Just because it’s possible?

We treat correct observation in the book as an important factor for acting authentically. It’s an art that only few are skilled at.

Why do you climb mountains? They ask the climber. Because it’s there. he says.

This maybe the answer of a dude in California who climbs with no particular reason at all besides being talented and climbing being cool in the dude culture. This may also be the answer of a spiritual man who experiences the ascend on the mountain as stages of conquering higher and higher levels of consciousness, part of his regular spiritual practice and who doesn’t want to elaborate on all this to someone he considers unworthy.

How do you know the difference?

By observing them.

The keys to a good observation is:

1. Understanding one’s own vantage point. The higher this is the more accurate the observation. If in our case, the observation is made by a dude he’ll come to the conclusion that the climber is a dude (he must be if he climbs). If the observation is made by a spiritual man, he’ll differentiate between a dude and another spiritual man. The lower the vantage point, the lower the view/horizon. The problem today is that those who stand lower, can’t look up. Why is this a problem? Because this way one can’t discern anything even potentially, let alone being able to tell the “gross from the subtle”.
2. Appropriate knowledge. This is related to views. The lower the view, the less reliable the knowledge. Knowledge that was produced by the lowest views are completely unreliable. In the hierarchy of views the materialistic view is the lowest. This view has produced scientism, technotacrism, pragmatism, individualism and various other chimeras. It feels qualified to project-manage absolutely everything and delivers just about anything as long as it’s profitable: once the need is there, it never questions its validity. What is appropriate knowledge? Knowledge above the technical domain, knowledge that originates from views above materialism. It is not by accident that traditional sciences stood in the sign of synthesis and  didn’t lead to any kind of specialization.
3. Style. This may not be so obvious right away. What we mean by a sense of style or, from another aspect, by taste is the ability to see beyond the surface and recognize the deeper meaning of what we see. In other words what the phenomenon symbolizes for us. Modern man has completely lost his taste and more: his taste is turned inside out, just like himself. He actually considers the repulsive desirable: for him sky scrapers embody beauty while he’s yawning right after he took a selfie in front of a cathedral.

Vantage point, appropriate knowledge and a sense of style are all part of IDENTITY without which no observation may be made. And identity is precisely what the individual lacks.

Genetically modified food, chemicals and molecules that would never emerge naturally, industrial design, music business, nutritional science, plastic surgery, creative gender categories, viagra, antidepressant pills and soon, without doubt, space tourism, various forms of trans-humanism, romantic human-robot relationships and similar “ground-breaking causes” have been or will be delivered by individuals just because it’s possible.

source of photo about Tibetan monastery: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Ki-Gompa_Spiti.jpg