There are definitely things in our external environment that can be extremely activating, and depending on the imprint of our nervous system and our belief system, we will respond accordingly. If we’ve had experiences in the past that made us especially sensitive to certain things (whatever is being done to us, around us, or near us) then when those things show up again, we’re likely to respond in ways that are much more intensified than someone who doesn’t carry that same imprint.
Two people can witness the exact same thing and walk away with completely different experiences. One person can see something as bad, another can see it as good- & even within that, there’s a spectrum. How bad does it feel? How good does it feel? That depends on what you’ve lived through, how those experiences have informed you reality, & the imprint left on your mental and emotional system.
So the question becomes do you take it on personally? And even if you’re aware that something is objectively not good, how much can you actually do about it?
If there’s nothing you can do, then how should you respond? Do you try to accept it?
Why are some people able to see things (good or bad) & understand what they can and cannot change, while others see the same things, have no control over them, and still take them on as if they are personally responsible or personally affected at the deepest level?
(That goes into another topic about unity & the question- are we all one?)
It seems like this is where the idea comes in- that we act, feel, and perform based on what we imagine to be true about ourselves and our environment. Because if someone, on some level, imagines themselves to be unsafe, or responsible, or deeply tied to what they’re witnessing, then of course they will feel it more, carry it more, and react more intensely.
& if someone imagines themselves as separate from it (still aware, but not defined by it) then their response will naturally be different.
*I am in no way, saying, one is better than the other, simply raising a question in the reader’s mind
So it’s not just about what’s happening externally. It’s about the meaning the mind assigns to it, and the identity that meaning attaches to. & that meaning isn’t random, it’s shaped over time, through experience, memory, and repetition, until it feels like truth.
Which means the difference isn’t always in the event itself, but in the internal lens through which it’s being perceived.
& maybe that’s where some degree of freedom exists, not in controlling everything that happens , but in slowly becoming aware of the lens, questioning it, & over time, reshaping what we imagine to be true about ourselves in relation to the world.
Leave a Reply