QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

The professors of the world of Instrumentalities and the hijacking of consciousness itself.

The professors of politics, economics, and religion stand in the valley of human consciousness crying out for attention. They seek to capture the source of human conscious itself with their outward political, economic, and religious ideologies. They cry out "look here" and "look there." They say: "Look to and trust in my outward prescriptions and I will remedy the ills (defined by me) of this world (way of existence)"

All these professors of politics, economics, and religion seek to rule and govern the conscious and conscience of others through their agendas and the instrumentalities of their outward ideologies, saying: "Just identify with this or that outward political, economic, religious, agenda, form, and practice. That is, enter into such a relationship with my outward political, economic, and religious agenda that it anchors your very conscious and informs your conscience so that these outward forms and instrumentalities are the foundation of your identity and personality." They further say: "Anchor conscious in and let your conscience be informed by outward political, economic, and religious prescriptions and you will know the remedy.

These professors of politics, economics, and religious nurture a world (way of existence) on this earth that anchors conscious and informs conscience through outward forms. They bewitch or enchant the source of human conscious with their outward ideologies and institutions and hold it captive in a web of intellectualized and abstracted forms so that the conscience itself depends on these forms to inform action. This paradigm of the conscious anchored in and the conscience informed by various and sundry outward political, economic, and religious, outward forms, traditions, and practices, nurtures conflict through the imposition of one outward form over another upon the conscious and conscience of those who are not identified with a different outward form.

This is the normal world (way of existence) for most people on this earth today.

There is another world (way of existence) on this earth. In this way of existence, conscious is self-sustaining. Conscious is not reflected or mediated through the outward forms or instrumentalities of politics, economics, or religion and the professors or these forms. In this world of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by living in the light consciousness itself, human being experiences the breaking of the spell of the purveyors of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by the instrumentalities of politics, economics, and religion.

In my current study of the early Quaker William Rogers, I've found myself reading the letters and works of other early or founding Quaker; as I'm keen to understand my own experience by immersing myself in the spectrum of founding Quaker writings. In any case, in 1663 Richard Farnsworth wrote:

"The Light itself is pure, Spiritual, soul-saving, justifying light, in its own nature and property ..."

Source: The Quakers Plea with the Bishops at their Ecclesiastical Courts, by Richard Farnsworth, 1663, page 15, London.

In various ways and through various words, the founding Quakers were larger in agreement that their experience of the Light itself was the foundation of their faith and they looked to no outward forms to anchor their conscious and inform their conscience. The Light itself was their rule and governor; not outward professors and institutions. Note: this does not mean they were in agreement over the extent to which they actually lived out this faith in their daily lives. For example, some thought it prudent to compromise a bit for the sake of their family and livelihood.

The above extract from the Farnsworth tract is relevant here as a case study in the nature of a way of existence that is anchored in and informed by the light of consciousness itself. Here Farnsworth writes that his experience in the Light is spiritual in its own nature and property. That is, in itself, this Light (consciousness) is sufficient and pure unto salvation and justification. Conscious, in its own nature and property, is soul-saving, justifying Light.

Many early Quakers came to know a world (way of existence) that rested human being or conscious directly in the active experience of conscious itself, which is eternal Presence itself. In that experience, they were lead out of a conscious anchored in outward political, economic, and religious forms. Their conscious was no longer identified with and their conscience was no longer informed by the political, economic, and religious forms of their day.

In the same way, we today can know and experience conscious, identity, and personality, unhinged from the outward instrumentalities of politics, economics, and religion and the professions of these outward forms. We can no a world (way of being) on this earth that is not mediated through the professors and institutions of Politics, economics, and religion. When we turn our conscious, attention, and conscience, from the abstract intellectualized webs of a conscious anchored in and conscience informed by the outward forms of politics, economics, and religion, we start on a journey toward a world (way of existence) wherein conscious is anchored in and conscience is informed by the active experience of conscious or Presence sustained and sufficient in itself. To experience this world ruled and governed by Presence itself just center down into the silence and wait upon the promised revelation from within.

For a deeper immersion into the thing itself here are some words from another early Quaker Issac Peningtion.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18D-hoiUvXPeLzn2jALfCOGVNSd6oZmk...

In this season of outward political, economic, and religious posturing, the professors of a conscious anchored in and a conscious informed by outward forms are striving to hijack our conscious and anchor it in their outward prescriptions so that our conscience will be informed by their abstract political, economic, and religious constructs. For those who hunger for a way out of this world (way of existence), there is another way. It is the inward way available to us all and in all circumstances. Just rest in the promise of the Light itself that is sustainable in its own nature and it will be revealed and the enchanted web of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by outward political, economic, and religious, forms, traditions, and practices will fall away and the incantations of the professors of these instrumentalities will no longer enchant your conscious and rule your conscience. You will no longer look here and look there to outward professors and institutions ... your meaning, purpose, and identity will light up inward.

0 members like this

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 9, 2016 at 9:46am: When one adds a sixth, seventh & etc sense.... The Buddhists would consider the mind (including emotional stuff) as just more stuff we sense...

It's not which channel you're watching; the fact that you're watching is a given.

Maybe you get a cleaner, purer connection this way... but what are you connected to? Connected to self? -- or Self?

What's all this stuff "out" here, where you encounter us difficult, contentious, contrary others (& we, you)?

Who/What keeps all this seemingly organized, even though [as a Zen saying goes, 'Everything is perfect but'] 'it could use a little improvement'?

'Being' is a pretty odd activity, when you think about it; one can't quite get a grip on it apart from _what_ in particular one is being. I find it very difficult, for example, to draw anybody's attention to the fact of it (including my own attention) -- even though nothing would "be" here without it.

That "ontological argument" (which really isn't one, doesn't logically follow -- because as Bertie Russell said, existence isn't a property) has it that God is perfect because the most perfect being exists by its very nature. -- How does this apply to All What Am(s)?

Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 9, 2016 at 1:57pm: This discussion is so important and edifying to me. Thank you again, Kirby and Forrest.

Forrest, you asked: "... but what are you connected to? Connected to self? -- or Self?"

Your question is based on the assumption that a paradigm of connection is necessary. That is, that there is a thing and then a thing to which a thing is connected. The moment there is no longer an outward assumption of connection or an outward thinking about a connection or outward ideas about a connection with a thing or stuff then is the experience of unconnectedness from anything. At this moment you know I AM and the paradigm you posit is no longer.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 9, 2016 at 2:48pm: Where 'I' am in all this...

First of all, a life in which I started as an atheist but then grew up during the 60's, finding God busy tying my life into such interesting knots that atheism was simply not possible. But then I did settle down into a fairly 'practical' and sedate way of life, for awhile. That is, I knew God was there, but thought I should stop hitting 'Him' up for continual miraculous intervention, and practice dealing with life on a routine, mundane level. That lasted until my first wife took the practical step of kicking me out, after which I quit my job and had too interesting a time for awhile

A couple years later (1982?) I was sitting on my bed smoking some fairly benign weed while reading a Scientific American article on "consciousness." I knew it would miss the point, but was reading to see what it would say...

and I was disappointed as usual by the fact that the piece was (of course) about the externally 'observable' aspects, not about the sense of being a live, aware being -- but merely the sort of thing someone else could check, ie symptoms like 'eyes open & talking appropriately' which had nothing whatsoever to do with simply being aware...

when suddenly I was Whacked by a 'sense' of bare open 'awareness', as 'something' that could contain all possible experience, or none, something always present yet utterly inexplicable in terms of anything else...

so then I wrote a postcard to Douglas Hoffstadter (the author) trying to explain that he'd done a fine article about consciousness

which had covered everything _but_ what it really is. He was intrigued enough to invite me to dinner when he came to town for a convention of some sort... And while I didn't feel he entirely 'got it', he raised a question in that conversation that opened up a whole new aspect which my metaphor hadn't even considered.

There's this ongoing awareness, which could potentially contain anything, including the wildest chaos... and yet, outside of some odd dreams, does not. This awareness keeps on containing everything put into it, yet something keeps feeding it order, beauty, structure, creative surprises that fit perfectly into the past which gave birth to them -- yet transform that past.

And so I came to realize that not only was I needing to rely on The Invisible Means of Support; but that I could safely trust it.

Since my life at the time was a bit on the precarious side, I also wondered, naturally enough, if I'd simply been deluded in some way. What settled those doubts was the fact that... if I were deluded about that, there'd be no one home to be deluded about it.

------

Maybe you'll see from this where and how we both overlap & differ? I must confess that it continues to puzzle me.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 9, 2016 at 4:17pm: Wow, Forrest. I need sustained quiet time with your response. I am weeping (in a recognition and empathetic sort of way) but I need to focus on a project. Thank you.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 16, 2016 at 12:18am: Forrest. Your last post on this thread gave me much pause and is very cordial to my mind. I thank you for expressing them. Below are chunks from your response that I focused upon.

"... when suddenly I was Whacked by a 'sense' of bare open 'awareness', as 'something' that could contain all possible experience, or none, something always present yet utterly inexplicable in terms of anything else ..."

"There's this ongoing awareness, which could potentially contain anything, including the wildest chaos... and yet, outside of some odd dreams, does not. This awareness keeps on containing everything put into it, yet something keeps feeding it order, beauty, structure, creative surprises that fit perfectly into the past which gave birth to them -- yet transform that past."

"And so I came to realize that not only was I needing to rely on The Invisible Means of Support; but that I could safely trust it."

"... my life at the time was a bit on the precarious side ..."

"Maybe you'll see from this where and how we both overlap & differ? I must confess that it continues to puzzle me."

I immersed myself in your choice of words and phrases. Your sense you bare open awareness. Yes, I know it too. This awareness as something that contains all experience and no experience; I so appreciate your words.

When you wrote about this something that is always present but that is inexplicable in terms of anything else; I understand the posture from which this is written and I do not necessarily disagree. Yet, what about this? Your phrase "bare open awareness" is actually explicable to me. It explicates very nicely the 'sense' you were whacked by; because I know that awareness. The phrase 'bare open awareness' explains your experience in the context of shared experience.

I spent much time with your use of the word contain. We understand awareness as containing everything (experience) and we understand an awareness being contained within everything (experience). That is, awareness also happens in a 'clothed closed' context instead of a 'bare open' context. In the clothed closed context, awareness happens in relation to that which it is clothed in. Bare open awareness sheds clothed closed awareness. Bare open awareness takes the place of clothed closed awareness. Now, with that said, the clothes are still piled on the floor before bare open awareness. The clothes still exist in bare open awareness; it is just that bare open awareness no longer needs to wear them to be aware. Bare open awareness contains the clothes instead of Being clothed by them. Now, the word contains carries the sense of include. I mean to say, bare open awareness 'includes' the shed clothed closed awareness.

The second paragraphed I chunked out of your response carries much meaning to me because I catch glimpses of shadows in mirrors of what may cause a stumbling in our discussions. I keep wondering whether your concern, the "Yeah, but" stems from a reaction that I may not value the clothes left on the floor. In other words, that I am ignoring the reality of those things that bare open awareness contains or includes. So, when I write about the irrelevancy of outward forms in a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by bare open awareness itself (integrating some of your words), this does not match the reality of your experience of bare open awareness as including or containing everything and nothing. That I ignore the every-thing part. For example, while many Quakers will readily say that the Spirit of Christ is their guide, they will acknowledge and do value the Bible. In other words, they acknowledge a foundation in bare open awareness in the Spirit itself and not the in words of the Bible. However, they still value and find the outward words of the Bible relevant. At one time their awareness may have been contained in the Bible; then, bare open awareness contained the Bible. So, even though their awareness is no longer contained in the bible and now the bible is contained in bare open awareness, the biblical clothes (forms) on the floor are of value because they are a reality that is now contained in bare open awareness.

If this glimpse of what may be the source of concern is applicable, then I affirm your concern. This is not to be argumentative just recognition. In bare open awareness, speaking for me, the connection with the clothes on the floor is tenuous. It is not that I do not see them on the floor, it is they just no longer represent meaning to me. Bare open awareness itself is sufficient in itself. They are vessels with no insides. The are not relevant to my condition.

In this meditation on our discussion an affirmation and a strength is upon me in bare open awareness itself as sufficient in itself without regard or respect to the representations that bare open awareness includes. For example, I AM includes clothed closed awareness in the sense that I walk amongst it but I AM is not of it. To go further, I AM is not of nor do I respect Bernie Sander's prescriptions or Ted Cruz's, or the Pope, or George Fox, or Roger Williams, or anyone or any institution. While I recognize some may value and respect the outward clothes of powers, principalities, and instrumentalities, I AM is not anchored in or informed by the outward ideas, traditions, practices, of any outward power, principality, or instrumentality. Even though some who know bare open awareness may still value and respect those things that bare open awareness contains, there are others who do not value the things contained. It is not even that they go a step further, it is that they step aside the path altogether. Bare open awareness itself and in itself so completely replaces the things it contains that they just no longer have value in supporting awareness. Conceptual constructs, like feminism, chauvinism, capitalism, equality, socialism, peace, inclusiveness, exclusiveness, conservatism, liberalism, community, individualism, communalism, libertarianism, democratic party, republican party, political activism, religious similitudes, and the instrumentalities that support them, are not just of no value; they are irrelevant. Not that they are ignored; just that, while they are acknowledged they no longer serve a purpose giving meaning, purpose, and direction in many people's lives. In this Living bare open awareness itself in itself, there are many of us who participate on this earth in an essentially different way. It is a way where even the things that bare open awareness includes ... unconnects.

Many suggest, though I don't think you have, that I am sharing an anchorless way. That there is no-thing to hold onto for meaning, purpose, and direct in life. However, Bare open awareness itself in itself becomes the anchor and brings meaning, purpose, and direct through the relative movement of awareness itself so that representations, reflections, instrumentalities, that once supported awareness, no longer serve that purpose and function; awareness is in and of itself.

As I wrote earlier, I am not arguing with you just trying to suggest "how we both overlap & differ." I wonder whether this further distinguishing helps to highlight where we overlap and differ?

Thanks again.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 16, 2016 at 12:38am: Maybe... You may (or may not) find some similar resonance with a discussion I put out tonight.

What I'm getting about the various political and ideological 'causes' you uniformly disparage... is not that they don't serve various roles in what God is doing in/with the world -- but that none of them, in themselves -- not even the few 'good' ones -- would significantly improve life in the world.

In the Zen story about the man hanging from the cliff, two little mice are chewing at the root he's clinging to. One is black and one is white -- and similarly, one can distinguish between principalities which are intrinsically awful (although their supporters may be Real Nice Guys, who knows?) and some which call for real improvements (although their supporters may be mere flawed poorsouls like us-all) -- but a dedication to such things is irrelevant.

But when a person is Called to something... and that Call comes from What Lives Us... The calling itself can't be their anchor; but they still need to respond, yes?

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 16, 2016 at 1:34am: It occurs to me, since... It wasn't wearing clothes that got Adam into trouble; but thinking he needed them was a big mistake.

Here (It's often warm hereabouts) I sometimes wear clothes and sometimes don't; but there are clothes I've very fond of. Maybe your metaphor supports that attitude as well?

"Man does not live by bread alone," but sometimes sharing bread with people turns out to be a good thing.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 16, 2016 at 11:45am: Hello Forrest.

I have read your most recent discussion topic and understand the import of your words:

"But if I start to forget -- or at least if I start thinking, feeling, behaving as if it weren't true -- such books are a cue to help me remember, to lead me to send my questions 'out' ['in?'] into the 'apparent nothing' from which the answers I need will come."

For much of my life, I have known such a relationship with sacred texts. However, it is not as much the case as it once was. I lay my conscience before you that, where I once used outward sacred texts and other outward things such as the objects in the natural world as cues, I now use Presence itself in itself as my cue. Sacred texts are becoming like plastic fruit. They just no longer represent ... because I know the thing itself in itself. I no longer need outward cues to remember. This is the essence of our difference.

For many of us today, Presence itself in itself is our calling and our response at one and the same time and in every moment.

Concerning the story of Adam and Eve, I say that it was the turning to a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by outward form (consuming the fruit) that shamed them into thinking they needed clothes. It was because their conscious and conscience became anchored in and informed by the knowledge of good and evil that they participated in Being that was clothed closed awareness. Before Being that was anchored in and informed by an awareness reflected in and through outward thoughts about good and evil there was no need for Being that was clothed. Knowledge gained through the reflective awareness was irrelevant concerning awareness.

Today, in this very moment, there are people suffering in the nature of the first Adam, and they are awakening into the nature of the second Adam. The clothes (outward powers, principalities, and instrumentalities) of the first Adam are threadbare, and are of less and less service, in the conscious and conscience of many of us. I am one of those and we are sharing with one another a different way that no longer even re-turns to outward texts and letters to re-member. I understand and acknowledge that you do.

We are stepping aside; taking a way that does not even look back to re-member or re-cognize. It is the movement of Presence itself that is our memory and in it, we do not forget and turn our gaze back upon outward things. We are of the thing itself in itself in all things and it all circumstances in daily life on this earth.

This discussion is so important to me Forrest. There is so much clarity. Both for you and for me as we carry-on.

Comment

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

Join QuakerQuaker

‹ Previous
1
…
3
4
5
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.