From: milsom@ntb.ch (Paul Milsom)
Subject: A Course In Miracles / Reincarnation
Keywords: A Course In Miracles
Reply-To: milsom@ntb.ch (Paul Milsom)
Organization: Neu-Technikum Buchs 
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 10:15:29 GMT



 
Hello Tom Gorski - I owe you an apology!

	>I'm somewhat confused by the references to my ego by yours

I use the term "ego" to mean a "mechanism" we have in our consciousness which 
provides us with reactions of fear, hate, jealousy, lust etc. to certain 
situations. As far as I understand ACIM, we invented the ego to protect 
ourselves, and also to distract us from God. The ego is the part of me that 
reacts to situations automatically. I get mad at someone or something. It 
just happens. I don't consciously think about producing these emotions. When 
I (Paul) *notice* that my ego has automatically produced an emotive reaction 
for me, I mostly see that it's not going to help the situation, and can 
reject it. I attribute this ability to the exercises in ACIM. I did not do 
this before. Of course, sometimes I don't notice that it's the ego at work 
when I get mad...

	>it's so much easier to point out somebody else's foibles as opposed
	>to one's own..

I honestly didn't mean it like that. I don't know any of your foibles. I 
don't pretend to be any better than you, or anybody. I'm sorry I offended 
you. (It's my ego that feels hurt when I read "attacking" criticism. Maybe 
you (and the others) don't even intend it as an attack - that is then my ego 
just imagining it like that...)


	>As you merrily plough through the text, you'll come to the parts where
	>it says that all of your perception-based systems for ingesting 		
	>information are hosed up because what you're seeing is your own illusory 
	>thoughts, not what's really there, or something to that effect.  The 	
	>Text even mentions in passing that this *includes* the very exercise of 
	>reading the Text in first place.

	>That's the paradox:  here you're reading a book that has the Wisdom of
	>the Ages, all of the answers, but you vision might be blurred, so how
	>can you tell if you're reading it correctly or not?

Yes, of course, you're right. (But something seems to get through anyway.)

	>The transformation takes place entirely in your head!

Yes, there is something that takes place, even though, rhetorically speaking 
it shouldn't be possible. 

	>[...of my suggested exercise, which you didn't _really_ do (:-)) 

You're right! On reflection you must have meant thinking "I don't know what 
anything means" *simultaneously* to reading the text. I thought of simply 
interrupting the reading to do it. You use the word "momentarily", which for 
me (I learnt British English) meant "just for a moment". (I'd just like to 
say that the exercises don't ask you to exercise the idea and read the 
explanation for it simultaneously.)

	>Well, I guess it's fair to say about ACIM, that it certainly *does* hold
	>all the answers for those who believe it to be so..

Yes. So does the bible. So does my mind, so does my ego. (The problem is, 
which is the *best* bet....?)

	>Perhaps the fact that I can take a critical look at the Text means that 
	>my ego *is* threatened, and that the material is really onto something 
	>in me.

Yes. Good. ACIM believes that the world is neutral. All people, events that 
annoy me are just a reflection of something in me.

	>Compare that to your situation, where your ego publicly trumpets the 	
	>virtues of ACIM.

Yes, even better! Of course, you're absolutely right! I'm only on the Newsnet 
because of my ego! 
I do, however, try to be nice to the people I email to, and not to let my ego 
get the better of me. I try to get people thinking about what they believe 
they think.
Look at a quote from A Course In Miracles to see how my ego got me:

	Manual For Teachers, p.57. Chapter "Is Reincarnation so?"
	(A "Teacher" is also a student. I see it as me (Paul) here.)

	"For our purposes, it would not be helpful to take any definite stand on 
	reincarnation. A teacher .. should be as helpful to those who believe in 
	it as to those who do not. If a definite stand were required of him, it 
	would merely limit his usefulness, as well as his own decision-making. 	
	Our course is not concerned with any concept that is not acceptable to 	
	anyone, regardless of his formal beliefs. His ego will be enough for him 
	to cope with, and it is not the part of wisdom to add sectarian 		
	controversies to his burdens."

Please note the bit about my ego! I fell for it again. Now it's lumbered me 
with this and two more letters to answer. My ego would also like you to know 
that it entered this argument with the simple intent of getting people with 
fixed ideas about religion to think again. Let that be a lesson to me!


	>Actually, according to ACIM, the ego, the part which thinks
	>of itself as "We" or "I", _doesn't_ make it back to God.  Why?  Because 
	>it's an illusion, a self-referential illusion that thinks it is 		
	>separate from God.  The most that can happen is that one day, this 	
	>illusion goes:

  	><poooof!>  (The ego disappears in a cloud of greasy black smoke.)

I'm looking forward to that day! Hey, you know more about all this than I do!  

Thanks for your time and trouble, Tom.  			Paul.








Paul Milsom
milsom@ntb.ch
Neu-Technikum Buchs Switzerland