Webster defines “seem” as “to present the appearance of being” or “to be only in appearance but not reality”. Everything here seems, and nothing here is as it seems. The ego seems. Forgiveness seems. Even our favorite blue book seems. Remember, everything we perceive has the purpose that we give it. It neither is reality nor points to reality. It merely reflects our will.
“Seem” is the difference between freedom and prison. As we walk along our path, we often begin to recognize the illusory nature of the world, our perceptions, and even time and space. This is often useful freeing us from pain and unhappiness, and it is also often terrifying imprisoning us to a dream of attack and guilt. Like everything else in our experience, the power of decision is ours – heaven or hell, forgiveness or attack, crucifixion or redemption – and how easily we can make one seem like the other.
“Seem” is the power that turns the heavy burden of guilt into the freedom of forgiveness. “Seem” is the change of purpose that turns attack into a call for help, a call for Love. “Seem” is the reminder that truth can have no opposite - that a little bit of falsity is impossible if truth is true. “Seem” is the teacher that demonstrates that not only is the dream not what we think it is but even the motivation behind the dream is impossible. “Seem” is the peace that surrenders form to changed content. “Seem” is a door taking us beyond itself.
Spend some time with “seem” today. It will seem to take you home; it will remind you that you never left.
Showing posts with label content/form. Show all posts
Showing posts with label content/form. Show all posts
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Why didn't I think of that?!
Another one of my favorite teachers sprung an analogy on me this week that I hadn’t considered. And of course, as a practicing fisherman, I couldn’t believe that it had never occurred to me! I love it.
We were discussing what the experience of changed mind (forgiveness) was like. He was describing how he saw the symbols – the people, actions, etc. – that used to cause him pain, fear, irritation, etc. He said that he still saw these symbols during his day but that the hook didn’t set as often anymore. Brilliant.
For those of you who aren’t of the cult of casting and reeling, setting the hook is the act one initiates when a fish takes the bait. If you don’t set the hook, the bait is just spit out or is pulled free as you try to reel in the fish.
Remember, forgiveness doesn’t remove or change the form that you see; forgiveness transforms the meaning, the purpose, of the form. You may still recognize the “hooks” that used to reel you in to depression, panic, jealousy, anger, etc., but they don’t set. Why? Because you no longer are willing to give them the power of your mind. You are the fishermen, perhaps the fisher of men, and you are also the fish. You get to decide the purpose of the hook. Does it bring you pain, suffering, and sadness, or does it reconnect you to yourself. Symbol’s the same; the content has changed. As goes the content, so goes your experience.
Reel in your Self today.
We were discussing what the experience of changed mind (forgiveness) was like. He was describing how he saw the symbols – the people, actions, etc. – that used to cause him pain, fear, irritation, etc. He said that he still saw these symbols during his day but that the hook didn’t set as often anymore. Brilliant.
For those of you who aren’t of the cult of casting and reeling, setting the hook is the act one initiates when a fish takes the bait. If you don’t set the hook, the bait is just spit out or is pulled free as you try to reel in the fish.
Remember, forgiveness doesn’t remove or change the form that you see; forgiveness transforms the meaning, the purpose, of the form. You may still recognize the “hooks” that used to reel you in to depression, panic, jealousy, anger, etc., but they don’t set. Why? Because you no longer are willing to give them the power of your mind. You are the fishermen, perhaps the fisher of men, and you are also the fish. You get to decide the purpose of the hook. Does it bring you pain, suffering, and sadness, or does it reconnect you to yourself. Symbol’s the same; the content has changed. As goes the content, so goes your experience.
Reel in your Self today.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Tofu or not tofu? That is the question!
Ever had hot dog tofu? Me either. Who knew it even existed? I mean, wow. Little did I expect the lesson that it conceals.
Recently, our good friend Bob shared how working with ACIM has been leading him to see the sameness of all of our problems and the sameness of his personal daily experiences. He has started seeing beyond varying forms to the singular content behind them all. It was a moving description. Then, he hit us with it….tofu. Bob turned bean curd into an unforgettable lesson in forgiveness. For this, we clearly owe our gratitude.
You see, it seems that tofu is not our Father’s tofu anymore. Some of us crazy kids have taken it to new levels. Apparently, there are flavors of tofu for every occasion and need….or seeming need. There are all manners of fruit flavors, meat flavors, and of course, the old standby - stinky tofu. There’s spicy Thai flavored tofu, portabella ham, spinach jalapeño, and shitake garlic flavored tofu. And yes, even hot dog tofu. As Bob so passionately exclaimed, “But it is all still tofu!”
Indeed it is. And such is the world. Nothing here is as it seems. Everything here is a cover, an interpretation, and interpretation is never reality. We are so lost in our myriad flavors that we’re no longer aware of their source. As such, we never respond to anything directly. We respond to what we think it is, and we justify our response based on something other than reality. We eat the hot dog flavored tofu and believe it is a hot dog.
Our judgment of each other is the means by which we keep this unreality in our awareness. We never see each other as we are, but rather as we need each other to be. We need each other to be the myriad flavors when in reality, the flavors are but a mask pulled over who we really are. We gladly don the masks terrified by what they obscure.
When we identify with our little buddy, the ego, (and we all do), we spend most every hour of every day analyzing our own distorted perceptions (the masks) in an attempt to demonstrate that we understand what we see, hear, and experience, never realizing that we are analyzing nothing but a flimsy veil, a trick-or-treaters masquerade .
T.12.I.3.3-5 Every loving thought is true (read: tofu). Everything else (read: flavors) is an appeal for healing and help, regardless of the form it takes. Can anyone be justified in responding with anger to a brother’s plea for help?
Our call is but to recognize the flavors as what they are - our brother’s plea to remind him that he isn’t a hot dog. He, too, is tofu, just like you.
I gotta go eat.
Recently, our good friend Bob shared how working with ACIM has been leading him to see the sameness of all of our problems and the sameness of his personal daily experiences. He has started seeing beyond varying forms to the singular content behind them all. It was a moving description. Then, he hit us with it….tofu. Bob turned bean curd into an unforgettable lesson in forgiveness. For this, we clearly owe our gratitude.
You see, it seems that tofu is not our Father’s tofu anymore. Some of us crazy kids have taken it to new levels. Apparently, there are flavors of tofu for every occasion and need….or seeming need. There are all manners of fruit flavors, meat flavors, and of course, the old standby - stinky tofu. There’s spicy Thai flavored tofu, portabella ham, spinach jalapeño, and shitake garlic flavored tofu. And yes, even hot dog tofu. As Bob so passionately exclaimed, “But it is all still tofu!”
Indeed it is. And such is the world. Nothing here is as it seems. Everything here is a cover, an interpretation, and interpretation is never reality. We are so lost in our myriad flavors that we’re no longer aware of their source. As such, we never respond to anything directly. We respond to what we think it is, and we justify our response based on something other than reality. We eat the hot dog flavored tofu and believe it is a hot dog.
Our judgment of each other is the means by which we keep this unreality in our awareness. We never see each other as we are, but rather as we need each other to be. We need each other to be the myriad flavors when in reality, the flavors are but a mask pulled over who we really are. We gladly don the masks terrified by what they obscure.
When we identify with our little buddy, the ego, (and we all do), we spend most every hour of every day analyzing our own distorted perceptions (the masks) in an attempt to demonstrate that we understand what we see, hear, and experience, never realizing that we are analyzing nothing but a flimsy veil, a trick-or-treaters masquerade .
T.12.I.3.3-5 Every loving thought is true (read: tofu). Everything else (read: flavors) is an appeal for healing and help, regardless of the form it takes. Can anyone be justified in responding with anger to a brother’s plea for help?
Our call is but to recognize the flavors as what they are - our brother’s plea to remind him that he isn’t a hot dog. He, too, is tofu, just like you.
I gotta go eat.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The Problem with Teachers
We are all teaching – all of the time. Every minute of every hour of every day, we are teaching ourselves who we are. We are teaching ourselves that separation is real and wholeness is not, or we are teaching ourselves that Love is real and specialness is merely a crazy dream. The problem with teachers is that sometimes we forget.
Sometimes we get so caught up in the drama of our daily lives or the roles that we play, that we forget what is really going on here. Sometimes we think we’re teaching history or algebra. Sometimes we think we’re teaching joy or love. Sometimes we even think we are teaching A Course in Miracles! Oh certainly, in form we are teaching these things, but underneath, we are reinforcing a decision, the decision of identity. (And don’t be fooled into thinking that the one teaching history is doing anything different from the one teaching the blue book. They have the same purpose in the crazy dream, and they have the same purpose when released from the crazy dream.)
We teach what we most need to learn. The problem is that so often we are mistaken about what we are actually teaching - especially those of us who seem to be teaching spirituality and love. We teach what we most need to learn, because teaching and learning are the same. If Love is wholeness and oneness is our reality, we are both the teacher and the learner. Yes, it seems different in form. As is always the case, “seems” is the operative word. We are indeed but teaching ourselves.
Now, in the practical world of form, teaching and learning have some pitfalls, as one of my favorite and funky teachers recently pointed out. Here, in the world, these concepts seem like opposites. They seem like opposites, because here depends on opposites – or at least some fairly significant shades of gray. What we must remember, is that we make the decision for these differences. We always set the curriculum first, and then we use the world to prove our case believing that it is the world that is showing us what it is rather than us telling the world what it is. The form may indeed seem funky, but we choose what it means. We always choose the content.
If we believe we can teach something other than Love (and we all do), then we must believe that there is something other than Love. With that firmly established in our mind, we find opportunities that prove that we are great teachers of truth and light from time to time, and then we find equal opportunities that teach us that we have failed. We look upon a world that doesn’t “get it” and wish that it did, or we feel the guilt of our own failed lessons. Neither suits you, teacher. Let go of the judgment that creates the sense of obligation to do or say the “right” thing. We don’t know what love looks like. How could we with eyes that were made to stop at form? Teachers trust. Teachers recognize that removing the log of judgment from our own eyes is all that is required. There is no pressure to say or do the right thing. That vanishes in an instant of will when we recognize where the problem is and where it isn’t.
Teaching Love really means undoing (forgiving) all of the obstacles (guilt) that we have erected to keep Love away. Teaching Love means demonstrating that we are the same. We are the same in the insanity that imagines that teachers have something that students lack, and we are the same in the solution that reminds that teachers and students are one in purpose. Forgiveness is the process that undoes the former and makes way for the latter. So, thank you for being my teacher. Thank you for being my student. And thank you for forgiving me the judgment that would have them be different.
Sometimes we get so caught up in the drama of our daily lives or the roles that we play, that we forget what is really going on here. Sometimes we think we’re teaching history or algebra. Sometimes we think we’re teaching joy or love. Sometimes we even think we are teaching A Course in Miracles! Oh certainly, in form we are teaching these things, but underneath, we are reinforcing a decision, the decision of identity. (And don’t be fooled into thinking that the one teaching history is doing anything different from the one teaching the blue book. They have the same purpose in the crazy dream, and they have the same purpose when released from the crazy dream.)
We teach what we most need to learn. The problem is that so often we are mistaken about what we are actually teaching - especially those of us who seem to be teaching spirituality and love. We teach what we most need to learn, because teaching and learning are the same. If Love is wholeness and oneness is our reality, we are both the teacher and the learner. Yes, it seems different in form. As is always the case, “seems” is the operative word. We are indeed but teaching ourselves.
Now, in the practical world of form, teaching and learning have some pitfalls, as one of my favorite and funky teachers recently pointed out. Here, in the world, these concepts seem like opposites. They seem like opposites, because here depends on opposites – or at least some fairly significant shades of gray. What we must remember, is that we make the decision for these differences. We always set the curriculum first, and then we use the world to prove our case believing that it is the world that is showing us what it is rather than us telling the world what it is. The form may indeed seem funky, but we choose what it means. We always choose the content.
If we believe we can teach something other than Love (and we all do), then we must believe that there is something other than Love. With that firmly established in our mind, we find opportunities that prove that we are great teachers of truth and light from time to time, and then we find equal opportunities that teach us that we have failed. We look upon a world that doesn’t “get it” and wish that it did, or we feel the guilt of our own failed lessons. Neither suits you, teacher. Let go of the judgment that creates the sense of obligation to do or say the “right” thing. We don’t know what love looks like. How could we with eyes that were made to stop at form? Teachers trust. Teachers recognize that removing the log of judgment from our own eyes is all that is required. There is no pressure to say or do the right thing. That vanishes in an instant of will when we recognize where the problem is and where it isn’t.
Teaching Love really means undoing (forgiving) all of the obstacles (guilt) that we have erected to keep Love away. Teaching Love means demonstrating that we are the same. We are the same in the insanity that imagines that teachers have something that students lack, and we are the same in the solution that reminds that teachers and students are one in purpose. Forgiveness is the process that undoes the former and makes way for the latter. So, thank you for being my teacher. Thank you for being my student. And thank you for forgiving me the judgment that would have them be different.
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?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
