• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are You a God

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Yes, and every single example we have of someone who experiences things is in the form of a being with a living brain. We have zero examples of any kind of disembodied or universal consciousness.
I disagree with that claim from the Near Death Experience and other types of paranormal phenomena suggesting consciousness can exist without a working physical brain. I think there are lots of examples. Here's some I am impressed by: Afterlife Evidence

If it cannot be demonstrated to others, there is no way to rationally convince ourselves because our experience could just as easily be a hallucination, lucid dream, or other altered form of consciousness which we know are not reliable means to accurately perceive reality.
In that passage I talked about demonstrating to 'ourselves' as we know we can not demonstrate mental experiences to others. Please re-read the quote you are responding to.

We are told that when Universal Consciousness is experienced we will know beyond the inherent job of the rational mind to doubt. I have not personally experienced Universal Consciousness but have rationally come to believe that those that teach of it are on the right track. The evidence I linked above and the teachings of many 'advanced' souls dovetail into the theory I find most reasonable without really a close second theory.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
So have I.
Probably no reason to believe me but you have a reason to believe them? Followed a Guru from India for many years and sat-cit-ananda was all they talked about. Well not all but he/they talked about it a lot.

You experience something, joy, awareness, a state of pure existence. Call it satchitananda, it was described as "truth is the consciousness of bliss". Are you conscious of bliss?

Being conscious of bliss, does this make you a God?

Such an experience is beyond words, however, satcitananda (existence, consciousness, bliss) is as close a descriptor for the experience that I have seen.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Such an experience is beyond words, however, satcitananda (existence, consciousness, bliss) is as close a descriptor for the experience that I have seen.

It is a real experience, right? Enough have experience, that I confident enough that it's not something made up.

However it's an experience of what exactly? That we can have such an experience, does this prove what is said about it?
 

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
It is a real experience, right? Enough have experience, that I confident enough that it's not something made up.

However it's an experience of what exactly? That we can have such an experience, does this prove what is said about it?

Freedom from bondage. We bind ourselves with our mind and are bound by consequences of past actions. The state of bliss is love and peace, but not as simple as that.

There is always a catch. It has to be selfless - that is the only way we can always be in that state without disturbance or diversion and help or uplift others.
In order to do that, we have to naturally be in the consciousness of embracing others , as if they are us, not just "ours". The problem with "our" or "mine" is that points back to the false me - this individual, and worry for the individual body becomes an obstacle to selfless love with abandon.

Only when one has nothing left to lose , is one perpetually in the state of existence-consciousness-bliss.
In order to be in that state of consciousness, one has no choice but to stop identifying with the individual existence. My, mine, belongs to me, related to me....

So there can't be any loopholes in the 'arrival of that state'. This is why it is not merely a theoretical or intellectual understanding.

It is OK to get there in bits and pieces little at a time -- but always remember -- we are in the mortal state of bondage and Divine Grace can uplift us from the spiral, cycle, quicksand or whatever of material merry-go-round.

Divine Grace breaks the cycle, pulls one out of quicksand, and we put in our efforts too.

The Shri VaishNav (followers of RAmAnuja - a saint in South India thousands of yrs ago) will say:
1. You can be a kitten, and let God hold you and carry you like Mother Cat
OR
2. You can be the baby monkey and hold on to God like Mother Monkey.

The kitten has no fear -- has surrendered completely, whereas the baby monkey wants to keep his identity and do something on his own -- has to keep on holding, there is the chance of slipping otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I disagree with that claim from the Near Death Experience and other types of paranormal phenomena suggesting consciousness can exist without a working physical brain. I think there are lots of examples.
The key word there is near. These are folks who are nearly dead, meaning not actually dead. Meaning they have some brain activity. We have zero examples confirming consciousness in someone who is actually, completely brain dead.

Here's some I am impressed by: Afterlife Evidence
Going through all the points on this website would take some time and lead us down a dozen rabbit trails. Why dont you pick what you think is the best piece of evidence on the site and I'll walk through it with you.

But I do have to say...this is a site that thinks Ouija boards are a legitimate tool for contacting spirits.

Really, George? Ouija boards?

In that passage I talked about demonstrating to 'ourselves' as we know we can not demonstrate mental experiences to others. Please re-read the quote you are responding to.
I'm sorry George, but I have to reflect that advice right back to you. What I said in response to you is, "If it cannot be demonstrated to others, there is no way to rationally convince ourselves..." To be clear, the question is not whether people have had experiences. The question is whether those experiences map onto anything in reality, outside their heads. If you cannot independently verify an experience, there is no rational way to distinguish between a hallucination, lucid dream, or some other altered state and an actual experience of "the divine" or "universal consciousness" or what have you.

We are told that when Universal Consciousness is experienced we will know beyond the inherent job of the rational mind to doubt.
I have not personally experienced Universal Consciousness but have rationally come to believe that those that teach of it are on the right track. The evidence I linked above and the teachings of many 'advanced' souls dovetail into the theory I find most reasonable without really a close second theory.
The second, frankly more plausible, theory is that folks experience altered states of consciousness through various means, which we can and have studied empirically. They're not good ways to determine what's verifiably real outside your head. NDEs get you no closer to "universal consciousness."
 
Last edited:

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
The key word there is near. These are folks who are nearly dead, meaning not actually dead. Meaning they have some brain activity. We have zero examples confirming consciousness in someone who is actually, completely brain dead.

I am personally impressed in Near Death Experiences by cases with experiencers knowing verifiable events (activities of doctors and nurses) during times when no higher brain activity was occurring. (Some of these events even external to the room they were in and viewed from an out of body perspective.) Veridical Near Death Experiences

The materialist view would seem to me to predict a fading out to no consciousness (as opposed to an expansion of consciousness).

Then you didn't consider too closely (which In understand as it is quite lengthy) the evidence from people dead for many years (mediumistic, etc.) in that website.


I'm sorry George, but I have to reflect that advice right back to you. What I said in response to you is, "If it cannot be demonstrated to others, there is no way to rationally convince ourselves..." To be clear, the question is not whether people have had experiences. The question is whether those experiences map onto anything in reality, outside their heads. If you cannot independently verify an experience, there is no rational way to distinguish between a hallucination, lucid dream, or some other altered state and an actual experience of "the divine" or "universal consciousness" or what have you.
The experiencers are saying when you have the experience you will KNOW and it will no longer be a theory. I think they are likely correct and honest about this.

You can take your 'how do we know' argument into everything and say we know nothing about anything. I can only determine what I find most reasonable to believe and be content with that (until I know I experienced ultimate truth).

The second, frankly more plausible, theory is that folks experience altered states of consciousness through various means, which we can and have studied empirically. They're not good ways to determine what's verifiably real outside your head. NDEs get you no closer to "universal consciousness."
Well, after consideration of the full evidence and argumentation I believe what my best reasoning tells me is most reasonable to believe. I actually find the materialist worldview very much untenable from my years of investigation into spirituality and the paranormal.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I am personally impressed in Near Death Experiences by cases with experiencers knowing verifiable events (activities of doctors and nurses) during times when no higher brain activity was occurring. (Some of these events even external to the room they were in and viewed from an out of body perspective.) Veridical Near Death Experiences
Let's walk through some of the examples:

An elderly woman had been blind since childhood. But, during her NDE, the woman had regained her sight and she was able to accurately describe the instruments and techniques used during the resuscitation her body. After the woman was revived, she reported the details to her doctor. She was able to tell her doctor who came in and out, what they said, what they wore, what they did, all of which was true. Her doctor then referred the woman to Moody who he knew was doing research at the time on NDEs.
Several points here: does "blind" mean legally blind? Or completely, actually unable to see anything at all? Blind people are able to tell when people come in and out of the room and often who they are if they know them, as well as what they do in the room if it makes noise - we don't get any specifics of who she knew ahead of time or what specific things she was able to describe. Not a convincing example of much unless we have significantly more verified details.


In another instance a woman with a heart condition was dying at the same time that her sister was in a diabetic coma in another part of the same hospital. The subject reported having a conversation with her sister as both of them hovered near the ceiling watching the medical team work on her body below. When the woman awoke, she told the doctor that her sister had died while her own resuscitation was taking place. The doctor denied it, but when she insisted, he had a nurse check on it. The sister had, in fact, died during the time in question.
So a woman accurately reported that her sister died when she knew she was in a diabetic coma in the same hospital. The chances that someone could accurately guess this are considerably higher than random chance.

A dying girl left her body and into another room in the hospital where she found her older sister crying and saying:

"Oh, Kathy, please don't die, please don't die."

The older sister was quite baffled when, later, Kathy told her exactly where she had been and what she had been saying during this time.

"After it was all over, the doctor told me that I had a really bad time, and I said, "Yeah, I know."

He said, "Well, how do you know?"And I said, "I can tell you everything that happened."

He didn't believe me, so I told him the whole story, from the time I stopped breathing until the time I was kind of coming around. He was really shocked to know that I knew everything that had happened. He didn't know quite what to say, but he came in several times to ask me different things about it.

When I woke up after the accident, my father was there, and I didn't even want to know what sort of shape I was in, or how I was, or how the doctors thought I would be. All I wanted to talk about was the experience I had been through. I told my father who had dragged my body out of the building, and even what color clothes that person had on, and how they got me out, and even about all the conversation that had been going on in the area.

And my father said, "Well, yes, these things were true."

Yet, my body was physically out this whole time, and there was no way I could have seen or heard these things without being outside of my body.
Firstly, I don't know how she ruled out the idea that she could have been aware of these things while physically alive. People are aware of all kinds of things when in a semi- or barely conscious state, especially when something traumatic just happened.

The fact that she "knew" her sister was in another room (let me guess, the waiting room?) and was saying, "please don't die," while her sister was nearly dead, is again, not terribly remarkable.

The fact that these examples are so vague and we have no confirmation or independent verification of the claims is telling.

Then you didn't consider too closely (which In understand as it is quite lengthy) the evidence from people dead for many years (mediumistic, etc.) in that website.
I'm sorry George, but mediums are well- known frauds. Find me a medium or psychic whose abilities have been tested and confirmed in peer reviewed scientific literature.

You can take your 'how do we know' argument into everything and say we know nothing about anything.
Totally false. The way we know things about the external world is through independent verification, and we do so all the time. If I have an experience that no one else can confirm when I ask - they dont see what I see, they don't hear what I hear, etc. - that's an extremely obvious sign that I should be skeptical of my experiences. This is so, so basic George.

Well, after consideration of the full evidence and argumentation I believe what my best reasoning tells me is most reasonable to believe. I actually find the materialist worldview very much untenable from my years of investigation into spirituality and the paranormal.
When you can show me peer reviewed scientific literature that demonstrates the legitimacy of anything paranormal, come find me.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
So have I.
Probably no reason to believe me but you have a reason to believe them? Followed a Guru from India for many years and sat-cit-ananda was all they talked about. Well not all but he/they talked about it a lot.

You experience something, joy, awareness, a state of pure existence. Call it satchitananda, it was described as "truth is the consciousness of bliss". Are you conscious of bliss?

Being conscious of bliss, does this make you a God?

Why go by presumed definition of God?

Why is it not useful to know one’s true nature?

I see the body. Am I the body? I see the thoughts. Am I the thoughts? I see the breath. Am I the breath?

We all presume that ‘I am this’. But ‘this’ is an object of cognition of “I”, the subject.

All religions have prescribed “Know Thyself”.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Are you a god?

jesus said yes.
ray was told to say yes.
alan said yes.
the mahavakyas say yes
if the ALL is omnipresent, yes.

We will still need to know what I am? Agreeing to scripture may not help. No?

“If this God has become this universe, you and all these things are God. Certainly. This book is God, everything is God. My body is God, and my mind is God, and my soul is God. Then why are there so many Jivas? Has God become divided into millions of Jivas? Does that one God turn into millions of Jivas? Then how did it become so? How can that infinite power and substance, the one Being of the universe, become divided? It is impossible to divide infinity. How can that pure Being become this universe? If He has become the universe, He is changeful, and if He is changeful, He is part of nature, and whatever is nature and changeful is born and dies. If our God is changeful, He must die some day. Take note of that. Again, how much of God has become this universe ? If you say X (the unknown algebraical quantity), then God is God minus X now, and, therefore, not the same God as before this creation, because so much has become this universe.

So the non-dualists say, "This universe does not exist at all; it is all illusion. The whole of this universe, these Devas, gods, angels, and all the other beings born and dying, all this infinite number of souls coming up and going down, are all dreams." There is no Jiva at all. How can there be many? It is the one Infinity. As the one sun, reflected on various pieces of water, appears to be many, and millions of globules of water reflect so many millions of suns, and in each globule will be a perfect image of the sun, yet there is only one sun, so are all these Jivas but reflections in different minds. These different minds are like so many different globules, reflecting this one Being. God is being reflected in all these different Jivas. But a dream cannot be without a reality, and that reality is that one Infinite Existence. You, as body, mind, or soul, are a dream, but what you really are, is Existence, Knowledge, Bliss. You are the God of this universe. You are creating the whole universe and drawing it in. Thus says the Advaitist. So all these births and rebirths, coming and going are the figments of Mâyâ. You are infinite. Where can you go? The sun, the moon, and the whole universe are but drops in your transcendent nature. How can you be born or die? I never was born, never will be born. I never had father or mother, friends or foes, for I am Existence, Knowledge, Bliss Absolute. I am He, I am He. So, what is the goal, according to this philosophy? That those who receive this knowledge are one with the universe. For them, all heavens and even Brahmaloka are destroyed, the whole dream vanishes, and they find themselves the eternal God of the universe. They attain their real individuality, with its infinite knowledge and bliss, and become free. Pleasures in little things cease. We are finding pleasure in this little body, in this little individuality. How much greater the pleasure when this whole universe is my body! If there is pleasure in one body, how much more when all bodies are mine! Then is freedom attained. And this is called Advaita, the non-dualistic Vedanta philosophy.

These are the three steps which Vedanta philosophy has taken, and we cannot go any further, because we cannot go beyond unity. When a science reaches a unity, it cannot by any manner of means go any further. You cannot go beyond this idea of the Absolute.”

Swami Vivekananda, Steps of Hindu Philosophic Thought
 
Last edited:

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Why go by presumed definition of God?

Why is it not useful to know one’s true nature?

I see the body. Am I the body? I see the thoughts. Am I the thoughts? I see the breath. Am I the breath?

We all presume that ‘I am this’. But ‘this’ is an object of cognition of “I”, the subject.

All religions have prescribed “Know Thyself”.

Why use the term God? I'd suppose in this case the question would be, "Are you yourself?"
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Why use the term God? I'd suppose in this case the question would be, "Are you yourself?"

Why not? 'I am myself' is okay but what it conveys? Nothing, since self is not known.

On the other hand, the aim of scripture is to point out that one is not helpless toy of body-mind. One is the subject that cognises the body-mind and is indeed the controller.

Then there is another step of gnosis. Let me repeat the spoiler:

“If this God has become this universe, you and all these things are God. Certainly. This book is God, everything is God. My body is God, and my mind is God, and my soul is God. Then why are there so many Jivas? Has God become divided into millions of Jivas? Does that one God turn into millions of Jivas? Then how did it become so? How can that infinite power and substance, the one Being of the universe, become divided? It is impossible to divide infinity. How can that pure Being become this universe? If He has become the universe, He is changeful, and if He is changeful, He is part of nature, and whatever is nature and changeful is born and dies. If our God is changeful, He must die some day. Take note of that. Again, how much of God has become this universe ? If you say X (the unknown algebraical quantity), then God is God minus X now, and, therefore, not the same God as before this creation, because so much has become this universe.

So the non-dualists say, "This universe does not exist at all; it is all illusion. The whole of this universe, these Devas, gods, angels, and all the other beings born and dying, all this infinite number of souls coming up and going down, are all dreams." There is no Jiva at all. How can there be many? It is the one Infinity. As the one sun, reflected on various pieces of water, appears to be many, and millions of globules of water reflect so many millions of suns, and in each globule will be a perfect image of the sun, yet there is only one sun, so are all these Jivas but reflections in different minds. These different minds are like so many different globules, reflecting this one Being. God is being reflected in all these different Jivas. But a dream cannot be without a reality, and that reality is that one Infinite Existence. You, as body, mind, or soul, are a dream, but what you really are, is Existence, Knowledge, Bliss. You are the God of this universe. You are creating the whole universe and drawing it in. Thus says the Advaitist. So all these births and rebirths, coming and going are the figments of Mâyâ. You are infinite. Where can you go? The sun, the moon, and the whole universe are but drops in your transcendent nature. How can you be born or die? I never was born, never will be born. I never had father or mother, friends or foes, for I am Existence, Knowledge, Bliss Absolute. I am He, I am He. So, what is the goal, according to this philosophy? That those who receive this knowledge are one with the universe. For them, all heavens and even Brahmaloka are destroyed, the whole dream vanishes, and they find themselves the eternal God of the universe. They attain their real individuality, with its infinite knowledge and bliss, and become free. Pleasures in little things cease. We are finding pleasure in this little body, in this little individuality. How much greater the pleasure when this whole universe is my body! If there is pleasure in one body, how much more when all bodies are mine! Then is freedom attained. And this is called Advaita, the non-dualistic Vedanta philosophy.

These are the three steps which Vedanta philosophy has taken, and we cannot go any further, because we cannot go beyond unity. When a science reaches a unity, it cannot by any manner of means go any further. You cannot go beyond this idea of the Absolute.”

Swami Vivekananda, Steps of Hindu Philosophic Thought
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Let's walk through some of the examples:


Several points here: does "blind" mean legally blind? Or completely, actually unable to see anything at all? Blind people are able to tell when people come in and out of the room and often who they are if they know them, as well as what they do in the room if it makes noise - we don't get any specifics of who she knew ahead of time or what specific things she was able to describe. Not a convincing example of much unless we have significantly more verified details.



So a woman accurately reported that her sister died when she knew she was in a diabetic coma in the same hospital. The chances that someone could accurately guess this are considerably higher than random chance.


Firstly, I don't know how she ruled out the idea that she could have been aware of these things while physically alive. People are aware of all kinds of things when in a semi- or barely conscious state, especially when something traumatic just happened.

The fact that she "knew" her sister was in another room (let me guess, the waiting room?) and was saying, "please don't die," while her sister was nearly dead, is again, not terribly remarkable.

The fact that these examples are so vague and we have no confirmation or independent verification of the claims is telling.
Events like these by their nature are not things that can be reproduced and studied. This is where human reason becomes the sharpest tool in the shed. I have heard by now thousands of experiences of intelligent competent people that clearly suggests events occurred that are not reasonably explainable through the materialist understanding of consciousness. And I am sure a determined materialist can wiggle out a possible way to explain away each and every event but their efforts have become so unreasonable to me as to appear as desperate clinging to an old worldview.
I'm sorry George, but mediums are well- known frauds. Find me a medium or psychic whose abilities have been tested and confirmed in peer reviewed scientific literature.
You calling them well-known frauds does not make that so. I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that some have abilities not explainable through the materialist paradigm.

In fact Dr. Gary Schwartz and his associates have shown in dramatic odds against chance that certain gifted individuals can perform in even double-blind conditions. Of course the determined materialists must attack those researchers but I, as an observer, must judge for myself the reasonableness of all the evidence and argumentation. If I waited for all to get on board with anything I'd still be on a flat earth.

Totally false. The way we know things about the external world is through independent verification, and we do so all the time. If I have an experience that no one else can confirm when I ask - they dont see what I see, they don't hear what I hear, etc. - that's an extremely obvious sign that I should be skeptical of my experiences. This is so, so basic George.
The repeatable phenomena in areas like chemistry and physics for example are the strong suit of the scientific method. Science is of course great in its wheelhouse.

As far as the paranormal is concerned (as it is not perceivable by our physical senses and instruments) the closest we can get to the scientific method is controlled experiments that defy chance by fantastic amounts. I am convinced by the data that the paranormal is real beyond reasonable doubt (and I am aware of the objections of the determined materialists).

Now as for anecdotal evidence, an analysis of a body of data for quantity, quality and consistency can effect my views of reality. I believe so-called paranormal events not explainable in a materialist paradigm have occurred beyond all reasonable doubt.


When you can show me peer reviewed scientific literature that demonstrates the legitimacy of anything paranormal, come find me.
A peer reviewed article does not prove or disprove anything. It just means it was reviewed by peers. But anyway, here is a list of selected peer reviewed papers on psi phenomena. Peer Reviewed Papers on Psi Phenomena
 

1213

Well-Known Member
John 10:34-John 10:35 KJV Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

I believe that is John 10:33.

I think that is not meaning all possible people. It is referring to:


God presides in the great assembly. He judges among the gods…. …I said, "You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you shall die like men, And fall like one of the rulers."

Psalms 82:1,6-7

It was about that great assembly of gods.
 
Top