Self as God

Certain religions believe that the ultimate form of liberation is release from the consciousness of object-subject duality. As a pragmatic goal, I admit, if that is the "core" of reality, then you have good reason for wanting to repose in there. But people make a categorical mistake in believing that because there is a blank canvass before the painter paints, that the canvass is all that matters, that ultimately, what matters is the substance of the canvass, and not the picture that the painter paints.

There is a fundamental error - or confusion, if you will - in saying "we are God". I have no problem thinking, we are a part of God, the Kabbalah uses the metaphor of an ember to describe the relationship of the human soul to the Creator; but we are not the Creator Himself. The problem which I cannot help noticing is this, what is this world? Why does it take on the form that it takes? Why does existence happen? Why is it broken up into a male and female category? Why are there basic flow patterns? Why are there explicit domains, like "water", "fire", "Earth" and "Air"? And this is only pointing out what ancient philosophers paid attention to. The wonders of modern science only amplify that wonder; the mind boggling complexity of the universe, from it's macrocosmic origins in the big bang to the quarks, atoms, and cells which make up the tangible universe. The order that it follows; the mindboggling harmony between disparate parts, somehow maintaining homeostasis, keeping not only individual organisms alive and healthy, but alive and healthy within a larger system - be it a particular ecosystem, a global ecosystem, and ultimately astrophysical systems.

To make the statement, "we are God" , in light of the knowledge above, comes off as smug and ignorant.

We are all individuals and can only speak as individuals. None of us can embody a "collective consciousness" as it is in itself, without at the same time embodying all consciousnesses i.e. me, you, and every other living organism. In Samadhi (to name a Hindu version) you experience a highly rarefied state beyond the 'tipping point' where individuals come into being. But what of the individuals that come into being? What of the world that we all experience together? No single individual can account for this. No sane person could say "I am God"; even the statement "We our God" avoids the fact that we - none of us - can account for this. Least of all, could we manage to control or create this system to operate as perfectly as it does across the universe.

I do not profess to know what God is, but there are certain things I think we can say:

He is everything.
All that exists exists in Him.
He not only provides the energy that sustains existence; but more deeply, he IS existence
He is as much personal as He is impersonal. To apply restrictions such as God is impersonal would be to say our experiences as personal beings - our fears, loves, the emotions we daily experience, the people we experience the world with - are just accidental byproducts not controlled by God. This would contradict the principle that God is everything; ergo, God is also the particular life situations we find ourselves in, as well as the experiences we have. When we pray, we connect to that cosmic center in hope that we can better harmonize ourselves with his beneficent will.

Our evolution over the past a million or so years has created a being who longs for existential meaning; this is no more "coincidence" than other facts of our existence. I read very often, its become almost hackneyed that "I believe in God....just not a personal God". Why the limitation? It doesn't seem to be philosophically, or theologically coherent. Even the idea of a God who creates and then abandons his creation (deism) sounds too absurd to take seriously. That His creation could continue to exist without the primary causes constant act of willing it is unintelligible.

As said, our evolution has produced a being with reason, and a sense of value. I mentioned earlier that prayer works because God is beneficent. Why would God be beneficent? Because our sense of reason supports that premise. In our own inter-relations, we have come to understand the utility, and for the religious, the sanctity, beauty and holiness, in moral conduct. This example from our day to day mundane lives can be extrapolated and posited as an ontological basis for morality: God wants us to be moral because we have the reason to understand that it is good for us. Ergo, God wants the individual good of all creatures.

Of course, this is all just one persons personal theology. My attention is cued to the forms the material world takes on, post creation, which fascinates me. I don't think any one religion has it right, since so many religions developed to emphasize a slightly different aspect of how the divine might relate with human reality. I think this is significant; from Japan to the Americas, as we from the far East to the far west, we find a philosophy of life that moves in tandem - at a philosophical level - with the movements of our sun. If the source of existence is the rising sun, as the East is often semantically understood, then the west would be the setting sun - where the physical world seems to be heavily emphasized.

Is this coincidence? Perhaps not. Maybe the soil, air, water - the basic energy of the area - primes the mind to a particular point of view. And maybe thats the point: one dogmatic perspective simply can't contain the complex simplicity of existence. Multiple viewpoints from different perspectives are needed.

Well written post. S&F

I too believe that existence and everything within existence is God.

The universe is too complex and perfect for there not to be a creator in my opinion. While I do not think that "I" am God, I do believe that "WE" are, if that makes sense. We are the universe (God) experiencing itself and we are all One and the same on the inside.

We are part of an infinite source of energy called consciousness, and the "light of God" is our light, the light that we see from moment to moment.

God created us in his image, and that image is the universe that we see around us, and its perfection is a reflection of our own perfection within, and that is the Spirit (consciousness).

Not sure if underlying this post is a deist or theist position? It seemed deist until the 'personal god' part. I think I need further elaboration in order to give my thoughts.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Star for you. I am also a pantheist, even if that also covers several large distinction, and I'm fully with you that for God to exist we must indeed be part of it as a collective and not just we humans but all there is.

What I'm left thinking since you did not clarify is if you still admit personal intervention or demand for yourself special recognition from God ? (Like for instance Abrahamic religions do)

reply to post by Panic2k11


Actually since you said we are a part of god but not the creator himself I believe this makes you not a pantheist but a panENtheist.

**oops sorry got members confused! My bad.

reply to post by Astrocyte


I basically agree, but I think at some you have to look at the nebulous nature of self. Clearly, anyone who thinks their every day worldly self is God is delusional. But the eastern systems, which say we eventually become aware of "oneness with God", aren't really saying that. They're saying there's a point where our worldly selves can be so forgotten, and we can focus so exclusively on God, that God becomes all we are, and all we are about, and this is the point of liberation and great joy.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Well I disagree, since I have no better frame than the universe to define God and I can't grasp the idea that God can exist outside of the Universe, even if I can entertain the possibility I have no evidence of it and no hope to ever get it.

Now the concept of Universe is core, I define Universe as all there is (not the astronomical definition of it). I define myself as a pantheist because of the order I can observe that seems to emerge from all the chaos around us and the limitations of possibilities that permits us to exist, I define that creating order as God, and with it I have faith in a greater plan for all of reality, it would be all so pointless and wasteful otherwise.

Here's a video I just listened to that fits right in. I hope you enjoy.
I might not agree 100% but a nicely thought out and presented thread.

And no - this isn't 'the Secret' - but an interesting listen anyway.



peace

reply to post by Panic2k11


I guess you could call me a pantheist, but I try not to label myself.

I personally do not believe in any kind of intervention other than our own.

God is "I Am", and its will is free will. If some outside force intervenes, that implies that our will is limited to some extent, and I choose not to believe in limited will.

As far as recognition goes, I do not demand it because I already have it. If you are alive then you have recognition. We as humans have the ability to recognize ourselves with self-awareness. Everyone is self-aware, and thus recognized, but most do not recognize themselves fully.

I think that makes sense.

When one says 'I am' it is true. 'I am' is said in present tense.
Can anyone on here say 'I am not'?

So there is a good start to working out what is what and what is not.

'I was' is a story and 'I will be' is also a story. 'Was' implies past and 'will be' implies future.
'I am' is the present.

There is only the present and there is nothing separate from it, ever.

The present is God and all things (ideas, concepts, words, sounds, colour, taste, smell) arise within it as it.

I miss WarJohn..

reply to post by Astrocyte


Interesting post OP, especially for someone with my beliefs (see sig below). Regarding your, "Things I think we can say," it seems as though you do believe in the collective consciousness and the fact that we are all infinite, creating parts of the whole creator. The area in which I think we don't see eye to eye is my belief that each one lf us personally manifests our own destiny (correct?). I don't believe so much that there is a grey bearded man in the sky organizing everything, but I do believe that there is an ultimate goal that is intricately organized.

Also, coincidences, or God winks, I believe are personal, devine cues affirming with us that we are where we should be at that moment... That we are on the right track.

reply to post by Euphony


To answer some questions:

My conception of God would probably best be described as panentheistic.

God is all and is in all, with a remainder.

We can say "I am a part of God" or "We are a part of God", but it would be wrong to say that "WE ARE God". As said, there is a remainder, a part that none of us can account for. A part that is outside the system, designing, controlling the variables.

I do believe humankind's evolutionary development, on a physical and conscious level, represents in part "the universe becoming conscious of itself". Why is this happening? A possible interpretation is that God wanted to actualize himself. However, at no point in this process will there be an end where "we" can say that "we" are creating the universe in "just" this way. Each of us is embodied, which limits us to one brain, and one unique perspective, different from the billions of other minds. This limitation requires the existence of an all powerful, omniscient whole - what we call God - that is ultimately in control.

That we exist, that we are allowed to partake in this amazing process, is wonder enough. But I think there will always be that aspect of mystery, of ignorance - a gap in knowledge - between human and God.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by Euphony

 

To answer some questions:

My conception of God would probably best be described as panentheistic.

God is all and is in all, with a remainder.

We can say "I am a part of God" or "We are a part of God", but it would be wrong to say that "WE ARE God". As said, there is a remainder, a part that none of us can account for. A part that is outside the system, designing, controlling the variables.

I do believe humankind's evolutionary development, on a physical and conscious level, represents in part "the universe becoming conscious of itself". Why is this happening? A possible interpretation is that God wanted to actualize himself. However, at no point in this process will there be an end where "we" can say that "we" are creating the universe in "just" this way. Each of us is embodied, which limits us to one brain, and one unique perspective, different from the billions of other minds. This limitation requires the existence of an all powerful, omniscient whole - what we call God - that is ultimately in control.

That we exist, that we are allowed to partake in this amazing process, is wonder enough. But I think there will always be that aspect of mystery, of ignorance - a gap in knowledge - between human and God.

Who are you to say I am wrong with my belief?? You know just as much as I do; 'nothing'.

I believe that I have control over my life and can literally manifest everything I want. I am the essence of the creator and I am part of you; I and we are everything that ever has and ever will be. We're not just some helpless ants roaming a planet... We have the essence of the creator in all of us to create, and we are here to create a viewpoint as an infinite part of the One. Want to know a secret? All humans are gods.

Once again, there is no breaded guy in the sky pulling puppet strings. God is the collective conscounsiness of everything and its spirit/soul is in every infinite part of life; We are all God, manifesters/creators of life, whether you embrace that 'fact' or not.

reply to post by Astrocyte

I'm not very good at organizing my ideas into a pretty flow so I'll try to answer your post step by step, as I see them coming. I like this subject and every time I have the chance I love to have some intelligent discussion about it. Not trying to convince or convert anyone, but more to show a different point of view, so whatever you feel like disagreeing is ok with me.

Certain religions believe that the ultimate form of liberation is release from the consciousness of object-subject duality. As a pragmatic goal, I admit, if that is the "core" of reality, then you have good reason for wanting to repose in there. But people make a categorical mistake in believing that because there is a blank canvass before the painter paints, that the canvass is all that matters, that ultimately, what matters is the substance of the canvass, and not the picture that the painter paints.

A canvas is not quite the right comparison, I think a mirror and what is reflected in it is more appropriate. So for the sake of comparison our consciousness is the mirror and everything else is reflected in it. Now whatever is reflected in that mirror is ever changing, temporary and therefore ultimately unreal. Nothing that you can be aware of is still and permanent in this whole universe; feelings, emotions, material things, the universe itself is continually changing. Yet the awareness is always the same, unaltered in any way by any of the moving images reflected on it. So what do you think is greater, the everlasting consciousness, always present and perfect, always the same, or the flickering images that come and go all the time?
Beside that without a mirror there would be no images, ever, would they?

There is a fundamental error - or confusion, if you will - in saying "we are God". I have no problem thinking, we are a part of God, the Kabbalah uses the metaphor of an ember to describe the relationship of the human soul to the Creator; but we are not the Creator Himself.

I don't quite get this part. Is a part of the water not water? Even a molecule of water taken out of ocean is still water, isn't it? God is all that is except us?
Maybe the problem is that your concept is that God is somehow material, physical, made from different component parts? In that case, yes, you can say that a tree is part of the forest but not the forest itself. But if god is spirit or energy or whatever, and it is ALL that is, then saying we are God is not a mistake.

What of the world that we all experience together? No single individual can account for this.

The question is not what we've experienced, but WHO is experiencing. Is a very important question.

If following this question you came to the conclusion that the consciousness is experiencing whatever we experience, then the next logical question is : is the consciousness the same in every one of us, or is it different?

The consciousness is often compared with space because it's all encompassing, clear, all pervading and without end. So using this comparison we can ask: Is the space inside a box the same with the space outside the box, or is it different? if i tear the box away, can we tell where it was each piece of space? aren't they one and the same? is the consciousness limited or the box is blocking our view?

Of course, this is all just one persons personal theology. My attention is cued to the forms the material world takes on, post creation, which fascinates me. I don't think any one religion has it right, since so many religions developed to emphasize a slightly different aspect of how the divine might relate with human reality.

This is a good point. Let's not forget that no matter how mighty our belief in this or that concept of God is, they are all concepts after all. None of us can really claim a personal, intimate knowledge of what or who God is. We imagine what God should be, and those concepts are as personal and different as people in the world. Then we awkwardly try to clump the reality into our concepts so they fit, patching what it doesn't fit with even more imagination and suppositions.
I don't think that God, whatever that is, can be figured out by the logical mind, like a mathematical theory or planetary movement; if it was so we've had done it by now. Just like we never can't quite explain through the means of logic what love is; but we all felt the wonders of it.
So I wouldn't get stuck in whatever theory I mostly believe it can be the truth; none of them is right. I wouldn't search for god in my mind, which is treacherous and unstable like the water, I would try to look beyond the flickering things to that which is clear, unchanging and everlasting. Will it be God, will it be consciousness, who knows? The wise masters say it's the same.

reply to post by Astrocyte


I like what you've written. Well thought out and articulate.

I do not profess to know what God is, but there are certain things I think we can say:

He is everything.
All that exists exists in Him.
He not only provides the energy that sustains existence; but more deeply, he IS existence
He is as much personal as He is impersonal. To apply restrictions such as God is impersonal would be to say our experiences as personal beings - our fears, loves, the emotions we daily experience, the people we experience the world with - are just accidental byproducts not controlled by God. This would contradict the principle that God is everything; ergo, God is also the particular life situations we find ourselves in, as well as the experiences we have. When we pray, we connect to that cosmic center in hope that we can better harmonize ourselves with his beneficent will.

What are we talking about when we discuss God? In reality, since no God has or does appears to us, it seems we are only talking about other people's conceptions of God, which we muddy further by introducing our own ideas.

You've made some assertions about God that are not that new. Assuming that you've never beheld God, and therefore can only guess, who's ideas are you advocating to support your assertions?

reply to post by Astrocyte


It is acceptable to say we are gods. That is similar to say we are God, because God is working through us, God is one with us, not only one with the earth but the creation of earth in this present tense, everything before, and everything after. You can say, yes we are the creators of the universe, we are the alpha and the omega, but obviously it doesn't sound right because we came out of a womb, we can remember coming out of a womb and not creating stars and galaxies revolving around them. The more you try to figure it out the more you are not going to understand. This word we speak is the word of God. Our body is physical encapsule of God. Nothing makes sense with reason. We are ghosts.

If you awoke one day to find that you were nothing but pure consciousness, with absolutely nothing around you, what would you do?

Would you create something from your infinite imagination, or choose to remain alone?

If you went with the option to create, what would it be?

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy

If you awoke one day to find that you were nothing but pure consciousness, with absolutely nothing around you, what would you do?

Would you create something from your infinite imagination, or choose to remain alone?

If you went with the option to create, what would it be?

The illusion of other.
Language can help one hide from oneself.

There is no one else.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

If you went with the option to create, what would it be?

The illusion of other.

Agreed 100%