Reader Comments on Miracles Boomeritis
by Robert Perry. Read the article.
Robert,
Just wanted to let you know that I agree with what you've written here. The Course, Christianity or any other path is easily undone once we're willing to be a little less than honest with ourselves. I don't know if there is any quick remedy for this situation however. Self-deception is the foundation of our world... today it is "Boomeritis", tomorrow it will have another name. As you've well noted, it is simply another game that the ego offers to those who are seeking self-justification rather than truth. As a teacher, I feel you are indeed "fulfilling your function" by offering insight and correction into the ego's numberless errors.
Thank you,
You have my gratitude,
Michael Little
Hi, Robert. Just finished re-reading A Better Way Issue 75, "Miracles Boomeritis." It addresses pretty clearly the 'sacred cows' I've been trying to question in my own Course study group over the last year.
Frankly, your / Greg's / Allen / Nicola's thoughtful articles have been almost solely to credit for my deepening understanding of the Course during my two-year study of it.
—Because my (sole local) Course study group of twelve-to-twenty-year Course 'vets' answer my concerns with a 'mantra' of "need-do-nothing's" and "need for words...almost over's" and "universal curriculum' means 'that the Course is really no different than all the other paths!"....
Hearing these 'truisms,' I, with wrinkled brow, have sometimes tried reading from the Course...only to have my concerns labeled 'egoic' and dismissed......Imagine...while merely quoting, in context, Jesus' own assertions, cautions, and instructions... directly from the Course!. —The teaching which is our stated reason for our gatherings!
—(As the subject then is swiftly ('safely') changed to so-and-so's latest green-or-purple healing crystal, or latest New Age author's 'revelations'...
I wonder if all of you at the Circle of Atonement truly yet realize just how crucial a 'teaching-lifeline' your publications and articles are for those of us who realize that the Course is our path, and who no longer wish to continually 'try-on' the muddled teachings of other contradictory paths we've relinquished? —For those of us who have, at present, no other reliable source of Course-faithful instruction?
Please keep the wonderful articles coming, gang!
—Steven
Dear Robert, a truly excellent article. I expect you'll get considerable reaction. I'm sure the Pope will too when he comes here in a few days and starts railing against relativism. One of the next questions, it seems to me, is what relationship the search for truth has to authority, whether scripture or tradition. It seems to me one bears a very heavy burden in opposing or even disagreeing with what has been the "truth consensus" for perhaps centuries. Sometimes, however, there does need to be a modification as the truth becomes clearer. But, of course, I agree with you that one can't embrace or jettison truth just because it feels right to yourself or another or to one's culture. These issues are a dialogue greatly needed these days. Blessings, Jim
Robert replies:
Jim,
Thank you so much for your comments about miracles boomeritis. I'll print them in my next newsletter. My personal take on what you bring up is that authority is a part of life. I don't want to dispense with all authority, but it must be earned. I'm willing to take a scripture as authoritative, but only if it really earns that position. In other words, in my eyes, it needs to be subject to rules of reason and evidence. If a scripture or a tradition doesn't stand up in the face of normal rational and empirical inquiry, then I think its authority needs to be demoted accordingly. That at least is my opinion.
For that reason, I'm actually a big fan of modern historical Jesus scholarship. I'm personally interested in what solid historical method can tell us about the real Jesus. I'm not interested in what the evangelists reported strictly on the basis of the fact that they reported it and it's in the Bible. If they report something Jesus didn't actually say or didn't actually do, then I'm not interested in that report. Of course, deciding what he did or didn't say or do is not easy. I don't think there are black and white answers. But I think there are some answers, and I personally lean quite heavily on the findings of contemporary historians in this regard. So yeah, I am willing to hold a scripture as authoritative, after I've held it up to scrutiny.
What are your thoughts?
Robert
Robert — After reading through your essay, I can't see how "boomeritis" is any different than the plain old historical self-absorption of the ego. When Ken says that boomeritis is affecting every major religion and spirituality, that's the clue that we're talking about something inbred in the human condition, not specifically caused by recent social trends. When our fundamental egocentricity gets mixed up with spirituality, as it inevitably will, then you get all the self-serving symptoms listed. But the same thing happens with more conservative forms of religious worship. When has "God as the 'Great Thou'" not been contaminated with the ego, in terms of how that God is preached at people?
I think Ken is just repackaging the idea of spiritual materialism, which is how the ego manages to attach itself to the idea of selflessness. And the results can be more obnoxious than open egotism, because everything is veiled and pretends to be the opposite of what it is. But in Course terms, the solution to open or covert egotism is always the same: when you catch it, you forgive it, because true forgiveness is the only thing that eventually undoes the ego. Just confessing that "I've got boomeritis" isn't sufficient because the next thing you'll say is, "But I'm getting rid of it" and then you've started the whole cycle of the ego reattaching to the idea of getting rid of itself!
For some reason I keep thinking of my favorite directive from Yogananda: "Be cheerful but grave." That was actually his advice to followers about how to deal with his impending death, but I've always taken it as the best four-word advice on how to live in general. To be cheerful implies forgiveness of everything we see and do, and especially of all the illusions we create to populate our world. As Ken Wapnick says, "Just don't take everything so seriously." But we also need gravity in order to deal compassionately with the suffering all around us, and that we experience ourselves even as we keep learning to forgive. I think the ego wants us to be cheerful OR grave, that is, always full of New Age sunshine or weighted down with the plenteous misery of the world. We wouldn't have to forgive if we didn't believe in suffering, but forgiveness helps us begin to see through that belief without falsely denying that we have it. And I think that's the cure for boomeritis or any other inflammation of the ego.
cheers (gravely),
pm
Hello!
I am quite a new student to the Course in Miracles, or should I say that I am a returning student. I have started and stopped several times in my study, and I can't exactly say why, other than I found the concepts easy conceptually, but extremely difficult practially. I also found that just when I thought I was making progress, I would do something so ego based, that I would be disheartened, guilty and gradually give up as someone who wasn't worthy of trying anymore.
Anyway, I have started again, and decided to subscribe to your newsletter, "A Better Way". I don't really have anyone to study with (in separated human form) while I begin progress, so your newsletter is a good companion for me. You had requested some feedback, and I hope since this my first commentary, that you don't find it extremely naive. I am referring to the March 2008 article on "boomerism".
I do think that boomerism is a pervasive force in general, and would naturally find its way into the thinking of Course students, as it has found its way into every aspect of our popular culture. It has even found its way into our language culture, in that we have expressions like "whatever", or "talk to the hand". In my opinion, those are definitely symptoms of pluralism to the extreme. "Whatever" tends to mean, "you may have your truth, but it doesn't match mine, so I really don't care for you to impose your truth on me". The same applies to "talk to the hand". For me the meaning is essentially as you quote "you are not the boss of me", so much so, that "I won't even listen to you, but offer you a different body part that doesn't have ears". I have also seen on some reality based television that people tell others that "you don't know me, so therefore you can't judge me". I think this is very telling. Basically, the statement is that if you knew "my truth", you would understand why I am the way I am, and you would accept it, and not impose a different truth on me. I have seen this be used to excuse all kinds of terrible behaviour, from drug addiction, to abusive parenting.
One question though, that I have with the newsletter article, is the statement about not being able to judge the behaviour of others, because of what they are doing might be "right for them" as an identifying feature of boomeritis. I did think that a large premise of the Course was that we are not supposed to judge the behaviour of others. I believe that your booklet "Everything you always wanted to know about judgement, but were too busy doing it", espouses that philosophy, doesn't it? Perhaps you could clarify this point, or indicate how I have misunderstood, as it does appear to be a part of boomeritis that actually does "fit" the Course.
Thank you for allowing me to respond, I really appreciate the "fresh start".
Regards,
Margaret
Please report problems to the webmaster.
