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.
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.
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.
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.