Friday, January 30, 2009

Prerequisite for Part 4

Denial, Projection and Identification

Most of you have likely had some exposure to these three concepts, but for those of you who may not and happen to be following The Problem with Perception posts, this quick primer may be useful.

Denial is a term used in psychology referring to a largely unconscious defense mechanism employed to manage thoughts and events that are too painful or too frightening to handle consciously. Ostensibly, defense mechanisms such as denial protect our psychological well-being from trauma, anxiety, and conflict. Many of us are familiar with the concept of denial via the language of twelve-step programs. Denial is a key component of an addict’s ability to continue destructive behaviors even when confronted with the devastating consequences of those same behaviors. Psychologists typically refer to three general types of denial: simple denial in which we deny the reality of the traumatic event altogether, minimization in which we admit the reality of the trauma but deny the seriousness or the impact, transference in which we admit both the reality and seriousness of the trauma but deny responsibility. We utilize the last as the primary means by which we keep the root of our problems hidden and our attention focused solely on where it is not.

Another term borrowed from psychology, projection, is also a largely unconscious defense mechanism in which one’s undesirable characteristics, motives, or thoughts are attributed to other people or externals. An individual perceives in others the attributes denied in one’s self. The concept was developed initially by Freud, further refined by his daughter, and formed the basis of Jung’s concept of the “shadow.” Projection seemingly reduces pain and anxiety by attempting to give them away with no conscious awareness or responsibility. Think about the people at work who always seem to be complaining about the mistakes of others. Instead of dealing with the undesirability of their own mistakes, they unconsciously project their flaws onto others, seeing mistakes in everyone else. This example also elucidates a fundamental relationship between denial and projection. Those who project are unconsciously denying a part of themselves that they are unwilling to recognize. In an attempt to rid themselves of this undesirable part, they project it externally. The old adage “It takes one to know one” or the newer “You spot it you got it” describe this process succinctly. What we see within our mind determines what we think is outside our mind.

Identification is the opposite defense mechanism to projection. Identification is what’s left, the other side of the coin, perhaps the other edge of the sword. Identification is who I believe I am: “me.” Every second of every minute of every hour of every day, we are making judgments, decisions, and choices about who we are. If I’ve projected my undesirable characteristics, my guilt, my laziness, my anger, etc. onto the world, I’m often left to identify with their opposites in me. For example, you are the bad guy; I am the good guy. You are the lazy one; I am the hard worker. We identify with what we believe to be or want to be true about ourselves, and we project that which we find undesirable, painful, or fearful onto others. Now, note that sometimes what we want to be true about ourselves may appear to be undesirable to others, but the dynamic works the same. Identification, then, is a wish fulfilled of what I would have myself be. I split off from what I deny, and move toward what I wish to be.

Hope that will help. Part 4 will follow early next week.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Keys to the Kingdom

When was the last time you forgot something? Can’t remember? ;)

Think about what memories are. Memories are the link between the present moment and the past. Without the memory, the past is dead to us. With the memory, it is as if it were happening right now. Sometimes we can even smell or taste the experience. Amazing things our memories.

So what happens when we forget? Well, the memory doesn't go anywhere; we just aren't able to access it. We know this, and we’ve developed a few fairly universal solutions:

1) We stop. We stop trying so hard to remember. We go for a jog or do some chores. Our experience has shown us that often when we stop struggling, the memory pops right in there.

2) We leave reminders. We tie a string around our finger. (Anybody actually still do that?) We make a list. We set something out in an unusual spot, so that we can’t miss it.

3) We run through everything that we were doing or thinking until we are left with the thing we forgot. How many times have you retraced your steps to discover your missing car keys?

All of these solutions work equally well when it comes to our spiritual journey.

Our problem is that we’ve forgotten. That’s all. We’ve forgotten who we are. We’ve forgotten what Love is. We’ve forgotten that guilt cannot be justified. Sure, we’ve made some fine substitutions here, but none bring us lasting peace. None reflect our Truth.

The good news is that if we’ve merely forgotten, we need only restore what was already there! So, just as we use the aforementioned techniques to link us to the past, we can utilize them to link us to our Truth.

1) We stop. We stop trying so hard to be spiritual, to understand, to get it. Our trying often only serves to reinforce the lack. The ego loves it when we turn spirituality into a race, debate, mountain to climb or lesson to learn. When we do so, we always prove the ego’s point – that there is something out there to attain. There isn’t. We are what we seek, yet we do not know where to look. So, stop. Give up your judgment of where and how. Give up your need to be right about who and when. Give up your belief about the problem. Let Love remind you.

2) Leave reminders. How? Give up your purpose for what you see. Instead of every symbol screaming of its difference, its specialness, allow everything you encounter today to be the reminder of where the problem really is. Let every breath you take be the reminder that you’ve only forgotten Love; it isn’t gone. Let every person you meet sing to you of their truth beyond what your eyes and ears seem to perceive.

3) Be Michelangelo. We do not have to do anything to be what we are. (This is why ACIM is a course in undoing the negative rather than a course in understanding or attaining the positive.) We do, however, have to let go of the seeming blocks of granite that we’ve placed between us and our Truth, between us and Love. Michelangelo often spoke of the beauty within his block of stone believing his only responsibility was to “hew away the rough walls that imprison the lovely apparition” or “carve until I set him free”. If we will but hew away all of the rough walls of judgment that block our awareness of Love, Love will dawn upon our mind, because that is what it is. Just as we retrace and eliminate each step to find the keys to our car, we retrace and eliminate each judgment, each defense, leaving us with nothing but the "keys" to the Kingdom.

Monday, January 26, 2009

The Problem with Perception (Part 3 of 6)

Hats, Saws, and Ticket Stubs

Remember the magician that we mentioned in part 1, the one that sawed her assistant in half? As we all know, sometimes rabbits go down holes, but at magic shows, rabbits are pulled out of hats. Now in real life we might be intrigued if somebody pulled a rabbit from a hat. We might think “Oh, what a cute bunny” or “What the heck is that guy doing with a rabbit in his hat?”, but pulling a bunny rabbit from a hat is a relatively innocuous event. If we actually witnessed somebody being sawed in half, however, we would be horrified, terrified, and disturbed. What’s the difference between our real life situation and the magic show? The difference is that at the magic show we recognize that an illusion is an illusion. What we perceive is not what our body’s eyes tell us it is. There is no difference between these tricks at the magic show, because they share the same content, i.e. they are both unreal. A decision was made right up front, probably when we saw the word “magic show” on our ticket stub, that nothing we were about to see would have any real effect. In the real life example there was no such notice, and we were quickly able to judge the bunny in the hat as harmless and the murder of the assistant as horrifying.

So, where are we going with this? Yep, we’re headed to our biggest rabbit hole so far. We have been taught that an illusion is an illusion, period. It is not what it seems to be. Something is either an illusion or it is real. There is no compromise. Seems pretty clear on paper. As I’m sure you’ve already recognized, our everyday life isn’t quite so easily categorized. Most of us are relatively comfortable with the idea that what we perceive is illusory, because it changes or because it is an interpretation. None of us are comfortable with the idea that pulling a rabbit from a hat and sawing a person in half are the same in this “reality,” even if they are both illusions. We are much more comfortable with a hierarchy of illusions, in which we place different values, different interpretations and different meanings on different illusions. For us, all illusions are not created equally; they are definitely not the same.

Go as far down that rabbit hole as you are willing. Are the magic tricks the same? Is a rock the same as a flower? Is a picture of an apple the same as the word “apple?” Is a cold the same as cancer? Is Mother Theresa the same as Osama bin Laden? Are spiritual people the same as the non-spiritual people? Are the Baptists the same as the Buddhists? What about the Bible and A Course in Miracles? The child and the child molester? I’m going to go way out on a limb here and say that if you are reading this post, these things are not the same for you. Just be aware. Be aware of your hierarchy of illusions. We all have one. Sure, the lines blur, our judgments change, but we all have one.

So, can we identify any characteristic which would make all of these seemingly different ideas the same? Well, we can identify one fairly readily: they are all different. Each one of these symbols at its most basic level tells us that it is different from the other symbols. Of course, we add layer upon layer to our symbols, but again, at their most basic level, the content of each of these says, “I’m different. I’m separate. I’m not like everything else.” We can argue about how different and jump right back into our “hierarchy of illusions,” but consider that at their most basic level these symbols all say, “I’m not like the others.”

Mindful perception recognizes that even though people, places, things, times, etc. are illusory and should be the same, they are not the same to us. We value the differences, and those differences are of utmost importance here. They are the things that keep the mutilated lady from being treated like a rabbit in a hat. So, everything here is different in form, but the primary content, the primary purpose, is to first establish the differences. Perception is the seemng witness to these differences. It is then our interpretation of the symbol, our interpretation of the differences, that determines how we feel about it, react to it, etc. There is no objective reality here. This is an extraordinarily important awareness, and we haven’t even made it to part 4 yet…

Friday, January 23, 2009

An Extra Point for Missouri

The Course speaks of our “little willingness” as the one requirement for peace of mind. As we have all experienced, “little” isn’t always so little. On the heels of yesterday’s post, I was reminded of a great little story about an Indian mystic and his approach to the subject.

How willing are you?

One morning a frustrated student approached his teacher, “You’ve said that my willingness was the only obstacle between me and enlightenment. Teacher, I’m willing, yet I don’t feel enlightened. How willing must I be?” The master simply requested that the student meet him at the river the following morning. Nothing else was said. The student, of course, had no idea what was to come, but he expected some sort of advanced dunking, washing, or maybe a bath. He’d always heard that cleanliness was next to godliness.

The next morning, without a word, the master motioned the student into the river. Placing his hands upon his head, he slowly guided the student under the calm waters. Fifteen seconds passed, and the master held firm. The student’s mind was filled with questions. What the heck was this all about? Why am I in the river? Why did I have to get up so early? Thirty seconds passed. The student began to wonder what the point was. He tried to remain calm and open to the experience, but he wanted a breath. He searched his oxygen-deprived brain for meaning.

After a minute, the student began to struggle violently for the surface. The master held firm, forcing the student deeper into the river’s lesson. At this point, the student began to panic. He could think of nothing but getting his next gasp of air. His mind became solely focused. The master let go. Upon surfacing, the student heard the master’s voice, “That willing.”


You will remember everything the instant you desire it wholly... (T.10.I.4:1)

Thursday, January 22, 2009

The Problem with Missouri

“I’m Missouri”, exclaimed one of my favorite teachers, “I’m Missouri”! I knew what he meant. I grew up in the Midwest, and the “show me” state was an old friend of mine. What my friend was saying was, “When will I get it?” Show me. That’s a question we all ask at some point on our journey. In my experience, it usually slips out right before a significant shift, so let’s share my friend’s epiphany.

The problem with Missouri is the definition of “me”. Same for the rest of us. My friend did what we all do when we read A Course in Miracles or embark on any spiritual path. In the beginning, we think the “you” on the journey is the one we see in the mirror every day, the body. The body, which includes the brain, will never “get it”. It can’t. The body is a defense against getting it, because the body’s purpose is to continually reinforce that it is you – over and over and over and over – every second of every minute of every day. This hamster wheel of insanity is the foundation of the ego’s thought system, the thought system of differences, separation, and pain.

The ego can’t ask a meaningful question. The question, “When will I get it?”, isn’t a question at all but rather a statement in the form of a question. The statement is that this is me, separate and distinct, and I don’t get it. Neither is true. Both seem to be true. But neither is true.

We can’t understand the content of A Course in Miracles or any other path to Love from within the dream meant to keep it out. Einstein observed that the significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them. In this context, I can’t “get it” from here. My friend asked if I got it or if Wapnick got it. “Show me!”, he said. I reminded him that no body gets it. Bodies don’t “get”. Bodies don’t understand. Bodies do what they are told.

The Manual for Teachers (one of three sections in ACIM) asks, “How many teachers of God are needed to save the world?” The answer is one. Getting it means that we identify with the one dreamer of the dream and not one of billions and billions of figures (bodies) within the dream. Getting it means that we recognize that Wapnick getting it and my friend not getting doesn’t make any sense. How could wholeness not include both?

“So when will I get it?” An excellent question, because the answer leads us ever closer to home. I will get it when I am willing to give up my definition of me. I will get it when I am willing to let go of my purpose for the world. I will get it when I no longer wish to sleep. And all that is required is my will.

What do you want?

Monday, January 19, 2009

The Problem with Perception (Part 2 of 6)

Apples, Flowers, and Rocks

If I were to ask you right now what your problem is, most likely you would tell me, and you would use words to do it. The words in and of themselves are not the problem. They’re symbols, nothing more and nothing less. As symbols they are the means by which you attempt to share an idea. Communication is sharing. Effective communication is the joining of minds. It is the sharing beyond the symbol that unites minds in one thought. The problem lies in the link, the connection, between minds. When you share your problem with me, what is shared is dependent on the definition of the words in your mind, the definition of the words in my mind and whatever commonality may exist between the two. It isn’t exact. In fact, it is quite faulty. (Ask any lawyer or politician.) Not only are the words symbols but the ideas that they represent are symbols. The sounds of the letters that make the word “bird” are not a bird. Neither the idea of the bird in your mind nor the idea of the bird in my mind is the bird. The bird is at least twice removed from the symbol leaving plenty of room for error. Communication, as we experience it, is problematic right from the get-go.

Just as words are symbols, so are the things, concepts, and actions that they symbolize. Think of an apple. The image is a symbol. It carries with it all that you think about apples, the texture, taste, color, etc. It carries all of the experiences that you’ve had with an apple, the cool crisp ones, the mushy bland ones, the sour green ones, etc. I like apples. My mom liked apples. Adam ate from the apple. We could go on and on. In fact, symbols carry an infinite amount of information. How so? Think about what the apple is not. Every symbol carries that information as well.

Now think about a beautiful still life painting of an apple. Any difference? Again, this is a symbol, and all of the same thoughts apply. Think of a child’s drawing of an apple. Is it any less a symbol, because some of us may not recognize it as an apple? Is your thought of the child’s painting any different from an actual child’s painting? As a symbol of an apple, no. If a symbol says “apple” to the perceiver, that’s what it is. A symbol is a symbol, nothing more and nothing less. We decide the meaning. The meaning is the content of the symbol. This is what it represents to us, what its purpose is in our mind.

Now, think about a beautiful bouquet of flowers. Each of us will likely picture a different form. Some will imagine roses, while others will imagine tulips or a mixed spring bouquet. For many, the content of this symbol is romance, a gesture of thanks, etc. I have a girlfriend for whom the symbol carries a very different content. While married, her husband would bring her flowers after he cheated on her or abused her in some way. She really dislikes flowers. Same symbol; different content. She happens to like rocks, so a gesture of romance or thanks for her might be a cool piece of petrified wood or a fossil of some sort.

So, how do we determine what these symbols mean? Well, to start with, we always rely on the past. My girlfriend’s relationship with flowers depends solely on what happened in the past. For that matter, so does everybody else’s relationship with flowers. We know that flowers are beautiful or special, because we’ve learned these things in the past. The majority of our lives is spent analyzing and categorizing symbol after symbol after symbol. We reinforce these symbols every time we use them, adding layer upon layer upon layer.

Now, try to imagine for a moment that you can’t rely on your past learning to inform this present moment. Close your eyes for a second. When you open them, imagine that you have no idea what anything you see is or means. None of it. Everything is new. How does that feel? Frightening? Peaceful? Powerful? How would my friend react to a flower now? Do you think she would believe it beautiful? How would she know? If she couldn’t rely on her past learning, would she even know if a flower was beautiful or repulsive? Spend a little time today in that rabbit hole.

We can’t depend on the body’s eyes to tell us what we see. The body’s eyes always stop at form. It is the mind that decides what they see, and the mind’s judgment is always based on the past. Everything we perceive is a symbol with a meaning that we decide, a form with a content of our choosing. There isn’t a thing, concept, experience, etc. that isn’t a symbol of a thought in our mind. Mindful perception is the awareness that we supply content. We give purpose. Now, we’re playing with real power.

Friday, January 16, 2009

The Problem with Perception (Part 1 of 6)

Every problem in your life, every one, is a perception problem. Think about this for a minute. Think about the problems that confronted you today. Think about your health, bank account, relationships, work, laundry, or drive home. Whatever it is, how do you know you have it? The answer, of course, is simple. We see the pile of work on our desk. We feel the pain in our stomach. We hear the creditor’s phone call. We smell the motor burning up in our car. From this perspective, perception’s link to our problems is relatively clear. Perception is the medium of our problems, the medium of all experience. We’ll start there.

Webster defines perception as “the faculty by which man holds communication with the external world or takes cognizance of objects outside the mind.” Ostensibly, our senses, the seeming agents of our perception, bring data to the brain in the form of light waves, sound waves, nerve impulses, etc. As many of us know, or have heard, the brain then filters out most of what it deems unimportant, and we perceive what we unconsciously “think” is important. This is helpful, since interpreting some 400 billion bits of information per second is a little cumbersome when driving down the road!

Not only are we not seeing the whole of reality, but we all see what we see differently. Many of us have been in a psychology class or a criminology class during which an individual enters the room, usually in a hooded garment, accosts the professor, and takes his or her wallet or purse. Nobody in the class knows that it is a set-up except for the professor, who then asks the class to describe the perp. Inevitably, there are almost as many descriptions of the intruder and what happened as there are students in the class. Some say male; some say female. Some say he had a gun; some say she had a stapler. Some say the hoodie was black; some say the intruder was wearing a hat! Perception is faulty. It is not exact. It is never reality.

Science echoes the same. Nothing is as it seems. First, we recognize ourselves with our basic senses. We see our reflection in the mirror. We feel our legs, our arms, or our fingers. Quickly, science shows us that there is more to the story than meets the eye, as we discover that we are actually made up of countless cells, which we quickly realize are made up of an ever- enlarging number of smaller units, molecules, atoms, etc. Quantum physics comes along and says that when we look closer still, the distinction between our body and the chair upon which we sit begins to blur. Closer still, and there is nothing but infinite space, infinite possibilities. Similarly, what we experience evolves as our perceiving devices evolve. In the not-so-distant past, x-rays, ultrasound, and DNA didn’t exist for us, because we didn’t have the ability to perceive them. Were they there prior? Where does the image rendered by x-rays exist? Where is the sound which we label “ultra”? All of which may beg the age-old question, “If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?” Simply: of course not. Sound depends on a perceiver. Sound, like all perception, is an interpretation of the brain, which is designed to receive the sound waves, transform them into a mental image, and give that image a name. Without the interpretation device, there is no sound. How could there be? Where would it be? A rabbit hole? Depends on if you perceive one.

Perception, then, is simply what we think we see, hear, feel, smell, or taste. Again, perception is never the whole picture; it is an interpretation of reality, a substitute for reality. Lau Tzu once opined, “That is real which never changes.” Perception depends on change. There must be a subject observing or experiencing an object or sensation that is different or changed in time, space, or even memory. Everything we perceive will change. Was it real before it changed? Is it real now? Perceptions are unreal, because they change.

So, if perception isn’t reality, then what is it? If something isn’t reality, by definition, it has to be an illusion. Illusions seem real, but they aren’t. When a magician saws her assistant in half, it seems real, but we know it isn’t. Perception is an illusion of reality based on our own interpretation of sensory data filtered through the lens of our own awareness. In other words, none of us look at the same situation or the same thing in exactly the same way. We all bring our own past experiences, thoughts, and beliefs to the table thus altering “reality” to fit our own understanding of what we have seen, heard, etc. Therefore, what I hear you say, or see you do, cannot help but be influenced by my own notions of the words that you have used, the tone in your voice, past experience, etc. There is no objective reality here. Whatever I see, it is I who determine what it means. Whatever I hear, it is I who determine what it is I’ve heard. Sure, we may collectively agree on some things, but I still choose. What we begin to realize as we bounce further down our current rabbit hole is that everything we perceive is actually a symbol for our own belief, our own thoughts, and our own awareness. Our belief then, actually determines what we perceive. Stay with me here. Since perception is the medium of our experience, and what we perceive is really our choice, it is only a bunny hop at most to conclude that what we experience is but our choice. What we experience is our choice. Read the last sentence one more time. Ponder it. Let it sink in. Depending on how far you are willing to go, there will likely be some pain, some resistance. It will pass.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Dave v. God (The ultimate smackdown)

The problem with Dave (insert your name here) is that he thinks today’s post title has meaning.

We all do. Dave’s will and God’s will are definitely not the same. We have all identified with the effect of a thought system based on specialness, individuality, separation, etc. instead of the cause. This seeming effect (the world, the body, etc.) is at odds (read: in competition) with a thought system based on wholeness, oneness, unity, etc. We choose between two mutually exclusive interpretations of the world. Separation can’t exist with wholeness. The purpose of this world, and therefore Dave, is as defense against (in competition with) wholeness (God). Note: Substitute whatever word works for you when I reference God: Source, Love, Heaven, Reality, etc.

So, that being said, I was reminded by a friend’s recent post that everything here reflects this tiny mad idea of competition described above – even single parents compete. Of course they do. Everything here does, because here is the result of competition! Remember the fulcrum of judgment? Judgment demands competition.

Think about your day. Is there anything in your experience that isn’t competing with something? We compete for jobs. We compete for love. Competition drives the price we pay at the pump, at the grocery, on the battle field. Survival of the fittest decides which species persists, which team wins, and the temperature in the car on a road trip with your spouse. Today competes with tomorrow. Here competes with there. Even your body competes with the empty space that it displaces. Nothing is immune. As we discussed in the last post, even Oprah competes with her own weight as she passionately exclaims that she doesn’t want to let the fat win!

Like everything else in our experience, the appropriate question to ask is, “What is this for?” In this world, competition witnesses our differences and reinforces our judgment, plain and simple. ACIM explains that we’ve chosen grandiosity (the result of competition) over grandeur (our inheritance). Unsatisfied with wholeness (grandeur), we’ve identified with (read: substituted) separateness (grandiosity). Grandiosity is our attempt to counteract our littleness (read: not wholeness) based on the belief that the littleness (Dave, you, etc.) is real. Does this mean we shouldn’t compete? No, not at all. Again, we can’t be here and not be in competition with something. Our goal is a changed purpose for the competition.

Quick note on “grandiosity”: Grandiosity comes in all forms. When we typically think of “grandiosity”, we think of an over-the-top expression of success, wealth, health, etc. We usually imagine a person living in the mansion on the hill and driving the bright red Ferrari. Don’t stop there. Everything here is grandiose. I could be the poorest person, the sickest person, or the biggest loser. I could be the most balanced person, most normal person, or the most non-grandiose person. The point is that we stand apart from the rest. Doesn’t matter where we fall on the grandiosity continuum (see-saw of judgment), it’s still grandiosity. It is still the result of competition and a belief in (a need for) separate interests.

So, where does that leave us? Well, the good news is that every second and every minute of every day gives us the opportunity to choose again, to choose against grandiosity and remember our grandeur, to use competition as the reminder of where the real competition is. The real competition is for our interpretation of the world. Salvation is the recognition of the choice. Which thought system do we choose? Do we reinforce and justify the grandiosity of our perceived separation or do we use the differences to reflect the sameness of shifted purpose?

PS - Recognizing our grandeur - our unity with God, Love, Source, each other - doesn’t mean that we are God (much to the dismay of many ACIM critics). To the contrary, it means that we are no longer willing to usurp his role by identifying with what we are not.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Thank you, Oprah, for being our teacher. (Where is the balance?)

I spent an hour with one of my favorite teachers this week. Well, actually it was more like 40 minutes thanks to Tivo. This was “Best Life Week” for Oprah, and a couple of episodes caught my attention.

Oprah is one of my favorite teachers for a couple of reasons: 1) She is a perpetual student, seemingly always interested in growth, understanding, and ultimately peace of mind, and she consistently challenges us to see things differently and share her journey. 2) Oprah has become one of our enduring symbols of success, yet she willingly demonstrates that she still struggles with the same seeming problems, and therefore core problem, that we all do. That’s helpful.

On last Tuesday’s show, Oprah talked about her ongoing struggle with weight. For our purposes, insert your own problem, whatever it is today, for “weight". In an amazingly open and sincere effort to conquer this “problem”, Oprah took the first step that all of us have to take. We have to simply be willing to give up the way that we’ve been looking at our seeming problem. After some fairly intense looking and consultation with Marianne Williamson and trainer Bob, Oprah recognized that what she was hungry for wasn’t food but love. Awesome. That’s the second step. Here’s where most of us struggle. What does that mean, and what’s next? For Oprah, it meant coming to the conclusion that the problem was balance. She spends so much time giving and living for others that she was ignoring herself, so she’s put herself back on the list scheduling work-out times, manicures, etc. That should indeed help….at least for a while.

So the points I’d like for us to ponder today are these:

1) We all must be vigilant against problem substitution. Because we believe the problem is here (in the world), we also believe the solution is as well. We are all very adept at giving up on yesterday’s solution (because it didn’t work) and substituting a new solution (thus seemingly shifting the problem). In Oprah’s case, we see the shift from “I want to be thin” to “I want to be healthy” – from diet and exercise to balance. Now, don’t hear me say that these things shouldn’t be pursued. If I’m heavy and I want to be thinner, there are typically things that I can do in form to change that. What I am suggesting is that we remember that not only is the weight not the problem but also that the seeming solution isn’t the new problem. We still take care of these things, because we believe that we’re here. But we also start to use them in a new way. We start to recognize that these seeming problems and seeming solutions are pointers to (reminders of) where the problem really is.

2) What is balance? From the perspective of the world, “balance” is the equalizing of competing or separate interests. Again, in Oprah’s example, she is trying to balance giving to the world with giving to herself. Certainly makes sense here. “Here” is all about this definition of balance. Everything “here” must be balanced. We balance sleep with waking. We balance the amount of food it takes to efficiently run our bodies with not enough food or too much food. We balance the amount of air we take into our lungs. We balance our relationships, our work, time with friends, speed going down the road, our bank accounts – all of it. Why? The world rests on a fulcrum of judgment. That’s what the world is. Think of the world as a see-saw. The see-saw’s purpose isn’t balance. It is set up to teeter one way or another. If I start spending more time on me, I’m spending less time on you. Eventually, the teeter totters, and I have to start spending more time with you. It’s the same for every seeming problem.

So, what’s the alternative? Using Oprah's example, until we remember that loving somebody else is loving ourselves (and vice versa), we’ll ride the see-saw of insanity back and forth loving somebody for a while then taking time to love ourselves for a while. We’ll never be balanced, because we’ll always be in flux, on one side of the fulcrum or the other. “Balance” really means equalizing. We can’t do that here. Yes, we all try, every minute of every day. We all try to figure out our own personal formula for balancing the world and achieving peace of mind, yet we can never really find it here. “Here” is always tipped one way or the other. Lasting balance will never be the result of manipulating “here” (form), because "here" always changes. Balance is the result of the changed purpose of “here” (content). Remember, the world is an outside picture of an inward condition. If we want to change the world, we must change our mind about the world – again, what that means is that we change the purpose of the world.

Balance is a decision, plain and simple. It’s the decision to give up our judgment, which really means that we don’t take our judgment so seriously (Remember, we look at our judgment without judgment). Again, it is our judgment that tells us where on the see-saw our experience is. (Is it up? Is it down? Is it left? Is it right?) When we change the purpose of the see-saw, we’ve changed our experience of it. Instead of the see-saw seemingly telling us what balance is or where balance is, we bring balance to the see-saw. The see-saw may not change, but instead of reinforcing our sub-conscious, out-of-balance decision, it now serves the purpose of reminding us that we made the decision. Now, that's helpful.

Instead of finding ourselves on the left or the right side of the see-saw and trying to figure out how to fix it, these two seemingly different forms (more of this or less of that) now serve to reflect the balance that we’ve chosen, the goal that we've set, because they share the same purpose. They’ve been equalized in content. They no longer serve the differences that our judgment demands. They now serve the sameness that undoing our judgment bestows. Now, they balance, no matter where on the see-saw they appear to be.

Again, we bring our balance to the situation or circumstance. When we bring our balance to the time-for-you/time-for-me question, we recognize that they are the same, which has the added benefit of removing the guilt from both. I can’t love you and not love me. I can’t love me and not love you. Now, we’re balanced. Now, the purpose of whatever we do is the same, and the world’s purpose is clear. Now, we know where the balance is.

PS I’m not in any way suggesting that Oprah’s quest for balance is or isn’t the result of what we’ve just discussed. There is no way to know by looking at behavior (form). What I am suggesting is that if abiding peace isn’t the result, she (we) may choose to look at what we think the problem is once again.

PPS Thank you, Oprah, for being our teacher.

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Thanks for being my juror

To judge or not to judge, is that the question? Sure seemed to be earlier this week at the County Criminal Courthouse. What started as a less-than-heartening day of civic responsibility ended a profound pointer, a reminder, back to purpose.

Yes, I had been summoned for jury duty. I made it as far as I’ve ever made it. You see, I’ve never actually been on a jury, but I have made it to the voir dire phase several times. Perhaps being relatively liberal in a relatively conservative state has something to do with my failure to reach the box; I don’t know. In any event, the prosecution and the defense asked the usual questions, the ones conceived to cull the herd.

The typical pattern of extremes began to emerge. Hoping to dodge service, many swung hard to the right, “No sir, I could not sentence a guilty person to probation, even if the law allowed it. If he is guilty, he deserves the maximum punishment.” Others swung hard to the left, “No sir, I could not stand in judgment of another human being. That is not my place.” When asked if I could sit in judgment of another human being, I tried not to swing too hard either way, “No sir, I would not sit in judgment of another person, but I could judge a behavior in light of the law. I can separate the two.” My qualified answer seemed a bit lost on the defense council, but the process continued and eventually they sent me home….again.

So how do we reconcile the content of the Course with the task of determining a brother's guilt in a court of law? Well, turns out it is pretty easy when you stop to ask for help. The Course doesn’t ask us to give up our judgments, our special relationships; the Course merely asks us to look at them without judgment. Looking at our judgments without judgment is the essence of looking with the Holy Spirit. Being in our right mind is being in our wrong mind without judging it.

The practical reality is that I can’t be here and not judge. That’s what “here” is. Normal people can usually look at a set of facts and determine if those facts indicate an unlawful behavior. So can Course students. Being normal is imperative as we walk our path.

Believing that we can withdraw from judgment in this world merely reinforces our belief in it. Not making a decision is making a decision. Leaving that decision to somebody else is making a decision. Finding someone “guilty” of a crime does not mean that I witness the sin within them. To the contrary, we may find that we are merely limiting a brother’s ability to hurt him/herself or others. Could you not stop a child about to put his hand on a hot stove? Would you call it sin?

Please, don’t hear me say that the Course encourages us to sit on a jury. Do hear me say that the Course doesn’t tell us not to sit on one. Remember, this isn’t a course in behaviors. This is A Course in Miracles. Neither the seeming battleground of the courtroom nor the seeming battleground in our mind can keep us from shifted purpose unless we allow it.

That being said, wouldn’t you want you on your jury?