A Course in Miracles and Edgar Cayce!
The Cosmic-Prophet-Christ within You - Becoming You!

In Lake'ch - I am another yourself!

Salutations and Namaste' from your DragonHearts within yourselves!

After my Shadow-Scribe Hans Schatten has shared with you some more pertinent messages regarding the new scientific understanding, which shall permeate the New Planet Earth post 2012; you might be willing to consider yet another very well known 'channelling - that of Dr.'s Helen Shucman with William  Thetford in "A Course of Miracles".

Helen Shucman claimed to channel Yeshuah aka the Jesus of conventional Christianity.

The treatise below, also critiques Edgar Cayce, who was well ingrained in the dogmas of conventional Christianity as a Sunday School teacher.

I have emphasised some very important excerpts, shared very graciously by a Daughter of Woman and Love in Cheryl, the Blossoming Lotus of the Nativity on the quantumrelativity yahoo forum.

Generally, and akin to the Seth channel of Jane Roberts; Helen Shucman transmits at the 99% percentile in a mode very near superconsciousness - meaning she is fully conscious when transmitting her messages.

Her claim to write in the name of Jesus/Yeshua so deserves great credibility.

As the headline says, it is the RESURRECTION within Yourselves and NOT the Crucifixion, which becomes the PIVOT for your existence and partnership with the historical Yeshua.
 He 'gave up' his human existence, so he could BECOME the universal body, which encompasses all of you as a 'LightBody'.
All of you are 'trapped' like cells in the Body of Christ, which spans both the Old Earth as a subrealm of the entire universe and the Old Universe as its encompassment.

So to GET OUT of the enveloping body; you are required to REDEEM Yourselves in bearing witness to the Cosmic Neverending Story and to become Reborn in the Resurrection.
2012 will be the nexus point, when everyone, alive dead and dead alive will have the opportunity to SEVER the umbilical cord, connecting you to the Old Universal Body Gestalt.

Not all will be able to Cut the Cords of the Rebirth, which shall be universal at the Beginning of the New Cycle of the Starhumanity.

All of you will eventually 'come to see the Cosmic Christ' within yourselves; but then many of the sceptics and the nay-sayers MUST have 'eggs and tomatoes' on their illuminated faces - so be it!

I end with this and any queries, I might answer at a later time or perhaps through my scribe John Shadow, who IS NOT the Tony B, many of you believe him to be.

IAmWhoIAm - the Channel of John Shadow!


Below is the unedited dictations of Yeshua, channneled to Helen
Shucman and in cooperation with William Thetford. These channelings,
of course, made up A Course in Miracles. A lot of what was channeled
that was of personal nature, such as the below excerpt on Cayce, was
edited out of the ACIM text, for Universality's sake. But it's
interesting on what Yeshua has to say about the channelers role and
perceptions in receiving the Holy One. As well as karma, religions and
the crucifixation.

I am merely posting it here for those curious to look. I leave my ego
and it's comments and perceptions out of the act. But will add
assistance in the term Atonement. Atonement, in ACIM terms, means
perfect love.

Cheryl on quantumrelativity@yahoogroups.com



Atonement without Sacrifice
(Tuesday, November 22, 1965)

There is one more point which must be perfectly clear before any
residual fear which may still be associated with miracles becomes
entirely groundless. The Crucifixion did NOT establish the Atonement.
The Resurrection did. This is a point which many very sincere
Christians have misunderstood. Nobody who was free of the
scarcity-fallacy could POSSIBLY have made this mistake.

If the Crucifixion is seen from an upside down point of view, it
certainly does appear AS IF God permitted, and even encouraged, one of
his Sons to suffer BECAUSE he was good. Many very devoted ministers
preach this every day. This particularly unfortunate interpretation,
which actually arose out of the combined misprojection of a large
number of my own would-be followers, has led many people to be
bitterly afraid of God.

This particularly anti-religious concept happens to enter into many
religions, and this is neither by chance nor coincidence.

The real Christian would have to pause and ask "how could this be?" Is
it likely that God Himself would be capable of the kind of thinking
which His own Words have clearly stated is unworthy of man?

The best defense, as always, is NOT to attack another's position, but
rather to protect the truth. It is not necessary to consider anything
acceptable, if you have to turn a whole frame of reference around in
order to justify it. This procedure is painful in its minor
applications, and genuinely tragic on a mass basis. Persecution is a
frequent result, justifying the terrible misperception that God
Himself persecuted His own Son on behalf of salvation. The very words
are meaningless.

It has always been particularly difficult to overcome this because,
although the error itself is no harder to overcome than any other
error, men were unwilling to give it up because of its prominent
escape value. In milder forms, a parent says "This hurts me more than
it hurts you," and feels exonerated in beating a child. Can you
believe that the Father REALLY thinks this way?

It is so essential that all such thinking be dispelled that we must be
VERY sure that NOTHING of this kind remains in your mind. I was NOT
punished because YOU were bad. The wholly benign lesson which the
Atonement teaches is wholly lost if it is tainted with this kind of
distortion in ANY form.

"Vengeance is Mine sayeth the Lord" is strictly a karmic viewpoint. It
is a real misperception of truth, by which man assigns his own evil
past to God. The "evil conscience" from the past has nothing to do
with God. He did not create it, and He does not maintain it. God does
NOT believe in karmic retribution at all. His Divine mind does not
create that way. HE does not hold the evil deeds of a man even against
HIMSELF. Is it likely, then, that He would hold against any man the
evil that ANOTHER did?

Be very sure that you recognize how impossible this assumption really
is, and how ENTIRELY it arises from misprojection. This kind of error
is responsible for a host of related fallacies, including the
misbelief that God rejected man and forced him out of the Garden of
Eden, or that I am misdirecting you. I have made every effort to use
words which are ALMOST impossible to distort, but man is very
inventive when it comes to twisting symbols around.

God Himself is not symbolic; He is FACT. The Atonement, too, is
totally without symbolism. It is perfectly clear, because it exists in
light. Only man's attempts to shroud it in darkness have made it
inaccessible to the unwilling, and ambiguous to the partly willing.
The Atonement itself radiates nothing but truth. It therefore
epitomizes harmlessness, and sheds ONLY blessing. It could not do this
if it arose from anything other than perfect innocence! Innocence is
wisdom, because it is unaware of evil, which does not exist. It is,
however, PERFECTLY aware of EVERYTHING, that is true.

The Resurrection demonstrated that NOTHING can destroy truth. Good can
withstand ANY form of evil, because light abolishes ALL forms of
darkness. The Atonement is thus the perfect lesson. It is the final
demonstration that all of the other lessons which I taught are true.

Man is released from ALL errors if he believes in this. The deductive
approach to teaching accepts the generalization which is applicable to
ALL single instances, rather than building up the generalization after
analyzing numerous single instances separately. If you can accept the
ONE GENERALIZATION NOW, there will be no need to learn from many
smaller lessons.

NOTHING can prevail against a Son of God who commends his Spirit into
the hands of His Father. By doing this, the mind awakens from its
sleep, and the Soul remembers its Creator. All sense of Separation
disappears, and level confusion vanishes. The Son of God IS part of
the holy Trinity, but the Trinity Itself is One. There is no confusion
within ITS levels, because they are of One Mind and One Will. This
Single Purpose creates perfect integration, and establishes the (reign
of the ) Peace of God.

But this vision can be perceived only by the truly innocent. Because
their hearts are pure, they defend true perception, instead of
defending themselves AGAINST it. Understanding the lesson of the
Atonement, they are without the will to attack, and therefore they see
truly. This is what the Bible means when it says "(and) when He shall
appear (or be perceived) we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him AS
HE IS."

Sacrifice is a notion totally unknown to God. It arises solely from
fear of the Records. This is particularly unfortunate, because
frightened people are apt to be vicious. Sacrificing others in any way
is a clear-cut violation of God's own injunction that man should be
merciful even as His Father in heaven is merciful.

It has been harder for many Christians to realize that this
commandment (or assignment) also applies to THEMSELVES. Good teachers
never terrorize their students. To terrorize is to attack, and this
results in rejection of what the teacher offers. This results in
learning failures.

I have been correctly referred to in the Bible as "The Lamb of God who
taketh away the sins of the world." Those who represent the lamp as
blood-stained (an all too widespread conceptual error) do NOT
understand the meaning of the symbol.

Correctly understood, the symbol is a very simple parable, or teaching
device, which merely depicts my innocence. The lion and the lamb lying
down together refers to the fact that strength and innocence are NOT
in conflict, but naturally live in peace. "Blessed are the pure in
heart for they shall see God" is another way of saying the same thing.
Only the innocent CAN see God.

There has been some controversy (in human terms) as to whether seeing
is an attribute of the eyes, or an expression of the integrative
powers of the brain. Correctly understood, the issue revolves around
the question of whether the body or the mind can see (or understand).
This is not really open to question at all.

The body is not capable of understanding. Only the mind KNOWS
anything. A pure mind knows the truth, and this IS its strength. It
cannot attack the body, because it knows EXACTLY what the body IS.
This is what "a sane mind in a sane body" really means.

A sane mind is NOT out for blood. It does not confuse destruction with
innocence, because it associates innocence with strength, NOT with
weakness. Innocence is incapable of sacrificing anything, because the
innocent mind HAS everything and strives only to PROTECT its
Wholeness. This is why it CANNOT misproject. It can only honor man,
because honor is the NATURAL greeting of the truly loved to others who
are LIKE them.

The lamb taketh away the sins of the world only in the sense that the
state of innocence or Grace, is one in which the meaning of the
Atonement is perfectly apparent. The innocence of God is the true
state of the mind of His Son. In this state, man's mind DOES see God,
and because he sees Him as he Is, he knows that the Atonement, NOT
sacrifice, is the ONLY appropriate gift to His OWN altar, where
nothing except perfection truly belongs. The understanding of the
innocent is TRUTH. That is why their altars are truly radiant.

(Dictated directly without notes)

Though Christians generally (but by no means universally) recognize
the contradiction involved in victimizing others, they are less adept
at ensuring their own inability to victimize themselves. Although this
appears to be a much more benign error from the viewpoint of society,
it is nevertheless inherently dangerous because once a two-edged
defense is used, its direction cannot be self-controlled.

Bill recently observed how many ideas were condensed into relatively
few /acim_page_s here. This is because we have not been forced to
dispel miscreations throughout. (There is one set of notes not yet
transcribed which is devoted to this. These emphasize only the
enormous waste of time that is involved.) Cayce's notes, too, could
have been much shortened. Their excessive length is due to two
factors. The first involves a fundamental error which Cayce himself
made, and which required constant undoing. The second is more related
to the attitude of his followers. They are unwilling to omit anything
he said. This is respectful enough, but not overly-judicious. I would
be a far better editor, if they would allow me this position on their
staff.

It is obvious that Cayce himself was not able to transcend the
misperceptions of the need for sacrifice, or he could not possibly
have been willing to sacrifice himself. Anyone who is unable to leave
the requests of others unanswered has not entirely transcended
egocentricity. I never "gave of myself" in this inappropriate way, nor
would I ever have encouraged Cayce to do so.

Cayce could not see the Atonement as totally lacking in sacrifice at
ANY level. It WAS obvious to him that the mind cannot be so limited.
It was equally apparent to him that the Soul is merely unaffected by
such an idea. This left him only the body with which to invest his
misperception. This is also why he used his own mind at the "EXPENSE
of his body."

Because Cayce was a somewhat erratic listener, he was compelled to
correct his own errors at very great length, and not always
adequately. Consider the basis from which he started, when he began
with "yes, we have the body." It is noteworthy that in all these
readings, a large section was actually devoted to the body, even
though he usually concluded with the caution that the body cannot be
healed by itself. It would have saved an enormous number of words if
he had always begun with this.

Cayce and his devotion to me are in no way underestimated by the
realization that he worked under very great strain, which is ALWAYS a
sign that something is wrong. One of the difficulties inherent in
trance states is that it is very difficult to overcome the split which
the trance itself induces through the medium of communications made
while in the trance state. Cayce's whole approach put him in a real
double-bind, from which he did not recover. When he spoke of a dream
in which he saw his own rather immanent reincarnation, he was
perfectly accurate. He was sufficiently attuned to real communication
to make it easy to correct his errors, and free him to communicate
without strain. It is noticeable throughout his notes that he
frequently engaged in a fallacy that we have already noted in some
detail: namely, the tendency to endow the physical with nonphysical
properties. Cayce suffered greatly from this error. He did not make
either of the other three. However, you will remember that it is this
one which is particularly vulnerable to magical associations. Cayce's
accuracy was so great that, even when he did this, he was able to
apply it constructively. But it does not follow that this was a
genuinely constructive approach.

It should also be noted that, when Cayce attempted to "see" the body
in proper perspective, he saw physically discernible auras surrounding
it. This is a curious compromise, in which the nonphysical attributes
of the self are approached AS IF they could be seen with the physical eye.

Cayce's illiteracy never stood in his way. This is because illiteracy
does not necessarily imply any lack of love, and in Cayce's case very
definitely did not. He therefore had no difficulty at all in
overcoming this seeming limitation. What DID hamper him was a profound
sense of personal unworthiness, which, characteristically enough, was
sometimes over-compensated for in what might be called a Christian
form of grandiosity. Cayce was essentially uncharitable to himself.
This made him very erratic in his own miracles, and, because he was
genuinely anxious to help others, left himself in a highly vulnerable
position.

His son comments both on the rather erratic nature of the Cayce
household, and also on the rather uneven nature of Cayce's temper.
Both of these observations are true, and clearly point to the fact the
Cayce did not apply the Peace of God to himself. Once this had
occurred, particularly in a man whose communication channels were
open, it was virtually impossible for him to escape external
solutions. Cayce was a very religious man, who should have been able
to escape fear through religion. Being unable to apply his religion
wholeheartedly to himself, he was forced to accept certain magical
beliefs which were alien to his own Christianity. This is why he was
so different when he was asleep, and even disowned what he said in
this state.

The lack of integration which this split state implies is clearly
shown in certain off-the-mark detours into areas such as the effects
of stones on the mind, and some curious symbolic attempt to integrate
churches and glands. (This is hardly more peculiar than some of your
own confusion.)

Cayce's mind was imprisoned to some extent by an error against which
you have been cautioned several times. He looked to the past for an
EXPLANATION of the present, but he never succeeded in separating the
past FROM the present. When he said "mind is the builder," he did not
realize that it is only what it is building NOW that really creates
the future. The past, in itself, does not have the ability to do this.
Whenever we move from one instant to the next, the previous one no
longer exists. In considering the body as the focus for healing, Cayce
was expressing his own failure to accept this AS ACCOMPLISHED. He did
not fail to recognize the value of the Atonement for others, but he
did fail to accept its corrective merit for himself.

As we have frequently emphasized, man CANNOT control his own errors.
Having created them, he does believe in them. Because of his failure
to accept his own perfect freedom FROM the past, Cayce could not
really perceive others as similarly free. This is why I have not
wholly endorsed the Cayce documents for widespread use.

I am heartily supportive of the ARE's endeavor to make Cayce's
singular contributions immortal, but it would be most unwise to have
them promulgated as a faith until they have been purged of their
essential errors. This is why there have been a number of unexplained
set backs in their explication. It is also one of the many reasons why
the Cayce material, a major step in the speedup, must be properly
understood before it can be meaningfully validated.

Cayce's son has been wise in attempting to deal with reliability,
which in Cayce's case is very high. There is a way of validating the
material, and Hugh Lynn is perfectly aware that this must be done
eventually. He is also aware of the fact that he is unable to do it.
In the present state of the material, it would be most unwise even to
attempt it. There is too much that IS invalid. When the time comes
that this can be corrected to the point of real safety, I assure you
it will be accomplished. In tribute to Cayce, I remind you that no
effort is wasted, and Cayce's effort was very great.

It would be most ungrateful of me if I allowed his work to produce a
generation of witch doctors. I am sorry that Cayce himself could not
rid himself of a slight tendency in this direction. But fortunately I
have a fuller appreciation of him than he had.

I am repeating here a Biblical injunction of my own, already mentioned
elsewhere, that if my followers eat any deadly thing it shall not hurt
them. This is what Cayce could NOT believe, because he could not see
that, as a Son of God, he WAS invulnerable.

--Yeshua, in ACIM