Re: Losing the moon/Andy

[Guest guest]

Andy,

I was told by staff members that Herself asked that it's

publishing be stopped because they were receiving so many complaints

about the book, especially regarding the story regarding the

concentration camp. This made sense to me especially since it was

being published by The Work Foundation, Inc. and had full

control. I do not know any of this to be a fact but it was what I

was told. You know me, " I know nothing " ....

Blessings, Steve D.

>

> Dear Steve,

>

> You wrote that " [Losing the Moon] is so radical that they stopped

> publishing it. "

>

> Curiosity provokes:

>

> Do you know this for a fact?

>

> And, if so,

>

> Where did you learn about this rationale for its disappearance from

> bookstore shelves?

>

> My guess would be that its content was just not appreciated

> sufficiently for the publisher to print another run (translation:

it

> didn't sell well enough in the mass market for the company to make

a

> sufficient profit)....or is this what you meant? :-))

>

[Guest guest]

> You know me, " I know nothing " ....

>

> Blessings, Steve D.

>

Yes, Steve knows nothing, but there is a deeper intelligence in Steve

that does indeed know everything. Isn't that why we listen to the

still small voice of God within, so that we can access that vast

intelligence from which all new thought arises?

Have a beautiful day

" Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer, ever,

ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

[Guest guest]

Dear LTW,

What I have found is that there is that that appears to respond when

I am asked a direct question and often the answer that is given

surprises me very much. It is great fun!

Blessings, Steve D.

>

> > You know me, " I know nothing " ....

> >

> > Blessings, Steve D.

> >

>

> Yes, Steve knows nothing, but there is a deeper intelligence in

Steve

> that does indeed know everything. Isn't that why we listen to the

> still small voice of God within, so that we can access that vast

> intelligence from which all new thought arises?

>

> Have a beautiful day

>

>

> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

ever,

> ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

>

[Guest guest]

not that i care, but i wonder if katie still feels herself as a real, solid

individual w/ a personality. personally, i feel that doing the work or

anything else w/ the intent to eradicate one's 'i-ness' is doing violence to

one's

self. my belief is that we are 100% BOTH/AND (infinate AND relative), and

killing one side of yourself to gain the other only serves to damage and wound

the part of yourself that, in my experience (confused or not) ACTUALLY DOES

EXIST! but now i'm just blabbing about mere theories. carry on with your bad

selves!

In a message dated 5/17/2006 7:34:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

lovetheworkofbk@... writes:

>

> Yes, Steve knows nothing, but there is a deeper intelligence in

> Steve that does indeed know everything. Isn't that why we listen

> to the still small voice of God within, so that we can access that

> vast intelligence from which all new thought arises?

>

>

> ----->No. That isn't why. Listening sometimes happens. And when

> it does, it is because there is no other option. There is no one

> here, nor has there been, ever, to choose to listen or not listen.

>

Andy is it your direct experience that there is no one here, or is

it just a concept you read in a book?

I understand that concept that " I " don't exist, but that is not my

experience in this dream. The fact that " Andy " is still in the dream

would seem to indicate to me that part of you still very much

believes that there is a separate " I " .

Have a beautiful day

" There's nothing between you and love but unquestioned concepts. "

Byron

[Guest guest]

Yes, Steve knows nothing, but there is a deeper intelligence in Steve

that does indeed know everything. Isn't that why we listen to the

still small voice of God within, so that we can access that vast

intelligence from which all new thought arises?

----->No. That isn't why. Listening sometimes happens. And when it

does, it is because there is no other option. There is no one here,

nor has there been, ever, to choose to listen or not listen.

[Guest guest]

*****Thanks, Steve. The explanation you present below is as good as

any. :-) As I experience it, " Losing The Moon " is an uncompromising

expression of nonduality (the only other author I know of who is in

this category is Tony Parsons). There is surprise that those who

would read such a book would complain about its contents. After it,

it is not a traditional " self-help " book.

I was told by staff members that Herself asked that it's

publishing be stopped because they were receiving so many complaints

about the book, especially regarding the story regarding the

concentration camp. This made sense to me especially since it was

being published by The Work Foundation, Inc. and had full

control. I do not know any of this to be a fact but it was what I

was told. You know me, " I know nothing " ....

[Guest guest]

>

> Yes, Steve knows nothing, but there is a deeper intelligence in

> Steve that does indeed know everything. Isn't that why we listen

> to the still small voice of God within, so that we can access that

> vast intelligence from which all new thought arises?

>

>

> ----->No. That isn't why. Listening sometimes happens. And when

> it does, it is because there is no other option. There is no one

> here, nor has there been, ever, to choose to listen or not listen.

>

Andy is it your direct experience that there is no one here, or is

it just a concept you read in a book?

I understand that concept that " I " don't exist, but that is not my

experience in this dream. The fact that " Andy " is still in the dream

would seem to indicate to me that part of you still very much

believes that there is a separate " I " .

Have a beautiful day

" There's nothing between you and love but unquestioned concepts. "

Byron

[Guest guest]

>

>

> not that i care, but i wonder if katie still feels herself as a

> real, solid individual w/ a personality. personally, i feel that

> doing the work or anything else w/ the intent to eradicate

> one's 'i-ness' is doing violence to one's self. my belief is

> that we are 100% BOTH/AND (infinate AND relative), and

> killing one side of yourself to gain the other only serves to

> damage and wound the part of yourself that, in my experience

> (confused or not) ACTUALLY DOES EXIST! but now i'm just blabbing

> about mere theories. carry on with your bad selves!

>

Lovely to hear from you , and you are right! (my story)

The cool thing about the Work is that you DON'T have to give up your

belief in an " I " . The object of the Work is to undo all stressful

thoughts until you live in a " happy " dream, from there God takes the

last step and lifts you back to heaven.

The trouble with the non-dualistic approach is that it is just a

concept until you have a direct experience. People take the concept

and run around hitting themselves and others over the head with it,

which of course only takes them further away from the direct

experience of non-duality that they are seeking.

So the good news is that you can be " " for as long as your

heart desires. Just work on undoing all the stressful thoughts you

have about me. (LOL ... just joking)

Have a beautiful day

" There's nothing between you and love but unquestioned concepts. "

Byron

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/17/2006 9:09:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

endofthedream@... writes:

not that i care, but i wonder if katie still feels herself as a real,

solid individual w/ a personality. personally, i feel that doing the

work or anything else w/ the intent to eradicate one's 'i-ness' is

doing violence to one's self.

*****Trace such a desire back to its source. From where does

the " inspiration " come to do such a thing? Who, or What, is the

Author of that desire?

### where does it come from? i don't know. i'm not good at tracing things

back to their source. for as long as i've ever been able to tell, i'm just

me, jeremy, no more and no less, no matter what tricks i employ to see past

that. my " I " is very stubborn indeed. i do believe i'm stuck with me.

my belief is that we are 100% BOTH/AND (infinate AND relative), and

killing one side of yourself to gain the other only serves to damage

and wound the part of yourself that, in my experience (confused or

not) ACTUALLY DOES EXIST! but now i'm just blabbing about mere

theories. carry on with your bad selves!

*****I agree: what we are is both the transcendent AND the immanent.

Simultaneously. And, for some, seeing that, initially, is

confusing. Sometimes, for some, the clouds of confusion lift.

### yeah, both/and. although as far as i can tell, i'm only one half of

that equation. though i am working to notice the other aspect of who i am (or

so i'm told).

*****As far as " killing one side of yourself, " ..... well .... the

transcendent, the eternal (that which witnesses the entire hoopla),

was never born so it can never die. The relative...well....as far as

I can see, none of us have any say it how or when it expires. And it

does expire, as do all phenomenal things.

### to be explicit, what i was getting at is the tendency for people to

despair of their " I " , in the mission to discover the universal, unbounded

aspect

of their identity. i believe that " I " am just as real and complete a part

of me as " no-I " am. is. whatever. does that make sense? anyway, " I " will

die. and " no-I " won't. i don't have any control over any of it. that is a

great relief and also a horrible fear all rolled into one, both/and. these are

my thoughts lately.

[Guest guest]

Andy is it your direct experience that there is no one here, or is

it just a concept you read in a book?

*****Why is this a concern to you?

I understand that concept that " I " don't exist, but that is not my

experience in this dream.

*****Perhaps. Not yet.

The fact that " Andy " is still in the dream

*****Whose dream? What dream?

would seem to indicate to me that part of you still very much

believes that there is a separate " I " .

*****What your words indicate to ME is that part of YOU still very

much believes that there is an " Andy " who functions as a

separate " I. " Why do I say that? Because you wrote this post. Your

words....suggest, at least....that it is an issue for YOU. It is not

for me.

*****Now, if that is how it seems to you, then....that is how it

seems to you. I'm not in any position to make it seem any different

to you than how it seems. I have absolutely no power to do that (or

anything else for that matter). Consider: what would it take to

convince you?

Given that, I'll respond to your question. ( inquired about

something similar to this a week or so ago.)

You asked, " Is it your direct experience that there is no one here,

or is it just a concept you read in a book? "

The simple answer is: no, it is not *my* direct experience that there

is no one here. For it to be my direct experience, there would have

to be a " me " here to " have " it. But there is a......clarity....that

such is the case. What do I mean by " clarity " ?

You know how it is when an emotion happens, when you KNOW, without

doubt, that there is an emotion happening? You don't question

whether the emotion is occurring. It's there, in your face, with

certainty. It is with that kind of absoluteness that it is known

there is no persisting " Andy " here (or anywhere else, for that

matter). In fact, there is no persisting anyTHING, anywhere.

[Guest guest]

not that i care, but i wonder if katie still feels herself as a real,

solid individual w/ a personality. personally, i feel that doing the

work or anything else w/ the intent to eradicate one's 'i-ness' is

doing violence to one's self.

*****Trace such a desire back to its source. From where does

the " inspiration " come to do such a thing? Who, or What, is the

Author of that desire?

my belief is that we are 100% BOTH/AND (infinate AND relative), and

killing one side of yourself to gain the other only serves to damage

and wound the part of yourself that, in my experience (confused or

not) ACTUALLY DOES EXIST! but now i'm just blabbing about mere

theories. carry on with your bad selves!

*****I agree: what we are is both the transcendent AND the immanent.

Simultaneously. And, for some, seeing that, initially, is

confusing. Sometimes, for some, the clouds of confusion lift.

*****As far as " killing one side of yourself, " ..... well .... the

transcendent, the eternal (that which witnesses the entire hoopla),

was never born so it can never die. The relative...well....as far as

I can see, none of us have any say it how or when it expires. And it

does expire, as do all phenomenal things.

[Guest guest]

Hi Love,

> The cool thing about the Work is that you DON'T have to give up your

> belief in an " I " . The object of the Work is to undo all stressful

> thoughts until you live in a " happy " dream, from there God takes the

> last step and lifts you back to heaven.

From what i have seen of the process, at a certain stage believing you

have an " I " is not a problem and even usefull, if that is where you

are at. Eventually anything that is not completely true will start to

feel like a cage though.

Mark

[Guest guest]

>

> You know how it is when an emotion happens, when you KNOW, without

> doubt, that there is an emotion happening? You don't question

> whether the emotion is occurring. It's there, in your face, with

> certainty. It is with that kind of absoluteness that it is known

> there is no persisting " Andy " here (or anywhere else, for that

> matter). In fact, there is no persisting anyTHING, anywhere.

>

Andy as I understand it non-duality is a transcendent experience

which is quite fleeting. People have these experiences which they

must then conceptualize to discuss them with others.

As I see it the only way to know absolutely that there is no " Andy "

is to be having a transcendent experience. If your not having one

those right now then you are stuck in concepts like the rest of us.

Now here is the big problem I have with the non-dualistic approach.

The concept of no " I " is pretty much useless in trying to achieve

such a state. For example, periodically you turn up on this list to

remind us all that there is no " I " . You don't offer any suggestions

on how we can realize such a state, you just hit us over the head

with your concepts. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with

that, just that it doesn't seem to be getting any of us to realize

that there is no " I " .

As I pointed out to the path of the Work is not dependent on

concepts like no " I " . So long as " I " is not a stressful story there

is no need to inquire and undo it. It's good to be Andy, or

LTWOBK. It's hard enough to find the " happy dream " as it is without

throwing in more concepts like no " I " to torture ourselves with.

Have a beautiful day

" Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

[Guest guest]

Andy as I understand it non-duality is a transcendent experience

which is quite fleeting.

----->Where does this understanding come from? Did you read it? Did

someone tell you?

People have these experiences which they must then conceptualize to

discuss them with others.

----->Not exactly accurate. Yes, transcendental experiences appear

to happen. But they happen to no one. The same is true of ALL

experience. Getting a promotion. Going through a divorce. Being

hit by a car while crossing the street. Opening a post of Andy's and

being exasperated at the stupidity of the comments. Experiences, all

of them. They seem to happen. But there is no one there who is

having them.

As I see it the only way to know absolutely that there is no " Andy "

is to be having a transcendent experience.

----->Yes, this is how it is seen right now. There is also the

possibility that this assumption will fall away, possibily carrying

with it other beliefs.

If your not having one those right now then you are stuck in concepts

like the rest of us.

----->Sure, there are concepts. As you point out above, one modality

through which communication of this stufffff appears to happen is

through concepts. As to being " stuck " in it, well, :-)), a big hug

to you sweet man, and welcome to the club. I just don't see nor

experience it as being stuck.

Now here is the big problem I have with the non-dualistic approach.

----->The minute it is your problem, you're caught. You've stepped

on the flypaper or, like an insect, are pinned to the wall, wriggling.

The concept of no " I " is pretty much useless in trying to achieve

such a state. For example, periodically you turn up on this list to

remind us all that there is no " I " . You don't offer any suggestions

on how we can realize such a state, you just hit us over the head

with your concepts. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with

that, just that it doesn't seem to be getting any of us to realize

that there is no " I " .

----->There is a growing fondness of you. See if you can discern the

contradictory notions inherent in what you wrote above. First, let

me be clear about this no " I " ....there is no " I " as a persisting,

enduring entity....at any one moment an " I " does appear, but it does

not appear as the same " I " the next moment, if it appears at all.

----->Now, let's look at your sentence: " The concept of no 'I' is

pretty much useless in trying to achieve such a state. " Just, for a

moment, imagine there is no " I. " If that is the case, isn't

EVERYTHING UTTERLY USELESS " in trying to achieve such a state "

because that state already IS. If there is NO " I " ....who or what is

there that will achieve it?

----->You write, " You don't offer any suggestions on how we can

realize such a state. " How can there by any guidance on realizing

what is so, right now, as it is: confusion, disagreement, annoyance,

misunderstanding. Again, suppose, just let's play act here,

hypothesize for a moment....suppose there is no " I, " never was, never

will be. How can " you " - the person who is identified as

lovetheworkofbk and who typed this post - .......how can this " you "

realize that " you " are not? The paradoxical, circular loop arises

when it is thought or believed that there is someONE, a person, an on-

going entity who can " have " this realization. This is not like

having an " insight " .... " Ah HA! Now 'I' understand it all. " The

understanding being pointed to is that there is no one there, ever,

to " have " that understanding.

----->You wrote, " you just hit us over the head with your concepts. "

I am sorry if it is experienced in such a hostile or aggravating

manner (hitting over the head). That is not the intent. If it is so

displeasurable an experience, simply don't open my posts and be

spared the upset. Really. And if you continue to open them, perhaps

explore what it is that is driving that action.

As I pointed out to the path of the Work is not dependent on

concepts like no " I " . So long as " I " is not a stressful story there

is no need to inquire and undo it.

----->No need unless there is a drive to inquire. Love, this is

absolutely, totally, utterly simple. And it doesn't conflict with

anything Byron or The Work suggests. What is, what arises,

what happens.....is.....what is. Period. And that includes

Everything. The stuff we call " good " and the stuff we call " not

good. " (And individual's will differ on what is 'good' and 'not

good.')

----->I was reading a book the other day, fiction, but closely based

on a reporter's experiences in Afghanistan. A single sentence spoke

of hearing the moans of horse being slowly whipped to death by a

villager because the horse was too old to be of use to the villager

and the villager was too poor to feed it or to shoot it...what arose

here was sadness, disgust, sympathy, compassion, for the critter for

the villager. Was it .... stressful? Yes, I suppose so, at the

moment of its arising. What is clearly understood is even those

appearances: the stress, the sadness, the empathy for the horse and

villager being brutalized...even THOSE responses are perfectly

appropriate. This conditioning's dislike of feeling those feelings

(e.g., sadness) is absolutely as it should be.

----->And what if those feelings become too opstreperous, too

overwhelming.....then what?....then perhaps the thought will arise to

explore the validity of those feelings, to undo them. Instead of

undoing them what usually happens is that such...distressing

feelings/thoughts....are seen for what they are: its arising. And in

that seeing there is a disentanglement. And the entire storyline

falls apart along with the upset. In all these years of spiritual

inquiry I've learned two significant things: (1) not to be afraid of

emotions and (2) nothing lasts, nothing is permanent, no state

persists beyond its own lifetime.

It's good to be Andy, or LTWOBK. It's hard enough to find

the " happy dream " as it is without throwing in more concepts like

no " I " to torture ourselves with.

----->As there is no " I " , there is no " happy dream. " The torture is

in seeking out that which is not, which never was, and will never

be. The most painful state of being is remembering the future,

particularly one you can never have.

[Guest guest]

not that i care, but i wonder if katie still feels herself as a real,

solid individual w/ a personality. personally, i feel that doing the

work or anything else w/ the intent to eradicate one's 'i-ness' is

doing violence to one's self.

*****Trace such a desire back to its source. From where does

the " inspiration " come to do such a thing? Who, or What, is the

Author of that desire?

### where does it come from? i don't know.

----->Find out. That finding can be a significant key to the

mysterie.

### i'm not good at tracing things back to their source.

----->If you say so. What I would say is that there is a persistent

story about what is and is not good at. And that story is

about the past. Next moment? Who knows? Perhaps there will be both

a drive and a new-found skill at doing this tracing. Like

everything, it can't be forced. It either.......arises......or it

don't. :-)

### for as long as i've ever been able to tell, i'm just me,

jeremy, no more and no less, no matter what tricks i employ to see

past that.

----->What is being seen are the dead things: the past. The are no

tricks. There are means which appear to be skillful and others which

produce no results (or unintended and undesired results) which are

called unskill.

### my " I " is very stubborn indeed.

----->As long as it is held to be 'you' " I " ....you are trapped,

caught, pinned. Underlying all this is a thought-train which

imagines there is a there (here?) to be undone. THAT belief,

along with the attendant notion that there is something that needs

changing, is the fallacy and the delusion, all rolled up in one.

### i do believe i'm stuck with me.

----->For now. And yet, it is here, posting on a list, chatting with

other apparent folks, instead of perfecting its golf swing or skill

at mathematics. Some..........thing.......is driving this persisting

inquiry, eh? Otherwise, why is it here? It is clear that it wants

to unstick, and at this moment, is just not yet sure when.

my belief is that we are 100% BOTH/AND (infinate AND relative), and

killing one side of yourself to gain the other only serves to damage

and wound the part of yourself that, in my experience (confused or

not) ACTUALLY DOES EXIST! but now i'm just blabbing about mere

theories. carry on with your bad selves!

*****I agree: what we are is both the transcendent AND the immanent.

Simultaneously. And, for some, seeing that, initially, is

confusing. Sometimes, for some, the clouds of confusion lift.

### yeah, both/and. although as far as i can tell, i'm only one

half of that equation. though i am working to notice the other

aspect of who i am (or so i'm told).

----->There is no equation without both halves. 3x = is NOT an

equation. On some....level....there is a realization that it IS an

equation. Now see that such an equation must, perforce, have two

halfs, even if one is, at this moment......obscured. The i

which " can tell " IS the other half of the equation that is going

unnoticed. The " other half of the equation " you are looking for is

the face in the mirror looking back at what you hold to be " your "

face. The Space in which the " as far as i can tell " appears IS the

other half of the equation. It is not going to be found because it

is, and always was, HERE. It never left. It couldn't. It is the

foundation for the manifestation.

*****As far as " killing one side of yourself, " ..... well .... the

transcendent, the eternal (that which witnesses the entire hoopla),

was never born so it can never die. The relative...well....as far as

I can see, none of us have any say it how or when it expires. And it

does expire, as do all phenomenal things.

### to be explicit, what i was getting at is the tendency for

people to despair of their " I " , in the mission to discover the

universal, unbounded aspect of their identity.

----->They don't generate that despair. Why WOULD someone do THAT?

### i believe that " I " am just as real and complete a part of me

as " no-I " am. is. whatever. does that make sense? anyway, " I " will

die. and " no-I " won't.

----->Yes. The fear. For many that seems to be part of it. What we

all have is a deep longing and a deep fear of the discovery of what

we are, and the mind devises any way it can to avoid this

discovering. The most effective way it avoids awakening is to seek

it...You just need to see that you cannot do anything to be what

you already are; just open your eyes and see that this is it. The

game persists when there are other, competing thoughts that say, " but

it can't be just...this........there's GOT to be

more.....some 'sacred' place.....some holy and enlightened.....way of

being....that does not experience the upset, confusion, disarry,

disharmony. " As long as such thoughts are held to be valid, the

seeking will persist, the belief, the hope in Shangri-La, will

continue.

### i don't have any control over any of it. that is a great relief

and also a horrible fear all rolled into one, both/and. these are

my thoughts lately.

----->You are quite right, . You don't have control over it.

The " problem, " if there is one, is that there is no one HERE to HAVE

control. And yes, the early seeings of this may generate a feeling

of relief AND tremendous fear. It's like a the sun going down, late

dusk, and your shadow observes the slow, steady, and persistent

melting away of its outline, its form, its.... " existence, " ...and the

terror appears as what it believes to be its " self " -- the shadow --

gently merges with the arising darkness until all there is, is

darkness and the final absence of all motion. And yet, the source

FROM WHICH the shadow was " born, " (you), .... has never moved, is not

gone, is always present.

Peace.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> ----->As there is no " I " , there is no " happy dream. " The torture is

> in seeking out that which is not, which never was, and will never

> be. The most painful state of being is remembering the future,

> particularly one you can never have.

>

Andy I think we all understand the concept that there is no " I " and

no " happy dream " . Right now I do not experience any torture in

believing I am or that my very real dream could be entirely happy.

The Work IS NOT a non-dualistic path, it DOES NOT require that we give

up or see through our dream. If you want discuss non-dualism then find

a forum that does. Andy if you have realized the ultimate truth

through a non-dualistic path then good for you, but please be kind

enough to realize THAT THAT IS NOT the path being discussed here.

If you have something to offer regarding the practice of the Work,

then please contribute. But don't keep preaching non-dualism it's as

much off topic as Tami's posts.

Have a beautiful day

" There's nothing between you and love but unquestioned concepts. "

Byron

[Guest guest]

Dear Love,

I think what you say here is very accurate.

What I saw different in the work, compared to indian spiritualism,

for instance (not that I've really *known* any) was the apparent (to

me, of course) dualistic approach to awareness. Awareness of... well,

every time a little bit " more " . And while all these settled skins of

reality fall off, one after another, like the single skins of an

oninon, eventually, nothing remains.

And of course this is nothing but a theory, until the " last " skin is

peeled off.

I am at, wherever it is I am at. And from there, it is a beginning.

That's the wonderful thing about it.

So there is no " point " in trying to get anywhere, because we'll never

move from the start.

Sometimes, I wonder how to put certain thought to investigation.

For instance, when I see something as " hard " to do, the thought: It

should come easier to me, I should be better, I should be further.

That's what I'd put under investigation. Every thought, a new

opportunity to get to know myself.

Love,

Am 18.05.2006 um 04:53 schrieb lovetheworkofbk:

>

>> You know how it is when an emotion happens, when you KNOW, without

>> doubt, that there is an emotion happening? You don't question

>> whether the emotion is occurring. It's there, in your face, with

>> certainty. It is with that kind of absoluteness that it is known

>> there is no persisting " Andy " here (or anywhere else, for that

>> matter). In fact, there is no persisting anyTHING, anywhere.

>

> Andy as I understand it non-duality is a transcendent experience

> which is quite fleeting. People have these experiences which they

> must then conceptualize to discuss them with others.

> As I see it the only way to know absolutely that there is no " Andy "

> is to be having a transcendent experience. If your not having one

> those right now then you are stuck in concepts like the rest of us.

>

> Now here is the big problem I have with the non-dualistic approach.

> The concept of no " I " is pretty much useless in trying to achieve

> such a state. For example, periodically you turn up on this list to

> remind us all that there is no " I " . You don't offer any suggestions

> on how we can realize such a state, you just hit us over the head

> with your concepts. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with

> that, just that it doesn't seem to be getting any of us to realize

> that there is no " I " .

>

> As I pointed out to the path of the Work is not dependent on

> concepts like no " I " . So long as " I " is not a stressful story there

> is no need to inquire and undo it. It's good to be Andy, or

> LTWOBK. It's hard enough to find the " happy dream " as it is without

> throwing in more concepts like no " I " to torture ourselves with.

>

> Have a beautiful day

___________________________________________________________

Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de