Many people have heard the theory that everything that exists is nothing but God- That He alone has become this entire universe, that nothing exists outside of Him, and that the concept of distinction is only apparent. If this were true, then you and I would literally be God. For many people (perhaps most), this can sound absolutely absurd.

How can I actually be God?

Can this claim be rationally established? There are lots of arguments, and they can help (and even convince) us to believe in this theory. But none will ever be perfectly satisfying. However, reasoning is still necessary if there is any chance of ever realizing whether or not this theory is true.

How can I not be God?

This is one counterargument that is sometimes raised. One person says:

“Show me one spot where God exists.”

The other replies:

“Show me one place where God does not exist.”

So here, no one proves anything. There is an impasse. But there is at least an understanding that lack of sense perception of God does not disprove His existence, or His all-pervasiveness.

I have seen God and He is like such and such.

This is another argument. Say a saint or a sage has a divine experience and tells his disciples that “I saw God in such and such a way.” Then, over the next 1,000 years, his disciples go telling everyone, “This is what God is like. Our Master told us so!”

This has a fallacy. It assumes God only exists in one way. It does not prove that God exists only in that way. But it does give some demonstration that He exists at least in that way.

The Elephant and the Blind Men

There is a story about a bunch of blind man that were commanded to go inspect an elephant, and then report back about what the elephant was like. So the group goes out and starts feeling around an elephant. One guy grabs the trunk and says “Elephants are like tree trunks!” Another guy grabs the tail and says “No, you moron! Elephants are like snakes!” Yet another person feels an ear and says “You guys are crazy. Elephants are like huge leaves!”

They are all correct. But they are all incorrect to say that they alone are right. Their perceptions are true, but they are all relative. They do not actually perceive the elephant for what it is. They only get indications of what it is.

Indirect Perception

Everything we ordinarily perceive is through indirect perception. Say I place a wooden chair in front of a bunch of people and ask if anyone knows what it is. Everyone will say that it is a chair.

But how do you know?

Light hits the chair. It is reflected into your eyes. Some kind of signal passes through nerves wires that lead from your retina to your brain. Your brain processes some signals. And somehow or the other, you get presented with an image of a chair. What you are seeing is not actually the chair. You are seeing an indication of the chair. It is a black box process. The chair is the input to the formula. Your psychophysical system (the eyes, nerves, brain, etc.) is a black box that somehow transforms that pure input. Then your perception of the chair is the resulting output.

So it would not be correct to say we know the true nature of the chair. We only know the indirect perception about the chair. Indirect perception cannot actually give us the knowledge of the object. The only way to get unbiased knowledge of an object is not through indirect experience, but through direct experience.

Direct Perception

So if I wanted to know what a chair actually is, I would have to perceive it directly. I would need to eliminate the “black box”.

But look around. Look at an object in the room. If you can name it, then that means you are separate from it. And if you are separate from it, then you are perceiving that object indirectly. And if you are perceiving that object indirectly, then you do not really know that object. So to actually know an object, you cannot be separate from it. The only way I can know the true nature of a chair is by actually being the chair. The subject and the object must become merged. Then there is no space between “this” and “that”. When there is no space, there is no indirect perception. There is direct and immediate perception.

God and Direct Perception

So to truly know God, indirect perception must be removed. The subject (“I”) and the object (“God”) must become merged. So under the assumptions that God can actually be known by us seemingly frail human beings, and that you must be something in order to know that something, then this logically means that we must actually be God.

So that is one argument that appears in various places about perception, knowledge, and the vision of God. It appeals to many people, but not to everyone. And naturally, it cannot be totally satisfying. What course of reason can? In any case, growing requires thinking. And we should all think seriously about these important questions like “Can I really see God?” They are fundamental to our life.

• 

Related Articles:

• Concentration Brings Happiness (Why People Think They Can Actually Sing)
• Increase Your Desire!
• 33 Quotations of Vivekananda
• 10 Spiritual Stories of Sri Ramakrishna
• 39 Rules for Life
• The 3 Principal Teachings of Vedanta (Featured on Anmolmehta.com)
• The Power of Aesthetics
• The Saint Who Went to Hell for Speaking the Truth
• Judging By Potential
• 5 Problems With Modern Medicine