I appreciated this discussion and the points were definitely worth highlighting and underscoring . Much appreciated. 🙏🏼 52:00 What I find interesting about saying “Jesus says” vs “Robert says” is that none of us actually know with 100% certainty that everything stated in the course is indeed “what Jesus said” given it was channeled by a fallible human being and the course has its inaccuracies. Yet so many speak with 100% certainty that “Jesus wrote the course.” For me personally it has always felt more accurate to say “the course says.” which is my own version of “I really don’t know if Jesus said or wrote all of it.” All that said, I still find the course life-changing and continue to study it with the same discernment as I do any spiritual text. Whether Jesus or not, there is clearly great divine wisdom there beyond human perceptions.
The thing I have always appreciated about both of you, is that I see you saying, "I think" really often and in the most important moments. I've literally told people that's what I trust about you.
same! Coming from a lifelong experience in the mormon world hearing "I know" casually thrown around every 1st Sunday of the month, this channel has been so refreshing to me for the very reason you've stated.
Remember ACIM is a channeled text which means human error can occur & only the gift of discernment or a deeper knowing can see truth.. Real eyes realize real lies.. I would assume you have had direct experience with Source if you consider yourself an authority in teaching any spiritual texts.. You put out alit of good content but certainly not everything is 💯 truth as there are inconsistencies & contradictions with some of the lessons which I have pointed out in previous comments on your videos.. Much love always. ❤🙌👁
Direct experience with God- Source that we ate one with as an incarnation of Divine requires deep self awareness above thought or above the analytical mind.. that direct experience would be Stillness or Presrnce or Being🙏
Absolutely. I actually don't think that one is getting anywhere much without deepest daily Surrender of ALL thoughts for a couple of Decades/rest of physical Life to gradually dissolve the identification with the personality construct on deeper Levels. At least that's what I do.
Can you make videos on the truth about no private thoughts as this has been abused in spiritual community, and the use of no people pleasing as a mode of manipulation and control by leaders.
Hi Samuel - By my count there are four references to "no private thoughts" in the Course. (Workbook lessons 19, 52, 54, and in Text Chapter 15, Section 8 of the Complete and Annotated Edition). In every reference the idea is mentioned not as a practice, but simply as a fact. Accordingly, we believe "no private thoughts" just means that individual thoughts affect us all. This is true at the deepest level because all minds are joined and it's also true on the level of form. For example, there's a line in Chapter 2 that says "External conditions are produced by the THOUGHTS of many, not all of whom are pure of heart as yet." In other words, we think our thoughts are private but the Course is saying "No, look at the power of your mind to build everything you see." When our minds are healed we aren't healed alone and when our minds are sick we can cause tremendous suffering for others. That's the idea behind "no private thoughts." Again, the Course never refers to it as a practice so it doesn't mean to go around and tell everyone everything that's happening in your head. I've heard of that happening in the Course community and believe it's a misguided interpretation at best and can be used quite nafariously at worst. Hope that helps. - Emily
Another great episode. I do have a question. How can you have integrity if you fail or score on all 4 of the signs of unhealthy authority? Something is wrong then right? I mean why would you choose to follow a spiritual authority if they fail all 4 or even a couple?
We are, in fact, being taught not to know. In fact, in order to have the savior's vision, we must accept that we know nothing. "The savior’s vision is as innocent of what your brother is as it is free of any judgment made upon yourself. ²It sees no past in anyone at all. ³And thus it serves a wholly open mind, unclouded by old concepts and prepared to look on only what the present holds. ⁴It cannot judge because it does not know. ⁵And recognizing this, it merely asks, “What is the meaning of what I behold?” CE T-31.VIII.7:1-5 ... the savior's vision cannot judge because it does not know... In other words, return the fruit to the tree in the Garden, the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.
I have a couple questions for Robert. I am always very impressed by Robert's scholarship, but he made a couple surprising statements which could have been oversight, but I was hoping you could clarify. One mistaken statement he says is "objectively false" in the course is the declaration that "nothing real can be threatened". Time stamp 20:53 Given that this idea is in the introduction "nothing real can be threatened nothing unreal exists" I don't understand how this is considered false. My assumption is that which is "Real" (in the sense of being anything of God) can be considered unassailable. It sounds like you are interpreting in this instance that "anything real", as the course defines it, is indeed subject to threat. So anything that we might call real from the ego perspective is what he means by real. Again, I don't mean to nitpic I was just surprised Robert would say this is false. Is there something I am missing? Secondly, I was not able to find the place where the course mistakenly quotes the bible as saying "know thyself" I was only able to find a sentence where it states the object of the course itself is to "know thyself". Again, I am only really interested in the validity of the course, so such errors seem significant to me personally. Maybe were they perhaps a part of the original notes that were edited out later? Just looking for clarification. And thank you so much for the content. Robert's deep scholarship into the course is invaluable for me in continuing to trust its authorship. Him having studied it so carefully for inconsistencies is in itself a great gift to the community and lends valuable credibility to the course which for many can seem too technical. A bit like trying parse out the validity of a scientific paper without proper training.
Hi Travis. Robert was making a point that if someone were to say that Workbook lesson 95 was “Nothing real can be threatened” that would be false. He didn’t say the phrase doesn’t appear in the Course. He also said “Know thyself” doesn’t appear in the Bible but another edition of the Course has a line that reads “The Bible says ‘Know thyself”, which is also false. Hope that clears things up.
