anyone who wants to, whether here, on video, or wherever. What I see happening right now is exactly what Robert was asking Ken to do, but which he was not fully willing to do: have a dialogue. Right now, I feel you are making the same mistake.

That said, I do see Ken’s point of view in not having a dialogue. After all, how would you feel if some of your students all of a sudden turned around and wanted to publish a book showing how their interpretations are better than yours? Ken had a right to not
want to put his imprimatur on something which he felt was disrespectful of him, not to mention off-base. Let’s call all of that for what it was: disrespectful at best, and a power play at worse.

Again, I don’t want to say that Ken was completely right either, but I do feel that the whole situation might have been addressed differently. To write an open letter and basically tell everyone how wrong Ken was in his actions was not the way to approach things. But who am I to say? And here I am, doing something similar because you won’t talk to me. But there ya go.

Ultimately, as Robert said, it comes to: what is the Course really saying? Again, I am willing to have a dialogue with him, you, or anyone about these issues.

Thank you & peace ~ Alan Lowenschuss

Britney Shawley

Author

Reply to Allowah

4 months ago

Hey Alan, email me here: britney@miraclesofmind.ca and we can set up a time to chat on zoom.
In the email, please include the purpose of our dialogue and the things you want to ask or cover.

Alot of what you think about “what” I am doing and “why ” I am doing it and “how” I see Ken are very inaccurate, so it will be interesting to flush all those out and relate everything we speak about back to the Course and what IT says for how we are to perceive it.

Talk soon.

With Love,
Britney

Is A Course in Miracles a Non-Dual path?? #nonduality #acim

Spread the Love

Stay Connected