From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Mar 30 2004 - 21:51:54 BST
Dear David B.,
You wrote 28 Mar 2004 17:05:39 -0700:
'I'd been wondering why you kept insisting that religions should be judged
by their methods rather than by their content. I couldn't see any good
reason for that and was going to ask why in the world we should exclude
content. But now I see that you were trying to rig the contest in your
favor.'
I was limiting the contest to something we might get some agreement on. In
your words: to determine which religion best achieves the task of guiding
people toward the point where they can have mystical experience themselves.
It should NOT be a contest to determine which religion best describes this
mystical experience, derives a morality from it etc..
In that way I hoped to prove false the fear Sam voiced 11 Mar 2004
07:46:05 -0000:
'I suspect it'll be a volcanic sort of debate with lava spewing in all
directions and depending on the work of aeons to turn that lava into useful
earth in which plants can grow.'
Isn't that a good reason to exclude content? The content religions should be
aiming for can't be very well caught in words anyway according to all
accounts of mystical experience, can it?
Is it really against your wish that setting up the contest in this way
favours mystical religions?
You continue:
'Its fairly clear that from the bulk of your description that we're not
talking about the same thing at all - or hardly
at all.'
I DO have mystical experience in Quaker meetings for worship quite
regularly. Maybe 1 out of every 3 times I visit one. Sometimes in other
occasions too. Practising opening one's self for 'getting Guidance' in
Quaker meetings contributes to mystical experience in other occasions in my
experience. The experience of 'Guidance' (also worded differently by other
Quakers) is very much a mystical experience.
I have to give up the 'ego-ownership' of the words I speak in a meeting for
worship or I won't feel the call to speak them. They are partly formed by my
vocabulary, my way of thinking and my static patterns of value, of course.
There is always a 'new', Dynamic aspect, however, or -again- I won't feel
the call to speak them. Others present recognize (having heard me before)
both 'my' input and the DQ aspect of my spoken contributions in meeting. A
large part of 'practising opening one's self for getting Guidance in Quaker
meetings' IS discriminating between the static and Dynamic aspects of other
people's spoken contributions and ... ignoring the static aspects.
Regularly what I speak in a meeting for worship connects me -without my
prior knowledge- with others present. It 'speaks to their condition' even if
I don't know whom it is meant for and what that condition is and ... may
never know. I hear it often enough to know that it happens, though.
Sometimes the result is a clear collective feeling of connectedness, a
'gathered' meeting as we call it.
Maybe the following advice from the British 'Quaker faith & practice' book
is illustrative:
'Do not assume that vocal ministry is never to be your part. Faithfulness
and sincerity in speaking, even very briefly, may open the way to fuller
ministry from others. When prompted to speak, wait patiently to know that
the leading and the time are right, but do not let a sense of your own
unworthiness hold you back. Pray that your ministry may arise from deep
experience, and trust that words will be given to you. Try to speak audibly
and distinctly, and with sensitivity to the needs of others. Beware of
speaking predictably or too often, and of making additions towards the end
of a meeting when it was well left before.'
You continue:
'in the closing paragraph you choose to actually mock the idea [that
religions should guide toward mystical experience]. The Quaker environment
is described as one that is "skeptical of anyone who pretends that religion
can be a simple practising of existing methods that reliably precipitate a
mystical experience."'
I didn't mock that idea. You can understand that if you emphasize the right
words:
"skeptical of anyone who pretends that religion can be a simple practising
of EXISTING methods that RELIABLY precipitate a mystical experience".
Yes, I also wrote that Quakers meetings 'can be seen as methods to practise
this "getting guidance"'. But for Quakers 'openness to Guidance' is much
more important than that method. We feel free to experiment with it and
don't ever feel that we can rely on it. Every Quaker experiences periods of
'dryness' (lack of mystical experience), however conscientiously we follow
these methods.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 30 2004 - 21:55:41 BST