--- In [email protected], "vajradhatu108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "vajradhatu108" <vajranatha@> > > wrote: > > > That's not to say "effort is bad", is just part and parcel of > > > dualistic paths. > > > > > > Reflexively authentic open awareness is not focused on any particular > > > object and this is why no effort is needed. Any "consciousness" by > > > necessity arises from causes, one of which is an object, even a > > subtle > > > object. Self-arisen wisdom does not need an object. In fact > > > effortless, nonmeditation requires *no subject or object. > > > > You mention something called a dualistic path above, which > > necessitates the existence of a non-dualistic path, which is of course > > impossible, for who is on the path then? > > Someone on a pathless path. > > Paradox is the logic behind such a pathless path.
I was hoping you would say that. > > So, even an effortless nonmeditation, where the goal is self- arisen > > wisdom, is a practice distinct from daily activity, and hence, a > > dualistic path. > > Who said it was distinct from everyday activity? > Thanks for clearing that up. > > What you have described above is a non-dual nonmeditation possibly > > *within a dualistic path*, requiring effort to distinquish between the > > nonmeditation used to bring about self-arisen wisdom, and all other > > activity. > > No. It's a "sudden" approach as opposed to a "gradual" approach (e.g. Patanajali-yoga, > Buddhist Lam Rim, etc.). You'll find an emphasis and insistence on effortlessness as > hallmarks of "sudden" schools like Zen/Chan, Dzogchen/Mahasandhi, some Trika schools > and so on. In theory the "sudden" approach is great, but doesn't conform to any experience I have heard of, unless it is just the difference in perspective claiming the glass half full vs half empty; in other words, either first assuming we are already enlightened at any point along a continuum vs we gain that state after a certain amount of spiritual development. I can agree with either case, though the latter makes more sense personally from a practical perspective. > > Only when we speak about our establishment in a non-dual state, and > > the path existing *within* the non-dual state, is any practice of > > meditation, or nonmeditation, or watching TV, or eating a meal, > > dancing or sleeping, experienced as a non-dual path, within the non- > > dual state; A path of endless knowledge, existing within itself. > > Now you're getting closer. > > Ask yourself this question: if there is true effortlessness, could there be separation? I was assuming you were speaking about a non object oriented meditation when you spoke about 'nonmeditation'. If not, then all of what I was describing above doesn't apply; effortlessness pervades. > > Effortless in TM spin was merely a way of saying it was easy. Later it became an > amalgamated as part of the dogma--and we all simply "believed". > I'd put it this way, before enlightenment all is effort and afterwards, by definition there is no effort. I always found TM to be easy, but never thought about whether or not it was effortless. Thanks for clarifying your message. now I can reread the original and get what you are saying. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
