Nick: "One idea of mine I honor is that to be free of the Eagle 'equalizes' grandly with being free of the foreign installation"
M: I can't agree with this, from my experience. To free ourselves from the FI is only a step along the way. But then, in terms of direction, it does equalise. Just that the journey is always much more profound than we can imagine. There are always new lessons and revelations, new acquiring of 'knowledge' through tunnels of hard work.
Nemo: "I would be interested in hearing what your take on what the totality of the self is then if you feel this "always" and "we" in this statement is absolute?"
M: "there is a point at which those obligations dissolve"
Nemo: "We must be careful to not say the world is definitely like this or like that"
M: Alas, my time for observing that truth has passed. I have realised in the past I have erred in being over spiritually-correct. That posture is only for adepts to discuss over a cup of Oolong. It is irresponsible to observe it when directing some wayward traveller to the nearest shelter. In such a case, we have to have the courage to call a decisive choice, knowing full well it may be wrong. Only recently one such choice of mine proved disastrously wrong, but there you go - we are called to act, and act we must. To dither is a worse error than to act wrongly, because how can we possibly know what is wrong or right?
Nemo: "It would be safe to say then if someone is aware of flyers and moves away from their influence, has there assemblage point moved to a unique bubble of perception etherically that does not have them as part of their local experience."
M: I always come back to this point with you Nemo - the phrase 'moves away' is so easily said, but not so easily accomplished. My point is that the art is not so much the limitations of our own vision, although that is highly significant, but the limitations of our being. To break the limitations of being, we require very clever skills and maps, and very hard work. Once that process is passed a crucial threshold, we may look back upon those skills and work as fictions, but we never disrespect them, and never discount them.
The critical issue between us is exactly what divided Tibetan Buddhism centuries ago. If I leave out the actual historical terms, it boils down to those who believed one achieved realisation after a struggle and path of development. And those who believed it can be achieved instantaneously. The former agree with the latter in the final moment, but argue the 'steps' are essential, until that moment when one realise they begin and end in illusion. The latter argue, why waste time on the steps - why not let go instantly! It appeared to work well for both traditions, although in the Great Debate in ancient Tibet, the steps method prevailed, thus Tibetan Buddhism followed that path in the main.
I prefer the steps approach for many reasons, but I acknowledge in the end, total flight is all that counts. One reason is because the steps train us for what is called 'the best way to live'. Realisation is now, but life is in time. For me, knowledge is both realisation and living. I even apply this to my music - one of my greatest pleasures is not 'playing' but 'practising'. I love the long dirt road.
