This is an excerpt from the book.
"One of the things that has been of great help to me with the action of looking directly at me has been to own it. To claim the action as my own, as well as the fruits of that action. I do not mean this in the sense of clinging and keeping it all to myself. Rather I mean it as an acknowledgment that the only way to do this for me, is for me to do it.
When you own something you are also responsible for it’s care. This helps me to work at keeping the practice, and the intention behind it clear of entanglements and confusions. This casts me in the role of gatekeeper for this practice. To my mind this is a very good role to play for any practice I choose to take on.
Another effect of owning the looking is that it reminds me of who is responsible for using this tool. If I buy a book about calculus, and then place it on the shelf and do nothing with it, that’s on me and no one else. Once this looking has been suggested, the only person responsible for its implementation is the person it was suggested to.
This also helps keep me out of other people’s business. I have given the suggestion of the looking to a lot of people. In the cases where I then try and take responsibility for someone else doing the looking, nothing but confusion and resentment have resulted. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink. That’s up to them. If you try shoving the horses head into the water, you deserve what you get.
Likewise I should not hold the person, or thing, that suggested the looking to me as responsible for my looking. This is the problem of transference that comes up in psychotherapy, and similar relationships. It’s all the bad parts of co-dependency. The person who carried the suggestion is not responsible for whether you follow it, neither are they responsible for the results of the looking. That is all you, and if you will own it things will proceed much more smoothly. At least that has been my experience."
What do you think? I'd love to hear!