35. my mind is part of god’s. i am very holy.
some background, a few years ago, i encountered the essence of this lesson. it was not presented to me in this fashion, but it did confront what this lesson is addressing.
however, like previous lessons, i aim to engage this lesson as if it were the first time i had encountered the idea, but for this lesson i’ll provide some additional information.
concept: my mind is part of god’s mind, as such, like god (the creator), i am holy, very holy.
admittedly, that is a difficult concept. why? because of teachings like: the creation account and the fall of humanity; culminated in the thought that all are sinners and fallen short of the glory of god.
yet, jesus applied the thought from Psalm 82.6 that he and others were the children of god (John 10.34-35), which has its application within this lesson.
since how one “sees” their self matters, then it follows that it matters how one “sees” their own existence as much as their own thoughts and actions.
in other words, when one believes, thinks, “sees”, their self as a product of some thing, then they will “see” their self in a world of that some thing, and that world will become, because an individual surrounds their self with the world they want.
for instance, if i were to “see” my self as a baseball athlete, then i first must “see” my self as a baseball athlete; if i “see” my self in that way then i can “see” my self in the world of baseball; if i “see” that way then i can “see” my self interacting and surrounding my self with the baseball world; if i “see” that way then in doing that i am going from “seeing” my self there to placing my self there, but i did so in order to become a baseball athlete within the world i wanted.
in that for instance, once i have accomplished that “vision”, i then need to protect the image i created for my self. why? because that image of self is how i “see” my self; as such, my image of self is part of the environment of the baseball athletic world.
however, in that for instance, and this is the difficult part, what i “see” in that world is “seen” through the image that i “envisioned”, the very image i brought into existence, which is not me “seeing” but my image being “seen”. why? because images are from my imagination, in other words, the image i created was from my thoughts (the things i “see”), which means the image i created is not “sight” itself because an image is created and thus as no ability to “see” any thing, in other words, the image of my self in that world is not truly “seeing” what is occurring within my self.
that is the difficulty, learning that the image that i created is not really the real me who is doing the “seeing”, but is only an image that i created as an object for others to “see”.
all of that brings up the question of: by whose imagination (“seeing”) am i made?
some will say they are a self-made person, which means that they saw their self as something particular and made that something happen. that type of thing occurs in every time period of history, whether they saw their self as a victor or a victim or some thing else.
the concept is: while that for instance of baseball athlete is possible (and it is a type of imagination to creation), according to this lesson that baseball athlete achievement (and it is an achievement) is not true vision but an image created from within one’s self to be presented to the world, which misses finding the image that one was created to be, and in creating the image from self the one then creates a world absent of peace because they didn’t come to “see” that they invented their self image and their world, which lacks peace and joy because they didn’t come to “see” things differently.
that is a heavy duty thought.
so the difficult thing to accept is that the source that one uses to “see” their self is what establishes one’s identity.
the source of one’s identity can be sourced in parents, teachers, society, culture, government, religious system, or even one’s self.
the question is: are any of those the true source of identity?
the short answer is: no.
even though one’s name is given from one or both parents, that is not necessarily one’s identity even when teachers, society, culture, government, and religions address you, as a person, by that name.
so, if you do not believe that name identifies you, one can legally and officially change their name, or they can go by a nickname. either way, that is a type of changing of identity.
according to this lesson, the concept is: when i create my own name for my identity, i am doing the “seeing” and thus creating the world i want.
yet, there is concept found in the lesson title: my mind is part of god’s mind, which makes me holy, very holy because god, the creator, is holy.
that itself affects the manner in which i “see” my self which affects the world i want to “see”.
the lesson itself goes on to state that i need to spend time investigating how i “see” my self.
for instance(s), i could see my self as one or more of the following:
i see myself as imposed on.
i see myself as depressed.
i see myself as failing.
i see myself as endangered.
i see myself as helpless.
i see myself as victorious.
i see myself as losing out.
i see myself as charitable.
i see myself as virtuous.
or any number of other things, like:
i see myself as incompetent.
i see myself as intelligent.
i see myself as incapable.
i see myself as insufficient.
where do those types of things come from? some are sourced from within one’s own self, others are sourced from the world outside one’s self.
for instance, if you believe you have a gift for music, and you learn, grow, do, practice, write, perform your own music, you did so because you “see” your self having a gift for music.
for instance, if a teacher told you that you were incapable at math, and someone like your parents or guardians agreed with the teacher, then that outside information is presented into your mind and you can begin to “see” your self as incapable at math.
for instance, if someone tells you have a natural talent for art, and someone you look up to agrees with them, then that outside information is presented into your mind and you can begin to “see” your self as having a natural talent for art.
those types of thing occur every day, in various applications.
for instance, currently the big social discussion is: who determines gender association? i am not here to posit an answer to that question, other than to state what the lesson is saying: the source we go to establishes one’s identity.
that simply means some will turn to the physical anatomy; some will turn to dna; some will turn to emotions, some will turn how society, culture, religion, and/or family sees them; some will turn to how they see their own self.
but according to the lesson, the identity of self resides with god, the creator, the source, and since the human mind is part of god’s mind, then the holiness of god is in one’s mind, as such that source of holiness can establish identity.
so i am not answering the social discussion, simply using the social discussion to examine and understand the lesson.
with all of that in mind, allow me to give a personal example of how “seeing” the source, the creator god, of my identity has helped me, as it relates to personal relationships.
from a youth, i was taught monogamy. monogamy was reinforced by my immediate and extended family. monogamy was upheld by those who educated me, and by my religious upbringing, and codified into social norms by monogamy being the only legally recognized personal relationship that is permitted a marital license/certificate.
however, about 2010, i began to “see” things differently regarding monogamy. through the course of time, i came to realize that i had been taught to “see” monogamy as the only viable means of a personal relationship.
it has taken me years to grow accustomed to the reality that socially, culturally, legally, religiously enforced monogamy was a specific “vision” that others wanted me to see.
in other words, it took me being willing to answer honestly a question about the scriptures in order to “see” that before the creator monogamy did not have any prominent or preferred position for personal relationships.
that sat uneasy with many, and through the course of events i was able to determine that i could actually live a non-monogamous personal relationship, which led to others rejecting me because i rejected their “vision” of personal relationships which they were wanting me to believe and “vision” for my self.
so in the course of events, i began to “see” my self as a man in a non-monogamous relationship, protecting my self and any woman or women associated with me through legal means, which are different than the typical method, so i then uncoupled my self from the typical method of legal marriage that legally forces me to have a monogamous relationship in order to move into a situation akin to dating, but where i have a structure where i formalize my personal relationship with a legal contract, which is different from the marriage license/certificate.
but to come to “see” that non-monogamy was possible, i had to want to “see” something other than what i had been taught to “see”.
certainly, i had been taught to “see” monogamy on all the pages of the bible. but to answer truly the question that had been posed to me, i had to set aside what i had been taught to “see” in order to “see” what the biblical text was expressing.
candidly, from believers there will be, because there has been, all kinds of retorts about how my “seeing” is not right, proper, or correct about non-monogamy.
through the years, i have given my efforts to explain why i am “seeing” the biblical text properly, but here’s what i have learned: for them to “see” what i am “seeing” they have to want to “see” it differently and they have to “see” that non-mongamy is holy – the very essence of the lessons of this book.
that means that every thing else in the discussion about god’s permission to participate in non-monogamy seems to be an argument about practicality or an argument about preference, to include one’s perception about what society prefers one do.
so the lesson: my mind is part of god’s mind, i am very holy.
therefore, in the aspect of non-monogamy, when i as an adult conduct my self in an honorable fashion with adult women and provide legal contract language to convey intent and motives to them and provide a legal mechanism for all, then there is nothing dishonorable.
but to come to that point, i first had to “see” that i had constructed a monogamy-only world, in which i determined and envisioned my self as an image of that monogamy-only world and had compelled my self to remain part of that monogamy-only environment.
that is, until i “saw” that non-monogamy was holy and acceptable in the mind of god, the creator.
however, unpacking and dismantling the image of monogamy-only has taken me years to accomplish.
so my personal note is that it is possible to “see” that one has created their own image in their own world and that image is not completely accurate.
but to unpack and dismantle one’s own image of self requires commitment, diligence, and effort, and to keep in remind one’s self that because my mind is part of god’s mind, i am holy, which means that god will lead in paths of righteousness for the sake of the name of god, the creator.