| Background
A Course in Miracles was
channeled through an atheistic psychologist named Helen Schucman.
Dr. Schucman, who had an early background in New Thought metaphysics
and the occult,16 would not permit public knowledge of her role as
the medium and eight-year channel for the Course until after
her death in 1981.
As it happens, dream work played a
role in the formation of the Course material. Due to
job-related stress and a crisis at work, Schucman began to write
down and explore her "highly symbolic dreams." This
exploration went on for several months. Unexpectedly, one day she
heard an inner voice say, "This is a course in miracles. Please
take notes." And from this ensued a form of inner dictation.
Although it was not a form of automatic writing or trance, the
otherworldly nature of the phenomenon made her "very
uncomfortable".17
The method of transmission was a
clear, distinct inner voice that promised "to direct [her] very
specifically." The "voice" did just that, and the
same spiritistic direction is promised to students of the Course.18
Dr. Schucman described the process as the kind of inner dictation
common to many other channeled works. She wrote, "It can’t be
an hallucination, really, because the Voice does not come from
outside. It’s all internal. There’s no actual sound, and the
words come mentally but very clearly. It’s a kind of inner
dictation you might say".19 Schucman took shorthand dictation
from the voice almost daily: "It always resumed dictation
precisely where it had left off, no matter how much time had elapsed
between sessions".20
Dr. Schucman was a most unlikely
channel. She was a respected research psychologist, a pragmatic
materialist, and a committed atheist before receiving the
revelations. Among her prestigious appointments, she had been
associate professor at Columbia University’s College of Physicians
and Surgeons, and associate research scientist and chief
psychologist at the Neurological Institute of The Presbyterian
Hospital. Her Jewish background and commitment to atheism made her
uncomfortable with the "Christian" tone of the messages.
Her co-scribe on the project was the late Dr. William Thetford, an
agnostic, teacher, and research assistant to the famed psychologist
Dr. Carl Rogers (whose humanistic psychology also finally catapulted
him into spiritism.21 Thetford held appointments at the Washington
School of Psychiatry, Cornell University Medical College, and the
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University. Before
his death he was a civilian medical specialist in family medicine at
the David Grant USAF Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base,
California, and director of the Center for Attitudinal Healing in
Tiburon, California.22 His prestigious appointments and wide
influence gave him many opportunities to publicize the Course.
Robert Skutch, publisher of the Course, says
that the power and tenacity of the "voice" became all the
more impressive because of Dr. Schucman’s obvious reluctance:
She did know that the material was
coming from an unusually authoritative source—one she did not
intellectually believe in.
Thus began the actual transmission
of the material which Helen would take down in more than 100
shorthand notebooks over a period of seven-and-a-half years. The
situation proved to be tremendously paradoxical. On the one hand,
she resented the Voice, objected to taking down the material, was
extremely fearful of the content and had to overcome great
personal resistance, especially in the beginning stages, in order
to continue. On the other hand, it never seriously occurred to her
not to do it, even though she frequently was tremendously
resentful of the often infuriating interference....23
The Course illustrates two characteristics
of spiritistic inspiration: 1) when possible, seek a contact that
will provide the most impact or credence for the revelation produced
(Schucman’s scholarly standing provided this credibility), and 2) force
production of the material, regardless of personal cost to the
channeler.
Some might argue that Schucman simply wanted to
discredit orthodox Christianity. But nothing in her life or
personality suggests she would deliberately go to such lengths
merely to undermine Christian belief. Furthermore, the
"voice," like the spirits in general, was merciless and
unrelenting. This was clearly a force controlling Schucman, not a
personally desired writing project to reinvent Christianity:
The Voice would dictate to Helen
almost daily, and sometimes several times a day.... She could, and
very often did, refuse to cooperate, at least initially. But she
soon discovered she could have no peace until she relented and
joined in once again. Despite being aware of this, she still
sometimes refused to write for extended periods. When this occurred,
it was usually at the urging of her husband that she did return to
work, for he knew full well that she could only eliminate her
distress by resuming her function as Course "scribe,"
and he was able to convince her that to continue fighting the
inevitable could only have a deleterious effect on their
relationship....
The acute terror Helen felt at the
beginning did gradually recede, but part of her mind simply never
allowed her to get completely used to the idea of being a channel
for the Voice.... For the most part she was bleakly unbelieving,
suspicious and afraid.24
Afraid, indeed. Mysterious powers that take
control of one’s life are something to be feared. Robert Skutch
also recorded Schucman’s own perception of the phenomenon:
Was the Voice that Helen heard
dictating the material really that of Jesus? Both Helen and Bill
believed the material must stand on its own, regardless of its
alleged authorship. At her deepest level, Helen was certain that the
Voice was that of Jesus, and yet she still had ambivalent feelings
on the subject. In her own words:
Having no belief in God, I resented
the material I was taking down, and was strongly impelled to attack
it and prove it wrong....
But where did the writing come from?
Certainly the subject matter itself was the last thing I would have
expected to write about, since I knew nothing about the subject.
Subsequent to the writing I learned that many of the concepts and
even some of the actual terms in the writing are found in both
Eastern and Western mystical thought, but I knew nothing of them at
the time. Nor did I understand the calm but impressive authority
with which the Voice dictated. It was largely because of the
strangely compelling nature of this authority that I refer to the
Voice with a capital "V".25
Dr. Schucman proceeded to admit her
complete bafflement: "I do not understand the [control of]
events that led up to the writing. I do not understand the process
and I certainly do not understand the authorship. It would be
pointless for me to attempt an explanation".26
Her co-scribe, Dr. Thetford, recorded his own
observations in an interview in New
Realities:
... 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.
I think that 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.27
Notes:
16. Gardner, "Marianne Williamson".
17. Robert Basil, ed., Not Necessarily the New
Age: Critical Essays, New York: Prometheus, 1977, p. 23.
18. A Course in Miracles, Volume 2: Workbook
for Students, Huntington Station, NY: Foundation for Inner
Peace, 1977, pp. 417-78.
19. James Bolen, "Interview: William N.
Thetford," New Realities, vol. 6, no. 2,
September/October 1984, Part 2, p. 20.
20. Rosemary Ellen Guiley, Harper’s
Encyclopedia of Mystical and Paranormal Experience, San
Francisco, CA: Harper Collins, 1991, p. 2.
21. Carl Rogers, A Way of Being, Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1980, pp. 88-92.
22. Jampolsky, Goodbye, p. 214.
23. Adeny, Re-visioning, p. 20.
24. Bolen, "Interview: William N. Thetford,"
New Realities, vol. 6, no. 1, July/August 1984 Part 1, pp.
20-23.
25. Bolen, "Interview" Part 2, p. 78.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid, p. 18.
|