As will be discussed in more detail below, circumstances have recently arisen surrounding the earlier manuscripts of A Course in Miracles that have necessitated this explanation of the history of the Course, from Helen Schucman's notebooks to its publication in 1976. This is an edited and enlarged transcript from a session of a workshop, held in Atlanta in 2007 (the complete workshop is available on CD and MP3 from the Foundation for A Course in Miracles), which directly addressed this issue in response to a question from a participant. While much of what I will say is already discussed in my book Absence from Felicity: The Story of Helen Schucman and Her Scribing of "A Course in Miracles," it is my hope that this will further help to answer questions, correct misunderstandings, and allay any concerns students may have about the Course—authorized by Helen herself and published by the Foundation for Inner Peace—they are reading.
Let me start by giving a brief overview of how the Course was written, and how what Helen took down ended up as the books we have. This will begin the process of addressing the questions that have been raised, which have largely been based on erroneous information.
When Helen started taking down the Course in October 1965, she wrote down what she heard. One of the misconceptions or myths surrounding her scribing is that this was the first time Helen had heard an inner voice. This is not the case. She had been hearing Jesus' voice at least through the latter part of the summer, and her experience was clear that this was Jesus. Incidentally, I should say that while Helen said she heard an inner voice, the traditional way this kind of experience is described, she told me years later that the experience was closer to seeing words in her mind, and then writing down what she "saw."
The early pre-Course messages she received had to do largely with helping her deal with a close colleague of hers who was dying of brain cancer, and who later died. Helen took these messages down in shorthand, in stenography notebooks. She had learned shorthand when she was in graduate school and had developed her own version, which was partially a blend of Gregg and Pitman, the two main shorthand methods.
The following day, whenever she and Bill would have time in what was then a very busy schedule, she would dictate to Bill what had been dictated to her, and he would type it out. As he would jokingly say afterwards, he would type it out with one hand on the typewriter (this was before computers) and the other hand holding Helen up, because she would be so nervous. Sometimes when she would read it to Bill, she would start to stutter or lose her voice. She was always an excellent speaker, and so this was most uncharacteristic of her.
In the first several weeks of the scribing, which consists roughly of the material up to and including Chapters 4 and 5 in the text, the dictation was much more personal than was the case later. It was as if Helen and Jesus were sitting on her living room couch having a conversation. Helen asked questions that Jesus answered, and there were also corrections to her mishearing, what she, Bill, and I later referred to as "scribal errors." The Course actually began with Jesus saying: "This is a course in miracles. Please take notes. The first and fundamental thing to remember about miracles is that there is no order of difficulty among them." It does not begin that way in the published version. Some time into the scribing, Helen complained to Jesus that he needed a better introduction, saying, in effect: "You know, who is going to start a book with ‘There is no order of difficulty in miracles'!" So she wrote down some things that metamorphosed into the current introduction.
Typically, Helen would write down a miracle principle and then there would be a lot of discussion about it, including the aforementioned questions. These also included things Bill had in mind that he asked Helen to ask for him. Much of the material that came during this time was clearly not meant for publication. It was obviously meant to help Helen personally, and to help Helen and Bill in their relationship, the troubled aspect of which was the original stimulus for the coming of the Course. The material was also directed toward Helen's relationship with her husband, Louis, and Bill's relationship with his friends (Bill was homosexual and never married).
In addition, material was given to help Helen and Bill bridge the gap between the psychology that was being offered in the Course and the psychology they both knew, which was basically Freudian. While the psychology of A Course in Miracles is heavily psychoanalytic, it deviates significantly from what Freud taught in many specifics, though not in the general contours or dynamics of the ego's thought system. There was thus some material on Freud and other psychologists, like Jung and Rank.
There also was some discussion of Edgar Cayce, because Bill was quite interested in him at that time. In fact, he pressured Helen to read some of the Cayce writings. Moreover, they both went to the Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach, the institute Cayce founded. Edgar was already dead, but Helen and Bill met with his son, Hugh Lynn Cayce, who took over leadership of the A.R.E.
Finally, there was, among other subjects, material on sexuality, statistics, and mental retardation; the last two being major interests of Helen's.
For a number of reasons, none of this material belonged in the published version. First, much of it was personal to Helen and Bill, and had nothing to do with the teachings of A Course in Miracles. Perhaps even more importantly, Helen was notoriously inaccurate when her own ego was involved. A great deal of this early material was colored by Helen. She was incredibly accurate when her ego was not in the way, however, and that is why the pure teaching of the Course is what it is. One could never imagine Jesus saying, for example, what is in the Urtext on sex—not that it was anything horrific, but it obviously reflected Helen's own values and biases. I'll return to this later. The material on Freud is heavily weighted in favor of Freud—Jung does not come off very well. Helen did not like Jung, and neither did Bill; they did not know much about him and his work, but they did not like him. And so, when one reads these comments about Freud and Jung, it becomes clear that distinct biases are involved.
Another important point is that when the messages Helen wrote down had to do with something specific in the world, they were frequently wrong. One of the myths surrounding Helen and the scribing is that anything Helen heard had to be from Jesus, and therefore should be regarded as sacred; not too different from the fundamentalist position regarding the unerring nature of every word in the Bible. Nothing could be farther from the truth regarding the Course. Helen did not believe the words she took down were sacred; nor did Bill (or I for that matter). At the end, I will discuss what should be treated as sacred.
At any rate, after the first few weeks, Helen's experiences began to change. Instead of being a conversation, the dictation became essentially straight lecture, as if Jesus were standing at a podium speaking, and Helen, his devoted student in the auditorium, were writing down everything he said. As one reads the text from Chapters 4 and 5 on, one can see a real difference in the style of writing—more fluent, less inconsistent in language. The writing also becomes increasingly more beautiful, reflecting Helen's love of Shakespeare. From about Chapter 16 on, there are an increasing number of passages in verse, and the last two chapters are all in iambic pentameter. This was unknown to Helen at first, but after a while she realized the words were coming in a definite rhythm. From Lesson 99 on, the entire workbook, including rather prosaic instructions, is in blank verse (i.e., unrhymed poetry). Finally, portions of the manual are in blank verse, as are portions of the two pamphlets that were scribed later (Psychotherapy: Purpose, Process and Practice and The Song of Prayer). In other words, as Helen's hearing became clearer, the writing became clearer and more beautiful.
One of the examples I have used in the past to describe the early weeks of the scribing is how if you live in the Northeast or Midwest and leave your house for vacation and shut the water off, when you come back and turn it on, very often you get rust because the pipes are old. You have to run the water for a while until the rust runs through, and then the water is clear again. In a sense, Helen's hearing was like that. She had a vision prior to the Course coming through her in which she saw herself on a beach with a boat, and it was her job to get the boat into the water. A stranger, whom she later identified as Jesus, arrived to help her. On seeing what she described as an ancient sending-and-receiving set in the boat, Helen said to him: "Maybe this will be helpful." But he responded: "No, you're not ready to use this yet." In retrospect, Helen understood this as a reference to the Course, which had not yet begun. She was the "ancient sending-and-receiving set," but her equipment was still entangled in seaweed, to keep to the nautical metaphor.
Helen took down the Text in about three years (1965-1968). Nine months went by and she began taking down the Workbook (1969), and a few months after the Workbook was completed (1971), the Manual for Teachers came, concluding in September of 1972, almost seven years since she began the scribing.
Helen, Bill, and I called Bill's original typing the Urtext, from the German word ur, meaning "original." The word has come to refer to any original manuscript. Bill would read back to Helen what he had typed to be sure they got every word right. There were times when Helen did not read everything in the notebooks to Bill, because, as she told me later, she knew it did not belong. And sometimes she dictated something directly to Bill that was not in the notebooks. I mention all this to emphasize that she did not consider every word to be sacred; it was obvious to her that a great deal of this early material was personal, and also clear to her that sometimes she got in the way. Again, the early writings were awkward and inconsistent. One example of this is that Helen wrote down: "Miracles are cobwebs of steel." Jesus then said to her: "That's not what I said," and corrected it. A lot of that went on, for at the beginning the scribing was informal.
Helen then retyped the text twice, and in the process did some editing, per Jesus' instructions. It was something for her to do at night—a distraction in a sense. She liked to be distracted, as also seen in her paying attention to form and avoiding the content. In fact she used to say to Bill: "You pay attention to what it says. I'll pay attention to how it says it." She was always very proud of the poetic nature of the writing.
Jesus very clearly told both Helen and Bill that whatever was personal or specific did not belong in the published version, even though there was no thought then of publishing it. It was obvious at some point, though, that this was not just for Helen and Bill, so they were specifically told to take out all material that did not belong to the actual teaching. There was a wisdom to this, not only because much of it was private and not meant for anyone else to see, but also, as Helen was more than aware, because her ego definitely got in the way. The workbook needed no changes at all; it was pretty straightforward, and the manual was the same way, because by that time Helen was really in the scribal groove, as it were, the writing just flowed through her.
As I mentioned, Helen and Bill had become friendly with Hugh Lynn Cayce, who was a southern gentleman in every respect, obviously dedicated to his father's work. He was very supportive of what Helen had done and was impressed by her. There is a cute story in this regard. I think the second or third time that Helen and Bill went down to Virginia Beach to see him, they showed him some of what Helen was already taking down, and he was impressed, believing that his father had something to do with it. One of the stylistic peculiarities of the early portions of the scribing is that it sounded like Edgar Cayce, with some obvious "Cayceisms." If you think the Course is hard to read, you should try reading Cayce. There are a lot of archaicisms in the Cayce material, and Helen, having read some of Cayce's work, was influenced by him. And so you can see this influence at the beginning of the text, but it quickly falls away.
And so this one time, a very skittish and anxious Helen was leaving Hugh Lynn's office, and he said to her: "You must be a very advanced soul, but you certainly don't look it." This was part of Helen's "costume." She did not look "very advanced," I assure you, although she had a definite air of authority about her, unmistakable to anyone who knew her. Yet she acted like a typical neurotic—phobic and anxious— and was quick to judge at the same time that this exalted piece of writing was coming through her.
Early in the process of the retyping, Jesus told Helen: "Leave decisions about editing to Bill." At that point, Bill was reasonably sane about the Course and Helen was not—she would have taken out anything that did not "read right" to her. This instruction had to do with the original version that Helen was so anxious about, and therefore her judgment would not be clear—Bill's would be—about taking out the early material that did not belong. That certainly did not mean that Bill was the one to do all the editing. This was not his strength. Helen was the editor on their team. Bill did not have the patience for it. In fact, when Helen and Bill would write articles—they published many professional articles—Bill would write the rough draft. Helen then would tear it apart, edit, and re-edit it—still another source of tension in their already fractious relationship, for they would argue constantly. Helen was indeed an inveterate editor, and here is a funny story in that regard. There was the time when I had a luncheon appointment with a friend, which Helen knew about. When I was about to leave the office, Helen was on the phone, and so I wrote her a very brief note, telling her I was leaving. Without pausing in her conversation, she took out a pencil and began to edit it!
Regarding the Course, Helen never made editorial decisions on her own. She was very clear that this was not her book. While she claimed to be responsible only for the form, not the content that she knew was not hers, she did nothing with this course that she did not feel came with Jesus' blessing, including any thoughts from Bill about what should be left in or taken out. As the editing proceeded, the text was originally put in four volumes of thesis binders. Helen would only want to show people volume IV because the writing there is so beautiful.
Helen and Bill prepared an edition of the text for Hugh Lynn (and later the workbook and manual), which we (Helen, Bill, and I) came to call the Hugh Lynn Version, to differentiate it from the earlier manuscripts. Thus, in this version there was a footnote that expressed gratitude to Hugh Lynn for his support. Though gracious and sincere, it was obviously meant only for Hugh Lynn Cayce. Also in that version, an earlier archaicism was left in, where the Holy Spirit was referred to as the Spiritual Eye, merely because Helen was nervous about the phrase "Holy Spirit." Therefore she used "Spiritual Eye" as a euphemism—a phrase, I think, that Cayce used. It dropped away after the early sections, but it had been left in for the Hugh Lynn Version. And so Helen decided to replace it with "the Holy Spirit."
I met Helen and Bill in the late fall of 1972. I was in the midst of my own journey then, and was on the way to the Middle East. When I returned in May 1973, I saw A Course in Miracles for the first time, and what I saw was this Hugh Lynn Version. I read it through twice—the text, workbook, and teacher's manual. After my second reading—the fall of 1973—I said to Helen and Bill that I thought the Course needed another edit, for a number of reasons. The capitalization was notoriously inconsistent. Helen felt that with very few exceptions, and I will mention those as we go along, Jesus left it to her to capitalize, punctuate, make paragraph breaks, and put in titles, because the text came through without titles or breaks—no sections, chapters, or even paragraphs. Helen, again, felt that was her job; that in effect Jesus did not care about commas, semicolons, or paragraphs, but only the message. And so Helen supplied the capitalization, punctuation, paragraphing, and, along with Bill, the section and chapter titles. One prominent exception was Jesus' insistence that Son of God always be capitalized, to distinguish the Course's usage from the traditional Christian one, where the term was reserved for Jesus alone, and always capitalized. Therefore, he wanted the same capitalized term to be used throughout the Course, but with the meaning extended to embrace everyone, not just him. Atonement had to be capitalized, too, differentiating it from the ego's atonement.
With those very, very few exceptions, everything on the form level was left to Helen. Thus, when I read it, I felt that Helen's idiosyncrasies needed to be smoothed out, and both Helen and Bill agreed. Let me briefly discuss some more of these. Helen went through a period where any word remotely associated with God or Heaven got capitalized. And then Helen had two comma philosophies: more and less. Moreover, she had a quaint British way of using a semicolon when a colon should be used. The section and chapter titles were also a bit strange. Helen would often entitle a section based on the first paragraph, and therefore many titles did not quite fit, and some of the section breaks seemed arbitrary as well. The paragraphing, too, was very inconsistent, and I later found out why. Helen went through a period when she thought every paragraph should have nine lines. She also had two philosophies about the usage of the words "that" and "which," and could not make up her mind which it should be; sometimes it would be "which," other times "that," and I often had to go back over our editing and change a that into a which, and vice versa. And the same with punctuation. Helen would frequently change her mind about the commas, and so I would go back over the manuscript and make the necessary adjustments.
What is important about this is to realize that Helen was very loose with this Course—not with the meaning, to be sure, nor the vocabulary, but in the sense that the form was not sacrosanct to her. Indeed, none of us thought this was a sacred text in which every word was literally the Word of God. Helen knew what A Course in Miracles said, and knew the way it should say it, and she never deviated from that, despite tinkering with the form.
There also was some material that did not belong, as it seemed to be remnants from the old days—nothing that made any difference in terms of the teaching; for example, there was a discussion about Freud that did not fit, for it came out of nowhere and was out of keeping with the rest of the material.
There was a tremendous amount of punning and word-play in the dictation, some of which is still there, but nothing to the extent that it was at the beginning. Bill was a marvelous punster, and I have rarely met anyone as quick or as clever with puns as he was. And so there were all these puns that seemed designed to make Bill more comfortable. Some of these were dreadful and were removed. Here is one example: Jesus was making the point that he could reinterpret anything the ego made into a right-minded thought. And so he took some of the more prominent Freudian defense mechanisms and gave them spiritual interpretations. It seemed a bit too cute to us to keep in. One example had to do with fixation—we should be fixated on the divine; and sublimation—we should be oriented towards the sublime. Therefore, these were taken out.
Bill had a thing about there being fifty miracle principles—he liked the round number. When the principles originally came through, there were forty-three, and this metamorphosed over the course of Helen's retypings to fifty-three. In the original, as I mentioned earlier, a miracle principle was given, and then came a long discussion, followed by another principle. It was all very informal. Helen and Bill, and then Helen and I—which I will get to shortly—made some changes, where discussion material from the miracle principle was taken out and put into a separate section in the same chapter. Since Bill wanted fifty, and we knew this would not change the content at all, Helen and I simply followed the earlier procedure by removing three principles and incorporating them into other sections in the chapter. So these were the kinds of things we did, and Helen never made the final decision without checking first with Jesus to see if there were any objections.
After discussing these editing issues, Helen and Bill agreed that the Course should really be gone through one more time—word by word. As I have said, Bill lacked the patience for this kind of work; he would not have been able to sustain that much concentrated time with Helen over the long period this would take. In addition, Helen and I were very comfortable with each other and knew we would have no difficulty with this particular assignment. And so we all agreed that Helen and I would go through the entire Course, word by word. This took over a year, most of the time being spent on the text, as the workbook and manual required practically no editing.
We spent an inordinate amount of time on the first four chapters. It has been suggested, I know, that this editing is something I essentially did on my own, or that I influenced Helen's decisions. Anyone who knew Helen would clearly recognize the absurdity of this idea. No one, including Jesus, could ever get her to do anything she did not want to do. To think that I could have had an influence on Helen is most strange. Indeed, we were very close and she respected me—I was like her spiritual son—but in no way could that be taken to mean that something I might suggest would be seen as gospel, unless she believed it to be true and checked it first with Jesus.
Let me give another example of personal material that was taken out. There was a section called "True Rehabilitation" that was specifically meant for Bill, to help him with his own bodily concerns as he prepared to attend a conference on rehabilitation at Princeton University. While the message was personal to Bill, it remained in the Hugh Lynn Version that Helen and I were editing. We all agreed it did not belong in the published Course (although I did reproduce it in Absence from Felicity). However, the close of the message contained a lovely prayer, which was perfect for the Course. Helen and Bill asked me to find a place for it, and "Special Principles of Miracle Workers" in Chapter 2 seemed like a perfect fit, where it is now. Among ourselves we referred to it as the "Prayer for Salvation," and it begins with the words: "I am here only to be truly helpful."
There were three other sections, or parts of sections, that began as personal messages to Helen, or to Helen and Bill, but fit in perfectly with the flow of the teaching material: "True Empathy" (Chapter 16), "I Need Do Nothing" (Chapter 18), and "The Branching of the Road" (Chapter 22). There is also "Right Teaching and Right Learning" in Chapter 4, which was originally meant for Bill, who was terrified of having to teach an undergraduate course in psychology at Columbia University. The personal material was removed (though, again, I cite much of this in my book), leaving the more general teaching. There was also an interesting addition. A relatively major focus of my time with Helen was her poetry, and one of my "assignments" was to rescue scraps of poems that Helen would write on little pieces of paper. If I were able to preserve these, Helen was later able to generate the rest of the poem. This was always successful, except for one fragment that Helen could never do anything with. Finally one day, she said to me that this fragment was not a poem but belonged in the Course, and she wanted me to find the right place. The verse began with the lines "There is a risk in thinking death is peace," and it found its rightful home in Chapter 27 of the text. All these examples are discussed in more detail in Absence from Felicity, and they serve to illustrate the point that the scribing of A Course in Miracles was more informal than one might have thought.
You can see Helen's writing on our edited pages, which remain in my safekeeping. My writing is there as well, where I rewrote something as per her instructions, or made suggestions for her to review. As often as possible during the day, Helen and I would go through the Course, and every once in a while Helen would say, "I changed this word. This is what it should be," and we would go back to what she originally heard. Any changes that were made I would then take home with me, type up, and present the copy to Helen the next day, and we would go over it. To repeat, the first four chapters were a tremendous amount of work, so much so that I once said to Helen: "Why don't you just ask Jesus to dictate this again; it would save us both a lot of time." I shall not repeat her not-so-delicate response.
Thus, anything that was changed was done so, first of all, because of style—the writing, to use Helen's word, was clunky, meaning awkward. And so she wanted to clarify the writing because she knew her hearing was not that clear in the beginning. We made the changes that Bill had requested—we took material out of the miracle principles and made it into sections, as I mentioned earlier, so that there would be exactly fifty.
Therefore, we kept the meaning, and the changes made it much more readable. What was originally there was not how it was supposed to be in the published version. Again, Helen's hearing was rusty at the beginning, and her considerable anxiety colored what she heard. Students really have to be clear that these are not the literal words of Jesus—the meaning is, but not the actual language. As I said before, Helen's ego got in the way of some of the more specific messages to her (and Bill).
When the editing was completed, we then had it retyped. When I later saw the notebooks and Urtext, I realized that some of what I was reading was not in the published text, but clearly should have been as it came later in the scribing, an obvious result of Helen's retypings. For example, when Helen was retyping the text, one of the pages had stuck to another. As a result, there were three paragraphs she never saw when she was typing. Therefore that material never made it into that version or any of the subsequent ones. Nothing in those paragraphs was different in meaning from what was already in the Course, but clearly should have been in. I recognized, too, other passages that had been inadvertently left out. When the written material is typed and retyped, mistakes happen, especially if the retypings are not adequately proofread, which was the case with the Course. We subsequently did proofread it at our Foundation in New York, with one group of people reading from the Urtext to be sure that we finally got everything right. We discovered there were words, sentences, and paragraphs left out, mostly in the text, and one we found had been omitted from the teachers manual. Incidentally, an errata booklet, available free of charge from the Foundation, was prepared for the second printing and lists all of the added material.
There were some other minor corrections and changes. As A Course in Miracles was originally written for Helen and Bill, Jesus would frequently address her and Bill and say "you and each other." However, the Course is not meant to be read by anyone but one person—each of us—who is involved in a myriad number of relationships. And so "you and each other" became "you and your brother." The change was easy, for it maintained the meter—always a concern of Helen. Yet we had missed some in our editing.
The decision made by the Foundation for Inner Peace and the Foundation for A Course in Miracles to put out a second edition of the Course in the early 1990s gave us a chance to restore all the omitted material. This was also the time when we instituted the numbering system, which we needed for the concordance we were working on, as well as to provide a common way of referring to verses for the various translations that were beginning to emerge, similar to the Bible where, for example, anyone in the world can find John 5:16, regardless of the edition, pagination, or language. You just go to the fifth chapter, sixteenth verse in John's gospel. With the new numbering system, Course students all over the world could do the same thing.
Since Helen and Bill knew I would never violate their trust, they put me in charge of what we called the archives—the notebooks and all the subsequent typings—as Helen was always misplacing or losing things, and Bill was not very organized. Thus I became the archivist, and still have this material in my possession.
As I mentioned earlier, much of what I am saying now is in my book, Absence from Felicity: The Story of Helen Schucman and Her Scribing of "A Course in Miracles." I included there a good part of the Urtext material that was relevant to understanding Helen and Bill's experience of the scribing. Since I was quoting this material, I felt I should copyright it, which in hindsight appears was a mistake, and indeed, my wise wife Gloria cautioned me against doing this. This was a Herculean task. The Foundation staff made copies of all the material and these were sent to the Copyright Office in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. What could be safer, I thought, than the Library of Congress?
While I had a copy of the Hugh Lynn Version of the Course—actually it was just the textbook—the original, as I stated earlier, was presented by Helen and Bill to Hugh Lynn Cayce, and was eventually put in the rare books section of the A.R.E. library at their headquarters in Virginia Beach. Many years later, when I was giving some lectures at the A.R.E., Charles Thomas Cayce, Hugh Lynn's son and the grandson of Edgar Cayce, took Gloria and me into that locked room to show us the manuscript that had been given many years earlier to his father.
As is widely known, there was a court case involving infringement of the copyright by the Endeavor Academy in Wisconsin, an action brought about by the Foundation for Inner Peace, the publisher of the Course, and the Foundation for A Course in Miracles, its sister organization and copyright holder of the Course. This is not the place to discuss the details, except to say that they were doing inappropriate things with the Course and we were trying to stop them. As part of the proceedings, I was deposed by Endeavor's attorney, who asked me, among other things, about the manuscripts. I mentioned that the Hugh Lynn Version, the one that Helen and I edited, was in the A.R.E. library. Armed with that information, some people subsequently and unlawfully removed the manuscript from the A.R.E., copied it, and then returned it to the library. It was later published under the name "Jesus' Course in Miracles." The contention was that I was the one who had changed Jesus' Course, and that the authentic Course was the Hugh Lynn Version that "Bill" edited. I was thus viewed as an upstart who came along with his own ideas about what the Course said and convinced Helen to make changes; a belief hard to understand because nothing was changed in terms of meaning and, as I have indicated, almost all changes occurred at the beginning of the text. At any rate, the claim was that the Course published by the Foundation for Inner Peace was not the true Course.
Then something happened I never would have thought possible: Under false pretenses, the notebooks and Urtext were taken from the Library of Congress and copied, a violation of federal law. We talked to legal authorities at the Library, who were outraged. However, it was clear that this case was very small potatoes to them. The Library of Congress is under the Department of Justice, which has other things on its mind besides someone taking a manuscript that is of no importance to anyone outside of a very small group. So nothing was ever done about it. We were assured by Library officials that this would never happen again, but of course that was of no help in our situation. The people who were now in possession of the illegally obtained material—the notebooks, Urtext and Hugh Lynn Version—had it scanned or retyped, and have made it available on the Internet and elsewhere for purchase.
That, then, is how all this material got out. The court case was concluded in 2003 and the copyright was declared invalid. This, however, did not apply to the Course's Preface, the additional material added to the Second Edition, the Clarification of Terms, and the two pamphlets, Psychotherapy and The Song of Prayer. Moreover, the Foundation still owns the copyright to the notebooks, Urtext, and the Hugh Lynn Version. As a result, when you go now to amazon.com and call up A Course in Miracles, the chances are, if you are not aware of this background, that you may be selecting the Endeavor or some other version, which is being marketed as the original Course. The Endeavor group has also included Matthew's gospel in the Course, because they have always held that the Course and the Bible are the same. Thus, in that version you are not going to get the true Course at all, not even the Urtext or Hugh Lynn version. There are at least two other versions being marketed as well. Thus people now can do just about anything they want with the Course.
What is most important to consider about the public exposure of these earlier manuscripts is that regardless of the version you read, you will receive the essential teaching of the Course. In that sense, no real harm has been done.
In another sense, however, the situation is unfortunate because people could be misled, and at this point nothing can be done about it—the horse is out of the barn, as it were; Pandora's box is open and can never be closed again—except, perhaps, to clarify what inquiring students may be reading. Let me cite some examples. There is material in the Urtext about sex and sexuality, an area that will almost certainly pique the curiosity (if not prurient interest) of students. Thus, for example, one will read that homosexuality is essentially a pathology (the traditional psychoanalytic view), and that the only purpose for sex is procreation, two positions that are antithetical to Jesus' own teachings in the Course about seeing all forms of the ego's world as the same, the correction to the ego's first law of chaos that there is a hierarchy of illusion (T-23.II.2). To believe that these would be the words and thoughts of Jesus is as preposterous and unthinkable an idea as to believe that I could influence Helen as to what belonged in the Course and what did not. It should be obvious that these beliefs belong to Helen and not to Jesus. Helen had her own biases about sex, and unfortunately they came through in these early passages. Yet those who believe that every word in the Urtext is sacred and are Jesus' words can use statements like these to support their own preconceived notions. This same issue holds, though perhaps with less emotionality, with material related to Edgar Cayce, Freud, and other psychologists (Helen, as I mentioned, did not like Jung), etc.
It would be helpful to digress a moment to speak about Jesus, the scribing, and Helen's relationship to it. Again, this is discussed in much greater depth in my book and also CDs. To begin with, Jesus does not speak words. It is really important to understand this. I remember when we were at an airport, a very sincere woman came up to Helen after hearing us speak, and asked: "How could Jesus have dictated the Course; he didn't know English?" I don't recall Helen's response to this sweet question, except that she was gracious in providing a brief reply (we had to catch a plane). The question, however, reflects an important point. Again, Jesus does not speak in words. To say it differently and succinctly here, his is the content; our minds (and brains) supply the form. Therefore, Helen's decision-making mind identified itself with the non-ego presence that is in everyone. This non-judgmental thought system of love was represented for her by Jesus, as it is for so many of us. Her mind took that non-specific love and translated it into words, in much the same way as our brains translate the upside-down image cast on the retina into right-side-up perceptions. And so, as I have said many times, the form of the Course is from Helen. Here are some illustrative examples of the formal qualities of A Course in Miracles that can be directly attributable to its scribe:
1. It is in the English language.
2. Its idiom is American. There is even a reference to the Declaration of Independence and American currency of "green paper strips."
3. Helen philosophically was a Platonist. The philosophy of A Course in Miracles is Platonic, and there are even references to Plato's famous Allegory of the Cave from the Republic. Moreover, the statement that "words are but symbols of symbols. . . .[and] are thus twice removed from reality" (M-21.1:9-10), is also directly taken from the Republic.
4. Helen loved Shakespeare. The Course is Shakespearean in its language. Much of it is written in blank verse (unrhymed poetry) and in iambic pentameter, the form of Shakespeare's poetry. One can also find allusions to Hamlet, Helen's favorite play.
5. Helen was enamored of the King James version of the Bible. She did not like the content of the Bible at all, but loved the way it was written. Thus, in the Course one finds biblical "archaicisms"—the Elizabethan way of speaking.
6. Helen was fiercely logical. She had one of the most logical minds I have ever seen, and A Course in Miracles develops its thought system—the ego's and the Holy Spirit's—in a strictly logical manner. In addition, one finds that the syllogistic form of argument is both implicitly and explicitly used.
7. Helen was an educator. The Course's curricular format is clear: text, workbook for students, manual for teachers; the Holy Spirit is our Teacher; and the language throughout reflects the learning aspects of the curriculum.
8. Helen was a psychologist. Her psychological background was Freudian and she had a great respect for Freud's work. As I have been saying for over thirty years: without Freud, one would not have A Course in Miracles, as the presentation of the ego thought system is heavily based upon Freud's remarkable insights, which were second nature to Helen.
9. Helen had a love-hate relationship with Jesus. Of course there is no hate in the Course in terms of Jesus, but no one can mistake his loving and non-judgmental presence throughout.
And so, we can see how the form of the Course is all Helen's. Interestingly, however, the style of the writing was not Helen's, who wrote in an almost Spartan style, appropriate for scientific writing, in contrast to the more poetic and grammatically loose sentence structure one finds in the Course, which used to, incidentally, drive Helen up a wall. The content of A Course in Miracles, however, is clearly not Helen's, at least not the Helen the world knew or the person she consciously identified with. This explains why she felt at liberty to change the form, though never the content. Helen knew what the published Course ought to be. One could make recommendations, and Bill and I did from time to time, but Helen had the finished form already in her head. And so the Course published by the Foundation for Inner Peace is the way its scribe knew it should be. I do believe it is a violation of hers and Bill's privacy to read the Urtext (or any other version) when she only sanctioned the Foundation's publication. Helen and Bill wanted me to read it, but it is like reading someone's private diaries. Why would you want to do that, especially when asked not to, unless you are looking for conflict and guilt? Recall these words from the Introduction to the Clarification of Terms:
"All terms are potentially controversial, and those who seek controversy will find it. Yet those who seek clarification will find it as well. They must, however, be willing to overlook controversy, recognizing that it is a defense against truth in the form of a delaying maneuver" (C-in.2:1-3).
Once again, the personal and private material in the Urtext does not belong in any published version. Most writers destroy all the earlier versions when they finish a manuscript. I do that when I complete a book and it is published. In reading the Urtext, students of A Course in Miracles are not going to find "Jesus' authentic words," but the writings of a woman struggling (at first) with the scribal process, and thus are reading what was never meant to be read. Now, if you do read it, I am not saying Helen will strike you dead with a thunderbolt, or that it is sinful, but you should at least ask yourself why you are doing so. As Jesus emphasizes throughout his Course: purpose is everything; we need to ask only one question of anything: What is it for? I can guarantee you one thing, however: the Urtext will not enhance your understanding of the Course. If anything, it will confuse you because, as I have indicated, you will come across specific things that were not meant to be read by the public and will seem to contradict what the Course itself teaches, not to mention its use of words and terms that suggest the opposite of what the Course's teachings are.
Therefore, a question that I think should be asked by students of A Course in Miracles who are interested in this material is: "Why would I want to read something that might be construed as teaching something different from what the Course is actually saying, not to mention that Jesus, Helen, and Bill in effect asked me not to?" It is also helpful to remember that the material that some focus on came during the very early weeks of the scribing, and what followed was hardly changed at all. We thus are speaking of what happened when Helen's hearing was not that accurate. It was during this time, as I mentioned, that Helen was still influenced by Edgar Cayce, and this was reflected in what she wrote down. However, this interference was short-lived. Yet if readers of the Urtext are not aware of this aspect of Helen's scribing, they can easily be confused and misled into thinking, to give one instance, that the Course is teaching that the world is real. To be sure, there are intimations of this at the beginning—in marked distinction from the rest of the Course—which reflects the Cayce influence, wherein this great psychic stated that God created the world as a classroom, after the separation. Again, this is hardly the position of A Course in Miracles.
I remember on one occasion that Helen and I were with someone who was prominently associated with the Course, but did not really know what it said. Helen said to him that he would never understand this Course unless he recognized that this world is an illusion. She was very emphatic: This world is an illusion. God had nothing to do with it, and you will not understand this course that way. Again, no one understood this Course better than Helen.
There is an interesting story about Helen when we were going through the editing process—it was actually quite funny. Helen would frequently become anxious during our editing, and one of the ways she would express her anxiety was that when we would read a paragraph, she would start to laugh and then say: "This makes absolutely no sense to me." So the first teaching I actually did was "teaching" Helen, knowing full well that she knew full well what the passage meant. And I also knew that if I had said something that was wrong, she would have corrected me on the spot. Helen knew the Course from the inside out. She hardly ever read it, but could quote it at will. In the years we were together, we would always quote lines back and forth, when we weren't quoting Hamlet. She would get quite judgmental and angry with people who pretended to know what it said but did not. She was very clear that she was never going to teach it formally, but she did not want anyone else teaching it who was obviously expressing his or her ego, and not Jesus.
Returning to this important point, there is a prominent idea that what Helen took down are Jesus' literal words; they are therefore sacred and should never have been altered. This is as patently absurd as the lady who wrote to me after the second (and numbered) edition was published, accusing me of changing Jesus' Course by adding numbers to it. Helen did not think that way. A lot of what she heard at the beginning was just wrong, and she of course knew that. Again, I had many personal experiences with Helen of her writing down messages she said were from Jesus. This, by the way, occurred during the same time period when she was writing down the pamphlets, which are certainly pure in their teaching. Inaccuracies were frequently the result when she was involved with specifics. Here are some additional examples.
I think it was 1976, a year after we met Judith Skutch, the eventual publisher of the Course through the Foundation for Inner Peace. Helen, Bill, Judy, and I were discussing what we thought was going to happen with the Course and our work with it. As was typical during this period, Helen wrote down a message for us, probably somewhere in the summer, and it said that "This year will end in blazing glory." The meaning was that there was to be some magnificent breakthrough; perhaps, we thought, Helen and Bill's relationship would be healed and we would all ride off into the spiritual sunset together—i.e., wonderful things would be happening. Well, weeks and months went by, and no blazing glory. Finally, it was December 31st and we were still waiting. Judy was giving a New Year's Eve party in her apartment, which overlooked Central Park and provided a beautiful view of the sky. Sometime later in the evening, New York City put on its New Year's Eve fireworks display, and we turned to each other and said: "There's the blazing glory!" Obviously, Helen had been wrong.
Another instance of Helen's inaccuracy with specifics was when she saw her own tombstone, indicating that she would die when she was 72. Well, she died when she was 71. It was close, but if you are Jesus' scribe, you should not be off even a little. She also that said Bill would die within a year of her death, which became a big concern for Bill. But he lived another seven years and died in 1988. Finally, Helen said that her husband Louis would die within five or six years of her death, but he lived for almost another nineteen years! And so Helen was frequently wrong when it came to specifics—the ego loves specifics— or when her messages related to areas in which she was conflicted, as with sex and death. She was not wrong, however, when her ego was not involved. This is why you can trust what the published Course says.
Thus, it became very clear to me in the years I knew Helen that I should take with a grain of salt some of the things she said or wrote as coming from Jesus, and this clearly included the early Urtext material. Unfortunately, there are also some things there that if you do not know the context, you will not understand what they refer to, or what they mean. This inevitably means that those who were not present and did not know Helen or Bill will misunderstand much of what is found there.
Finally, I can assure all students of A Course in Miracles that they have not been cheated, and Helen, Bill, and I worked very hard to be sure that the book published by the Foundation for Inner Peace was the way Jesus meant it to be, and certainly the way Helen knew he wanted it.
It goes without saying that I do not want people to feel guilty if they buy or read the other versions. People should do whatever they want, as long as it is not hurtful; and contrary to what some people might say, there is no "Pope of the Course." So, whatever you do with the Course, what is most important is that it be done without anger, judgment, or feelings of unfair treatment. Those responses are always of the ego. Thus, whatever you do, try to have the motivation be ego free. In that way, whatever you do will be loving.
While some may be tempted to argue about the merits of the different versions, all that is really important is where the Course comes from: everyone's right mind, which each of us can choose at any point. If you find yourself getting caught up in controversy, thinking the arguments mean something, you will argue and see differences, where in truth there are none. Differences undoubtedly exist in form (the body), but never in content (the mind). Thus there can be no significant differences among those who represent different positions. Seeing differences and making them into something serious is when the ego catches us, for we are remembering not to laugh at the tiny, mad idea of separation (T-27.VIII.6:2
What motivates people to stir up controversy is the need to have there be conflict; and when there is conflict, you know the ego has been invited in. There can be no conflict in one's right mind, because there everyone is perceived to be the same. Whatever differences exist, again, are only on the illusory level of the body. Bodies differ. People write different books and say different things; but if you make these differences significant and the object of controversy and conflict, if not war, then you know which voice you are listening to. Our only responsibility is to hear the Voice of peace, and when we do, we recognize that controversies are like boys and girls playing in a sandbox. But you cannot get sand in your eyes unless you sit down with them and play in the sand. If you stand up as an adult, with Jesus by your side, then whatever is happening in the sandbox is of no consequence to you, which means that nothing that goes on in the world can change the experience of God's Love in your mind.
Whether or not you agree with the issues generated by the differing versions of A Course in Miracles is irrelevant. Obviously everyone has a position, but that position should not affect your peace or your vision that sees everyone involved in the issue as the same. That means that what is going on now with the Course is just another classroom; another way of seeing whether you want to get your hands, feet, and eyes filled with sand, or to be able to stand with Jesus and be at peace. When you choose vision instead of judgment, as Jesus is always asking us to do, you will see that everyone is involved in the same quest for returning to the mind and choosing again, and that everyone is tempted to be afraid of this journey. When people are afraid, they get caught in the sandbox and start playing with its toys as if they were weapons.
The point here is that people should take whatever stand they think is right, but to try not to let it amount to anything. The only position that is truly right is that we all made the same mistake of choosing the wrong teacher, and now we can make the correction by choosing again. That is the only thing that is important. What is happening now is just another opportunity to choose differently—to see shared instead of separate interests.
Your perspective on A Course in Miracles will be warped if you see it in any way as part of the world of separation and form. It is said that the Buddha once remarked: "What are known as the teachings of the Buddha are not the teachings of the Buddha." And the same can be said for the Course. In other words, A Course in Miracles is not really a book, nor even a body of specific teachings. It is a symbol for the Atonement, the correction for the thought of separation that is in everyone's mind. When we recognize this, it would be impossible to judge other students, teachers, or the Course vis a vis itself or other spiritualities. We would not accord it any meaning that is fragmenting or separating. This means that we realize that what is holy is not the book, or Helen—her notebooks, pen, or the fingers that held the pen. It is the thought system in our equal minds that is holy. Otherwise the Course becomes just another symbol of specialness and a means of justifying the ego's projection of guilt in the form of judgment, division, and conflict. Just as Christianity ended up as a religion of hate and even murder, this Course could end up like that, too. Unfortunately, its short history already reflects some of the same dynamics of separation, judgment and exclusion. Yet what else would one expect from the ego? In other words, A Course in Miracles is written by the mind, for the mind—that it correct itself.
Yes, it is important that this communication from Jesus be transmitted accurately, as accurately as is possible, although perfect communication is impossible within the illusion. Yet keep in mind, to say it one more time, that the true communication is not the words, but the love with which Helen joined in her mind, and which is in our own as well—a love that reflects the perfect love and oneness of Heaven. And so, work with whatever symbols are meaningful to you, but do so in such a way that you have no investment in the outcome. Fulfill your function of forgiveness as purely as you can, and what happens after that will not be your concern; otherwise you fall into the ego's trap of substituting form for content, one of the prime characteristics of special relationships. That is why I keep insisting that A Course in Miracles is not A Course in Miracles -- at least not the book or its words. If we can remember the love that is the Course, we will not be taken in by the ego's seductions of differences and controversy. And when we are able to keep that love pure in ourselves, we will not make the seeming purity of the form so important, recognizing that we are one in content, albeit different in form. And learning to remember that shared content of love in all God's Sons is the sum and substance of A Course in Miracles.
~ A selection from the original transcript of A Course in Miracles. In context of Helen's upbringing, dimly exposed to Christian Science and Theosophy by her mother, it is understandable but curious to find comment upon and adoption of the paradisal myth from Mary Baker Eddy's writings.
“Be as thou wast wont to be / See as thou wast wont to see.”
It is noteworthy that these words were said by Oberon in releasing Titania from her own errors, both of being and perceiving. These were the words which re-established her true identity as well as her true abilities and judgment. The similarity here is obvious.
There are also some definitions, which I asked you to take from the dictionary, which will also be helpful. Their somewhat unusual nature is due to the fact that they are not first definitions in their chronological appearance. Nevertheless, the fact that each of them does appear in the dictionary should be reassuring.
Project (verb): to extend forward or out.
Project (noun): a plan in the mind World : a natural grand division.
(Note that you originally wrote “word” instead of “world”.)
We will refer later to projection as related to both mental illness and mental health. It will also be commented on that Lucifer literally projected himself from heaven. We also have observed that man can create an empty shell, but cannot create nothing at all.
The Garden of Eden, which is described as a literal garden in the Bible, was not originally an actual garden at all. It was merely a mental state of complete need-lack. Even in the literal account, it is noteworthy that the pre-Separation state was essentially one in which man needed nothing. The Tree of Knowledge, again an overly-literal concept, (as is clearly shown by the subsequent reference to “eating of the fruit of the tree”) is a symbolic reference to some of the misuses of knowledge referred to in the section immediately preceding this one. There is, however, considerable clarification of this concept, which must be understood before the real meaning of the “detour into fear” can be fully comprehended. Projection, as defined above, (this refers to the verb) is a fundamental attribute of God, which he also gave to his Son. In the Creation, God projected his Creative Ability out of Himself toward the Souls which He created, and also imbued them with the same loving wish (or will) to create. We have commented before on the FUNDAMENTAL error involved in confusing what has been created with what is being created. We have also emphasized that man, insofar as the term relates to Soul, has not only been fully Created, but also been created perfect. There is no emptiness in him. The next point, too, has already been made, but bears repetition here. The Soul, because of its own likeness to its Creator, is creative. No Child of God is capable of losing this ability, because it is inherent in what he IS.
Whenever projection in its inappropriate sense is utilized, it always implies that some emptiness (or lack of everything) must exist, and that it is within man’s ability to put his own ideas there INSTEAD of the truth. If you will consider carefully what this entails, the following will become quite apparent:
First, the assumption is implicit that what God has Created can be changed by the mind of Man.
Second, the concept that what is perfect can be rendered imperfect (or wanting) is intruded.
Third, the belief that man can distort the Creations of God (including himself) has arisen, and is tolerated.
Fourth, that since man can create himself, the direction of his own creation is up to him.
These related distortions represent a picture of what actually occurred in the Separation. None of this existed before, nor does it actually exist now. The world, as defined above, WAS made as a natural grand division, or projecting outward of God. That is why everything which He Created is like Him.
It should be noted that the opposite of pro is con. Strictly speaking, then, the opposite of projecting is conjecting, a term which referred to a state of uncertainty or guess work. Other errors arise in connection with ancillary defenses, to be considered later.
For example, dejection, which is obviously associated with depression, injection, which can be misinterpreted readily enough, in terms of possession fallacies (particularly penetration), and rejection, which is clearly associated with denial. It should be noted also that rejection can be used as refusing, a term which necessarily involves a perception of what is refused as something unworthy.
Projection as undertaken by God was very similar to the kind of inner radiance which the Children of the Father inherit from Him. It is important to note that the term “project outward” necessarily implies that the real source of projection is internal. This is as true of the Son as of the Father.
The world, in its original connotation, included both the proper creation of man by God, AND the proper creation by man in his Right Mind. The latter required the endowment of man by God with free will, because all loving creation is freely given. Nothing in either of these statements implies any sort of level involvement, or, in fact, anything except one continuous line of creation, in which all aspects are of the same order.
When the “lies of the serpent” were introduced, they were specifically called lies because they are not true. When man listened, all he heard was untruth. He does not have to continue to believe what is not true, unless he chooses to do so. All of his mis-creations can disappear in the well known “twinkling of an eye”, because it is a visual misperception.
Man’s spiritual eye can sleep, but as will shortly appear... a sleeping eye can still see. One translation of the Fall, a view emphasized by Mary Baker Eddy, and worthy of note, is that “a deep sleep fell upon Adam”. While the Bible continues to associate this sleep as a kind of anesthetic utilized for protection of Adam during the creation of Eve, Mrs. Eddy was correct in emphasizing that nowhere is there any reference made to his waking up. While Christian Science is clearly incomplete, this point is much in its favor.
The history of man in the world as he saw it has not been characterized by any genuine or comprehensive re-awakening, or re-birth. This is impossible as long as man projects in the spirit of miscreation. It still remains within him to project as God projected his own Spirit to him. In reality, this is his ONLY choice, because his free will was made for his own joy in creating the perfect.
All fear is ultimately reducible to the basic misperception of man’s ability to USURP the power of God. It is again emphasized that he neither CAN nor HAS been able to do this. In this statement lies the real justification for his escape from fear. This is brought about by his acceptance of the Atonement, which places him in a position to realize that his own errors never really occurred.
When the deep sleep96 fell upon Adam, he was then in a condition to experience nightmares, precisely because he was sleep‐ ing. If a light is suddenly turned on while someone is dreaming, and the content of his dream is fearful, he is initially likely to interpret the light itself as part of the content of his own dream. However, as soon as he awakens, the light is correctly perceived as the release from the dream, which is no longer accorded reality. I would like to conclude this with the Biblical injunction “Go ye and do likewise.” It is quite apparent that this depends on the kind of knowledge which was NOT referred to by the “Tree of Knowledge” which bore lies as fruit. The knowledge that illuminates rather than obscures is the knowledge which not only makes you free, but also shows you clearly that you ARE free.
~ A selection from the original transcript of A Course in Miracles; this comment is due to Bill's interest in Helen's psychic episodes and their visit to the Edgar Cayce's Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virginia.
Cayce’s notes, too, could have been much shortened. Their excessive length is due to two factors. The first involves a fundamental error which Cayce himself made, and which required constant undoing. The second is more related to the attitude of his followers. They are unwilling to omit anything he said. This is respectful enough, but not overly‐ judicious. I would be a far better editor, if they would allow me this position on their staff.
It is obvious that Cayce himself was not able to transcend the misperceptions of the need for sacrifice, or he could not possibly have been willing to sacrifice himself. Anyone who is unable to leave the requests of others unanswered has not entirely tran‐ scended egocentricity. I never “gave of myself” in this inappropriate way, nor would I ever have encouraged Cayce to do so.
Cayce could not see the Atonement as totally lacking in sacrifice at ANY level. It WAS obvious to him that the mind cannot be so limited. It was equally apparent to him that the Soul is merely unaffected by such an idea. This left him only the body with which to invest his misperception. This is also why he used his own mind at the “EXPENSE of his body.”
Because Cayce was a somewhat erratic listener, he was compelled to correct his own errors at very great length, and not al‐ ways adequately. Consider the basis from which he started, when he began with “yes, we have the body.” It is noteworthy that in all these readings, a large section was actually devoted to the body, even though he usually concluded with the caution that the body cannot be healed by itself. It would have saved an enormous num‐ ber of words if he had always begun with this.
Cayce and his devotion to me are in no way underestimated by the realization that he worked under very great strain, which is ALWAYS a sign that something is wrong. One of the difficulties in‐ herent in trance states is that it is very difficult to overcome the split which the trance itself induces through the medium of communications made while in the trance state.
Cayce’s whole approach put him in a real double‐bind, from which he did not recover. When he spoke of a dream in which he saw his own rather immanent reincarnation, he was perfectly accurate. He was sufficiently attuned to real communication to make it easy to correct his errors, and free him to communicate without strain. It is noticeable throughout his notes that he frequently engaged in a fallacy that we have already noted in some detail: namely, the tendency to endow the physical with nonphysical properties. Cayce suffered greatly from this error. He did not make either of the other three. However, you will remember that it is this one which is particularly vulnerable to magical associations. Cayce’s accuracy was so great that, even when he did this, he was able to apply it constructively. But it does not follow that this was a genuinely constructive approach.
It should also be noted that, when Cayce attempted to “see” the body in proper perspective, he saw physically discernible auras surrounding it. This is a curious compromise, in which the non‐ physical attributes of the self are approached AS IF they could be seen with the physical eye.
Cayce’s illiteracy never stood in his way. This is because illiteracy does not necessarily imply any lack of love, and in Cayce’s case very definitely did not. He therefore had no difficulty at all in overcoming this seeming limitation. What DID hamper him was a profound sense of personal unworthiness, which, characteristically enough, was sometimes over‐compensated for in what might be called a Christian form of grandiosity. Cayce was essentially uncharitable to himself. This made him very erratic in his own miracles, and, because he was genuinely anxious to help others, left himself in a highly vulnerable position.
His son comments both on the rather erratic nature of the Cayce household, and also on the rather uneven nature of Cayce’s temper. Both of these observations are true, and clearly point to the fact that Cayce did not apply the Peace of God to himself. Once this had occurred, particularly in a man whose communication channels were open, it was virtually impossible for him to escape external solutions. Cayce was a very religious man, who should have been able to escape fear through religion. Being unable to apply his religion wholeheartedly to himself, he was forced to accept certain magical beliefs which were alien to his own Christianity. This is why he was so different when he was asleep, and even disowned what he said in this state.
The lack of integration which this split state implies is clearly shown in certain off‐the‐mark detours into areas such as the effects of stones on the mind, and some curious symbolic attempt to integrate churches and glands. (This is hardly more peculiar than some of your own confusion.)
Cayce’s mind was imprisoned to some extent by an error against which you have been cautioned several times. He looked to the past for an EXPLANATION of the present, but he never suc‐ ceeded in separating the past FROM the present. When he said “mind is the builder,” he did not realize that it is only what it is building NOW that really creates the future. The past, in itself, does not have the ability to do this. Whenever we move from one instant to the next, the previous one no longer exists. In considering the body as the focus for healing, Cayce was expressing his own failure to accept this AS ACCOMPLISHED. He did not fail to recognize the value of the Atonement for others, but he did fail to accept its corrective merit for himself.
As we have frequently emphasized, man CANNOT control his own errors. Having created them, he does believe in them. Be‐ cause of his failure to accept his own perfect freedom FROM the past, Cayce could not really perceive others as similarly free. This is why I have not wholly endorsed the Cayce documents for wide‐spread use.
I am heartily supportive of the ARE’s endeavor to make Cayce’s singular contributions immortal, but it would be most unwise to have them promulgated as a faith until they have been purged of their essential errors. This is why there have been a number of unexplained set backs in their explication. It is also one of the many reasons why the Cayce material, a major step in the speedup, must be properly understood before it can be meaningfully validated.
Cayce’s son has been wise in attempting to deal with reliability, which in Cayce’s case is very high. There is a way of validating the material, and Hugh Lynn is perfectly aware that this must be done eventually. He is also aware of the fact that he is unable to do it. In the present state of the material, it would be most unwise even to attempt it. There is too much that IS invalid. When the time comes that this can be corrected to the point of real safety, I assure you it will be accomplished. In tribute to Cayce, I remind you that no effort is wasted, and Cayce’s effort was very great.
It would be most ungrateful of me if I allowed his work to produce a generation of witch doctors. I am sorry that Cayce himself could not rid himself of a slight tendency in this direction. But fortunately I have a fuller appreciation of him than he had.
I am repeating here a Biblical injunction of my own, already mentioned elsewhere, that if my followers eat any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. This is what Cayce could NOT believe, because he could not see that, as a Son of God, he WAS invulnerable.
~ Chronological selections from the original transcript of A Course in Miracles mentioning sexual impulse and function. Some points remain, but most of this material was edited out or decontextualized prior to sanctioned publication; as it is of a very sensitive personal matter, the scribes in communion with Jesus understandably didn't want his particularly revealing comments on their frustrated sex lives to be publicly known.
(Helen notes: "This upsets me")
Remember the point about Miracles as a means of organizing different levels of consciousness. Miracles come from the below-conscious or subconscious level. Revelations come from the above conscious level. The conscious level is in between & reacts to either sub‐ or super‐conscious impulses in varying ratios. Freud was right about the classification, but not the names. He was also right that the content of consciousness is fleeting. Consciousness is the level which engages in the world, and is capable of responding to both external & internal impulses. Having no impulses from itself, and being primarily a mechanism for inducing response, it can be very wrong.
For example, if the identification is with the body, consciousness may distort superconscious impulses by denying their Source, & seeking their impact in the orgasm. This is the result of the “mistaken identity” confusion.
If you will look back at the description of the EFFECTS of Revelation you will see that there ARE some similarities in the experiential results but hardly in the content.
Revelations induce complete but temporary suspension of doubt & fear. They represent the original form of communication between God and His Souls, before the intrusion of fire and ice made this impossible. It should be noted that they involve an extremely personal sense of closeness to Creation, which man tries to find in sexual relationships. This confusion is responsible for the depression and fear which are often associated with sex.
Sex is often associated with lack of love, but Revelation is PURELY a love experience. Physical closeness CANNOT achieve this. As was said before, the subconscious impulses properly induce Miracles, which ARE interpersonal, and result in closeness to others. This can be misunderstood by a personally willful consciousness as an impulse toward sexual gratification.
The Revelation unites Souls directly with God.
...
Both of you are involved with unconscious distortions (above the miracle level), which are producing a dense cover over miracle‐impulses which makes it hard for them to reach consciousness. Sex & miracles are both WAYS OF RELATING. The nature of any interpersonal relationship is limited or defined by what you want it to DO which is WHY you want it in the first place. Relating is a way of achieving an outcome.
Indiscriminate sexual impulses resemble indiscriminate miracle impulses in that both result in body image misperceptions. The first is an expression of an indiscriminate attempt to reach communion through the body. This involves not only the improper self identification, but also disrespect for the individuality of others. Self-control is NOT the whole answer to this problem, though I am by no means discouraging its use. It must be understood, however, that the underlying mechanism must be uprooted (a word you both should understand well enough by now not to regard it as frightening).
ALL shallow roots have to be uprooted, because they are not deep enough to sustain you. The illusion that shallow roots can be deepened and thus made to hold is one of the corollaries on which the reversal of the Golden Rule, referred to twice before, is balanced. As these false underpinnings are uprooted (or given up), equilibrium is experienced as unstable. But the fact is that NOTHING is less stable than an orientation which is upside down. Anything that holds it this way is hardly conducive to greater stability.
The whole danger of defenses lies in their propensity to hold misperceptions rigidly in place. This is why rigidity is regarded AS stability by those who are off the mark.
NOTE The only final solution ‐ (no, Helen, this has nothing to do with the Nazi use of the term.) You just got frightened again. One of the more horrible examples of inverted or upside down thinking (and history is full of horrible examples of this) is the fact that the Nazis spelled their appalling error with capital letters. I shed many tears over this, but it is by no means the only time I said “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”
All actions which stem from reverse thinking are literally the behavioral expressions of those who know not what they do. Actually, Jean Dixon was right in her emphasis on “Feet on the ground & fingertips in the Heaven,” though she was a bit too literal for your kind of understanding. Many people knew exactly what she meant, so her statement was the right miracle for them.
...
Remember the story about the artist who kept devoting himself to inventing better & better ways of sharpening pencils. He never created anything, but he had the sharpest pencil in town. (The language here is intentional.) Sex is often utilized on behalf of very similar errors. Hostility, triumph, vengeance, self‐debasement, and all sort of expressions of the lack of love are often VERY clearly seen in the accompanying fantasies. But it is a PROFOUND error to imagine that, because these fantasies are so frequent (or occur so reliably), that this implies validity. Remember that while validity implies reliability the relationship is NOT reversible. You can be wholly reliable, and ENTIRELY wrong.
While a reliable test DOES measure something, what USE is the test unless you discover what the “something” is? And if validity is more important than reliability, and is also necessarily implied BY it, why not concentrate on VALIDITY and let reliability fall naturally into place.
Intellect may be a “displacement upward,” but sex can be a “displacement outward.” How can man “come close” to others through the parts of him which are really invisible? The word “invisible” means “cannot be seen or perceived.” What cannot be perceived is hardly the right means for improving perception.
The confusion of miracle impulse with sexual impulse is a major source of perceptual distortion, because it INDUCES rather than straightening out the basic level‐confusion which underlies all those who seek happiness with the instruments of the world. A desert is a desert is a desert. You can do anything you want in it, but you CANNOT change it from what it IS. It still lacks water, which is why it IS a desert. ... The thing to do with a desert is to LEAVE.
...
I want to finish the instructions about sex, because this is an area the miracle worker MUST understand.
Inappropriate sex drives (or misdirected miracle‐impulses) result in guilt if expressed, and depression if denied. We said before that ALL real pleasure comes from doing God’s will. Whenever it is NOT done an experience of lack results. This is because NOT doing the will of God IS a lack of self.
Sex was intended as an instrument for physical creation to enable Souls to embark on new chapters in their experience, and thus improve their record. The pencil was NOT an end in itself. (See earlier section.) It was an aid to the artist in his own creative endeavors. As he made new homes for Souls and guided them through the period of their own developmental readiness, he learned the role of the father himself. The whole process was set up as a learning experience in gaining Grace.
The pleasure which is derived from sex AS SUCH is reliable only because it stems from an error which men shared. AWARENESS of the error produces the guilt. DENIAL of the error results in projection. CORRECTION of the error brings release.
The only VALID use of sex is procreation. It is NOT truly pleasurable in itself. “Lead us not into Temptation” means “Do not let us deceive ourselves into believing that we can relate in peace to God or our brothers with ANYTHING external.”
The “sin of Onan” was called a “sin” because it involved a related type of self‐delusion; namely, that pleasure WITHOUT relating can exist.
To repeat an earlier instruction, the concept of either the self or another as a “sex‐OBJECT” epitomizes this strange reversal. As Bill put it, and very correctly, too, it IS objectionable, but only because it is invalid. Upside down logic produces this kind of thinking.
Child of God, you were created to create the good, the beautiful, and the holy. Do not lose sight of this. You were right in telling B. to invite Me to enter anywhere temptation arises. I will change the situation from one of inappropriate sexual attraction to one of impersonal miracle‐working. The concept of changing the channel for libidinal expression is Freud’s greatest contribution, ex‐ cept that he did not understand what “channel” really means.
The love of God, for a little while, must still be expressed through one body to another. That is because the real vision is still so dim. Everyone can use his body best by enlarging man’s perception, so he can see the real VISION. THIS VISION is invisible to the physical eye. The ultimate purpose of the body is to render itself unnecessary. Learning to do this is the only real reason for its creation.
NOTE Scribes have a particular role in the Plan of Atonement, because they have the ability to EXPERIENCE revelations themselves, and also to put into words enough of the experience to serve as a basis for miracles.
(This refers to experiences at the visionary level, after which Helen wrote “If you will tell me what to do, I will to do it.” She had not known that the word “to” was inserted, and had merely intended to write “I will do it.” This recognition had a terrific impact on her.)
This is why you EXPERIENCED that revelation about “I will to do” VERY personally, but also WROTE IT: What you wrote CAN be useful to miracle workers other than yourself. We said before that prayer is the medium of miracles. The miracle prayer IS what you wrote, i.e. “If you will tell me what to do, I will to do it.”
This prayer is the door that leads out of the desert forever.
...
Sexual fantasies are distortions of perception by definition. They are a means of making false associations, and obtaining pleasure from them. Man can do this only because he IS creative. But although he can perceive false associations, he can never make them real except to himself. As was said before, man believes in what he creates. If he creates a miracle, he will be equally strong in his belief in that. The strength of his conviction will then sustain the belief of the miracle receiver.
NO fantasies, sexual or otherwise, are true. Fantasies become totally unnecessary as the Wholly satisfying nature of reality becomes apparent. The sex impulse IS a miracle impulse when it is in proper focus. One individual sees in another the right partner for “procreating the stock” (Wolff was not too far off here), and also for their joint establishment of a creative home. This does not involve fantasy at all. If I am asked to participate in the decision, the decision will be a Right one, too.
In a situation where you or another person, or both, experience inappropriate sex impulses, KNOW FIRST that this is an expression of fear. Your love toward each other is NOT perfect, and this is why the fear arose. Turn immediately to me by denying the power of the fear, and ask me to help you to replace it with love.84 This shifts the sexual impulse immediately to the miracle‐impulse, and places it at MY disposal.
Then acknowledge the true creative worth of both yourself AND the other one. This places strength where it belongs. Note that sexual fantasies are ALWAYS destructive (or depleting), in that they perceive another in an inappropriate creative role. Both people are perceived essentially as “objects” fulfilling THEIR OWN pleasure drives. This dehumanized view is the source of the DEPLETING use of sex. Freud’s description is purely NEGATIVE, i.e., as a release from the UNPLEASANT. He also observed that the tension from id impulses never completely abates.
What he should have said is that the shift from miracle‐ impulses to sexual impulses was debilitating in the first place, because of the level‐confusion involved. This set up a state in which real release was impossible. Note also that Freud’s notion of sex was as a device for inducing RELAXATION, which he confused with PEACE.
Inappropriate sex relaxes only in the sense that it may induce physical sleep. The miracle, on the other hand, is an ENERGIZER. It always strengthens, and never depletes. It DOES induce peace, and by establishing tranquility (not relaxation) it enables both giver and receiver to enter into a state of Grace. Here his miracle‐mindedness, (not release from tension) is restored.
Tension is the result of a building‐up of unexpressed miracle‐impulses. This can be truly abated only by releasing the miracle‐drive, which has been blocked. Converting it to sexual libido merely produces further blocking. Never foster this illusion in yourself, or encourage it in others. An “object” is incapable of release, because it is a concept which is deprived of creative power. The recognition of the real creative power in yourself AND others brings release because it brings peace.
The peace of God which passeth understanding CAN keep your hearts now and forever.
...
The other question, however, I am more than willing to answer, because it is appropriate for NOW. You and Bill both chose your present sex partners shamefully, and would have to atone for the lack of love which was involved in any case.
You selected them precisely BECAUSE they were NOT suited to gratify your fantasies. This was not because you wanted to abandon or give up the fantasies, but because you were AFRAID of them. You saw in your partners a means of protecting against the fear, but both of you continued to “look around” for chances to indulge the fantasies.
The dream of the “perfect partner” is an attempt to find EXTERNAL integration, while retaining conflicting needs in the self.
Bill was somewhat less guilty of this than you, but largely because he was more afraid. He had abandoned the hope (of finding a perfect partner) in a neurotic sense of despair of finding it. You, on the other hand, insisted that the hope was justified. Neither of you, therefore, was in your Right Mind.
As was said before, homosexuality is INHERENTLY more risky (or error prone) than heterosexuality, but both can be undertaken on an equally false basis. The falseness of the basis is clear in the accompanying fantasies. Homosexuality ALWAYS involves misperception of the self OR the partner, and generally both.
Penetration DOES NOT involve magic, nor DOES ANY form of sexual behavior. It IS a magic belief to engage in ANY form of body image activity at all. You neither created yourselves, nor controlled your creation. By introducing levels into your own perception, you opened the way for body‐image distortions.
The lack of love (or faulty need‐orientation) which led to your particular person (not OBJECT) choices CAN BE corrected within the existent framework, and would HAVE to be in the larger interest of overall progress. The situation is questionable largely because of its inherent vulnerability to fantasy‐gratification. Doing the best you can WITHIN this limitation is probably the best corrective measure at present. Any relationship you have undertaken for whatever reasons becomes a responsibility.
If you shift your own needs, some amount of corresponding shift in the need‐orientation of the other person MUST result, This will be beneficial, even if the partner was originally attracted to you BECAUSE of your disrespect. Teaching devices which are to‐ tally alien to a learner’s perceptual system are usually merely dis‐ ruptive. Transfer depends on SOME common elements in the new situation which are understandable in terms of the old.
Man can never control the effects of fear himself, because he has CREATED fear and believes in what he creates. In attitude, then, though not in content, he resembles his own Creator, who has perfect faith in His Creations because he Created them. All creation rests on belief, and the belief in the creation produces its existence. This is why it is possible for a man to believe what is not true for anyone else. It is true for him because it is made BY him.
Every aspect of fear proceeds from upside down perception. The TRULY creative devote their efforts to correcting this. The neurotic devotes his to compromise. The psychotic tries to escape by establishing the truth of his own errors. It is most difficult to free him by ordinary means, only because he is more stable in his denial of truth.
...
Possession is a concept which has been subject to numerous distortions, some of which we will list below:
1. It (possession) can be associated with the body only. If this occurs, sex is particularly likely to be contaminated. Possession versus being possessed is apt to be seen as the male and female role. Since neither will be conceived of as satisfying alone, and both will be associated with fear, this interpretation is particularly vulnerable to psycho‐ sexual confusion.
2. From a rather similar misperceptual reference point, possession can also be associated with things. This is essentially a shift from 1), and is usually due to an underlying fear of associating possession with people. In this sense, it is an attempt to PROTECT people, like the superstition about “protecting the name,” we mentioned before.
Both 1) and 2) are likely to become compulsive for several reasons, including:
a. They represent an attempt to escape from the real possession‐ drive, which cannot be satisfied this way.
b. They set up substitute goals, which are usually reasonably easy to attain.
c. They APPEAR to be relatively harmless, and thus SEEM to allay fear. The fact that they usually interfere with good interpersonal relationships can be interpreted, in this culture, as a lack of sophistica‐ tion on the part of the OTHER (not the self), and this induces a false feeling of confidence in the solution, based on reliability NOT validity. It is also fairly easy to find a partner who SHARES the illusion. Thus, we have any number of relationships which are actually ESTABLISHED on the basis of 1), and others which HOLD TOGETHER primarily because of the joint interests in 2).
d. The manifestly EXTERNAL emphasis which both entail seems to be a safety device, and thus permits a false escape from much more basic inhibitions. As a compromise solution, the ILLUSION of inter‐ personal relating is preserved, along with the retention of the lack of love component. This kind of psychic juggling leaves the person (or juggler?) with a feeling of emptiness, which in fact is perfectly justi‐ fied, because he IS acting from scarcity. He then becomes more and more driven in his behavior, to fill the emptiness.
When these solutions have been invested with extreme belief, 1) leads to sex crimes, and 2) to stealing. The kleptomaniac is a good example of the latter.
Generally, two types of emotional disturbances result:
a. The tendency to maintain the illusion that only the physical is real. This produces depression.
b. The tendency to invest the physical with non‐physical properties. This is essentially magic, and tends more toward anxiety‐proneness.
c. The tendency to vacillate from one to the other, which produces a corresponding vacillation between depression AND anxiety.
Both result in self imposed starvation.
3. Another type of distortion is seen in the fear of or desire for “spirit” possession. The term “spirit” is profoundly debased in this context, but it DOES entail a recognition that the body is not enough, and investing it with magic will not work. This recognition ACCEPTS the fact that neither 1) nor 2) is sufficient, but, precisely BECAUSE it does not limit fear so narrowly, it is more likely to produce greater fear in its own right.
Endowing the Spirit with human possessiveness is a more INCLUSIVE error than 1) or 2), and a step somewhat further away from the “Right Mind.” Projection is also more likely to occur, with vacillations between grandiosity and fear. “Religion” in a distorted sense, is also more likely to occur in this kind of error, because the idea of a “spirit” is introduced, though fallaciously, while it is excluded from 1) and 2).
Witchcraft is thus particularly apt to be associated with 3), because of the much greater investment in magic.
It should be noted that 1) involves only the body, and 2) involves an attempt to associate things with human attributes. Three, on the other hand, is a more serious level confusion, because it endows the Spirit with EVIL attributes. This accounts both for the religious zeal of its proponents, and the aversion (or fear) of its opponents. Both attitudes stem from the same false belief.
This is NOT what the Bible means by “possessed of the Holy Spirit.” It is interesting to note that even those who DID understand that could nevertheless EXPRESS their understanding inappropriately. The concept of “speaking in many tongues” was originally an injunction to communicate to everyone in his own language, or his own level. It hardly meant to speak in a way that NOBODY can understand. This strange error occurs when people DO understand the need for Universal communication, but have contaminated it with possession fallacies. The fear engendered by this misperception leads to a conflicted state in which communication IS attempted, but the fear is allayed by making the communication incomprehensible.
It could also be said that the fear induced selfishness, or regression, because incomprehensible communication is hardly a worthy offering from one Son of God to another.
4. Knowledge can also be misinterpreted as a means of possession. Here, the content is not physical, and the underlying fallacy is more likely to be the confusion of mind and brain. The attempt to unite non‐physical content with physical attributes is illustrated by statements like “the thirst for knowledge.” (No Helen, this is NOT what the “thirst” in the Bible means. The term was used only be‐ cause of man’s limited comprehension, and is probably better dropped.)
The fallacious use of knowledge can result in several errors, including:
a. The idea that knowledge will make the individual more attractive to others. This is a possession‐fallacy.
b. The idea that knowledge will make the individual invulnerable. This is the reaction formation against the underlying fear of vulnerability.
c. The idea that knowledge will make the individual worthy. This is largely pathetic.
Both you and Bill should consider type 4) VERY carefully. Like all these fallacies, it contains a denial mechanism, which swings into operation as the fear increases, thus canceling out the error temporarily, but seriously impairing efficiency.
Thus, you claim you can’t read, and Bill claims that he can’t speak. Note that depression is a real risk here, for a Child of God should never REDUCE his efficiency in ANY way. The depression comes from a peculiar pseudo‐solution which reads: "A Child of God is efficient. I am not efficient. Therefore, I am not a Child of God."
This leads to neurotic resignation, and this is a state which merely INCREASES the depression.
The corresponding denial mechanism for 1) is the sense of PHYSICAL inability, or IMPOTENCE. The denial mechanism for 2) is often bankruptcy. Collectors of things often drive themselves well beyond their financial means, in an attempt to force discontinuance. If this idea of cessation cannot be tolerated, a strange compromise involving BOTH insatiable possessiveness and insatiable throwing-away (bankruptcy) may result. An example is the inveterate or compulsive gambler, particularly the horse‐racing addict. Here, the conflicted drive is displaced both from people AND things, and is invested in animals. The implied DEROGATION of people is the cause of the underlying EXTREME superstition of the horse racing addict.
...
I am not too sure of the sequence, but it began with a VERY clear assurance of love, and an equally clear emphasis on my own great value, beauty, and purity. Things got a little confusing after that. First, the idea of “Bride of Christ” occurred to me with vaguely inappropriate “undertones.” Then there was a repetition of “the way of Love,” and a restatement of an earlier experience, now as if it were FROM Him TO me: “Behold the Handmaid of the Lord; Be it done unto you according to His Word.” (This threw me into panic before, but at that time, it was stated in the more accurate Biblical phrasing: “Be it done unto ME according to HIS Word.”) This time I was a bit uneasy, but remembered I had misperceived it last time, and was probably still not seeing it right. Actually, it is really just a statement of allegiance to the Divine Service, which can hardly be dangerous.
Then there was a strange sequence, in which Christ seemed to be making very obvious advances, which became quite sexual in my perception of them. I ALMOST thought briefly that he turned into a devil. I got just a LITTLE scared, and the possession idea came in for a while, but I thought it SO silly, that there is no point in taking it seriously. (Helen: As I am writing this, I remember that thing in the book about the demon lover, which once THROUGH [sic] me into a fit. I am upset, but the spelling slip is reassuring...)
This morning we reviewed the whole episode. He said he was “VERY pleased at the COMPARATIVE lack of fear, and also the concomitant awareness that it WAS misperception. This showed much greater strength, and a much increased Right‐Mindedness. This is because defenses are now being used much better, on behalf of truth MORE than error, though not completely so. The weaker use of mis-projection is shown by my recognition that it canʹt REALLY be that way, which became possible as soon as denial was applied against error, NOT truth. This permitted a much greater awareness of alternative interpretations." ...
You know that when defenses are disrupted there is a period of real disorientation, accompanied by fear, guilt, and usually vacillations between anxiety and depression. This process is different only in that defenses are not being disrupted, but re‐interpreted, even though it may be experienced as the same thing.
In the re‐interpretation of defenses, they are not disrupted but their use for ATTACK is lost. Since this means they can be used only ONE way, they became MUCH stronger, and much more dependable. They no longer oppose the Atonement, but greatly facili‐ tate it. The Atonement can only be accepted within you.
You have perceived it largely as EXTERNAL thus far, and that is why your EXPERIENCE of it has been minimal. You have been SHOWN the chalice many times, but have not accepted it “for yourself.” Your major improper use of defenses is now largely limited to externalization. Do not fail to appreciate your own remarkable progress in this respect. You perceived it first as a vessel of some sort whose purpose was uncertain but which might be a piss‐pot. You DID notice, however, that the INSIDE was gold, while the OUTSIDE, though shiny, was silver. This was a recognition of the fact that the INNER part is more precious than the OUTER side, even though both are resplendent, though with different value.
The re‐interpretation of defenses is essential to break open the INNER light. Since the Separation, man’s defenses have been used almost entirely to defend themselves AGAINST the Atonement, and thus maintain their separation. They generally see this as a need to protect the body from external intrusion (or intruding), and this kind of misperception is largely responsible for the homo‐ sexual fallacy, as well as your own pregnancy fears. The so‐called “anal” behavior is a distorted attempt to “steal” the Atonement, and deny its worth by concealing it, and holding onto it with a bodily receptacle, which is regarded as particularly vicious. “Oral” fantasies are rather similar in purpose, except that they stem more from a sense of deprivation, and insatiable thirst which results. “Anal” fal‐ lacies are more of a refusal to give, while oral fantasies emphasize a distorted need to take. The main error in both is the belief that the body can be used as a means for attaining Atonement.
Perceiving the body as the Temple is only the first step in correcting this kind of distortion.
Seeing the body as the Temple alters part of the misperception, but not all of it. It DOES recognize, however, that the concept of addition or subtraction in PHYSICAL terms is not appropriate. But the next step is to realize that a Temple is not a building at all. Its REAL holiness lies in the INNER altar, around which the building is built. The inappropriate emphasis which men have put on beautiful Church BUILDINGS is a sign of their own fear of Atonement, and unwillingness to reach the altar itself. The REAL beauty of the Temple cannot be seen with the physical eye. The spiritual eye, on the other hand, cannot see the building at all, but it perceives the altar within with perfect clarity. This is because the spiritual eye has perfect vision.
~ An article from Hugh Prather's now defunct website. He and Gayle are parents, ministers, and authors of fourteen books including Spiritual Notes to Myself; Spiritual Parenting; and I Will Never Leave You.
The information I give here about the early days of the Course is sprinkled with a few direct observations but comes primarily from many conversations my wife Gayle and I had with Bill Thetford over the years. If there are any inaccuracies, please chalk these up to my faulty memory of what Bill told us, because nothing here is taken from books and biographies about the Course.
Bill thought it amusing that many "official" details about how the Course came were not what he recalled, even though he was by that time the only one alive who had been there from the beginning. For instance, once he laughed and said, "Now they're saying the Course came over a period of ___ years. I always thought it was ___ years." For reasons that I hope will become clearer as we go along, my purpose is not to correct historical details and for that reason I am not getting into them. "Getting into details" instead of getting into God is what causes all the trouble.
The lesson for Gayle and me was that although Bill disagreed with some of the "facts" that were being recorded about his and Helen's lives, and some of the actions that were being taken in the name of the Course, he did not feel the need to impose his position on other people. However, please note that he did have a position on these and many other subjects, and, primarily as a form of humor, he often would voice his position.
It simply isn't possible to have an ego and yet have no position, no opinions, no attitudes. In fact, when we look at our minds honestly, we see that we have mixed feelings and multiple opinions about almost everything. It is how we respond to our positions, to our own points of view — not staying unaware of them — that determines our sense of wholeness and peace. Bill's gentle example was: Do not become preoccupied with your position — which you inescapably will do if you try to force it on someone else.
In 1978, Gayle and I met Bill Thetford, Judy and Bob Skutch, Jerry Jampolsky, and several other people associated with the Course, all of whom were living in Tiburon at the time. Even though there was an underlying sense of family and mutual support among these people, several of them seemed to be wrestling with two contrasting attitudes toward the Course. One was that the Course needed protecting and promoting. In those days, this point of view was still quite weak because the original thinking — during the period when the Course was being turned over to The Foundation for Inner Peace — was that "the Course is for everyone" and shouldn't even be copyrighted, which of course would mean that no one organization could control it.
There is an interesting parallel between the early days of the Course and the early days of Christian Science. Mary Baker Eddy, like Helen, felt that she was writing down a teaching that was coming to her from a higher source. I believe it is no coincidence, especially since this same attitude was present in the early days of Unity and many other spiritual teachings, that Mrs. Eddy's original impulse was not to copyright and not to organize.
In the case of A Course in Miracles, this attitude was most clearly embodied in Bill Thetford's lighthearted and humorous perspective that the Course could take care of itself, that it merely pointed to a Truth that could never be contained in words, and that no harm could come from doing what it says, which is: forget it and turn to God. For example, I know of two separate times when Bill advised people who were arguing about "what the Course meant" to "tear the page out," because, he said, "nothing should come between you and your brother." If only one manuscript of the Course existed, and if we had all followed Bill's advice, it is safe to say that by now there would be no pages left. And in many ways, that might be a good thing!
Until Bill died, the Course, for the most part, rocked gently on a sea of flexibility and good humor. And despite some very crazy uses that its words were put to by various individuals and groups, no real harm was done. As a consequence, I naively thought that the Course was going to be the first spiritual teaching to escape becoming a tool of separation. But my thinking that the Course was different was part of the mistake many of us were making. Even though separation had overtaken the teachings of Muhammad, the Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu, the Prophets, and even The Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous, how could it happen, I said to myself, to the only teaching that contained nothing but oneness and forgiveness? In other words, how could separation overtake a teaching that was so separate?
It could happen and it has happened. In my opinion, it has occurred for the same reason that many devout Hindus practice subjugation and slavery. For the same reason that children are slaughtered in the name of Mohammed. For the same reason that students of the Buddha make statues of gold in the image of his body. And for the same reason that Jesus, who taught that we should give all we have to the poor, practice total forgiveness, and devote ourselves to each other became the symbol of the most prejudiced and privileged segment of our culture.
But the lesson for those of us who have chosen A Course in Miracles as our path, the lesson that we must now take — in fact are being forced to take — into the 21st century, is to distinguish between the book and the Reality that the book points to. Only what is separate about the Course, only the part that is in the world — only the part that you and I have been instructed to forget — can be manipulated. A book is mere words, and in Lesson 1 we have already been gently led — perhaps some would say divinely tricked — into looking at it and saying, "This book does not mean anything."
Merely the Course's words can be seen by egos. Merely the words can be taken away from this person, given to that person, used for money, used for litigation and sanctions, used for titles and certificates, and used to leave behind a now long trail of resentment, anger, financial loss, hurt feelings, and bitter righteousness. But what does God have to do with all that insanity? Nothing. Words are just words, and the Course itself assures us that our need for words is almost over.
Make no mistake; the inevitable march toward separation has nothing to do with the particular egos involved. The world is nothing but separation. Regardless of what individuals do or don't do, everything in the world eventually becomes a force for still more separation. This fact should not sadden us but free us to let go of what was never a part of God in the first place. God is not a book.
As I suggested earlier, it is virtually impossible to do the first lesson in the Course without saying, "This book does not mean anything." But if we really believed that, how could we possibly fight about who should control it or what that control should look like? We can try to control the controllers of the book, or we can turn to God. We can be preoccupied with who is and who is not allowed to make money off the book, or we can turn to God. We can argue about which ego can interpret the book best, or we can turn to God.
My guess is that it will continue to decline in popularity and eventually become so associated with the organizations and personalities that war over it that they will become its meaning in the eyes of the public. The words "A Course in Miracles" will end up symbolizing something quite unlike their true meaning, just as has happened on a much larger scale with the words "Christian," "Jesus," and "the Bible."
But none of this will matter to you because the truth will still be true. Love will still be all around you. The holy light of God will still shine within you. And the One who has never left your side will bring you safely home. I suspect that even in the world, the Source of the thousand courses that have already come will send us a thousand more, and a thousand after that, and still more after that, until at last we see that it is not the form that any true teaching takes that has meaning. All that has meaning is the one Reality they point to.
What, then, is our function regarding the Course in the 21st century? It is to be acutely aware of the world's call to separate and love more God's call to come home.
A few years ago, I attended a gathering where I saw many of the people associated with the Course that Gayle and I had gotten to know in the 70's. As I said earlier, I am aware of no teaching that emphasizes innocence and unity in more straightforward terms than A Course in Miracles. I know of no teaching that ranks itself more clearly as just one of many, as a temporary aid only, and as helpful to some but not to all. A Course in Miracles simply does not present itself as a superior or even a permanent teaching, and, in my opinion, the heart of the teaching is that we must turn from our belief that we are individually "special" to the recognition that we are not only equal but one with each other and one with God.
What effect does the long-term study of such a teaching have on its students? I was surprised that after twenty years it was the opposite of what I expected. With two or three exceptions, everyone I saw at the gathering was far more separate and egocentric than they were when Gayle and I first met them. In fact, their egos were so large that many of them had lost the ability to carry on a simple conversation. They made pronouncements and listened deeply to no one. I was appalled, and when I returned home, I said to Gayle, "If this has happened to most of our Course friends, is there any chance it hasn't happened to us?"
The answer was that indeed it had happened to us. Even though we had long noticed the unhelpful effects of most religions and spiritual teachings on their students, we had thought that as Course students we were immune — because the Course emphasizes reversing this very dynamic. If the dynamic is not the fault of the teaching or religion itself — and in most cases it clearly is not — what mistakes do students make that cause it?
When Gayle and I finally looked at ourselves honestly, we discovered that although we had been ministers and spiritual teachers for many years and had written over a dozen books on spiritual themes, we personally had not become kinder or even more sane through our devotion. We, like most individuals, started a spiritual path with the intention of becoming better people and finding ways to be truly helpful, only to move in the opposite direction. The more time and thought we had put into teaching and writing about our path, the more self-absorbed we had become. We had ended up less flexible, less forgiving, and less generous than we were when we first started our path!
What we had actually learned was how to mask our egos, act spiritual, and make our own thoughts less conscious. In addition, we had accumulated hundreds of new spiritual concepts, which, unfortunately, is the primary standard by which spiritual teachers are judged (as well, of course, as TV pundits, columnists, politicians, non-fiction authors, talking-head experts, and the like.).
As happened to us, most devout people seem unaware that these changes are occurring. They think they are making good progress, until one day — if they are lucky — they come face-to-face with the fact that their worst impulses have been growing in power and influence over them. In lieu of a true awakening, they make an unconscious determination that they have arrived, or that they have come close enough to the end of the journey that the remaining distance is of no consequence and requires very little of their attention.
There are clearly many individual exceptions to these generalizations, but not as many as we thought there would be when we began studying the phenomenon. This discovery has led us to place far greater emphasis on exposing the ways that the ego takes over spiritual efforts. Because the fact is, the day you started your spiritual path, your ego started it also, and for every spiritual motive you have, there is an ego motive as well. This is not reason to be afraid, but it is reason to be more aware.
Those individuals we know intimately who we believe are close to being awake, seem to have no interest in contrasting themselves with other people. Generally speaking, they live simple, ordinary lives. They are comfortable if not restful to be around. Their time is usually devoted to unimportant things and their hearts to "unimportant" people. They have no inflexible concepts or rigid patterns and there is nothing particularly unusual about the subjects they choose to talk about or anything outstanding in the personal mannerisms they exhibit. They are easily pleased, and often they are happy for no apparent reason. Because their own egos are no longer destructive, they find other people's egos amusing and endearing. Above all, they are equal and familiar. They would not be good subjects for a magazine profile. And yet, into the mundane, everyday circumstances of their lives, they quietly pour their comfort and their peace.
Bill Thetford was such a person. He didn't talk the Course. He didn't write books about the Course. He very seldom made public statements about the Course, and then only because someone had pleaded with him to do so. What Bill did was quietly and happily live the Course. And even though he saw that this was the best approach, he never said to his Course friends: "You can either teach the Course or live it, but you probably won't succeed in doing both." In this way he was truly a "teacher of God" because he taught in the way the Manual defines teaching.
Does this mean those who lecture or write about the Course have turned down a dark side road? Certainly not. Does it mean that anyone who loves discussing metaphysical ideas has lost his or her way? Certainly not. But it does mean that those who coat themselves in spiritual concepts run the risk of thinking that they are the concepts. It's not hard to notice that the people in our culture who are conspicuously devout and talk continuously about God usually begin to take on an all-knowing, all-seeing attitude. In other words, in their own minds they have become the God they profess.
"Everyone is on a path," many openly devout people say. But what they seem to be thinking is, "I, however, am on a spiritual path." In other words, "Now that I believe in oneness, I see that you and I are not one."
From having fallen into this trap ourselves, we realize that nothing is more selfish or separating than thinking that you, personally, have a higher approach to life than most other people. How could one person's way possibly be superior to another person's way if God is leading us all?
It's ironic that individuals with strong spiritual beliefs often have larger egos, are more rigid, are more unconsciously judgmental, and are more uncomfortable to be around than people who have little interest in pursuing mystical, religious, or metaphysical teachings. Those who value the concept of oneness often lack the desire to feel oneness and equality with anyone.
The ego part of us does not act independently of our wishes, because it is us — at least that is our evident and deeply felt conviction. If we are still judgmental of our teenager; then we still want to be judgmental of our teenager. If we are still confused about what our partner wants from us, then we still want to be confused. Obviously, believing in oneness doesn't automatically decrease the desire for oneness, and many people both believe in it and practice it. Yet it's interesting how often we trumpet what we ourselves fail to do and criticize in others what we ourselves do regularly.
Ironically, those who think they have the smallest egos usually have the largest egos. The self-proclaimed "seekers of truth" often have personal superiority as their unconscious agenda and end up convincing themselves that they have attained it. Those who think of themselves as normal, ordinary, and equal, and who are quite aware of their many limitations, simply are not tempted to believe that they personally can discover a spiritual truth that other people are unaware of. And yet, by definition, that is what a "seeker of truth" believes.
A Course in Miracles can survive in the 21st century, in fact it can transform the 21st century, if those who see the Reality it points to choose to extend themselves beyond their ego boundaries and make the interests of another their own. Awakening is not joining with some shining concept in the sky. It is joining with each other. It is lived and expressed in the hundreds of small encounters, errands, and tasks that fill each day. Only instant by instant do we choose to see our sameness, our equality, and our oneness with others. Only by loving do we wake to Love. Only by extending peace do we wake to Peace.
Every day we have hundreds of little encounters with other people in our activities and in our minds. In each of these contacts we leave something behind, and that something determines whether the Course continues to exist. Only by giving the tiny miracles of understanding, support, forbearance, and happiness can we assure that this precious teaching does not fall on dead ears and dead hearts. Let us walk away from the bloody battlefield where egos fight for the rights to ego words. That was never where the Course was in the first place. God is now. God is here. We never left home. So let us be happy that God's arms are still around us. His heart is still our heart. His eyes are still our eyes. He is all there is.
~ Retrieved from webarchive, the following articles are from Bruce Fraser MacDonald's now defunct website; it is part of his published work, The Thomas Book, whose partial chapters were made available in defense against a personal detractor: for both Gary Renard (infamously terrible writer of Disappearance of the Universe: a complete lie meant to plagiarize Kenneth Wapnick's teachings for personal fame) and Bruce MacDonald himself believe themselves to be reincarnations of the apostle Thomas... The former believes himself to have been visited by the spirits of Thaddeus and the same doubting-Thomas (thus his own past self...?) manifested in two ostensibly human apparitions with Indian names, who end up making fart jokes in his living room and calling Jesus "Jay-dog" the partier; while the latter claims to have met Moses, the prophet Elijah, and the historical Jesus in a near-death experience, and, in insisting to return for the sake of an agreement with Yeshua (Jesus of renown), he has received communications from "Abba," the voice of Father God, assisting him in restoring the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas, making comment upon A Course in Miracles, and developing the methodology of his book: The Prayer of Silence: A Complete Course in Spiritual Transformation ~ While I take issue with opinions of both authors, to be comment upon at a future date, it is for the sake of honest believers that the ego of Gary Renard must be exposed for his lack of character and intellectual fraud. In the name of the Deceiver, he has cut a deal lying to himself and others for money...
The evidence is incontrovertible. Gary Renard has plagiarized one of the most important parts of his book, Your Immortal Reality. What he calls “Pursah’s Gospel of Thomas” comes directly from Stephen Patterson and Marvin Meyer’s translation of The Gospel of Thomas from The Nag Hammadi Library...
Renard has objected to my using the term “stolen” in regard to this Gospel. It is actually a title taken from a quote which precedes Pursah’s Gospel. Renard says, “The Hugh Lynn Cayce version was obtained illegally, I guess meaning it was stolen, by someone who put it on the Internet” (p. 144). If he is justified in calling this version “stolen,” when it was actually tried in court and found not to be stolen at all, then it is certainly justified to call Pursah’s Gospel “stolen” when it is so obviously taken directly from the translators without their permission. It has not been tried in court yet, but other similar cases have been considered to be theft of intellectual property.
I know many people will find that what I have to say here brings them considerable hurt because they have benefited from Gary’s writing. They will be always grateful to him for that and will have to learn well the lessons of forgiveness he has been teaching them. It makes it doubly sad that, for some undetermined reason, Renard felt impelled to take someone else’s work and present it as his own — because he could have done it himself without the dishonesty.
I am not the only one who has found reason to doubt Renard’s truthfulness. Miracles Magazine, a Course in Miracles journal, recognized, in the September October 2006 issue, the serious nature of what they felt to be Gary’s lack of truthfulness, so they devoted a special issue to “The Extremely Dubious Tale of Gary Renard.” Jon Mundy, PhD, Greg Mackie and Robert Perry examined what they felt were extremely doubtful aspects of Gary’s claims.
Renard’s plagiarism from Patterson and Meyer is part of a pattern. In his article, “Why Don’t the Masters Have An Original Thought,” (read now at Circle of Atonement, originally in Miracles Magazine) Robert Perry gives extensive evidence that Renard used the same phrases and ideas used by a teacher of ACIM named Ken Wapnick, without acknowledging the source. Perry has even presented the borrowings in graph form, first to show the parallels and, secondly, to demonstrate how Renard’s ideas are different from the actual teachings of ACIM. However, few people in the Course community have taken any of the three writers seriously and many have even attacked them viciously for daring to ask for honesty.
Renard has created a strange dynamic around himself, in which his many followers refuse to see what he is doing in his works. They attack anyone who demonstrates the truth to them. I think this time they will be forced to acknowledge that Renard has actually plagiarized almost the whole of “Pursah’s Gospel of Thomas.” Strangely, he and others argue that because “Pursah” left out fourty-four verses “she” changed it drastically. That is a bit like arguing that “I did not steal your jewels because I only took two thirds of them and left the other third in your jewelry box.”
I will present the evidence for the plagiarism first and then will look at some of the serious implications which arise from this plagiarism.
For those not familiar with Renard’s work, he claims in his books, The Disappearance of the Universe and Your Immortal Reality, that Pursah and Arten, supposed Ascended Masters and reincarnations of Thomas and Thaddaeus, Jesus’ disciple, appeared in his living room and dictated lessons about ACIM. He says he recorded the conversations, copied them into his books and then destroyed the tapes. He has become a best-selling writer and speaker on the spiritual speaking circuit on the basis of these books and their claims.
In Your Immortal Reality, Renard claims that Pursah again appeared to him and recited a new version of The Gospel of Thomas. The same pattern is supposed to have been followed, Renard recording the text, copying it and then destroying the tapes. Pursah is quoted as saying the following:
“I consider it an act of completion to have J’s [Jesus’] words in The Gospel of Thomas recorded accurately by a later incarnation of myself. I recorded J’s words 2,000 years ago, and now you will record them again. Thus will the Gospel be corrected and passed along in its original form. NOTE: I [Gary] inserted the title below. Pursah spoke all 70 of the sayings. They were recorded for accuracy."
Pursah is referring here to “The Gospel of Thomas” which was found in Egypt in 1945 and is currently included in a collection of works called The Nag Hammadi Library, named after the town where the documents were found. There are several translations of the work. Pursah implies here that she will provide a new, corrected and original text which will differ considerably from any of the current translations because, as the reincarnation of Thomas, the original author, she has inside information not available to anyone else.
We now know, without any doubt, that all of this is fabrication because the work Pursah “recites” is an almost verbatim copy of Patterson and Meyer’s translation of the work. I include several passages here to demonstrate the exact nature of the plagiarism.
I have gone through all seventy verses of “Pursah’s Gospel of Thomas” and have the following surprising statistics on the composition of Renard’s work in relation to the original. I will present my findings as five categories with a few examples of each drawn from the original source [labeled] and then from Renard [plagiarized text underlined].
Twenty-nine verses are identical to the original...
(Patterson/Meyer) 90. Jesus said, “Come to me, for my yoke is comfortable and my lordship is gentle, and you will find rest for yourselves.”
(Renard) 90. J said, “Come to me, for my yoke is comfortable and my lordship is gentle, and you will find rest for yourselves.”
(Patterson/Meyer) 91. They said to him, “Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you.” He said to them, “You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment.”
(Renard) 91. They said to him, “Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you.” He said to them, “You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment.”
Even in the following rather convoluted passage, Renard plagiarizes word for word from Patterson and Meyer. Compare this passage to Thomas Lambdin’s translation of verse 92 (similarities with Patterson/Meyer underlined) to see that the Patterson/Meyer translation is not somehow inevitable but their own careful choice which Gary has copied word for word.
(Patterson/Meyer) 92. Jesus said, “Seek and you will find. In the past, however, I did not tell you the things about which you asked me then. Now I am willing to tell them, but you are not seeking them.”
(Renard) 92. J said, “Seek and you will find. In the past, however, I did not tell you the things about which you asked me then. Now I am willing to tell them, but you are not seeking them.”
(Lambdin) 92. Jesus said, “Seek and you will find. Yet, what you asked me about in former times and which I did not tell you then, now I do desire to tell, but you do not inquire after it.”
A translator is a writer and, in the same way as styles of writers vary, so the styles of translators vary. There may be some minor similarities because they are using the English grammatical structures and wordings we all use, or even because they are drawing on a common cultural base. For instance, the first sentence in Lambdin’s translation is the same as Patterson/Meyer because the phrase “Seek and you will find,” has actually become part of the cultural heritage of the English language. The rest is almost completely different. The amount of actual identity (not similarity) between Renard and Patterson/Meyer is unheard of in any stylistic comparison of two writers without plagiarism being involved.
Actually, the difference should be greater than usual because Pursah has told us that she is going to give us a completely new, corrected and previously unheard version of the gospel drawn directly from Jesus’ words — which would have been in Aramaic. We should have a new translation from Aramaic which would indeed provide a completely different linguistic original from which to translate, with strikingly new renditions arising from the different language base, rather than the Greek or Coptic origins of the Gospel of Thomas we now have.
Eighteen verses are identical except for one simple change: as in “God’s Divine Rule” for “The Father’s Kingdom,” “Brother” for “mister,” “shall” for “will,” “fortunate” for “congratulations.” Changes are capitalized...
(Patterson/Meyer) 52. His disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets have spoken in Israel, and they all spoke of you." He said to them, "You have disregarded the living one who is in your presence, and have spoken of the dead."
(Renard) 52. THE disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets have spoken in Israel, and they all spoke of you." He said to them, "You have disregarded the living one who is in your presence, and have spoken of the dead."
(Patterson/Meyer) 72. A [person said] to him, "Tell my brothers to divide my father's possessions with me." He said to the person, "Mister, who made me a divider?" He turned to his disciples and said to them, "I'm not a divider, am I?"
(Renard) 72. A person said to him, "Tell my brothers to divide my father's possessions with me." He said to the person, "BROTHER, who made me a divider?" He turned to his disciples and said to them, "I'm not a divider, am I?"
Twelve verses have minor phrases removed or changed, minor word added: the rest is identical. Text which was removed or changed is italicized, Renard’s text is in capitals on the right, with plagiarism underlined...
(Patterson/Meyer) 23. Jesus said, "I shall choose you, one from a thousand and two from ten thousand, and they will stand as a single one."
(Renard) 23. "I shall choose you, one from a thousand and two from ten thousand, and they SHALL stand as a single one."
(Patterson/Meyer) 76. Jesus said, "The Father's kingdom is like a merchant who had a supply of merchandise and found a pearl. That merchant was prudent; he sold the merchandise and bought the single pearl for himself. So also with you, seek his treasure that is unfailing, that is enduring, where no moth comes to eat and no worm destroys."
(Renard) 76. J said, "GOD’S DIVINE RULE is like a merchant who had a supply of merchandise and THEN found a pearl. That merchant was prudent; he sold the merchandise and bought the single pearl for himself. So also with you, seek THE treasure that is unfailing, that is enduring, where no moth comes to eat and no worm destroys."
Five verses omit a major part of the verse, but what remains is identical. Italicized words in the original are those which Renard omitted. Underlined text is plagiarized, while added words are capitalized...
(Patterson/Meyer) 61. Jesus said, "Two will recline on a couch; one will die, one will live." Salome said, "Who are you mister? You have climbed onto my couch and eaten from my table as if you are from someone." Jesus said to her, "I am the one who comes from what is whole. I was grantedfrom the things of my Father." "I am your disciple." "For this reason I say, if one is whole, one will be filled with light, but if one is divided, one will be filled with darkness."
(Renard) 61. "I am the one who comes from what is whole. I was GIVEN from the things of my Father." "I am your disciple." "THEREFORE I say, if one is whole, one will be filled with light, but if one is divided, one will be filled with darkness."
(Patterson/Meyer) 28. Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, forthey came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty. But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways."
(Renard) 28. I STOOD in the world, and found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. They came into the world empty. But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, they will change their ways."
Six verses have major rearranging, sometimes using the same words or phrases as the original, but not always. It is only in these six verses that we see any original work. Note that there are very few similarities. This is the kind of difference which usually arises between versions of translations but is absent in 64 of the 70 verses in Pursah’s gospel. Underlining and capitalization as usual...
(Patterson/Meyer) 26. Jesus said, "You see the sliver in your friend's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye. When you take the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend's eye."
(Renard) 26. "You see the SPECK THAT IS in your BROTHER’S eye, but you DO NOT see the LOG THAT IS in your own eye. When you take the LOG out of your own eye, then you will see CLEARLY enough to TAKE THE SPECK OUT OF your BROTHER’S eye."
(Patterson/Meyer) 54. Jesus said, "Congratulations to the poor, for to you belongs Heaven's kingdom."
(Renard) 54. FORTUNATE ARE the poor, FOR YOURS IS THE FATHER’S kingdom."
(Patterson/Meyer) 56. Jesus said, "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered a carcass, and whoever has discovered a carcass, of that person the world is not worthy."
(Renard) 56. "Whoever has come to UNDERSTAND THIS world has FOUND a CORPSE, and whoever has FOUND A CORPSE, of that ONE the world is NO LONGER worthy."
(Patterson/Meyer) 8. And he said, "The person is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!"
(Renard) 8. J said, "A wise fisherman cast his net into the sea. WHEN HE drew it up IT WAS full of little fish. Among them HE discovered a LARGE FINE fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and HE chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears SHOULD listen!"
...We can see from these examples that almost the whole of Pursah’s gospel is plagiarized. Statistics reveal another striking feature: In the first 39 verses of the gospel, Renard at least tried to make some minor changes. However, starting with verse 63, he stopped making changed almost entirely. Again, statistics prove the point. Of the final 31 verses: 19 verses are identical, 8 verses are identical with one word replacement, 4 verses have a minor phrase omitted but the rest is identical.
It looks like Renard got tired of revising about half way through the text because, in the last 31 verses of the total 70 verses, there are no "original" verses, nor are there any of the Category Four verses which required a bit more work than Categories One, Two and Three. All of the eleven verses which show signs of having had more work done on them are in the first 39 verses.
Surprisingly, this gospel, which was supposed to be a genuine, new, original and "corrected" version, translated from a completely new language, has only 6 out of 70 verses (14%) which might be considered original. At least 86% of the text is identical to the Patterson/Meyer translation. There is absolutely no doubt that Renard plagiarized at least 86% of his text.
One wonders why Renard omitted verse 6 from his gospel rendition, since its message is of tremendous importance. It reads as follows, again using the Patterson/Meyer translation:
Jesus said, “Don’t lie, and don’t do what you hate, because all things are disclosed before heaven. After all, there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed.”
There are several troubling implications which arise logically from the discovery of plagiarism in almost all of Pursah’s gospel.
First, at the beginning of the chapter in which the gospel appears, Renard comments about a version of ACIM over which there is considerable controversy. He says, “The Hugh Lynn Cayce version was obtained illegally, I guess meaning it was stolen, by someone who put it on the Internet. That’s why it is available” (p. 144, quotes are taken from the 2006 paperback edition). Renard is obviously opposed to plagiarism in any form so, I assume, would also condemn his own actions in having plagiarized almost his entire Thomas gospel from Patterson and Meyer. It is odd that this passage is introduced just before the "stolen" (to use his term) gospel. Was it designed to divert the reader’s attention away from the possibility of theft, by condemning theft, as part of an attempt to hide the plagiarized text which follows shortly after this passage?
We now know that Pursah is a fictional character because Ascended Masters do not plagiarize and lie to the world about such an important matter as a new translation of such an important work as the Gospel of Thomas. Thus, when Renard portrays Pursah as saying to him, before her recitation, that she has “a little surprise . . . for you,” we know it is not actually Pursah speaking but Renard constructing a dialogue for his own purposes. Is he intentionally trying to deceive the reader into thinking the gospel is real because an “on the spur of the moment” recitation could not have been carefully laboured over and therefore could not be plagiarized?
After the recitation is over, even though almost the whole of the gospel comes straight from Patterson and Meyer and is not new at all, Renard says, “Whoa, Pursah. That was incredible. It really rang true for me. And the whole thing has a much better flow to it now, too. I could picture J saying the words. In fact, the first time I really heard his Voice, he said a few of the words to me that you said near the end there, at number 110” (p. 171). We know this is also not part of an actual conversation because Pursah is not real. That means it was also planned along with the plagiarism itself. The troubling question here is whether this is another part of a carefully planned pattern of deception to make the reader think that what they have just heard is so new it would be futile to look for its source in a published document.
I suppose we will never know but, given our present knowledge that the gospel is plagiarized, these passages seem to be designed to deceive the reader, like the smoke and mirrors which magicians use to distract the audience from what is really going on. They are so strategically placed that one can’t avoid wondering if they were planned that way to distract the reader’s attention at key points in the fictitious dialogue to divert the reader’s attention. We know generally that plagiarism must be concealed carefully with whatever means are available because to be caught in the act is fatal to one’s reputation.
If these were planned or if they were not, the result has been the same. In the four years since the book was published, I am the only one (as far as I know) who has noticed that the gospel was actually plagiarized. Not even the editors at Hay House knew about it and even Rogier Van Vlissingen, who wrote a whole book about the contrast between Pursah’s gospel and the supposed ordinary, contemporary translations, did not notice that this one was plagiarized.
In 2006 Robert Perry outlined a fantasy of what it would be like for a writer to make up a fictional story and then pass it off as real: “Imagine you yourself going through all the steps to plan such a deception, carry it off, and then maintain it in the face of criticism, as you ride its wave of ill-gotten fame. It’s hard to imagine, isn’t it? And yet it is done.” It seems unquestionable that the fantasy has become truth, at least in regard to the gospel.
The Course community will have to come to terms with a number of serious questions. What is it about parts of the Community that has made it possible for Renard to get away with this kind of deception when so many voices have been warning about what was really going on?
We now know that Pursah is not real. As I have observed, Ascended Masters do not steal the work of others and lie about it to the world. And if Pursah is not real, we also know that Arten is also not real. It follows that they are both fictions invented by Renard. And since Renard made the claim to have heard the voice of Jesus in the context of this major deception, we can be quite certain that is false also.
It is also safe to assume that Renard is not a reincarnation of the Apostle Thomas, as he claims, even though Kevin Ryerson, spiritual guide to Shirley MacLaine has said he is. There are actually two disciples in the Bible named Thomas and Renard claims to be both of them at the same time. I have addressed that complicated question more fully in my book.
Perhaps the most troubling question the community will have to address is how someone could work so carefully to deceive readers who bought books in good faith, and at the same time could stand in front of those same people and claim to teach them spiritual truths.
These are illustrations of the problems facing Renard’s many followers — they will have to determine exactly what they can believe of what he has told them over the years.
If Renard had been writing on any other subject, he probably would have been exposed long ago. But it seems from the extremely negative reaction to his critics that people actually wanted to be fooled — and not just ignorant people. Many prominent people in the media and film and writing industries have been fooled. Perhaps people wanted to believe that what he was telling them was actually possible. The sad thing is that he answered some of the spiritual longings of his readers with untruths and now they are left with a great blank which had been filled by his fantasies. They will have to start over again to find the truth they thought they had found in him.
There are spiritual sources which are true but every time someone commits another fraud in the name of the things of the Spirit, it becomes harder to find the really true things. Those who plagiarize and commit fraud harm not just the authors from whom they have stolen. They especially cause harm to the spiritual Seekers who turned to them in good faith expecting truthful insight and meaning. And perhaps most important, plagiarists betray all of Spirit in Its attempt to make Its Presence known to the people of the world, because the frauds put yet another stumbling block in the way of trust.
Further opinion of Bruce, for context, from Chapter 4 of The Thomas Book...
Members of the Course in Miracles community “think differently,” and are actually quite open in claiming that they use a different logic than the rest of the world, as I will summarize briefly in what follows here.
The starting point of the philosophy behind A Course in Miracles is the assertion that the world as we know it is not real and the usual logic which we use is one of the sources of our suffering.
The only reality is the Divine Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Humanity, collectively, is the “Son of God.” The world is an illusion, like a movie which the Son of God (humanity) has projected out of ignorance. It may appear that the Son of God (humanity) suffers in this self-created world, but suffering, and our whole physical existence, is really only a dream.
The way out of the dream is forgiveness. Once we are able to forgive others and the world, to “overlook,” or forgive, the error which brought the world into being, and continues to maintain the illusion, we will literally no longer see the world and its suffering. The title of Gary’s first book, The Disappearance of the Universe, reflects these beliefs: once we “forgive” the universe, it will disappear.
One of the weaknesses of the philosophy is that it is not made clear what “forgiveness” or “overlooking” are. Much of the difference of opinion (and outright animosity) within the Community, revolves around these terms. It is not clear either how “forgiveness,” whatever that is, can cause the world to disappear.
In the Course view, Jesus did not suffer, because he knew the truth that there is no suffering and consequently did not manifest it for himself. We only manifest suffering when we “make it real” for ourselves by doing something like get angry or sad or frustrated or jealous. If we can “forgive” every event, we can make it not real. Gary apparently says in his lectures that Jesus never got angry because anger would only make the reason for the anger, which is illusory, into something real.
When we think Jesus suffered (as in the “Passion of Christ” movie), the Course says that what we are really doing is projecting our own fears of suffering onto Jesus. We do this also every time we think there is error in anyone else — the error is actually in us and we project it into the illusion which seems to be around us, by the mere fact of recognizing that it is there. If we choose not to recognize the error, to “choose a better way,” then the error is supposed to disappear. Jesus’ ability to “overlook” or “forgive” all error leads, in this view, to the possibility of the disappearance of the universe — and hence the end of our suffering. When enough people can overlook error, can stop projecting error into the illusion, then the Course claims the universe will cease to exist.
It is not clear why the universe still exists, since Jesus is supposed to have been perfect and is supposed to have given the complete forgiveness of God to the universe. One would think that the universe would already have disappeared if the philosophy is at all correct.
Although the Course does not go this far, Gary (or his Ascended Masters) even says that God cannot be aware of our suffering and does not care about our suffering, because God cannot know any illusion. God does not know about our pain and so does not make it real. We are thus free to make it unreal by overlooking or forgiving it. God is completely separate from the illusion which we live and cannot help us with our problems. If He did help us, He would be acknowledging that our suffering is real, which is impossible for God to do. In order to help us, God created the Holy Spirit to help us change our way of seeing the world.
It is not clear from Gary’s writing or from the Course how God was aware enough of our suffering (without actually being aware of our suffering — thus making it real) to decide to create the Holy Spirit. It is not clear either how the Holy Spirit can be aware of our suffering without God (who is inseparable from the Holy Spirit) being aware also, but these are some of the contradictions within the system.
If this seems like circular logic, it is. It is only with a lot of work that people are able to adopt this logic. In fact, there is a Workbook with daily exercises which, when practiced regularly, make it possible for the reader to enter more fully into this circular logic. My conclusion, after trying the exercises, is that it is a form of brain washing where any sense of the reality of the world and our place in it is replaced with the views outlined above. I notice on the internet that there are a number of people helping former Course members overcome the effects of this logic on their lives. They speak of the ideas as a trap, a cult, a distortion which poisons relations with family and friends.
There is an interesting similarity here with an early Christian sect called the Docetists, from the Greek dokeo, “to seem.” This similarity will be important later in our discussion of reincarnation identity theft. The Docetists also argued that Jesus did not suffer — he only “seemed” to suffer, because God cannot suffer. For the Docetists, as for the Course Community, the world and our suffering likewise only seemed to be real.
Like Gary, the Docetists felt that, as soon as we see the unreality of suffering and the world, and replace it with the realization that the only reality is God, we will be free, because our suffering only exists as long as we believe in the pain. (This also has similarities with Christian Science which is essentially a docetic movement.) The only differences between the Course and the Docetists is that the Docetists felt it was necessary to perceive the world differently and the Course says we must “forgive” the world, “overlook” the error — which may actually be the same thing.
The effects of this philosophy on human relations are quite striking. The Course teachers often use the metaphor of the theatre. You need to think of yourself as a projector, they say, projecting a movie, which is the world. Since whatever is outside us is illusion which we have projected there, if we see error in someone else (outside), we are really only confirming that it is in ourselves (the actual source of the projection). When we “forgive” the other person, we are actually forgiving ourselves, from whom the error came in the first place.
Applying this logic strictly in the case of murder, for instance, if the police accuse someone of being a murderer, which is by definition an illusion, then the police must be the murderers for having seen an error which does not exist. The police, or even the victims of murder, are projecting this image into the world and are thus making it real. Instead of accusing, they should forgive and the murder will cease to exist — if only it were who wants to question the morality of any action and correct it. If Gary’s critics see dishonesty in Gary, the Course view is that they are actually only seeing it in themselves and projecting it onto Gary. Thus, in the view of many members of the Course community, it is the critics who accuse Gary of fraud, not Gary who is accused of fraud, who are guilty as soon as they have seen the fraud and named it.
To an outsider, this logic seems hopelessly contradictory and in practice it leads to an inability to deal with conflict within the community, as a number of members have discovered as they try to deal with the problem of Gary and his critics.
If the fault which we see is in the fault-finder, not in the one who seems to have committed the offense, people will be at pains not to see error in Gary’s writings (or in anything else) for fear they will be convicted of the fault they point out. Instead, they are encouraged to “overlook” and “forgive” the fault, instead of pointing it out and asking for an explanation. Demanding that others be accountable for their actions is seen as “attack” instead of “love.” Thus, although forgiveness is the aim of the community, members are forced to accept anything that anyone else does as valid, for fear of being seen as the perpetrator of any error they point out.
We can see this played out in Gary’s case. Gary’s critics merely asked for clarification of certain apparent contradictions in his work. In response, Gary wrote a vicious, personal attack against them, without addressing any of the contradictions. After Gary’s reply to his critics, in which he said that he pitied Jon and accused him of “Professional jealousy and mindless attack on a fellow Course teacher,” as well as dishonesty and acting from vested interest instead of integrity, Jon withdrew in seeming hurt and bewilderment and published an “Apology” in which he said that he still did not believe Pursah and Arten were real, but that he acknowledged that Gary did. “Let’s sit down in San Francisco and talk about more pleasant things,” Jon Mundy says, and that seemed to be enough. Jon cannot call Gary to account for dishonesty because that easy. by doing that, Jon is acknowledging that he is the source of conflict, not Gary. Many other members sided with Gary and attacked Jon in language which was so offensive the journal said they could not print it. There was obviously no room to address the whole question of honesty or truthfulness in this case because the only value held up by the community is a vague “forgiveness.” Strangely, this “forgiveness” did not seem to apply to forgiving Gary’s critics. Members even felt free to use extremely offensive language in condemning them.
To an outsider, the whole exchange seems a bit ludicrous. Either Pursah and Arten are real or they are fabrications. It would seem that one should be able to bring up questions about honesty without feeling guilty for doing so, but the logic of the community makes this impossible.
The problem becomes more serious in regard to the blatant intimidation which Gary uses against his opponents. He teaches forgiveness, yet his reaction to his former colleagues and friends is not forgiveness but vicious attack. He even admits he emailed Beverly Hutchins with the following, when she refused to sell his books: “If you care about your image and your place in Course history then you’ll give very strong consideration to changing the nature of our relationship.” In another email to Beverly he says: “The way things stand now, you will not be happy with my next book.” This is direct blackmail. Gary does not feel he has to change anything — it is Beverly who must change. He threatens to portray her in a negative light if she continues to refuse to sell his books, but if she will sell his books, he will change how he portrays her.
Similarly, Gary quotes an email he wrote to Jon Mundy: “If you continue to try to attack me, I predict that only one of us is going to be hurt, and it’s not going to be me.” In whatever context, this is a threat, and his whole reply was obviously letting any future critics, including me, know that the critic was the one who would be hurt.
If the only value in relationships is forgiveness, then questions of honesty, blackmail, intimidation and betrayal of trust are swept under the carpet — and very few people in the Course community seem to be willing or able to question this kind of conduct on Gary’s part. As we have seen, in the logic of the Course, these issues cannot be raised.
~ Introductory section reproduced from Swedenborg's final theological work: True Christianity...
§1
The faith of the new heaven and the new church is stated here in both universal and specific forms to serve as the face of the work that follows, the doorway that allows entry into the temple, and the summary that in one way or another contains all the details to follow. I say “the faith of the new heaven and the new church” because heaven, where there are angels, and the church, in which there are people, act together like the inner and the outer levels in a human being. People in the church who love what is good because they believe what is true and who believe what is true because they love what is good are angels of heaven with regard to the inner levels of their minds. After death they come into heaven, and enjoy happiness there according to the relationship between their love and their faith. It is important to know that the new heaven that the Lord is establishing today has this faith as its face, doorway, and summary.
§2
The faith of the new heaven and the new church in universal form is this:
The Lord from eternity, who is Jehovah, came into the world to gain control over the hells and to glorify his own human nature. If he had not done this, not one mortal could have been saved; those who believe in him are saved.
I say “in universal form” because this concept is universal to the faith and something universal to the faith is going to be present in each and every aspect of it. It is universal to the faith to believe that God is one in essence and in person, to believe that in God there is a divine Trinity, and to believe that the Lord God the Savior Jesus Christ is God. It is universal to the faith to believe that if the Lord had not come into the world not one mortal could have been saved. It is universal to the faith to believe that the Lord came into the world to separate hell from the human race, and that he accomplished this by repeatedly doing battle with hell and conquering it. In this way he gained control over it, forced it back into the divine design, and made it obey him. It is universal to the faith to believe that he came into the world to glorify the human nature he took on in the world, that is, to unite it to its divine source. This is how he keeps hell eternally in its place and in obedience to himself. Since this could not have been accomplished except by allowing his human nature to be tested, including even the ultimate test, the suffering on the cross, therefore he underwent that experience. These are universal points of faith regarding the Lord.
For our part, it is universal to the faith that we believe in the Lord, for our believing in him gives us a partnership with him, and through this partnership comes salvation. To believe in him is to have confidence that he saves; and because only those who live good lives can have such confidence, this too is meant by believing in him. In fact, the Lord says in John: “This is the will of the Father, that everyone who believes in the Son has eternal life” (John 6:39–40). And in another passage, “Those who believe in the Son have eternal life. But those who do not believe the Son will not see life; instead the anger of God remains on them” (John 3:36).
§3
The faith of the new heaven and the new church in a specific form is this:
Jehovah God is love itself and wisdom itself, or goodness itself and truth itself. As divine truth, or the Word, which was “God with God,” he came down and took on a human manifestation for the purpose of forcing everything in heaven, everything in hell, and everything in the church back into the divine design. The power of hell had become stronger than the power of heaven, and on earth the power of evil had become stronger than the power of goodness; therefore total damnation stood threatening at the door. By means of his human manifestation, which was divine truth, Jehovah God lifted this pending damnation and redeemed both people and angels. Afterward, in his human manifestation, he united divine truth to divine goodness, or divine wisdom to divine love. In this way he returned to the divine nature that he had had from eternity, together with and in the human manifestation, which had been glorified. These things are meant by this statement in John: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh” (John 1:1, 14). And in the same Gospel, “I went out from the Father and came into the world; again I am leaving the world and am going to the Father” (John 16:28). And also by this: “We know that the Son of God came and gave us understanding so that we would know the truth. And we are in the truth in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20). From all this it is clear that if the Lord had not come into the world no one could have been saved. The situation today is similar. Therefore if the Lord does not come into the world again in the form of divine truth, which is the Word, no one can be saved.
For our part, the specifics of faith are these: (1) There is one God, the divine Trinity exists within him, and he is the Lord God the Savior Jesus Christ. (2) Believing in him is a faith that saves. (3) We must not do things that are evil—they belong to the Devil and come from the Devil. (4) We must do things that are good—they belong to God and come from God. (5) We must do these things as if we ourselves were doing them, but we must believe that they come from the Lord working with us and through us.
The first two points have to do with faith, the second two have to do with goodwill; and the fifth has to do with the partnership between goodwill and faith, the partnership between the Lord and us.
~ Translated from Coptic by Thomas O. Lambdin, from the Nag Hammadi Corpus of Gnostic Texts
These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.
1. And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death."
2. Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."
3. Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
4. Jesus said, "The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live. For many who are first will become last, and they will become one and the same."
5. Jesus said, "Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you. For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest."
6. His disciples questioned him and said to him, "Do you want us to fast? How shall we pray? Shall we give alms? What diet shall we observe?" Jesus said, "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered."
7. Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."
8. And he said, "The man is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish. Among them the wise fisherman found a fine large fish. He threw all the small fish back into the sea and chose the large fish without difficulty. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear."
9. Jesus said, "Now the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered them. Some fell on the road; the birds came and gathered them up. Others fell on the rock, did not take root in the soil, and did not produce ears. And others fell on thorns; they choked the seed(s) and worms ate them. And others fell on the good soil and it produced good fruit: it bore sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure."
10. Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world, and see, I am guarding it until it blazes."
11. Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. In the days when you consumed what is dead, you made it what is alive. When you come to dwell in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"
12. The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."
13. Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like." Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel." Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like." Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out." And he took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?" Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up."
14. Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will give rise to sin for yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will do harm to your spirits. When you go into any land and walk about in the districts, if they receive you, eat what they will set before you, and heal the sick among them. For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile you."
15. Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves on your faces and worship him. That one is your father."
16. Jesus said, "Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth: fire, sword, and war. For there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the son against the father. And they will stand solitary."
17. Jesus said, "I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind."
18. The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be." Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and will not experience death."
19. Jesus said, "Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being. If you become my disciples and listen to my words, these stones will minister to you. For there are five trees for you in Paradise which remain undisturbed summer and winter and whose leaves do not fall. Whoever becomes acquainted with them will not experience death."
20. The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us what the kingdom of heaven is like." He said to them, "It is like a mustard seed. It is the smallest of all seeds. But when it falls on tilled soil, it produces a great plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky."
21. Mary said to Jesus, "Whom are your disciples like?" He said, "They are like children who have settled in a field which is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say, 'Let us have back our field.' They (will) undress in their presence in order to let them have back their field and to give it back to them. Therefore I say, if the owner of a house knows that the thief is coming, he will begin his vigil before he comes and will not let him dig through into his house of his domain to carry away his goods. You, then, be on your guard against the world. Arm yourselves with great strength lest the robbers find a way to come to you, for the difficulty which you expect will (surely) materialize. Let there be among you a man of understanding. When the grain ripened, he came quickly with his sickle in his hand and reaped it. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear."
22. Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom." They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?" Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."
23. Jesus said, "I shall choose you, one out of a thousand, and two out of ten thousand, and they shall stand as a single one."
24. His disciples said to him, "Show us the place where you are, since it is necessary for us to seek it." He said to them, "Whoever has ears, let him hear. There is light within a man of light, and he lights up the whole world. If he does not shine, he is darkness."
25. Jesus said, "Love your brother like your soul, guard him like the pupil of your eye."
26. Jesus said, "You see the mote in your brother's eye, but you do not see the beam in your own eye. When you cast the beam out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to cast the mote from your brother's eye."
27. "If you do not fast as regards the world, you will not find the kingdom. If you do not observe the Sabbath as a Sabbath, you will not see the father."
28. Jesus said, "I took my place in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh. I found all of them intoxicated; I found none of them thirsty. And my soul became afflicted for the sons of men, because they are blind in their hearts and do not have sight; for empty they came into the world, and empty too they seek to leave the world. But for the moment they are intoxicated. When they shake off their wine, then they will repent."
29. Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty."
30. Jesus said, "Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him."
31. Jesus said, "No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know him."
32. Jesus said, "A city being built on a high mountain and fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden."
33. Jesus said, "Preach from your housetops that which you will hear in your ear. For no one lights a lamp and puts it under a bushel, nor does he put it in a hidden place, but rather he sets it on a lamp stand so that everyone who enters and leaves will see its light."
34. Jesus said, "If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a pit."
35. Jesus said, "It is not possible for anyone to enter the house of a strong man and take it by force unless he binds his hands; then he will (be able to) ransack his house."
36. Jesus said, "Do not be concerned from morning until evening and from evening until morning about what you will wear."
37. His disciples said, "When will you become revealed to us and when shall we see you?" Jesus said, "When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then will you see the son of the living one, and you will not be afraid."
38. Jesus said, "Many times have you desired to hear these words which I am saying to you, and you have no one else to hear them from. There will be days when you will look for me and will not find me."
39. Jesus said, "The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge [gnosis] and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."
40. Jesus said, "A grapevine has been planted outside of the father, but being unsound, it will be pulled up by its roots and destroyed."
41. Jesus said, "Whoever has something in his hand will receive more, and whoever has nothing will be deprived of even the little he has."
42. Jesus said, "Become passers-by."
43. His disciples said to him, "Who are you, that you should say these things to us?" "You do not realize who I am from what I say to you, but you have become like the Jews, for they (either) love the tree and hate its fruit (or) love the fruit and hate the tree."
44. Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."
45. Jesus said, "Grapes are not harvested from thorns, nor are figs gathered from thistles, for they do not produce fruit. A good man brings forth good from his storehouse; an evil man brings forth evil things from his evil storehouse, which is in his heart, and says evil things. For out of the abundance of the heart he brings forth evil things."
46. Jesus said, "Among those born of women, from Adam until John the Baptist, there is no one so superior to John the Baptist that his eyes should not be lowered (before him). Yet I have said, whichever one of you comes to be a child will be acquainted with the kingdom and will become superior to John."
47. Jesus said, "It is impossible for a man to mount two horses or to stretch two bows. And it is impossible for a servant to serve two masters; otherwise, he will honor the one and treat the other contemptuously. No man drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine. And new wine is not put into old wineskins, lest they burst; nor is old wine put into a new wineskin, lest it spoil it. An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, because a tear would result."
48. Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in this one house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move Away,' and it will move away."
49. Jesus said, "Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return."
50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where did you come from?', say to them, 'We came from the light, the place where the light came into being on its own accord and established itself and became manifest through their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?', say, 'We are its children, we are the elect of the living father.' If they ask you, 'What is the sign of your father in you?', say to them, 'It is movement and repose.'"
51. His disciples said to him, "When will the repose of the dead come about, and when will the new world come?" He said to them, "What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it."
52. His disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets spoke in Israel, and all of them spoke in you." He said to them, "You have omitted the one living in your presence and have spoken (only) of the dead."
53. His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision beneficial or not?" He said to them, "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable."
54. Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven."
55. Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross in my way will not be worthy of me."
56. Jesus said, "Whoever has come to understand the world has found (only) a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse is superior to the world."
57. Jesus said, "The kingdom of the father is like a man who had good seed. His enemy came by night and sowed weeds among the good seed. The man did not allow them to pull up the weeds; he said to them, 'I am afraid that you will go intending to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them.' For on the day of the harvest the weeds will be plainly visible, and they will be pulled up and burned."
58. Jesus said, "Blessed is the man who has suffered and found life."
59. Jesus said, "Take heed of the living one while you are alive, lest you die and seek to see him and be unable to do so."
60. a Samaritan carrying a lamb on his way to Judea. He said to his disciples, "That man is round about the lamb." They said to him, "So that he may kill it and eat it." He said to them, "While it is alive, he will not eat it, but only when he has killed it and it has become a corpse." They said to him, "He cannot do so otherwise." He said to them, "You too, look for a place for yourself within repose, lest you become a corpse and be eaten."
61. Jesus said, "Two will rest on a bed: the one will die, and the other will live." Salome said, "Who are you, man, that you ... have come up on my couch and eaten from my table?" Jesus said to her, "I am he who exists from the undivided. I was given some of the things of my father." <...> "I am your disciple." <...> "Therefore I say, if he is destroyed, he will be filled with light, but if he is divided, he will be filled with darkness."
62. Jesus said, "It is to those who are worthy of my mysteries that I tell my mysteries. Do not let your left (hand) know what your right (hand) is doing."
63. Jesus said, "There was a rich man who had much money. He said, 'I shall put my money to use so that I may sow, reap, plant, and fill my storehouse with produce, with the result that I shall lack nothing.' Such were his intentions, but that same night he died. Let him who has ears hear."
64. Jesus said, "A man had received visitors. And when he had prepared the dinner, he sent his servant to invite the guests. He went to the first one and said to him, 'My master invites you.' He said, 'I have claims against some merchants. They are coming to me this evening. I must go and give them my orders. I ask to be excused from the dinner.' He went to another and said to him, 'My master has invited you.' He said to him, 'I have just bought a house and am required for the day. I shall not have any spare time.' He went to another and said to him, 'My master invites you.' He said to him, 'My friend is going to get married, and I am to prepare the banquet. I shall not be able to come. I ask to be excused from the dinner.' He went to another and said to him, 'My master invites you.' He said to him, 'I have just bought a farm, and I am on my way to collect the rent. I shall not be able to come. I ask to be excused.' The servant returned and said to his master, 'Those whom you invited to the dinner have asked to be excused.' The master said to his servant, 'Go outside to the streets and bring back those whom you happen to meet, so that they may dine.' Businessmen and merchants will not enter the places of my father."
65. He said, "There was a good man who owned a vineyard. He leased it to tenant farmers so that they might work it and he might collect the produce from them. He sent his servant so that the tenants might give him the produce of the vineyard. They seized his servant and beat him, all but killing him. The servant went back and told his master. The master said, 'Perhaps he did not recognize them.' He sent another servant. The tenants beat this one as well. Then the owner sent his son and said, 'Perhaps they will show respect to my son.' Because the tenants knew that it was he who was the heir to the vineyard, they seized him and killed him. Let him who has ears hear."
66. Jesus said, "Show me the stone which the builders have rejected. That one is the cornerstone."
67. Jesus said, "If one who knows the all still feels a personal deficiency, he is completely deficient."
68. Jesus said, "Blessed are you when you are hated and persecuted. Wherever you have been persecuted they will find no place."
69. Jesus said, "Blessed are they who have been persecuted within themselves. It is they who have truly come to know the father. Blessed are the hungry, for the belly of him who desires will be filled."
70. Jesus said, "That which you have will save you if you bring it forth from yourselves. That which you do not have within you will kill you if you do not have it within you."
71. Jesus said, "I shall destroy this house, and no one will be able to build it [...]."
72. A man said to him, "Tell my brothers to divide my father's possessions with me." He said to him, "O man, who has made me a divider?" He turned to his disciples and said to them, "I am not a divider, am I?"
73. Jesus said, "The harvest is great but the laborers are few. Beseech the Lord, therefore, to send out laborers to the harvest."
74. He said, "O Lord, there are many around the drinking trough, but there is nothing in the cistern."
75. Jesus said, "Many are standing at the door, but it is the solitary who will enter the bridal chamber."
76. Jesus said, "The kingdom of the father is like a merchant who had a consignment of merchandise and who discovered a pearl. That merchant was shrewd. He sold the merchandise and bought the pearl alone for himself. You too, seek his unfailing and enduring treasure where no moth comes near to devour and no worm destroys."
77. Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
78. Jesus said, "Why have you come out into the desert? To see a reed shaken by the wind? And to see a man clothed in fine garments like your kings and your great men? Upon them are the fine garments, and they are unable to discern the truth."
79. A woman from the crowd said to him, "Blessed are the womb which bore you and the breasts which nourished you." He said to her, "Blessed are those who have heard the word of the father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when you will say, 'Blessed are the womb which has not conceived and the breasts which have not given milk.'"
80. Jesus said, "He who has recognized the world has found the body, but he who has found the body is superior to the world."
81. Jesus said, "Let him who has grown rich be king, and let him who possesses power renounce it."
82. Jesus said, "He who is near me is near the fire, and he who is far from me is far from the kingdom."
83. Jesus said, "The images are manifest to man, but the light in them remains concealed in the image of the light of the father. He will become manifest, but his image will remain concealed by his light."
84. Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die not become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"
85. Jesus said, "Adam came into being from a great power and a great wealth, but he did not become worthy of you. For had he been worthy, he would not have experienced death."
86. Jesus said, "The foxes have their holes and the birds have their nests, but the son of man has no place to lay his head and rest."
87. Jesus said, "Wretched is the body that is dependent upon a body, and wretched is the soul that is dependent on these two."
88. Jesus said, "The angels and the prophets will come to you and give to you those things you (already) have. And you too, give them those things which you have, and say to yourselves, 'When will they come and take what is theirs?'"
89. Jesus said, "Why do you wash the outside of the cup? Do you not realize that he who made the inside is the same one who made the outside?"
90. Jesus said, "Come unto me, for my yoke is easy and my lordship is mild, and you will find repose for yourselves."
91. They said to him, "Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you." He said to them, "You read the face of the sky and of the earth, but you have not recognized the one who is before you, and you do not know how to read this moment."
92. Jesus said, "Seek and you will find. Yet, what you asked me about in former times and which I did not tell you then, now I do desire to tell, but you do not inquire after it."
93. "Do not give what is holy to dogs, lest they throw them on the dungheap. Do not throw the pearls to swine, lest they [...] it [...]."
94. Jesus said, "He who seeks will find, and he who knocks will be let in."
95. Jesus said, "If you have money, do not lend it at interest, but give it to one from whom you will not get it back."
96. Jesus said, "The kingdom of the father is like a certain woman. She took a little leaven, concealed it in some dough, and made it into large loaves. Let him who has ears hear."
97. Jesus said, "The kingdom of the father is like a certain woman who was carrying a jar full of meal. While she was walking on the road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her on the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty."
98. Jesus said, "The kingdom of the father is like a certain man who wanted to kill a powerful man. In his own house he drew his sword and stuck it into the wall in order to find out whether his hand could carry through. Then he slew the powerful man."
99. The disciples said to him, "Your brothers and your mother are standing outside." He said to them, "Those here who do the will of my father are my brothers and my mother. It is they who will enter the kingdom of my father."
100. They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, "Caesar's men demand taxes from us." He said to them, "Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine."
101. "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not love his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. For my mother [...], but my true mother gave me life."
102. Jesus said, "Woe to the pharisees, for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he let the oxen eat."
103. Jesus said, "Fortunate is the man who knows where the brigands will enter, so that he may get up, muster his domain, and arm himself before they invade."
104. They said to Jesus, "Come, let us pray today and let us fast." Jesus said, "What is the sin that I have committed, or wherein have I been defeated? But when the bridegroom leaves the bridal chamber, then let them fast and pray."
105. Jesus said, "He who knows the father and the mother will be called the son of a harlot."
106. Jesus said, "When you make the two one, you will become the sons of man, and when you say, 'Mountain, move away,' it will move away."
107. Jesus said, "The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine sheep and looked for that one until he found it. When he had gone to such trouble, he said to the sheep, 'I care for you more than the ninety-nine.'"
108. Jesus said, "He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him."
109. Jesus said, "The kingdom is like a man who had a hidden treasure in his field without knowing it. And after he died, he left it to his son. The son did not know (about the treasure). He inherited the field and sold it. And the one who bought it went plowing and found the treasure. He began to lend money at interest to whomever he wished."
110. Jesus said, "Whoever finds the world and becomes rich, let him renounce the world."
111. Jesus said, "The heavens and the earth will be rolled up in your presence. And the one who lives from the living one will not see death." Does not Jesus say, "Whoever finds himself is superior to the world?"
112. Jesus said, "Woe to the flesh that depends on the soul; woe to the soul that depends on the flesh."
113. His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?" He replied, "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
114. Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
~ Anguttara Nikaya, Tika Nipata, Mahavagga, Sutta No. 65; translated from Pali by Soma Thera: Access to Insight
1. I heard thus. Once the Blessed One, while wandering in the Kosala country with a large community of bhikkhus, entered a town of the Kalama people called Kesaputta. The Kalamas who were inhabitants of Kesaputta: "Reverend Gotama, the monk, the son of the Sakyans, has, while wandering in the Kosala country, entered Kesaputta. The good repute of the Reverend Gotama has been spread in this way: Indeed, the Blessed One is thus consummate, fully enlightened, endowed with knowledge and practice, sublime, knower of the worlds, peerless, guide of tamable men, teacher of divine and human beings, which he by himself has through direct knowledge understood clearly. He set forth the Dhamma, good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end, possessed of meaning and the letter, and complete in everything; and he proclaims the holy life that is perfectly pure. Seeing such consummate ones is good indeed."
2. Then the Kalamas who were inhabitants of Kesaputta went to where the Blessed One was. On arriving there some paid homage to him and sat down on one side; some exchanged greetings with him and after the ending of cordial memorable talk, sat down on one side; some saluted him raising their joined palms and sat down on one side; some announced their name and family and sat down on one side; some without speaking, sat down on one side.
3. The Kalamas who were inhabitants of Kesaputta sitting on one side said to the Blessed One: "There are some monks and brahmans, venerable sir, who visit Kesaputta. They expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Some other monks and brahmans too, venerable sir, come to Kesaputta. They also expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Venerable sir, there is doubt, there is uncertainty in us concerning them. Which of these reverend monks and brahmans spoke the truth and which falsehood?"
4. "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.
5. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does greed appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to greed, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by greed, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir."
6. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does hate appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to hate, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by hate, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir."
7. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does delusion appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to delusion, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by delusion, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir."
8. "What do you think, Kalamas? Are these things good or bad?" — "Bad, venerable sir" — "Blamable or not blamable?" — "Blamable, venerable sir." — "Censured or praised by the wise?" — "Censured, venerable sir." — "Undertaken and observed, do these things lead to harm and ill, or not? Or how does it strike you?" — "Undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill. Thus it strikes us here."
9. "Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill," abandon them.'
10. "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.
11. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does absence of greed appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his benefit, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being not given to greed, and being not overwhelmed and not vanquished mentally by greed, this man does not take life, does not steal, does not commit adultery, and does not tell lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his benefit and happiness?" — "Yes, venerable sir."
12. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does absence of hate appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his benefit, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being not given to hate, and being not overwhelmed and not vanquished mentally by hate, this man does not take life, does not steal, does not commit adultery, and does not tell lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his benefit and happiness?" _ "Yes, venerable sir."
13. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does absence of delusion appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his benefit, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being not given to delusion, and being not overwhelmed and not vanquished mentally by delusion, this man does not take life, does not steal, does not commit adultery, and does not tell lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his benefit and happiness?" _ "Yes, venerable sir."
14. "What do you think, Kalamas? Are these things good or bad?" — "Good, venerable sir." — "Blamable or not blamable?" — "Not blamable, venerable sir." — "Censured or praised by the wise?" — "Praised, venerable sir." — "Undertaken and observed, do these things lead to benefit and happiness, or not? Or how does it strike you?" — "Undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness. Thus it strikes us here."
15. "Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'
16. "The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who in this way is devoid of coveting, devoid of ill will, undeluded, clearly comprehending and mindful, dwells, having pervaded, with the thought of amity, one quarter; likewise the second; likewise the third; likewise the fourth; so above, below, and across; he dwells, having pervaded because of the existence in it of all living beings, everywhere, the entire world, with the great, exalted, boundless thought of amity that is free of hate or malice.
"He lives, having pervaded, with the thought of compassion, one quarter; likewise the second; likewise the third; likewise the fourth; so above, below, and across; he dwells, having pervaded because of the existence in it of all living beings, everywhere, the entire world, with the great, exalted, boundless thought of compassion that is free of hate or malice.
"He lives, having pervaded, with the thought of gladness, one quarter; likewise the second; likewise the third; likewise the fourth; so above, below, and across; he dwells, having pervaded because of the existence in it of all living beings, everywhere, the entire world, with the great, exalted, boundless thought of gladness that is free of hate or malice.
"He lives, having pervaded, with the thought of equanimity, one quarter; likewise the second; likewise the third; likewise the fourth; so above, below, and across; he dwells, having pervaded because of the existence in it of all living beings, everywhere, the entire world, with the great, exalted, boundless thought of equanimity that is free of hate or malice.
17. "The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom four solaces are found here and now.
"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.
"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.
"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.
"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.
"The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found."
"So it is, Blessed One. So it is, Sublime one. The disciple of the Noble Ones, venerable sir, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, four solaces are found.
"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.
"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.
"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.
"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.
"The disciple of the Noble Ones, venerable sir, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found.
"Marvelous, venerable sir! Marvelous, venerable sir! As if, venerable sir, a person were to turn face upwards what is upside down, or to uncover the concealed, or to point the way to one who is lost or to carry a lamp in the darkness, thinking, 'Those who have eyes will see visible objects,' so has the Dhamma been set forth in many ways by the Blessed One. We, venerable sir, go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma for refuge, and to the Community of Bhikkhus for refuge. Venerable sir, may the Blessed One regard us as lay followers who have gone for refuge for life, from today."