Only I-concepts quarrel,
For whoever knows what 'he' is
There can be no 'other'
Either to 'love' or to 'hate'.
People imagine that they must transform themselves, perfect themselves, become something else called a saint or a sage.
This is surely a great error and even greater nonsense. What is so thinking, is 'himself' only a phenomenon in a dream or a character in a drama, or a manifestation subject to conditioning called 'karma'.
These must carry on their dreamed part, play out their role in the drama, suffer their 'karma', in the seriality of 'time' to the end. The 'ego' they think that they wish to destroy, and which torments them and holds them in imaginary 'bondage', is an inevitable and necessary part of their dream personality, of their 'part', of their 'karma', and they could not appear to exist without it.
Its disappearance is a degree of de-phenomenalisation and is a result of awakening from the dream, never a means thereto. The means thereto is just understanding what they are, that what they are is not the appearance, dream-personage, role, karma-bound puppet.
How could they 'awaken' from the dream by 'perfecting' their pseudo-selves which are being dreamed, etc., or otherwise than by re-cognising their veritable 'identity' as the source of the dream, the drama, the phenomenal manifestation?
Note: An 'I' is only a concept which assumes all the impulses which appear in the guise of 'me's.
Whoever thinks as from, or on behalf of, an entity which he believes himself to be, the more so if he tries to work on himself, by, with, or for such an entity - which is only a concept in mind - has not yet begun to understand what it is all about.
