Zingdad: J-D, I take it we are not going to "prove" the oneness of all beyond all doubt from the religious perspective, either?
Joy-Divine: No, you are right. It doesn't matter how one addresses this, people will always have the right and the ability to doubt or to choose other. This is very much not about silencing other views. This is about presenting a view which you and your readers can choose to accept if it resonates with your heart. I previously addressed it from the atheist/scientific perspective, not because I in any way wish to attack or persuade such people. Not at all. Simply because one needs a starting point from which to make a cogent argument. And now I am going to do this again. I am going to stand in another place and make the same argument from this other perspective. This new perspective is that of organised religion. For my purposes, I will divide religions into two groups: those that see God as separate from the self and those that see the self as one with God. The latter group are already in agreement with the point I am making here, so we can, for the purposes of this discourse, just let them be. So I will use the former belief as a starting position: the view that there is a God but that God is separate from, or outside of, God's creation.
I would like to offer certain observations: if someone already believes in an omnipotent Supreme Creator Being, then I would make the following contention. Being omnipotent, the Supreme Creator can do whatever It likes, right?
Z: Umm. Just a minute please. I'm not sure if I'm really happy with the "It" label for God.
J-D: Yes. I know. I am sorry. You have cultural associations that "It" is somehow inferior to Him or Her. Well I am afraid I am not going to pander to those associations. The Supreme Creator does not have a gender. It is way, way beyond such petty issues. It is both, and neither, and very much beyond gender. So, until there is a better word in the English language which signifies, "Him, Her and It and every other gender that could possibly be in all creation, and all of these, and none of them," then I am going to be stuck with using "It". This is very much the opposite of being derogatory. Restricting God to one gender is far more derogatory in my view. But as a nod to offended sensibilities, we will capitalise the “I” of the word “It”. Is that okay?
Z: Yes, perfectly, thank you. But seeing as I have already interrupted and am busy nit-picking, what of the label "God"? I mean, does that not imply one religious perspective? Should we not maybe say "Source" or... something less restrictive?
J-D: Ooooookay. Let's quickly deal with that too. No name or label that you might choose to come up with will ever suffice. A label is, by its very nature, reductive. It excludes everything that is not that. No label is ever going to do the job of describing God because God is everything and yet more than that. God is beyond complete comprehension and description. So we should probably just choose to be silent on the subject of God altogether because everything that you might say about God is a reduction of the truth. No names and no descriptions and no attempts to understand. But that would be silly. Surely we should at least try with what we have to comprehend God? Make a start and keep improving our comprehension as our abilities to comprehend increase? And since you on planet Earth use language to communicate and develop your thoughts, we must find some word for God. If we disallow all words then we cannot speak of It. And if we come up with a descriptive term then that is even worse, as it is even more restrictive. So, in the interests of just allowing the conversation to happen, I simply choose the name that has the greatest resonance in the culture you currently inhabit. If I spoke of The Mighty Zeelagzog (or whatever invented name), you'd say "who?" So rather, if I start out by speaking of God, then you know of whom I speak, even if I thereafter have to clarify what my view is of God. Which is exactly what I am doing right now. If your view of God is that It is separate from the rest of us, then I am here telling you what my view of God is, which is that It is ONE with us and All That Is. So I will use the name "God" and over time you will come to understand what I mean by that name. If your reader prefers another term, then I humbly beg their latitude in this regard.
Z: Okay, got it. Thank you for the clarification and my apologies for the interruption. Can we please pick it up again where we left off?
J-D: Yes, certainly. I was making the observation that, if God is omnipotent, then God can do whatever It wishes and create whatever It wills, right?
Z: Right.
J-D: So, if such a Being wanted to experience the world from your perspective, It could. In fact It could, if It wanted to, experience the world from the perspective of every single living being at the same time, could It not?
Z: Yes. I guess the word "omnipotence" pretty much means that you are not restricted. You can do anything. Including, I am sure, seeing everything from every perspective.
J-D: So then the only question would be if God would desire this. Would God desire to see things exactly as you (and everyone else) does or would God desire to view Creation from "above" or from a "separate" position? I will answer the question like this: what is the most loving perspective for God to take? What perspective would God hold that would give God the most love and compassion for you? Clearly, in order for God to really understand you, God would need to be willing to experience life as you. Otherwise God would stand outside of you and look at all your little foibles and fumbles and just see you as flawed and broken. But if God experiences the world through you, as you, then certainly God can have nothing but compassion and love for you. So I present you with a choice: do you believe God is loving or not? I would most strongly assert that God is love. And I present to you the simple truth that the most loving choice for God is that God does not see Itself as separate from you. But if God only chose to see things through your eyes, but still know that it is God, then that would not be your perspective. Your perspective is exactly the way it looks for you. I am saying that the most loving thing for God to do is to hold exactly your perspective too. God therefore experiences the world through you, as you! Even when you don't know about God's existence or believe in God or whatever. God is still in you. And in every other possible perspective. So God does not enter only into certain pious and "godly" perspectives when they are well behaved! No. That is conditional love. And I am saying that God is unconditional love.
Z: You are saying this. But can you prove it... that God loves us unconditionally.
J-D: Again, I can only make a strong argument. You will believe what you want. But if you believe that God is omnipresent and omniscient then you are, by definition, agreeing with me.
Z: Huh? How?
J-D: Omnipresent means present at every point. There is nowhere where God is not. Including, obviously, where you are. Now, if you broaden your understanding of location, you will understand that you are not just geographically at your present location, you are also spiritually at that location. You are spiritually where you are as a result of the beliefs and ideas you have about yourself, life and God. Well, God is omnipresent. This means God is also at that exact location with you and everywhere else at every other location with every other being and thing in All That Is.
Z: Hmm. Good point.
J-D: And omniscient means "all knowing". Do you know what it is like to be a dog?
Z: No... not really.
J-D: But you have dogs living in your home with you. You love them like children. You observe everything they do and often study their interactions and processes with great interest. Why do you not know what it is like to be a dog?
Z: Because I am a human! I have no knowledge of ever having been a dog!
J-D: Ah ha! In order to truly know what it is like to be someone, you actually have to be that someone. Otherwise you only know something about that being. Now it is the same with God. If God is truly omniscient, then God cannot only know about you. If God observes you from outside, then God will never really know what it is like to be you. So instead God does that: God is you.
Z: But... isn't that a ridiculously egotistical position to take – that I am God? I mean God is so great and...
J-D: No. It can't be egotistical to claim for yourself that which you are also claiming for everyone else. In fact I am claiming this same thing for every animal, plant, insect, stone, molecule, atom... you get the picture. From this perspective, I am saying you are as great as the universe but also as great as an amoeba. Does that sound like egotism? This position makes you neither greater nor lesser than any other being in All That Is. But it does make God much greater.
Z: How's that?
J-D: Obviously a God of infinite perspectives who is everywhere and knows everything and is of infinite power and ability is greater than a God who only holds some perspectives and can only live outside of you until you do certain "good and holy" things.
Z: Hmm. Another good argument.
J-D: So, I present you with a conundrum. If God is omnipotent and if God is love, then it would seem God must be one with you. And if God is omniscient, then God must be one with you. And if God is omnipresent, then God must be one with you.
So, now the choice is yours. Do you want to give up your belief in these attributes of God? Do you prefer to believe that God is less than these things? Do you want to say that God is not omnipotent, is not love, is not omniscient and is not omnipresent? Or do you wish to accept the inevitable truth that God is one with all... including you and each of your readers, of course?
Z: I'm sure there must be other arguments to be made.
J-D: You're right! There are always other arguments because there is always room to doubt or to create another view. That is your free will choice coming into play. And if that is the direction your heart is leading you, then you must, of course, follow your own truth. I am not here to tell you what your truth must be. I am here to tell you what my truth is. I make my case and I support it. Then you can decide.
Z: No, wait a minute. What I want to get at is that you have made quite a strong case that God holds all perspectives. I can agree that this might mean that God is able to know exactly what it is like to be me and have experienced things exactly as I did and all that stuff. But that is not the same thing as saying that God is one with me.
J-D: How is it not?
Z: Well, umm... what if God sort-of piggy backed with me in my mind... you know?
J-D: No. Either God is you experiencing your life exactly as you are experiencing it, or God's experience of your life is different from yours. You can't have it both ways. No matter how small the difference, any separation at all would break the rules of omniscience and omnipresence. But, as I say, we can keep riding this pony round and round finding little points to debate if we want to.
Z: No, I can see that. I accept what you say. It makes perfect sense and it actually does resonate in my heart too. But there is something that I can't quite figure out: why is God doing this? This seems like an awfully elaborate thing to do... to create this whole universe and fill it with who knows how many trillions of particles of Yourself who, none of them, know that they are You. Why go to all that effort? What is it all for?
J-D: Remember the parable in Chapter 3? The one about the king who drank the potion of forgetfulness? Well, it's a bit like that. God is engaged in an endless process of self-creation and self-discovery.
"How would it be if I was like this?" is the question which creates a new being... or a whole new universe. The journey into forgetting, which happens here in this reality, is one possible means of self-discovery.
"How would it be if I did not know who or what I really was?" leads to any number of realities. This is one of them. The reality is the question. You, each of you, are one possible answer.
"I am what happens to God under these conditions," is the answer that you are busy returning.
Z: Okay... so I am one with God and we all are. And we are engaged in a journey of self-discovery. By engaging in my own personal journey of self-discovery I bring more self-knowledge to the all.
J-D: Good! Yes! If you would like to discover God, then the best place to begin is by discovering yourself.
Z: Hmm. I follow the logic but... that seems awfully... I mean... won't some people find that a bit blasphemous?
J-D: Oh, assuredly! But then there are those who will find the very notion of this conversation blasphemous. Look hard enough and you'll find someone who will label just being happy as blasphemous. So I cannot concern myself with what others will choose to think or believe. For myself, I find the whole concept of blasphemy to be without meaning. It is ridiculous to think that you are capable of offending God or hurting God's feelings. You most certainly can hold beliefs and opinions that can hurt you though. And, holding hateful thoughts about God, for example, will do that. But, given enough time and a little loving guidance, all beings eventually come to decide that they don't like hurting themselves and then they stop doing this and choose something more constructive instead. Something that brings them peace, love and joy. And, loving God will certainly do that. God knows this. God sees you as you truly are. You cannot do or say some momentary little thing that could offend God. It is actually totally impossible because God, being infinite, is literally bigger than that.
Z: So, what then is blasphemy? If God cannot be offended, why do we even have this word?
J-D: The notion of blasphemy is a fiction used by some to control others via fear. It dates back to the most ancient times when shamans and witch-doctors would tell the tribe that they had to behave in certain ways or the gods would be unhappy and then there would be a poor harvest... or some similar notion. This is exactly the same idea that is presented to you in your society by religious authorities who demand that you think, believe and act a certain way and only say certain approved things. If you step outside of the bounds they set for you then, they tell you, you will displease God who will then make your life hard or even smite you with pestilence and cause you to die. And then, of course, will cause you to be tormented with agony for an eternity. It is the same story of manipulation and control all over again. The only difference is that the newer religions are perhaps a little more cruel and violent in their imagined punishment for those who don't do as they demand. But no matter. It is all equally erroneous. God does not create narrow rules for you to follow. God gives you free will instead. God is not a petulant child to throw a tantrum when you take up the offer of free will. God is not a vindictive, cruel sadist to hurt you for making very human, very normal errors in judgement. You hurt yourself over these errors and will, absolutely guaranteed without fail, learn from your errors eventually and, given a little time, come to make better decisions. So what would be the point of punishing you? Punishment does not teach you anything. Letting you get exactly what you have created is what teaches you. God is certainly not unobservant, ignorant or unintelligent. God will not do what does not work.
The entire notion of blasphemy and divine punishment is not only without merit, it also directly contravenes what God is and how God would behave. God is one with you and God is beyond the desire to hate or punish Itself.
If there is such a thing as blasphemy, then it is to suggest that there is such a thing as blasphemy (he smiles)
Z: All right. I am ready to accept that. So then clearly it isn't a blasphemous thought to think that the best place to discover God is to look inside my own heart?
J-D: It certainly isn't! I'll remind you of one of my old favourites again: is it not said that you are made in the image of God? Is this not another way of saying, "If you want to see an image of God... then look at yourself!"
Z: Ah. Yes. I suppose that is so.
J-D: Again. I don't mean just your physical body. I mean that which you really are. Your truest, deepest essence. And if this is so, then it follows that striving to truly, deeply comprehend your own deepest essence is striving to know God.
Z: Ah! That makes sense. But we are all God. I mean everything is. So why can I not begin discovering God by looking around me at another person or at nature or something?
J-D: You could try that. And it would work to the degree that observing what is around you helps you to find greater comprehension of yourself. You see, you cannot understand something in another if you have not seen it in yourself first – it will just puzzle you.
"How can they be that way?" you might ask yourself as you walk away shaking your head. If, however, you have seen this thing in yourself, then you will be able to empathise with this other. You will give them a gift of your comprehension that may even help them to understand themselves too. So self-discovery is the key. And self-love is the door. And self-acceptance is how you pass through that door. And this is the journey for which you were created. You see, not only is God looking out at the world through your eyes but, by looking inwards from your perspective, God is looking at Itself. And so it is that you gift God with a new perspective of Itself whenever you discover a little more about yourself.
Z: Hey, that's pretty cool! It means that God is in a constant process of Self-creation and Self-discovery as a result of all these processes that all of us are engaged with.
J-D: Yes! We are God discovering Itself.
Z: All of us altogether are engaged in the same great work then?
J-D: Yes. Even the aspects of God that are doing that which seems to be the worst, darkest things. Even they are creating an opportunity for self-discovery. They do this directly through their own experiences as they grow and discover themselves and also indirectly because they offer light-oriented ones the opportunity to define themselves and discover themselves in opposition to the darkness. If there were no great and powerful enemy, you would never have the opportunity to discover that you are courageous, that you will stand up and do the right thing despite the odds. If there were no one doing wrong, then how would you decide to do right? And so on. The dark ones are just as valuable to the greater process as the light ones. And if you are playing a dark game, then the joy to be had out of changing course and returning to the light is sublime. And of course there really is no such thing as "dark ones" or "light ones". Not really. You all hold both of those states within yourselves. You have all, at some point in your incarnational story and even at some point in this life, done some very unloving things and been to a "dark" place. And everyone, no matter how "dark", will at some point turn around and return to the light. If not in this lifetime, then at some future point. I tell you all is one. And we are all engaged, each in our own way, in the process of the discovery of who we really are. And in so doing we are in a process of constant creation. And this is our service to God
Z: That is pleasing to me to think. Thank you for that awesome perspective. But there remains one last obstacle to my accepting your premise that all is one. Such a belief would seem to me to mean that there is no good and evil, no right and no wrong. That we can just do whatever we want, however we want, to whoever we want and that all things will just be acceptable to God. And that doesn't sit right with me. This "all is one" thing seems to lead to a rather amoral stance.
J-D: Only because you have misunderstood it. I want to take a break here as I feel I have addressed the question in that I have made a case for God being one with all when viewed from the religious perspective. You are now asking the perfect question to lead me directly to the next topic, "The Implications of the Oneness". You have hit upon an important issue, which is the question of morality and rules for living. You have made an incorrect assumption, though, which I would like to correct. But all this will be in the next chapter...
* * * * *