All esoteric traditions that speak of suppression of the self are radically mistaken. There is no suppression of being, there is suppression of the image of the self as given in the presence self, the social self and the biographical self. In Hinduism, there is talk of peeling the various layers that make up the psyche — memory, language, emotions etc, — until remains something that constitutes the true substance, the brahma, which is eternal. However, this act is not only not possible, but it disregards an even more serious fact: it is only as a substantial irreducible self that you can experience divinity. This condition, rather than an obstacle, is your path to that experience. The problem with the metaphor of the drop of water in the ocean is that it represents no salvation. If I disappear, there is no salvation. What is the difference between saying that I am going to become a great God — and losing my personality — and saying that I am going to dilute myself in matter and turn to dust in the grave? There is not much difference, I disappeared anyway. In order to have salvation, on the contrary, it is necessary that I remain; that there is a human, stable core that can say ‘I’. It is necessary that I enter into synergy with God and at the same time remain myself.
René Guénon follows the Hindu metaphysics, according to which, above the divine person, Ishwara, who is the face of God turned to created beings, there is the Being, or secret essence of God, and above the Being the Supra-Being, the Suprapersonal and anonymous, infinite and eternal Brahman, alternating in states of “manifestation” and “non-manifestation” (“days and nights of Brahman”) in which entire universes appear and disappear together with the Being itself. This conception is totally self-contradictory, because if there are no created beings before which God can “manifest”, to whom would He manifest Himself? For Himself? This would imply that in His states of total non-manifestation He would ignore Himself, constituting an infinite ocean not of wisdom, but of forgetfulness, and, even worse, with no one around to awaken Him again to His own presence. The God who is not a Person can only be a “thing”, an abstract “quid”, an “x”, a “something”, and I don’t see how the state of “something” can be superior to that of “person”, which is, in fact — as exemplified analogously and partially in the very human person — the perfect synthesis of transparency and impenetrability, above which nothing can be conceived. The scale that rises from Ishwara to Brahman is in fact reversed, it is a “thingistic” distortion: the Person of God present to Himself, the eternal I-Am in the form of the Trinity, is the summit of universal reality. No “quid” can be above that. Guénon was sorely mistaken in supposing that Christian metaphysics was “incomplete” by ignoring Brahman. Brahman is not a self-subsisting reality, it is but a subjective state of the personal God among billions of other possible states.