What "I am God" implies

[Will1125]

I am God is realising ego does not have control on anything.

It implies true nature of existence, what is.

It implies total letting go, accepting ego is illusory, everything that is, is perfect because this is what is and it can't be any other way.

It implies observing the dream as it is, a dream.

It implies accepting anything that was, is and will be.

While ego is really seen as something that have no real existence and as something that does not control reality, compassion emerges naturally because there are no more resistance, the illusion of duality starts to fade.

If your name is John, see John as an actor and you are who experiences John's movie.

There is just God, the true and only spectator.

[Davino]

I am God means

That I am literally fucking GOD

Absolutely Infinite including all finities

I am crying just by writing this words. Only once you taste you can know, that's how it works.

The "I" singularity is the essence of God, only God can say I, in fact God is all Is, that's why it has no I. It really is so.

One actor playing all the roles, being all that is, give god a rest!

[Princess Arabia]

What "I AM God" Implies is that the I AM is delusional. 

One cannot know anything in Oneness. It's all a dream of separation. There is no spectator or observer, that's a dream. There's nothing to let go of. That's also a dream of the I. Letting go? Spiritual fantasy. John is not an actor experiencing anything. John is the dream of I. 

There is no authority, no witness, no source, no observer or witness. All illusory and within the dream. There is just what appears and what appears is all there is. 

 

 

 

 

Edited 23 hours ago by Princess Arabia

[Xonas Pitfall]

It implies Everything because it is Everything! 😊

[Davino]

Everything one says God is.

[UnbornTao]

It implies nothing, since this is very likely coming from hearsay. So it is up for grabs.

Your job is to personally grasp what you are now, whatever that may turn out to be. And it can't be what you think it is. 

Edited 18 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Davino]

4 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

It can't be what you think it is. 

Why not?

Thinking exist as so does everything else in God's Mind

[UnbornTao]

4 hours ago, Davino said:

Why not?

Thinking exist as so does everything else in God's Mind

A thought is a thought; you are you. 

"Myself" is distinct from everything it is not. One's nature is actually up for grabs, no matter what we think. What you are is what you are, an activity is an activity. Confusing those is a trap.

For example: Can you think "infinity"? What comes to mind?

Edited 15 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Davino]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Whatever distinction is made for "you", it must be distinct from everything it is not. Your nature might turn out not to be distinct from anything (we have yet to grasp this), but this isn't the same as mistaking an activity with what you are.

Yes, this is clear

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Think of "infinity."

First, can infinity be thought of? What came to mind? Can any of it be it?

Infinity includes thinking, this is my simple point. Infinity thinks, understands, grasps itself. Infinity is utterly Awake and Alive. This is Infinity happening 24/7

[Sugarcoat]

This feels intuitively true /conceptually true even though I haven’t “experienced” full no self

I can’t tell for you if this is coming from a place of true realization or intuition/conceptual understanding which it is for me

In the latter case I think it’s a good idea to be honest with oneself when it’s purely intuitive /conceptual so as not to get it confused with the “real deal”

Edited 17 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Eskilon]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

A thought is a thought, you are you. 

Are you a Buddhist rat? 
How do you know that a thought is a thought？
 

Edited 17 hours ago by Eskilon

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

This feels intuitively true /conceptually true even though I haven’t “experienced” full no self

I can’t tell for you if this is coming from a place of true realization or intuition/conceptual understanding which it is for me

In the latter case I think it’s a good idea to be honest with oneself when it’s purely intuitive /conceptual so as not to get it confused with the “real deal”

Think about it, who/what would know it's experiencing noself. I, the self, is experiencing no self. The noself is experiencing noself. There is already noself so it's already the real deal. Oh, I the self, have to be honest and say there is no self here. Oh I the self is experiencing intuitively that there's no self and it's all conceptual. I mean, how does one experience noself and who would realize that.

[Sugarcoat]

1 minute ago, Princess Arabia said:

Think about it, who/what would know it's experiencing noself. I, the self, is experiencing no self. The noself is experiencing noself. There is already noself so it's already the real deal. Oh, I the self, have to be honest and say there is no self here. Oh I the self is experiencing intuitively that there's no self and it's all conceptual. I mean, how does one experience noself and who would realize that.

Ofc nobody experiences no self. It’s just language 

[Princess Arabia]

1 minute ago, Sugarcoat said:

Ofc nobody experiences no self. It’s just language 

Just responding to you saying "I haven't experienced full noself". Funny statement.

[Sugarcoat]

10 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Just responding to you saying "I haven't experienced full noself". Funny statement.

It is but that’s language. I get that nobody can experience it

[UnbornTao]

5 hours ago, Davino said:

Yes, this is clear

But is it? You experience your self as being a certain way right now, and as a rather solid reality -- the center of it all.

Quote

Infinity includes thinking, this is my simple point. Infinity thinks, understands, grasps itself. Infinity is utterly Awake and Alive. This is Infinity happening 24/7

I suspect that assertions of that kind come from an “intellectual” stance. We likely don’t yet truly apprehend what infinity is, except as a fuzzy notion.

My point is that it sounds a lot like “somethings.” What is a thought? What are you, objects, emotions? These are experienced as distinct from one another, so we say a thought of an apple isn’t an apple. One could say an apple is infinity, and that you are God, but when the apple gets peeled, you likely don’t see it as if it were you or yours. There’s an overlooked dynamic in operation here, independent of our more explicit beliefs that we want to be true. And hey, maybe an apple isn't an apple. 

It turns out that an absolute can’t be thought, so that’s another thing to consider. How come? You can’t think the nature of anything because thought is late to the party, so to speak, even though it may have been invited (it is a form of the absolute).

And, after the bullshit, the laundry.

Edited 11 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Nilsi]

7 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

But is it? You experience your self as being a certain way right now, and as a rather solid reality -- the center of it all.

I suspect that assertions of that kind come from an “intellectual” stance. We likely don’t truly apprehend what infinity is, except as a fuzzy notion.

My point is that it sounds a lot like “somethings.” What is a thought? What are you, objects, emotions? These are experienced as distinct from one another, so we say a thought of an apple isn’t an apple. One could say an apple is infinity, and that you are God, but when the apple gets peeled, you likely don’t see it as if it were you or yours. There’s an overlooked dynamic in operation here, independent of our more explicit beliefs that we want to be true. And hey, maybe an apple isn't an apple. 

It turns out that an absolute can’t be thought, so that’s another thing to consider. How come? You can’t think the nature of anything because thought is late to the party, so to speak, even though it may have been invited (it is a form of the absolute).

And, after the bullshit, the laundry.

I agree - same goes for the notion of GOD. I’ve had countless profound spiritual experiences, ego dissolutions, and deep contemplations in intensely mystical states. And yet, I’ve never felt the urge to interpret any of it as "GOD." I’ve had moments of "OMG, I AM GOD!" - but even then, I recognized it as just one particular rabbit hole my contemplation was leading me down, not some ultimate ground. And the only reason I went down that rabbit hole in the first place was because I had already formed a concept of GOD a priori and was wrestling with that idea in the moment.

I understand why people do, but I don’t see the need to ground these experiences in that concept. The sheer inexplicability of what’s happening resists any fixed interpretation. "GOD" is, after all, a human construct - an attempt to pin down what ultimately exceeds conceptualization. That’s why I find Peter Ralston the most compelling among so-called mystics - he doesn’t settle for easy explanations.

I hold that reality isn’t something to be "known" in a fixed sense. It can be experienced directly, even as absolute, but it can’t be captured by any single concept - not even GOD.

[PurpleTree]

I am god sounds a bit narcissistic egoic imo.

[Hyperion]

19 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

What "I AM God" Implies is that the I AM is delusional. 

One cannot know anything in Oneness. It's all a dream of separation. There is no spectator or observer, that's a dream. There's nothing to let go of. That's also a dream of the I. Letting go? Spiritual fantasy. John is not an actor experiencing anything. John is the dream of I. 

There is no authority, no witness, no source, no observer or witness. All illusory and within the dream. There is just what appears and what appears is all there is. 

 

 

 

 

Is that absolutely true?