People often object to the programme, because it seems to be adding to the number of things to do.
Now, let's say we're awake for 16 hours a day. We're always doing something. Even if we're watching television, we're doing that. We're also always thinking something, as well. Come to think of it, we're always believing something, too. There are always beliefs underlying every thought, and thoughts underlying every action.
The programme doesn't ask me to believe, think, or do anything extra. It asks me to believe, think, or do something different. It's asking me to believe, think, or do something that works in the place of believing, thinking, or doing something that does not.
If I think I'm actually right in my unhappy perception (= interpretation), I remind myself of why I'm here. I'm here because I'm not all there.
When I'm unhappy, my beliefs are wrong. Period. From those beliefs are flowing the trouble: the thinking and the action. When I'm unhappy, I need to stop talking about my problem because nothing I say has any value at all. When I'm unhappy, I am literally insane. If I were not, Step Two would not have to refer to restoration to sanity. The only place from which restoration to sanity is possible is insanity. When I'm unhappy, I'm wrong and incapable of perceiving (= interpreting) correctly, incapable of rational thought, incapable of construing any situation accurately. The only thing I'm capable of is letting go of my existing construal and allowing myself to be shown a new one.
The existing perception (= interpretation) needs to be quietly set aside first, or the new one, if I attempt to admit it, will produce an immune response from the existing one, and the new one will be pushed out, and I will then be back at square one. If I do succeed in housing the new one alongside the existing one, they tend to argue ('graft-versus-host disease'), and that actually increases the conflict.
No, I need to recognise:
If I do not like what I feel, I must have decided wrong.
I must have asked the ego how to assess the situation.
I then listened to the ego, and concurred.
I need to reverse this:
I take the ego's perception (= interpretation) and give it back.
I say to the ego, 'I'm sorry for asking you a question. I actually have no question for you. Stand at ease!'
This then leaves a blank sheet of paper.
I ask God to write the truth on the blank sheet of paper by going DUTCH: I ask God, what is the Detached, Understanding, Tolerant, Compassionate, and Helpful way to look at this?
If I experience resistance, I adopt this procedure:
I recognise I do not like how I feel.
If I do not like how I feel, I hope I have been wrong.
If that be the case, I hope there is a different way to look at this.
If I hope that, I can say: Maybe there is a different way to look at this.
Then comes the rhetorical question: What can I lose by asking?
I then ask.