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

[Meditation Society of America] Re: Effortless Effort

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.