A CRITICAL QUESTION

When sharing the “What is being shared here is…”, the “No me, no you, no person…”, the “Open Secret and beyond…”, the “Beyond non-duality…”, the “Start with the Answer and stay there”(rjs) [referring to the same thing in all of the above], ‘I’ am keenly aware of why it is counter-intuitive to give ‘IT’ a label. But don’t we – or do we – oh golly I dunno! don’t we need to have some consistent way of identifying ‘IT’ in the literature?

In this treatment, I’m referring to the issue by the very temporary term IT. That’s not helpful as a solution for speakers and writers: I guess I just want it to be abundantly clear that the purity and absolute uniqueness of IT is fully appreciated and supported by “me”.

Why do “I” care so much about this labeling thing? Because I care so deeply and passionately about IT that I shudder inside and out when I see IT so unfairly misrepresented.

IT is not out there just to give other disciplines a rolling-the-eyes headache. IT isn’t a .001-second path: IT is always and already THERE (starting- and- staying- with- the- answer).