Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 20, 2016 at 1:16am

Keith, it endlessly amazes me that people can deny the one reality that everyone experiences -- and imagine that such denial is more "scientific" than the realization that sentience transcends the physical world. Maybe people will 'get' that idea a little more readily from your continual efforts...

But it is hardly a new observation in the religious history of humanity.

I can not believe that Jesus was born, lived and died, that his people were gathered and the Hebrew Bible written to provide a setting for him -- simply to belabor that commonplace -- nor that this world is being driven to an ugly and premature end merely to bring people to realize it.

Since I asked for readings which were not blunt rehashes of a traditional Quaker framework, I know I've got no grounds for complaint -- but your message gives me no reason whatsoever to read the Bible myself, let alone to recommend it for anyone else's edification.

Next, please? I don't want to be so hard to please; but there is a Gospel; and that's not it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Saylor on 4th mo. 20, 2016 at 8:03am

Good Morning Forrest. You asked a question. I answered. I have no expectation that the testimony to this witness will satisfy anyone. I have no stake in how you respond to the testimony of this witness. It is a privilege to respond to your question by testifying to the witness of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by imminent awareness itself in itself (the inshining light) even while reading scripture and to experience purpose, meaning, and identity in the experience itself. Scripture testifies to a new way of existence wherein life or consciousness is not of the bodily nature. That way of existence is available to every human being. Reading 1 Corinthians Chapter 15 and in the witness of  imminent awareness or the inshining Light itself in itself is a blessing and sustaining. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 20, 2016 at 10:33am

Yes, it's morning, and consciousness has set in again. Bliss? Will have to see if a friend survived her operation yesterday. (I'm okay with "without respect of outward persons", but it sounds too much like being "without concern for" them for this to really resonate with me.)

I've known enough people who fairly often went floating about without their bodies, and enjoyed that condition (though so-far I don't) that I don't feel Paul adds anything particularly convincing. Evidently people of his time, and of Fox's time, did (even those who felt Fox was a bad influence.) I can generally read the Bible up to Paul, and some of what came after him (and some of his muddled Greekishness, as well) but I really don't feel much 'spontaneous natural affection' for his stuff.

-------------

With most of the people I know, the problem is not to persuade them that anyone has got the answers right (and so could they!) --

but getting people to consider that there's anything in the Bible except platitudes, fantasies, and self-congratualations for anyone who can manage to 'believe in' this stuff.

I also know of, even personally know people who also know God directly, and can be quite illuminating from time to time, without either of us entirely agreeing with each other or having 'all truth' dumped on us in one heavy delivery. That we do so, I believe, is fully part of God's intention, and a significant element in what the Bible is 'for', and in why we've received an anthology rather than a road map.

So it's okay with me if I like one person's outward witness, and you like another (while insisting that you don't need any such, not one little bit!) God provides the proper fodder for each of God's donkeys...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard Brod on 4th mo. 21, 2016 at 7:49pm

Keith, Your repeated message is pleasant to many listeners in its simplicity and pureness.

While others' intellect may prefer a dissecting of scripture to discover its meaning, there is a pure truth you speak of that just IS, and is available to all without the need of intellectual meandering, intellectual discernment, intellectual reasoning, and intellectual idolization. How wonderful it is that our Source is willing and able to make it's Self available to us unconditionally.  Everyone should be grateful.

The Spirit that indeed is in-shining within all creation is a sure guide - alone, if we only choose to access it within. This innate Source is willing to use whatever intellectual mechanism that might appeal to us, in order to reach our hearts - bringing us to its holy Oneness and Being. Ultimately, we can not judge another's choice of mechanism.  But still, we can speak the simple truth.

This message that you and others bring forth may be too simple for many because it removes the "specialness" of one's particular spiritual interest as not ultimately being required.  For we have a Creator who favors no mechanism that any might contrive or assign worshipful importance.  He is simply there and available to all - if we only want to draw upon our shared eternal nature.

Keith Saylor said:

Forrest, you asked what else do we have to offer other than the We're-In-And-They're-Out-ism?

Your question assumes there can be a different paradigm. There are many of us who have witnessed a way of being that is not of the outward nature. We have witnessed an existence wherein our conscious, conscience, meaning, purpose, and identity is established in imminent awareness itself in itself without regard to outward ideas, institutions, scriptures, persons, etc. To testify to this way of existence is not in itself an act of judgementalism. There is nothing wrong with testifing to a witness that is not witnessed by others. Even when I testify to the loss of consciousness upon the death of the physical body by those whose consciousness is anchored in the outward nature, I am testifying to a reality that can be tested on a personal level by anyone when they consider their selves without physical sight, physical hearing, physical smell, physical touch, physical taste, and physical brain to mirror ideas, emotions, and desires. They then ask the simple question: "What is left?" I there anything to hold on to? Is there awareness or consciousness? If their answer is no, we then testify to them that we have witnessed a way of being wherein awareness is no longer dependent upon the sensations, ideations, and will of the body or outward nature. We then testify that this way of awareness or being that sustains even upon the death of the body is open to anyone without regard to circumstance or condition and that in the act of imagining existence without the bodily or outward nature they have come right up against eternity. All they need do now is look at the hands they call their hands or the arms they call their arms and ask themselves you or what is looking at those hands or arms and that in the very act of experiencing that who or what they are experiencing or witnessing or in awareness of that which sustains upon the death of the physical body. The hands or arms you call your hands or arms are not truly you ... you are that which is looking at those hands or arms. When those hands or arms no longer function and decay ... that which is right now looking at them is your eternal nature. To live and move and have being and awareness in that which is looking at those hands is to come into eternity. Daily rest in the act a living in that which is looking at your hand and arms. Slowly, and in due time, you will begin to experience that which is looking at those hands when you are looking at your husband or wife or mother or father. You will then experience that which is looking at those hands when you look at trees, flowers, buildings, animals, doors, and when you are mopping the floor or reading scripture you will witness that which is looking at those hands or words. Then, in all things and circumstances, you will experience that which is looking at those hands. 

Then, when you imagine being  without eyes for seeing, ears for hearing, nose for smelling, tongue for taste, nerves for touch, and a brain for ideation, emotion, and will you will know and experience that which looks at eyes, nose, tongue, ears, nerves, brain is that which sustains even upon the loss of these upon physical death. For you will know and experience the being or awareness that is the withness or witness behind or before the bodily or outward nature. 

The withness in all things and circumstances in daily life is the testimony of a Witness which is a new way of awareness or being and it is wonderful to live in the glory of this grace that is upon each and every one of us. It is just right there and all we do is take a moment and live in that which is doing the seeing, thinking, feeling, tasting, smelling, touching, hearing and to rest in that instead of a way of existence that is anchored in the outward manifestations like hands and arms. 

Eternal life or awareness itself in itself is so close and it is upon each one of us ... 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Saylor on 4th mo. 23, 2016 at 10:25am

Hello Howard,

I carried these words with me throughout the day yesterday:

For we have a Creator who favors no mechanism that any might contrive or assign worshipful importance.

Many Quakers talk about the "early" Quakers as if they were a monolith. William Rogers' book "The Christian Quakers" shows us that, even among those who could be called "founding" Quakers, there came about a fundamental tension within a decade of their coming together. In essence, the tension was over the institutionalization of their witness (experience) into outward forms and practice which eventually became a tradition. Many Quakers, including George Fox, wished to institutionalize the witness of the inshinging Light through the establishment of outward testimonies and practices to inform and anchor the early gathering of the "Light Dwellers." They excused this institutionalization by arguing, among other things, there were many who abused the testimony of freedom of conscience in the inshining Light and embarrassed the Gathering. Those of the establishment sought an outward gospel order. There were others in the Gathering , including William Rogers, who would not conform to an outward gospel order established in the context of outward prescriptions, faiths, and practices. They testified to their witness of the direct and immediate experience of the inshining Light itself in itself (imminent awareness) as their gospel order without regard to any outward person, institution, faith, practice, or "mechanism" (as you wrote). 

This tension between the early Quakers manifests a reality that exists even today.  It is a reality that there are those who (by their own admission) look toward and are established in outward secular, religious, and economic practices, traditions, ideologies, faiths, and institutions. They seek order through conscious, conscience, meaning, purpose, and identity anchored in and informed by outward forms.  It is also a reality that there are those whose (by their own admission) conscious, conscience, meaning, purpose, and identity are informed by the immediacy of imminent awareness itself in itself without regard to outward secular or civil, religious, and economic, practices, traditions, ideologies, faiths, or institutions. The latter shares the witness (experience) of those founding Quakers who would not conform to the outward gospel order other founding Quakers established. The latter came into imminent gospel order through the inshining into their conscious and conscience and which is the sole foundation of their meaning, purpose, and identity in all circumstances and events in their daily lives on this earth. They adhered to no outward mechanism established by men and women. They were not anchored in or informed by their outward testimony; they were anchored in and informed by their witness (imminent experience) which was and is today for those of us who share that witness ... gospel order. 

There are realities. None of this is to denigrate one or the other. 

Thank you, Howard, for your thoughtful and edifying words.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David McKay on 4th mo. 23, 2016 at 7:06pm

Forrest, I would commend that your reading, should you want a guidebook to reading the Gospel of John (despite your protestations that those Ancient Near Eastern texts are not the Gospel). It is called the "Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John" by Bruce J Malina and Richard L Rohrbaugh. I would particularly commend their notes on what they call "anti-language" in regards to this entire conversation that we all seem to be having here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 23, 2016 at 9:12pm

Malina I like; Rohrbaugh I haven't found yet.

"anti-language'? I suspect that language (as in the story of Babel) is partly a mechanism to keep people from understanding each other too well. We seem to need something of the sort so we don't all converge on some local optimum & get stuck there....

It helps thought; it hinders thought. It needs to be continually re-created or it indeed stops meaning anything much beyond "what A should reply when B says ___." In short, 'tis an art form... and can't be allowed to get too stylized, lest people lose sight of what they mean to depict.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 23, 2016 at 9:16pm

Yes, my (abysmal) local library doesn't have it but there is a sharing arrangement with local college libraries, & I now have it on hold, thanks!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William F Rushby on 4th mo. 23, 2016 at 9:44pm

Hello, David McKay!  Thanks for the reference to Bruce Malina.  I was vaguely aware of him sometime in the past, but had not paid much attention to his writing.  Wow!  He seems to write in overdrive, reminiscent of Rufus Jones; writing perhaps a new book during every summer vacation.

I ordered *The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology*.   Malina has several other books on on various parts of the New Testament.  If the first book really captures my attention, I'll try some of the others.

Thanks again for calling Malina to our attention!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David McKay on 4th mo. 24, 2016 at 6:45am

I suggested Malina, a) because John is the "Quaker gospel"; b) because I felt Forrest and I share a certain openness to reading scripture in sociological, anthropological and political terms, but are also are open to letting it inform the religious/spiritual perspective rather than staying at the political level; and c) I felt the "anti-language" and "anti-society" notes in the John commentary have outside application. When a sub-group of society finds itself marginalized it tends to create new insider language to reinforce boundaries. The commentary suggests the community of John's gospel was doing that and I sometimes see Quakers do that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 29, 2016 at 10:33pm

I've finally received the book, started with its explanation of anti-language.

This is a like a private language a subgroup invents to fend off the dismissive language the majority culture would apply to the subgroup and everything it holds dear?

That makes sense in terms of what cognitive psychologists say about the way a system of terms will 'frame' an issue -- so that using that system, even for the sake of challenging it, tends to trigger the conceptional frames embodied in it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David McKay on 4th mo. 30, 2016 at 7:44am

I thought you might find it interesting.

Of course we all do this to a certain extent. It's just that sub- groups under pressure have a tendency to do it more so than those enmeshed in the dominant culture. The drawback of this kind of thing is that speech becomes about identifying our boundary markers more than communicating.

Back when I studied philosophy I read a fair amount of "philosophy of language" stuff where the emphasis was always on "ordinary language" as a corrective to the tendency to create new and technical versions of ordinary words in philosophy. So I am perhaps particularly conscious when I see in-house cant. I have been at business meetings were the recording clerk minutes did that we struggled with an issue, and a 20 minute discussion ensued as to whether it was appropriate for a group with a historic piece testimony to use violent language like" struggled".

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page