Fw: [RamanaMaharshi] Further quotes from a 14th century Christian mystic

[Guest guest]

To follow up on the forward that Harsha posted a few days ago...

here is another one posted on RamanaMaharshi...

First a few comments and then some more quotes. I consider the

Unknown Author to be a jnani--he says things in such a way that he

had to _know_ what he was writing about. But you have to be aware

that he wrote in the context of his time and place--English Medieval

Catholicism. So, as the old saying goes, "Buyer beware!"Having said

that, I consider the Book of Privy Counsel to be one of the

greatest--and most underappreciated--works in Christian mystical

literature. It has been several years since I last read the Book of

Privy Counsel, and, upon rereading it to gather quotes for the group

here, I am still amazed at the Author's clear exposition of

Self-abidance and its practice. The work is clearly written to a

novice in comtemplation and the practice of Self-abidance in

particular. In the context of the previous quotes cited, here are a

few more extended quotes to give a fuller flavor of the text (my

apologies for their length):==========Begin

quotes======================No doubt, when you being this practice

your undisciplined faculties, finding no meat to feed upon, will

angrily taunt you to abandon it. They will demand that you take up

something more worthwhile, which means, of course, something more

suited to them. For you are now engaged in a work so far beyond their

accustomed activity that they think you are wasting your time. But

their dissatisfaction, inasmuch as it arises from this, is actually a

good sign, since it proves that you have gone on to something of

greater value. So I am delighted. And why not? For nothing I can do,

and no exercise of my physical or spiritual faculties can bring me so

near to God and so far from the world, as this naked, quiet awareness

of my blind being and my joyful gift of it to God. Do not be

troubled, then, if your faculties rebel and plague you to give it up.

As I say, it is only because they find no meat for themselves in this

practice. But you must not yield. Master them by refusing to feed

them despite their rage. By feeding them, I mean giving them all

sorts of intricate speculations about the details of your being to

gnaw on. Meditations like this certainly have their place and value,

but in comparison to the blind awarenss of your being and your gift

of self to God, they amount to a rupture and dispersion of that

wholeness so necessary to a deep encounter with God. Therefore, keep

yourself recollected and poised in the deep center of your spirit and

do not wander back to working with your faculties under any pretext no

matter how sublime.""Relying on God's grace to led and guide you, you

will come to this deep experience of his love by following the path I

have set before you in these pages. It demands that you always and

ever strive toward the naked awareness of your self, and continually

offer your being to God as your most precious gift. But I remind you

again: see that it is naked lest you fall into error. Inasmuch as

this awareness really is naked, you will at first find it terribly

painful to rest in for any length of time because, as I have

explained, your faculties will find no meat for themselves in it. But

here is no harm in this; in fact, I am actually delighted. Go ahead.

Let them fast awhile from their natural delight in knowing. It is

well said that man naturally desires to know. Yet at the same time,

it is also true that no amount of natural or acquired knowledge will

bring him to taste the spiritual experience of God, for this is a

pure gift of grace. And so I urge you: go after experience rather

than knowledge. On account of pride, knowledge may often deceive you,

but this gentle, loving affection will not deceive you. Knowledge

tends to breed conceit, but love builds. Knowledge is full of labor,

but love, full of rest."===========End quotes==================The

"knowledge" just described is clearly dualistic knowledge acquired

through the faculties, and not the knowledge that comes from direct

experience of Self abidance. It also shows that the Author has a

Bhakti leaning in his practice which comes through in other parts of

the text.Now you have to read the rest of the work yourself.

:-)Loving regards,David

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

this is a very penetrating, clarifying and encouraging piece, about

the ancient Christian Mystics and I will certainly pursue it further.

 

In the meantime, I have been exploring this matter of "you are not the doer."

 

In fact, I have been exploring the matter of "I am not the doer", but

by "I", I do not mean the bodymind, Warwick, but the formless

consciousness, the ultimate subjectivity, which I am.

 

The mistake which is easily made, even after it is seen that "I" is

subjectivity, is to somehow cordon off this knowledge from what is

termed the relative world. So, in the relative world it is business

as usual -- I am a bodymind, you are a different bodymind, and the

context of this existence is the material world of separate material

objects.

 

Well, let's put the business-as-usual model aside for a moment.

 

Instead of assuming, (for it is an assumption, an explanation of raw

experience), that I am body, which is material stuff, and you are

body, which is material "stuff", and what we refer to as "rivers" and

"mountains" and "houses" are material stuff,

let's just stay with

1. the fact of consciousness, formless consciousness, which I, (and I

presume, you too,) know myself to be, and

2. the sights and sounds and smells and tastes and touch-sensations

and the thoughts and feelings that present to consciousness.

 

OK; now, from this viewpoint, let's look again at a situation that

might ordinarily be called " Me having a conversation with you."

A thought occurs to me and is spoken. I hear the words at the same

time that you do. Ordinarily the assumption is made that I am the

thinker and the sayer, the author of this string of events.

 

But, if we do away with the material stuff, and the separation that

goes with physicality, then there are simply thoughts and sounds in

consciousness. Who is to say that I am the author? You might be the

author? Some other consciousness , God perhaps, might be the author.

God might be the author of every one of the items of raw data that

"my" mind experiences, including the belief that there is an entity

called Warwick.

 

I might be God, both creating the whole show and observing it at the

same time, as happens in a dream.

I don't mean that Warwick might be God, I mean that "I", the ultimate

subjectivity that I am, might be God, doing the creating, including

the belief that "I am warwick" and the belief that "I am Joyce" and

all the other separate-entity beliefs.

 

So then, as Warwick, I can quite legitimately see all of existence,

including myself, including what I previously thought were "my'

actions, as a show being put on for my benefit. In which case there

is absolutely no room for a "separate me." God is all, including

"me".

 

The corollary, of course, is that I am God.

Well, if "I", total subjectivity, is, am, formless (and must be

formless, because any form would be an object, and outside of total

subjectivity) then there can be no boundary between the consciousness

that I know and the consciousness that you know; there is, then, only

one consciousness.

It is not that I, Warwick, have consciousness, and you, Sally-anne,

have consciousness; it is that the one consciousness has Warwick and

has Sally-Anne etc., and is putting on the whole drama, playing every

part.

 

So no one is driving the bus, God is driving the bus and Warwick and

Sally-Anne and all those who previously thought themselves to be

driving, each one his own Mini, or perhaps his own bus with a few

passengers (Some gurus I could, but won't, mention) all can relax and

enjoy the passing scenery, God's in charge and everything is going

fine.

 

And I am not the doer.

QED

 

Love,

 

Warwick

[Guest guest]

, "Warwick Wakefield"

<formandsubstance@t...> wrote:

> Dear Friends,

>

> this is a very penetrating, clarifying and encouraging piece, about

the ancient Christian Mystics and I will certainly pursue it further.

>

> In the meantime, I have been exploring this matter of "you are not

the doer."

>

 

'you' have been 'doing' this?

how encouraging

> In fact, I have been exploring the matter of "I am not the doer",

but by "I", I do not mean the bodymind, Warwick, but the formless

consciousness, the ultimate subjectivity, which I am.

>

 

'you' is a great explorator

> The mistake which is easily made, even after it is seen that "I" is

subjectivity, is to somehow cordon off this knowledge from what is

termed the relative world.

 

seen by whom?

 

So, in the relative world it is business as usual -- I am a bodymind,

you are a different bodymind, and the context of this existence is

the material world of separate material objects.

>

 

are you relative or absolute?, are you speaking of the problem or are

you part of the problem?

> Well, let's put the business-as-usual model aside for a moment.

>

> Instead of assuming, (for it is an assumption, an explanation of

raw experience), that I am body, which is material stuff, and you are

body, which is material "stuff", and what we refer to as "rivers"

and "mountains" and "houses" are material stuff,

> let's just stay with

> 1. the fact of consciousness, formless consciousness, which I, (and

I presume, you too,) know myself to be, and

 

presumption needs a hard doer, a hard thinker, means someone thinks

he holds something.

> 2. the sights and sounds and smells and tastes and touch-sensations

and the thoughts and feelings that present to consciousness.

>

 

sight and sound is thoughts, consciousness is sound too, it is a wave

that starts from the top of your skull and runs to your feet.

> OK; now, from this viewpoint, let's look again at a situation that

might ordinarily be called " Me having a conversation with you."

> A thought occurs to me and is spoken. I hear the words at the same

time that you do. Ordinarily the assumption is made that I am the

thinker and the sayer, the author of this string of events.

>

 

you'll need a place to memorize this, experience it, agree with it,

and where might that place be? within or without God?

> But, if we do away with the material stuff, and the separation that

goes with physicality, then there are simply thoughts and sounds in

consciousness. Who is to say that I am the author? You might be the

author? Some other consciousness , God perhaps, might be the author.

 

so ... say it!! are you God or are you not?

 

God might be the author of every one of the items of raw data

that "my" mind experiences, including the belief that there is an

entity called Warwick.

>

so there is a battle going on in Warwick

> I might be God, both creating the whole show and observing it at

the same time, as happens in a dream.

 

God is no observer of things and no doer, this is a contradiction in

terms.

> I don't mean that Warwick might be God, I mean that "I", the

ultimate subjectivity that I am, might be God, doing the creating,

including the belief that "I am warwick" and the belief that "I am

Joyce" and all the other separate-entity beliefs.

 

so definitely Warwick doesn't dare be God, how cowardly on a

battlefield.

>

> So then, as Warwick, I can quite legitimately see all of existence,

including myself, including what I previously thought were "my'

actions, as a show being put on for my benefit. In which case there

is absolutely no room for a "separate me." God is all, including "me".

>

do you see what I experience right now?

> The corollary, of course, is that I am God.

> Well, if "I", total subjectivity, is, am, formless (and must be

formless, because any form would be an object, and outside of total

subjectivity) then there can be no boundary between the consciousness

that I know and the consciousness that you know; there is, then, only

one consciousness.

 

this is not yours to understand or discard.

> It is not that I, Warwick, have consciousness, and you, Sally-anne,

have consciousness; it is that the one consciousness has Warwick and

has Sally-Anne etc., and is putting on the whole drama, playing every

part.

>

if He ever was interested in playing any games..., not all schools

believe that 'lila' means anything at all.

> So no one is driving the bus, God is driving the bus and Warwick

and Sally-Anne and all those who previously thought themselves to be

driving, each one his own Mini, or perhaps his own bus with a few

passengers (Some gurus I could, but won't, mention) all can relax and

enjoy the passing scenery, God's in charge and everything is going

fine.

 

ok, God don't drive because God don't go, because God is where He is

to go and all seen within Him sight and all done within all Him

action within Him motionless (picture Paramount)

love,

eric

>

> And I am not the doer.

> QED

>

> Love,

>

> Warwick