More on bypassing and the proper use of denial

"The ego equates:

Not agreeing with me = denial.

But correction is not denial.

It’s reinterpretation."

(ChatGPT)

"True denial is a very powerful protective device. You can and should deny any belief that error can hurt you. This kind of denial is NOT a concealment device, but a correction device. The "Right Mind" of the mentally healthy DEPENDS on it."

I wonder if, as egos, we are not really very accustomed to looking for a different interpretation. The ego's main and really only device is separation. We are very very conditioned to USE separation to make things go away.

The ego operates on a horizontal axis of go towards, or go away from (desire/fear, gain/loss etc). It does not know anything about staying where you are and going upwards, or finding a higher ground, or a broader perspective.

This movement of forgiveness which looks for another way to look at things, is not 'natural' in the egos functioning. Perhaps thats why we all get a bit lost in using spiritual things to bypass, because we tend to "shut things out" as a problem solving method - ie separate from it, deny it, hide it, attack it, to solve it.

We're not being asked to separate from the world and problems as such, we're being asked to reconsider what they mean, to realize that we've added meaning and judgement on top of them, and that this layer of meaning and judgement can be changed independently of the thing they're projected onto.

This really entails breaking out of the idea of sin. Because sin, as false perception, associates guilt with form, with objects, with bodies and places and things. It locks it in. And once it's locked in we are not accustomed to breaking out of that, we just think a given person is guilty or that the sinfulness is inherent to what happened. We don't realize there's two parts to it - the thing and the interpretation of the thing.

"What the world is, is but a fact. You cannot choose what this should be. But you can choose how you would see it. Indeed, you must choose this."

To forgive we do have to recognize there are two parts, the "what seemed to happen" and the "what I made of it". And then to realize we can in fact change the "what I make of it" and see it differently. And this doesn't necessarily have to entail a bypass, a denial, an ignoring or a shutting out, of the thing being reinterpreted.

I think perhaps we tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because having attached meaning to form we want to avoid or throw away the form in order to be relieved of its meaning. This is our mistake. This is how we bypass. We want to just get rid of the thing that we think is evil, instead of separating out the judgement of evil from the neutral thing.

The path of forgiving is a bit more subtle than our kneejerk reaction or out typical 'goto' for problem solving. It's a bit of a "twist" psychologically... to in a way 'keep and acknowledge' the feelings, the situation, the happenings, but alter the internal vantage point. We're not used to that "shifting" of perception. We tend to think perception if fixed (this is the idea of sin).

So the formula ends up being more like, keep looking at this but look at it differently ... rather than, don't look at this at all in order to pretend it's not there anymore.

It's not about attacking, denying, hurling quotes at, separating from, one-upping, or any other type of way that you'd treat a 'singular thing' in order to make it go away. Instead it's about changing how you see it, what you make of it, what meaning you give it, how you use it. And that means the thing doesn't necessarily go away, and isn't denied, but your experience of it is changed.

Trying to make the thing go away entirely becomes a murderous attack upon the body and the feeling and the world. This is driven by a perception that "it is one thing", ie a sinful thing. And if this were true, the only way to get rid of a wicked thing is to destroy it. But we're not asked to do this. We're asked to change how we look at it - who we look with, so that we see something different in how it strikes us and how we use it. The purpose that we see it for.

We end up with a re-interpretation, not a blanket of denial or an intellectual escape or a denial of feelings or a sweeping wave of destruction.