12957Re: Is " A Course in Miracles" a gnostic text"?
- Feb 13, 2007--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Alejandro" <catarsis0@...> wrote:
> Hello Cari, thanks for your comments. See, I found some similar
> between both systems, gnostic and ACIM. For example:a
> 1)The world and the whole material cosmos is not God creation, but
> sort of fabrication based on a first mistake or error. (done byenough,
> something else)
> 2)Knowledge and salvation are related, faith or belief is not
> there is something to be done or re-learned.and
> 3) In both systems there is strong dualism. (light and dark, true
> false, etc)supreme
> 4) We humans are traped in kind of prison.
> 5) They both do talk about emanationism.
> 6) The God of vengance and fear in fisrt testament is not the
> 7) They both talk about the posibility of freedom from the word
> re-integration with God ocurrs.Holy
> I could find you more similaritys if you want...
> Now, this book was written by a psychologyst, (who claims was a
> atheist and sudenly began experiencing revaltions ( symbolical
> visions) ans hear an inner dialogue whos said to be Crist or the
> spirit inspiration). Most of folowers think this is the thirdmaybe
> testament, which comes to explain the meaning of the first two.
> I,ve been reading this book ACIM and Hans Jonas work on gnosticism
> and also some direct gnostic texts. I do believe there are strong
> correspondences between them. This book could be a gnostic one,
> not historical, but in content or principle. They do fitideological.
> There is no demiurge in it but it talks about the Ego being themaker
> of the world. The ego, I read, is the sick, confused and rebelaspect
> of the Mind, not of God, but of His Son.You're welcome, Alejandro. I'm sorry I can't give a more qualified
> I also see similaritys between this two and the vedanta
> philosophy...but thats another topic.
> Again, thanks for your comments
opinion, since I would need to complete reading the book first. Then
I might better be able to understand how much modern psychology plays
a role in these writings.
It's true that one can encounter similarities and common terminology
among various spiritual traditions, yet still find enough differences
to make them unique in their own way. The differences are often
found in how terms are defined and used symbolically and how various
concepts *function* within a given cosmology as a whole, for
I find it interesting when you say that most followers think of ACIM
as a third testament explaining the meaning of the first two,
especially if, as you say, "The world and the whole material cosmos
is not God creation, but a sort of fabrication based on a first
mistake or error." I wonder how mainstream Christians would
reconcile this and other differences. Then again, it's not uncommon
to find people who desire to interpret, whether consciously or not,
others' writings in terms of their own belief systems.
Jonas tended to have a personal existentialist bent when describing
the Gnostics. You also might want to read some more modern
scholarship on Gnosticism, too, for comparison (for instance, Karen
King; Kurt Rudolph - _Gnosis_; or even Michael Williams).
Feel free to continue using your critical eye while joining us in our
group conversations, Alejandro.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>