In some practices of magic, worship is a merely formal step in acquiring what one wants. The entity which may be invoked is treated as no more than a sort of holding tank. Press the right buttons and out pops whatever it is one is seeking. Offer the right sacrifices, say the right Enochian or Hebrew or Sumerian, etc., and the prize is supposed to drop in one’s lap, unless the stars are off, or one’s will turns out to be insufficiently focused, or adepts at another temple have interfered with one’s workings. What of communion and enjoyment of the presence of the divine?! Must all our contact be commerce? Again, gratitude seems more honest — and enjoyable, too. For when there is an actual entity that values a relationship with me, and responds to my actions, the link of sympathy between us grows. Of course, sometimes the entity is simply an egregor, a thoughtform rather than a wholly independent deity, one animated by intense prayer and emotion over time, often by a group of worshippers. The old Tibetan proverb comes to mind: “with sufficient veneration, even a dog’s tooth will emit light.” But this is not the worship I seek.
8 February 2007 at 8:38 pm
I also think that when your relationship with the divine consists of just asking for stuff, you’re ultimately bound to be disappointed. God (however you conceive of him/her/it) is not a genie that grants wishes.
That’s not to say that you can’t lay your troubles at the foot of the Divine and ask for guidance, deliverance, or even real material blessings sometimes. It’s just that can’t be all there is, or even the primary nature of the relationship.
I recently read a really good explanation of worship from an Episcopalian bishop, who said, more or less, that worship is something you do for God, something you offer to God. It’s not soemthing you do expecting something in return. When you get something in return (whether it be spiritual feelings or a mystical experience or answers to prayers) t’s a nice surprise.
9 February 2007 at 6:16 am
Kullervo, thanks for your post. I agree that worship makes the most sense if we see it as an offering or a gift. So many prayers in traditional services (Christian and Pagan both) seem to do a lot more asking than thanking, and very little communing, since that tends toward the non-verbal. The equivalent in human relationships happens when my wife teasingly says, “Shut up and kiss me, you fool.” So much of our worship resembles talk about kissing. It may move the lips, but the heart stays far away. Funny how Isaiah says something similar
11 February 2007 at 9:21 am
interesting discussion druidyr
i know what you mean about the ‘transactional functionality’ that a lot of religious groups tend towards. If i ask, do i receive…? if i am good enough, or perform enough geas or penances, will i get…?
lol. I think that there is much more to the Mystery then that. I guess we almost bear in mind the influence of (misunderstood IMHO) Jungian thought: y’know, that all of these spiritual forms are ‘parts of my own psyche’…and therefore i have some sort of authourial veto or control?
i think letting-go, humility and overcoming ones ego are vital parts of the spiritual life, indeed, any dealing with the heart… As well as use of Will, discovering one’s deeper motivations etc…
but allowing oneself to be nothing – to accept to be smaller than the Mystery – i tend towards this type of feeling more, as it *feels* honest to me…?
i don’t know… how do we marry these two opposites in our spiritual life – the importance of finding one’s own ground of feeling, being, and the letting-go, allowance of grace? Is it really a dichotomy?
in much ponderingness,
12 February 2007 at 10:05 pm
Ian, thanks for your post. I profoundly agree that “there is much more to the Mystery than that.” Your thoughts influenced my brief post on “Comments” — much more than the post itself would suggest. I suspect, as it sounds like you do, that what looks like a dichotomy really isn’t. The finding and the letting go, two pulses of the same rhythm, one whole cycle of something larger, a human process that is one thing outside of space and time, but can move us back and forth in these worlds of form and time and number. Thanks.
28 May 2007 at 10:21 am
I have to thank you because you made me understand fully the meaning of the tibetan proverb you mentioned: I’m doing my thesis on The Black Book by Lawrence Durrell and that proverb is the epigraph he wrote on the first page! thanks again!