Comment by David McKay on 4th mo. 9, 2016 at 1:10pm

I think our earlier considerations makes it easier for me to get a handle on what you're saying here. Here's what I think you are saying: there is a spiritual condition which you are labelling here "unmediated awareness" or "inherent existence". It is a state of what at least some people I've heard talk call "pure awareness". And that it is possible to become so anchored in this condition that one lives there.

I have had from time to time experiences of this but I cannot testify to being anchored there. And quite frankly I don't consider such experiences to be in any way more valid than my more usual experiences of being caught up in the ephemera of life. I think it's because our theological grounding, which in turn informs our religious experiences, has been somewhat different. You got your understanding of your "I AM" from Joel Goldsmith and I got mine from Martin Buber and Karl Barth.

We are intrinsically and by creation limited vulnerable and embedded in history. That there is possibility of something more than that is not intrinsically part of who we are — it is ours by promise and by gift. To claim it as our own is in some way to step out of it. That it will be otherwise is eventually I hope to be true. But by that point I will have become empty enough that I will not need to own it.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 9, 2016 at 2:23pm

I don't think Keith cited Joel Goldsmith as an authority for his words.

Claiming that he's using a concept from Joel Goldsmith wouldn't necessarily be insulting, given that the New Age movement in the US had some pretty intelligent people in its lineage, going back at least to Warren Felt Evans, who realized and expressed the same insight -- quite a bit beyond the sort of raw newage that many modern embodiments fall into. But conceivably he got the hint more directly via Jesus, who could also claim Moses as a predecessor. (Rami Shapiro has a pretty good exposition of this as Jesus' main message in his contribution to Jesus Through Jewish Eyes (see http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/book-reviews/view/3457/jesus... ).

Keith's (rather hammered-on) point, however, is that while we can argue concepts and ideas-about, what he's talking about with them is a directly-apprehendable reality that underlies the whole What-We-Am & the Creation itself.

While there's considerable Hasidic and Christian thought that emphasizes loving relations between humans as an essential element of what God is trying to beat into our thick heads & thicker hearts... Keith is talking about a more direct inspiration for the same type of feelings and implementations they might intend to cultivate through precepts & practices. This might be said as Lao Tse put it: "When the Great Way is lost, we get Benevolence and Righteousness [ie, such concepts represent efforts to describe qualities that action within the Tao possesses naturally.]

Whether or not someone thinks of themselves as necessarily 'anchored in' awareness seems to me more a matter of doctrine-about than experience-of -- but the awareness of awareness, while harder than dirt to communicate about, is the one rock-bottom empirical basis of all else...

Comment by Keith Saylor on 4th mo. 9, 2016 at 2:58pm

Hello David,

This is a wonderful response. Thank you for taking the time to write,

You wrote:

"And quite frankly I don't consider such experiences to be in any way more valid than my more usual experiences of being caught up in the ephemera of life"

I don't think I indicated anything about one being more valid than the other. I am here testifying about a particular witness (experience). I am testifying to another way of being on this earth that is sustained in all circumstances and events in daily life. I completely understand that you do not share that Witness of conscious, conscience, identity, meaning, and purpose anchored solely in imminent awareness. You mischaracterize my testimony of that which I Witness when you say:

"I think it's because our theological grounding, which in turn informs our religious experiences, has been somewhat different. You got your understanding of your 'I AM' from Joel Goldsmith and I got mine from Martin Buber and Karl Barth."

My Witness (experience) is not anchored in a theological grounding, however, my testimony may use terms that come from a particular theology. However, I am not bound to those terms I merely use them to express a testimony of my witness. I understand that you "got" your understanding of 'I AM' from other people. I did not and I do not. I witness (the experience of imminent existence) in everything and every circumstance. A few months after this Witness came over me (experience of the inshining Light) many years ago, I was reading John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. Because of the Witness (inherent existence) within me I came to know I AM is one way to express my Witness. The words of the bible did not inform me, the Witness (inherent existence) informed me and I found those words reflective of my Witness. In this witness, the conscious, conscience, identity, meaning, and purpose is free from outward theologies, institutions, persons, etc. to sustain and thrive. 

You wrote:

"We are intrinsically and by creation limited vulnerable and embedded in history. That there is possibility of something more than that is not intrinsically part of who we are ..."

It may or may not be "intrinsically" part of who we are, however, I testify to you right now even as I write this; that not only is something more possible, it is now and many of us today are Witnessing (living)  it directly and without reference or respect to any outward theology, institution, practice, tradition, etc. 

You wrote further:

"To claim it as our own is in some way to step out of it."

You admit to not knowing a conscious, conscience, identity, meaning, and purpose sustained in the living Witness in all circumstances and events in daily life; yet you say to testify (own) the sufficiency of sustained Witness of inherent existence is to step out of it. Of course, that would be the way of it for you, however, your characterization of it is not what we experience or witness. You are expressing your experience and trying to superimpose it over my testimony. It is one thing for you to say that you do not share the Witness (experience), it is another to go about characterizing my testimony based on your experience which is fundamentally, and in its essence, different than mine. I can even understand going so far as to argue that based on your experience you do not agree with the testimony of my witness. However, to suggest (if that is what you are arguing) that the witness to the sufficiency of inherent existence regarding the conscious, conscience, identity, purpose, and meaning in all things and circumstances of life is not possible, is to speak ultimately against an experience that you admit you do not share. This reminds of me of when I was surveying nesting birds, for a private land trust, on the islands of the Great Lakes and one day came upon (Witnessed directly) a nesting pair of Great Egrets. When I reported the find, I was told I was mistaken because they (up until that time) did not nest that far north in Lake Huron. When I testified that I had witnessed the birds myself at their nest and feeding their young and that I had shown others who affirmed and confirmed my report, they reasserted their contention I was mistaken,  Those who did not agree with my testimony were basing their disagreement upon their experience and the experience of those before them. Of course, in their experience, a nesting pair of Great Egret that far north in Lake Huron was not intrinsic to their natural history. However, one day it became intrinsic and part of their natural history and many us of witnessed it directly. We witnessed something others did not share.

I am sharing a Witness through testimony. I am anchored in the living Witness, not the testimony, I understand David, that you do not share that Witness (at least not in its fullness as you admit) and are skeptical of my testimony. Many of us own the living witness directly and our conscious, conscience, identity, purpose, and meaning. are "emptying" of  outward forms by the power of this living witness. We have come to know the life directly even amidst outward form and in owning that many of us testify to it to others. It is not for us to hold the expectation that others will come into the Witness. We have no role it that. 

For many of us, the possibility of somewhere more is not longer a possibility it is a reality by the power of the living witness upon us. It is now intrinsic to our very nature, being, awareness, and consciousness. 

Comment by David McKay on 4th mo. 9, 2016 at 6:52pm

Apologies time. I went back to our earlier conversation and could not locate the reference to Joel Goldsmith. So Forrest is correct. Somewhere, online in the last 3 days someone referred to Goldsmith's "Mystical I" — don't know where don't know when — and I mistakenly imported it into this conversation. My intention was not to disparage New Age thinking (though I find very little of use in it personally). My attempt was to reference the kind of intellectual architecture that I saw our Friend Keith operating out of and to identify my own in distinction to it.

Keith meanwhile is refusing to acknowledge that he operates out of an intellectual architecture. It may in fact be the case that Keith has access to spiritual content that I simply am not able to access. But if so, claims of direct revelation are somewhat problematic for ongoing consideration. There is simply no common ground to have a conversation about. I take for granted that even when I am deeply certain there is no matter how small a chance that I might be wrong. My apology here is an example of how we live in community with others who can be quite convinced of their experiences and yet can sometimes be wrong.

Again, my confession: the notion that someone could be so intimately established in the spiritual that their openings were in no way informed by their creaturely life is so contrary to my understanding of how both ordinary experience and spiritual experience works that I am certain that if I was wrong about this my beliefs have become a barrier to experiencing the reality that Keith claims. The possibility that I could be wrong is the only door I know into a deeper and richer experience and understanding of reality. He and I are walking different paths. Forrest, you and I walked different paths as well. But our paths share enough common ground that we are able to talk about it in particular kinds of ways which I hope can be mutually rewarding. I simply lack the tools to know what to do with the witness that Keith offers me.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 9, 2016 at 7:55pm

Revelation can be working on several fronts at once...

physical: "That bush is burning!"

intellectual: "I wonder why it doesn't burn out?"

emotional: "Wow!"

intuitive: "The Big Guy is trying to tell me something here!"

and the intellectual end of it can certainly be incomplete, even partially mistaken -- and still represent a step closer.

I don't experience Keith experiencing whatever-he's-describing  (experience usually being private) -- but his ideas-about sound much like what I read from yoga teachers -- who often sound a little blurry because they're more interested in conveying a direction they hope people will take, not so much trying to lay out precise descriptions of states people could only recognize by being there.

Keith too is recommending a direction, is still working on his 'ideas-about' and might be mistaken in some of those, as I may be in some of mine. I'm sure we're both correctly saying that you don't need to go to George Fox (or William Rogers) for your flight instructions: you get those the same 'place' they got theirs.

& I say that this is the same place that enables a person to recognize which ideas, etc represent 'revelation' for him/her at the time... and which ideas would merely confuse him. Keith expresses the idea that you don't really need the ideas (if I'm understanding this point) -- and spiritually we presumably don't actually need these, no more than we need food or happiness -- while I accept those, too, as different ways God embodies our nourishment.

We don't live by 'bread' alone; but literal bread is the sacramental form in which we typically receive our physical nourishment from God. Ideas can just bring mental indigestion -- but people typically get their mental nourishment in that form.

Where you and I might rely on the smell & taste of the bread, the clarity & fit of the ideas -- Keith is saying basically that we could  ~"Let all that go; look instead for what you're 'sensing' spiritually about them."

Maybe that's a more 'pure' stance; I couldn't say. For now I'm playing with my toys, but working to keep our Father in mind...

Comment by Keith Saylor on 4th mo. 10, 2016 at 1:05pm

David and Forrest. I have spent time resting in your responses. We clearly understand one another even as our Witness and surely our testimonies differ. I appreciate your honesty and forthrightness. Our discussion is compelling to me because of where it has come to; each standing before one another; re-cognizing our differences and yet seemingly engaging from a spirit of dissimilation without demonization. As you suggest David, we are on different paths that have crossed at this point and in this moment. Ostensively, as we go forth on our paths, this crossroads moment and point will fade. Hopefully, the fading will be replaced by a fondness of memory even amidst dissimilation. 

I appreciate being in this moment and will, for my part, further rest in this moment with no small amount of fondness and gratitude for having been engaged with and by you.

Keith

Comment by Howard Brod on 4th mo. 11, 2016 at 8:18am

Thank you Keith for the pureness of this post, offered in Love and Light.  May we who understand your witness hold your advice close to heart.

Comment by David McKay on 4th mo. 14, 2016 at 8:34pm

Apologies for my absence from this conversation. No offense intended. Life, work and completion of taxation forms have been somewhat distracting this week.

Having said this, and having read the ongoing conversation, I really have nothing more to add. The topics we are trying to engage their that the limits of human language. And so there is very little left to say.

Blessings on each of you. Peace be with you.

Comment