My view is that the key to belief is what you think belief is.
Is belief something that is to be held as an absolute?
Or is belief a model for interacting with some aspect of the world?
We tend to approach belief as an absolute, which means that we build our idea of reality around it. Since your interpretation of our experience is built on these beliefs, it makes belief very difficult to change--like trying to pull out a rug that you're standing on it. Or more difficult still, trying to switch another rug for the one underneath your feet. That's also why belief-challenging experiences can be so difficult to deal with.
On the other hand, if it's a model, then it has all the properties of any model. It's more accurate in some respects than other models, and less in others. Meaning a particular model is more suited for some experiences over others. But models can be switched in and out without much impact. The first thing that you give up in this approach is the need for belief to be 100% accurate because that's simply not possible. A model by definition cannot be 100% accurate or it would be the actual thing. But we're working through perception and interpretation, both of which are subjective.
In the latter approach you realize that your belief has no affect on reality at all, and can find and utilize a variety of models for different situations. You lose the need to convince yourself of anyone else of anything (e.g. not getting nervous before a match) and accept the situation for what it is. After all, anxiety is only a feeling--it is not your performance. So your perception and interpretation of the experience can get out of the way and let your intention manifest.
|