Reader Comments on Our Articles about The Disappearance of the Universe
Comments on
our articles regarding The Disappearance of the Universe.
Why Don't the
Masters Have an Original Thought? by Robert Perry
Entities Should Not Be
Multiplied Beyond Necessity by Greg Mackie
And Opening a Dialogue with Gary Renard by Jon Mundy
Note: Jon's article is no longer available as he has asked us
to remove it from our site. 12/29/2006.
Update (April 2010): Please see "Gary Renard's Stolen Gospel" by Bruce Fraser MacDonald, PhD. This article shows that what Renard presents as "Pursah's Gospel of Thomas" (in Your Immortal Reality), a supposedly original version of Thomas straight from its author, is almost exactly the same as a contemporary translation of Thomas by Stephen Patterson and Marvin Meyer.
Circle of Atonement is a Call for Sanity
I just have to thank you for the wonderful 2006 article "Why Don't the Masters Have an Original Thought?"by Robert Perry. I have had extreme reservations about Gary Renard, especially his character, which seems to spit in the face of every enlightened master and Saint that has ever lived. I simply could not swallow teachings coming from someone so far from the dignity of enlightened human nature. I feel like he cannot tell the difference between what is Spirit and what is Ego. I deeply appreciate Perry's analysis and chart of Renard/Wapnick/Perry's comments. I couldn't agree more about the simplistic ACIM formula that is developing among students. It is disconcerting how much the Course's teaching is diluted. Especially Renard's and Wapnick's devastating contention that "The Holy Spirit does not really do anything." "The Holy Spirit or Jesus do nothing in the world. " — a belief Perry points out is no where in the Course. In fact; Perry's commentary: "The Course not only doesn't say this, it speaks of the Holy Spirit giving us guidance, healing, vision, holy instants, revelation, and even physical things in this world." I am so relieved and thankful to see I am not alone in my thoughts. Thank you so, so much Mr. Perry!
Sincerely,
Rachel
I became of student of ACIM in 1986. Along with a friend, I published a monthly newsletter on the Course for approximately 5 years, wrote two books on the Course (one self-published and the other unpublished), and published and edited several issues of a magazine, Love and Forgiveness. I have also written extensively on the spirit world.
Based upon my experience, I have concluded that the spirit world exists, the physical world is no accident, each of our lives is planned to one degree or another before we incarnate, and there is communication between the spirit world and our physical world. However, this communication and the sources of this communication are not always as they seem. In other words, we should not necessarily take at face value a spirit being's statement that it is God speaking, Jesus speaking, or some Ascended Master speaking.
I believe that spirit beings have their own agendas and their own personal views of reality. I believe that the same freedom of belief and expression is present in the spirit world as here in the physical world, even perhaps greatly magnified. What this says to me is that we should not become overly attached to any teaching that may come from the spirit world, at least to the point where we look upon it as the one-and-only truth, to the exclusion of all others. I know I have made this mistake at various times in my life. Having said this, I think that we should each look for a path that is most meaningful to us personally and encourage the same for others.
Respectfully,
Tom Davies
I have been reading DU lately, and noticed a major flaw in the story that I haven't seen revealed elsewhere. Renard claims to have used the internet for surfing and extensive research in the time following Arten and Pursah's first visit. That would put the date around 1992 or 1993.
If I'm not mistaken, there wasn't too much content on the net at that time, at least nothing like there would be just a few years later. I think Al Gore was still fine tuning it back then J!
It would seem to me that the entities that Renard was talking to were manifesting through his own subconscious mind (remember the fatima apperances of our lady, no one but the children coud see or hear 'our lady') So the fact that all these descrepancies are aparent does not disprove that Reynard was channeling higher dimentional beings. I think this is what happens with UFO encounters too. I think that I remember that Reynard started seeing these beings after meditation, there's another clue that he was in altered state..
Best wishes,
Peter.
I would suggest to you to read pages 29 to 40 of The Disappearance of the Universe by G Renard. Pure non-dualism states there that if it/something is not permanent, perfect, changeless Oneness it has nothing to do with God and is a result of a powerful (but nontheless non-existent) trans-temporal, non-spatial ego. Your version of non-dualism as per this website indicates you have little idea of the significance of ACIM.
Robert G Williams
After listening to several talks by Gary Renard online I started to become skeptical of his authenticity - So I googled "Gary Renard exposed" and found a site that linked me to yours and Mr. Perry's article from 2006 about his thoughts re Renard's authenticity. I was stunned at my own thoughts being articulated ever so much clearer by Mr. Perry, and stunned at the specific, factual flaws he found in Renard's material. Without question, Mr. Perry's perspective seems very much similar to mine.
Thank you.
Carlee
I don't care what inspired Disappearance of the Universe by Gary Renard, I have never felt more close to the teachings of ACIM in my life! It makes more sense and is easier to understand than anything I have read or seen by Ken Wapnick or Robert Perry, no disrespect intended. People who have shown up in my life over the past few years who read it said they had read ACIM many years ago and could not 'get into it'. DU has increased their interest in ACIM again and are now taking another stab at it. Holy Spirit inspires in many ways and this is one I am very grateful to have found!
MP Shapleigh, Maine ACIM study group leader and student x 6 years
Of course the story isn't 'True.' Anything other than complete oneness is a dream of separation—an illusion. The only 'truth' in the story that is DU is how you react to it and what teacher you use to 'listen' to it. Do you use it as a pointer to the Truth or as a means to separate, divide and conquer? What is your purpose in fishing out the 'truth' of DU? Is it love or fear? Does the question 'Is Gary a liar?' promote peace or fear?
Brother, truth in your article is a relative term of perception and interpretation within the ego's dream. As such, determining such truth is simply the insanity of seeking in a place where the answer is not. Truth is within you, not in DU. However, perhaps with 'ears' and 'eyes' not of ego, but of Holy Spirit, you can utilize DU to help remove some of the blocks to Truth instead of cementing new ones in place.
Peace and blessings,
Brother Robert
Just a note to pass on to you regarding your words about Gary Renard.
I personally feel it is very sad how your group has come across in this situation—caustic, corrosive, and attacking. I am certain your work with ACIM is wonderful and serves exactly who it supposed to serve. As a student, however, I will say that your criticisms are a huge turn off. Whether they are valid or not, it seems very unprofessional and a bit askew from the concepts of the Course.
At the end of the day, are 12 reasons why your personality would not accept 'DU' helpful? Certainly you would feel that they are. From my vantage point, they are not helpful at all.
That being said, Bless us all on the journey home. It appears the lessons of forgiveness are there for all of us at every step of the journey.
I felt compelled to share my perspective—I am sure I might not be the only one and I am also very sure that your group has some amazing gifts to share with the world.
Matt Lyon
Hello Mr. Mackie,
I'm reading The Disappearance of the Universe — I am a course student and listened to Gary Renard's audiobook last year but didn't really retain much of it.
I just arrived at page 138 this morning and found another grammatical error: "It will be one less thing for you to think about." That one really began to bug me. Why wouldn't an ascended master know, along with the multiple misuses of "I" when "me" ought to be used, that it should be one fewer thing?
I've also been reading the urtext of ACIM recently, and I clearly remember the dialogue between Jesus and Helen regarding the use of correct grammar as a way of identifying that the voice she is hearing is who it says it is.
So I googled the The Disappearance of the Universe along with "grammatical errors" and came upon your article, and I'm left feeling pretty disappointed with Gary Renard.
A bunch of people in my monthly group just paid to go hear him talk in Vancouver. I find his voice very irritating, and I find him rather odd looking, so I have to confess that because of those things, I opted not to go with them. I know that sounds pretty superficial, but maybe it was my intuition telling me something else.
Anyway, I just thought you could add page 138 to your list of grammatical errors. I really do think that an omniscient ascended master would have an excellent command of the language he or she is communicating in.
I thoroughly enjoyed your article, by the way.
Warmth and goodwill,
Marilyn
I just finished reading your article and appreciated that someone actually printed what many others (including myself) have thought. I don't believe in Pursah or Arten for a minute. As I read Gary's first book, I knew I didn't. In fact, I thought about the Conversations With God series as I was reading DU and realized he was using this method to try to be as big of a success as Conversations was.
The flip side here, for me, is that even though I don't believe in Arten or Pursah at all and find most of their conversations with Gary either somewhat on the juvenile side or absurdly intellectual, I've still gleaned some helpful perspectives on different situations that occur in my experience. That's actually the only reason I have read Gary's books. I like the way he simplifies ideas in a way that I can keep watch for when ego is running the show or when I'm caught up in the dream. Of course, that's the only thing his books are good for as the topics sometimes veer so far into political agendas that I find myself scanning the pages hoping for another nugget soon.
Putting aside Gary's rather large ego, which makes him look like quite the hypocrite or perhaps the worst student ever (especially for a person who has been visited by ascended masters), I'm willing to give him credit for the bit of help his books have provided me. It's just sad that he had to frame it in such a ridiculous manner, but perhaps without that framework it would have never been published. And since his books have helped me to some degree, I am willing to forgive the whole Ascended Master issue. Ah, yes, what a good little student I am. Jesus would be proud... well probably not since pride is an ego thing.
I guess I just find that it's such a shame that Gary creates these masters as a literary tool and then gets so offended and defensive about their existence, and meanwhile you've written a detailed article proving that they are nothing more than a literary tool, and now I'm writing you because I agree with you and want to share my ever so important opinion... and would you just look at all of us? We're supposed to be practicing the course, and here we are all wrapped up in the ego and forgetting how completely not real all of this is (if I understand the course correctly that is because there are times I'm certain I don't or even that I'm certain the course is complete BS, but there's that tricky ego again).
Maybe we could use all of this as a teaching tool and focus on how proving whether or not Arten and Pursah are not real is just another ego trap no matter how much it drives us mad. Honestly, I wish all the ego's business was that easy to catch and forgive.
All of that aside, I am truly grateful for your article. It's helped as much as (or maybe more than) Gary's books have.
Thank you very much,
Adrienne
I commend you for posting Greg Mackie's fine, thoughtful critique of Gary Renard's work, "The Disappearance of the Universe". I read 122 pages of Renard's phony tome before I couldn't take it any more, and I'd like to point out an important aspect of Renard's book, not mentioned in Mackie's piece, namely, that it appeals to that bugaboo of new spiritual movements, the cultic mindset.
Renard repeatedly has his imaginative teachers, Pursah and Arten, state that Jesus is the ONLY person in history to reach God consciousness and that the Course is the best, highest, quickest, most advanced means by which to attain this highest state. In the same breath, Renard's characters damn other traditions with faint praise, relegating them to secondary status in relation to J's slightly more elevated state, and by extension, ACIM's superior methods. Buddhism, Sufism, Kabbala, Taoism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Christianity, and so on, even with their most mystical, non-dualistic teachings, they never quite reach the acme of spiritual attainment that the Jesus of ACIM and the Western tradition achieved. It's almost as if spirituality were a competition.
This is a classic brainwashing tease: establish your teaching as the one true way and that if you don't buy into it as soon as possible, you'll suffer terribly (e.g., continuing foolishly on the wheel of reincarnation). That's a very crude hook for the ego, a not so innocuous invitation to circular thinking, and a dead giveaway that this is NOT an authentic teaching.
Additionally, Renard's alter-egos state that all paths lead to God—eventually. Everybody will attain J's level of enlightenment—eventually. And yet, only J has reached true god consciousness, because he's the only one in history to reach a height that, according to Purshah/Arten, is unparalleled. That's a serious contradiction with serious ethnocentric implications (that a Christ-channeled book for an English-speaking world, would be the ultimate path to awakening; superior to other eminent mystical paths—Buddha's, Kabir's, Krisha's, Maharshi's, Nisargadatta's, Lao Tsu's, and so on; wise people, to be sure, but not quite up there with J). To suggest such nonsense is also pretty arrogant and egotistical.
One of the most amazing people I ever heard about was a shoe cobbler in Guadalajara, Mexico that my wife had the good fortune to meet while healing from colon cancer. Introduced by a very special friend, she spent a couple weeks in a small town where every day she had the opportunity to spend an hour or so with this humble man as he repaired shoes in the town square. In Zen-like fashion, he would spend hours upon hours nailing soles to shoes with the relentless, faultless tap tap tap tap of his hammer, all the while responding to questions about life, god, consciousness, illness, religion, whatever. He was not as well known as a Nisargadatta, but by the time my wife paid him a visit, he had been discovered, and people from all over the world come and spend weeks, even months, sitting and learning from him. This humble, illiterate cobbler imparted a similar non-dualistic wisdom as a Nisargadatta or Buddha or Christ might have done. A few years later, he died, without fanfare, almost completely invisible to the world beyond his region and the few outsiders who'd discovered him. There was no book about his life, no written account of his teachings or dialogues. I never met him personally, yet he left me the gift of realizing that teachers emerge naturally from cultures the world over, many of them worlds apart from the Judeo-Christian filter that seems to prejudice Renard's writing into establishing his J as somehow slightly superior to every other wisdom teacher that ever lived, an attitude that pervades all semitic religions, yet which flies in the face of the reality of the world.
Yes, the world's an illusion, but in my opinion, truth is expressed through it all the time. Morning and night reflect the cycle of birth and death, the vacillation of which suggests the deeper truth of a duality dissolving under their rhythmic dance. Wisdom teachers emerging out of all cultures and all religions throughout all ages suggests the deeper truth of wisdom's presence, truth's presence, being eternally present and seeking expression in our world of delusion. When, on the other hand, people come shouting down from the hills with burning tablets or 'smart ass' ascended masters saying that this is the IT, the one true train to salvation (e.g., come to my seminars, buy my books and tapes), get on board or suffer the consequences, that's a pretty good indicator that it's time to step back and be aware of what's going on there.
Dear Friends,
Thanks for your articles about The Disappearance of the Universe. I thought you might be interested in my comments about this book and also a more-detailed commentary I wrote as an Ezine article. I just came across your website, so your work is new to me, but I can see that you are dedicated to clarifying Jesus' teachings in the Course, and I'm glad you are willing to take issue with interpretations that appear to be false.
Sincerely, George Johnston
Disappearance has inspired many to study Jesus' teachings in A Course in Miracles, but it distorts the meaning of the Course and adds many questionable teachings of its own. According to the author, two so-called ascended masters appeared to him and, over a period of years, gave him the material for the book. However, they present a false assessment of what the Course says about the world, only describing its negative aspects, whereas the Course repeatedly shows us that, though the world is an illusion and is perceived by the ego in terms of guilt, fear and hostility, nevertheless, when we perceive the world with the light of Christ shining on it in our minds, it reflects the glory of heaven. The twofold nature of the universe, whereby it reflects both good and evil and appears to us in terms of what is in our minds, is a theme repeated throughout the Course, but Disappearance only presents the dark aspects of our experience of the world, giving one the impression that it is corrupt and entirely the product of the ego.
By putting its own spin on the Course, Disappearance contradicts the teachings of many enlightened masters (among them, Ramakrishna, Yogananda, and Anandamayi Ma)—even those of Jesus himself, as he discusses oneness, love, and the light of God in Messages from Jesus by Mary Ann Johnston.
For a more complete explanation of how Disappearance misrepresents the Course, google: George Johnston, EzineArticles.com. This is all that one needs in order to find the article.
I have read the text from ACIM 3 times, am in my 2nd study group. I never got as far as lesson #50 simply because I would forget to do my lessons after one application in the morning and felt I wasn't doing a good enough job. So I quit doing them. Twice. I am aware that my understanding of the principles of the Couse are contingent upon my doing the Workbook lessons.
Anyway, I recently read DU and my first thought was "I wonder if these 2 masters really appeared before this guy?" I had just finished reading another book where an artist claims that Jesus appeared before her and they had lengthy conversations. What I wanted to say though is that Gary Renard succeeded in helping me understand the basic teachings of ACIM through his book. I have renewed my interest in doing the lessons so much that I have ordered a " Workbook Lessons" series of CD's by Ken Wapnick with a determination to do them. At this point I don't really care about the authenticity of the 2 appearing masters. It's the message, and it has me taking a long look at my judgements and wants and wishes to practice forgivness. I love ACIM as a recovering Catholic and to be honest with you it bothers me that some of the most reknown teachers and messangers of ACIM should be attacking one another. Perhaps those that don't believe how the DU came about should let Gary worry about that. And in the meantime let the students find their own way. In the end we will all find our way back to God, as ACIM teaches.
Sincerely,
Nicholas C.
I bought Gary Renards' latest book and I note its interesting everyone's comments. I wanted to believe in the book, but I don't. In the section about future events, this was published in 2006 and A & P talk about the coming economic boom for the world. I guess this alone proves the book is false. Perhaps Gary was visited by spirit beings, but their original seems questionable. "test the spirits" is a line from the bible. I guess not all ascended masters and spiritual visitations are from Jesus, some are perhaps from another realm. I think spirit visitors can fool anyone if they wish to appear genuine they certainly are able to lead people astray.
Thank you very much for the article.
For myself, the temptation to go into "lala land" with this Course has been strong, and buying into Gary Renard's claim was another such venture.
I have said, "oh, well, though a deception, Disappearance of the Universe has probably introduced many people to A Course in Miracles.
But, I wonder if any love affair beginning with a deception has ever ended up as a truelly good relationship. The answer might be none at all. I do suspect this might be and in the same sense, that a relationship with the Course that begins with the "wonderful miracle of what happened to Gary Renard" probably is not going to end up so good.
Thanks again,
Roberta Smith
Dear Brothers
I can only say that DU took me to being a serious and committed student of ACIM after having had the book for 7 years. I had also attended a number of Course study groups and still had no real understanding of the principles.
In addition to simply studying the Course, DU inspired me to start practicng REAL forgiveness on a minute to minute basis in my life. It was tough at first - as A & P explained that it would be - however after a year or so of doing this - suddenly I became aware that where I was triggered in past situations, I now felt calm, loving and peaceful (again, exactly as A & P had forecast). That was a Miracle and my attitude to my life changed miraculously - even if my life did not!
I have seen Gary a number of times attending his workshops. I experience him as a real teacher, full of humanness and with his own struggles and I find great love for him and compassion for his struggles, as they are also mine!.
I also fell asleep at his first workshop I attended in Findhorn, Scotland and fortunately I was well aware that this was only my ego not wanting me have this amazing teaching.
At susbsequent workshops I have remained alert while noticing others struggling to stay awake and realising their egos at work too!
I also, personally enjoyed some awesome laughter at Gary's often simple jokes and have benefitted from lightening up myself - I used to take myself and my spirituality so damned seriously I must have been a bore!
Gary gracefully accepted my invitation to be a guest on my radio show 'Miracle Hour'. I did not have to go through any agents, pay any fees or buy any of his material. Despite a technical 'glitch' resulting in Gary being kept waiting for 25 minutes he was calm, polite and appeared to be grateful for the opportunity to be a guest on a relatively low key internet radio show and I sensed a deep humility in him which I found attractive.
Interestingly, when I first picked up DU I never, for one second questioned the validity of the story of A & P. Whether this was as a result of me knowing physical mediums who have experienced rematerialisation incidences or if it was as a result of not really caring, being too absorbed by how I knew this book was about to change my life - I don't know. What I do know is that I believe I have benefitted greatly from being unconcerned and for focusing on the teachings and for that I am eternally grateful.
So may I invite all of us as one to focus on the love and the positive impact Gary and each and every one of us has on each other and remember that any un loving communication is simply a call for love and let us respond accordingly.
Great Blessings and love to us all and I forgive what has never really occurred.
John Campbell
Interesting piece. Logically appealing. The weak part is that all of this argument could be used against the Course itself. There are some differences in that the writer of the Course did not seem to take pride in it but certainly nothing was presented, as background to the course, that confirms the source of the material. In the same way that is objected to here one could bring all of this to the course and not have adequate answers. So interesting as it is, this argument undermines the entire movement.
Best to you,
Richard
Just now happened upon your article.
Yes, of course the book was a fabrication, and frankly a rip-off of ACIM.
He simply took the concepts of ACIM and put them into the dialogue of the two so-called Ascended Masters.
I sent him a detailed critique of his book but unfortunately lost it when computer crashed a few years ago.
He had a personal political agenda (against Republicans and guns for instance) and used the "AMs" to advance that agenda. If you read his book with his personal agendas in mind, you'll probably detect other examples.
I have to say I also have problems with ACIM. My biggest problem is with the following ACIM formulation:
God is Perfect.
Whatever God creates is Perfect.
Therefore, God couldn't have created the earth or our bodies,
since they eventually decay. What God creates is Eternal.
No problem up to that point, but what ACIM fails to explain is:
God is Perfect and created Us.
Therefore, we are Perfect (our spiritual selves).
However, we made a highly Imperfect decision when we chose to Separate. ACIM never explains how our Perfect beings could possibly have made such an Imperfect (and candidly quite stupid) decision.
In fact, such a decision should have been, by definition, impossible.
From memory, I think ACIM says it was a tiny, mad idea? That doesn't quite cut it. Perfect beings should only be capable of making perfect decisions.
I don't think that particular nut has ever been cracked.
Roger
Circle of A,
Thank you for the articles on the DU. One thing that always seemed off to me was when Renard suggested that his work was like a "can-opener" for the Course, suggesting he was the key. Since the Course is not in any way "canned" it certainly needs no additional or outside help to reach us.
I found this and many other claims to be so clearly ego-based that I removed the DU and his subsequent books-which were nothing more than repeats from the DU, including the same sorry jokes, from my reference bookcase and steer students to other works.
Thanks again,
Carol
I have read Gary's books and I fell for it. I joined the Disappearance group online with Yahoo Not too long ago someone asked the same question you are asking and the group BANNED the conversation. They wouldn't allow anything to be posted that even questioned Gary. I couldn't believe it. After all if none of this is real why are they taking this stance? Anyway, I just wanted to say Thank you. I wish I could send Gary my books and get my money back!
To me, they are behaving the very way the religions Gary wrote about in his very book did. This is the way it is, no discussion allowed that doesn't go along with what we think IS. It seems a disservice to The Course. I feel that those who really have something genuine to share won't hide from questions no matter what the questions may be. They wouldn't need to, knowing they have nothing to hide. They wouldn't ban an open discussion. If I was given an experience so special that I was able to share it with the world I know I would welcome any questions that came a long. I wouldn't defend my position. I would simply try to make others see what I was given. I wouldn't attack those who didn't believe and I wouldn't hide. While Jesus was here it appears he had a wonderful gift to share. More times than not people didn't believe him. But, he tried his best to get his message across. He didn't attack those who didn't believe. I just feel that if A and P really wanted to help in a great way they would allow themselves to be taped or something. Why not send a message in a big way? Allow them to be videotaped while transitioning from one form to another. I think more than anything the behavior of the DU group is odd concerning this matter. It doesn't make any sense to me.
-Danielle
I am one of those people who has spent my life looking for its meaning. So, it is inevitable that DU by Gary Renard would be read by me sooner or later.
Yes, that question is the key question. Did he make it up? When I first read it my mind was asking all sorts of questions with regard to Pursah and Arten.
Having read Plato's account of the Death of Socrates I noted that by having a conversation, it was a really good way to present the philosophy. So, I have considered the literary device theory.
I noted at the beginning of DU Pursah refers to Gary having a good memory.
Aha, I thought, is this to explain how he so accurately remembers what was said and who said it? Later on we learn that Gary is taping everything. Where are the tapes? Surely, that would provide some proof. The tapes no longer exist.
I get very confused with Christianity. I didn't think that Christians believed in reincarnation but they discuss which disciple they were 2,000 years ago. As far as I know mainstream Christianity completely denies reincarnation. So we have one life. We are not all born equal. So is it fair that some have an easy ride to heaven and others don't. In New Age circles it is accepted that we all reincarnate lots of times until we learn to be good. That is at odds with a loving forgiving heavenly father. The God of the Bible is an absolute bastard. Not at all like Jesus.
As far as A Course in Miracles goes, I find it impossible to belief that the Earth is a projection of our thoughts because, we feel so guilty, we believe God has deserted us. Why do we have bodies that are clearly intended to cope with the physical world. We have sight, sound, touch, taste etc. In fact our whole body has evolved into an amazing vehicle which is designed to keep us safe.
I didn't really understand what ACIM was saying until I read Gary Renard. I found the book compelling reading and thoroughly enjoyed it but...I can't really believe that the world is an illusion for many reasons. In fact, I fear that as Science and Technology moves on, more and more facts from the Bible will be proved false. This is why we keep adding to our belief system. So it keeps pace with our changing lives. So I have invented my own belief system which is more fabulous than Gary's DU. I have ironed out all the difficulties due to 2lst century living. So my philosophy about life is optimistic and mind-blowing but I call it fiction. I don't need to get brain ache trying to believe that my eyes deceive me. I've sorted that one out and now the whole of humanity will live happily ever after.
If they publish my book I'll send you a copy.
For now, I am greatly relieved that I am not the only one who is skeptical about DU.
-Jenianne
Just a quick comment. I am brand new to ACIM and started by taking a course from Pathways of Light. From there I was introduced to Gary Renard's book, Disappearance of the Universe. I noticed a lot of factual errors coming from the lips of Arten and Pursah. I kept track of them to see what I might discover. When I found there was a chat group about DU on Yahoo, I joined it eagerly hoping to get an explanation of the apparent historical errors. What I got in return was being banned from the group for asking. I got out my original question and one follow-up before I got a letter telling me to go elsewhere. That same week I received letters from a few other members of the group saying they were banned for writing follow-ups and asking questions. None of the letters they wrote were published.
I started digging into Gary's site where I found his response to articles written by Jon Mundy and Greg Mackie (I think it was his article) and that led me here. This entire episode saddens me greatly. I am very appreciative of what C of A has brought us all. It is what kept me studying rather than just throwing it all away as just another fraud.
Thank you.
-Jim
Hi Folks,
One thought *(two actually) came to my mind as I scanned through the Reader Feedback on this subject...
1) What would Jesus do: and,
2) What would He think of what was offered?
Cheers!
Jim
Hello Greg,
Thank you for a very well written article. A few heartfelt points:
I have been a course student for 4 years before reading DU. Nothing has helped me as much as reading it in understanding and applying the course to my daily life.
I am reminded of the scribes and Pharisees of the bible who strained at a knat and swallowd a camel. If that's the best you can come up with to discredit DU, then you shoudn't have wasted your time.
You could use most of the same reasoning to discredit ACIM.
I guess only time will tell.
Blessings and Peace to you,
Steve
I'm not sure about Gary, Ive met him on a couple of occasions, once as a participant in one of his talks. I fell asleep I'm ashamed to say but that's another story. When I was little my parents wanted me to believe in Father Christmas so badly, I pretended to to please them. Though I knew where the presents really came from I played their little game, not understanding why but with a feeling of accomplishment that I'd made them happy.
Jesus or someone, in that fictitious book called the Bible told the story of the prodigal son, do you think that really happened? Do you think the teller of the story would diminish its power by concluding with, "Oh but of course this was just a fairy tale, a parable to teach you that you are not really as lost as you believe you are."
Nothing in this world is true, it's all the concoction of dreams and we can dream anything and believe what we like about the results, I believed Gary's story as much as I believed what my parents said about Father Christmas or what the Bible says about Jesus. It was a story to help me wake up, told as if to a child, I was confused as hell about the Course before I read Gary's stories, now I'm living it and breathing it and grateful to God for it.
I see Gary as a person like you or me, he's a combination of the ego and The Son of God. Of course he has a vested interest in the success of DU and of course he will swear black and blue that Arten & Pursah are real, his readers need him to, he is playing the role of parent to them and Arten & Pursah are their Father Christmas.
I never needed to believe it either way, I was ONLY interested in the message and I hear Ken Wapnick coming through loud and clear, I heard Jesu!s as well and I was helped enormously by hearing Gary's degenerate humor. A Course in Miracles lost it's stuffy old seriousness through my reading of both DU and YIR, it became human and forgiveness was much less a process that I questioned "Did I do that right" and much more a freedom to be wrong.
I see all your points and they are mostly right, but, I still have to applaud Gary R. Renard, author or compiler who cares which, of Disappearance of the Universe for giving to the world (my dream) a reason and a way to finally wake up...
Robin Evans
http://livingacim.com
Become quite skeptical-as I was touched by ACIM. Considering how skeptical I am (being raised in a souther baptist home that I eventually awoke out of, I am not cautious with everything) it's surprising that I even trust the Course.
Either way, I was trying to dig up some dirt on Gary. Intuition tells me he's not genuine, even if much of his book's information is (likely because it's based off of original information that I have come to accept for the most part).
Anyway - THANKS!!!! Thanks for writing the article with evidence and reasons for not buying his story.
Thank you thank you!
-Jacob
I just completed reading Greg Mackie's article, "Entities Should Not Be Multiplied Beyond Necessity: 12 Reasons I Do Not Accept Gary Renard's Account of The Disappearance of the Universe."
I am new to the Course in Miracles, but have been a Christian for over 25 years, including being a student of life, literature, philosophy and religion. I have just begun reading Gary Renard's book, which was highly recommended by my mate. I have no opinion yet, other than so far I can relate to Gary's questions and the events that caused him to be a seeker in the first place. So, in other words, I have no vested interest one way or another at this point.
However, the thing that disturbed me most about Greg Mackie's lengthy and personal dissertation against Gary Renard, is that it reminded me of the Fundamentalist Christians and Doctrinalists I have run from my entire life. It is disheartening to me as a new student of the Course, which Greg and your website passionately and lovingly endorse, to see that students of the Course are doing the same thing as the Fundamentalists. Greg quoted chapter and verse of the Course, and used Gary's words against him in a way that to me, violates what the Course teaches.
At this point, I am not sure of any of it.
-Patrice
How refreshing! I loved reading "12 Reasons." I was very excited, when I first read about this book. It sounded like a great story. Luckily, I had the library find a copy, and I didn't waste my hard-earned cash. What a crock! And what makes it even more awful is that a supposed "ACIM person" is the one doing all this lying, purportedly to get people to see the truth! I guess some people are just very cognizant of the fact the "a sucker is born every minute," and are willing to do anything to make a buck or get attention or whatever it is he is looking for.
-Terri
I bought DU hoping that it would help with my understanding of The Course. I didn't know anything about the author of the book or anything on the background/controrversy at all. I was under the assumption that anyone who writes material about The Course would have it's best interests and it's student's best interests at heart. I was wrong.
I was a third of the way through DU when a feeling of disgust (well, disgust might be a little strong) came over me. I stopped reading it and never went back to it.
On the flip side, my fiancee has trouble reading The Course. So far, he's read a third of it and always comes to a 'road block' of some kind. He usually stops reading it when this happens only to start over again to have the same thing happen again months later. He read DU just recently and absolutely loved it. My fiancee tells me that he has a 'handle' on the Course now because of DU (by the way, he's never done the workbook lessons either.)
This is a little hard for me to swallow. I find it totally absurd, yet who am I to say what works for anyone? I wish Mr. Renard had never written DU; but he did and there is a reason for it, I just wish I knew what this reason was.
Regardless, my fiancee is a less angry person than he used to be. He's changed. May be he wasn't meant to be an ACIM student. He has embraced a few of the ideas in Renard's book and I guess that was enough for him. Who knows.
Thanks to all of you at COA for your articles and insights.
-Tina Malm
Ontario, Canada
I could go on and on about the holes in Mundy's reasoning but it is not necessary. It speaks for itself. Occam's razor is just one example. There have been many instances in scientific discovery where this logice principle is useless. Ask any quatum physicist how they can explain why they are seeing evidence of sub-atomic particles in one location at the same time. Using Occam's razor logic you logically would not be able to accept what they are saying because it's simply defies traditional logic.
The point here is that all phenomena cannot always be explained by "the simplest answer is usually right". The word "usually" pretty much says it all. As far as I can tell "usually" means "not always" which leaves the door wide open for possibilites which is the basic foundation for Quantum Physics. It is the science of possiblities.
Occam's razor cannot explain what is being witnessed by physicists so there is a possibility that something beyond our understanding is at work. Quantum Physicists will be the first to tell you they can't explain what they see except that space and time don't effect certain particles and therefore brings into question the existence of space and time. Ask them about Gravity and whether it is particles or waves. Ask them about how gravity sometimes appears to be faster than the speed of light. The convential wisom of the speed of light is based on Einstein stating that it is the "speed of light" is the 'speed limit' of the unverse yet we are seeing evidence to the contrary.
So Mundy's use of Occam's razor is but one weak arguement. In fact, quantum physics tends to validate the ideas about space and time presented in DU. I will end this letter by simply statement something very simple. Discovery of truth is made by out-of-the-box thinking not by accepting commonly accepted principles.
The greatest discoveries of makind were quite often made by "heretics" who were murdered for their thinking by a dogmatic Christian church. As it turns out, we can see the earth from a satellite and even the space shuttle and the Apollo missions. It turns out that the earth is in fact round. This yet another point Mundy makes by saying "I cannot say with total certainty that it isn't a cube". I find it hard to believe any modern man could even consider making a ridiculous statement like that. It lends in-credibility to Mundy's thinking process and how flawed his logic is. It's as ridiculous as saying "I cannot say with certainty that the earth is not the center of the universe".
My whole point is that close-mindedness leads to stagnation of discovery. Humanity lost nearly a thousand years of progress because of the Catholic church. This was know as the "Dark Ages". Can you imagine where science and humanity would be with an additional thousand years of human and scientific evolution? It think it's sad that this site shows it's close-mindedness by not presenting information disputing Mundy's flawed logic in many examples.
This is not to say he did have some good arguements but he has provided a lot of 'holes' in his logic due to his ignornance of the process of discovery and using an old theory such as Occam's razor. This idea works in many cases but he represents it as proof of someone being wrong or dishonest. Occam's razor was developed in a time of total ignorance of modern science.
I suggest Mr. Mundy learn about the science of Quantum Physics which also states that "all possiblities exist". Occam's razor does not take into account modern technology and discovery. Mr. Mundy should take a look at the new particle accelerator being built in Cerna Switzerland. This will be one of the greates tools of discovery mankind has ever seen. It directly relates to our modern day ability to see empirical evidence of modern discovery. Occam's razor, although frequently correct, has now become obsolete by discounting the possiblity of discoveries beyond what we can even imagine and that is what is based on....what we can imagine is the answer to any question. We sometimes don't even know that we don't know.
-Rob Gonzalez
Note, we believe he is talking about Greg Mackie's article rather than Jon Mundy's
Thank-you so much for your detailed and descriptive article on The Disappearance of the Universe. I feel I am in the minority as so many see it as a great resource to spirituality and Truth. My intuition has said something is very wrong with what it really represents.....or that to me it doesn't feel authentic. If it helps others in positive ways I am supportive of that but I have friends that see it as the most helpful piece they have ever found and I have not been able to resonate with it, feeling like I'm alone. Thank-you for putting my reservations about it in a very articulate, utilizing clear ideas and facts to support my feelings. I so appreciate finding your words in the sea of compliments and praises for this book. -Suzann
Hi Robert
Robert, I read your article about Gary Renard and the Disappearance of the Universe entitled "Why don't the Masters have an original thought." I would like to respond to this article and add my own thoughts to it as well.
First off, I truly loved your article, as well as Gregs. It needed to be said, and I am glad both of you had the courage to respond to Gary and to speak what needs to be spoken, to speak your truth. I definitely resonated with your article Robert, and it is a masterpiece. I feel every sincere seeker who is a ACIM student and who is caught up in DU should read your article. They can still read DU and love it, but they should be aware of some of the main points you brought up, for they are so helpful.
I am a sincere spiritual seeker who is only about truth and I am shocked about what is happening regarding Gary Renard and the gullability of spiritual seekers. I just cannot believe more and more people aren't questioning the legitimacy of his story and are getting caught up in it, believing it is the truth, from two highly evolved beings.
I do not know for sure that the ascended masters he speaks of really exists or not, although I feel he was not really visited by A & P. But I am always open to that possibility that he did indeed receive their visitations. I am all about truth, and if he convinces me or offers proof of their existence, I will gladly be the first to admit I was wrong, about my feelings on this. But until then, I have to follow my heart, my inner guidance.
And my intuition, gut feelings, heart, inner guidance, and even my reasoning mind, etc tell me that he made them up because it would make for a better selling book. If he just talked about the Course without Ascended Masters it just wouldn't have as much value to the new age crowd. To many Course students, it might have the same or equal value, but to the consuming new age public, they need sensationalism, something more than just the teachings of ACIM.
Now, even though I believe Gary was not visited by Ascended Masters, I am having a hard time knowing the truth, knowing for sure. For I know when I believe something it is just a belief, and not necessarily the truth. I want only the truth. And the only source we have regarding the existence of the Ascended Masters is coming from Gary and his word. He says over and over that he is telling the truth, that they really exist and visited him. He did not make them up, and he affirms this vehemently.
Yet my mind and heart tells me over and over again that his book does not ring true, does not have the ring of truth. And further the dialogues with the Masters just does not have the authenticity or wisdom I would expect from Masters. And some of what they say, just does not even sound true or coming from a high level of consciousness. It did not sound like Ascended Masters speaking, and there was nothing extraordinary or really advanced by them. I found it all to be rather basic and some just off and most was very human.
I find it very disconcerting to think that somebody who studied the ACIM and other spiritual books would outright lie and make all this up and still stick with it till the end. I really want to accept Gary's word and believe him, and I am trying so hard to give him the benefit of the doubt, but after reading his book, going to his yahoo group, reading the reviews at Amazon, and reading some of the articles and feedback at circleofa.org, all I can come to is that he made it up and he is fooling most everyone. For the book just doesn't add up, doesn't ring true, and I have to follow my feelings, my heart, my intuition.
I am not outright calling him a liar, but I am very sceptical of his claims. As I feel most should be of his book. For how could you read the book and just accept it as all true, as the truth? As coming from Ascended Masters, that to me is what I find so disconcerting about this whole thing. That most spiritual seekers just accept his book as truth, and do not question it, or question his source.
And I think it is healthy to question his claims, to really ask if what he said is true or not. And to me, it makes or breaks his book. Yes, you can still gain some good information from his book whether he made it all up or he really got this information from A & P. But in the end, if he lied about the Masters then I cannot accept anything they say, for it is him saying it, not an Ascended Master. And to me, yes there is a huge difference between Gary and an Ascended Master. I did not read the book to hear what Gary had to say, but what an Ascended Master had to say and share.
I went to Amazon and started reading the reviews about the book and was shocked to see that almost everybody loved the book and gave it the highest marks and said how helpful it was, and they didn't even care if A & P were real or not. I was shocked there wasn't people questioning his book and disbelieving, and saying it sounded all made up.
I want to know what is so helpful in his book that everybody is praising. What in it is helping them understand the Course for the first time. Do you have any clues, I just don't get it or see anything so helpful in his book. There are plenty of good books already out on the Course and plenty of local study groups to study it.
I have not read his second book but briefly browsed through it and was disturbed to see references to certain people that might have questioned him in the book. I read a few pages where A & P put down kinesiology and Dr. David Hawkins. I read on your feedback page that Beverly Hutchinson is portrayed negatively in the book along with others as well. And I even saw on his yahoo group where he posted something about you and David Hawkins living in Sedona, maybe you two shouldn't live there because of all the magnetism. This sounds like Gary's ego more than anything else. Why would the Masters just happen to bring this up about Hawkins and kinesiology? Maybe it has to do with the fact that Hawkins calibrated his book pretty low, nowhere near the level of high consciousness that the ACIM is, so Gary is getting even with Hawkins for saying this. It is a possibility. I am not saying for sure this is what it is, but it is a possibility that rings true to me.
Like I said above I really did like your article as well as Gregs, and felt just like you, that somebody had to question Gary's claim and speak up and ask for the truth. And in the end, it sure sounds like Gary created a literary fiction I am sorry to say. And as your article pointed out, it sure sounds like Gary got most of his material from Ken Wapnick, the similarities are just too much to ignore.
Thank you for any further response to this email or to sharing anything more about your articles with Gary since the article was written or any of your views now regarding it, especially if they have changed in any way. And do you know why Jon Mundy's article is no longer on the website, and if he has changed his mind about Gary's story since it was published?
Sincerely,
-Anonymous.
Dear Robert and Greg,
I have finished reading your articles in Miracles Magazine and am very confused. Admittedly I don't understand A Course in Miracles as well as you do but I understand from my own study as well as from books you have written and workshops that you have given that this world is an illusion and our role is to learn how to forgive. We are to be messengers of peace and love while we are in this dream world and that discord is from our ego. Greg I read your book about forgiving murderers and Robert I have read too many of your books to list them all. When I read your material and when I have attended your workshops I have always come away with the realization that I am to allow myself to be changed from looking at the world through my ego's eyes to seeing it from that of the Holy Spirit. The course lesson, "Do I want to be right or do I want to be happy" is a significant one for me and I remember it often. Am I wrong or am I misinterpreting your teaching of this message from Jesus?
Your articles confuse me. To me it sounds as if you are saying that it is more important to be right than to be happy and you want your readers to know that you are right. You make cogent points and you may very well be right in your interpretation of Gary's work. To me it really doesn't matter if "ascended masters" visited him or not. What matters to me is the realities that so many who would never have heard the message of the Course have now heard it and are reading it. What matters to me is that I am learning how to forgive more deeply. His interpretation may differ slightly from yours as does Ken Wapnick but is that a reason to attack? I understand from my study that attack is always from the ego and perhaps erroneously I thought you two were above that.
Do not mistake this letter to be anything except a puzzled student who has respected your teaching and who is now asking for clarification. I am confused as to why you needed to attack Gary. There are many who follow the Course and each of us (because we are all human in this dream world) has slightly different interpretations. I hear you attacking Gary more because he 'claims' to have learned the Course from ascended masters and you don't believe that. You believe he made up the messages he delivers. Yet truly it appears that he is teaching sound course principles. He didn't make up the message he delivers.
Your articles disturbed me because it appears that you are sowing seeds of discontent in the Course community and I wonder why you need to do that? Please help me to understand. Thank you.
Sincerely,
-Joan M Jennings
Robert responds:
Dear Joan,
Thank you for your message. I remember you well from workshops of mine that you have attended. I appreciate the way you framed your message-as someone seeking understanding-and I'm happy to answer. Even though this is quite long, if I had the time, I would answer at greater length. The issues you raise are extremely important.
My answer really is all about the central importance of truth. There is an attitude in spiritual circles that says that matters of truth should be secondary to happiness, joy, and peace. The quote from the Course that you mention-"Do you prefer that you be right or happy?"-is a case in point. It is often taken to mean that we should set aside matters of truth if they get in the way of being happy.
I honestly don't think we hold that attitude in other areas of life. If you went to a doctor, you'd want his credentials to be real. If he had no training in medicine and had only a day before been an insurance salesman, I assume that you would care about that. If someone told you that a family member was plotting to kill you, you would probably be very concerned with how factual that claim was.
But in spiritual circles, I think we set aside those normal rules and come armed with a different set of rules. In the spiritual arena, issues of truth and factuality can easily seem to get in the way of the weightier issues of what helps us in our lives, what gives us comfort, and what inspires us. And so we tell ourselves that those issues don't matter. And that seems to be the high road-being above it all.
I personally believe that this attitude is very far from the Course's own attitude. The Course wants to challenge our belief that truth can threaten happiness. Instead, it teaches that the two are inextricably intertwined. In its view, truth is what makes us truly happy. In fact, that quote about being right and happy does not mean that we should stop caring about being right and instead just be happy. It means that we should be willing to question what we think is right, because in fact it is wrong, and its wrongness is making us unhappy. That is the meaning behind these lines: "At least I can decide I do not like what I feel now….And so I hope I have been wrong" (T-30.I.8:2, 9:2). The implication is that finding the right view will release us from unhappiness. For more clarity on this, you may want to read Greg's article, "Do You Prefer that You Be Right or Happy?".
Admittedly, the Course's value on truth is not generally about factual truth, but about what we might call higher truths. However, it does extend down to plain old, ordinary truth. You can see this in the fact that honesty is the second characteristic of God's teachers. The honesty talked about is a more encompassing concept than simply telling the truth, but it does include that. It is about "what you say" (M-4.II.1:4). It is, in other words, about telling the truth. I have heard many Course students try to wiggle out of this over the years. We don't like being bound to a behavioral rule of having to tell the truth. But I don't see any wiggle room here. The Course is not talking about an honesty that is less honest than normal honesty, but one that is more.
In conventional spiritual assumptions, often the very worst thing one can do is bring up disagreements about matters of truth and factuality. But is it inherently an attack to do so? If someone says, "The sky is green," is it an attack to say, "Well, actually, the sky is blue"? If you were in someone's living room and he said, "Two beings just materialized on my couch over there," would it be an attack to say, "I don't see any beings on that couch"? Of course, that is essentially what I did. I said, "Here are my reasons for believing that two beings did not materialize on Gary Renard's couch." Is just saying that an attack?
If it is, then we really cannot rescue Jesus from being an attacker in the Course. He constantly says things that, under this definition, would clearly qualify as attacks. Here is part of his first exchange with Helen, right after dictating the first three miracle principles:
Helen: I don't think Bill wants this course, and I'm not sure I do, either. He is very snappy.Jesus is correcting Helen about a matter of factuality. Helen says that Bill "is very snappy." Jesus says, "He is certainly not very snappy." How is that different from saying, "There are certainly not two beings on your couch"? I could follow this up with countless examples of Jesus criticizing the views of Freud, Edgar Cayce, Carl Jung, and others (found in the Urtext), along with Christianity, the Bible, and the disciples (in the published Course), but I'll instead just include these examples from the Course:
Jesus: I think this is slightly true because something is bothering him, but he is certainly not very snappy. So why not try to help him instead of blowing it up into an obstruction? He helps you all the time.
But you are wrong. (T-5.V.6:14)Be glad, then, that you have been wrong. (T-9.IV.10:5)Under the circumstances, would it not be more desirable to have been wrong, even apart from the fact that you were wrong? (T-13.IV.3:1)You have been wrong about the world. (T-13.VII.5:1)Decide that God is right and you are wrong about yourself. (T-14.IV.4:5)You have been wrong in thinking that it is needful to prepare yourself for Him. (T-18.IV.4:3)You are wrong, but there is One within you Who is right. (T-27.V.9:6)You want it for the goal of being right when you are wrong. (T-30.I.11:6)Would you know how many times you merely thought you were right, without ever realizing you were wrong? (M-10.4:3)And you are wrong. (M-18.3:8)You have been wrong. Lead not the way, for you have lost it. (M-22.5:8)Jesus tells us again and again that we are wrong. He is disagreeing with us. Are we to assume that Jesus is attacking us here? I don't think so. I think attack is more about how you perceive the content of the person's identity than about disagreeing with their views or claims. It is more about feeling tone. I think you can say, "There were certainly not two beings on your couch" and not feel attacking, just as you can say, "He is certainly not very snappy" and not be attacking. That is why we were careful in our articles to keep the tone as neutral as possible. We didn't engage in name-calling. We didn't engage in character assassination. We didn't say "These are Gary's motives," or "This is the kind of person Gary is." We kept ourselves to presenting reason and evidence in support of the view that there were not two beings on his couch. How is that an attack?
And I think it is crucial that these sorts of things are said, absolutely crucial. I mentioned the attitude that says that, since truth does not matter, it is very important to not bring up disagreements about matters of truth. I think a corollary of this is the idea that since ethical behavior does not matter, it is very important to not point out unethical behavior. To the extent that these attitudes are really there, now the only sin in this illusory world becomes truth-telling.
Imagine a world in which truth-telling is the only sin. Imagine a society in which the only sin is to say, "That person engaged in unethical behavior." Would you want to live in a society like that? Do you like systems in which it looks like that is already the case? The priest abuse scandal comes to mind. There, between truth-telling and abusing boys under the cloak of religious authority, truth-telling (for a long time at least) was the greater transgression of the two. Do you admire a system like that? Or do you instead root for the whistleblowers, and hope that the system won't squash them before they can blow their whistle?
I think this is all very relevant here, because when a spiritual leader is caught in ethical transgressions, it sullies the whole path. When it comes to light that priests have engaged in sexual abuse, and that the hierarchy has covered this up, do you feel better or worse about Catholicism? When it comes to light that a guru has been dishonest, how do you feel about his path? If it comes out, which some day it may, that Gary Renard invented his whole story, and thus launched a Course teaching career on a fraudulent base, how will that not sully the Course in the eyes of the world?
An example comes to mind. Several years ago, a magician/skeptic/debunker named James Randi took a young man and trained him to be a fake channel. He trained him in the mannerisms of being a spiritual channel. He trained him in the right sorts of pat truisms to say. He did this to show that people will readily fall for a fraud, and to thereby raise the possibility that all channels are frauds. The young man was an overnight sensation. Large crowds flocked to see him. Of course, they didn't know that they were being used as a demonstration of human gullibility. Now imagine that the ideas the young man was taught to spout were all from the Course. How would that make the Course look to the public? Further, imagine that when the crowd of Course students was told that the whole thing was a hoax, they didn't care; they still flocked to see him. How would this not sully the Course in the eyes of the public? Then imagine that when it was all revealed to be a hoax, people reviled not the hoax, but the person who revealed it. How would this not support all the points that James Randi had wanted to prove, and far better than he ever hoped?
This is my real issue. I don't want to see the Course linked with what I believe to be a hoax. I am not trying to just prove myself right, as you said it sounded to you. I think that is an unfair assumption about my motives. I am trying to do what I see as a necessary service to Course students and to the Course, fully expecting to attract a lot of criticism in the process. My issue is also not what you implied when you said, "His interpretation may differ slightly from yours as does Ken Wapnick but is that a reason to attack?" Again, you're reading into my article motives that are not there. I can assure you that if the views in DU were the same as mine, and if the book had held me up as the preeminent teacher of the Course, I would have spoken out much sooner. If people had started flocking to the Circle's work because a made-up spiritual authority had recommended it, I would have felt like someone had left stolen money on my doorstep. I couldn't have just taken that money. I would have been forced to speak up.
And this is why the fact that Gary's work has popularized the Course doesn't rescue it in my eyes. I at first tried to take that view, but then I realized it was a classic case of the end justifying the means. Then I thought of this example: Let's say I go around the country and hold a gun to the heads of various celebrities, forcing them to speak out on behalf of the Course. And let's say they do, and Course sales go through the roof. Do you like that scenario? Does the increase in sales make you want to praise my "ministry"?
In summary, we simply came to feel that the truth had to be told-the truth that there is every good reason to believe that the masters are fictional, and no good reason to believe that they are real. There needs to be truth-tellers in this community, even if truth-telling makes waves. It would be a very strange community in which it's OK for a popular teaching career to be based on fraud, and not OK for anyone to dare mention that fact. What a bizarre, upside-down place that would be. Thankfully, even though there are elements of that attitude in our community, the majority of students seem to feel differently. We have been overwhelmed with grateful responses from people who were looking to the leadership for help in evaluating Gary's work, and feel that they now have gotten that help. In the end, people do want the truth.
I hope this helps you understand where we were coming from.
In peace,
-Robert
Feedback on Gary's response:
I don't know about anyone else, but I believe it's not just what a person says, but how they say it that counts.
When I compare the tone of Renard's response with that used by Perry, Mundy and Mackie in their articles the contrast is sharp.
What comes across to me from the Perry, Mundy and Mackie articles is their scrupulous concern to show respect for a brother, even when they're very deeply troubled by what he is doing. On the other hand, Renard's response drips with vitriol. I don't buy that his is just an understandable human reaction to being challenged and - as he sees it - treated unfairly. And it's certainly not what I'd expect from a person who's spent serious "quality time" in the company of a couple of ascended masters.
I note that a lot of the people who take exception to the articles questioning the veracity of "Disappearance" seem to take a similar position. They seem challenged, so to speak, by the very notion of "challenging". They seem to believe that even the attempt to question or challenge the words and assertions of another is somehow fundamentally wrong. And it's wrong because, in their view, it represents some kind of attack or judgment. And of course, we all know what the Course teaches about attack and judgment.
For me, the trouble with this position is that it soon leads you to the dangerous swampland of mushy, unclear and unhelpful thinking where "anything goes."
Frankly, I think the question of how we should interpret the Course's teaching on judgment is a really big deal. If you interpret the teaching as saying that, among other things, Jesus is telling us to reject any attempt to discern and discriminate using our intellects, fine. That's your right. But where does this get you? As I said, you're now in a position where anything goes. Every claim and pronouncement, made by anyone, now has to be accorded the same weight and seriousness. It has to be, because you've renounced your right to use your critical faculties.
At first sight, such uncritical acceptance is a lovely idea. No one need fall out with anyone over such thorny issues as truth and falsehood, or sense and nonsense, ever again. But come on, folks, let's get real! The moment we content ourselves with an "anything goes" attitude is, in my view, the moment we lose ourselves.
I suspect it would also be the moment that we, as a community of Course students, become a laughing stock. And that would be a tragedy.
It's surely no coincidence that, by any standard, the Course is a dazzling intellectual masterpiece. It's the work of an Author Who clearly expects us to use our brains. So let's use them. Let's not be afraid to use our intellects and powers of discernment in honest exploration. Everything doesn't go. And there is a difference between falsehood and truth. What I admire and appreciate about Mundy, Perry and Mackie is that they care passionately about making the distinction.
-Phil Brisk
Conflicting Illusions: A Perspective on the Ascended Masters Question
It is very difficult to sort through the layers of difference that separate us as human beings. We construct illusory images of another and generally, when we disagree, do not paint a flattering picture of our adversary. The only way that I have found to sort through these areas of difference is through candid, non-judgmental dialogue. If successful, we often find that the illusions we held so dear were, at the very least, partially inaccurate and in many instances totally off-base. I have personally come to the realization that the one thing I do know about the thinking, motivation and behavior of another is that I emphatically do not know. Therefore, the only tool that I can bring to bear is non-judgmental inquiry in the context of a dialogue on issues that matter. That spirit guides my thinking in what follows.
If the question of the Ascended Masters has been brewing beneath the surface in certain course circles for some time, then Greg, Jon, and Robert have the right, maybe even a responsibility, to bring the issue out into the open for wider discussion and review. Why they chose to bring it out publicly at this time and in this manner is a question that, for me, remains to be answered. I do think we now need to know the background of this matter - what led to the initial doubts, why this was a problem for them, and what they intended to accomplish by bringing it out into the public sphere.
The approach that they are using does seem to mask an underlying belief that they think Gary is is being less than forthright in responding to private inquiries on this subject. I do not know this, but I suspect their underlying motivation is different from their public statements. There would be no reason for all of this effort if they did not believe that A & P did not exist in any way, shape or manner. This is tantamount to accusing Gary of fraud. (To their credit, they have kept the door open for continued articless, inviting a response - recently published - from Gary.)
What they have ignored, interestingly enough is the fact that the sessions were taped. Gary briefly mentioned that point in YIR when he is complimented by A & P for destroying those tapes, as they had instructed him to do. This, to be candid, was a red flag for me.
It is noteworthy to me that Jon, Greg, and Robert think that Gary could have pulled DU off without the aid of A&P. Gary is a most unlikely source or spokesperson for ACIM. He is not an academic; he does not have (compared to some) a long history of involvement in the course; he does not sound like an intellectual - definitely not a Ken Wapnick; he has a "coarse" manner; and his observations are peppered with very mundane (egoic) concerns (popular success of his books, number of contributors to his forum, standings on the Amazon best seller list, etc.).
With respect to the articless (or lack thereof) to date, we seem to have two very different issues. Mundy et al are providing an essentially legalistic and academic perspective on the existence of A & P. Gary responds not as much to that issue as he does to (at least this is my impression) the motivations of the personalities involved and their representation of the material in the book. So, in that sense, their "dialogue" is working at cross purposes. He's addressing their motivation; they are focusing on the A&P issue.
Greg, Robert and John are responding to the question: "Why do you think the ascended masters are not real?"
Gary is responding to the question: "Why do you think Greg, Robert, and John are raising this issue?" Gary goes on to give his theory that they are mean spirited and jealous, a typical egoic observation.
What we do have here is a failure of communication. Attempts have been made that we are not privy to and they have not, for reasons that remain unclear, been successful. The result: What appears more like warring monologues, a consequence partially ensured by the structure of communication that was chosen. Make no mistake, this is not yet a dialogue. A dialogue, for me, requires a non-judgemental presentation of the data in the spirit of honest inquiry into another point of view. That spirit is clearly absent from Gary's piece, and less than obvious in the three articles.
If I were Gary, and let's assume the existence of A and P, the only thing I could do is assert that indeed they are real and then provide as best I can all the reasons that suggest that. He does not have to provide those reasons, but it might be a good idea to do so. He might say, for example, that if they were not, what would be the probability of someone like me (i.e. Gary) being able to produce insights into the course that many readers applaud for their clarity and that finally shed some light on what have been obtuse concepts. My personal feeling is that Gary is a most unlikely bearer of the Course's message. I have listened to Wapnick's material for years and could not have produced that level of clarity.
One aspect of Gary's response that I find refreshing is that you can always count on him to say what he's thinking; sometimes you'd rather not hear it, but you get it anyway. In this instance he has responded to perceived attack with counter attack and while this is always the ego's first order reaction, a second order response more in line with the course's principles would have been more helpful. That is not intended to be a judgment, by the way, just an observation. I believe we always lead with an egoic reaction to perceived attack. The challenge is to accept that in ourselves and move beyond it. Somewhere in the backdrop of the three initial articles is, I believe, an ego response to Gary. They mask it better. Nevertheless, it is always there, lurking in the shadows.
Illusions of difference are inherently superficial. In order to peel away at these layers of illusion, a departure from the unproductive syndrome of attack/counter attack is necessary. They beg for a spirit of inquiry that drives for a better understanding of a different point of view. By striving to see the world from our perceived adversary's point of view, we increase the probability that continued dialogue on this matter is possible. Gary's response that he has issued his final word on the subject is not helpful. On the matter of the existence of A & P, he may indeed have said all that can be said. It's a relatively binary issue: they either do or they do not exist. Honest people will disagree on this matter.
With respect to the insights that they generate, however, dialogue can indeed continue. In fact, it should. There are many different perspectives on the Course; it is in everyone's interests that they be clearly articulated. What is right for one person at a given moment in time is not right for another. So, each person will have to decide. DU helps in that effort.
-Jim Donnellan
On Minding My Business, Which This Email Proves I Do Not Do Very Well.....
Dear Course Community,
After reading Gary Renard's 'attack' of Jon Mundy's, Robert Perry's, and Greg Mackie's 'attacks' on him, I am inspired to 'attack' the whole lot of you teachers and say, "Let's bring some laughter into this conversation quickly before we all die of taking our opinions too seriously!"
To Gary I say please review the lessons, "If I defend myself I am attacked." as well as, "In my defenselessness my safety lies". To Greg and Robert and Jon I ask you to give Gary the benefit of the doubt... "I trust my brothers who are one with me." And to myself I refer to Course lesson 366, which reads: "Scott, mind your own business. To see an ego is to be an ego. Stop trying to point out errors in your brothers, get off the computer, and go find someone to extend love to."
OK I will.
But before I do that, let me just for one more moment leave my business and rub my nose in this stimulating conversation. And I do find it stimulating!
I do not perceive people attacking each other; if I did it would be my perceptions that would need to change. I see just brothers calling for love and searching for truth. For the record, I happen to believe it's quite possible that Gary did converse with a couple of ascended masters. In the flesh. Who am I to pretend to know the truth either way? Does that mean I hold Arten and Pursah's version of the Course as absolute truth? Not. I am uncomfortable with how they teach that one interpretation or translation of the Course is superior to the others. To me that's the very cause of warfare and conflict on this planet: worshipping opinions, interpretations, translations, and even holy or channelled books, instead of God.
And here's more of me not minding my business... I don't worship A Course In Miracles. I don't see it as superior, perfect or special. I read it and all channelled books with a grain of salt. I believe that Jesus had to work within and around Helen's resistance and filter his teachings through her belief system, a messy process indeed. The Course should not, in my humble opinion, be taken as consistent, pure, absolute truth. I do not blindly put my trust in any written (or spoken) words, A Course In Miracles or not, without checking in with my discernment, my inner teacher, which I thank the Course for helping me get in touch with.
I am of the opinion that there is no such things as an infallible Course, approach, teacher or method. Words are but symbols of symbols, filtered through the distortions of human minds. And that's just fine with me. My trust is in God, not in methods. The Course works for me because I work it, not because it is perfect, special, or a 'clear channeling'. The question I bring to a spiritual book or a path in this wide world of illusion is not, 'Is it true'? but 'Is it helpful to my awakening process in this moment?' Gary's, Robert's, Ken's, and Jon's books and articles have all been helpful to me at times. I am grateful for each of them for their gifts and commitment to serve and contribute.
Of course, the only true teachers of the Course are Rev. Tony and Rev. Larry. Just kidding.
Could it be that Robert Perry and Ken Wapnick, Gary Renard and Jon Mundy offer equally valid approaches to the Course, and that people are going to be drawn to the teachers and approaches that can best help them? Different strokes for different folks?
Could it be that the entire C.C.C. (Course Community Controversy) is serving to illuminate and bring up for healing just how attached we can all be to being right?
For me, the entire question of which interpretation or translation is more valid, accurate or true to the Course seems off purpose, silly and sad. It reminds me of the Democrats and Republicans not working together to solve problems cause they are so busy bickering and cherishing their differences.
If Robert, Greg, Jon and Gary can't sit around at the next Miracles Conference and hug and laugh about all this like brothers, then they have work to do.
And if I think I am separate from and above the controversy because I am offering these perceptions, then I have work to do. I have been about the business of taking myself and my opinions way too seriously many times, and I am confident that before even this day is over I will do so again.
Minding my business, the Atonement business, is a full time job, and I've got some work to do.
The work as I see it is to put first things first; to put being a Teacher of God first, a teacher of the Course, second. That's minding my business!
Much Love,
-Scott Kalechstein
Couldn't get past the first paragraph as the idea of God judging anything was a "don't go there" red flag for me. The Course is very clear about there being no peace in the midst of a battleground. Someone here needs to lay down their sword. The course is equally clear of what to expect from walking away from this issue.
-Jack Canning Carmel Valley, CA
I've read DU, YIR, The Course (both versions) several times, The Miracle Principles, Path of Light, several video's and other texts, and have been to the Pathways of Light facility in Kiel, WI.
I've always been skeptical of the "ascended masters" but I do know that DU was instrumental to introducing me (and literally thousands of others I suspect) to The Course in Miracles.
If one chooses to believe on not believe about "the masters" there is no difference.You can look at it as just interesting reading (I've actually read it carefully twice, with one year between readings) or have faith that it's true. It doesn't matter. The point is that it has brought the course into the lives of so many. How can one believe "the attackers", when this is the exact opposite of the course? Shameful.
Sincerely,
-Paul W. Sauers B.A., D.O., FACOI, FACC, FACP
My gut reaction to Gary Renard's books is that A&P probably never existed on the level of form. But so what? The message is what matters.
By my interpretation of the Course, getting stuck on the message source, on the level of form, is antithetical to Course teaching. This principle holds for the Course itself. Although my gut reaction is that Jesus is the source of the Course, who knows and who cares? Maybe Jerry Springer cares.
The message in Gary's book DU is helpful. It does rehash Ken Wapnick's ideas, but in a catchy, entertaining way. I never read YIR because I browsed it at the bookstore and it looked a little too goofy to be edifying, especially the story about Bev H-M.
In that context, the three articles questioning DU's validity (on the level of form, of course) are an attack, and are unworthy of all of you. It may be useful to question DU's validity, but only if it is done with love. Those articles have no love in them.
Gary's response is too long and involved for me to read in its entirety, partially because its fearfulness was perturbing. His long, involved response gives your articles power. Its defensiveness is unworthy of him, and it made him less safe.
Nothing positive can come of this debate with the current thinking. Meanwhile, it is a disappointing downer to many of us out here in cyberspace. Why don't you all just let it drop for awhile, until you are sure that you have real forgiveness around the matter.
For perspective, I can recognize lack of love and fearfulness because of their prevalence in my own behavior. I value having these behaviors observed and commented upon ::lovingly:: by others, because this helps me overcome my own substantial ego. I hope you can take this e-mail similarly.
-Molly
Dear Circle, Robert and Greg,
Thank you for posting G. Renard.s REPLY.
My only thought was: " In my defenseless lies my strength". His reply is a pretty negative and one long ATTACK on Jon, Robert , and Greg !!! You were correct to post this on your WEB SITE. I personally, have always felt that YOUR INTERPRETATION of the COURSE is very loving and has always helped me to understand the Course on the level of consciousness I'm at NOW.
LOVING REGARDS,
-Victor Strammiello
RE: Gary Renard Debate
Here is a quote from the section in the Manual for Teachers on trust, the foundational characteristic of God's Teachers:
The teachers of God have trust in the world, because they have learned it is not governed by the laws the world made up. It is governed by a power that is in them but not of them. It is this power that keeps all things safe. It is through this power that the teachers of God look on a forgiven world.
When this Power has once been experienced, it is impossible to trust one¢s own petty strength again. Who would attempt to fly with the tiny wings of a sparrow when the mighty power of an eagle has been given him? And who would place his faith in the shabby offerings of the ego when the gifts of God are laid before him? (M-4.I.3-7)
I have no vested interest on any side of this debate, I merely pose one question for you to ponder: if one truly and implicitly trusts in God, if one truly believes that nothing real can be threatened, does any of this matter at all?
If Renard's work is a hoax, so what? Perhaps this will reflect negatively on the Course, does this really matter? Why would you fear that people will view this Course in one way or another? Can one man's view change God's divine plan, can even the perception of masses project itself upon our true Reality?
One more quote, from the section in the text on teaching and healing:
The Holy Spirit will help you reinterpret everything that you perceive as fearful, and teach you that only what is loving is true. Truth is beyond your ability to destroy, but entirely within your ability to accept. (T-5.IV.1:2-3)
Clearly Renard has a long way to go in his lessons of Forgiveness, or he would not be using his books as a platform to vent his personal grievances. Yet can he not still be used as an instrument for good? If people take his word as gospel rather than ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, they are not really practicing the Course anyways. If, on the other hand, people are exposed even to one kernel of Truth through his writing, has he not performed us all a great service?
The entire tone and form of Mr. Renard's article is anger, attack, and egodefense. It seems to me that anyone with a basic understanding of these concepts of ACIM can see that his words are ego based and self revealing - without the slightest awareness of all the referenced articles or his books.
To me, this article by Mr. Renard clearly shows he does not represent the fundamental teachings of the Course, and therefore should not be seen as a valid Course teacher. For me, this is completely sufficient to dismisshis views, books, and discourse.
-Richard McClelland
Greetings to all at the Circle,
I just finished reading Gary Renard's response to the series of articles written by Greg, Robert, and Jon Mundy which critique Gary's work. Unfortunately, Gary is his own worst ambassador. The article was full of vitriol and read more like the angry rantings of a spiritual "robber baron" intent on aggressively preserving his mystical market share than the reasoned response of a "happy learner."
Having said that, I'm in a bit of a quandary. In my opinion most good Course students would (at the very least) feign a respect for other spiritual paths as other forms of the "universal curriculum"...equal in goal and outcome...just not, as the Course states, made for them (T-18 VII.6:5). As Course students, we're asked not to judge Christianity over Buddhism; Judaism over Islam; Wicca over Druidism; and on and on...Why, however, do we not accord the same respect to differing interpretations/perspectives...whatever you want to call it...of the Course? The Circle is fond of the phrase, "Let's see what the Course says about it." Although, I don't have access to all the citations, I feel safe in saying there are numerous assertions that the Course sees itself as just one of the world's pathways to God...no more or less valid...or effective. Yes, the Course says it will save time...for the folks for whom the Course is their path. I doubt Mother Theresa (IMHO) would've saved much time with the Course and yet nobody...even that poor misguided guru, Ken Wapnick, can deny her spiritual greatness.
I have no idea whether or not Gary Renard entertained two "enlightened masters" in his home as if they were characters in a Noel Coward play. If he is truly deceiving himself and others, well...isn't it our ONE job to accept the Atonement for ourselves? Should we not rejoice at the opportunity to forgive the guilt exposed for us by our brother and Savior, Gary Renard? Who am I to say that Gary Renard's version of the Course is not valid? Furthermore, although I've found the Circle's interpretation of the Course to be more in line with how I read the Course, I also find it hard to discount the fact that for many people...Ken's version of the Course probably works better. I think discussions like this invite the kind of judgment that the Holy Spirit is actively seeking to eradicate from our consciousness: My Course is better than your Course! (with apologies to the good folks at Alpo). It feels as though this "true Course" debate smacks of a subtle...well, maybe not so subtle form of spiritual specialness. The double standard of not judging other spiritual paths and then "critiquing" (attacking?) other Course interpretations troubles me...I obviously have some forgiveness work to do!
Respectfully,
-Joe Kelley
Hello
I want to express my support for Gary Renard and his books. My intuition is that for me they have cut through years of potential misunderstanding about ACIM; highlighting its core message brilliantly, and opening up the text of ACIM to me in a way that was not possible before. At least in my case, I feel strongly that the Holy Spirit is working through these books.
A critical issue I would like addressed is this: beyond sectarian differences (Wapnick v Circle of Atonement) is there anything about the ACIM teaching as presented in Gary's books that you believe is incorrect, and damaging to a student's progress with ACIM? If so, I would respectfully request that you specifically identify what teachings, and explain how it is damaging, and what the correct interpretation of the ACIM teaching in question/ application is.
Regards
-Chris Holland
Sydney, Australia
I think that Ken Wapnick has been misquoted through the process known as selective perception. It could be helpful if Perry concentrates on looking at the common factors that unifies different teaching methods rather "exposes" the differences. All I can say is that Wapick never bothers about what Perry says but Perry worries about what Wapnick says. Let the reader therefore judge which path to follow.
Re: "Disappearance of the Universe"
Although I have had some exposure to ACIM, I have not to this point been a regular reader, much less a scholar, of the material. Hence I may claim a degree of impartiality in the debate here. I had never heard of Gary Renard prior to two weeks ago. Having read a glowing reference in an amazon.com reader review of a different book, I decided to obtain a copy of DU. Having done so, I was pleased to discover I was to receive through it the benefit of the wisdom of ascended masters. Fifty pages into the book, I was completely disgusted and depressed, the text being so clearly the production of a single voice - and hardly a sublime one. I went on to read other large portions of it but, even where a respectable degree of intelligence and familiarity with various topics was evident, found the overall tone by turns nihilistic and - I know it will sound strong, but fascistic, really, in its aggressive and self-congratulatory dogmatism.
Thank you to Greg Mackie for explicating the points that "Renard's response to the masters is unconvincing", "the masters are unconvincing and at times downright unattractive", "the dialogue is unconvincing as a dialogue between different entities", and "DU contains numerous factual errors" - thus saving me from having to do it myself. Thank you to Robert Perry for his astute analysis of why it matters whether or not Renard's book is founded on a fraudulent claim (understanding of which I am amazed to see escapes so many contributors to this discussion). Also, thank you to Robert Perry for his comments on the substance of ACIM, whereby I am encouraged to become more of a student - which certainly would not be the case had my most recent impression of it remained that conveyed in DU.
-Day Irmiter
Dear Mr. Perry,
Just to correct the typical misinformation which you like to print at your website, I'd like to point out that a Bob Hoekstra misrepresents an interview with me. That interview is available for all to see at my website. If you go to www.GaryRenard.com and click on "Interview" at the top of the homepage you'll see it.
Mr. Hekstra says that I stated I always wanted fame as a spiritual teacher. I never said that. He says, "a follower of his now claims that they are pursuing an offer made by a Hollywood celebrity to reproduce the conversations on tape." That's not true. It's just made up. (Plus there's already an audio book of the conversations anyway.)
Mr. Hoekstra says, "'When asked further whether he just happened to have a tape recorder handy for the first visit..." and then gives a made up quote. I was never asked that and I never said I had a tape recorder available for the first visit." See the interview. Yes, I did record the remaining conversations, which is old news.
I find it absurd that those who are so determined to attempt to attack me and my story find it impossible to get their facts straight. I also find it interesting that you are so eager to print such garbage. The truth is my story has always been consistent and has never changed. But then you made sure that fact wouldn't get out to the people who the articles were sent to for at least two months, didn't you? You have done a disservice to the Course community and you're hurting the Course. In the meantime, I did a sold out workshop today in New Jersey and continued to share the message of the Course. What a contrast between your actions and mine. I can only hope that eventually you'll recover from your addiction to controversy and start teaching A Course in Miracles.
Sincerely,
-Gary Renard
Robert responds:
As you can see if you read our reader feedback section, we print feedback on both sides of the issue. Our only stipulation is that "only feedback that is respectful in tone with be published." I don't know how to say this delicately, but because you figure so prominently in this issue, we have made an exception in your case.
If you can still find and read an early interview done by D. Patrick Miller with Gary, you will find lots of holes in his story of the two ascended masters that he seems to be constantly creating new tales to fill in the gaps.
When questioned how he was able to remember exactly what his two ascended masters told him from over 9(?) years ago, he replies that he recorded the conversations on tape. When asked further whether he just happened to have a tape recorder handy for the first visit, he replies glibly that he just remembers that conversation very well since he has a great memory. When questioned why he destroyed the tapes he replies that the Ascended masters instructed him to do so to avoid controversy. I find if strange that now that he is has gained the fame that he stated he always wanted as a "spiritual teacher", a follower of his now claims that they are pursuing an offer made by a Hollywood celebrity to reproduce the conversations on tape.
The Truth doesn't need to be wrapped in a lie to be accepted. In fact, most people will throw out many elements of the truth when they find out that the story that they think gives the words authenticity is a lie. I have offered Gary's book to skeptical friends of mine as an introduction to the ideas in the Course. After finding out more about details of Gary's "guidance", I am embarrassed that I had offer this "help" to my friends who now have further rejected the whole notion of the Course.
I hope that Gary doesn't end up on the Oprah show. I would hate to have the Course community have to go through the same embarrassment that another recent author went through when his book was found to be fiction.
-Bob Hoekstra
Dear Mr. Perry,
I didn't realize this, but it's also been brought to my attention that you sent out an e-mail to your database of 8,000 people with links to the 3 negative articles about me at your website, once again with no response from me. Without addressing the fact that combined with the three negative articles being presented in Mr. Mundy's "Miracles" magazine without a response from me, there has never been such an agressive, negative action taken by Course teachers against another one in the history of the Course community, I'd like to request that when my response article is available that you also send an e-mail to your database of 8,000 people with the link to it. If you only put the link at your website then, as you know, only a fraction of the people you sent the e-mail to will be aware of it.
Your efforts to present only one side of the story and have three negative articles about me and my books presented to people without having even one that gives my perspective is indeed curious. Not only have you called me a liar without proof, but you seem afraid that people will be able to read the alternative. Let me emphasize that it is you who have attempted to attack me. You said in your last response to me that you did it the way you did because you wanted to emphasize the "gravity" of the situation. How heavy. Yet the "situation" was made up by you. Thus it's your responsibility to present a balanced point of view to the people you sent the attack articles to, if you choose to. If you do not then it simply shows your fear of being exposed for the controversy addict that you are.
Sincerely,
-Gary Renard
Robert responds:
Gary,
You can be assured that, even if you hadn't written, what you ask for here would have been done.
Robert
Dear All,
I have read the three articles re: Gary Renard and his books, his books and the reader feedback as well as Robert Parry's response to why the articles were written and GR's recent response, etc. And I have to say I am still puzzled about the 3 articles.
I was recently reading Ch 12 in the text, The Judgment of the Holy Spirit.
You have been told not to make error real, and the way to do this is very simple. If you want to believe in error, you would have to make it real because it is not true. But truth is real in its own right, and to believe in truth you do not have to do anything. Understand that you do not respond to anything directly, but to your interpretation of it. Your interpretation thus becomes the justification for the response. That is why analysing the motives of others is hazardous to you. If you decide that someone is really trying to attack you or desert you or enslave you, you will respond as if he had actually done so, having made his error real to you. To interpret error is to give it power, and having done this you will overlook truth.
and so on...
Am I over-interpreting this?
While it certainly does seem that the two books are a literary device gone wild it also seems that these articles may be an overreaction, including in terms of not making error real. So, I'm just not sure what to make of this.
I do understand the 'central importance of truth' and also of honesty as a charactistic of God's teachers. However, in my estimation continuing to teach and live the Course rather than pointing out the errors of others may well be the best response.
And here I am pointing out what I perceive to be the errors of others. It does start to be a cycle.
Kind regards,
-Robin Harper
Dear Mr. Perry,
It's been brought to my attention that you've posted links to three different negative articles about me and my books at your website. Also, I understand that you are following that up by posting partial and misleading information about my communications with Miracle Distribution Center. Normally, anybody would consider one article about someone at a time to be acceptable. However, to have three articles plus other misinformation at one website without offering the subject of those articles a chance to respond is not acceptable by any standards. Three against zero is ridiculous. For that reason I am requesting that when the time comes you include a link to my response article, which I will furnish you with, so that those with a trace of human decency can at least see another perspective on your trumped up and decked stacked controversy. Mr. Mundy has said that he will print my entire article in the magazine that also included these three articles with only one side of the story. In an e-mail dated October 11 he writes, "Just send the article- we'll publish it just as you send it - without one syllable being changed." We'll see if he keeps his word or not. In any case, there are witnesses as to what the article contains. So, I'd like to know if you will post my article at your website or not. Also, I ask that this message be posted in your "Reader Feedback" section about the three articles.
Sincerely,
-Gary Renard
Robert responds:
Good to hear from you. Actually, I was already planning on seeking your permission to post the piece you wrote for Jon. I would like to have it on our website. Unless I hear otherwise, I will wait to post it until Jon's magazine comes out.
You clearly think that posting three articles about you is unfair, yet if I have understood your public communications so far, you seem to feel that any questioning of the truth of your story is unfair. When I shared my conclusions privately with individuals who approached me directly, you considered that a covert attempt to undermine your career, and said so quite publicly. When there was a discussion of this question on your first internet forum, the forum was shut down. Now your current forum is told that the issue can' t be discussed until you decide if you feel guided to respond to our articles. It does make one wonder if there is any sort of discussion of this, public or private, that you would feel is appropriate. The three of us came out together because we wanted people to understand the gravity of the situation and because we wanted to show that this was not one person with an axe to grind, but different teachers coming from different starting points yet reaching the same conclusion.
Whether or not the recent articles about Gary Renard are an attack would be known only in the hearts of the writers of the articles. Dedication to truth sounds fine as far as it goes, but is not enough in itself.
I have not read DU, but have seen a DVD of a session with Gary. He is obviously intelligent and may not succumb easily to all the criticism. We will have to await his response.
Gary Renard has had popular success. The Da Vinci Code was a huge success, while many better books sold poorly. That is the way of the world. The best movie doesn't always win the Oscar.
Books about the Course will come and go, and the Course will remain. Early in the life of the Course it became popular, then people dropped off. There have been many ups and downs, and some unseemly episodes since then. I don't believe a teaching like the Course will ever be popular in the usual sense of that term, and anyone expecting popular success from serious Course scholarship is likely to be disappointed.
Ken Wapnick, a serious Course scholar, doesn't respond to the insubstantial pageant of argument on the Net and elsewhere. He just get's on with his own work. I am beginning to see the wisdom of this. Controversies will always be with us. There is a place for serious dialogue for those who wish to participate. There will also be the continuous temptation to get side tracked into endless disagreements about who is right and who is wrong. Such is life.
The Course, like all real spiritual teachings, will find its way through the thickets of the world, past those great imposters failure and success. Let us, in all humility, let Jesus guide the Course, through the love and forgiveness in ourselves.
-Mary Benton
Dear Robert and Greg,
I just saw Gary Renard yesterday for the third time, and wanted to see if he had become arrogant or self-serving since I saw him a year ago. What I saw was the same genuine, sincere, authentic Gary that I've always seen. The Holy Spirit clearly was present while he spoke.
In Your Immortal Reality Gary's ego surfaced in attacks on other Course teachers. However, everyone's ego has come out in this process of attacking Gary back. Just because Gary's ego arose does not mean that his experience with the ascended masters is a lie. His teachings are too powerful and helpful for his entire experience to be false. Given Gary's recent fallibility, it doesn't seem like he could have pulled off The Disappearance of the Universe by himself.
All of you-Robert, Greg, Jon, and Gary-are wonderful teachers and I respect and love you all. I choose to see only the Christ in each of us.
Sincerely,
-Lorraine Coburn
The following is excerpted from Beverly Hutchinson McNeff's Blog, which can be read on the Miracle Distribution Center's web site at http://www.miraclecenter.org.
In the last couple of years, an author named Gary Renard has repeatedly boasted about how many books he has sold. He has also been saying things about me, online and in his books, that just aren't true. He was very upset that the Center decided not to carry his first book and because of this went on a personal vendetta against me. He has decided that I don't like him and concocted a number of reasons why this is . . . the best one being the fact that he and I have been married in numerous past lives. As a matter of fact, in our most recent past life, he killed me, so I am pretty angry with him in this life! I should also tell you that the reason he knows all of this to be "true" is that his ascended masters told him so. The interesting thing is, no one clued me in on this. As a matter of fact, no one even clued me in on the fact that I even knew Mr. Renard well enough to be mad at him. But the truth is, Mr. Renard believes what he wants to believe. To paraphrase the Course, "No evidence will convince Mr. Renard of the truth of what he does not want."
Recently Jon Mundy, Greg Mackie and Robert Perry did an excellent job of examining Renard's work. I would like to relate to you from my personal experience.
In early 2005 Mr. Renard wrote to me,
"Whatever decisions you make about our relationship in the next six months or so will determine how you and Miracle Distribution Center are written about in that [my upcoming] book. If you care about your image and your place in Course history then you'll give very strong consideration to changing the nature of our relationship. The way things stand now, you will not be happy with my next book."
Interestingly, by publication time many of the words ended up coming out of his masters' mouths. I really don't take personal threats all that seriously, but when someone attacks the integrity of MDC, I feel impelled to respond. He has used his assaults on my integrity as a tool to impugn the Center and its good work. For the past 28 years, the staff of the Center have worked hard and tirelessly to serve students of A Course in Miracles. They have gone and continue to go out of their way to be "truly helpful." The staff and volunteers provide daily, one-on-one connection to seeking students of the Course. They talk to them on the phone, answer their needs by e-mail and letter, and pray with them daily. At the heart of MDC is service and support and to impugn that fact is to diminish every person who has found support and comfort in the Center's services.
I could fill a blog with letters of support and thanks for the services of the Center, but I don't think that is necessary. Those who have been blessed by the Center know it and those who want to believe the contrary, well, as the Course says, "No evidence will convince you of the truth of what you do not want."
Beverly Hutchinson McNeff, founder of Miracle Distribution Center.
Dear Robert,
Thank you for the recent articles on the Gary Renard book in the "A Better Way" newsletter I received today. I have tried reading this book several times. At every reading I would very clearly receive a message that this story is not true. I took the book off a shelf last night and thought I would give it one last try. This morning I read seven pages on the train while going to work. I closed the book and clearly knew that was not for me. Then I arrived at work and opened my e-mail to fine the latest "A Better Way." Both the article by Greg Mackie (which is excellent) and the article you wrote helped settled the matter for me. I will instead stick with Tara Singh, Marianne Williamson and you as true and trusted sources in my study of the Course. I am looking forward to your newest book.
Best,
-Kenny Vandenberg
I am really relieved to read these articles regarding Gary Renard's book. When I first picked up the book I could not put it down because I was really toying with the possibility that this did happen. But once I got into the book....I really did begin to feel decieved. Something just wasn't sitting well with me.
I whole heartedly agree that it is flat out unethical to make claims that something like this truly happened....because it plays on peoples spiritual well-being. I am glad I had the instinct to turn this story away when I did more than a year ago. At that time...it almost felt like I was being a bad course student...and that maybe the course wasn't for me.
I appreciate the teachers and authors on the C of A so much. This website has restored my belief that maybe the course IS for me after all.
Very Sincerely,
-Marcella Morris
Jon,
Of course you misquoted the course's stand on reincarnation by leaving out a couple of sentences in the middle of your quote:
Our only question should be, "Is the concept helpful?" 5And that depends, of course, on what it is used for. 6If it is used to strengthen the recognition of the eternal nature of life, it is helpful indeed. 7Is any other question about it really useful in lighting up the way?
When it says it is not real it is of course referring to the fact that nothing on the level of form is real and since we equate reincarnation with bodily form then it could not be real in that sense. It does not however dismiss that it occurs within the framework of the illusion. I am not defending Renard but if you are accusing him of using the Course in furtherance of his own purpose how is your misquoting it to make a point any different.
You are right, anger is never justified, by extension neither are sadness or disillusionment. Also good to keep in mind, "If you attack error in another, you will hurt yourself." T-3.III.1
I notice that Ken never endorses or discredits any other writer's approach to the course.
Thanks for the article, I enjoyed it.
-Mark Stilwell
Hi Robert, Greg, and Jon
I've been a student of the Course since 1992. The one positive I find about Gary's books are this: they are either bringing people back to the Course or introducing people to the Course for the first time. That's a definite plus.
With that said, I cannot say I find any uniqueness in what Gary has to say nor find any basis for believing his claims about his ascended masters. I also believe, very strongly, that Gary deviates from what the Course teaches in the exact same areas as Ken Wapnick.
I've been reading "channeled" material since the early 70's. My observation is that Gary's "ascended" masters have little if any original material to communicate. They also talk in ways that I would not associate with ascended masters. Finally, I've written two books, one of which uses a literary creation similar to Arten and Pursay. 80% of my book is dialogue with this "spirit." It was obvious from the early chapters of "Disappearance" that Arten and Pursah were literary creations of Gary's that he uses them as a mouthpiece for his own understanding, and as it turns out, for that of Ken Wapnick.
That last point was the most striking to me about Gary's books. I was a student of Ken Wapnick's for years. I've read almost all his books and still have a library of 75% of his tapes and CD's (available for sale if anyone is interested). As time passed, I found myself becoming more depressed as I listened to Wapnick, but didn't really know why. I had a sense of my being a puppet on a string of a single, larger Self that seemed very distant. I had, in short, given up studying the Course to the study of Ken Wapnick. I gave up on Wapnick when I read your book, "One Book, Two Visions." That book did more to clarify where Wapnick deviates from what the Course teaches than anything I've read. I thank you for that.
I absolutely agree with you, that, having been so immersed in Wapnick's materials, that Gary, Arten, and Pursah are, for the most part, parroting the teachings of Ken Wapnick. Gary lost all credibility with me when in the early pages of his second book he has the so-called ascended masters telling him that he (Gary) is one of only two people teaching the true Course. That other person, of course, is Ken Wapnick. It didn't make Gary a bad person to me. It did make him completely unbelievable.
I'm not out to judge, slam, or rip Gary and his books. They are what they are and his claims are his claims. But my position is he's simply reworking the teachings of Ken Wapnick and created the literary devices of ascended masters to help do so. Only Gary knows his motivations.
I've read many other books that deviate from the Course as well. Fortunately, we have the Course itself to be the ultimate source of what it really teaches. In the great scheme of things, true students of the Course will experience that Truth within their study AND practice of THE COURSE ITSELF. As long as there is a Course, there will be authors and speakers writing and speaking about it. Some will be right on, some not. It's been that way so far and will continue to be that way.
So Gary's books and all the hoopla surrounding them are a reminder to me to keep my eyes on the pages of the Course itself for the ultimate source of what it's teaching.
Forgiveness is,
-Ken Obermeyer
Having been introduced to ACIM through Gary's first book, and having attended one of his seminars, I guess my first reaction to this is "who cares?". DU provides an extremely cogent and entertaining introduction to ACIM. I would never have bought ACIM (much less stayed with it) without being convinced of its authenticity.
I feel the same way about Gary's 1st book. It Arten & Pursah provide a convenient devise for delivering the message, why agonize over whether or not A&P are "real". The Course says none of us are real (as separate entities) anyway. When Gary was on George Noory's radio show, all Noory wanted to do was to have Gary get to the "good stuff", i.e. the prophecies of the future. I think what you are saying kind of fits into that category. You're concentrating more on the form, and less on the content, as Ken W. would say. I think everyone should read DU, for the metaphysics and let the Holy Spirit handle the details. By the way, I do agree with you on Gary's second book. It was entertaining, but definitely not in the same league as DU.
Thanks for listening.
-Mike McGrath Long Beach, CA
I have been a long time student of Gnostic thought and ACIM. I am a big Wapnick fan and regulary read whatever he puts out there because of I love his work, all of it. FACIM is my first choice. However, I do like to peak in at the Circle of Atonement. Many members in my study group are regular readers of your site. Our study group had the pleasure of meeting Jon Mundy 4 or 5 years ago at John Sundes house and enjoyed a lovely meal and meeting with Jon. Jon gave me his book and I remember feeling warm and honoured to meet him.
I have read the Disappearnce of the Universe. I found the book light reading. When I read anything light, I skim it quickly. With my background of tackling difficult metaphysical concepts like the Gnostic Gospels and ACIM, reading light material is exhausting. This is why I quickly flip through the pages and search for whatever sparks my interest. If I'm sparked I will delve a little deeper to experience the meaning. Let me clarify for you what my meaning of "light reading" is for me. Light reading for me is boring, lacks meaning and consistency. I am sure that many people, and many people have shared with me, that they thoroughly enjoy DU. As well they enjoy Conversations with God. I have read these books, but for me the depth was lacking. Nothing much new, same old stuff, just a new form.
I left the DU with the impression that the man likely did experience contact with his spiritual guides but if I were in the room with him I would not experience the same contact because its his dream. And thats what this book really is, its a dream. I think books like this serve the Holy Spirit and I want to extend my thanks to Gary Renard for sharing his experience with the world. Nothing in the world of form is really important, behaviour, perceptions, beliefs, values all these ideas come from the content in our minds. And this is why the meaning is so important for me. When I read someone's thoughts I am searching for meaning. It doesn't mean that much to me that the writer had many past lives and prophecies about the future. I'm more interested in finding out how the writer has been assisted through his difficulties in the dream so that I may learn.
Thank you.
-Jackie Hilchuk
Dear Brothers in Christ:
I've not read DU nor do I have any interest in doing so. I did, however, find both of the subject COA articles to be the usual well thought out and presented pieces. Thank you Robert and Greg! This morning I read thru the many comments or feedbacks posted on this site and was reminded of a letter my partner, Jane, and I had written to the ACIM community during the time of the copyright controversy _http://www.jcim.net/Copyright/ToTeachers.html_ (http://www.jcim.net/Copyright/ToTeachers.html) the last paragraph of that letter follows:
"Our view is that those who are at loggerheads over this copyright issue, or any other issue, will not be at peace until they recognize and accept each other as their teachers, show sincere gratitude and forgiveness to each other, and gladly accept the correction that each offers the other. Joy is the only true state of mind, and joy lies in surrender. There is no reason NOT to surrender, as the Course itself is in excellent hands" (the Holy Spirit's), "and does not need any of our efforts to promote or sustain it or to make sure it is read correctly. The feeling of separation creates the issues that justify it. Only a miracle can erase that feeling of separation and thereby resolve those issues. We are told over and over that miracles are ours for the asking. Now seems to be an appropriate time to ask."
Jack Canning
Dear Mr. Mackie,
Kudos! Many thanks for your very articulate, thoroughly researched, and intelligently presented article. I can't tell you how relieved I was to read it.
Though I have been a spiritual student for twenty years, I have only recently begun to study ACIM. Naturally, studying the Course is a deep and profound experience.
When Gary Renard's book crossed my path I was initially resistant to it. Eventually, however, Amazon's readers recommendations wore me down. Of course, I was sucked right in, just like any good novel. However, despite the fact that it is quite a juicy spiritual read, parts about it hit me as just plain wrong. Namely, the tone, the crass language of A & P, and also it's arrogant superiority over all other teachings. Now, I believe that ACIM is from/by Jesus without any problem, but there was something about these two ascended masters that do seem all too human - and not very ACIM Jesus-like at all.
And by the way, why do they need Gary's lame sense of humor? He's not ever a little bit funny or clever. I will admit, the book has some great points in it. But I had a sense about it, and your excellent article confirmed my suspicions.
I was also so delighted to read your well-written article, because I was beginning to feel as though DU was implying that I was supposed to chuck all of my prior education in favor for this one text. But now I know that Renard's text takes so much from Ken Wapnick (who I had heard of, but never read) - therefore ultimately, we must assume that DU really expresses KW's ardent point of view about ACIM. You also mentioned other authors who had fudged their work. I'd like to add one. Lynn Grabhorn, who wrote the highly successful, "Excuse Me, Your Life is Waiting," took all of her information from Abraham-Hicks, but never gave them credit as far as I can tell. While she didn't claim to have originated the concepts she presented in her work, she alludes to some teachings, but she never elaborates which teachings. I know she's passed on, but it's still unethical, and not particularly enlightened behavior in my opinion.
But back for Gary. Some other discrepancies I'd like to add to your case about DU, if I may. The so-called masters tell him not to become a big shot (sorry, I can't recall on what page). Then I visit his website, and look who's the big shot? Also, he does not seem particularly enlightened in his behavior or presentation - as though he's never really studied the Course at all. Jesus was never defensive in a flurry of emails. Also, why would A & P appear only to him, if "they have other minds to blow?" And the idea that he's sexually attracted to an Ascended Master is just icky. Why? Because it's a weak device. Yes, sex sells, but does an ascended master need it to sell the profound messages from A Course in Miracles to a married yet-still horny mediator in Maine who rents "sexy movies" by himself? Clearly, this device was devised by a man, not a master. Spiritual logic presumes that Arten and Pursah would elevate their student, not get down on his sophomoric level. Unless of course, they're descended masters of Gary's imagination.
Respectfully yours,
-Alix Flood
Jon, Robert and Greg,
I totally agree with Ian Patrick's letter. When I read your articles I was so saddened and dismayed. Do we judge or do we forgive? Do we teach only love, or do we attack? Do we see oneness or separation? Why should I trust teachers who don't practice what they teach? I'm sorry, but my first response was that this is a witch hunt. Why was this necessary? I admire and respect all of you and your writings and hope you continue to write about the Course in ways that I have always found enlightening, uplifting and hopeful.
Everything can be used by the Holy Spirit, including Gary's books.
As Gamaliel told the Council in Acts 5:38-39, "For if this idea of theirs or its execution is of human origin, it will collapse; but if it is from God, you will never be able to put them down, and you risk finding yourselves at war with God."
Sincerely,
Joyce Treacy
I thought Jon Mundy posted a great article critiquing both of Gary Renard's books. I read DU and, like Jon, was initially taken in by the writing and the story and I attributed Gary's sometimes crude use of language as just his manner of attempting to be "down to earth". I then read Path of Light and was immediately overwhelmed by the difference in scope and quality of presentation of the course and wished I had simply read Path of Light and not wasted my time on DU. Not that DU does not have entertainment value while piquing one's interest for further inquiry into the course. If it gets one person like myself interested in becoming a student, then arguably, it may be worthwhile.
When Gary started advertising the second book, several times I almost bought it for another "hit" to keep my interest and because I could not get enough of the Course and anything about it. What stopped me from spending the money is the fact that I thought long and hard about whether I could really go see this guy and take him seriously after the claims that he made about the ascended masters visiting him in the flesh. If he had stated that they appeared to him in a dream or mystical vision, I could have gone for it. But let's face it, ascended masters (or any other entities, be they positive or demonic) do not materialize out of nothingness. To ask one to believe otherwise controverts one's intelligence.
I must also admit that while I do believe that the course has great value as a means of Self-actualization and psychological healing, I am compelled to state that I also possess a healthy dose of skepticism with respect to course metaphysics. I think it is very convenient to explain the negativity in the world by positing that the world is unreal and attributing all problems to the ego. It seems very convoluted to me to posit that a separation took place causing this world of illusion, but that in realitythis illusion never really happened (doesn't the Zen monk in you just shake his/her head in disbelief). I do well understand the concept of maya, but I also understand that no matter how one tries to put the mysterium tremendum or Great Mystery into a box, we cannot really explain everything nice and tidy and neat. If we could, it wouldn't be the Great Mystery, would it? I recognize that people who do accept everything about the course as absolute truth do so because its metaphysics take the fear and trembling out of life. But maybe we are meant to be awed by God as a Being that is totally other and beyond our comprehension as the Job of the Old Testament understood in his moment of revelation after his sufferings had finally come to an end.Ido understand the spark of the divine is in each of us, but I also know that the part can never understand the whole completely. While the course would take all of that fear and trembling out of life through its complex and convoluted metaphysics, I think it does so at the expense of removing much of the Mystery of life that is beyond our understanding. While loss of fear and trembling may be a good thing, the sense of awe and magic and fun that is also lost may not be.
Finally, a plug for mother nature. As we all know, the Course says that the world is not real and that nature is basically savage except for the elements that the Holy Spirit put into it to assist in the atonement (see Robert Perry article on Nature and the Course). I have tremendous difficulty accepting this. There just seems to be to much of a grand design going on in the movement of the planets, the complexity of the human brain and nervous system and the beauty of a blue sky with clouds dotting it, and flowers and beautiful sunsets to deny the grand design of a higher intelligence and I do not mean the ego. Nature is truly healing. One actually feels better being in natural places. Yes, the lion does not yet lie down with the lamb, but maybe, with our help, this world can be redeemed so that God's kingdom (Heaven) can be established right here on this earth so that it's disappearance will not be necessary and people will still be able to enjoy their children's laughter. I cannot imagine anything more delightful.
Love and blessings,
-Jeff Bronson
Dear Jon, Greg and Robert,
I read with interest the long article about Gary Renard. My own experience, and that of my family and friends here in Maine, is that Gary's book brought us back to the course. I began the Course in Miracles on my own in 1984 and picked it up again in 1995 and this third time in 2005. I am grateful for the opportunity that Gary's book has given me to deeply understand the central theme of the Course in Miracles - forgiveness. I have seen him speak several times and he is no different than you or I. He is sincere, gentle, funny, grateful and not perfect. He takes questions from the participants on any subject and is honest about his motives and his own spiritual journey. Most importantly he sticks to the course and its central teachings on forgiveness.
You are working very hard to prove him wrong and to discredit his character and his books. His books have brought so many of your brothers and sisters back to the Course in Miracles. Isn't this a wonderful outcome of Gary's work? I hope you will understand that we need Gary in our circle too. I encourage you and challenge you to spend as much time on finding ways to connect with his message. Surely this would be most productive for all of us! I look forward in the future to reading that wonderful article! In the meantime get to one of his workshops and experience him yourself. His workshops are fun, informative and engaging. Gary has taught me to lighten up on myself, slow down and catch the miracles happening all around me. Thank you for your thoughts in your article.
Sincerely Yours,
-Diana L.S. McCain
Hi
I just got Miracle Magazine just yesterday after I got several group email from back east about your latest articles over a week ago. Half of this magazine is about Gary Renard's work and the rest is mostly advertisement. Long ago I had to miss a lot of lecture and classes because I am profound deaf. Fortunately Allen Watson recommended me to get magazine from you. I love your magazine very much and I support you. When anyone look at cover of your magazine, it says "Miracles" and everyone expects to get miracles out of their miserable world of illusions. Be free from sin, sickness and death... ACIM is really hard book for me to read but your magazine with a lot of wonderful quotes is a big help on understanding more about ACIM as well as God, Love, Peace and Forgiveness.
Why do you, Robert and Greg give negative articles against Gary Renard? This is exactly like that you are hitting your own brother. Hate your own brother. The course says if you hate your brother, you condemn yourself. I bought and read Gary's two books but I am not interested on reading the whole book. I just respect Gary Renard's spiritual life. If he is really happy with his own experience, that is great. I don't have to believe him or something but the most important is to understand more about God, Truth. Make decision on right thought to see God better. When we get in Heaven, there is no longer difference but perfect oneness with God. Don't be like hardhead Christian who is trying to prove other wrong by pointing on quote from ACIM. Just change your mind to see other better...
I have read many spiritual books containing angels, ascended masters, psychic stuffs, fairy tales and dreams, etc. Bible contains many fairy tales like burning bush, translating to Heaven, Mary's dream of angels, Jesus' instant miracle, etc. On recent event, there are near death experience, seeing Mary in Fatima, St. Christopher carrying Christ, talking with past life or spiritual guides, etc. Read many stories of official Saints from Roman Catholic Church. These are more outer than inner, etc, or more material stuff. My late friend used to have many spiritual communication through dream, feeling, etc. I believe I have seen angels when I was three and one day I got angelic talk with me that was from my own mom. I respect them and I am not planning to write a book about my short unexpected spiritual experience because I have a feeling of someone who will judge me anyway… I am sure that there will have few more that are similar to ACIM but completely different style of language. Just let them go...in peace and happiness.
I read many spiritual group email message about Gary Renard. Many people REALLY like his spiritual talks. Many said that never heard of ACIM till they read Gary's book DU. Also many said ACIM is too difficult book till they read Gary's books. They are happy with him. I have over ten years of reading "Science and Health" before I discovered ACIM. I read ACIM a lot on Christian Science way and Christian Science is very focus on healing. Many ACIM leaders do judge against Christian Science work. I am interested only this book, not organization. I keep this to myself. I wasn't interest in ACIM because this book was too difficult for me to understand till I read book "Return to Love". For years many Course organization didn't respect or accept this "Return to Love"... why? May be part of power struggle? Many are against Ken Wapnick's writing and they are just mad at them because of past copyright problem.
I am still restless seeker for truth, happiness, peace, healing, etc. I have been suffered a lot because I am on very thin line between hearing and deafness. ACIM, Science and Health, and other spiritual books are big help. I do really enjoy reading Miracle Magazine, Better Way, etc. This is so rich full of quotes out of ACIM and other spiritual writing. I expect your magazine to be positive, lovable, peace, healing, and being free from suffering, sickness, sin and even death... I am still looking for better life. If you dislike other's work or publication, don't print in your magazine. Just let him go. Just FOCUS only on true Miracle...for everyone.
Thank you very much for your time. I forgive you. I love you as
much as God... I am glad to meet you one day in Seattle and thanks
for your patience with me. I support you.
-Willy
Hello Jon and Robert
When I saw the "title of the book" I just knew the story was fiction. And when I got to page 95 and saw the extensive "commercial" for Dr. Wapnick, that confirmed it. Probably why he was allowed to give soooooooooo many quotes from the Course
Alas the two visitors must not have been privy to Jesus' Guidelines to Helen and Bill (which Bill personally told to me; one of them being that nobody was to teach the *Meaning* of the Course, save He and the Holy Spirit (Why? because the timing-the readiness of the student's mind to receive the Revelation is known only to God)
And I just sent you His commentary on the subject but I'll
restate it here as follows:
Jesus sets the record straight . .
Excerpt: from ACIM Course Study with Raj/Jesus April 3rd, 2006,
conducted by the NWFFACIM
"There is talk of the disappearance of the Universe. It has presented itself in the context of the teaching of A Course In Miracles. Let me just set one thing straight. The only thing that is ever going to disappear is, or the only things that are going to disappear are sin, sickness, and death-the mortality of the Universe-the potential for deterioration of the Universe and anything in it."
"The capacity of any part of the Universe to be so at odds with itself that it can become attached to being self-destructive, which is what sin is, that is the only thing that can disappear. Look forward to the disappearance of those. And let that be enough said about that."
Nevertheless, the book has and continues to draw many to the Course. And that is very good. Too bad, though, that the misperceptions of "body" and "world" being taught by Wapnick have been so skewed to annhilate all of God's Creation, however, what with the HLC and URtext now available, perhaps that can be all corrected with new students getting off on the right foot.
Ineffable love
-Trisha Aude
Jon,
I read the second article (Sept) first, then found the first (July)and read it. Clearly you had already made up your mind in the first article that Gary's experiences were a hoax and so gathered and presented evidence that his work fell into the same category as all the other hoaxes that you had encountered or found. That is both illogical and unfair. With all due respect to your standing in the ACIM community, your argument and the position you've taken is disappointing.
You've gone to great lengths to quote Arten and Pursah speaking to Gary in the same lingo that he uses as though this proves that he is making it all up. Yet even the Course itself was given in language that Christians can relate to because that is the audience it was primarily intending to reach. Why wouldn't ascended masters use the same principle? Why is it easy to believe that Helen Schucman could have experienced over seven years of sustained channelling, yet it is so hard to believe that someone besides Helen Schucman could have a supernatural experience of their own and report about it?
You stated that Helen never profited from the Course as though this fact somehow lends credibility to her experience, implying that Gary's experience is not credible because he wrote books and is making his living by selling the books and going around telling about his experience...in the language that is his, crass, vulgar as it can sometimes be, but it's his. Who are we to judge? Isn't that rather like the kettle calling the pot black? Do you make your living with your writing and teaching? hmmm? What's the difference here exactly?
And what is the point of criticizing the language he uses when he has clearly opened the Course to a whole new audience and re-enlivened the Course for others who have found it to be somewhat daunting in its complexity? Okay, so "just kidding" has become part of his and Arten's and Pursah's lexicon and using it so often may have some questionable psychological implications, but so what? It's all just a dream and he's just inviting a group of interested folks to dream the same dream he's dreaming, and a lot of people are finding it's an interesting dream to sit in on. We are ALL making it up, whatever our experience may be. The world we see is created by the perceptual filters that we ourselves hold in place. But you knew that. You've been a student of the Course for so long, you had to know that. So the points you are trying to make in your articles to discredit Gary's work are about what exactly?
Why do you feel the need to criticize and castigate? Where is the truth in that? You've given a lot of time and energy to labeling Gary's experience as a hoax...is it, as the Course says, because you believe you yourself to be a hoax?
When it comes down to discerning truth, the measurement is always whether or not it is helpful. Gary's work stands on its own merit in that regard. Can you honestly say that your two articles do likewise?
Let there be peace in the world, and let it begin with me.
-Linda Witt-King
Hello to all,
With regard to the e mail print opinions I've read recently reagarding DOU by Gary R. Renard....
Do not shoot the messenger...ACIM has made clear to me... the understanding of FORM. If DOU's inception, reception, does not fit into someone's box...does not mean that it is not a possibility. Truth is not Limited. Deliverance and Clarification of Truth is not Limited...that would be limiting GOD. ACIM calibrates only (according to David Hawkins) at 600...that is Peace ..Hence the Foundation for Inner Peace. After all ... until Helen's dying day she struggled with the message and the messenger and the FORM of how the message came.
In Truth there is no Reincarnation...because at point Zero there isn't and that is my interpretation of what ACIM means by there is no past, present or future.
Truth manifests itself in various FORMS and will continue to...it's undefinable in our language and FORM..
Want outrageous Truth and an Outrageous Messenger...(FORM)...I challenge all dedicated students of ACIM to spend 10 years of their lives with Ramtha The Enlightened One...that will stretch ones box. (I have)
Love Ramtha
Love ACIM
Love DOU
Love Journey Beyond Words
Love David Hawkins
Love 20 years and One Hundred Thousand Dollars spent on Work Shops,
Books etc. etc. and the truth is I AM GOD...
TRUTH IS BECAUSE I
I AM THAT WHICH I AM BECOMMING.
"Truth is a subjective experience understood through personal relativity...and everyone has their own Truth".
The Divinity in me Salutes the Divinity In All of You.
-Sigrid DiBella
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I have the Workbook Companion books and I just love them. I am now doing the Course for the 3rd time and understand so much more than when doing it in a group.
Love Jon Mundy's books
Come on do you have to knock Gary Renaud's books and One Course Two Visions is difficult to read because to me it just seems like one attack after the other.
Your attacks are really disappointing, you would think you would know better.
I forgive this
-Rosemary Ellmers
-Greg:
Thank you for having the courage and integrity to write and publish your well done piece on Renard and his books. My first exposure to DU and Renard was by way of the audio CD version of the book whereon Renard plays himself.
It occurred to me as I listened, that this material had an "edge" to it that most assuredly did not convey a sense of the holy, the divine, or the transcendent.
For my own purposes, I termed it, "Smart aleck metaphysics."
Bright blessings and thanks again
-Charles
Dear Jon
After reading the recent posts from you, Robert, and Gregg, I would like to send out a warm and loving thank you for questioning the reality of these ascended masters who visited Gary Renard. I cannot agree with you more on this subject.
I have been involved with the course for over fifteen years studying and working with many of the teachers of God. At this time I am sending out my support to Robert Perry, Greg Mackey and Beverly Hutchinson. I find it impossible to place trust in a self-proclaimed ascended master that could be so harsh in dealing with other course teachers.
Thank you "All" once more for all the wonderful work you do to
Denial of error is a strong defense of truth, but denial of truth results in miscreation, the projections of the ego. T2 II 2.5
Christ stands Before you T 25.V 2.9
Rev. Lee Poepping
Silent Miracles
From NewHeavenNewEarth (NHNE) news service
I received a copy of "The Disappearance of the Universe" by Gary Renard when it was first published. Because of the similarity to Jimmy Twyman's "Emissary of Light" story http://www.nhne.com/specialreports/sremissary.html I had no interest in reading the book. Nor was I interested in turning NHNE loose on trying to discern if Gary's extraordinary claims-that he had been physically visited 17 times over the course of nine years by two former disciples of Christ who were now ascended masters championing the teachings of A Course In Miracles- were true. These claims were so similar to other claims that I had examined, and debunked, that I didn't want to waste my time-or yours.
I am, therefore, glad to report that portions of the Course Community have finally begun to seriously question the authenticity of Renard's claims. For those of you who are interested, the current issue of Miracles Magazine http://www.miraclesmagazine.org/ features three articles challenging Renard's tale on multiple fronts.
While Renard's story revolves around A Course In Miracles, it is important to realize that his claims, coupled with a growing list of possible moral and ethical failures, are by no means unique to the Course community. Similar stories have and continue to appear everywhere humans gather to make sense of our lives and existence.
Why? How? And for what purpose?
In the 1998 report on James Twyman, I wrote:
"To date, not one story like this I have ever heard has turned out to be true, nor have the champions of such stories been able to prove themselves authentic messengers of God. If the story itself is not proven false (which is often difficult to do since physical evidence is usually absent), then the prophetic messenger eventually succumbs to the kind of character flaws that spawned the story in the first place - lies, abuse of power, sexual indiscretions, underhanded financial dealings, slight-of-hand with respect to supposed powers, plagiarism, and other moral failures. The darker aspects of these self-appointed prophets, in other words, eventually catch up with them - even though it may take years, sometimes decades or even centuries for this information to become public knowledge. Character flaws, of course, are not limited to deluded seekers. But whereas authentic spiritual figures wrestle with these flaws in the open, admitting their weaknesses and striving to overcome them, their misguided counterparts go to great lengths to hide their flaws behind carefully crafted spiritual personas."
Will Renard's story stand the test of time and serious inquiry where all others like it have failed? Miracles Magazine plans to publish Renard's response to the issues raised by Mundy, Mackie, and Perry in their next issue http://www.miraclesmagazine.org/new Subscribe to Miracles Magazine.
David Sunfellow
Jon, Greg and Robert,
Maybe I'm just thinking aloud at the end of a long day, regarding what you have written about Gary Renard... but...
I have been known to deceive, lie, be self-serving, rude and aggressive. I have been known to make threats. Maybe I've even plagiarized.
Though all of the above have been on a smaller scale than, apparently, Gary Renard, Gary is still showing me a part of my mind. Isn't that the nature of the world?
So, what do I do with that? Do I condemn, or forgive?
Let anyone who has never deceived, lied, been self-serving, rude, aggressive or made threats 'cast the first stone'.
"Only the self-accused condemn." (ACIM)
Maybe I live in a quiet backwater of the Course community, but I have
never come across anyone who has been put off the Course by
Gary Renard's books. Quite the opposite. As an example, at a
workshop last weekend, out of 8 people present, 2 had got into the
Course because of Disappearance. I know so many people who say that
DU made the Course suddenly make sense. The same is true of many
people I met at the Salt Lake City conference last year. There are
friends of mine, who found the Course too difficult, but have gone
back to it because of DU. All have said they like it because it made
sense, it clarified the Course, because it was readable, etc. For
that, I am grateful to Gary.
Best wishes,
-Ian Patrick
I have read both Greg and Robert's articles. Here are my thoughts (sorry its brief):
Both Greg and Robert have raised important issues regarding the authenticity of DU. Perhaps the following points are worthy of consideration:
- The ascended masters (AMs) use ridicule and the threat of nuclear attack in their dialog. The Course says that a good teacher never bullies his students. Is fear now back on the curriculum as a legitimate teaching aid?
- The AMs use crudeness in their speech which I cannot recall in any other respected Course teacher. Did Jesus try to popularize his work in this way?
- Reincarnation (and future lives). The Course steers well clear of this issue because it is such an ego trap. How can you live in the moment if you are thinking about the future or the past?
In the end, each one of us must decide for ourselves if DU is authentic. What we must not do is let the ego use this issue to distract us from our commitment to practicing the principles of the Course, the most important of which is forgiveness.
Mike Tolley
As a child I loved to read fairy tales. Later I turned to science fiction. Then weary of impossible worlds and the use of my mind as a waste basket, I returned to college. After college I was ready for the truth and found ACIM. And fortunately found Circle of Atonement just in time, as I was ready to quit. The Wapnick sci-fi version just didn't have logic or understanding but was pushy and demanding.
Opinion on DU....Just the title of the book turned me off, but I
skimmed thru it anyhow. At best (worst ?) that sort of story gives
people who aren't ready for the truth something to hang onto or
they jump into some controlling religion. And for those who
aren't ready for truth or more religion...my advice is indulge
your science fiction urges by reading the really great fantasy
authors. It is a lot more entertaining.
-Diana Snow
I just received from Jon Mundy the articles he wrote as well as your's and Greg's from Miracle Magazine. I'm always glad for your thoughtful approach, but nowhere is it more evident than in your article. I can readily understand that you wrote in a directed state.
I think that ACIM shows that the ego attacks, is defensive, or withdraws. It really depends upon how much power over the situation it feels it has. I don't know what you think about that, but I'm glad to know that you didn't just withdraw, since so many students of ACIM think that withdrawal is holy, as in turn the other cheek. My experience shows me that the HS can direct us any number of actions.
Anyway, just a note of support and thanks,
Blessings to you and your family,
-Harry McDonald
I recently read Robert Perry and Gregg Mackie's articles about Gary Renard's DOU..I found this all to be very upsetting..ACIM is my spiritual journey..Circle of Atonement has been my spiritual home...I attended Gary's first ever 5 day workshoop at Omega Institute in July 2005 and found him to be very humble and very believeable ..Yes there were some ego behaviors that were problematical..So I am confused! I understand the need for the truth..But when is it about being right or forgiving? What is the difference? Why are you both addressing this now rather than when the book was published? Please counsel me about this.. What is the difference between being appropriately critical and attacking??
Thank you and Peace,
-Carol
I am writing this note though, because I wanted to mention my experience with Gary Renard's book, The Disappearance of the Universe. I read both of your commentaries this evening. I have always been a voracious reader of metaphysical books-usually bought them hot off the press and constantly kept tabs on what was new. This year I've been so steeped in the Course that for the most part I haven't had the desire (or time!) to read much of anything else. I think the Course has "spoiled" my reading habit-other writings now seem sort of inferior and irrelevant. However I did buy Renard's book because I kept seeing it referred to in so many places. I ordered it by mail, and took two minutes to flip through it when it came. I got a very negative vibe and put it down. I had the thought that I should just pitch it, but since I paid good money for the thing, I disregarded that thought. I forgot about the book until much later and then took another look. I spent about 5 minutes with it and again got the distinct impression it would be a waste of my time and that I should throw it away, which I did.
Thanks for your thoughtful and well-informed commentaries.
You've confirmed for me, my guidance on that book was the real
thing. Bless you both!
-Sharon Edwards
Thank you so much for questioning the reality of the ascended
masters who visited Gary Renard. As an ex-University Lecturer and a
long term student of ACIM I hated DU because it just did not ring
true, but many friends who loved it were outraged when I questioned
the reality of these ascended masters-so thank you again for
expressing all my own doubts on your site and thank you all again for
all the wonderful work you do to assist students of ACIM to get
maximum benefit from studying it
-Peggy Foster
I'd like to add my name to the waves of emails from people who question this guy's veracity. I was stunned, when I first read an excerpt of the book, by its inept and sometimes crude style. There was never any doubt in my mind that it was a construct of Gary's. (Bless his little pointed head.)
Thank you for writing the article. It seems important to me that
we not just ignore his claims.
-Faye Parker
Thanks Jon for copying me on this. You and Robert are essential to Course Integrity. I am grateful for each of you!!
PLJ!
-Howard Westin
Dear Greg, thank you for your wonderful article re: G. Renard's book. I read both books lately and felt very much the way you do. The book was very slanted in one political, spiritual direction. They referred to Dr. Hawkins's material ...never having read his materials re: CONSCIOUSNESS, etc. They even referred to Judge Sweet's judgment in a slanted way. I for one, was delighted that the Court's decision went against a few people (Wapnick and etc.).
Thanks,
-Vic Strammiello
Dear Robert,
Thank you so much for your article re DU.
I was attracted to the book because the DU itself is one of most compelling concepts in the Course to me. But, by the time I finished the book the only thought I was left with was an inevitable nuclear attack on America by terrorists. That thought has bothered me ever since, probably a couple years now. Since you point out the source of DU is Renard/Wapnick and not the Course itself, I can now feel some relief from the stress of that most unpleasant thought-in light of "if we believe such a concept that will surely make it a reality."
In any case, again, thank you so much.
As always, many blessings to you,
-Jane Bryan
Gentlemen
Thank you for those excellent pieces. Clear, reasoned, restrained. They do great service to the Course, and to all those of us who don't want to see it misrepresented.
Again, thank you.
Phil Brisk-
I want to thank you for your article regarding Gary Renard's books. I've often had suspicions as to the validity of Gary's claims, although I've believed him just because it seemed hard to believe he would fake it. Yet after reading Robert & Greg's comments, I tend to believe he made it up.
Thank you for speaking out.
-Christopher James
Hi Robert:
Naturally we were all skeptical about Gary's book when it first came out because it seems so outrageous on the face. However, when Jon Mundy endorsed the book, and when Louise Hay and others began to endorse him, and he showed up with some of the teachers who have become so respected who were we to say no to him. Our study group sponsored a couple of lectures for him at the local Unity Church in Windham, ME. When he came last week I decided to not go. He was appearing to have become too "packaged" and I said no. Then naturally I asked who I was to judge. I just didn't go. When this appeared to me it really shocked me. Gary came to our study group and sat in my friend's living room a few years ago. He was like a trusted friend.
Over the week end my husband and I were watching the credits on the movie "Chicago" in the living room when the phone rang. I answered and a voice said "I'd like to speak to Elizabeth Perry". "I said this is Elizabeth". This voice said "Hi ... this is Gary Renard ... and I'm calling to see if you are planning to come to my workshop at Unity Church next week". I was shocked. I said "Well I wasn't planning to, but perhaps I will now since I'm getting a personal invitation". I was in shock. I asked where he got my name, and he said "from Jon Mundy". I was receiving Jon's newsletter at the time. Well it was so unusual that I decided that it was worth the $40.
Our study group was at a crossroad. We had been studying for a couple of years together, and we decided that we were going to give the course a rest and go back to studying Eckhert Tolle. His new book..."Stillness Speaks" had just come out and we decided to go back to his study. We had worked on his materials earlier and had attended some telecasted videos and we were still uncertain of our path.
We went to see Gary and he was a small, country bumpkin guy who laughed at himself, and told us the story. We naturally questioned him and the ease that he answered....always saying that he doesn't answer ... the answer comes from Holy Spirit. We as a group were impressed with his naive jokes and condescending manner when he joked at himself. We were really impressed by his message of forgiveness...and the line about staying in the spiritual buffet line hit home. How many of us had not been in that buffet line?
It was this lecture that convinced us to not leap into another study with Eckhert Tolle, but to stay with the Course. With gusto we returned to the Course, and most of us have never waivered. When it came to my attention that he was going to be at Unity last week I did not go. I was seeing him on the lecture series and I was feeling that I didn't like the packaging. One time before this... about two years ago...we sponsored another lecture for him. I'm taking here of a turnout of 25 to 30 people. These were not big money makers. As time went on I was less impressed with his commercial appeal. but I still liked some of the work that he had written. I continued to use his book as a resource. Later we began to read your materials, and we were all curious about your opinion of Gary. We've stayed with your materials and ACIM.
We still have our one day a week study course, and Priscilla from Portland is on the line with your teleconferencing course. We listen to your lesson one day a week when we do our study group. We all love your writings, and we are all divided on our impression of Gary's work, but it's shocking and disappointing if this is true. I continue to do the daily text lesson from my home.
The truth though is that Gary is who brought us back to the course, but in spite of that there was always scepticism about the Masters and whether this is true. I didn't mean for this to be so long, but I wanted you to know what a strong impact Gary had on us, and how it brought us back to the Course.. It will be very helpful to receive any materials that can help us to come to some resolution.
Thanks, again,
-Elizabeth Perry
Dear Robert,
My name is Vincent Lebrun and I was just forwarded your piece entitled "Why Don't the Masters Have an Original Thought?"
As a student of ACIM who does not belong to any "circle" I feel like I am always the last one to know about the extra curriculum news from the ACIM community, which is fine with me.
Needless to say, until I read your letter I had not heard of any G Renard controversy... so I was shocked at first. Then after reading and re-reading your letter and giving it a lot of thought, I remembered that the idea of G Renard having plagiarized K Wapnick had already occurred to me a few of times.
Yet at the same time the feel throughout the book always felt quite different from any Wapnick book I have ever read. It is definitely not as intellectual, and the theme of forgiveness is more present, it is actually omnipresent in DU. Those two reasons alone make me think that it is not a "sub" Wapnick piece of literature but that it has other influences.
But what really makes me believe that G Renard is not a fake is the fact that I saw him personally. The guy seems as authentic as can be and I can't imagine that a person would go to such length to carry out a delusion of that magnitude. What is the gain? A little publicity? According to witnesses I trust he was scared to death of public speaking before he started giving lectures. Why would he throw himself into the arena?
He really seems like a simple Joe with one big, huge difference, he seems to practice forgiveness and brings everything back to it. That for me is what is very interesting. I did not hear him badmouthing anybody. He did mention receiving not so nice e-mails but he did not go any further. He never said that the other ACIM approaches are bad or inferior. He even said that they all have their purpose. Anyway the guy seemed fair, genuine and respectful to me.
He answered dozens of questions with great ease and authority. I don't think a liar could do that. People would see through the cracks very quickly. I mean I know ACIM fairly well and so did most people who attended the event I went to. I think a fraud would be detected. Another thing he does is talking about his challenges and his mistakes, about the rats in his cellar. Not too many teachers/gurus put themselves out there in that fashion.
Now could he have been the unconscious "victim" of a delusion? Could he have hallucinated or dreamed about the visits of the masters and thought it was real? I guess that is a possibility. But ACIM says we are all dreaming all the time anyway so what is the difference?
One last thought, what if K. Wapnick's teaching is really closer to ACIM than many other approaches? Then it would make sense that the teachings from two masters go the same way. You might not like this thought but it deserves some consideration too.
I have read and studied the Course by myself, I have heard many interpretations and they did not make too much sense to me. However I do agree with K. Wapnick and DU most of the time (not all across the board) not because I have been influenced, should I say brainwashed by them but because they make sense to me.
So in conclusion could Gary Renard have made up the whole story? I guess it is not totally impossible but it seems unrealistic.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read my letter.
Namaste,
-Vincent Lebrun
Dear Robert-
I am writing to say I LOVE your article on Gary Renard. I just love it. Wow. Thank you. What you say in your article is so RIGHT ON that I was a little blown away that finally someone said what I've always known to be true - that all course teachers always say the same things, despite the thousand immense intricate themes found in A Course in Miracles.
(just the other day i read a sentence I have never read before (despite having the Course for 10 years) "when you do not value yourself, you become sick, but my value of you can heal you" and for me, this wiped out in a single sentence all my past ideas about Course related themes on healing, miracles, sickness and prayer. In a single sentence I got a whole new appreciation of myself and A Course in Miracles. When I do not value myself I become sick. So, then from now on I will value myself as God values me - whole & perfect.)
A Course in Miracles is a treasure house.
I love what you say: "every paragraph is a minor symphony of themes, with little twists and turns of thought that are whole teachings in themselves"….
I am really happy to read your article. Thank you for writing
it.
Thank you Robert.
Love,
-Lisa Natoli
Greetings Robert Perry ....
How refreshing and also how magnificent to find in your writings a slant that shows a deep respect for the message of A Course in Miracles, and that you are willing to express clear ideas of reasoning power, rather then run with those who admire everything that seems great and wonderful as long as it seems fine and does not need to be looked at closely. A discerning mind is a gift that every one can accomplish but it takes an adventurous mind in willingness to use lesson 28 again and again. What does Jesus say an untrained mind can accomplish nothing....
There is no limit ever in the awakening of my mind that used to be in a state of sleep and dreaming, and I am mighty delighted with your action of mind that says: (" Hey wait a minute?") this does not fit a teaching of perfect simplicity that A Course in Miracles is. The unlimited revealing newness of each day is my happiness and freedom through ACIM.
Salute in Gratitude
-Greta Jonker
I just want to thank Greg Mackie for his article disputing Gary Renard's book. I have been upset and struggling for a long time about some of the content in the book. e.g. we will have a nuclear war etc. So to finally see someone point by point prove that Gary's book is made up really makes a difference to me and I am now on the road to re-embracing the Course's teachings again. I was considering throwing out my beloved blue book.
Kind regards,
-Sarah Kaiser
OPEN LETTER TO ROBERT PERRY AND GREG MACKIE
I have just received in my e-mail box two articles by Robert Perry and Greg Mackie regarding the book, the Disappearance of the Universe by Gary Renard.
Today's lesson 265 and tomorrow's 266 especially come to mind! Gary is your savior and counselor and you are mine! The images I see reflect my thoughts, I thank you my brothers for making it clear in my mind that I am not here to correct my brother, by pointing out to me that it appears to me to be what you are doing! Thank you, thank you blessed ones!
Neither Gary 's book nor Gary in seeming form needs any defense, but one observation (and to me, the only important one) can be made: has this book been truly helpful to anybody? If it is so (and I know personally of at least 30 people who have been brought to the Course after having read Gary's book or had help in clarifying the Course from reading the book.) Why not just bless the book and be thankful? I am very thankful for the books I have read by Robert Perry, Ken Wapnick, Gary Renard and countless others.
Gary is your Brother, holy and innocent, and the more people who study the Course, the better!
The seeming dilemma whether Arten and Pursah really were in Gary's living room or not, seems to me quite irrelevant, they are just aspects of Gary's mind or projections. So, do we now have an argument by two Course Authorities, whether "form" is "real" or not? Does Gary have to prove that a separated entity in form, named Pursah (or Arten) really exists???? Do you Robert or you Greg really exist in body and form according to the Course? Ha ha, this really starts to get very funny! There is Mind and only Mind and that is Truth.
Robert argues that there are no "original thoughts" or anything "new" in the book and that it seems to echo Ken Wapnick's teachings. There are no original thoughts or new concepts in the One Mind and Truth, only the ego wants to have "new", "original" and "different". And if Gary has succeeded in giving another slant to "Wapnick's teachings" which has appeal to many, and brings lots of new students to the Course, good on him is what I say!!!
So," what is it for", your seeming attack on the Disappearance of the Universe book?? Do you wish to stop people from reading it? Then, what do you hope to achieve from that? Do you want an "apology" and "confession" from Gary that he made Arten and Pursah up? And what do you hope to achieve from that? Is what you wrote truly helpful and for the highest good for everyone concerned? Is what I just wrote truly helpful and for the highest good for everyone concerned? Thanks for making me look at that too.
My Holy counselors and saviors, I bless you forever.
With Love
-Mia
Thank you Robert & Greg for having the courage to expose Gary
Renard's obviously deceptive & dishonest writings. To use the
ACIM solely for the purpose of advancing one's fame and career
goals (this appears to be his main and perhaps only purpose in
writing these books) is so distant from the letter and spirit of the
Course that I am confounded by his continued support within the ACIM
community.
-Dale Boyce
Dear Mr. Perry,
I just finished reading your Why Don't the Masters Have An Original Thought article. I felt for some reason that I wanted to write and offer you my comments on it. Firstly, let me say that I have enjoyed this website and the insightful articles since I discovered your site a few months ago. Because of that I found this article somewhat surprising.
I have been a student of the Course since it found its way to me in 2004 but have been a student of the Holy Spirit much much longer than that (though without the awareness to recognize I was until I began seeking answers). Answers to how I'd fallen into a state that was no longer peaceful and joyful, a state where I had lost my bliss, and some 'connection' that I felt went faulty though I could not put my finger on what it was. I just knew that what had always, for 30+ years, plowed along smoothly suddenly had a wrench in the machinery. The Holy Spirit came to my aid as soon as I'd asked and met me at every step, every corner and every moment exactly where I was -not some seemingly distant place where I wanted to be. He met me down in the dumps, in the grips of fear, jealousy, anger, resentment, and pain. It took quite a while to realize I had never been left and that it was me who had turned away. I prayed for a path, a way, so that I could never grow distant again and a method for holding fast to the Spirit for the rest of my days in this life and I got an answer. That's when A Course in Miracles found its way first into my hands then into my head then finally opened my heart. That is a short version of a story quite long to tell and takes me away from the reason for this email. So back to topic, about Renard's book...
Let me say that I have not read DU. I do not have plans to but if it should happen into my hands I know it is for a reason and will read it should that occur. But I suppose what I wished to comment on about your article is that I was curious as to why you found it necessary to comment at all on it considering your views so vehemently expressed? You asked if in the case the author lied "are there any outcomes under which you are prepared to praise that scenario?" I would like to answer that.
I do not think I know the ways of the Holy Spirit or God completely and the ways and whys things are done but it has been my experience (which I can speak from with assurance) that the Voice for God comes in many MANY ways and forms. Actually, in so vast and wide a range that it can speak to any and all in the specific language and form that whoever it is meant for may receive it. However, it is content that counts and form is nothing. Have you considered that Mr. Renard's book, for whatever reasons (ego or Spirit), is meant to have the same content in the ways you noted?
Before I found the Course there were many ways and avenues which the Holy Spirit chose to 'speak' to me - especially when I was not in a mindset to listen for Him. A TV show as I channel surfed to stumble upon an answer to a question I absently pondered while clicking through, a song on the radio at just the right moment with the perfect lyric to soothe my heart, a billboard on the side of a building that was the answer to an issue that ached inside me, even one instance with a 'psychic' who I knew was out for money and personal gain as he stopped me on the street and gave me such words of wisdom that I knew it had to be God using him to speak, plus many more instances than I can count. What I found is that God used whatever my attention was on to speak to me. He had very little regard for form. In hindsight I see His only concern seemed to be that I get the message and He used whatever messenger service was available to Him. No matter what the worldly intentions were of the messenger. What I have learned in my simple and humble walk to God is that, if nothing else, we cannot limit how He chooses, or whom He chooses, to share the content of His knowledge in what ever form that may take...whether we agree with it or not.
It's very possible that your assessment of Renard's motives and theories may very well be true. But what if...just what if....there is someone out there...who has dismissed the Course or never heard of it at all....someone who is searching, seeking, and the 'channel" aspect is what gets their attention yet because of it they become interested in the Course or better yet awaken the sleeping desire to better know God themselves? Maybe they feel inspired by such a dramatic experience as in DU or maybe some ideal of the Course touches them at just the right time to ignite a spiritual fire within them? Can we really deny it to this person, a brother in Spirit, a stranger in body....to find the way laid before them by God to lead them steps closer to Him even if we don't choose it for ourselves?
I say all this not as a criticism to you but just sharing another point of view of what might be possible. I believe very deeply, very truly, in the all powerful, all reaching, limitless Love of God. Because of that there are things I see in life and I question whether He is on duty but then I remember that God can do anything because He is everything. That settles my heart, that settles my judgment, that settles my desire to be right or have God explain His reasons to me because I know deep down that no matter how it appears on the surface, even if I don't see how at the time, His will is ultimately also my own.
Thank you for reading this Mr. Perry and for sharing your
knowledge and experience with all of us in cyberspace through both
your Circle of Atonement work and web articles on the site. I wish
you well and look forward to more.
Best,
-Nadja
Dear Robert, Greg and Jon...
I wanted to say thank you to each of you for your honest analysis and loving approach in writing the recent articles about the ascended masters in Gary Renard's books. As a student in the Course community, I look to you - the leaders, the teachers, the scholars, the authors - to help me understand the concepts covered in ACIM and to help me recognize the truth of them in my life. It seems a little silly to me just now, but in matters of spirituality and taking into account my current level of learning, I sometimes still confuse the incredible (Jesus dictating ACIM to his scribe Helen) with the implausible (ascended masters materializing in Gary's living room). I can only say that I believe learning to distinguish the two is part of my spiritual path. The truth does matter!
Thank you Greg for the breadth and depth of your article. Especially helpful to me was the section on factual errors and extremely unlikely assertions. There is just no way that I could know such things without your writing this article. My feelings about the implausibility of the DU story were crying out for this type of factual information.
Thank you Jon for being a really good "older brother" to Gary and to all of us. I really appreciated the quote from Ken Wapnick about the importance of learning how to disagree with someone without it being an attack. I pray that Gary will feel the love in your article - I sure did.
And thank you Robert for being my teacher in this and all the other ways. When I first asked you about DU so many months ago your firm stance on the truth but gentle attitude towards the matter was settling to my conflicted state of mind. What little I have known about your involvement in the situation since was greatly expanded in reading the sections of Greg's article that specifically dealt with Gary's communications to you and about you. What can I say? It's always disheartening when someone is attacked and I'm sorry it happened. My own sense of anger was hard to swallow and I can only tell you how it melted away as I read your article just after finishing Greg's. This is why I know you are my teacher. This is why I trust you to be my teacher. And I want to say that, in this case, it is plain as day in the ninth paragraph. It has everything to do with your confidence. It's a beautifully simple example of the years and years of experience in study, practice and extension. I, probably like so many others, want to short cut this. Sometimes we can with the help of a very good teacher. And I thank you for being just that.
I wanted to write this to all of you because each of you has helped me make my own decision about the truth in this matter and because the clarity and confidence around this matter will surely extend beyond it. I feel that this is exactly what our true leaders, teachers, scholars and authors want to do. We don't have to hurt each other in honoring the truth, but sometimes we do have to stand up so that those we teach can learn. And I thank you for standing up!
In Peace,
-Charlie Record
John Dore was good enough to share with me a copy of your article,
"Why Don't the Masters...". I read it first thing this
morning. Brilliantly done and you opened the whole issue of
plagiarism and pretense without sounding defensive or attacking.
Nicely done.
-Louis Bourgeois
Below is a post I wrote on an ACIM newsgroup before I read your (Mackie/Perry) articles. I was surprised that you didn't mention his new book which I think goes a *long* way in discrediting him by its vindictive nature. I resonated to both of your articles because I too, being an author myself, did not want to denigrate another author but my conscience would simply not be quite about it.
[Full post not reprinted here]
Is this the magazine that just came out? I haven't received it
yet. I finished the book last week and was frankly, appalled by it.
In it he denigrates practically everyone in the Course community and
beyond, all under the guise of 'forgiveness lessons.'
Interspersed between these *numerous* forgiveness lessons are quotes
from the course, some are pages long, that A & P explain, and
interspersed between those, A & P spend a lot of time telling GR
how spiritual he is, what a popular course teacher he is, that no
one's done it as well as him, etc. etc. - I'm not kidding
when I say "a lot of time." He brings up Miracle
Distribution Center and 'the woman' who screwed his book,
mentions that he also (I forget how, already sent the book to someone
else) got screwed out of being #4 on the NY Times best seller
list.....puts down Hawkins, the power of now, MDC, of course Marianne
Williamson, CWG, almost all other course teachers who "accept
donations". Also, more than a few times comments on *all* the
other course students who just don't really want to know what the
course is saying, blah, blah, blah.
I supported his first book, I mean to each his own. But it appears that he has used his celebrity to go after everyone who has ever insulted him in the last few years, again, all under the guise of 'forgiveness lessons.' And the thing that irks me the most is that many of his judgments and such are voiced or supported by A & P. Quite frankly, I am surprised that Hay House published it and perhaps are hoping people will read it for the tabloid perspective of the Course community. But then that's another thing, why would most of his readers know or care about all his vendettas, I'd think it'd be obvious even to the uninitiated that something's not right with this picture.
One thing I was taught by my inner spirit when I first began lecturing was to absolutely *never* use my public spiritual work as a weapon or to in any way acknowledge personal vendettas. Evidently A & P don't have a problem with that. I'll stick with the HS, thank you very much. Again, I struggled with whether or not I wanted to say any more about it, especially knowing from this book that GR has absolutely no problem vilifying anyone who does not adore him, however, my conscience would not keep quiet about it. Lest you think I have some "political axe" (another favorite by GR) to grind, it's archived that I supported him in the past and don't make it a practice of tearing down other writers. However, I think that spiritual writers, more than any other genre, are supposed to operate with as much integrity as possible.
The chapter on I think it's called Pursah's gospel of Thomas is all about the controversy over which version of the Course is the best. This is my beef, I believe that GR is using "ascended masters" to do his own dirty work in a sense and I think that's dishonest. A & P discuss all the issues on the matter that we've been reading here for years. I would assume that these "ascended masters" would be talking with GR for the purpose of helping him present healing material to the world. Weighing in with their opinions on this ACIM issue, when realistically *most* course students are totally unaware of the controversy, does not seem to be appropriate to me. I mean would they get involved in an issue that would further separate some in the course world? Kind of like God in CWG books weighing in on politics - It's common sense that God is not going to choose one side over another causing further disunity rather than unity.
A & P also say later in the book that GR's workshops and
books will *force* all other course teachers to teach what the course
*really* says. Yeah, you can tell these kind of comments are my
personal pet peeve! lol! GR writes again in this book that Wapnick is
the greatest teacher (of course voiced by A & P) so why I ask is
it so important for him to be writing these books if we've
already got Ken? And why do we need him to keep *all* other course
teachers/students honest about what the course says? I've read
most of the book yesterday, still have some to go, but it's
mostly what he wrote in the previous book right down to all the side
slaps at practically everyone else in the course world, with a few
personal experiences thrown in. I'll add here that I could
respect it more if GR made all these comments as coming from himself
and not these "ascended masters" - I mean after all, he has
a right to his opinion on these matters and can write whatever he
wants. If he had done that, then personally, I'd feel, to each
his own. But again, I find this just dishonest….
-Sheryl Valentine
Please report problems to the webmaster.