I am talking to my Innermost-Self or God-Self.  A being know to me as Joy-Divine.  We have been talking about the nature of Oneness.  We looked at it from the scientific perspective last time.  This time we are going to look at it from the religious perspective.  

Zingdad: J-D, I take it we are not going to “prove” the Oneness of all beyond all doubt from the religious perspective, either?

Joy-Divine: No, you are right.  It doesn’t matter how one addresses this, people will always have the right and the ability to doubt or to choose other.  This is very much NOT about silencing other views.  This is about presenting a view which you and your readers can choose to accept if it resonates with your heart.  I previously addressed it from the atheist/ scientific perspective, not because I in any way wish to attack or persuade such people.  Not at all.  Simply because one needs a starting point to make a cogent argument.  And now I am going to do this again.  I am going to stand in another place and make the same argument from this other perspective.  This new perspective that I am going to talk from is that of organised religion.  For my purposes, I will divide religions into two groups: those that see God as separate from the self and those that see the self as One with God.  The latter group are already in agreement with the point I am making here so we can, for the purposes of this discourse, just let them be.
So I will use the former belief as a starting position: the view that there IS a God but that God is separate from, or outside of, God’s creation.
I would like to offer certain observations:  If someone already believes in an omnipotent Supreme Creator being then I would make the following contention.  Being omnipotent, the Supreme Creator can do whatever It likes, right?

Z: Umm.  Just a minute please.  I’m sure if I’m really happy with the “It” label for God.

J-D: Yes.  I know.  I am sorry.  You have cultural associations that “It” is somehow inferior to Him or Her.  Well I am afraid I am not going to pander to those associations.  The Supreme Creator does not have a gender.  It is way, WAY beyond such pettiness.  It is both and neither and very much beyond gender.  So, until there is a better word in the English language which signifies “Him and Her and It and any other gender that could possibly be in all creation and all of these and none of them” then I am going to be stuck with using It.  This is very much the opposite of being derogatory.  Restricting God to one gender is far more derogatory in my view.  So bear with me and please forgive me if it offends.  Okay?

Z: Okay with me.  But seeing as I have already interrupted and am busy nit-picking: what of the label “God”.  I mean, does that not imply one religious perspective?  Should we not maybe say “Source” or… something less restrictive?

J-D: Ooooookay.  Let’s quickly deal with that.  No name or label you might choose to come up with will ever suffice.  A label is by its nature reductive.  It excludes everything that is not that.  No label is ever going to do the job of describing God because God is everything and yet more than that.  God is beyond complete comprehension and description.  So we should probably just choose to be silent on the subject of God altogether because everything that you might say about God is a reduction of the truth.  No names and no descriptions and no attempts to understand.  But that would be silly.  Surely we should at least TRY with what we have to comprehend God.  Make a start and keep improving our comprehension as our abilities to comprehend increase?  And since you on planet earth use language to communicate and develop your thoughts we must find SOME label for God.  If we disallow a label then we cannot speak of It.  And if we come up with a descriptive term then that is even worse as it is even more restrictive.  So, in the interests of just allowing the conversation to happen I simply choose the name that has the greatest resonance in the culture you currently inhabit.  If I spoke of The Mighty Zeelagzog (or whatever invented name), you’d say “who?”  So rather, if I start out by speaking of God then you know of Whom I speak, even if I thereafter have to clarify what my view is of God.  Which is EXACTLY what I am doing right now.  If your view of God is that He is separate from the rest of us then I am here telling you what my view of God is: which is that It is One with us and All That Is.  

So I will use the name “God” and over time you will come to understand what I mean by that name.  If your reader prefers another term then I humbly beg their latitude in this regard.

Z: Okay, got it.  Thank you for the clarification and my apologies for the interruption.  Can we please pick it up again where we left off?

J-D: Yes, certainly.  I was making the observation that, if God is omnipotent, then God can do whatever It wills, right?

Z: Right.

J-D: So if such a being wanted to experience the world though your eyes it could.  In fact it could, if it wanted to, experience the world from the eyes of every single living being AT THE SAME TIME, could It not?

Z: Yes.  I guess the word “omnipotence” pretty much means you are not restricted.  You can do anything.  Including, I am sure, seeing everything from every perspective.

J-D: So then the only question would be IF God would desire this… Would God desire to see things exactly as you (and everyone else) does or would God desire to view Creation from “above” or from a “separate” position?  I will answer this question like this: what is the very most loving perspective for God to take?  What perspective would God hold that would give God the most love and compassion for you?  Clearly, in order for God to REALLY understand you God would need to be willing to experience life AS you.  Otherwise God would stand outside of you and look at all your little foibles and fumbles and just see you as flawed and broken.  But if God experiences the world through you AS you then certainly God can have nothing but compassion and love for you.  So I present you with a choice: do you believe God is a loving being or not?  I would most strongly assert that God IS Love.  And I present to you the simple truth that the most loving choice for God is that that God does not see Itself as separate from you.  But if God only chose to see things through your eyes but still KNOW that It is God then that would not be your perspective.  Your perspective is EXACLTY the way it looks for you.  I am saying that the most loving thing for God to do is to hold EXACTLY your perspective too.  God therefore experiences the world through you AS you!  Even when you don’t know about God’s existence or believe in God or whatever.  God is still in you.  And in every other possible perspective.  So God does not enter only into certain pious and “godly” perspectives when they are well behaved!  No.  That is conditional love.  And I am saying God IS unconditional love.

Z: You are saying this.  But can you prove it… that God loves us unconditionally.

J-D: Again I can only make a strong argument.  You will believe what you want.  But if you believe that god is omnipresent and omniscient then you are by definition agreeing with me.

Z: Huh?  How?

J-D: Omnipresent means present at every point.  There is nowhere where God is not.  Including, obviously where you are.  Now if you broaden your understanding of location and understand that you are not just geographically at your present location you are also spiritually at that location.  You are spiritually where you are as a result of the beliefs and ideas you have about yourself, life and God.  Well God is omnipresent.  This means God is ALSO at that exact location with you and everywhere else at every other location with every other being and thing in All That Is.

Z: Hmm.  Good point.

J-D: And omniscient means “all knowing”.  Do you know what it is like to be a dog?

Z: No… not really.

J-D: But you have dogs.  They live around you in your home and you love them greatly.  You see everything they do and often study their interactions and processes with great interest.  Why do you not know what it is like to be a dog?

Z: Because I am a human.  I have no memory of ever being a dog!

J-D: Ah ha!  In order to TRULY know what it is like to be someone you actually have to BE that someone.  Otherwise you only know something ABOUT that being.  Now it is the same with God.  If God is truly omniscient then God cannot only know about you.  If God observes you from outside then God will never really know what it is like to BE you.  So instead God does that:  God IS you.

Z: But… isn’t that a ridiculously egotistical position to take, that I am God?  I mean God is so great and...

J-D: No.  It can’t be egotistical to claim for yourself what you are claiming for everyone else.  In fact I am claiming this same thing for every animal, plant, insect, stone, molecule, atom… you get the picture.  From this perspective, I am saying you are as great as the sun and you are as great as an ant.  How does that sound like egotism?  It doesn’t make you either greater or lesser.  But it does make God MUCH greater.

Z: How’s that?

J-D: Obviously a God of infinite perspectives that is everywhere and knows everything and is of infinite power and ability is greater than a God that only hold some perspectives and can only live outside of you until you do some certain “good and holy” things.

Z: Hmm.  Another good argument.

J-D: So I present you with a conundrum.  If God is omnipotent AND if God is love then it would seem God MUST be one with you.  And, I make the case that omniscience and omnipresence make the case that that indeed this is so.  So… do you want to give up on these?  Do you want to say that God is not omnipotent, is not love, is not omniscient and is not omnipresent?  Or do you want to accept that God is One with All… including you yourself and each of your readers, of course?

Z: I’m sure there must be another argument to be made.

J-D: I’m also sure there are.  There is ALWAYS room to doubt or to create another view.  That is your free-will choice coming into play.  And if that is what your heart and your truth tells you then you must follow that.  I make my case and support it – but each to their own.

Z: No, wait a minute.  What I want to get at is that you have made quite a strong case that God might hold all perspectives.  I can agree that that might mean that God is able to know exactly what it is like to be me and have experienced things exactly as I did and all that stuff.  But that is not the same thing as saying that God is one with me?

J-D: How is it not?

Z: Well, umm… what if god sort-of piggy backed with me in my mind… you know?

J-D: No.  Either God IS you experiencing your life or God’s experience and yours would be different.  No matter how small the difference ANY separation at all would break the rules of omniscience and omnipresence.  But as I say, we can keep riding this pony round and round finding little points to debate if we want to.

Z: No, I can see that.  I accept what you say.  It DOES resonate in my heart too.  But there is one part of this story that is missing.

J-D: What’s that?

Z: Well, in the detective stories they say one must have Means, Motive and Opportunity before one can be convicted of a crime.  Well this is no crime but I’m going to say that you have argued that God has the Means and the Opportunity to be one with us.  But what would the motive be?

J-D: That, my dear young friend, is a wonderful question.  It is a question that will be addressed in many ways throughout our dialogue.  It will keep unfolding in ever greater terms for you.  But you have asked the question now and I would at least like to give you one answer for now.

So here is a thought:  Do you think God wants you to be confused and lost or do you think God desires that you begin to understand who and what God is?

Z: Well… I guess… if God is love then it must be that God would want me to understand.  I would say God wants me to discover Him.  Errr… I mean It.

J-D: Good.  You believe that God loves you and so you also believe that God would not want to mislead and confuse you.  You will therefore not be given false evidence to make you misunderstand your reality and your relationship with God.  Quite the opposite: you will be given loads of evidence in your life to show you who and what God is.  So you only need to look and to deeply observe your reality and from that you will be able to gain greater and greater insight into the mind of God.  This is why it is said:

“as above, so below and as below, so above”

It means you will find evidence in the smallest and most mundane things for the understanding of the greatest and most magnificent truths.

If this is so then, I propose, God is offering you your reality as a way to begin to understand the greater reality.  I propose that you understand a bit about heaven by understanding a bit about earth.  And you understand a bit about God by understanding a bit about yourself.

Z: Okay!  That makes sense.  You have sort-of proven that God is one with me.  If that is so then I can know something about God by knowing something about my own true nature.  But won’t some people find that a bit blasphemous?

J-D: Some will find the very notion of this conversation blasphemous.  Look hard enough and you’ll find someone that will label being happy as blasphemous.  So I cannot concern myself with what others will choose to think or do.  For myself, there is no such thing as blasphemy in my vocabulary.  It is ridiculous to think you are capable of offending God or hurting God’s feelings.  You most certainly CAN hold beliefs and opinions that hurt YOU.  And holding hateful thoughts about God, for example will do that.  But given enough time and a little loving guidance all beings eventually come to decide that they don’t like hurting themselves and then they stop and do something more constructive.  Something that clearly gives them joy and inner-peace.  And loving God will certainly do THAT.  God knows this.  God sees you as you truly are.  You cannot do or say some momentary little thing that offends God.  God is bigger than that.  The word blasphemy is a man-made construct used to manipulate and control you via fear.  It means the religious authorities can demand that you not say or think certain things that don’t suit them.  If you do, they say God will hate you or punish you.  This is erroneous.  God will never do either.  God is one with you and God is beyond the desire to hate or punish Itself.

Z: But you are just making a circular argument.  You say we know God won’t punish us for believing we are one with God because we are one with God.  Which might be true but it isn’t proof.

J-D: You are right.  It is not proof.  I come back to the fact that there CAN BE no proof.  I can make the case and state my position but I cannot take from you the desire to believe something else.  So I am in the unenviable position of stating my case with the hope that it resonates with your heart.  That is really the best I can do.  But let me try another tack.  I’ll go back to one of my old favourites again: It is said you are made in the image of God, right?

Z: Yes.

J-D: So then that is simply another way of saying “if you want to see an image of God… then look at yourself!”

Z: Ah.  Yes.  I suppose that is so.

J-D: Again.  I don’t mean your physical body.  I mean that which you really ARE.  Your truest, deepest essence.  So I am saying by this, that endeavouring to truly, deeply comprehend your own nature is one way to begin to understand God.  Right?

Z: Okay.

J-D: So then not only is God looking out at the world through your eyes but… God can see itself from a new perspective by looking inwards from your eyes.

Z: Hey!  That’s pretty cool!

J-D: Yes, it really is.  It means God is in a constant process of self-creation and self-discovery as a result of all the processes all the parts of God are undergoing.

Z: We are God discovering Itself!

J-D: Yes!

Z: All of us altogether are engaged in the same great work then?

J-D: Yes.  Even the aspects of God that are doing the worst, darkest things.  Even they are creating an opportunity for self-discovery.  They do this directly through their experiences and indirectly because they offer light-oriented ones the opportunity to define themselves and discover themselves in opposition to the darkness.  If there was no great and powerful enemy you would never have the opportunity to discover that you are courageous, that you will stand up and do the right thing despite the odds.  If there was no one doing wrong how would you decide to do right?  And so on.  The dark ones are just as valuable to the greater process as the light ones.  And if you are playing a dark game then the joy to be had out of changing course and returning to the light is wonderful.  

And of course there really is no such thing as “dark ones” and “light ones”.  Not really.  You all hold both of those states within yourselves.  You have all, at some point in your incarnational story and even at some point in this life, done some very unloving things and been to a “dark” place.  And everyone, no matter how “dark”, will at some point turn around and return to the light.  If not in this lifetime then at some future point.

I tell you ALL IS ONE.  And we are all engaged, each in our own way, in the process of the discovery of who we really are.  And in so doing we are in a process of constant creation.  And this is our service to God

Z: That is pleasing to me to think.  Thank you for that awesome perspective.  But before I am ready to accept the point that All is One, it would seem to mean that there is no evil.  No right and no wrong.  That all things are acceptable to God.  And that doesn’t sit right with me.  This All Is One thing seems to lead to a rather amoral stance.

J-D: Only because you have misunderstood it.  I want to take a break here.  I feel I have pretty much addressed the question as I wanted to.  I have made a case for God being One with All when viewed from the religious perspective.  You are now asking just the right question to lead me quite naturally into the next topic: “The Implications of the Oneness”.  You have hit on one important area which is the whole issue of morality and rules for living.  You have made an incorrect assumption, though, which I will like to correct.  But that is all in the next chapter.