Worship as an Individual Experience

68 posts · 7 participants · started Jan 7, 2018, 9:50 PM

1. M

   Mark606Participant
   Jan 7, 2018, 9:50 PM

   “Worship is the highest privilege and the first duty of all created intelligences…” [27.7]

   For a long time after I began to read the Urantia Book, I had considerable trouble engaging in the wholehearted worship and adoration of my Universal Father. Eventually, after many years of being limited to a religion of the mind, I came to realize the root of my problem was founded in my less-than-ideal relationship with my earth father. My predicament was compounded by the fact that he died before I turned 25, and I forever missed the opportunity to resolve our differences or to reach a better understanding.

   But things changed when I reached my 40s – when I finally came to understand the difficulties my earth father had faced in his life – and when I finally found it in my heart to forgive him. From that point on, I could forever separate in my mind the identity of my earth father from that of my loving Father in heaven. I began to have faith and trust in God, and I began to worship him. It was not an easy transition, but it was a rewarding one.

   Has anyone else had difficulty worshiping? I would like to hear of your experiences. I am also interested in any methods, images, thoughts, or mental techniques you find useful in the act of worship.

2. B

   BonitaParticipant
   Jan 7, 2018, 10:02 PM

   mark606 wrote:

   Has anyone else had difficulty worshiping? I would like to hear of your experiences. I am also interested in any methods, images, thoughts, or mental techniques you find useful in the act of worship.

   No, I’ve never had any problems.  But I’m wondering, are you making a distinction between prayer and worship?

3. B

   BonitaParticipant
   Jan 7, 2018, 10:11 PM

   Meant to include this quote in regards to worship:

   5:3.8  The worship experience consists in the sublime attempt of the betrothed Adjuster to communicate to the divine Father the inexpressible longings and the unutterable aspirations of the human soul — the conjoint creation of the God-seeking mortal mind and the God-revealing immortal Adjuster. Worship is, therefore, the act of the material mind’s assenting to the attempt of its spiritualizing self, under the guidance of the associated spirit, to communicate with God as a faith son of the Universal Father. The mortal mind consents to worship; the immortal soul craves and initiates worship; the divine Adjuster presence conducts such worship in behalf of the mortal mind and the evolving immortal soul. True worship, in the last analysis, becomes an experience realized on four cosmic levels: the intellectual, the morontial, the spiritual, and the personal — the consciousness of mind, soul, and spirit, and their unification in personality.

4. M

   MaraParticipant
   Jan 7, 2018, 10:11 PM

   mark606 wrote:

   . . . methods, images, thoughts, or mental techniques you find useful in the act of worship.

   Your story is touching.  Thanks for sharing.

   For me it’s not about methods or techniques.  So I probably don’t have anything useful to say.  I never set aside a special time of day to worship.  I don’t know if that is good or bad.  I merely go about my day conscious of my walk with God.  He’s on my mind all of the time.

5. M

   Mark606Participant
   Jan 7, 2018, 11:05 PM

   Thanks Bonita, and in reply to your question…

   “But I’m wondering, are you making a distinction between prayer and worship?”

   I would say – yes. But it’s a good point, and I do see a connection between the two in terms of technique. Jesus exhorted his believers to employ prayer as a means of leading up through thanksgiving to true worship. 146:2.15

   Here, I see the technique as – prayer to thankfulness to worship.

6. M

   Mark606Participant
   Jan 7, 2018, 11:14 PM

   Thanks Mara. I think sometimes we may not be aware of our methods or techniques. When you say “I merely go about my day conscious of my walk with God.  He’s on my mind all of the time,” I would call this your technique.

   Examples of technique can even extend to environment.

   “Jesus impressed upon his apostles the great value of beauty as an influence leading to the urge to worship, especially with children.” 167:6.5

7. CR

   Carl RParticipant
   Jan 8, 2018, 1:40 AM

   Mark, I can relate to your story.  My teens were turbulent and unhappy both in my relationship with my parents and with the church (and, indirectly, God).  Because of all that, worship came to me slowly.

   What kept alive the feeling of reverence for me was being in unspoiled nature.  I was fortunate in the time and the places I grew up that it wasn’t too hard to find beautiful places of solitude.  I don’t think it’s any accident that these were as available to Jesus as they were.  I think it’s a real shame–actually, a very serious problem–that overcrowding and urbanization  have deprived so many of the benefits that natural beauty makes available.  Urban parks may be pretty but seldom allow solitude or the deep serenity that the quiet of wilderness does, or that rural life in the pre-industrial/mechanical age did.

   I found a couple of “methods” made a big difference for me, one from Roman Catholicism and one from Eastern Orthodoxy, Contemplative Prayer and Hesychasm respectively.  They are both called “prayer” in their traditions but in UB terminology I think they are actually somewhere between prayer and worship.  That’s my experience anyway.  Both have limitations, imo, brought about by their somewhat formal natures.  On the other hand, for getting a foot in the door I found them to be very helpful, with just a bit of UB tweaking.  The infinity of God can make it hard to know where to get started at first…  Also, at least for me they helped tremendously in developing the kind of calm and attentiveness that make such a difference with worship.

   I still practice them to some extent, but neither is central now.  It’s hard to explain exactly what role they play for me at this point, but worship comes much more naturally of its own.

   Above all, however, I’ve found that throwing every facet of one’s being before God in the sincere desire to feel His presence, and keeping at it in spite all of my inertia, distraction, etc. is the master key.  It has never failed me that if I reach out with everything I have toward experiencing his presence, and do not relent, that I find Him.  Not like the spiritual greats, no doubt, but it doesn’t take much of being aware of Him to strike you to the core.  Worship is no problem once that happens.  The methods I mentioned really did help, but they are nothing compared to all-out, every cell of your being commitment and determined persistence.

   Hope that’s of use.  Thank you for a great topic.

    

    

8. B

   BonitaParticipant
   Jan 8, 2018, 12:09 PM

   TUB says the best technique is to use the alter ego approach.  I can avow to its reliability.  It’s impossible to effectively pray or worship without the recognition that God is a person living in your head.  It does not matter whether you’re outdoors or indoors, but the best place is alone with your Father.

   91:3.7  Enlightened prayer must recognize not only an external and personal God but also an internal and impersonal Divinity, the indwelling Adjuster. It is altogether fitting that man, when he prays, should strive to grasp the concept of the Universal Father on Paradise; but the more effective technique for most practical purposes will be to revert to the concept of a near-by alter ego, just as the primitive mind was wont to do, and then to recognize that the idea of this alter ego has evolved from a mere fiction to the truth of God’s indwelling mortal man in the factual presence of the Adjuster so that man can talk face to face, as it were, with a real and genuine and divine alter ego that indwells him and is the very presence and essence of the living God, the Universal Father.

   146:2.12 11.Many resort to prayer only when in trouble. Such a practice is thoughtless and misleading. True, you do well to pray when harassed, but you should also be mindful to speak as a son to your Father even when all goes well with your soul. Let your real petitions always be in secret. Do not let men hear your personal prayers. Prayers of thanksgiving are appropriate for groups of worshipers, but the prayer of the soul is a personal matter. There is but one form of prayer which is appropriate for all God’s children, and that is: “Nevertheless, your will be done.”

9. B

   BonitaParticipant
   Jan 8, 2018, 12:16 PM

   mark606 wrote:

   Thanks Bonita, and in reply to your question… “But I’m wondering, are you making a distinction between prayer and worship?” I would say – yes. But it’s a good point, and I do see a connection between the two in terms of technique. Jesus exhorted his believers to employ prayer as a means of leading up through thanksgiving to true worship. 146:2.15

   Here are a bunch of quotes I’ve collected which highlight the difference between prayer and worship:

   5:3.3 Worship is for its own sake; prayer embodies a self- or creature-interest element; that is the great difference between worship and prayer. There is absolutely no self-request or other element of personal interest in true worship; we simply worship God for what we comprehend him to be. Worship asks nothing and expects nothing for the worshiper. We do not worship the Father because of anything we may derive from such veneration; we render such devotion and engage in such worship as a natural and spontaneous reaction to the recognition of the Father’s matchless personality and because of his lovable nature and adorable attributes.

   5:3.4 The moment the element of self-interest intrudes upon worship, that instant devotion translates from worship to prayer and more appropriately should be directed to the person of the Eternal Son or the Creator Son. But in practical religious experience there exists no reason why prayer should not be addressed to God the Father as a part of true worship.

   143:7.4 Prayer is designed to make man less thinking but more realizing; it is not designed to increase knowledge but rather to expand insight.

   143:7.5 Worship is intended to anticipate the better life ahead and then to reflect these new spiritual significances back onto the life which now is. Prayer is spiritually sustaining, but worship is divinely creative.

   143:7.6 Worship is the technique of looking to the One for the inspiration of service to the many. Worship is the yardstick which measures the extent of the soul’s detachment from the material universe and its simultaneous and secure attachment to the spiritual realities of all creation.

   143:7.7. Prayer is self-reminding—sublime thinking; worship is self-forgetting—superthinking. Worship is effortless attention, true and ideal soul rest, a form of restful spiritual exertion.

   144:4.8 As prayer may be likened to recharging the spiritual batteries of the soul, so worship may be compared to the act of tuning in the soul to catch the universe broadcasts of the infinite spirit of the Universal Father.

10. B

    BonitaParticipant
    Jan 8, 2018, 12:29 PM

    Carl R wrote:

    I found a couple of “methods” made a big difference for me, one from Roman Catholicism and one from Eastern Orthodoxy, Contemplative Prayer and Hesychasm respectively.

    I’m very familiar with both of those practices and there are some inherent dangers in each which I won’t go into.   I did use the centering prayer approach to focus my mind, it did help me learn to pray without ceasing.  I used the phrase “Lord have mercy,” all day long, which helped bring my mind back into attunement when it wanted to stray.  Also, I found many of Thomas Keating’s books on contemplative prayer to be quite inspiring, but I did not like the rigidity and impersonality of his technique.  Both methods have some value but neither are as good as the alter ego approach in my experience, which is person-to-person communion.

11. K

    KerynMember
    Jan 8, 2018, 2:27 PM

    One of the most effective ways to worship, for me, is through music.  As a child attending church services, the hymns always spoke to me more than the sermons; and the music always touched my heart in ways that reading or speaking scripture could not.  As an adult, I sing with a community choir and I use those rehearsal times and performances as opportunities for sincere expression of my love for God and my appreciation for His goodness.  Even secular songs – especially songs about nature (such as choral works that have Robert Frost’s poetry as the lyrics), can inspire a worshipful attitude.

    Listening to high quality music can do it too; but singing is something special, for me anyway.

12. CR

    Carl RParticipant
    Jan 8, 2018, 6:00 PM

    Given the length of this post and the somewhat technical nature of my comments, if my previous post didn’t resonate it’s probably best to skip this one. 

    Bonita wrote:

    I’m very familiar with both of those practices and there are some inherent dangers in each which I won’t go into. I did use the centering prayer approach to focus my mind, it did help me learn to pray without ceasing. I used the phrase “Lord have mercy,” all day long, which helped bring my mind back into attunement when it wanted to stray. Also, I found many of Thomas Keating’s books on contemplative prayer to be quite inspiring, but I did not like the rigidity and impersonality of his technique. Both methods have some value but neither are as good as the alter ego approach in my experience, which is person-to-person communion.

    *******

    I probably should have been more explicit that I was taking it for granted that one was already praying along the lines of what the UB teaches.  That said, I don’t think it’s fair to call Keating’s teaching on prayer “impersonal” in that both in his books and elsewhere he states that it is “both a relationship to God and a discipline to foster that relationship.”  (For example, see here.)  I would agree that he doesn’t give that as much emphasis as he should, but on the other hand given that he is operating within the Christian tradition it doesn’t seem unjustified for him to assume that his readers know that this about a relationship with God and remind them constantly.  Christian mysticism did inherit certain implicit tendencies toward impersonality from Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism but I don’t think it takes much spiritual dexterity to avoid them, at least for the average UB reader.

    There is a specific technique to Centering Prayer, and it does require regular practice, so in that sense I guess it’s “rigid.”  But at a certain place on the path that can be a good thing for all the reasons that practice and regularity can be good things, if not turned into fetishes.  Besides, Keating is explicit that the technique-ness of Centering Prayer is a a modification made in order to adapt it to contemporary needs and expectations, and not essential to its nature.  One can go and read St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avilla and fit the best of their teachings into one’s prayer life in a more spontaneous way and get the same results, but all kinds of things about modern life make this difficult for most of us.

    With both forms of contemplative prayer that I mentioned, I think it’s useful to keep in mind that they are much like taking a certain practice from psychology or a good self-help book and putting it into practice in our marriage or some other important relationship.  (Keating is more or less explicit about this in the quote above, and elsewhere.)  Those techniques at first can seem rigid and unnatural, but if they are good techniques then eventually we internalize the method and make it ours and it becomes quite natural.  Similarly, in Zen, zazen is at first a very rigid practice but eventually becomes the very end of Zen itself and not at all a mere technical means.

    Regarding serious, objective dangers with Centering Prayer, the only serious issue that I know of for a reasonably theologically sophisticated practitioner (in the UB sense) with a modicum of common sense would be a spontaneous kundalini awakening of the scary kind.  Phillip St. Romain has written about his experiences along this line (although his ultimate take on them was positive), and as he points out some of the medieval Christian mystics seem to have had similar experiences as well.  I think that a practitioner who takes the revelators advice about moderation in mysticism seriously, and doesn’t have extremely anomalous genetics in regard to Kundalini / Qi flow, has very little to worry about.  It seems to me that reading St. Romain and also Lee Sanela on the subject, and taking their advice in the unlikely event that things get a little too weird, should be plenty protection enough.

    With hesychasm, and given the modicum of UB-consistent tweaking I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I don’t know of any dangers that wouldn’t apply to anything involving a certain method of breathing, and of course the breathing method isn’t essential anyway.  I’ve never found the Jesus Prayer or other superficially mantra-like elements to be of use of interest and have never practiced them seriously.  When I think of it I’m thinking of is with hesychasm is “Standing before God with the mind in the heart.”  Kalistos Ware’s book The Art of Prayer has been the biggest influence on my thought and practice in understanding what it means to stand before God with the mind in the heart.  Even though my achievements in the practice have been very modest it has been of great value to my spiritual life as a whole.

    Again, however, I offer neither practice as anything other than possible prescriptive means of bridging a certain phase or dimension of one’s spiritual life.  Are they as specific practices essential?  Absolutely not.  But while countless married couples have had happy relationships without ever incorporating seemingly impersonal techniques offered by psychologists and counselors I see no reason why those techniques cannot be of real value in many relationships.  I know I’ve benefited from them all.

    All of them have potential pitfalls if used improperly, but I know of no tool or method of any kind that if misused doesn’t have potential dangers.  Even faith itself can be highly dangerous if abused, as we see ad infinitum in the lives of religious fanatics, and yet that very faith if tempered by wisdom is the key to eternal life.

13. B

    BonitaParticipant
    Jan 8, 2018, 6:11 PM

    Carl R wrote:

    All of them have potential pitfalls if used improperly, but I know of no tool or method of any kind that if misused doesn’t have potential dangers.

    What do you think the pitfalls and potential dangers are of using the alter ego approach?

14. CR

    Carl RParticipant
    Jan 8, 2018, 6:05 PM

    Given the length of this post and the somewhat technical nature of my comments, if my previous post didn’t resonate it’s probably best to skip this one. 

    Bonita wrote:

    I’m very familiar with both of those practices and there are some inherent dangers in each which I won’t go into. I did use the centering prayer approach to focus my mind, it did help me learn to pray without ceasing. I used the phrase “Lord have mercy,” all day long, which helped bring my mind back into attunement when it wanted to stray. Also, I found many of Thomas Keating’s books on contemplative prayer to be quite inspiring, but I did not like the rigidity and impersonality of his technique. Both methods have some value but neither are as good as the alter ego approach in my experience, which is person-to-person communion.

    *******

    I probably should have been more explicit that I was taking it for granted that one was already praying along the lines of what the UB teaches.  That said, I don’t think it’s fair to call Keating’s teaching on prayer “impersonal” in that both in his books and elsewhere he states that it is “both a relationship to God and a discipline to foster that relationship.”  (For example, see here.)  I would agree that he doesn’t give that as much emphasis as he should, but on the other hand given that he is operating within the Christian tradition it doesn’t seem unjustified for him to assume that his readers know that this about a relationship with God and remind them constantly.  Christian mysticism did inherit certain implicit tendencies toward impersonality from Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism but I don’t think it takes much spiritual dexterity to avoid them, at least for the average UB reader.

    There is a specific technique to Centering Prayer, and it does require regular practice, so in that sense I guess it’s “rigid.”  But at a certain place on the path that can be a good thing for all the reasons that practice and regularity can be good things, if not turned into fetishes.  Besides, Keating is explicit that the technique-ness of Centering Prayer is a a modification made in order to adapt it to contemporary needs and expectations, and not essential to its nature.  One can go and read St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avilla and fit the best of their teachings into one’s prayer life in a more spontaneous way and get the same results, but all kinds of things about modern life make this difficult for most of us.

    With both forms of contemplative prayer that I mentioned, I think it’s useful to keep in mind that they are much like taking a certain practice from psychology or a good self-help book and putting it into practice in our marriage or some other important relationship.  (Keating is more or less explicit about this in the quote above, and elsewhere.)  Those techniques at first can seem rigid and unnatural, but if they are good techniques then eventually we internalize the method and make it ours and it becomes quite natural.  Similarly, in Zen, zazen is at first a very rigid practice but eventually becomes the very end of Zen itself and not at all a mere technical means.

    Regarding serious, objective dangers with Centering Prayer, the only serious issue that I know of for a reasonably theologically sophisticated practitioner (in the UB sense) with a modicum of common sense would be a spontaneous kundalini awakening of the scary kind.  Phillip St. Romain has written about his experiences along this line (although his ultimate take on them was positive), and as he points out some of the medieval Christian mystics seem to have had similar experiences as well.  I think that a practitioner who takes the revelators advice about moderation in mysticism seriously, and doesn’t have extremely anomalous genetics in regard to Kundalini / Qi flow, has very little to worry about.  It seems to me that reading St. Romain and also Lee Sanela on the subject, and taking their advice in the unlikely event that things get a little too weird, should be plenty protection enough.

    With hesychasm, and given the modicum of UB-consistent tweaking I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I don’t know of any dangers that wouldn’t apply to anything involving a certain method of breathing, and of course the breathing method isn’t essential anyway.  I’ve never found the Jesus Prayer or other superficially mantra-like elements to be of use of interest and have never practiced them seriously.  When I think of it I’m thinking of is with hesychasm is “Standing before God with the mind in the heart.”  Kalistos Ware’s book The Art of Prayer has been the biggest influence on my thought and practice in understanding what it means to stand before God with the mind in the heart.  Even though my achievements in the practice have been very modest it has been of great value to my spiritual life as a whole.

    Again, however, I offer neither practice as anything other than possible prescriptive means of bridging a certain phase or dimension of one’s spiritual life.  Are they as specific practices essential?  Absolutely not.  But while countless married couples have had happy relationships without ever incorporating seemingly impersonal techniques offered by psychologists and counselors I see no reason why those techniques cannot be of real value in many relationships.  I know I’ve benefited from them all.

    All of them have potential pitfalls if used improperly, but I know of no tool or method of any kind that if misused doesn’t have potential dangers.  Even faith itself can be highly dangerous if abused, as we see ad infinitum in the lives of religious fanatics, and yet that very faith if tempered by wisdom is the key to eternal life.

15. CR

    Carl RParticipant
    Jan 8, 2018, 6:14 PM

    Before I reply to Bonita, can anyone still see my second post?  For some strange reason it’s not showing up in my browser, though obviously Bonita read it.

16. M

    Mark606Participant
    Jan 8, 2018, 6:22 PM

    Thanks very much for that story, Carl. I’ve never heard of Hesychastic before. But the practice just goes to show how much humankind has struggled for so long with ways to connect with God. And I think your story reflects on how individualistic this approach can be. In the final analysis, I believe that whatever works in the transition from prayer to worship is a good experience. Your transition to a state where worship comes much more naturally to you “of its own” is powerful stuff. And it’s good to hear you mention that your worship experience is strongly related to your all-out commitment to the “sincere desire to feel His presence.” This helps us all to verify our own experiences.

    It is interesting that you (and Mara) note that, at this stage of your worship experience, you find it difficult to qualify that experience. I have heard this several times. When I looked at your link to contemplative prayer, I was fascinated with the statement in the second paragraph, which seems to relate to this transition.

    “Centering Prayer emphasizes prayer as a personal relationship with God and as a movement beyond conversation with Christ to communion with Christ.”

    From conversation to communion. For a long time, I struggled with the term “communion,” primarily because of its links to Christian ritual. But if we look at some common synonyms for the term “communion”, they include the words: sharing, cooperation, interaction, togetherness, and intimacy.

    In many ways, I think that worship is this ability to intimately and continually share a life with God and, when we reach that point, it becomes difficult to describe.

    “The doing of the will of God is nothing more or less than an exhibition of creature willingness to share the inner life with God…” 111:5.1

17. CR

    Carl RParticipant
    Jan 8, 2018, 6:29 PM

    Since my second post seems to have vanished I’m attempting to re-post…

     

    Given the length of this post and the somewhat technical nature of my comments, if my previous post didn’t resonate it’s probably best to skip this one. 

    Bonita wrote:

    I’m very familiar with both of those practices and there are some inherent dangers in each which I won’t go into. I did use the centering prayer approach to focus my mind, it did help me learn to pray without ceasing. I used the phrase “Lord have mercy,” all day long, which helped bring my mind back into attunement when it wanted to stray. Also, I found many of Thomas Keating’s books on contemplative prayer to be quite inspiring, but I did not like the rigidity and impersonality of his technique. Both methods have some value but neither are as good as the alter ego approach in my experience, which is person-to-person communion.

    *******

    I probably should have been more explicit that I was taking it for granted that one was already praying along the lines of what the UB teaches.  That said, I don’t think it’s fair to call Keating’s teaching on prayer “impersonal” in that both in his books and elsewhere he states that it is “both a relationship to God and a discipline to foster that relationship.”  (For example, see here.)  I would agree that he doesn’t give that as much emphasis as he should, but on the other hand given that he is operating within the Christian tradition it doesn’t seem unjustified for him to assume that his readers know that this about a relationship with God and remind them constantly.  Christian mysticism did inherit certain implicit tendencies toward impersonality from Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism but I don’t think it takes much spiritual dexterity to avoid them, at least for the average UB reader.

    There is a specific technique to Centering Prayer, and it does require regular practice, so in that sense I guess it’s “rigid.”  But at a certain place on the path that can be a good thing for all the reasons that practice and regularity can be good things, if not turned into fetishes.  Besides, Keating is explicit that the technique-ness of Centering Prayer is a a modification made in order to adapt it to contemporary needs and expectations, and not essential to its nature.  One can go and read St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avilla and fit the best of their teachings into one’s prayer life in a more spontaneous way and get the same results, but all kinds of things about modern life make this difficult for most of us.

    With both forms of contemplative prayer that I mentioned, I think it’s useful to keep in mind that they are much like taking a certain practice from psychology or a good self-help book and putting it into practice in our marriage or some other important relationship.  (Keating is more or less explicit about this in the quote above, and elsewhere.)  Those techniques at first can seem rigid and unnatural, but if they are good techniques then eventually we internalize the method and make it ours and it becomes quite natural.  Similarly, in Zen, zazen is at first a very rigid practice but eventually becomes the very end of Zen itself and not at all a mere technical means.

    Regarding serious, objective dangers with Centering Prayer, the only serious issue that I know of for a reasonably theologically sophisticated practitioner (in the UB sense) with a modicum of common sense would be a spontaneous kundalini awakening of the scary kind.  Phillip St. Romain has written about his experiences along this line (although his ultimate take on them was positive), and as he points out some of the medieval Christian mystics seem to have had similar experiences as well.  I think that a practitioner who takes the revelators advice about moderation in mysticism seriously, and doesn’t have extremely anomalous genetics in regard to Kundalini / Qi flow, has very little to worry about.  It seems to me that reading St. Romain and also Lee Sanela on the subject, and taking their advice in the unlikely event that things get a little too weird, should be plenty protection enough.

    With hesychasm, and given the modicum of UB-consistent tweaking I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I don’t know of any dangers that wouldn’t apply to anything involving a certain method of breathing, and of course the breathing method isn’t essential anyway.  I’ve never found the Jesus Prayer or other superficially mantra-like elements to be of use of interest and have never practiced them seriously.  When I think of it I’m thinking of is with hesychasm is “Standing before God with the mind in the heart.”  Kalistos Ware’s book The Art of Prayer has been the biggest influence on my thought and practice in understanding what it means to stand before God with the mind in the heart.  Even though my achievements in the practice have been very modest it has been of great value to my spiritual life as a whole.

    Again, however, I offer neither practice as anything other than possible prescriptive means of bridging a certain phase or dimension of one’s spiritual life.  Are they as specific practices essential?  Absolutely not.  But while countless married couples have had happy relationships without ever incorporating seemingly impersonal techniques offered by psychologists and counselors I see no reason why those techniques cannot be of real value in many relationships.  I know I’ve benefited from them all.

    All of them have potential pitfalls if used improperly, but I know of no tool or method of any kind that if misused doesn’t have potential dangers.  Even faith itself can be highly dangerous if abused, as we see ad infinitum in the lives of religious fanatics, and yet that very faith if tempered by wisdom is the key to eternal life.

18. CR

    Carl RParticipant
    Jan 8, 2018, 6:56 PM

    Bonita wrote:

    What do you think the pitfalls and potential dangers are of using the alter ego approach?

    ******

    My previous post was so long that I’m hesitant to try to give your question the answer it deserves, but maybe this will give some idea:

    ^{91:3.3 (997.1)} As it is conceived by successive generations of praying mortals, the alter ego evolves up through ghosts, fetishes, and spirits to polytheistic gods, and eventually to the One God, a divine being embodying the highest ideals and the loftiest aspirations of the praying ego.

    In a nutshell, I’d say that the pitfalls and potential dangers of the alter ego approach, as described above, are bound tightly with all the problems inherent in religious fetishism, ghost cults, polytheism, and even fanatical monotheism.  That is, all the problems inherent in God in man’s image.  More specifically, having one’s prayer life be directed toward an alter ego that is in the context of prayer pretty much by definition God (or at least a god) in man’s image.  Once we are actually praying to God without an image, there is no more alter ego involved.

    But, as before, I think that even the best methods have potential problems so I hardly dispute the revelator’s endorsement of the alter ego method.  But as I understand the paper the focus is on prayer and not worship and communion.  I have been thinking of hesychasm and Centering Prayer as means (despite the confusing use of the word “prayer” in the traditions) of fostering communion and thereby, ultimately, worship.  I’ve just been assuming  the pre-existence of a prayer life along the lines of the what is described in the paper quoted from above.

19. B

    BonitaParticipant
    Jan 8, 2018, 7:29 PM

    Carl R wrote:

    More specifically, having one’s prayer life be directed toward an alter ego that is in the context of prayer pretty much by definition God (or at least a god) in man’s image.  Once we are actually praying to God without an image, there is no more alter ego involved.

    What is the problem with praying to a God whom you imagine to be another personality?  The alter ego approach is about talking to another person whom you can relate to.  Initially that relation may be more human than Godlike, but the approach is meant to progress.  In a childlike, praying mind the person you imagine yourself talking to would be a friendly person who is interested and attentive, right? That’s the alter ego, the one who cares deeply, the one different than your own.

    It’s not so much the image of God we have, but the feeling of his presence, which in itself, breaks down the barriers of communication. Having a loving companion to share inner most thoughts and feelings with is precious no matter what image is conjured in the material mind during the process.  Spiritual things must be loved in order to be known.  People are built to love other people.  So, being in love with your alter ego, whom you’re hoping and praying to as God, is much better than being in love with your regular everyday ego, wouldn’t you say? If the Adjuster is you, then he is the alter-you, the one you are striving to become and the one you want to be conversing and communicating with.

    110:7.4  Subsequent to mortal fusion the Adjusters share your destiny and experience; they are you.

    Carl R wrote:

    But as I understand the paper the focus is on prayer and not worship and communion.

    I’m quite sure the paper is also about worship and communion.  The alter ego approach is an approach of communion with God in the soul.  The alter ego lives in the soul.  The ego lives in the material mind.  Communion is nothing more than communication, a conversation, which begins with words.  The Spirit of Truth, who is the Word of God, is the translator between human words and God’s divine thought. The more you do it, the more adept you become and the fewer words needed.  Prayer becomes a perpetual attitude of willingness to share the inner life with your divine alter ego, God himself.  And we know that sharing the inner life is the same as doing God’s will.

    111:5.1  The doing of the will of God is nothing more or less than an exhibition of creature willingness to share the inner life with God—with the very God who has made such a creature life of inner meaning-value possible.

     

     

20. M

    Mark606Participant
    Jan 8, 2018, 7:36 PM

    Thanks again, Bonita. Yes, the alter ego approach describes the natural way in which prayer evolves. I’m not so sure it’s the “best” technique, but the book does say it is “…the more effective technique for most practical purposes…” From the wording of this paragraph (91:3.7), I get the impression that a loftier approach in prayer would be to “…strive to grasp the concept of the Universal Father on Paradise.” But like you say, the technique is essential for us to develop the concept of God as a person.

    It was good to review the differences between prayer and worship. One of my favorite lines from your quotes is, “But in practical religious experience there exists no reason why prayer should not be addressed to God the Father as a part of true worship.” In other words, we don’t really need to make efforts to separate the two – God will figure that out for us.

    I particularly enjoy the quote “Prayer is spiritually sustaining, but worship is divinely creative.” When my daughter was a teenager, she idolized a pop star. She tried to dress like her, speak like her, and even sing like her. She started to become that which she idolized. From this observation, I began to understand why worship is the most transformative experience we can have.

    “Worship, taught Jesus, makes one increasingly like the being who is worshiped. Worship is a transforming experience…” 146:2.17

    And because “…we simply worship God for what we comprehend him to be,” I believe it is important for us to understand the nature and attributes of God to the highest possible levels of our imaginations. This could be why the first three papers of the book discuss these topics in detail. And, of course, one of the easiest ways for us to understand the nature of God is through the life and teachings of Jesus. 2:0.1

Reply on the current forum