Bring4th

Full Version: Self must be eliminated?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Who uses this on their spiritual path?
I wouldn't say the self *must* be eliminated, but we, and that is to say most of us, are seeking oneness, and incidentally, the self, or ego, is what stands directly in the way of oneness.

The self is the barrier between inner and outer. It is the line between "who we are" and "where we are".

If that line is erased, your consciousness is coextensive with all space and all time. The self provides the illusion of a finite personality confined to a singular spot in space and time.

So basically, the ego is the belief in separation.

The merging of self with perceived other self is accomplished by the force of love. Fear separates. Love unifies. One could look at that as "eliminating the self", but it is a separation/fear way of looking at it, IMO. The unity/love way of looking at it is looking at is as a kind of merging.

Source is the ultimate self-less being that we are trying to become.
That is the essence of the Law of One (and incidentally a core teaching of Hinduism) - the self with which we identify is a lifeless personality shell, a husk of concepts, a temporary mask, a sheath. The true Self of each one of us, the consciousness, the beingness, is the One Creator. Recognizing the truth of this, we can begin to see ourselves and the world with different eyes: trees are Self. The atoms our computers are made from are Self. Every animal and plant we come across is Self. And that Self is, moreover, an astounding miracle for which there are no words - an infinite consciousness able to create and sustain endless forms, worlds, universes! That is who we are interacting with in every moment. Awe.

The more we then embody that great truth in our lives and our moment by moment choices in interacting with others, the more we progress and grow spiritually. The path of STO is the path of embodying and expressing the ultimate Truth of Creation.

This is why Ra said that a most useful exercise is to look in the mirror and see the Creator. Look at another self, and see the Creator. Learning to look past the mask. A fantastic practice to get in the habit of.

Unbound

Used to, then I killed myself, realized there was no self, only an apparent one, and now I'm here. Fun times, mate!

Also do you mean personal self, or universal self? Isn't the One an ultimate self? Are you going to get rid of that too? Lets delete more of existence until we see there is nothing but nothing, it's all a mirror of what you want which you show through your very being.
The ego (concept of self) exists, and that which exists cannot not exist, thus it cannot be destroyed or eliminated.
The Original Thought was/is "What am I?" You and I are part of that thought, as Ra says, "Dancing in a ballroom of light".
The answer lies within learning about self, both the light and dark aspects, integrating them, and being left with the only answer possible,
I AM.

Of course I speak in paradox, for existing within the conscious state I AM... neither answers nor questions exist.

Meditate, and learn who you are, who I AM.
Daddy Ra:

18.5 ↥ Questioner: Thank you. I have a question here from Jim that I will read verbatim: “Much of the mystic tradition of seeking on Earth holds that belief that the individual self must be erased or obliterated and the material world ignored for an entity to reach ‘nirvana,’ as it’s called, or enlightenment. What is the proper role of the individual self and its worldly activities in aiding an entity to grow more into the Law of One?”

Ra: I am Ra. The proper role of the entity is in this density to experience all things desired, to then analyze, understand, and accept these experiences, distilling from them the love/light within them. Nothing shall be overcome. That which is not needed falls away.

The orientation develops due to analysis of desire. These desires become more and more distorted towards conscious application of love/light as the entity furnishes itself with distilled experience. We have found it to be inappropriate in the extreme to encourage the overcoming of any desires, except to suggest the imagination rather than the carrying out in the physical plane, as you call it, of those desires not consonant with the Law of One; this preserving the primal distortion of free will.

The reason it is unwise to overcome is that overcoming is an unbalanced action creating difficulties in balancing in the time/space continuum. Overcoming thus creates the further environment for holding onto that which apparently has been overcome.

All things are acceptable in the proper time for each entity, and in experiencing, in understanding, in accepting, in then sharing with other-selves, the appropriate description shall be moving away from distortions of one kind to distortions of another which may be more consonant with the Law of One.

It is, shall we say, a shortcut to simply ignore or overcome any desire. It must instead be understood and accepted. This takes patience and experience which can be analyzed with care, with compassion for self and for other-self.
Wow, there is too much to take in here. Too many different and profound views.

Maybe that's why I speak from my own perspective all the time!

Firstly, to lose the self I'm not sure if that includes the end of separation necessarily. This is a quote from the Edgar Cayce readings, that often talked of service to others. 'Lose self in service to others' is the gist in a lot of places. So if you are serving others there is less separation, but not no separation.

Although, flipping over to a more magical view. Obviously if you begin to work with archetypes and become a Leo, Cancer, Capricorn etc. And start to poke holes in the archetype that you just assumed was normal, then you have lost self, of what you thought self was.

The quote from the Ra Material was good but few have answered if it actually their personal viewpoint. (The first quote).

Personally. I find when I meditate it is often difficult to hold onto the self so even though I don't spend time preaching the dissolving of the self, what I identify as 'self' then has other ideas and the self become a far more fluid concept.

Unbound

Again, I am still uncertain exactly what you mean by "self". Do you mean the personal self identity?

Also, my understanding of infinity is that nothing can actually be "eliminated" just like energy cannot be created or destroyed. Since there is no true personal self (at least, not in my perception) the 'apparent' self is 'eliminated' by relegating it to unconsciousness. In my experience, when I realize myself as no-self, completely empty, I am still aware of the apparent self in relation to the no-self.

So, I guess to answer the question, I did start my path very much about becoming selfless and without a self, but then I did "dissolve" it and realize myself as a completely empty void. However, were I to stay in that state there would be little purpose to continuing to live here in this life, so I wear my "self" as a mask or vehicle for functioning in this world. I don't believe there is a self to eliminate, so that kind of answers the question from my point of view. The 'apparent self' I see as an interface, a method of interaction and a tool for accomplishing work on this level. It is, of course, illusory, and there is no self in actuality.
Know thyself
(12-29-2014, 04:17 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Again, I am still uncertain exactly what you mean by "self". Do you mean the personal self identity?

What I mean by self is personal desire to direct the will. Which of course we all must do. But also personal tendency to decide without seeking higher guidance the direction of one's life.

But I think something in the heart is also the 'self', which is connected to something personal and higher.

But that may not be what Edgar Cayce meant. Since it would have been in the 1940's or so the clunky concept of 'self' would be different to these extremely fast times.

Unbound

I think you maybe need to clarify for yourself what you really mean by "self" because it seems you are giving it many different characteristics.

Also, again, are you referring to an idea of identity? As in, a self-perception of a particular self-identity being the source of the direction of the will? Again, this confuses me, as even if you eliminate the "personal desire", there is still direction of will, so whos desire is it then who directs the will? What is transpersonal desire?

How do you receive higher guidance without a self?
A more helpful concept than "eliminating the self" might be "transcending the self", producing a richer, truer and more expanded understanding - in much the same way that the theory of relativity transcends Newtonian mechanics.

As false identification with the personality is diminished, the same reality begins to be understood and experienced in an entirely different light.

Unbound

What do you mean by "false identification with the personality"?
false identification with the personality: the conventional belief that one is who one appears to be, i.e., whatever human form one is inhabiting, separate and independent from the rest of creation.

Unbound

So you mean having a mental equation that I = Body?
Yes, but not just body -- by default people tend to have, to use your term, the mental equation that they are (insert person's name, occupation, etc) -- the human role they are playing, and not anything more. When in fact they are everything more; and understanding this enables one to put everything in its proper context and perspective - which is a very different one from the original human perspective.

Unbound

What is the proper context and perspective?
Here is a somewhat synchronistic quote from the opening pages of "Life and teaching of the Masters of the Far East" which I've just obtained a few minutes ago:

"This is not the mortal self, the self you see, that is able to do these things. it is a truer, deeper self. it is what you know as God, God within me, God the Omnipotent One working through me, that does these things. Of myself, the mortal self, I can do nothing. It is only when I get rid of the outer entirely and let the actual, the I AM, speak and work and let the great Love of God come forth that I can do these things that you have seen. When you let the Love of God pour through you to all things, nothing fears you and no harm can befall you."

Unbound

So then there is the reiteration that the word "self" itself must have some definition whether that is a "mortal self" or a "truer deeper self", there is a use of the word self.

My point being that the terminology in this subject is very convoluted and confusing, all depending on the definitions by each thinker.
I've just re- read them and realised anagogy's and Stranger's posts were fantastic.

I think this is an important concept, that of the self, for me to understand. Since I feel intuitively like this is a good 'raise in light'.

In some ways it's good to come on here with questions more than answers. Since there is a lot of high wisdom just sitting behind the veil of this place!

Unity and love at the end of anagogy's post. Smile.
All one can do is become more and more of their Self.

When I look back at my childhood self, I do not see something that was eliminated, even though I no longer see the world as that child did. I simply grew into a larger perspective. I know that one day the perspectives I entertain now will look just as silly to me as the things I believed in my childhood, but I do not fear the coming of that day, nor do I see it as the end of who I am.

Who I am is infinite, and it's the only thing I could possibly be.
I like what you say about us being infinite.
Once when I was a child I asked 'Clive, when I have a mind and I change my mind, what happens to the old mind?'

To the forum: I think this kind of says a little of what was meant:

For until ye are willing to LOSE thyself in service, ye may not indeed know that peace which He has promised to give--to all.

This is similar wording to The Law of One.
I believe we are infinite even if we still have ego. Transcending self is transcending desire.
I've been in a state of desirelessness before. But it wasn't like feeling unconditional love.
The love was more profound.
(01-04-2015, 08:22 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I believe we are infinite even if we still have ego. Transcending self is transcending desire.
I've been in a state of desirelessness before. But it wasn't like feeling unconditional love.
The love was more profound.

The ego creates a situation where the infinite is looking through a finite perspective. The true self, which is awareness, is always infinite and cannot be otherwise.

The ego is like a camera with feet. An "eye" for the creator to look through, and experience form in just such and such way. A "lens". Sensory apparatuses are wonderful, but the way perception works is by translating reality. You see something with something -- mechanical structure (your eyes). There can be distortion with perception. In our raw state, distortion is impossible.

Desire arises from separation, because why would you desire something if you were already one with it? So you see, it is like an affirmation of separation. It validates the apparent reality of being separate from the desired object. There are subtle and gross levels to it. Love is appreciation. You might also describe it as a kind of pure acceptance. Even when desire is gone, there is still appreciation or unconditional love. They aren't mutually exclusive. Appreciation doesn't arise from separation though.

Gratitude is similar to appreciation, but it is a slightly lower vibration because you're still slightly messing around with a lack vibration. For example, you feel gratitude that your car is working because it was previously broken. Your attention is still slightly on the previous state of lack. To me, appreciation feels "purer".

But I'm splitting hairs here, of course. The distinction is not extremely meaningful unless you are doing some hardcore fine tuning. Tongue
(01-05-2015, 03:47 AM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]Love is appreciation. You might also describe it as a kind of pure acceptance. Even when desire is gone, there is still appreciation or unconditional love. They aren't mutually exclusive. Appreciation doesn't arise from separation though.

Gratitude is similar to appreciation, but it is a slightly lower vibration because you're still slightly messing around with a lack vibration. For example, you feel gratitude that your car is working because it was previously broken. Your attention is still slightly on the previous state of lack. To me, appreciation feels "purer".

anagogy, I'm interested in comparing notes with you regarding the definition of love in the spiritual sense, or, rather, imperfect attempts to describe the sublime energy that is love into words.

I feel that acceptance - absolute unconditional acceptance - is a prerequisite for love, but I would not personally term it love. One can have complete acceptance of a neutral kind, without any emotion toward the object, whether positive or negative. To translate acceptance into words - "It is what it is, and I do not push back against that fact. I neither hate it nor fight against it mentally or emotionally. I welcome and accept it as part of my reality." I think acceptance and peace both serve the same function - creating a fertile ground in which the tender shoots of love can grow. Without acceptance and peace there is emotional turmoil.

Approval has a cognitive and evaluative connotation. I feel that I can love someone or something without necessarily approving of it. Say, a murderer, a torturer - I can love them as an expression and manifestation of the One Infinite Creator and our Logos (it would be more difficult if had I been the actual victim, but that's a completely other story), but that is definitely not to say that I approve of them, or even approve of the Logos' choice to have that particular mode of expression. I don't feel that my strong disapproval necessarily interferes with either my acceptance or my love toward them. I can also approve of something or someone without loving them (that's the cognitive aspect of approval). Come to think of it, it is when I disapprove of something (let's say someone who intentionally harms me) but still love them that I feel I am taking the strongest spiritual step forward - the proverbial loving your enemies.

Love to me is essentially goodwill, warmth, kindness, a wish to benefit them and the Creator through them, regardless my approval or disapproval (I probably can't benefit the Creator this way, but it's a useful metaphor so I stick with it). Those are the emotional expressions that generate a warm glow in the middle of my chest and a feeling of profound well-being. The feeling of loving and being loved.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this subject.
(01-05-2015, 08:36 PM)Stranger Wrote: [ -> ]anagogy, I'm interested in comparing notes with you regarding the definition of love in the spiritual sense, or, rather, imperfect attempts to describe the sublime energy that is love into words.

I feel that acceptance - absolute unconditional acceptance - is a prerequisite for love, but I would not personally term it love. One can have complete acceptance of a neutral kind, without any emotion toward the object, whether positive or negative. To translate acceptance into words - "It is what it is, and I do not push back against that fact. I neither hate it nor fight against it mentally or emotionally. I welcome and accept it as part of my reality." I think acceptance and peace both serve the same function - creating a fertile ground in which the tender shoots of love can grow. Without acceptance and peace there is emotional turmoil.

Personally, I understand your difference of understanding. But at the end of the day, I find my most essential disagreements boil down to transitory semantic distinctions. The way I look at "acceptance" is on a sliding continuum scale. One side is total acceptance, and the other side is total rejection. The apparent emotional charge is solely a function of where things fall on that gradational scale.

So for example, if it was in the middle, it would be more of a neutral, unemotional "damned if it is", "damned if it isn't". We might call that the "sinkhole of indifference". If it was clear on the rejection side, you would feel strong negative emotional indicators of separation like: hate, fear, and anger. If it were far on the acceptance side, it feels like genuine appreciation, affection, caring, or love.

As you are most likely well aware, Ra has said that the key to positive polarization is acceptance, and the key to negative polarization is control. And to quote Ra, "The Law of One has as one of its primal distortions the free will distortion, thus each entity is free to: accept, reject, or ignore the mind/body/spirit complexes about it and ignore the creation itself."

So basically, the positive path, as the path of love, is one of acceptance. "Each acceptance smoothes part of the many distortions that the faculty you call judgment engenders."

Now control is, on the other hand (the left hand Wink), at its very core, a rejection of "what is". If things were acceptable "as is", there would simply be no need for control.

So when you get right down to the heart of the matter, control, at is roots, is rejection. It is a judgment that things are not acceptable.

(01-05-2015, 08:36 PM)Stranger Wrote: [ -> ]Approval has a cognitive and evaluative connotation. I feel that I can love someone or something without necessarily approving of it. Say, a murderer, a torturer - I can love them as an expression and manifestation of the One Infinite Creator and our Logos (it would be more difficult if had I been the actual victim, but that's a completely other story), but that is definitely not to say that I approve of them, or even approve of the Logos' choice to have that particular mode of expression. I don't feel that my strong disapproval necessarily interferes with either my acceptance or my love toward them. I can also approve of something or someone without loving them (that's the cognitive aspect of approval). Come to think of it, it is when I disapprove of something (let's say someone who intentionally harms me) but still love them that I feel I am taking the strongest spiritual step forward - the proverbial loving your enemies.

The way I would word all this is that, you have varying degrees of acceptance of these different aspects of these types of people. In the case of the hypothetical murderer, you are accepting the positive attributes, while not as strongly accepting, and possibly even outright rejecting, their choice of actions which reflected disharmony and separation. But this is completely normal, and in fact, it is the very same spiritual impasse that higher density beings find in their thought battles with the service to self mass consciousness. Only in miniature form.

One side would so love and accept the other side that they would be transformed by the power of love, and the other side would so absolutely control the other side that they would be rendered underfoot by the powers of darkness. The STO side is weakened by their failure to accept what is given -- that being total enslavement and control, and the STS side is weakened by their failure to control the positive side.

(01-05-2015, 08:36 PM)Stranger Wrote: [ -> ]Love to me is essentially goodwill, warmth, kindness, a wish to benefit them and the Creator through them, regardless my approval or disapproval (I probably can't benefit the Creator this way, but it's a useful metaphor so I stick with it). Those are the emotional expressions that generate a warm glow in the middle of my chest and a feeling of profound well-being. The feeling of loving and being loved.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this subject.

I appreciate your questions. And I hope I successfully clarified my position. Smile