to create myself or to uncreate myself?

[Petals]

I've looked into Conversations with God again after some time. There it is constantly said that it is all about creating 'Who You Are' and 'Who You Want To Be', about recreating yourself in every moment. 

Then on the other hand there is Peter Ralston (or Vedanta - Maharshi, Nisargadatta) who basically says that that is the very problem you are trying to become conscious of: that you are 'doing yourself' and creating yourself in every moment and that if you stopped doing that, you would know your real nature, which is to just 'be' - 'real being'.

in CwG, God even acknowledges in one paragraph that if you did not create yourself and your definitions, that 'you would be nothing'. but God emphasizes that you are to create yourself (maybe precisely because otherwise you would be nothing).

So, what am I to do? to create myself or to uncreate myself, to be something or to be nothing?

Edited January 25, 2020 by Petals

[PlayOnWords]

@Petals are these not two sides of the same coin?

Create (become conscious of) you by stripping away the current you.

Discover who you are by taking away who you think you are. 

Edited January 25, 2020 by PlayOnWords

[Consilience]

The process of creating a self and knowing The Self are not mutually exclusive. Peter’s work is just trying to show you that this dynamic is going on, but it isn’t your true self. You’ll notice Peter has a very distinct personality and ego, yet... there is still enlightenment. This dynamic is the force of survival at play, but survival is always at play regardless of whether you have become conscious of who you are. Even Maharshi continued to eat, sleep, shit after his enlightenment - the force of survival persisted. But survival isnt purely physical, it's also psychological, it’s the way we communicate, the emotions we feel, the thoughts we have, how we hold our body and posture. 

The object we’re surviving in this example, the ego, is free to be anything or anyway. So yes, you can engage in the process of this creation. But often we get so enthralled in the play, we forget Truth. Too much energy spent playing and not enough energy trying to become conscious is generally the issue with knowing and embodying our true nature. 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Consilience

[Petals]

@PlayOnWords thanks. I also thought that they might eventually converge somehow which would makes sense. now that I think about it, 'create' and 'uncreate' must always go together. from a certain perspective they are the same.

@Consilience thanks.

43 minutes ago, Consilience said:

Too much energy spent playing and not enough energy trying to become conscious is generally the issue with knowing and embodying our true nature. 

I agree with all your points. It just seems that in CwG, 'God' seems to encourage one to spend the energy in playing instead of trying to become conscious of one's true nature. 

One probably must have read the book to understand what I mean. It is a book that is in line with non-duality but this emphasis on 'creating yourself' seems to step out of that line. so I'm trying to understand whether there is sth important to that teaching.

other than that, if I think about it, whatever is created or uncreated by me cannot be me because that comes and goes while I stay permanent throughout it.

Edited January 25, 2020 by Petals