A new philosophy?

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

I've been thinking, I've had these thoughts for months. Could it be that God is me and I'm not god? I know it sounds like a paradox, but it is not. I'm saying that god exists as me and everything, but I don't exist as god. Sounds rather confusing doesn't it? The reason I'm saying this is my logic and love says that I'm not god, my experience says God is me. So, my creatively expressive side suggests that this could be a possibility. I need the opinions of others on this matter. What is your opinion?

[Onkara]

Namasté upsydownyupsy mv ss
Our ego-mind makes claims on who we are and what we can or cannot be or do. So it is the ego-mind (thoughts) which you witness as denying you as being one with Brahman. Our ego-mind will deny us unification with the divine and instead present obstacles.

The mind itself is not the "problem" but how much we invest in the mind finding the answer might be. One may say that the answer is education or knowledge (vidya) as what may make one man feel less than divine is ignorance (avdiya). To a degree removing ignorance (avdiya) is essential for some people, and for this reason, scripture and Guru are essential too.

However there is a point when additionally to study one may need the piercing insight which comes with meditation and the silent guru within us all. For it is through this insight that we come to be aware of the permanent state of being and awareness (of which scripture and Guru teach). You touch on it here as "my experience says God is me."

Any doubt arises in the ego-mind, so it is our mind which we must master (as Sri Krishna prescribes to Arjuna). This is done through removing ignorance (avidya) but also it is done by sitting quietly and focusing our mind on awareness beyond thoughts. The problem is when we feel the answer is with the mind and thought so we go on thinking, discussing and debating, but is the answer really at the level of thoughts?

The mind is a mechanism, a tool of prarkiti, and although it can be used to find food and serve the body to survive in the world, it cannot be the ultimate answer as it is limited as a part of nature (prakriti). It is for this reason that you say "I've been thinking, I've had these thoughts for months. Could it be that God is me and I'm not god?" Here, thought takes control and unable to answer it's own dilemma continues in circles ad nauseam. To stop it, we can sit in mediation, and put thinking to one side, for it is this silence which precedes thinking.

[charlebs]

you are right in a sense, you can be sure we all lived before you, but you can not decide whether your soul inspired this world to live in.
you may be god but you can be powerless. that is a problem of course.

I hope you only think about doing as much good as possible if you know god is inside you. that is your main priority. never force your will. contain your knowledge by neutralizing emotion, but never forget manners.

[jasdir]

I've been thinking, I've had these thoughts for months. Could it be that God is me and I'm not god? I know it sounds like a paradox, but it is not. I'm saying that god exists as me and everything, but I don't exist as god. Sounds rather confusing doesn't it? The reason I'm saying this is my logic and love says that I'm not god, my experience says God is me. So, my creatively expressive side suggests that this could be a possibility. I need the opinions of others on this matter. What is your opinion?

Yes! the word "I" can never be "God"

But there is "God" in "upsydownyupsy" and "Jasdir" too... like: Butter in milk.

_/\_Jasdir

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

Finally! Someone gets my point in this topic! Almost.....
Its not like butter in milk to be exact, its more like energy in light (if light is considered to be progressive wave with alternating magnetic and electric fields).

[SanathanaDharma]

Dear Friend,

lets try to analyze yet another popular question to understand the reality, you are talking about....

the question is "why am i here"

...lets dig into this question in a reverse way....lets start with the last word "here"

- "here"...so what does here mean...the term "here" itself is a relative term...meaning, if there is something called "here", then there must be something which is everything but "here"....lets take an example...when i say i stay here, pointing to a city on a map, it means that, there are other places too on the map and i stay in just one city...the
term "here" means we are pointing out to a particular place in a huge space....so in the question "why am i here", what does "here" refer to?
- is it the planet "earth"
- or the "solar system"
- or the "milkyway galaxy"
- or "this Universe"....

the term "here", no matter which place you are pointing to, is always encapsulated within the huge Universe...."here" cannot be anything beyond the Universe....

So, we know that this entire Prakruthi or the Universe is within Paramathma...when the entire Universe is in Him any place inside this Universe is automatically in Him alone...so...
in a broader sense the term "here" is always in Him.....and hence we will replace it in our initial question...

- "why am i here" will now be "why am i in Him"

lets now get to the next term "i"

- "why am i in Him"
so, what exactly is the definition of the term "i"...what is it composed of?....

Every living being is made up of
- Aatma
- Jeeva
- Deha

lets substitute the the above three instead of "i" and see how the question looks like

- "why is Aatma in Him"
- "why is Jeeva in Him"
- "why is Deha in Him"......

lets analyze these questions....

- "why is Aatma in Him"
well Aatma is an instance of Paramathma..its the representation of Paramathma...its the Paramathma inside Universe....so technically Aatma is Him and He is Aatma..
so the question becomes "why is He in Him"

- "why is Jeeva in Him"
Again Jeeva, which is made up of Antaratma and indriyas is an instance of Pradhana [Pradhana is a set
of 24 definitions is under Him]...and its He who as time introduces Himself into the unmanifested Pradhana, creates the manifested state of pradhana, called Prakruthi or the Universe..
...He is the one who has given a meaning to Jeeva and Jeeva is an "amsha" or an instance of Him under manifestation...so the question becomes
"why is He in Him"

- "why is Deha in Him"
Deha is formed by the elements present inside Prakruthi and Prakruthi is formed because He enters Pradhana..thus making Prakruthi exist because He is the one in every atom of this Prakruthi and its because of Him this Prakruthi even exists...as everything in this prakruthi is made up of an instance of Him, even this deha is made up of Him...so the question becomes
"why is He in Him"

each "i" is actually Him in different forms of his divine energy ...its the "yogaishvarya" or the "maya"
which makes every "i" think that there are many "i's" present.... where as every "I" is actually Him alone...and hence, based on the above analysis replacing the term "i" with He, the question becomes

"why is He in Him"

So, the question "why am i here" is now seen as "why is He in Him"....

lets get into the first part of the question...."Why is"....now this is the part which asks for "a reason"...a reason is required for everything that needs an
explanation...so what is the explanation....again very simple....

When we started with the question "why am i here", the terms "here", "i" were used due to the illusion...maya...
this illusion is the mask which has covered the mind[which is part of the Jeeva]....this illusion exists only because the mind lacks proper guidance...this illusion
occurs due to the lack of knowledge....and hence, because of lack of knowledge, the mind under illusion asked the question "why am i here"
in the very first place...because of the illusion, the mind did not "realise" that the question "why am i here" actually means "why is He in Him"...

and this my dear friend, is the "sole reason" the mind thinks that "we are something different from Him"
this is because it has not yet realised that "He is in Him"..once this realisation occurs,
the word "why" naturally dissapears.....to realise that He is in Him....as long as our mind does not completely realise this, it sees itself as a distinct individual...
and the terms "i" and "here" is an illusion...is the answer to the term "why"

the mind is under a inevitable spell casted by the the three gunas, present in the prakruthi... the mind is under a deep illusionary state, which has been created due to the influence of the three gunas...the mind is under the deadly impression that what the senses perceive is "real"...the mind is covered by the dark clouds of ignorance, giving mind the false impression that the cloud of ignorance, which is formed by the input from the senses and the prakruthi around us, is knowledge....

the deadly power of ignorance is that it conditions the mind with illusion, camouflaging the real knowledge...ignorance covers real knowledge and makes mind believe that illusion is knowledge....thus with real knowledge being camouflaged by ignorance, mind gets an impression that what is "unreal" is "real"....and when mind sees this reflection of darkness as reality..it starts to condition itself accordingly...

ignorance reflects the idea to the mind, to have an "identity" of its own...it teaches mind to associate itself with the Deha...
ignorance introduces all the terms which define different states of mind[anger, happy, sad, greed, lust, desire, etc]....ignorance allows mind to get used to all those different states
...ignorance allows mind to use and experiment with the different states......ignorance thus allows and encourages mind to build an " individual personality"....ignorance bewilders the mind
and introduces the illusionary term "ownership"...ignorance pushes the mind to own a "personality for itself"....and once this point is reached, aham is used to lay the foundation to see
itself as a distinct person...not as He in Him...

to put in simple words....the point when the mind realises the fact that it was under illusion all the time, thinking that "i", "here" are real, the point where
mind realises that the identity it understands based on deha and personality is an illusion..where as the
truth being, its He in Him..or "He" is what the mind thinks as itself..when the mind recognizes, realizes and identifies everything with Him alone....thats when His instance realizes Him joins Him not to be distinct any longer...just like a drop of water added, cannot be differentiated from the ocean after joining it

[saidevo]

namaste upsy.

In all such inquiries, the crux of the problem involves first the understanding and then the realization of the 'I'. In between these two comes the efforts to translate the understanding to realization.

When you say, "Could it be that God is me and I'm not god?", it is like saying: Could it be that brahma aham asmi whereas aham brahma nAsmi? The mahAvAkya is clear that aham brahmAsmi--I Brahman am.

• Is aham brahmAsmi a statement of advaita? Or dvaita? Since there are two entities here aham and brahma, shall we say it is dvaita? Or since it says that both these seemingly differing entities are one and the same, is it advaita?

• This great statement in the bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad can be deemed as complementary to another mahAvAkya in the aitareya upaniShad: prajnAnam brahma.

‣ The term prajnAnam, which means 'consciousness', involves the root jna--to know, and the prefix pra indicates 'in advance, behorehand, right away'. So, prajnAnam is that consciousness which is beforehand/advanced in time, adhead of all other kinds of awareness. We speak of being 'body conscious', 'mind conscious' etc. This consciousness, prajnAnam, is what is at the root of all other kinds of awareness. It is the ultimate knowledge that involves and is at the root of all other knowings.

‣ The statement prajnAnam brahma is the culmination of a slew of other statements that precede it in the aitereya upaniShad:

3.3: He is Brahman, He is Indra, He is Prajapati; He is all these gods; He is the five great elements-earth, air, akasa, water, light; He is all these small creatures and the others which are mixed; He is the origin-those born of an egg, of a womb, of sweat and of a sprout; He is horses, cows, human beings, elephants-whatever breathes here, whether moving on legs or flying in the air or unmoving. All this is guided by Consciousness, is supported by Consciousness. The basis is Consciousness. Consciousness is Brahman.--Tr.svAmi NikhilAnanda

• Let us now relate the two mahAvAkyas: prajnAnam brahma, aham brahmAsmi. This essentially means that my consciousness is verily (that of) Brahman, so I am Brahman.

‣ The aham--I, in the second statement indicates the surface consciousness of the jIva that identifies it with various illusions of the immanent consciousness of the Self that is Brahman. Just as we distinguish a rain cloud as different from its content that is water, and try to see shapes in the clouds, we associate the feeling of the Self, through the aham--I/ego, either with the external deham--body, or with the internal manas--mind, and so we fail to see the unity of the Self behind the discrete feelings of 'I'.

‣ The knowledge of unity of the aham with Brahman is obtained by satsangha--association with the wise, and by vichAram--inquiry. Obtaining this intellectual knowledge is rather easy, because everyone readily knows that the body, mind and other attributes of the 'I' are identified as 'mine', and not 'I'.

‣ The realization of the unity of the aham with Brahman, is an entirely another state, most difficult to attain, although there are definite steps towards it such as shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsanA--learning, contemplating and repeated and profound meditation.

'God is in me' is the first step to realization of the Self. It is refined by the understanding 'God is me', followed by the feeling, contemplation and the ultimate realization 'I am God'.

*** *** ***

[rkpande]

Every one on this forums is so knowledgeable and they all know that the film of maya is the one which separates the realisation of Me as Him. Maya manifests in avidya. Even after this realisation why is it that most of us are so far from him.

And I agree with upsy that He is me but I am Not Him, repeat I will never be Him.
creation can not equal creator.

Even after the realisation that I am God, I cannot create like Him and so, can never be Him.

[Onkara]

Every one on this forums is so knowledgeable and they all know that the film of maya is the one which separates the realisation of Me as Him. Maya manifests in avidya. Even after this realisation why is it that most of us are so far from him.

And I agree with upsy that He is me but I am Not Him, repeat I will never be Him.
creation can not equal creator.

Even after the realisation that I am God, I cannot create like Him and so, can never be Him.

Namast� RKPande-ji
Where does the sense of separation arise for us? It arises from the limitations of the senses, does it not? For example, we cannot see through walls nor occupy more than one space at a time. This is due to our physical limitations all of which convince our mind that we are limited. Whilst we take ourselves to be the body-mind then we will feel limited and limited in our creation. We know all this already, but yet it has its claws into us. The sensation of separation is precisely that; a sensation. But it is forgotten each time the senses are stimulated because senses are by their nature finite.

When we dream, we create a world. Our very being is the creator. Change is creation in flux. The scriptures state that limitation is self inflicted. Even limitation then is the creation unfolding.

[Kismet]

I've been thinking, I've had these thoughts for months. Could it be that God is me and I'm not god? I know it sounds like a paradox, but it is not. I'm saying that god exists as me and everything, but I don't exist as god. Sounds rather confusing doesn't it? The reason I'm saying this is my logic and love says that I'm not god, my experience says God is me. So, my creatively expressive side suggests that this could be a possibility. I need the opinions of others on this matter. What is your opinion?

\

This is, in my opinion, a lovely formulation well-worth looking into.

There is actually a very good reason (from a bhakti perspective) why it is fitting there should only be one Self and one alone, without another. This is because our love for God would be incomplete if it were divided between love for ourselves and Him. And yet, if we did not love ourselves we would likewise be incomplete! For what kind of whole person doesn't love himself?

The logical aspect is more difficult than the devotional aspect, but not, I think, impossible given the mysterious quality of both Consciousness as well as Time, both of which we know very little about.