Devesh wrote:

>>And she has realised that Paul shares at least one other depth.
>
>Good Morning Love,
>
>The operative words for me are "at least."
>
>In the years I have known and 'listened' to Paul
>there have always been *many* depths to what I have heard
>from the 'common sense' simple practical unbiased clear observations,
>to the less obvious pointing out of our subconscious conditioned
>behaviours
>and then the deeper layers of social, racial, and species related
>phenomena.
>
>And all of those just scratching the surface to start to get through
>to what is really possible, potentional, actual - beneath and
>beyond all those other layers, that includes all the subtle things
>that cannot be experienced directly, and the Things that
>cannot even be said, but that in some of our meetings
>could be heard and did manifest in the room.
>
>>What she is also saying, once again, is, why is Bruce so famous and
>>respected, and Paul virtually unknown.
>
>I think on one level ambition has a lot to do with it,
>the motivation to *do* something as opposed to
>*offering* something not easily described
>let alone understood.
>
>>One theory of hers is that I tend to be very practical - about actually
>>living the truth - like in sex and relationships for instance!
>
>I get that both ways - in one way simply uncompromising:
>"If you want to change - you have to *change!*"
>and most people (as someone is fond of saying)
>want to feel better in their present situations.
>
>The other side is and was attractive to many people:
>I still get messages from those who saw Jamie's film
>and feel Paul's work is what they want to help
>with their sex and relationship issues.
>
>>Other things could be his education background.

>I don't get the education thing, given the 'target market' here.
>The point is getting the message across, and to these ears
>no one I have heard has done that as effectively.
>
>So maybe it is the 'target market' thing. Like Ekhard et. al.
>Certainly shining beings with much to share - but 'safe'
>to the status quo, not challenging to that sort of depth.
>
>Lots of Love, Devesh