The problem of God! [philosophy]

The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.

The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.
-The theory of Intelligent design proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are the product of an intelligent cause. Its leading proponents believe the intelligent designer to be the God of Christianity. The idea of an intelligent designer is central to Freemasonry.

The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God. Avicenna, St. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.

The argument from degree, a version of the ontological argument posited by Aquinas, states that there must exist a being which possesses all properties to the maximum possible degree.

Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as Morality (Argument from morality), Beauty (Argument from beauty), Love (Argument from love), or religious experience (Argument from religious experience), are arguments for theism as against materialism.

The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as humanity's existence, are best explained by the existence of God.

The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.

The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).

The argument from reason holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all human thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then there is no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it—or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause—and one could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.

The Death of God
Analyse of: "The joyful Wisdom" by Friedrich Nietzsche

The madman, one morning, ran to the market-place with a lantern and cried "I seek God! I seek God!" Why did Nietzsche chose a mad-man? Because it connotes two things: (1) a person who believe in God is consider as mad (i.e.: believe in God is stupid), (2) people who are mad are often prophets. The villagers' respond are contradictory to the religious view of God. As in:
"Why? is he lost?" How can God be lost?
"Does he keep himself hidden? Is he afraid of us?" How can God be afraid by his own creation. Isn't he all-powerful?
"Has he taken a sea voyage? Has he emigrated?" Isn't God supposed to be everywhere?

So we can see that during Nietzsche's time, people already stopped believing in religion. When the madman looked for God, people were just laughing at him and teasing him.

As the madman continue with "We have killed him - you and I!", he then kind of vomited a bunch of questions without answers. The most important questions are the following:
(1) "[H]ow have we done it?" God is a mighty thing, how can creation possibly kill its producer?
(2) "What did we do when we loosened the earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Whither do we move?" What is the consequences of killing God?

The second question is very interesting. Related with its succeeding questions, the sun represents God and Earth, us. The Sun is an important source of life, thus when the Earth disrobited its Sun, it means that we are going aways from God, aways from the source that we used to base on for every proof about the knowledge of nature. Therefore, this question is also a metaphor that represent the success of science. However, the Earth is projected aways from the sun, but to where?

"Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness?" So, according to the madman, we are projected into infinite darkness and nothingness. As he continues asking about how scary it is after we killed God, it represent the consequence of God's death, and what happened with the new philosophy, such as existentialism.

But in the end, the madman said "I have come too early." Since the villagers didn't respond the madman (and we can imagine that they were like 'what the hell are you talking about?'), it means that during Nietzsche's time, people had not realize God death yet. "This deed is as yet further from them than the furthest star, - and yet they have done it!" However, God is already dead, killed by the scientists and their followers how didn't know that they'd done it.

The madman threw the lantern on the ground, and broke. The lantern is a symbol of illumination of spiritual idea that cannot be illuminated by natural light. The fact that the madman has a lantern in the morning stressed that symbol. When the lantern is extinguished, the spiritual idea is back to its hidden place.

The end talks about church, were people were still praying for God. It means that some people are still connected to religion by social community, and those people sing players to console themselves. However, as the madman says, the churches are only the divine's tombs and monuments now.

Existentialism

Generally, this philosophy discusses about the meaning of life. That is, if there is no God, no first cause, what is the meaning of living?

Science can explain everything without the hypothesis of the purpose of God. There comes a the proposition that existence precedes essence, which is a central claim of existentialism. God is the essence that created every existence. If God is not a existent being, then he is an essence beyond nature of all existence. But since science had proven that everything are the succession of a chain of random natural selections; then God didn't create anything. So everything existed before - it might just be a bunch of undefined quantum materials - and everything existence that proceeded are simply the transformation and combination of those materials.

In the past, people believe that we live because Adam and Eve committed sin by eating the forbidden apple. As so human are condemned to live on Earth and suffer pain. Once they die, if they did good, they'll get forgiveness and will join God in Heaven where they can enjoy peace and happiness forever.

But with the new discoveries, God is considered as only an high idea, the limiting target of compensation, or an imagined father figure that can protect us and help us. So there is no punishment or condemnation. Then, why waiting after dead? By understanding nature with science, human can create heaven on Earth and enjoy peace and happiness now.

Indeed, that is what people did. But after a while, when the emptiness starts echoing, people start to rethink about the propose of life again. Why? - Why do we have to live if there is no purpose at all? Why suffering pain? Why continuing this silly cycle while their is absolutely no meaning to exist?

So people found hard to get motivated, which is part of the consequence of the death of God.

Consequence of the Death of God (part I): The Eastern Fable
Source: "A confession and the Gospel in Brief" by Leo Tolstoy

A traveler is chased by an enraged beast. Trying to escape, he jumps into a dry well. Just before he lands at the bottom, he sees a dragon that is about to open his jaw to swallow him. By chance, the traveler sizes a twig that gowned in the crack on the wall of the well. Not daring to be eaten by the beast or the dragon, he stays there but sees two mice, black and white, gnawing that the twig. Soon, the twig will break and the traveler will end up in the dragon's mouth. But just at this instance, the traveler sees two honey drops on the leave of the twig. He reaches to them and licks them while waiting for his death.

What bad day, you might say! This fable is an allegory about life. You are stuck between death and death. If you chose to climb up or to drop down, you will die. It you chose to grab in the twig of live, no matter what you do, you will eventually die by the chewing of the two mice, day and night. So, what is the point of living if you know you will come to a death in the end? Is life worth to live for the two drops of honey?: family and passion, that are limited, temporary and depending on luck - so might not console you whenever. Why not end this pointless pain once and for all?

are YOU tired of LIFE?
do YOU wish to conclude this SILLY JOKE now?
if YOU ARE then DONATE YOUR BODY!
we need people like you for university biological research: medical study test, human dissection, grief and surgery operation practice,...

come and donate! no ID needed! everyone are accepted!

Consequence of the Death of God (part II): 4 ways to cope with depression about existentialism
Source: "A confession and the Gospel in Brief" by Leo Tolstoy

Tolstoy gives 4 way to deal with life:
Ignorance: not know anything about the truth of life, which is death. But "once cannot cease to know what one does know."
Epicureanism: seek for pleasure in order to attain tranquility. So, lick the honey for consolation and distraction while waiting for death. However, whether someone had the honey or not is accidental. If you have a family and a big house, millions of other people don't have it. Thus, using honey is an unequal way to deal with life.
Escaping with strength and energy: kill yourself. Let go of the twig. It is the best way, for Tolstoy.
Continue living: sizing the twig, not daring to kill yourself. This is, for Tolstoy, the way of the weak people, and he find himself in it.

Critique on Leo Tolstoy's confession
I say, what is really weak, is to not be able to suffer living after seeing the truth. Those who kill themselves are the ones who are weak. They can't don't know how to get motivated to lick the honey. Why not lick it until the end? You die anyway, but why not just live happily with whatever you have.

He calls the honey accidental, but everyone has a certain amount and quality of honey. Not just family and passion, a healthy body can be considered as honey. If you really have nothing, then no responsibly and duty can be considered as honey. Every position has its own advantage, we just have to realize that.

Those who gets obsessed with existentialism are the weak people. There are so many other philosophy, why so bugged with this one idea? Why tormenting oneself by thinking about that. I'm telling you, all human mental suffering are caused by the way we perceive things. People who commit suicide are often those weak people who can't change their mind. Killing oneself is not strength or energy. Resolve the problem is what strength and energy really is.

So I say, don't get depressed because of some stupid philosophy.

Damn~ why are we talking about depression. This is so off topic!

I think the allegory itself has some holes. First the traveler is stuck in a situation where he cannot resolve the problem unless someone else comes to rescue him, or if he has unbelievable luck, he might find something like a gun or a bomb in the well and kill the dragon or the beast. But chances are that he will die. In real life, when that kind of thing happen, you can only depend on luck. But this kind of situation happens too rarely. Often, maybe, it's when you're really sick and you're about to die and the hospital says that they cannot do anything about it. Well, that's unfortunate. But if you're just perturbed by some stupid theorem that life is meaningless, then kill yourself is absolutely not worthy. It's like if your girlfriend or boyfriend dumped you and makes you to live in sorrow, that doesn't worth to end your life. Because you can change and the probability of change is high.

Second, there is nothing about the traveler's relationship with other people. Supposed that you are in dept of 100000000000$ to the governments, and you know that even if you sell your body, you won't get that much, you might think about commit suicide. However, you can't, because you have a family and if you commit suicide, the dept will go to your family. You don't want your children to pay for you. So the best way, is not to escape, but to face reality with courage. You might think this way: you don't care about yourself anymore, everything that you'll do is for the sake of your descendants. You live for them and you try your best to repay the government. Although this life is painful, once you're clear with the dept, it'll be the greatest thing that a human can do. Although it doesn't mean anything, so what? If you and your family acknowledge you, it's already enough.

So, I think the choice of death is not an option that we should have. We live in a community that is like a spiderweb. If one string is broken, then its vibration will reach all over its neighborhood. Sure that the spider can fix his web, but the lost can never be completely replaced.

Roll back to the topic, people! XD

Consequence of the Death of God (part III): the search of God
Source: "A confession and the Gospel in Brief" by Leo Tolstoy

Actually, Tolstoy didn't kill himself. During the period when he loses interest about life, he found himself like a orphan, lost, isolated, and hoping for someone to help him. He thought about God, and seek for Him. This is a similar claim in Fraud's text: saying that God is like a Father who offers comfort and protection. This seeking procedure was something that occurred naturally in himself.

But Tolstoy never found Him. However, the seeking precess made him to enjoy life again. So, he came up with a definition: God is that without one cannot live. He is life.

Why? If we think about it, it makes sense. In the previous definition, God is the limiting target of compensation; we seek for that to live. God is a Father, we all need a parenting figure to live.

So what does it mean. Well, let's go back to the eastern fable. If the traveler is completely independent of the rest of the community, and he has no goal in life, he might accept death and let go the twig. But if he belongs in a community, have friends or family, he might hope that they would come to save him. As long as he is still alive, there is hope. If he has a goal in life and he think that it is meaningful, he might don't want to die now. He would do anything to get out of there.
God, as a Father, is the one who can provide help. As a limiting target, he is the goal of which one would aim. That's why God is life.

Focus religion: zoroastrianism: https://secondlife.1fr1.net/t109-zoroastrianism-philosophy#1008

Go check the string theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4LrbAXb4FQ&feature=related
God = zero

The lost of Dimension of Depth
Source from Paul Tillich

The dimension of Depth is the answers to the questions What is the meaning of life? Where are we come from, where do we go? What should we do? Since the great success of science, people are more obsessed with the horizontal dimension, which is What do we want? What do we need? What's not complete yet? What have to be done? We don't ask why do we buy things, why do we have to live this way, or just why? Everything is about mastering, controlling the material universe, being better, getting better.

The defeat of religion is caused by religion itself. Once the church assume that their religious texts and scripture, which are part of the dimension of depth, are real facts, which are part of the horizontal plane, religion has already lost its symbols and meanings. For instance, the Genesis is not just a literal story about a couple in the middle East who got punish by God because they eat an apple. If we assume it that way, it becomes a vulnerable pray for science to attack.

The ideal of God can be, as Freud suggested, a parent figure, or as Kolenda suggested, a target of compensation. If we bring it to the horizontal plane, it becomes a old man that has no evidence if he exist or not.

The role played by religion is to relink human to the dimension of depth. However, once its symbols are translated in the horizontal plane, it loses its meaning and becomes easy to be refuted by science.

Material v.s Spiritual body

In the Genisis, God didn't really punished Adam and Eve for eating an apple. And it's not an apple. The tree is called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The fruit from it is the knowledge to recognize good and evil. After Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they hid themselves from God because they have realize (after knowing to recognize good and evil) that they are naked. So to be naked becomes bad. This value distinction wasn't there when God created Human. But after gaining the knowledge of good and evil, Human now knows form their own values.

And so when God finds out that Adam and Eve have eaten the fruit, he tells them what will happen to them. He wasn't frustrated, he just tells them what will happen. Since they have already eaten the fruit, there is now way to turn back. And thus, Adam and Eve choose themselves to exit the Garden of Eden.

But what are the choices exactly? When God made Human, he used dust to create the material body and he 'blew life into it'. So the spiritual life of human is made of divine essence. But when Adam and Eve gain the knowledge of value distinction and assume that being naked is bad, they've choose their material body. And so they have lost the divinity of their soul.

The Great Nest of Being
source: Ken Wilber

People tend to classify things, label stuff and etc. One of the most famous classification is the chain of being. Before, people tend to think something like this:

1. God (spiritual matter)
2. Angles (spiritual matter)
3. Human (rational matter)
4. Animal (emotional/sensory matter)
5. Plant (vital matter)
6. Ungerminated matters (physical matter)

As we go up, we find a stage of being that is "superior" than the ones below. So, for instance, human, at #3, can understand everything greater than 3, but not 1 and 2 (which are at an upper level).

What Wilber did, is that he put this chain into a nest, and inversed the numbers.



Because what really is happening, is that physical matter, is the base of everything; plants are made of it, animals and humans also. Animal have the vital quality of a plant, so does human. Human has the emotional and sensual quality of an animal. So, what happens is, as we go out of the nest, the bigger nest always has the same quality that the smaller nest(s) has(/have), plus something else that distinguishes it from the smaller nest(s).

Because of that plus, a part that God has human don't have. Therefore we cannot understand fully God.

For example, an animal cannot understand the rational mind of human. Neither a plant can understand emotions. They cannot even sense anything, because their biological body does not have the system to detect information through senses.

Senses

Human has 5 senses. Sometimes, the mind is considered as the 6th sense. But mind is actually a bridge that connect our 5 senses to our intellect. It integrates what we perceive and send signals to our intellect, where the information can be analysed. What difference between mind and intellect is:

Mind: emotion, interest, desire
Intellect: logic, judgement

Although human's senses are very complex, they are all made of matters. Therefore, we can only perceive informations that are made of matter. Our eyes sees the light waves which are caused by the activity of the electrons. Our ear hears the sound waves which are cause by the vibration of the air molecules. Our nose and mouth can detect different odor and taste depending on the component of the source. Our hands can feel the touch of a surface depending on how the molecules are arranged. So, we can only sense stuff that are made of matter.

However, we can also sense feelings, which is detected by our mind. Feelings, like love, hatred, ..., cannot be sense with the other 5 senses. Feelings, are thing that is different from the material world. However, human knows that they exist because we can sense them. If you ask an plant to sense love, it will probably not. As well as if you ask it to see color, it will not. Therefore, feelings, color, sound, taste and smell are non-existent in the physical universe. They are only a translation of informations that what we human can perceive.

Intellect

Our mind can understand abstract ideas. Math, for example, is an abstract idea. You can't see the square root of -1, you can't hear it, can't smell, taste, feel it. So, our intellect is what makes our species different from animal.

Science and senses

Scientists believe that all knowledge should be understandable in the physical form. Something like human behavior can be observe from our neurological plane, and by understanding the interaction of our neurons, we can understand a certain type of behavior.

Scientists do not always success in their research. They acknowledge that there is something beyond the physical universe and cannot be derived with their empirical method. Things when it arrives to human mind and intellect. It is difficult to understand them completely.

When things are reduced to its most basic being (physical being), it lose it's vital, emotional, sensual, rational and spiritual qualities. Therefore, when science answers a question with only a description of the physical aspect, it skips the question of "why?". For example, we know that human are happy because their brain release a chemical substance called dopamine. But science cannot explain why for we release it in certain situations, but not in others.

There was a mad mathematician in China who tried to explain why 1+1=2. Obviously, he failed, and answered at the end of his life that 1+1=2 because it is that way. This kind of things cannot be proven with empirical scientific method.

That is why philosophy is still important, for it deals and manipulates ideas that are at the level of mind and intellect.

Second debate: https://secondlife.1fr1.net/t113-the-problem-of-god-debate-ii#1063

Epistemological pluralism
source: Ken Wilber
"Science is but one of several valid modes of knowing and thus can peacefully coexist with spiritual modes."
This is what classical religion of antiquity said. The problem in the West, is that science has been so successful that people not only rejected religion, but also the great chain, and in consequence, epistemological pluralism.

As in Wikipedia, epistemology (from Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistēmē), meaning "knowledge, science", and λόγος (logos), meaning "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge. It addresses the questions:
What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
How do we know what we know?
For pluralism, it means a plurality of basic substances making up the world.
Together, they mean that there the knowledge comes from a plurality of sources. In the great nest of being, there are three basic dimension of being: gross, subtle, and causal; and we all have an "eye" for each dimension: eye of flesh, eye of mind, and the eye of contemplation. The eye of mind transcends the eye of flesh; the eye of contemplation transcends the eye of mind. Therefore, if we see something in our mind, we can't see it with our eye of flesh. Neither if we see something with the eye of contemplation, we can't see it with the eye of mind.

What science did is clamming that all knowledge are receive with the eye of flesh. If something is not available to our senses, it's not valid. However, empirical science should be categorized as delivering knowledge by the eye of flesh and respect other modes, such as religion, which deliver knowledge with the eye of mind and contemplation.

Cognitive Faculties
Source: Ken Wilber

As someone mentioned in an earlier post, there 3 different eyes. This was not new during Wilber's period; this concept was also known during the medieval period. St Bonaventure and St Victor have thought about that.

Eye of flesh: perceive external world of space, time and object.
-lumen exterius (exterior illumination): gives knowledge of sense object
-Vestigium: vestige (trace) of God
-Cogitatio: empirical cognition
-Gross: flesh & material
-sensibilia: the data domain of bodily emotions & material prehension: sense data
This realm is shared by all those who posses the similar eye of flesh (all humans and some animals). It is the empirical eye of sensory experience, i.e.; detects knowledge by the five senses.
E.G.: Physic, biology.

Eye of mind: perceive feelings, emotions, ideas, logics and concepts.
-lumen interius (inferior illumination): gives knowledge of philosophical truth.
-imago of God: image of God is found in our selves, psyches - especially in the threefold activity or our soul (memory, reason, will).
-Meitatio: seeking the truth with our psyche.
-Subtle: mental & animic
-intelligibilia: data domain of archetypal cognition & mental ideas
This realm is transcendent to the realm of flesh for animal, plants and rocks do not have 'mind'. It is the empirical eye of suprasensory experience, where knowledge is attain by philosophy, logic and mind.
E.G.: Mathematic, psychology

Eye of contemplation: rise knowledge of transcendent.
-lumen superius: light of transcendent Being reveals salutary truth, "truth which is unto liberation" (we are talking something like prophecy and oracles).
-we find the Divine ultimate itself in this realm.
-Contemplatio: knowledge whereby the psyche/soul is mixed with the Godhead in transcendent insight.
-causal: transcendent & contemplation
-transcendelia: data domain of spiritual gnosis

Problem of proof
Source: Ken Wilber

Scientific method stress on the believe that knowledge is derived from experiment and data and has to be verified. Data fore Wilber are directly apprehended experiences. They are the immediate givenness of an experience. E.G.: if I put a pin on your head, you will immediately experience pain. This pain is a datum. Any immediate apprehended experiences are data no matter their size, complexity and duration. Data can be found in any realm, therefore not only sensory experiences are data. You can experience love, hatred, which cannot be sense with our five sense. You can experience your imagination, your steam of conscientiousness, which can only detect my the eye on mind. As well, you can experience spirit with the eye of contemplation.

Experience is a synonymous to direct apprehension, therefore it also belongs to the three realms. Classical empiricists tried to reduce all experience into sensory experience. This is where they mistook. For some experiences belong to higher realms, we can't reduce it.

Theoretical knowledge

This belongs to the eye of mind. Theoretical knowledge are ideas and symbols that represent experience of something that we had before. For example, when we think of the word tsunami, we instantly get an image of tsunami that we have seen before. This mental experience is a representation of a sensory experience that we had before.

Theoretical knowledge is symbolize these experiences. For example, atomic theory, saying that matter is composed of discrete units called atoms, is a representation of sensory experiment that scientists have done on atoms.

Any ideas are symbolic of experience in any realm. In mathematic, 1+1=2 is a symbol of sensory experience when you put a crayon next to another crayon and that give you two crayons (for example). The idea of justice, is the experience of justness with the eye of mind. You can't see justness, but you can judge a situation to be just or not with you mind. Likewise, we can imagine and think about spirits which are be the representation of previous experience with the eye of contemplation. However, experience in this realm is not reducible to mental ideas. That is why it is hard for us to articulate spiritual experience with words and ideas.

We can say that human use theory (ideas) to pass around knowledge and mostly use our eye of mind to understand knowledge. Our eye of mind can be used to map or model any and all data domains.

What is science?
Source: Ken Wilber

To Wilber, science is any discipline that opens honestly, consciously and openly its knowledge claims to the three stands of valid data accumulation and verification.

Scientific methods therefore are applicable to any experiment. What Wilber found is that the accumulation and verification of data vary a lot in different domain. However, its abstract principle is identical in each domain.
-Instrumental injunction: This is where you determine how to know something. For example, if you want to know the effect of weightlessness during free fall, then jump off a building.
-Intuitive apprehension: This is where you collect data; as in the example, you will feel weightless during the fall.
-Communal confirmation: This is where your data get verified by other people; as in the example, you ask other people to jump off a building to see if they feel the same weightlessness than you. Your data becomes knowledge until someone can proof it wrong with their experience.
So, it's the same, if we can experience spirit, we can ask other people to experience spirit and find if our result is the same.

Want to transcend?
Enroll the school of higher science, now!
Learn about knowledge in any domain!

Sensibilia domain: empiric-analysis and monological science (Biology, Physics, Chemistry,...)

Intelligibilia domain: mental-phenomenological, rational, hermeneutical, semiotic and dialogical science (Mathematics, Psychology, Sociology,...)

Transcendelia domain: translogical, transcendental, transpersonal, contemplative science
-Mandalic science (Theology)
-Noumenological science (Mysticism)

Call: 0-100-011-0101
Call fee: 1 M$

2 different functions of religion: translation & transformation
Source: Ken Wilber

Translation
-creating meaning for the separate self (material body)
-passes around and store myth, stories, tales, narrative & rituals, revival
-helps the separate self to endure, make sense of "the slings & arrows of outrageous fortune"
-consoles, fortifies, defends, promotes the separates self
Translation--> we can think of translation of transcendelia data, creating symbols to pass around the messages and stories. It is an horizontal movement (deals with the separate self, give it a new way to think and feel about the world). As long as the separate self believe in the translated "scripts", it is considered as to be "saved".

Transformation
-liberation of the 'inner' self (or true self, whatever you want to call it)
-shatters the separate self
-gives devastation, emptiness, explosion, revolution
-provides radical transmutation and transformation at the deepest seat of consciousness itself
It is a vertical movement (in dimension of depth). If you're confused with this definition, it's ok, because it is naturally confusing, because there are rarely people who are able to do transformation. So, if you don't know how to transform, you probably don't know what does it mean (I don't know neither). But I think it must be something like getting the transcendelia data. As in some posts before, we said that transcendelia data are given when one is united with the Godhead. It's something like oracle, meditation, zen. Why Wilber says it shatters the separate self, and depicts destruction and etc, I think it's because, for that moment, when the self is united with the Godhead, the separate self does not participate in transformation and the deepest seat of consciousness is released.