Collapsing the Distance Between God and Ourself

Summary

The transcript explores the duality between individual consciousness and the concept of God, questioning the nature of existence and the relationship between the self and the divine. It delves into the idea that the 'I am' consciousness present in every individual might be an expression of God's infinite being. The dialogue challenges the notion of separateness, suggesting that identifying as a finite, independent person could be considered blasphemous, as it denies the omnipresence of God. It posits that true blasphemy is not claiming to be God, but rather claiming to be a separate, limited entity.

Takeaways

• 🔍 The speaker grapples with the duality between their consciousness and what they refer to as 'God's existence', acknowledging a separation yet questioning its necessity.
• 🌟 They describe 'mystical experiences' that suggest the presence of a divine entity, alongside ordinary human experiences that confirm their individual consciousness.
• 🧐 There's a resistance to questioning this duality, which the speaker associates with the fear of spiritual arrogance and the limitations of language.
• 🤔 The speaker explores the concept of existence and being, suggesting that while objects exist, they are manifestations of a singular, infinite being they equate with God.
• 💡 The idea that 'I am' is a fundamental expression of being, which the speaker suggests is not limited by time or form, aligning with the eternal nature of God.
• 🌱 The speaker considers the possibility that their sense of 'I am' is a reflection of God's presence within them, challenging the notion of separate existences.
• 🌌 They argue that existence is a shared quality, and everything that exists emerges from a single, infinite being, which could be identified as God.
• 🤝 The speaker concludes that the 'I am' that individuals know is the same infinite being known as God, suggesting that recognizing this unity is not arrogant but necessary.
• 🚫 The speaker identifies the claim 'I am a person' as blasphemous, as it implies a separation from the infinite being and denies the omnipresence of God.
• 🙏 The dialogue encourages a deep introspection into one's own nature and the nature of God, suggesting that true understanding comes from recognizing the unity of all existence.

Q & A

What is the duality the speaker discusses in their experience?

The speaker discusses the duality between their existence as consciousness and what they refer to as God's existence. They describe two different sets of experiences: mystical experiences that suggest the presence of a divine entity, and ordinary human experiences that confirm their existence as consciousness.

Why does the speaker feel there might be resistance to questioning the duality between consciousness and God?

The speaker suggests that the resistance to questioning this duality might stem from a fear of spiritual arrogance and the challenge it poses to one's understanding of self and the divine. It's also tied to the difficulty in exploring what God is, as it depends on one's preconceived notions of God.

What does the speaker mean when they say they are 'ever-present'?

The speaker means that they have never experienced the absence of their own consciousness. They are always aware, without beginning or end, suggesting an eternal, unchanging presence that is not subject to birth or death.

How does the speaker differentiate between 'being' and 'existence'?

The speaker differentiates 'being' as the underlying, ever-present, and infinite nature of consciousness, while 'existence' refers to the temporary, limited manifestations of thoughts, feelings, and perceptions that stand out from this background of being.

What is the significance of the speaker's statement that they are 'infinite'?

The speaker's statement that they are 'infinite' signifies that their consciousness lacks any finite qualities and is not limited by time or space. It implies an eternal and boundless nature that is not subject to the constraints of physical existence.

Why does the speaker hesitate to equate their consciousness with God?

The speaker hesitates because equating their consciousness with God feels like a projection of their own experiences onto a divine concept. They also mention a fear of spiritual arrogance and the cultural and religious implications of making such a claim.

What is the role of language and terminology in the speaker's exploration of consciousness and God?

Language and terminology play a significant role as the speaker navigates the concepts of consciousness and God. They discuss how the use of certain words like 'consciousness' and 'awareness' can influence one's understanding and the limitations these terms might impose on the exploration of these profound ideas.

How does the speaker address the idea that God might be aware?

The speaker addresses the idea that God must be aware by suggesting that for God to know anything, including its own eternal nature, it must possess awareness. This awareness is a fundamental quality that allows for the knowledge of self and other.

What is the implication of the speaker's statement that 'I am God' is not arrogant, but 'I am a person' is?

The implication is that recognizing oneself as God is an acknowledgment of the unity and infinite nature of being, which aligns with the speaker's understanding of the non-dual nature of reality. Claiming to be a separate, finite person, on the other hand, is seen as a denial of this unity and an assertion of a limited, individual existence, which the speaker considers blasphemous.

How does the speaker's view on the nature of existence relate to the concept of God?

The speaker views existence as a shared, common factor among all things, suggesting that all things emerge from a single, infinite being. This concept aligns with the idea of God as the source from which all existence derives, with the individual 'I am' being a manifestation of God's infinite being within the limited context of personal experience.