For Warwick

[Guest guest]

--- Warwick Wakefield <nomistake

wrote:

Good morning Warwick,

Last evening I wrote a reply to your previous posting

that had included a reply to me but went AWOL on

me and I had to postpone another effort. now this

posting comes along and cuts across some of that which

I had written.

In the last posting you wrote so very well of that

experience on the journey home and I have put that

into my records and will come back to it later in the

year. You may have picked up from past postings that I

chair an organisation in London that looks at a

scientific/spiritual study of these flashes in

consciousness. So thank you for this.

Now to your latest posting.

> When I write this my intention is that you will

> recognize that you also are a child of God, that God

> speaks to you directly and not just through

> scriptures, and that you will then be faithful to

> what you yourself deem to be true, even if it goes

> against the scriptures. And if the scriptures say

> something that you don't understand, be honest and

> say so, rather than adopt a veneer of

> knowledgeability.

 

Shankara would agree with your words as he advises us

to note anubhava..experience...informed by

sruti..revealed scripture.

Now I would ask you please to read your own words and

listen to your own voice. You write 'this is my

intention.....' but is it? Peeling off the layers of

onion skins of intention within intention within

intention, what is the vibration there which sets off

such a background list of generalisations, of opinions

which, as a Westerner, I may note to be superficial at

best. Only you can confirm this but personally, behind

all your words I hear a divisiveness that echoes that

about that of which you are complaining.

It seems to me that in your 'homeward journey'

experience there is the unity which you know and

inspires your spiritual enquiry and the postings above

are the flip-side of the same coin, the dis-unity.

That is what I meant when I said about maintianing

something by holding on to the idea in yourself.

You gave me a hypothetical situation about seeing the

horror of Al Quaeeda's killing of civilians.

It is indeed down to intention and knowledge. If you

observe that such terrorist organisations are wrong

without the knowledge of the poverty (of mind as well

as material wealth), oppression and violence which

fosters their intentions then you are maintaining the

ignorance that is part of their motivation. The

generalistaions of the West as the Evil Empire is a

partial, uninformed view.

I am speaking here with some experience as I have had

ten years of working voluntarily in the field of

conflict resolution in Ireland, Middle East and

theMoslem/Christian problems in Pakistan.

So let us leave the hypothetical situation.

I do not know how much Vedanta you have studied and

would welcome greater precision in your statements as

your genuine and valid enthusiasm spills out and gives

me too much to select a single point. This is not

nit-picking but we do need to be accurate and precise.

Indian philosophy has developed over thousands of

years and is very precise, a razor's edge of fine

mental effort and we sharpen that edge by falling off

the sides quite regularly. Generalisations will miss

that refinement and makes it difficult to enter into

discussion with you and no one wants that as you have

so much to offer.

 

You previously asked about the source of my Rumi

references to you. You may like to look at William

Chittick's books of 'The Sufi Path of LOve' and 'The

Sufi Path of Knowledge' which are all on Rumi with

many quotes. Also I use Nicholson's and Arberry's

translations.

 

In your previous posting you you spoke of the

'certainty' that your 'going-home from work'

experience gave you. This is a common word used in

such experiences and I will end with a couple of Rumi

quotes for you. In terms of Indian philosophy you may

like to look at Bhartrihari's Sphota theory....I can

hear some advaitin's rushing to their keyboards but

please do as I would like to discuss this with

someone......as well as Shankara's Upadesha Sahasri if

you do not know them already.

 

Rumi said:‘The sum (of the matter is this): When a man

has attained to union, the go-between becomes

worthless to him.

Since you have reached the object of your search, O

elegant one, the search for knowledge has now become

evil.

Since you have mounted to the roofs of heaven, it

would be futile to seek a ladder.

After (having attained to) felicity, the way (that

leads) to felicity is worthless except for the sake of

helping and teaching others.

The shining mirror, which has been cleaned and

perfect- it would be a folly to apply a burnisher to

it.

Seated happily beside the Sultan and in favour with

him- it would be disgraceful to seek letter and

messenger.’

M. III 1400-1405

 

 

 

‘O son, every opinion is thirsting for certainty and

emulously flapping its wings in quest thereof.

When it attains to knowledge, then the wing becomes a

foot, and its knowledge begins to scent certainty,

For in the tested Way knowledge is inferior to

certainty but above opinion.

Know that knowledge is a seeker of certainty and

certainty is a seeker of vision and intuition.’

M. III 4118-4121

 

‘When the soul has been united with God, to speak of

that (God) is (to speak of) this soul, and to speak of

this (soul) is (to speak of) that

(God).’

M. VI 4041

 

‘That unity is beyond description and condition;

nothing comes into

the arena of speech except duality.’

M. VI 2034

 

Rumi tells a story, to illustrate the point, of a man

who knocked at a friend’s door. When asked who was

there he replied, ‘I.’ He was told to go away. Much

later he returned and knocked again:

‘“Who is there?” cried his friend.

He answered, “Thou, O charmer of all hearts.”

“Now,” said the friend, “since thou art I, come in;

there is no room for two ‘I’s’ in this house.’’ ‘

M. I. 3056

 

 

Peace

 

 

ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!

http://greetings.

[Guest guest]

Hullo Ken

 

You say that there was a quality of divisiveness about my postings. Well yes, of

course there was. I was making a distinction between one thing and another. I

was making a distinction between book knowledge and first-hand knowledge. I know

from myself that it is possible to state something which may be true in the

abstract but is not true in the mouth of the one who is saying it. I have done

this myself, I continue to discover myself doing it and that is how I recognize

it in others. Do you never hear yourself saying something and hear, from the

sound of your own voice, that what you said was not true? At least not true for

you at that moment?

 

This is the search for authenticity. Absolute truth may not be exactly the same

thing as authenticity of speech, but they are cousins.

 

For example, imagine that a friend of mine were to have a motorbike accident and

be told that he would henceforth be a quadriplegic. If I were say to him, "Don't

fret, this is a necessary and holy thing that has happened, it is God showing

Her grace in a concentrated form." that would most probably be a lie in my

mouth. It might be true in an objective way, and I have indeed seen this to be

the case, but if it were not a living truth for me at that moment, then, to say

it would be to tell an untruth, to betray myself and to betray God.

Truth is not just an objective statement of fact, like a scientific equation; it

is something alive, and we all have to be faithful to the truth as it is

revealed from moment to moment.

 

And if we are fortunate, by the grace of God, to be taken out of time so that we

can see from the perspective of the changeless, then we can be unworried by the

to and fro of the events in time, and speak accordingly. But if we are still

harbouring some belief that we are a person, doing things in time, then we

cannot, if we respect authenticity, assume the role of "Someone who knows".

There is something so intrinsically absurd about it. The essence of being a

"person" is to believe the roles that are being played. And the essence of

freedom is to see, or perhaps to be, That which is free from all roles, the

changeless witness. So isn't it an absurdity to play the role of She who is free

from all roles? It is like working at relaxing.

 

One cannot really say who one is in a definite way, but it is very useful to say

who one is in a general way, because it helps, every time it helps, to negate

the false beliefs about who we are, the roles with which we identify.

 

Ken, I used to think that the answer to the question, "Who am I?" was something

terribly complicated and only those who are tremendously intelligent, or

tremendously pure, could possibly see it. And for many years I beat my head

against a brick wall, trying to find the answer.But when the answer was given to

me I saw that IT IS NOT TERRIBLY COMPLICATED. It doesn't require great

intelligence and it doesn't require superhuman purity. It is subtle, to be sure,

but, at least in the first instance, it is not really all that difficult. I went

to a meeting here in Sydney last night and Richard Lang, a friend of Douglas

Harding, was demonstrating it, and people all over the room, ordinary

householders, were getting it.

 

Now, there is a difference between seeing a glimpse of truth and abiding in

truth. And it is possible, after encountering one's true nature, to harbour,

still, many ontological misapprehensions. And that is why I daily contemplate

what Advaita has to say about Jiva and Atman, about waves and the ocean, about

consciousness and the nature of objects in consciousness. It is my life. And if

I say that I am infinite consciousness, mostly it is to contradict the false but

long-held belief that I am this perceived object, this "person". And if I

address you as infinite consciousness it is to negate the long-held but false

belief that you are a "person". But it is no good being given a glimpse of one's

true nature and then acting as if, for all practical purposes, one were a person

amongst persons. That is why I use the word betrayal.

 

Is there also, amongst what is my sadhana, some plain old-fashioned bitchiness?

Some ordinary ego attachment that makes me indignant that this kind of

disrespect has been shown to ME. Yes, of course. It is good of you to point that

out. I suppose the best thing to do is to be silent until all anger has gone.

But the worst thing to do is to feign loving kindness where it doesn't exist.

You probably will disagree with me there and I expect we will just have to agree

to differ.

 

I will find Bhartrihari's Sphota theory as well as Shankara's Upadesha Sahasri

as soon as possible. And thank you for the Rumi titles- I will also obtain them.

 

What little I know of Advaita comes from my satsangs with Francis Lucille and my

readings of the recorded satsangs of Sri Krishna Menon. And a tiny amount of

reading in The Ashtavakra. I am not at all knowledgeable. And I appreciate what

you say about Indian philosophy having developed over thousands of years and

being very precise, a razor's edge of fine mental effort. But do you appreciate

what I say about the huge difference between book learning and that which has

been revealed to us by God, in such a way that we can speak, as they said about

Jesus, "with authority"? I do not say that the two necessarily are in

opposition. I clearly remember, when it was given to me to have my first glimpse

of who we are, at Hampstead a few years back, that I recalled many things that I

had read in Nisargadatta's great book, I Am That, and I said to myself, "Oh, so

THAT'S what he means!" But then it became living truth, and not just

book-learning.

 

Thank you for the further additional Rumi quotes. I don't really understand all

that much of them, but they have a wonderful resonance and I am eager to let

them seep into me.

 

much love

Warwick

 

 

 

 

---- Original Message -----

ken knight

advaitin

Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:30 PM

Re: For Warwick

 

 

 

--- Warwick Wakefield <nomistake

wrote:

Good morning Warwick,

Last evening I wrote a reply to your previous posting

that had included a reply to me but went AWOL on

me and I had to postpone another effort. now this

posting comes along and cuts across some of that which

I had written.

In the last posting you wrote so very well of that

experience on the journey home and I have put that

into my records and will come back to it later in the

year. You may have picked up from past postings that I

chair an organisation in London that looks at a

scientific/spiritual study of these flashes in

consciousness. So thank you for this.

Now to your latest posting.

> When I write this my intention is that you will

> recognize that you also are a child of God, that God

> speaks to you directly and not just through

> scriptures, and that you will then be faithful to

> what you yourself deem to be true, even if it goes

> against the scriptures. And if the scriptures say

> something that you don't understand, be honest and

> say so, rather than adopt a veneer of

> knowledgeability.

 

Shankara would agree with your words as he advises us

to note anubhava..experience...informed by

sruti..revealed scripture.

Now I would ask you please to read your own words and

listen to your own voice. You write 'this is my

intention.....' but is it? Peeling off the layers of

onion skins of intention within intention within

intention, what is the vibration there which sets off

such a background list of generalisations, of opinions

which, as a Westerner, I may note to be superficial at

best. Only you can confirm this but personally, behind

all your words I hear a divisiveness that echoes that

about that of which you are complaining.

It seems to me that in your 'homeward journey'

experience there is the unity which you know and

inspires your spiritual enquiry and the postings above

are the flip-side of the same coin, the dis-unity.

That is what I meant when I said about maintianing

something by holding on to the idea in yourself.

You gave me a hypothetical situation about seeing the

horror of Al Quaeeda's killing of civilians.

It is indeed down to intention and knowledge. If you

observe that such terrorist organisations are wrong

without the knowledge of the poverty (of mind as well

as material wealth), oppression and violence which

fosters their intentions then you are maintaining the

ignorance that is part of their motivation. The

generalistaions of the West as the Evil Empire is a

partial, uninformed view.

I am speaking here with some experience as I have had

ten years of working voluntarily in the field of

conflict resolution in Ireland, Middle East and

theMoslem/Christian problems in Pakistan.

So let us leave the hypothetical situation.

I do not know how much Vedanta you have studied and

would welcome greater precision in your statements as

your genuine and valid enthusiasm spills out and gives

me too much to select a single point. This is not

nit-picking but we do need to be accurate and precise.

Indian philosophy has developed over thousands of

years and is very precise, a razor's edge of fine

mental effort and we sharpen that edge by falling off

the sides quite regularly. Generalisations will miss

that refinement and makes it difficult to enter into

discussion with you and no one wants that as you have

so much to offer.

 

You previously asked about the source of my Rumi

references to you. You may like to look at William

Chittick's books of 'The Sufi Path of LOve' and 'The

Sufi Path of Knowledge' which are all on Rumi with

many quotes. Also I use Nicholson's and Arberry's

translations.

 

In your previous posting you you spoke of the

'certainty' that your 'going-home from work'

experience gave you. This is a common word used in

such experiences and I will end with a couple of Rumi

quotes for you. In terms of Indian philosophy you may

like to look at Bhartrihari's Sphota theory....I can

hear some advaitin's rushing to their keyboards but

please do as I would like to discuss this with

someone......as well as Shankara's Upadesha Sahasri if

you do not know them already.

 

Rumi said:'The sum (of the matter is this): When a man

has attained to union, the go-between becomes

worthless to him.

Since you have reached the object of your search, O

elegant one, the search for knowledge has now become

evil.

Since you have mounted to the roofs of heaven, it

would be futile to seek a ladder.

After (having attained to) felicity, the way (that

leads) to felicity is worthless except for the sake of

helping and teaching others.

The shining mirror, which has been cleaned and

perfect- it would be a folly to apply a burnisher to

it.

Seated happily beside the Sultan and in favour with

him- it would be disgraceful to seek letter and

messenger.'

M. III 1400-1405

 

 

 

'O son, every opinion is thirsting for certainty and

emulously flapping its wings in quest thereof.

When it attains to knowledge, then the wing becomes a

foot, and its knowledge begins to scent certainty,

For in the tested Way knowledge is inferior to

certainty but above opinion.

Know that knowledge is a seeker of certainty and

certainty is a seeker of vision and intuition.'

M. III 4118-4121

 

'When the soul has been united with God, to speak of

that (God) is (to speak of) this soul, and to speak of

this (soul) is (to speak of) that

(God).'

M. VI 4041

 

'That unity is beyond description and condition;

nothing comes into

the arena of speech except duality.'

M. VI 2034

 

Rumi tells a story, to illustrate the point, of a man

who knocked at a friend's door. When asked who was

there he replied, 'I.' He was told to go away. Much

later he returned and knocked again:

'"Who is there?" cried his friend.

He answered, "Thou, O charmer of all hearts."

"Now," said the friend, "since thou art I, come in;

there is no room for two 'I's' in this house.'' '

M. I. 3056

 

 

Peace

 

 

ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!

http://greetings.

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

Your use of is subject to

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Warwick Wakefield <nomistake

wrote:

Morning Warwick,

I am presuming that you are still in Oz but the moon

is shining brightly here.

Many thanks for your posting and I will reply tomorrow

morning as my dog is demanding her late night walk and

I also have to prepare some words for a meeting

tomorrow.

 

I see that Sadananda has replied for you but I would

also like to go through your latest mail from today

before we rush off on a new tack. You have written so

very well, from the heart and the intellect, from

experience. That is greatly appreciated.I will try to

do the same tomorrow.

 

See you

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!

http://greetings.

[Guest guest]

Dear Warwick,

I am responding only to a few lines of yours which have resonated with

me.Here they are.

> I was making a distinction between book knowledge and first-hand

knowledge...........

> This is the search for authenticity. Absolute truth may not be exactly the

same thing as authenticity of >speech, but they are

cousins..................

 

Right on. There are two kinds of knowledge -- one that comes from external

sources (books included) and the other comes from experience. The "idea or

thought" that is generated by the knowledge of the first kind gets

substantiated as "a fact" by the knowledge of the second kind. For some the

experience is the pre-cursor to the enquiry and the Scriptural knowledge

provides the fact. The authenticity of the words and statements have to be

rooted in the first hand knowledge, substantiated by the Scriptural books.

If not, intellectual arrogance becomes the substitute for authenticity!

>I suppose the best thing to do is to be silent until all anger has gone.

But the worst thing to do is to feign loving kindness where it doesn't

exist. <

 

When one has the knowledge as a "fact" (through experience) there is no more

anger. There is no more any need for deigning loving kindness where it does

not exist. However this is not of common occurrence.

 

-- Vis

[Guest guest]

--- Warwick Wakefield <nomistake

wrote:

 

Morning, or whatever it is there, Warwick,

Keeping up with you is like trying to catch up with a

bush fire. Fifteen hours away from the keyboard and

you have already moved on but I will come back to this

because it has some very worthwhile points. I

understand your point of view, I agree with much of

what you say but at times I will oppose you, not to

cavil, but to try to widen the picture.

> You say that there was a quality of divisiveness

> about my postings. Well yes, of course there was. I

> was making a distinction between one thing and

> another. I was making a distinction between book

> knowledge and first-hand knowledge.

 

All divisions exist in a substratum of unity. So what

is the unity behind the divisions of knowledge into

higher knowledge, insight, and lower knowledge,

book-learning? In Rumi's image, both these are

transcended by certainty when once experienced the

ladders of learning can be thrown away. Or more simply

we may say that both exist in consciousness. In

Sanskrit there are many comparable terms; two of which

are vijnaana and jnaana the root of which, jna, gives

us our word knowledge. You may translate these as

insight and sight or intuition and tuition or

immediate and mediate. From your posting you clearly

know this already.

> I know from

> myself that it is possible to state something which

> may be true in the abstract but is not true in the

> mouth of the one who is saying it. I have done this

> myself, I continue to discover myself doing it and

> that is how I recognize it in others. Do you never

> hear yourself saying something and hear, from the

> sound of your own voice, that what you said was not

> true? At least not true for you at that moment?

 

Very much so. When wearing my 'science hat' I take

part in research sessions using the Bohm Dialgoue.

This is a common sense technique providing the

conditions for creative thought. Only one person

speaks at a time, there is a pause after each speaker

and if you wish to speak you pause before doing so.

This helps to rid the mind of pre-conceived speeches

and we get to hear what we are saying. A valuable

practice in a non-listening world.

>

> This is the search for authenticity. Absolute truth

> may not be exactly the same thing as authenticity of

> speech, but they are cousins.

>

> For example, imagine that a friend of mine were to

> have a motorbike accident and be told that he would

> henceforth be a quadriplegic.

 

Sorry if I am not too keen on the hypotheticals

although I understand your point. I likeactual

accounts of events as events are accurate metaphors

while the hypotheticals can get a little woolly.

> Truth is not just an objective statement of fact,

> like a scientific equation; it is something alive,

> and we all have to be faithful to the truth as it is

> revealed from moment to moment.

 

May we all stay awake to this.

> There is something so intrinsically absurd about it.

> The essence of being a "person" is to believe the

> roles that are being played. And the essence of

> freedom is to see, or perhaps to be, That which is

> free from all roles, the changeless witness. So

> isn't it an absurdity to play the role of She who is

> free from all roles? It is like working at relaxing.

>

>

> One cannot really say who one is in a definite way,

> but it is very useful to say who one is in a general

> way, because it helps, every time it helps, to

> negate the false beliefs about who we are, the roles

> with which we identify.

 

OK for ourselves if we wish to do so but not correct

to limit others by generalisations. I speak from

experience as do most of us.

> Ken, I used to think that the answer to the

> question, "Who am I?" was something terribly

> complicated and only those who are tremendously

> intelligent, or tremendously pure, could possibly

> see it.

 

That's because everything they teach in schools seems

so complicated. truth is indeed simple which is why we

like to complicate matters to hide from it and claim

'my life'. I am sure you know the addition to the

above question, "Who is asking the question?"

>And for many years I beat my head against a

> brick wall, trying to find the answer.But when the

> answer was given to me I saw that IT IS NOT TERRIBLY

> COMPLICATED. It doesn't require great intelligence

> and it doesn't require superhuman purity. It is

> subtle, to be sure, but, at least in the first

> instance, it is not really all that difficult. I

> went to a meeting here in Sydney last night and

> Richard Lang, a friend of Douglas Harding, was

> demonstrating it, and people all over the room,

> ordinary householders, were getting it.

 

This is the point about generalisations. When teaching

in schools I used to ask my class to watch the

caretaker at work. He was their greatest teacher for

he moved about quietly and efficiently. When asked to

do something he would do so without question, no

matter how difficult. His cupboard was immaculately

ordered, he was a truly wise man in action. So is

John Hick, a professor of the study of religion.

Everyone has something to teach us, even grammarians

with their heads stuck in books.

>

> Now, there is a difference between seeing a glimpse

> of truth and abiding in truth. And it is possible,

> after encountering one's true nature, to harbour,

> still, many ontological misapprehensions. And that

> is why I daily contemplate what Advaita has to say

> about Jiva and Atman, about waves and the ocean,

> about consciousness and the nature of objects in

> consciousness. It is my life.

>

> Is there also, amongst what is my sadhana, some

> plain old-fashioned bitchiness? Some ordinary ego

> attachment that makes me indignant that this kind of

> disrespect has been shown to ME. Yes, of course. It

> is good of you to point that out. I suppose the best

> thing to do is to be silent until all anger has

> gone.

 

Yes. I think so.

> But the worst thing to do is to feign loving

> kindness where it doesn't exist. You probably will

> disagree with me there and I expect we will just

> have to agree to differ.

 

I will. Our friend Will Shakespeare wrote, "Assume a

virtue if you have it not." Malivinia

Reynolds..'Little Boxes ' fame...also wrote a song on

this 'Love is like a Magic Penny'.

>

> I will find Bhartrihari's Sphota theory as well as

> Shankara's Upadesha Sahasri as soon as possible. And

> thank you for the Rumi titles- I will also obtain

> them.

 

 

Maybe I should post something on Sphota. I am a

little reluctant as it will probably provoke a

discussion which I have not time for at the moment. If

you want to chat about it on our own e-mail addresses

then that would be OK maybe. It is precisely on your

theme in this posting and follows the journey of

speech as an explosion in consciousness through to the

words on our tongue. On the way it covers all aspects

of knowledge. In Vedanta there is much written on

Vak..Word as opposed to word. It is a wonderful study

and very pratical. I am going to paste below some

Shankara statements on Word that you may not have

known as well as a passage from Vivekachudamani that

you may well know.

In doing this I know what you have said about texts in

your postings but please understand that the use of

texts and the fluidity of the Word is not at all rigid

in advaita specially. I hope that you can glean this

from the Upadesha quotes.

‘Only when there is a reflection of the Inner Witness

can words, by referring to the reflection, indirectly

indicate the Witness. They cannot designate the latter

in any way.’

Upadesza Saahasri 18.32

 

‘The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor mind. We

do not know (Brahman to be such and such); hence we

are not aware of any process of instructing about it.’

Kena Upanis-ad 1.3

 

‘What is erroneously supposed to exist in something,

is, when the truth about it has been known, nothing

but that substratum, and nothing different from it:

the diversified dream universe appears and passes away

in the dream itself…

That which is beyond caste and creed, family and

lineage: devoid of name and form, merit and demerit;

transcending space, time and sense objects…that

Brahman art thou, meditate on this in thy mind.

That Supreme Brahman is beyond the range of all

speech, but accessible to the pure eye of

illumination; which is pure, the beginningless

entity---that Brahman art thou etc.

That…..which the buddhi cannot know……that Brahman art

thou etc.

That which is the substratum of the universe with its

divisions…which has no other support; which is

distinct from gross and subtle…that Brahman art thou

etc.

That which is free from birth…which is the cause of

projection, maintenance and dissolution of the

universe…that Brahman art thou etc.

That…whose essence is never non-existent…..of

indivisible form…that Brahman art thou etc.

That which, though One only, is the cause of the many;

but which refutes all other causes, but is Itself

without cause; distinct from Maayaa and its effect,

the universe; and independent -- that Brahman art thou

etc.

……

That beyond which there is nothing; which shines even

above Maayaa , which again is superior to its effect,

the universe; the inmost Self of all, free from

differentiation; the Real Self, the

Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute; infinite and

immutable--that Brahman art thou etc.

On the Truth inculcated above, one must oneself

meditate in one’s mind, through the intellect, by

means of the recognised arguments. By that means one

will realise the truth free from doubt etc. like water

in the palm of one’s hand.

Realizing in this body the Knowledge Absolute free

from nescience and its effects and being ever

established in thy own self by resting on that

knowledge, merge the universe in Brahman.’

Vivekachuad-aaman-i 253-265

 

Sorry, but I have not done your mail justice as you

are pouring out so much that is worthy of discussion.

I am not a spiritual teacher and can only share with

you some of my own enquiry,

 

Peace and Happiness

 

 

Ken Knight

>

> ---- Original Message -----

> ken knight

> advaitin

> Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:30 PM

> Re: For Warwick

>

>

>

> --- Warwick Wakefield <nomistake

> wrote:

> Good morning Warwick,

> Last evening I wrote a reply to your previous

> posting

> that had included a reply to me but went

> AWOL on

> me and I had to postpone another effort. now this

> posting comes along and cuts across some of that

> which

> I had written.

> In the last posting you wrote so very well of that

> experience on the journey home and I have put that

> into my records and will come back to it later in

> the

> year. You may have picked up from past postings

> that I

> chair an organisation in London that looks at a

> scientific/spiritual study of these flashes in

> consciousness. So thank you for this.

> Now to your latest posting.

> > When I write this my intention is that you will

> > recognize that you also are a child of God, that

> God

> > speaks to you directly and not just through

> > scriptures, and that you will then be faithful

> to

> > what you yourself deem to be true, even if it

> goes

> > against the scriptures. And if the scriptures

> say

> > something that you don't understand, be honest

> and

> > say so, rather than adopt a veneer of

> > knowledgeability.

>

> Shankara would agree with your words as he advises

> us

> to note anubhava..experience...informed by

> sruti..revealed scripture.

> Now I would ask you please to read your own words

> and

> listen to your own voice. You write 'this is my

> intention.....' but is it? Peeling off the layers

> of

> onion skins of intention within intention within

> intention, what is the vibration there which sets

> off

> such a background list of generalisations, of

> opinions

> which, as a Westerner, I may note to be

> superficial at

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!

http://greetings.