Within minutes of starting to read A Course In Miracles a question occurred to me. Thanks to The Ungodly Woman, I am reading an earlier version than the one published in 1976. In the preface of this version, the author questions the authenticity of Helen Schucman’s revelation because subsequent edits contained significant alterations. Why would the writers feel the need to change the original text if there wasn’t something fishy going on?

This got me wondering: Do we need to verify the authenticity of a spiritual teacher or message before we can accept its insights? Why are we so fearful of being duped? And can this fear sometimes interfere with our spiritual growth?

I wrote a more detailed post about this here. However, I want to get your perspective. How cautious should we be of fraud in spiritual teachings?



2 thoughts on “Fraud

  1. “And can this fear sometimes interfere with our spiritual growth?”

    Great question!

    For myself, I tend to look at the viability of the revelation or principle in question, rather than challenge the authenticity of its source. I ask “What does this look like when it is thoughtfully applied?”
    Over the years, I have found that many of the spiritual teachings I had taken for granted just didn’t fit right when tested against reality. It didn’t matter how devout the teacher, if what they taught resulted in cutting off parts of myself– including my own experience.

    As far as the ACIM, I find some of its espoused truth to be easily countered by my own reality. Try to tell the family and friends of the Orlando victims that evil isn’t real, only imagined. That would be highly offensive!

    Spirituality should lead us to a more humane perspective. If it fails to do so, it has lost its human value IMO.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Does a concept have more validity if its author is integer? This would only be the case if we ascribe a kind of a priori validity to the concept/idea/principle, if the criteria for its validity lie outside of ourselves.For example Abraham, channeled by Esther Hicks, maintain that a desire only becomes apparent because we have already expanded into a larger version of ourselves. Esther Hicks is considered a fraud by many people. Does that mean that the idea of the expanded version of myself needs trashing? Or can I investigate the concept and make my own experiences with it no matter where the idea came from?

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s