I first encountered the fact of this in the 1960's, when I was flailing through a life already hijacked by God, reframed by mind-striping drugs, immobilized by conflicting ideas and ideals.

In search of a group I might really belong with, I stayed overnight with people who kept the air thick with pot smoke amid the bewildering sounds of a record I'd never heard of: 'The Hangman's Beautiful Daughter,' by the Incredible String Band. Among many intricate, confusing lyrics, one mad fragment struck me:

and who would hear
directions clear
from the Unnam-ed All-Namer?

an obvious reference, accurate or not, to God. "Could I actually _do_ that?" I wondered? That thought was, I knew, a prayer. The answer — I had no idea how I knew it — was "Yes."

Why would anyone think they might actually hear from God? Why would they want to?

Because there is something that recognizes truth at the center of every human being. This isn't the intellectual mind, nor is it (strictly speaking) the heart. Its workings aren't confined to the marvelous neural net that embodies each human's interactions with the physical world. It isn't God; but it is our interface to What or Whom it is that people know as 'God'.

There's no place for such a star in the cosmos of contemporary normalism; but the telescope for seeing it is patient self-observation.

I didn't say it's a faculty to make anyone error-free or infallible. Everyone who's ever practiced any art form under inspiration's odd jurisdiction should have seen this at one time or another: A poem (or other inspiration) that wakes a person late at night, inexorably demanding to be written, won't necessarily be a masterpiece; and it may well benefit from subsequent editing. But something wiser than your waking self takes a hand.

People are usually willing to concede this much, but often they balk at claims that what's involved has any power beyond our physical skulls. That reservation is the most obvious obstacle to relying on it; but not the only one.

People have been so much mislead by hopes and fears that they're afraid to trust even valid hopes; they find it easier, somehow, to hope that trusting their fears will keep them safe. This is simply tragic.

The hope involved is that God is real and will give us what we want. The worst outcome, of course, would be if God had been real, but cruel as our imaginations.

Much depends on how we conceive of power. For the monarchists who collected our Bible, power meant being able to give orders and have them be obeyed. The stories they assembled came from even earlier times, when power was a warrior's prowess, including the foresight necessary to an effective war-leader.

The existence of evil was not a problem for either concept. Other gods could contest power; subordinates could abuse delegated authority. Their model of God could be, was supposed to be cruel against disloyalty and rebellion, which threatened the safety of all their law-abiding subjects.

But Newton's God was a system designer, more than merely the Psalmists' artificer of the 'fearfully and wonderfully made" human body — This model of Creation envisioned a builder who'd constructed and set in motion the whole clockwork machinery of the universe. Any flaw in its operation naturally reflected on God's character. As more and more people adopted scientific explanations of how the world works and why it works that way — More and more people found the idea of God as its Maker — morally repugnant. A magnificent Creation — but any God who would create it seemed inept or wicked. So in the academic world, the world of Great Thinkers and socially-acceptable opinion -- Atheism came to be as much taken for granted as it commonly is today.

Still, it left the world just a little too meaningless and hopeless. When drugs suddenly came along that offered a chance to see something else — God, even — It was the brightest students at my university that wanted to see what we might find.

Of all the varied descriptions of how a drug like LSD affects people, the one that seems beyond question is this: that it lowers the threshold for pattern-detector mechanisms in the nervous system. A pattern that isn't visible to normal vision, hearing, or conceptionalization — is generally called 'a hallucination.' But sensitivity to pattern is a basic feature of how a brain functions at all.

The issue is how much sensitivity is desireable. A computer scanning a satellite photo for hints of camoflaged airfields, tanks, soldiers... applies many similar processes; and there's a useful range of responsiveness that picks out features a human observer might miss; while beyond that it would see features that aren't there, or turned too low would miss too much.

Hunger — or fasting — typically lowers the perceptional thresholds. For an individual lost in the wilderness, or a tribe with a failing food supply, that kind of change is functional. It would be too much to have to live with in normal circumstances. People living with pain, suffering, or boredom — prefer beer, a substance with almost opposite effects.

Extremely unlikely meaningful coincidences — examples of what Jung called 'synchronicity — had become a regular feature of my life well before LSD appeared. My love for a young Unitarian woman, who insisted that the word 'God' referred to something real, even if explaining the meaning could be elusive — had forced me to recognize that there could be a powerful intelligence choreographing our lives and that people who thought so weren't always fools, but could in fact be simply more perceptive.

But the dance of my subsequent life included a long series of mis-steps and pratfalls. And hence, my brief stay with this household of holy fools and their haunting new record.

Soon afterwards, circumstances — a further series of synchronistic events — introduced me to a man who often used the I Ching for divination. I don't even remember how I decided to try it myself, nor what I asked [through] it nor what answer I received — except that I was surprized [and somewhat distrustful at first] to find the response meaningful, appropriate to what I'd wanted to know.

Before long I had my own copy of the I Ching to bother. Life in late-60's Berkeley became even more strange and wonderful as synchronicities and unexpected inspirations multiplied, snatches of that String Band record running through my mind:

"May the Long-Time Sun shine on you,
all Love surround you
and the Pure Light within you
guide your way on..."

At times I would stand at some unbusy spot on the sidewalk, feeling for a nudge towards one direction or another, before I'd go that way. Alas, at whatever encounter or destination I eventually arrived, still I was my same unenlightened self. And so, there were other times when this didn't seem such a good idea.

When the I Ching said an idea would work out wonderfully, provided I took proper care with other people's property... this had nothing to do with how things would go if I were careless. So I floundered through many interesting outcomes, until one day I found myself with a raging nicotine fit, sitting on the floor in a welfare hotel room in downtown Oakland, asking: "Why shouldn't I sell you and buy a pack of cigarettes?" Before I'd finished sorting the yarrow sticks, the phone rang — an unexpected invitation from one sweet and sexy young woman friend.

Returning from that, I ran into friends of a veteran I used to smoke dope with — who offered me floorspace in their shared apartment. When a State disability check finally came through and I could at last repay them, I'd become an honorary member of the group.

But eventually I tired of Berkeley, and returned to Southern California, to the small town there where I'd first started college. There I fell into sudden love, and when the I Ching told me, "You are very far from happiness," my reaction was: "Why am I asking this silly book who to love?"

Despite an intense empathic resonance with the woman, I was indeed very far from happiness -- She kept striving to attune herself to God by total withdrawal from the world. As a friend of hers told me: "In India her neighbors would call her a saint, and look after her. Here, they call her crazy, and lock her up." Decades later I found a poem by her in a newpaper in Washington, and wrote to get us back in touch. "Hardships and suffering," she wrote back, "have left me with an unshakable faith... in Something." Where I'd feared I might have treated her badly; she said the time with me had been one of her good periods. But clearly we hadn't been meant to stay together.

The next woman I met was even less appropriate.

Years later, she said she'd seen me first, walking across the lawn at a May Day celebration, and told herself: "I want that guy!" Then a mutual friend had introduced us, and my own senseless lonesomeness did the rest. A few days afterwards, she was caught up in a raid on her apartment building and extradited on a bullshit charge to Utah, well out of reach.

I stayed in town while the local collective mood turned apocalyptic. Nixon was escalating the war against Vietnam, protesters were being killed, too many people had turned to bad drugs or to worse religious notions, while a desperate few wanted to oppose the war with their own futile violence. The only thing that made sense to me was to return to school, maybe study nursing and learn enough to mitigate the widespread suffering that seemed likely. As my summer rental ran out I suddenly realized I'd turned old. The world might end in nuclear folly at any moment; and no-one I knew there cared if I stayed in town or left. I decided I should go home, make peace with my parents while we were all still alive.

I had no plans to stay with them... But I seemed to be coming down with a cold. My mother fussed, claimed I looked sick, insisted I see her doctor. The doctor had no doubts whatsoever: "Mono. Gamma globulim shot."

After that, there was nothing else to be done. I lay around the house exhausted, with a sandpaper throat, passing out at unpredictable intervals. One day I started walking the long two blocks to a nearby bookstore, stopping to rest each time at a bus stop halfway there.

And then I got a letter. After months in solitary (the only woman in a small-town Utah jail), my extradited friend had gone to trial and been released. She said she feared that some people were doomed to find their way through life all alone. I invited her to come visit. As my parents were opposed to her staying with us, I rented a room upstairs from a local health food store; and a year later we were married in the park across the street.

As everyone knows, astrology doesn't work, but when I looked up our data it showed Saturn from her chart in the same place as the Sun in mine, my own Saturn likewise overlapping her Sun. A long-lasting bond, said the best astrology book I had handy. Everyone who knew us thought we were a happy couple, as in fact we were. What the book didn't say, I learned later.

Saturn in Virgo could make a person harshly critical; Saturn in Cancer could squash a person's interest in household matters... and Saturn close to another person's Sun position could definitely cramp a person's style, because Saturn did symbolize a strongly constrictive force, while the Sun in anyone's chart was supposed to be a pointer to that person's basic identity.

Despite the fact that astrology doesn't work, we were tightly bonded — and we each tended to crush the other's sense of who they were and most needed to be. Toward the end, she called me into the living room, where she'd been watching tv — from the bedroom, where I'd been trying to write a novel, as far as I could get from the tv's attention-stealing presence — to say, "Forrest, you know we really don't have much in common." Ten years to the day from the May Day when she'd first seen me crossing the lawn, I moved out of her house and into freedom once again.

My first marriage, and my second wife's first marriage had both violated a major taboo of Chinese astrology: that couples born six years apart shouldn't marry. Our own marriage did it again — and while our first marriages were disasters, we seem remarkably suited to each other. (There is a pattern to the world; but not as simple a pattern as humans tend to expect.

Aside from all that — I'd long ago stopped promiscuously bothering the I Ching. Though there is good advice in it, though traditional divination techniques often serve up truly appropriate passages — Reverence for what I found in the book itself was clearly a distraction.

There's something paradoxical about divination in the first place; this is after all a prayer for guidance, and I should be respectful of the results; yet sometimes these conveyed very little, apparently hinting I needed to "Figure it out yourself, dummy!" I could just flip a coin (and many times did) but that method implied that half the time my answers would need to be 'noes' — unless, indeed, I wanted God to shift physical probabilities out of true, just to accomodate me.

If I'd once yearned for powers beyond the ordinary — Whatever made me expect to use them harmlessly without considerable wisdom? Since I'd shown little sign of that, it seemed better for now to grope through life like everybody else.

And so the matter stood for many years. I still felt myself to be under God's instruction, still read everything promising about religion that came my way, was continually trying to figure out what God was doing with the world, and why.

I hadn't forgotten that [for no apparent merit of my own] I had been touched by Grace, back in that mad, holy era called the 60's. God had given a brief, bewildering backstage tour to a peculiar assortment of idealists and rebels, then gone incognito, leaving the world sleepwalking on into all the evils we'd once hoped to see swept away. While I stopped bothering God for continual guidance, I continued to follow whatever trails of synchronistic breadcrumbs came my way, finding some of them idle hopes, finding some of them truly Gifts.

Whenever it was I found an unfamiliar yoga book at a local library — I had already joined the San Diego Friends Meeting, and the title seemed evocative of Quaker worship: _Yoga: The Spirit and Practice of Moving Into Stillness_, by Erich Schiffmann. While Shiffmann was saying many things I'd heard and read from other yogis, he also pointed out the origin of asana practice as meditation poses, and emphasized yoga's ultimate purpose: enhancing our awareness of the human connection to God. Several chapters were explicitly about a practice of 'Listening for Guidance.'

Keeping in mind the synchronistic lives and intuitions reported in early Friends' journals, this struck me as the most truly Quakerish book I'd seen in a long time.

Schiffmann wasn't telling it the way George Fox would have; his language was more Newage than Christian. In the process of illustrating certain points, he'd thrown in some gratuitous historical howlers. But he was Quaker in his recommendation to examine ourselves for the essential truth, rather than relying on him or on anything we'd thought we knew or anything we thought we should believe.

In my own Quaker Meeting, worthy old Friends were rising to proclaim Messages like: "It's dangerous to think God's talking to you," while this Southern Californian yogi was telling us we should learn to tell when God is talking to us, because God can and does.

Indeed, Schiffmann observes, the gap we see between God and ourselves is largely an artifact of egotistic thinking. "We think it's egotistical to think we are fundamentally perfect expressions of a divine Life Principle." But it's truly egotistic, he says, "to think that you are responsible for who you are and that you created yourself... That's ego." We didn't, after all, make ourselves. It makes more sense "to recognize the Allness of God" — an allness which implies that there is no thing, neither our imperfect selves nor our many faults, that can possibly exist outside of God.

"Meditation means listening, and the meditative mind is the 'listening-to-Infinite-Mind' mind. The practice of yoga is a way of learning to be in this meditative listening state all the time. It's not only about how flexible your body is, or how many advanced and intricate postures you can do, though all of this is wonderful. It's about you and your specific mind listening to, being guided by, and communing with Infinite Mind, God."

Therefore Schiffmann devoted several chapters specifically to learning how to be guided by God. One does this by asking, 'listening' for, and following what guidance comes.

"There is a whole other language involved in listening inwardly for communications from the universe in this way. It is not always dependent on words... You will know what to do without having figured it out." If that process turns ambiguous we are once again in familiar Quaker territory: "The best thing to do in this confused state when you are faced with a difficult decision is mentally to stop, become quiet, centered, and still; and then silently ask again... And then be patient.... If you are calm and attentive and are truly desirous of an answer to your dilemma, and are therefore listening with open ears, the mental waters will become clear and calm and the most appropriate thing to do will be obvious."

Was Schiffmann suggesting people put themselves through dramatic tests of faith, deciding their most urgent dilemmas this way? That's what initially frightens people about the idea; but what he actually says is to practice resolving minor uncertainties with prayers for guidance. This should solidly confirm that it's our best way to navigate through any situation where we don't know the score. (Really, we don't know, more often than we like to realize.)

Schiffmann's book recommends hatha yogi asanas to 'purify' our intuition, to render it a more dependable medium for receiving guidance. Yet I am an utterly undisciplined, obsessively intellectual couch-potato. Asana practice is not the first activity that comes to mind when I wake in the morning, nor at any other time.

Is there hope for me, then? Actually, yogi offers diverse branches for people of different inclinations to reach awareness of our 'yoking' to God. And while contemplative traditions in many religions encourage quieting the compulsive mental chatter that's the most common, crippling obstacle to knowing God; interpretations that would stifle the mind — like those which have traditionally devalued the body and the emotions — are simply mistaken. (I'm an intellectual; I should know!) God permeates all modes of perception: physical, emotional, mental — and that elusive 'something else' people persistently fail to reduce to physical, emotional, or mental events. Truth. Beauty. Love. Everything we're ultimately brought to recognize as 'spiritual'.

Schiffmann says that "Practicing yoga during the day is a matter of keeping your eyes on the road and one ear turned toward the Infinite. It’s about listening inwardly as often as you can for your deepest impulses about what to say, think, do, or be... It is the meaning of `Thy Will be done.`" The distinction between our wills and God's fades with the recognition that our will attuned to God's steers us better than our heedless flailings ever did.

I do not find this easy to practice. What I have realized is that it's our only hope. Probably it fits a spiritualized interpretation of what 'The Reign of God' ought to look like. Probably it describes the way early Quakers navigated their preaching missions. Such conceptional considerations aren't convincing to anyone who denies that he has, that we have, methods that work well enough to effectively guide our lives. But the fact is that following the prevailing ideas of "what makes sense" has brought the Earth and its inhabitants into an inexorable series of escalating disasters. Our various "problem solving" techniques, as Michael Bohm pointed out, intrinsically produce solutions worse than the problems we started with, in a collective reenactment of "The Old Lady Who Swallowed the Fly." The best possible human plans to cope with multiple interlinking crises — would be clearly inadequate, would never be agreed to, and certainly would leave out crucial unforeseen obstacles.

In my own life, I have reached the end of my habitual "Figure It Out" mindset. I can't do it anymore. My lifelong struggle with having "a mind with a mind of its own" has ended in helplessness.

"I can of my own self do nothing" — or nothing much worthwhile. To write this very piece, I've needed to repeatedly turn away from it, distract myself briefly (a pleasant, but increasingly dysfunctional defense against anxiety) — and most effectively, to sit in meditation until the next piece of it finally came clear.

And you? Do you feel safe in this world as you are, as it is? Do you have a truly adequate way to cope?

Views: 378

Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 18, 2017 at 6:40pm
I am in agreement with you James. It is merely that there is another way of suggesting or recommending others go about working through the restlessness you so correctly bring forward. The most common way is to suggest people turn to outward forms (like Churches, Meetings, ideas, persons etc.) as instruments. It is mine to offer and bring forward a way that is less often offered and is often suppressed. This way is to turn from all outward instruments for help and wait upon and have faith in the inward manifestation without reference to any outward instrument whether person or insitution. I am ever bringing it forward as a recommendation and leave it to the individual and the prerogative of the inward impulse of Christ whether it is of value to them.
Comment by William F Rushby on 2nd mo. 18, 2017 at 9:53pm

Hello again, Forrest!  I was too worn out earlier today to read your long life story, confession, and metaphysical musings.  Tonight I am a bit more focused and made it through all or most of what you wrote.  I appreciate your forthrightness and searching attitude.  (Yes, I do appreciate you even though you seem to have an ambivalent attitude toward me.)

I am a more "pedestrian" human being than you.  I never did drugs; I never dabbled in New Age or Eastern spirituality; I never spent extended periods of time, without working, in metaphysical pursuits.  I have always viewed the world and my own problems through a Christian lens.

Despite all of these differences, I think I understand where you are coming from, and have spent much of my own life trying to figure it all out!

I joined the Society of Friends as a teenager; my Quaker "career" has been a study in marginality!  Finally, my wife and I were disowned (they used the euphemism "released").  A prominent Friend posted a statement at the yearly meetinghouse in which he described me as "deeply troubled!"  Despite all of this "feedback,"  I have spent years trying to figue=re the Quaker thing out.  What gets me into trouble are my occasional attempts to speak truth to Quaker power!

The best way I have found to do this is to write scholarly essays and get them published, at which I have been modestly successful.  The powers that be in yearly meeting politics don't appear to control academic journals!!

After this long-winded preface, I will now get to the point!  I urge you to read some of the vast collection of Quaker journals.  Somewhere in your discourse, you alluded to "early Quaker journals," but have you ever read any of these volumes?  I would suggest reading some more recent spiritual autobiographies rather than those published in the early days of the movement.  You might try Lewis Benson.  Or something a bit older like Ann Branson (1808-1891) or Cyrus Cooper (1860-1940).

If you don't have the patience to plow through the journals of such Friends, you may find value in reading my journal articles in *Quaker History*: Branson essay in the Fall, 2016 issue, and Cooper essay in the Spring, 2000 issue.  The Branson essay in particular addresses the God who speaks and who spoke to Ann repeatedly.  I even describe the ideation involved.

I think you should definitely read Lewis Benson's *None Were So Clear*.  His spiritual quest was remarkably similar to yours, minus the drugs and Berkeley!

Anyway, best wishes.  I will pray for you!

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 21, 2017 at 12:06am

Hello William -- It is not the exotic nature of my experiences or religious inspirations I consider significant, but the perception that at each point (even when I was quite bewildered) I was continually being led to things I could currently recognize as illuminating -- led to appropriate next steps from whatever I'd already digested and found nourishing untile then. From this I conclude that each person's life, comfortable or not, must be likewise tailored to his development, if he keeps alert for trailmarks.

A favorite Pendle Hill teacher's suggestion of Samuel Bownas suited me very well and provided some observations I consider very significant, about the state of Friends when he returned to England from preaching in the American colonies. Aside from that (& sometimes George Fox) I find most early Friends' journals to be messages evidently "addressed to somebody else." 

So, thanks for the suggestions (I've found several of your historical references interesting in the past) but I'm presently exploring other directions (and assume that you too will be led to anything you truly need.)

An experience of Anne's, the day of her ex-husband's funeral, may illustrate what I mean by that: She had loved him ("I'd do anything for that man but live with him!") but after twenty years of his drinking & uncontrollable lying had & escaped with their grown children. He'd followed her to San Diego, bringing his new wife -- but died soon after her. (Do we need long lives? Evidently the length of our earthly embodiment is not nearly as important as people think.)

With nothing specific in mind, she took an early morning walk and wandered into a garage sale down the street. There she saw a formal black dress, her size, more appropriate than anything she had for a large Episcopal funeral. But, she thought, she would need the right kind of shoes. There they were! A minor blessing, yes -- but there's a message in how it came to her.

I could put in a word for you, likewise, if I thought there was anything you lacked and wanted...

Comment by William F Rushby on 2nd mo. 22, 2017 at 3:13pm

A few comments on Samuel Bownas:  He was part of the movement to suppress the charismatic tendencies of the original generation of Friends.  Samuel Bownas's parents were Friends; he was a second generation Friend.

Forrest Curo mentioned reading Samuel Bownas.  Forrest, did you read his book on ministry or his journal?  The book on ministry advocates a very conservative stance on ministry, not the original kind of ministry that embodied quaking and other Pentecostal features.

The first part of Bownas's journal is quite interesting because it describes his spiritual journey, but the remainder (as I recall) is dominated by his polemics (debating with non-Friends).  I don't find such debates very edifying to read about.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 22, 2017 at 4:41pm

What I read was his journal -- and what most interested me -- though I was also bemused by how vehemently hostile the religious debates of his time seemed to be (There was also a large selection of 17th Century polemic pamphlets, to confirm the impression that they were as bad if not worse than modern internet flame wars) -- The part that really perked up my ears was his account of returning home to England and finding much less life in the Meetings than he'd found there before he left. One of the people he asked about this blamed it on people coming to put too zeal into maintaining the external ways at the expense of reforming their internal states.

I didn't find his ministry book of interest (though I'd hoped to!) His ideas of what God demanded in vocal ministry were too far askew from what I'd observed & experienced of it, closer to a 'taking dictation' model which is pretty far removed from the 'being prompted to speak' criterion I find to be more often what God wants of us, at least in these times.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 22, 2017 at 5:15pm

In the preface of Bownas' A Description of the Qualifications Necessary to a Gospel Minister ... it is written>


"But if any should object, "You profess to have the spirit of truth which guideth into all truth," (John. xvi., 1 3.) and ' To have received that anointing, that you need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, what need have you then of such instructions, or instructors? (1 John ii., 27). "

"We answer, this hath been the practice of the gospel church from its first institution; for though all have received the spirit of Truth, and this anointing which teacheth of all things, yet all come not up in obedience to it, neither are all so grown into that knowledge and acquaintance with it, as to he perfectly taught by it and established in it ..."


page vi


---


This gets right at it. While the author is correct that it has been the practice that some exhorted to the anointing, it was not so much the practice to do other that merely exhort to resting in the anointing itself in itself without regard for outward teachings and prescriptions and rules about how one should behave as a minister. It is made clear over and over again by many founding and early Quakers that to do other than exhort to the anointing was to trample all over the prerogative of the inshining Light to guide behavior. They also made the point that an individual's inability to obey the pure movement of the inshining Light in their conscience was no excuse to go about leading them back into that which they have left behind by establishing and instituting and laying over top of Christ's prerogative, rules and behavioral norms that in themselves individuals will not come into perfect obedience with. In fact, such an overlaying of these outward standards confuses the true nature of the anointing which discovers to people they are coming out of such regard for outward behavioral rules and prescriptions and into a life guided completely, and under the prerogative, of the spirit of Christ itself in itself in their conscious and conscience.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 22, 2017 at 6:38pm

I believe one reason people muddle their personal thoughts and feelings with the inspirations of God -- is that there really is no hard-&-fast line to be drawn between these, God being immanent in everything as well as transcending all things.

That is, it's understandable that Meetings institute rules on when and how to prophesy -- but that takes us onto a steeply slippery slope, very likely a factor in that "deadness" Bownas experienced in some of the Meetings he'd known in England.

Truly, many of the Messages I've heard (and some of my own, as it must have seemed to various listeners at the time) were enough to give ministry a bad name. But even a mistaken idea or a misguided enthusiasm represents the best sense of things and their meaning that the speaker has been led to, so far. 

"Led into all truth..." for human beings -- may need to involve continual following, a series of converging approximations.  

Comment by William F Rushby on 2nd mo. 22, 2017 at 9:59pm

Forrest wrote: "That is, it's understandable that Meetings institute rules on when and how to prophesy -- but that takes us onto a steeply slippery slope, very likely a factor in that "deadness" Bownas experienced in some of the Meetings he'd known in England."

Bownas's book on ministry laid out several such rules, in reaction to charges against Friends of religious enthusiasm.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 22, 2017 at 11:45pm

"Religious enthusiasm" means having "God inside."

People acting the role of what they imagine that should be like -- can act like bad parodies of themselves. Hence, the use of the term "enthusiasm" pejoratively.

But the manifest realization of that state, that "God will be all in all", is what religion and this life are meant to produce.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 23, 2017 at 8:06am

There is "a hard and fast line between outward or expired thoughts and feelings and inspired immanence. The line is in the conscious and conscience of human being. Once inspired or enthused immanence is come into the conscious and conscience, it is discovered that outward expired thoughts and feelings are not of the nature of enthused immanence to guide and inform. The sustained direct experience of conscious and conscience enthused with immanence is the hard and fast line itself in itself. Immanent enthusement in the conscious and conscience discovers a clarity from the muddling up of outward expired thoughts and feelings overshadowing inspired or enthused immanence.


It is the turning of human conscious and conscience back into expired things that no longer support immanence that brings about the muddling up. Immanence is no longer enthused in the Temples or outward thoughts and feelings. EnthusedImmanence now resides in the conscious and conscience of human beings. The conscience is the seat of enthused Immanence. We make excuses for not waiting upon and taking up habitation in the enthused power of Immanence in our conscious and conscience. These excuses for turning to and leaning on outwardly expired forms justifies and nurtures the proneness of human being to hold onto expired forms. There are not enough people exhorting to the original and founding Quaker enthusement or enthusiasm that holds to the First Love in our conscience and looks to no outwardly expired form to support and inform the conscious and conscience and to come into inshining Immanence.


It is the proneness to take up or preach up outward thoughts that come to us as leadings or inspirations or given through the process of waiting worship that overshadows enthused Immanence. Inspirations in immanence are not leadings or thoughts or feelings, the inspiration or enthusement of Immanence is the directly experienced movement and impulse of Immanence itself in the conscious and conscience. This inshining impulse is not of the nature of expired thoughts and feelings. It guides and informs without regard for or reference to outward political and religious thoughts, feelings, or institutions.


Again, that hard and fast line exists in the conscious and conscience of each human being. It is known and is knowable. Enthused Immanence itself in itself discovers to us the coming out of expired thoughts and feelings and the "need [and excuse] to involve continually follow, a series of converging approximations." This teaching and excuse may just as easily lead people into the darkness of never ending continual following a series of converging approximations that serve to bind the conscious and conscience against the freedom of coming out of these very approximations. Enthused Immanence is not of these expired approximations and is come out of them, to take up its place in the conscious and conscience of human being. Again, Immanence his come out of these expired approximation and is enthused into the conscious and conscience of human being directly.


As one of those who has come out identification with outwardly expired forms to guide and inform in matters of conscience and who affirms the enthusement of inshining Immanence itself in itself into my conscious and conscience I take ownership of the word enthusiasm; for Immanence has enthused my conscious and conscience and has brought me out of being guided and informed by outwardly expired rules and behaviors that people like Bownas would craft and fashion for the suppression of enthused Immanence itself in itself. I am come into the inshining impulse of enthused Immanence and its relative impulse and illumination is discovered onto me as my sole and sufficient guide without regard for outwardly expired approximations which Immanence has come out of to come into the conscious and conscience of human being as the hard and fast line itself in itself.

Comment

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

Join QuakerQuaker

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.


You can also make a one-time donation.

Latest Activity

Forrest Curo commented on Keith Saylor's blog post 'Founding Quakerism: “Their chief design... to reduce Religion to Allegory?”'
"Revelation comes in many flavors, including that of reasoning... Reasoning per se, like scriptures…"
10 hours ago
James C Schultz commented on Keith Saylor's blog post 'Founding Quakerism: “Their chief design... to reduce Religion to Allegory?”'
"Hello David:  It's hard for me to rate revelation vs. scripture as I view them as…"
11 hours ago
Keith Saylor commented on Keith Saylor's blog post 'Founding Quakerism: “Their chief design... to reduce Religion to Allegory?”'
"Hello Howard, "My particular meeting provides keys to everyone so that they can worship…"
14 hours ago
Forrest Curo commented on Keith Saylor's blog post 'Founding Quakerism: “Their chief design... to reduce Religion to Allegory?”'
"A human being whose interpretation of God's Light, Presence -- of his experience of God -- was…"
15 hours ago
David McKay commented on Keith Saylor's blog post 'Founding Quakerism: “Their chief design... to reduce Religion to Allegory?”'
"Hello James-- I do not think George Fox would own your interpretation. I viewed the Light as…"
18 hours ago
Keith Saylor commented on Keith Saylor's blog post 'Founding Quakerism: “Their chief design... to reduce Religion to Allegory?”'
"Hello David, This is an important and valid conversation. I agree it is a mistake presume that the…"
21 hours ago
Forrest Curo commented on Keith Saylor's blog post 'Founding Quakerism: “Their chief design... to reduce Religion to Allegory?”'
"Every religious movement that's ever endured has been suitable and liveable for the particular…"
23 hours ago
James C Schultz commented on Keith Saylor's blog post 'Founding Quakerism: “Their chief design... to reduce Religion to Allegory?”'
"Considering that It was the bible that was the source of George Fox's revelation of the…"
yesterday

© 2017   Created by QuakerQuaker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service