HLCとFPI版の編集について書かれた記事ですがネット上でもうキャッシュにしか保管されてないようなのでここに保存しときます。
The meaning of mind and editing changes by Gene W. Smith
In this article we undertake to compare the Second Edition of A Course in Miracles with the Hugh Lynn Cayce (HLC) version of the Text. We adopt a system of referencing a sentence from this version of the Text by means of four numbers separated by periods. The first number is the chapter, the second the section, the third the paragraph within the section, and the fourth the sentence within the paragraph.
Let us begin by looking at the following passage from the Second Edition:
“I have repeatedly emphasized that one level of the mind is not understandable to another. So it is with the ego and the Holy Spirit; with time and eternity.
Eternity is an idea of God, so the Holy Spirit understands it perfectly. Time is a belief of the ego, so the lower mind, which is the ego’s domain, accepts it without question. The only aspect of time that is eternal is now.” T-5.III.6
On its face, this passage is a little curious, since it seems to suggest that the Holy Spirit is a level of the mind. To be that, the Holy Spirit would presumably need to have been split off, or dissociated. Yet the Course tells us the Holy Spirit is a response to the separation, which had already dissociated us into levels (T-5.II.2.5). Is the Holy Spirit then not a creation, but a way of referring to that level of our mind which is possessed of knowledge? If so, the Holy Spirit came to be within the world of separation as a result of the splitting into levels, and it therefore has no independent meaning in eternity. While some students favor this interpretation, the Course will not allow it, since “what God creates is eternal. The Holy Spirit will remain with the Sons of God, to bless their creations and keep them in the light of joy.” (T-5.I.5:6-7)
We could go on analyzing and speculating in this fashion for some time, but a completely different light is cast on the problem when we find that in the HLC, an earlier version of the Text, this passage reads as follows:
We have repeatedly emphasized that one level of the mind is not understandable to another. So it is with the ego and the Soul; with time and eternity. Eternity is an idea of God, so the Soul understands it perfectly. Time is a belief of the ego, so the lower mind, which is the ego’s domain, accepts it without question. The only aspect of time which is really eternal is now. (5.5.5.1-5)
How differently the problem now appears! The Soul and the ego are far more plausible as candidates for levels of the mind than the Holy Spirit and the ego. The new version of the Text in fact adds more detail about levels of the mind, allowing some understanding of what the Course means by its references to levels. We have in particular this:
“In our picture of the psyche, there is an unconscious level which properly consists only of the miracle ability, and which should be under my direction. There is also a conscious level, which perceives or is aware of impulses from both the unconscious and the superconscious. Consciousness is thus the level of perception, but not of knowledge. Again, to perceive is not to know.” (3.6.2.3-6)
It seems the mind has an unconscious, a conscious, and a superconscious level. This raises the question as to what the relationship is between the Soul and the superconscious level of the mind.
The mind returns to its proper function only when it wills to know. This places it in the Soul’s service, where perception is meaningless. The superconscious is the level of the mind which wills this.
“The mind chose to divide itself when it willed to create both its own levels and the ability to perceive, but it could not entirely separate itself from the Soul because it is from the Soul that it derives its whole power to create. Even in miscreation will is affirming its source, or it would merely cease to be. This is impossible because it is part of the Soul, which God created and which is therefore eternal.” (3.6.7.5-3.6.8.3)
The superconscious level is mind that wills to know, and hence is still in service of the Soul, which is the eternal Idea or Thought which God created when he created all Souls.
The Course tells us that everything is Mind. However, it also draws a distinction between mind and spirit (in ACIM) or Soul (in HLC). To understand this, let us turn to the second Special Principle of Miracle workers, which in ACIM reads
A clear distinction between what is created and what is made is essential. All forms of healing rest on this fundamental correction in level perception.
In the HLC we find instead:
“Clear distinction between what has been created and what is being created is essential. All forms of correction (or healing) rest on this fundamental correction in level perception.”
What “has been” created? In HLC, we find that the following:
“If it is understood that the mind, which is the only level of creation, cannot create beyond itself, neither type of confusion need occur. The reason only the mind can create is more obvious than may be immediately apparent. The Soul has been created.” (2.3.3.4-2.3.4.2)
The Soul, therefore, is Mind or Thought which has been created; we may distinguish Mind which expresses the Eternal Thought of God of its creation, and which has been created, Mind which has the creative or will power and which creates with God, and mind which uses this same power to miscreate, and hence to bring about a split into levels. Once the split into levels occurs, we have the Soul as the highest level, the superconscious mind as that level which is in service of the Soul, the level of ordinary consciousness, and the level below consciousness, which is the home of the miracle impulse.
In connection with the editing decisions which resulted in the differences between the two versions, we are left with two questions. The first is what were the reasons for removing the material on levels of the mind, and the second is what were the reasons for rewriting the material in such a way that the Holy Spirit seems have been treated as a level of the mind, and not a Creation of God.
One candidate as a reason is guidance from Jesus; indeed, many people feel that the Course as published represents the final version as approved by Jesus. If this is the case, we would not expect to find the sequence and connection of ideas becoming more confused as we pass from HLC to ACIM; the fact that we seem to find exactly that in this example and in the others we will consider below argues strongly against this belief. The result, which I consider to be firmly established, is that we may conclude that the Course as published does not represent the editorial work of Jesus; some of the editorial decisions seem clearly to be mistaken.
Once we abandon, as reason compels us to abandon, the notion that the editorial changes were in general the result of guidance, we are led once again to consider what the reason for the changes in this case and in others might have been; in that connection it is important to consider if the changes represent a particular tendency of thought or of Course interpretation. Are they, in other words, in part the product of and reflective of the theological positions of the editors? That this is a possibility which must be considered emerges already from the one example we have so far looked at.
Let us consider another passage from the published Course.
“Healing is an ability that developed after the separation, before which it was unnecessary. Like all aspects of the belief in space and time, it is temporary. However, as long as time persists, healing is needed as a means of protection. This is because healing rests on charity, and charity is a way of perceiving the perfection of another even if you cannot perceive it in yourself. Most of the loftier concepts of which you are capable now are time-dependent. Charity is really a weaker reflection of a much more powerful love-encompassment that is far beyond any form of charity you can conceive of as yet. Charity is essential to right-mindedness in the limited sense in which it can now be attained.
“Charity is a way of looking at another as if he had already gone far beyond his actual accomplishments in time. Since his own thinking is faulty he cannot see the Atonement for himself, or he would have no need of charity. The charity that is accorded him is both an acknowledgment that he needs help, and a recognition that he will accept it. Both of these perceptions clearly imply their dependence on time, making it apparent that charity still lies within the limitations of this world. I said before that only revelation transcends time. The miracle, as an expression of charity, can only shorten it. It must be understood, however, that whenever you offer a miracle to another, you are shortening the suffering of both of you. This corrects retroactively as well as progressively.” T-2.V.9-10
I was very much struck by the unusual definition of charity given in this passage. The word “charity” comes from the Latin caritas, and in its original and theological sense it refers to the cardinal virtue of love; specifically, the higher, selfless, “supernatural” virtue of love spoken of in the New Testament. What is so striking about this definition is that it defines charity in such a way that it revolves around perceiving others differently than ourselves; “charity is a way of perceiving the perfection of another even if you cannot perceive it in yourself”. Charity becomes the special virtue of those who do not love themselves; for even so they are able through it to love others.
Alas, after arming ourselves with this new definition, we immediately find ourselves in trouble in the next paragraph. Here we learn that “Charity is a way of looking at another as if he had already gone far beyond his actual accomplishments in time.” As we read on, we find that charity seems to involve looking past the imperfections of another, but we find nothing about looking past our own imperfections. Given the definition of charity, this seems a little peculiar; the sequence of thought falls short of entire clarity, and raises questions for which answers seem hard to find.
Once again, sense returns to a confused situation when we find that this passage reads differently in the Hugh Lynn Cayce version of the Text:
“Healing is an ability lent to man after the separation, before which it was completely unnecessary. Like all aspects of the space-time belief, healing ability is temporary. However, as long as time persists, healing is needed as a means for human protection. This is because healing rests on charity, and charity is a way of perceiving the perfection of another even if he cannot perceive it himself.
“Most of the loftier concepts of which man is capable now are time-dependent. Charity is really a weaker reflection of a much more powerful love-encompassment which is far beyond any form of charity that man can conceive of as yet. Charity is essential to right-mindedness in the limited sense in which right-mindedness can now be attained. Charity is a way of looking at another as if he had already gone far beyond his actual accomplishments in time. Since his own thinking is faulty he cannot see the Atonement for himself, or he would have no need for charity. The charity which is accorded him is both an acknowledgment that he is weak and a recognition that he could be stronger.
“The way in which both of these perceptions are stated clearly implies their dependence on time, making it quite apparent that charity lies within the human limitations, though toward its higher levels. We said before that only revelation transcends time. The miracle, as an expression of true human charity, can only shorten time at most. It must be understood, however, that whenever a man offers a miracle to another, he is shortening the suffering of both. This introduces a correction into the whole record which corrects retroactively as well as progressively.” (2.3.18.3-2.3.20.4)
This definition is much less striking than the one given in the published version, for the simple reason that it makes a great deal more sense on its face. It also completely solves the problem of making sense of the subsequent paragraphs. There seems little reason to doubt that this definition is the correct one, and that the editors, for whatever reason, made a mistake.
We might also take note of the many small changes throughout this passage. As we so often find, there seems to be no good reason for them. Why change the scientific “space-time” to the more popular but less accurate “space and time”? Why the wholesale replacement throughout the Text of “man” with “you” or “you and your brothers”? Why was it trimmed here and there, since the result is a version somewhat less comprehensible, albeit shorter?
Consider now the following sentence from the Second Edition: “‘Lead us not into temptation’ means ‘Recognize your errors and choose to abandon them by following my guidance’.” (T-1.III.4:7) This is undeniably a little cryptic; while we expect to find a reinterpretation, we also expect to be able to draw the connection between the original statement and its reinterpreted form. The connection between being led into temptation and following guidance is clear enough, but where does the recognition of errors enter the picture?
In HLC we have instead the following, from Miracle Principle 36: “‘Lead us not into temptation’ means ‘guide us out of our own errors.’ ‘Take up thy cross and follow me’ means `recognize your errors and choose to abandon them by following my guidance.’” The connection between “lead us not into temptation” and “guide us out of our errors” is evident. “Take up thy cross and follow me” invites us onto the path of the Atonement even if the way be hard; “recognize your errors and choose to abandon them by following my guidance” does the same, since recognizing errors and choosing to abandon them can be experienced as a hard thing. What has been removed is any implication of sacrifice; rather than clinging to the old rugged cross, we are invited to abandon our errors and our foolish journeys to crucifixion. Again, clarity seems to have replaced confusion.
Let us consider yet another example from the Second Edition, this time from the Miracle Principles. Miracle principle 38 tells us that “The Holy Spirit is the mechanism of miracles. He recognizes both God’s creations and your illusions. He separates the true from the false by His ability to perceive totally rather than selectively.” This seems both clear and unproblematic, unless one goes back a bit and tries to connect it to miracle principle 5, which has it that “Miracles are habits, and should be involuntary. They should not be under conscious control. Consciously selected miracles can be misguided.”
How, one might ask, can a miracle possibly be misguided if the mechanism of miracles is the Holy Spirit - our perfect Guide? Once again we could search and study and attempt to find an answer which reconciles the seeming contradiction, but once again a completely new light is cast on the matter by the discovery that miracle principle 39 in HLC, which corresponds to miracle principle 38 in ACIM, reads as follows:
The spiritual eye is the mechanism of miracles because what it perceives is true. It perceives both the Creations of God and the creations of man. Among the creations of man, it can also separate the true from the false by its ability to perceive totally, rather than selectively. It thus becomes the proper instrument for reality testing, which always involves the necessary distinction between the false and the true.
I’ve put “spiritual eye” in lower case in the above paragraph, and put into lower case as well the references to it as “it”. This reflects my opinion, based on how it is used in HLC, that the editors of HLC erred in their belief, reflected in a footnote, that “spiritual eye” was synonymous with “Holy Spirit”. I think it is clear that it is not; and the fact that it is not a reference to the Holy Spirit is what allows us to make sense of passages like this one.
Indicative of the problems associated with identifying the spiritual eye with the Holy Spirit (an identification which is in fact not consistently carried out in ACIM, for the simple reason that attempting to do so will not work) is the following:
“When the ‘lies of the serpent’ were introduced, they were specifically called ‘lies’ because they are not true. When man listened, all he heard was untruth. He does not have to continue to believe what is not true unless he chooses to do so. All of his miscreations can literally disappear in ‘the twinkling of an eye,’ because they are merely visual misperceptions. Man’s spiritual eye can sleep, but a sleeping eye can still see. What is seen in dreams seems to be very real. The Bible mentions that ‘a deep sleep fell upon Adam,’ and nowhere is there any reference to his waking up.”
Obviously “Man’s spiritual eye can sleep” cannot be reconciled with any attempt to identify the spiritual eye with the Holy Spirit, and “a sleeping eye can still see” only compounds the problem. The identification of the spiritual eye with the Holy Spirit is therefore a mistake, and it is the spiritual eye (which from the passage above clearly belongs in the lower case, as it is capable of seeing the dream in place of what is real) which is the true mechanism of miracles. This in fact connects with our first example; the unconscious mind is the level of miracles, whereas miracle principle 46 tells us:
“The Holy Spirit is the highest communication medium. Miracles do not involve this type of communication, because they are temporary communication devices. When you return to your original form of communication with God by direct revelation, the need for miracles is over.”
This suggests the Holy Spirit has more to do with revelation than with miracles. The distinction is even clearer if we turn to miracle principle 49 in HLC, where we find instead:
“The Holy Spirit is the Highest Communication Medium. Miracles do not involve this type of communication because they are temporary communication devices. When man returns to his original form of communication with God, the need for miracles is over. The Holy Spirit mediates higher to lower communication, keeping the direct channel from God to man open for revelation. Revelation is not reciprocal. It is always from God to man. The miracle is reciprocal because it involves equality.”
The Holy Spirit seems to be not the mechanism for miracles, but the motive and inspiration behind them; miracles are a response from mind below the level of consciousness to the Holy Spirit’s inspiration from above. In this connection we may consider the following passage:
“Healing is not creating; it is reparation. The Holy Spirit promotes healing by looking beyond it to what the children of God were before healing was needed, and will be when they have been healed. This alteration of the time sequence should be quite familiar, because it is very similar to the shift in the perception of time that the miracle introduces. The Holy Spirit is the motivation for miracle-mindedness; the decision to heal the separation by letting it go. Your will is still in you because God placed it in your mind, and although you can keep it asleep you cannot obliterate it.” T-5.II.1:1-5
This leads us directly to our final example. As we sometimes find, the word “will” in HLC, and presumably in the Urtext, has been replaced by another. Instead of “the will to heal” we find “the decision to heal”. This leads to a problem in the sentence which follows, where “Your will” has no apparent referent; it seems perhaps to refer to one’s power of free will in general terms. The version in ACIM goes on to say “God Himself keeps your will alive by transmitting it from His Mind to yours as long as there is time. The miracle itself is a reflection of this union of Will between Father and Son.” This makes it clear that “will” must mean our true will, which we hold in union with the Father, but the connection with the discussion of healing is still not entirely clear. What we find instead in HLC is the following:
The Holy Spirit is the motivation for miracle-mindedness; the will to heal the separation by letting it go. This will is in you because God placed it in your mind, and although you can keep it asleep, you cannot obliterate it.
God Himself keeps this will alive by transmitting it from His Mind to yours as long as there is time. It is partly His and partly yours. The miracle itself is just this fusion or union of will between Father and Son.
Once again the published version of the Course is revealed to be less divinely inspired than we may have thought, as the obscurity of ACIM gives way to the clairity of the earlier HLC. We are led again to the conclusion that the editorial work of ACIM reflects the human fallibility of its editors, and that the notion that it represents the Course in its final and perfected form is not sustainable.
