Why did you create this site?

This site grew out of a personal inquiry into the nature of God. God is supposed to be infinite, all-knowing, omnipotent, etc. which leads to a lot of arguments one side or the other about whether God exists or not. Without trying to answer that one, I simply began to explore the consequences of the presumption that "God" is just a name for everything that exists. All That Is. What would be the nature of a being that is so whole and all-inclusive that nothing, known or unknown, was excluded?

We can't question whether such a being exists without questioning our own existence, because if there is existence, there must be a sum total of all that exists. While some may argue that the totality of all existence is not necessarily sentient, this to me implies a very limited conception of sentience because what exactly would we look for as evidence to support that conclusion? I think it far more conservative—and certainly less conceited—to assume a sentience beyond our understanding or ability to perceive, and this is the basis for the ideas I present.

In my inquiry, I was brought to the conception of a massive cumulative intelligence that encompassed all time and space— and was therefore free of the constraints of that continuum. After many years of rolling these ideas around in my mind, reading much philosophy, religion and spirituality, the clear expression of my insights popped into my head one morning as the text that became this site: a kind of manifesto.

I don't get what you're saying about illusions and reality. Aren't you just giving reality a different name by calling it illusion? Isn't that just semantics?

In a sense, you are right, it is a semantic trick, but it yields great rewards in terms of insight.

The difference I draw is simply this: illusion is all that is ephemeral, mortal, subject to change, decay and entropy. Reality is on the other hand eternal, changeless, and perfect. Perhaps it helps to say that reality is truth. We are so immersed in our illusion that we believe the qualities of this illusion to be the foundation of the universe, while we do not generally see anything meeting this criterion for reality (i.e. perfection, truth) in our experience. This leads us to question whether such a thing as truth exists at all. We question the existence of God partly because God has all these qualities we think unreal or paradoxical. Our myths of God do not present us with a credible depiction of a Supreme Being.

Our perception of the world is characterized by fragmentation with the qualities of conflict, competition, predation, degradation, death, suffering and so forth. Notice that without separateness, without separate parts of the world acting upon each other to produce these things, these things cannot exist. It is called cause and effect and that is considered a fundamental law of the universe. Fragmentation or separation is a foundational assumption of the perceived world.

The breakthrough comes when you realize that the seeming separateness of all the parts of the world we conventionally know is an illusion, an incorrect assumption. We cannot be separate from God because God, as all-that-is, cannot be separate from anything. Therefore, anything we are seeing that suggests otherwise is really only a being misperceived. At that point, understanding becomes seeing the wholeness and perfection in anything we perceive.

This is all easily dismissed as being a trick of words, explaining nothing, if it weren't true that our best explanation of the universe must be and will always be incomplete. We can get as close to a complete explanation as we like, but the unexplainable will always have the potential to challenge our understanding of what we thought was explained. Our attempts to explain the world we percieve have created an ever-receeding horizon of understanding because there is no way to use an illusion to explain itself.

Yet, the ideas presented here don't explain everything. They do something more valuable in revealing the fundamental error of all explanations: that the world we perceive is made up of separate interacting parts. Seeing this error reveals our divinity as intact.

Is this from some religion or cult?

Certainly not. Religions and cults are social organizations and this site is just my own inspiration, with no agenda other than to share my findings. I do owe my understanding partly to the teachings and insights of those who have explored this territory before, but this site is not to present their ideas or writings. I am deeply grateful for their contribution, and I cite a few of their books in the bibliography. If you see the glimmers of their work in my writings, I am sure you are correct.

Why isn't your name on the site?

Because this is incidental information, unimportant to the site's purpose. Anyone with a will to do so can discover my name, I am not hiding. I wish to encourage a consideration of these thoughts outside the context of a human author. You can write off this material as just another opinion, but consider that it is not by random chance you've come across what is written here.

As far as copyright considerations go, this material is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License. Anything from this site published elsewhere on the Web should include a link to god-is.info as the attribution. The sole reason for that is to facilitate others finding this information, not to claim credit or sell anything.

What am I supposed to do with this information?

I suggest you allow these ideas to inform your perceptions and actions. Practically, it all boils down to the universal and uncompromising application of the Golden Rule. Yet there is an important twist here: I have taken "do unto others" out of the realm of ethics and placed it in the realm of metaphysics. This means there is no penalty for any degree of failure to live up to the standard of the Golden Rule, because it is the order of the universe and you aren't responsible for upholding it. The Golden Rule becomes your guide because there is simply no other rational way to act in the world. It is also so opposed to the structure of the illusory world that applying it amounts to moving into a state of lucidity within the dream because you have stopped believing the fundamental assumption of the illusion: that we are separate.

This is stupid... there are a million reasons why the world is real and you expect me to believe it's not?

What you are saying about the world being obviously real could be restated as "the illusion seems complete in every way." This illusion includes all the ways we have validated it's existence as real, including the experience of our body, emotions, pain, solidity, other people and living things, physics, etc. in short something so complex and complete you would have to be silly not to think it's real. The idea that the world is an illusion is generally dismissed (by Occam's Razor, I suppose) as a more complicated and therefore more unlikely explanation of our experience. However, it only seems more complicated if we hang on to this notion of separateness. If we are all one Mind, the problem of consensus becomes trivial.

Another major argument against the world being illusory is that it is contrary to common sense. Yet, as any anthropologist will tell you, there is no such thing as common sense as some kind of universal standard. It is entirely cultural and ultimately what is commonsensical is simply a matter of familiarity. The "it's contrary to common sense" argument is essentially very shallow. There are numerous cultures that see the everyday world as illusory—so it's not as weird as it might at first appear.

My assertion about the reality of our physical experience stems from simply looking at the universe from a perspective of wholeness. When you awake from a dream, you realize all you saw in the dream was temporary, insubstantial… illusory. From the perspective of wholeness, this temporal, entropic world we inhabit is also temporary and insubstantial because it changes, was created (by whatever means), decays, and is bound by time. Like a dream, it will end and be pretty much irrelevant. I have simply refined the criterion for reality that we are all familiar with. What is real is the dream we will never awake from or die to.

All-that-is will not end, for ends are of time and all-that-is is beyond time. That makes it real in the same way your waking life is considered real compared to your dreams. Your waking life seems more real simply because it is more stable, predictable by laws of nature and physics and all that. Yet these seemingly stable qualities are only valid for a time, so if you enlarge your timeframe sufficiently, they are no more stable and predictable than the features of a dream.

Within a dream, the best understanding you can hope for is the knowledge that you are dreaming. Those who have experienced a lucid dream and within that context contemplated their waking existence are startled to find how utterly abstract that seemingly solid existence is. Even your name seems completely arbitrary and without real connection to your being. This is why the holistic reality I am talking about here seems so abstract, for we are looking at our divinity from within a dream.



Foundation for Inner Peace. A Course in Miracles (1975). Foundation for Inner Peace

Maturana and Varela. The Tree of Knowledge (1987). Shambhala

Reynard, Gary. The Disappearance of the Universe (2004). Hay House

Roberts, Jane. The Nature of Personal Reality (1974). Prentice-Hall

Laszlo, Ervin. Science and the Akashic Field (2004). Inner Traditions

Ruiz, Miguel. The Four Agreements (2001). Amber-Allen

Scully, Nicki. Alchemical Healing (2003). Inner Traditions

Sydney, Carol. Wisdom of the Masters (2001). Writers Club Press.

Tolle, Eckhart. The Power of Now (1999). New World Library

Walsch, Neale Donald. Conversations with God (1996). Putnam Adult

Zukav, Gary. The Seat of the Soul (1999). Simon & Schuster


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.