By Michael Mirdad

中譯：Kiki Lee

THE THREE STRIKES  三個攻擊SUMMARY OF JON MUNDY’S ATTACK    Jon Mundy的攻擊摘要（續）

6. Jon points out that “When Arten and Pursah speak, they sound just like Gary .”

Jon也指出，「當阿頓和白莎說話的時候，他們聽起來就像是Gary在說話一樣。」

Although this could indeed prove that Gary is a filter though which these master, Arten and Pursah, speak, it doesn’t mean he made them up. Ironically, even the scribe of ACIM, Helen Schucman, as a filter affected the tone and writing style of the Course material—a point made clear in her personal diary notes.

雖然這點可以證明葛瑞是這些上師 – 阿頓和白莎 – 透過其說話的的媒介，這並不表示他杜撰出他們。諷刺的是，即使是《奇蹟課程》的記錄者，海倫舒克曼，身為一個媒介，卻在她的私人日記明白指出她多少影響了《課程》內容的語調與寫作風格。

7. Jon seems to disagree with Renard’s comment that “The intellectual who uses his understanding of the Course to prove himself to be intellectually superior to others isn’t really practicing the Course.”

Jon似乎並不同意有關雷納評論「那些知識份子(聰明之士)用自己對《課程》的瞭解去證明他比別人更高明，這並不是真的在操練《課程》」。

Yet, this is absolutely true! The operative word here is intellectual. Your intellectual mind will never make the leap into true spiritual understanding and actually “Practicing the Course.”

然而，這一點是如此絕對正確！關鍵就在聰明之士這個詞。你智識辯聰的心智絕不會輕易地進入真實的靈性體認，並確實地「操練《課程》」的。

SUMMARY OF ROBERT PERRY’S ATTACK  Robert Perry的攻擊摘要

Now let’s turn our attention to the attacks of Robert Perry, who begins by stating…

現在，讓我們繼續看Robert Perry 的攻擊，他開始便說道…

1. “In all of the excitement about DU, there is an uncomfortable question loitering in the wings, virtually unnoticed…Is the story true? Did ascended masters actually appear? It seems “spiritually incorrect” to even ask such a question. After all, the book brought thousands to the Course, as well as thousands lapsed back to the Course…”

「在所有對告別娑婆的狂熱之中，有一個令人不安的問題存在著，幾乎不被注意…。這是真的嗎？高靈上師真的會現身？似乎連問這樣的問題都有「靈性知見不正確」之嫌。畢竟，這本書帶數千人來學習《課程》，但同時也讓《課程》倒退個數千步一樣。」

First of all, let us give thanks to the gods of Olympus that Mr. Perry has come along to save us from the likes of Gary Renard. Yet even Robert acknowledges that DU has brought many lapsed Course students back to their studies of ACIM—albeit these are often students that Robert and company have turned away from the Course. In fact, in all my years of teaching ACIM to thousands of students in various countries, the two most common reasons I hear people turning away from the Course are (1) the highly intellectual nature of most of its teachers and authors—with little or no practical application and (2) the apparent hypocritical behavior of those who spend so much time attacking other ACIM teachers and authors in an effort to prove their own ACIM superiority.

首先，讓我們感謝奧林匹斯山的諸神，Perry先生從葛瑞雷納之流手中拯救了我們。然而甚至是他也得承認，告別娑婆帶了很多退步的《課程》學員回到《奇蹟課程》的研讀上，還可能經常包括了被Robert 和他的同伴嚇跑的學員。事實上，在我於不同的國家向上千名學員教授《奇蹟課程》的好些年裡，兩個最常聽見他們逃避《課程》的理由是 (1)大部分《課程》的教師或作者們都太唱知識份子的高調，幾乎沒有實際的應用方式。(2)看到那些花費過多時間攻擊其他《奇蹟課程》教師和作者，以證明他們自己的《奇蹟課程》立論更高的顯然偽善和言不由衷，令他們怯步。

2. Robert Perry goes on to sarcastically state that “If the story is really true, every student should take notice. After all, here is the real truth, delivered straight from the heavenly realm, and without parallel.”

Robert Perry 繼續譏諷地說「如果葛瑞的故事是真的，每個學員都應該要小心了，因為，天上會白白掉下來真理。」

If Robert is looking for a book to make fun of due to the high level of its claimed origins, why doesn’t he go after Neale Donald Walsh who claims to have had a Conversation With God? After all, his book is also claiming to be “from the heavenly realm.”

如果Robert想找一本聲稱來源很高的書來取笑，他怎麼不去追究Neale Donald Walsh 寫的那本與神對話？畢竟，他的書也是聲稱「來自天界」。

3. Mr. Perry admits that most people he has talked to, resist confronting the issue of DU’s authenticity on the premise that the authenticity does not matter as much as the message.

Perry 先生承認，大部分他與之談話過的人，不願意去質疑告別娑婆的真實性，並認為其真偽一點都不影響訊息內容。

Isn’t it funny how “most people” understood the importance of applying one of the Course’s key concepts: "Content versus Form,” yet Robert himself missed it? It’s one of those moments when the students become the masters. In a nutshell, when applied to this specific scenario, this Course concept suggests that we give priority to the content of a message and not worry about the form or details of the messenger.

想想那些「大部分的人」都能夠了解《課程》的主要概念：「涵義V.S形式」的重要性，而Robert 本身卻忽略這個重要性，不是很有趣嗎？

4. Perry continues with “Some say we can’t know if the story is true or false…but have we tried?” He adds, “We would naturally expect the understanding of ascended masters to be far beyond the human level and with stunningly original insight into ACIM.”

Perry繼續說「有人說我們不可能知道他的故事是真的還是虛構的…，可是我們有盡力去查明嗎？」，他並說道「我們自然而然就認為高靈上師對《奇蹟課程》的理解是超乎人類認知，並且具有合乎《課程》原始精神的精闢見解。」

What we can know for sure is that the material in DU lifts our spirits and offers tangible applications of the Course…an important point Perry and company somehow missed. Furthermore, throughout the book, Gary owns his personal flaws and judgments and then practices forgiveness. How is that for originality? As for Robert trying to tell us what ascended masters should be like—how would he know what ascended masters are like, especially since he and his colleagues claim there is no “proof” that they even exist?

我們可以確定不疑的是，告別娑婆裡面的資料提升了我們的靈性，並提供我們對《課程》實質的應用方法，這是Perry和他的同好錯失的一個重要觀點。而且，綜觀整本書，葛瑞顯現了他個人的缺點和批判態度，卻也操練了寬恕。這不就合乎《課程》的原始精神？至於Robert竟然告訴我們高靈上師應該是怎樣的…，他又如何知道高靈上師是怎樣的，特別是他和他的同伴們聲稱根本沒有「證據」顯示高靈上師的存在？

5. Then comes the most stunning of all of Robert Perry’s attacks. Referring to ACIM students and teachers and their inability to comprehend the material, he states, “You need to appreciate the immense gap that I personally experience between the Course itself and people’s representation of it. I have spent my adult life studying this document, and my overwhelming experience [tells me that] there are ideas I never hear ACIM students or teachers talk about…When people approach the Course, I observe them seeing only what they have been taught to see. I can even tell which teachers they have been influenced by. I spend huge amounts of time with my nose in the Course taking in its complex symphony of themes. And I regularly interact with students, hearing their distillations of the Course, each composed of a hand full of inherited ideas. The difference between the two is truly night and day.”

接下來就是Robert Perry最令人驚訝的攻擊論點了。他提到《奇蹟課程》的學員和教師竟然無能去分辨告別娑婆的內容，他說：「你們可要佩服我個人親身發現到，《課程》本身和人們對它的詮釋表達，這兩者之間，其實有著巨大的落差。我花費半生去研究了這些文件資料，而我全然的體驗卻告訴我，有一些觀念是我從未聽過《奇蹟課程》學員或教師談論過的…。當人們接觸《課程》的時候，我觀察到有人只是去看他們被教導要去看的部份而已。我甚至可以看得出來他們是被哪一個老師所影響了。我花畢生之力研究《課程》錯綜複雜的論述，然後我經常和學員互動，傾聽他們對《課程》的見解，幾乎每個人都有他自己的一套詮釋。《課程》本身的涵義和個人對《課程》的解釋，這兩者的不同，可是有如黑夜與白天之別。」

Whew! How did any of us ever study the Course before Robert came along? I’m amazed at the depth of ego that this paragraph portrays. The way he speaks of the commoners who don’t have his depth of Course understand is shocking. All facilitators of ACIM have seen misinterpretations and misrepresentations of the material—including those that come from Robert and company—but we don’t usually find it necessary to attempt a public flogging or see ourselves as superior.

哇！我們所有的人在Robert 出現之前都是白讀《課程》了嗎？我對這一段小我刻畫之深的文字，非常驚訝。他說的那段一般學員沒有他領會《課程》那麼深的相關的話，真是令人震驚。所有的《奇蹟課程》的傳佈人都不免看到對《課程》資料錯誤的見解或詮釋 --- 這可是也包括來自Robert 和他的同伴…，可是我們卻不覺得有必要去公開撻伐或者因此自認為比較高明。

6. Robert then leads us to the real basis for his attacks. He states that it felt like Gary was merely channeling (being influenced by) Kenneth Wapnick.

Robert接著告訴我們他攻擊的真正立基，他說他覺得葛瑞好像只是在當Ken的靈媒(受Ken影響)而已。

As most ACIM students are aware, Robert has spent a considerable amount of time trying to stir debates with Wapnick, as if to battle for title as the lead scholar of ACIM. Fortunately, Ken Wapnick won the debate by not bothering to respond to any of Robert’s silly charades. This really makes it clear as to why Jesus chose a man such as Wapnick to be part of the Course founders and not Robert Perry.

大部份《奇蹟課程》的學生都知道，Robert這人長久以來，一直想要和Ken辯論一場，好像為了要爭誰是《奇蹟課程》的領導學者而戰鬥似的。幸運的是，Ken因為懶得回應任何來自Robert的無聊的挑釁而贏得了辯論。這也清楚地說明，為什麼耶穌會選擇像Ken這樣的人參與建立《課程》的人之一，而非Robert Perry了。

7. Robert goes on to put the final nail in his own coffin-of-a-case against Renard by pointing out that “DU is filled with many Wapnick-like concepts, such as non-duality. It also includes Wapnick’s pantheon of historical figures, such as Shakespeare and Freud.”

Robert接著在反對雷納以下這個觀點裡，為此事件中自己的那具棺材，釘上了最後一根釘子。他指出，「告別娑婆充滿了很多Ken風格式的思想概念，例如像是非二元論。這本書還包含了Ken最推崇的歷史人物，像是莎氏比亞和佛洛伊德」。

Well it certainly makes sense that a man with Wapnick’s understanding of the Course would sound similar to that of ascended masters. After all, great minds think alike! Yet I find it hard to believe that Robert somehow missed the fact that ACIM does indeed have a flavor of Shakespeare and Freud. This is, in large part, due to Helen’s admiration for Shakespeare and her clinical training in Freudian psychology.

像Ken這麼了解《課程》的人會聽起來像是高靈上師在說話，完全合乎道理。畢竟，所謂英雄所見略同！不過我實在難以置信，Robert怎麼會忽略了《奇蹟課程》其實還滿有莎士比亞和佛洛伊德的風格的這個事實的。這有很大的部份歸因於海倫本身對莎士比亞和她早期受佛洛伊德心理學訓練的因素。

SUMMARY OF GREG MACKIE’S ATTACK  Greg Mackie的攻擊摘要

Now, we’ll move on to what Greg Mackie refers to as the “Twelve Reasons I Don’t Believe Gary Renard’s Account of The Disappearance of the Universe. Mackie’s list states the following:

現在，我們來看看Greg Mackie所提的「我不相信葛瑞雷納的告別娑婆之十二個理由」，他的聲明列舉如下：

1. Occam’s razor theory says that because we are asked (in Renard’s book) to accept the existence of two entirely unproven entities, it makes the possibility unlikely.

奧克姆剃刀理論認為，因為我們被要求(在雷納的書裡面提到)去接受兩位無法證明真的存在的人物，因此使得他們更顯得不可能是真的了。(Kiki 註：「奧克姆提出了簡單性原則，他認為，如果有一組理論都能解釋同一件事情，則可取的總是最簡單的，需要最少假設那一個。」)

Mackie’s point here is totally absurd and only confuses the issue. His argument is like saying that if you cannot find the proof of your parent’s existence, you yourself might not really exist. This position is intellectual pride at its height. Renard need not prove the existence of these entities. Greg is the one who has the burden of proving that Gary is lying.

Mackie 在這裡的論點完全的荒誕不經，而且只是混淆問題而已。他的論點就好像在說，你如果不能證明你父母親的存在，你自己可能也不是真的存在。這種觀點就是知識份子掉書袋的倨傲。雷納並不需要去證明這些人物的真實存在性，Greg才是需要傷腦筋想辦法證明葛瑞在說謊的人。

2. We only have Renard’s word, and he is an invested party.

我們只看到葛瑞自彈自唱，而他是個投機者。

Technically, Mackie and all the other DU detractors also stand to benefit from winning this debate, as it would move them up a notch as authorities on ACIM.

技術上來看，Mackie和其他的告別娑婆反對者也志在贏得這場爭辯，好似這會讓他們在《奇蹟課程》裡更高人一等似的。

3. There is a lack of evidence or witnesses, and Gary offers only a convenient explanation by claiming that we should focus on the message and not the messenger.

根本缺乏證據或目擊者，而葛瑞只以一個方便的推託之詞帶過，說是我們應該專注在訊息上而非傳遞訊息者。

Helen, who scribed ACIM, also had no evidence or witnesses and suggests that we accept her story of someone even more potentially unbelievable than an ascended master, that is, Jesus himself. Furthermore, the idea of focusing on the message and not the messenger is not Renard’s idea; it’s something Jesus teaches in ACIM. Once again, it’s about focusing on the content of a message and not the form of the messenger.

海倫，這位記錄《奇蹟課程》的人，也沒有證據或目擊者，而這個比高靈上師更難以令人置信的人 -- 耶穌，他自己還建議我們接受海倫的說法就對了。還有，要我們專注在訊息上而非傳遞訊息者的觀念並不是雷納說的，這是《奇蹟課程》裡耶穌教導的。再一次的，重點是在訊息的內容，而非訊息者是以什麼形式傳遞的。（下期待續）