What I think is important to point out here is that we all use different language to describe this stuff, don't get too caught up in descriptions or expectation based on what you've read as all of this stuff will happen for you as long as you're practicing well and "getting it done". Once you've seen it for yourself, the descriptions given in MCTB will become clearer but, in my opinion, Daniel's got a very technical writing style which could potentially confuse people. Don't get me wrong, MCTB is the holy fucking grail of modern Dharma books to me and without it I'd never have made the progress I've been fortunate enough to have made, but there are some things he describes in a very idiosyncratic way and confused me to some extent until I had more experience and the ability to see what he was getting at.
I am having difficulty in that the compulsion is to find which perspective is the 'right' perspective, although when I take one of these perspective it kind of falls apart.
It's more useful to note the compulsion, searching, differentiating, selecting, the urge to be "right" and so forth.
Should I continue to simply note the perspectives and that there is actually no 'right' perspective in that they're all conditioned, have suffering and are not 'me'?
Right on the money.
*Updated query: does the untangling occur when all of these perspectives dissolve such that what is left is just a selfless screen of awareness upon which things seem to be projected onto in an immediate kind of way? or am I off base here?
Having not fully untangled that particular knot, I can only offer an opinion based on experience.
Perspectives are seen through and the entire sense-field becomes unified so, in a sense, you're correct in what you're pointing towards here. Some of the resident 4th path'ers on here should be able to offer more clarification on this. It sounds to me like you're actually talking about "rigpa". Just a thought.
- Tommy