Worship?

[IndigoSalvia]

I am wondering if/how others "worship" the 1/I Creator, Creation? Is worshipping the Source necessary? 

I personally get hung up on such terms. I also get hung up when I read the term "Father" in reference to the 1/I Creator, and christian references to the Creator, or Source. 

It's my own baggage. I was raised in a very strict religion with a distortion of "God" that scared and angered me. Lots of judgment, shame and guilt from this God and from other humans. If I didn't do as told, I would go to eternal hell. 

I had serious questions accepting this religion as I learned more, and much to my mother's heart-ache, I stepped away when I was young (pre-adolescence). She has now come to ask similar questions and see 'distortions.' 

So, when I read - in Quo, Ra, etc. - references to my early childhood religion (based on judgment and punishment), I stumble on the words. 

Have any others encountered this? How have you reconciled?

[Diana]

I am wondering if/how others "worship" the 1/I Creator, Creation? Is worshipping the Source necessary? 

I personally get hung up on such terms. I also get hung up when I read the term "Father" in reference to the 1/I Creator, and christian references to the Creator, or Source. 

It's my own baggage. I was raised in a very strict religion with a distortion of "God" that scared and angered me. Lots of judgment, shame and guilt from this God and from other humans. If I didn't do as told, I would go to eternal hell. 

I had serious questions accepting this religion as I learned more, and much to my mother's heart-ache, I stepped away when I was young (pre-adolescence). She has now come to ask similar questions and see 'distortions.' 

So, when I read - in Quo, Ra, etc. - references to my early childhood religion (based on judgment and punishment), I stumble on the words. 

Have any others encountered this? How have you reconciled?

I don't worship anything. I do, however, respect all life; I can be grateful; I can feel admiration or be impressed, but this does not mean to me that I am less-than the entity I admire. I think this is part of the explanation of learn/teach: that we all have part of a picture that expresses Infinite Intelligence or infinite possibilities. Worship, to me, implies separation: there is you and the entity worshipped. If ultimately we are all one according to the LOO then worship makes no sense, as there is no separation at that level of comprehension (there is no worshipper + worshipped). In addition, worship implies that one follows the entity one is worshipping, and I personally see that as limiting.

Regarding channelings such as Q'uo. I ignore any such 3D societal words and references such as "Father" and "God" and "praise"—all religious words—and just take from those channelings anything which I may connect with. Unfortunately religion has even hijacked the word "faith" for itself, so for me I have to look past that when studying the archetypes.

I was not raised religious. Though on my own out of curiosity I did visit churches when I was in elementary school. It was more a philosophical/intellectual curiosity. 

I find religions to be nonsensical in general, and dangerous (Spanish inquisition, crusades, jihad, etc.). Religions do not promote thinking for yourself. The term, "Father," to me in reference to a source or OIC is not a responsible frame of mind, but I understand the compulsion of some people needing this sort of reassurance. I don't even like the word "God" which is the centerstone of religious control (God wants you do this; God doesn't want you to do that). And the bible, particularly but not limited to the old testament, is filled with unimaginable horrors supposedly decreed by "God" (Abraham asked to sacrifice his son; genital mutilation; rape; killing; slavery and so on). I find cognitive dissonance to be very far-reaching when I hear people say that the Christian God is a God of love, for example.

So you are not alone in your assessments. Also remember that any Q'uo channelings are conscious channelings. This leaves the information channeled affected by the channeler, as the channeler constitutes a filter to varying degrees. But this does not mean you can't derive good and helpful information and perspectives from conscious channeling. It really doesn't matter how you come across insights in the end, only that you are open to receiving them, in my opinion. You might get a message by seeing a homeless person or an animal in the wild. The point, for me, is to stay open to possibilities and not get caught up in the maelstrom (3D constructs such as religions)

[Serveou]

Thank you IndigoSalvia for asking this. I am also interested to hear how others worship if others are willing to share something that might be very personal to them. Of course we all have our own ways of worship and I think there isn't a right way to worship just like there isn't any right way to meditate. I believe that one kind of worship is when we simply love our other selves from the heart.

[Sacred Fool]

It saddens me when I see people take a word , wring from it the lowest possible associations and use that to lose themselves in anger, confusion, etc.  A word is just a word and a concept is what you, yourself, discover through it.

There are many, many, many levels of love, one of which is worship.  I might describe it as an experience of majesty, an encapsulation of infinity, which opens up doorways to experiences of awe and expansiveness and resonance with oneness and all that is.

The word is just a word.  Such experience is priceless.  You choose.

[flofrog]

I agree with Sacred Fool, totally.

But yes it is not in the sense of what could be an obliged worship that you may encounter in some places.

[MonadicSpectrum]

Personally, I map the word worship to worthship. What you find worthy or valuable is what you worship.

If one worships the One Infinite Creator, then they find value in viewing everything in unity and incorporating that idea into everything they do. If someone is addicted to a drug, then they worship that drug. If someone spends a lot of time watching sports, then they worship sports. If someone spends lots of time dedicated to love, then they worship love.

As a Christian, I also map the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to the concepts of mind/body/spirit complex totality in seventh density for the Father, mind/body/spirit complexes in third, fourth, and fifth density for the Son, and the Higher Self in sixth density for the Holy Spirit. Each a distinct being and complex yet completely unified as the One Infinite Creator in truth.

This mind/body/spirit complex totality functions as, shall we say, a resource for what you perhaps would call the Higher Self. The Higher Self, in turn, is a resource for examining the distillations of third-density experience and programming further experience. This is also true of densities four, five, and six with the mind/body/spirit complex totality coming into consciousness in the course of seventh density.

https://www.lawofone.info/s/36#1

The higher self is the entity of mid-sixth density which, turning back, offers this service to its self.

https://www.lawofone.info/s/70#8

I think there is much wisdom that can be learned from studying all religions as each has been studying spirituality and consciousness for thousands of years. Although it is important to be discerning as each is corrupted and distorted in different ways, but I see them all as valid paths to truth if one seeks genuinely and honestly without falling into cult-like traps. It is important to 'honor thy father and mother' so to speak and seek to understand and test the traditions passed down from our ancestors rather than dismissing them and trying to rebuild everything they built from scratch, in my opinion.

[IndigoSalvia]

It saddens me when I see people take a word , wring from it the lowest possible associations and use that to lose themselves in anger, confusion, etc.  A word is just a word and a concept is what you, yourself, discover through it.

There are many, many, many levels of love, one of which is worship.  I might describe it as an experience of majesty, an encapsulation of infinity, which opens up doorways to experiences of awe and expansiveness and resonance with oneness and all that is.

The word is just a word.  Such experience is priceless.  You choose.

Interesting. From this discussion, I can understand the clumsiness, or limitations, of our 3D language to convey these wondrous sensations and experiences. What you describe (bolded above) as the qualities of 'worship,' I experience as well. Yet, I don't use the term 'worship' to describe these cumulative sensations/qualities. 

Concept communication and telepathy would come in very handy in moments like these.

It's heart-warming to read your words.

[Diana]

It saddens me when I see people take a word , wring from it the lowest possible associations and use that to lose themselves in anger, confusion, etc.  A word is just a word and a concept is what you, yourself, discover through it.

...

The word is just a word.  Such experience is priceless.  You choose.

I think you may be referring to my post.  Allow me to dig a little deeper.

In general: A word is not just a word in my opinion. Words have power, or why would there be a banishing ritual? I think the intention behind words may really be the point, and yet...I don't know, sound is vibration, so is it crazy to think the vibratory aspects of a word would differ? What about derogatory words for dark-skinned people? Would those words not have a connotation difficult to override?

The word, "faith," certainly has been hijacked by religions, for example. There is a collective consciousness behind such words that adds to the word's impact or meaning. That said, it doesn't mean one can't rise above that energetic influences. 

There are many, many, many levels of love, one of which is worship.  I might describe it as an experience of majesty, an encapsulation of infinity, which opens up doorways to experiences of awe and expansiveness and resonance with oneness and all that is.

If one can experience worship that way, then great.

The connotation of "worship" is very heavy with adulation and hierarchy and "I am a little insignificant being who cannot function without a higher being leading the way." I would not encourage anyone to engage in the sort of worship you describe which seems good, before they rise above the 3D religious uses of the idea. 

Worship to me may somehow lead to unity but I think it is a way that rather makes a relationship to one being (infinite and inclusive though it might be) instead of directly uniting to all things. To me it is missing crucial steps. Why not just work consciously toward unity of all things (this is what I mean by respect for all life). Why does one have to go through the OIC to do that? It is too close to religious thinking for me. It may seem more direct just connecting to the OIC, but I disagree with that; it bypasses actually acknowledging for one's self that other life forms matter. It is like the difference between putting the pieces of a puzzle together one by one working on each piece to understand where and how it fits, and, admiring its beauty when all put together without having done the actual work.

The numinous-seeming majesty of this existence is indeed awesome. 

If we, like a piece of metal to a magnet, focus on the source (OIC), following a magnetism that does not fail to attract, what sort of choice is that? The choice seems to me to be very one-dimensional and lacking in creativity, accountability, and responsibility. We all do what we do and walk our individual paths. This world is what it is. I just think the human race would be better off not looking to something higher to bring about evolution and change—I think it happens individually from within the self and that includes total responsibility and thinking things out for one's self. "Worship" does not sync up with full accountability to me, if one is just concerned about being accountable to something else (OIC). It is like worrying about being harvestable or karma. "If I am mean to another person, will I accrue karma?" Well, if the karma is thought to be avoided by not doing something one thinks "shouldn't" be done, then accountability is bypassed because a real understanding (and connection to other-selves) is not there—just the desire for self to not accrue karma.

I do suspect we may be talking at cross purposes to some extent. So I look forward to anything more you may add, Sacred Fool.

[IndigoSalvia]

I think there is much wisdom that can be learned from studying all religions as each has been studying spirituality and consciousness for thousands of years. Although it is important to be discerning as each is corrupted and distorted in different ways, but I see them all as valid paths to truth if one seeks genuinely and honestly without falling into cult-like traps. It is important to 'honor thy father and mother' so to speak and seek to understand and test the traditions passed down from our ancestors rather than dismissing them and trying to rebuild everything they built from scratch, in my opinion.

Yes, Ra mentions that many teachings within our 3D religions reflect portions of the Law of One. 

Ra: There is no possibility of a complete source of information of the Law of One in this density. However, certain of your writings passed to you as your so-called holy works have portions of this law.

https://www.lawofone.info/s/26

I am touched when I see parallels between my own spiritual pursuits and Law of One. I appreciate Quo's 'disclaimer' as well: use your own discrimination when reading our words; take what resonates. 

Though we humans may be drawn along our journeys by different experiences that resonate for each of us uniquely, there seems to be many transcendent qualities that we all share.

[jafar]

I am wondering if/how others "worship" the 1/I Creator, Creation? Is worshipping the Source necessary? 

I personally get hung up on such terms. I also get hung up when I read the term "Father" in reference to the 1/I Creator, and christian references to the Creator, or Source. 

It's my own baggage. I was raised in a very strict religion with a distortion of "God" that scared and angered me. Lots of judgment, shame and guilt from this God and from other humans. If I didn't do as told, I would go to eternal hell. 

I had serious questions accepting this religion as I learned more, and much to my mother's heart-ache, I stepped away when I was young (pre-adolescence). She has now come to ask similar questions and see 'distortions.' 

So, when I read - in Quo, Ra, etc. - references to my early childhood religion (based on judgment and punishment), I stumble on the words. 

Have any others encountered this? How have you reconciled?

Judging and thus punishing is among the lowest frequency of emotion.
It's 'troubling' and the 'trouble' act as a catalyst for one to start seeking the opposite.
Acceptance and forgiveness.
Thus without the existence of judging and punishing , acceptance and forgiveness cannot be recognized.

“All human actions are motivated at their deepest level by two emotions--fear or love. In truth there are only two emotions--only two words in the language of the soul.... Fear wraps our bodies in clothing, love allows us to stand naked. Fear clings to and clutches all that we have, love gives all that we have away. Fear holds close, love holds dear. Fear grasps, love lets go. Fear rankles, love soothes. Fear attacks, love amends.”
― Neale Donald Walsch

As for 'worship' here's what Quo has to say about it:

Summary of a very long answer regarding the matter on:
https://www.llresearch.org/channeling/1990/1104

"In sum, worship is that gathering of purified emotion which kneels in surrender to the purity itself, the beauty itself, the truth itself, the love itself, that is the Creator. The outgrowths of worshipful, faithful living, moment by moment, are those things which many may perceive to be most beautiful and hard won contests against the temptation to make sense within the narrow definitions of your mind, of that which is infinite as the object of worship is infinite."

If it's still too long or complicated, then Jesus said it best:
"Let your will be done, on earth as it's in heaven".

As additional information the word 'islam', in classical arabic actually have a true meaning of:
"Peacefully/Gladfully accept / surrender to the will of the Creator".

Yet somehow the word become distorted in meanings to become a label / name of a religion.
In sum, worship is that gathering of purified emotion which kneels in surrender to the purity itself, the beauty itself, the truth itself, the love itself, that is the Creator. The outgrowths of worshipful, faithful living, moment by moment, are those things which many may perceive to be most beautiful and hard won contests against the temptation to make sense within the narrow definitions of your mind, of that which is infinite as the object of worship is infinite.

[IndigoSalvia]

In general: A word is not just a word in my opinion. Words have power, or why would there be a banishing ritual? ... 

Worship to me may somehow lead to unity but I think it is a way that rather makes a relationship to one being (infinite and inclusive though it might be) instead of directly uniting to all things. To me it is missing crucial steps. Why not just work consciously toward unity of all things (this is what I mean by respect for all life). Why does one have to go through the OIC to do that? It is too close to religious thinking for me. ...

I totally agree, Diana. Words have power (intensity) and energies (qualities) which vary from person to person, and over time (day to day, and throughout human history). 

For me personally, 'worship' has an energy (connotation) that separates me from the creator/creation, which hinders me on my journey toward unity. On the other hand, 'worship' really resonates for some, and helps them on their journey toward unity. 

When I see/read the term 'worship' it takes my focus away from Unity with the 1ICC (one/infinite creator/creation), and puts my focus on one aspect - the creator - as separate from the creation. Yet, the creator is the creation, and the creation is the creator. So, if I worship the creator, I then must also worship the creation. For It is (We are) one and the same. 

All of the manifestations of Love and Fear (borrowing from Jafar's post) are the Creator and the Creation. Can I 'worship' all of it? That's what I'm tossing around in my brain.

[Cannon]

It is my personal understanding of the term 'worship' that it is the act of loving something one views as higher or better than oneself or others ('transcendent'). In my experience it is very convenient and relatively easy to worship God, or the Creator, or the Is-ness, in a way which truly provides a lot of joy and beauty in one's life (this is my experience,) but ultimately one will have to accept the Law of One and realize that there is nothing above you or better than you. Getting on your knees in humility to pray to God may become something of a hindrance later on when you have to recognize you've actually been praying to yourself the entire time.

[IndigoSalvia]

Yes, Cannon, my brain is straining. What I thought I knew yesterday is crumbling away, and there is something there that I can start to make out, but still fuzzy.

[Sacred Fool]

It saddens me when I see people take a word , wring from it the lowest possible associations and use that to lose themselves in anger, confusion, etc.  A word is just a word and a concept is what you, yourself, discover through it.

...

The word is just a word.  Such experience is priceless.  You choose.

I think you may be referring to my post.  Among others.    Allow me to dig a little deeper.

In general: A word is not just a word in my opinion. Words have power, or why would there be a banishing ritual? I think the intention behind words may really be the point, and yet...I don't know, sound is vibration, so is it crazy to think the vibratory aspects of a word would differ? What about derogatory words for dark-skinned people? Would those words not have a connotation difficult to override?  Yes and no, I would say.  If one is tethered to a limbic reaction to a word or to airplanes or dogs, etc., then it is what it is.  Otherwise, I would say that the power is being focalised by the words.  Whether that power is being focalised for good or for ill may be of concern in a specific context, but if we're just talking about the concept of--in this case--worship, then why muddy the waters with the sins of of the past ten generations?  Why not simply discuss the concept?  That's my point.  And I would offer the same comment to others who are stumbling over this matter.  

The word, "faith," certainly has been hijacked by religions, for example. There is a collective consciousness behind such words that adds to the word's impact or meaning. That said, it doesn't mean one can't rise above that energetic influences.   Exactly.  So, why get bogged down in it at all?  Why not just "fly above the clouds" when everyone already knows about the storms below?

There are many, many, many levels of love, one of which is worship.  I might describe it as an experience of majesty, an encapsulation of infinity, which opens up doorways to experiences of awe and expansiveness and resonance with oneness and all that is.

If one can experience worship that way, then great.

The connotation of "worship" is very heavy with adulation and hierarchy and "I am a little insignificant being who cannot function without a higher being leading the way." I would not encourage anyone to engage in the sort of worship you describe which seems good, before they rise above the 3D religious uses of the idea. 

Worship to me may somehow lead to unity but I think it is a way that rather makes a relationship to one being (infinite and inclusive though it might be) instead of directly uniting to all things. To me it is missing crucial steps. Why not just work consciously toward unity of all things (this is what I mean by respect for all life). Why does one have to go through the OIC to do that? It is too close to religious thinking for me. It may seem more direct just connecting to the OIC, but I disagree with that; it bypasses actually acknowledging for one's self that other life forms matter. It is like the difference between putting the pieces of a puzzle together one by one working on each piece to understand where and how it fits, and, admiring its beauty when all put together without having done the actual work. 

We're out of sync here.  The whole point, for moi, is that Unity, etc. is beyond the conscious mind.  That's a challenge of 3D, how to have a relationship with the greatness beyond the small self.  One can say with the mouth that you are ultimately worshiping self, but is that really experiential?  I doubt it.  If your bent is more phenomenological, then worship of some form can be quite useful in this regard.  If it's not, then is it fair to blame other people's historical bad manners?  I think not, personally.

The numinous-seeming majesty of this existence is indeed awesome.   Absolutely, so to speak.


I do suspect we may be talking at cross purposes to some extent. So I look forward to anything more you may add, Sacred Fool.  I thank you for the invitation.

[Dtris]

I never liked the connotations of the word worship either. I approach the Creator like a student, respect and awe for a teacher is normal when the teacher deserves it.

At the same time when I have stood on the side of a mountain and watched the ocean, or gazed upon a heron waiting patiently for a meal, or even watched people moving seamlessly thru each other in their own worlds, I have in each encountered the creator and been struck with the urge to worship the magnificence if the infinite creation and the creator.

[jafar]

Quo has a unique definition of what worship IS NOT.

So, you may see that which worship IS NOT.
Worship IS NOT the pressing forward to one’s goals, the satisfaction of one’s desire to accumulate and amass those things which encourage happiness. Many have called devout love of many finite things various kinds of incorrect worship, that is, worship of those things which do not endure, and are therefore only able to be worshipped within this local and provincial illusion, so soon over.

And if the entity who wishes to worship does so for any motive other than love, awe, amazement, joy and a seeking after truth, one has chosen that to worship which shall surely not last as long as the consciousness which at present inhabits your physical vehicle will last.

Thus, if one worships a religion, a person, a goal within the illusion, one is worshipping in a negative manner, blocking the natural flow which the spirit intends to be available to you at all times, that is, the spirit of Love Itself.

Worshipping any form of identity (personal identity the figure that you saw in the mirror, a religion, a person maybe this also includes Mr Jesus or Mr Ra or any other personality) or a goal within the illusion is NOT worshipping or in other words worshipping in a negative manner.

[Diana]

In general: A word is not just a word in my opinion. Words have power, or why would there be a banishing ritual? I think the intention behind words may really be the point, and yet...I don't know, sound is vibration, so is it crazy to think the vibratory aspects of a word would differ? What about derogatory words for dark-skinned people? Would those words not have a connotation difficult to override?

Yes and no, I would say.  If one is tethered to a limbic reaction to a word or to airplanes or dogs, etc., then it is what it is.  Otherwise, I would say that the power is being focalised by the words.  Whether that power is being focalised for good or for ill may be of concern in a specific context, but if we're just talking about the concept of--in this case--worship, then why muddy the waters with the sins of of the past ten generations?  Why not simply discuss the concept?  That's my point.  And I would offer the same comment to others who are stumbling over this matter.  

Well, I was discussing it. Seriously though, religions are not just the "past" they are very present and part of this current reality and mass consciousness. Which is part of my point—the word "worship" still carries a religious signature in a very real sense. 

I absolutely admit to strong biases against religions. I personally think that religions may have had a purpose in humanity's past, but they have long outgrown their usefulness. What I think is needed is for humans to makes choices for themselves in general, and not rely on outside sources to tell them what to do. But this is just me looking at the situation and seeing it the way I see it. Maybe you are right in that I am creating for myself this problem with the word "worship," and I do not discount this possibility, but I also think there is a mass-consciousness signature that is there no matter what I think. For individuals such as Wanderers, for example, would it not be accurate to say that they incarnate here and many find themselves "swimming against the current"? This does imply that there is a current, and I for one am not advanced enough to be immune to it entirely while in this vicinity.

The word, "faith," certainly has been hijacked by religions, for example. There is a collective consciousness behind such words that adds to the word's impact or meaning. That said, it doesn't mean one can't rise above that energetic influences. 

Exactly. So, why get bogged down in it at all?  Why not just "fly above the clouds" when everyone already knows about the storms below?

I'm not sure everyone does know about the storms below.

While I agree that one can discuss worship and apply it to a higher-minded view, I also think it important to distinguish this view from the one which has been so embedded in human culture for so long. I am a practical person, so I see no efficacy in of ignoring the reality of being down here in the 3D trenches. For example, keeping a focus on "love" in spite of the difficulties here, rather than because you ignore them, I think has more power of acceptance.

The new age community is a very good example of what I was trying to say. Many in that community seem like religious types displaced into a more progressive-seeming philosophy. I see many new agers doing the same things religious people do—just following what a guru says, or new age author, without really questioning. This is why I say that one is better off emancipating one's self from the embedded religious connotations before pouring energy into yet another type of "religious" worship.

Worship to me may somehow lead to unity but I think it is a way that rather makes a relationship to one being (infinite and inclusive though it might be) instead of directly uniting to all things. To me it is missing crucial steps. Why not just work consciously toward unity of all things (this is what I mean by respect for all life). Why does one have to go through the OIC to do that? It is too close to religious thinking for me. It may seem more direct just connecting to the OIC, but I disagree with that; it bypasses actually acknowledging for one's self that other life forms matter. It is like the difference between putting the pieces of a puzzle together one by one working on each piece to understand where and how it fits, and, admiring its beauty when all put together without having done the actual work.

We're out of sync here.  The whole point, for moi, is that Unity, etc. is beyond the conscious mind.  That's a challenge of 3D, how to have a relationship with the greatness beyond the small self.  One can say with the mouth that you are ultimately worshiping self, but is that really experiential?  I doubt it.  If your bent is more phenomenological, then worship of some form can be quite useful in this regard.  If it's not, then is it fair to blame other people's historical bad manners?  I think not, personally.

As I said above, it isn't just historical, it is a present-day issue. For example, there are still violent acts happening today by religious followers.

I totally agree that making the intellectual leap to saying all is one, and knowing that if you worship you worship yourself, barring experiential comprehension of this, is only an idea really. 

I suppose that we are talking about different approaches to the same end. Either way an individual will likely get there. I just have a bent toward understanding (and I am quite aware of what Ra says on this point ) and analysis and thinking things out for myself. I suppose I am also a bit of an anarchist. I like forging my own path, but that doesn't mean I don't consult a map once in a while. But I also do not follow a map blindly. That said, my approach is not "right." I am just posting here to join in interesting discussions, which also help me untangle my own thoughts by bouncing them off others likewise interested.

---

[Sacred Fool]

Am I summing up your argument fairly, Diana, that a bunch of people have tainted the word "worship" over the years and this has sullied it for you?  If so, I find that understandable....and irrelevant.

Bear with me please.

I say "irrelevant" because I view the act or experience of worship as--using Q'uo's jargon--"purified emotions" vibrating in tune with the Creatrix to a greater degree than we normally find.  In that sense it's a wondrously beautiful thing, regardless of the unfortunate history of this or that word.

What can irk me about complaints regarding historical religion is that I often see this used as a means to avoid discussion of the more relevant aspects of a person's own spiritual seeking.  That is, how does the topic at hand relate to one's own aversion to Divinity or to one's attraction to it or to what special places the experience of worship can lead the seeker in their meanderings?  Asking how the pursuit of one's own purified emotions serves the Creatrix is a far more relevant topic (relevant to seeking) than how humans have screwed things up over time, in my view.  Another example would be discussing, let's just say, your preference for using "OIC" compared to mine for using "Creatrix."  Each term has little relevance to the experience of seeking compared with the experience we have of it and how that experience may enhance our being.

My point is that worship (and the purified emotions) can be a very profound element in the experience of a seeker, and this fact far outweighs the others.....in my personal estimation.

[Diana]

Am I summing up your argument fairly, Diana, that a bunch of people have tainted the word "worship" over the years and this has sullied it for you?  If so, I find that understandable....and irrelevant.

To be honest, I find this assessment of what I was trying to get across a bit dismissive if not...insulting. That is, if I could be insulted, which, is not something that happens to me. 

I am honest enough to admit that I have a bias. I feel I am being compelled to explain further which leads this discussion even farther down the rabbit hole of what religious beliefs and their "sacred" texts have, and continue to, inflict on this planet, the people on it, and the other life forms. For example, many Christians believe animals and all else in this universe are here for their use, because everything is a backdrop for humans. Some Christians and other monotheistic practitioners pray for the end of this world—rapture—which to me takes no responsibility for the existence they are currently in. My concern is not just for me; in fact nothing to do with me (other than my personal feelings about harm through ignorance by which I mean lack of awareness). My concern is for this world and all the life on it. It is bigger than a word being sullied for me. 

Perhaps it is another weakness of mine that I try to make myself understood.

That said, it really isn't my intention to continue riffing on religion, being that it is a road without any productive end at this point. Which is I think what you are in part trying to get at. 

Bear with me please.

I say "irrelevant" because I view the act or experience of worship as--using Q'uo's jargon--"purified emotions" vibrating in tune with the Creatrix to a greater degree than we normally find.  In that sense it's a wondrously beautiful thing, regardless of the unfortunate history of this or that word.

What can irk me about complaints regarding historical religion is that I often see this used as a means to avoid discussion of the more relevant aspects of a person's own spiritual seeking.  That is, how does the topic at hand relate to one's own aversion to Divinity or to one's attraction to it or to what special places the experience of worship can lead the seeker in their meanderings?  Asking how the pursuit of one's own purified emotions serves the Creatrix is a far more relevant topic (relevant to seeking) than how humans have screwed things up over time, in my view.  Another example would be discussing, let's just say, your preference for using "OIC" compared to mine for using "Creatrix."  Each term has little relevance to the experience of seeking compared with the experience we have of it and how that experience may enhance our being.

Regarding the term Creatrix or OIC. There is relevance for me in terms. I only use the term OIC because it is the language spoken here and I wish to communicate with respect and as clearly as I can within the context. I feel "Creator/Creatrix and OIC are too human-like, or personalized, or anthropomorphized to line up with my working theories. My view of this mystery of life in a fathomless universe is more of an indifferent (not to be confused with unaware or unintelligent, but more akin to free will) force or consciousness. That is only what I currently think. And I have no problem discussing this infinite intelligence in the language of the channeled material from Ra.

Another thing is that while I get some good stuff from the various Q'uo channelings, I do not resonate with some of it. I feel it is definitely filtered by the specific channeler. Nothing wrong with that. 

This is really going to sound contrary, but I don't serve the Creator. And here I will say that even if I had NO feelings at all about religions, I would still have an aversion to adulation and worship because it implies hierarchy. Many here have made really good arguments about the hierarchical nature of this existence, but I just don't line up with that idea. I see all things as equal. I am not sure how to articulate what I mean. Do I imagine that a Creator is more important than me? No, because if there is one Creator and I am a part of that Creator, how is the part less important than the whole? It's nonsensical to me. 

Service to others is not servitude, to me, which is how it sounds to me when I hear "serve the Creator." This is all sounding like semantics, but there is so much more to it than that.

All of that said, I would like to try and wrap my head around what you are trying to explain and get at.

My point is that worship (and the purified emotions) can be a very profound element in the experience of a seeker, and this fact far outweighs the others.....in my personal estimation.

I don't know about outweighing other considerations, but I think I comprehend your meaning here.

Just the process of honing in on a one-pointed focus with a heart-centered emotion—I can agree is purifying. It happens when one is caught up in the ravishing details of a flower, or a sunset strewn with fiery clouds, or some transcendent beauty or wonder that is so captivating all else just falls away for the moment.

So as I understand this, an individual who engages in "worship" out of love of a thing, such as the Creatrix, benefits from this momentary (or prolonged) emotional purification, which can aid in connection with intelligent energy due to its proximity of signatures?
I'm probably making this too complicated.

[Sacred Fool]

So as I understand this, an individual who engages in "worship" out of love of a thing, such as the Creatrix, benefits from this momentary (or prolonged) emotional purification, which can aid in connection with intelligent energy due to its proximity of signatures?

I'm probably making this too complicated.

Yeah, but it's kinda funny.

Responding to the OP, I would say that if words like "worship" trigger feelings of recoil due to your embedded associations, you might wish to try to work your way around those in order to appreciate the implied experience of communion with Divinity.

As I mentioned above, love comes in many, many forms.  Communion of one sort or another with Divinity is a precious, vital experience of a type of love.  If you can find such hither or thither, please follow your personal inclinations.

Now, the above statement presupposes that you can hold an experience of holy communion while putting to the side the messed up ways so many religionists have treated the world.  If you cannot do this, then equating worship with a kind of communion probably won't work for you as a thought construct.  But there are many, many forms of love, find those that work for you.  After all, if every path to realisation worked for you, you'd probably never have a moment's rest.

Lastly, referring again to the OP, you asked about personal experiences.  For many years I also found this concept confusing, but here's how I view it now.  For me it's not a striving to reach and connect with anything, per se, it's a little time of dialing my presence in to my deepest awareness of Transcendent Love--along with my guides and helpers--and offering gratitude and light to the symphonic NOW.  Thereby, it's one means of linking my limited, temporal being to my far larger, untouchable self.  The guides and helpers, along with my desire, act as shuttle which allows me to barely inhale the subtle perfume of Divinity. 

That's what I might call "worship."  It could be akin to what Ra calls "tabernacling with the Creator," but I have no idea what that means.

[IndigoSalvia]

I take pause at some of the language I read in Law of One material, as well. Parsing out my associations and responses to language is integral to my work. It shows me where I have resistance or ease. It's catalyst for me: an opportunity for me to explore what's underneath. 

The rabbit hole of religion.  'tis a touchy subject. 

In our hands, religions (and worship of deities, holy texts) have led to incredible suffering. I wonder, though, if religions also inspire as much love. Perhaps the former tends to be more high-profile, than the latter. It may boil down to how an entity uses its religion: for love or control, for unity or separation. 

I have yet to run across any Confederation material that compels me to bow down to, or deify, any other entity or the creator/creation, which is one of the reasons I am so drawn to the Law of One. If I had been so compelled, it would've left a bad taste in my mouth.

[Steppingfeet]

I think that it is a fair question to ask "When Source A uses this word, does it mean the same, or carry the same connotation, or have the same implication when Source B uses the same word? Because not only have I never resonated with the way Source B has intended the term, historically at least, but it's contributed to active harm in my path." 

This thread is beautiful to read. In its depth is considerable contemplation, I feel like I'm reading contemplative inquiry à la Thomas Merton or similar. Thank you.

Obviously there is a great spectrum of meaning enfolded in the word "worship" as it's been used in the religious sense. The mystics, of which many practiced in a religious context, likely use it to describe a mode of being and activity akin to the word's use among Confederation sources. But I would wager that in the conventional range of the spectrum, the term is intended to convey a religious piety, or a subscription to creed, or a fealty to concept, or a conformity to group ritual, or some other kind of disempowering, self-denying displacement of authority to a perceived external object.

Worship is not a word that falls naturally off my tongue in my own experience of spiritual seeking, but I resonate with what I believe is intended by its highest meaning. To describe it in its truer, purer sense has already been spoken to eloquently here, including in the helpful quotes, not that it is a subject that can be exhausted. I would just like to contribute an additional reflection on what I believe Diana was keen to hone in on, the notion of relationship.


Consciousness, says Ra, is the microcosm of the Law of One. But the incarnate experience of a mind veiled from its true identity in oneness-with-all is necessarily an experience of separation and being other than. The lived experience, the illusory lived experience, is as a fragment of the whole. From that vantage point, unless and until self realizes the self as a product of the dismantlement of the veil, there is a relationship, I would contend, whatever the conceptual understanding of unity.

Ra even mysteriously speaks of a yearning between the incarnate self and the Creator, the former embarked upon a journey of seeming movement toward a destination, so to speak, of realization and becoming of the latter. (The paradox being that upon this unitive realization, one realizes that there was ultimately nothing to "become" because the self had always and fully been nothing other than the Creator all along.)

In that relationship, the incarnate self touches that which is far, far greater than its present scope of awareness, intelligence, and ability, that which the human heart can never fully contain. But that which is greater is not held as an isolated entity or place or source, but as the Face behind all faces, the purity and truth behind all illusion, the true source and meaning behind the great play. The devotional being is humbled and feels enveloped with love in an awareness of the infinite love of the Creator or the universe. As the Confederation describes of positive entities, love comes not from but through the incarnate self. Insofar as it is perceived as outside the illusion, which in one sense it is, it transcendent; insofar as the entity (probably gradually) experientially understands it to be in all things, as all things, it is immanent.

Worship in that sense, then, might be seen as a centralizing of the focus upon that which is true, eternal, and present, a gathering of the scattered, fragmented attention, and the many illusory pursuits therein, to point the compass needle upon the Creator. A connection is made. Enlivening light and love are encountered. Redemption, forgiveness, liberation, and resurrection become available. Whatever the unique experience, colored better in the poetic than my words are capable, the response is gratitude, wonderment, and love for the eternal-never-ending gift. The incarnate self steeps itself in this worshipful communion, first and foremost, I believe, through inhabitation of the sacred, but also as a way of living and practice. Maybe in synonym, worship could be seen simply as grateful remembrance or loving reverence.

I wonder whether and how the fully self-realized would use the term.

[jafar]

I take pause at some of the language I read in Law of One material, as well. Parsing out my associations and responses to language is integral to my work. It shows me where I have resistance or ease. It's catalyst for me: an opportunity for me to explore what's underneath. 

The rabbit hole of religion.  'tis a touchy subject. 

In our hands, religions (and worship of deities, holy texts) have led to incredible suffering. I wonder, though, if religions also inspire as much love. Perhaps the former tends to be more high-profile, than the latter. It may boil down to how an entity uses its religion: for love or control, for unity or separation. 

I have yet to run across any Confederation material that compels me to bow down to, or deify, any other entity or the creator/creation, which is one of the reasons I am so drawn to the Law of One. If I had been so compelled, it would've left a bad taste in my mouth.

Each religion is not the same, and how each entity react towards religion is also unique.

But in general, (most) religion was invented as political tools.
That is the religion which contains dogma inside, things that need to be accepted / believed otherwise a punishment awaits those who reject or even questioned the validity of the dogma.

As a political tools thus mean of control, a separation need to be defined.
Between the controlling "Divine" and the controlled "Non Divine".

Church is divine, your house is not divine.
Torah, Quran, Gospel is divine and your notebook is not divine.
Deities, Emperor, Caliph, Gods, Jesus, Mohammed is divine thus it's 'representative on earth' (ie: priest, clerics) are also divine and you are not divine.

Law of One took the opposite approach which is similar to the Yogic, Zen, Taoism, Sufis approach. Everything is equally divine.
Yet those teachings doesn't contain any 'dogmatic' element inside, thus it's debatable whether it's qualified to be labeled as "Religion".
Unless of course somebody took the Law of One materials and make it as "separately divine" and voila! a religion named "L01" is born.

[Sacred Fool]

But in general, (most) religion was invented as political tools.

Perhaps it's more like a Rorschach test?  Each one views the totality of consciousness, but can only recognise and use that which is suited to its own capacities and biases.  So, one uses consciousness (or "spiritual capacity" or "religious splendour") to acquire power.  Another may see a religious text that is 90% distorted towards STS and gain immensely from the 10% which teaches STO, again due to the quality of its biases and capacities.  One may view worship and see only delusion where another may experience the vibe as an heavenly ensemble of dedicated lovers of the Divine.

One may experience the mystery bounded by the unreachable while another may seek to explain it, and therewith pass it by at a safe distance.

The proportion of those who choose to use consciousness for benevolent purposes will improve to the degree that members of the human tribe become more embodied of their true being.

[jafar]

But in general, (most) religion was invented as political tools.

Perhaps it's more like a Rorschach test?  Each one views the totality of consciousness, but can only recognise and use that which is suited to its own capacities and biases.  So, one uses consciousness (or "spiritual capacity" or "religious splendour") to acquire power.  Another may see a religious text that is 90% distorted towards STS and gain immensely from the 10% which teaches STO, again due to the quality of its biases and capacities.  One may view worship and see only delusion where another may experience the vibe as an heavenly ensemble of dedicated lovers of the Divine.

One may experience the mystery bounded by the unreachable while another may seek to explain it, and therewith pass it by at a safe distance.

The proportion of those who choose to use consciousness for benevolent purposes will improve to the degree that members of the human tribe become more embodied of their true being.

One wishes to acquire power through spreading fear.
And many succumbed to the fear, enslaving their own self.
Yet the slaves gradually transmute the fear and thus recognized not fear which is courage.

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;. None but ourselves can free our minds."
-- Bob Marley, Redemption Song

[Sacred Fool]

And many succumbed to the fear, enslaving their own self.
Yet the slaves gradually transmute the fear and thus recognized not fear which is courage.

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;. None but ourselves can free our minds."
-- Bob Marley, Redemption Song

If this is the diorama, the dramatic context, of your conscious awareness, then this is the theme of the song you will sing.  Consciousness offers so many choices........so many songs.  Some sing a song of struggle while others sing a song of Divinity.  This makes for a noisy world, eh?  ha ha ha


Afterthought: Is moving from an enslaved to an unenslaved mind what Confederation sources might describe as the clearing of a blockage while traveling on the way to the experience of Divinity at the heart center?  Is the mind not basically of the illusion while consciousness at the heart centre is basically of the spirit?

Consciousness, says Ra, is the microcosm of the Law of One.

What might be the meaning of this statement?

[IndigoSalvia]

This thread is beautiful to read. In its depth is considerable contemplation, I feel like I'm reading contemplative inquiry à la Thomas Merton or similar. Thank you.

I second this thank you to each and all for offering your thoughts. I post to this forum to commune with others about Law of One. I can only penetrate the material so much on my own. With your help, I am able to see new aspects, new depths. Here, on this forum, I feel deeply grateful/awe to this beautiful community.

To bring a little levity: I am reminded of the scene when Dr. Evil sings to Mini-Me (Austin Powers), "You complete me. I love you."

[MonadicSpectrum]

Well, I was discussing it. Seriously though, religions are not just the "past" they are very present and part of this current reality and mass consciousness. Which is part of my point—the word "worship" still carries a religious signature in a very real sense. 

I absolutely admit to strong biases against religions. I personally think that religions may have had a purpose in humanity's past, but they have long outgrown their usefulness. What I think is needed is for humans to makes choices for themselves in general, and not rely on outside sources to tell them what to do. But this is just me looking at the situation and seeing it the way I see it. Maybe you are right in that I am creating for myself this problem with the word "worship," and I do not discount this possibility, but I also think there is a mass-consciousness signature that is there no matter what I think. For individuals such as Wanderers, for example, would it not be accurate to say that they incarnate here and many find themselves "swimming against the current"? This does imply that there is a current, and I for one am not advanced enough to be immune to it entirely while in this vicinity.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic. I agree that it is best for each individual to seek to make choices for themselves. However, I have found that this may be easy to say for those who are born with a certain level of intelligence or capability, but I've also met people who genuinely struggle to understand reality and make effective choices. They often find that following leaders or group consensus is a better approximation of the right choice rather than following their own understanding. Unfortunately, this makes them easy targets for manipulation, but I can understand how such a system makes sense if one struggles to understand reality.

For these kinds of people, I could see it as making sense for building a simplified system of knowledge and reasoning that could be formulated as a religion for providing guidance on decision making and behavior for those who don't know how to determine that individually. For example, understanding densities, polarities, and harvests is non-trivial without extensive study and spiritual exploration to validate the truth of these ideas. Breaking it down into terms such as God, sin, forgiveness, faith, heaven, and hell can be easier approximations to understand and just as effective at guiding one to polarize positively enough for harvest. It is not necessary to have knowledge of unity or the Law of One for harvest, and I believe harvest is the main goal of any entity incarnating in third density and often a more realistic goal than becoming an adept or learning the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We can also leverage existing belief systems to help others polarize in the direction of their choice without appearing as a 'threat' to their sacred beliefs by accepting the parts of their beliefs that contain abstract truths. For example, I identify as a Mystical Christian and encourage other Christians to go vegan because factory farming is harming God's creatures, and most Christians agree because they believe that it is our responsibility to be good stewards of the Earth and protect all of the creatures and environment.

All that said, I agree most religions become less effective when they claim supreme correctness and eternal damnation for anyone who disagrees with their theology or dismissing any idea that contradicts sacred scripture. They also become less effective when people use the religion for purposes of control rather than guidance. But my main point is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater because I believe it is possible to use religion to help people especially those who have less capability to understand reality or who are 'married' to their particular religious distortions.

Are these thoughts helpful for your consideration? I'd appreciate to hear your thoughts in response if it is your desire to share them.

[jafar]

And many succumbed to the fear, enslaving their own self.
Yet the slaves gradually transmute the fear and thus recognized not fear which is courage.

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;. None but ourselves can free our minds."
-- Bob Marley, Redemption Song

If this is the diorama, the dramatic context, of your conscious awareness, then this is the theme of the song you will sing.  Consciousness offers so many choices........so many songs.  Some sing a song of struggle while others sing a song of Divinity.  This makes for a noisy world, eh?  ha ha ha


Afterthought: Is moving from an enslaved to an unenslaved mind what Confederation sources might describe as the clearing of a blockage while traveling on the way to the experience of Divinity at the heart center?  Is the mind not basically of the illusion while consciousness at the heart centre is basically of the spirit?

So many songs, so many theme, so many combination of frequencies. 
Song basically is merely a combination of changing audio frequencies.
And so does light and energy.. any form of it.

The catalyst of Fear blocked the root chakra as entity was preoccupied for survival.
Yet through recognition of NOT FEAR (courage) the blockage was broken through.
And once it was broken through, fear doesn't work anymore, at least not as effective.

There are many layer of 'bodies', the layer that virtually separate one originally infinite consciousness with the other.
Thus making an identification of me, you, them possible thanks to the separating layer a.k.a bodies.

Yet all of those layers are indeed virtual, illusion or maya in sanskrit.
And it will eventually be dissolved thus the consciousness no longer experiencing separation thus separate identification.
No-thing and Every-thing is the same thing, both have no boundaries to make it finite/contained and thus separated.

[IndigoSalvia]

I might add 'resonance' (as a very broad term) to 'capability' and 'intelligence', MonadicSpectrum. And then, if I understand you correctly, it's a matter of packaging: how spiritual material is packaged and presented for ease of understanding, and more broadly, resonance.

I first got Carla's book and kept stopping/starting while reading. I was compelled to read the sessions (source material), and was instantly drawn to them instead so I put the book down. It wasn't always easy reading, but I was so drawn to it, I couldn't put the sessions down. 

It boiled down to resonance for me. So, yes, I agree the manner in which content is presented is going to resonate with some of us and not with others of us. And, there's a buffet to choose from. 

In the end, whatever gets an entity to wherever that entity is going is what matters. Whether that path is paved with a 3D belief system or not (or any variation thereof), whatever path resonates with an entity is presumably the most effective path for that entity, according to its pre-incarnative design as well as incarnative choices, catalyst, etc.