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

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

Expand Messages
  • sean tremblay
    Ask a simple question sheeesh! ... From: Sandeep Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Effortless Effort To:
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 15, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Ask a simple question sheeesh!

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

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

       


      Jeff,

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

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


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



      Papajeff wrote:

       

      Hi Sean,

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

      I agree, Sandeep's reply
      was not responsive.


      The safety in numbers, eh?
      :-)


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



      For you Jeff it may appear incomplete.

      Which is perfectly fine.




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



      "You-Jeff" have not understood.

      And "you" will never.

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

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

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

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




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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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



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



      LOL.

      What understanding, what conclusions!

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

      That is perfectly fine.

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

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

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






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




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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

      Sustainence gets doled out, deprivation gets doled out.







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

      ...be with that rage.

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

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

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




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

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







    • Papajeff
      Sandeep, Methinks thou dost protest too much. Jeff
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 16, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Sandeep,

        Methinks thou dost protest too much.

        Jeff
      • giocas aneta
        Love & Light Peace, harmony, joy... Namaste aneta ________________________________ From: Papajeff To:
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 16, 2010
        • 0 Attachment

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

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

           

          Sandeep,

          Methinks thou dost protest too much.

          Jeff


        • Papajeff
          Namaste, Aneta. Jeff
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 16, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Namaste, Aneta.

            Jeff

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