Our Attitude Towards Other Teachers
by Allen Watson
There are more and more people teaching ACIM these days, or using it in their teaching. There are Ken and Gloria Wapnick, Tara Singh, Marianne Williamson, Gerry Jampolsky and Diane Cirincionne, Hugh and Gayle Prather, and Robert Perry. There are magazines such as On Course from Jon Mundy and Diane Berke, Miracles from Paul Ferrini, Insight from Tom Gossett (a newsletter that is so substantial it is almost a magazine), and several dozen smaller newsletters. There is even that fellow who is called "Master Teacher" up in Wisconsin, heading up "God's Country Place."
Every Course student has their favorite teacher. Some swear by Ken Wapnick; others prefer Tara Singh; and hundreds of thousands of people find Marianne's style irresistable. All of us, having grown up as egos in an ego world, tend to compare teachers and to judge other teachers in contrast to the one we like most.
There are some very clear differences, some in general approach, some in actual interpretation of the Course. Ken Wapnick clearly emphasizes the intellectual approach, believing that, as an intellectual body of truth, the Course is meant to be studied, and that experience with God comes through increased understanding. Other people, like Paul Ferrini, tend to emphasize the experiential aspects, and seem to be saying that rather than understanding leading to experience, experience will lead us to understanding. Tara Singh seems to advocate a more Eastern, contemplative approach, with much sitting in silent meditation, a Krishnamurti-like "stilling of the thoughts" until you arrive at no-thought. He combines this with a heavy emphasis on service, and his followers have begun to associate with the missions of Mother Teresa.
Other people, like Marianne Williamson, lay stress on applying the Course to the world, on enlightenment through service, believing that we receive by giving. Gerry Jampolsky uses the Course extensively, but makes no pretense of either teaching all of the Course or only the Course. He has developed his own approach, called "attitudinal healing," based on Course principles. Some teachers like to bring in thoughts from other spiritual teachings to supplement the Course, with quotes from Buddha, Zen, Hindu masters, or the Bible sprinkling their writings and teaching, showing the parallels between them and the Course. Others employ different practices such as breathing techniques, Sufi dancing, meditation, yoga and body work, along with the Course.
More and more, I am hearing of disagreements between these approaches. Some people tend to like Wapnick, to see his teaching as "pure Course," and to feel that other approaches are adulterating the Course. People with an emphasis on experience tend to talk down the intellectual approach. And so on and on. People seem to be starting to argue about what the Course actually means, or how it should be applied to the world—or even if it should be applied at all, since the world is just an illusion.
What disturbs me the most, I think, is that most of us, including myself, get trapped in the mind-set of trying to figure out who is right and who is wrong. Whatever our particular orientation, it seems to be important to make "the other guy" wrong, so we can be right. I get reminded of the piercing question from the Course, "Do you prefer that you be right or happy?" (T-29.VII.1:9)
While admitting that much of the time we listen to our ego, and choose to be right at the expense of being happy, what do we do when we catch ourselves doing that, and want to make an effort at being happy rather than right? It simply isn't possible to agree with all approaches and all interpretations of the Course. You cannot avoid making a choice and having a preference. And when you choose, let's say, the approach through the intellect, using study of the Text as your tool, you are making a kind of judgment that, for you at least, the other approaches are not as good.
Another example: if someone is teaching the Course and saying that the physical world is real, that the Course does not really mean it when it says that God did not create the world, while you believe that the Course means just what it says, you cannot help disagreeing with them. You have to admit that you think the other person is wrong. Not just different—wrong, incorrect. He or she is, from your point of view, making a mistake and misinterpreting the Course. If someone asks you "Should I go hear this teacher?" you are probably going to either say "No" or qualify your "Yes" by pointing out where you think the teacher is making a mistake in interpretation.
In the external sense, making this kind of judgment is inevitable. How can we apply the Course to the Course, and its interpreters? Is it possible to refrain from judgment in cases like this?
I think we need to remember the Course's emphasis on our attitudes, and on what meaning we attach to people's actions. We need to remember that while the Course does say, over and over again, that we are without sin, it also says that we have been muchmistaken. To see another person, or another teacher, as being mistaken is not the same thing as seeing them as sinful because of that mistake. The difference is that when I see something as sin, I will see the person as unworthy of love and deserving of punishment. I think it is up to me to correct them. When I see what they are doing as a mistake, I can still include them in my love.
There is a paragraph in the Text that epitomizes, for me, the attitude we should have to every person teaching the Course whose interpretation or application of the Course we disagree with. It comes at the end of the section on "The Dreamer of the Dream" in Chapter 27.
"Dream of your brother's kindnesses instead of dwelling in your dreams on his mistakes. Select his thoughtfulness to dream about instead of counting up the hurts he gave. Forgive him his illusions, and give thanks to him for all the helpfulness he gave. And do not brush aside his many gifts because he is not perfect in your dreams."
To me, this is saying that we should focus on the positive aspects and overlook the negative aspects. Don't dwellon the mistakes; don't count up the errors and damage you see being done; don't brush aside all the good that is being done because to you the person isn't perfect, the teaching isn't perfect, the practice isn't perfect. Focus on the kindness, the thoughtfulness, the helpfulness of what is being said and done.
It reminds me of the old folk saying, "If you can't think of something nice to say about someone, don't say anything."
In my book reviews in my newsletter I have reviewed books that I don't think are perfect. I sometimes see them as leaving out some aspect of truth that to me is nearly essential. I may point out that lack, but I will always try to focus on what is good about a book, not what is bad about it.
To me, if I look at some newsletter, for instance, and see it cluttered with stuff I don't think belongs in an ACIM newsletter, or with trite interpretations that barely scratch the surface of what (to me) the Course is really saying, I can choose not to spend my time reading it. But I will not say to anyone that reading that newsletter is a waste of their time. That, to me, is "brushing away" the gifts being offered because the newsletter isn't perfect. It might be a waste of my time to me, but who am I to say what will or will not prove useful to someone else? Just because I do not choose to make it my practice, I cannot say that it should not be part of anyone's practice.
If I feel that the Course is a complete, self-sufficient textbook for spiritual practice, and that I need nothing more than the Course to realize God and become enlightened, and someone else wants to add meditation, or yoga, or Grof breathing to their spiritual practice along with the Course—I don't have to make them wrong for doing so. Even if the other person is saying that everyone has to add this or that, that the Course alone is insufficient, I don't have to make them wrong. I can disagree with them. I can continue to do what I feel is right. But I don't have to cut down the other person in doing so. I don't have to try to get them to stop doing what they are doing. I don't have to brush aside their gifts because, in my dream, they are not perfect. I don't have to belittle their work as "useless" or "misguided" or "of the ego" (the ultimate Course put-down).
Instead, I think, if I am following the Course myself, I will focus on the good in what they are doing. I will center on the helpful aspects of what they are doing. I will look for opportunities to support and encourage whatever part of it I feel is right and good, rather than looking for opportunities to find fault.
Emphasizing the differences, emphasizing what we feel is wrong about someone else's work, is just another way of fostering separation. Let's emphasize the sameness. Let's emphasize the kindness, the helpfulness, the love.
I don't think that means you become entirely uncritical, blindly accepting everyone and everything. If something seems wrong to me, I can still say so. I'm actually doing that in this article, by saying that I think it is wrong to look for faults in other people's work! But I need to do that without putting the other person out of my heart. Ultimately I have to realize that I don't know everything, and that what is wrong for me may be right for someone else, even if it seems clearly wrong to me. We have to let people make their own mistakes. We even have to let some people make the mistake of not letting other people make mistakes.
I cannot tell anyone else what to do. I cannot even tell you to stop trying to correct other people, if that is what you believe you are led to do. All I can do is to take care of my own mind. This article is more of a personal meditation than a polemic trying to change someone else's mind. I'm not trying to change your mind so much as my own. I'm saying, "When I see someone I disagree with, this is how I want to respond to it."
When the controversy came up last year about God's Country Place and Master Teacher, many people were very upset at what seemed to be a clearly misguided interpretation of the Course. I met many of the GCP people at the Omega Conference, and I definitely did not agree with them. Based on my own unhappy experience in a Christian cult, I felt that what I was seeing was a kind of cult, an almost blind following of a leader who claimed to be fully enlightened and able to take other people with him out of the world. When a friend of mine expressed interest in visiting their community, I cautioned her against it. I said, "For my sake, I'd prefer that you don't go." But I didn't try to stop her; I didn't imply that if she went, I would cut her out of my life.
I recognize that for some people, their path to God may lie through a cult. I know that can be so, because I came through a Christian group that today I regard as a cult. Somehow I needed that experience to bring me to where I am today. I doubt I could have arrived at the place I am in without doing it. It was an extremely painful experience; it was traumatic, and had negative effects on my life for many years. I would not wish that experience on anyone, particularly on someone I love, so of course I recommended to my friend that she not go. (I've lost touch with her but as far as I know she never went.) I didn't want to see her go through pain, and I felt that, whether she bought into the cult or not, the experience would be painful for her. But I knew I could not see God's Will for her; it was possible that she had to go that way to burn out some entrenched aspect of the ego within herself.
In the Manual for Teachers, Section 17, is a section about how God's teachers should deal with "magic thoughts" in the lives of their pupils. What do you do when someone you know and love is making a mistake (in your view)? The section gives a long answer, but it opens with a very clear and direct statement:
"His first responsibility in this is not to attack it."
Whatever else you do, don't attack the mistake.
In the Text, Chapter 9, the Course says that it is not our responsibility to correct our brothers, but to accept them as they are. (T-9.III.6:4) This whole section is about "The Correction of Error" and is filled with statements relevant to the theme of this article:
"The alertness of the ego to the errors of other egos is not the kind of vigilance the Holy Spirit would have you maintain."
"If you point out the errors of your brother's ego you must be seeing through yours, because the Holy Spirit does not perceive his errors."
"When you react at all to errors, you are not listening to the Holy Spirit."
"When a brother behaves insanely, you can heal him only by perceiving the sanity in him."
"Your brother is as right as you are, and if you think he is wrong you are condemning yourself."
"To perceive errors in anyone, and to react to them as if they were real, is to make them real to you."
"Any attempt you make to correct a brother means that you believe correction by you is possible, and this can only be the arrogance of the ego."
We have to let people make their own mistakes, and love them anyway. We have to be willing, as Ken Wapnick has often said, to let the differences make no difference to us. There is that old poem—I wish I could quote it exactly—to the effect that when someone else draws a circle to keep me out, love draws a bigger circle that includes them. Some of the hardest lessons to learn in life come when someone, by his attitude, his teaching, or his behavior, tries to exclude me from his life. Some fundamentalist Christians, for instance, draw a very narrow circle around "the elect." Only certain ones will be saved and everyone else will be damned. If I am following the Course, the circle that I draw will include those fundamentalists as well as everyone else. Including the people who try to exclude you isn't easy, but to me, that is what "the circle of Atonement" in the Course is all about.
There is a wonderful statement by Jesus in Chapter 8, Section IV, "The Gift of Freedom." In this section, Jesus is showing how we must freely choose to join with Him in carrying out God's Will. He points out that love cannot be coerced. He says that "freedom cannot be learned by tyranny of any kind, and the perfect equality of all God's Sons cannot be recognized through the dominion of one mind over another." And He then makes this marvellous statement, which I think perfectly characterizes the attitude all of us must eventually have to one another:
"If you want to be like me, I will help you, knowing that we are alike. If you want to be different, I will wait until you change your mind."
This is the attitude which I believe the Course encourages in all of us, particularly when confronted with teachers who interpret the Course differently than we do, and with their followers. (The followers are often more likely to be a problem than the teachers themselves.) If a person wants to extend love, to enjoy peace with me, to realize God in their lives, I will help them in whatever way I can. If they do not want those things, I will simply wait until they are willing to change their minds. I won't attack their mistake. I won't point out the errors of his ego. I won't use my mind to try to dominate theirs. I will treat them the way I want Jesus to treat me—the way he says, in this passage, that he does treat me.
I will accept them as they are, even if—from my point of view—they are being misled by their ego. I won't try to change them. I won't try to correct them. I won't point out their faults. I won't seek out or promote controversy. I will draw a circle of love that includes them in my heart, even if they are excluding me from their circle. I will focus on the good they are doing. I will strive to perceive their sanity and to overlook their insanity. I will lean on the Holy Spirit within to assist me in not reacting at all to their ego, but rather to respond to the holy Self in them, the Christ Who is our shared Self.
The Truth does not need to be defended because it cannot be threatened. That is a basic lesson of the Course: "Nothing real can be threatened" (Text, Introduction). If someone is teaching the Course with an emphasis I disagree with, no real harm is being done. The ego is fighting a losing battle; the worst it can do is delay our enlightenment in time, and time, as the Course says repeatedly, is just an illusion. It isn't easy to accept that a delay in time doesn't mean anything and does no real harm, but that is what the Course is saying. If that is so, it doesn't matter that people are "being misled." They would not be subject to being misled if they did not have, in their own minds, the mistaken beliefs that are misleading them. No one is forcing them to accept these ideas; it is their own choice. Can we accept the fact that, if they are in some mistaken teaching, one that is misleading in our opinion, they are there because they belong there? Because that is the place where they can most rapidly learn the lessons they need to learn?
If I get upset about some teacher's mistaken interpretations, or about friends who follow that teacher, and I react to the mistake, I have made the mistake real. When I attempt to correct my brother I am listening to my own ego's arrogance. I cannot correct myself without Help; how can I possibly think I know how to correct my brother? When I try to fight against the errors, I have myself abandoned the truth of the Course. I have accepted attack as a means of healing, which is pure ego insanity. I have chosen to magnify the differences between us instead of the sameness within us.
"Separation is overcome by union. It cannot be overcome by separating." (T-8.IV.5:4-5)
As always, the path of healing lies simply in accepting the Atonement for myself, in allowing my own mind to be healed. As for my brother, I accept and appreciate him as he is, leaving it to his own relationship with the Holy Spirit to heal him.
Reader Feedback
Thank you for the gift of this article.
I was struggling mightily with just this issue when I found your article, and it has helped me move through my discomfort.
I had been following Ken Wapnick's more intellectual path of studying ACIM when I impulsively purchased and viewed a movie called A Course in Miracles Unleashed. It left me very disturbed. First by its heavy emphasis on Jesus, and secondly by its focus on the Master Teacher in Wisconsin.
Your article has helped me move through my own judgements to a place of acceptance
of other approaches to this wonderful course.
Thank you,
Linda
Return to top | Send Reader Feedback | | Printer friendly version
Dear friend: We offer the materials on this website to you in the hope that they can serve you well on your journey home. Your continuing donations support the work of the Circle of Atonement. Thank you.
Click here to make a Donation.
This material is copyrighted by the Circle of Atonement, P.O. Box 4238, W. Sedona, AZ 86340. All rights reserved. The opinions expressed are the personal interpretation and understanding of the author(s).
Please report problems to the webmaster.
