--- In [email protected], "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" > <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: > > > > > > > It looks like you, too, are making the same "perfection = > > > > intertia/not giving a shit" mistake that Jim keeps mentioning > > > > and that keeps falling on deaf ears... er, blind eyes. > > > > > > I don't believe in perfection. > > > > > > Beliefs like "perfection" when referring to people or 'states > of > > > consciousness' are just beliefs. > > > > Any idea can be just a belief, including your "wrong View" > doctrine. > > For me, the "perfection of now" is a useful descriptor for abiding > in > > equanimity with what is. It's the reality of my experience; belief > > arises from the experience because that's what dual mind tends to > do > > with ideas, but the belief, itself, is not important. > > > Yep- the experience if it is clear and sustained may eventually lead > to a belief, a hypothesis anyway, or not. It is the experience that > matters- who cares about a belief? > > Such a tortured and convoluted process to try to conform experience > to a belief, though that is the way the dual mind operates, which is > why it fights like hell to disavow the obvious. Even inventing > doctrines to try and force experience into its "safe" channel. What > a losing proposition! May as well try to call enlightenment "pseudo > advaita", or something equally crazy.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Waking Down doesn't have rigid doctrines or authoritarian teachers/teachings. Sure, there's descriptive language of awakening, but it's regarded as a loosely drawn map or template, not a rigidly defined path, from which one should not deviate.
