Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

12957Re: Is " A Course in Miracles" a gnostic text"?

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    Feb 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Alejandro" <catarsis0@...> wrote:
      > Hello Cari, thanks for your comments. See, I found some similar
      > between both systems, gnostic and ACIM. For example:
      > 1)The world and the whole material cosmos is not God creation, but
      > sort of fabrication based on a first mistake or error. (done by
      > something else)
      > 2)Knowledge and salvation are related, faith or belief is not
      > there is something to be done or re-learned.
      > 3) In both systems there is strong dualism. (light and dark, true
      > false, etc)
      > 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
      > God
      > 7) They both talk about the posibility of freedom from the word
      > re-integration with God ocurrs.
      > 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 third
      > 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 fit
      > There is no demiurge in it but it talks about the Ego being the
      > of the world. The ego, I read, is the sick, confused and rebel
      > of the Mind, not of God, but of His Son.
      > I also see similaritys between this two and the vedanta
      > philosophy...but thats another topic.
      > Again, thanks for your comments

      You're welcome, Alejandro. I'm sorry I can't give a more qualified
      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.

    • Show all 5 messages in this topic