I find a semantic problem with the idea that one one needs to accept
something in order to vanish it. 
    If something is persisting, then it is being resisted.
    What is there to accept?  Once it is accepted, it is gone, there is
nothing there to accept. 
    Thus if one finds oneself 'accepting' something, one is clearly
still resisting it because its persisting long enough for you to
be 'accepting' it.
    Acceptance is a state, its not a transitive verb.  You don't
accept THINGS, as there are not things in the state of acceptance.
If the thing is there to be accepted, then its there because
its persisting and is being resisted.
    Resistence is transitive.  You resist SOMETHING and it persists.
    Acceptance is non transitive.  You are in a state of acceptance
because all things have vanished, not because you 'accepted them'
but because you stopped resisting them.
    Not resisting is not the same as accepting.

Homer Wilson Smith     The paths of lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959               cross in         Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com     the line of duty.     http://www.lightlink.com