“Harmony/The Middle Way”:  Is it a stodgy, nagging finger that prudishly wags at us, defining a point between two extremes?  A point which becomes extreme in and of itself as society slides one way or the other?

No, it’s more an aqueous state of spirit, like Batman as he runs along a tightrope, dodging a hail of gunfire. Simultaneously able to push with maximal force/tread lightly; from any direction, any angle. Able to commit fully to whatever may be appropriate so he can stay upright.

Inwardly tranquil.  Outwardly loving it.

I have hopped/skipped on the archipelago of established ideals, only to watch the ocean of life rise and consume each one; every ideal can be made false by the right circumstance.

Eventually I realized the highest calling in life:  To figure things out for myself.

In between the prisons of jaded cynicism and rabid faith there exists a fluid awareness.

Religious/societal greats essentially restate their predecessor’s words.  And yet we have to hear it over and over, because we misinterpret/cling to whoever was last.

The fact that established wisdom needs constant reiteration underscores the importance of investigating/adapting teachings to present-day reality.

Mindless devotion to tradition is perilous.  Context is key.

I’m watching that diner scene in “Heat,” where two sworn enemies show each other more respect and love than the army of allies that backs either of them.  We love that scene-but why?  Yeah they’re badass, the acting’s great, etc…My reason:  Pacino and De Niro, in the integrity they have for themselves and honesty they show each other, transcend the cliched black-and-white morals of society.  Yes, they have ideals they will die for.  But beyond that, they recognize in each other an honorable purity that approaches the holy.  Pacino references it when he asks, “What are you, a monk?”  De Niro, a few lines down:  “That’s the discipline.”

The whole movie’s amazing, but the things implied in that scene…Man.  Freakin’ beautiful.

I’ve seen the word “warrior” become gibberish, describing everything from talented military sociopaths to vapidly smiling spiritualists.  To me it is two actions:

A) Intentionally gathering strength through discomfort and self-examination

B) Using that strength to aid others

If “A” is done one moment, then “B” in another, then for those two moments I consider the doer a warrior.  It is such a fleeting thing though, that giving anybody the title of “warrior” is laughable.  To me it is a code to be quietly upheld, moment to moment, rather than some holy, bravodo-filled decree.