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

Re: [Meditation Society of America] Effortless Effort

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Feb 14, 2010
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 16 , Feb 14, 2010
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 16 , Feb 14, 2010
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 16 , Feb 14, 2010
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 16 , Feb 14, 2010
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 16 , Feb 15, 2010
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 16 , Feb 15, 2010
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 16 , Feb 15, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 16 , Feb 15, 2010
                    View Source
                    • 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 10 of 16 , Feb 15, 2010
                      View Source
                      • 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 11 of 16 , Feb 16, 2010
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Sandeep,

                          Methinks thou dost protest too much.

                          Jeff
                        • giocas aneta
                          Love & Light Peace, harmony, joy... Namaste aneta ________________________________ From: Papajeff To:
                          Message 12 of 16 , Feb 16, 2010
                          View Source
                          • 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 13 of 16 , Feb 16, 2010
                            View Source
                            • 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.