As our perspective on our true nature evolves, it too is an ideology – a spiritual and sometimes religious ideology. In each stage, we leave behind the need to define our current self in a certain way. For example, you go from, “I am my needs,” to, “I have needs but they are not me. I am my ideology.” And so on. Eventually we arrive at, “there is no self.” But all the while, we still must – from a point of survival as a part of society – have a self, but understand that the self is not us. So we get to a point where we have: needs, an ideology and a self, but they are not us. And even this perspective is an ideology in and of itself. As our perspective evolves, it is natural then that it can have significant implications for the rest of your ideology – your moral ideology (the way you treat others, animals, etc), your political ideology, etc.
While we understand that we can have an ideology and evolve that ideology, and it is not us; our new spiritual ideology is likely to evolve our moral and political ideologies and that brings significant risk of becoming stuck in the stage of, “I am my ideology.” Because every time we evolve (improve) our ideology, we get very proud of what we figured out and can tend to be defensive about it; identifying too closely with it.
Understanding that we must be careful to not get trapped in Stage 5/6 (I am my ideology), let’s consider the possible implications of a Stage 10/11 perspective in the following ridiculous though experiment…
If I am the one consciousness and the physical manifestation and there is no difference, then…
There is no difference between me and anything else. Me, my loved ones, random strangers, and people I don’t particularly like are all me (or extensions/reflections of me). For that matter, all animals, trees, furniture, air, sky, stars, planets, microbes, etc are all me.
I should not hurt myself. I should love myself and be kind to myself
Therefore, I should not hurt anyone or any thing or any animal, tree, object or plant. Because that would be hurting me.
Therefore I should not harm, kill or eat anything
Then I will starve, harming myself.
What if I eat only that which is produced by plants and animals, but does not require the plant or animal to die (such as nuts, seeds, fruit, veggies, dairy, etc.)
Sometimes the animals are treated badly and I should not support that – so I will have to know where my food is coming from and make sure the animals are treated kindly.
Thou shalt not kill takes on a much bigger meaning. To be consistent, you must value all life, human or not, born or unborn, etc.
OR, one could see that death is natural and my energy is returning to me, so no harm done?
What about burning wood for fire? (maybe OK if the tree is already dead? Or is it returning the energy back to the universe?)
The whole of existence is rather miraculous and every part of it should be… protected? or returned to the energy?
Holy crap, you could use the same exactly ideology to defend mass murder and global annihilation. (DON’T DO THAT)
It begs the larger question: Is it WRONG or it is BENEFICIAL to release from the physical and return to the energy? The only thing I am certain of is that I don’t know.
And at the heart of all of this is – why do we always look to our spiritual ideologies to tell us how to live day to day? We are desperate to live our lives “correctly.” But there are as many definitions of what that means as there are people. And as you can see, you can use any ideology to justify anything.
Why do we want to be told how to live? Telling others how to live is just a form of defending and ideology or belief system – feeling insecure in your own choices so you must defend them by pushing them on everyone else. No one wants others to tell them how to live, or what they can or cannot do. But we look to our religion, or ever evolving moral codes, and our ever evolving spiritual concepts to guide us in what to do (or not do). We are still children trying to do, “right”. The danger in setting your daily life according to something that is continually evolving is that you will never be certain about what is “right” because what is right is always changing. There is no right. And worse, the same exactly religious texts can be used to justify absolutely anything.
OK, so maybe defining RIGHT is too much of a grey area… Is there a WRONG? There are a few widely held ideas about what is wrong such as: it is wrong to kill people. But even those are open to interpretation. For example, if someone is trying to kill you, you are in the right to kill them first. Or, if you ask ISIS or Che Guevara, it is right to kill people of alternate sexualities, and certain other groups of people simply for existing. Most Buddhists would say it is wrong to kill or injure or be aggressive in any way towards your fellow person; but a specific group of Buddhist monks in Asia has, in 2018, advocated violence towards a specific Muslim sect nearby. Again, the same books and writings are being used to demonize or justify the same acts.
I can see why monks generally keep to themselves. This is an impossible series of questions. I give up.
