Lowercase G gods

I suggest that this is what we are. And that we lowercase ‘G’ gods are simultaneously one with and different from the uppercase ‘G’ God.

‘One with’ in that we are also divine.

‘Different from’ primarily in that we possess the special ability to accept the illusions of the material world as real.

But one should not hurry to judge this ability as some sort of flaw or problem.

Rather, I suggest, it is in fact a perfect arrangement because it enables the tasting of a whole range of experiences. Experiences that we/We are after. In other words, acceptance of the illusions of the material world as real provides the context for enjoying/tasting the pains and pleasures/dualities associated with parenthood, childhood, love and loss, friendship and betrayal, birth and death, health and disease, aggression/victimisation … the list goes on and on … and all packaged up in time-limited episodes. Bit like a soap on the TV.

But the uppercase God, being omnipotent and fully cognisant, cannot have ‘direct’ access to something that requires illusion or self-ignorance to experience. God cannot have access to something!? … ‘God’ and ‘cannot’ do not normally belong in the same sentence!

I propose that it is in our/Our one-ness that the dilemma of ‘cannot’ is resolved: As us, He/She does. Because our/Our difference doesn’t obliterate our/Our one-ness. Just as our/Our one-ness doesn’t obliterate our/Our difference. Both are true simultaneously. Inconceivable? … yes.

So in conclusion whatever we choose to experience we contribute to the completeness of the experience of God.

How perfect is that?