A Newsletter for Students of A Course in Miracles

I come to you from our Father to offer you

everything again.

Winter 2002

The Circle of Atonement

T EACHING

AND

Issue #40

L EARNING

by Mary Anne Buchowski

ere at the Circle, we are very enthusiastic about as downright demeaning, and I resisted it vehemently. I
the teacher-pupil relationship, in which a more also had issues with the word teacher, stemming from
experienced student of A Course in Miracles guides a my own experiences with teachers as I was growing up.
newer one along the Courses path. Periodically, we have Even during the years when I taught, it was with the
written articles about it, mostly from the vantage point of label of instructor or, my preferred word, facilitator.
the Courses teaching. In this article, I will be For me, facilitation drew out the inherent wisdom in
approaching it from a more personal viewpoint, sharing people; it made the way easier for people than if they were
with you my own experiences in
on their own. Even when I worked with
teacher-pupil relationships.
people on a one-to-one basis, I made it

clear that what I was doing was

The Background
facilitation. I had always preferred to
For a year and a half, I have been
work in an inclusive manner,
working with several Course students
empowering people by drawing out the
as a teacher of pupils, both in person
best in them and the knowledge and
here in Sedona, and at a distance via eanswers which lie deep within us all.
mail. My journey to this place has not
From my jaded perspective, teaching
been easy; as a matter of fact, I
seemed to be the antithesis of this, a
haveas the expression goesbeen
hierarchical, one-up role, played by
dragged to it kicking and screaming.
someone who thought he or she knew it
all, and which often involved an abuse
The process started many years ago
of power.
in the context of my relationship with
Robert Perry. It was easy for me to accept Robert as a wise
When I came to the Circle in 1999, we knew that the
and loving friend who knew a lot more about A Course in role of administrator was a stopgap for me until I could
Miracles than I did, and I appreciated his helping me start fulfilling my real function of helping people learn to
understand and apply the Course. He was obviously filling transform their lives through applying the Course. I saw
the role of teacher to me, and his firm but gentle mentoring that I would do this primarily through small group
helpedand is still helpingme to undo unhealthy facilitation. Last year when I began to...umm...facilitate
patterns of thought that have brought me pain and the morning Workbook classes, I was in my glory and have
suffering. At one point, recognizing the nature of our remained so. It took me several months to cave in and
relationship, I asked him to be my official teacher. Then
finally admit that I was, in fact, teaching. I was able to let
the ego jumped in with a fury, I promptly panicked, and we
go of my misperceptions about teaching, as I
dropped the label!
acknowledged that facilitating learning is what good
The idea that I could be a pupil who needed a teaching is all about. This helped me accept that term as
teacher seemed very distasteful to me. Actually, I saw it applying to what I was doing.

The idea that I

could be a pupil
who needed a
teacher seemed
very distasteful
to me.

(continued on page 3)

In This Issue

Mission Statement
To discern the authors vision of A Course in Miracles and
manifest that in our lives, in the lives of students, and in
the world.

Board of Directors
Robert Perry, Allen Watson, Susan Perry, Mary Anne
Buchowski, Tom Stine, Nicola Harvey

Advisory Board
Greg Mackie, Jan Hart OKelley

Subscription Information
A Better Way is a quarterly newsletter. Within the U.S.,
suggested subscription price is $10.00 U.S. for four issues. If
you subscribe, you will receive the newsletter, as well as
announcements for the upcoming books and events. If you
want to be taken off the list, please do us the favor of letting us
know. To subscribe, or for a free sample newsletter, contact:
The Circle of Atonement
Teaching and Healing Center
P.O. Box 4238 West Sedona, AZ 86340
(928) 282-0790 Fax: (928) 282-0523
In the U.S. toll-free (888) 357-7520 (orders only)
e-mail: info@circleofa.com
website: www.circleofa.com

Financial Policy
Our financial policy is based on a line in Psychotherapy, a
supplement to A Course in Miracles: One rule should always
be observed: No one should be turned away because he cannot
pay. Therefore, if you would like any of our materials or
services and cannot afford them, simply let us know, and give
what you are able.
The Circle is supported entirely by your purchases and gifts.
Therefore, we ask you to look within to see if you might be led
to support the Circles vision financially with a donation above
the list price of materials. We encourage you to give, not in
payment for goods received, but in support of our present and
future outreach. Please note that only amounts given over the
list price are considered tax-deductible.

Mailing List Policy

The Circle will share its mailing list upon request with other
A Course in Miracles organizations, using our discretion and
being as sensitive as we can to the Holy Spirits guidance.
If you do not want your name shared in this way, please let us
know and we will make sure it is not.
The title of our newsletter comes from Bill Thetfords comment to
Helen Schucman that There must be another way (Absence from
Felicity, p. 93), and from Jesus comment in the Course
that Everyone eventually begins to recognize, however dimly, that
there must be a better way(T-2.111.3:6). We hope that this newsletter
will be helpful to you on your journey to this better way.

Teaching and Learning by Mary Anne Buchowski . . . . .1

From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

JOIN WITH US IN PURPOSE

is published by The Circle of Atonement: Teaching

and Healing Center, a non-profit, tax-exempt corporation
founded in 1993, and located in Sedona, Arizona. It is based on
A Course in Miracles, the three-volume modern spiritual
classic, which we believe was authored by Jesus through a
human scribe.

Six Facets of the Role of Teacher of Pupils

by Robert Perry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
What Does It Mean to Do Nothing?
A Commentary on T-18.Vll by Robert Perry . . . . . . . . . .7
Letters to the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Why Wont God Just Zap Me into Enlightenment?
by Allen Watson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Circle Events
Regular Classes in Sedona, Arizona
Daily Workbook Class
With Mary Anne Buchowski or Robert Perry
Weekday mornings, 8:30 - 9:30 am

Weekly Class
With Robert Perry
Tuesday evenings, 7:00 - 8:30 pm
Call our office for details

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regular Classes in Portland, Oregon
Topical and Text Classes
With Allen Watson or Greg Mackie
Tuesday evenings, 7:00 - 9:00 pm
Contact Allen Watson
(allen@circleofa.com; (503) 284-3619)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Workshops
Living the Inspired Life
With Robert Perry
January 25 - 26: Charlottesville, Virginia
Contact Foundation for the study of A Course in Miracles
(ger@ns.gemlink.com; (434) 295-4926)

Walk You in Glory:

A Course in Miracles Pathway to True Self-Esteem
With Robert Perry
February 1 - 2: Sedona, Arizona
See enclosed flyer for full details

You Never Have to Be Afraid

With Robert Perry & Allen Watson
May 17 - 18: Sedona, Arizona

Releasing the Egos Grip

With Robert Perry
October 25 - 26: Sedona, Arizona

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
England
Course-Based Healing Sessions
Contact Nicola Harvey
(nicola@circleofa.com; (01425) 656441)

Evening Talk at the Miracle Caf

With Nicola Harvey
January 30: Central London
Contact Miracle Network
(admin@miracles.org.uk; (0870) 011 9815)

Nicola Harvey will also be speaking at the UKs annual

A Course in Miracles Conference

March 21 23: Central London

Portions from A Course in Miracles, Copyright 1975, 1992, 1999,

reprinted by permission of the Foundation for A Course in Miracles
41397 Buecking Dr., Temecula, CA 92590

Contact Miracle Network

(admin@miracles.org.uk; (0870) 011 9815)

A Better Way

T EACHING

AND

L EARNING
(continued from page 1)

For many years, we at the Circle have believed that the

teacher-pupil relationship is crucial to the Courses having
the effect on students lives that it was meant to have, and
we have wondered how we might contribute to making
this a genuine tradition among Course students. With this
in mind, as part of our This One Year We Give to God
program in 2000, Robert taught a weekly training course
for local students wanting to become teachers of pupils. I
was very enthusiastic about all that I was learning, but I
did not want to actually be a teacher to pupils. In my mind,
that would imply that I was superior in some way. After
all, pupils went to teachers who were masters in their field,
and I certainly did not consider myself in that rank. It even
seemed presumptuous of me to think that I would have
anything to teach anyone about the Course.
That training convinced me of how important the
teacher-pupil relationship is in the Course. It became very
clear that Jesus saw a) being a pupil of a personal teacher
as the way for students to really learn the Course and
integrate it into their lives, to move more easily and readily
along the path, and b) being a teacher of pupils as a natural
progression for an experienced student of the Course to
share her or his learning and experience with others. In
this, Jesus upholds the age-old tradition of mentorship;
that is, a person more experienced in a particular field, or

further along a particular path, guiding a person along that

path so that he or she will reach the same place asor go
beyondthe mentor. During that training, I let go of my
resistance to the word pupil, as I came to understand that
all that being a pupil meant was having a personal
relationship with a teacher, something which is not implied
in the word student. I still felt a lot of fear, though, about
being a teacher to individual pupils.
Then, in 2001, we offered a workshop on the teacherpupil relationship, a party to which no one came! In the
end, Robert met with three of us in our living room. You
could consider it a failure, but for me it was quite a
success. Robert had developed a great deal of information,
and, as he shared it, I gained a clearer sense of what was
asked of a teacher and how I might fit that role. Doing
several exercises on our relationship to authority, our fears
and attractions to the role, and how to be and work with a
pupil, put me more at ease with the concept. (One of
Roberts handouts from that weekend accompanies this
article.)
The workshop sparked a whole series of talks between
Robert and me about the teacher-pupil relationship, and,
through these talks, I grew more and more enthusiastic.
This led to Robert, Susan Perry, and I seeking guidance in
July of 2001. The guidance gently but firmly told me that
this was not only what I was being called to do, but it was
what I desired with all my heart. I was lovingly reassured

From the Editor

Our lead article for this issue is Teaching and
Learning, by Mary Anne Buchowski. For almost ten
years we have been writing about the teacher-pupil
relationship, in which a more experienced student of the
Course plays the role of Course mentor for a newer
student. These writings have set forth our view that this
relationship is unambiguously discussed in the Manual
for Teachers and is a basic part of how the Course expects
to be carried out in the world. The current article,
however, takes a different tack, growing out of the fact
that we have now begun to actually put the teacher-pupil
relationship into practice. In this article, Mary Anne
shares her experience of working with pupils, and the
effect it is having on them as well as the benefits she
herself is gaining. I hope this article will help you get a
feel for this relationship in action, and a sense of the
immense potential it contains.

Winter 2002

Allen Watson has addressed the age-old complaint of

spiritual seekers in Why Wont God Just Zap Me into
Enlightenment? He draws upon several passages in
which the Course itself addresses this question. I have a
piece entitled What Does It Mean to Do Nothing? It is
my latest attempt to capture the essence of that muchdiscussed section in the Text, I Need Do Nothing. As
an insert we have included a lovely Christmas article
from Greg Mackie commenting on Lesson 303, which is
clearly modeled on the traditional story of Christmas.
Finally, we have quite a volume of letters in response
to our summer issue, which was devoted to the
relationship between the Circles teachings and the
teachings of Ken Wapnick. They make for some
interesting reading.

that, as I embraced this function, I would have all the help

I needed. The guidance was so strong and clear, and I was
so deeply moved and inspired by it, that my resistance and
fear melted away in a flush of relief and acceptance...as
well as tears. At that moment, I had a dramatic change of
heart and decided that if Jesus wanted me to be a teacher
and help establish the teacher-pupil tradition, then I would
do it.
What followed was quite amazing. Students in the area
spontaneously began to approach me and ask to be my
pupils. As we met, we found that remarkable things were
coming out of our sessions, that the teacher-pupil
relationship was proving to be the valuable tool we had
long felt it was meant to be.
Remarkable Things

this world. We spend time exploring that, looking at the

why the idea is difficult to understand and accept, and also
at what the Course really says about the topic. I usually
leave such discussions with greater clarity myself, and am
often filled with even more enthusiasm, appreciation, and
love for Jesus and his teachings.
One pupil had a strong sense that she had a special
function and was yearning for it, but felt blocked in both
seeing and accepting it. That became the focus of our
sessions. She shared her struggles in relation to having a
special function, we talked a lot about the issue, we looked
at the beliefs underlying her resistance, we prayed, and we
asked for guidance. She eventually experienced a major
breakthrough, and gained a clear sense of what she was
being called to do, and a joyful anticipation of actually
doing it.

I hardly know where to begin to describe those

Pupils primarily want to learn how to integrate the
remarkable things. They have been so plentiful and rich
Courses teachings into their daily lives (especially in their
for me. My teacher-pupil relationships and the sessions in
which they take place have far surpassed my thoughts about relationships), and apply these teachings to particular areas
what it would be like. Beforehand, I had looked forward to of malaise, pain, and confusion. I try to uncover with them
the underlying beliefs that are the real cause of the pain
helping people on their journey with the
and help them establish new beliefs.
Course, but I didnt expect that this

would help me so much on my own

In preparation for my teacher-pupil
journey, and that I would experience
work, Robert and I developed a set of
such joy, fulfillment, and love.
guidelines which define the goal of the
relationship and outline the roles of
Generally, I meet with pupils for
both teacher and pupil. At the
about an hour once a week, and each
beginning of our work together, I go
session is different in form, depending
over the guidelines with the pupil, and
on what the pupil brings to discuss, or
we also identify the main areas where
what the Holy Spirit has on the agenda
she wants help. Thereafter, we
for us! (I try to allow the Holy Spirit to
periodically check in to see how were
be in charge of the whole process,
doing. We may realize that a shift in
including when we should meet and for
focus
seems in order, so we seek
how long, and what we should be working on.) We start
each session by offering a prayer and asking the Holy guidance about the direction in which to go. In our initial
Spirit for guidance about how to proceed. Sometimes we session, we also ask for guidance about whether or not we
dont receive a clear answer, so we just go ahead on what are to enter into a teacher-pupil relationship, and if the
appears to be our own. Invariably, at some point we realize answer is affirmative, we offer a prayer dedicating our
that the Holy Spirit has been orchestrating the session, relationship to the Holy Spirits purposes.
bringing to the forefront exactly what the pupil needed to
This describes, in part, the form of the sessions, but
be talking about. During the session, I ask the Holy Spirit nothing can accurately describe what really happens. That
for help in holding in my mind a healed perception of my is all about content, the nature of our relationship.
pupil, and I try to frequently check in and ask for direction, Sometimes I will come into a session feeling tired or a bit
especially when Im not sure about where to go next or anxious. Then we have a quiet time with Jesus or the Holy
what to say.
Spirit, and begin our sharing, and that feeling is dispelled

I ask the Holy

Spirit for help in
holding in my
mind a healed
perception of
my pupil.

Sometimes a pupil will have read something from the

Text or Manual and will ask me to help her understand it
better. Newer students may be stuck on some challenging
Course teaching, such as the concept of our having made

by an overwhelming sense of the importance and the

holiness of what is going on. More than that, I feel a great
deal of love for my pupil, and have a deep sense that the
person with me is far beyond the issues and concerns she is

A Better Way

sharing. (You may have noticed that I have been referring

to my pupils as she. This is because, at this point, all my
in-person teacher-pupil relationships are with women.)

miracles given and received. This relationship is for

breaking down the barriers that block love from us. I am
learning to look in the Course, and to look within, and
somehow this breaking down just happens. The darkness
that used to be there all the time is no longer there. Mary
Anne has seen my light, my faith, and my willingness, and I
am learning to see them in me, as well. I used to see only my
darkness, guilt, and pain. I see a whole different world now.

Jesus is right: Somehow, in this joining in a common

purpose, all barriers and concerns dissolve and what is left
is the truth of who this person is and a real sense of
oneness. People bring to me different stories; they come
from different backgrounds and life experiences, some of
which are foreign to me. Yet, it always becomes clear to
My teacher pays attention and is willing to listen. I feel
me that there is no real difference between us. It is such an more love in my heart: I feel both loved and more loving.
amazing experience to sit with someone who seems so I feel closer to knowing that I am okay with God. Our work
different from me, someone with whom it could be together is helping me learn Gods lessons, and I believe
difficult to relate, and yet see her truly,
that I will truly know love as we
see that there is absolutely no difference
continue.

between us. Beneath every different

There is an equality between us
story, every different life experience, is
which
is understood, even though my
a person with exactly the same desire
teacher is more advanced in her
and goal that I have: to recognize and
understanding and experience of the
accept our true Identity and come home
Course at this time. In the Holy Spirit
to God. It just looks as if its about
we are one and equal. I also know that
dealing with a physical problem, an
I am learning to be a teacher of God,
unhealthy relationship, a job. Just as we
and am deepening my ability to step
have the same desire, we have the same
into that as a function one day.
block: resistance to the truth of who we
are.
Mary Anne is teaching me to see the

It is very clear to
me that each and
every one of the
relationships has
been gently
planned and
orchestrated for
both of us.

Sometimes, as we sit in meditation

or seek guidance, individuality melts
into a true sense of joining. The person
with me is not her illness or concern or situation; she is a
holy Son of God. I see her, experience her that way, and all
worldly concerns disappear. As I hold her in my mind, my
heart is filled with a deep sense of love, joy, and gratitude.

Sometimes the person will have the same issue that I

have had or still do have; sometimes she will have a
particular characteristic that I have judged in the past. In
such cases, I chuckle at the Holy Spirits cleverness in
matching me with someone who provides for me the exact
teaching-learning situation that I need. It is very clear to
me that each and every one of the relationships has been
gently planned and orchestrated for both of us, and that we
are both in exactly the right place at the right time.
When I mentioned to one of my pupils, Jean Olson, that
I was writing this article, she felt guided to ask if she could
share what our teacher-pupil relationship has been like for
her. The following are her comments.
A Pupils Experience
Our relationship is a sacred and holy one. I feel the Holy
Spirits presence with us in the holy instants and the

Winter 2002

Course in a far deeper and richer way.

I am learning to apply it all the time,
using it as a tool...and, when I do,
theres no conflict! The egos funconflictis being taken
away! We are looking at the thoughts behind how I have
felt and seen things, and I am learning to drop the face of
innocence I have been wearing for so long. Im not
running and hiding any more.
I feel such gratitude. Theres so much love inside my
heart now that it brings tears to my eyes. I feel gratitude
for being gently led by the Holy Spirit, and by the Holy
Spirit working through Mary Anne and me. Each
awareness brings me closer to life.
Concluding Thoughts
Because we are trying to establish a solid tradition of
the teacher-pupil relationship, and because we want to be
responsible about the role, Robert has been functioning as
my supervisor. I keep him informed about my
relationships, sharing apparent successes and challenges,
and I confer with him when I need help in one way or
another. (I have established with my pupils that our
discussions are confidential, except when I feel that I need
to consult with Robert in order to better serve my pupils

needs or to help me with my teaching role.) Robert and I

have also reestablished our own teacher-pupil relationship
on a formal basis, and we meet regularly to help keep me
on course.
Here at the Circle, we are excited and encouraged by
how my teacher-pupil work has been evolving, and we see
it having the potential to go far beyond the pupils with
whom I am now meeting. These relationships are really a
laboratory in which we are trying out an essential part of

our model, and we hope that it will work and grow, and
eventually become available to any Course student who
wants this kind of help along the way. From all indications,
it is definitely moving in this direction, and I am thrilled
and honored to be a part of the process.

See especially A Better Way, Oct. 1993, Oct. 1995, Feb.

1996, May 1996, and Aug. 1998

~~~~
THE SIX FACETS OF THE
ROLE OF TEACHER OF PUPILS
by Robert Perry
1. CONCEPTUAL TEACHER
Basic to this role is clarifying the Courses concepts to
your pupil. This is important, but is only the topmost
layer. Its important not to see this as the sum total of your
function as teacher. For an example of this aspect in the
Course, see M-24.
2. GUIDE THROUGH THE PROGRAM
The Course is more than just a set of ideas, it is a
course, an educational program which leads its
students into internalizing its ideas. It is your job as
teacher to guide your pupil through this program, to
help him in his study of the Text, his practice of the
Workbook, and his extension of forgiveness to others
(symbolized by the Manual). For an example of this
aspect, see M-29.1-2.
3. BELIEF DOCTOR
The pupil will naturally be bringing personal
problems and issues to the teacher, whose job it will
be to uncover the beliefs that are the real cause of the
pupils pain, and help the pupil move into new beliefs.
For an example of this aspect, see M-21.4-5.
4. FORGIVER
The teacher is also meant to be a healer, who heals
the pupils deep-seated guilt through forgiveness.
6

Even while he is teaching the concepts, or guiding the

pupil through the program, the teacher is supposed to
see the core of his job as forgiving the pupil. The
pupils mistakes and resistance, therefore, can be
viewed as a precious opportunity to carry out ones
real job of teaching the pupil that he is forgiven. For
an example of this aspect, see M-17-18.
5. EXAMPLE
The most powerful way of teaching, says the
Course, is by example (T-5.IV.5:1). As the teacher,
you need to be a living demonstration, in your
demeanor, your behavior, and your life, of the
Courses way. This doesnt mean that your words are
useless in communicating your message, but these
words will have little power unless they are backed up
by your life. For a discussion of this aspect, see
M-In.1-3.
6. HOLY RELATIONSHIP PARTNER
So much of the power in the teacher-pupil
relationship is in the relationship itself. Despite one
being the teacher and the other the pupil, real joining
is supposed to take place, joining which is supposed
to change the two participants forever, by proving to
them that they arent separate entities, but part of a
single Self. For a discussion of this aspect, see M-2.5.
A Better Way

What Does It Mean

to Do Nothing?
A Commentary on T-18.Vll
by Robert Perry
The section I Need Do Nothing (T-18.VII) is so interests at the expense of the interests of others leads you
beloved by Course students, I believe, because it strikes a to feel dirty. You feel unholy. You feel sinful.
deep chord in us. The peace of God just does not seem
The Course is saying that this is not an unanticipated
compatible with strenuous effort. Yet what exactly does it
by-product. This was the goal all along. Unbeknownst to
mean to do nothing? Does it mean staying in bed all day
yourself, you were actually aiming for this goal. You are
and having someone deliver us our
unconsciously attracted to guilt (3:5).
meals? I have visited this section again
Yet guilt is painful. Who would
and again over the years, and each time
consciously pursue guilt? So the ego

have found new insights. Recently, I

must sell this goal to your conscious
studied it once more and, to my surprise,
mind in an attractive packaging. It tells
saw behind its words a completely new
you to seek some outer prize that you
overall structure. I realized that the
can possess in the future, some
section is really a discussion of three
external reward you remember from
ways of being, three ways of finding
your past. The goals your body seeks,
happiness. The first way is the way most
therefore, are always removed from
of the world follows. It ends up causing
the presentfor an important reason:
us so much pain and disillusionment
the goals distance from the present
that many of us are propelled into the
allows you to think that you are getting
second way: the pursuit of holiness. Yet this way has its
something other than what you are. You think you are
problems, too, and so the Course offers us a third way: I
getting something enticing and wonderful, yet when you
need do nothing.
draw the treasure out of the past or future and actually hold
it in the present, what you feel is guiltguilt over the
1. THE FIRST WAY: THE WAY OF THE WORLD
things you did to get it, guilt over the sheer worship of
When you follow the way of the world, your life your separate needs that it represents. The external thing
centers around using your body to satisfy bodily needs. was just the wrapping for the gift of guilt. By enticing you
You make plans for yourself, plans which heavily into pursuing some external thing from the past or in the
emphasize your bodys comfort, protection, and future, the ego was tricking you into pursuing guilt.
enjoyment (1:2). You are always seeking, seeking things in
This still may sound strange, but after years of seeking
the future that you remember being enjoyable in the past.
This appears to be natural, so natural as to be virtually to satisfy your needs, isnt the end result that you feel
unquestioned. But the section has some shocking things to dirty? That you feel like there is something wrong with
you? That you feel despair about yourself? That you feel
say about this way.
you are hopeless? The Course would say that these are the
The primary criticism this section levels against the
natural symptoms of the pursuit of sin as goal. These are
way of the world is that it is not a pursuit of happiness at
the signs that you have found what you were
all. It is actually a covert pursuit of the goal of sin (1:4) or
unconsciously looking for.
unholiness. This may sound strange, but it is not so hard to
Can you see this first way in your own life? Can you see
see. While you are pursuing your bodys comfort,
yourself
putting your time and energy into the fulfillment
protection, and enjoyment, its all about you. You are the
hero of the dream. The needs of others are only minimally of your separate interests? Do you find yourself observing
taken into account or are actively stepped on as you gallop this and having thoughts such as, How self-centered I
along in pursuit of your comfort, protection, and am! or Do I think the universe revolves around me? Can
enjoyment. Over time, your worship of your own separate you feel the guilt associated with such thoughts?

The peace of God

just does not seem
compatible with
strenuous effort.

Winter 2002

2. THE SECOND WAY:

THE PURSUIT OF HOLINESS
After a lifetime of following the way of the world,
many people cant stand it any more. They feel too sinful.
The desire to be closer to the angels than the animals
gathers force in them. The yearning to be made clean
overpowers them. And they leave conventional life in
pursuit of holiness.

see your belief that your own efforts make you holy? To
get in touch with this, ask yourself what about your
lifestyle, your beliefs, and your practices makes you a
more spiritual person (not just more spiritual in your
efforts, but in your nature) than the most worldly person
you know. The key to finding your belief that your own
efforts make you holy is finding your belief that your
efforts have made you holier than others.

The Course applauds the search, but the conventional

pursuit of holiness is ill-suited to its goal, says this section.
The problem is that these impassioned seekers genuinely
assume that they have made themselves sinful and that
now they have to make themselves holy. Their selfish
doing has made them unholy, so now their spiritual doing
will make them holy, or so they think.

3. THE THIRD WAY: I NEED DO NOTHING

The Course is offering us a way that is different from
both of the other ways. It is different from the way of the
world in that its goal is not sin. It shares the same goal as
the pursuit of holiness, but its means are different. Its
guiding thought is not, I need to make myself holy, but
I need do nothing. This means, of course, I need do
nothing to make myself holy. I am already perfectly holy.

The pursuit of holiness takes two main forms in this

section. In the first form, seekers struggle against the very
I need do nothing means that, in reality, you are
sinful impulses that formerly ruled their lives. They fight already at the goal. You are there now. Nothing you can do
against giving in to the temptation to sin.
can make you more holy. None of your
They wrestle with their bodily impulses.
efforts are needed to get you there.

They try to wrench themselves away

Correspondingly, none of your actions
from their former sinful ways and so
have made you sinful. You are
transmute themselves from excrement
powerless over who you are. All of
into gold. In the second form, they
your doing amounts to nothing. You
merely try to detach from their sinful,
are as God created you, and there is
lower nature, including their body and its
nothing you can do about that. In this
impulses, and rise to a higher level
single thought lies the release from
through meditation. The Course seems to
both the first and second way, for the
smile on the second way more, but this
idea that your choices have the power
way still has connotations of trying to
to make you sinful or make you holy is
escape from a real lower (sinful) nature.
a frightening thought. It is like putting
a three-year-old behind the wheel of a
The problem is that in both forms the
huge truck.
seekers assume that sinfulness is a real
part of their nature, either to be battled or to be escaped.
The thought that you are already holy is a powerful
Their guilt is like a demon they are running from. Given time-saver. You still have to journey. You still will take
the assumption that they truly are unholy, they also time. And you are still heading towards the same goal as
unconsciously assume that it will take time to arduously those in the second way. But in which way will you travel
climb out of the hell they have made of their nature. It will faster: constantly thinking, I am not worthy but someday
take time to make themselves holy. It will take time to be I will make myself worthy, or constantly thinking, I am
able to stand worthy before God. This belief is a self- worthy now; I am holy now. I am already there; I just need
fulfilling prophecy. They do make progress. They have to open my eyes?
holy instants. Yet it does take a very long time. And
Another important difference is that in the second way
ironically, when they at last reach their goal, when they
you
journeyed alone. You withdrew from others in your
have pulled themselves up out of hell and at last toiled up
solitary pursuit of holiness. We all know that devoted
the mountain to the very top, they have the stunning
spiritual seekers can be some of the most self-absorbed
realization, It was mine all alongfor free!
people there are. The needs of others often come second
This second way naturally conjures up images of to the needs of their all-important journey to the spiritual
monks in monasteries or renunciates in caves, but it also heights. Yet to be separate is to be sinful. As the Course
takes less extreme forms. Can you see this second way in says, To be alone is to be guilty (T-15.V.2:6). By going
yourself? Specifically, can you see your search to become it alone, those seekers are unconsciously reinforcing their
holy? To become something more noble than your basest own sense of sinfulness. To really find holiness, you must
impulses would have you be? More importantly, can you transcend the separate self and unite with something

Their selfish doing

has made them
unholy, so now their
spiritual doing will
make them holy, or
so they think.

A Better Way

beyond it. This is what happens in the third way. You join
with others in practicing the realization that you need do
nothing. You seek to experience this supreme truth
together, to join in holy instants in which together you
simply bask in the fullness of what you really are. This
reflects the goal, for holiness lies in joining.

making you another increment holier, is actually altering

your nature (or so you think).

The specific practice of this way is the holy instant. The

practice of the holy instant focuses on a special moment,
an out-of-pattern time interval, as the early Text puts it. In
this instant, you forget about your body and its whole
enterprise of seeking enjoyment over time. Instead, your
complete attention is on the thought, I need do nothing.
You need do nothing because God has given you
everything. Why would you need to seek enjoyment with
your body if God has given you everything? Why would
your mind hungrily race from thought to thought if God
has given you everything? And why would you need to
fantasize about the past or the future if God has given you
everything now? In this state, then, you are at rest,
mentally and physically, completely in the present, purely
open to the fullness of what God has given you.

In this stillness, God enters, in the form of the Holy

Spirit. He enters and establishes a permanent dwelling
place deep in your mind, a place where you always dwell
with Him, a place where you always do nothing. From this
place, He guides you to get back on the freeway, to get
back in the fray, to live a life in the normal worldbut in
a different way. Rather than using your body to serve your
separate interests, you will use it to serve the whole, to
serve everyone. He will direct you in how to use the body
sinlessly (8:4). This is the real reversal of the first way:
not by retreating from the world and trying to make
yourself holy (the second way), but by accepting your preexisting holiness and then going back into the world to
awaken to their holiness all those still following the first
way. The only true reversal of the first way is not to
quarantine yourself from the world but to selflessly extend
to it. Only that is real holiness. Only that will awaken you
to the eternal holiness God gave you in your creation.

It only takes a moment of this stillness for the holy

instant to occur. The second way requires long periods of
meditation because each minute that you spend is actually

Exercise
Lets try out the practice of I need do nothing.
Get comfortable, comfortable enough that your body
wont draw your attention. Close your eyes.
First, try to forget your body, just for this brief time.
Try to forget its needs, its comfort, its protection,
its enjoyment.
Try to forget the things it is currently seeking.
Just for this short time, it is all right to forget all that.
Now dwell on the thought, I need do nothing.
Realize it means:
There is nothing I need do to make myself holy.
God created me holy.
As God created me, I have everything.
I need do nothing.
Try to feel the freedom in this thought.
Nothing I do can make me sinful.
Nothing I do can make me holy.
Nothing I do can make the slightest change in my
eternal state, in which I have everything.
All I need do is accept that state.
Imagine that you are lying on your back on a calm,
peaceful ocean.
The ocean is God.

Winter 2002

The third way requires just an instant of real stillness

because all you are doing is tapping into a full-blown
holiness that you already possess.

The ocean signifies the boundlessness that God

has given you.
As you lie there, you have not a care in the world.
Your heart is beating in the peace of God.
There is nothing to worry about.
There is nothing that hinges on your choices,
your efforts.
There is no need to do anything.
Say to yourself, I need do nothing.
Keep lying on that ocean, repeating I need do nothing
as often as you like.
Let the peace and freedom of that idea be the only thing
that occupies your mind.
Let it draw your mind to a place of complete stillness.
Just bask in this stillness and peace.
Whenever your mind wanders to some trivial
thing of the world, repeat the idea again and let it
draw your mind back to the stillness of lying on your
back on that ocean.
Stay in this place as long as you like.
When your mind begins to wander so much that you
cant stay on the ocean,
conclude with one last repetition of I need do nothing
and open your eyes.

Letters to the Editor

Thank you for your letters to the Circle. We enjoy receiving them and sharing them with our
readers. These letters are on a variety of topics, and include your letters to the editor of A Better Way,
and your comments on our various services, programs, publications, and on our website. Write us at
P.O. Box 4238, W. Sedona, AZ 86340, or send us an e-mail at: info@circleofa.com. Letters may be
edited for space and clarity.
A recent issue of A Better Way (Issue #38), dedicated to exploring the similarities and differences between
the Circles and Ken Wapnicks teachings on the Course, elicited a great deal of interest, and a huge mail bag!
In view of the amount of interest shown in this subject, and in order to fairly represent the diversity of views
expressed, we have devoted a large portion of this newsletter to printing as many of those responses as we can.

Thank you very much for your comparison of the Circles

teachings and the teachings of Ken Wapnick. It has probably long
been clear to students that multiple interpretations of the Course
abound, and that two important interpretationsthose of Ken
Wapnicks and of the Circle of Atonementdiffer in many ways.
Your comparison elucidates both sets of teachings and their
major differences. This kind of comparison seems both necessary
and helpful, especially since it was done in a gentle,
nonjudgmental way.
I assume that similar kinds of comparisons will multiply over
time as the number of Course students and their interpretations
increase. I would like to try to help the comparative process, not
by taking sides, but rather by pointing to crucial ideas and
assumptions that must be taken into account in any comparison
of ACIM interpretations in general, and of Circle-Wapnick
comparisons in particular. The following ideas seem particularly
important but they are, of course, my own assumptions and
interpretations.

1. All understandings of the Course

reflect interpretations.
If there is one thing on which the Course and contemporary
philosophy agree, it is that all our perceptions and understandings
are tinged by subjective interpretations. For the Course, all
perception is partial: this is the way reality is made by partial
vision (W184.4:1). Likewise, a central theme of the last 200
years of philosophy has been that perception and understanding
are colored by a host of filters and limitations. These filters and
limits extend from our social status and historical period through
to Freudian defenses and our psychological (and spiritual)
maturity. In short, all our experience is colored and interpreted.
Therefore, it is a major trap to interpret ones own interpretation
of the Course as not an interpretation. In other words, it is a trap
to believe ones perspective and understanding of the Course are
The Truth. This recognition can have the healthy effect of
reducing attachment to our own interpretations, and making us
more open to those of others.

2. The Course is (in part) fallible.

Christian fundamentalists espouse biblical inerrancy: the
idea that the Bible is without error. However, as any careful Bible
student soon discovers, the Bible abounds in errors of many

10

kinds: historical, factual, and logical. Ditto for Hindu

fundamentalists and their Bible: the Vedas, and for Islam and
the Koran, etc.
Though nowhere near as numerous, the Course, too, seems to
contain errors and contradictions. For example, it claims that the
Bible tells you to know yourself (T-3 III5:1). Once when we
were talking about this, the Course scribe, Bill Thetford, joked,
The Course is a little rusty on its theology.
There also seem to be multiple contradictions within the
Course. However, the extent to which these are actually inherent
in the Course itself, and the extent to which they reflect our (or
my) partial perception and understanding, may remain forever
unclear.

3. Care is necessary when making claims

for similarities and differences.
When comparing Course interpretations, or the Course with
other spiritual traditions, it is important to be wary of making
sweeping claims for similarities or differences, uniqueness or
sameness, compatibility or incompatibility. For example, to claim
either that ACIM is the same as (compatible with) or utterly
different from (totally incompatible with) any other tradition,
including the Bible, is problematic. In fact, taking ACIM or any
other tradition as a whole and making sweeping conclusions and
comparisons is troubling. The Course, and any other tradition, is
a complex thought system with multiple claims, concepts and
assumptions. Some of these will be similar or even identical;
others will be different or even incompatible. As Huston Smith,
author of the superb book The Worlds Religions, pointed out,
claims for similarities and differences get nowhere until one gets
down to specifics; everything is both similar and different. This
is consistent with the Courses claim that A universal theology
is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but
necessary (C-In.2:5).

4. Reality is difficult, and perhaps impossible,

to understand.
A great dealincluding much of the Circle-Wapnick
debatehinges on the understanding of reality and unreality.
This is hardly surprising since ACIM repeats over and over that
the world is unreal.

A Better Way

Discussions about reality are very tricky. This needs to be

clearly recognized in any comparison of interpretations. Just
because ACIM says the world is unreal doesnt necessarily
mean that it has given us enough information about the precise
nature of this unreality for us to be certain about the actual nature
(in philosophical terms, about the precise ontological status) of
the world. For myself, and this is of course my own
interpretation, I dont believe the Course gives enough
information, or is clear and unambiguous enough, about the
nature of the world to reach definitive conclusions.
In the technical terms of philosophy, for the Course, the world
remains ontologically indeterminate.
In fact, it may be inherently impossible to resolve this issue
intellectually. Multiple traditions, including the Course, imply
that appreciating the nature of reality requires, not intellectual
analysis, but transrational wisdom that results from direct
intuitive experience of the nature of reality. This experience and
wisdom are transrational (beyond the intellect and rationality).
As the third Zen Patriarch of Zen warned:
The more you talk and think about it
The further astray you wander from the truth.
Stop talking and thinking,
And there is nothing you will not be able to know.

5. Ones ontological (and metaphysical) assumptions

are extraordinarily powerful and important.
Once you adopt an ontology and metaphysics (a theory abut
the nature of reality), then this necessarily determines how you
view and interpret all the ideas and phenomena it encompasses,
for example, how you interpret the world, the body, the mind,
Heavenin short, almost everything. For example, if you were
to assume that only God is real, then everything elsethe
universe, the world, and the Holy Spirits acts in the world
would be necessarily unreal.
Therefore, in evaluating and comparing interpretations of the
Course, it seems crucial to identify and spell out their underlying
metaphysics.

6. Beware the dual nondual.

Nondual has become somewhat of a buzz-word in spiritual
circles. In part this is probably because it has traditionally
indicated the highest or most profound metaphysical view, in
part perhaps because it sounds wonderfully esoteric. But it is
subtle and tricky.
Likewise, the Course is sometimes said to be nondual.
However, many of the supposedly nondual interpretations seem
to be actually quite dualistic, at least from traditional
perspectives. For example, within the Course community, the
views that only God, or only the oneness of Heaven, exist, have
been described as nondual views.
The discussion gets rather tricky here because of the limits of
language and intellect. However, it is debatable whether such a
view is nondual, or actually strongly dualistic. Because to say
that Heaven is the only reality is to make (an at least apparently)
radical dualism between Heaven and everything else. Yes, the

Winter 2002

Course can be interpreted as implying nothing else but Heaven

exists, but this can still be seen as making a dualistic claim.
Traditionally, the term nondual has been used quite
differently. As implied by numerous traditionsAdvaita
Vedanta, Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, Plotinus and
Meister Eckertnondualism is something subtler. Here
nonduality implies, just as the previously discussed Course
interpretation does, that the world is unreal and to be
distinguished from the Absolute, which is real. However,
traditional nondualism then goes further to suggest, apparently
paradoxically, that the world is the Absolute. This view was
wonderfully summarized by the great Hindu sage Ramana
Mahashi who said:
The world is illusion,
Brahman (God) alone is real.
Brahman is the world.
Numerous other quotes could be given to exemplify this view,
but perhaps the most succinct is Mahayana Buddhism's claim that
nirvana (the Absolute) and samsara (illusion) are one.
Historically, this nondual meaning has emerged later than
earlier metaphysics and has often been regarded as the deepest.
Moreover, it is a perspective that probably cannot be fully
appreciated until one has a direct experience of the Absolute and
this nonduality. That is, intellectual appreciation of this
metaphysics is necessarily limited by the depth of our experience.
The relevance of this for Course students is three-fold. First,
the term nondual can be used in different ways. Second, many
of the Circle-Wapnick differences stem from Kens adherence to,
and the Circles nonadherence to, a nondual metaphysics which
holds that, in Kens words the only reality is the oneness of
Heaven (A Better Way, Issue #38). Third, it is possible to
interpret the Courses metaphysics in the deeper, traditional,
nondual way. A number of Course statements seem consistent
with this metaphysics and it can provide a coherent framework
for the Courses teaching.

7. Comparative study of the Course and other

spiritual disciplines may be valuable.
Obviously comparative study will appeal to only a few
Course students. However, for those students who are called to
this work, there may be real value in studying other traditions.
They may help us learn from the ways in which interpretations
and debates similar to those now taking place within the Course
community have already appeared and played out over centuries
in other traditions.

Conclusions
So what does this imply for us in practical terms?
First, to go back to the beginning, it seems crucial to
recognize our limitations and that all views and understandings of
the Course are partial and interpretations. There are probably as
many interpretations of the Course as there are students.
Second, hold all interpretations lightly and tentatively.
Third, practice! It is actually practicing the Course, or

11

whatever path we are drawn to, that will eventually awaken us to

what the Course calls Knowledge: the transrational wisdom
beyond interpretation.
Fourth, study and practice the Course together. This is what
the Course itself seems to recommend. Collaborative study may
have the healthy effects of heightening awareness of our
idiosyncratic interpretations, and reducing our attachment to
them. To quote the Third Zen Patriarch once again:
Do not search for the truth.
Only cease to cherish opinions.
Finally, keep in mind Bill Thetfords response when two
people called him to adjudicate a debate they were having over
the interpretation of a particular section of the Course. What
page is it on? Bill asked. When they told him, he responded,
tear it out!

Roger Walsh,
Irvine, California

~~~~

I thoroughly enjoyed the articles regarding the Circles ACIM

interpretation as compared to Ken Wapnick and FACIM. Many
students of ACIM have been heretofore thoroughly confused by
what are in fact fundamental differences, and I feel these clearly
written articles are a wonderful remedy. I have personally heard
criticism that even writing the articles is inherently judgmental
and therefore an attack and I couldnt disagree more.
As one might expect of a former board member of the Circle,
I found myself lining up very solidly with the Circles theoretical
positions. Kens radical nondualism seems to lead him to many
conclusions that simply do not make sense to me given the actual
words of the Course on many issues. I think that it cannot be said
enough, however, that these differences and their relative merits
pale in importance to the reality that Ken is a dear brother in
Christ with whom we are one, and that even on a human level, we
are all indeed on the same team.

permanently ground within the Course world that most

threatening of truths: that none of this is real and that therefore
sin cannot be real. My threatened little ego always wishes to
judge those who think differently than me. In spite of it all,
however, anyone with the guts to make this bold claim in a
culture built on the reality of sin and sacrifice is a friend of mine.
Although the Circle has always strenuously emphasized the
nondual essence of ACIM, it has always promoted a qualified
nondualism, which I feel is very clear in the Course. There is a
connection between Spirit and the material world. God does
reach down to us within the dream in many direct and
fundamental ways. What a depressing and demoralizing process
the spiritual path would be if it were not so. I believe this
recognition is one of the Circles unique gifts to the Course
world, and one which the Holy Spirit directly commissioned it to
express. Im sure its members have communicated
understandings that reflect the lack of comprehension available
to an awakened mind. Yet, the gifts will be given and received
nonetheless. Almost all the arguments about what the Course
actually says seem to occur in relation to how Spirit interacts (or
doesnt interact) with the material world. The Circle has shown
in my opinion singular courage in exploring this complicated and
sticky area where the rubber meets the road, as a friend of mine
says.
On the subject of the Holy Spirit, if it helps a particular seeker
to think of Him as a memory or even an abstract mathematical
principle, so be it. I dont think He will be offended. Indeed, I
believe He is capable of translating his message of oneness into
mathematical formulae. But I think that as Greg Mackie says, the
Course is very clear that He is a created Being as is the Sonship
and all its aspects. He is the Almightys proxy here, the
Comforter promised us 2,000 years ago by Jesus: a Comforter
with intention and intelligence who knows every nuance of every
thought; a Comforter intimately involved in human destiny, and
therefore the forms of human destiny; a Comforter Who will not
only guide us but be a personal loving Presence in our own minds
if we let Him.

I have always felt the presence of the Holy Spirit directly

guiding and inspiring the Circle from its inception, of which I
was gratefully a part. I am quite sure as well that the same thing
is true of Ken Wapnick, et.al. It would be hard to dispute that Ken
was not commissioned directly by the Holy Spirit and Jesus to be
the first, and at least to date most influential disseminator of the
core meaning of ACIM. I believe that Jesus has commissioned
many people on this earth in the same way. All of those souls
have unique gifts to give, and will incidentally communicate
unique forms of misunderstanding, with no exception.

Tom Dunn
Former Board member of the Circle
Luray, Virginia

In short, I feel that Kens unique gift to the Course world is in

fact his radical nondualism, and I have the feeling that this
propensity is why he was hired by Spirit to be the Courses first
widely known interpreter. The world is not real. The little selves
we made to people it are not real. Therefore, sin is not real. These
truths are poison to the ego, and are the most potent antidote to
its undoing. The world is literally built to reject this claim. I am
thankful to Ken for a dogged, radical nondualism that would

Thanks to the Circle for beginning to examine the issues

raised by some of Ken Wapnicks theories about the Course.
Here I would like to discuss briefly Kens ideas about its source
and content.

12

~~~~

The White Rabbit was agitated as he ran down the rabbit hole.
Oh dear, oh dear, weve lost the content of the Course! he cried.
Alice replied, I think weve lost the author as well.

According to Ken, Jesus is an abstract presence of formless

love. Defined in this way Jesus couldnt have designed and
dictated the specific words of the Course. There is a dilemma
here which Ken attempts to solve by defining the content of the

A Better Way

Course, likewise, as formless love. He seems to see the words of

the Course as simply equating with form and there is much talk
of iambic pentameter, Shakespeare, psychological concepts and
terminology known to Helen, etc. Nevertheless he never says
outright that Helen composed the words, because if he did,
surely we would have to conclude that Helen was the author. So
we have a source of formless love and a content of formless love.
Does this adequately describe the authorship and content of A
Course in Miracles?
The Course is a lengthy, intricate, and closely argued
teaching of considerable psychological and philosophical
complexity. Among other things, it delves, in grisly detail, into
the dynamics of the ego system. Ken Wapnick himself has
emphasized the need for us to honestly examine the ego system
and not to simply dwell on love. Who gave us the detailed
information about the ego system? In considering this question,
and others like it, we see the need to consider what we really
mean when we talk about the authorship and content of the
Course.

I read with interest your article comparing Ken Wapnicks

teachings and your own. Basically, I see this as a disagreement
between two ACIM fundamentalists. In general, fundamentalism
is based on a literal interpretation of the writings the
fundamentalist accepts as sacred. I grew up in a fundamentalist
view of Christianity, and their position was similar to your own,
only with regard to the Bible rather than ACIM. The basic idea
was: Take it literally except when a symbolic interpretation is the
only one possible. The fundamentalist mindset weakens any
spiritual teaching. The Course itself says that words are symbols
of symbols, twice removed from reality. So why on earth would
anyone take them literally?
Truth is found only in the unwritten, mystical essence of all
that is. All attempts to express it in form will forever be
incomplete and somewhat misleading. The Jesus of the Bible
spoke in parables and stories, saying, The Realm of heaven is
like. All expressions of truth are inadequate and can be
presented only by analogy. We have to go beyond the words to
something greater.

I submit, firstly, that the content of the Course consists of the

ideas it sets forththese ideas are transmitted by the words of
the Course and the meaning they convey. I suggest that we cant
divorce the words of the Course from their meaning and content,
and whoever provided the words provided the meaning and
content of the Course. This content is vast, and will be studied by
students and scholars for generations.

ACIM is a great and profound presentation of spiritual

truth. But like all other spiritual paths, it points forever beyond
itself to the formless, that which can only be experienced and
never fully expressed in form. As St. Paul said, We know in part
and we prophesy in part. How thankful I am for the part
represented by ACIM. And I am grateful for all the teachers of
God who are called to practice and share its teachings.

Secondly, I submit that the person who dictated the words to

Helen is quite unambiguous about his identity, his words, his
authority, and his remaining with us to guide and help us through
the dream. He simply does not conform to Kens definition of
him, and as defined by Ken could have had no part in all of this.
We may well ask who wrote the Course, because this theory
doesnt tell us.

Denis Moore
San Jose, California

The theory of formless love bypasses both the author, and the
text Helen scribed. It fudges on the crucial issue of responsibility
for the words, and is muddled on the distinction between form
and content. It doesnt hold up as an account of the source and
content of the Course.

Mary Benton
Sydney, Australia

~~~~

I very much appreciated the newsletter with the side-by-side

comparison of Ken Wapnicks and the Circles interpretations of
the Course. That was really well done. I have always found it
interesting how different readers of the Course can come to such
divergent interpretations of the same material. I would think this
comparison that you put together would probably make many
students realize that theyd better take responsibility for learning
how to read the Course themselves, and not rely too much on any
one interpreter.

Karen Wright
Tucson, Arizona

Winter 2002

Robert Perry responds: The value we place on closely

examining the words of the Course and taking them literally most
of the time has led a few people to label us fundamentalists. We,
however, do not think that term applies to us at all. While
fundamentalists claim to take scripture literally, the term itself
refers to far more than this. Fundamentalism began as a label for
currents within 20th century American Protestantism, but the
word is now often used to describe movements in various
traditions around the world. Karen Armstrong in her book, The
Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism (New York: Knopf,
2000), describes fundamentalist movements as embattled forms
of spirituality that have emerged to fight against what they see
as the encroaching evil of secular modernity.
Fundamentalists do not regard this battle as a
conventional political struggle, but experience it as a
cosmic war between the forces of good and evil. They
fear annihilation, and try to fortify their beleaguered
identity by means of a selective retrieval of certain
doctrines and practices of the past.
(p. xiii)
The notion of selective retrieval is particularly important.
Fundamentalists are not truly devoted to drawing out and
following the original meaning of their scriptural writings.
Speaking of Christian fundamentalists, L. William
Countryman comments in his book Biblical Authority or Biblical
Tyranny? (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994):

13

They often speak of Scripture as inerrant. In fact,

however, they have tacitly abandoned the authority of
Scripture in favor of a conservative Protestant theology
they buttress with strings of quotations to give it a
biblical flavor, but it predetermines their reading of
Scripture so thoroughly that one cannot speak of the
Bible as having any independent voice in their
churches.
(pp. ix-x)
Given the above descriptions, it is difficult to see much if any
resemblance between fundamentalism and the Circle. We prefer
instead to think of ourselves as purists. Our whole intent is to
approach the Course on its own terms and thereby give it a truly
independent voice, independent of our preconceptions and
preferences. Perhaps with other scriptures such an attempt to
follow the letter of the law stifles the spirit of the law and
leads to a stale and restrictive spiritual life. Our experience with
this scripture, however, is that the more minutely we go into the
letter the more deeply we get in touch with the spirit, the
more practical, alive and transformative the Course becomes for
us. In the case of the Course, we believe, the letter genuinely
serves the spirit.
These comments are from the introduction to our upcoming
book exploring the relationship between the Circles teachings
and those of Ken Wapnick.

~~~~

Many many years ago, I was on a spiritual journey. One night,

I sat with a whole class of Buddhist monks and nuns listening to
a sermon of a Zen master. The opening sentence was: The
Bodhisattvas path is not the Buddhas path. I could see the
shocked faces and pens frozen in the air. The message I still
remember vividly was this. The goal of Buddhism is
Enlightenment and total liberation from this illusory world. There
have been many skillful means to accommodate peoples
different needs throughout history. But there are certain
requirements that the practitioner has to meet in order to reach
Enlightenment. The most crucial essential requirement is the
realization of the truth of the non-substantiality (emptiness) of the
self and the world.
The Bodhisattvas path is a path that heavily emphasizes the
selfless cultivation of virtues and merits, for the benefit of others.
It is almost an indispensable prerequisite for Enlightenment in
Buddhist teaching. However, most of the practitioners tend to
make the practice of Six Paramitas (transcendent virtues) too real
and miss the ultimate teaching of Buddhismthe nondual
realization. As long as the giver, the receiver and the given in the
practice maintain their separate substance, Enlightenment is out
of reach. Since very few can walk on the path of Buddhist
absolute teaching, the relative truth is accepted and coexists with
it from the very beginning. But real and mature practitioners have
to know the difference between these two.
The Circles article (and upcoming book) on The
Relationship between the Circles Teachings and the Teachings of
Ken Wapnick is logically developed from its own assumed
premises. It follows a pattern typical of Christian Fundamentalist

14

thinking, employing words and concepts mechanically and

treating words too literally. It seems to me that Robert Perry lacks
knowledge about the dynamics of absolute and relative truth in
Buddhist tradition on one hand, and the interdependency of the
spiritual and literal interpretations in Christian theology on the
other.
I agree that we need to appreciate Fundamentalist efforts to
set limits to the excesses of spiritual interpretations, protecting
truth from abusive manipulation. But without considering the
broad spiritual vision that we inherited from almost 2,500 years
of religious tradition, and reading the Course only by its black
words on white paper, any effort is bound to be anemic. My
impression is that Robert and his Circle follow the literal
interpretation and confine the Course to the level of relative truth.
Ken, by contrast, follows the spiritual interpretation and
emphasizes the ultimate reality (the absolute truth) of the Course.
Neither approach needs to fight with the other in order to validate
its viewpoint. They dont even need to reconcile their theologies.
(It has never succeeded throughout history anyway!)
I want to encourage both Robert and Ken to continue to make
their own unique and inspiring Course contributions. My simple
suggestion is that the Course world would be even more richly
benefited if they both could turn their heads around once in a
while and appreciate each others balancing energy and thank
God for it!

Chiao lin Cabanne

Rocklin, California
Robert Perry responds: Thank you for your thoughtprovoking and intelligent response. One initial note: I dont think
the word fundamentalist is appropriate when applied to the
Circle. There is a whole world of connotations that go along with
that word that just dont fit us. Yes, we do advocate faithful
adherence to a literal reading of our scripture, but the word
fundamentalist does not just refer to that. It has a whole ring to it
that amounts, in my mind, to a bit of a slam when applied to us
though perhaps you mean it in some less loaded sense than I am
accustomed to hearing it used.
I thought a great deal about what you said, in part because I
do value the lessons of history. Yet I also think those lessons can
apply only to situations in the present that are sufficiently similar
to the past situations from which the lessons are drawn. This
leaves me with two very different reflections.
When it comes to human reaction, I think the lesson of history
applies. After all, humans in one traditionincluding that of the
Courseare pretty much the same as humans in other traditions.
The specific lesson of history is that the fundamentalists will
always be in the minority. They provide a helpful counterbalance
to the tendency of traditions to wander too far away from their
scriptures, but they are too narrow for most seekers to feel at home
there. I think that is what you essentially said. I have to concede
that that will probably be the case with us. Our perspective on the
Course will probably always represent a minority position.

A Better Way

What I have observed is that a rigorous hewing to the literal words

of the Course is just not in the nature of most people, even most
Course students. Here, I think the lesson of history probably
applies.
When it comes to the Course itself, though, I dont think the
lesson applies. It would only apply if the Course were like other
scriptures, and I think there are broad and central differences. My
understanding of how traditions generally develop is that they
usually begin with human activity in the world (as opposed to
writing), passed down by oral tradition. After time passes, things
are set down in writing. This, in the end, usually results in a
number of books from different authors, written at different times,
and expressing different perspectives. And none of these scriptural
books may spell out very clearly what the seeker (or the
congregation) actually does day-in and day-out to practice this
path. The job is then left to tradition to take a mass of often
conflicting and indirect written and oral information and, relying
heavily on experience and further insights, and adapting it all of
course to the changing needs of the times, shape the spiritual path
as contemporary seekers actually understand and practice it.
The Course is in a significantly different category. How many
of the worlds traditions have at their center:

a single scripture with a single author,

a scripture which purports to be authored by the supreme

authority in that tradition,

which says that it is written in plain, straightforward

language,

which claims to be totally internally consistent, without

contradictions,

which is written as an instructional manual in how the

seeker should walk this particular path: how to
understand it, how to practice it internally, how to live it
in relation to others, even how to teach it to others,

and which claims to lay out the full extent of this path, to
the point where it says that it has left nothing out?

Furthermore, how many traditions were actually begun, not

by a person or group, but by this very same book?
I cannot think of any examples outside the Course (I think
Islam comes closest but still does not fit all of the above features).
This fact says to me that we cannot simply paste onto this
situation the lessons learned from other situations. They are just
too dissimilar. This situation requires its own special handling.
We have to approach the Course on its own merits. It sets the
rules for how we approach it.
What does that mean? As I look at my list above, one fact
stands out: The Course is not a tradition developed by a complex
interaction between initial human activity and resulting oral
tradition, different scriptural books, and subsequent human
thought and experience. It is not fundamentally a tradition,
though a tradition is developing around it. It is a path, in written
form, authored by a single person (who I believe is Jesus). He

Winter 2002

therefore has sole authority over what this path is. If we consider
ourselves followers of his path, we need to follow his lead. We
need to do it the way he laid it out. We need to let the intent
expressed in his words be our guide for how we understand,
practice, and demonstrate this path. Otherwise, we are on some
other path, or only partly on his pathwhich is fine, but we
should at least call it what it is.
Oddly enough, this is what we and Wapnick agree on. We
agree that we have to approach the Course on its own merits; we
have to do our best to discern and follow the authors intent as
expressed in his words. We just disagree on what his words in fact
express.
This is what I feel is missing in your comments. There is no
mention made of what the author wanted, what he was trying to
set up via the words he expressed. That crucial point gets lost
amidst the lessons of absolute and relative truth in Buddhism and
spiritual and literal interpretations in Christianitylessons from
very dissimilar situations.
So, while I agree that we cannot skirt the lessons of history in
terms of how people will reactpeople are peopleI disagree
that the lessons learned from other traditions should determine
how we approach the Course. In my eyes, the Course should
determine how we approach the Course.

~~~~

We need to pray for Ken Wapnickor at least the illusion of

Ken which we seem to observe. I know from direct experience
as well as direct revelation (as the Course calls an experience
beyond doubt and question and vastly far beyond my belief level
at the time) that the Holy Spirit is a real Being. A specific, nonabstract, non-illusionary Being; a creation of God Who delivers
miracles in the land of effects consistently beyond my level of
expectation.
While there are dangers in getting too over-literal about any
wording, I believe Kens fear-based vigilance to avoid errors is
cause for errors of another kind. I know this because I have seen
some of this type of vigilance in myself and I would have it be
corrected. When we just let in the light, we dont then need this
kind of error-seeking vigilance. Goodness just radiates its Being.

Dennis Allen
By e-mail

~~~~

Robert Perrys caution that the intent of this article is not to

stir up controversy and draw students away from the real focus
ofthe Course, is an important one that I believe warrants
further elaboration. The Course explicitly states that its purpose
is not to be an academic endeavor, nor a theological study, nor an
intellectual debate among scholars, but a practical Course to
facilitate our experience of our real identity as the Christ. Clearly,
we cannot intellectualize our way into Heaven, although this is a
favorite activity of the ego. The Courses purpose is simply to
guide us to oneness by undoing the separation. This is the
Atonement principle. The Course warns that the ego will try to

15

divert us from this goal by focusing our attention on any

differences it can find to emphasize the separation among us in
order to promote its specialness. When egos clamor for an
exposition of the distinctions between two schools of teaching,
the practical effect may not be learning, but further separation of
two camps that are already apart. World history is replete with the
ruins that theological fractionalization has wrought under the
guise of finding a superior way to God. We need not add to it. Let
our teachings emphasize the unity of Christ rather than our
differences of opinion.

Arnold Weiss, Ph.D.

Los Angeles, California

~~~~
Thank you for your article on The Relationship between the
Circles Teachings and the Teachings of Ken Wapnick. I have
for many years been puzzled by these differences because I
regard both you and Ken as great teachers of the Course. After
reading your article, it became very clear to me that something
was missing here, because I could see both sides as having valid
positions, but yet appearing to be opposing each other. I was very
disturbed by this situation at first, but knew there must be an
answer. The next morning the lesson for the day was, I feel the
Love of God within me now. After reading the lesson, I went
into a period of meditation. In that meditation the answer came
forth very clearly to me.
Now, before I go any further, let me say that this answer was
for me. It may or may not satisfy others as resolving the
differences between the Circles position and Kens position. So,
heres what the answer was. First, the Introduction to the Course
tells us: The Course does not aim at teaching the meaning of
love, for that is beyond what can be taught. What the Love of
God really is, what it does and how it operates cannot be
explained or defined in a way we could understand. So, how can
it be presented to us in a way that we can accept and understand,
without dismissing it as impossible? By giving it a name, and
assigning to it the function that the Love of God carries out in this
seeming world of separation. Yes, thats what the name Holy
Spirit really is; its a name and a personality we have given to
the Love of God so that we can identify with It as being a creation
of God Who works with us in our everyday lives, helping us to
heal our minds and return to our oneness in God. In fact, the
words Holy Spirit are used interchangeably with some form of
the words Love of God in several places in the Course. After
receiving this answer, I went to Lesson 189 to read what it says
about the Love of God. I was amazed to find that the Love of God
operates in this world (our belief about this world) by offering us
another world filled with peace and joy. Isnt this the function
given the Holy Spirit in other sections in the Course?
Since the world of separation does not exist any more,
certainly the Holy Spirit (Love of God) cannot make changes in
a non-existing world for us. The Holy Spirit (Love of God) can,

16

however, help us change our minds about this world, allowing us

to choose another dream world which leads to our awakening.
Even this world is a past dream, but there is a big difference.
The happy dream of awakening contains reflections of the truth
of God, thereby leading us back to our true reality of oneness in
God. The real point to all this is the fact that the Holy Spirit or the
Love of God has already corrected the whole world of separation
for us and theres nothing more that needs to be done.
So, why do I see this as the answer to the differences between
the Circles position and Kens? Simply because these differences
stem from the use of words which are symbolic. The Course tells
us that words are symbols, twice removed from reality. In Lesson
189, the Course talks completely about the Love of God helping us
return to our true reality and does not mention the Holy Spirit at all.
So, this lesson has helped me see past all differences and
accept everyone in this world as my savior, regardless of what
they believe or dont believe. But again, this answer was for me.
If it also helps others, so be it.

Chuck Okerstrom
Titusville, Florida

~~~~

If I understand correctly, the Circle thinks the Holy Spirit

does act in the world, whereas you think Mr. Wapnick denies it.
If you put up this question and ask who is right, my answer would
be that both are right. The seeming contradiction is not really
there; its only that Mr. Wapnick, when he is saying that the Holy
Spirit does not acteither in the world or at allhe speaks
about Heaven, Gods level, the Knowledge level, the only reality
there is. Whereas you talk about the perception levelwhere we
think we are, where we live and act and do things; although the
Course states very clearly that this is only our dream of
separation and has no reality at all!
As I see it, Mr. Wapnick very clearly says that we may be
guided by the Holy Spirit in our behavior. Wewhen we so
chooseask the Holy Spirit for guidance and He sends us His
thoughts, His light. This is very helpful for us, and enables us to
fulfill our function here, which is forgiveness! But in reality,
neither we nor the Holy Spirit actually do anything in this world.
We all are in Heaven, we have just closed our eyes for a tiny
moment, and in that moment we dreamt to be bodies in a world
where God is not. And when we decide to choose again to wake
up, then we just dream our last dream of forgiveness, which
shows us the real world in which there is no battle whether
someone does anything here or not. But being shown that the
circle of peace, the circle of Atonement has no end and
everybody is welcomed in, we just forgive everything and
everybody, because we understand that nobody has really done
anything, at any time, and Heaven is restored again in our minds!

Johannes and Karin Arko

Vienna, Austria

A Better Way

WHY WONT GOD JUST

ZAP ME INTO ENLIGHTENMENT?
by Allen Watson
How often have you wondered about that question? Why
doesnt God just wake me up?
Sometimes, it seems that God is just tantalizing us with the
real world and talk of right-mindedness, promising us perfect
happiness and unshakable peace, and yet leaving us here to
wallow in our confusion and misery for some unfathomable
reason of His own. If that is indeed what God is doing, God is
sadistic.

The reason Jesus gives is not, Sorry, that isnt possible.

Rather, he says that if he intervened in that way he would be
tampering with a basic law of cause and effect (T-2.VII.1:4).
Its helpful, I think, to get a firm handle on what particular cause
and effect he has in mind here. The effect he is talking about,
fairly obviously, is our fear. We dont like fear, we want him to
remove it, and he says doing so would be intervening between
your thoughts and their results (T-2.VII.1:4). So then, the cause
is our thoughts, and the effect is our fears.

If God were a good God, surely He would not torture us like

In other words, we are the ones making ourselves fearful.
that! And if God is not good, we may as well forget all this Our minds are the source of fear, not anything outside of our
spirituality business and just do our best to
minds, and only our minds can control it.
enjoy what we can until it is all taken away
Our fears are the result of our thoughts. If,

from us. But lets forget that line of thought;

somehow, Jesus or God were to cancel out
if we are going to base our belief on
our fears in spite of our thoughts, it would
anything, lets base it on the assumption that
violate the law of cause and effect.
God is love, as both the Bible and the
Zapping Us Would Teach Us Our Mind
Course assure us He is.
Is Powerless
So, if God really loves us, there must
On top of that, by overriding the effects
some good reasonsome loving reason
of our minds, he would be depreciating the
why He doesnt just zap us with
power of our thinking (T-2.VII.1:5), both
enlightenment? The Course gives its
by devaluing it and by belittling it.
response in at least a half-dozen places, with
The Course would never make light of
a variety of explanations. This question is
our minds power; indeed, it strives to
one that occurs often to spiritual seekers,
teach us just how powerful our minds are
and Jesus responds to it from several
(T-2.VII.1:6). The power of our mind is
different directions, so as to make us very
what, eventually, will save us and save the
clear that there are many good reasons.
world. The power of the mind is a thread
of meaning running all through Chapter 2.
Zapping Us Would Violate Gods Own
T-2.III.4:6 tells us that by looking past
Law of Cause and Effect
error to the Atonement, spiritual vision re-establishes the power
In the section in Chapter 2 entitled Cause and Effect, Jesus
of the mind. In T-2.IV.3:13, we are advised against denying the
points out that asking him to take away our fear wont do any
minds effects (the existence of the body) because that also
good, because that is something we need to do for ourselves (see
denies the minds power. In T-2.VI.9, Jesus tells us we need to
T-2.VII.1:1-3). There is a close connection between freedom
fully realize just how powerful the mind really is. In fact, that
from fear and enlightenment; in fact, since the egos thought paragraph also told us that we have chosen to see the mind as
system derives completely from fear, one could say they are weak because we are afraid of our thoughts and their power! If
synonymous, since freedom from fear would presuppose Jesus were to take away our fear and depreciate the minds
freedom from the ego. Asking Jesus or God to take away our fear power, he would actually be reinforcing the egos deception and
is the same as asking them to take away our ego, or asking them strengthening the cause of our fear. He would be stripping away
to somehow make us into enlightened beings.
the only thing that ultimately can save us.

Sometimes, it
seems that God is
just tantalizing us
with talk of perfect
happiness and
unshakable peace,
and yet leaving
us here to wallow
in our confusion
and misery.

Winter 2002

17

Instead, he reminds us that we dont guard our thoughts

carefully enough (T-2.VII.1:7), which is the same thing he said
back in T-2.VI.4:6 about mind wandering. Our thoughts are
the cause, and our fear is the effect. If God isnt going to
intervene between cause and effect, then there can only be one
solution: We have to guard our thoughts and clean up our minds.
We have to deal with the thoughts that are causing our fears.
At this point, we encounter one of those uncanny instances in
the Text where Jesus seems to know exactly what we are
thinking in reaction to what he just said. In this case, nearly
every one of us, when we read that we need to guard our
thoughts and keep our minds from wandering, think, Yeah,
sure! Fat chance, with my mind! How can I ever keep my mind
from wandering? How can I ever keep the ego out?
Buddhists refer to the way our minds run out of control when
we try to meditate as monkey mind, comparing our minds to a
monkey that jumps wildly about. And not to just any monkey,
but to a monkey who is drunk and has been stung by a scorpion!
Thats what our minds are like. Thats exactly why we asked
Him to zap us in the first place: We feel
incapable of taming our minds.

If we cannot control our minds when we

hunker down to meditate, even when we try
to focus our full attention on stilling those
wild, insane thoughts, what hope do we
have of guarding our thoughts in the thick
of life? Why, it would take a miracle, right?
And, as Jesus humorously points out, that
is perfectly true (1:8). It will take a
miracle, but this is a course in miracles! We
arent used to thinking in terms of miracles,
but we can be trained to think that way
(1:9). That is exactly the kind of training we need as miracle
workers (1:10), and it is exactly the training this course offers.

trying to teach. My minds power is the instrument of my

awakening and the condition I will awaken to. Currently, my
mind is out of control. I find its power hard to harness and
govern; yet miracles can help me bring my mind under control,
and learning to accept miracles is the teaching goal of the
Course. My mind can awaken itself, and it must awaken itself to
realize its own power. So I dont need God to zap me; indeed,
zapping me would not produce the desired result! The Course is
designed to train me to accept the miracles that will bring my
mind under my control.
Zapping Us Would Be Contrary to Gods Love
Chapter 13, Section III, speaks of the necessity for becoming
completely aware of the egos thoughts in our mind. It confronts
our bellyaching about having to do it ourselves: Why cant the
Holy Spirit do that for us? we moan (1:2). We insist that
enlightenment ought to be effortless. We want the Holy Spirit to
wave a wand and say, Abracadabra! Youre enlightened. We
do not want to be told that we are responsible for any part of it.
But in fact, were responsible for all of it. We have to see that we
are the ones doing the ego, so we can stop
doing it.

We must recognize
the effort to be egos
and stop it.
God cannot do
that for us.

We think we cant do it; we think we need God to do it for us

in an instant, without any effort on our part. We feel incapable of
the effort it will require, we dont believe we are worth it, and
we dont want to expend the effort we believe it will require of
us. Thats the kind of miracle we want: something that makes us
enlightened without any effort on our part. But the miracle being
offered by the Course is a miracle that enables us to become
masters of our minds (T-2.VII.2:2), which is a much greater
miracle.

Why cant the Holy Spirit simply zap us

into enlightenment? Jesuss answer in this
section is: Love cannot enter where it is not
welcome (5:4). Love cant zap. Love is
considerate. It cant violate your will and
still be Love. Love does not barge in against
your will; you have to open to Love; you
have to invite It in.

Perhaps you think you want Love to

enter, but do you? If you really wanted Love
to come in, It would. It always comes when
called. Therefore, there must be unwillingness buried in your
mind that is keeping Love out.
To truly invite Love to enter, you have to look at the ego and
see very clearly its hatred of Love, its implacable resistance to
Love. You have to find that thought of resistance in your own
mind and realize that you are the one thinking it. Only then can
you decide to stop thinking that thought. You must choose to
cease interfering with Love. You absolutely have to do that
yourself, or Love cant get in.

Think about it a moment: Jesus is saying that at least one

aspect of the miracle being offered by this Course is instruction
in how to guard our thoughts and rid our minds of the constant
ego chatter that feeds our fear. Now, that is training worth
having!

What you want is the key. Ultimately, your minds power is

the determining factor. You need to examine thoughts in your
mind that are telling you that you do not want God, that you do
not want love, that you want your silly self-made ego instead of
your true Self. You need to expose those thoughts, bring them to
the light, and deny their truth. Then God flows in as naturally as
water running downhill.

God doesnt zap me because that would teach me that my

mind is powerless, and that is the opposite of what the Course is

We must recognize the effort to be egos and stop it. God

cannot do that for us. Love cannot be coerced, and if God

18

A Better Way

imposed enlightenment on us against our wills, He would no

longer be Love and we would no longer be extensions of Love.
He would be a tyrant, and we would be robots.

clear preference for the thought system of the Holy Spirit

(T-6.V.B.5). His role is primarily to motivate us to make that
choice (T-6.V.B.2:13). He will not act against our will, because
Gods Will is that we be willing!

Zapping Us Would Make the Perfect Imperfect

In T-8.IV.56, there are a number of other reasons cited to
In T-6.IV.10, the Course suggests that God will not zap us
show why Jesus (or the Holy Spirit) cannot act against our will
awake because that would be forcing recognition of our
to awaken us. The gist of them is that God
perfection on us, and that would
created our will to be powerful and free, and
paradoxically demonstrate that we were not
He will not violate His own Will expressed

perfect in the first place! The whole

in that creation. Jesus and the Holy Spirit
message of the Course is that God created
will not act against our will because to do so
us perfect and we are still as perfect as the
would be against Gods Will.
day He created us. If we are not up to the
task of remembering our reality, then
The most telling reason why He cannot
something is deeply wrong with us. We
violate our will, to me, is this: Freedom
must be truly, fundamentally, inadequate.
cannot be learned by tyranny of any kind,
To me, this implies that our pathetic
and the perfect equality of all Gods Sons
pleading for God to wake us up is actually
cannot be recognized through the dominion
just another way we are denying our own
of one mind over another (T-8.IV.6:7). One
perfection. When we truly understand the
central fact we have forgotten and must
message of the Course, we wont be able to
remember: We are all equally free. If Jesus
ask this question.
or the Holy Spirit zapped us, it would be one
mind dominating another, and would teach
Zapping Us Would Violate Our Will
the very opposite of freedom.
Gods Will cannot be forced upon you, being an experience
of total willingness (T-8.III.2:3).
Conclusion

Escaping from the

egos thought
system depends
upon our clear
preference for the
thought system of
the Holy Spirit.

Here again, Jesus implies that we think we want something

besides Gods Will. He says as much quite directly in other
places (see, for instance, T-8.II.4; W-pII.227.1). As long as that
is true, since God respects our will as much as He does His own,
He cannot force us to awaken. Therefore, we will remain asleep
as long as we choose to do so.
In the Course, Jesus is trying to teach us that our will is the
same as Gods Will, and not (as we suppose) different. We want
what He wants. Yet, suppose the Holy Spirit were able somehow
to just rip some ego-based thought out of our minds before we
are really willing to let it go. What would happen? Would that
have the desired result of showing us that our will is identical to
Gods? It would not. We would be left with the uncorrected
suspicion that something we really wanted had been taken from
us. We would be left believing our will was different from Gods
(T-25.VIII.1:16).
We have to at least prefer that He take it from us. When we
make that decision, when the balance really shifts onto the side
of our wanting to be rid of the ego, He will take it from us.
Teaching us to truly make that choice is what takes so much
time. In discussing the three stages through which the Holy
Spirit takes us (T-6.V.A through T-6.V.C), Jesus makes it clear
that escaping from the egos thought system depends upon our

Winter 2002

If we consider all of the reasons given, I think we can see a

common thread about why God cannot zap us into
enlightenment:

Zapping us would violate Gods own law of

cause and effect

Zapping us would teach us our mind is powerless

Zapping us would be contrary to Gods love

Zapping us would make the perfect imperfect

Zapping us would violate our will

The central message of the Course is that we are already

perfect, and need do nothing to make ourselves perfect. We
remain as God created us; that fact is our salvation. The bottom
line is that we do not need to be zapped! Thinking that we do
need it is our whole problem; it is a belief in our own lack and
imperfection. We chose to believe that, and we must choose its
opposite. God cannot do it for us because what we need to
learn is that there is nothing to be done. Thaddeus Golas, author
of The Lazy Mans Guide to Enlightenment, once wrote
something that pretty well sums up what I have been trying to
say (quoted from memory): The only thing from which you
need to be enlightened is the thought that you need to be
enlightened.

19

The Circle of Atonement

Mission Statement

Friends of the Circle

To discern the authors vision of

A Course in Miracles and manifest
that in our lives, in the lives of
students, and in the world.

JOINING IN A COMMON VISION

1. To faithfully discern the authors vision

of A Course in Miracles.
In interpreting the Course we strive for
total fidelity to its words and the meanings
they express. We thereby seek to discover
the Course as the author saw it.
2. To be an instrument in Jesus plan to
manifest his vision of the Course in the
lives of students and in the world.
We consider this to be Jesus
organization and therefore we attempt to
follow his guidance in all we do. Our goal is
to help students understand, as well as
discern for themselves, the Courses thought
system as he intended, and use it as he meant
it to be usedas a literal program in
spiritual awakening. Through doing so we
hope to help ground in the world the
intended way of doing the Course, here at
the beginning of its history.
3. To help spark an enduring tradition
based entirely on students joining
together in doing the Course as the author
envisioned.
We have a vision of local Course support
systems composed of teachers, students,
healers, and groups, all there to support one
another in making full use of the Course.
These support systems, as they continue and
multiply, will together comprise an enduring
spiritual tradition, dedicated solely to doing
the Course as the author intended. Our goal
is to help spark this tradition, and to assist
others in doing the same.
4. To become an embodiment, a birthplace
of this enduring spiritual tradition.
To help spark this tradition we must first
become a model for it ourselves. This
requires that we at the Circle follow the
Course as our individual path; that we
ourselves learn forgiveness through its
program. It requires that we join each other
in a group holy relationship dedicated to the
common goal of awakening through the
Course. It also requires that we cultivate a
local support system here in Sedona, and that
we have a facility where others could join
with us in learning this approach to the
Course. Through all of this we hope to
become a seed for an ongoing spiritual
tradition based on A Course in Miracles.

20

If the vision of the Circle presented in the Mission Statement on this page
speaks to you, we invite you to join with us in it. Ask yourself: Is this a
vision I want to see promulgated in the world? Is this something I want to
give my support to? If so, perhaps you would like to become a Friend of
the Circle. The annual benefits include:

Category 1:
In U.S.:
$60/year
$16/quarter

Canada/Mexico:
$65/year
$17.25/quarter

Aust., NZ, SE Asia: Other Countries:

$70/year
$70/year
$18.50/quarter
$18.50/quarter

Four-issue subscription to our newsletter, A Better Way

Friends newsletter, updates and special reports, making you an
informed partner
Support in your study and application of the Course
Special materials and handouts
Feedback forms to share with us your ideas and concerns
Opportunity to join us in our daily Workbook practice
Contribution to our ongoing work and to the implementation of our
vision and mission statement

Category 2:
In U.S.:
$130/year
$33/quarter

Canada/Mexico:
$140/year
$35/quarter

Aust., NZ, SE Asia: Other Countries:

$160/year*
$148/year
$40/quarter*
$37.50/quarter

Includes all of the above, plus an annual credit of $70 U.S. (approx)
towards materials, workshops, and retreats
* Please see Publications Catalog for details.

ALL PRICES ARE LISTED IN U.S. FUNDS

Donations above these category costs are greatly appreciated, both for our
general operating fund and for special projects as they arise. A portion of
each price is a tax-deductible donation (Category 1: $25 and Category 2:
$35). Terms of membership are subject to change, with notice.

TO BECOME A FRIEND OF THE CIRCLE

Write us a paragraph or two about why you want to become a Friend.
What about this speaks to you?
Take a few moments to silently join with us in purpose.
Enclose your initial payment/donation (U.S. Funds only).
If you are unable to afford the amount listed, see our
Financial Policy on page 2.

A Better Way