Are we becoming God? Or is God just a human idea?

[northape]

Do we have to know?

I believe the answer is no. Just relax into this world and your life. Total relaxation and acceptance would lead to the same place, in my opinion.
Answers that our egos come up with lead nowhere outside our minds. Don't stir the water; let it settle.
Relax and just Be

 

[Transform]

Maybe someone already said this but, looking back at the title of the thread, the two options aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Replacing "or" with "and" helps with considering similar instances. Doing so here doesn't, in my view, give rise to any irreconcilable contradictions.

The question of humans becoming a human idea of god, does rather seem give rise to some weighty problems illustrated by numerous aspects of the world today, although we do perhaps need to be careful to distinguish between, for example, those who feel they are acting in the name of god and those who strive to amass ever more god-like levels of power within human society.

This viewpoint would appear to be based in conceptualising "the world" and "society' most broadly as a resource management issue, which helps me to highlight my personal systemic focus at this particular instant in time.

Maybe

It's also a matter of how happy one is living with contradictions.

 

[LuxObscura]

I believe the answer is no. Just relax into this world and your life. Total relaxation and acceptance would lead to the same place, in my opinion.
Answers that our egos come up with lead nowhere outside our minds. Don't stir the water; let it settle.
Relax and just Be

Yes, that is a good approach in my opinion, and I would like to follow your line of thought.
Although I am not sure whether there is a definitive answer.
Perhaps everyone has their own answer, which works for them individually.

The question I asked myself is:
What do we already know, what do we want to know, and what should we want to know?
Some people choose the path of relaxation, others aim for success.
But the aspect of acceptance you mentioned seems particularly important to me.

Because we can relax, yet still negatively affect ourselves and others.
With different forms of acceptance, this risk is reduced, I believe.
The same applies to success:
Some people become successful by stepping over others and creating chaos, while others succeed while maintaining integrity and influence.

In the end, I think it is not just about what we do, but how we do it.

"The value of an action lies less in its outcome and more in the manner and principles by which it is carried out, because acceptance of limits prevents harm while allowing authentic success."

 

[LuxObscura]

Maybe someone already said this but, looking back at the title of the thread, the two options aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Replacing "or" with "and" helps with considering similar instances. Doing so here doesn't, in my view, give rise to any irreconcilable contradictions.

The question of humans becoming a human idea of god, does rather seem give rise to some weighty problems illustrated by numerous aspects of the world today, although we do perhaps need to be careful to distinguish between, for example, those who feel they are acting in the name of god and those who strive to amass ever more god-like levels of power within human society.

Yes, I agree with your point about making a careful distinction.
However, I think these two options are not the only ones.
My response to @northape ’s reply also fits well here.

If we imagine a scale, those striving for god-like levels of power within human society might be placed at the lower end.
Those who claim to act in the name of God could be placed somewhat higher,
provided they do not justify their wrongdoings by labeling them as actions in God’s name.

 

[Here&Now]

You answered to your own question, really. Who knows! Don't conceptualize, instead constantly look at the subject. It's reality itself.

Good stuff. I believe this simple suggestion is the only way to properly answer the question. Anything else would involve dualistic conceptualization that would spiral eternally and never ultimately reconcile.

I totally get how it would seem nonsensical from a materialistic perspective, but if one were to grant that consciousness itself is actually primary, then any particular individual who's able to wholly reflect inward will be able to experience their identity as the whole. Which is exactly what all the esoteric traditions have universally tried to convey.

 

[LuxObscura]

[...] Don't conceptualize, instead constantly look at the subject. [...]

[...] Anything else would involve dualistic conceptualization that would spiral eternally and never ultimately reconcile.

I totally get how it would seem nonsensical from a materialistic perspective, but if one were to grant that consciousness itself is actually primary, then any particular individual who's able to wholly reflect inward will be able to experience their identity as the whole. Which is exactly what all the esoteric traditions have universally tried to convey.

I’m not entirely sure I understand what you mean by "conceptualization".
To me, everything seems to be a concept or at least grounded in one.
Both a materialistic and a dualistic perspective, for example, are concepts.
When we look at a subject and start thinking about it, those thoughts are already conceptual in nature.

Does this mean we should observe things purely empirically looking without forming any thoughts?
What exactly is the issue with conceptualizing?
Is it that a concept can differ too much from how something truly is?

2.17 What the picture must have in common with reality in order to be able to represent it after its manner - rightly or falsely - is its form of representation.

- Wittgenstein: Tractatus

 

[Here&Now]

I’m not entirely sure I understand what you mean by "conceptualization".
To me, everything seems to be a concept or at least grounded in one.
Both a materialistic and a dualistic perspective, for example, are concepts.
When we look at a subject and start thinking about it, those thoughts are already conceptual in nature.

Does this mean we should observe things purely empirically looking without forming any thoughts?
What exactly is the issue with conceptualizing?
Is it that a concept can differ too much from how something truly is?

Yeah, it seems like you're intuiting the general idea. A concept will always put a layer of abstraction over reality. I'm not necessarily trying to demonize concepts, but when your goal is to experience reality in its pure form (and thus answering the question of god), then there's no choice but to set concepts aside.

It's similar to when you're falling asleep at night. As your mind becomes quieter, you pass into a subconsciuous state where visualization and symbols become prominent. And then, as you let go even more, you'll reach a state of absolute quiet that seemingly transcends space and time. The only way to get a proper night of sleep is to allow concepts to dissipate, and meditation is very much a similar thing. It's been said that sleep is unconscious meditation and meditation is conscious sleep.

 

[blig-blug]

To me, everything seems to be a concept or at least grounded in one.

I think you're confusing concepts with what they represent (or conceptualize). If you stub your toe, that's not a concept. The idea that you have stubbed your toe is. But the actual event and experiences corresponding to the stubbing itself are not a concept whatsoever, nor depend on being conceptualized in order to exist.

Does this mean we should observe things purely empirically looking without forming any thoughts?

Not necessarily. Thoughts themselves also happen regardless of any concept about them. And they are useful. The problem is confusing concepts with reality. Because it's not only that reality exists regardless of our concepts, but our concepts can exist regardless of how well they represent reality.

Is it that a concept can differ too much from how something truly is?

Yes, being that a representation won't ever come even close to fully capturing the complexity of the represented. Think about it: representations of reality are themselves part of reality. They can't be greater than reality itself. They're a simplification, a compression, a model. Models are useful but aren't reality (although they are part of reality themselves).

The map is not the territory.

 

[LuxObscura]

Yeah, it seems like you're intuiting the general idea. A concept will always put a layer of abstraction over reality. I'm not necessarily trying to demonize concepts, but when your goal is to experience reality in its pure form (and thus answering the question of god), then there's no choice but to set concepts aside.

It's similar to when you're falling asleep at night. As your mind becomes quieter, you pass into a subconsciuous state where visualization and symbols become prominent. And then, as you let go even more, you'll reach a state of absolute quiet that seemingly transcends space and time. The only way to get a proper night of sleep is to allow concepts to dissipate, and meditation is very much a similar thing. It's been said that sleep is unconscious meditation and meditation is conscious sleep.

I think you're confusing concepts with what they represent (or conceptualize). If you stub your toe, that's not a concept. The idea that you have stubbed your toe is. But the actual event and experiences corresponding to the stubbing itself is not a concept whatsoever, nor depends on being conceptualized in order to exist.


Not necessarily. Thoughts themselves also happen regardless of any concept about them. And they are useful. The problem is confusing concepts with reality. Because it's not only that reality exists regardless of our concepts, but our concepts can exist regardless of how well they represent reality.


Yes, being that a representation won't ever come even close to fully capturing the complexity of the represented. Think about it: representations of reality are themselves part of reality. They can't be greater than reality itself. They're a simplification, a compression, a model. Models are useful but aren't reality (although they are part of reality themselves).

Thank you for the detailed explenations.
I think it is a way of "looking" at things.
Not even empirically.
By directly experiencing things without conceptual thoughts or empirical observations.
This reminds me of mediate vs immediate knowledge or experience explained by Thomas von Aquin - Summa Theologiae

 

[Here&Now]

Thank you for the detailed explenations.
I think it is a way of "looking" at things.
Not even empirically.
By directly experiencing things without conceptual thoughts or empirical observations.
This reminds me of mediate vs immediate knowledge or experience explained by Thomas von Aquin - Summa Theologiae

Right, stated simply from a bottom-up approach, you could consider it an increased skill in the ability to "look". There's infinitely more depth in that capacity that anyone would ever guess. If you've used DMT or other psychedelics, you've already had a taste of how powerful attention can actually be.

Here are a couple guys who are much more qualified than myself describing the transformational process that occurs.

 

[blig-blug]

By directly experiencing things without conceptual thoughts or empirical observations.

As I see it, that happens regardless of what we choose, as conceptual elaboration happens afterwards (although previous thoughts can influence experience). Even conceptual thoughts themselves are a form of experience, and experiencing our thoughts we experience an aspect of reality. The problem comes when we start confusing reality with our mental model of it: not every aspect of reality can be conceptualized and modeled, and we stop seeing the errors and insufficiencies in our models. A very simple but frequent example is catastrophic thinking, where one starts imagining some terrible event in the future and acting as if it were true and current. If you were to be aware that those are thoughts you are experiencing in the present, you would still be anchored in reality despite the thoughts. But it's unlikely that you would have those thoughts if you are fully aware of it.

 

[northape]

You answered to your own question, really. Who knows! Don't conceptualize, instead constantly look at the subject. It's reality itself.

To me, everything seems to be a concept or at least grounded in one.
Both a materialistic and a dualistic perspective, for example, are concepts.
When we look at a subject and start thinking about it, those thoughts are already conceptual in nature.

What do you do when you want to see something clearly? You just look at it attentively. You don't think much about it. The same applies to this "who am I?"

It's not a question to be answered, but a shift of focus. Instead of looking at senses or thoughts (smell, taste, sight, hearing, touch & mental events), you look at who is looking. It's a 180-degree turn in attention. When you do it right and look at yourself, instead of a concept of yourself, all thoughts subside. Being can't be defined, and it's without any form. Basically, you're doing formless meditation that way. With time, your looking is going to deepen and the reality behind the self will reveal itself. That's a basic summary of self-investigation from Sri Ramana.

I believe the answer is no. Just relax into this world and your life. Total relaxation and acceptance would lead to the same place, in my opinion.
Answers that our egos come up with lead nowhere outside our minds. Don't stir the water; let it settle.
Relax and just Be

That's another approach from Dzogchen/Mahamudra. The most simple meditation instruction is "Just Be." Sit and relax without any agenda. Whatever appears, just let it be. Never forget your being that is like a vast, open sky. There is space for everything, but nothing can ever touch or affect the sky. Just marinate in this state, and it will reveal reality.

These two are one and the same meditation, in my opinion. Your attention is on the self, which is like space (formless). It takes some effort in the beginning, but the meditation itself is effortless. "Just Being" is relaxation and an ultimate rest in reality. I hope I was clear. At my level of understanding, I can't put it in simpler terms.

 

[Hugin]

I love this and I subscribe to what you say word for word.

But I am troubled by a concern that this is only my relatively easy life that allows me to believe it.

How does that ethos work for a starving child in a certain warzone today? Did that child vibrate itself into such suffering? Does the child simply have to change it's beliefs to stop the suffering?

Is the child suffering because someone else manifested it?

Does that mean that other people's lives can mirror my thoughts?

Is it generational trauma that the assumedly innocent child must shoulder?

How does it work?

I said I believe the same as op we are a part of something much bigger.
We’re a part of a larger intelligence.
Universal consciousness.

Any belief in that matter is only acceptance that something exists without proof.

It’s just something i resonate with.

Everything else I said is a theory I like.
A theory is not describing something as true or right. A theory is only a guess without supporting evidence. Nothing is proven.
It’s just theories I resonate with.

So in no possible way do I expect you to believe it brother. Obviously i can’t explain to you how it works as it’s only theories.

If we want to hypothesis how it would work in theory I would think limiting the law of vibration to a personal mood mirror would be ignoring the complexity of interconnected consciousness and its systemic forces. In theory it would be multiple layers of vibrational fields. We are only peeling one layer.
That starving child in a warzone is not in that position because they simply failed to think positive thoughts. War zones, poverty and oppression would not be individual manifestations.

That child would not impossibly vibrate itself into its existence, a child is born into existence that child inherits the collective field of reality seeded by generations of fear, power, and trauma.

Everything humans have created began with a thought, a mental image, a concept in someone’s mind. it’s then collectively built from that thought into reality. Materialistic reality is not changed within the source field. With that in mind reality would not be shaped only by one’s own thoughts and emotions but also by the larger currents of culture, generations, and humanity’s collective resonance within the source field. You are a fragment of the whole. Not a fragment of singular source awareness, one could shift his own experience in a sense of changed emotion, aligned energy with vibration would structure a different outcome in your life by aligning different paths that would result in your personal desire or favour if met by action. That works when preparation meets opportunity. Opportunities pass all the time. We change paths and outcomes in our life regularly. So it wouldn’t erase systemic reality around you. You couldn’t override the collective field of reality for yourself or anyone else.

You can become the architect of your own reality with aligned energy with emotion, changed positive mindset in your own personal field that vibrates in the collective field. You will see the synchronicity as confirmations lighting up as checkpoints on the new path you choose to walk mindfully. There’s a thin line between that and walking an already made path on autopilot without putting a thought to it at all.

When everyone remain passive, blinded by their own easy life in comfort or without a care in the world. Nothing will ever change.
Change would come from inner frequency work and outer systemic transformation.
Transformation comes when inner work and collective action that ripples outward together. Not as one.
All as one lifting the resonance of life itself.

What do you resonate with fink ?
What do you truly believe ?

 

[The I AM]

What do you do when you want to see something clearly? You just look at it attentively. You don't think much about it. The same applies to this "who am I?"

It's not a question to be answered, but a shift of focus. Instead of looking at senses or thoughts (smell, taste, sight, hearing, touch & mental events), you look at who is looking. It's a 180-degree turn in attention. When you do it right and look at yourself, instead of a concept of yourself, all thoughts subside. Being can't be defined, and it's without any form. Basically, you're doing formless meditation that way. With time, your looking is going to deepen and the reality behind the self will reveal itself. That's a basic summary of self-investigation from Sri Ramana.

That's another approach from Dzogchen/Mahamudra. The most simple meditation instruction is "Just Be." Sit and relax without any agenda. Whatever appears, just let it be. Never forget your being that is like a vast, open sky. There is space for everything, but nothing can ever touch or affect the sky. Just marinate in this state, and it will reveal reality.

These two are one and the same meditation, in my opinion. Your attention is on the self, which is like space (formless). It takes some effort in the beginning, but the meditation itself is effortless. "Just Being" is relaxation and an ultimate rest in reality. I hope I was clear. At my level of understanding, I can't put it in simpler terms.

Bravo!

The summation above is such a profound way to capture the essence of the self and the resting in pure being "looking back at the one who looks, until all concepts fall away into spacious awareness"

Yet I feel it does not end in stillness alone. I mean, this same presence is really alive in every activity: in walking, in eating, in speaking, even in the simplest daily motions. Awareness is not separate from life, it should shine through it.

All that’s needed is to remain awake, letting things unfold naturally. Add your strength in it's fullness when the moment asks for it, and allow the rest of life to contribute its part. In this way, stillness and activity dissolve into one seamless flow.

 

[northape]

Bravo!

The summation above is such a profound way to capture the essence of the self and the resting in pure being "looking back at the one who looks, until all concepts fall away into spacious awareness"

Yet I feel it does not end in stillness alone. I mean, this same presence is really alive in every activity: in walking, in eating, in speaking, even in the simplest daily motions. Awareness is not separate from life, it should shine through it.

All that’s needed is to remain awake, letting things unfold naturally. Add your strength in it's fullness when the moment asks for it, and allow the rest of life to contribute its part. In this way, stillness and activity dissolve into one seamless flow.

Thanks, but do not mistake the map for the territory. My crude example is just the beginning, and meditations can look very different until you reach a stage of no-effort.
Stillness is the underlying nature of reality, just as energy plays within it. It's an age-old Shiva-Shakti leela that produces this world. It's aliveness itself.
Meditation is a wrong word; we had better use introspection or contemplation. The goal is simple: to return to your original nature.

I agree that being awake is all that's needed, but it's easier said than done. We are all governed by habits, so being awake is hard.
Get to the root of that awakeness, and confusion will resolve itself. Take it all with a pinch of salt, though. I'm just as delusional as everyone else.

 

[fink]

I said I believe the same as op we are a part of something much bigger.
We’re a part of a larger intelligence.
Universal consciousness.

Any belief in that matter is only acceptance that something exists without proof.

It’s just something i resonate with.

Everything else I said is a theory I like.
A theory is not describing something as true or right. A theory is only a guess without supporting evidence. Nothing is proven.
It’s just theories I resonate with.

So in no possible way do I expect you to believe it brother. Obviously i can’t explain to you how it works as it’s only theories.

If we want to hypothesis how it would work in theory I would think limiting the law of vibration to a personal mood mirror would be ignoring the complexity of interconnected consciousness and its systemic forces. In theory it would be multiple layers of vibrational fields. We are only peeling one layer.
That starving child in a warzone is not in that position because they simply failed to think positive thoughts. War zones, poverty and oppression would not be individual manifestations.

That child would not impossibly vibrate itself into its existence, a child is born into existence that child inherits the collective field of reality seeded by generations of fear, power, and trauma.

Everything humans have created began with a thought, a mental image, a concept in someone’s mind. it’s then collectively built from that thought into reality. Materialistic reality is not changed within the source field. With that in mind reality would not be shaped only by one’s own thoughts and emotions but also by the larger currents of culture, generations, and humanity’s collective resonance within the source field. You are a fragment of the whole. Not a fragment of singular source awareness, one could shift his own experience in a sense of changed emotion, aligned energy with vibration would structure a different outcome in your life by aligning different paths that would result in your personal desire or favour if met by action. That works when preparation meets opportunity. Opportunities pass all the time. We change paths and outcomes in our life regularly. So it wouldn’t erase systemic reality around you. You couldn’t override the collective field of reality for yourself or anyone else.

You can become the architect of your own reality with aligned energy with emotion, changed positive mindset in your own personal field that vibrates in the collective field. You will see the synchronicity as confirmations lighting up as checkpoints on the new path you choose to walk mindfully. There’s a thin line between that and walking an already made path on autopilot without putting a thought to it at all.

When everyone remain passive, blinded by their own easy life in comfort or without a care in the world. Nothing will ever change.
Change would come from inner frequency work and outer systemic transformation.
Transformation comes when inner work and collective action that ripples outward together. Not as one.
All as one lifting the resonance of life itself.

What do you resonate with fink ?
What do you truly believe ?

Mine is really simple Hugin. I am a fractal fragment of the source of awareness, playing an endless game with myself. Nothing is real apart from how we make others feel.

I'm here to learn my lessons, to overcome my physical pain, to embrace and heal my emotional pain. Most importantly, I'm tasked with breaking the cycles of generational trauma. Bringing my children up without emotional debt if possible.

 

[Seagull]

I mean if you understand it in this way and have been putting it into action, than nothing of the Self can keep existing but the truth which is the Soul in you.

But we can come down to earth and start making use of God into material things like statues, concepts and constructs visible in society. Im not talking deifying. I mean using it like a tool to shape people or w/e.

Does this mean bad vs good OR has it been like it always was a journey to discover what is beyond.

 

[northape]

I mean if you understand it in this way and have been putting it into action, than nothing of the Self can keep existing but the truth which is the Soul in you.

But we can come down to earth and start making use of God into material things like statues, concepts and constructs visible in society. Im not talking deifying. I mean using it like a tool to shape people or w/e.

Does this mean bad vs good OR has it been like it always was a journey to discover what is beyond.

I feel that is how it is supposed to be and how it was in earlier times. Look at India as an example and their acceptance of any religion. God has a multitude of forms for them, and none is excluded. Earlier societies prioritized spiritual technologies and built the whole order around inner exploration. Inner and outer were intermixed and a part of daily life.

A quest for God will always be a personal journey, but society can make it much easier and more valued, as was the case before. Today, a genuine spiritual teacher would tell you to mix meditation with everyday life, whereas before, it was a normal way of life. The concept of yugas plays very well into it. We are at the end of the Kali Yuga, or degenerative times. When I hear the same message from American tribes, Egyptians, and Indians, it all becomes much more than a fairy tale.

 

[blig-blug]

In my most intense pharmahuasca trip, towards the end, I felt that my consciousness was everything. But it was not "my" consciousness, it was a total consciousness that was me but also everyone and everything else. I'm sure many of you have had this type of experience.

I could feel progressively how my consciousness became more and more narrow and felt less and less connected to that "total consciousness", it's as if I had to feel separated from it in order to experience the world. The message that came through in that moment is "remember that you are God". Not in the sense that only I am God, of course.

I later found a quote by Tim Leary: "You are God. Remember!" It's a millennia old idea, not Leary's, but still I was surprised at how similarly it was worded.

 

[northape]

In my most intense pharmahuasca trip, towards the end, I felt that my consciousness was everything. But it was not "my" consciousness, it was a total consciousness that was me but also everyone and everything else. I'm sure many of you will have had this type of experience.

I could feel progressively how my consciousness became more and more narrow and felt less and less connected to that "total consciousness", it's as if I had to feel separated from it in order to experience the world. The message that came through in that moment is "remember that you are God". Not in the sense that only I am God, of course.

I later found a quote by Tim Leary: "You are God. Remember!" It's a millennia old idea, not Leary's, but still I was surprised at how similarly it was worded.

534. Let highly mature and courageous aspirants who have a bright and sharp intellect, firmly accept that soul [jiva] is only one [eka] and thereby be established deep in the heart [by enquiring ‘Who am I, that one jiva?’]. It is only to suit immature minds that scriptures generally say that souls [jivas] are many [nana].
— Guru Vachaka Kovai

The concept of Eka Jiva, or One Soul, is prevalent in Indian scriptures. At the core of it all, we are all One Soul, or God. There are no others here.
See how crazy wars are when one knows what's what. Concepts are many, but the Truth is One, and you are it.
Namaste