The Strange Taboo Against Disagreeing
by Robert Perry
Over the course of the last several years, we at the Circle have taken public stands in relation to two other teachers of A Course in Miracles. In 2003 we wrote One Course, Two Visions about our differences with the teachings of Ken Wapnick. And in 2006 Greg Mackie and I wrote articles expressing our disbelief in the reality of Gary Renard's ascended masters.
In both cases, we received a number of grateful responses from students who were wrestling with these very issues. Some of these were quite passionate, as was one I received a couple of days ago: "THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!!! THANK YOU!!!! One Course, Two Visions has been life transforming!!!...You have made me love the Course again." Yet in both cases, we also received a number of disgruntled responses. With only few exceptions, they were not the sort of energetic discussion we had looked forward to, in which people actually addressed our points and responded with their own. We appreciate healthy disagreement. Yet instead of disagreeing with what we said, by and large people disagreed with the mere fact that we said something. They were disagreeing with us because we had expressed disagreement.
There is an unwritten taboo in spiritual circles: Never talk about differences; never disagree. Breaking this taboo can arouse great ire among spiritual seekers. Yet it is a taboo that no one can seem to adhere to. Certainly our larger culture has no intention of adhering to it. Imagine opening your morning paper and reading that a senator had taken issue with the views of another senator and then been castigated by his colleagues, not for the quality of his views, but for the mere act of voicing disagreement. Or that a scientist had put forth a new theory which differed from existing theories (as they all do), and then had been condemned by his fellow scientists for simply expressing disagreement. Under such norms, science would quite literally fall apart, as would politics, as would all public discourse as we know it. I doubt that any of us would want to live in the society that would result.
Oddly enough, even those who wrote us had no intention of abiding by this taboo for, of course, they too were expressing disagreement. Indeed, their disagreement was so strongly worded that a good deal of it was not suitable for print. Which puts them in a rather extreme logical bind. Somehow it was wrong for us to express disagreement, even though we had done it in a calm and reasoned tone, never speculating about the character or motives of those we differed with, but rather making our case with dispassionate logic and evidence, enabling the reader to evaluate things for him- or herself. Yet on the other hand, it was apparently right for our correspondents to express disagreement, and do so without the restraints we had exercised (in some cases, seemingly without restraints at all), even though their only argument with us was that we had done a more civil version of the very thing they were doing now.
After a number of these responses, I began to sense an implicit philosophy that was behind them. A friend of mine termed this philosophy "Anti-Disagreeablism." Its central tenets seem to be these: All statements are acceptable; they should never be judged or disagreed with, because that would be an attack. Indeed, even though all statements without exception are acceptable, voicing disagreement, no matter how rationally and respectfully done, is never acceptable. In fact, it is so unacceptable that it should be met with the most caustic and scornful disagreement, simply on the basis that disagreement is always wrong.
This sort of Kafkaesque approach could be quickly dismissed as the incoherent thinking of a few kooks out there were it not for the fact that a sizable portion of the Course community seems to believe it, including many otherwise sincere, dedicated, and intelligent people. It is the sheer number of people who believe in Anti-Disagreeablism which prompts me to say something about it.
There is one final thing I want to say about the taboo against disagreement. Not only does the larger culture have no interest in obeying it, and not only do its advocates appear to have no interest in obeying it either, but the author of the Course also has no interest in obeying it. He expresses disagreement all over the place. He is constantly telling us we are wrong. Fifteen times he says to us, "You are [or were or have been or will be] wrong." This penchant of his is especially visible in the Urtext, where he expresses frequent disagreements with such figures as Sigmund Freud, Edgar Cayce, Carl Jung, Otto Rank, the Neo-Freudians, the disciples, and most of all, Helen and Bill.
His motive for disagreeing is not attack (even though Helen clearly felt attacked by it—at one point in the Urtext he mentions that he never attacks our egos, and then adds "in spite of Helen's strange beliefs to the contrary"). Indeed, he tells us his motive, right after cautioning us to not agree with everything in the New Testament: "I do not want you to allow any fear to enter into the thought system toward which I am guiding you" (T-6.I.16:2). His disagreement, in other words, is aimed at keeping us from uncritically mixing non-Course ideas in with the Course, for those ideas will ultimately make us afraid. He is disagreeing, in other words, not to prove himself right or establish dominance, but because he cares about our state of mind.
As you can see, it appears that no one wants to obey this taboo against disagreement. Our larger culture, its own proponents, and Jesus all have no interest in obeying it, and I don't either. Let's just get rid of it. Let's stop giving it lip-service as some impossible ideal that only others should obey. Yet let's not replace it with scathing, mean-spirited vitriol. That's what tears people apart, and that is already too rampant in our world. Indeed, that is what so often lurks behind this taboo around disagreeing. What I described as Anti-Disagreeablism is really just nasty Disagreeablism justifying itself by raising high the taboo against disagreement and pointing a righteous finger at those who violate it. No, let's replace the taboo that says "never disagree" with respectful, constructive, healthy disagreement. What turns a discussion about right perspective into a personal brawl is not the mere fact of disagreeing; it's how you disagree. Wouldn't it be refreshing to get rid of the insults and character assassination and replace them with a mature presentation of the reasons behind our differing views? That kind of disagreement has power to elevate everyone's understanding, including those who are engaged in it.
An example of Jesus ignoring the taboo
I've already stated my basic point. If you understand that point, feel free to read no further. However, I came upon the following example of Jesus breaking the taboo that was just too interesting and instructive to leave out. It is from the Urtext and originally came in between what is now sections VI and VII in Chapter 3 of the Text:
It is essential that this whole authority problem be voluntarily dismissed at once and for all before B's [Bill's] course [Bill was scheduled to teach a course on abnormal psychology]. Neither of you understands how important this is for your sanity. You are both quite insane on this point. (This is not a judgment. It is merely a fact. (No, Helen, you should use the word "fact." This is just as much a fact as God is. A fact is literally a "making" or a starting point. You do start from this point, and your thinking is inverted because of it.))
I don't know if you noticed, but this isn't Jesus simply doing a monologue. This is an exchange, even though we only hear one side of the exchange. Let me try to fill it out in its entirety.
Jesus tells Helen and Bill that their authority problem (in which they want to assert their authority over God's) has destroyed their sanity, and further, that they don't want to look at the devastating impact it has had. In other words, they are in denial. Jesus ends with a very direct comment: "You are both quite insane on this point." When someone is in denial, it isn't always kind to pussyfoot around.
Though Helen doesn't write her response down, we can quickly surmise what it is from Jesus' parenthetical remark. She whips out the standard defense: "Stop judging me!" This is supposed to shut him up, of course, but it doesn't work. He quickly neutralizes her objection with a simple statement: "This is not a judgment. It is merely a fact." In other words: I am not judging you; I'm just stating the facts, ma'am. But she isn't ready to give up yet. Her response, which again can be easily guessed from what he says, is this: "I don't think using 'fact' is correct Course terminology, Jesus. How can you call my insanity a fact when you yourself have been telling us that facts are eternal?"
Helen knew that the best defense is a good offense. With her first objection ("Stop judging me!"), she was trying to shame Jesus into silence (not a very effective strategy with one who has no shame!). Now, with her second objection, she is trying to weaken the force of his point ("My insanity clearly doesn't rise to the level of being a fact"), while also trying to pull rank on him ("Allow me to school you in the correct terminology of your course"), while simultaneously trying to divert the issue ("Let's look at this terminology point"). Boy, is she good!
Jesus, however, is much better. He faces her terminology issue head on: "No, Helen," he says, "you should use the word 'fact.' This is just as much a fact as God is. A fact is literally a 'making' or a starting point." He is correct, it seems. The original meaning of "fact" (from the Latin factum) was "a thing done," or even "the making, doing, or performing" (Oxford English Dictionary). So a fact is a making. Further, the more contemporary use of "fact" often refers to indisputable pieces of information ("the facts of the case") that become the basis for constructing a larger, more subjective argument. So, as Jesus says, a fact is also a starting point.
Then Jesus plays his final card. Using the meaning of "fact" as "starting point," he tells Helen, "You do start from this point [the authority problem], and your thinking is inverted because of it." "Inverted," of course, means "upside-down," and upside-down thinking is insane thinking. This is truly masterful. Jesus has directly answered her point (showing her in the process that she doesn't need to school him in terminology) and has done so in such a way as to neatly bring the whole discussion back to his starting point: the crazy-making effects of Helen's authority problem. He has engaged in a sort of verbal aikido. Rather than falling into some holy silence in which he refuses to disagree, Jesus has managed to take all of Helen's resistance and use it to bring her right back to the very point she was resisting. This is one guy I would not want to verbally fence with!
In essence, he has said, "I called your authority problem a fact because it is. A fact is a starting point, and the authority problem truly is the starting point for all of your thinking. Because this starting point is insane, all of your thinking is insane—the very point I made at the beginning." If your starting point is a lie, then what you have is (as Jesus says a couple paragraphs later) "a thought-system based on lies" (T-3.VII.1:6) You have an entire thought system that is insane.
Jesus is not exactly the model of non-disagreement here. First he tells Helen that she is insane, that her entire thought system is based on a lie. Then, when she objects to being judged, he says that she is wrong; this is not a judgment, but a fact. Then when she objects to this being called a fact, he tells her that she is wrong again; the word "fact" is correct here. Finally, he uses his definition of "fact" to bring her back to his original assertion-that she is insane. If there is a taboo around disagreement, Jesus clearly has no regard for it.
What Jesus demonstrates here is that there are times when falsehood needs to be squarely addressed. If an entire thought system is resting on an unsound base, and you clearly see this while others are in denial, it is not always a kindness to remain silent. There are times when the falsehood must be pointed out. You cannot simply assert it, as Jesus does (since you do not yet abide in that place of ultimate authority); you need to provide your reasons and evidence. Finally, once you have done that, when the inevitable resistance arises and they tell you to stop judging, there are times when you must simply respond, "This is not a judgment. It is merely a fact."
Reader Feedback
I really liked this article. My congratulations to Robert!
This is the kind of daring, fearless approach to reason that is so
very lacking in our world. It's my firm conviction that if we're
willing to know a different answer, to be open to a unique thought
that has not yet occurred to us, this is how we'll get there. We tend
to get so set in our patterns of reason that few of us will dare to
say, "I don't understand this thing completely now, but I'm willing to
accept what little I do understand, and nurture it and tend to it and
see what else it might bring forth." It's also my belief that if we
are willing to put ourselves in this vulnerable logical position, that
the Holy Spirit can then actually "lead us" into further
understanding. This is completely different than allowing our own past
conditioning to "lead us" into more of errors of the same sort.
—Michael
In all consciously recognized desires to correct our brother, I believe, first a few questions must be reviewed within:
1. What the cause and my desire? Is it for the extension of love or fear?
2. From where does my disagreement speak, love or fear?
3. How shall I use this opportunity, for love or for fear?
4. Am I seeing my brother with the most loving and True perception? Does
my active choice echo from here?
In other words, all thought stems from love or fear. The Course is quite clear on this and additionally moves us to recognize even beyond all choices, LOVE Is. The course teaches us multiple times, in multiple ways, that as we progress on our own seeming journeys, the opportunities for a truer perception will emerge all through time. Always, our True Perception is always guided by Love, for this is our Source. This is why, at first, all questions must be seen in the light of this Truth in order for us to dare begin to see clearly.
If we see a need to correct a brother it is first most essential that we ask ourselves if this desire is because the extension of love is needed here. For example, if a brother was to say to me in confidence "I think I need to die." Surely, I may disagree and desire to voice this disagreement. But first, I must ask within, what would be the sanest and loving way to voice this disagreement?
Would my voicing of this disagreement be to present the Truth, or to extend fear? If I were to say to the individual "No! I need you!!" possibly, this can be seen in a better light. Or if I were to say, "You are insane and wrong!" I may want to look at how this response is really more representative of my own belief in fear, separation and loss. This is because all beliefs which have me convinced of my brother's limitation stem from fear. He is always but a mirror of myself. Thus, for my own clearer understanding, as I am experiencing my own feelings and desire to disagree with my brother, I may first need to focus on how this opportunity reflects my own beliefs in the possibility for a limited Creation of God and ask myself to choose again.
But if I were to quietly, honestly see my brother for Truth of Who He Is and be a presence to love with him, my words may be minimal, but the message will always be "I see you are hurting, but truly you are loved." Or "You are never alone and I do care." Here we see how although both answers voice a disagreement, one is more attuned with the purpose of love, relates this in truth, and thus has that as its only desire.
It is most important to recognize that Jesus' corrections of us in the Course are always based on Love and extended from His seeing within the Spiritual Eye of Complete Truth first. His corrections were only to help us see ourselves better and in the perfection of God that never has (nor will) change. No human being within a human mind can see as equally as Jesus without having cleared their own ego first, and for most of us perceiving ourselve to have this experience in the world, this has not yet been accomplished. For me a good measure as to whether or not I am seeing clearly is to discern through the above questions. Here I recognize where my intention truly lay, and if Love is being fully represented because that is ALL I see within my Brother.
Essentially, as long as we perceive ourselves to be members of the world, having experiences within the world, we will each be given multiple opportunities to review our desires and beliefs, as well as how they express out to our brothers. That is the natural process of accepting healing for our mind. In every one of these opportunities we are given the gift of recognizing love or fear and eventually seeing the choice beyond all choices. Therefore, in all desires to disagree, the gift of love is always extended first. Let us choose to see this most clear and be the love in deed.
I Love You!
—The Peace of God is in You ~ Love ALL ways and Always!
I have read with great interest your recent article about the taboo of disagreement. As well, I have read other articles by you and "one course, two visions" as well as the Renard books, and also many books authored by Wapnick. I have read the positions of disagreement so eloquently put forth by you and those put forth by Renard. I am not aware of such writings by Wapnick, but they may exist. In the end, with all humility, I must say, "Brothers, can we not now see the ego and choose instead, Love?"
There is no Robert, no Gary, no Kenneth — we are one, and this we know in our forgiveness. Robert, Kenneth and Garys' words can not do harm for they and the words are illusion and do not exist. All that exists is the love that will shine forth from the forgiveness of words and authors when viewed in the light of the Holy Spirit.
Thank you and may you know me as your brother who is one with you.
—Owen
I agree with Perry's article on "Disagreeing". However, sometimes I think it#339;s important to realize that there can be more than one point of view on a subject (think of the blind men surrounding the elephant). When I read "Two Visions, One Course"; there were items in which I agreed with the Circle, items I agreed with Wapnick, and some items that felt like a matter of perspective. For example, the Circle feels that the Workbook lessons ought to be followed as closely as possible, and gone through more than once if necessary. Wapnick feels the lessons are more about letting go mistakes; to try to do the lessons more than once all the way through could be an ego trip. While my perspective is closer to the Circles, for some, doing the exercises too perfectly could be an ego trip of perfectionism. In other words, the curriculum is different for different people. The Course even says so.
I do think it is perfectly in Perry's right to challenge the authenticity
of Renard or the authority of Wapnick. I don't believe there is anything
inherently "unspiritual" about it. However, one should examine
one's motivations when challenging another. If the point is to seek the
truth, I think this can only serve God. If it is to attack and bring down
another, then the ego is at work. While we the readers of Perry, Mackie,
Wapnick, or Renard may have hints as to their motivations through their
writing style and choice of words, I believe only they can ultimately know
(with Jesus' help, most likely) why they've made their choices.
—Christopher James
Ah, facts. Language is the construct of the ego. For separated beings to argue about the language and the meaning of the Course is to engage in the realm of the ego. For two students to argue over the meaning and interpretation of the writings of the Course is akin to arguing over the placement of the deckchairs on the Titanic.
Experiencing God is a feeling state. It cannot be described by the ego. So why would any student argue over something that cannot be expressed?
I have read the various arguments by opposing parties. There is clearly an edge to these debates. To attack and then offer forgiveness, which each of these Course experts has done, is incongruent and moves us away from our mission.
Let's sit quietly and seek the Holy Spirits guidance. Possibly we will remember God. Otherwise we are playing shuffleboard on a sinking ship.
By the way if Jesus offers me facts, they are facts. Others need not apply.
This seems to be a tricky subject in the Course community. We do not yet have a mature community of scholars where disagreement could be treated in an intelligent way. There seems to be a cheer squad mentality whereby we agree with one side or the other of the apparently great divide between Ken Wapnick and the Circle of Atonement, Gary Renard seeming to coincide with Ken's approach. Gary Strikes me as a very bright student of Ken's, who communicates some of Ken's teachings very well. The "ascended masters" I can't take seriously, so I admit this as a problem. Regarding the articles criticizing Gary, I found Greg Mackie's to be overlong (invoking Occam's Razor of all things) and to me had an ungenerous tone which spoilt some of the points he was making. Robert Perry's points were well made overall. Gary's teaching is a lot like Ken's. Beyond that, and my disbelief in the ascended masters, there isn't much more I want to say.
The difference between Ken Wapnick and the Circle is a more meaty issue. I would ask all Course students to think more for themselves, to be more independent and mature on these matters. There are differences. I have found both Ken and the Circle to be helpful. In recent years I have listened to a lot of Ken's material and on the basis of this have had to reassess some of my opinions about his teachings. There is a lot of depth in Ken's work. He can be an enormous help, and I say that as someone who used to be dismissive of him. I don't agree with Ken on everything, and I don't agree with the Circle on everything.
Regarding One Course, Two Visions I have a mixed response. A summary of my position can be seen in my review of the book on Amazon. It is clear that Ken will not respond to other scholars in public. So be it. All the more reason to think for ourselves.
The Circle has a Dialogue section on the Home Page. There interested people can read a dialogue between Robert Perry and myself on the subject of the special function. In the two/three years since dialoging with Robert my position on this has firmed up considerably. I think Robert would agree that our views change and our understanding develops. I think this is healthy.
I don't see any problem with discussing differences and disagreements, but I am also aware of the big temptation this offers to the ego. In many areas of scholarly discourse there can be huge rows and divisions, and rarely does sweet reason prevail unrivalled. With these cautions in mind, and the awareness of our own egos, we may be able to have some civilized, if not wholly resolved, debate and discourse.
In peace,
—Mary Benton
In reading this article, and please correct me if I'm wrong, it appears that Mr. Perry is comparing his ability to perceive Gary and Ken as equal to how Jesus is able to perceive us. Here, I would have to disagree. Completely I believe that Jesus possesses a much more Truer Perception (although he has surpassed all need for perception in total) than Mr. Perry, and thus is more aware of what is clearly a fact when speaking of Helen or Bill in his conversations with them. Indeed ALL of Jesus' disagreements were strongly and completely balanced by LOVE and offered a gift of joy to Helen and Bill. He was literally helping them to see for themselves Who They Were in Truth and offering this true perception by simply correcting them of their errors in thinking. Does Mr. Perry really feel that his responses to Ken and Gary have had the same whole loving intent? Does Mr. Perry see himself wholly and completely as able to see truly as Jesus?
With love, I disagree.
—Pamela
Blessings all ways and always! Remember you are loved!
Robert responds:
Pamela,
Thank you for your feedback. You do open it very kindly by saying, "correct me if I'm wrong." I am definitely not claiming to have Jesus' level of true perception. That would be unthinkable to me. That's why I put that line in the last paragraph: "You cannot simply assert it, as Jesus does (since you do not yet abide in that place of ultimate authority); you need to provide your reasons and evidence." That line was there to send the signal that I was not claiming what you thought. Perhaps, though, my final line gave the wrong impression. Maybe I should have reworded it in this way: ...there are times when you must simply respond, "This is not about judgment. It's simply about ascertaining the facts."
In peace,
Robert
I am very impressed by your recent artical concerning Gary s DU and Two Visions writings. Keep up the "Onederful" work. I see it like this: (you dont have to) We are liken to Diamonda, each Diamond has many facets that make up the whole. Each of us on a simular paths coming from differnt places, all seeking to reach the top of the Mountain.
—Lee
Bravo, Robert!
I agree with everything in this article. And extremely well put, as always, I might add.
Thank you!
—Jeremy Stutsman
Return to top | Send Reader Feedback | View Reader Feedback | Printer friendly version
Dear friend: We offer the materials on this website to you in the hope that they can serve you well on your journey home. Your continuing donations support the work of the Circle of Atonement. Thank you.
Click here to make a Donation.
This material is copyrighted by the Circle of Atonement, P.O. Box 4238, W. Sedona, AZ 86340. All rights reserved. The opinions expressed are the personal interpretation and understanding of the author(s).
Please report problems to the webmaster.
