Anyone who had been following Mooji for a while remembers we were told "ego-self" is the enemy no 1 to spiritual life, that we should get rid of this ego and become "nobody"...

Here below another perspective to ponder over:

"Why seek to deny or annihilate “self” (which is ultimately an individuation of a level of Divine Intelligence)? How are such teachings about human “self” consistent with the existence of uniqueness of individuations at larger cosmic levels? Soul beings? Nascent creator beings? And what of the collective “uniquenesses” (“self-awareness) of collective bodies of individuations that appear as stars, nebulae, universes, etc.? Ultimately, what of the “self-awareness” (identity) of Creator of All? To pursue the logical course of these so-called “spiritual teachings” to the level of Creator of All would require the self-annihilation of Creator of All. And this the logical extension of nearly all these teachings and the general perspective of those who follow those paths. In my view, this is “abysmally dismal” and only serves to perpetuate a fallen realm.

What was initially rooted in the early primitive requirements for a spiritual psychology that could bridge the enormous gulf between the animal-level human self and the spiritual self, became vehicles to further trap and enslave true spiritual beings and their aspects. The background to such teachings essentially denies the significance of individuations of Creator and individuations of the myriad individuations thereof which form the lower level of human “self”. And it is no surprise that nearly all these teaching centers, sects, personality cults, and their spin-offs continue to be rife with sexual and financial and energetic abuse of their students.

I will add here that this is the “other side of the coin” to those variations of “we are all one” teachings that are fundamentally flawed and false. We are not “all one”. You are not me, I am not you, etc. –not at any level of spiritual existence. " Alex K.

Anyone interested to read more about this author, let me know.

I like the metaphor of a whirlpool in a river. It's nothing other than the river, yet it's a seemingly separate locus of flow. This separation can seem definitively real, until there's a moment of realization of being non-separate from the river. Then (at first) the pendulum tends to swing the other way: a belief takes hold that "I am the river, not the whirlpool." Some people even go sit on a throne in front of an audience, to tell them that they are just the river.

Good evening beings in Monte Sahaja, just had my dinner and felt a sudden urge to write to you. Hope everything is well for you. This small quote is for you.

"A disciple was once agitated because someone in the town spoke deprecatingly of the Maharshi.

M: "I permit him to do so. Let him say even more. Let others follow suit. Just let them leave me alone. If anyone cares to believe those scandalous words, I shall consider it a great service to me, because if he persuades people to think of me as a false swami, they will no longer come to visit me, and then I shall be able to have a quiet life.

I want to be left alone, therefore I welcome the libelous pamphlet." (He laughed.)

– Conscious Immortality"

The reason for this posting is to help you contrast your present teacher with the real teacher. Real teacher never bother about his looks, his reputation nor what he has to wear. Did the Marharshi needed to use computer software to improve his looks on photos and videos, or did he sent for the village lawyer everytime he hears of somebody talking bad about him?

Gayatri, when we met, you and your husband, you were a very humble soul, like the Marharshi. One cannot understand what bent your will to serve such an arrogant being. As you are organising an online retreat at the end september, be aware that even as it is free for limited participants of 100-200, the rest who want to "experience the special-ness" of the Chosen participants and watch the retreat has to pay 100 Euros, so it is definitely not free. The 100-200 free participants is just a psychological bait to get the rest to cough up hard earned money for his coffers. Don't any of you at Monte Sahaja see it, it is so clear, unless you approve of it?

Valma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone who had been following Mooji for a while
> remembers we were told "ego-self" is the enemy no
> 1 to spiritual life, that we should get rid of
> this ego and become "nobody"...

Namaste Valma, thank you for bringing this up. It is actually very bad habit to keep mentioning "rid the ego and become nobody" as a convenient figure of speech because it causes misunderstanding, leading to confusion. i have this bad habit that needs to be corrected. What really happens is that the individuality is lost and is absorbed, like water vapour or droplets of water in the air condensing and falling back into the sea....something close to this...but not quite because IT is not something...hard to explain in words.

> "Why seek to deny or annihilate “self” (which is
> ultimately an individuation of a level of Divine
> Intelligence)? How are such teachings about human
> “self” consistent with the existence of uniqueness
> of individuations at larger cosmic levels? Soul
> beings? Nascent creator beings? And what of the
> collective “uniquenesses” (“self-awareness) of
> collective bodies of individuations that appear as
> stars, nebulae, universes, etc.? Ultimately, what
> of the “self-awareness” (identity) of Creator of
> All? To pursue the logical course of these
> so-called “spiritual teachings” to the level of
> Creator of All would require the self-annihilation
> of Creator of All. And this the logical extension
> of nearly all these teachings and the general
> perspective of those who follow those paths. In my
> view, this is “abysmally dismal” and only serves
> to perpetuate a fallen realm.
>
This perspective is reasonable and normal, is there because there is a "perspector", an individuality that identifies with the body and thought that everything else is different and apart from the body. But when the "perspector" loses energy and ability to differentiate or even to discriminate, and get merged with "Divine", what else is there?

Respectfully yours.

Quote
valma
Here below another perspective to ponder over:

"Why seek to deny or annihilate “self” (which is ultimately an individuation of a level of Divine Intelligence)? How are such teachings about human “self” consistent with the existence of uniqueness of individuations at larger cosmic levels? Soul beings? Nascent creator beings? And what of the collective “uniquenesses” (“self-awareness) of collective bodies of individuations that appear as stars, nebulae, universes, etc.? Ultimately, what of the “self-awareness” (identity) of Creator of All? To pursue the logical course of these so-called “spiritual teachings” to the level of Creator of All would require the self-annihilation of Creator of All. And this the logical extension of nearly all these teachings and the general perspective of those who follow those paths. In my view, this is “abysmally dismal” and only serves to perpetuate a fallen realm.

What was initially rooted in the early primitive requirements for a spiritual psychology that could bridge the enormous gulf between the animal-level human self and the spiritual self, became vehicles to further trap and enslave true spiritual beings and their aspects. The background to such teachings essentially denies the significance of individuations of Creator and individuations of the myriad individuations thereof which form the lower level of human “self”. And it is no surprise that nearly all these teaching centers, sects, personality cults, and their spin-offs continue to be rife with sexual and financial and energetic abuse of their students.

I will add here that this is the “other side of the coin” to those variations of “we are all one” teachings that are fundamentally flawed and false. We are not “all one”. You are not me, I am not you, etc. –not at any level of spiritual existence. " Alex K.

I've pondered over the above and I have to disagree with the statements.

Quote

To pursue the logical course of these so-called “spiritual teachings” to the level of Creator of All would require the self-annihilation of Creator of All.

My experience corresponds with the whirlpool in the river analogy, in that whether you experience yourself as the whirlpool or the river is a matter of perspective. For example, in a deep meditative state form is largely or completely absent; there is just formless being/awaring without any notion of a separate entity perceiving it. In the case of the whirlpool in the river analogy, maybe you could say that this is a temporary suspension of the whirlpool, a temporary resolving of its spiral (self-referential) movement into the flow of the river. But it's not an annihilation, nor is it "self-annihilation of Creator of All".

Someone believing that an individual self or "the Creator" needs to be annihilated in order to experience reality/consciousness at a non-individuated level must simply not have experienced these deep meditative states.

Quote

In my view, this is “abysmally dismal” and only serves to perpetuate a fallen realm.

We are free to chose and vary between metaphysical perspectives on this reality, and to pick and stick with the perspective of this reality being a 'fallen realm' seems unproductively and unnecessarily negative.

Quote

The background to such teachings essentially denies the significance of individuations of Creator and individuations of the myriad individuations thereof which form the lower level of human “self”. And it is no surprise that nearly all these teaching centers, sects, personality cults, and their spin-offs continue to be rife with sexual and financial and energetic abuse of their students.

Traditions that place a higher value on individuation unfortunately don't seem to fare any better. For example look at the many Christian cults and the many cases of sexual abuse of children by priests.

I think "sexual and financial and energetic abuse" has more to do with hierarchy and dogma. When there's hierarchy, there's people with power over others and the opportunity to abuse that power. Dogma helps to establish and protect that hierarchy.

I think it's best to not have any firm beliefs about what "self" is, since any beliefs are conceptual and self isn't concept. Of course there does exist the self-concept, which we have learned to identify with. But when self is actually examined, i.e. when awareness is pointed directly on awareness instead of on thoughts/beliefs, in my experience it becomes clear that that which is aware is not the self-concept, and not even an entity such as a soul.

I don't dismiss the possibility of there being a soul that survives death, but I think that even if that soul after death would sit in meditative self-inquiry, it would see that its individuality consists of being a perspective and instrument of non-individuated reality. In other words, I think the true nature of an individual soul wouldn't be individual. But that's just my current working hypothesis, and during self-inquiry I discard any belief/hypothesis, because it's all just concept. Hold on too strongly to it and it becomes dogma.

Even though Mooji later estranged me with his whole guru-circus and cult-dynamics, I'm still grateful to him for introducing me to Advaitic self-inquiry. It's the only way to examine reality directly. Anything else is just examining symbolic references to reality. Any thought, feeling, word, and even perception is a symbolic reference to reality and not reality itself. We see a brain-generated representation based on the light that the eyes catch, infused with meaning coming from preconceived notions about reality. We can never experience reality truly unbiased or directly, unless we meditatively point awareness on itself. Then we don't experience any symbol/reference, just direct reality.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2020 12:58AM by zizlz.

Quote
zizlz
We can never experience reality truly unbiased or directly, unless we meditatively point awareness on itself. Then we don't experience any symbol/reference, just direct reality.

It's true that, as we settle into quietness, the state of consciousness we encounter seems more real than our fading thoughts and emotions. But just because it seems more real doesn't mean that it actually is more real. I see no justification for the value judgement that these deep and silent layers of consciousness are somehow more praiseworthy than ordinary consciousness.

Quote
shamrock
It's true that, as we settle into quietness, the state of consciousness we encounter seems more real than our fading thoughts and emotions. But just because it seems more real doesn't mean that it actually is more real. I see no justification for the value judgement that these deep and silent layers of consciousness are somehow more praiseworthy than ordinary consciousness.

"Quietness" isn't necessarily the same as what I mean, as the mind can be quiet without awareness being pointed on itself. And I'm not saying awareness experiencing awareness is more praiseworthy than anything else, but that it's the only form of direct experience of reality.

zizlz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
as the mind can be quiet without awareness
> being pointed on itself.


Hi:) Can you tell if one can realize The Self by just practicing mindfulness and quieting it's mind? Or there must be quieting mind plus being aware of quiet mind?
And if so, why awareness is, behind the mind, aware of the mind if mind is quiet, thought-less. Is not a thought creating illusion and unawareness ? Do you know the nature of the mind, and awareness and can you tell the difference ?

If mind is quiet, then what I'm aware of? Of empty mind. But this is still not realization, this is just mindfulness ? Is it correct ?

Hi Gaja, I think concentration power is needed first in order to be able to keep attention focused on awareness itself. So yes, I think practicing mindfulness helps as preparation. In my case, it was years of daily meditation focusing on the breath. But that wasn't enough for me. Only when I encountered very deep psychological suffering did a moment come that I could let go of attachment to my self-concept enough to realize that I had been mistaken in seeing that as my true self all along. What followed was about a month of mind-blowing euphoria so intense I could hardly function. Fortunately I was self-employed and I could take a break; I wouldn't have been able to function at a job, I think.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2020 03:22AM by zizlz.

how did you felt this deep psychological suffering ? Were you shivering from fear or crying from loss, or ? Do you remember ?