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

Re: Effortless Effort

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Belyea
    ... Very cool. And real, man. Efortless effort is a subtle bit of information to communicate. A way to think of it is the term athletes use - getting in The
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety
      <no_reply@...> wrote:
      >
      > Sometimes we hear that there is no need
      > for meditation, acts of charity, devotion
      > or prayer, and so on, because we are already
      > enlightened. This is often accompanied by
      > the suggestion that meditation and other
      > type efforts are actually stumbling blocks
      > to experiencing the bliss that is ever
      > present. But when we look closely at who
      > makes these kind of statements, it is often
      > someone who is just parroting something they
      > heard someone else, whom they consider
      > Enlightened say, but they themselves are no
      > further along on the path to enlightenment
      > than anyone else. They have just heard the
      > words, and as it is said "can talk the talk,
      > but can't walk the walk". Or it may even
      > come from an Enlightened being, but invariably,
      > they have themselves meditated, done service,
      > self-inquiry, and other types of efforts
      > before attaining the state of effortlessness
      > that Enlightenment is. Sri Swami Chidananda
      > once gave an illuminating illustration of the
      > way to understand the need for effort:
      > "It is as if a poor man is living over a
      > treasure. One day a sage tells him that ten
      > feet under the small plot of land where he is
      > sitting, a treasure is buried. That means that
      > the poor man is actually very wealthy. But
      > until he digs down those ten feet, he is as
      > poor a man as he ever was. Even if he digs 9
      > feet 11 inches, he is still poor. It is only
      > when he has dug the full ten feet and puts his
      > hands on the treasure that he is wealthy beyond
      > his fondest dreams."
      > So, we should understand that you'll never get
      > rich waiting for money to just place itself in
      > your pockets, and making a great effort is an
      > appropriate way to succeed. For some, the
      > effort will be by meditating, for others,
      > asking who is doing the shoveling, and for
      > others, asking what exactly is the shovel. We
      > all have our own hole to dig. And as the jazz
      > lovers would say, "Can you dig it?"
      >

      Very cool. And real, man.

      'Efortless effort' is a
      subtle bit of information
      to communicate. A way to
      think of it is the term
      athletes use - getting in
      'The Zone', or artists and
      musicians who feel the
      presence of 'The Muse'...

      and us old hippies who
      still talk and write about
      'Going with the flow'.

      Whatever you call it, it
      pops up while you're digging -
      whether that's digging what
      an authentic teacher is
      offering or digging down
      where your inner well springs...

      and you never thirst again.
      You jus ease on down the
      road, and life becomes effortless
      and efficiently productive.

      Groovy, even.

      Jeff
    • medit8ionsociety
      Sometimes we hear that there is no need for meditation, acts of charity, devotion or prayer, and so on, because we are already enlightened. This is often
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 13, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Sometimes we hear that there is no need
        for meditation, acts of charity, devotion
        or prayer, and so on, because we are already
        enlightened. This is often accompanied by
        the suggestion that meditation and other
        type efforts are actually stumbling blocks
        to experiencing the bliss that is ever present.
        But when we look closely at who makes these
        kind of statements, it is often someone who
        is just parroting something they heard someone
        else, whom they consider Enlightened say, but
        they themselves are no further along on the
        path to enlightenment than anyone else. They
        have just heard the words, and as it is said
        "can talk the talk, but can't walk the walk".
        Or it may even come from an Enlightened being,
        but invariably, they have themselves meditated,
        done service, self-inquiry, and other types
        of efforts before attaining the state of
        effortlessness that Enlightenment is. Sri
        Swami Chidananda, the President of the Divine
        Light Society, has given us an illuminating
        illustration of the way to understand the
        need for effort:
        "It is as if a poor man is living over a
        treasure. One day a sage tells him that ten
        feet under the small plot of land where he is
        sitting, a treasure is buried. That means that
        the poor man is actually very wealthy. But
        until he digs down those ten feet, he is as
        poor a man as he ever was. Even if he digs
        9 feet 11 inches, he is still poor. It is only
        when he has dug the full ten feet and puts his
        hands on the treasure that he is wealthy beyond
        his fondest dreams."
        So, we should understand that you'll never get
        rich waiting for money to just place itself in
        your pockets, and making a great effort is an
        appropriate way to succeed. For some, the effort
        will be by meditating, for others, asking who
        is doing the shoveling, and for others, asking
        what exactly is the shovel. We all have our
        own hole to dig. And as the jazz lovers would
        say, "Can you dig it?"
      • sean tremblay
        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
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 14, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          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

          --- On Sat, 2/13/10, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

          From: medit8ionsociety <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
          Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Effortless Effort
          To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Saturday, February 13, 2010, 10:24 PM

           

          Sometimes we hear that there is no need
          for meditation, acts of charity, devotion
          or prayer, and so on, because we are already
          enlightened. This is often accompanied by
          the suggestion that meditation and other
          type efforts are actually stumbling blocks
          to experiencing the bliss that is ever present.
          But when we look closely at who makes these
          kind of statements, it is often someone who
          is just parroting something they heard someone
          else, whom they consider Enlightened say, but
          they themselves are no further along on the
          path to enlightenment than anyone else. They
          have just heard the words, and as it is said
          "can talk the talk, but can't walk the walk".
          Or it may even come from an Enlightened being,
          but invariably, they have themselves meditated,
          done service, self-inquiry, and other types
          of efforts before attaining the state of
          effortlessness that Enlightenment is. Sri
          Swami Chidananda, the President of the Divine
          Light Society, has given us an illuminating
          illustration of the way to understand the
          need for effort:
          "It is as if a poor man is living over a
          treasure. One day a sage tells him that ten
          feet under the small plot of land where he is
          sitting, a treasure is buried. That means that
          the poor man is actually very wealthy. But
          until he digs down those ten feet, he is as
          poor a man as he ever was. Even if he digs
          9 feet 11 inches, he is still poor. It is only
          when he has dug the full ten feet and puts his
          hands on the treasure that he is wealthy beyond
          his fondest dreams."
          So, we should understand that you'll never get
          rich waiting for money to just place itself in
          your pockets, and making a great effort is an
          appropriate way to succeed. For some, the effort
          will be by meditating, for others, asking who
          is doing the shoveling, and for others, asking
          what exactly is the shovel. We all have our
          own hole to dig. And as the jazz lovers would
          say, "Can you dig it?"


        • medit8ionsociety
          ... Yo Sean In the Hindu tradition, there are only 3 types of actions /energies (Gunas): Tamas – which is characterized such adverbs and adjectives as
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 14, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            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
            >
            Yo Sean
            In the Hindu tradition, there are only 3
            types of actions /energies (Gunas):
            Tamas – which is characterized such adverbs
            and adjectives as darkness, doing things by
            rote, evil, negativity, solely for ego reasons,
            dull, sluggish, inertia, stagnation, selfish, etc.
            Ragas – chasing after desires for greedy reasons,
            creativeness, passion, competitiveness, ambition,
            stimulation; much like Tamas but at least there
            is energetic activity.
            Sattva – peace, serenity, calm, selfless, compassionate,
            and if we say that Tamas is dark, Sattva is light.
            In our classes, dozens of times I gave this example:
            If a community decides to build a gymnasium for the
            neighborhood children so they have a safe place to
            play, all types of people may agree that this is
            a good thing to do. But they may have different
            reasons why they contribute to this project:
            The Tamasic person may give $1000 because his family
            always gave to similar causes.
            The Rajasic person may give $1000 but insist
            the gym is named after them.
            The Sattvic person would donate $1000 anonymously
            just because it helps a good thing to happen.
            So we can see that all the donations may be labeled
            acts of charity, but come from different motivating
            energies.
            The way to "use" the Gunas concept is to place our
            Self in the Witness position and when we see ourselves
            acting Tamasic or Rajasic, use the methods you have
            found to be successful to kick it up into Sattva.
            Meditation is excellent for Witnessing and as a tool of transformation of energies to Sattva.
            Thinking of the question of "where does Charity
            originate from", I'm reminded about a bit of wisdom
            that Sri Jody R once stated (that I think was never refuted):
            to paraphrase….
            "All the things we do are done to seek comfort".
            Similarly, I think it was Kir Li Molari who said:
            "The most selfish person is the most selfless person,
            because s/he knows that by being selfless you gain
            the greatest benefit."
            These and many similar ideas are well worth meditating about.
            Peace and blessings,
            Bob
          • sean tremblay
            Thanks Bob! ... From: medit8ionsociety Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Effortless Effort To:
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 14, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks Bob!

              --- On Sun, 2/14/10, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

              From: medit8ionsociety <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Effortless Effort
              To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Sunday, February 14, 2010, 12:50 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
              >
              Yo Sean
              In the Hindu tradition, there are only 3 types
              of actions /energies (Gunas):
              Tamas – which is characterized such adverbs and
              adjectives as darkness, doing things by rote, evil,
              negativity, solely for ego reasons, dull, sluggish,
              inertia, stagnation, selfish, etc.
              Ragas – chasing after desires for greedy
              reasons, creativeness, passion, competitiveness,
              ambition, stimulation; much like Tamas but
              at least there is energetic activity.
              Sattva – peace, serenity, calm, selfless,
              compassionate, and if we say that Tamas is dark,
              Sattva is light.
              In our classes, dozens of times I gave this example:
              If a community decides to build a gymnasium for the
              neighborhood children so they have a safe place
              to play, all types of people may agree that this
              is a good thing to do. But they may have different
              reasons why they do contribute to this project:
              The Tamasic person may give $1000 because his
              family always gave to similar causes.
              The Rajasic person may give $1000 but insist
              the gym is named after them.
              The Sattvic person would donate $1000 anonymously
              just because It helps a good thing to happen.
              So we can see that all the donations may be labeled
              acts of charity, but come from different motivating energies.
              The way to "use" the Gunas concept is to place
              our Self in the Witness position and when we see
              ourselves acting Tamasic or Rajasic, use the
              methods you have found to be successful to kick it
              up into Sattva. Meditation is excellent for Witnessing
              and as a tool of transformation of energies to Sattva.
              Thinking of the question oh where does Charity
              originate from, I'm reminded about a bit of wisdom
              that Sri Jody R once stated:
              That I think was never refuted…… to paraphrase….
              "All the things we do are to done to seek comfort".
              Similarly, I think it was Kir Li Molari who said:
              "The most selfish person is the most selfless person,
              because s/he knows that be being selfless you the
              greatest benefit."
              These and many similar ideas are well worth meditating about.
              Peace and blessings,
              Bob


            • sandeep chatterjee
                ... 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
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 14, 2010
              • 0 Attachment



                 


                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.



                .

              • sean tremblay
                I don t recall asking anything about genocide! ... From: sandeep chatterjee Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Effortless
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 14, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  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: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.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.



                  .


                • Papajeff
                  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
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 15, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.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: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.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.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > .
                    >
                  • sean tremblay
                    Thanks JeffI 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
                    Message 9 of 16 , 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.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > .
                      >


                    • sean tremblay
                      It seems to me that some views on non duality seem to promote a sense of apathy in some, and apathy to my understanding is the opposite of compassion.  Ive
                      Message 10 of 16 , Feb 15, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        It seems to me that some views on "non duality" seem to promote a sense of apathy in some, and apathy to my understanding is the opposite of compassion.  Ive traveled Asia far and wide and the one thing that stands out in my mind is the acceptance of human suffering a sort of shoulder shrug Ohhh well!  sorry that shit don't fly with this guy!  It is impossible for me to step past a fellow person in pain and do nothing!  I can't even walk past a homeless guy without digging through my pockets, it does not matter to me on bit how he ended up where he is in life, his Karma his thoughts or actions mental illness drug addiction I don't care suffering is suffering! wheeeew! glad I got that off my chest!
                        Also in terms of charity I'm reminded of a quote from JC. about prayer and charity "don't pray like the hypocrites do" and it goes on about giving in secret so that one hand does not know what the other hand id doing, blah blah blah you can look it up.
                        Sorry guys I realize this is not my personal sounding board but my hound dog is getting tired of hearing my ranting and so are my kids!
                        Take care
                        Sean

                        --- 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.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > .
                        >


                      • Sandeep
                        Jeff, When some arrangements of pixels on a PC screen is not clear or not understood.... ....ask and ye shall receive.:-) The pretense that one knows........is
                        Message 11 of 16 , Feb 15, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Jeff,

                          When some arrangements of pixels on a PC screen is not clear or not understood....

                          ....ask and ye shall receive.:-)


                          The pretense that one knows........is the mote in the eye.



                          Papajeff wrote:
                           

                          Hi Sean,

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

                          I agree, Sandeep's reply
                          was not responsive.


                          The safety in numbers, eh?
                          :-)


                          He
                          used your post as a platform
                          for his often repeated
                          but incomplete premise.



                          For you Jeff it may appear incomplete.

                          Which is perfectly fine.




                          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".



                          "You-Jeff" have not understood.

                          And "you" will never.

                          For whom is the distinction between ivory-tower of intellectual non-duality and the charity to be done in the reality of the dirt of the gutter?

                          Are not both the observations and the imagery of the observation both seemingly actual and connoted..... the content of thought?

                          Who has taken delivery of that thought such that the thought(aka the sense of distinction) is of relevance?

                          That is the key........not the what the content of thought is.




                          You said intention is irrelevant, since there is no doer.

                          It is irrelevant.......because intention being a mere thought(whether powerful or powerless).......does not stand in a separative individuated isolation.

                          Each thought is an effect and each effect a cause for another effect.


                          Instead of rushing to a key board to type out baloney(not doubt as divine as anything else)....

                          ....take any intention , any thought........and unravel it.........to see whether there is any distinctive starting point and ending point.


                          The irrelevancy of intention.........is to point that no intention can be isolated from anything else.....

                          .....which thus points to that actions as an external physical actualization of thought , whether further labeled by thought as "charity" or "heinous", "good: or "bad".....

                          .... the specific action or series of actions........themselves cannot be isolated from anything else.



                          As said before..........don't rush to type Jeff .........sit quietly, not such actionless, but thoughtless(which is not the thought, now thought is absent) and see whether any aspect of the entirety of this, as a gestalt of phenomenality........

                          .......whether dirty ivory towers or pristine gutters...........

                          ........whether anything can be isolated.



                          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'.



                          LOL.

                          What understanding, what conclusions!

                          The baloney of re-integration into relative reality after the so called realization of the non-dual truth......has been much bandied about.

                          Yes I know you need the concept of re-integration....... to sell your wares.


                          First of all the so called realization of non-dual truth is more baloney of thought.

                          The realization of non-dual truth, is the apperception, that the very premise of  something as a non-dual truth (and it's counter part aka the relative reality)....
                          .....is once again the creative play of thought.
                           
                          The apperception of not-two........is the end of not-two.....not as some perspective changing into another perspective.....

                          ....which then needs to be tested out in the harsh reality of relativness....

                          ....but .....as the apperception......... that it was not that there was once upon a time "twoness" ..........and now due to some causal linkage

                          .....that "twoness" is no longer true.


                          The apperception of not-two....is the apperception that not-two was never not the case....

                          ...and that which is never not-case........cannot be experienced, realized, understood, affirmed, promoted, promulgated .......in time.


                          Thus the term apperception(which in its very coinage makes it just another term).........connoting that it is not a event in time, or happening to a person.

                          In this state of apperception(to use a mere expression.........as such a state was never not the case, for it to happen in time and thus be referenceable).....

                          ......what absolute truth, what relative reality?

                          What re-integration .......when a disintegration is never the case?


                          Awake today morning, sipping for a hot cup of tea....

                          .....do you make a song and dance about wanting to re-integrate back to resolve the profound and profane issues
                          which so much defined the reality of the drama of your last night-sleep dream?



                          If there is the need to re-integrate with any aspect of the drama of the last night sleep-dream......has awakening happened (to use the language which you will understand).

                          Now thought may well say..........to hell with awakening, I rather remain intoxicated by the drama of the dream(whether awake or asleep).......and be focussed on selling  my wares and pretend that in selling....... I am being charitable.

                          That is perfectly fine.

                          For irrespective of the content of thought....and irrespective of the bestowed label on the content of thought(which actually comes as a package deal)

                          ....the nature of thought ......any thought remains .........fluff.

                          Whether it is about absolute non-duality or relative hoopla.






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




                          Now on the subject of charity......really what is meant by that term is empathy, whether in spirit or material.

                          Charity, empathy......happens in the milieu of beingness where there is not an iota of the cognition of the act or the label bestowed on that act.

                          Charity or empathy happens.......not as a causal effect of an intention, or urge.......but as a nuance of beingness of the milieu around ......whether of a sentient or non-sentient object.

                          Charity or empathy(whether as a physical act or in a realm which thought cannot touch)........happens....

                          ...when such a beingness engulfs all that comes in its' wake........and there is absolutely no cognition of the very engulfing.


                          Charity or empathy has no space for the cognition and thus the naming of any distinctions.....

                          ....and thus no space for thought games of integration, re-integration, dis-integartion, relative or absolute reality.



                          As an allegory.......the sun does not nothing but shines, as it's very beingness.

                          In the engulfing of that beingness...........it has no cognition of the charity or harm.

                          And in that engulfing...........both life gets doled out and death gets doled out.

                          Sustainence gets doled out, deprivation gets doled out.







                          Notice the arising rage Jeff associated with the viewing of these pixels .........and instead of rushing to the key board to defend...

                          ...be with that rage.

                          And delve into.......who are you Jeff in the absence of a buyer of your wares.

                          Whatever answer that arises and thus can be articulated............see it as a mere creativity of thought............drop the content of that thought....

                          ...delve into ..........for whom was this latest answer .......an answer.




                          No, no........no  key board Jeff.........just the meeting ...in complete nakedness.....

                          .......the play of thought as happening in this very moment.........AS the very moment.






                        • sean tremblay
                          Ask a simple question sheeesh! ... From: Sandeep Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Effortless Effort To:
                          Message 12 of 16 , Feb 15, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Ask a simple question sheeesh!

                            --- On Mon, 2/15/10, Sandeep <sandeep1960@...> wrote:

                            From: Sandeep <sandeep1960@...>
                            Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Effortless Effort
                            To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Monday, February 15, 2010, 11:59 PM

                             


                            Jeff,

                            When some arrangements of pixels on a PC screen is not clear or not understood.. ..

                            ....ask and ye shall receive.:-)


                            The pretense that one knows....... .is the mote in the eye.



                            Papajeff wrote:

                             

                            Hi Sean,

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

                            I agree, Sandeep's reply
                            was not responsive.


                            The safety in numbers, eh?
                            :-)


                            He
                            used your post as a platform
                            for his often repeated
                            but incomplete premise.



                            For you Jeff it may appear incomplete.

                            Which is perfectly fine.




                            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".



                            "You-Jeff" have not understood.

                            And "you" will never.

                            For whom is the distinction between ivory-tower of intellectual non-duality and the charity to be done in the reality of the dirt of the gutter?

                            Are not both the observations and the imagery of the observation both seemingly actual and connoted.... . the content of thought?

                            Who has taken delivery of that thought such that the thought(aka the sense of distinction) is of relevance?

                            That is the key........not the what the content of thought is.




                            You said intention is irrelevant, since there is no doer.

                            It is irrelevant.. .....because intention being a mere thought(whether powerful or powerless).. .....does not stand in a separative individuated isolation.

                            Each thought is an effect and each effect a cause for another effect.


                            Instead of rushing to a key board to type out baloney(not doubt as divine as anything else)....

                            ....take any intention , any thought..... ...and unravel it.........to see whether there is any distinctive starting point and ending point.


                            The irrelevancy of intention... ......is to point that no intention can be isolated from anything else.....

                            .....which thus points to that actions as an external physical actualization of thought , whether further labeled by thought as "charity" or "heinous", "good: or "bad".....

                            .... the specific action or series of actions..... ...themselves cannot be isolated from anything else.



                            As said before...... ....don't rush to type Jeff .........sit quietly, not such actionless, but thoughtless( which is not the thought, now thought is absent) and see whether any aspect of the entirety of this, as a gestalt of phenomenality. .......

                            .......whether dirty ivory towers or pristine gutters..... ......

                            ........whether anything can be isolated.



                            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'.



                            LOL.

                            What understanding, what conclusions!

                            The baloney of re-integration into relative reality after the so called realization of the non-dual truth......has been much bandied about.

                            Yes I know you need the concept of re-integration. ...... to sell your wares.


                            First of all the so called realization of non-dual truth is more baloney of thought.

                            The realization of non-dual truth, is the apperception, that the very premise of  something as a non-dual truth (and it's counter part aka the relative reality)....
                            .....is once again the creative play of thought.
                             
                            The apperception of not-two..... ...is the end of not-two..... not as some perspective changing into another perspective. ....

                            ....which then needs to be tested out in the harsh reality of relativness. ...

                            ....but .....as the apperception. ........ that it was not that there was once upon a time "twoness" ..........and now due to some causal linkage

                            .....that "twoness" is no longer true.


                            The apperception of not-two....is the apperception that not-two was never not the case....

                            ...and that which is never not-case.... ....cannot be experienced, realized, understood, affirmed, promoted, promulgated .......in time.


                            Thus the term apperception( which in its very coinage makes it just another term)....... ..connoting that it is not a event in time, or happening to a person.

                            In this state of apperception( to use a mere expression.. .......as such a state was never not the case, for it to happen in time and thus be referenceable) .....

                            ......what absolute truth, what relative reality?

                            What re-integration .......when a disintegration is never the case?


                            Awake today morning, sipping for a hot cup of tea....

                            .....do you make a song and dance about wanting to re-integrate back to resolve the profound and profane issues
                            which so much defined the reality of the drama of your last night-sleep dream?



                            If there is the need to re-integrate with any aspect of the drama of the last night sleep-dream. .....has awakening happened (to use the language which you will understand).

                            Now thought may well say......... .to hell with awakening, I rather remain intoxicated by the drama of the dream(whether awake or asleep)..... ..and be focussed on selling  my wares and pretend that in selling..... .. I am being charitable.

                            That is perfectly fine.

                            For irrespective of the content of thought....and irrespective of the bestowed label on the content of thought(which actually comes as a package deal)

                            ....the nature of thought ......any thought remains .........fluff.

                            Whether it is about absolute non-duality or relative hoopla.






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




                            Now on the subject of charity..... .really what is meant by that term is empathy, whether in spirit or material.

                            Charity, empathy..... .happens in the milieu of beingness where there is not an iota of the cognition of the act or the label bestowed on that act.

                            Charity or empathy happens..... ..not as a causal effect of an intention, or urge.......but as a nuance of beingness of the milieu around ......whether of a sentient or non-sentient object.

                            Charity or empathy(whether as a physical act or in a realm which thought cannot touch)...... ..happens. ...

                            ...when such a beingness engulfs all that comes in its' wake........ and there is absolutely no cognition of the very engulfing.


                            Charity or empathy has no space for the cognition and thus the naming of any distinctions. ....

                            ....and thus no space for thought games of integration, re-integration, dis-integartion, relative or absolute reality.



                            As an allegory.... ...the sun does not nothing but shines, as it's very beingness.

                            In the engulfing of that beingness... ........it has no cognition of the charity or harm.

                            And in that engulfing... ........both life gets doled out and death gets doled out.

                            Sustainence gets doled out, deprivation gets doled out.







                            Notice the arising rage Jeff associated with the viewing of these pixels .........and instead of rushing to the key board to defend...

                            ...be with that rage.

                            And delve into.......who are you Jeff in the absence of a buyer of your wares.

                            Whatever answer that arises and thus can be articulated. ......... ..see it as a mere creativity of thought..... .......drop the content of that thought....

                            ...delve into ..........for whom was this latest answer .......an answer.




                            No, no........no  key board Jeff........ .just the meeting ...in complete nakedness... ..

                            .......the play of thought as happening in this very moment...... ...AS the very moment.







                          • Papajeff
                            Sandeep, Methinks thou dost protest too much. Jeff
                            Message 13 of 16 , Feb 16, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Sandeep,

                              Methinks thou dost protest too much.

                              Jeff
                            • giocas aneta
                              Love & Light Peace, harmony, joy... Namaste aneta ________________________________ From: Papajeff To:
                              Message 14 of 16 , Feb 16, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment

                                Love & Light
                                Peace, harmony, joy...
                                Namaste
                                aneta

                                From: Papajeff <jeff@...>
                                To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Tue, February 16, 2010 3:59:57 PM
                                Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Effortless Effort/Sandeep

                                 

                                Sandeep,

                                Methinks thou dost protest too much.

                                Jeff


                              • Papajeff
                                Namaste, Aneta. Jeff
                                Message 15 of 16 , Feb 16, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Namaste, Aneta.

                                  Jeff

                                  --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, giocas aneta <netheartbluestars@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Love & Light
                                  > Peace, harmony, joy...
                                  > Namaste
                                  > aneta
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ________________________________
                                  > From: Papajeff <jeff@...>
                                  > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Sent: Tue, February 16, 2010 3:59:57 PM
                                  > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Effortless Effort/Sandeep
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Sandeep,
                                  >
                                  > Methinks thou dost protest too much.
                                  >
                                  > Jeff
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.