Marianne Williamson: Make Us Instruments of Love and Action

Tami Simon: You’re listening to Insights at the Edge. Today, my guest is Marianne Williamson. Marianne is a spiritual teacher who brings forth and applies principles from the book A Course in Miracles. She’s also a bestselling author and lecturer. Six of her eleven published books have been New York Times bestsellers, and four of these have been at the number one position—including the mega-bestseller The Return to Love.

Marianne is also a respected social activist who cofounded the Peace Alliance, as well as Project Angel Food, a meals-on-wheels program that serves homebound people with AIDS in the Los Angeles area.

With Sounds True, Marianne Williamson has published two audio programs including Love’s Manifesto: Having the Courage to Let Your Heart Lead the Way, which she coauthored with Andrew Harvey. Additionally, Marianne will be speaking at a four-day conference to benefit the Eckhart Tolle Foundation—a conference called “Living a Life of Presence,” which takes place September 29 to October 2 in Huntington Beach, California.

In this episode of Insights at the Edge, Marianne and I spoke about something she called “the holy instant” —that moment when we enter into inner communion with the divine. We also talked about the power of exercising both stillness and action, and Marianne put out a call to the transformational community to get involved as caring, loving adults in our social and political world. We also talked about her own campaign to be a congressperson in southern California, and what she learned from this perceived “failure,” and the dark night of the soul that ensued. I also asked Marianne to lead us in prayer—not once, but twice—as a way to align ourselves with our own power to be truth-tellers and instruments of love. Here’s my conversation with Marianne Williamson:

To begin with, Marianne, I just want to thank you. Thank you for making the time to be a guest on Insights at the Edge. I’m really appreciative.

Marianne Williamson: Oh, sure. Thank you for having me. I’m honored.

TS: I wanted to begin by understanding the essence, if you will, of what it means to be a “miracle worker” in your view. I mean, here you’ve taken the teachings from A Course in Miracles and applied them to so many different parts of life—whether it’s work, money, career, relationships, health, politics, social change. What’s the pith that—no matter what area of life we’re working with—what it takes to be a miracle worker?

MW: A miracle, as defined by A Course in Miracles, is a shift in perception. In any situation where you yourself—and that shift in perception is from fear to love. So, the Course in Miracles says that in any situation, any relationship, any circumstance where you yourself shift your own perception from fear to love, you become what the Course in Miracles calls “the presence of the alternative.”

And because all minds are joined, if you yourself are perceiving not with fear but with love, this affects the consciousness of people around you—because all minds are joined. So, you not only experience the miracle within yourself through your own choosing to perceive love instead of fear, you also work a miracle in the situation because—by becoming that space for the alternative—you are a transformer for the entire relationship.

TS: Now, Marianne, I want to dig into this a little bit because I’ve heard this phrase before—”shifting from fear to love”—and there are lots of times when that really makes a lot of sense. I can think, “God, yes. The loving perspective is so much more expansive and we all rise in it.” But, it seems like there are also times when fear is really appropriate and that fear shouldn’t always be something that is shifted into something else.

So, I’m curious what you think about that.

MW: I think it’s a matter of semantics. There is such a thing as “healthy fear” on a psychological level. If you are walking down the street and nothing in you says—you’re a single woman, you’re walking down the street alone, and something says, “Do not turn left,” you could say, “Well, I just had this fear. I wasn’t supposed to.” The argument here would be it actually was the voice for God. It was a voice of love within you that told you not to turn left.

So, when you talk about healthy fear in a psychological sense, that’s not the fear that we’re talking about. So, other than what I just said, give me an example of where you submit that fear would be helpful.

TS: Well, sometimes I notice if I feel afraid about something, it could mean, “Tami, you should prepare better. Your fear is telling you that you’re not as prepared as you need to be for this situation.”

MW: To me, that wouldn’t be fear. It would be wisdom. That would be clarity. That would be savvy. That would be consciousness.

It’s like, “Don’t go into that meeting because you’re not ready for it, and if you go there, you’ll blow it.” That’s not fear talking. That’s wisdom talking. That’s perspicacity talking. That’s maturity talking.

TS: OK. So, I guess I want to understand more, then—in terms of being a miracle worker and this—

MW: Well, would you like me to give you an example of what it is rather than just talking about what it—

TS: Yes. Sure.

MW: OK. So, there are several categories. First of all, it has to do with a willingness to see the innocence beyond the guilt. So, in any situation, my body’s senses filter [my experience] for me and propose to me that they themselves are the determiners of the ultimate reality in the situation. My eyes tell me the look on your face. My ears tell me the sound of your voice. And I don’t like that look on your face. I think it’s nasty. And I think that sound of your voice is very demeaning.

So, fear means I meet you at the level of your behavior and then I react. Love means I extend my perception beyond what my physical senses perceive to what my heart knows to be true.

So, the miracle in that situation—regarding that filter of the body’s senses—is it doesn’t matter to me what you look like right now. It doesn’t matter to me what you’re sounding like that right now. All of that is just the personality-level illusion. I can know that what is not love is a call for love. If I only meet you on the level of personality, your ego—which is your nasty look on your face and demeaning sound of your voice—that’s by definition your fear. That is the place—a fractal of your personality where you are disconnected from your love. One word for that is “ego.”

I can meet you in that place and get lost with you in that domain of fear. Or, I can refuse to go there. I can extend my perception, pray in that moment that I be not attached to this falsehood, and simply remain in love. As I do that, my simply being in that moment—a space where I refuse to fall into that dream state of your ego with you—but I remember who you are, even though at this moment you clearly do not remember who you are—where I refuse to fall asleep to who you are even though you have fallen asleep to who you are. But, if I fall asleep with you, then I will be falling asleep to who I am.

I will rather remain awake to who you are—the innocent child of God in you—[and] I become a miracle worker. I save myself from that negative, fear-based experience and I awaken you. That’s one category.

Another category is time. In any situation where I am filtering my experience of this situation through the past or I am filtering the situation through an obsession [with] or what I want to make happen for the future, I’m in fear rather than love because love is only in the present moment. It’s the only place where God or divine love, holiness, truth intersects linear time—it’s in the present.

So, if I am not dwelling in this situation totally in the present, then I am falling into fear. So, the miracle is living in the now.

So, the miracle is living in that which is beyond what the complexity of the human drama is, complexity of the woundedness, the complexity of time, and the complexity of guilt. It is choosing, “I am willing to see this differently. I don’t want to get lost in the body drama. I want to see deeper than this circumstance, deeper than the external situation, deeper than the perception of your guilt, deeper than the concentration on your mistakes, deeper than an obsession with past or future.” Those are all realms of the ego, of the karma, of the craziness of the world.

The miracle is my willingness to dwell in the world that lies beyond this. I become a miracle worker when I do that because—by my willingness to do that; just even one person doing that—everybody in the situation is awakened to that possibility.

TS: So, different people have different—I guess you could call them techniques or strategies—for either returning to the present moment or being centered in their heart. I’m wondering what those strategies might be for you—if you find yourself in a situation and you want to make sure you’re grounded or rooted in love.

MW: I’m a student of A Course in Miracles, so I—and the Course doesn’t claim to be for everyone. If it’s for you, you just know it. It’s one path, one statement of universal spiritual truth.

But, as a student of A Course in Miracles, there are a couple of issues there. First of all, the daily exercises in the workbook. We do physical exercise so that you can move. You do spiritual exercise so you can be still. External capacity to move is why you do external exercise. Internal capacity for stillness is why you do internal exercise.

You wake up in the morning, take a shower—you take a bath—to purify your body of dirt, right? But, if you don’t pray or meditate in the morning, your body might be clean but your mind is still carrying yesterday’s stress. Then we’re all being bombarded with this frantic stimulus of the modern world.

So, the first thing you do—and I’ve never known a serious spiritual or religious practice that did not concentrate on the morning. Before you read the paper, before you pick up your phone, before you go to the computer, you practice this stillness because everything that I mentioned to you a couple of minutes ago is only practicable when you have a still and nonreactive mind. That’s number one, because the ego speaks first and the ego speaks loudest.

So, wisdom and the capacity to actually practice what I said before comes from the guidance of the small, still voice for God within. So, we meditate in the morning in order to be able to hear that voice because the ego speaks first and the ego speaks loudest.

Now, the fact that you do your exercises in the morning—you mediate in the morning and so forth—doesn’t mean that you’re going to be an enlightened master for the rest of the day. But, it does drastically reduce the capacity that you really do or say something stupid. It drastically reduces the possibility or the probability that you will send a text you will regret for months, or send an email that will lose you your job, or say something that will cut your child or your partner to the quick.

Now, there is a technique that the Course in Miracles talks about called “the holy instant.” The holy instant is the practical technique of living in the world and, in any moment—I’m not an enlightened master. So, I am certainly not beyond having a reactive moment, a neurotic moment, or whatever. But as what I think of as a pretty good intermediate student of these things, I think I’m beyond not recognizing that I’m crazy when I do.

So, the Course in Miracles says you are not asked not to have any ego thoughts. You’re just asked not to have any that you would keep. The Course in Miracles says your good intentions are not enough. Your willingness is everything.

So, the Course is not about pretending you’re not angry or pretending you’re not crazy in this moment. It’s about saying, “I get that I’m crazy in this moment. I am willing to see this differently. I get that I’m nuts here.” How do you know you’re nuts? You’re not at peace. The presence of inner peace means that you’re there. The absence of inner peace there’s still something you’re not seeing yet.

So, the practice is that you ask, “I am willing to see this differently.” In whatever words are true for you, you ask the Spirit—the Holy Spirit; whatever name; the internal teacher—[that] it come into my mind right now and reorder my thoughts. I know that we’re all innocent children of God, but due to my own childhood triggers, this person drives me nuts.

I’ll give you an example. Last night, I was at dinner. There was a woman at the table. It was so funny for me, because I’d just come from a lecture. I was in a really peaceful place. All three of the people that were at the table with me are good friends. Lot of love, peace—everything we all talk about and love.

TS: Sure.

MW: And then this woman sat down. And I’m telling you, her personality, the way she talks, her mannerisms—if ever I want clarity that I’m not an enlightened master yet, all I have to do is think her name. I wasn’t beyond judgment of the things she was saying and I wasn’t beyond what was even bigger for me, which was how she said it.

But, I did pray and say, “Dear God, I get that it’s not an accident that she’s sitting at this table. I get that it’s not an accident that this is where I’m being shown, ‘Well, Marianne, how you doing on this one?’ I am willing to see her differently. I’m willing to see this differently,” because the Course says, “What’s not love is a call for love.”

But, in that moment, emotionally I wasn’t there. But, intellectually I got, “I am willing to see this differently.” And I prayed for that holy instant.

Now, what I got from that was the ability to see that my issue here—and I know that I was arrogant and I will know that one day I will laugh very loudly because I will hear her talk just the way she talked last night, and I won’t be bothered by it. I will be able to love her completely and without any judgment.

So, that’s the technique. I’m willing to see this differently, but I’m not pretending to myself that I’m there yet.

TS: Yes. I love this phrase, “the holy instant.” Is the holy instant when I remember to pray and ask for help, and turn this situation over? Is that the holy instant?

MW: Yes, but I think that in that holy instant, I think the Course technically—it’s an interesting question. I think technically the holy instant would be the moment—the experience—that you’re taken into when you do. So, the Course says, “Practice the holy instant.”

When I was a little girl, we had this thing called an add-a-pearl necklace. Did you have an add-a-pearl necklace?

TS: Yes, I did actually! Believe it or not, yes.

MW: Yes, OK. So, I see the holy instant as add-a-pearls. We’ve all had holy instants. We all have moments—we’ve all had enlightened moments. It was an enlightened experience at that table before she sat down because it’s easier to be enlightened with people who you like. It’s easy to be enlightened with people who treat you the way that you wish to be treated. Right?

The issue is: can you get to the point where you have a whole necklace.

TS: Now, it’s interesting, Marianne, that you talked about prayer and inner exercise in the morning, because I’ve seen you at your Monday-night lectures in Los Angeles. One of the things that just really impressed me was how you pray. You are just so natural at it, and carried away by spirit. I wanted to talk to you about what’s happening for you internally when you pray. What’s going on? What’s it like in there?

MW: First of all, the Course in Miracles says prayer is the medium of miracles. That’s number one. When you pray about something, what you put on the altar is then altered—because the altar is within your mind.

The Course in Miracles says that you cannot make the shift from fear to love by yourself. I mean, sometimes you can. A friend says, “Oh, lighten up.” But, if it’s a moment where you’re really triggered or you really can’t get there by yourself—or it’s a situation where it’s beyond what the mortal mind can do, and you say, “I’m going to pray about this,”—there’s a part in the Course where it talks about [how] if you go into the highest level of thinking of which the ego is capable, God himself will take that final step. And the highest level of thinking of which we are capable is to turn to God.

So, God is within us. So, imagine your most intimate conversation with someone that you love. Then, what could be more intimate than that which is within you and within which you are? In that space of intimacy and connection, you are delivered.

So, the Course in Miracles says the most—and it doesn’t say it like this—but basically the most passionate love affair you’ve ever had is like fraction of the passion you feel for God. So, there is an intimacy and a passion, for me.

TS: And then do you hear a voice inside that you’re then articulating out loud when you’re praying out loud with people?

MW: No. I think that for all of this, there’s this phrase, “The voice for God.” I’ve had a couple times in my life where I did feel like I heard a voice. But, the vast majority of the time—other than those two times in my life—it’s what everybody I know feels. You just get a hunch. You just have a knowing-ness. Somebody says something to you. That answers more the question of guidance.

In terms of prayer and prayerfulness, I get what I think most people get if we allow ourselves to. In my office, all the time—I did it this morning. We were trying to think about something. I said, “OK, let’s all say a prayer.” Then I go around the table and I say, “OK, what did you get? What did you get? What do you get?”

People say, “Well, you know,” and you get this sometimes. It’s not that the voices aren’t within us. We’re just not practiced at asking.

So, sometimes after a prayer there’s a real sense of—and I fulfill this publicly—sometimes, if it’s helpful, I will have a sense of deep intuitive knowing. But, I say that to people at my lectures all the time. That’s not just me. I say to people all the time at the lectures, “If you’ve been in this room for an hour and a half praying with people, listen to yourself tonight. It will be very difficult to lie to yourself tonight.”

So, the Course in Miracles—it’s a real discipline in knowing none of us are special. The process one person goes through is no different than the process anyone else goes through. The Course says we’re all special and we’re [not] special.

So, do I think that when I’m in those situations, I have a deeper clarity? Yes, but then I think everybody does.

TS: Here we are at the beginning of 2016—a year that I think for many people holds quite a lot of—I’m guessing here—challenge and promise both. I wonder if you would be willing—as a voice for all of us in a sense because of your own deep (I’ll say) gift at leading prayer—to lead us in a prayer for this year of 2016.

MW: Of course! Would you like me to do that now?

TS: I would, if you would.

MW: Of course.

Dear God, we place our future in your hands—knowing, dear God, that in you all things unfold perfectly. As the acorn becomes the oak tree and the bud becomes the blossom; as the embryo becomes the baby and the stars revolve around the sun—may those planets that revolve around the sun staying in their natural orbit; may this year unfold according to the natural orbit of divine perfection.

We place ourselves in your service. Make us into the people that you would have us be, that we might do what you would have us do. Make us, dear God, instruments of love. Heal our wounds that we might serve you more. Lift us to divine, right alignment with the truth of you within us that we might be, in all ways, instruments and vessels of your forgiveness, of your love, of your excellence, of your integrity, of your ethics, of your generosity, of your compassion, and of your peace.

Thus, dear God, may we be conduits and channels for all the love that shall replace all fear and all the light that shall replace all darkness. May we thus be your miracle workers this year—that in collaboration with all those who, like us, are seeking the greater light at the center of all our being [and] might contribute to a great wave of peace and love that truly saves the world.

And so it is, together, we all say, “Amen.”

TS: I’m serious, Marianne: every time that you lead a prayer, it moves me so much. So, thank you. Thank you for doing that.

MW: Well, thank you. Thank you so much.

TS: Here, I mentioned in the beginning that you’ve taken the Course in Miracles and applied the teachings into so many different parts of our life, including the world of political action and social action. I wanted to talk some about that, and your experience in running for a Congress seat in southern California—and not winning the race, coming in fourth out of 16 and only the first top two candidates progressed beyond that.

How [have you] made sense of the whole experience for yourself and the idea of taking something like that on, and in a sense not “winning?” Does that mean that the miracle-working didn’t happen? How do you make sense of just the whole experience you had?

MW: The Course in Miracles says to “beware the temptation to self-initiated plans.” You do that which you feel guided to do. So, I definitely felt guided to do it. I’m glad I did it. I don’t think I allowed myself to follow that guidance on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day basis the way I should have because I got lost in the illusion of what politics is supposed to be.

It was the most exhilarating experience of my life, but also the most brutal. Many, many people—including the President of the United States today, Barack Obama; including many others—did not win their first election. Now, in my case, I do not see doing it again. But, I totally understand how you don’t know what you’re doing until you’ve done it once. That I do get.

I remain as passionate as I was before about these issues and as dedicated to doing whatever I can as a citizen to use my value and my voice in a way that would hopefully be valuable. I did not think that if I won a congressional seat, everything was then going to be fine. And I didn’t think that if I lost, all hope would be lost.

I like to think that my campaign contributed to this choir that is singing out today—politically very much expressed in the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. I think that the popularity of Bernie Sanders is in large part because of many, many people—including myself—who have had both winning and “losing” campaigns in which the same ideas were articulated.

Ultimately, the only failure is a situation that you didn’t learn from. I learned a lot from my run. I had a lot of forgiveness to do of others and of myself. I felt particularly sad because the transformational community did show up for my campaign, and that was profoundly meaningful to me.

Our problem was not that we did not have enough money. I have felt for a long time very strongly about people within the transformational, higher-consciousness community getting involved in politics. I think we should be the biggest grown-ups in the society, not the most infantilized. If you have a clue as to what changes one heart, you’re the one with the clues as to what would change the world.

So, I was very, very moved and honored, and I am eternally grateful to all the people who sent the money. That money meant something, because it meant, “Yes, those ideas that you stand for transformationally—I want to see that in the political world.”

That was the hard part, Tami, for me to get over—because I feel I had an opportunity. I felt a lot of grief and sorrow at my failure to harness that in all the ways that I needed to to win. I had thought that you made the money and then you hired someone who would run the campaign to do the political part. That’s what I didn’t understand. I was very wrong and very naive to believe that.

I thought that it was legitimate for me to run for Congress because I felt that, if I were to win, I could hit the ground running day one in Washington because of my knowledge of the issues. I still feel that way.

What I vastly underestimated was the relevance of the fact that I had never been part of an actual political campaign in any way. I had had a lot of interaction and relationship with heavy-duty politicians. So, on the issues and all that, I got that down. But, actually running a political campaign? I was ignorant of things which the candidate cannot afford to be ignorant of.

So, had I won the Primary, it would have been definitely a lot of catch-up. But I didn’t.

So, it was a painful period of time. I had to go through facing what was, on a certain level, a massive fail. But, once again, the Course in Miracles says in some of your biggest failures you thought were success, and some of your biggest successes you thought were failure. I like to think that—in fact, I don’t just like to think—I know I learned a lot. I like to think that it did contribute in many ways. I know—and I see it in my life already—ways in which my having run have not only increased my experience—because, believe me, I know things I didn’t know before—but also I think in terms of the culture [and] in terms of the kind of invitations I get. You get a lot of cred for having run; you get a lot of cred for having put your money where your mouth is on that level.

So, I am happy to say that I believe that in many cases, I’m honored for having made the run. I’m honored in the sense that [I am] invited to interviews and conversations which I appreciate being invited into that I don’t think I might have been had I not actually done that.

TS: When you said that you learned a lot from the whole experience, what would be the biggest things that you learned?

MW: Well, the first thing I learned has to do with politics itself and how to do it. But, I also—in terms of a political campaign, which is a very different animal than the issues, et cetera. that’s number one.

But, even more importantly, from a transformational perspective, if I had run my campaign just like a book tour, I would have done at least as well and I might have even won. That’s really interesting. I thought because I’d never run a campaign, I allowed myself—and this is where I didn’t practice what I preach. The small, still voice for God guided me to run. But, I didn’t really let the small, still voice for God run the campaign the way I should have. Right?

TS: Yes.

MW: Are you with me?

TS: I’m completely with you! What you’re saying reminds me of—for me and my business life, or other people—you go into things and people tell you, “Well, this is how it’s done.”

MW: That’s exactly right!

TS: And part of you is like, “Well, I’m not going to play the game the way it’s done.”

MW: Exactly. Exactly. And I never made that mistake with any other aspect of my career. But I made it big time with this one.

I had deep regret about that. I had deep regret about it because we’d been sent the money. So, I really felt I’d failed people—even though I know that when you give money to a political candidate, you’re not saying, “You have to win for this to have been a good investment.”

And I do think—and many people have told me, and I certainly hope that people feel this way—that not only did I do my best, but in many ways there were successes in this campaign. We did articulate some very powerful ideas in very powerful ways. That part we did do.

I also think that there’s this conscious, mindful-America thing going on—that wanderlust. I do think that it contributed to a political and social awakening among the transformational community, which has traditionally been so apolitical.

That makes me happy. We all play our part and contribute our piece. I believe that my campaign did do that.

And it was an honorable campaign. It was an ethical campaign and all of that. It was just, in some ways, not as politically savvy a campaign as it might have been. And, once again—ironically—if we had been just a little more savvy in terms of things you and I were just talking about.

So, many lessons learned.

TS: Now, you mentioned that you’re not interested in running again. I’m sure you’ve been asked this many times, but the question of course comes forward: why not? You’ve learned things.

MW: Well, to be honest, I think if I was 10 or 15 years younger. Then my response might be different.

You don’t just decide to run for Congress. You don’t just do that. There has to be a seat that’s either available or open, or that seems like a good idea to do. There are many things involved there.

The man who did win is a good Congressman. I think I would have brought something that is unique. We all bring something that’s unique. But, in terms of how he votes, I think I would vote very similarly. In fact, I’m sure we stand politically for pretty much the same issues. He pretty much now has that seat if he wants it. That’s just political reality, because once you win in a seat like that you’re kind of ensconced. There’s no real moral legitimacy to taking that on.

But, most importantly, even that’s not the fundamental. The fundamental is that I’m not feeling that calling within me now.

TS: Yes.

MW: If I ever do, I’ll let you know. Right now, I don’t. I know that principle in the Course—beware the temptation to self-initiated plans. Running for Congress right now would be very self-initiated on my part.

I’m very passionate about the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. A poll came out that shows that he would actually have an easier time defeating Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton would. I have respect for Mrs. Clinton, and if she is the candidate I will support her. But, I am passionately behind Bernie Sanders for the nomination and I’m doing everything I can as a citizen to support that.

I’m also passionate about the candidacy of Alan Grayson, who is a Congressman in Florida who is running for the Senate there.

So, I’m out there. I’m working [with] the Sisters of the Planet, for Oxfam. I’m still very involved with the issues. Being a candidate is just one way to play your part.

Politics—the word comes from the Greek root politeia, which means “of the citizen.” Not “of the government.” It means “of the people.”

So, my passion is still high, my activism is still high, and I hope to be used in whatever way would be useful to the universe—to uplift the conversation. I won’t be doing it in Congress. And boy, believe me—in the last few months, with so much of what’s going on, there have been times where I wish I was there. Can you imagine what I would be saying right now?

But, we all have a platform—whatever your platform is—and I will continue to speak out as I feel moved in a way that I could hopefully help.

TS: I’m curious—in that experience after the election, you used some strong words of feeling like you “failed” and the sadness [and grief] around that. How did the teachings from A Course in Miracles work for you personally as you journeyed through that?

MW: The Course in Miracles says you pay a very high price by not taking 100 percent responsibility for your experience. The price you pay is you can’t change it.

So, from A Course in Miracles’ perspective, I had to really look at what I did wrong—how I got it wrong. It was a dark night of the soul for me. It was rough.

A lot of people said, “Wow, I really thought you were going to win,” until halfway in. Tami, the press was decent to me. There was one hit piece, but for the most part the press was decent to me. That was part of what was painful. I had a shot. I had a shot.

[In] the campaign, one girlfriend said, “I saw it get away from you.” I had to go back and I had to see my interactions. I had to see what people were there that shouldn’t have been there, people who should have been there who weren’t, why [they weren’t], what [I did] not know. Some of the things were things that I wouldn’t have known, and other things were things where you should have known.

I had to make some apologies. I had to make some amends. And I had to make some amends to people who did me wrong, but the Course in Miracles says if 10 percent of it was your fault, you have to apologize for your part. What part did you play in that disaster?

It was rough. It was a rough time. But, you know, spiritual healing is like going through an operation without anesthetic. That’s why I feel so strongly [and] so strongly challenge this epidemic of a casual use of antidepressants. I was at that point. I was clinically depressed. I had a therapist say to me, “Do you want to go on anything?”

But, I didn’t. Of course I didn’t. I needed to look at every demon. I had to go through every sleepless night. I had to make every amends if there was an amends to make. I had to go through every bit of shame, every bit of humiliation.

But I was also able, at the end—by the end of that—and it was 30 days. It’s so interesting. I feel so strongly about this, and I actually have written a book about this—of suffering, of sadness. Because I tell you I had 30 days, Tami, where sleep was not even an option. Don’t even think about it.

Then, another two months. I mean, it was fascinating the way it worked in 30-day intervals. After about three months, I felt I was beginning a phase of, “Life will go on.” I felt a difference at six months, and then it was another six months of bruising.

But, in the end, I felt that I’ve completed that process. Once you complete that process, I feel that I can appreciate the good things that happen. A woman came up to me the other night and she said, “You know, I supported you in your campaign.” I just threw my arms around her. I’m so grateful and so honored by that.

I know you don’t live down here, but we won Topanga and we won Malibu and we won Venice. We always like to joke, “We won the cool places! We won the cool neighborhoods!” It just means a lot.

I’m a romantic about American democracy. I’m a romantic about these things. That’s why I feel so outraged at the corruption of it.

I actually enjoyed—you mentioned how there were 16 candidates, right? So, when we would go to debates, I was so excited! “This isn’t junior high school. This is like we’re really here!” Except for one person. I have to tell you this. She was the woman.

But in every case other than her, all the candidates were so nice. I think—once again, about being a miracle worker—I think I kind of helped start that because I would go, “Hi!” I was so excited. I was like a little kid. I was so excited. “Hi! Hi!” It set the tone and they would laugh. One guy would say, “I want to thank all of Marianne’s supporters who are here,” because our people—there was such enthusiasm.

You know, Tami, one of the things about the transformational community—because we’ve never been known for our activism—when people in the transformational world do get involved in a political campaign, there’s not the cynicism. There’s not the jaded quality.

I mean, it was so beautiful. Yoga studios who would have support things for me and they would do chanting. Some of the beautiful things that happened.

So, let’s continue with all this. The fact that my one candidacy didn’t succeed—big deal. This issue is so much bigger than one person and so much bigger than one race. But if this contributed—and I think it does. I think a lot of people who were touched by that campaign, who read about it, who were a part of it—they’re going to go on. They’re involved in other campaigns and other efforts. We all play the part that we play.

But, it was profound. It was exhilarating. Brutal, but exhilarating. Most of it was brutal. I have no one but myself to hold responsible. From a spiritual perspective, that’s very necessary. I am the author of my experience.

TS: Now, you mentioned, Marianne, how because you ran for a political office, you’re having political conversations with people that you might not have had before. I was reading on your website and your blog, where you were writing about terrorism as a global cancer—and suggesting that we look at a holistic model of healing of our social body, not just looking at holistic healing in a personal way. But, what would that mean for our collective social body?

So, I wonder if we could talk some about that, because I think of course so many people are feeling helpless in the face of terrorism. They don’t know what to do or where to turn. So, what is this holistic healing viewpoint, if you will, that you could talk about?

MW: Well, first of all, I want to point out that this is a prime example of the way people from a background of personal growth, spirituality, recovery, and so forth—because we do understand what “holistic” means, we do understand what an integrative approach to healing means—this is why we have such an important part to play as articulators of that paradigm in politics and society. What we are practitioners of and what we understand is that sickness is the absence of health. Health is not the absence of sickness.

You can’t just wait until you get sick and then seek to allopathically suppress and eradicate all symptoms. The whole, integrative approach to medicine means you must take responsibility for cultivating your health proactively. You must nutritionally and with exercise and with the way you live—many lifestyle decisions—cultivate health.

Then, if and when physical symptoms do appear, you don’t just treat them allopathically through external remedies. You also recognize issues of the mind and the spirit and the emotions that have a literal effect on boosting the immune system.

Those of us who understand that conversation—who better to take that paradigm and now apply it to society? Now, Martin Luther King said, “There are two kinds of peace. Negative peace and positive peace.” Negative peace is where there’s no externalized conflict, but there is an underlying tension and anxiety. He said positive peace can only be present when predicated on brotherhood and justice.

So, what we have done in our society is we have not proactively cultivated brotherhood and justice. Our social, economic, and foreign policies have been predicated on serving the short-term economic bottom line of, basically, huge multinational forces—particularly corporate forces. So, we have put that economic gain before the cultivation of brotherhood and justice.

So, in other words, we have not cultivated the health of the society. Now, all of a sudden, because doing what we did and failing to do what we did cultivated so much human despair, so much human misery, and so much human dysfunction, there is now this outrageous explosion of dysfunction and even evil. OK?

Now, the first thing we want to do from a spiritual perspective is the tone. It’s like what I was saying about my campaign. What part did you play in this disaster? Now, a primary example of that—speaking of ISIL—is the invasion of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a secular leader. He could not stand the radical religious elements. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. He held those things at bay.

He wasn’t a nice guy. He was a terrible man. That’s not the point. The point is that if anybody had looked deeply—really deeply; not just listening to what the President said, not just listening to what Colin Powell said; but really reading the material that was at hand at the time—you would have asked yourself, “Iraq didn’t have anything to do with 9/11. What are we invading Iraq for? [Why] are we invading a country that did not invade us?”

They have weapons of mass destruction? So does China. So does Russia. So does India! You don’t invade every country that has a weapon of mass destruction even if they had it. And if you’re going to talk about people who do terrible things to their own people, are we invading China? It was so bogus to anybody who took even a cursory look at it.

So, the first thing you do is you realize that—as Abraham Lincoln said—a nation must confess its sins and a nation must atone for its errors. I don’t think it’s possible to overestimate the significance of the invasion of Iraq in creating this hornets’ nest. If you see Charles Ferguson’s documentary No End in Sight, regardless of whether you think we should have invaded Iraq or not, the ineptitude of the follow-up to that invasion—including the disbanding of their army, and in disbanding their army, many people who headed that army then became the leaders of ISIL.

We just created this huge vacuum, and huge misery and despair among people because we just destroyed—we go into Baghdad and we destroy it. We had Paul Bremer there to lead the building of the city afterwards. He knows nothing about it. He’s a political appointee. I remember reading in the—you know, Baghdad is a huge city. The person who was appointed to redesign the traffic system was a college student whose father was a major donor to the Bush campaign. It’s so outrageous.

So, you begin to see the anger. If you take a deeper look at so much of American foreign policy, you see why a lot of people have not liked us. It’s not that they would have hated us-hated us, but they did not like us—and became far more vulnerable to ideological capture by genuinely psychotic forces.

You begin to realize that large groups of desperate people are a national security risk for that reason. That’s why, after World War II, we were so good to Germany and good to Japan. We helped them rebuild because we learned after World War I [that] when you have large groups of desperate people such as there were in Germany after World War I, that became a petri dish out of which someone like a Hitler could emerge.

So, Americans have a lot of thinking to do. We have a lot of atoning to do. This is where that integrative model comes in. I think, in the transformational community, this is particularly significant, Tami. We’ve tended to be an apolitical lot.

It’s like, “Oh, I just want to be positive, and I just don’t want toxic things in my life.” That is faux spirituality. We are not here to ignore the darkness. We are here to transform the darkness. There is a difference between transcendence and just plain denial—and using this faux, artificial spirituality as an excuse for not helping.

So, I think we all have some very deep things to look at and I think now, in 2016, every American citizen has a lot of power. Who are you going to vote for in this election? Where do they stand on these issues? What do they really stand for? What do those candidates say about police brutality? What do these candidates say about the privatization of our prison system? What do those candidates have to say about how we should go forward in terms of ISIL? What do those candidates have to say in terms of the fact that we had during the 1970s 300,000 people in prison—and now we have two-and-a-half million? What do those candidates have to say about the fact that the majority of Americans can hardly make ends meet at this point, and the financial stress that most Americans live under—which, when I was growing up, you had one parent [that] could work, one parent could stay home with kids if they wanted to, and that family could support itself?

TS: Now, Marianne, I have a question for you—because you’ve talked about how the transformational community as a whole has been apolitical—many members. So, leaning out instead of leaning in. What do you think is the root of that? Why? Why?

MW: Well, you know, I tell you: when my career started—I started lecturing in 1983. Very soon after that, the AIDS crisis burst onto the scene. So, for me and my career, Tami, from the very beginning we were standing in response to the critical crisis of human lives.

But, I went off to Michigan. And when I went to Michigan [and] kind of got off that grid, this entire career niche exploded. Your guess would be as good as mine. But, I assume it had to do with the fact that people discovered that if they went a certain way, there was money to be made. I’ve seen it in the way churches work. “Stay away from the political conversation because then you’re not going to be as popular.” It’s that “good girl” thing. Just don’t mention it because then—well, let’s just keep it—

When people say, “Well, let’s not talk about politics or religion,” I’m like, “That so leaves me out of dinner.”

It just went in this very apolitical way so as not to offend anybody and completely lost its edge—lost its juiciness.

Now, the real teachers—and Eckhart would certainly be among these—who aren’t talking about it, but aren’t talking about it because they really are—but it’s not from a “leaving it out for popularity.” You can tell the difference. You can feel the difference between the spirituality that makes people more mature and the spirituality that just infantilizes people. It particularly concerns me when this involves the kind of “ditz-ification” of women.

Let’s take something like food—everybody with their green juice. Well, good luck with that. That’s really fine that you’re trying to eat gluten free and the green juice, but with the ground being poisoned the way it is and the air being poisoned the way it is and the water being poisoned, good luck on just saving yourself. You know what I’m saying?

TS: Yes, I do. Yes. Of course.

MW: If there are public issues that you have not involved yourself with, it will make itself to your private door. I think that that’s happening.

Now, don’t get me wrong, Tami. What I saw in my campaign was I saw the transformational community coming forth. So, I don’t want to make it like, “Oh, we’re not doing it.” I saw it in my campaign.

I just think that if people hadn’t been sort of awakened—and I think it’s happening now. I’m hoping that, just as the transformational community supported my campaign in such beautiful and profound ways, I’m hoping that we’ll have that next person who is part of our community who runs. I’ll be supporting them.

So, I don’t want to talk about it only in the negative—why it hasn’t been. When I first wrote my book, Healing of America, people didn’t want to hear it.

But, things have changed. I think now—in this particular year—people realize how critical it is. So, the positive thing is: maybe we got here late, but I think we’re getting there. Like I said, Tami, it was so beautiful during my campaign, because the people from the yoga community and stuff who did get involved—they didn’t have this jaded quality. They didn’t have this cynical quality. It’s like, “Ooooh! We’re running for Congress!” It was adorable.

I just wish that I had had the same success and had acted as smartly with people who are not from that community. That’s where my own failure came in.

TS: OK, Marianne. I just have two final questions for you. The first one is: I’m wondering, particularly for women, if you think there’s something about stepping forward into our—if you will—miracle-making powers that is really the important crux of it—the challenge that women face in particular.

MW: Oh, yes. Absolutely. I think, in general—now, this is a vast generalization—but in general, men are not stopped by embarrassment as much as we are.

TS: Interesting!

MW: They’re not stopped by being made fun of as much as we are. They’re not stopped by a feeling of personal humiliation and disapproval as much as we are—I think, in part, because we have a cellular memory of having been burned at the stake.

I often say [that] they just change the consonant from “W” to “B.” It used to be, “Ooh, she’s a witch! She’s a witch! She’s a witch!” Now, it’s, “She’s a bitch! She’s a bitch! She’s a bitch!”

A man says something in a strong and powerful voice, owning his opinion, [and] he’s called “a ruthless, strong leader.” A woman is called “tough” and “difficult to work with.”

One of the things I say all the time is, “To live a meaningful life is not a popularity contest.” If you are really going to talk about the things that need to be talked about in society and in the world today, do not expect everyone to like you.

That’s why sisterhood is so important. That’s why sisterhood is so important—why we must be there for each other, so that women feel, “I got you. I got your back.” When they say things about you or do things, we deeply need to feel, “Is it OK that I said that?”

So, if you’re going to really go forward in any area as a truth-teller—and I would recommend the movie The Big Short if you haven’t seen it. It’s a fantastic movie, and it really does demonstrate the punishment that the truth-teller gets—but also why it’s important that the truth-teller keep talking.

It’s also relevant to this issue of the casual use of antidepressants, which far too many women are on in America today. Grief is not a mental illness. Deep sadness is not a mental illness. If you are looking at the world today and you are not grieving, you’re not looking.

But, from the spiritual perspective, if you’re not rejoicing in the miraculous possibilities for complete transformation, then you’re also not centered in the kind of wisdom that we’re all about.

So, I think that women have to ask themselves, “Do I want to be a mother of a new world?” If I’m a mother of a new world, that means not just with my womb, but with my consciousness. It can’t just be my child. It has to be every child. It has to be children on the other side of town. It has to be children on the other side of the world.

I was saying at my lecture last night, “I can’t even imagine what it’s like to be an African-American mother with a son in America today given the absolute presence that we all know about of the incidence of police brutality.”

This is not a time to be ditzy or la-la or too concerned about whether or not everybody loves you. You want to ask yourself, “Who do you want to be respected by?”

Hold on just a moment.

Whose respect are you looking for? If you say, “I want to be respected by people who I respect,” then that means you have to leave the cushy, little, gauzy, pastel-colored, tribal, easy, faux-spiritual conclave and really put yourself out there to be the fierce face of the Goddess. The Goddess is not just easy love. The Goddess is also fierce and that’s what we have to be today.

TS: And then just to end, Marianne—believe it or not, one spiritual teacher said, “Tami, you’re a like a blessing whore. You just want blessing after blessing.” He said it quite humorously. But, the reason I’m saying that is I’m wondering if we could end on the note of another prayer. This time, it will just be the end of our conversation on really helping us come forward—as you said—to be truth-tellers and instruments of the divine in a world that needs us so much. If we could just end on that note, Marianne—if that would be OK with you.

MW: Dear God, use us. We surrender our talents and our intelligence. We surrender our abilities. We surrender all that we have and all that we are.

May everything that we have been through—all of our success and all of our failures, everything—be used in such a way that what we have learned, where we have come, might make us ever-better vehicles for the extension of your light, of your peace, and of your power.

And so it is. Together, we all say, “Amen.”

TS: Amen. Amen. Thank you so much.

I’ve been speaking with Marianne Williamson. With Sounds True, she’s collaborated with author and spiritual teacher Andrew Harvey to create a six-session audio learning series called Love’s Manifesto: The Courage to Let Your Heart Lead the Way. She’ll also be speaking at an upcoming event called “Living a Life of Presence.” It’s a four-day conference to benefit the Eckhart Tolle Foundation, and she’ll be talking about this idea of bringing our life of presence into the social and political arena. This is conference that takes place in Huntington Beach, California, [on] September 29 to October 2. More information on both the audio series and the event at SoundsTrue.com.

Again, Marianne, thank you so much for being on Insights at the Edge. Thank you.

MW: Thank you, Tami.

TS: Thank you. Thanks for all your courage, for all your great work, and for your truth-telling.

MW: Oh, I thank you honey.

TS: SoundsTrue.com. Many voices, one journey. Thanks for listening.

>
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap