There is no God other than God
-
Peace,
Ego is us. I am my ego till the moment that INTENTION comes. The intention to WATCH . to watch the ego.
The first reaction of ego is to create guilt. By the pain of guilt ego likes you to stop watching. If you endure the pain of guilt and keep looking at ego. awareness grows. awareness can grow, because there is an opposite pole. thanks to ego. When the ego is unable to stop the watchfullness, it turns and will give you a compliment and says be PROUD of yourself! you are such an aware person! let?s have a break! and have some fun and celeberate this achievement. The ego is refined, but is back in new form!So while prgramming of attributes within yourself, humbleness must always accompany! Even when the ego shouts that you are the most humble ?person in the world. oh you are so knowledgeable. you are such a saint while others are sinners! the watchfullness sees!
Prophet Mohammad said That i made my satan a submitter.
The ego will always be there, but a high level of SELF-AWARENESS will make him submit!
peace,
-
Peace Alpha,
I agree that the ego is us, but I tend to think of it as the fearful part of us that wants control over everything but will never gain it. The ego is that part of us that continuously wants to survive, never die. On the one extreme it pursues a nice car, a nice house, materialistic things in order to try and accomplish this, to gain control over life. However, this is just the side of it that we see the most. The other extreme that is rarely talked about, is the 'religious aspect'. In this regard, the ego tells us to do good deeds, and relinquish certain pleasures, in order to gain everlasting life in heaven. When many of us think of heaven, we are thinking of our ego in heaven, our personality surviving for eternity.I definitely agree with what you state in that first paragraph. Many times people will sit and meditate for hours as if they are accomplishing something. They'll come back and say, I meditated for four whole hours, as if it is something to be proud of. This is just a re-emergence of the ego in the religious aspect. It is sad to see that some people who cannot attain certain pleasures, turn to religion and say to themselves that they are great people because now they've relinquished their desires. They've convinced themselves that they never wanted these pleasures to begin with, and now they are more 'religious'. The truth is, they could never gain such pleasures so they've lied to themselves... at the first opportunity in which their desire could be fulfilled they would most likely jump to the occassion.
You said it better then I could have ever said it. I do disagree with the idea that you must program attributes within yourself, and so must always be humble. This is because humbleness can turn into a goal to which you work, and this to me is once again the ego coming back in the 'religious aspect'. It is looking towards the future, stating that when you are humble and have all these 'good' attributes you will be able to control your ego. This is the ego once again talking, just like when people say they are trying to become enlightened. The whole point of enlightenment is that you are already there, you just have yet to see it. We're all free, we've just locked ourselves in invisible bars that when we finally witness will disappear, and we'll realize that we were free to begin with. There is nothing to work towards.
The higher self is part of us, just as it is part of everything else. This is the part of us that beats our heart, and transports blood through our veins. The very same thing that does these things within us, makes the stars explode into supernova, and puts the planets in their allignment. We call these things involuntary actions when we do them, but this is the higher self that has infinite knowledge. This is one reason why breathing has always been a big part of eastern as well as western religions. It is both involuntary and voluntary at the same time. You and I are that very same energy that was the big bang, and so we are never really different. I look forward to more discussion.
Take it easy. -
Peace,
Let,s get a bit practical on this!
Assume that one has a personality weakness that when he is around other people , he becomes restless. Now this is a part of developed personality! a part of ego. To avoid suffering one can start watching the ego to let it surrender
In reality many people are not succeful in this; some will achieve it and many will be defeated. So a sudden enlightment is grand if achievable! but if not succesful what to do?
How about you peace? do you have any part of your ego that sometimes takes over the control without asking you for your permission? ;D
The second approach is purification. Deconstruction and reconstruction. It is approaching the problem from beneath. Through subconsciousness. where the roots are located. In my understanding Salaat is that practice to realize that shift in consciousness to salvate one,s soul from impurities!
So It starts with small surrenders and it leads to bigger and bigger surrenders.
As you can see in natural evolution that changes are quantitative and they keep adding up till the big moment comes of a qualitative change. Something starts growing within the egg and this growth is of quantitative nature till the big moment that chicken manifests a qualitative change.
Islamic path values any effort along the path of surrender. from small to big. It is not an addition to ourselves! since higher self has no eye for identification!
we will talk more
peace
-
Peace Alphaaa,
Let,s get a bit practical on this!
Okay, practicality might help us.
Assume that one has a personality weakness that when he is around other people , he becomes restless. Now this is a part of developed personality! a part of ego. To avoid suffering one can start watching the ego to let it surrender
So here we are dealing with a person correcting his personality traits that 'he believes' are a weakness. It is his ego that is making him restless when he's around other people, and you are correct, by meditating (watching) he can take a step out of his ego, and look at things from a higher perspective. I agree with your analysis as long as the person is not trying to watch his ego so that he can correct a personality trait. He should simply be watching, and this alone will do the trick. There is no need for him to feel as if he needs to change something within himself. This is looking towards the future, the trick is to stay in the present, and so this 'problem' will simply disappear.
In reality many people are not succeful in this; some will achieve it and many will be defeated. So a sudden enlightment is grand if achievable! but if not succesful what to do?
You are correct in stating that many people will not be successful in doing this, but I think the key is to remember that it doesn't matter. Most people are constantly looking towards the future or the past, waiting to achieve something and not living. Gurus attempt to trick people into realizing they are enlightened; they do this by making them constantly try and control their desires, by making them believe that enlightenment is possible only when they are completely spiritually pure. They do this because, they know that the only way for a person to realize that they are already enlightened is by taking them to the extreme of what these people believe enlightenment requires. For instance, if I have it in the back of my mind that the only way to become enlightened is to never do bad things, then a guru will take me to the extreme of doing only good things, until I finally realize that I was already enlightened, and that there is nothing that can lead me there.
If a person isn't successful at achieving enlightenment there is nothing wrong with that. They are not ready to be awakened. A lot of people turn enlightenment into something that has to be worked for, much like, gaining financial success. They view enlightenment as something that when achieved will lead to their ultimate happiness, when all they have to do is realize that they are happy right this instant. There is no future, only now!
How about you peace? do you have any part of your ego that sometimes takes over the control without asking you for your permission?
Haha, of course Alpha. The ego is a funny thing, and it always tries to take control, but let me tell you something about it... It is more of a running commentary than anything else. It drones on and on and on, commenting on every little detail, always trying to rationalize, and compartmentalize everything into a category. It is in essence run by the fear of the unknown, death. Here's the thing though, the ego has no control at all. It is never your ego that does anything, the universe does you. All your actions are perfect. Thats my take on it anyway.
The second approach is purification. Deconstruction and reconstruction. It is approaching the problem from beneath. Through subconsciousness. where the roots are located. In my understanding Salaat is that practice to realize that shift in consciousness to salvate one,s soul from impurities!
If you want to change your personality, or your modality of thinking then yes, this is the way to go about it. My opinion is that there are no impurities, but if we think that there are, and we feel the need to correct them then that is the course of action we should take. We are playing our roles perfectly and there is no need for us to change, I am writing because this is what I feel like doing, you are doing salaat because this is what you feel like doing. Alan Watts would say that the Universe is doing us, in the same way that an apple tree creates apples, and so the universe peoples. We grow out of the universe.
So It starts with small surrenders and it leads to bigger and bigger surrenders.
As you can see in natural evolution that changes are quantitative and they keep adding up till the big moment comes of a qualitative change. Something starts growing within the egg and this growth is of quantitative nature till the big moment that chicken manifests a qualitative change.
Islamic path values any effort along the path of surrender. from small to big. It is not an addition to ourselves! since higher self has no eye for identification!
Yes surrender. Be completely vulnerable to life, this is key. When you do not feel the need to control things, and to let life take you wherever it does, you are then free from the ego. There is a verse in the Quran that I believe states everything in the heavens submits to god, willingly or unwillingly. Realize this, there is not a single thing you can do this instant, that would constitute not submitting to god.
It'll be great to talk some more, but now I feel like sleeping.
-
Peace,
I think the argument in the first post only underlines that one does not worship the God. The assumption of worship is what leads to conclusions that are not logical. I accept that any construct of the mind is unable to grasp the entity that is the God, but this is hardly a revelation.
1121 Say He is Allah, the One!
1122 God, the Eternal, Absolute;
1123 He begetteth not nor was begotten.
1124 And there is none comparable unto Him.The beauty of that surah is hard to convey in a paragraph but it boils down to the absolute essentials. The unity of the God is uppermost and is the core of the message of the reading and any revelation. There is only ONE source, absolute, and eternal. Finally there is nothing that can compare to Him. Therefore there is no material or mental creation that can compare or encapsulate Him.
Let's think of something else abstract. When I think of a color say red for arguments sake. Have I created something other than 'red' or 'redness' in my mind? Have I created a partner to red by imagining or thinking about it? Is my concept of 'red' the same as any or everyone else? The human mind operates by having constructs or 'names' (note that Adam was taught the names of things) in that it attempts to capture concepts into these names or I'll call them 'boxes'. Words are a way of conveying to someone else's mind the concept or 'box' that you are thinking of. Everyone has their own version of that 'box' in their minds and there is no guarantee that it is the same for everyone but the existence of that 'box' or concept in that person's mind is not a partner to the concept. The mind can't think in any other way.
The existence of the God is independent of my ideas or concepts. There are many names for the God, and the presence of all of these beautiful names does not create a set of partner gods but rather shows us aspects of the God without fully encapsulating Him (since we cannot). It is no sin to think of the God in these basic ways in my opinion.
And when you do the good things you are serving the God and complying with His desired plan. You are never worshipping and are not expected to worship since then your problem of partners begins to take place. I hope there is some clarity in what I have attempted to convey though these are difficult concepts to write about succinctly.
Peace.
-
Peace peace,
There is something within us humans called will power. EGO is the controller of this will power the most of the time. EGO is the one who decides! The universe is the executer of that will which is borrowed to humans! so let,s make a distiction between doer/decider and executer.
EGO is a reference system within us. when it shifts we are not able to catch it! unless already encounterd our darkness! It catches us! that is why everybody believes that his own religion and ideas are the best one! From EGO point of virew that is obviouse!
One of the attractive points of EGO is that it pretends to have no ego problems! Jealouse people have a difficult time to separate and watch their egos. people addicted to sex, can not become the watcher of their ego, not bvecause their time of awakening has not come, but the technic should change. A sex addicted should keep distance from all sex related items for a good long time. Then he can start bit by bit encountering his darkness and come to point to transcend it! He gotta sweat for it, there is no easy short cut! comfort is one of the favorite activities of ego
we will talk more soon
peace,
-
Peace Truth,
I think the argument in the first post only underlines that one does not worship the God. The assumption of worship is what leads to conclusions that are not logical. I accept that any construct of the mind is unable to grasp the entity that is the God, but this is hardly a revelation.
Yes you are right. I haven't looked at what I've written for a while, but I see that it does have to do with the way in which we worship god, and should not pose any problems for serving god. Our mind has the inability to grasp what God is, but I believe that our soul can. I'm now of the opinion that everything I see, hear, feel, am, is God (everything unseen too) , so that might help you understand where I'm coming from, even if you might not agree with it.
The beauty of that surah is hard to convey in a paragraph but it boils down to the absolute essentials. The unity of the God is uppermost and is the core of the message of the reading and any revelation. There is only ONE source, absolute, and eternal. Finally there is nothing that can compare to Him. Therefore there is no material or mental creation that can compare or encapsulate Him.
We're in agreement here, nothing can compare or encapsulate god.
Let's think of something else abstract. When I think of a color say red for arguments sake. Have I created something other than 'red' or 'redness' in my mind? Have I created a partner to red by imagining or thinking about it? Is my concept of 'red' the same as any or everyone else? The human mind operates by having constructs or 'names' (note that Adam was taught the names of things) in that it attempts to capture concepts into these names or I'll call them 'boxes'. Words are a way of conveying to someone else's mind the concept or 'box' that you are thinking of. Everyone has their own version of that 'box' in their minds and there is no guarantee that it is the same for everyone but the existence of that 'box' or concept in that person's mind is not a partner to the concept. The mind can't think in any other way.
These are good questions, and I'll try my best to answer them. Let's say though that there is an objective color red, and that my thought of red is not this objective color but something similar. In this scenario, I would say that yes, I've created a color besides red in my mind. It is not the objective color red, but something else. The partner bit I'm not so sure of. Is green a partner to red? I don't think so, so I guess my answer would be no. However, this is where I don't understand the problem that the Quran poses to idolworship. For instance, Abraham broke his father's idols, why did he do this? Was it because they were false representations of God, or for another reason? Can a religion make statues they believe are proper representations of god, or is this something that is forbidden? My argument is that our mind is creating these very same statues when we try to think about god. For example, from a Quranic point of view, we've never witnessed god. So with your analogy to red, let us say that we have no idea what red is, we've never seen it. Now let us say that we've been given a book that claims to tell us all about this color we've never witnessed. The book might say, well, its a bright color, it's associated with fast cars, women look sexy when they where it, etc.... My mind would create an image of what I think this color looks like, but it would never be the color red; instead it would be a color different from red that I label as red. Therefore, when we are thinking about god using the attributes in the quran, we are making a mental representation of a god that is not god. What is the difference between doing this, and creating statues with the attributes in the quran?
The existence of the God is independent of my ideas or concepts. There are many names for the God, and the presence of all of these beautiful names does not create a set of partner gods but rather shows us aspects of the God without fully encapsulating Him (since we cannot). It is no sin to think of the God in these basic ways in my opinion.
The existence of God as being independent from ideas and concepts is one that I no longer subscribe to. I no longer look at God as out there, rather, I look at god as being everywhere, and no where at the same time. I understand what you're saying, but I cannot see the difference between creating statues with these names as representations of God, and creating a mental idea of what God is. To me both these things are the same.
And when you do the good things you are serving the God and complying with His desired plan. You are never worshipping and are not expected to worship since then your problem of partners begins to take place. I hope there is some clarity in what I have attempted to convey though these are difficult concepts to write about succinctly.
I agree with this, and yes, it seems that worship is the main problem that this argument deals with. Serving god is what needs to be done, not sitting around thinking about what god is. I hope I have conveyed one fifth of the clarity you provided me with. Thanks for the discussion. Peace
-
Hi peace,
There is quite alot to respond to in your post but I'll focus on just a few to explore some deeper concepts.
As for the God being everywhere. This is a trap that we can fall into quite easily and it can lure us into the belief of pantheism. However if one is to truly understand the concept of the God being everywhere, and everything then there are some verses that point to this such as the one about the God being closer to us than our main blood vessels (usually translated as jugular vein). If you read up on some philosophy of mental monadism or the concept usually termed 'the brain in a vat' theory (which is almost a description of the 'matrix' you'll realise that everything is subjective and it is difficult in fact to point to anything which is truly objective.
That being the case it is my view that all of our experiences, every single one of them is merely an animation provided by the God. I see all our experience as being like a 'broadcast' signal from the source and if the God were to suddenly stop that broadcast then existence as we know it would cease. That's why the God is the Lord of all existence. The God is not remote from His creation, He is the Sustainer, the One who is Absolute in its and our existence, the One who makes every single moment possible. All existence and experience is possible through continuous sustenance by the One. In this sense the God is everywhere and everything since they all require His existence. Everything therefore points to Him and is a Sign.
Coming to colour. It's a very mysterious thing really. Because in the objective world there is actually no such thing as 'colour'. There is simply energy and frequencies. Colour is actually something the brain creates through interpretation of signals coming from specially developed sensory apparatus (the eyes' cones). Alot of information about the outside world can be gotten just by luminance alone (ie. how bright things look) and many animals lack the colour sensing cones and see in black and white. Colour is something that is entirely subjective in fact and is a psychosensory response that arises within us. Everyone has seen false colour images these days with infrared sensing cameras for example - which take energy that is invisible to us and processes it into a signal that we can interpret. Anyhow I could discuss such things quite a bit and I am digressing. Needless to say that the actual energy frequency that allows us to have our own particular sensation of color is an objective thing and yet is not colour until we are around to sense it in our way. In a similar way the God exists objectively also, until there is an intelligence to appreciate it then the existence is 'futile' from a human point of view. The old question of does a tree that falls in a forest without people make noise?
So when you say that the God is everything and everywhere I understand what you are saying, but as I tried to explain existence is sustained and animated by the God continuously. A television set that has no broadcast signal is useless. The God is the provider of the "broadcast signal" that makes existence possible on an ongoing basis. In essence the God is EVERYTHING that makes EVERYTHING possible )
-
Peace Truth, all,
I find myself leaning toward panentheism, not pantheism
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
Panentheism (from Greek (?pan? ) = all, en = in, and theos = God; "all-in-God" is the theological position that God is immanent within the Universe, but also transcends it. It is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe. In panentheism, God is viewed as creator and/or animating force behind the universe, and the source of universal morality. The term is closely associated with the Logos of Greek philosophy in the works of Herakleitos, which pervades the cosmos and whereby all things were made.Peace,
Tay -
Peace Truth,
As for the God being everywhere. This is a trap that we can fall into quite easily and it can lure us into the belief of pantheism. However if one is to truly understand the concept of the God being everywhere, and everything then there are some verses that point to this such as the one about the God being closer to us than our main blood vessels (usually translated as jugular vein). If you read up on some philosophy of mental monadism or the concept usually termed 'the brain in a vat' theory (which is almost a description of the 'matrix' you'll realise that everything is subjective and it is difficult in fact to point to anything which is truly objective.
Yes, I have quite easily fallen into this trap because it agrees with my logic (which is usually shaddddy). God being everywhere to me, means just that, god is everywhere, every neuron, every cell, every string is God. However, my view is that each part is the whole, like a hologram. Unless of course God would be divisible, then the sum of the parts would be the whole (I don't believe God is divisible). It's good that you bring up the 'brain in the vat' theory, because its actually something that I've recently just learned a lot about. I'm in second year philosophy/psych, so we went into the whole brain in the vat argument, and dealt with some counter-arguments that flew right over my head. The point about subjectivity is indeed true, one could say that everything is subjective. Would you say that there is an objective interpretation to the quran? Or would you say that it is a purely subjective matter?
That being the case it is my view that all of our experiences, every single one of them is merely an animation provided by the God. I see all our experience as being like a 'broadcast' signal from the source and if the God were to suddenly stop that broadcast then existence as we know it would cease. That's why the God is the Lord of all existence. The God is not remote from His creation, He is the Sustainer, the One who is Absolute in its and our existence, the One who makes every single moment possible. All existence and experience is possible through continuous sustenance by the One. In this sense the God is everywhere and everything since they all require His existence. Everything therefore points to Him and is a Sign.
Here you go so far as to say that all experience is made by the God, and that our experiences are analogous to receiving a broadcast signal from god. I too believe this, but I take it one step further in that I believe even you are god. It seems as if you view god as something apart from 'you'. Tell me though, who is this 'you' that experiences the creations of God? Is it your personality, your age, your gender, or your family lineage? How are 'you' different from the universe? The illusion that we are separate from everything around us is what leads us to say that we are experiencing things. We grow out of this universe in the same way that a tree grows from an acorn, would you say that the acorn is a separate thing from the tree?
In this sense the God is everywhere and everything since they all require His existence. Everything therefore points to Him and is a Sign.
Hmm, but if there are things apart from God can God truly be everywhere? I'm not sure if you are saying that there are things separate from God, but that's the implication I'm getting. The reason why I equate God being everywhere = God being everything, is because every atom, or every string to the infinitely smallest part must be God, if he is truly everywhere. In this sense God must be everything.
Coming to colour. It's a very mysterious thing really. Because in the objective world there is actually no such thing as 'colour'. There is simply energy and frequencies. Colour is actually something the brain creates through interpretation of signals coming from specially developed sensory apparatus (the eyes' cones). Alot of information about the outside world can be gotten just by luminance alone (ie. how bright things look) and many animals lack the colour sensing cones and see in black and white. Colour is something that is entirely subjective in fact and is a psychosensory response that arises within us. Everyone has seen false colour images these days with infrared sensing cameras for example - which take energy that is invisible to us and processes it into a signal that we can interpret. Anyhow I could discuss such things quite a bit and I am digressing. Needless to say that the actual energy frequency that allows us to have our own particular sensation of color is an objective thing and yet is not colour until we are around to sense it in our way. In a similar way the God exists objectively also, until there is an intelligence to appreciate it then the existence is 'futile' from a human point of view. The old question of does a tree that falls in a forest without people make noise?
Thank you for that information on color, you summed it up a lot simpler than any of my textbooks, or teachers have. I guess it does come down to that question you posed at the end.
So when you say that the God is everything and everywhere I understand what you are saying, but as I tried to explain existence is sustained and animated by the God continuously. A television set that has no broadcast signal is useless. The God is the provider of the "broadcast signal" that makes existence possible on an ongoing basis. In essence the God is EVERYTHING that makes EVERYTHING possible
I see, so let us say that we are these television sets, and the signals we receive are god (as per God being every experience). We are then something separate from God, and God is not everywhere in the truly literal sense. God is the signal, but not the television set. That is of course one way of looking at it, that God is the provider of everything, but not actually the everything itself. But I would say that in circumstances such as these, God is not everywhere in the most literal sense of the word, but rather simply everything we experience, and maybe this is what the quranic passage means. To me though, it seems limiting to say god is not truly everywhere.
Btw, don't worry about digressing, wherever your words wish to take you, go. I don't mind reading interesting stuff.
-
We grow out of this universe in the same way that a tree grows from an acorn, would you say that the acorn is a separate thing from the tree?
We are indeed just the assembled atoms that existed before us but we are something more than just that. What I mean by this is that at the instant of death, all those atoms and matter are still there and yet the life that existed is no longer present.
The universe that we can sense is finite and cannot represent anything but a creation that is sustained by the God on an ongoing basis.
Hmm, but if there are things apart from God can God truly be everywhere? I'm not sure if you are saying that there are things separate from God, but that's the implication I'm getting. The reason why I equate God being everywhere = God being everything, is because every atom, or every string to the infinitely smallest part must be God, if he is truly everywhere. In this sense God must be everything.
In this and in your acorn=tree analogy, I see it more like a piano and the pianist. When playing music the pianist and the piano are almost as one in order for that system to work, but we can hardly say the pianist is the same thing as the piano.
I see, so let us say that we are these television sets, and the signals we receive are god (as per God being every experience). We are then something separate from God, and God is not everywhere in the truly literal sense. God is the signal, but not the television set. That is of course one way of looking at it, that God is the provider of everything, but not actually the everything itself. But I would say that in circumstances such as these, God is not everywhere in the most literal sense of the word, but rather simply everything we experience, and maybe this is what the quranic passage means. To me though, it seems limiting to say god is not truly everywhere.
The television and broadcast analogy is a little more complex. I do see us as like the television sets however those television sets do not exist in a vacuum, indeed they cannot exist independently. Their existence is dependent on that signal, that sustenance, that nurturing, the mercy of the God. They are in existence because of His continuous involvement. The God is indeed the creator and sustainer of the universe as we sense it and the continuous uninterrupted source of its animation.
Tay's reference to panentheism is very much like what I am describing as my view however I don't like labels so much. I believe that monotheism in essence has this idea within it as the God is simply the One, the Ultimate, the Creator, the Source.
Peace.
-
Peace Truth,
We are indeed just the assembled atoms that existed before us but we are something more than just that. What I mean by this is that at the instant of death, all those atoms and matter are still there and yet the life that existed is no longer present.
The universe that we can sense is finite and cannot represent anything but a creation that is sustained by the God on an ongoing basis.
Ahh so you're saying we're not simply the sum of all the parts, but rather something unique apart from that. Perhaps, at the instant of death all the atoms still exist, but somehow I doubt that our personality or what we like to call 'I' is still around. I think that as soon as we die, our ego vanishes, and we are once again unified with all of creation, so that there is no 'I' to talk about.
I agree that our universe is finite in the sense that there may be many more universes, or creations if you will apart from the one we inhabit. Kinda like us being a grain of sand or even less than that. However, I also believe that underneath everything we are in fact god.
In this and in your acorn=tree analogy, I see it more like a piano and the pianist. When playing music the pianist and the piano are almost as one in order for that system to work, but we can hardly say the pianist is the same thing as the piano.
I see... yes I would have to agree that the piano and the pianist are not one and the same thing. However, I don't look at this analogy as representative of my viewpoint, and I'll have to think on it for a bit.
The television and broadcast analogy is a little more complex. I do see us as like the television sets however those television sets do not exist in a vacuum, indeed they cannot exist independently. Their existence is dependent on that signal, that sustenance, that nurturing, the mercy of the God. They are in existence because of His continuous involvement. The God is indeed the creator and sustainer of the universe as we sense it and the continuous uninterrupted source of its animation.
Fair enough, but is your view such that there is a 'you' that is created and sustained by a god? I may be getting repetitive, but my view is that the 'I' is just an illusion, and underneath this illusion there is only god. I can compare this to an actor getting lost in a role and actually believing that the role is who he/she is. The role has become an illusion, but underneath it, there is only god. Some of us believe that we are our roles more than others, and this is fine, eventually we will realize that we are much more though. However, I can only state this as my point of view, and in no way do I expect you to accept it.
Tay's reference to panentheism is very much like what I am describing as my view however I don't like labels so much. I believe that monotheism in essence has this idea within it as the God is simply the One, the Ultimate, the Creator, the Source.
From what I read (and I could be wrong) about panentheism I see it as everything being in god; an analogy being that we are a fish (humans), in an ocean (god). I do not agree with this view for one reason. In this case god is not everywhere literally, but is everywhere in the sense that god surrounds us everywhere we look, or our whole experience is of god. I take everywhere literally to mean everywhere, so that god would have to be the fish just as god is the ocean..there is no seperation between creator and creation. As always this is only my point of view, and of course I don't expect you to change yours; I'm just trying to understand mine better.
Peace