Pressing the “HOME” key will return you to this CONENTS menu from any point in the document
After clicking on a Menu item, the “Back button” on your browser will also
About this Edition of A Course in Miracles
By Doug Thompson
In November of 1965, Psychology Professor Helen Schucman heard what she came to call an “inner dictation” speak the words “You will see miracles through your hands through Me” which she then recorded in her notebook. This followed days of conversations with a “Voice” she had begun to hear in her head. The next words she recorded were: “This is a course in miracles, please take notes.” Thus began A Course in Miracles.
For more than a decade Schucman continued taking notes in her own unique mix of shorthand and longhand, and these form the basis for the book A Course in Miracles, or just ACIM, which has sold more than a million copies since its first large scale printing in 1976.
Questioning her own sanity when the “Voice” first showed up in 1965, Schucman shared her experiences with her friend, colleague, and supervisor, Dr. William (Bill) Thetford, chairman of the Medical Psychology Department at Columbia University. Over the next several years, he typed up her “dictations” day by day as she read aloud to him from her notebooks. Thetford did not believe Schucman was going crazy, and her professional work was in no way impaired by this “scribing” activity they shared.
The Scribes were later to trace the origins of what the Notes calls “Bill’s better idea” to a comment Thetford had made to Schucman after a particularly acrimonious academic meeting. Thetford had said “there must be a better way” and Schucman had agreed to help him find it. This event, both Scribes later recounted, this agreement to “seek” for a “better way” and to do it together and collaboratively was the “invitation” which resulted in the Course. Shortly afterward, the words “this is a Course in Miracles” were penned, a course which “the Voice” frequently later referred to as “Bill’s course.”
The material Schucman and Thetford recorded is amongst the most extraordinary literature ever penned in the English language. In all there were over 3,000 pages of shorthand notes, much of it in perfect Iambic Pentameter representing the largest single example of Iambic Pentameter that we know of.
The “Voice” Schucman heard identified himself as the historical Jesus of Nazareth, commented on the Bible extensively, even offering a number of corrections, and spoke at great length about several of the Bible’s major themes. Anyone who has ever wondered “What did Jesus really mean” by such statements as “seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all else shall be added unto you” will be thrilled to find, in ACIM, extensive discourses elaborating this and many other ideas which are briefly and tantalizingly mentioned in the New Testament. Of the three years of his public ministry noted in the New Testament, during which Jesus was said to be teaching in public and private extensively, we have remarkably few direct quotes attributed to him and only a few dozen pages of biographical material. It is an astonishing paucity of detail. If the claims made by ACIM’s author are true, that lack of detail concerning the thought of Jesus has been partly rectified in this book.
As the title of the book suggests, and the opening 53 Principles of Miracles detail, there is a great deal of discussion about what miracles are, how they happen, and how one can grow into becoming a “miracle-minded” person who is then a “miracle worker.” And yes, it doesn’t stop short of discussing raising the dead.
One of the most remarkable statements on this topic was edited out of the abridged edition published in 1975. In it Jesus explains that it is “hellfire” which should be taken allegorically, and “raising the dead” which should be taken literally. This is found in VIII I 7 , on page 66 of this edition.
Both Schucman and Thetford were persuaded of the authenticity of the material, although at first they did not know they were taking down an extensive lecture series by Jesus addressed to the whole world!
The two Psychology professors continued teaching and conducting research while they scribed ACIM. They were very aware that in the intellectual climate of New York in 1965 the material would not be acceptable in “academic” circles and their participation in something so “flaky” could seriously threaten their careers should it become known. Thus they kept this work largely secret until 1975, sharing copies only with a few people.
Volume I: Text
The “Scribing” of ACIM came in several distinct stages which have been organized into several volumes. The first, scribed between 1965 and 1968 is the “Text.” Schucman and Thetford were later to organize the thousand-odd pages of typescript of this volume into 31 chapters with several sections in each. We don’t know exactly how many typed pages the original Thetford typescript, or Urtext is because no copy has yet come to light. The oldest available typescript is 1079 pages. There is good reason to believe that the original is considerably longer. Each chapter and section was given a title and some of the divisions represent real transition points in the material. Others appear largely arbitrary. So too, the titles of the chapters and sections sometimes appear to the reader to be uninformative and apparently mostly unconnected to the content of the section. While not part of the original dictation, these chapter and section divisions and titles have been retained because they are well known, widely used and useful for referencing specific locations in the text (see below: Annotation System).
Volume II: Workbook
A few months after the Text volume was finished in 1968, a second began to be dictated by the “Voice.” Volume II has become known as the “Workbook.” It consists of 361 “lessons” plus numerous pithy discourses along with six “reviews”. The reader is advised to do no more than one lesson per day which would take at least a year. The Workbook has two parts, the first aimed at “undoing” the ego’s thought system which is inimical to the divine nature and the second aimed at restoring the mind to the Creator’s thought system, and thus opening to the divine and the miraculous.
Volume III: Manual for Teachers
The third volume is called the “Manual for Teachers.” We are all “Teachers” all the time, we are told. We cannot be or do anything without “teaching.” Calling on all readers to advance toward becoming “Teachers of God,” the third volume offers some practical advice and admonition to readers.
Volume IV: Use of Terms
There is a fourth volume, the Use of Terms, included in the “Urtext” material filed at United States Copyright Office (USCO). In later FIP editions it appears as an appendix to the Manual under the name “Clarification of Terms.” Schucman scribed this material after ACIM was first published in the “Xerox Edition” (Criswell) in 1975 in response to questions from readers about the meaning of terms. While some of it appears to be genuinely Jesus, other parts of it are clearly inaccurate, which has led many to doubt whether it should be included in the “canon” of ACIM at all. Jesus is referred to in the third person, indicating authorship by someone else. In the same time period, 1975-1976, Schucman recorded a number of “Special Messages” which very few regard as “canonical” due to the fact that they involve a number of specific “future predictions” which didn’t come to pass, along with other distinct errors! In this period of the Special Messages and the Clarification of Terms, it appears Schucman’s fears about the first publication of the Course and the beginnings of the copyright controversy with her alleged “message from the Voice” directing the material to be copyrighted, were blocking her clear “channel” to Jesus such that the messages were sometimes coming through garbled. This tiny volume appears to reflect much of the same thought as the earlier ACIM volumes but includes enough suspect material to make its inclusion in the ACIM canon somewhat controversial.
Volume V: Psychotherapy
Two other smaller volumes were also scribed. One is called Psychotherapy, and the other Song of Prayer. The reader can instantly recognize the same “Voice” and wisdom in these two.
The Psychotherapy volume deals with the spiritual dynamics of the patient-therapist relationship along with many practical considerations, right down to setting prices. Given that Helen and Bill were Psychologists, the relevance to their professional work is obvious. Given the emphasis in the Course on healing, the relevance to everyone is equally obvious.
Volume VI: Song Of Prayer
This beautiful and poetic little volume addresses directly the issue of communication between man and God, in touching, intense, intimate and beautiful language. It is a rich treasury of practical advice and metaphysical insight.
After each volume was “scribed,” Schucman and Thetford, later with the help of Ken Wapnick, and finally without Thetford’s active participation at all, undertook to edit Thetford’s typescripts (documents also known as “urtexts” or “original texts”) to make the material suitable for print publication. At the time none of the participants appear to have had any idea the material they were working on would come to be viewed by many as “Scripture” nor that scholarly interest would develop concerning the precise original wording and punctuation as scholars sought to analyse every nuance of the message.
The “Voice” did instruct Thetford to remove some of the explicitly personal material directed only to the scribes themselves which shows up alongside the “Course” in the original dictation in the early chapters. The “Voice” specifically assigned this task to Thetford and directed Schucman not to do the editing herself, one of several instructions she appears to have been unable to comply with, and which was to be the cause of much difficulty and confusion later.
We know from the few fragments of the original Notes which have been made public by Kenneth Wapnick in Absence from Felicity, that the Voice also said “every word is important” and indicated that future correction of extant errors would occur. While every word may have been important to the “Voice”, and any genuine scholars coming to work with the material later, some of the subsequent editors clearly did not share this view. One of them, Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, has publicly criticized the idea of “every word” being important. While most can recognize that an obsession with words, as “form” can be misused to obscure the meaning, or “content,” words are also content and when they are changed or removed the meaning often changes. Meddling with “Holy Scripture” to “correct” what it says to suit the preferences of editors and authorities has been a popular pastime throughout religious history. It’s the bane of Scriptural Scholarship where the goal is to understand ‘what was written.’ This is not to say that later editor’s views of ‘what was written’ are not of interest or even importance. It is only to say that we’d like to know which is which, and whether we are reading the words of the author or those of his editors!
Schucman stated that while Thetford “didn’t want to change anything” she wanted to change nearly everything, did so, and then changed it back. Little evidence has surfaced to date that Schucman “undid” more than a handful of the thousands of changes she made, even when it was an obvious inadvertent mistake, except in the case of blatant spelling errors. Once she changed something, we can see from the several versions now available, the changes remained into all subsequent revisions and very rarely were any restored to an earlier form except when they involved obvious spelling and grammar errors. However, we certainly do not have all of Schucman’s editing drafts and there may be some which contain alterations she later rejected, restoring the material to a previous form.
The early editing did follow the “Voice’s” instructions to the extent that some personal material was removed, and some specific dictated corrections were made. Other dictated corrections were not made and the editors removed a great deal more than just the “specifically personal” material of no general value. Schucman re-wrote the first few chapters at least three and there is evidence to suggest perhaps as many as four or even more times. Portions of those first few chapters may have been re-written even more frequently. In each case we can see from those of her drafts which are available that she re-typed the previous draft with changes and some corrections of typos and introduced a few new typos. Inevitably, copy-typing such large documents results in inadvertent omissions of words, phrases, lines, whole paragraphs and in one case an entire page.
Why they never proofread the new drafts against the original I do not know. I suspect they were A) largely unaware of how many errors they had inadvertently introduced and B) simply didn’t have the time and resources to do it. Thorough proofreading of large documents requires thousands of hours. However, they didn’t proof against the original nor even the immediately preceding version, and thus in each editing pass new errors were introduced inadvertently. There were also apparently intentional changes made by the editors of a highly questionable nature, completely rewriting and often distorting some sections for no apparent reason. Robert Perry, noting some of the surprising introductions of errors this involved, has proposed that Schucman, who often expressed embarrassment about the style of the early chapters, was attempting to make the informal and conversational style of the early chapters resemble the grandeur of the high poetry of the later chapters.
Having worked daily with Schucman’s typescripts for the past three years, proofing what she was unable to proof, and documenting the evolution of the material from version to version as she worked through it, I have gained enormous respect for her and the magnitude and difficulty of the task she undertook without the assistance of computers! In a sense I have been retracing her steps from her notes as one might do those of historic explorers from their journals. It’s not the same but you certainly can see some of what they saw and appreciate in greater detail the magnitude of the accomplishment. I do not wish my observations of the imperfections in the results to be interpreted as negative criticism of Schucman and Thetford. With the resources and technology and time available to them in the early 70s, when “cut and paste” really did mean “scissors and glue” and where a “text search” was done by eyeballing sheets of printed paper, what they accomplished is nothing short of remarkable. That it failed to achieve total perfection in every regard is hardly surprising! If there is “criticism” warranted anywhere it might be of the “myth” of infallible editing which has grown up since Schucman and Thetford handed their unfinished work on to others. This idea that “Jesus” directed every pencil stroke and ensured a total absence of error is very clearly not an idea with any truth to it.
Indeed, that they managed to get it published at all, and that it was at least mostly correct, appears to be a miracle!
The “personal material” which was later, and probably correctly removed from the Course, deals extensively with the difficulties Bill and Helen had with each other as well as with the Course. Bill’s tendency to be a “professor who refuses to profess” and withdraw from his assignment is dealt with, as is Helen’s reluctance to do as she’s asked by the Voice, which is to “help Bill” with “Bill’s better idea.”
Toward the end of the scribing, Helen and Bill had increasing difficulty collaborating, and some sense of the dynamics is offered by Kenneth Wapnick in his book Absence from Felicity whose title describes the situation he found when he met them in 1973 and began to help them get the material ready for printing.
Bill Thetford would never be the “professor” of the Course which the dictation clearly calls on him to be, nor would he ever fully exercise the role of “editor” he is assigned. Helen Schucman, whom Ken Wapnick described as a “compulsive” editor, took over the editing role and by her own admission “wanted to change everything” and proceeded to change a great deal. While she also noted that Thetford “wanted to change nothing” she not only failed to “help him” in his role, as she was repeatedly asked, but proceeded to actively obstruct him by making changes herself, changes the Voice specifically stated were Thetford’s responsibility and not hers.
Schucman’s severe difficulties with doing the editing, described in some detail by Wapnick, and obviously resulting from the fact that it was not her job but rather Bill’s, were partly solved when Ken himself proceeded to edit the material for her. Ken describes how he had to initiate the editing, how Helen was enormously resistant to it, and even “invariably fell asleep” when the two were attempting to edit together. No wonder there were some problems with the result!
What Ken Wapnick almost certainly didn’t know in 1973 when he first read this version of ACIM, was how much had already been changed, how many inadvertent mistakes had already crept in, and that Thetford, not Schucman, had been specifically assigned the editing task. He found Schuman’s massive psychological resistance to editing a bit mystifying and did not apparently suspect a very obvious explanation for it. It wasn’t her job! Nor, apparently, was it his. Why Thetford was assigned the role of editor is obvious. He “didn’t want to change anything” and had enormous respect for “every word” apparently accepting the Author’s statement that “every word is meaningful.” This is not a view which was shared by either Schucman or Wapnick. Unlike Wapnick, Schucman knew she was “out of line” and operating contrary to specific instructions. Wapnick quite correctly recognized the importance of getting the material printed and fully recognized that the Scribes needed help and had effectively ceased to be able to collaborate effectively, but what he might have figured out if he had been privy then to the original dictation, some of which is still secret, is that it was Thetford he should be helping and the help Schucman needed was to understand that she too should be helping Thetford. And perhaps the help Thetford most needed was in accepting that he’d been given the task and needed to follow instructions and accept his role, something he never did!
Astonishingly, with the first publication of the Course in 1975, the claim was made that it had not been extensively edited and that what was published was “virtually unchanged” from the original dictation, save for the removal of “personal material.” This is astonishing because A) that is what they Scribes had been instructed to do (and what Thetford wanted but failed to do) and B) because that is so very far from what they actually did. There are many visible reasons for this, and while a few have been suggested here, it is beyond the scope of this item to inquire further into them.
The single most astonishing thing is that they all knew it wasn’t true but they said it was anyway. By this stage in the Course’s history, the Scribes’ inability to deal with their difficulties in collaboration had been “solved” by a complete denial of the difficulty and the failure of collaboration in the final stages. The denial was so total that they could somehow, in good conscience, simply state that there was no problem even though we can now tell they could not possibly have believed that without rather enormous denial of the facts. They “changed the Course” and they weren’t supposed to. They knew they weren’t supposed to and resolved the conflict simply by saying they hadn’t done what they certainly did do.
Later Wapnick was to publicise the idea that “Jesus” had directed the editing and that he and Helen “felt” it was just the way Jesus wanted it. By the final stage Jesus may well have been thinking that any way at all was ok so long as they got it printed! The corrections would have to wait for more open and receptive channels who, even if they were to disobey instructions, wouldn’t lie about it to themselves and the world.
This substantial denial and self-deception which was soon to become public deception led to the necessity of a substantial cover-up.
Following the publication of the highly edited version in 1975, the original notebooks and typescripts were locked up and while some of that material has been discovered and published, some of it still remains hidden. In place of the “history” of the Course’s origins and in place of the actual authentic original dictation itself we have a “mythical” account of the origins and the publication of a substantially abridged and changed version of the Course.
Enough has been made public so far that the “myth” of editing being divinely guided is now as credible as the claims of the Flat Earth Society. But until late 1999, that myth was steadfastly maintained, widely believed, and there was no evidence available by which to challenge it. The evidence was locked up and the early efforts to publish it were instantly met by lawsuits, gag orders and court injunctions initiated by Kenneth Wapnick.
This secrecy and deception is alarmingly reminiscent of the early history of much of the Bible whose original manuscripts are all lost, and which has suffered greatly from “editing” by well-meaning copyists who only managed to muddy the message, introduce confusion, and undermine the authority of great writings by “correcting” what they imagined were “errors”. The good fortune for the Course is that the distortions were discovered early enough, before the original material was all lost, that correction is possible. The publication of this volume which represents the Text of ACIM as Thetford and Schucman had edited it before Wapnick proceeded to initiate the removal of about a quarter of the first five chapters, is one step toward recovering the “Authentic Original Dictation of ACIM”
In the original dictation the Bible’s problems and also those of the work of Edgar Cayce are mentioned directly in the context of “corrections” to ACIM. Jesus assures Schucman that he will ensure that corrections will be made, even if that happens generations later. He also states that he will make “every effort” to correct scribal errors but that she must ask. As we can see, not only did the Scribes decline to ask in the end, they actively denied that there was any need for “correction.”
This version is not the original dictation and it is missing some important material, but it is one large step toward undoing the mistakes of the past in the present and thus releasing the future.
There is quite a bit of obvious error in all the ACIM manuscripts and editions to date. While many changes introduced by the editors are indisputably mistakes, and often almost certainly inadvertent ones, they also did sometimes correct previous mistakes. There is usually little doubt as to which change is a “correction” and which is a “corruption,” but not always. Every change, then, must be carefully considered. And when “considering” we must be sure to do what the original Scribes found they could not, and that is to ask!
This edition is one step toward shedding light on the editing process and revealing its underpinnings and shortcomings such that an advance toward restoring the “authentic” dictation can be made. As such it is a very small step indeed. What is left to be done is much greater in size than what has already been done. Each editing change at every stage must be examined, which is rather difficult as long as some of the primary source material remains hidden. As that is done in a spirit of honest inquiry with the desire only to establish the truth, the “purity and integrity” of ACIM, which has been so severely compromised, will eventually be restored as the Author assured Helen and Bill it would be.
The Five Historical Versions
On page 7 is a table listing of all renditions, redactions, recensions, versions and editions of ACIM which are known or said to exist.
There are a few things which need to be said by way of introduction to that material.
There are only five clearly recognizable distinct versions of the entire volume 1 as of August 2006. New versions may appear in the future but today, while there are many different “editions”, they are all editions of one of these five versions. It is known that there were more than five editing passes made on some of the material, but the intermediate drafts either have not survived or have not been made public. We have then, reliable information as to the existence of these five and we have intact copies of the entirely of three of them, some of a fourth, but none at all of one. The one which no one I know has seen, or is willing to admit to having seen, is the original Thetford Typescript. Its existence is well-attested, by Thetford himself, but its whereabouts or precise content is, at the moment, a mystery.
Version One : The Notes
The earliest form of the Course is Helen’s first manuscript in her notebooks, and that has not only survived, some of it has been published and all of it is accessible at the United States Copyright Office (USCO). Unfortunately, due to a copyright claim on the material by Kenneth Wapnick, and his refusal to allow the material to be published, while the USCO material can be inspected, it cannot be copied. While this difficulty is certainly temporary, difficulties of access have limited scholarly review of the original dictation.
Version Two: Thetford’s Typescript (Urtext)
Bill and Helen reported that day by day as Helen was taking notes by hand, she would dictate these to Bill who typed them up and then read back what he’d typed to ensure accuracy. It is this original typescript which is called the “Urtext” or “original text” in early Course writings.
Version Three: Helen’s First Retyping
Also at the USCO is an early typescript of the Text which is not, however, Thetford’s original typescript. I should qualify that by saying it is certainly not all Thetford’s original as it bears many indications of editing in the early portions and differs markedly from the Notes fragments we do have of those early pages. Some of the later parts of that manuscript may be Thetford’s original typescript. I personally doubt it because the overall quality and accuracy is higher than Thetford’s comments about his own typing lead one to suspect, but aside from that I know of no evidence by which we can rule out the possibility that some of it might be.
This USCO typescript is probably what Wapnick refers to in Absence as “Helen’s First Retyping.” It not only shows editing abridgements in comparison with the original Notes, it includes a significant amount of material not present in the Notes, material often flagged with the note “dictated without notes.” It would seem that while Helen was re-typing the original, she was editing it, both removing material and adding material which she felt was being dictated as she typed. We know from references in the Notes that Helen did not always read the whole of her Notes to Bill in the daily exercise whereby she read from her notebooks while Bill typed it up, and then he read it back to ensure accuracy. And we know from this “first retyping” that material was added later which is not in the Notes. In these two ways then we know that the first handwritten version, the second version which was typed by Bill, and the third version which was edited by Helen, all contain differences. The Notes have material missing from later versions and the later versions have later “dictation’ which is not present in the Notes or the Thetford typescript!
Version Four: HLC (Helen’s Second Retyping)
According to Robert Skutch, in Journey Without Distance, after the Text portion was finished but before the Workbook dictation began, Bill initiated the insertion of chapter and section breaks.. The Hugh Lynn Cayce typescript (the document recovered from ARE in 1999) has those chapter and section breaks. When compared with the earlier material, we can see that there are other changes. A great deal of the material in the earlier versions was removed in this stage.
Version Five: 1975-1996 FIP Editions
The final stage of substantive abridgement of ACIM is the best documented, since Kenneth Wapnick, who personally participated in it, has written at some length about his experiences in his book Absence from Felicity. Wapnick’s account is problematic in that most of what can be checked against independent sources in his account turns out to be party or wholly mistaken,. However, much is also partly correct and provides information we’d not otherwise have, although that information is not always as accurate or reliable as we’d like.
Wapnick indicates that the HLC was the only version he’d seen when he began, three months after first seeing it in May 1973, to edit it with Helen. In Absence Wapnick portrays himself as the one who was responsible, with Helen lending a hand reluctantly and ‘invariably falling asleep.’ In later comments Wapnick states that Helen did the editing and he just served as her “secretary.” It’s likely the case that both contributed significantly. Many observers can see traces of Helen in the final editing since overall, the pattern of introduction of error, re-writing things that didn’t need re-writing, and removing things that didn’t need removing is consistent with the differences between previous versions. Wapnick’s hand is visible in that certain “miracle-related” material which appears to both him but not to have bothered Helen and Bill, goes missing.
What is known to be different about this editing is not just the presence of Wapnick, but the absence of Thetford . His precise role in earlier editing is not clear. There is little way to tell how much of the editing was his doing and how much was Helen’s. Helen’s own comments are the best information we have. She says she wanted to change just about everything and Bill did not! She says she changed a great deal and then removed the changes, but while we can see massive evidence of changes, we see almost no evidence of anything being put back to an earlier form after having been changed. There are a few, a very few known cases of this however. The impression left is that most of the changes were Helen’s doing which is severely problematic since we have the clear scribed instructions from the Author that this work was to be left to Bill!
Bill certainly did not register any open or pubic objection to the sum total of the editing that I know of. If he had objections, he appears to have kept them private.
The Foundation for Inner Peace (FIP) has published three distinct editions of the 1975 Abridgement, with some minor modifications and corrections one to the next. The first, in August of 1975, was called the “Criswell Edition”. It consisted of some 300 copies of the “Nun’s Version” manuscript which were photocopied at 50%, resulting in a smaller book, but also type that was difficult to read. In June of 1976 FIP came out with its second edition, the three volume “Blue Book” which, although it was the second edition, was called the First Edition. It included the fourth volume, “Use of Terms” as an appendix to Volume Three. In 1996 further corrections were made along with the addition of an annotation system, in FIP’s third edition which it called The Second Edition. ACIM folks have trouble with accurate names!
As mentioned previously, it is known that there were “intermediate drafts” between some of the versions. We have direct evidence of that between the HLC and the FIP Abridgement because Wapnick says the early part was done twice. We have indirect evidence in the “First Re-typing” (aka Sub-Urtext) in that there are five different pagination systems and a good deal of visible cut and paste which suggests the likelihood of ‘intermediate drafts” is high.
A major source of confusion for new students of ACIM is the huge variety of sometimes highly inaccurate names which are used to denote versions of ACIM and different editions of the 5 versions. I’ve tried to choose the most accurate, descriptive, and unambiguous names for each of the versions, though there are any number of other names I could have chosen and which are or have been used to refer to various versions.
I’ve finally resorted to numbering them in chronological order, one to five, earliest to most recent, to facilitate precise identification in the future, especially if any new drafts show up, but also for novices who are trying to keep track of other names … correlate any name with one of those numbers and it will all get much simpler! The single largest problem is the name “Urtext” which has been commonly used to refer both to version two and version three, resulting in confusion on an epic scale!
There is, in my mind, anything BUT certainty that we know of all important revisions or versions of ACIM prior to 1973. Future textual scholarship, especially once the FACIM archives are finally opened to scholarship, is very likely to be able to add considerably to the following list. This does represent, however, all the versions for which we have copies or strong witness evidence. The USCO material is listed as one “version” although its internal evidence suggests it may well consist of fragments of three or possibly even more different versions. This is the material presently known widely as the “Urtext”
This list includes all versions and editions of ACIM I’ve been able to identify.
The words “version” and “edition” can be and sometimes are used interchangeably. Here ‘version’ means a substantially unique rendition, and “edition” means one of possibly many different printings or copies of that version. A “version” will have one or more “editions” and an “edition” will have one or more copies.
(underlining indicates inaccessible or lost material not currently available to scholarship)
o Original Shorthand Notebooks
o Photocopy of Notebooks at USCO (where you can SEE but not copy it)
o Copy Possessed by Kenneth Wapnick (who won’t make it available)
o Copy Possessed by Tom Whitmore (who won’t make it available)
o Copy possessed by Endeavor Academy (who won’t make it available)
o Wapnick is believed to be in possession of it (no other copies known)
o Original Typescript (1968?) probably in the possession of Wapnick
o USCO Copy
o Scanned Image files publication (2000)
o MS Word OCR (2000)
o MS Word with HLC chapter and section breaks (2002)
o MFP Corrected Scanned Image files (2006)
o Sonship Gift 2007
o Original Typescript (1968? 1972?)
o Copy at A.R.E. (they claim to have lost it)
o Scanned Image Files of A.R.E. Photocopy publication (2000)
o MS Word OCR (1999)
o CIMS First Edition (2000)
o Thetford Foundation “Blue Sparkly” (2003)
o Corrected Scanned Image Files (2005)
o MFP Corrected HLC (This edition 2006)
o Criswell Edition (1975)
o FIP First Edition (1976)
o FIP Second Edition (1996)
o Electronic ACIM on CD (1997?)
* The name “Urtext” which simply means “original” text was first applied to Thetford’s original typescript. Later, after her death, Helen Schucman’s husband Louis asked Kenneth Wapnick to file 22 volumes of “Helen’s Private Papers” at the USCO. That material includes typescripts of all six volumes of ACIM labelled “Urtext of a Course in Miracles.” It was some months after release of the material in 2000 before it was recognized that little if any of it was, in fact, Thetford’s original typescript. Most of it shows signs of substantial editing and abridgement which would be consistent with Helen’s First Retyping. Thus it is that the name “Urtext” has been applied to two different versions, both the original Thetford typescript and what we think is really Helen’s first retyping of that. To address the confusion caused by using one name for two distinct documents, we’re calling the second, the “Sub-Urtext.”
This work would not and could not have come into existence without enormous contributions from a number of people. I don’t even know all their names. In particular gratitude is owed to those who discovered and published the earlier manuscripts of ACIM and those who did the Optical Character Recognition and retyping to generate the first computer files. My work began with those scanned images of the source material and the word processor files created from them.
Throughout the past years working with Helen Schucman’s and Bill Thetford’s typescripts, studying the editing they did, following their often obvious thought process, seeing the signs of the difficulties they had processing these huge documents without the benefit of computers, one cannot help but develop an enormous respect for them, their dedication, and their enormously significant efforts, however “human” and “imperfect” those turned out to be.
Special thanks goes out to Lee Flynn and Robert Perry whose feedback on specific problems and reflections on the overall direction of the project have served me as constant guiding lights. I never would have started this without Lee’s technical wizardry showing me that it could be done. There would be many more errors without both their help in analyzing textual problems and Iambic Pentameter.
Deborah Maltman’s unstinting support for the idea of an accurate copy of the Course and her many hours of proofing, scanning page after page for errors, advanced the completion date of this phase of the project significantly.
Gerald Merrick’s encyclopedic grasp of grammar has been extraordinarily helpful in sorting out the “subjunctive mood” passages.
This material could use more proofreading. I’d like to give it all at least one more pass. However, on the last pass we found very few mistakes and those were of a very minor nature. There are almost certainly some left. Our sense is that it is better now to release this material and get on with the next phases, the Workbook and the earlier Sub-Urtext material than to delay publication to find that last misplaced comma! As more eyes read the material, those last lingering little problems will come to light.
While the quality and accuracy of this material has benefited enormously from the contributions of others, responsibility for any flaws is my own. In the end the final decisions on what to change or not change, and finally when to declare it “done” were my own.
This work is not perfect and it is not finished. I’d love to take the months needed to footnote all the Biblical quotations, for instance. This and many other “features” will be considered for future editions but the release of this one, which, for all its faults is the most accurate edition of ACIM yet to be published, can be delayed no longer!
Doug Thompson † August 2006 † Guelph, Ontario
This edition of the HLC or Hugh Lynn Cayce Version (aka “JCIM” or Jesus’ Course in Miracles) version is the first part of a much larger project intended to provide accurate, machine-readable transcriptions of all extant ACIM primary source materials with concordances.
The ultimate goal of this project is to compare all instances of variant readings between all versions and determine which differences are genuine “corrections” and which are editorial mistakes. The result will be a “new version” which is as authentic to the original dictation of the Author as possible. This edition is not that, it is only the first of several necessary tools without which that undertaking cannot begin. It is an accurate copy of the photocopy discovered at the A.R.E. Library in November of 1999. It contains some additional material, which is fully footnoted, which we believe was inadvertently left out and it contains some corrections of spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. Except for the most trivial of spelling and punctuation corrections, all changes from the HLC manuscript are footnoted.
The first phase of “processing” a manuscript on paper is sometimes called “paper capture”. It can be done by manual copy typing or scanning to optical character recognition (OCR) software. Shortly after this manuscript was discovered, this process was undertaken and a computer text file of the material was available within weeks. However that document was not sufficiently proofread and contained several hundred typos. While most were minor and many were obvious, some were considerably more serious.
When an even earlier version of the Text volume, the so-called “Urtext” was released on the net in late 2000, it was similarly processed with an output quality suffering similar problems. We now have two pre-publication manuscripts for the Text, the HLC and what is often mistakenly called the “Urtext” which we are calling the “Sub-Urtext.” For the Workbook, Manual, Use of Terms, Psychotherapy and Song of Prayer, we have only the single “Sub-Urtext” manuscript. None of these are widely thought to be the original “Urtext” or Thetford’s original typescript. However, it is possible that some portions of these “Urtext” documents may be Thetford’s first typescript. Prior to the genuine Urtext there is of course the Notes, Helen’s shorthand notebooks. There may also be additional manuscripts representing portions of the text which appears to have been re-worked many times between re-typings of the complete volume.
Eventually it is likely that all these documents will be released. When they become available they too will be “captured” to machine readable form.
Once “captured,” the material must be proof-read because the “capture” process is much less than 100% accurate, especially when our “source” document is third or fourth generation photocopy of an original made with an ink-ribbon typewriter. Proof-reading is not complicated, but it is tedious, time-consuming and exacting work. The traditional process is to have one person read aloud from the copy while another follows along on the original, noting any differences. With the aid of computers, we can use a voice synthesizer to “read” the copy aloud, and in many ways this is preferable because humans often “know” what is supposed to be there and fail to notice subtle spelling mistakes. Computers are too dumb to skip over mistakes like that! This is what we did for the HLC.
Even with the help of computers, no single proofreading pass of a large document ever catches 100% of the errors. In fact, if we catch 90% we think we’ve done well. The only way to check is to proof it again, and again, and again until one stops finding mistakes.
After ten passes we were no longer finding mistakes. Some mistakes, such as capitalization, presented a major issue in the HLC because capitalization is used for emphasis so often. There were hundreds of capitalization capture errors in the version released in 2000. These can only be caught by eye, however, comparing the two documents side by side. To do this the “copy” must be paginated identically to the manuscript and printed out and bound with the manuscript pages, so the two pages can be examined and compared side by side, line by line.
In addition to discrepancies between the HLC manuscript and the digital copy, there are errors in the HLC itself. Some of these are rather simple and obvious spelling and punctuation errors, but we found other errors as well. In some cases there is bad grammar, and in others obviously inadvertent omissions of a word or a phrase or a sentence or even, in one case, an entire page. To find all of these the HLC must be compared line-by-line with its predecessor, the Sub-Urtext. We have not done this. We have only compared the HLC to earlier and later versions when there appeared to our eyes or ears some problem with the HLC itself. The “corrections” which are included in this edition arose in that way, and not in a thorough proofing of the HLC against any other version. That work is still to be done and there is little doubt that many more errors and omissions will show up when it is.
What we have here then is a highly accurate transcript of the HLC manuscript with some errors in the manuscript itself being flagged and/or corrected. Where we were aware of mistakes, it seemed to us irresponsible not to inform the reader of the presence of a possible error, or correct it if it was completely obvious that it was an error.
Except for the most trivial and obvious of typos relating to spelling and punctuation, all changes or corrections we’ve made have been footnoted so that the reader can be sure precisely where this text deviates from the manuscript, and why it does so. Our goal was not to ‘change’ the HLC but simply to “accurately transcribe it.”
In dealing with discrepancies between the HLC and the Sub-Urtext we did not change anything which appeared to be an intentional change by the previous editors. Only where there was a powerful case that the discrepancies were inadvertent did we consider a change. Even then we sometimes just footnoted the perceived problem and left the text unchanged. Only where there was no discernible probability of the change being intentional did we actually “correct” the HLC, and even there we footnoted all but the most obvious and trivial typos.
The reason for footnoting is quite simple. Our list of “errors to be fixed” was initially much larger than it is currently. As each one was reviewed repeatedly by a number of people, it became apparent that in many cases the ‘error’ was in our understanding of the text, and not in the text itself. As we look at the changes previous editors made, we often believe we’re seeing the same thing, that they made changes based on a misreading of the material at times, just as we did. While we’ve removed all such changes we were aware of, we are not claiming that any supernatural power guided every keystroke in this document, nor that our decisions are in any way infallible. It is likely, in my view, that future scholarship, especially if informed by the original Urtext and Notes, will find that some changes we’ve made need to be ‘unmade’ and that the error, again, wasn’t in the text of the HLC, but in our understanding of it. Through such evaluation, any errors we’ve made are likely to come to light and be corrected.
I’m repeating myself here because I wish to be unambiguously and precisely clear about what we did and what we didn’t do and what this edition represents.
Because our underlying goal was the production of a Concordance, we needed a reference system suitable for a Concordance and we needed to standardize spelling conventions. Where multiple spellings of a word are used or allowed, we’ve standardized this edition to a single variant of possible spellings. The list of words which we’ve modified appears later.
The need for the “early manuscripts” to be published became obvious within hours of the HLC being re-discovered in 1999. The differences between it and the later FIP First Edition which was mistakenly advertised as “virtually unchanged” are very great in the early chapters. While some of these are clearly corrections, many, many others are clearly inadvertent errors. Where changes are deliberate, in some cases those changes are exceedingly questionable and the possibility of editorial error cannot be discounted.
It must be remembered that at no point after the original Thetford Typescript and prior to 1996 did the “editing” of ACIM involve any proofreading or checking the “current version” against any but the immediately preceding one. Thus any errors which weren’t obvious, and several which actually were obvious, were preserved into all later versions. The result is that the more they edited it, the worse it got. More new errors were introduced in each recopying and most of the extant errors went uncorrected.
In order to discover “what ACIM really says” we must then, where there are variant readings, correct the editorial mistakes while preserving the editorial corrections. The only way to do this is to track every change the editors made at every stage, “undo” those which are obvious mistakes, preserve those which are corrections, and carefully reconsider those changes which are not obviously either corrections or corruptions. Just finding the differences, never mind evaluating them, is a huge task, and it’s much more difficult in the absence of accurate machine-readable copies. Thus the first step in a “thorough proofing” and correction of ACIM is the preparation of precisely accurate copies of each version of ACIM. With those in hand, computers can help us greatly in identifying all the changes.
The attempt here is not to “replace” any other version of ACIM nor is it to suggest that this one is without mistakes! It is simply to offer to the world, for the first time, an accurate, fully proofed edition of the HLC for those who are interested in such along with a Concordance which greatly facilitates textual research.
The HLC version has some advantages over later versions of ACIM for the student. There is more material, there is less missing, and there are fewer errors than is the case with later versions. This version is closer to the original dictation although it is by no means identical to the original dictation, especially in the first chapters. In contrast with earlier versions which have yet more material, virtually all of the “personal” material had been removed by the time the HLC was typed. Also, unlike earlier versions, it has chapter and section divisions which are very useful.
Each version has its distinct advantages and disadvantages, and each would be the version of choice in certain applications, for certain people. “The Best Version” is still the one you study carefully and prayerfully!
At this time we’ve proofed the Sub-Urtext Workbook twice and the Manual once. Work has been started on the Sub-Urtext Text. When these will be finally available in print is not known. The other volumes are much less problematic than the Text and we are hoping to have these ready soon. In the Concordance which is available for this edition, the Workbook, Manual, Use of Terms, Psychotherapy and Song of Prayer volumes are included in their current “partially proofed” state … which is still potentially useful for the researcher. The Concordance will, of course, be updated as soon as the proofing is finished.
There are two annotation systems used in this edition. The first consisting of bolded numbers in brackets (999) refers to the original HLC manuscript page number. These bracketed, bolded page numbers are inserted in the text precisely where the page break occurs in the original. With these one can readily locate the manuscript page in the original. We strongly encourage all those who publish editions of the HLC (or any other version of ACIM) in the future to employ at least this basic annotation system which is genuinely “universal” since it derives directly from the manuscript Helen Schucman typed.
The second Annotation System employed in this edition, which we also encourage others to copy in future editions, will be familiar to readers of the FIP Second Edition since it employs a simplified version of the obvious logic of that system. Any passage in the Text can be referenced according to its chapter, its section, and its paragraph. This is similar to the “book, chapter, verse” system which is so effectively used in Biblical notation.
To simplify the system, only these three reference coordinates are used. We do not reference the “introductory section” as “in” as FIP does, but just as section “A”, to avoid confusion and simplify the system. And we do not number individual sentences, although there is nothing to stop people from doing so and including sentence numbers in a reference where resolution finer than one paragraph is required.
A great many possible annotation systems were considered before we finalized our selection. Each has its pros and cons. The FIP system, for instance, has the advantage of being very precise and perfectly mirroring the internal structure of ACIM. This is its greatest disadvantage as well. The structure is also entirely arbitrary, having been overlaid on an otherwise unstructured oral dictation. There is, therefore, nothing “sacred” about it. The internal structure of ACIM, while fairly consistent through the Text Volume, is highly inconsistent in the Workbook and the Manual. The result is a variable number of fields and up to five different kinds of information possible in a given field in the FIP annotation system. The ensuing complexity makes it exceedingly confusing at times for veterans and quite impossibly complex for novices. Even in the text, the FIP system has curious anomalies. The chapter divisions are perfectly logical, but instead of numbering the sections starting with one, the first section is called “IN” for Introduction, and the second section is numbered “Section One.” But only in some chapters. In other chapters FIP numbers the first section as section one as we do! Well we use letters, A, B, C instead of numbers, 1,2,3. In this edition, the first section is “Section A: Introduction” and the second section is Section B. In every chapter! Simple. This also reflects the HLC text itself in which each chapter begins with a short unlabelled section, which sections we are labelling “Introduction.”
A simple sentence, line, or even word number system would be easy and easily understood but has the disadvantage of breaking down as soon as the sentence, line or word count varies between versions. Even between the FIP First and Second Editions, there is considerable variation in the number of words and sentences. A system based on absolute sentence count, for instance, breaks down as soon as you add or remove one sentence, or change a sentence break to a comma, or vice-versa, something editors frequently do. Every reference after that would vary between versions.
We took a long look at the extremely successful Biblical annotation system which consists of book, chapter, and verse. Introduced in the late Middle Ages, it immediately became popular and soon became universal. This was so despite the fact that its chapter and verse divisions were inconsistent in length and for the most part completely arbitrary, probably originating in line and folio breaks in a long-lost medieval parchment manuscript. The “arbitrariness” doesn’t seem to hinder their general usefulness for identifying passages easily!
A reference system, like the longitude and latitude lines on a map, can be completely arbitrary and still completely useful. Its purpose is not to describe the text, but to locate it!
The Bible has 66 Books varying in length from one chapter to over 100 chapters. The length of chapters can vary quite a lot, but the average is a few pages. “Verses” in the Bible do not precisely correspond to sentences, some consisting of several sentences and some sentences spanning more than one verse. However, since there are rarely more than 100 or so in a chapter, they are conveniently sized.
ACIM’s six volumes are structurally very different but the 31 Chapters in the Text and the 30 sections in the Manual and the 361 lessons in the Workbook are all in the same order of magnitude as the Bible’s “books.” In the Text and parts of the Manual, these basic divisions are sub-divided into sections which are the same order of magnitude as the Bible’s chapters. And then it’s all divided into nearly uniform and mostly arbitrary paragraph divisions which are the same order of magnitude as the Bible’s verses.
Applying this simple three tier system to ACIM is mostly quite easy, and there are only a few spots where it grows a bit confusing. Using the internal “Textual geography” of ACIM, the divisions which show up even in editions which have no annotation system, such as the chapter and sections divisions in the Text, for example, the system becomes “universal” which we felt an annotation system for our Concordance had to be. It had to be maximally usable on any edition of any version of ACIM whether that edition had our annotation values printed in the margins or not!
What we sought was a universal system which was at once simple and intuitive and was workable and usable on any edition of any version of ACIM. The only “textual landmarks” which are consistent across all versions since 1972 are the chapter and section divisions which are largely unchanged even in the FIP Abridgements. Even the paragraph breaks are mostly the same throughout. Thus a reference to chapter, section and paragraph number can usually be easily used to look up a passage in any edition of any version of ACIM in which that paragraph actually appears.
The only place we’ve had to break from the strict three-tier referencing in the Text is in chapter one, in the 53 miracle principles. Clearly, each miracle principle should be numbered, one through fifty-three! But several have more than one paragraph, so there is an implicit fourth tier in chapter one, although we do stick to the chapter, section, and paragraph number references. Where there is more than one paragraph in a miracle principle, they are labelled A, B, etc. So we have 23 b for paragraph b of Miracle Principle 23, which is in section A of chapter I.
Unfortunately the single most confusing part of the entire annotation system is the first section of the first chapter! Even so it is intuitive and presents little difficulty for the user of another edition of the HLC who wishes to pencil in the section and paragraph numbers from this edition. It’s perfectly straightforward.
The Concordance, while based on this edition, is quite usable with any edition of the HLC, and remains very useful even with the shorter FIP versions. The FIP versions are so substantially altered and shortened in the first few chapters, along with the fact that they have re-located many passages to new contexts and even different chapters, that HLC references will sometimes not be easy to use in the early chapters of FIP. Similarly, and for the same reason, FIP references in those portions are not generally usable in the HLC or Sub-Urtext versions.
The Workbook and Manual present a few challenges but even there we’ve been able to stick very closely to the three tier system which has worked so well for Biblical scholarship. The details of annotation for those volumes will appear in the prefaces to those volumes as they are released.
The main problem in the Workbook is that the 361 Lessons are the obvious “textual geography” by which to divide the material but, between some lessons, and at the beginning and at the end, there are other kinds of material inserted. Further, “section breaks” aren’t really needed because the Lessons, when referenced as ‘chapters’, are typically so short as to not require further subdivision. We’ve therefore referenced the “other” material in the WB to the immediately preceding lesson, making it, in essence “section B” but labelling it as “IN” for the introduction, “R” for the reviews and “W” for the “What Is?” homilies in the second part of the Workbook. For the Lessons proper, the section designator is “L.”
This is less than ideal, but is the best compromise between simplicity and clarity that we could come up with. If you’ve got a better idea, we’re all ears!
I have personally never been more challenged by an editing project, and not just because of the enormous size of the documents. First, I have no “style guide” which is specifically applicable to this material.
There are the respective versions which reflect the efforts of previous editors to establish and apply capitalization and other style conventions, but all of them contain inconsistencies.
There is no hard and fast way to determine what should and shouldn’t be capitalized. I have chosen therefore to use the most common spelling conventions familiar to me. Some might feel there is one exception, that being the capitalization of all names and pronouns referring to one of the three persons of the Holy Trinity. This is however “conventional usage” in Bible publishing, and as the Course so clearly draws heavily on the Bible, maintaining the spelling conventions of Biblical publishing seems appropriate.
However this immediately leads us into further difficulties. In the HLC we find “Heaven” is capitalized while “earth” is not. In normal English usage, place names, including names of planets, are usually capitalized. So we have London, Europe, for instance, but oddly “earth” is generally not capitalized except when it is in the company of other planets. Mars and Venus, are almost always capitalized, so why not Planet Earth? Heaven and Hell can both be considered “places” too, and while only “virtual places,” the convention is often followed in capitalizing both. Yet the general convention in English usage is to have “earth” with a lower case when “Captain Kirk returned to earth” and with a capital only when the status as celestial body is primary, “between Mars and Venus Captain Kirk flew past Earth.”
English is a pretty strange language!
In English Bibles I’ve consulted, however, we find that neither heaven nor earth is capitalized! The Scribes of ACIM came up with their own wholly unique system of capitalization, and then applied it with notable INconsistency! Should this be considered an “error” and reconciled with common usage, standardized according to some formula, or just left as is?
This is what I mean by the lack of a ‘Style Guide’ appropriate to this material.
Pronouns referring to God, the Holy Spirit, and Christ as God’s Son are capitalized in this edition, even where they are not capitalized in the original HLC manuscript. Changes to capitalization of this sort are not always footnoted.
In the FIP Second Edition, in which considerable effort was expended to deal with some of these issues, we find that the Will of God and Thoughts of God are also capitalized along with Mind and even Hand. To some extent this is also done in the HLC. While I can understand the case for doing that, in this edition we've limited the "divine capitalization" to pronouns referring directly to one of the three persons of the Trinity, and not extended this to their will or thoughts or body parts! But what about the Word of God? Ever since St. John wrote "the Word was God" we've had a case, in Christianity, for capitalizing the "Word" of God, so then why not the Voice and Thought and Will of God as well?
All versions, including FIP Second Edition handle the capitalization of “answer” in the expression “God’s Answer” erratically, with no rhyme or reason we can discern. It can be likened to the “Word of God” and thus deserving of capitalization, so that’s what we went with.
Once again, we have to essentially write our own style-guide here.
The grammar in ACIM appears to be mostly straightforward English prose, but there is a good deal of poetry and frequent use of the archaic, but not incorrect “Subjunctive Mood.” Poetic metre sometimes requires contractions, or the dropping or even adding of prepositions. Since the material is not typed out as poetry, but as prose, and it’s often not obvious what is and isn’t poetry, sometimes these devices result in what appears to be unusual, idiosyncratic, or simply bad grammar. In addition to the less-than-obvious iambic pentameter, there are patterns of rhyme, alliteration and vowel repetitions in three dimensions in some instances. We came across this material in the effort to sort out which changes were “corrections” and which were “corruptions” where direct evidence was not available.
A number of these, but by no means all, are flagged in footnotes pointing out that what appears to be bad grammar is sometimes just the archaic Subjunctive or even, in some cases, "poetic licence."
We are aware that with many choices there are good arguments for an alternative choice and that defining what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in English usage is a treacherous pastime! We are not so much saying ‘this is correct English usage’ as we are saying ‘this is what we think is best and if you think we are mistaken, let us know!’
So in addition to our basic rule “Would Schucman and Thetford have changed this if they had noticed it” we add “does this change add to clarity and consistency without detracting anything from clarity and consistency?” We feel we do owe it to our readers to do the best we can and that Schucman and Thetford would agree that clarity and consistency are indeed desirable! So yes, we do think we could persuade them of the advisability of each change we've made.
Heaven and Hell, and when and whether to capitalize them, led us to a stalemate. We finally decided to just leave the capitalization of Heaven and hell as Schucman and Thetford set it, deferring the resolution of the question to some future date. While it would be nice to resolve it, it’s not important enough to delay publication over it!
With most questions about spelling of contractions we’re erring on the side of conservative, conventional, historical usage in the name of maximizing clarity for readers. Apostrophes go back into contractions, for instance, even though they are not strictly necessary in all cases in US English usage. (see next section for specifics)
The word “towards” (41 occurrences) vs. “toward” (12 occurrences) was another brain-teaser. Our reference sources indicate the two are interchangeable with “toward” being more common in the USA and “towards” more common in the UK. For the purposes of the Concordance, standardization is of value so we standardized it to the shorter and supposedly more American usage, changing 41 instances of “towards” to “toward.”
A number of such issues arose and they are listed below. For the purposes of the Concordance, the reader may wish to know which spelling alternative we are using. This is not in any way to suggest the other alternative is “wrong.”
Generally these alterations are not footnoted. Our rule has been to preserve the form Schucman and Thetford used wherever the dictionaries we consulted offer alternatives. Where they used more than one form, such as “nonexistent” in one place and “non-existent” in another, we chose to standardize according to the most popular usage as indicated by the US dictionaries we consulted.
1) “advisor” becomes “adviser”
2) “believableness” becomes “believability”
3) “cause and effect” becomes “Cause and Effect” as per T II E 12 (42)
4) “God’s answer” becomes “God’s Answer”
5) “hyperalert” becomes “hyper alert”
6) “letting-go” becomes “letting go”
7) “light” when it is a contraction of “alight” becomes “’light.”
8) “light-hearted” becomes “lighthearted”
9) “make believe” becomes “make-believe”
10) “non-existent” becomes “nonexistent”
11) “no-one” becomes “no one”
12) “O” becomes “Oh”
13) “open minded[ness]” becomes “open-minded[ness]”
14) “openminded[ness]” becomes “open-minded[ness]”
15) “reawaken(s/ing/ed)” becomes “re-awaken”
16) “reestablish" becomes “re-establish”
17) “re-inforce” becomes “reinforce”
18) “re-inforcement” becomes “reinforcement”
19) “re-interpretor” becomes “reinterpreter”
20) “round” when it is a contraction of “around” becomes “’round.”
21) “saviour” becomes “savior”
22) “self perception” becomes “self-perception”
23) “self concept” becomes “self-concept”
24) “self-same” becomes “selfsame”
25) “superconscious” becomes “super-conscious”
26) “till” becomes “’til” when it is a contraction of “until”
27) “towards” becomes “toward”
28) “unreconcilable” becomes “irreconcilable”
29) “wait” when it is a contraction of “await” becomes “’wait”
30) “whole-hearted” becomes “wholehearted”
31) “whisp” becomes “wisp”
32) “worshipper(s)” becomes “worshiper(s)”
In a small number of cases, missing words or spelling errors in the HLC typescript are corrected with handwriting. The capitalization of the handwriting is usually not preserved, because it is extremely erratic. On page 665, for instance, we have the word “Given” handwritten in the middle of a sentence. The word is right, the capitalization is not. On page 673 we have handwritten “THe” where no capitalization appears in order. In other cases words are handwritten in all caps where it seems most inappropriate. In these cases, we used the capitalization derived from the Sub-Ur.
Schucman and Thetford were prolific in their use of semi-colons where most people would use a full colon or a comma. We have only changed a very small number of the semi-colons although many more probably should be reconsidered.
Similarly, in many cases a comma is used where FIP later used a colon. We have changed some of these in agreement with FIP but stopped footnoting them after a while.
The following pages list the “errors” we think we have found in the HLC manuscript. I wish to repeat that in this edition there was no thorough comparison of the HLC against any other version, so our failure to note a difference in no way evaluates that difference. It simply means we didn’t notice or didn’t check it. We only checked other versions when something appeared as a possible error in the HLC. We checked over a thousand passages and finally concluded that “likely” error existed in fewer than three hundred of those which are listed here. When a complete comparison is done we have no doubt at all that more will be found! It is almost certain that we have erred in some cases. Our certainty of our own lack of infallibility is one reason for the extensive footnoting and this Errata document. We invite all readers to check and double-check these changes we have made (as well as those we have not made) and suggested and let us know if there is any reason to suppose we made an error. We almost certainly did make some and we wish to detect and correct them.
The need for a thorough, line-by-line comparison of all versions is obvious to us. This edition represents only the first phase of that very much larger task which is as yet incomplete. This is, at least, an accurate copy of the HLC with some corrections of errors in the HLC itself. Work on the Sub-Urtext volumes has already begun. The Workbook, Manual, Use of Terms, Psychotherapy and Song of Prayer volumes are nearing completion, the Sub-Ur Text is just beginning its first proofing pass. We are still attempting to obtain a copy of the Notes. When we have accurate copies of all versions, the work of detailed comparison can begin. There are vastly more discrepancies between versions than are noted in this volume. Their complete detection and evaluation must await the availability of accurate copies of all versions. We are releasing this “incomplete” material because others have found it useful and as of this date it is the most accurate and thoroughly proofed edition of ACIM extant.
In reviewing all the changes we made, the first of which began three years ago, we were surprised at how often we found that what we had thought was a mistake earlier, no longer seemed to be a mistake. A great many changes we initially thought needed to be made turned out to be errors in our understanding of the material, not in the material itself. It certainly appears that earlier editors had a similar experience, noticing (and “fixing”) “errors” that turned out not to be errors at all. Schucman described how she changed many things, only to change them back again later. One thing that distinguishes this editing pass from the previous ones is that the previous editors apparently didn’t check against earlier versions at all and frequently didn’t even review their own editing changes. By the time of Schucman’s death, the changes she had made and authorized, including the obvious mistakes, had become a kind of sacred cow in the minds of some … “if Schucman did it, it had to be right” even when it very obviously wasn’t! I am certain that given the opportunity to revisit all the editing changes made before 1975, Schucman herself would wish to reconsider many! Many of the errors we found in her work were clearly inadvertent, errors of which she was almost certainly entirely unaware, errors which only could surface with careful proofreading, a task which never had the opportunity nor resources to undertake.
We’ve spent three years, working part time, putting several hours a day into this work, on average. Schucman and Wapnick, working part time, did their final “Edit” on this material in less than a year. And that involved no proofreading. And that included the Workbook and Manual! They can’t possibly have been remotely as thorough as we’ve had the opportunity to be. We had the help of a computer lab and some very sophisticated text analysis software. They were working with typewriters, scissors, and glue. Had they attempted the thoroughness which was our goal in this edition, with the resources available to them in 1973, it might have taken them decades to get anything ready for the printer.
In noting the differences between this and previous editions, it is not our intent to condemn the remarkable and magnificent accomplishments of previous editors, without whose enormous contributions we’d never have been able to attempt this work. It is rather to note that the needs of the moment, objectives, methods, and most especially the availability of resources were very different in each period, differences which are reflected in the differing nature of the results. A thoroughly-proofed, precisely accurate copy of the Course with a Concordance was not possible with the resources available to Schucman at the time nor perhaps, was that as necessary as it was to get something “reasonably good” into print quickly. That Schucman managed to do, and for that the entire Sonship is forever grateful to her.
It does aim, however, at removing the blocks to the awareness of love's Presence, Which is your natural inheritance.
Capitalization is in question here. FIP changes this to all lower case: “love’s presence” and also has the following pronoun “which,” in lower case. In the Sub-Ur we find this passage is not present. However, the expression occurs twice, the two occurrences capitalized differently, one being “Love’s presence,” another being “love’s presence”. However if either word is to be capitalized, it would seem more suitable to capitalize the former than the latter, or probably both. It seems clear that capitalization was not inadvertent, and that Schucman and Thetford understood this phrase to refer to the deity, in short, a “name of God” since both “Presence” and “Which” are capitalized. An inadvertent capitalization error would likely occur once only in one sentence. We have thus chosen to capitalize “Love” here.
(* The term "Spiritual eye” is later replaced by the Holy Spirit and the physical eye becomes the ego. The emphasis on the two ways of seeing, however, remains throughout.)
This footnote appears in the original manuscript but is not strictly correct. “Spiritual Eye” and “Holy Spirit” are clearly not entirely synonymous in all cases. Since later editing propagates this misunderstanding, it would appear that both Schucman and Thetford failed to grasp this aspect.
25. a. Miracles are part of an interlocking chain of forgiveness which, when completed, is the Atonement.
There appears to be a semicolon here in the original manuscript, but clearly a comma is appropriate.
A line is missing from the bottom of page 7 photocopy. In “Blue Sparkly” editors have chosen the following:
36. "Christ-controlled miracles are part of the Atonement but Christ-guidance is personal. The impersonal nature of miracles is an essential in-"
While it is impossible to be certain, this is very possibly, from examination of the visible character top fragments of the missing line, what the HLC actually contained originally.
The Sub-Ur reading is:
"Christ-controlled miracles are part of the Atonement but Christ-guidance is personal and leads to PERSONAL salvation. The impersonal nature of miracles is an essential in-"
Given that the Sub-Ur reading seems better, and contains an important idea missing in the other option, which may well have been inadvertently omitted, the Sub-Ur reading is preserved in this edition.
In the FIP Second Edition Miracle Principle 36 was relocated, in part, to T-1.III.4. and T-1.III.5 in FIP with HLC miracle principle 37 becoming miracle principle 36 in the FIP editions.
50 a. The miracle is a learning device which lessens the need for time. In the longitudinal or horizontal plane, the recognition of the true equality of all the members of the Sonship appears to involve almost endless time. But we know that time is only an artifact introduced as a learning aid. However, the sudden shifts from horizontal to vertical perception which the miracle entails introduce an interval from which the doer and the receiver BOTH emerge much farther along in time than they would otherwise have been.
The underlined sentence appears in the Sub-Ur and seems to have been omitted inadvertently.
However, the sudden shifts from horizontal to vertical perception which the miracle entails introduces an interval from which the doer and the receiver BOTH emerge much farther along in time than they would otherwise have been.
The problem here is agreement in number. It must be either “shift introduces” or “shifts introduce.” We’ve corrected it to the latter since it would seem that the word ‘shifts’ should remain plural. The Sub-Ur has the same problem.
Some miracles may SEEM to be of greater magnitude than others. But remember the first point in this course; that there is NO order of difficulty in miracles.
The last two sentences become one sentence, as the “others. But” is changed to simply “others, but”. There is no need for a sentence break here, in fact it makes for poor grammar inserting a period. Sub-Ur, FIP and Blue Sparkly all leave it alone.
In the third sentence,
“all mistakes must be corrected at the level on which they occur.”
Both the HLC and FIP have it “all mistakes must be corrected at the level on which they occur. We feel that the Sub-Ur has it right with “at which they occur”. It appears there was a typo going from the Sub-Ur to the HLC which was not corrected in FIP.
5. The body, if properly understood, shares the invulnerability of the Atonement to two-edged application. This is not because the body is a miracle, <O (32)> but because it is not INHERENTLY open to misinterpretation. The body is merely a fact in human experience. Its abilities can be, and frequently are, overevaluated. However, it is almost impossible to deny its existence. Those who do so are engaging in a particularly unworthy form of denial. The term "unworthy" here implies simply that it is not necessary to protect the mind by denying the unmindful. There is little doubt that the mind can miscreate. If one denies this unfortunate aspect of the mind's power, one is also denying the power itself.
There is a line left out between the Sub-Ur and the HLC, (underlined above) which is not replaced in later versions, which makes the last sentence of the paragraph incomprehensible since the antecedent to “this unfortunate aspect of the mind’s power” is gone. The reader is left wondering “what unfortunate aspect?”
In the Sub-Ur we find an extra sentence “There is little doubt that the mind can miscreate” preceding the last line: “If one denies this unfortunate aspect of its power, one is also denying the power itself.”
“This unfortunate aspect of its [the mind’s] power” then is its ability to miscreate.
It very much appears that the omission of this one sentence in the HLC was an inadvertent editorial error since, again, there does not appear to be any attempt to change content, as would be expected in the intentional correction of an error and the result is an incomprehensible passage.
This line has been restored to the HLC from the Sub-Ur in this edition .
The omission is uncorrected in either FIP or Blue Sparkly.
“It does not follow, however, that the use of such agents for corrective purposes is evil”
is how FIP puts it, and this is correct in our view. The Sub-Ur and the HLC have it as “are evil.” The Sub-Ur has “application” instead of “use.” The subject of the sentence is “use” (or “application” in the Sub-Ur) which is singular, and the verb must be singular “is” and not the plural “are.” Alternatively the subject could be made plural, as in “uses” or “applications”. That results in very clumsy style however!
“This situation arises in two ways:” has a colon in the Sub-Ur and FIP, a semi-colon in the HLC. We’ve agreed with the Sub-Ur and FIP and made it a colon.
At the start of what we mark as Paragraph 6, starting with the words “In both cases,” the original HLC has a line break (hard return) not followed by an indentation. Was a paragraph break intended and the indentation omitted? Or was the carriage return inadvertent? The Sub-Ur has a paragraph and a page break here. We think the indentation was omitted in error and that a paragraph break was intended
The photocopy quality for page 39 is very poor. The words on the right hand side of the page are mostly missing. The text has been reconstructed with reference to the Sub-Ur. There are very few differences between what is legible in the HLC and the Sub-Ur in this material, and those are very minor. So while we cannot be 100% certain there were no wording changes in the missing parts of the HLC on this page, there is no evidence to suggest such changes, and there is no other way, at this time, for us to establish what was probably there originally.
The cause and effect principle here is temporarily a real expediter. Actually, “Cause” is a term properly belonging to God, and “Effect,” which should also be capitalized, is His Son.
Most astonishingly, although explicit instructions to capitalize “Cause” and “Effect” are given in the HLC and the Sub-Ur, the words are NOT capitalized in either nor in the FIP version! We’ve fixed that.
“Only men’s attempts” in the HLC is “Only man’s attempts” in the Sub-Ur. The general pattern in the HLC is to use the word “man” rather than “men” and “man’s” rather than “men’s”. We’ve concluded this is a typo therefore, and restored the material to the Sub-Ur reading. FIP appears to omit this material.
The words “self concept” are changed to the hyphenated word “self-concept” for consistency and for the Concordance.
The words “(NOT destruction)” are enclosed in brackets, consistent with the Sub-Ur, however we’ve gone with the FIP rendering which replaces the brackets with commas. FIP makes it “not the destruction” but we leave it as “NOT destruction”.
The word “believableness” occurs in the text, but in no dictionary we’ve consulted. It is thus changed to “believability.” The Sub-Ur is identical. This can be considered a spelling correction. FIP preserves “believableness.”
"I am using your present state of how the mind CAN work"
is not even a sentence. it appears obvious there is some mistake here.
In the Sub-Ur the line reads:
"I would therefore like to use your present state as an example of how the mind CAN work"
At the very least the words “as an example” appear to have been inadvertently left out, inadvertent because the statement becomes ungrammatical and wholly meaningless with their removal. The reading from the Sub-Ur is used here.
This material is so substantially changed in the FIP Second Edition that we get no help from that source for this question. Blue Sparkly does not correct this.
“A scissors” is changed to “scissors.” FIP agrees. Blue Sparkly and the Sub-Ur keep it as “A scissors.” This may be a question of local usage and, we can add, is hardly very important!
The paragraph ends with a colon, which should be a period. FIP and Sub-Ur agree.
The words “spirit of joy” are capitalized in the Sub-Ur, though not in FIP or the original HLC. Since this is a reference to the deity, capitalization is restored.
The Holy Spirit was God's Answer to the separation, the means by which the Atonement could repair until the whole mind returned to creating.
The use of the word “repair” here is most curious. We strongly suspect a copying error, but it’s not from the Sub-Ur, which is identical. FIP re-writes this as: “the means by which the Atonement heals until the whole mind returns to creating.” That’s a perfectly reasonable conjecture as to the meaning. We really do need to check the Notes on this one.
My “yolk is easy” is changed to “yoke.” This is a rare example, the only one found so far, where the editors erred by using a homonym. FIP and Blue Sparkly both correct this also.
The word “escape” is spelled “excape.” This error does not occur in any other edition or version we have consulted, including the “Sub-Urtext.”
Freud's system of thought was extremely ingenious because Freud was extremely ingenuous, and a mind MUST endow its thoughts with its own attributes.
This is a suspected typo. It is not at all clear how Freud’s being “ingenuous” could endow his thought with “ingenious” attributes. The two words are only one letter apart in spelling and we suspect “ingenuous” here should be “ingenious.”
In the Sub-Ur, we do find “ingenious” instead of “ingenuous”, and so the text was restored to the Sub-Ur’s reading. Blue Sparkly also corrects this error. The material is not present in FIP.
“Anger cannot occur unless you believe that you have been attacked; that your attack was justified; and that YOU are in no way responsible.”
The second clause contained by semicolons makes no sense … FIP changes it to:
“Anger cannot occur unless you believe that you have been attacked, that your attack is justified in return, and that you are in no way responsible for it.”
Sub-Ur uses commas instead of the semicolons (correctly in our view, as does FIP) but is otherwise the same as the HLC manuscript.
The problem of course is that we don’t get angry when we believe we have been attacked AND that the attack on us was justified! We get angry when we feel we have been UNJUSTLY attacked. We could just change “justified” (capitalized in the Sub-Ur) to “unjustified” and largely solve the problem. FIP’s solution, to change this sentence to refer to a counter-attack corrects the obvious ill-logic but at the expense of the probable meaning. The counter-attack is referred to later in the paragraph as the logical consequence of these three premises. It makes no sense at all to have the logical conclusion as a premise. Further, in the original the “responsibility” relates to the attack, and after FIP’s modification, the responsibility shifts to the counter-attack.
We agree with FIP that there is a problem, but we do not agree with FIP’s resolution of it. It seems far more likely that “unjustified” was mistakenly turned to “justified” and what is “unjustified” of course is the “attack” one believes one has been subjected to by one's “attacker.”!
Since we don’t have access to the original Notes to check this, we have made our best guess, and have added a few letters in brackets to clarify what appears to us to be the intended meaning:
Anger cannot occur unless you believe that you have been attacked, that your attack[er] was [un]justified, and that YOU are in no way responsible.
The ego uses projection ONLY to distort your perception both of yourself AND your brothers. The process begins by excluding something THAT exists
The word “THAT” is pencilled in, and probably should not be capitalized. FIP has it lower case. However, the Sub-Ur has “you think” instead of “that”. Because we know that no proofing against the Sub-Ur was ever done on the HLC before, we suspect that the editors recognized an inadvertent omission of the words “you think” which resulted in bad grammar in the HLC typescript and corrected it by pencilling in “THAT.” However, while this fixes the grammar it does not restore the original meaning. The statements “that exists in you” and “you think exists in you” do not have the same meaning, as the former suggests a fact and the latter implies illusion. This would appear therefore to be an editing error, beginning with inadvertence, in leaving out two words, and ending with the failure to proof adequately. We have restored the Sub-Ur reading.
Page 136 of the original photocopy is in terrible shape, with several words being quite illegible. Comparison with the Sub-Ur shows negligible differences overall on this page so the missing words were copied directly from the Sub-Ur. Only a few examples are listed here.
The words "were created" before "neither partially nor in part" are added from the Sub-Ur. The HLC is illegible. We are unable to locate this phrase in FIP.
The words "PARALLEL to God's" were inserted from the Sub-Ur because the HLC is illegible. We are unable to locate this phrase in FIP.
The words "what never happened cannot involve any problem" (the word involve is copied from the Sub-Ur).
FIP renders this “what never happened cannot be difficult” which largely preserves the original meaning. Blue Sparkly goes with the Sub-Ur as we have.
Without a range, an order of difficulty IS meaningless, and there must BE no range in what you offer to each other.
The comma is not present in the original, but both FIP and Sub-Ur have it. We agree that it belongs.
The Holy Spirit, Who leads to God, translates communication into being, just as He ultimately translates perception into knowledge. You DO NOT LOSE WHAT YOU COMMUNICATE. The ego uses the body for attack, for pleasure, and for pride.
Both FIP(2) and Sub-Ur include this sentence, though it is missing in the HLC manuscript. We have restored the words and capitalization from the Sub-Ur.
“This placed you BOTH within the Kingdom, and restores its wholeness in your minds.”
The entire paragraph is present tense except for the second word in this sentence, “placed.” In the Sub-Ur it is “places” thus preserving the present tense. It is corrected to “places” in FIP also, though not in “Blue Sparkly.” We have restored the Sub-Ur reading.
“This is because the laws have adapted to the circumstances of this world, in which diametrically opposed outcomes ARE believe in.“
Rather obviously a typo, the second last word needs to be in the past tense “believed in” rather than “believe in.”
Sub-Ur has it in the past tense and emphasized “are BELIEVED in.” Blue Sparkly corrects it. FIP completely re-writes the passage. Instead of “are BELIEVED in” (Sub-Ur), FIP holds “seem possible because you can respond to two conflicting voices.”
“But those who are FOR freedom, even if they are misguided in how to defent it,”
Obvious typo, “defent” is corrected to “defend” which is the form appearing in the Sub-Ur. Blue Sparkly also corrects it to “defend.” We were unable to locate the passage in FIP.
Yet one thing is certain; abilities are POTENTIALS for learning, and you will apply them to what you WANT to learn.
In the HLC manuscript there is a semicolon here. In the Sub-Ur it is a period which we think is better, so we’ve restored it to that form. This material cannot be located in FIP.
There is a colon at the end of the paragraph. It is not present in the Sub-Ur where we find a period. We have restored it. FIP doesn’t include this material.
12. That is how God Himself created YOU, in understanding, in appreciation, and in love.
While the HLC has a semicolon here, we agree with FIP and Sub-Ur that it should be a comma.
To forget ME is to forget yourself and Him Who created you.
The HLC does not capitalize this, nor does the Sub-Ur. FIP does and we agree with FIP here.
I do not want to share my BODY in communion because that is to share nothing. Would I try to share an illusion with the most holy children of a most Holy Father? Yet I do want to share my MIND with you because we ARE of one Mind, and that MIND IS ours.
This sentence, not present in the HLC manuscript, is present in FIP 2nd Edition and Sub-Ur. We agree with the FIP “Errata” editors that it was inadvertently left out.
This loses the awareness of being; induces feelings of unreality; and results in utter confusion.
The HLC manuscript has two semicolons; FIP has no punctuation here. The Sub-Ur has commas in both places. We agree with Sub-Ur on this one.
If they cannot co-exist in peace, and if you WANT peace, you must give up the idea of conflict ENTIRELY and for ALL TIME. This requires vigilance ONLY as long as YOU DO NOT RECOGNIZE WHAT IS TRUE. While you believe that two totally contradictory thought systems SHARE truth, your need for vigilance is apparent.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include this sentence which is not present in the HLC manuscript. We believe it was left out inadvertently.
The ego's use of projection must be fully understood before its inevitable association between projection and anger can be finally undone.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur have “the”, which we think is preferable, instead of “its”. The Sub-Ur also has “UNmade” in place of “undone” at the end of the sentence.
The only reason why you could possible want ANY part of it is because you do NOT see the whole of it.
Typo: the word “possible” should be “possibly” as an adverb is required here.
The Sub-Ur agrees, and so does FIP.
Unable to follow this guidance WITHOUT fear, he associates fear WITH guidance, and refuses to follow ANY guidance at all. If the result of this decision is confusion, this is hardly surprising. The Holy Spirit is perfectly trustworthy, as YOU are.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include this sentence which is apparently inadvertently omitted from the HLC.
“The ego’s voice is a hallucination” is corrected to “The ego’s voice is an hallucination.” The Sub-Ur has it correct, so does FIP.
One sentence is moved from the end of paragraph six to the beginning of paragraph seven. Otherwise the paragraph breaks after the colon! Sub-Ur and FIP both have this change also.
Remember that the Bible says, “The word (or thought) was made flesh.”
The word “Word” is capitalized here, as the quote from John 1:14 capitalizes it. So does FIP, but the Sub-Ur also has it lower case.
The 5th paragraph break in the photocopies ends with a colon, most unsuitable, and so this paragraph break has simply been removed. FIP and Sub-Ur both break paragraphs elsewhere also.
You can indeed by "drugged by sleep," but this is always because you have MISUSED it on behalf of sickness.
The line “by “drugged by sleep”” becomes “be “drugged by sleep””. This is an obvious typo.
To price for GETTING is to lose sight of value, making it inevitable that you will NOT value what you receive.
“To price for getting” is changed to “The price for getting” in FIP, but Sub-Ur agrees with HLC.
The word “vacillates” is misspelled in the original, and corrected here.
Yet you CAN see him truly because it is possible for you to see YOUR SELF truly.
The HLC manuscript has YOUR and SELF over a line ending and there is no visible hyphen. The photocopy is faded on the right margin however. Both Sub-Ur and FIP have this as a single word, “YOURSELF”, and so we’ve gone with that.
Believe this, and you WILL realize how much is up to you. When anything threatens your peace of mind, ask yourself:
“Has God changed His Mind about me?”
Then ACCEPT His decision, for it is indeed changeless, and refuse to change your mind about YOURSELF.
The original manuscript has a comma here. We agree with FIP that the colon is better.
ALL attack is self attack. It cannot BE anything else. Arising from your OWN decision NOT to be what you ARE, IT IS AN ATTACK ON YOUR IDENTIFICATION. Attack is thus the way in which your identification is lost, because, when you attack, you MUST have forgotten what you are. And if your reality is God’s, when YOU attack, you are not remembering HIM. This is not because He is gone, but because you are ACTIVELY WILLING NOT TO REMEMBER HIM.
This entire paragraph, present in the Sub-Ur and FIP Second Edition, is entirely missing from the HLC. We consider it an oversight and have replaced it.
When you think you are attacking your SELF, it is a sure sign that you hate what you THINK you are.
In the HLC the word “self” is not capitalized, but it is in the Sub-Ur. We feel that clarity is lost in removing the emphasis so it has been restored.
Is THIS the image you would be vigilant to SAVE? Are you REALLY afraid of losing THIS? Look calmly at the logical conclusion of the ego's thought system, and judge whether its offering is really what you want, for this IS what it offers you.
While both the Sub-Ur and FIP Second Edition have this sentence, the original HLC leaves it out. We think that was by mistake
God's Son knows no idols, but He DOES know His Father.
Both the Sub-Ur and HLC capitalize “His” here. The Sub-Ur capitalizes both “He” and “His” while FIP Second Edition puts both lower case. We agree with Sub-Ur because “God’s Son” here refers to a person of the Trinity..
There are four capitalization issues in this paragraph. We capitalize “Great Rays” and “Rays” in agreement with FIP although neither the Sub-Ur nor the HLC original capitalize them. We capitalize “Light” in agreement with the Sub-Ur although neither the HLC nor FIP do. And we capitalize “Great Light” in agreement both with FIP and the Sub-Ur.
Remember the Rays that are there unseen.
Neither the Sub-Ur nor HLC capitalize “Rays” although FIP does. We agree with FIP. Arguably “light” should be capitalized in this paragraph also but none of the versions consulted does so.
The closer you come to the foundation of the ego's thought system, the darker and more obscure becomes the way.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include “the foundation of,” although the HLC manuscript does not. It would appear its absence is inadvertent.
According to the Holy Spirit's teaching, ONLY God's purpose is [capable of] accomplishment and it is ALREADY accomplished.
The words “capable of” are not present in any version consulted. FIP renders this phrase “only God’s purpose can be accomplished,” which catches the likely meaning. The original “only God’s purpose is accomplishment” just doesn’t make sense. The Sub-Ur capitalizes the word “IS” for “ONLY God’s Purpose IS accomplishment.” That almost makes sense and is possibly what was originally intended. The Notes need to be consulted on this one.
The ego's interpretation of the laws of perception are, and would HAVE to be, the exact opposite of the Holy Spirit's.
The HLC has “interpretation” in the singular, although the Sub-Ur and FIP both pluralize it. We think it most likely should be pluralized.
“… yet where the Son is, the Father MUST be.”
The comma is not present in the HLC or FIP. The Sub-Ur has it however, and its presence makes the passage clearer so we restored this to the Sub-Ur reading.
You cannot accept false witness of HIM unless you have evoked false witnesses AGAINST him.
The original and all versions have “evoked” here but what is being discussed seems to be more of an “invocation”. Not changed, but considered. Again, we really need to check the Notes on this one.
Yet different experiences lead to different beliefs, and with them different perceptions. For perceptions are learned WITH beliefs, and experience teaches.
. While both the Sub-Ur and FIP Second Edition have this phrase, the original HLC leaves it out. We think that was by mistake
You cannot learn of perfect love with a split mind because a split mind had MADE itself a poor learner.
The HLC manuscript has “had” here. Both Sub-Ur and FIP have “has” as we do. This was likely a typo.
“Yet consider this:” ends paragraph 6. Ending a paragraph with a colon is bad form. The words “Consider this:” were moved to the beginning of the next paragraph (7). These words do not appear in the “Sub-Ur” although the rest of the two paragraphs do. In FIP this material shows up in Chapter 13, and the paragraph break is changed one sentence sooner. Blue Sparkly leaves it as is.
7. Little children, this is not so. Your “guilty secret” is nothing, and if you will but bring it to the light the Light will dispel it.
The second instance of “light” in this paragraph is capitalized for no apparent reason. The capitalization was removed from this word. The Sub-Ur capitalizes it and also the word WILL immediately following, but FIP drops the capitalization here also.
He could but answer your insane request with a sane answer which would abide with you in your insanity. AND THIS HE DID. No one who hears His answer but will give up insanity.
These two sentences are not in the HLC manuscript, but appear in the Sub-Ur and in FIP(2). Their absence appears inadvertent
But this is what denial DOES, for by it you ACCEPT insanity, believing you can make a private world and rule your OWN perceptions. Yet for this, light MUST be excluded.
The Sub-Ur adds the comma plus emphasis: “But for this, light MUST be excluded.” We feel the comma is necessary and so restored it.
1. Sit quietly and look upon the world you see, and tell yourself: “The real world is not like this.
This colon was originally a comma. FIP changes it to a colon and we agree.
YOU are the witnesses to the Fatherhood of God, and He has given you the power to create the witnesses to your fatherhood in Heaven. Deny a brother here, and you deny the witnesses to your fatherhood in Heaven. The miracle which God created is perfect, as are the miracles which YOU created in His Name. They need no healing, nor do you, when you know THEM.
This sentence does not appear in the HLC manuscript, but is in the Sub-Ur and in FIP Second Edition. Since its omission appears to us to have been inadvertent, it is restored.
They are used only by the Holy Spirit, and it is that which MAKES them pure. If you displace YOUR guilt upon them, the Holy Spirit cannot use them. For by pre-empting for your OWN ends what you should have given to HIM, he cannot use them unto YOUR release.
This sentence appears in FIP Second Edition and Sub-Ur but not in the HLC manuscript. Its omission appears inadvertent and so it has been restored.
In the sentence “Can you expect to use your brothers as a means to “solve” the past, and still to see them as they really are?” the problem is with the final infinitive “to see” in a place where the present tense is called for. The final “to” is out of place. The trick here is with implied antecedents. Some might dispute whether the grammar problem is “real” or “imaginary.” To this native English speaker’s ear, there is something terribly audibly wrong with the sentence as it stands, and what’s wrong is that the infinitive is being used where the present tense of the verb “to see” is required.
Use no relationship to hold you to the past, but with each one, each day, be born again.
Nether comma is in the HLC but both are in the Sub-Ur. We think they were left out inadvertently.
If GUILT were real, ATONEMENT would not be
This comma is not in the HLC but is in the Sub-Ur and FIP. We think it was left out inadvertently.
The indent is prefaced with “To him I say,” which should be “To him I say:” The comma is replaced by a colon.
There are several open questions in Chapter 13 which require more consideration, notably “awaking” which FIP changes to “waking” (sometimes) and “whate’er” which FIP and Blue Sparkly change to “whatever” and “builded” (another anachronism) which they leave intact.
There is an argument that the removal of a syllable and the addition of a syllable in the latter two generate Iambic Pentameter.
But YOU who cannot undo what you have made, nor escape the heavy burden of it’s dullness that lies upon your minds, cannot see THROUGH it.
The underlined clause is present in the Sub-Ur and FIP Second Edition but is missing from the HLC manuscript. We’re viewing it as an inadvertent omission.
Say, therefore, to yourself, gently, but with the conviction born of the love of God and of His Son,
“What I experience I will make manifest.
The HLC has a comma after “His Son”, but FIP(2) and the Sub-Ur have a colon. We agree with FIP that the colon is better.
Each day, each hour and minute, even every second, you are deciding between the crucifixion and the resurrection;
The HLC has “every” here. The Sub-Ur and FIP(2) have it as “each.” We agree with FIP about restoring the earlier form here. We suspect this is one of those cases where Helen, in the editing of 1973, decided to ‘change back’ something she had previously changed.
Those who accept the Atonement ARE invulnerable. But those who believe they are guilty WILL respond to guilt, because they think it is salvation, and will not refuse to see it and side with it. They BELIEVE that INCREASING guilt is self-PROTECTION. And they will fail to understand the simple fact that what they do not want MUST hurt them.
Both Sub-Ur and FIP Second Edition include this sentence which is missing from the HLC. We agree with FIP that the omission was an error.
The Atonement was established as the means of restoring guiltlessness to the mind which has denied it, and thus denied Heaven to Itself.
The word “itself” begins with a capital in the HLC, but not in any other version. We chose to go with the Sub-Ur and FIP in removing the capitalization
Do not withhold this glad acknowledgment, for hope of happiness and release from suffering of every kind lie in it.
The HLC manuscript, FIP and BS all have “lie” (plural) here, the Sub-Ur has “lies” which is correct. The subject is “hope” and it is this (singular) entity which “lies in it”.
For God is Life, and they ABIDE in Life. Life is as holy as the Holiness by which it was created.
This sentence appears in the Sub-Ur and FIP(2) but not in the HLC. We agree with FIP that it should be restored.
To order is to judge, and to arrange BY judgment. Therefore, it is not your function, but the Holy Spirit’s. It will seem difficult for you to learn that you have no basis AT ALL for ordering your thoughts.
This sentence is not present in the original manuscript. Both FIP(2) and Sub-Ur include it. We agree with FIP that the omission was inadvertent..
When your peace is threatened, or disturbed in any way, say to yourself:
“I do not know what anything, INCLUDING THIS, means.
The original, Sub-Ur and BS have a comma here. FIP(2) introduces the colon and we agree that it is better.
For the Holy Spirit USES time in His Own way, and is not bound by it. Time is His friend in teaching. It does not waste Him, as it does you. And all the waste that time seems to bring with it is due but to your identification with the ego, which uses time to support its belief in destruction.
This line appears in FIP(2) and Sub-Ur, but not in the HLC manuscript. We agree with FIP that it was omitted inadvertently.
“The Host of God needs not seek to find anything”
This is how the HLC puts it, is an apparent spelling error. The word “Host” is of course plural, referring to many. Yet it is also singular, in that there is one host, as there is for instance, one “crowd” consisting of many people. In this sense whether it is dealt with grammatically as singular or plural is a matter of convention, and such conventions can vary from region to region in the English-speaking world. To our ears, it should be “need” rather than “needs” (The error is in the photocopy, and it is preserved in the FIP edition. However, in the Sub-Ur the line reads correctly “The Host of God need not seek to find ANYTHING.” This reading was used as it appears correct and the emphasis on ANYTHING from the Sub-Ur is kept because it is more consistent with the rest of the paragraph and the preceding sentence where that word is also emphasized. The removal of the emphasis appears inadvertent here.
It is possible the change was intentional. However it sounds better to the ear when changed back to the original, and rather obviously there is no “content” issue at stake here!
“We said before that the ego attempt to maintain and increase guilt, but in such a way that you do not recognize what it would do to YOU.”
Grammatical problem, agreement in number. The word “attempt” needs to be “attempts” as Ego is singular.
Hear him gladly, and learn of Him that you have need of no special relationships at all.
Both the Sub-Ur and FIP(2) capitalize “Him” here, and that is obviously correct, though the HLC doesn’t. Restored as per Sub-Ur.
Accepting it as undivided you join Him wholly, in an instant. For you would place NO limits on your union WITH Him. The reality of this relationship becomes the only truth that you could ever WANT.
FIP and Sub-Ur both have this sentence. It’s omission in the HLC appears inadvertent.
You will not succeed in being partial hostage to the ego, for it keeps no bargains, and would leave you nothing. Nor can you be partial HOST to it. You will have to choose between TOTAL freedom and TOTAL bondage, for there are no alternatives but these.
Both FIP(2) and Sub-Ur have this sentence. It’s omission from the HLC appears inadvertent.
The capacity to empathize is very useful to the Holy Spirit, provided you let Him use it in His way. His way is very different. He does not understand suffering, and would have you teach it is not UNDERSTANDABLE.
This sentence appears in no version available to us except for the FIP Second Edition. This line is not in the Sub-Ur. It is presumably derived from the Thetford Typescript, or genuine Urtext. Its omission was probably an inadvertent typing error. We cannot be sure, however, that it was not a late editorial interpolation by the FIP Second Edition editors. Once again it is essential to check the Notes.
These it selects OUT, and joins WITH. And it never joins except to strengthen ITSELF. Having identified with what it THINKS it understands, it sees ITSELF, and would INCREASE itself by sharing what is LIKE itself. Make no mistake about this maneuver; the ego always empathizes to WEAKEN, and to weaken is ALWAYS to attack.
FIP and Sub-Ur both have this sentence. It’s omission in the HLC appears inadvertent. The capitalization is derived from the Sub-Ur.
This year, determine not to deny what has been given you by God. Awake and SHARE it, for that is the only reason He has called to you.
These four words, “Awake and share it,” appear in FIP(2) and Sub-Ur. Their omission from the HLC appears inadvertent. The Sub-Ur contains one more sentence immediately before this: “He has Himself reminded you of Him.” It was possibly removed for good reason … it doesn’t quite make sense. “He has reminded you of IT” might make sense. So too might “He has reminded you of Himself.” There appears to be a copying error between the Notes and the Sub-Ur here, but having no access to the Notes at this time, we can’t check. We have therefore not included this sentence at this time. The complete paragraph from the Sub-Ur (Absolute page 607, marked page 434) is as follows:
This year, determine NOT to deny what has been given you BY God, to use for Him. He has Himself reminded you of Him. Awake and SHARE it, for that is the only reason He has called to you. His Voice has spoken clearly, and yet you have so little faith in what you heard, because you have preferred to place still greater faith in the disaster you have made. Today, let us resolve together to accept the joyful tidings that disaster is NOT real, and that reality is NOT disaster. Reality is safe and sure and wholly kind to everyone and everything. There is no greater love than to accept this, and be glad. For love asks only that YOU BE happy, and will GIVE you everything that makes for happiness.
The phrase “Cause and Effect relationship” is capitalized as per the Author’s instructions on page 42, Chapter 2:E:12
Recognize this, for it is true, and truth MUST be recognized if it is to be distinguished from illusion: The special love relationship is an attempt to bring LOVE INTO SEPARATION. And, as such, it is nothing more than an attempt to bring love into fear, and make it REAL in fear. In fundamental violation of love's one condition, the special love relationship would accomplish the impossible.
The underlined words are missing from the HLC but present in the Sub-Ur and FIP(2). This is another case of inadvertent line omission.
Hear not the call of hate, and see no fantasies, for your completion lies in truth, and NOWHERE ELSE. See in the call of hate, and in every fantasy that rises to delay you, but the call for help which rises ceaselessly from you to your Creator.
This clause is missing in the HLC but present in both Sub-Ur and FIP(2). Its omission appears to be inadvertent.
So fearful has the truth become to you that UNLESS it is weak and little, and unworthy of value, you would not dare to look upon it.
Both FIP(2) and Sub-Ur include the words “unworthy of value” although the HLC does not. The omission was probably inadvertent but perhaps not, as this paragraph includes other, probably intentional editing
“God hold nothing against anyone, for He is incapable of illusions of ANY kind.”
Agreement in number. It should be “God holds” not “God hold.”
4. Be willing, then, to give all you have held outside the truth to Him Who KNOWS the truth, and in Whom all is brought to truth. Salvation from separation will be COMPLETE, or will not be at all. Be not concerned with anything except your WILLINGNESS to have this be accomplished.
Both FIP(2) and Sub-Ur have this sentence which appears to have been inadvertently omitted from the HLC.
If ALL but loving thoughts has been forgotten, what remains IS eternal. And the transformed past is made like the PRESENT.
The HLC manuscript has the singular “has” here, while both the Sub-Ur and FIP use “have” which we agree, is correct.
Now He will work with you to make it specific, for application IS specific. There are certain very specific guidelines He provides for any situation, but remember that you do not yet realize their universal application.
Both FIP Second Edition and Sub-Ur have the underlined phrase, which is missing from the HLC. We suspect the omission was inadvertent.
And you will see the means you once employed to lead you to illusions transformed to means for truth. Truth calls for faith, and faith makes room FOR TRUTH. When the Holy Spirit changed the purpose of your relationship by exchanging yours for His,
Both FIP(2) and Sub-Ur include this sentence which is, apparently inadvertently, omitted from the HLC.
Do you really think it strange that a world in which everything is backwards and upside-down arose from this? IT WAS INEVITABLE.
Both FIP(2) and Sub-Ur have this sentence. It’s omission from the HLC is likely inadvertent.
Give Him but a little faith in each other, to help him show you that no substitute you made for Heaven can keep you from it.
The HLC has “him” here but the Sub-Ur has “Him” which we feel is correct. FIP Second Edition agrees.
Heaven beholds it, and rejoices that you have let it come to you. And God Himself is glad that your relationship is as it was created. The universe within you stands with you, together.
This sentence appears in both FIP and Sub-Ur and appears to have been inadvertently omitted from the HLC.
The holy light that brought you together must extend, as YOU accepted it.
There is a shift in tense, from present to past here. While FIP preserves this rendering, the Sub-Ur has it:
The holy light that brought you together MUST extend, as YOU accept it.
It appears that this shift in tense was inadvertent since it’s not only poor style, but it makes no sense in the context of the passage. We’ve thus changed “accepted” to “accept.”
No limits on substitution is laid upon you.
This is a grammar error, agreement in number. It must be “limit is” or “limits are.” The latter is used because that is what the Sub-Urtext uses. FIP agrees.
In your waking dreams, the special relationship has a special place. It is the means by which you try to make your SLEEPING dreams COME TRUE. From this, you do not waken. The special relationship is your determination to keep your hold on unreality, and to prevent yourself from waking.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include the underlined portion, omitted, apparently inadvertently, from the HLC.
He does not destroy it, nor <O (486)> snatch it away from you. But He does use it differently, as a help to make HIS purpose REAL to you. Your special relationship will remain, not as a source of pain and guilt, but as a source of joy and freedom.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include this sentence, which appears to have been inadvertently omitted from the HLC.
6. It is this that makes the holy instant so easy and so natural. You make it difficult, because you insist there must be more that you need do. You find it difficult to ACCEPT the idea that you need give so LITTLE, to receive so much. And it is very hard for you to realize that it is not personally insulting that your contribution and the Holy Spirit's are so extremely disproportionate.
Both Sub-Ur and FIP have this sentence which appears to have been inadvertently omitted from the HLC.
The power of joining and its blessing lie in the fact that it is now impossible for either of you to experience fear alone, or to attempt to deal with it alone.
The subject is singular “power” and the verb must be “lies”, and we changed it to that. FIP changes this also but does other, apparently inadvertent, things to the sentence which completely transforms its meaning:
“The power of joining its blessing lies in the fact that it is now impossible for you or your brother to experience fear alone, or to attempt to deal with it alone.”
In FIP it’s no longer the “power of joining and its blessing” which would be the blessing of joining, but it becomes “the power of joining its blessing.” This is likely a typo in FIP since there is no antecedent for the pronoun “it” … just what noun does “it” refer to or stand for?
The Sub-Ur has it as “lies” and we went with that.
“Which ever is saner” occurs in the HLC and the Sub-Ur. FIP changes it to “Whoever”, at least recognizing the spelling error. “Whichever” strikes us as the appropriate spelling correction.
The HLC reads thus:
1. There is NOTHING outside you. That is what you must ultimately learn, for it is the realization that the Kingdom of Heaven is restored to you.
The precise problem here is difficult to pin down to a grammatical rule, but it sounds wrong, and sounds like it was meant to say “for it is IN that realization ..” not “it is the realization.” Sure enough, that is the way it stands in the Sub-Ur. FIP doesn’t change this one. This is being called a “typo” and restored to the Sub-Ur’s reading thus becoming:
“1. There is NOTHING outside you. That is what you must ultimately learn, for it is in that realization that the Kingdom of Heaven is restored to you.”
But the communication is INTERNAL. It is NOT made up of different PARTS, which reach each other. Mind reaches to ITSELF. It does not go OUT.
FIP adds the underlined sentence from the Sub-Ur. The HLC omits it. It is marked with handwritten square brackets in the Sub-Ur however, indicating that its omission was perhaps not inadvertent, but intentional. We include the line with that caveat.
Within itself it has no limits, and there is nothing outside it. It encompasses EVERYTHING. It encompasses you entirely; you within it, and it within you.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include this sentence which appears to have been inadvertently left out.
9. The body is outside you, and but SEEMS to surround you, shutting you off from others, and keeping you apart from them, and them from you. It is not there.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include this sentence which appears to have been inadvertently left out of the HLC.
It is extremely difficult to reach Atonement by fighting against sin. Enormous effort is expended in the attempt to make holy what is hated and despised. Nor is a lifetime of contemplation and long periods of meditation aimed at detachment from the body necessary.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include this sentence which appears to have been inadvertently left out of the HLC.
It would be far more profitable now merely to concentrat on this than to consider what you SHOULD do.
The word “concentrat” should be “concentrate.”
It is not strong enough to stop a button's fall, nor hold a feather. Nothing can rest upon it, for it is but an ILLUSION of a foundation. Try but to touch it and it disappears; attempt to grasp it and your hands hold nothing.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include this sentence which appears to have been inadvertently left out of the HLC.
The expression “make believe” is changed to “make-believe”. FIP agrees with this change.
A step beyond this holy place of forgiveness, a step still further inward but the one YOU cannot take, transports you to something completely different.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include this phrase which appears to have been inadvertently left out of the HLC.
This is probably where the original for the “Love’s meaning” interpolated introduction section (Chapter 1A) came from originally, and it should probably be put back here. This has not been done in this edition. The likely need for it is simply being noted. We didn’t move it, we’re just flagging it.
Faithlessness would always limit and attack; faith would remove all limitations and make whole. Faithlessness would destroy and SEPARATE; faith would unite and HEAL. Faithlessness would interpose illusions between the Son of God and his Creator; faith would remove all obstacles that seem to rise between them.
Each is united, a complete thought system, but totally disconnected to each other.
While FIP and the Sub-Ur both retain it, ‘disconnected to each other’ is not proper English usage. It should be “disconnected from each other.” In the Sub-Ur, it reads “DISconnected to each other” which actually makes more sense as a word play. Thus the capitalization of “DIS” is restored to the HLC from the Sub-Ur.
“Your faithlessness had driven you apart” should be “has driven” since the whole paragraph is in the simple past, not the past perfect tense. FIP agrees with this correction. It will prove interesting to check this against the Notes when that becomes possible. This is possibly a typo in the Sub-Ur which went uncorrected until the FIP edition.
Upon further consideration, the Sub-Ur/HLC rendering in past perfect is restored because there is a meaning shift between “has driven” and “had driven.” The perfect tense makes the action complete, done, over with while the simple past allows the action to be ongoing and not completed. In the context it seems like the faithlessness being referred to was indeed a “past perfected” (finished with) issue, and not an immediate issue since those being addressed ARE indeed “recognizing salvation in each other” so their faithlessness must be over and done with, such as “had driven” suggests.
Due to the fact that there are differences of opinion on this, we’ll simply draw your attention to a possible error here and not actually change the HLC.
This is his past, his present and his future. For he has somehow managed to corrupt his Father, and changed His Mind completely.
The original has the past tense: “changed”. The Sub-Ur has it as we do, in the present tense: “change”. FIP agrees.
Punishment is always the great preserver of sin; treating it with respect, and honoring its enormity. What must be punished, MUST BE TRUE. And what is true MUST be eternal, and WILL be repeated endlessly. For what you think is real you WANT, and will not let it go.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include this phrase which appears to have been inadvertently left out of the HLC.
The extension of the Holy Spirit's purpose from your relationship to others, to bring them gently in, has already begun. This is the way in which He will bring means and goal in line. The peace He laid, deep within BOTH of you, will quietly extend to every aspect of your lives, surrounding both of you with glowing happiness and the calm awareness of complete protection.
Two entire lines here are missing from the HLC. FIP restores part of it, but alters it. We’re restoring it all from the Sub-Ur, deeming its omission to have been inadvertent.
As love must look past fear, so must fear see love not. For love contains the end of guilt, as surely as fear depends on it. Love is attracted ONLY to love. Overlooking guilt completely, it sees no fear.
Fear looks on guilt with just the same devotion that love looks on itself. And each has messengers which they send forth, and which return to them with messages written in the language in which their going forth was asked.
There is a grammatical problem with agreement in number here. It must be either “both have messengers which they send” or “each has messengers which it sends.” FIP corrects it in the second way, we correct it in the first way, such that it becomes “both have.” Otherwise, the word “them” has to be changed to “it” later in the sentence. One inadvertent mistake is far more probable than two, in our view. The Sub-Ur has the same problem. Reference to the Notes is required to clear this one up.
Sub-Ur has “breath of love” spelled “breathe of love.” An obvious misspelling corrected.
The first sentence is not a proper sentence, it reads:
“To think you could be satisfied and happy with so little is to hurt yourself, and to limit the happiness that you would have, calls upon pain to fill your meager store and make your lives complete.”
One of those two commas simply has to be a period, or the second comma has to go.
In the Sub-Ur, we find the problem solved, it reads:
“To think you could be satisfied and happy with so little, IS to hurt yourself. And to LIMIT the happiness that you would have, CALLS upon pain to fill your meager store, and make your lives complete.”
Rather clearly we have a scribal copying error here from the Sub-Ur to the HLC. The resolution here is to restore the material to the Sub-Ur reading. We now have two sentences, both of which are grammatically acceptable, and the restoration of the emphasis removed in the HLC clarifies the meaning considerably.
The FIP rendition gets rid of the second comma, as follows:
“12 To think you could be satisfied and happy with so little is to hurt yourself, and to limit the happiness that you would have calls upon pain to fill your meager store and make your life complete.”
Here we have an interesting example of “correcting” without reference to the original. The FIP editors clearly recognized the grammar problem, and by removing the second comma, render the sentence both grammatical and rather close to its original form. Why “lives” was changed to “life” is a mystery since the whole section is about holy relationships and is addressing BOTH partners! Why the emphasis, which adds so much clarity to the passage was removed is also mysterious.
In any case, we prefer the original, which is clearer and presents no grammar issues, so the HLC was modified to reflect the earlier rendition.
The HLC reads “This the value that you think.” Both the Sub-Ur and FIP agree with us that it should be “This is the value that you think.” Another scribal copying error … Schucman and/or Thetford must have been overtired when typing this page! Changed.
The body will seem to be whatever is the means for reaching the goal that you assign to it. Only the mind can set a purpose, and only mind can see the means for its accomplishment, and justify its use. Peace and guilt are both conditions of the mind, to be attained.
“This is no arrogance” sounds like it should be “This is not arrogance.” In the Sub-Ur we read “This is NOT arrogance” and the stress there convinces us this is indeed a typo in the HLC. In fact, because it is clearer, we’ve restored the emphasis from the Sub-Ur as well. FIP doesn’t fix it.
No one can stand before this obstacle alone, for he could not have reached thus far UNLESS his brother walked beside him.
Sub-Ur has “it” rather than “thus far” … we’re not sure if this is an inadvertent copying error or intentional editing. In the oldest (Sub-Ur) reading, the pronoun “it” refers to the obstacle, so the meaning is “He could not have reached the obstacle (it) unless his brother walked beside him. This obstacle is still “the fear of God.” In the HLC, instead of reaching the obstacle, he is just reaching “thus far” which is a completely different meaning, and a completely imprecise one at that. It might mean looking upon the fear of God, accepting the Atonement and learning that illusions are not real, since all these descriptors could be describing what “thus far” is. In contrast, the word “it” as used in the Sub-Ur can only mean “the fear of God.”
While “it” seems to us the better and more precise reading, our purpose here is not to “correct” intentional changes to the HLC made by its editors.
FIP changes it to “this far.”
Let him withhold it not, for by <O (545)> receiving it you offer it to him. For he WILL receive of you what YOU received of him. Redemption has been given you to give each other, and thus receive it.
In the last sentence we read:
“But a RISEN Christ becomes the symbol of the Son of God's forgiveness on himself; the sign he looks upon himself as healed and whole.”
The construction “forgiveness on himself” is odd, one would expect “forgiveness of himself.” FIP preserves this reading. the Sub-Ur has it “forgiveness upon himself” which we prefer, and so the HLC copy here has been restored to its earlier form and this is being deemed a typo. Once again, a reference to the original notes is required here, since the style remains curious and there may well be other copying errors in this sentence. For instance, if we place a word such as “bestowing” before the word “forgiveness” above, all the oddities in the construction and word choice vanish.
Easter is not the celebration of the COST of sin, but of it’s END. If you see glimpses of the face of Christ behind the veil, looking between the snow white petals of the lilies you have received and given as your gift, you will behold each other's face and RECOGNIZE it.
“In your forgiveness of this stranger, alien to you and yet your ancient Friend, lie his release and your redemption with him.”
Agreement in number. It appears at first glance that it should be “lies” and not “lie.” FIP agrees. Blue Sparkly does not. The Sub-Ur keeps it as “lie.”
We almost fixed this “error” but upon further inquiry we noticed that the subject of this sentence is plural “his release and your redemption” and the verb is plural “lie” and the object of the sentence is “In your forgiveness”. It’s an inverted sentence. So, the Sub-Ur and the HLC are right and FIP, in this case, has erred.
In the second sentence we read: “No-one but sees his chosen home an altar to HIMSELF.” We have a prepositional deficit here. There are at least two simple ways to fix this:
No one but sees in his chosen home an altar to Himself … or
No one but sees his chosen home as an altar to Himself.
FIP chooses the second. After careful examination of the context, it appears that the “chosen home” (which can be the body, and in this example is) is not the altar per se, but that altars reside within homes. Homes are not altars, but they may contain altars. We thus feel that if the grammar is to be corrected, it should be in the manner of example 1, above, “No one but sees in his chosen home an altar to Himself,” believing the FIP editors erred here.
HOWEVER! There is poetic metre to consider. The original, with prepositional deficit, is better Iambic Pentameter than EITHER correction for grammar.
This raises an issue which recurs, when grammar errors are required to preserve Iambic Pentameter, should they be left uncorrected? At the moment our choice is to leave them uncorrected but flag them with possible corrections. The latter is likely to be especially helpful to readers whose native tongue is not English and who are more likely to be confused by grammar aberrations.
Listen and hear this carefully, nor think it but a dream; a careless thought to play with, or a toy you would pick up from time to time, and then put by. For if you do, so will it be to you:
In the sentence: “For if you do, so will it be to you:” we have a colon where there should be a period. Corrected. In the Sub-Ur and FIP there is also a period rather than a colon here.
Knowledge requires NO adjustment, and, in fact, is lost if any shift or change is undertaken. For this reduces it at once to mere perception; a way of LOOKING in which certainty is lost, and doubt has entered. To this impaired condition ARE adjustments necessary, because they are not true. Who need adjust to truth, which calls on only what he is, to understand?
The underlined words here are problematic. FIP changes this to “it is”, deciding the antecedent for the pronoun is “condition”. Is it the “condition” which is “not true” or is it the “adjustments?” In the Sub-Ur, we get little help. We find “BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TRUE” capitalized and standing as a separate sentence between periods. Errors in EMPHASIZED words are extremely rare, no example has so far been found, so we are reluctant to accept FIP’s conclusion that there is an agreement in number error. We have not yet come up with anything better and perhaps won’t until we can check the Notes. It is possible the FIP editors did precisely that and that this correction derives from there.
This is unlikely however as the correction was made before the 1985 “proofreading” as it appears in later printings of the First Edition as a rather obvious “paste-up” correction on line 2 of page 400 of their First Edition. The grammatical problem was likely noticed and thus removed without checking the original since there is no evidence that they ever checked the original until 1985.
For now, for lack of an alternative which appears any better, we are going with the FIP remedy. “They are” becomes “it is”.
“Here all thoughts of any separation between us becomes impossible.”
Grammar problem: agreement in number. “Thoughts become” or “thought becomes” is ok, but “thoughts becomes” is not. This was corrected to read: “Here all thought of any separation between us becomes impossible” because that is how the Sub-Ur reads. FIP resolves it the other way, leaving “thoughts” plural and changing “becomes” to “become.”
It lies in him to overlook all your mistakes, and therein lies his OWN salvation. And so it is with yours. Salvation is a lesson in giving, as the Holy Spirit interprets it. It is the reawakening of the laws of God in minds that have established other laws, and given them power to enforce what God created not.
And in that single heart beat is the unity of love proclaimed and given welcome.
Sub-Ur and FIP agree with our dictionaries that this should be one word “heartbeat”.
Your brother's body is of as little use to you as it is to him. When it is used only as the Holy Spirit teaches it HAS no function, for minds need not the body to communicate.
There is a preposition deficit in all versions consulted. We should perhaps add the word “of.” When parsed, this becomes obvious. You can’t say: “your body is use.” It has to be “your body is of use.” The addition of the adjective “little” and the conjunction “as”, which introduce the comparison, obscure the underlying grammatical structure, which is probably why this one escaped the notice of so many editors previously. However, adding a word changes the poetic meter and this is probably an instance of grammar being sacrificed to generate IP.
In the sentence “Is the malevolence of the unholy relationship, so seeming powerful and so bitterly misunderstood,” the adjective “seeming” should be the adverb “seemingly” modifying the implied verb “is” as in “[is] so seemingly powerful.” Grammatically we need an adverb here, and the adjective form is incorrect. Sub-Ur and FIP maintain the adjective form.
However, the author seems to use adjectives as adverbs quite often, so while flagging this as a potential problem, we aren’t changing it.
In the sentence: “What if you recognized this world is a hallucination?” we should have the word “an” instead of “a”. The Sub-Ur has it “a” while FIP corrects it to “an” as do we.
There is no choice that lies between these two decisions. And you WILL see the witness to the choice you made, and learn from this to RECOGNIZE which one you chose. The world you see but shows you how much joy YOU have allowed yourself to see in you, and to accept as YOURS. And, if this IS its meaning, then the power to GIVE it joy MUST lie WITHIN you.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include these sentences which appear to have been inadvertently left out of the HLC.
Let’s begin this one with the paragraph as it appears in the HLC.
6. Listen, -- perhaps you catch a hint of an ancient state not quite forgotten; dim, perhaps, and yet not altogether unfamiliar, like a song whose name is long forgotten, and the circumstances in which you heard completely unremembered. Not the whole song has stayed with you, but just a little wisp of melody, attached not to a person or a place or anything particular. But you remember, from just this little part, how lovely was the song, how wonderful the setting where you heard it, and how you loved those who were there and listened with you.
Now if I were editing anyone else’s prose the following changes would be made, minimally:
6. Listen, -- perhaps you catch a hint of an ancient state not quite forgotten; dim, perhaps, and yet not altogether unfamiliar, like a song whose name is long forgotten, and the circumstances in which you heard it completely unremembered. the whole song has not stayed with you, but just a little wisp of melody, attached not to a person or a place or anything in particular. But you remember, from just this little part, how lovely was the song, how wonderful the setting where you heard it, and how you loved those who were there and listened with you.
The word “it” underlined in red does not appear in the HLC or any other version, but if this is poetry, “it” is implied and if this is prose “it” is necessary. The other suggested modifications above smooth out two rather awkward and clumsy, but not strictly “incorrect” constructions. Only the addition of “it” is really necessary here.
While some of these lines could be Iambic Pentameter, in that there are arguably the correct number of beats, the whole paragraph certainly isn’t. “Perhaps” to “particular” might be, if we stretch things, but breaks down at “particular” and doesn’t resume. So really, this paragraph does not appear to be Iambic Pentameter. Let’s take a look at trying to render this passage as poetry:
perhaps you catch a hint of an ancient
state not quite forgotten; dim, perhaps, and
yet not altogether unfamiliar,
like a song whose name is long forgotten,
and the circumstances in which you heard (it)
completely unremembered. Not the whole
song has stayed with you, but just a little
wisp of melody, attached not to a
person or a place or anything particular.
But you remember, from just this little
part, how lovely was the song, how wonderful
the setting where you heard it, and how you
loved those who were there and listened with you.
The most that can said for poetry here is that you have several lines in a row where the tenth beat doesn’t split a word, and I’d guess that is about average for any English prose!
If it is prose then we can’t say that “it” was left out to preserve the poetic metre, and it comes to appear that it was just left out!
This one really needs to be compared against the Notes. There are odd constructions here and it is very close to IP where it isn’t IP. This suggests there is a high probability of a transcription error, but it must be prior to the Sub-Ur because the material is essentially identical there.
Nothing will ever be as dear to you as is this ancient hymn of love the Son of God sings to his Father still.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include these two words which appear to have been inadvertently left out of the HLC.
All that the ego is, is an idea that it is possible that things should happen to the Son of God WITHOUT his will; and thus without the Will of his Creator, Whose Will cannot BE separate from his own.
FIP Second Edition changes this to “could”. FIP claims this change comes from the Urtext. The Sub-Ur however has it as “should” and so we are leaving it as that until we can check the Notes.
“Then only it is possible” should be “Then only is it possible.” FIP preserves the HLC reading. But the Sub-Ur has it correctly. We’ve restored the Sub-Ur reading, viewing this as a typo.
Both the HLC and Sub-Ur have:
They have renounced the means for sin by choosing to let all limitations be removed. Desiring to look upon their brothers in holiness, the power of belief and faith goes far beyond the body, SUPPORTING vision, not obstructing it.
FIP Second Edition, has it slightly different:
They have renounced the means for sin by choosing to let all limitations be removed. As they desire to look upon their brothers in holiness, the power of their belief and faith sees far beyond the body, supporting vision, not obstructing it.
We changed the period before “Desiring” to a comma and the comma after “holiness” to a period which cures the grammar more easily, and without having to change any words. This was also required to keep the IP intact.
It thus becomes:
They have renounced the means for sin by choosing to let all limitations be removed, desiring to look upon their brothers in holiness. The power of belief and faith sees far beyond the body, SUPPORTING vision, not obstructing it.
Our basis for choosing this solution to the grammar problem in the HLC which is also in the Sub-Ur, was mainly that the only actual transcription error was punctuation! Simply changing commas to periods and vice versa, when it fixes grammar problems is, we feel, a preferable remedy to changing words.
The word “light” is used where “alight” is required to make sense. Sub-Ur and FIP both use “light” but light as verb makes no sense in the context “your eyes will light on sin” whereas “your eyes will alight on sin” makes perfect sense. It’s the word “on” that cinches it. One cannot use light as a verb to “light on” something, but one’s eyes may certainly “alight on” anything.
There may be an argument from Poetic metre that a single syllable is needed, and that “light” here is a contraction of “alight”. Fair enough, but in that case it must be written as “’light” and not just “light”.
After writing the above it was drawn to my attention that in US English “light” can mean “alight” and is a contraction commonly written without the apostrophe in that country. So we are just adding the apostrophe to make it less ambiguous.
And thus It recognizes that miracles do not affect another's mind, only Its Own. They always change YOUR mind. There IS no other.
The word “Self” has been capitalized in the word “self-EXTENDING” such that it becomes “Self-EXTENDING.” This was done to maintain consistency with the use of capitalization on “Self” when it refers to a higher, or divine “Self,” which is clearly the “Self” involved in this passage. Sub-Ur and FIP both capitalize “Self” in this instance. FIP drops the emphasis on “EXTENDING” but the Sub-Ur includes the emphasis.
The sentence “It does not value them, but their correction” is grammatically problematic and somewhat confusing, meaning it does value their correction, but stating it in a very clumsy way. In the Sub-Ur, the words “them” and “correction” are emphasized which substantially clarifies the meaning, if not fixing the grammar. Since the contrast between what is and is not valued is clearer in the Sub-Ur, the emphasis from the Sub-Ur was put back into the HLC, the resultant sentence being: “It does not value THEM, but their CORRECTION.” With the emphasis it is obvious that “it does value” is implied between “but” and “their correction.” Otherwise it is unclear.
The following sentence:
“And how could thoughts that enter into what but seems like yours alone have no effect at all on what IS yours?”
is rendered in the Sub-Ur with the word “seems” capitalized for emphasis. This seems much clearer, and so the capitalization was restored from the Sub-Ur, resulting in:
“And how could thoughts that enter into what but SEEMS like yours alone have no effect at all on what IS yours?”
“And then it will be clear to you that, as you look on the effects of sin in any form, all you need do is simply ask yourself,
"Is this what I would see? Do I WANT this?"
We change the comma after “yourself” to a colon. So does FIP. The Sub-Ur keeps it as a comma, but we agree with FIP on this one.
Here is the faith in differences shifted to sameness. And here is sight of differences transformed to VISION. And reason now can lead you to the logical conclusion of your union.
The sentence “Nothing so blinding as perception of form” lacks a verb. The Sub-Urtext is identical. So is FIP. Perhaps it should be “There is nothing so blinding” or “Nothing is so blinding.” All versions have it the same way. Once again, we need to check the Notes.
"Unholy values will produce confusion, and in AWARENESS" in the HLC is ungrammatical and incoherent.
In the FIP edition the emphasis is removed, but not the incoherence.
FIP: “Unholy values will produce confusion, and in awareness” (T-22.III.9.2)
The problem is resolved with reference to the Sub-Ur, where it reads:
"Unholy values will produce confusion, and IN AWARENESS".
Thus we changed "in AWARENESS" in to "UNAWARENESS."
We find many ‘unconventional’ spelling patterns in the Sub-Ur, which one might refer to as idiosyncratic spelling or just spelling mistakes. The use of prefixes such as “un” where we’d expect “in” and vice versa is common, as is the creation of totally new words such as “extra-mental” and “intra-mental” as a kind of word game or pun to illustrate or emphasize a point. Therefore it appears to be that “IN AWARENESS” is one such word game which works orally but not so well in print. The basic point of the original is preserved by using the word “UNAWARENESS” however. Arguably it might be better to represent it as UN AWARENESS (preserving the original two words) or even just leave it alone entirely and present it as IN AWARENESS with the emphasis as in the Sub-Ur.
Robert Perry believes this to be correct as is, and believes it to mean, “Unholy values will produce confusion, and will do so in awareness, rather than merely producing unconscious confusion.”
Either correction makes the sentence grammatical although there is a meaning shift between “confusion in awareness” on the one hand and “confusion and unawareness” on the other. It strikes me as unlikely that a comma would be inadvertently added, along with an entire word, and very much more likely that a space was inadvertently added to a common (in the Sub-Ur) form of misspelling “unawareness.”
A careful reading of the previous paragraphs suggests rather strongly that it is not a “confusion in awareness” that is the point at issue here, but very much “confusion AND unawareness.”
God would let nothing interfere with those whose wills are His. And they will recognize their wills are His, BECAUSE they serve His Will. And serve it willingly. And COULD remembrance of what they are be long delayed?
The sentence appears inadvertently omitted, as it is present in Sub-Ur and FIP.
Seek not to change it, nor to substitute another goal. This one was GIVEN you, and ONLY this. Accept this one and serve it willingly, for what the Holy Spirit does with the gifts you give each other, to whom He offers them, and where and when, is up to Him.
The sentence appears inadvertently omitted, as it is present in Sub-Ur and FIP.
“He will withhold no blessing from it, or limit it in any way” becomes
“He will withhold no blessing from it, nor limit it in any way” In FIP. It’s unchanged in the Sub-Ur. We decided to leave it alone and just flag it.
In the second to last sentence we read:
So is the memory of God obscured in minds that have become illusions's battleground.
The proper representation of a plural possessive ending in S is s’ apostrophe, rather than the standard apostrophe s. It should be:
So is the memory of God obscured in minds that have become illusions’ battleground.
FIP corrects it this way. In the Sub-Ur it is “illusion’s battleground” with the singular rather than the plural:
So is the memory of God obscured in minds that have become illusion’s battleground.
This certainly reads better and is most likely what was originally intended. The extra s, making it a plural was probably a typo and FIP’s correction is grammatically ok but not faithful to the original (which the FIP editors didn’t check).
You who believe you walk in sanity, with feet on solid ground, and through a world where meaning can be found, consider this: These ARE the laws on which your “sanity” appears to rest. These ARE the principles which make the ground beneath your feet seem solid.
This sentence appears in both FIP and Sub-Ur. It’s omission from the HLC appears inadvertent.
1. Do not remain in conflict, for there IS no war without attack. The fear of God is fear of LIFE, and not of death.
This sentence appears in both FIP and Sub-Ur. It’s omission from the HLC appears inadvertent. FIP puts it at the beginning of the next Section … this section division is rather arbitrary.
6. What would they see instead? [They would see] The shining radiance of the Son of God, so like his Father that the memory of Him springs instantly to mind.
In the original HLC, the sentence “What would they see instead?” is the last sentence of the preceding paragraph (5). Both Sub-Ur and FIP move it as we have done. The following sentence, beginning with “The shining radiance …” is missing a verb so is not a proper sentence as it stands in all versions, without the implied “[They would see]”. The question and the answer need to stand side by side. Breaking the paragraph between the question and answer is clearly inappropriate and thus almost certainly an inadvertent mistake.
Truth is not frail. Illusions leave it perfectly unmoved and undisturbed. But specialness is NOT the truth in you.
These two words occur in both FIP and Sub-Ur and may have been inadvertently left out of the HLC.
“The print of nails are on your hands as well” is what the original reads. The problem is agreement in number. It must be “prints (plural) are” or (print (singular) is).
Sub-Ur has the same error, FIP has it “print is” but the reference here is to the crucifixion in which there was more than one nail and more than one nail-print so the plural throughout is appropriate. So we simply added an “s” to “print” making it “The prints of nails are on you hands as well.”
Arguably, a few lines up, where it says “Look on the print of nails upon his hands” should also be the plural “prints” but there isn’t the same strong grammatical necessity for a correction.
And never doubt but that your specialness will disappear before the Will of God, Who loves each part of Him with equal love and care. The Christ in you CAN see your brother truly.
The words "and care" are missing in the HLC but are present in the Sub-Ur and FIP.
The original typescript reads:
No one who carries Christ in him can fail to recognize Him everywhere. EXCEPT in bodies.
The period after “everywhere” is probably a mistake, since “EXCEPT in bodies” is not a sentence. The period should probably be a comma instead. FIP and Sub-Ur leave it unchanged.
This sentence is problematic:
“Here is the meeting of the holy Christ unto Himself; nor [are?] any differences perceived to stand between the aspects of His holiness, which meet and join and raise Him to His Father, whole and pure and worthy of His everlasting Love.”
The semicolon, which FIP holds unchanged, is replaced by a period in the Sub-Ur, which is better grammar. a second sentence begins with “Nor.” Yet the second sentence, or the clause following the semi-colon, lacks a complete verb! We could have inserted “are” after “Nor” making the sentence grammatically correct without altering the meaning in any way we can notice.
We checked IP on this one also and this may well be a case of poetic licence rather than typographical error, so we left it unchanged. Once again, we need to check the Notes on this one.
“And so what” is changed to “And so What” because the antecedent is the Holy Spirit. The Sub-Ur keeps it lower case but FIP capitalizes it as we have done.
The original reads:
How long is needed for you to realize the chance of change in THIS respect is hardly worth delaying change that might result in better outcome?
While FIP and Sub-Ur both retain this reading, it seems obvious to us that the word “outcome” should be plural here. Either that, or a definite article is needed to keep it grammatical, such as “a better outcome.” We’ve opted for the plural form. Since the “sense” of the sentence here suggests plural, that’s what we’ve gone with. Once again, we need to check the Notes.
You are the same, as God Himself is One, and not divided in His Will.
The HLC has no comma here, nor does FIP. The Sub-Ur does, however, and we include it for clarity. It appears to have been omitted inadvertently.
Salvation is no more than a reminder this world is not your home; its laws are not imposed on you, its values are not yours. And nothing that you THINK you see in it is REALLY there at all. And this is seen and understood as each one takes his part in its undoing, as he did in making it.
This sentence occurs in FIP and Sub-Ur and appears to have been omitted inadvertently.
It must be so that either God is mad, or is this world a place of madness.
We didn’t change this in the text but it is a candidate … In the second sentence we read “or is this world” where it really perhaps should be “or this world is.” (not footnoted)
To this One is given the choice of form most suitable to him; one which will not attack the world he sees, but enter into it in quietness, and SHOW him he is mad.
While FIP preserves this error, Sub-Ur has it is “SHOW him it is mad.” If it were left as “he” then the sentence says that the Holy Spirit is mad, since He would be the antecedent to the pronoun in that case. Rather obviously not correct!
From this position does his sinfulness, and all the sin he sees within the world, offer him less and less. until he comes to understand it COST him his sanity, and stands between him and whatever hope he has of BEING sane.
In the sentence(s) “… him less and less. Until …” there is a problem. There should be no sentence break, and no period here. Period removed. The sentence break occurs in the same place in the Sub-Ur and FIP leaves this unchanged also. However it is so obvious to us that a period has been inadvertently put in the middle of a sentence that we’ve taken it out.
There are tense problems in the following sentence: “You need not give it to Him wholly willingly, for if you could, you had no need of Him.” The last phrase could be changed to the more correct future conditional tense: “you would have no need” instead of the grammatically incorrect simple past tense: “you had no need.”
Thus it would read: “You need not give it to Him wholly willingly, for if you could, you would have no need of Him. “
Both the Sub-Ur and FIP preserve this unchanged.
This is a case of the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood is used quite frequently in ACIM. It is mostly an archaic usage which often appears at first glance to be an incorrect tense. While we don’t flag all instances of the Subjunctive, we feel mentioning a few is helpful.
Fairness and vengeance are impossible, for each one contradicts the other and denies that it is real.
HLC and FIP don’t capitalize “and” but Sub-Ur does. The sense here is that fairness and vengeance are incompatible, and that it is impossible for them to be together. Neither fairness nor vengeance are “impossible” alone, what is impossible is for both to be present simultaneously. Fairness AND vengeance are impossible. So we restored the emphasis for clarity.
The sentence beginning with “And so must be be..” is corrected to “And so must he be…” The Sub-Ur has this correct, it’s an obvious typo.
But judge him not, for you will hear no song of liberation for yourself, nor see what it is given him to witness to, that you may see it and rejoice with him.
The word “it” here is not necessary and potentially confusing. However this peculiar style shows up elsewhere and the editors are not unanimous that it should be removed. All versions preserve it and we leave it as it is with this caveat, that it’s clearer and better grammar if removed. Once again, we need to check the Notes to see if this is part of the original or not.
It is your special function to ensure the door be opened, that he may come forth to shine on you, and give you back the gift of freedome by receiving it of you.
And obvious spelling mistake “freedome” should be “freedom”. Corrected.
The sentence beginning: “He has not greater difficulty” has obvious problems.
FIP preserves this unchanged. The Sub-Ur reads “He has not a greater difficulty” which, while not ideal, is a lot better. However, “no greater” or “not any greater” sound much better. After much consideration, “no greater” was chosen since it sounds better and does not effect poetic metre. There is no question of any “meaning shift” here. Once again, we need to check the Notes.
The sentence “It is not a place, and when you reach it is apart from time” has some obvious problems. In the Sub-Ur emphasis is given the word “when” which clarifies the meaning: “It is not a place, and WHEN you reach it is apart from time.” The Sub-Ur’s emphasis was returned as it clarifies the meaning. The idea here, that the “when” or “moment in time” when you reach it is apart from time is tricky to put into words at all! How can there be a time apart from time? Yet without the emphasis it can appear nonsensical.
And in the recognition this is so, lies the ability to give up all attempts to choose between them, and to MAKE them different. How simple is the choice between two things so clearly UNalike. There IS no conflict here.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include this sentence which appears to have been omitted by mistake.
And so is all time passed, and everything exactly as it was before the way to nothingness was made.
The manuscript, Sub-Ur and Blue Sparkly all have this as “passed.” FIP(1 & 2) changes it to “past” and in the context, we agree this is what was intended, and change it also. The entire section is about “all time” being “past and gone” so we conclude this is a typo, and that “past” and not “passed” was originally intended.
7. Forgiveness is the great release from time. It is the key to learning that the past is over. Madness speaks no more. There IS no OTHER teacher and no OTHER way. For what has been undone no longer is. And who can stand upon a distant shore, and dream himself across an ocean, to a place and time that have long since gone by? How REAL a hindrance can this dream be to where he really IS? For this is fact, and does NOT change whatever dreams he has. Yet can he still IMAGINE he is elsewhere, and in another time. In the extreme he can delude himself that this is true, and pass from mere imagining into belief and into madness, quite convinced that where he would prefer to be, he IS.
This entire paragraph is missing in the HLC and FIP First Edition. It is present in FIP Second Edition. The HLC doesn’t even put a paragraph break in the place where this paragraph originally (and once again) appears.
And how much can his own delusions about time and place effect a change in where he really is?
While both Sub-Ur and HLC have this as "affect", we agree with FIP(2) that it should be changed to "effect."
The unforgiven is a voice that calls from out a past forever more gone by.
While all versions have it as “from out” there is a prepositional deficit as it stands, and needs to be “from out of” or changed to “out from”. Once again, we need to check the Notes to see how this is in the original.
We agree with FIP that the correct form of the possessive for “vengeance’ heels” should be “vengeance’s heels”. A case can be made that either is correct.
“Although it falls far short of giving you your full inheritance, it DOES remove the obstacles which you have placed between the Heaven where you are, and recognition of where and what you are”
This sentence is problematic in the term “the Heaven.” The definite article is inappropriate here, and while Sub-Ur and FIP both have it in place, it seems to us it should be removed. Reference to the Notes will be required to clear up whether this superfluous article is there also.
If loss in any form is possible, then is God's Son made incomplete and not <O (719)> himself. Nor will he know himself, nor recognize his will. He has forsworn his Father AND himself, and made them both his enemies in hate.
FIP and Sub-Ur both include this sentence which appears to have been inadvertently omitted from the HLC.
Now in the hands made gently by His touch, the Holy Spirit lays a picture of a different you.
Sub-Ur and FIP agree that this should be “gentle.”
The following three paragraphs (10, 11 and 12) were omitted entirely from the HLC manuscript. They represent the whole of page 767 of the Sub-Ur. This was the dictation for January 24, 1968. FIP Second Edition restores the paragraphs and we agree that they were omitted by mistake.
(end of paragraph 9—for reference)
And sickness is desired to prevent a shift of balance in the sacrifice. How could the Holy Spirit be deterred an instant, even less, to reason with an argument for sickness such as this? And need your healing be delayed because you pause to listen to insanity?
10. Correction is NOT your function. It belongs to One Who knows of fairness, NOT of guilt. If you assume correction’s role, you LOSE the function of forgiveness. No-one can forgive until he learns correction is BUT to forgive, and NEVER to accuse. Alone, you CANNOT see they are the same, and therefore is correction NOT of you. Identity and function are the same, and BY your function do you know yourself. And thus, if you confuse your function with the function of Another, you MUST be confused about yourself and who you are. What is the separation but a wish to take God’s Function from Him and DENY that it is His? Yet if it is NOT His it is not YOURS, for YOU must lose what you would take away.
11. In a split mind, identity MUST seem to be divided. Nor can anyone perceive a function unified which has conflicting purposes and different ends. Correction, to a mind so split, MUST be a way to punish sins you think are YOURS in someone else. And thus does he become your victim, NOT your brother, DIFFERENT from you in that he is MORE GUILTY, thus in need of your correction, as the one MORE INNOCENT than he. This splits HIS function off from yours, and gives you both a DIFFERENT role. And so you CANNOT be perceived as one, and with a single function that would MEAN a shared identity with but ONE end.
12. Correction YOU would do MUST separate, because that is the function given it BY you. When you perceive correction is the SAME as pardon, then you also know the Holy Spirit’s Mind and yours are One. And so your OWN identity is found. Yet must He work with what is GIVEN Him, and you allow Him only HALF your mind. And thus He represents the OTHER half, and seems to have a DIFFERENT purpose from the one you cherish, and you THINK is yours. Thus does your function seem DIVIDED, with a half IN OPPOSITION to a half. And these two halves appear to represent a split within a self perceived as two.
13. Consider how this self-perception must extend, and do not overlook the fact that every thought extends because that is its purpose, being (736) what it really IS.
“you were lost indeed.” sounds much better as “you would be lost indeed.” FIP and Sub-Ur and Blue Sparkly all leave it as it is. We believe this is one of many instances of the Subjunctive Mood.
And thus is God left free to take the final step Himself. For this you need NO pictures and NO learning aids. And what will ultimately take the place of every learning aid will merely BE.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include this sentence which appears to have been inadvertently omitted from the HLC.
Here they belong, for here their answer is. And where its answer is, a problem MUST be simple and be easily resolved. It must be pointless to attempt to solve a problem where the answer cannot be.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include this sentence which appears to have been inadvertently omitted from the HLC.
“For if it were, there were no need for healing then.”
This isn’t an “incorrect tense” but rather the “subjunctive mood.” It occurs frequently in ACIM, is largely an archaic form, but perfectly correct and very likely used with intent, rather than inadvertence. So, this change was restored. The Sub-Ur has “anymore” as the last word, rather than “then.”
The word “abiding-place” is hyphenated in both Sub-Ur and HLC. FIP removes the hyphen.
And what you see the world will witness, and will witness TO.
Sub-Ur reads: “And what YOU see the world will witness, and will witness TO.” We moved the comma such that the sentence becomes:
And what you see, the world will witness and will witness TO.
“Yet all the witnesses that you behold will be far less that all there really are.”
Clearly a typo, and thus was changed. The second “that” should be “than.” It is so in the Sub-Ur and is corrected in FIP also.
The One Who brings the miracle perceived them all as one, and called by name of fear.
The Sub-Ur puts quotes around “fear” and so do we, since it makes the sentence clearer.
“Here is thw CAUSE of suffering” is an obvious typo, and thus was changed to “Here is the CAUSE of suffering”. Sub-Ur and FIP agree.
… the Voice that calls with love to waken him. A gentler dream, in which his suffering was healed, and where his brother was his friend. God willed he waken gently, and with joy.
Both FIP and Sub-Ur include this sentence which appears to have been inadvertently omitted from the HLC.
“Memory holds the message it receives, and does what it is given it to do.”
The sentence is the same in the Sub-Ur, HLC and FIP. Yet obviously we have a problem here, one too many instances of the word “it.” The last phrase could be “what it is given to do” or “what is given it to do” but cannot be “what it is given it to do” without mangling the grammar. So this should perhaps be changed to “what is given it to do.”
The main argument against this change is that the extra “it” makes the line into Iambic Pentameter. Thus it has not been changed but is flagged as a grammar problem. Once again, reference to the Notes may help resolve this.
Its memory does not lie in the past, nor waits the future.
The use of “waits” here, where “await” or “wait upon” or “wait for” or even “wait” appears intended, introduces several grammatical problems. The word “memory” is the subject, the word “waits” the verb. “It [memory] waits for the future” is correct, but “It [memory] does not waits for the future” is not. This has to be “memory does not wait for.” Once again, reference to the Notes may help resolve this question. Our best guess is that “waits” was supposed to be “wait” as a contraction of “await” which means by our Style Guide it is to be spelled “’wait”. There is no poetic metre issue here, the problem is strictly grammar, and as it is written in both the Sub-Ur and HLC, it’s bad grammar!
Have no fear that He will fail in what He wills. Nor that you be excluded from the Will that is for you.
“Nor that you be excluded” should be “Nor that you will be excluded” or even “should be” or “might be” in contemporary English Grammar. This can be considered “poetic licence” and also is a case of the subjunctive mood.
The period between “wills” and “Nor” is not needed. The two sentences should probably be one. Both Sub-Ur and FIP preserve this structure but we see no reason for the period, and so remove it.
“And you WILL deny your Self, and walk upon an alien ground which your Creator did not make, and where you seem to be a something you are not.”
The problem here is with “a something.” The indefinite article is apparently not needed. In the Sub-Ur we find quotes around the word “something” which seem necessary here, and inadvertently left out. So we put the quotes back in making the sentence:
“And you WILL deny your Self, and walk upon an alien ground which your Creator did not make, and where you seem to be a “something” you are not.”
FIP leaves the quotes out also.
You hate it, yet you think it IS your self, and that, without it, would your self be lost.
The word “self” in this sentence, in both instances, should probably be capitalized for consistency, since elsewhere “self” refers to the illusory “self” and “Self” refers to the true “Self.” In this case, we are told that we think the body is the true “Self” or that we are thinking that the “self” is really the “Self.” Lower case would be appropriate only if the meaning of the sentence were that we think the body is an illusion rather than real. While we are told it is an illusion, in this passage, we are being told that we think it is the real “Self.”
But not without a gap between you, lest he turn again into an enemy. Let him come close to you, and you jumped back; as you approached, he instantly withdrew. A cautious friendship, limited in scope and carefully restricted in amount, became the treaty you had made with him.
This line, present in the Sub-Ur, and in modified form in FIP, appears to have been left out inadvertently. FIP replaces "he instantly withdrew" with "did he but instantly withdraw."
6. Such is the promise of the living God; His Son have life and every living thing be part of him, and nothing else have life. What YOU have given “life” is not alive, and symbolizes but your wish to be alive apart from life, alive in death, with death perceived as life, and living, death.
The HLC has this as "loving" but both the Sub-Ur and FIP have it as "living" which feel is likely correct.
As something, it can be perceived and thought to feel and act, and hold you in its grasp as prisoner to itself.
Quotes are added around “something” to be consistent with other usage.
The miracle were treacherous indeed if it allowed you still to be afraid because you did not RECOGNIZE the fear.
This appears to be a misuse of the simple past tense where the present conditional is in order, but it could also be the Subjunctive Mood and be quite correct.
It can be in you or someone else, but where it is perceived, it will be there it is attacked.
The second comma is not in the original but is in the Sub-Ur and is added since this sentence is a real brain-teaser without it.
There is a place in you where this whole world has been forgotten; where no memory of sin and of illusion linger still.
Agreement in number error. The original has "linger". So does the Sub-Ur. But "memory […] lingers" so this was corrected for grammar. FIP agrees.
Hear, then, your story in the dream you made, and ask yourself if it be not the truth that you believe that it is NOT a dream: A dream of judgment came into the mind that God created perfect as Himself.
The colon after “dream” is decidedly inappropriate. The Sub-Ur has a period. FIP has a period and starts a new paragraph with “A dream …” We settled for changing the colon to a period as does the Sub-Ur. The last part of the sentence is a question, and possibly this sentence should end with a question mark, thus:
Hear, then, your story in the dream you made, and ask yourself if it be not the truth that you believe that it is NOT a dream?
Two changes were made to this section. First the word “Seven” was added to the section heading “Rules for Decision” and secondly, the words “First”, “Second”, “Third”, etc. were added in bold where the original has only the numerals 1-7. This was done to retain the visual structural clarity of the seven points which might tend to vanish for readers beneath the paragraph numbering system we’ve added for reference purposes.
For you have ALREADY gotten angry, and your fear of being answered in a different way from what your version of the questions asks will gain momentum, until you believe the day you want is one in which you get YOUR answer to YOUR question.
HLC original manuscript and Blue Sparkly have “questions asks”. Both Sub-Ur and FIP have it as “question asks.” We’re calling this a typo and reconciling it with FIP and Sub-Ur.
Whatever form his sins appear to take it but obscures the fact that you believe it to be yours,
We have a problem with agreement in number in the HLC and the Sub-Ur. FIP corrects it by changing the last “it” to “them”. The pronoun “it” here refers to “sins”. An alternative is to change “sins appear” to “sin appears”, leaving the pronoun the same. We agree with the FIP resolution here.
How utterly opposed to truth is this, when what the lesson's purpose is to teach that what your brother loses YOU have lost, and what he gains is what is given YOU.
The grammar and clarity is better without this “what”. But removing it disrupts poetic meter. Sub-Ur has it, FIP changes “what” to “all”. The use of “all” however is not any more correct and suggests other connotations not in the original. We decided to leave this one alone, just flagging the problem.
No pathway in the world can lead to Him, nor any worldly goal is one with His.
The original HLC manuscript and the Sub-Ur have “is” instead of “be”. FIP changes it to “be” which sounds better. It would ordinarily be stated “nor is any worldly goal one with His.” The odd word order is often used to make Iambic Pentameter work, and we think this is one such case.
“The lesson teaches this;” in the original is changed to “The lesson teaches this:” due to the fact that a colon is more appropriate than a semi-colon here. This is deemed to be a typographical error in the original.
FIP agrees, changing it to a colon also. (not footnoted)
And what can think has choice, and CAN be shown that different thoughts have different consequence.
It is possible that the word “consequence” should be plural, but all versions we’ve consulted keep it singular here. There is a substantial difference in meaning between “thought’s consequence” and “thought’s consequences” so we left it alone.
Yet while you hold this sword, you must perceive the body as yourself, for you are bound to separation from the sight of him who holds the mirror to another view of what he is, and thus what YOU must be.
Some think this should be two words, “your self” because it seems that the body is confused for self and the self in question happens to be YOURS here, which is quite a different connotation from “yourself.” In the Sub-Ur it is “YOURSELF.”
This is the Savior's vision; that he see his innocence in all he looks upon, and sees his own salvation everywhere.
The semicolon is inappropriate here, it needs to be a colon or a comma. In the Sub-Ur it appears to be both a comma and a colon, with a Manual correction having been made. We just made it a colon. We haven’t corrected all questionable semicolon use, but this one appears to be a typo.
All versions have “he see” which is disagreement in number, and needs to be “he sees” as we have made it. It doesn’t qualify as a Subjunctive.
He would not leave one source of pain unhealed, nor any image left to veil the truth. He would remove all misery from you whom God created alters unto joy. He would not leave you comfortless, alone in dreams of Hell, but would release your minds from everything that hides His face from you.
This sentence occurs in both the Sub-Ur and FIP. Its omission appears to have been inadvertent.