[Gem]

I was just perusing a little of this book (linked in OP), and although it was not mentioned in the book directly (at least no so far as I just read), I inferred how the practice isn't a different activity to the goal.

These are the lines I upon which I made inference (please word search the book for wider context).

"the goal and the way must not be on different levels; life and light must not quarrel; behaviour must not betray belief. Call it honesty, integrity, wholeness; you must not go back, undo, uproot, abandon the conquered ground. Tenacity of purpose and honesty in pursuit will bring you to your goal."

"The goal and the way must not be on different levels."

In this meaning I make, the way to the goal is to have the goal in sight. Like seeing the finish line although the race is as yet incomplete, but what is a runner to do? The runner is already running.

I just depends if the runner is earnest, or if they dawdle along. If they have the tenacity to persist until the end, or not.

In calling it 'honesty' and 'integrity' Nis is speaking my language. His last sentence brings it all together.

It reminds my of my favorite saying when it comes to this ultimate self-knowing stuff - "You have to give all you got, because it takes all you have".