QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

A meditation toward imminent awareness (the Holy Spirit or the inshining Light).

There are many of us who are witnessing (living in) 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, in political, religious, or economic contexts. To testify to this way of existence is not in itself an act of judgementalism against an existence anchored in outward forms. It is merely sharing another way of existence.

Here is a testimony that may open a passage wherein imminent awareness (the inshining Light) may break in or reach into your conscious and conscience and show some of what is of the nature of imminent awareness. There is no specific place or context wherein it is better to engage in this meditation. Anywhere or anyplace and under any circumstance is as good as any other. This meditation is a mere testimony to a way of existence witnessed directly and that is open to anyone. The testimony itself is of no value in itself and should be summarily disregarded if there is no opening to imminent awareness itself in itself. What matters is not the testimony or meditation but the actual and real witness (experience) of the inshining Light itself in itself.

Consciousness is lost upon the death of the physical body for those whose consciousness is anchored in the outward forms or 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. Imagine your self without these. Then ask the simple question: "What is left?" I there anything to hold on to? Is there awareness or consciousness? If your answer is no, know that others have witnessed (experienced) a way of being wherein awareness is no longer dependent upon the sensations, ideations, and will of the body or outward nature. 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, in the act of imagining existence without the bodily or outward nature, you have come right up against eternity. Look at the hands you call your hands or the arms you call your arms and ask "who or what is looking at those hands or arms?" Again, take the time to really, really, really, ask yourself "who or what is looking at those hands or arms?" Do you "feel" or "sense" that otherness looking at those hands or arms? In the very act of experiencing that who or what, you 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, in due time and with patience, 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. Your identity, meaning, and purpose will become more and more ordered in the Light of that which is observing those hands and arms. That which is observing those hands and arms will become more and more imminent in all those things you do and observe in daily life.

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 ... there is no special place or time or event or institution, or testimony, practice, or tradition, or idea, or theology that captures this witness (experience) or that is needful. The witness (experience) is with us right now and in our place and circumstance and offers a new way of existence without regard to political, religious, and economic, tradition, practice, faith, institution, or tradition ... a way of existence free from faith and hope in the outward nature but that is faithful and hopeful in the actual witness of imminent awareness that shatters the conscious, conscience, meaning, purpose, and identity, bound to the outward manifestation of politics, religion, and economics.

1 member likes this

Comment by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 23, 2016 at 4:05pm: "Consciousness is lost upon the death of the physical body for those whose consciousness is anchored in the outward forms or outward nature."

You've tried this out? Someone has so informed you? Or...?

Comment by Keith Saylor on 4th mo. 24, 2016 at 12:10am: Forrest. Yes, there was a time in my life when I witnessed my conscious was anchored to the bodily or sensual or outward nature and that the loss of the physical senses and brain activity was the loss of consciousness. By the power of the imminent awareness itself in itself anchoring my conscious and informing my conscious I now witness a life wherein my conscious and my conscience are no longer established in the physical nature. That is, consciousness is no longer anchored in outward ideas, institutions, persons, practices, traditions, forms of worship, etc. No person informed me of either a consciousness anchored in outward forms or of consciousness anchored in imminent awareness. I witnessed them both directly and then read others who somewhat share the same witness. I am anchored in that which I witness not in a testimony (whether mine or another's) about a witness.

Any person is able to test the degree to which their own consciousness is anchored to the outward nature by imagining being without eyes to see, ears to hear, nose to smell, tongue to taste, nerves for touch, physical brain to reflect thought, emotions, and will. In this imagining, they can ask themselves the questions. Without these things, what is left? Does their consciousness sustain without the things of the physical body?

In imminent awareness, we witness or live a way of existence that is not longer bound to the mirrors of senses or mental images or thoughts through which we become aware. Awareness is no longer established in and through projected outward forms. Awareness exists itself in itself without regard to outward forms or persons. These word you have just read are my testimony to that which I witness or experience directly.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 24, 2016 at 9:18am: Well, the question wasn't whether _you_ lost consciousness when not running programs through your brain -- but whether you knew what would happen to someone else who _thought_ their life was happening there.

There was an account by (? -- Alpert?) about taking LSD, temporarily losing touch with his bodily senses, & concluding that he must be dead

until another thought came along: "If I'm dead, then who's minding the store?"

That is, while someone might be used to thinking of hsrself in physical, mental, or emotional terms -- and could presumably come out pretty disoriented if their attention to their favorite form of experience broke down -- It also makes sense that they'd then reorient on whatever '___' took it's place.

I can't confirm _this_ from my own experience either:

Some yogis say that they remain conscious & in bliss when their bodies go to sleep and night -- and that everyone upon falling asleep goes into a state of bliss which we lose in the morning when our consciousness comes back from break. Of course in saying this about other people they're evidently extrapolating from what they experience directly, not necessarily 'being' anyone else nor experiencing what physical death is like, though I don't dismiss people who say they remember past lives and/or periods between.

Someone once told me about being high on something, his attention being seized by sight of a beautiful shiny object -- then, just as abruptly realizing that what he was looking at was the badge on a policeman standing in front of him. We might at some time need to find a similar change of context; but God in my own experience has proved entirely merciful...

Comment by Keith Saylor on 4th mo. 24, 2016 at 11:40am: Forrest.

To your first question. Yes, I do know what happens to someone who knows conscious, conscience, meaning, purpose, and identity, lost upon the loss of outward sensual, ideological, and emotional mirrors to reflect and sustain consciousness. Their witness to me is a witness I share. They (we) "woke-up" (that is, come back into consciousness that was lost) knowing personally, and through direct experience that in losing the reflections of the outward nature they literally lost consciousness.

The reality is when someone imagines being without the physical senses and physical brain and contemplates "what or who is left?" they can come right up against, as I wrote in the original post, a way of existence that is not established in the physical body. The contemplation of consciousness or awareness not sustained when it had anchored to the bodily nature is essential to initiation of the meditation because it somewhat brings the individual into a knowledge of the extent to which their consciousness is formed or attached to the outward or bodily nature. Most often, people will say there is nothing left to reflect or sustain their consciousness and the possibility that the death of their physical body results in the loss of any foundation to sustain awareness. It is a controlled catastrophic moment that carries the seed of consciousness restored as they further contemplate who or what is looking at the hands they call their hands. In the meditation, and with patience and time, consciousness or awareness is enlightened by the direct experience of who or what is looking at those hand they call their hands. An inshining happens, a new self is gleaned that is not established in the reflections of the outward nature. People are "lighted up" and experience that which is looking at those hands. They experience their conscious, conscience, meaning, purpose, and identity, as in this Presence itself in itself.

I have not taken mind altering drugs so I cannot speak to experiences based on drugs. However, I do find the experience you shared about the person taking LSD.

There was an account by (? -- Alpert?) about taking LSD, temporarily losing touch with his bodily senses, & concluding that he must be dead until another thought came along: "If I'm dead, then who's minding the store?"

I wonder whether this person was saying he went past thinking about (reflecting) who was minding the store and actual experienced and knew who it was that was minding the store? Many of us, upon coming up against losing touch with the bodily senses and knowing the death of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by the bodily nature actual have come into a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by that sustains upon the loss of the bodily senses.

This paragraph is of particular interest:

That is, while someone might be used to thinking of hsrself in physical, mental, or emotional terms -- and could presumably come out pretty disoriented if their attention to their favorite form of experience broke down -- It also makes sense that they'd then reorient on whatever '___' took it's place.

When you write "It also makes sense that they'd then reorient on whatever '___' took its place. Of course, you are assuming that some whatever '___' will take the place of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by the bodily or outward nature. It makes as much sense that a conscious, conscience, meaning, purpose, and identity anchored in the outward nature will not be replaced; that consciousness will not sustain. I understand having faith that that whatever '____' will fill the void to support consciousness upon the death of the body and I will not argue against the prerogative of that whatever '___' to do so.

Which that said, however, many of us have come to know that whatever '___' right here and now in our physical existence. Our faith is in our witness of that whatever '___' in the circumstances and events in our daily lifes and that will sustain our consciousness even upon physical death. Our conscious is anchored in and our conscience is informed by that whatever '___' that is manifest today in this life on earth. We know that which sustains us, directly and without the mediation of the outward nature, in all things and in all circumstances even in physical death.

Our faith is in that which shines upon and into our conscious and conscience so that the inshining itself in itself is our anchor and form and no longer the outward or reflective nature of the physical body.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 24, 2016 at 5:07pm: A materialist believes what you say about himself, ie that when his body turns to scrap there's nothing there to continue. Does that imply that he's right, or isn't he simply going to be surprized?

Certainly if he goes unconscious, & you ask him "What did you notice when you were out?" he's very likely to say something along the lines of "Huh?" Whatever happens in an unconscious period is like a dream, ie fades as attention shifts back to the physical context -- which is no indication that nothing happened then. In experiments where people are awakened and asked about it at random times during the night (whether or not their eyeballs were moving) -- they very often turn out to have been dreaming. Probably we are also; but within a few minutes after we've woken up, most of that is gone & the rest muddled.

And what is it in a materialist's consciousness -- that imagines there's nothing there to continue? A side-effect of electric pulses in his brain, as he imagines? What can a pattern of ion flow imagine?

Comment by Keith Saylor on 4th mo. 24, 2016 at 5:51pm: Forrest you wrote:

And what is it in a materialist's consciousness -- that imagines there's nothing there to continue?

Exactly. That is the point of the meditation. Re-read it. Spend some time with it. However, it is not merely the materialist who, when they imagine consciousness without the five senses and thoughts, emotions, and desires, experience or witness a loss of consciousness upon physical death. It is religious people to whose consciousness is anchored in ritual, tradition, similitudes, theology, institutions etc. Don't just work in the abstract, go about asking people (and yourself) to imagine themselves without eyes to see, ears to hear, nose to smell, nerves for touch, tongue to taste and a physical brain to reflect thoughts, emotions, desires. I have done so for over twenty years. Many of them will readily admit there is no-thing to sustain consciousness. They will give testimony of the reality of their witness and many will later come to give testimony of their witness of that "what" that sustains conscious and conscience where it once was not experienced.

However, as is said in the meditation, this contemplation and admission brings them right up against the "what" that is without regard to the physical body. Now I understand that this meditation may cause you trouble and pause. That is why I prefaced it with these words:

Here is a testimony that may open a passage wherein imminent awareness (the inshining Light) may break in or reach into your conscious and conscience and show some of what is of the nature of imminent awareness. There is no specific place or context wherein it is better to engage in this meditation. Anywhere or anyplace and under any circumstance is as good as any other. This meditation is a mere testimony to a way of existence witnessed directly and that is open to anyone. The testimony itself is of no value in itself and should be summarily disregarded if there is no opening to imminent awareness itself in itself. What matters is not the testimony or meditation but the actual and real witness (experience) of the inshining Light itself in itself.

It is my experience that this meditation can (not will) open people to that "what" if it is in their measure of that "what." It is the point of the meditation. Imminent awareness is the "what."

Also, it is also in the nature of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by imminent awareness itself in itself that, in sleeping, consciousness is not lost. This is sometimes experienced almost immediately upon the witness of imminent awareness or it may take years to manifest. I witness this myself as do many others.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 24, 2016 at 7:33pm: It isn't that I couldn't imagine myself not experiencing what I currently experience; I'm experiencing it and that's fine until I experience something else. If there were something else I should be experiencing instead, I would be experiencing that... without imagining that anything I experience is the source of meeing... (or should that be 'I-ing'?)

So I'm not "troubled" by considering your form of meditation; I simply don't want to do it.

If I should need to have my consciousness "anchored" anywhere in particular, there is One who would so anchor it. If it should be drifting about, that too would happen; but it will not drift out of that One's jurisdiction.

What does trouble me is that you have made your description of your state of consciousness into a sort of liturgy, and so far as I've observed, you've been assuming that people who don't echo that liturgy don't get what you're talking about.

Also, that you habitually attribute particular experiences (or lack of them) to people whose experiencing you don't directly experience. (This last seems to be a common human trait, ie people naturally construct psychological models of each other, the better to 'understand' -- but then they spend their time interacting with the models rather than each other; and that's not so good! It's one I try to avoid, myself, but that implies I need to watch for it!)

Comment by Keith Saylor on 4th mo. 24, 2016 at 8:40pm: Hello Forrest,

Also, that you habitually attribute particular experiences (or lack of them) to people whose experiencing you don't directly experience. (This last seems to be a common human trait, ie people naturally construct psychological models of each other, the better to 'understand' -- but then they spend their time interacting with the models rather than each other; and that's not so good! It's one I try to avoid, myself, but that implies I need to watch for it!)

You have misrepresented me. I have stated over and over that the experience, for example, of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by outward forms is not from a "model" or intellectual construct. It is based on the admission of many many people I have fellowshipped with. They affirm that their conscious is anchored in and their conscious is informed by outward forms. Many people right here on this website have affirmed their conscious is anchored in and their conscience is informed by outward forms. I also have known directly a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by outward forms. Now, if you are suggesting that I should not repeat the expressed and admitted and shared experience of others and myself because my I do not know others experience directly then you and I are at a crossroads. How is it that you are able to attribute experiences (or lack of them) to me even though you are (supposedly) not experiencing what I am experiencing directly? At least I am not attributing things to people that they have not affirmed or admitted. When I state that there are people whose conscious is anchored in and whose conscience is informed by outward forms and that there are people whose conscious is anchored in and whose conscience is informed by imminent awareness itself in itself I am stating experiences that people express and admit to themselves. I am not attributing anything to them that they have not first attributed to themselves.

Does that make any sense to you?

Comment by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 24, 2016 at 11:27pm: I have not been 'misrepresenting,' merely contradicting you. I've been reading what you've been writing, & understanding it, and finding considerable truth about awareness in general there -- but do not believe that you've been accurately describing either of us.

I disbelieve what you say about other people's experience -- largely because I have observed so much distortion in your interpretations of what I was saying about mine.

I am in a position to observe my own consciousness, and finally got tired of your persistently mistaken assumptions as to how I think and what I believe.

What either of us experiences is pretty much moot to the other -- I think you're more caught up in 'thoughts-about-experiencing' than in actual experience, but I don't know that, merely observe a powerful attachment to certain ideas-about and to specific ways of expressing these.

I don't deny that you think what you say; I just disagree with what you say about what I think.

I should know what I'm thinking, yes? -- and whether that's been what you've said it was (usually without asking)?

I do think we wish each other well, (and are in some partial agreement) but probably we'll keep some significant disagreements for the indefinite future. I hope that's okay, because it will have to be.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 4th mo. 25, 2016 at 12:48am: Forrest. Let's get down deep into this and see whether you have contradicted me or misrepresented me as our discussion goes forward.

You wrote:

I disbelieve what you say about other people's experience -- largely because I have observed so much distortion in your interpretations of what I was saying about mine.

Please give examples of the distortion in my interpretation of what you are saying about your experience. If you are going to accuse someone then it would be helpful to lay down the actual evidence than to speak in generalities. If I have been found wanting I will readily concede my fault.

You wrote:

I think you're more caught up in 'thoughts-about-experiencing' than in actual experience, but I don't know that, merely observe a powerful attachment to certain ideas-about and to specific ways of expressing these.

Are you suggesting that somehow expressing or sharing a specific testimony in a regular and specific way is evidence that they are caught up more in their testimony than in the witness to which their testimony speaks? I ask you plainly, is it not as likely that sharing a specific testimony

You wrote:

I don't deny that you think what you say; I just disagree with what you say about what I think.

What do I say about what you think that is disagreeable to you? It would be helpful to lay down the actual evidence. If I have been found wanting I will readily concede my fault.

You wrote:

I do think we wish each other well, (and are in some partial agreement) but probably we'll keep some significant disagreements for the indefinite future. I hope that's okay, because it will have to be.

I agree that we wish each other well even in our significant disagreements. I actually enjoy our discussions and look forward to them, and find them edifying even in extreme disagreement. I have no interest or stake in agreeing or disagree with you or in you agreeing or disagreeing with me and that it is completely okay with me. I do not look to you to inform my conscience and neither do I wish you or anyone else to look to me to inform your conscience.

Comment

You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

‹ Previous
1
2
Next ›

RSS

Welcome to
QuakerQuaker

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? Our costs run to about $50/month. If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.