I've been an enthusiastic
participant
in
Werner's work
for nearly fifty years. What I've gotten from it is unfathomable,
unquantifiable. I could also venture to include "unbelievable".
But to be sure, when it comes to
Werner's work,
you don't want to invest lots of stock in
believing
it. One of the earliest revelations that struck me when I experienced
it (which I've now finally gotten clear about) is this: I am not
my mind.
Another way of saying that is: "Who (or what) I
consider
myself to be, is not
the mind.".
That's actually a lot closer to the truth than it sounds. And in
actuality it's more than that. It's Transformation 101.
Werner's
work transforms
mastering
the
circumstances
by deploying a rich body of distinctions and collections of processes
inter alia. Describing them out of context, is probably not
going to do much good. With that said, here's a description of a
simple
process that can be
easily
appreciated. It's a process for
disappearing
a headache. It goes like this: look (if you will) at the headache.
Where's the sensation located? How big is it? What are its dimensions?
What color is it? What's its texture? How hot is it ie what's its
temperature? etc until suddenly you can't locate it anymore to
determine its temperature because it's no longer there. It's
gone,
vanished,
disappeared,
the underlying tenet being
"Experienced experience
disappears.".
Its
disappearance
is akin to
magic.
I'm a smart rat. Whenever I get a headache, I run it through that
process. The headache
disappears.
Then one day I
caught myselfmaking a deal with
life. I was ante-ing "If I run my headache through the process, will
you (ie life) make it go away?" rather than just
running my headache through the process. The former is an
in-order-to, a
making-a-deal-with,
a bargaining-with. And it's
inauthentic.
The latter isn't an in-order-to. It's a
taking-action.
It's
authentic.
You can't apply processes from
Werner's workin-order-to. You can't apply
this.
That's
inauthentic.
There's no transformation in it (it isn't down that tunnel).
There's a
simpletest
you can
perform
to
discover
if what you're doing with what you got from
Werner's work
(or from any other endeavor for that matter) is
authentic
or not. It fleshes out who you're being when you're doing whatever it
is you're doing (that piece is pivotal, the "who you're
being when you're doing whatever it is you're
doing"). It has to do with your state of OK-ness (if you will)
when you're doing whatever it is you're doing. It's this: when you're
already OK coming from what you got from
Werner's work,
that's
authentic.
If you're not already OK coming from what you got from
Werner's work,
and you're applying what you got from it in order to be OK
ie in order to get better, that's
inauthentic.
It's being already OKthat doesn't fit into our
categories.
We have many opportunities to participate in
inquiries, disciplines, and
programs
which make us "better", or at least which purport to. There's a
plethora of them out there. So choose wisely. Such programs are
complete once you've gotten better - or at least once you
declare you've gotten better ie when you declare you're
(finally) OK the way you are.
Werner's work
stands apart from and in contrast to them while at the same time paradoxically including
them. Rather than being complete once you declare you're OK the way you
are,
Werner's work
can only really
begin
with the realization that you're OK the way you are. That's the
foundation on which it stands. You can be it, but you can't apply it.
The two are
worlds
apart. You don't apply being. You already are it.
