Are you God?
This is a hypothetical discussion between two spiritualists. One of them claims that he has now become God by getting enlightened, and the other is asking some tricky questions to him. I am referring to the one who claimed himself as God as “Enlightened_manGod” , and the other person as Ordinary_someone. The Enligntened_manGod started by (mis)quoting a verse from Bhagavad Gita.
Enlightened_manGod: An enlightened sage sees him self in God, and god in himself ,and god in all, and him in all.Ordinary_someone: You mean to say that now you are seeing me as different from you, and when you become enlightened, you will see yourself as me? Ok.. then look at this hypothetical conversation:
Enlightened_manGod: I have become enlightened. You and I are same.
Ordinary_someone: But I am not you.
Enlightened_manGod: You will understand that when you will get enlightened.
Ordinary_someone: That means I am not enlightened now, but you are enlightened, right?
Enlightened_manGod: Yes.
Ordinary_someone: But according to you, you and I are same. Therefore, it impossible that one among us gets enlightened, but the other remains in illusion.
Enlightened_manGod: All varieties exists only under illusion. When we get liberated from illusion, everything is one.
Ordinary_someone: If that is your idea of liberation, then would you ever get liberated?
Enlightened_manGod: Why not?
Ordinary_someone: See, according to you you are everyone. That means you won’t get liberated until the time everyone gets liberated. That means no one ever got liberated. But scriptures talk about so many people getting liberated in the past.
Enlightened_manGod: When one gets liberated, he doesn’t see anyone other than himself. In that state he will realize that all those who he was thinking were existing were only a figment of his imagination.
Ordinary_someone: That means I am also a figment of your imagination?
Enlightened_manGod: Yes.
Ordinary_someone: That means when I am disagreeing with you, basically you are imagining some disagreement.
Enlightened_manGod: Yes.
Ordinary_someone: If I am just your imagination, then why try to imagine that I get me agree with you. See, you can’t get me to agree with you. And that itself proves that you and I are different.
======================
This is a simple argument which challenges a widespread notion that one becomes God after enlightenment. There are many people who would like to go in to a debate on this issue. They may even use scriptures to backup their arguments. But what I feel is that most people do not understand the language in which the scriptures are written(sanskrit), and so they go by the intellectual satisfaction that these mistranslates and misinterpreted versions of the original scriptures gives them. But a scrutinizing study of the scriptures can revel the truth to the seeker.
Powered by FireStats
“Enlightenment” , is a construct of the mind, there for it cannot be real because the mind is not real (when you die so does your mind, because it is matter). “Enlightenment” like anything else in this world is based on concepts , concepts taught through the word or language. There for not only would “Enlightenment” differ for each individual but because it is a construct developed around words and concepts that can only exist within the mind, there for “enlightenment” is only as real as some one allows it to be within themselves. You are simply living in a matrix where enlightment is part of the matrix, possibly a “higher” form of the matrix but still part none the less.
Hi Andre, Nice to see your comment [:)]
I am putting my views about your comments. Would love to hear back from you.
Did you mean to say that because mind can be destroyed, so it is unreal? Maybe thats true. Let us assume that indestructibility is a criteria for something to called “real”. Then I wonder what in this world is “real”? Is your computer real? You can destroy it, and transform it to something else, because it is matter. But the atoms and molecules that made up the computer does exist even after you destroy the computer. So what is that which was destroyed? Just the appearance that we call a “computer”. Similarly, if the mass energy equivalence is true, is shouldn’t be impossible to destroy even an atom. That means even the atom too is just an appearance, and hence unreal.
Then what in this world is real? Alternatively, is there anything in this world that is indestructible. Maybe we can’t see it using the senses, which themselves are destructible. According to Vedanta, “You”, the being that perceives the perceptions, are indestructible. And its not a statement to be “believed”, but its something for you to realize. And the process is called self realization.
Words are means of communication. But the communication is about something understandable/experienciable.
Did you mean to say that because it explained by words and concepts, the understanding/experience will differ from one to the other? Then what about the laws of physics? Aren’t they too trying to explain something using words and concepts?
Hmm.. I tend to agree with that. But then the next question that arises in this context is how did this matrix come in to existance. Are we, the individual perceivers, God? Did we ourself create the whole universe as a our mental construct? I don’t think so.
Looking forward for your opinion.