Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

16980Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Effortless Effort

Expand Messages
  • sean tremblay
    Feb 15, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks Jeff
      I'm fine but to be honest with you it was a bit rough comming back, shocking to my system really, and I think I was starting to "Go Native" over there like freaken T.E.Lawrence or something, any way things are smoothing out now

      --- On Mon, 2/15/10, Papajeff <jeff@...> wrote:

      From: Papajeff <jeff@...>
      Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Effortless Effort
      To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Monday, February 15, 2010, 8:11 AM

       

      Hi Sean,

      Hope you don't mind me
      jumping in here..

      I agree, Sandeep's reply
      was not responsive. He
      used your post as a platform
      for his often repeated
      but incomplete premise.

      Sandeep is making a point
      from his typical ivory
      tower of intellectual
      nonduality that the
      intention, whether well
      or ill is irrelevant,
      because there is no "doer"
      separate from what "Is".

      He fails to cross the
      mid-point from nondual
      realization of the absolute
      to the reintegration of
      relative reality in which
      we live and in which charity
      is "the more excellent way",
      and so uses absolute language
      as in a posture of enlightened
      wisdom, using what he considers
      impenetrable nondual 'logic'.

      If you re-read the original
      thread of Effortless Effort
      that Bob posted, you will
      see reference to this.

      How you doin'?

      Jeff

      --- In meditationsocietyof america@yahoogro ups.com, sean tremblay <bethjams9@. ..> wrote:
      >
      > I don't recall asking anything about genocide!
      >
      > --- On Sun, 2/14/10, sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > From: sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@ ...>
      > Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Effortless Effort
      > To: meditationsocietyof america@yahoogro ups.com
      > Date: Sunday, February 14, 2010, 9:57 PM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > sean tremblay <bethjams9@ ..> wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > A question about charity
      >
      > > Do we do it because some people need help or do we give because of it benefits us directly.  I think intention counts for something.
      >
      > Charity, as an action or a series of actions, whether in the domain of physicality or mentation... .....gets done, if it gets done........ . precisely in the way, manner, form, shape, content..... ..it gets done.
      > That doing, which thought labels as "charity"... ..or "genocide".. ......is never an isolated event.The happening of the event(s) whether labeled as "charity" or "genocide"
      > ......is an un-differentiated non-separated expression of the seamless totality....
      > ....AS...... . seamlessness  is...
      > ... in that very moment of the eventing.
      > Yes, the occurrence (without the connotation of a discrete  individuated happening) getting labeled as  "charity" or "genocide" is
      > further accompanied by thought investing an intention to that occurrence, which as a consequence automatically invests in a sense of volition for the occurrence.With an invested sense of volition... the consequential sense of a question.... .... i.e.does the occurrence fulfill a need of an other, or a need of oneself etc etc.Labeling- ->Volition- -->Quest for purpose.
      >
      > The quest for the answer for the purpose, needs the bedrock assumption of separated, individuated volition.One cannot exist without the other.
      > The entirety of the drama ...... as a play of thought..... ..
      > .....not just the surrounding investments associated with an occurrence.. ....
      > .....but the very physical occurrence itself.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > .
      >


    • Show all 16 messages in this topic