Starve.Org White Noise Usenet Archive: "Re: Interview with ACIM Principal William N. Thetford, PhD"

Sure sounds lie a stooge for the CIA,
doesn't he Katie, you friggin' loony?

Lee wrote:
> Interview with William N. Thetford, PhD
> New Realities Magazine: Sept/Oct 1984

> An exclusive candid conversation with one of the two "hidden
> personalities" behind the manifestation of one of the Century's
> most enigmatic and profound spiritual thought systems - A Course In
> Miracles. Once a professed agnostic, Dr. Thetford now openly
> discusses his secret role in scribing the Course and how it
> personally affected him and his work in psychology, as well as the
> prestigious positions he held as Professor of Medical Psychology at
> Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons, and as
> Director of the Psychology Department at the Presbyterian Hospital
> in New York City.

> NR: As one of the two persons responsible for scribing "A Course
> In Miracles," what has been the impact of it on your life?

> WT: It has changed my life totally. I recall typing the first
> fifty principles on miracles that came through Helen Schucman in
> the fall of 1965, and realized that if this material was true than
> absolutely everything I believed would have to be challenged - that
> I would have to reconstruct my whole belief system. At the time,
> however, I thought that would be impossible; I didn't know how I
> could do it. Yet I felt that was a requirement, since the material
> that came through Helen in the beginning phase seemed to authentic
> and genuine. I went into shock for a brief period, wondering how
> it would be possible to make such an abrupt change in my perception
> of life and the world. Later I realized that God is merciful, and
> does not ask us to make changes so abruptly, that there would be
> adequate time to gradually begin to shift my perception. I think
> what was important was my willingness to change, not mastery of the
> material. And, of course, I moved from the middle of Manhattan,
> where I had lived for twenty-three years to Tiburon, California,
> something I thought would never happen. I had settled into my
> routine as a New Yorker, and felt that the Big Apple was the center
> of the Universe, and the place where I belonged. That move was
> probably the greatest cultural shock I have ever experienced,
> making an abrupt transition from the turmoil of a hectic life in
> New York City to the tranquility of Tiburon, California.
> Eventually I left academia as well. First by retiring from my
> position as Director of the Psychology Department at the
> Presbyterian Hospital of the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center,
> and several years later retiring from my position as Professor of
> Medical Psychology at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of
> Columbia University.

> NR: Was that to devote full time to the Course, or to pursue other
> interests?

> WT: A combination, I think. After twenty years at Columbia I felt
> that it was time to leave academia. It seemed natural to leave
> when the Course was published.

> NR: What exactly was your role in the scribing process of the
> Course? Did you hear a voice too?

> WT: Both Helen and I knew from the beginning that this was a
> collaborative assignment, although I did not hear a voice. While
> Helen heard the inner dictation, she was incapable of transcribing
> the material directly herself, since she found the content of the
> Course too threatening. My role was to offer the considerable
> support and reassurance needed each day for Helen to continue her
> shorthand notebook recording. She would then read the material to
> me, and I would type it directly from her dictation.

> NR: Since the Course challenged your own belief and thought system
> too, why didn't you just reject it, chuck it out?

> WT: Well, my intellect did rebel at times. But I was the one who
> had asked for "another way", a better way, with regard to the
> extremely stressful professional context in which Helen and I were
> trying to function. When the material in A Course In Miracles
> began coming, it was obvious to me that this was the answer to my
> question, very clearly the answer. So to reject it or even
> disregard it was never even a consideration.

> NR: What specifically about it made it obvious to you that this
> was indeed your answer?

> WT: Perhaps the fact that it was so totally different from the way
> I had been operating throughout my life. But the authenticity of
> the material more than anything else struck me. I knew that Helen
> had not made this up, even with her very fertile imagination.

> NR: The authenticity. . ?

> WT: Well, the material was something that transcended anything
> that either of us could possibly conceive of. And since the
> content was quite alien to our backgrounds, interests and training,
> it was obvious to me that it came from an inspired source. The
> quality of the material was very compelling, and its poetic beauty
> added to its impact.

> NR: It seems quite unusual that you, an established psychologist
> holding two very prestigious positions, would even consider
> embracing such material, considering your training and the rigid
> tenets within academia to which you no doubt subscribed and
> adhered.

> WT: I think if it had not been for many of the extraordinary
> experiences that occurred during the summer of 1965, neither Helen
> nor I would have been willing to accept the material she scribed.
> You have reported some of those experiences in these pages in the
> material from Robert Skutch's new book "Journey Without Distance,
> The Story Behind A Course In Miracles". However, our experience
> associated with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, was not
> reported in "New Realities." Perhaps as much as anything, this
> series of events crystallized the whole new direction that we would
> take.

> NR: The Mayo Clinic even occurred in September and didn't the
> Course begin the next month in October?

> WT: Yes. I had been asked to go to the Mayo Clinic and find out
> why they made money on their psychological service operations,
> while at Columbia-Presbyterian it seemed that we were always losing
> money. I thought I knew the answer to that question because we saw
> primarily clinic patients who couldn't afford fees, and the
> patients at the Mayo Clinic were middle or upper class and able to
> pay. Nevertheless, it seemed this was an important trip to make
> and I asked Helen to accompany me. Just before we took off - I
> think it was the night before - Helen had this very vivid image of
> a church, which she described to me in great detail, she even made
> a sketch of it. It was an old church with a number of turrets and
> towers. She thought it was probably a Lutheran Church. She was
> convinced that somehow we would see that church from the airplane
> window as we were about to land in Rochester. That, of course,
> seemed rather unlikely, since the airports I know aren't built near
> churches. Anyway, we kept our attention very closely focused on
> the windows during landing, and much to Helen's disappointment and
> distress no such church was visible. In fact, Helen was so upset
> at not finding her church that I didn't hold out much hope of
> accomplishing our business the next day unless she could somehow be
> reassured. Rather desperately I suggested to Helen that we hire a
> taxi and see if we could find her church anywhere in the Rochester
> metropolitan area. So Helen and I went church hunting. At first we
> thought we would confine ourselves to Lutheran churches. I think
> there were two of those, and neither one was remotely like Helen's
> image. Then we decided that we might as well see all the other
> churches while we were at it. I think there were twenty-seven
> altogether in the environs of Rochester. And not one of them bore
> any resemblance to Helen's image. Obviously, she was pretty
> crushed, but we pulled ourselves together in preparation for the
> following day's business. The next day after we had successfully
> completed our survey, Helen and I prepared to leave our hotel. I
> went down to the lobby to wait for her with the luggage, and
> noticing a newsstand I decided to get a paper. Instead, I saw a
> little booklet entitled, "The History of the Mayo Clinic."
> Thinking it would be nice to have a souvenir of our visit, I
> purchased it for a dollar. As I leafed through it very quickly, I
> saw a picture of Helen's old church, exactly as she had described
> it with all the turrets and towers. It was even a Lutheran church.
> The only problem was that it had been razed and the Mayo Clinic was
> actually built on the former site of this Lutheran church. It was a
> very dramatic moment, and I was eager to share it with Helen. When
> she came down, I said quickly, "Helen you really weren't out of
> your mind after all. Your church was there but it's no longer
> around. When you thought you were looking down on it as from an
> airplane you were really looking back through time." Helen
> displayed a peculiar mixture of emotions. On the one hand, relief
> that she wasn't totally crazy, on the other hand, it was clear that
> she was doing something which she regarded as highly paranormal,
> and this was an area that made her very uncomfortable. On our way
> back to New York, we had to change planes in Chicago. While we
> were sitting in the waiting room, Helen spied a young woman in the
> corner reading a magazine and looking vaguely unhappy in the way
> people frequently do when they are waiting for planes in airports.
> I was surprised when Helen said to me, "See that young woman over
> there, she's really in serious trouble - she's got a lot of
> problems." Helen insisted that she would go over and speak to this
> woman. As it turned out the woman, whose name was Charlotte, had
> never been on an airplane before. She had flown on Ozark Airlines
> to Chicago enroute to New York and was in a state of panic. She
> knew nothing about New York. We later found out that she was
> leaving her husband and two young children, and was in a state of
> great distress. Charlotte was booked on the same plane as we.
> During the flight, we sat on either side of her, holding her hand,
> and trying to calm and soothe her. We asked where she was going to
> stay in New York since she didn't know anyone. She said that since
> she was Lutheran, she thought she would contact a Lutheran church
> and somehow they would find a place for her in the city. It was at
> this point that Helen and I exchanged glances. The message was
> clear to both of us. Helen heard her inner voice saying, "And this
> is my true church, helping your brother who is in need; not the
> edifice you saw before." The authority of this inner voice became
> increasingly familiar to both of us when the Course began a few
> weeks later in October.

> NR: It must have been somewhat trying during that period, living a
> dual life in receiving and dealing with the miracles' material
> coming through and continuing your normal academic life.

> WT: Yes, in a way it was like living in two different worlds. My
> feelings were so complex it's hard to put it very simply.
> Obviously, Helen had not flipped, nor had she lost her mind. The
> material made perfect sense, but there was a feeling of having
> plunged into something that was way over our heads and for which we
> were unprepared. Naturally we did not discuss this with our
> colleagues, and none of our professional associates were aware that
> this was going on as an additional dimension in Helen's life and
> mine. At the same time, we could not completely separate the
> Course from our academic responsibilities, and a good deal of the
> actual typing of the material did take place at the Medical Center.
> Helen dictated her notes to me during our lunch hour or at odd
> moments, but this did not interrupt the flow of our professional
> commitments which included giving lectures. Writing research
> grants and papers for publication, as well as a multitude of
> administrative chores - all those things that make up very busy
> professional lives. So the experience that we underwent during
> that period was indeed a highly unusual one. NR: Weren't there
> times when Helen seriously considered seeing a psychiatrist or
> psychologist about this? Or maybe consider obtaining some
> medication that might take away the voice dictating to her?

> WT: It wasn't a voice in that sense at all. Helen was not pursued
> by voices; it was a very specific sense of channeled communication
> that would come to her from time to time, she would be aware that
> there was material to be transcribed, and she could do it when we
> chose. There was no pressure to immediately drop anything she was
> doing in order to take notes. Rather, the material was there
> almost as if it had been pre-recorded and was waiting for her
> attention. It presented itself to her in a very separate and
> distinct part of her mind, she did not experience it as an external
> voice at all.

> NR: Yet given the nature of someone hearing a voice - in the
> traditional psychotherapeutic sense - what do you think might have
> been the diagnosis or prognosis of Helen, without understanding the
> dynamics involved?

> WT: I think people who do unusual things of that type are probably
> considered somewhat dissociated or possibly schizophrenic.
> However, the fact that Helen's ability to function as a
> psychologist was not impaired in any way during this period was a
> clear indication that she did not suffer from a delusional system.
> If anything, I would say that her ability to function
> professionally was enhanced as we continued with this work. During
> the time we were working on the Course we seemed to actually
> increase our professional productivity and quality. One
> confirmation of this is that when we completed the manuscript we
> were both awarded tenure as professors.

> NR: Helen seemed to have much more difficulty embracing the Course
> material than you did. Was there any kind of spiritual or
> religious background in your life, or anything else, that made this
> so?

> WT: Well, it certainly wasn't due to any early religious
> background for me. I had gone to the Christian Science Sunday
> School until age seven, when my sister died suddenly and my parents
> lost interest in all religion. Later in my youth I attended
> various Protestant churches, but by the time I had started my
> graduate work at the University of Chicago, I had certainly given
> up any interest in religion. Besides I recall how the University
> of Chicago was often described as a Baptist University where
> atheist professors taught Jewish students Thomistic philosophy!
> With that kind of background, I think it's apparent that whatever
> religious beliefs I might had would simply have become more
> confused.

> NR: What would you say was your philosophical or spiritual outlook
> then?

> WT: I would describe myself as an agnostic. I was not really
> concerned with whether spiritual reality was a fact or not. Freud
> regarded religion as an illusion, and I think many of the graduate
> students and faculty with whom I associated at the time saw
> religion as something that lacked intellectual respectability.

> NR: Given your agnostic outlook at the time, was there anything
> you were involved with that might have set the stage for your being
> the catalyst for "A Course In Miracles."? WT: Not as such,
> although I was one of Carl Rogers' first graduate students after he
> came to the University of Chicago in 1945. He taught that
> "unconditional positive regard" was an essential prerequisite for
> client-centered therapists. I now realize what Rogers was really
> emphasizing was that total acceptance in our relationships meant
> expressing perfect love. Although I recognized how far I was from
> being able to practice this concept in my life, I grew to
> appreciate its contribution to my own spiritual development.
> Actually, I always thought that a Higher Authority must have goofed
> in selecting Helen and me for this assignment. When Helen asked
> the voice once why she was chosen for this role, the answer she got
> was, "You're obviously the right person because you're doing it."

> NR: What's so curious is that both of you - Helen the atheist and
> Bill the agnostic - would entertain the notion of doing something
> like this. How do you reconcile that? Surely something must have
> been triggered within you.

> WT: During that summer of 1965, we had many experiences that shook
> up my belief system and caused me to be much more open-minded to
> the possibility of divine intervention. By the time the Course
> started, I would say I was no longer really an agnostic. Helen,
> however, had great difficulty with the Course regarding her own
> personal beliefs. She continued to question what was happening to
> her through the time she was transcribing the Course, and I'm not
> sure she was ever able to reconcile what she was doing with who she
> was.

> NR: It's interesting that you often use the word "assignment" with
> regard to your and Helen's involvement with the Course. Why?

> WT: Well, the events we experienced leading up the Course's
> dictation seemed to us to be preparation for an assignment that
> somehow, somewhere, we had agreed to do together. In a sense we
> were fulfilling our function.

> NR: The events you refer to as preceding the Course's dictation by
> Helen involved a number of psychic and mystical experiences she
> had. Did you have similar experiences?

> WT: Yes, but they never seemed as dramatic as Helen's. However,
> one that had a very profound effect on me occurred Easter Sunday in
> 1970. I had agreed to take Jean, an elderly woman artist, down to
> dinner in Greenwich Village with some other artist friends. It was
> a very cold, stormy wintery day, with sleet and high winds -
> unusual for that time of year. Being without a car, I realized I
> was going to have a lot of trouble getting a taxi, and so I
> meditated briefly about what to do. I got a clear message that I
> was to go to the corner of 78th Street and Fifth Avenue, near where
> I lived, at exactly 3:15, and the problem would be taken care of.
> I had enormous resistance to doing this, but I put on my stormy
> weather gear anyway, walked to the corner, and tried to hail a cab.
> Since I was in competition with all the doormen on Fifth Avenue it
> seemed utterly useless. Then for just a moment I closed my eyes and
> let go of my troubled thoughts, saying to myself: "Thank you,
> Father, it's already done." And for an instant I truly believed
> that. When I opened my eyes, a chauffer driven limousine had
> stopped right in front of me at the corner and the driver rolled
> down his window and asked, "May I help you sir?" This, as anyone
> who's been to New York or lived there knows, was a highly
> improbable happening. I was very tempted to ask him why he had
> stopped for me, and then I realized that this would be an
> inappropriate question. I was simply to accept this gift. I got
> in and we drove over to Jean's and picked her up. She was
> absolutely thrilled that I had come to pick her up in a limousine!
> The interesting thing, too, is that I didn't discuss a fee with the
> driver. He simply took me without any question, and when we arrived
> at our destination I asked him how much it was, and he said
> something ridiculous like five dollars. I think I gave him several
> times that amount out of enormous gratitude and relief.

> NR: What other such experiences . . .?

> WT: While we were in the process of transcribing the Course
> material, I prayed that we might encounter a living teacher -
> someone who embodied these teachings in his or her own life.
> Around this time a priest friend, Father Michael, told me about
> Mother Teresa of India. Duly impressed, I obtained a copy of
> Malcolm Muggeridge's "Something Beautiful for God," the first book
> which describes Mother Teresa's astonishing healing work with the
> poorest of the poor. Shortly after I read the book, Father Michael
> informed me that Mother Teresa was currently in New York. She had
> recently established a New York Center for her order in the South
> Bronx - at that time, the worst of all crime-ridden poverty areas
> in New York - and he had been asked to help facilitate some of her
> local arrangements. He invited Helen and me to join him in
> visiting her in the Bronx. Initially, I felt apprehensive about
> actually having my prayers answered, since I was not sure that I
> was up to meeting a living saint. However, when this tiny woman
> graciously met us with palms extended, I felt an almost
> instantaneous sense of relief. It seemed as if I had always known
> her. Completely selfless and without pretense, she radiated joy of
> total spiritual commitment. Later, when she turned to me and said,
> "Doctor, wouldn't you like to come to India?" There is so much that
> you could do to help the poor." I felt an almost irresistible
> impulse to answer, "Yes!" I have met with Mother Teresa on a number
> of occasions since that time, including one visit she made with
> Father Michael to our offices at the Medical Center the year before
> Helen retired. To me, her life is a demonstration of the
> importance of total dedication and complete consistency on the
> spiritual path. Our prayers are answered, even though frequently
> in the most unexpected ways.

> NR: There as been some speculation that you and Helen edited the
> Course. Did you?

> WT: No. Bear in mind that at the beginning we didn't know exactly
> what was happening. So we asked questions of a personal nature and
> recorded the answers that Helen would receive. I would type these
> answers as part of the continuous process, not distinguishing them
> from the inner dictation that Helen was recording in her shorthand
> notebook. Later, when we realized that this material was obviously
> not a part of the Course itself, we did, indeed, delete it. It is
> true there has been editing of capitalization, punctuation,
> paragraphing and section titles in the Text. However, these
> changes were minor and the Workbook and the Manual for Teachers
> also appear exactly as they were taken down by Helen.

> NR: Could you give an example of the personal material you
> deleted?

> WT: Oh, there were questions like, "Is there anything that we
> should be doing that would increase our ability to meditate
> better?" There was also some commentary on psychological theories
> that got introduced as an intellectual digression at the beginning,
> which had nothing to do with the Course itself.

> NR: Briefly, what do you think the Course' purpose is?

> WT: To help us change our minds about who we are and what God is,
> and to help us let go, through forgiveness, our belief in the
> reality of our separation from God. Learning how to forgive
> ourselves and others is really the fundamental teaching of the
> Course. The Course teaches us how to know ourselves and how to
> unlearn all of those things which interfere with our recognition of
> who we are and always have been.

> NR: Why do you think it was named "A Course In Miracles?" Why not
> a Course in Love or Forgiveness or Truth?

> WT: For good reason, we realized later. I do remember, however,
> when Helen called me that memorable night and said an inner voice
> was dictating to her which kept repeating, "This is A Course In
> Miracles, please take notes." At the time, I certainly didn't
> respond positively to that title. However, when you get into the
> Course and then into the definition of what a miracle is, it does
> make sense. In fact, it's the only appropriate name for the
> Course.

> NR: And a miracle is . . .

> WT: I think a miracle is the love that sustains the universe. It's
> the shift in perception that removes the barriers or obstacles to
> our awareness of love's presence in our lives. The Course also
> tells us that there is no order of difficulty in miracles -one is
> not more difficult than another, since the expression of love is
> always maximal.

> NR: What was your reaction as a psychologist when the Course
> presented you with the concept that there are only two emotions:
> love and fear?

> WT: I remember very distinctly typing that section, where it says,
> "You have but two emotions, fear and love, one you made and one was
> given you.." And I remember thinking that concept really takes care
> of the whole psychological problem of different emotional states.
> And it's true, for example, that anger is simply an expression of
> fear in action. I can't get angry unless I first feel threatened
> in some way, which means I'm afraid. Love is really the only other
> emotion that exists, and it simplified things greatly to recognize
> this as a fact.

> NR: And what is love by your definition?

> WT: Very simply, love is the absence of fear. You might also say
> that fear is the absence of love. Love and fear cannot co-exist at
> the same time, although most of us try to live as if they can. We
> try to balance a little fear with a little love, and hope that we
> can know the difference. Yet when we let go of fear for an
> instant, love is automatically there. It isn't something we have
> to figure out or look for, love simply is. It's very much like the
> sun which is hidden by clouds on a foggy day. Although we can't see
> the sun, we know it is there. The moment the fog lifts we can see
> it. Such is the case for us, too, the moment we can stop our
> fearful thoughts we can accept the love and light which is always
> there.

> NR: That pretty much entails trust it's there always, yet it seems
> we're often brought to a place, almost a precipice, and asked to
> step out, with faith it's still there. That's real hard to do, or
> to muster up the trust to do.

> WT: I frequently refer to that in my own life as "celestial
> brinkmanship" -when we're out there walking the plank, not knowing
> what's going to happen next. But how else can be increase our
> awareness of our God given potential if we don't take the plunge
> into the unknown? I think all of us have to be at least partially
> willing to try to find out if there is a different and better way
> to live, otherwise we will simply persevere in the same old
> patterns of our lives.

> NR: The Course also distinguishes between the ego and the Self in
> other than conventional terms. What was your reaction to this as a
> psychologist?

> WT: The term, "ego" as used in the Course refers to our surface or
> false self, which identifies with the body as its outward form of
> expression. This ego-body identification is the self we made as
> contrasted with the spiritual Self which God shares with us. The
> ego is really our belief in a self separate from God. The
> projection of this thought of separateness gives rise to a world of
> form. The ego believes that this phenomenal world exists
> independently, although it has no existence apart from the split
> mind that projected it.

> NR: One of the most provocative concepts the Course presents is
> that this world is illusory, not real, and that God is really not
> invested in it. That God is only invested and concerned for us, not
> our things, and it's we who value them, not God. That's a very
> difficult concept to grasp and deal with, isn't it?

> WT: Yes indeed. It's a challenge and problem for all of us. But
> as you know, many twentieth century physicists have written
> extensively on the implications of quantum mechanics for mysticism
> and mystical thought. Ken Wilbur has recently edited a book
> entitled, "Quantum Questions" which deals with the issue of
> physical reality and mystical experiences in the writings of
> Einstein, Heisenburg, Eddington, Schroedinger and a number of Nobel
> Prize-winning physicists. Wilber points out that all of these
> remarkable scientists developed a transcendental or mystical view
> of the world. While modern physics does not prove that mysticism
> is true, it does remove any major theoretical blocks to the
> possibility of spiritual reality. In effect, the solid material
> universe has dissolved into a series of abstract mathematical
> equations. The point here is that many physicists view the material
> world in the same way that the Course does: that this world is
> illusory since physical matter is no longer understandable in terms
> of our sensory awareness. Somehow we are perceiving something that
> isn't there, and it is our perception of it which gives it reality.
> The question then becomes what is the nature of the sustaining
> power which lies behind all forms? The Course's emphasis on
> changing or shifting perception applies to everything in our lives,
> not simply the external universe, and most particularly to our
> relationships - the way we look at ourselves and others. As we
> shift this perception, or rather as we shift our attitudes from
> fear to love, from guilt to total acceptance, then what we see as
> the limited, bounded universe also shifts. Anything that is
> perishable is seen as an illusion, and anything that is eternal is
> true knowledge and comes from God. The Course's goal, then, is to
> enable us to shift our perception to the point where God can take
> us to the realm of knowledge. Its immediate purpose is to help us
> remove the obstacles to our awareness of love's presence in our
> daily lives, which is what the miracle is all about. When we begin
> to recognize and accept the presence of God's love in our lives,
> many of these other questions that we raise simply disappear. They
> no longer seem relevant, because they're questions the ego asks
> based upon the perception of a limited bounded universe.

> NR: Another difficult concept to deal with in the Course is that
> when we recognize illusions for what they are we can laugh at them.
> Well certainly emotional crises are very real and not funny to most
> folks, such as death, grief, pain, starvation, and so on. How do
> you deal with this?

> WT: The Course suggests that we forgot to laugh at the moment we
> first began to believe illusions were real. Perhaps one way we can
> find our way back to our true nature is to begin to laugh at the
> foolishness of many of our beliefs. Norman Cousins has already
> demonstrated the importance of laughter in the healing process. For
> example, in order to help anyone, whether in psychotherapy or in
> everyday life, I don't think we can identify with the problem.
> What we need to do is to identify with the Answer. Since any
> problem is always some form of fear, guilt or separation, our
> responsibility is to identify with the only Answer that works. In
> offering God's Love in whatever form is appropriate, we are
> offering the only answer that is possible within this world. This
> certainly does not imply a lack of compassion, quite the contrary.
> If I identify with the problem that you or anyone else has, it
> simply means that I will suffer too. And when I join you in
> suffering, no one gains - rather we both lose by reinforcing the
> problem. The Course says that all of our problems stem from the
> belief that we are separated from God, and the only way out of this
> is to extend the miracle of love, which is our natural inheritance.

> NR: Some of the people who begin studying the Course initially are
> disappointed that it doesn't deal specifically with some personal,
> vital questions, such as sex. Why doesn't it?

> WT: As you know, the Course's real focus is on mind-training. Its
> emphasis is on spiritual development rather than the reinforcement
> of our ego-body identification. But there's nothing in the Course
> that prohibits sex. What it does say is that the body is a neutral
> vehicle for the communication of love. What I think the Course is
> trying to underscore is that physical union can never solve the
> problem of our sense of separation from God. It can only be a
> substitute for our attempted union with God. That's why physical
> gratification as a goal in a relationship is never lasting, never
> permanent in unifying individuals. And that's also true of many
> other physical and emotional drives we have that stem from the ego
> - things that we do to try to permanently unite us with others,
> which always result in failure.

> NR: Another specific subject not addressed in the Course and a
> concern to those who study it is murder - dealing with it as an
> illusion or through forgiveness.

> WT: Perhaps the difficulty comes in perceiving another as a body
> only. I think that's the fundamental ego-body equation, which is
> responsible for an enormous amount of our unhappiness, the very
> core of it. Without any doubt, murder is a very emotional subject
> for all of us. But the inner transformation that we are concerned
> with here has to do with our own shift in perception, our own
> ability to recognize that fear is a problem we all have. Whether
> it takes the form of murder, attack or loss, what we want to learn
> is how to teach love so that fear is no longer a part of our
> consciousness. As we change our own consciousness and our own
> awareness, we are helping everyone else do the same thing, and I
> think it is through this process that we make our contribution to a
> more sane society and world.

> NR: Another vital concern of living this life is death, dying.
> Why doesn't the Course deal with this for our peace of mind?

> WT: I think it does. The Course states very clearly that "There
> is no death. The Son of God is free." In a sense, since we were
> created eternal, we literally were never born, hence we can never
> die. That is, within the framework of eternity, we have always
> existed as an extension of God's Love. I think the notion of
> freshly minted souls coming into this material world for a few
> years, and then going into the great beyond is not the lesson that
> the Course would teach. The Course repeatedly states that we
> remain as God created us; we remain as eternal aspects of spirit
> and have never been limited by form. When the body is no longer
> alive and animated, it simply means we no longer have a use for it.
> Our body has nothing to do with our being alive or dead because our
> body is not our true identity.

> NR: What about animals, then? Since the Course doesn't mention
> them either, where do they fit in, or even insects or plants and
> trees?

> WT: The Course frequently uses the phrase "all living things."
> Again, whatever has life has eternal life. Since all life stems
> from God and is one and inseparable, certainly the life force that
> animates animals and plants is the same as the life force that
> animates us. And I'm always amazed at what animals can teach us.
> How quickly a dog for instance can forgive us for stepping on its
> paw. It doesn't harbor grudges but shows us instant love the
> moment we open the door. Whatever grievances there might have been
> are not carried over in a dog's mind. So I think pets are
> wonderful teachers of forgiveness for all of us. They are
> extensions of the love of God in bringing joy and additional
> dimensions of love into our lives.

> NR: What about killing certain animals and eating them? How does
> this fit in with embracing all life and trying not to be separate
> from it?

> WT: Many people choose to be vegetarians for very good reasons.
> Anything that increases our sense of guilt would not be in our own
> enlightened self-interest. So I think students of the Course will
> determine what is right for them through listening to their own
> inner guidance. Jesus taught us not to be so much concerned about
> what we put into our mouth as to what we let come out of it. So
> it's not what we eat, but our thoughts and how we relate to others
> that witnesses to our spiritual progress. What is important is the
> opportunity we have each moment to choose between expressing fear
> or love in our lives.

> NR: From this premise, then, one could conclude that bodies are
> not life.

> WT: The body is a vehicle for communication and learning - the
> source of life is always spiritual. The Course teaches us that
> whenever we have questions about any of our decisions or choices in
> this life we can ask for help in making them from our inner guide
> or as, the Course refers to it, the Holy Spirit.

> NR: Regarding one's inner guidance, the Course cautions about
> getting it from the ego, doesn't it? How do you distinguish
> between it and the Holy Spirit? How do you know who's talking?

> WT: Well, the Course says the ego always speaks first and that
> it's wrong. In order to hear our inner guidance we must quiet our
> minds, be willing to let go of any investment in the answer and
> listen to that still, small voice within us. The fact that our
> inner guidance is never strident, but speaks to us in a peaceful,
> loving voice, is a sign of its authenticity, and I think all of us
> have to learn with practice to make that distinction.

> NR: How do you personally deal with this problem?

> WT: If I am not feeling peaceful, I know I am listening to the
> surface static of my ego. Then I choose once again, and try to let
> go of the interference so that I can listen to the gentle voice of
> my inner guide. The Course identifies this Voice as the Holy
> Spirit. It also says that Jesus is equally available to us for
> help in this manner, at all times. In this sense, Jesus is
> regarded as our wise older brother, whose message is no different
> than the Holy Spirit's, since God's teachers all have the same
> message.

> NR: Do you think such unconventional references to Jesus and the
> Holy Spirit, as well as to other "new" concepts with regard to
> Christianity, are contradictory to traditional Christians?

> WT: Well, I think if you go back to the original teachings of
> Jesus, the answer is no. For example, the Course illuminates and
> amplifies Jesus' teachings on the fundamental importance of love
> and forgiveness. I think, perhaps, institutionalized religion has
> sometimes lost sight of the essence of that message, by its
> emphasis on guilt.

> NR: Then you don't think the Course challenges Christianity, or
> any of today's religions?

> WT: I think the Course is clearly in accord with the perennial
> philosophy underlying all the great religions. However, there are
> some fundamental differences, such as the Course's emphasis on
> giving up our belief in the reality of sin and guilt. Religion, as
> I experienced it when I was younger, seemed to stress these
> negative aspects. The Course, however, continually tells us that we
> are guiltless; that we remain as God created us; that we may be
> mistaken, but that mistakes call for correction not for punishment.
> Concepts of guilt, sin, and punishment are totally alien to the
> Course's orientation. The Course states unequivocally that love is
> our only reality and, "Love does not kill to save." Any religion
> that emphasizes fear, guilt, and separation from God would
> obviously have trouble with the Course's concept of total unity and
> love. However, the Course does not discuss institutional religion,
> and does not advise anyone to give up membership in a Church. In
> fact, I think the Course material would be very enhancing to people
> who want to develop a richer spiritual life within their own
> tradition; it's ecumenical. I do know there are some ministers,
> George McLaird of the Presbyterian Church in Sausalito, California
> is one of them, who teach the Course on a regular basis in their
> churches. And many people associated with the Unity Church
> throughout the country are actively involved in the Course's
> teachings as is Rev. Terry Cole-Whittaker, who has a far-reaching
> television ministry.

> NR: You say the Course is ecumenical, yet the Course is decidedly
> Christian in nature, using the Christian framework of Father, Son,
> and Holy Spirit.

> WT: That's true. The Course does use Christian terminology but at
> the same time it conveys universal spiritual truths which is
> perhaps why people of all faiths can find it of value. I think the
> course states it very well when it says, "A universal theology is
> impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but
> necessary." Shortly after we began transcribing the material, I
> started reading rather widely in the mystical literature of the
> world. One of the early writers who made a deep impression on me
> was Vivekananda, in his exposition of the Vedanta philosophy of
> India. He was a disciple of Ramakrishna who in the late 1800's and
> in the early part of this century founded a number of Ramakrishna
> ashrams and teaching centers in this country. The Vendanta Advaita
> philosophy as expounded by Vivekananda seemed to have some striking
> similarities to the teachings of the Course, even though the
> context and the language are different. At the time I remember
> thinking that the Course could be described as a form of Christian
> Vedanta. Students of Buddhism tell me that the similarities between
> the Course and Buddhist teachings are very striking. Interestingly
> too, is the fact that many people associated with the Course have
> come from Jewish backgrounds, and have found it extraordinarily
> meaningful and helpful despite the Christian terminology. So I've
> been impressed with how ecumenical the Course is, and that its
> purpose is not to increase our sense of separation but to bring
> people together. And I see this happening all over with hundreds
> of study groups that are made up of people from all walks and
> religions who come on a regular basis to discuss and study the
> Course. To me this demonstrates a spiritual joining, and a
> willingness to let go of a sense of separation from each other or
> from God. This is really what the Course is all about. The
> experiences we are able to derive from following the Course's
> teachings are much more important than being caught up in any
> semantic traps about particular terms. So I'm in favor of the
> widest ecumenical use of the Course concepts in a variety of
> contexts, and I know people are doing that, and I applaud it.

> NR: What about the exclusive use of masculine terms in the Course,
> such as Father and Son, Him or He, with regard to women students?

> WT: I know some women have been disturbed by the use of masculine
> terminology and have thought of substituting feminine terms.
> Several who have considered doing this concluded that Mother and
> Daughter, Her or She would only throw it into another polarity.
> Others have found that using the word "Spirit" - a wholly neutral
> and androgynous term - resolves the problem for them.

> NR: What's been the reaction to all of this among your old friends
> and colleagues? Sympathetic, supportive, dissasociative,
> concerned?

> WT: I haven't been in contact with many of them, although the few
> I have been in touch with are sympathetic to the material. I have
> no idea what the general reaction among my former colleagues would
> be, nor have I tried to find out. However, I'm sure most of them
> would have thought Helen and me crazy at the time if they had known
> what we were doing. Bear in mind, though, that it all began in
> 1965, and this is now 1984, when I think there's a great deal more
> receptivity to spiritual concepts than there was nineteen years
> ago. So perhaps it's really not quite fair to speculate on this
> now.

> NR: At the same time, you and Helen didn't show it to anyone then,
> you kept it hidden and your activities completely secret.

> WT: Yes. And I certainly would not have shown it to them. I had
> more sense than that. My assignment as I saw it was to learn the
> material myself and not confuse my responsibilities at the Medical
> Center with our transcription of the Course. But as I've said, this
> is another, much brighter day.

> NR: What do you now think about all of this, the fact that you
> were a special, integral part of what some prominent people have
> referred to "A Course In Miracles" as one of the most important
> documents of the century?

> WT: Quite frankly, Helen and I had no intention of publishing the
> Course when we were transcribing it. Quite the contrary. The
> material seemed specifically for our spiritual education. We
> regarded it as our "guilty secret" something we were committed to
> doing, but at that time there was no indication we were supposed to
> share it with others. When we did agree to have it published
> anonymously, I thought that very few people would be interested in
> changing their perceptions through the methods suggested by the
> Course - I thought it too difficult. Certainly in my lifetime, I
> never expected that thousands of people would regard the Course as
> their map home. I'm grateful that Helen and I were able to complete
> our part in making the Course available, and I'm equally grateful
> to the large number of students today who are making their own
> contributions in many different ways. With several translations
> already underway, it is apparent that the Course concepts will
> continue to reach an increasingly large readership. It is wonderful
> to know that so many people on a world-wide basis are using the
> Course to facilitate their own spiritual awakening. I think the
> Course states what is happening with poetic clarity in the
> following passage:

> "A sleeping mind must waken, as it sees
> its own perfection mirroring the Lord
> of Life so perfectly it fades into
> what is reflected there. And now it is
> no more a mere reflection. It becomes
> the thing reflected, and the light which makes
> reflection possible. No vision now
> is needed. For the wakened mind is one
> that knows its Source, its Self, its Holiness."

> NR: What are your plans from here on out?

> WT: I am currently working on a book with Jerry Jampolsky, a
> psychiatrist, and Pat Hopkins, a writer and editor, based on Course
> related concepts. This book will be published by Bantam sometime
> next year. I have recently completed a chapter with Roger Walsh,
> another psychiatrist, for "The Comprehensive Textbook in
> Psychiatry," edited by Freedman and Kaplan, which will also be
> published early in 1985. My immediate goals are to continue the
> exploration of ways in which Course concepts can be applied in my
> life and extended to help others.