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

Re: [Meditation Society of America] Effortless Effort

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Feb 14, 2010
      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 2 of 16 , Feb 14, 2010
        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 3 of 16 , Feb 14, 2010



           


          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 4 of 16 , Feb 14, 2010
            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 5 of 16 , Feb 15, 2010
              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 6 of 16 , Feb 15, 2010
                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 7 of 16 , Feb 15, 2010
                  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 8 of 16 , Feb 15, 2010

                    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 9 of 16 , Feb 15, 2010
                      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 10 of 16 , Feb 16, 2010
                        Sandeep,

                        Methinks thou dost protest too much.

                        Jeff
                      • giocas aneta
                        Love & Light Peace, harmony, joy... Namaste aneta ________________________________ From: Papajeff To:
                        Message 11 of 16 , Feb 16, 2010

                          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 12 of 16 , Feb 16, 2010
                            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.