"You are a god."

If I am told that, I might feel a little happy. "You have value. You are allowed to choose your own life." It can also be received as encouragement like that.

On the other hand, I feel sleepy in the morning and often forget things. I cannot change the weather, nor can I know what will happen tomorrow. Even so, is it really a god?

"There is a god within me." "My true self is one with the universe." "All humans are part of God." There are many similar words. However, they do not all have the same meaning.

In this text, I will not immediately provide answers. Instead, let's gradually consider the fundamental questions of "What is God?" and "Who am I in that context?". Difficult terms will be introduced only when it becomes necessary to explain their differences.

Let's take a look at what we usually call "god" from familiar perspectives. Are the gods who listen to prayers and the gods of mountains and rivers the same? When someone says, "I am God," are they referring to the same god? We will start with this question.

First, let's look at them in this order.

Familiar "Gods" ↓ Think of "self" and "god" separately. ↓ See what kinds of gods there are. ↓ Consider the relationship between god and the world.

Here, it is sufficient to feel that "they probably are not the same god," rather than memorizing accurate religious terminology.

What do you think of when you hear the word "god"?

When I hear the word "god," what comes to mind first varies from person to person.

Some people imagine a large being looking at the world from above. Some people think of shrine forests and torii gates. Some people recall feeling watched over by deceased family members. Some people may call that indescribable sense of vastness experienced when watching sunsets or starry skies "god."

Some people feel that "there is something in this world that cannot be determined solely by human convenience," even if they cannot visualize a specific form. Conversely, some people have no real feeling for the word "god" and consider it to exist only within old stories or religious buildings.

Before deciding which one is correct, I would like to look at this variation itself.

We are using the same single character, "shin," but we are actually thinking of quite different things.

These can also overlap. There is a viewpoint that the god who listens to prayers is also the creator of the world and the judge of good and evil. Some people feel God in everything in nature, while others believe that there is one great power behind it all.

However, it is not necessarily the case that they overlap. The entity that listens to your wishes may not have created the world itself. Feeling a presence of God within nature and thinking that everything in nature is controlled by one will are not the same thing. There is also a distance between cherishing the voice you hear from deep within yourself and considering that voice to be a command from the entire universe.

First, what is necessary is not to decide whether or not to believe in God. It is important to carefully consider what you are calling "God."

Mountains and rivers, deceased people – all can become "gods."

In Japan, when you hear the word "god," the conversation becomes a little complicated from the very beginning.

Sometimes, the mountains themselves are considered sacred. People may feel a sense of divinity in large rocks, old trees, the sea, wind, thunder, and the fruits of farmland. While gods appearing in myths are worshipped, there are also deities that protect the land, jobs, homes, and families.

The term used in that context is "yahatomo no kami," which refers to deities. "Yahatomo" does not mean a confirmed number of eight million gods. It means an uncountable, vast number of deities. According to the explanation by the Jinja Honcho (Association of Shinto Shrines), numerous deities are objects of worship, including those found in nature and those appearing in myths.

Here, God does not necessarily mean the only and highest authority in the universe. There may be gods of mountains and gods of seas. There may be a god who protects the kitchen and a god who helps with learning. The existence of one god does not preclude the existence of other gods.

Furthermore, in Japan, there are cases where individuals who were human during their lifetime are deified and worshipped as gods after their death.

A famous figure is Sugawara no Michizane. Michizane was not a god who originally existed in heaven, but rather a scholar and politician who lived during the Heian period. After his death, he was enshrined as Tenjin-sama, and is now beloved as the god of learning. Dazaifu Tenmangu Shrine is a place where Michizane is enshrined as "Tenman Daijizaiken."

Tokugawa Ieyasu, similarly, was a person who was deified and worshipped after his death. The guide provided by the Nikko Tourism Association clearly states that the Toshogu Shrine is "a shrine where Tokugawa Ieyasu is enshrined as a god."

Living human beings ↓ Death, memory, story, being enshrined A person who is worshipped as a god.

If you only look at this figure, you might think that "in Japan, everyone who dies becomes a god." However, it is not that simple.

Within the family, deceased individuals are revered as ancestors, and there is a feeling that "they are watching over us even now." In everyday conversations, it is sometimes common to refer to deceased people as "Buddha." The boundaries between gods, Buddhas, and ancestors are not as clear in daily life as they might be in textbooks.

Nevertheless, it is not universally believed that all deceased individuals automatically become enshrined deities in shrines and possess the power to protect scholarship or commerce. Being revered as ancestors of a family, reminiscing about the deceased, and specific individuals being worshipped as gods by a community are overlapping but distinct concepts.

Here, it is important to note that "god" does not necessarily refer to the name of a type of living thing.

Sometimes, a being can be called "god" not based on what it is made of, but by how it appears, what it protects, and how people worship it. Natural phenomena, mythical beings, ancestors, and historical figures can all fall under the same term: god.

This would cause confusion if it were directly equated with "God" as the creator of the world in Christianity. In Christianity, a great person does not become the creator of the world simply because they have died. Saints and angels are distinct from God himself.

Therefore, when we say in Japanese "Even humans become gods after death," and when we say "The essence of human beings is one with ultimate existence," and when someone says "I am the god who created the world," these are completely different things.

If we start from a Japanese sense of divinity, the idea that "humans become gods" doesn't sound so strange. However, because of this familiarity, ancestors, human figures who were once alive, celestial beings, creators of the world, and the inner divinity of humans can all be combined into one "god."

This article will now unravel that confusion.

When is God needed?

Even people who do not usually think about God sometimes utter words that are close to what one might say about God.

Before exams or surgeries, I sometimes wish for things to go well. When avoiding an accident, I feel "I was saved. Perhaps something protected me." There are times when facing situations beyond my own efforts, I say, "I'll leave it up to fate." When losing someone important, I sometimes feel that they are watching from somewhere.

The god being called here is not a god within a difficult explanation. It is the recipient of words directed towards a place beyond human reach.

People cannot decide everything for themselves. Even with effort, they may fail. They can be careful and still get sick. Good people may experience misfortune, and bad deeds are not always immediately punished. The place and time of one's birth cannot be chosen by oneself. It is impossible to completely know what will happen tomorrow.

When facing aspects that "cannot be decided by oneself," the word "god" tends to appear more easily.

God can be a being that grants wishes, but also one that reminds us of our own limitations. The word "god" is sometimes used to acknowledge things like "there are things humans cannot understand" and "there are things that will not go as we want."

On the other hand, there is also a completely opposite way of using it.

In the context of spirituality, when it is said that "because you are God, you can choose everything in reality," or "your consciousness moves the world," the word "God" does not indicate human limitations, but rather transcends them.

The word "god" teaches that there are things one cannot control, while also encouraging people by saying that nothing is impossible. At this point, it becomes clear that the word "god" is being used in completely opposite directions.

The god of childhood and the god of adulthood.

When I was a child, God often seemed like someone who "knows everything and can do anything." He helps when you are in trouble, and he sees if you do bad things. Although his appearance is not visible, he is much larger, stronger, and wiser than humans.

This image is easy to understand because it makes humans seem like they are becoming gods by greatly increasing their abilities.

Stronger than humans. Smarter than humans. Live longer than humans. Can do things that humans cannot. ↓ If it becomes very large, it will become a god.

However, when I became an adult and thought about it a little, questions arose.

No matter how strong someone may be, if they are just one person within the world, their existence is not the same as the god who created that very world. Even if you can know a little about the future, it does not mean you know everything. Even if you have the power to cure diseases, it doesn't necessarily mean you are a good being. Living a long life and being immortal are not the same thing.

Is God, who is far superior to humans and the origin of everything, the same thing?

This is a place where stories about gods often get mixed together at the beginning.

In the story, there are gods who are strong but quick-tempered, gods who have wisdom but also make mistakes, gods who help humans, and gods who cause trouble for humans. These gods, even though they possess power beyond that of humans, are not necessarily perfect.

On the other hand, there are religions that say "God does not make mistakes," "God is perfectly good," and "God is the fundamental basis for the existence of the world." This God is not simply a being stronger than humans.

Furthermore, there is also a way of thinking that calls something "god" not as an individual being with form and thoughts, but as the indescribable entity that makes up everything in the world.

Therefore, when you hear stories like "I saw God," "I heard the voice of God," or "I became one with God," it is important to verify which god the person is referring to, otherwise the meaning of their words cannot be determined.

Gods with faces and gods without faces.

Sometimes, I feel like God has a face, and sometimes I feel like He doesn't have a face.

Gods with faces can be spoken to. Gods experience joy and sorrow, give commands, forgive, love, and respond. Humans can address God as "you" and refer to themselves as "I."

I → wish, pray, give thanks. God → listen, guide, forgive, support.

In this relationship, even though gods and humans can get closer, they are initially two separate entities. In order to love, there is a person who loves and a person who is loved.

The faceless god is closer to the sea, light, or air than it is to a single person. It is something that fills the entire world, a power that creates everything, or perhaps a foundation upon which all things can exist.

In this case, it may be possible to talk to God, but the feeling of "someone on the other side" might become weaker. God is not a being that exists outside of the world, but rather something vast within which oneself, others, and nature are all present.

In everyday language, both are mixed together.

When someone says, "The universe guided me," the universe seems to have a will like a person. When someone says, "Everything is part of the universe," the universe appears as a large field that encompasses everything. When someone says, "I prayed to God," there is an entity being addressed, but when someone says, "I felt God within myself," God is not only outside oneself.

This is not necessarily a contradiction. One person may feel that God is someone they can talk to, while at the same time feeling that God encompasses the entire world.

However, if we use the same word "god" to refer to both "the object of prayer" and "one's own essence," then it becomes necessary to explain in what sense they are the same.

Is God outside, or is God within?

Is God outside of us, or within us?

The God who is outside is a different being. He created me, watches over me, and speaks to me. When humans are wrong, God can correct them from the outside.

The god within resides in your deepest self. It can be felt as conscience, true desire, quiet awareness, and the power to live. Sometimes, it speaks not with imposed commands, but with a feeling that "within yourself, you already know the answer."

Both have their charms.

If there is a god outside, you can absolutely avoid having your own thoughts. You might think that your desires and the will of God may be different.

If there is a god within, you can believe in your own dignity and conscience, rather than simply following external authority. Even if someone says "You have no value," you can say that a person's worth cannot be arbitrarily taken away by others.

However, both have difficulties.

Sometimes, the words of God from outside are monopolized by a single person. If someone says, "Only I know what God wants. Therefore, follow me," then trust in God is replaced with obedience to that human being.

Even the inner god can become dangerous, depending on how it is used. If you think "Because I feel this way, it must be right," or "Those who oppose me are not aware of their own inner god," then there will be no path to confirm your own assumptions.

Whether something is outside or inside does not determine whether it is safe or dangerous. What is important is whether you can acknowledge the possibility that a voice may be wrong, and whether you can give the same weight to other people's voices.

"I am God" can also be a phrase to reclaim oneself.

"I am God," such words should not be immediately dismissed as exaggerated claims.

For someone who has been told for a long time, "You have no value," "Be silent and obey," or "Don't make decisions on your own," the words "There is something sacred within you" can help them regain themselves.

It is possible that what that person wants to say is not that he created the universe.

• I am okay with not belonging to just one person.
• My body and mind do not deserve to be treated poorly.
• I have the power to choose again.
• Just as there is value in others, there is also value within me.
• The "me" who has failed is not the same as a worthless "me."

I might just want to say this.

In this sense, "I am God" is a strong rephrasing of human dignity. Even if it's not a strict explanation, it supports that person.

"The world is on your side," "You are loved by the universe," these words are also similar. It does not necessarily mean that the person is claiming that there are human-like emotions in space literally. It may be a phrase used to feel that one is not completely abandoned, even in loneliness.

Words have not only the function of explaining facts, but also the function of encouraging people and changing their way of living. If we ignore this function and judge everything solely based on whether it is right or wrong, we lose sight of why those words were needed in the first place.

However, if words of encouragement begin to be used directly as explanations of how the world works, then things change.

Encouragement and explanation of the world are not the same thing.

"You can do it" is encouragement.

"You have the power to choose," is also often a form of encouragement.

However, the statement "Your mind creates everything that happens to you" is a claim about how the world works. Furthermore, if one were to say "Even illnesses and accidents are created by your own mind," it raises questions about how to view the suffering of others.

The boundary is not always clearly defined.

Thinking positively can change your actions. It can also change the way you interact with people, and as a result, it can alter relationships. You may also become aware of opportunities that you had previously overlooked. The state of your mind often affects your physical condition.

However, there is a significant leap from that point to "the mind directly creates everything in the world."

Whether you can spend a rainy day in good spirits depends on your way of thinking. However, it is not possible to stop the rain simply by changing your way of thinking. The state of mind plays a role in how one deals with illness. However, we cannot attribute the cause of an illness solely to the person's way of thinking. You can prepare yourself for encounters with others. However, you cannot create the feelings of the other person.

"Being able to relate to one's own experiences" and "being able to control everything in the world" are different things.

Is changing myself and creating the world the same thing?

While the phrase "I am God" can be helpful and encouraging, as long as it remains within that range, it can help restore one's dignity and sense of agency. However, when it progresses to statements like "My consciousness creates everything in the external world," or "My intuition is the voice of God, so I cannot be wrong," then different problems begin.

If your perception and actions change, the world you experience will also change. However, changing one's own mind is different from freely creating things like weather, illness, disasters, or other people's intentions.

Also, experiencing a sense of unity and sacredness, and obtaining a higher status than others are different things. Even if the experience is important to the person, it does not automatically create a "right" for them to say, "Therefore, you should follow me."

Regaining one's own dignity ≠ Freely controlling the outside world and others.

Experiencing sacredness ≠ Obtaining authority above others.

These two themes will be discussed in more detail later when we talk about the realization of desires, mystical experiences, spiritual hierarchies, and organizational power. For now, it is sufficient to remember that the phrase "I am God" can range from encouragement to world-building or claims of authority.

"Do you believe in God?" is not enough.

As you look at this, you realize that the question "Do you believe in God?" alone does not reveal many things.

That person believes in something that either listens to prayers, or is the creator of the world, or the life felt within nature, or a voice deep inside oneself, or something that supports the entire universe.

Does that god think, decide, and speak like a human? Is it something that cannot be compared to humans? Is it outside of the world? Or is it within the world? Does it approach humans? Has it not been separate from the beginning?

And, if that person says, "I am God," I might ask further questions.

• Is the self that is currently angry or confused, in its essence, God?
• Does this mean there is something within oneself that is different from one's usual self?
• Do all people have the same thing?
• Are one's desires and what God wants always the same?
• How does one realize when they are wrong?
• When others object, will their wishes also be respected?
• Does this idea liberate oneself, or does it seek obedience to someone else?

If we pose such questions, it will reveal much more than simply dividing people into those who believe in God and those who do not.

Difficult words exist so that we do not forget the differences.

In this chapter, I have tried to proceed with the explanation without using overly difficult names.

Nevertheless, several differences have already emerged.

Difficult words used in religion and philosophy were originally intended to distinguish these differences more finely, not to compete for difficulty.

If the world becomes more distant every time you learn a new word, then the order of explanation is reversed. First, there is a question, and a name is attached later to briefly point to that question.

From the next chapter onwards, let's gradually separate what we have been calling "God" as a single entity.

The god who creates the world. The god who speaks to humans. Gods who are stronger than humans but not necessarily perfect. Gods that can be felt in nature and land. Something that supports everything in the world, but is difficult to describe as a single being with a form. The "divine" qualities said to exist within human beings.

If you can see that difference, then you will understand that there are at least two blanks in the sentence "I am God."

"I," which "I" are we talking about? "God," which "God" are we talking about?

Without filling in these two, I cannot answer whether "I am God" is true or false.

From here on, I will not increase the number of questions at once. First, let's only look at the left and right sides of the equation.

Stage 1: What is "God"? Stage 2: What is "I"? ↓ Confirm both, then look at the relationship between them.

After creating that basic map, we will add individuality, redemption, desires, experiences, and power one by one. These are important, but if you try to answer them all at the same time as the first two questions, it can be confusing.

The breadth of the phrase "You are God."

First, let's list the possible meanings of the phrase "you are God" in everyday conversations. I will explain any formal classifications related to religion or philosophy when necessary.

If I were a god, what kind of god would I be? A god who created the universe, a god enshrined in shrines, or the divine essence that dwells within humans? These are not the same things.

And who is "I"? Is it the everyday me, filled with anger and a desire for success, making mistakes? Or is it the soul within? Pure consciousness? The short sentence, "You are God," has both a subject and a predicate that are undefined.

In light conversations, this ambiguity can sometimes encourage people. However, when it comes to topics like health, money, disasters, other people's wills, and obedience to leaders, metaphors are no longer sufficient. Therefore, in this article, I will first clarify the relationship between "me" and "God," and then add one wish, one experience, and one power each.

Expanding the question slightly: The same phrase "man is god" can have completely opposite meanings.

First, let's summarize these differences using plain language. In the first table, we will only look at the left and right sides of the expressions.

Once you know the left and right sides, you can see the line that connects them. This is not a third axis to be memorized from the beginning, but rather a relationship that arises depending on which person and which god are placed on each side.

"Humans are gods," "Everything is one," and "Your true self is connected to the universe." When you encounter religion or modern spirituality, you often come across these kinds of words.

However, it is rare to find an expression with such a wide range of meanings.

In one ideology, the phrase "man is God" is a word that thoroughly questions the everyday personality that we usually think of as "I."

In another ideology, it means that a divine essence, separated from God, resides within humans.

Yet another ideology posits that God and humans are distinct but work together reciprocally.

Still another ideology believes that God and humanity become one, expressing God's will in the world.

And in some modern spiritual teachings, the claim that "my essence is divine" can be connected to statements such as "I have the power to create reality through my consciousness," and "my desires are the desires of the universe."

Are these things really saying the same thing?

The trigger for this question arose from a trip where I visited the headquarters of Kinkōkyō in Okayama, the headquarters and surrounding areas of Kurozumi-kyō, and related sites of Daibon in Ayabe and Kameoka, Kyoto, all within a short period. These are three religions that are often grouped together under the broad category of "new Japanese religions." However, when I examined their doctrines, the relationship between God and humans differed significantly.

• In Kurozumi teachings, it is said that humans receive a "bunshin" (separated heart) from Amaterasu Omikami.
• In Shinshukyo, the relationship between heaven and earth, and humanity, is described as "aiyokakeyo," meaning a reciprocal relationship where both sides support each other.
• In Taikyon, it is taught that God and humans become one and work together ("shin'nin gattou"), and that there is a function to organize the world according to God's will.

In order to consider these differences, the second part of this paper will use the philosophical tradition of Vedanta that developed in India. However, each technical term used therein will be explained one by one. There is no need to memorize just the names here.

In this paper, we will start from a more lighthearted place. "You are God," "You are one with the universe," "Your true self has creativity." When you hear these words, is that "God" a creator god, a Shinto deity, or an inner divinity? Is that "self" your everyday personality, or something beyond your everyday personality? First, in Part I, we will thoroughly explore this simple question.

Once the form of the question becomes clear, we move on to Part II, which explores Vedanta. In this section, different answers regarding the relationship between God, the world, and each individual soul emerge from the same important texts. Based on these differences, we will proceed to examine Japanese Buddhism, Shintoism, and Confucianism, religions around the world, Western concepts of the soul that have been reorganized since modern times, contemporary spirituality, and "the Law of Attraction," which is said to manifest desires into reality. The names of each ideology and terminology will be explained for the first time in their respective chapters. Finally, we will consider how the idea of "I am God" can transcend a state of focusing solely on oneself, or conversely, how it can lead to a sense of being special, and what happens when religious self-understanding becomes linked with the power of leaders and organizations that strongly control members.

Here, I will place three questions that will be used throughout the rest of this article.

The first question is about the ideology itself. The second and third questions are about how that ideology is used in human relationships and organizations. While the doctrine says "all people are God," in practice, only representatives may be treated as if they are infallible gods. Conversely, a doctrine that clearly separates God from humans can also lead to limitations on power, such as recognizing that "even representatives are just ordinary individuals." Therefore, we must first distinguish between the theological concept of the relationship between God and people and the actual relationships between God and people within a group.

In addition to these three questions, I will also provide three distinctions to avoid confusion throughout the comparison.

1. Seeing something god-like in a person does not mean absolutizing my everyday self as God.
2. Not thinking only from one's own perspective does not mean relinquishing judgment and initiative to a leader.
3. Similar structures do not necessarily imply historical influence.

This paper does not aim to prove the existence of gods or souls. Instead, it explores what each ideology claims, how much these claims can be compared with each other, how the vocabulary has been reconstructed since modern times, and how they can be utilized within organizations.

In this paper, the term "ego" has a broad meaning, so I would like to clarify its usage here. In this paper, unless otherwise specified, we use the term "ego" in a broad sense that refers to the tendency to absolutize what one considers to be oneself, such as name, memory, status, desires, and self-image, believing that these constitute everything about oneself. The concepts of self in Indian philosophy and psychology, which will appear in later chapters, have their own specific meanings, so they are not simply used as synonyms for "ego."

"God" is not a single type.

First, I will explain the basic differences in plain language. The formal classification names and each religion's proper nouns will be introduced after you understand these differences.

This table is not a ranking chart. It does not create a spiritual ranking system where "the fundamental existence" is at the top, followed by points for angels and land deities." In fact, each column represents subjects that cannot be measured on the same scale.

In the following text, we will refer to the creator of the world as "creative deity," and a god who responds to humans with knowledge, will, and love as "personal God." We will also use the terms "ultimate reality" or "absolute being" to describe the deepest basis that supports all existence. For individual sacred beings that carry out the workings of nature and the universe, we will use the words "divine attributes" or "deities." The idea that there is something divine within humans may be expressed as "immanence of divinity." Here, "immanence" means not only coming from outside but also existing within.

The creator god answers the question of "Who created the world?" The concept of ultimate reality answers the question of "What is the deepest basis that makes a changing world possible?" Individual gods deal with issues such as festivals, natural phenomena, the heavens, and worship. Buddha is not the creator of the world, but rather someone who has awakened from delusion. Angels are also not God himself in classical monotheism, but messengers created by God.

Therefore, in religious comparison, what is important is not which concept appears higher on the same table, but rather to determine what kind of question each concept answers.

God as a large being, God as the basis of existence.

The image of God that children often have is "a very strong and knowledgeable person who exists above the sky." Although invisible, this being has a personality, monitors the world, listens to prayers, and judges good and evil. This is a natural starting point for understanding religion.

However, in "philosophical theology," which explores the nature of God and its relationship to the world using philosophical methods, the concept of God is not simply an entity that represents an infinite multiple of human capabilities.

Human: Knows a little, possesses a little power, lives for a limited time. ↓ Infinite ability God: Knows everything, can do anything, lives forever.

In this figure alone, God is the greatest superhuman in the universe. However, in classical monotheism, God has been considered not as the largest entity within the world, but as the basis for the existence of the entire world. Is God "one being" that exists alongside other beings, or is God the source that gives existence to all existing things? This difference is significant.

Later, when we discuss Indian thought and Jewish mysticism, there is a tradition of considering God not as "the largest individual in the universe," but rather as the basis from which everything emerges, or as an infinite being that humans cannot fully comprehend. The formal names for each of these concepts will be explained in the chapters where they are discussed.

Therefore, even the sentence "I saw God" changes in meaning depending on the concept of God.

• I experienced the existence and divinity of heaven visually and internally.
• I felt that there was a knowing, willful God present.
• I experienced the entire world as something manifested by God.
• The boundary between myself who is seeing and the world being seen disappeared, and I felt that fundamentally they are not two separate things.
• I experienced strong psychological images and symbols.

It would be better not to treat these as a single event. In particular, when referring to "seeing" all existence based on one object, it is necessary to verify the consistency with how that tradition considers "how can people know this." The field of study that explores "what and how can be known" is called epistemology.

Is God good? -- Perfect gods and imperfect deities.

Here, I will only add information about the types of gods, ethical completeness, and whether they possess knowledge.

The following points of caution, derived from this discussion, will be examined one by one after the table. The problem arises: how to explain evil and suffering in terms of the highest god as absolute goodness? Mythological gods do not necessarily represent "goodness" simply because they are gods. Regarding Indian deities, it is necessary to distinguish between their abilities and the wisdom that frees them from delusion. Furthermore, for real-world leaders, divinity or religious experiences do not constitute a moral exemption.

In theistic classical views of God, it is often said that God is perfectly good. Then, a problem arises: why do evil and suffering exist if there is a god who is both good and powerful? This problem is called theodicy.

On the other hand, the gods in polytheistic myths are not necessarily ethical paragons. They can be jealous, quarrelsome, deceitful, and make mistakes. This is not simply because "religion is immature." The gods may embody nature, politics, family, fate, and the ambiguities of human psychology.

In Indian tradition, "deva" (デーヴァ), which means "shining one" or "god," also possesses cosmic functions and a high status, but can still exhibit desires, fears, and arrogance. The gods in Buddhism can also have incorrect viewpoints. The deities in Japanese mythology are not completely abstract moral principles.

From this difference, two dangerous misunderstandings arise.

First, it is to think that "if you are called 'god,' everything you say is good and correct." This transfers the attributes of a single God as the highest good to all deities and spiritual beings.

Secondly, the idea that "because mythological gods make mistakes, spiritual leaders are also usually allowed to transcend ethics." This transforms mythical symbols into exemptions for real-world power holders.

In this paper, we broadly refer to experiences that go beyond everyday self-awareness and involve a sense of unity with the sacred, intense light, deep stillness, etc., as "mystical experiences." The principle of this paper is clear.

Divinity, godhood, spiritual abilities, and mystical experiences do not provide ethical exemptions for real human beings.

What does omnipotence and omniscience mean?

Omniscience refers not simply to knowing a lot, but to completely knowing everything that is true. Omnipotence refers not to possessing one strong power, but to complete power capable of achieving anything possible. First, let's understand these meanings and then compare them to similar human experiences.

In modern spirituality, the concept of "you are a god" often shifts to discussions about abilities. Omnipotence is not simply magic that allows one to create logical contradictions at will. In classical theology, it has been discussed as a power capable of achieving everything that is logically possible.

These are very strong properties, and the experience of feeling that human intuition, clairvoyance, premonition, and meaningful coincidences have overlapped is different not only in degree but also in type.

An event was guessed. ≠ Knowing everything.

A strong intention changed some actions or environments. ≠ Being able to create the world from nothing.

A mystical sense of unity was experienced. ≠ Personally possessing God's omniscience and omnipotence.

In later Indian thought, there is a position that argues that "the deepest nature of human beings and the fundamental essence of existence are not two things." In this sense, what does not divide into two is called non-dualism. However, even in such cases, it is not considered that an individual's mind can acquire all information. An individual's brain, memory, perspective, and language are limited. "Being fundamentally one" and "knowing tomorrow's stock price" are different claims.

This distinction also relates to spiritual business practices. If you encourage someone by saying, "You can do anything because you are a god," and then later say, "The reason you couldn't do it is because your faith was weak," thereby shifting the responsibility back onto them, then the promise of omnipotence becomes irrefutable.

The Japanese word "kami" is broader and different from "God."

As we saw in Chapter 1, the Japanese word "kami" encompasses a wide range of concepts, including nature, land, ancestors, historical figures, mythical beings, and even fundamental deities. Therefore, it is not possible to treat English words like "God," the Islamic concept of Allah (the one God), Buddhism's Buddha, or angels (messengers of God) as all being the same type of "kami."

Therefore, the Japanese phrase "met God" alone does not determine whether one has met the creator of the world, felt a god enshrined in a shrine, or experienced a dream or inner symbol. Furthermore, experiencing something as a sacred being is different from that being being omniscient, omnipotent, and ethically perfect.

A detailed comparison of Japanese Shinto beliefs, Shinbutsu-shūgō (the syncretism of Buddhism and Shinto), and the practice of enshrining individuals will be covered in Chapter 1 and Section VIII, "The Fundamental Nature of Existence, The Lord of the World, and Individual Deities." Here, we only carry over the caution that even when translated as the same word "god," the original concepts may not always be identical.

Is God a person, or is He impersonal?

In religious comparisons, it is often common to categorize gods as either personal or impersonal. However, even the Japanese word "personality" is ambiguous.

Gods who possess human-like personalities, experience mood swings, have likes and dislikes, and engage in conflicts with other gods are also considered to be personal. The highest god, possessing love, knowledge, will, and responsiveness in a complete manner, is also referred to as being personal. Furthermore, some theology uses the term "superpersonal" to describe deities who do not lack human personality but possess knowledge and love that transcend human limitations.

In contrast, the term "impersonal" refers to not conceiving of God or fundamental principles as a single entity that "listens to our prayers." This does not mean it is a cold substance. Some philosophies refer to consciousness itself, which makes seeing possible, as "pure consciousness," rather than being an object to be seen. Furthermore, in Buddhism, there are concepts such as "emptiness" (ku) and "no-self" (mujin), which reject the idea that all things have a separate and unchanging essence. "No-self" means not having a fixed, independent self or essence. The fact that things exist not independently but through conditions and relationships is called "engyo."

It is not possible to definitively state that an impersonal absolute being is superior to a personal god. From the perspective of those who value love for God, prayer, and devotion, a perfect being who can be known, loved, and responded to is richer than an abstract entity stripped of qualities. This love and devotion to God is called bhakti in India. Later, we will discuss Ramanuja, an Indian thinker who criticized the understanding of the ultimate god as an entity completely devoid of attributes.

Conversely, from the perspective of a position that does not fundamentally distinguish between God and the true self, the distinction between the knower and the known, or the lover and the beloved, is also not ultimate. This position that does not make such distinctions is called "non-dualism." Rather than saying that both sides ascend to the same summit by different paths, they perceive the meaning of the summit itself differently.

This difference changes the meaning of "a person becoming a god."

A tradition centered on a personal, supreme God. People know God, love Him, serve Him, and approach Him through the grace given by Him.

A tradition centered on an impersonal, non-dualistic concept. It is known that true self and ultimate reality are not two separate entities.

In the former case, personality tends to remain as a condition for relationships. In the latter case, even the understanding of an independent individual self is questioned.

Is God outside of the world, or within it?

The next comparison axis is transcendence and immanence.

Transcendence refers to the state where God is not reduced to a part of the world, but transcends the world. Immanence refers to the state where God is present and active in the world and humans, and the world is not separated from God.

These two things are also not simply opposites. Many religions talk about both of them.

The view that sees God and the universe as the same thing is called pantheism. The concept of panentheism refers to the idea that the world exists within God, but that God extends beyond the world itself. Both are classifications established in Western thought, so caution is needed when applying them to other cultures' ideologies.

Later, when we discuss Indian thought and the Great Origin, there are concepts that can be compared to these classifications. However, since each has its own unique teachings, foundational texts, rituals, and worldview, we should not simply use Western classification terms as formal names. We will refer to documents that religious communities treat as authoritative texts as "sacred scriptures" in this context.

"God is in me" can be divided into at least the following meanings:

1. God, as the creator, sustains my existence and is present within me.
2. The Holy Spirit or divine spirit works within me.
3. I am an image, a child, a reflection, a part, and a manifestation of God.
4. True self and absolute being are non-dual.
5. Deep symbols representing God appear in my mind.
6. My intuition and desires are the voice of God.

The first five to six items are not automatically generated. The fact that God works within a person does not mean that the "I" composed of everyday personality will never be wrong.

How does God create the world?

When explaining the beginning of the world, even the single word "creation" is not enough. Here, we will first list five differences in everyday language, and then explain the formal term.

In order to consider the relationship between God and the world, it is also necessary to break down the word "creation."

Creation from nothingness.

In classical Christianity, "creatio ex nihilo" (creation out of nothing) is important. God not only processed existing matter but also freely gave the very existence of the world. The world completely depends on God, and does not depend on itself.

In this structure, even if we say that humans are creative, it does not necessarily mean that they create existence from nothing, in the same way as a god. Humans receive materials, bodies, language, history, and relationships with others, and they create within those frameworks.

Gradually appearing from a single origin – "Leakage"

Emanation is a model in which diverse stages and existences appear from a single source. This concept appears when comparing Neoplatonism, an ancient philosophy; Kabbalah, a Jewish mystical tradition; and other Western esoteric traditions. However, whether emanation is necessary or free, and the relationship between the emanated world and the original source varies depending on the system.

In Kabbalah, the infinite God that humans cannot fully comprehend is called Ein Sof (En Sof), meaning "the Infinite." To explain the relationship between this God and the divine actions and attributes that manifest in the world, ten progressive stages of activity are described as Sephirot. It is a mistake to imagine the relationship between these two entities simply as a division of water. The Sephirot are symbolically and mystically referred to as divine qualities, powers, manifestations, and vessels.

The origin manifests itself as a world – "Manifestation."

Manifestation (顕現) is a model in which hidden roots or consciousness appear as diverse worlds. In the Kashmir Shaivism of India, where Shiva is understood as ultimate consciousness, the world is actively perceived as a free self-manifestation of Shiva's consciousness.

In modern spirituality, "manifestation" is often used to mean the realization of desires. Although the word is the same, cosmological manifestation and personal wish fulfillment are different concepts.

Cosmological manifestation: A single origin manifests as the world and diversity.

Self-developmental manifestation: An individual's intention and beliefs cause desired events to occur.

In order to derive the latter from the former, it is necessary to have an additional premise: "Individual consciousness can freely use the same creative power as the root source for personal purposes."

Formation and Organization

In mythology, there are also creations where gods divide, name, and order existing chaos, primordial waters, and materials. This is not the same as creation from nothing. The "kuniumi" (creation of land) and "kamisumi" (birth of deities) in Japanese mythology cannot be replaced by the monotheistic concept of "creatio ex nihilo."

Non-binary appearance.

In Indian non-dualistic thought, the fundamental nature of existence does not take a simple form that involves using materials to construct the world. The world appears depending on its foundation, but there is an explanation that does not consider the foundation itself as transforming into another substance. The formal terminology and its significance within different schools of thought will be explained in Part II.

Even with just the sentence "God created the world," it is difficult to classify anything.

The number of gods and the number of fundamental principles of the world are different.

The question of whether there is one God or multiple gods, and the question of whether there is a single fundamental principle that underlies the universe or multiple such principles, are different questions. "Monotheism" and "polytheism," which represent the former, and "monism," which represents the latter, have similar sounds but answer different questions.

• Monotheism centers on the belief in one God.
• Polytheism recognizes multiple gods.
• Monism believes that there is only one ultimate reality.
• Dualism distinguishes between two fundamental principles.
• Pluralism acknowledges numerous real, spiritual, or existential principles.

Monotheistic religions do not necessarily equate to monism. If one acknowledges the real difference between God and the created world, then it is not a simple form of monism. It is also possible to worship many gods while recognizing a single ultimate reality behind them. There are also structures called henotheism (which can be translated as "monolatry" or "alternating polytheism"), where one worships a specific supreme god but also acknowledges the existence of other gods.

The Advaita philosophy, which we will discuss later, maintains a non-dualistic position regarding the true self and ultimate reality. It is inappropriate to evaluate this as being "more advanced than monotheism" or to describe Christianity as a "backward dualism that separates God and humanity." They each uphold different religious values.

To speak of God in a positive way, or to speak of God in a negative way.

The method of describing God using positive terms, such as "good" or "love," is called affirmative theology. Conversely, the method of describing God by separating Him from human and material qualities, such as "not finite" or "not an object," is called negative theology.

In Indian philosophy, there is a term called "nirguna." A literal translation would be "without qualities," and "guna" refers to properties or attributes, or the characteristics that constitute nature. However, not all schools of thought agree on the understanding that "nirguna" means having no qualities at all. As we will see later, even the pronunciation of this term itself becomes a subject of debate.

In theology, the method of speaking positively is also called "kataphatic," and the method of speaking through negation is called "apophatic." Affirmative theology describes God as good, knowing, loving, and powerful. Negative theology preserves the transcendence of God by negating attributes, stating that God is not finite, not an object, not limited by time, and cannot be contained within human concepts.

In comparison with Nilguna, negative theology seems closer. However, they are not the same.

Negative theology. God does not possess the attributes of creation in the same way. Nevertheless, it is possible to speak of God as being perfectly knowing, loving, and good.

A non-dualistic interpretation of Nirguna. It does not attribute limiting attributes or differences to ultimate reality. It emphasizes a non-duality that is pure consciousness.

Also, in interpretations centered on a personal god, "nirguna" is not read as "having no qualities at all," but rather as lacking negative qualities or material attributes (guna), and it recognizes infinite and perfect attributes in the ultimate God. In other words, even the interpretation of the same word "nirguna" itself is a point of contention. The names of schools of thought and detailed discussions will be covered in Part II.

The expression "a god that cannot be explained in words" also needs to be handled carefully. There are cases where the claim of being beyond words is used as a reason why any explanation can be criticized.

God transcends words. ↓ Legitimate reservation Concepts cannot fully grasp God.

God transcends words. ↓ Dangerous misapplication Do not criticize the leader's contradictory explanations.

The premise that the fundamental principles of the world are completely unknowable to humans is separate from the issue of organizations avoiding accountability.

Supplement: How to say "How did you know about God?"

Classifying the appearance of a god and verifying "why that can be said about that god" are different things. Scriptures, traditions, reason, personal experiences, and the words of leaders are all different bases for understanding.

Furthermore, even if a mystical experience is true for the individual experiencing it, its interpretation and the social authority derived from it are not necessarily correct. This issue will be addressed in Part IX, "Considering Doctrine, Organization, and Power Separately." A detailed table separating evidence, interpretation, and experience will be placed in Part VIII, "How to Say 'I Know' About God."

Returning to the topic of gods - Before asking "Do gods exist?", consider "What do we want to explain with the concept of 'gods'?"

In religious philosophy, the concept of God functions as an answer to multiple questions.

• Why is there something rather than nothing?
• Why does the world have order and laws?
• Why do consciousness and values exist?
• What is the ultimate basis for good and evil?
• Is there meaning in suffering and death?
• To whom do humans appeal and pray?
• What are the ultimate nature of the world and oneself?
• From what does humanity need to be saved, and what will it complete?

A single concept of God may not answer everything in the same way. A concept that explains the fundamentals of existence and consciousness cannot simply be "a singular being who listens to my requests." The individual deities that are objects of prayer, even if they are involved in the workings of nature or the universe, are not necessarily the sole basis for all things that exist. Even Buddha, who is central to salvation in Buddhism, does not answer the same questions as a god who created the world from nothingness. These proper nouns will be explained further in the following chapter on comparisons.

In modern spirituality, the origin of the world and consciousness is sometimes referred to in English as "Source." This "universe" or "Source" may encompass all of the roles mentioned earlier in a single word.

Universe
The very essence of the world.
+ A being that listens to personal requests.
+ The law of cause and effect.
+ Source of love.
+ Higher self.
+ A mechanism for delivering wishes.

Poetically, it is attractive, but when analyzed, many roles are overlapping. Is the universe a physical world, consciousness, personality, law, or metaphor? It is necessary to consider them separately for now.

Part I: A Brief Summary - First, do not use a single word to represent "god."

You do not need to memorize all of the classification names that have been mentioned so far. Let's move on with just these three points.

1. In Japanese, the word "god" can broadly encompass natural deities, spirits of deceased individuals, gods who listen to prayers, the creator of the world, and even the fundamental basis of existence.

2. Believing that "there is something divine within oneself" is not the same as believing that "one's everyday self is omnipotent."

3. The experience related to a god, how one interprets that experience, and further demanding that others follow suit are all different things.

In the next section, we will temporarily stop working on increasing the number of types of gods. Let's refine the "self" in the sentence "I am a god" to be more detailed.

From here, it will become slightly more specialized. However, you do not need to memorize the names of schools from the beginning.

In Part I, we learned that the meaning of the word "god" is not singular. Now, let's divide the "I" that exists on the other side of the sentence. For now, three distinctions are sufficient.

Things that I usually think of as "me" ↓ Is that all there is to me? A deeper sense of self ↓ How does it relate to the fundamental nature of the world? Ultimate existence.

In this section, we will examine the relationship between these three concepts, focusing on Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. When I use the phrase "based on Vedanta" in this paper, unless otherwise specified, it refers primarily to this understanding of self within Advaita.

However, not all of Vedanta is Advaita. There are schools of thought that maintain the distinction between individual souls and God while studying the same texts. These will be briefly mentioned in Chapter 9 under the category "Other possible answers." For now, focus on the question of "What am I?" within the framework of Advaita without trying to memorize multiple schools simultaneously.

Vedanta, literally meaning "the end of the Vedas," refers to a collection of sacred texts from ancient India. The Upanishads, which are located in the latter half of the Vedas, deeply question the fundamentals of self, world, and existence. Vedanta is a general term for multiple schools of thought that developed around these Upanishads.

The major texts include the Brahma Sutra, which summarizes the ideas of the Upanishads in short propositions, and the Bhagavad Gita, which discusses action, knowledge, and devotion to God through dialogues on the battlefield. In the Shankara tradition, these three texts are called the prasthana-trayī (three starting points). Shankara left behind early systematic commentaries on these three types of literature.

It is important to understand that Vedanta is not a single answer, but rather a set of complex questions. Within the same scriptures, there are passages that speak of ultimate unity, passages that encourage devotion to personal gods, and passages that presuppose the existence of individual souls and actions. Different schools of thought emerged based on what one focuses on when reading these texts, and how one reconciles seemingly contradictory statements. In this chapter, we will focus primarily on Shankara's interpretation and explain the terminology accordingly.

Here, let's organize the words that appear frequently in the main text. You don't need to memorize six words at once. First, distinguish three nouns. Then, if you add "what is the problem?" and "where are we going?", it will be fine.

Initially, there were three concepts: "the fundamental nature of the world," "true self," and "living me."

Brahman refers to the ultimate basis that constitutes the world and the self. It is different in both spelling and meaning from the creator god Brahmā. Ātman is a term used to inquire about the self, particularly the ultimate nature of the self, and it does not simply correspond to the Western concept of "individual soul." Jīva refers to an individual existence that lives, experiences, and acts.

If we replace them with everyday language, Brahman is closer to "the fundamental basis of all existence," Atman is closer to "my deepest true nature," and Jiva is closer to "the individual me who is currently living this life." However, there are differing opinions among schools of thought regarding whether these three concepts are the same or different, so this substitution only serves as an introduction.

Next, "mistake" and "becoming free."

avidyā (アヴィディヤー) is a fundamental misunderstanding of the self and existence, and it is translated as "ignorance" in Japanese. The worldview that involves being born, dying, and repeatedly reborn is called "samsara." mokṣa (モークシャ) refers to liberation from this cycle of samsara and is translated as "liberation." bhakti (バクティ) refers to the path of loving, praying to, and surrendering to God. Here, surrender means trusting in God and relying on Him, which is not the same as unconditionally obeying a human leader.

Ignorance is, in a sense, a name given to a problem. Liberation represents the state of being free from that problem. However, different schools of thought differ on what is being misunderstood and who is becoming liberated. For now, it is sufficient to understand only the role of these words.

There is also a path leading to God.

The word "bhakti" at the end of the six words represents love and devotion to God. It is not necessary to think of Shankara's philosophy as a cold, purely intellectual one. However, direct liberation lies in the knowledge of one's true nature. In other schools of thought that maintain differences between God and humans, "bhakti" becomes even more central. This difference will be briefly confirmed in Chapter 9.

In this paper, "I" in daily life refers to:

In this paper, we will refer to the everyday "I," which consists of elements such as name, memory, role, desire, and self-image, as the "personal self" or "personality" when necessary. This is not a term that negates the entirety of an individual; rather, it is a convenient expression for distinguishing between the changing everyday self and the deeper self described by each ideology.

The following table is a summary to review this six-word description.

When reading for the first time, it becomes easier to understand if you divide them into "the everyday self," "the true self," and "ultimate existence." In particular, in Advaita Vedanta, the distinction between the empirical individual self and Atman as pure consciousness is crucial. In this section, we will use these terms in that sense. Please keep in mind that other schools of thought may place the same words differently; just have it at the back of your mind.

In other words, even the same word can have different meanings depending on the school of thought. This point is important when comparing it to various concepts of "higher self" that are used later in Western and modern spiritual contexts. The formal names for these will be explained in the corresponding chapters.

In Part I, we saw the confusion; let's unravel it with Vedanta.

In the first part, we saw that the Japanese word "shin" encompasses a wide range of meanings, including creator god, supreme personality god, ultimate reality, divinity, celestial being, and even inner divinity. At the same time, the "self" in the phrase "I am God" remained undefined.

Vedanta serves as a tool for precisely differentiating these subjects. The personal "I," the individual life-form (jiva), the true self (Atman), and the ultimate reality (Brahman) are not simple synonyms. From here on, specialized terminology is introduced not to display knowledge, but to resolve the ambiguity felt in Part I.

Śaṅkara, who lived around the 8th century, is known as a representative of Advaita Vedanta. "Advaita" means "not two." In simple terms, it means "one," but it does not mean that two separate things merge together; therefore, Advaita uses the expression "not two."

The central proposition is often expressed by the following formula:

Ātman = Brahman

However, you must not put everything from everyday personality directly into the left side of this equation.

"I am a company employee," "I am a successful person," "I have been hurt," "I have this personality," "I have these desires." This personal self, composed of memories, the body, roles, emotions, and desires, is not directly equated with the absolute being that creates the universe. Rather, Advaita Vedanta questions the very perception that considers these changing elements as the "ultimate I."

In Shankara's philosophy, Atman is described as pure consciousness, not an individual mind that thinks or perceives. It transcends individuality and various experiential differences, and it is identical to Brahman, not two separate entities. Direct realization of this non-duality is associated with liberation.

If written in a schematic way, it would be like this:

Consider the body, memory, desire, and role as "the ultimate self." ↓ Examine ignorance. ↓ Return the question to awareness of knowing changing objects. ↓ It is known that Atman and Brahman are not two.

Here, two entities, God and human, do not merge after successful training. Ultimately, what was originally one has been perceived as two due to ignorance.

In this sense, "unity" and "non-dualism" are not the same. Unity may imply a prior duality that is being unified. Non-dualism, from an ultimate perspective, does not even acknowledge such dualities.

If Advaita does not equate my everyday self with the ultimate Self, what then becomes of the world in which we live and the God to whom we pray? The question arises: "If only the true Self (Atman) and Brahman are real, are the world and God also unreal?" However, Shankara's explanation is not that simple.

Is the world just an illusion?

It is inaccurate to explain Advaita as "the world is an illusion created by one's own mind." Shankara does not believe that the external world is simply a projection of individual minds. The experienced world is something we all experience in common and is valid at the level of everyday life. However, it is not itself an independent ultimate reality, but rather depends on Brahman and is positioned as an ordered system distinguished by name and form.

Therefore, it is not possible to directly derive the idea that "my individual consciousness freely creates others and the world" from Advaita Vedanta. In this paper, I will later refer to such ideas as "reality creation theory." Individuals are dependent on Īśvara (the Lord who governs the universe) for their very existence, and they do not have the power to project the universe solely through their own minds, like a dream or imagination.

Ishvara, the Lord who rules the world.

Iishvara is described as the cause of the world and the ruler who governs order. In our experiential world, which includes prayer, meditation, ethics, and actions, devotion to a personal God also has meaning.

On the other hand, Nirguna Brahman is an ultimate reality that cannot be limited by name, form, or attributes. Here, "a god with attributes" and "Brahman transcending attributes" are not placed side-by-side as two supreme deities. There is a distinction between the level of discourse based on the premise of world and difference, and the level of discourse about ultimate non-duality.

Because of this distinction, we cannot simply replace "Atman = Brahman" with "the current me = the personified god who rules the world." The individual Jiva, Ishvara who governs the world, and ultimate Brahman should not be conflated under a single word like "god."

The goal of Advaita is not for the individual self to enhance its abilities and become a great being. It is about dissolving the fundamental misunderstanding of oneself, and realizing the non-duality of Atman and Brahman.

"It is not about memorizing 'I am Brahman'."

Shankara places the direct means to liberation in jñāna (knowledge). Here, this knowledge is not simply memorizing "I am Brahman" as information. It is a process of listening to the teachings of scriptures, verifying their logic, retaining the meaning of the teachings in one's mind, and engaging in contemplation to deeply understand them, thereby resolving fundamental misconceptions about oneself.

Here, instead of increasing the amount of information that the subject who knows gathers, we question the true nature of what was thought to be the subject who knows. Therefore, having a lot of spiritual knowledge, being able to talk about mystical experiences, and demonstrating special abilities do not necessarily mean enlightenment.

Will behavior and ethics become unnecessary?

Limiting the ultimate reality of the world does not necessarily mean that everyday ethics are meaningless. Shankara emphasized ethical preparation and mental tranquility, and in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, he also discussed actions for the sake of the world. The unethical conclusion that "because it is ultimately one, anything goes" does not automatically follow from non-dualism.

We will summarize the above Advaita philosophy to the extent necessary for the core of this paper.

Until now, we have examined Shankara's Advaita as the reference point for this paper. However, not all of Vedanta understands that "Atman and Brahman are ultimately non-dual."

Here, we only need to confirm that there is another major answer. It is not necessary to study the following two schools of thought with the same amount as Advaita Vedanta. Later in this article, it will be necessary to classify them based on whether they maintain a deep connection with God while preserving individual souls or retain a distinction between God and the soul until the end.

Vishishtadvaita, which preserves individual souls.

The Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta, systematized by Rāmānuja in the 11th-12th centuries, does not consider the difference between the world and individual souls as a real distinction, but rather as an apparent one due to ignorance. Both the world and the soul exist, and are completely dependent on the supreme personality of God, Narayana.

A typical metaphor for explaining relationships is "body-being." Individual souls and the world are included in God, like parts of God's body, and are supported by God. However, God is not a collection of souls, and individual souls do not become the same kind of being as God.

One God ├ World ├ Individual Soul A └ Individual Soul B

Because individuality remains, the devotion "I love God" and "God supports me" can exist. In this paper, only this inclusive model in which multiple individual entities remain within a single whole will be used for structural comparisons with Jinkōkyō and Group Soul. This is not to say that the doctrines are the same, nor does it claim historical influence.

Dvaita, which preserves the difference between God and soul.

In the 13th century, Madhva's Dvaita Vedanta maintains a fundamental difference between the supreme god Vishnu and individual souls. The soul is not an independent absolute being but completely dependent on God. Nevertheless, it does not become identical with God even after liberation.

In this paper, we refer to this position as a "God is God, humans are humans" difference model. However, it cannot be equated with the dualistic relationship between God and humanity in Christianity or other religions, because there is Madhva's unique system that includes creation, karma, reincarnation, and devotion to Vishnu.

List the central coordinates and auxiliary classifications only once.

Therefore, it cannot be summarized as "Vedanta = everything is one." However, this article is not a comprehensive overview of Vedanta that introduces the three schools equally. The basic framework for what follows will be Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. The other two schools are treated as supplementary classifications because they do not consider only Advaita to be the entirety of Vedanta, and also because they can serve as references when alternative models with individual characteristics are needed.

Supplement: Distinguishing between "fusion" and "non-dualism" in the "aura fusion model."

The "aura fusion model" used by the author in existing articles is a model for explaining the experience of two people or groups becoming close and feeling like they have "become one." This paper does not treat the existence of aura or information transfer as scientifically established facts.

This model is useful because it can distinguish between local resonance, relationships that preserve differences, inclusion within a larger whole, unification after the fact, and non-duality from the beginning.

Independent states A and B approach each other. = Fusion/Synchronization

A and B are ultimately not two independent entities. = Non-dualism

Therefore, Advaita is not a "cosmic-scale aura fusion." Furthermore, experiencing a strong sense of unity during joint worship or in the presence of a leader does not necessarily prove the validity of that religion's worldview or the correctness of its leaders. A detailed comparison of each model will be provided in Part VIII, "Nirguna and Oneness."

Two reference coordinates have been aligned.

In Part I, we divided concepts into: creative god, highest personal god, ultimate reality, divinity, celestial beings, and inner divinity. In Part II, focusing on Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, we distinguished between the personal self, jiva, atman, Brahman, and differentiated between a merging that ultimately becomes one, and non-dualism which is not inherently two. We also acknowledged that classifications other than Advaita exist within Vedanta, such as those that maintain individual identity through inclusion or dualistic differences, as supplementary categories to illustrate this point.

Now, we have established reference coordinates for both "God" and "Self." Next, as an example of applying these coordinates to actual religions, I will read about Kurozumi-kyo's "Bunshin," Jinkōkyō's "Kami no Ko" (Children of God) and "Aiyokakeyo," and Taikoku's "Shinjin Gouichi" (Union of God and Man). These three religions were not chosen as representatives of Japanese religion. Through these three cases, which served as a starting point for comparison, I will examine the differences behind similar words.

From here on, I will not immediately cover all the points at once. First, I will examine what each religion calls "God" and how it views humanity. Next, I will compare the relationship between the two, and then move on to additional layers such as individuality, practice, and desires. This order will also be maintained in the later sections of the article when discussing Theosophy, New Age, ego, and power.

The purpose of this section is not to introduce an overall picture of Kurozumi-kyo, Kinpokyo, and Oomoto. Also, these three religions were not selected as representative examples of Japanese new religious movements, nor as the three types that comprehensively cover the relationship between God and humans.

The direct reason for choosing these three religions is that a short visit to the relevant regions served as the starting point for comparison. If I had embarked on a different trip or pursued a different interest, I might have chosen other religions as examples. Here, we will see that even among these three religions, which I happened to encounter in succession over a short period of time, there are clear differences regarding the relationship between God and humans.

Therefore, instead of explaining the entire history, rituals, organization, and doctrines of each sect, this paper will focus on the scope necessary to answer the questions posed. First, for each sect, we will examine "what kind of god it is" and "how it views humans," and then, after that becomes clear, we will outline the relationship between God and humanity.

Read about Kurozumi-kyo independently. ↓ Read about Kinpokyo independently. ↓ Read about Oomoto independently. ↓ Finally, compare the three religions.

If you decide from the beginning which one is closer to Advaita, each religion will become invisible. First, let's listen to what each religion itself has to say. Then, we can compare their similarities and differences.

The selection of these three religions does not mean that they fully explain Japanese religion. The "bunshin" (division of mind) of Kurozumi-kyo, the "aiyokakeyo" (blessings and prayers) of Kinno Kyo, and the "shinjin gogei" (union of God and human) of Oomoto are specific examples that demonstrate concepts beyond what can be expressed by simply saying "human divinity" or "closeness between God and humans."

At the same time, being able to compare things side by side is different from one thing having historically influenced another.

The Kurozumi-kyo, Kinpokyo, and Daibon are discussed in the context of Japanese religious history as new religions, "folk religions" that emerged from the hardships and salvation sought by ordinary people, or as Shinto sects that were formalized as officially recognized organizations in modern times ("kyoha shinto"). However, these three groups did not have the same origins or founding periods.

This paper does not consider these to be derived from Vedanta. Based on the materials referenced this time, it was also not possible to confirm a lineage in which Shinshūkyō and Kurozumi-kyō were directly influenced by Ramanuja or Shankara.

Here, we are conducting a comparison. We place ideas that originated in different cultures and histories before the same questions: "Is God outside of humans or within them?", "Does individuality remain?", and "What is it that humans complete?". Even if similar aspects are found as figures, they do not prove conceptual identity or historical influence.

The relationship between deities and humans in Kurozumi teachings can be easily compared using a model where divine elements are "within" human beings.

The official doctrine of Kurozumi-kyo states that Kurozumi Sochuu attained a state of unity with the divine and received direct instruction from heaven in 1814 through his daily prayers, marking a turning point in the establishment of the religion. It also proposes a view of humanity where all people are "fragments" of Amaterasu Omikami, making them children of God.

Amaterasu Ōmikami ↓ Receives a part of her divine essence Human beings

Here, the divine resides within human beings. However, the official explanation also states that humans are "brought to life and living" by God's work and grace, which fills heaven and earth, namely, "divine virtue." It is not a structure where humans become independent, small absolute gods and create the world as they please.

Distraction is not a license to equate all personal desires and moods with divine will. The "Seven Articles" of Kurozumi-kyo include prohibitions against arrogance, looking down on others, and neglecting one's duties. Maintaining the heart as a vessel for distraction in good health, and expressing "shinshin," which means a mind that connects with God through daily prayer, gratitude, sincerity, and self-reflection, is the direction of practice.

Therefore, distraction can easily evoke associations with concepts like the "divine spark," "higher self," and "Atman" in modern people, but it is not identical to any of them.

• In Advaita Vedanta, the Atman is discussed as pure consciousness that is not separate from Brahman.
• The "bundoshin" (divine heart) in Kurozumi teachings exists within a Shinto and practical context of receiving divine essence from Amaterasu Omikami.
• As mentioned later, "higher self" is a modern term with no unified doctrine and is variable.

The three can sometimes be compared in terms of a psychological function that goes deeper than the everyday self, to a divine self. However, their ontology and religious practices are different.

The central deity of the Golden Light Sect is Tenchi-no-Kami. The official FAQ describes Tenchi-no-Kami as a god who nurtures and fosters all things in heaven and earth, and a god who loves each individual human being as "a beloved child of God" and desires their salvation.

The characteristics of the Golden Light Faith lie in the fact that, not only are commands issued from God to humans in a one-way direction, but also the relationship between God and people has strong mutual reciprocity. The following teachings are repeatedly emphasized within the faith:

The existence of a shrine depends on its parishioners, and the existence of parishioners depends on the shrine; they support each other and move forward together.

Here, "shishi" refers to humans who are protected by Tenchi Kinno-shin and live in a relationship with that god.

"Aiyo kakeyo" represents a relationship where gods and humans, and people with each other, work together and help each other to move forward. Simplified, it is represented by the following diagram:

Tenchi Kin no Kami ⇄ Human.

Here, God and humans are not the same. Humans are children of God, parishioners, and live in relationship with God. On the other hand, God's will is also manifested through human actions. Therefore, it is said "a person existing because of God," but also "God existing because of people."

A bidirectional circuit called "Toritsuki"

In the official explanation of faith in the Golden Light Sect, "torimono" (intermediaries) are placed at the center of religious activities. The intermediaries listen to the worries, sufferings, and desires of worshippers and convey them to God. At the same time, based on the teachings of the founder, they explain to people how to live according to God's will and the path to salvation.

People's wishes and difficulties -> Intermediary -> God God's wishes and guidance -> Intermediary -> People

Here, human desires are not denied. People who have illnesses, family problems, or difficulties in their lives pray to God and seek a way out. However, it is not necessarily the case that "because my wish is a universal desire, it will definitely come true." Wishes are received and reinterpreted within the relationship between God, people, and others.

Examples of "Shinshin" (divine heart) introduced on the official website are also important. It is said that the feeling of pity for those who are suffering, and the selfless act of helping them without regard for oneself, is Shinshin. In other words, divinity manifests as kindness towards others rather than a sense of self-sufficiency.

What does the name "Seishin," which was bestowed upon the founder, mean?

The word "seishin" (living god) can easily be interpreted as evidence that humans are, in essence, gods. However, caution is necessary.

The current official FAQ of the Golden Light Branch explains "Seishin Kokudo Daishin" as a divine title bestowed upon the founder by God. Therefore, it is not possible to derive a general doctrine that all human personalities are God from just the single word "Seishin." Even if explanations such as "God is born in the heart" are given within the sect, it is necessary to distinguish between the founder's divine title, the way of life representing the divine mind, and the general view of humanity.

Understanding the human view of Jingo-kyo centers on the idea that all people are children of God, that God and humanity walk together harmoniously, and that salvation is sought through interaction with others and a connection to divine will in everyday life.

When focusing on the fact that Shinshukyo does not completely separate God and humans, but also does not treat them as the same entity, it can be compared to some aspects of Vedanta. However, this does not mean that Shinshukyo is the same as Vedanta, let alone Advaita Vedanta.

If we were to compare, it would be easier to organize the structure of Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita compared to Shankara's Advaita.

What is commonly seen is the following structure.

• It does not completely separate God and humans.
• It does not combine God and humans into a single personality.
• Humans exist and work in relation to God.
• Individual identity and relationships remain.

In Ramanuja, the soul and the world are completely dependent on God as His body. In Shinshūkyō (Golden Light Religion), God and the followers stand in a relationship of "aiyokakeyo" (reciprocal giving and receiving). These two forms of mutualism are not the same. The God in Ramanuja is the ontological basis for the existence of the world and the soul. The "aiyokakeyo" in Shinshūkyō represents the living faith relationship between the Tenchi-no-Kami (Gods of Heaven, Earth, and Gold) and the followers.

Nevertheless, placing the two side by side has meaning in terms of a comparative axis that does not eliminate individuals and does not absolutize separation from God. This is a structural comparison made by the author, and it does not claim direct ideological influence.

What strongly appears in the teachings of Ōmoto is not only human inner salvation, but also how to rebuild the world.

The official "Daibon Principles and Three Fundamental Rules" places "Oneness of God and Humanity" as the heading, and in the main text of the principles, it states:

God is the universal spirit of all things, and man is the main body of the universe. Through the union of God and man, infinite power can be exerted here.

According to the official explanation, "God is the universal spirit of all things" means that the universal spirit of God, who created everything, dwells in all things. "Heavenly principles and laws" refers to governing and managing the entire universe, including the spiritual world and the physical world. Humans, as God's representatives, have the responsibility to realize the ideal world that God desires. And the condition for fulfilling this mission is unity with God.

Divine will and power + Human understanding and practice ↓ Union of God and humanity ↓ Realization of the divine plan for heaven and earth, realization of an ideal world.

In this structure, humans are not only vessels of divine will but also active agents who influence the world. Daibon refers to fundamentally reforming a disordered world as "Ritatte Tatenaoshi" (rebuilding and restructuring), and realizing an ideal world in accordance with divine will on Earth as "Jichitenkoku" (heaven on earth). The idea that all religions are connected at their roots is called "Mankyou Doon." All of these concepts focus not only on individual inner transformation but also on changes in religion, society, and the global order.

It is necessary to distinguish between Naoto Deguchi and Ojin Nobutaro Deguchi, as their roles were different. According to the official history of Tenrikyo, the "Kikami" incident that occurred in 1892 with Naoto Deguchi, along with the declaration of "replacement," marked a turning point in the founding of the religion. Subsequently, Ojin Nobutaro Deguchi played a significant role in the formation of doctrines, organization, arts, and international activities. If we combine them into a single narrative of a "founder," it will lead to a misunderstanding of the development of Tenrikyo's ideology.

The "Shin-Jin Goin" (divine human unity) of Oomoto, at first glance, appears similar to the understanding in Advaita Vedanta that "the true self and Brahman are one." This relationship is sometimes expressed in Japanese as "Bon-Ga Ichinyo," where "Bon" refers to Brahman and "Ga" refers to Atman. However, it's important to note that similarity in words does not necessarily mean identical thought structures.

The basic diagram: God's will/power + Human being ↓ Union of God and human ↓ To organize the world according to God's intention.

Advaita diagram: Thinking of Brahman and Atman as two. ↓ Elimination of ignorance. ↓ Knowing that it was non-dual from the beginning.

According to the official explanation of Okimono, people understand God's mind, receive God's power, become one with God, and build an ideal world. This involves mission, action, and transforming the world.

The central problem in Shankara's philosophy is ignorance regarding the self and ultimate reality. Liberation is not an event where Atman and Brahman merge later, but rather a realization of non-duality.

Therefore, while "shin-jin gōichi" (divine-human union) and "bon-ga ichinyo" (the oneness of Brahman and the self) can be compared, they are not identical. The former involves concepts of cooperation between gods and humans, as well as a world mission, while the latter centers on a non-dual recognition of ultimate reality and the true self.

Here, we will first look only at the left and right sides of the equation.

Next, let's look at the relationship that connects God and humans.

After confirming these basic relationships, we will add individuality and practice.

The locations of desires and difficulties are on a further layer.

This table does not classify all of the teachings of the three religions. Nevertheless, it shows that even with just the sentence "Humans have divinity," one cannot understand the differences between the three religions.

In Kurozumi-kyo, the concept of "bunshin" (divided spirit); in Kinokyo, the "kami no ko" (child of God); and in Taikobo, the "manabu ubunyu no rei" (universal spirit), all prevent a complete separation between God and humans. However, they differ in terms of where divinity exists, how it manifests, and for what purpose.

So far, at least four models have become apparent.

[Internal] The divine exists within humans - Comparison with Kurozumi-kyo.
[Interrelation] God and people work together while being distinguished - Comparison with Kin'ko-kyo.
[Unity] God and people become one to fulfill their mission - Comparison with Taikoku.
[Non-dualism] Ultimately, there were never two things from the beginning - Advaita Vedanta.

Here, by adding Ramanuja's "inclusivism," which places the soul and the world within a single God, and Madhva's "dualism," which maintains a difference between God and the soul, it becomes clear that the distance between God and humans cannot be measured with a single scale.

The following questions concern how classical and religious self-views were reorganized within modern Western society. Theosophy in the modern era will be used as a comparative material to illustrate these differences.

Here, the era and region change significantly. Until now, we have been comparing classical Indian thought with the three religions of Japan. Now, what happens to the meaning of "the true self" when modern Western civilization incorporates Indian thought and combines it with its own language and worldview?

The purpose of this section is not to provide a detailed introduction to the doctrines, history, and cosmology of Theosophy. It is also not intended to establish Theosophy as the sole origin of modern spirituality, nor to evaluate its entire system of thought.

In this paper, I discuss Theosophy because it clearly shows a different form of "self" from Advaita Vedanta. In Advaita, the recognition that the personal self is ultimately the true self is questioned. In Theosophy, what emerges prominently is a spiritual individual entity that persists beyond one lifetime and accumulates experiences and growth over long periods of time. Through this contrast, it becomes clear that "transcending the ego" and "cultivating a higher-order individual" are not the same thing.

Therefore, in this paper, we will only address the aspects of Theosophy that are necessary for comparison. Specifically, we will examine its formation as a syncretic ideology, the concept of Monad, spiritual evolution, the distinction between personality and individuality, and vocabulary related to later concepts such as Higher Self, Oversoul, and Group Soul. A comprehensive overview of Theosophical cosmology, biographical details, and information about various sects is beyond the scope of this paper.

The first difference that I would like to point out is only one.

Classical Advaita philosophy focuses on the question: "What is the true self?"

Modern Theosophy focuses on the narrative: "How does the soul grow over a long period of time?"

First, let's look at where the Theosophical movement originated. From there, we will move on to the Monad, which represents a higher-order individual that transcends reincarnation. Oversoul, Higher Self, and Group Soul can be discussed later. Although similar terms are used, I do not assume they are all the same thing from the beginning.

The Theosophical Society was founded in New York City in 1875. Key figures included Helena P. Blavatsky and Henry Steel Olcott, and later Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater expanded the teachings.

Theosophy is often described as a movement that "introduced Indian thought to the West." In reality, the Theosophical Society played a significant role in increasing Western interest in Hinduism and Buddhism, and in promoting concepts such as karma and reincarnation. However, it is a mistake to consider this simply as translation.

The modern movement that explores communication with the spirits of the deceased is called "Spiritualism." "Western Esotericism" refers to the various traditions and practices of esoteric cosmology inherited in the West. "Occultism" also refers to a modern ideology and practice that seeks hidden powers or laws beyond ordinary perception. Furthermore, we use the term "evolutionary thought" to refer to a broad perspective on progress that considers not only biology but also humanity and the universe as evolving through stages.

As shown in the chapter on Theosophy in "The Cambridge Companion to New Religious Movements," the backgrounds of the association's founders included spiritualism, Kabbalah, and Western esoteric traditions. To this were connected Hindu, Buddhist, Neoplatonic vocabulary, evolutionary thought, and occultism.

Western esoteric teachings, Neoplatonism ─┐ Spiritualism, occultism ─┼→ Modern Theosophy Hindu thought, Buddhism ─┤ Reincarnation, karma, evolution theory ─┘

In other words, Theosophy is a hybrid system that reconstructs a new cosmic history and human evolution by transferring Indian thought into Western existing vocabulary.

This "reconstruction" is important. In Advaita, the central focus was on knowing the non-duality of Atman and Brahman, which goes beyond identification with the personal self. In Theosophy, a long narrative emphasizing that individuals reincarnate and spiritually evolve through multiple layers of the universe takes precedence.

In Theosophy, the term "Monad" is used to represent these higher spiritual entities that are responsible for this long evolution. This word originates from the concepts of "one" and "unity." In the next chapter, we will also examine the history of this word before it was adopted by Theosophy.

The term "monad" was not created by Theosophy. The Greek word "monas" means one or unit, and it has a long history in ancient philosophy, Neoplatonism, Christian thought, Leibniz, etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that "monad is an English translation of Atman."

In Theosophy, the Monad is described as the highest spiritual principle of a human being, or as the fundamental individuality that unfolds its experience through vast evolution. However, depending on the author and time period, the classification of human principles varies, such as in the works of Blavatsky, Besant, and Leadbeater.

In Theosophical anthropology, personality and individuality are often distinguished.

• Personality is close to the physical body, emotions, daily mind, and social persona in a single lifetime.
• Individuality is described as a higher-order individuality that connects multiple reincarnations, acting as a spiritual growth entity.

This distinction, in terms of separating everyday self from true self, appears similar to Advaita Vedanta. However, what remains is different.

Advaita: Identification with the absolute reality -> Removal of ignorance -> Recognition of non-duality.

Theosophy: Ego throughout life -> Accumulation of experiences -> Reincarnating individuality -> Spiritual evolution.

In Advaita, the question is not "To what extent will this individual evolve and become God?" but rather, "Is the recognition that the individual is the ultimate Self correct?". In Theosophy, the long-term developmental history of the individual holds a significant position.

This can be read as a transformation from "the self that has transcended" to "the evolving self." However, Theosophy was not solely based on Advaita Vedanta. It also incorporates 19th-century Western views of progress, evolutionary theories, and esoteric hierarchical cosmology, which constitute this narrative.

The Theosophical spiritual evolution is not completed instantly with a single awakening. Through numerous reincarnations, cosmic cycles, and gradual development, both individuals and humanity progress towards higher levels.

This perspective on time differs from both classical Advaita and modern, instantaneous "awakening."

Evolutionary models have the appeal of viewing humans as beings capable of growth. At the same time, they also carry the potential to create a hierarchy between "evolved souls" and "souls that have not yet evolved." It is impossible to definitively establish a linear historical connection between later generations' "soul levels," "stages of consciousness," and "higher dimensions." However, it is possible to compare structures that hierarchize spiritual development.

Next, we will discuss "Over-Soul," which is a term representing the one soul that encompasses and connects individual beings. Like "monad," it is not a word created solely by Theosophy.

Oversoul / Over-Soul (オーバーソウル) is not a term that originates solely from Theosophy. Ralph Waldo Emerson discussed a single spiritual reality that encompasses and connects all individuals in his 1841 essay "The Over-Soul." This was 34 years before the establishment of the Theosophical Society.

In Emerson's writings, the individual existence is included within a single Over-Soul and becomes one with others. Furthermore, he does not simply absolutize ordinary human beings as they are. When everyday will and intellect try to exist on their own, weakness begins, and humans are rather depicted as vessels through which the entire soul works.

Therefore, Emerson's "Over-Soul" is not automatically the same as what is said in modern spirituality as a "higher soul that unites multiple aspects of oneself." In later generations, through Theosophy, New Age movements that spread in the latter half of the 20th century, and channeling cultures that claim to receive information from spiritual entities, the term "Oversoul" came to be used with different meanings.

Even if the same English word is inherited, it does not necessarily mean that the concept remains the same.

"Higher Self" is a term that is used in modern spirituality with a very broad meaning.

In some contexts, it refers to an ethical and spiritual self that transcends the everyday ego. In other contexts, it may refer to a higher-level being that continues reincarnation, an inner guide, a guardian entity, a point of contact with cosmic consciousness, or a part of the oversoul.

It has become widespread without a unified definition, due to the overlap of higher principles in Theosophy's anthropology, higher self concepts in Western esoteric traditions, the "more original self" in psychology, and channeling vocabulary from the New Age movement.

Therefore, when encountering the term "higher self" in modern writing, you should at least check the following:

• Is it a deeper psychological center than personality?
• Is it an individual that is reincarnated?
• Is it a guardian entity separate from oneself?
• Is it a point of contact connected to the entire universe?
• Who and how will identify that voice?

The final question is important. If we say "it's correct because it's an inner voice," then the criteria for distinguishing between one's desires, fears, impulses, and spiritual guidance disappear. Conversely, if a leader says, "only I can decipher the voice of your higher self," then the idea of inherent divinity in each individual is reversed into dependence on external authority.

The concept of a single, large soul working in common with multiple individuals is sometimes called "Group Soul." However, this term has at least two different usages.

In the history of Theosophy, what is clearly confirmed as a "group soul" mainly refers to the collective souls of plants and animals. The Theosophical Encyclopedia explains that the concept of "Group Soul" was developed by second-generation Theosophists, particularly Leadbeater. It describes a model where one group soul manifests in numerous individuals of the same species, sharing their experiences, undergoing repeated divisions, and eventually individualizing into humans.

Theosophy: Animal Group Soul One group soul ├ Animal individual A ├ Animal individual B ├ Animal individual C └ Experience flows back to the group soul, and eventually progresses towards individuation.

On the other hand, in modern spirituality, the terms "soul group" or "soul family" often refer to groups of human souls with similar origins, soulmates who share a common mission, and collectives that have been connected since before reincarnation.

Here is an example of a modern soul group. Large Soul/Common Soul System: ├ Human Soul A ├ Human Soul B ├ Human Soul C └ Sharing mission, learning, and connections.

Do not treat these two as the same thing, and do not simply apply modern usage to past Theosophy. The way in which the concept of "animal collective soul" in Theosophy has evolved into the modern concept of "soul family" is complex, and it cannot be established as a single lineage.

The reason why Ramanujam and Group Soul appear similar at first glance is because they both depict "a single, unified whole" while simultaneously portraying "multiple individual existences."

Vishista Advaita One God ├ World ├ Jiva A └ Jiva B

Group Soul type diagram Large soul ├ Individual soul A ├ Individual soul B └ Individual soul C

The shapes are similar. However, the way of thinking about what exists and how it exists is different.

The god of Ramanuja is not a "great soul that combines souls." God is the absolute being, and the world and individual souls are completely dependent on God as His body. Individual jivas eternally exist, and God contains and supports them within Himself.

According to various theories about group souls, a single large soul expands into multiple individuals, a common spiritual lineage shares experiences, or kindred spirits share a mission.

Therefore, both sides offer different answers to the common problem of how to reconcile "one" and "many." Being comparable is different from being the same concept.

Summary up to this point: The meaning of "deep self" has changed.

In the second part, Vedanta discusses "a deeper self than one's usual self" in relation to God and ultimate reality. In the fourth part, Theosophy and its related fields describe a similar deep self, but it is spoken of as an individual that connects reincarnation and evolves over long periods of time.

Here, let's separate these three stories for now.

Knowing one's true self. The soul that reincarnates grows. Individual souls belong to a larger soul.

Sometimes, these three are mentioned together, but they were not the same from the beginning. Now, what happens when another story is added to this "higher self" narrative, involving topics like mind, beliefs, success, and wish fulfillment? Let's look at that next.

So far, what we have examined is not a summary of Theosophy as a whole. Rather, it is the "evolving spiritual individual" that becomes visible when contrasted with Advaita Vedanta, and the changes in its related vocabulary. While maintaining this limitation, next we will move on to situations where these vocabularies intersect with other movements such as New Age and Neo-sort.

From here, we will address the central question of this paper. The classical Advaita Vedanta philosophy, the three Japanese examples, and the comparison with Theosophy were all preparations for considering this question.

In modern spirituality, phrases like "the true self is divine," "we are connected to the universe," "thoughts create reality," and "abundance can be received by removing blocks" often appear together in discussions. However, these concepts did not originate from a single religion or a single thinker as a unified whole.

At a minimum, it is necessary to consider the following flow separately.

This table is not a complete list of the origins of modern spirituality. Each row overlaps with others, and the same individuals or movements may connect multiple streams. The important thing is that two ideas did not simply merge once, but rather different eras of religion, psychology, success thinking, and publishing culture have been repeatedly recombined.

In the following sections, not all lineages will be explained with the same level of detail. What is essential for the focus of this paper is to see where stories about transcending oneself, cultivating a higher self, realizing potential abilities, and how the mind changes results are unified into a single narrative: "I create reality."

I want to explain the origins of modern spirituality in a single, linear narrative like this:

Vedanta -> Theosophy -> New Age -> Law of Attraction.

However, this figure is too simple.

New Age is not a single religion with a unified founder, sacred text, or organization. It is the expansion of religious culture that began in the 1970s and encompasses diverse practices, publications, healing methods, communities, channeling (receiving information from spiritual entities), acceptance of Eastern philosophies, psychology, environmental thought, and more.

Behind this, there are not only Theosophy but also spiritualism, Western esoteric traditions, UFO religions, counterculture movements that challenged existing social norms, the Human Potential Movement aimed at unlocking human potential, humanistic psychology that emphasizes growth and self-actualization, Eastern religions, etc.

On the other hand, New Thought has a different history as a movement in 19th-century America related to spiritual healing, religious thought, and the power of the mind. Its origins are generally traced back to Phineas Parkhurst Quimby, and it expanded to include figures like Emma Curtis Hopkins, Unity, Divine Science, and Ernest Holmes' Religious Science. The research book "The History of New Thought" by John S. Haller Jr. and Robert C. Fuller traces New Thought from Quimby through affirmations, prosperity teachings, the popularization of the law of attraction by William Walker Atkinson, to modern self-help.

Here, we broadly refer to the idea of changing negative thought patterns into positive ones and connecting them to improvements in life and results as "positive thinking." Furthermore, humanistic psychology and the human potential movement focused on growth, self-actualization, and the development of latent abilities, rather than just pathology. While these are not religious doctrines, they provided important words that later spiritual cultures would use when talking about "the true self," "unleashing possibilities," and "healing the inner self."

Furthermore, publications, seminars, videos, self-improvement products, and later the internet and social media are not merely neutral containers for conveying ideas. They also have a function of reformatting lengthy treatises and complex theories about the world and existence into practical methods that can be tried in a short period, success stories, diagnoses, and personalized services.

A more accurate diagram would be a double line like this:

Indian philosophy, Buddhism, non-dualistic thought ───────────────┐ Western esoteric traditions, spiritualism, theosophy ───────────────┤ Counterculture, channeling, healing → New Age movements ┤ Humanistic psychology, human potential ─────────┤→ Modern spirituality Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) → Positive thinking → Success philosophy, self-improvement ───┤ Publishing, seminars, video, internet ─────────────┘

The arrows are not a single, fixed genealogy, but rather schematic diagrams showing connections and re-editing. The lines intersect with each other. It is impossible to summarize everything into one cause, such as "theosophy created everything," "New Age and New Sort are the same," or "attraction originated from psychology."

New Thought emphasized the relationship between mind, belief, health, and environment. There was a trend that linked illness with incorrect beliefs and believed that healing could be achieved through a divine mind or correct understanding. Eventually, the focus expanded to include positive thinking, prosperity, success, and self-improvement.

William Walker Atkinson published Thought Vibration or the Law of Attraction in the Thought World in 1906. This is an important document to consider when discussing the modern popularization of the term "law of attraction." Later, various trends emerged that spanned religion and self-improvement, including Napoleon Hill's philosophy of success, Norman Vincent Peale's positive thinking, and Ernest Holmes' Religious Science.

In the 21st century, The Secret popularized this long lineage, transforming it into a mass phenomenon through visuals, testimonials, and commodified practices. It emphasizes the explanation that one's thoughts and emotional states attract corresponding experiences.

This history is not without the influence of Eastern philosophy and Theosophy. However, it is inaccurate to say that the Law of Attraction originated directly from Advaita Vedanta. The "consciousness" in Advaita and the "thought" in New Thought are not the same concept.

Here, we can propose a historical hypothesis.

In classical Advaita, transcending the identification with the personal self was central. In this paper, we call the direction of moving beyond such a conventional sense of self and opening up to a larger reality and relationships with others "self-transcendence."

On the other hand, higher selves derived from Theosophy and Western esoteric traditions can be described as spiritual entities that grow over a single lifetime. Humanistic psychology and the human potential movement's concepts of "true self," "self-actualization," and "potential" focus on individuals living more fully. Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) and success ideologies connect changes in the mind and beliefs to health, prosperity, and achievement.

These are originally not the same "self." However, in some later spiritual teachings, it is said that there exists a "true self" or "higher self" deep within one's everyday self, and that this self has infinite possibilities and the power to change reality. Here, the higher self can transform into a creative being with infinite possibilities.

Self-transcendence ↓ Discovery of a higher self ↓ Self-actualization and development of potential abilities ↓ The creative power of consciousness ↓ Creating the desired reality

Here, "self-deification" refers not to the general recognition of divinity in humans, but rather to attributing the quality or privilege of being "never wrong" like a god to everyday personality, desires, intuition, and judgment. This model is not a historical law. It is not a theory of civilization that states that when Eastern thought passes to the West, it will inevitably lead to self-deification. There are also traditions of self-denial and mysticism in the West, and India has diverse aspects such as bhakti, individual soul, and worldly benefits.

Nevertheless, in some interpretations where the market and media intersect with aspects received from Indian thought, such as self-transcendence, Theosophical spiritual evolution, New Age higher selves, Human Potential's latent abilities, Neo-sort's power of the mind, and self-improvement success, there is a reading that the vocabulary for transcending the individual ego has been reconfigured into vocabulary that guarantees personal empowerment.

In some modern spiritual practices, the following chain can be observed:

My essence is divine. ↓ I am one with the universe and source. ↓ My consciousness is connected to the creative power of the universe. ↓ Consciousness creates reality. ↓ I can create the reality I desire.

However, each arrow requires additional assumptions.

Since Atman is non-dual with Brahman, it cannot be concluded that my personal thoughts arbitrarily create external events. From the premise that all existence is one, it also cannot be concluded that my desires are more cosmically correct than those of others. Furthermore, just because there is an inner divinity, it cannot be said that one's intuition will not err.

Here, there is a branching point between self-transcendence and self-deification.

In classical religions, letting go of attachment is a direction towards freedom from the constraints of desire. The Karma Yoga in the Bhagavad Gita also emphasizes performing necessary actions while detaching oneself from the results of those actions, rather than simply doing nothing.

However, in modern wish fulfillment culture, the following reversal may occur.

Classical approach: Attachment to desires -> Suffering -> Freedom from attachment.

Approach as a technique for realizing wishes: Desire -> If you become attached, it will not come true -> Let go -> The desire is fulfilled.

In the latter case, practices for liberation from desire can become techniques for realizing desires. The words "entrust," "receive," and "don't try hard" can also mean letting go of actions and possessiveness, but they sometimes transform into a market-driven promise: "achieve your desired results from the universe with minimal effort."

This argument expands to the idea of "receiving without doing anything," femininity and abundance, and problems within the spiritual market. This paper will only touch upon the entrance point, and what is important is to distinguish whether the object being relinquished is desire itself, or merely the tension that hinders the realization of desires.

"The idea that 'thoughts create reality,' when applied without limits, means that both success and unhappiness are created by the individual themselves."

• It is said that illness occurs because of negative thoughts.
• It is said that poverty occurs because there is a mental resistance, or "block," that prevents one from receiving abundance.
• It is said that being the victim of crime happens because you attracted that reality.
• It is said that wishes do not come true because your beliefs and vibrations are insufficient.

In this context, "metaphysical" means not only a way of thinking but also an explanation of how the world and events come into being. This concept is stronger than mere psychological self-responsibility because it encompasses life's coincidences, social structures, the responsibility of perpetrators, and even physical conditions, all within a worldview created by one's own consciousness.

"The whole being oneself" and "everything that I created" are not the same.

Here, there is sometimes a confusion between Advaita non-dualism and personal reality creation theory.

In Advaita, it is considered that the true self, Atman, and the ultimate reality, Brahman, are identical. Simply put, the fundamental nature of oneself and the existence of the world are not separate things.

However, in this context, "self" does not refer to the everyday personality or individual mind. It doesn't mean that the current me, who has a body, memories, desires, and fears, is creating others and events through thought.

Confusion arises because the meaning of "I" changes in the middle.

The true self is not separate from the fundamental basis of existence. ↓ The world arises from the fundamental basis of existence. ↓ Therefore, the personal "I" created all events.

In the final stage, "the true self" is being replaced by "my current mind." In Advaita Vedanta, what is considered identical to the fundamental nature of the world is Atman, not an individual Jiva that possesses desires and thoughts.

If we apply the concept of self-responsibility to this misunderstanding, it leads to the conclusion that "since everything is ultimately yourself, illness, poverty, and suffering are all created by oneself." However, this does not automatically follow from non-dual teachings. The idea that true self and the fundamental nature of existence are one thing, and that every event experienced by an individual is a choice made by that person's thoughts, are separate claims.

Of course, not all people who believe in the law of attraction or similar concepts engage in victim blaming. Positive attention can sometimes provide hope and motivation for those facing difficult situations. The problem is not acknowledging how the mind works, but rather extending that understanding to encompass all causality in the world.

If success is attributed to the correctness of the doctrine, and failure is attributed to a lack of belief in the practice by those involved, then that doctrine becomes self-sealing. No outcome serves as disproof, and only the burden of failure falls upon the individual.

Summary up to this point: The path from divinity to wish fulfillment is not a direct one.

In Part V, we viewed modern spirituality not as being reducible to two lineages, but rather as a confluence of multiple streams. These include the acceptance of Indian thought and non-dualistic philosophies, Western esoteric traditions and Theosophy, New Thought and success ideologies, humanistic psychology and the human potential movement, various New Age trends, and also the market and media that transform these into methods for individuals.

Even if these overlap within the same words, the next three sentences will not automatically have the same meaning.

There is something divine in human nature. The mind and beliefs influence actions and experiences. Individual consciousness creates all external events.

From the first sentence to the second, and from the second to the third, new premises are added each time. At what point do these premises accumulate enough that self-affirmation transforms into self-deification? Let's examine that boundary next.

Part V and Part VI constitute the main body of this paper. In Part V, I examined how different religious ideologies, psychology, success philosophies, and market vocabulary intersect within modern spirituality. This part will consider what effects the hybrid phrase "I am God" has on human minds and behaviors.

Here, we are not simply asking whether the idea of human divinity is right or wrong. The same words can either weaken self-centeredness and lead to respect for others, or they can be directed towards absolutizing one's own desires, intuitions, and abilities. The point at which this divergence occurs is central to this section.

Let's go back from a long historical story to the very first word.

If someone says, "I am God," I would ask them questions in three stages.

Stage 1: What is that "I" and that "God"? Stage 2: From there, what abilities or desires can be derived? Stage 3: Using that claim, what will you demand of others?

Initially, it might just be a simple metaphor for self-affirmation. However, when concepts like reality creation and the assertion "I am not wrong" are added, the conversation becomes more serious. Furthermore, if one starts making demands of others, it raises issues of authority and power. Instead of immediately viewing lighthearted words as dangerous, let's trace where the meaning shifted.

The boundary where encouragement turns into a heavy claim.

In Chapter 1, we only confirmed that the statement "I am God" can serve as encouragement for regaining one's dignity, and it can also be interpreted as a claim of being able to freely move things in the external world or other people. Here, we will examine the changes that occur in between.

Please note that everyday personality, the true self, higher self, etc., are all grouped together as the same "I," and symbols of dignity, ultimate existence, and the creative power of God are all grouped together as the same "God." When these two groupings are interchanged, it becomes difficult to see the following leaps.

There is something sacred in the essence of human beings. ↓ Currently, I am fully realizing that divinity. ↓ My experiences and intuitions are correct. ↓ My desires possess cosmic creative power. ↓ Others should follow my judgment.

Each arrow requires a separate basis. Feeling sacredness, believing something about one's true nature, fully realizing it, possessing special abilities, and having authority over others are not the same things.

There is no need to criticize the light expressions themselves. The problem is when poetic encouragement transforms into explanations of existence, causal laws, medical or financial judgments, or justifications for controlling others. Let's divide this change into five stages.

Dividing "I am God" into five levels of intensity.

First, I will list only the stages and claims. The boundary between the consideration area and the danger zone will be added one step at a time in each subsequent section.

"I am God," modern spirituality often says lightly. However, this is not a monolithic entity. At least, it can be divided into five levels, and we can distinguish between points that should be criticized and mere differences in wording.

Stage 1: Metaphors of Dignity

"You are God," and "You are a treasure of the universe" are used as expressions that encourage people by conveying messages such as, "You have value," and "You do not need to let others determine the worth of your life."

This may not be strictly religious philosophy, but its psychological function can be understood. For people who are leaving abusive relationships or overcoming excessive self-denial, strong affirmations may be necessary.

Here, "god" is an expression of the highest value and does not refer to a strict definition of a creator god or Brahman. Even if one were to refute this stage at length as a misunderstanding of Advaita Vedanta, it would not align with the speaker's intention.

Stage 2: Metaphors for Co-creation

"Your choices shape your life." "What you focus on changes your actions and relationships." This emphasizes human creativity.

It is not uncommon for human attention, expectations, habits, and actions to change a part of reality. By making plans, learning skills, and cooperating with others, future choices will change. The term "co-creation" can also be used as a metaphor that does not forget the interaction with gods, other people, society, nature, and chance.

The problem arises when the word "joint" disappears, and only individual consciousness is considered to be the cause of everything.

Stage 3: Metaphysical Reality Creation

"It is claimed that 'consciousness creates reality' and that 'events are attracted by aligning with one's vibration.'"

At this stage, it is becoming a causal explanation rather than poetic encouragement. It is necessary to explain which range of reality is created by which consciousness and through what mechanism.

• Does individual perception and interpretation create the experienced world?
• Does it influence outcomes through actions and interpersonal reactions?
• Does collective consciousness create social systems?
• Even external physical events, are they chosen only by thought?
• When other people's consciousnesses and desires conflict, what determines the outcome?
• Is even the suffering of infants, disaster victims, and crime victims a creation of their own selves?

When questions are broken down into smaller parts, it becomes clear that within the statement "consciousness creates reality," there are psychologically plausible aspects, social interactions, and unverifiable metaphysical elements mixed together.

Stage 4: Declaration of Spiritual Status

"I am an incarnation of God," "I have come from a higher dimension," and "I am a fully awakened being." I claim my spiritual identity.

If this claim only serves to support the person themselves as a personal myth, it does not necessarily cause harm to others immediately. However, if it is linked to status, fees, sexual relationships, obedience, exemption from criticism, and political authority, external verification becomes necessary.

Here, the comparison with Deva that we saw before is helpful. Devas are beings who may possess power greater than humans, but this alone does not guarantee they have attained Moksha (liberation). Even if one acknowledges a higher existence, divinity, or a special soul as their self-understanding, it does not automatically ensure liberation, omniscience, or ethical perfection.

Stage 5: Theology of Power

"My words are the word of God," and "Opposing me is opposing the universe." He uses this claim of divinity as a basis for controlling others.

At this stage, even if we put aside metaphysical truth and falsehood, an organizational review can be conducted.

• Can I raise an objection?
• Will corrections be made when the leader's predictions or judgments are incorrect?
• Does the leader themselves follow the same ethical rules?
• Is the boundary between money and sex maintained?
• Are people who want to leave threatened?

Even without determining whether someone is "truly a god," we can decide "to what extent power should be given to those who claim to be gods."

The point where a slightly lighthearted story suddenly becomes serious.

The appeal of light spirituality lies in its ability to bypass difficult practices and doctrines, and instead affirm that "you are already complete."

Classical religions often have a long history.

Ignorance, sin, craving, karma, bondage. ↓ Learning, practice, grace, faith, precepts, repentance. ↓ Liberation, salvation, becoming a Buddha, communion with God.

Light conversation shortens this distance.

You are already a god. ↓ Just remember that.

This shortening also has good aspects. It can liberate people from the structure of constantly blaming themselves for being "insufficient" and continuing to buy expensive training. It is also a criticism of religious elites who monopolize achievement.

However, other products may sometimes enter into a shortened distribution channel.

You are already a god. ↓ However, you cannot use your power because of the block. ↓ A course is needed to remove the block. ↓ Even after awakening, the next dimension and the next level of certification are required.

The teaching of "already complete" is a paradox that coexists with an infinite upgrade market.

What is even more serious is the attitude towards people who are suffering.

You are the creator of reality. ↓ Even unwanted realities were created by you. ↓ Suffering is the result of beliefs, vibrations, and choices made by the soul. ↓ Social causes and the responsibility of perpetrators become invisible.

Here, this carefree self-affirmation transforms into a metaphysical blaming of the victim. Supporting a person's ability to make choices is different from attributing all responsibility to them.

"If everything is Brahman," then are causing harm and being harmed the same?

When applying non-dualism to ethics, another fallacy can occur.

"Ultimately, everything is one," leading to a logic that says, "Good and evil are relative, so anything goes," and "Victims and perpetrators are also one, therefore they should be forgiven."

However, advocating for non-duality at the ultimate level is not the same as denying the cause and effect, ethics, and suffering of the empirical world. Even in Advaita Vedanta, there are ethical disciplines, purification of the mind, and discernment to prepare for enlightenment. Recognizing the empirical world as relative does not give a license to arbitrarily increase the suffering of the experiencing jiva (individual soul).

If you confuse two levels, only the strong can utilize "everything is one."

The affected party:
"We want to protect our boundaries."
        ↓
They are told, "This is separation consciousness," or "What's unforgivable is ego."



The party that caused the damage:
"I am beyond good and evil."
        ↓
To evade responsibility.

Healthy oneness should work in a direction that does not erase the boundaries of others, but rather prevents one from thinking that the suffering of others is unrelated to oneself. At the very least, if only those who proclaim "oneness" benefit, then its application must be questioned.

The phrase "I am God" has at least two opposite directions.

A. Directions that transcend the personal self.

The Advaita question is, "Who is that 'I'?"

I am God. ↓ But what is "me"? Is it the body, name, memory, or desire? ↓ Let's examine the recognition that considers a changing personality as the ultimate self. ↓ Transcending the absolute nature of the personal self.

Here, I am not saying that "my ego is God." Rather, I am dismantling the recognition of thinking that the ego is the ultimate self.

B. The direction of sacralizing the personal self.

In another usage, the following chain reaction occurs.

I am God. ↓ My inner voice is the voice of the universe. ↓ My desires are the desires of the universe. ↓ My judgments are uniquely correct.

Here, unity with God does not weaken self-centeredness, but rather expands self-confidence on a cosmic scale.

To see this difference, we must ask not only "Does humanity have divinity?" but also how that idea ultimately treats the personal self.

A person experienced a disappearance of the boundaries of self, felt unity with the world, and perceived strong light or a sense of sacred presence. It is not necessary to define this experience as a pathology. At the same time, this experience alone does not prove any specific metaphysics.

When thinking, it becomes easier to understand if you divide it into the following three stages:

Stage 1: Experience Sense of unity with the world, disappearance of self-boundaries, light, awe, love. ↓ Stage 2: Interpretation "I touched God," "I realized Brahman," "I received a mission from the universe." ↓ Stage 3: Assertion of social authority "Therefore, I know the truth better than others," "Others should follow me."

When moving from the first stage to the second stage, experiences are interpreted using cultural and religious vocabulary. Even when experiencing a similar sense of unity, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and New Age perspectives may describe it with different words.

From the second stage to the third stage, there is a further significant logical leap. Having had a mystical experience does not prove that one can make correct judgments about money, sex, medicine, politics, or other people's lives. Simply having had a mystical experience does not automatically grant one the right to lead and control others.

Religious experiences can weaken self-centeredness, but they can also strengthen a sense of being special. In the latter case, when the ego expands beyond its inherent personal limitations, we refer to this as "ego inflation."

A sense of unity with something larger. ├→ Will stop prioritizing only oneself → Empathy and humility. └→ "I am uniquely connected" → Leads to a sense of superiority and an inflated sense of mission.

The auxiliary concept for considering this divergence is C.G. Jung's "inflation."

In Jungian psychology, the ego represents the center of consciousness, while the Self represents the central core and totality of the mind, encompassing both conscious and unconscious aspects. The two are not the same. In his work "Collected Works," Jung discussed inflation as a state in which the personality expands beyond its personal limitations. Jung also called the deep layer of the psyche that cannot be reduced to individual experience the "collective unconscious," and he referred to the universal symbolic patterns that repeatedly appear within it as "archetypes." When the ego integrates with such vast content, or with images of religious figures and historical personalities, one may feel as if they possess that power.

The main point here is simple.

Feeling like you have touched something divine and thinking that your own personality has become a god are different things.

The person who saw the ocean did not become the ocean. The fact that a huge psychological content passed through one's mind, and that the everyday self possessed it and became omniscient, are not the same thing.

It is also important to avoid equating Jung's concept of the Self with terms like Atman, God, or Higher Self. Here, we are using an analytical concept that explains how contact with content that transcends the self can lead to ego inflation. This is not a claim that Jung directly criticized modern "law of attraction" and spiritual industries; it is not a historically inaccurate assertion.

Spiritual bypassing, a term popularized by psychotherapist John Welwood, refers to the tendency to use spiritual ideas and practices to avoid facing unresolved psychological issues, emotions, interpersonal problems, or physical and social realities.

For example, if you tell someone who is feeling angry, "Anger is a low vibration, so let it go," the possibility that their anger is signaling a boundary violation or injustice is ignored. If you tell someone who has been abused, "Everything is a lesson" and "You chose this," the perpetrator's responsibility and the need to ensure the victim's safety are hidden under a spiritual explanation.

Spiritual bypassing is not a synonym for cult. It can also occur in individual practices. However, when it becomes linked to organizational power, it becomes a convenient mechanism for dealing with pain and dissent by labeling them as "ego," "unawakened state," or "karma."

So far, two key distinctions that form the core of this paper have become apparent.

Recognizing divinity does not mean deifying one's personal self. Transcending oneself does not mean abandoning one's own judgment and agency.

In Part VI, we examined the inversions that occur within an individual's inner world and interpersonal relationships. We will revisit how this issue extends to organizations and power in Part IX. In the following Part VII, we will summarize what we have discussed so far and re-examine the question of "Is man a god?"

This is the part that comes closest to the core of this paper.

Listing the religions and philosophies we have examined is not the purpose itself. The lengthy comparisons were conducted to confirm that the question "Is man God?" cannot be answered directly as it is. What does "man" mean in this context? Is it a person with personality, a soul, or one's true self? And what does "God" mean? Is it a personal god, the fundamental principle of the universe, or divinity inherent in humans? The meaning of the words "Man is God" changes depending on which side of the equation.

Here, instead of acquiring new specialized knowledge, we will gather the content that we have previously examined one by one under the same question. And then, we will consider where to draw the line between divinity and the personal self, and between transcending the self and deifying the self.

When I try to read a large table horizontally all at once, I don't understand it again. So, I will look at them one by one in the following order.

1. Each "god" and "self".
2. The relationship between god and self.
3. Individuality and the point of achievement.
4. The position of desires.

You don't have to try to memorize the entire ideology in one line. Instead, let's look at how each person is answering the same question.

The following table does not define the entirety of each ideology in a single line. For New Age and modern spirituality, which do not have a unified doctrine, it is limited to "some trends" and "typical usages."

In the final comparison, it returns to the left and right sides of the equation initially.

Next, let's extract only how to connect the left and right sides.

After confirming the basic relationships, I will add individuality and key points.

It is impossible to arrange religions in a single row based on "the proximity between God and humans" according to this table.

In Kurozumi-kyo, the focus is on inherent qualities. In Kinno Kyo, it's on mutual relationships. In Taikoku Shinko, it's on unity and mission. In Ramanuja, it's on inclusion. In Shankara, it's on non-dualism. In Madhva, it's on dependent dualism. It is necessary to consider not only the proximity of these concepts but also individual characteristics, the world, and the direction of salvation.

Nilguna / Reexamination through Pure Spirit and Oneness.

Let's return to the main comparison subjects of this paper, using the two axes that were added in the first half.

In this context, "Nirguna" refers to the meaning of having limited attributes such as personality, appearance, or function. "Pure consciousness" broadly refers to a concept that is distinct from material and mental content, and closer to consciousness itself. "Oneness" is the idea that humans, gods, and the world are one in some sense, or inseparable. However, even when we say "oneness exists," what it means for things to be one varies depending on the ideology.

This table shows that the concepts of "pure spirit" and "unity" are independent variables. There are philosophies that maintain plurality even when advocating for pure spirit, and there are philosophies that advocate for non-separation without establishing a concept of pure spiritual entity. Furthermore, notions such as divine immanence, mutual relationship with God, union with God, inclusion, and non-duality cannot all be replaced by the single word "oneness."

The differences between each ideology become even clearer when you look at "how to deal with desires."

First, we see what is wrong and where we are going.

Subsequently, we consider how desires are placed within that fundamental direction.

Classical religions also have worldly benefits, and it is not only modern people who have desires. The difference lies in what those desires are subordinate to.

• In Advaita, the desiring subject itself is examined.
• In Bhakti, desires are placed within the context of a relationship with God.
• In Shinshukyo, difficulties and wishes enter into a two-way exchange.
• In Taikoku Shinko, the mission to organize the world creates a broader perspective than personal desire.
• In wish fulfillment models, desires may be actively affirmed as an expression of one's own divinity or creative power.

From this difference, we can see a divergence between religions that "transcend the self" and spiritual practices that "actualize the self."

From the idea of "everything is one," it does not logically follow that "therefore, I am special compared to others."

Rather, if all beings are rooted in a single reality, the basis for excluding oneself becomes weaker. Advaita non-dualism does not belong to the personal self. Emerson's "Over-Soul" also spoke of a soul common to all individuals, rather than absolutizing individual talent. The fushin (ecstasy) of Kurozumi teachings is connected to the worldview that all people are children of God. The divine heart (shinkon) of Shinshukyo manifests as kindness towards others.

Even so, psychologically, the following changes may occur.

Oneness with the universe. ↓ I have a special connection to the universe. ↓ I have a special mission. ↓ I am at a higher level than others. ↓ Criticism of me is resistance to truth.

To stop this leap, it is not necessary to deny mystical experiences. Instead, we need to distinguish between the experience itself, its interpretation, and any claims of authority based on it, while leaving room for verification by others and external reality.

Up to this point, the preparation has been made to separate the left and right sides of the equation "human" and "god." However, if this perspective only applies to certain religions or modern spirituality, it is not yet sufficient. Finally, we will broaden our view to world religions and see how different answers can arise even when starting from the same question.

In the comparisons made so far, it has become clear that the question "Is man God?" cannot be answered without defining the left and right sides of the equation. Finally, we will expand these two axes to include not only Vedanta, Japanese syncretism, Theosophy, and modern spirituality, but also Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Kabbalah, and various Indian schools of thought.

This is not a collection of materials separated from the main text. This final stage aims to verify whether the perspectives developed in this paper can be applied without erasing differences, even among different religions. Instead of unifying world religions, we will examine common questions and differing answers, and then return to the starting point of "divinity and ego" one last time.

Deconstructing "God" in India Again.

In Part II, Brahman was described as the fundamental existence, Ishvara as the ruler of the world, and Jiva as individual living beings. Here, we add two more terms. Bhagavan means "revered lord" with attributes such as power, knowledge, and glory. Deva is related to "shining one" and refers to various gods and celestial beings. Devata refers to individual deities, divinity, objects of worship and prayer. The following table summarizes the descriptions of these five terms in a list format.

In this overview, we have briefly distinguished between Brahman, Īśvara, Bhagavān, and deva/devatā. Here, we will examine them in more detail from the perspective of the relationship between humans and gods.

Brahman – Not "The One God Within The World"

In Vedanta, Brahman is not a single spiritual entity that resides somewhere in the universe alongside other beings. It is a concept that questions the ultimate basis of the world, self, existence, and consciousness.

In Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, Nirguna Brahman is described as the ultimate reality that is not limited by individualization or attributes. In this case, the expression "meeting with Brahman" is not the same as visiting someone in heaven. The duality of subject and object itself is questioned.

However, for Ramanuja, Brahman is not an attributeless and impersonal pure existence. He is Narayana, the supreme personality, who possesses infinite auspicious qualities and includes the world and souls as his own body. For Madhva as well, Vishnu, the highest being, is a complete personal God who is eternally distinct from individual souls.

In other words, even the single word "Brahman" contains a major debate within it, such as "is it an impersonal absolute being or a personal supreme being?" It cannot be simply translated and concluded with one word like "Brahman = Indian version of God."

Ishvara – The Concept of a Presiding Entity

In this context, "烦恼" (fannao) refers to tendencies that disrupt the mind and lead to misperceptions and constraints.

Īśvara (Ishvara) means "lord" or "ruler," and is often translated as the ruler of the world. However, its position differs among different schools of thought.

In Advaita, Ishvara exists empirically and religiously as the cause of the world and as the ruler who governs order. Shankara often distinguishes between Brahman with attributes and the universe, and Brahman as absolute non-duality. However, this is not a simple statement that "Ishvara is an illusion and therefore does not require worship." The entire empirical reality, including the world, ethics, meditation, and devotion, is not meaningless for humans before attaining enlightenment knowledge.

In classical yoga, the pure consciousness principle that observes changes in body and mind is called puruṣa (Purusha). In the Yoga Sutras, Ishvara refers to a "special Purusha" that is untouched by afflictions, actions, and their results, as well as the potential power left behind by past experiences. This is different from the Advaita Brahman, which creates the world as one, or the union of all Purushas. A special Purusha exists within a system that recognizes multiple Purushas.

Here, "saguṇa" means "having qualities or attributes," and it is a word that contrasts with "nirguṇa," which means "not limited by attributes." However, the meaning of this contrast varies depending on the school of thought.

In Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita, Ishvara is more central as the supreme personal God. Therefore, the Shankara-style explanation of "Ishvara=Saguna Brahman" should not be used as a common definition for all Vedanta schools.

Bhagavan - The highest being, referred to as "Lord."

Bhagavan (バガヴァン) represents a "revered lord" possessing qualities such as power, glory, wisdom, and sovereignty. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna is referred to as Bhagavan. For the bhakti tradition, the highest being can be an entity that can be loved, cherished, addressed, and responded to, rather than an abstract cosmic principle.

Here, even if there is "oneness with God," the relationship may not disappear. A reciprocal relationship where I love God and God loves me can be at the center of salvation. We do not need to equate the completion of love with the disappearance of the lover and the beloved.

Deva/Devata - A word that encompasses everything from the highest god to celestial beings.

deva is a word related to "shining things" and has referred to various gods since the Vedic period. devatā refers to divinity, godhood, specific deities that are objects of worship or mantras, etc. However, when translated as "god" in modern Japanese, it can easily evoke an image of a perfect and unique supreme being.

Devata has the following usages:

• Divine beings that personify the functions of the universe and nature, such as fire, wind, sun, and thunder.
• Objects of worship to which rituals and mantras are directed.
• Beings born in the heavens, with longer lifespans and more refined bodies and abilities than humans.
• A divine position responsible for specific functions within the cosmic order.
• Divine beings that are worshipped as concrete manifestations of the ultimate reality in the Bhakti tradition.

Because of the final usage, it is not possible to define "Deva" as all beings who are lower spirits and have not yet attained liberation. On the other hand, Devas can be Jivas before attaining enlightenment when considered as celestial beings. We need to maintain both of these aspects.

Ishta Devata - More than "Favorite God"

iṣṭa-devatā (Ishtha-Devata) refers to a deity that an individual chooses and specifically worships or meditates upon. It does not mean "a low-level god of one's preference." For some practitioners, Krishna, Shiva, the Goddess, etc., are not merely convenient icons for approaching the Absolute, but rather concrete representations of the ultimate reality itself.

Here, there is the problem of worshipping an unlimited and ultimate reality in a relational form with names and shapes. Simplifying Nirguna and Saguna as "real vs. fake" or "superior vs. inferior" would lose the religious meaning of Bhakti.

The "Avatar" who will appear in the world – different from the gods of heaven.

avatāra (āvatāra) means "descent," and is particularly known in the doctrine of incarnations where Vishnu appears in the world. Do not equate an avatāra with a single deva who has been born to heaven through merit. The former refers to theology where the supreme being manifests for salvation or restoration of order, while the latter may refer to birth status within the cycle of rebirth.

Here, in Japanese, both can be simply translated as "god." However, "the manifestation of the god itself" and "an individual existing in the world of gods" are not the same ontological concepts.

Jiva and Deva – Even Gods May Not Be Enlightened?

This distinction is directly related to the central theme of this paper.

Jīva (pronounced "jeeva") refers to the individual being that lives, experiences, and is connected to the body, mind, and karma. It is not limited to humans only. When considering a wide range of beings within the cycle of rebirth, such as animals, humans, ancestral spirits, and celestial beings, Devas can also be Jīva.

Then, in everyday Japanese, propositions that sound paradoxical become true.

Even gods may have things that they do not understand.

However, in this context, "god" does not refer to a single absolute god or the highest being, but rather means a member of the deities, a celestial entity, or a deva with cosmic functions.

The Kenopanishad – Gods who thought victory was their own power.

The "Kena Upanishad" contains a striking story that distinguishes between the gods and Brahman. The gods achieve victory over their enemies, believing it to be due to their own power and boasting about it. Then, an inexplicable being appears. Agni cannot burn even a single blade of grass, and Vayu cannot blow it away. When Indra approaches, the inexplicable being disappears, and Uma explains that it was Brahman.

In this story, the gods are not powerless. Agni has the power to burn, and Vayu has the power to carry. The problem is that they believed that the ultimate source of these powers was something they possessed themselves.

Possessing cosmic power. ↓ Believing that power to be "my own power." ↓ Not knowing Brahman, the basis of that power. ↓ Even if it is a divine being, there are ignorance and arrogance.

This story presents a strange mirror to the modern assertion of "I have creativity because I am God." It depicts that thinking about possessing power, rather than having power itself, is portrayed as ignorance.

The Chandogya Upanishad – Even Indra Learns About the True Self.

In the 8th chapter of the Chandogya Upanishad, Indra, representing the gods, and Virochana, representing the Asuras, go to Prajapati to learn about the true self. Virochana takes back an explanation that affirms the physical self. However, Indra raises a question: if the body is injured, does the image also get injured? If the body perishes, does it also disappear? He then turns away.

After that, Indra was not satisfied with his incomplete understanding of the dreaming self and the self in deep sleep, and repeatedly returned to his teacher. In terms of the story, this learning process lasted for many years.

Here, what is important is not that Indra is the king of the gods, but his ability to question. A high position does not replace self-awareness. Rather, the attitude of returning even when you think "I understand" in the initial explanation advances true self-exploration.

The celestial realm is not liberation.

The 9th chapter, verses 20-21 of the Bhagavad Gita describes those who reach the heavenly realm of the gods through rituals and merit, and attain divine pleasures. However, when their merit is exhausted, they return to the mortal world.

This time structure is clear.

Good deeds, rituals, and merits. ↓ Birth in the heavenly realm. ↓ Longevity, pleasure, and refined abilities. ↓ Merits are exhausted. ↓ Re-enter the cycle of reincarnation.

The celestial realm is not a bad place. There is no need to deny the happiness or abilities found there. However, it exists under certain conditions, and when those conditions are exhausted, it ends. In this sense, success in the celestial realm is not moksha (liberation).

In modern spirituality, the quality of one's spiritual state is often expressed metaphorically as "high" or "low" vibrations, separate from physics. Similarly, levels of existence are sometimes described as being on "higher" or "lower" dimensions.

If we carefully replace the vocabulary of modern spirituality, terms like "high vibration," "higher dimensions," "great spiritual abilities," "contact with deities," and "abundant reality" do not inherently mean the end of ignorance. Of course, equating the heavens described in classical texts with today's concept of "vibration" is incorrect. What can be compared is the structure that separates ability, pleasure, and status from liberation.

Divide into four categories: divinity, enlightenment, ability, and ethics.

Here, you can obtain four axes for considering gods and spiritual leaders.

When these four things are arranged in a line, it creates a spiritual hierarchy.

High ability = High spiritual level = Enlightened = Ethically correct = Has the right to guide others.

However, each equation must be verified individually. Just as a great musician is not necessarily a saint, someone with a strong religious experience is not necessarily an excellent organizational leader. Furthermore, a being classified as divine in one doctrine may not be the same as an enlightened person in another doctrine.

This separation directly leads to the cult problem in the latter part. Even if a leader claims "I have contacted God," "I am an incarnation of a higher being," or "I have attained enlightenment," it does not automatically follow that one should obey their "financial decisions, sexual decisions, and political decisions." There needs to be additional explanation and justification for each of these: experience, interpretation, identity, and power.

Buddhist Devas: Even Gods Receive Teachings from Buddhas.

In Buddhism, there are many traditions that do not center around a creator god, but this does not mean that deities do not appear. In the Pali Canon and Buddhist cosmology, numerous devas and brahmas appear. They can be longer-lived than humans, refined, radiant, and reside in worlds of happiness.

However, generally speaking, they are also within the realm of impermanence and reincarnation. The Buddha is called "the teacher of gods and humans." There are stories in which deities seek teachings from the Buddha and have their misconceptions corrected. Even if Brahma considers himself to be the ultimate creator, from a Buddhist perspective, he can be regarded as a being who mistakenly believes this due to his extremely long lifespan and limited memory within the cycle of reincarnation.

Here, three things can be distinguished.

1. Being born in a heavenly realm.
2. Possessing great power and longevity.
3. Understanding the Four Noble Truths and causality, and being liberated from reincarnation.

It is not possible to equate the concept of "deva" in Buddhism with that of "deva" in Hinduism. This is because Buddhism does not posit an eternal atman or Brahman. Nevertheless, a structural comparison based on the idea that "divine status is not enlightenment" is still possible.

This comparison is not about determining a superior-subordinate relationship between the Japanese words "Buddha" and "God." It's about differentiating different classifications: creator, celestial being, and awakened one.

The Gods of Jainism - There is no creator god, but there are gods.

Jainism, while not centering on a single God who created the world, acknowledges gods, celestial beings, and countless individual lives/souls. The basic structure of this is shown in the following table:

Jainism does not posit a single god who creates and rules the universe. The cosmos is eternal, and there exist countless jīva (life forms/souls) and non-living entities. However, this does not mean that it completely denies the existence of gods or superhuman beings.

In Jain philosophy, even the gods are generally subject to the laws of karma and rebirth. Being born into heaven is a fortunate result, but it does not mean being completely free from karmic bondage. A liberated soul eliminates karma and attains perfect knowledge, but does not become a creator god. Furthermore, they do not merge with other souls, but maintain their individuality.

This indicates the crudeness of a binary choice between "theism" and "atheism."

Not recognizing a creator god ≠ Not recognizing the existence of gods or celestial beings at all. ≠ Denying holiness or enlightenment.

Simply classifying Buddhism and Jainism as "atheistic" in English diminishes the richness of religious cosmology. It is necessary to distinguish what is being denied and what is being affirmed.

Final arrangements regarding Deva based on different schools of thought.

Returning to the author's starting point, I will organize the extent to which Deva can be called "beings who have not attained enlightenment" for each school of thought.

The most safe and accurate expression is as follows:

The term "Devata" encompasses a wide range, from specific forms of worship for the supreme being to beings with heavenly positions within the cycle of reincarnation. Therefore, it is not possible to call all "Devatas" as "unenlightened." However, in many Indian religions, being part of the pantheon of gods, residing in heaven, and possessing supernatural abilities do not automatically guarantee enlightenment.

If this limitation is maintained, it will avoid losing the initial interest of the observations and also prevent the error of lumping together all Indian sects.

The God and Angels of Monotheistic Religions -- "Superhuman Beings" are Not Gods.

In classical monotheism, there is a distinction between the creator god who gives existence to the world, angels who are created by and serve that god, and human prophets/saints who convey God's word. The table summarizes this explanation.

In the classical conceptions of God in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is not the most powerful individual entity residing in heaven. God is the creator of the world, and is not a member of creation.

This difference is important. If God is merely "the most powerful being in the universe," then a stronger being could appear and replace God. However, in classical monotheism, God is understood not as a member of the world who competes with other beings for power, but as the creator who gives existence itself.

Angels are powerful, full of light, convey the divine will, and sometimes help humans, but they are not God. They are creations. Prophets also convey the divine will, but in Islam, they are not God. Christian saints are important for the community of believers, but they are not the creator god itself.

It is impossible to simply transplant this distinction to India and assert that all Devas are "equivalent to angels." However, for comparison purposes, the following questions can be raised.

• Is it the ultimate being itself?
• Is it a being created by or dispatched from the Ultimate Being?
• Is it a being that carries out cosmic functions?
• Is it an individual soul born in heaven?
• Is it understood as a manifestation or incarnation of God?

"Shining," "creating miracles," and "conveying revelations" are not enough to determine this classification.

Christianity - The Image of God and Becoming Like God.

In Christianity, the concept that there is one God who exists in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is called "the Trinity." Also, the incarnation of Christ, who is the Son of God, becoming human, is called "incarnation," and the work by which Christ saves humans from sin and its consequences is called "redemption." These do not mean that there are three gods, nor do they mean that humans can become god on their own.

In Christianity, "image of God" refers to the understanding that humans are created as reflections of God. "Indwelling of the Holy Spirit" refers to the working of God's spirit within human beings. "Union with Christ" means being united with Christ through faith and God's grace. Furthermore, participating in God's life or work is called "participation," and the process by which humans are transformed into something like God through this participation is called "deification." The following table summarizes these four concepts.

In Christianity, it is said that humans were created in the "image of God." However, being an image does not mean being identical to the original.

At the same time, Christianity has a rich tradition of speaking about a deep connection with God. Catholicism explains grace as participation in the divine life, and the Orthodox Church uses the term "theosis" (deification) as one of its central concepts. Protestant denominations also have vocabulary such as union with Christ, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and "sanctification," which refers to being transformed into a life worthy of God.

Based on what is presented here, one might say that "humans become gods." However, in classical doctrine, deification or participation does not mean that the personal self possesses the essential nature of the creator god. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, God distinguishes between its fundamental being as "essence" and its non-created activity that acts upon humans and the world as "energies." Humans participate in God's activities, but do not become God's essence itself.

Created as an image of God. ↓ Participating in the divine life through grace, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. ↓ Deified without losing human nature or personality. ≠ A personal self becoming the creator.

This structure is interesting when compared to Vishishtadvaita, but it is not the same. Christianity has its own unique history of salvation, including creation, sin, incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. On the other hand, Ramanuja has a different system that includes Brahman and the relationship between the world's body and soul, karma and reincarnation, and bhakti.

Islam - The oneness of God is not divine human oneness.

In Islam, tawḥīd refers to the belief that God is one and that no other being shares in His divinity. The community of believers is called umma, but the unity of the community does not mean that humans become gods. Diverse currents of Islamic mysticism are known as Sufism, where concepts such as fanāʾ, which describes the disappearance of self-centered will, and baqāʾ, which refers to living by God, are discussed. The following table compares these three types of "oneness."

Tawhid centers on the concept that God is one. However, "God is one" and "Humans and God are one" are completely different things.

Quran Chapter 112 states that God is one, and He begets not, nor is He begotten, and there is nothing comparable to Him. Humans are creations of God and servants of God. While humans may be encompassed by the mercy of God, approach God, and follow the will of God, it does not mean that human individuality becomes Allah.

Sufism has vocabulary related to fanāʾ (annihilation of the self), baqāʾ (subsistence by God), and the oneness of existence. However, this is also diverse, and it cannot be simply equated to "Islamic Advaita." There are interpretations that distinguish between the disappearance of egoistic will and complete dependence on and proximity to God, and the becoming of created things as the essence of the Creator.

Therefore, even in monotheistic religions, there is a concept of oneness. However, in many cases, it is a oneness that is unique god-centered, relational, communal, and participatory, rather than an ultimate identity between the true self and the absolute being.

Kabbalah's Ein Sof - The Infinite God and the Known God.

In Kabbalah, a Jewish mystical tradition, the infinite nature of God that cannot be fully grasped by finite words is called Ein Sof. God's various aspects through which He interacts with and becomes known in the world are described by ten sefirot. Please understand these two terms before looking at the table.

In the Jewish mystical tradition of Kabbalah, Ein Sof (Ein Sof), which means "the infinite" or "the limitless," refers to the hidden and indirectly comprehensible aspects of God. The ways in which God interacts with the finite world and the facets that can be known are explained through ten sefirot.

Ein Sof Infinite, Hidden God ↓ Emanation, Manifestation Sefirot Aspects of God that interact with the world and become known. ↓ Finite World, Humans, Laws, Prayers

This figure evokes associations with Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman, as both represent the ultimate reality that transcends limitations, and distinguish between name, attributes, and relationship to the world.

However, En Sof is not Brahman.

• Do not assume the concept of "three truths."
• Do not make the equation Atman = En Sof a central tenet.
• This is within the context of Judaism, including its monotheism, creation, commandments, Israel, and prayers.
• The relationship with the Sephirot is also not uniform within Kabbalah.

In a previous article, the author compared En-Sof to "chaos" and Brahman to "order," proposing a hypothesis that corresponds En-Sof to the abyss before Karana and Oneness. However, this is not standard Kabbalistic doctrine but rather a comparative hypothesis for organizing the author's own practice experiences. In this paper, we will distinguish between comparisons confirmed by literature and this personal hypothesis.

In this paper, we adopt the functional similarities between En-Sof and Nirguna Brahman. On the other hand, "En-Sof = Karana = pre-Oneness terror" remains as the author's comparative mystical hypothesis, and is not included in the standard Kabbalistic doctrine. Furthermore, it is considered that calling En-Sof simply chaos has lower compatibility with external sources compared to defining it as infinity prior to the distinction between order and disorder.

Is "ultimate reality" in Buddhism a god?

In this section, "hokkai" refers to the entire realm of truth and existence; "muga" means that something is not created by conditions; and "shūsei" refers to living beings.

In Buddhism, the five aggregates that constitute mind and body are called "five skandhas," and no eternal or unchanging self is found within any of them. The state in which afflictions and suffering associated with rebirth have ceased is called Nirvana. Emptiness, as mentioned before, indicates the absence of a fixed, independent essence. Buddha-nature represents the potential for all beings to become enlightened and their inherent purity.

Furthermore, Amida Buddha became the center of Pure Land Buddhism as a Buddha who established the fundamental wish to save all people. This fundamental wish is called "Hon-gan," and the idea that one is saved not only by their own power but also by the power of Amida Buddha's Hon-gan is called "Ta-ryoku." Dainichi Nyorai is described as a cosmic Buddha in Esoteric Buddhism, and his true body, which is the very truth of Buddhahood, is called the Hōshin. The following table summarizes these points after they have been explained once.

If Buddhism is simply described as a "religion that does not believe in God," it captures the point that it doesn't center around a creator god, but terms like Nirvana, Dharma, Dharmakaya, Buddha-nature, Amitabha Buddha, and Dainichi Nyorai become indistinguishable.

Conversely, translating all of these into "Buddhist God" would also be incorrect.

Nirvana is not a creator god.

Nirvana is not a personal god who created the world through will. It is described in terms of the elimination of afflictions and cyclical suffering, and towards the concept of "wuwei." It is also not a story where humans merge into a gigantic entity called Nirvana.

The sky is not cosmic consciousness.

The śūnyatā (emptiness) of the Middle Way is not a single spiritual entity behind all things. It indicates that everything lacks inherent existence and arises dependently. Therefore, if "all is emptiness" is translated as "everything is one divine energy," it reverses the deconstruction of substantialism and returns to a new form of monistic essentialism.

Buddha-nature is not a deification of the personal self.

"Nyorai-zo" represents a concept that states within all living beings, there exists the potential to become Buddha and the inherent nature of Buddhahood.

The concept of Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-nature speaks of the potential for all beings to attain Buddhahood and their inherent purity. However, this does not mean that "your current desires and judgments are Buddha." While it is possible to compare Buddha-nature with concepts like Atman or Higher Self, they cannot be considered synonyms.

Amida Buddha and Daishorai (Great Sun Tathagata) are not the same as creation gods.

In Pure Land Buddhism, Amitabha Buddha is understood in relation to the concepts of "honzon" (original vow) and "tariki" (other-power). In Esoteric Buddhism, Dainichi Nyorai (the Great Sun Buddha) is described as the center of the Dharmakaya (body of truth) and the Dharma Realm. However, neither of these figures are simply replacements for the creation god in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

Buddhism does not lack "ultimate things." It simply doesn't express the ultimate in a single form, such as creator god and created beings.

Does Nilguna exist? - A perspective on ultimate power beyond attributes.

nirguṇa (ニルグナ) literally means "without qualities." Guna broadly refers to properties or attributes, and in Samkhya philosophy, it refers to the three fundamental aspects of nature. Also, because God cannot be grasped by positive words given by humans, a method of describing God through negation is called negative theology, such as saying "God is not finite" or "God is not material." When comparing articles, we need to distinguish between simply asking "Does a god without form exist?" and considering the following points.

1. That tradition itself explicitly mentions the Nirguna Brahman.
2. It explains Purusha as pure consciousness that transcends the three gunas.
3. It negates God in a negative theological sense, going beyond created limitations and human concepts.
4. It discusses emptiness (sunyata), nirvana, which means not being captured by fixed forms, but it does not posit a purely spiritual substance.
5. It actively explains a personal highest being with attributes.

The presence or absence of Nilguna is not a metric for determining whether a religion is "advanced." There is no need to conclude that understanding an anthropomorphic deity with attributes is inferior to understanding an impersonal absolute being. For religions that consider personality, love, relationships, and grace as ultimate values, attributes are not unnecessary limitations due to ignorance, but rather expressions of completeness.

Does oneness exist? What is one thing?

Regarding the concept of "oneness," simply using a yes/no answer is not sufficient. In Buddhism, particularly in the explanation used by the Tendai school, the term "so-geki" represents that things do not exist separately but rather are interconnected and interdependent. This should not be confused with merging into a single, gigantic entity.

"God is one," "God and humanity become one," "The essence of the world is one," "Everything is interdependent," and "Communities become one" are separate propositions.

The word "Oneness" can be reassuring, but if you don't examine its content, opposite doctrines may end up in the same package. Even within Dvaita, followers can become one with God through love. Madhyamaka denies a single ultimate reality while advocating for thorough interdependence. Advaita Vedanta teaches ultimate non-duality, but it doesn't necessarily lead to automatic equality in social organization.

Further dividing "one" using the Aura Fusion Model.

The author's existing "aura fusion model" can assist in understanding this distinction from the perspective of experience.

Sometimes, two people or a group come into contact, and their emotions, attention, physical rhythms, words, and atmosphere draw closer, creating a feeling of "we are one." The author has described this as a partial or local fusion of auras. This paper does not prove the existence of auras or information transfer as objective facts, but it can be used as a model for organizing experiences, using the following distinctions:

Local fusion and harmonization. Independent A and B come into contact and become similar states.

Relationship and participation. A and B remain different, but are connected by love, favor, or purpose.

Inclusion. A and B are dependently included in a larger whole C.

Non-dualism. A and B do not mix after the fact, but are not two at their ultimate basis.

The feeling of unity experienced in a joint worship service does not prove the metaphysics of that religion. Feeling intense energy in front of a leader also does not prove the correctness of their interpretation or ethical principles. Conversely, there is no need to reduce deep religious experiences solely to psychological conformity. Here as well, we distinguish between experience, interpretation, and ontology.

So far, we have confirmed the "axis of gods," which includes the types of deities and their relationship with the world. From here on, we will not only classify the gods themselves but also examine how humans come to know about them and who interprets their meaning.

It may seem a bit abstract, but this is a map necessary for thinking about the relationship between experience and power. First, we will start with "What basis do you use to talk about God?"

Layer 1: What basis do we use to talk about God? - Revelation, Reason, Tradition, Experience.

"What is God?" This question is not only about existence, but also about "how do we know it." What basis do humans have for talking about God?

The content believed to be revealed from a sacred being is called "revelation," and the authoritative documents that convey it are called "sacred texts." The interpretations and practices passed down over long periods of time constitute tradition. Rational thinking, religious experiences felt directly by individuals, teachers or saints who embody practice, as well as nature and everyday events have been used as clues to know God. The following table summarizes these explanations.

Many traditions do not use only one source. Catholicism combines the Bible, Sacred Tradition (the teachings passed down since the Apostles), the Magisterium (the Church's teaching authority), and reason. Protestantism strongly emphasizes the authority of the Bible, while also incorporating denominational tradition and individual conscience. Islam combines the Quran, Hadith (sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad), jurisprudence, community, and reason. Vedanta combines scriptures received as revelation, logic, a teacher, and direct knowledge. Buddhism combines scriptures, the monastic community, teachers, and verification through practice.

In modern spirituality, an individual's internal feelings may sometimes be placed at the highest level of importance.

The answers are all within yourself. ↓ Become free from external doctrines and authority.

This can sometimes work in a liberating way. However, it can also take on the following form:

The answers are all within oneself. ↓ Do not listen to counterarguments or advice from outside. ↓ Absoluteize one's own feelings as the will of God.

Blind obedience to external authorities and blind obedience to internal feelings are similar in that they can prevent verification, even when the directions are reversed.

Layer 2: Who interprets God's will?

In religion, what is called "divine will" refers to what God desires and how God intends to guide the world. Even when using the term "divine will," its content is not automatically understood by humans.

Even if one acknowledges that God exists and that there is a divine will, problems of interpretation inevitably remain in human society.

• Who reads the scriptures?
• Who arbitrates sentences that appear contradictory?
• Who applies them to new situations?
• Do personal revelations bind the community?
• Who can correct the interpretations of leaders?

Without this question, "obedience to God" can become "obedience to a human who monopolizes divine will."

Obey God. ↓ A person who can accurately know the will of God is needed. ↓ Only the founder completely knows the will of God. ↓ Following the founder is obeying God.

The last equation is not trivial. It requires the possibility of instructors making mistakes, an interpretive community, multiple testimonies, procedures, objections, and alternative possibilities.

Conversely, the idea that "God exists within every person" does not necessarily prevent the concentration of power.

Believe in the god within you. ↓ However, you still cannot distinguish between the voice of ego and the voice of God. ↓ Only I can correctly interpret your inner god's voice. ↓ In the end, the authority to interpret is concentrated in the leader.

It is necessary to examine how interpretation rights are allocated and whether corrections are possible, rather than which of external gods or internal gods is advocated.

Layer 3: Does a mystical experience determine the definition of God?

Similar feelings of unity, light, and a sense of dissolving boundaries can be interpreted with different words in various religions.

• Christians interpret it as the presence of God or union with Christ.
• Hindu practitioners interpret it as the true self, the fundamental nature of existence, and experiences of specific gods or goddesses.
• Buddhists interpret it as the realization that there is no fixed self, that everything exists within relationships, and the potential to become enlightened.
• Some modern spiritual practitioners interpret it as cosmic consciousness or a connection with a deeper sense of self than their everyday selves.

It is difficult to definitively assert that experiences are exactly the same, or that they are completely incomparable. This is because bodily sensations, attention, emotions, cultural expectations, practices, and doctrines all relate to the formation and memory of experiences.

In this paper, we divide it into at least four stages.

Events and Experiences: Light, unity, voice, dreams, changes in self-boundaries. ↓ Interpretation: God, the fundamental nature of existence, the possibility of becoming a Buddha, contact with cosmic consciousness. ↓ Self-Understanding: I have a mission, I have attained enlightenment, I am chosen. ↓ Social Assertion: My teachings are correct, and others should follow them.

As you move to higher levels, new evidence is required. While respecting the fact that there have been intense experiences, I do not believe that those experiences automatically prove a specific denomination's metaphysics or social authority.

Nine Questions for Classifying World Religions

In this context, "contract" refers to the promise and relationship between God, humans, and communities. "Selflessness" refers to the Buddhist perspective of not establishing a fixed and controllable eternal self. Other specialized terms will be used with the meanings explained so far.

Also, "katsuai" means a desire that greedily seeks its object and is attached to both its existence and non-existence.

From the discussion so far, we can break down "Is man a god?" into the next nine questions.

1. The ultimate being is one of the following: creator god, highest personal god, absolute being, pure consciousness, emptiness (sunyata), Dharmakaya.
2. Humans are one of the following: created personality, jiva, atman, purusha, five aggregates as a temporary combination.
3. How are gods, angels, Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and saints distinguished from the ultimate being?
4. The relationship between humans and the ultimate being is one of the following: creation, contract, participation, indwelling, inclusion, unification, non-duality, no-self (anatman).
5. Does individual personality remain even after salvation or liberation?
6. Are there concepts equivalent to Nirguna, pure spirit, negative theology, and emptiness of characteristics?
7. If oneness exists, is it one of the following: monotheism, non-duality, inclusion, participation, emptiness/form are identical (sunyata/rupa), community.
8. The problems are one of the following: sin, ignorance, craving, karma, separation from God, undeveloped state.
9. Salvation is one of the following: forgiveness, devotion, grace, self-knowledge, discrimination, awakening, becoming a Buddha, long-term growth of the soul through multiple reincarnations.

By using these nine questions, we can place Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and various Indian religions in the same table while avoiding equating them. From here, we will examine each religion one by one using these questions.

Classifying Christian denominations based on "God and Self."

"In Christianity, humans are not God," simply stating this captures the difference between creator and creation. However, terms such as "image of God," "indwelling of the Holy Spirit," "union with Christ," "deification," and "sanctification" are omitted. Conversely, if one were to say only that "there is deification in Christianity," it might appear the same as Advaita Vedanta.

Catholicism - Participation through Grace

The basic structure of Catholicism is a combination of the distinction between creator and creation, and participation through grace. Humans are created in God's image, but they are wounded by sin; however, Christ works to save humans from sin and its consequences, which is redemption, and through divine grace, humans receive God's life.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains grace as participation in God's life. This is a very strong statement. However, at the same time, this participation is a gift freely given by God, and it does not mean that created persons can become creative gods on their own.

Even when Catholic mystics speak of "union with God," it usually does not mean that two substances melt and become the same. It is a union in love and grace, and it completes a personal relationship.

Eastern Orthodox Church - The Distinction Between Deification and Essence/Energy.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is particularly important for this topic because the concept of "theosis" (deification) describes human salvation as "becoming like God" and "participating in divine life."

However, in Eastern Orthodox theology, deification does not mean that humans possess the essence of God. The essence of God is incomprehensible to creation, and it is explained that humans participate in God's uncreated activity or energy.

The essence of God: It is not shared or possessed by creation.

God's energy and activity: Humans participate in it through grace.

Human beings: They are deified while maintaining their personality and humanity.

This distinction provides a strong comparative example for differentiating between "participating in divinity" and "becoming the essence of God." It can be compared to concepts such as Kushu-kyo's bunshin, Kimiko-kyo's kami no ko (child of God), and Vishishtadvaita's inclusion, but these are not historically or doctrinally equivalent.

Protestantism - Not a Single Doctrine

It is not possible to describe Protestantism as a monolithic entity and simply explain it as "a religion of faith alone." The act by which God recognizes sinners as righteous is called "justification." Different denominations discuss justification, union with Christ, sanctification, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and church community with different emphasis.

In Lutheran and Reformed traditions, being justified by faith and union with Christ are important. Humans do not become God; instead, they receive the righteousness of Christ and live a new life united with Christ. In Reformed theology, divine sovereignty, covenant, and sanctification are emphasized.

In the Methodist Holiness tradition, sanctification, perfect love, and the work of the Holy Spirit are emphasized. However, "perfect" is understood not as humans becoming all-knowing and all-powerful like God, but as completeness in love.

In Pentecostal and charismatic traditions, special abilities attributed to the work of the Holy Spirit are called "gifts," and phenomena such as speaking in tongues (utterances resembling languages not learned), healing, prophecy, and powerful worship experiences may be emphasized. Here, "separation between spiritual gifts and enlightenment/ethics" is particularly effective. It should be noted that within Christianity itself, possessing gifts does not guarantee the completeness of one's personality. The New Testament letters written by Paul themselves distinguish between spiritual gifts and the priority of love.

Christian new religions and restorationist movements that seek to restore the original church.

It is not possible to put "other new Christian movements" into a single category. Their self-understanding and external classification differ. The position of trying to restore the original Christianity that was lost by established churches can sometimes be called "restorationism" in academic terms. Here, we will only look at representative examples related to the axis of human divinity.

In this context, "Shōei" refers to the unique concept of Latter-day Saints where humans are elevated to a godlike existence as their ultimate form. Also, in the World Peace Unification Family Federation, "shinjin" (心情) refers to an internal emotional connection that binds God and humanity through a familial love.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that humans are spiritual children of the Heavenly Parents and have the potential to become like God through exaltation. It does not advocate for a non-dualistic dissolution of individual identity, as it strongly emphasizes individuality and family relationships. This is a model of "divine parentage + eternal growth."

Jehovah's Witnesses strongly maintain the distinction between the one true God, Jehovah, and his creation. Their focus is on divine sovereignty, the role of Christ, and loyalty to God's kingdom, rather than human deification.

Christian Science describes God as an infinite Mind and Spirit, and understands true man as its image and expression. This point is suitable for comparison with "pure spirit" or idealism, but it does not directly relate to the idea that the everyday self possesses the omnipotence of God.

The World Peace Unification Family Federation has a narrative that views God as the Heavenly Parent, and humans as children of God, with the world being restored as one family. In this oneness, there is unity between the divine parent and child, emotional unity, and restoration of the family and human community; it is not dualistic.

These four examples differ in their doctrines, histories, and organizations. The fact that they are placed in the same paragraph in this paper does not mean that they are homogeneous simply because they are all "new religions." The purpose is to examine how each of them reconstructs the relationship between God, humans, and completion while using Christian terminology.

Classifying various Islamic movements based on "God and Self."

The common foundation of Sunni and Shia Islam.

There are significant differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims regarding the legitimate leadership after the Prophet, jurisprudence, theology, and religious authority. However, they share common ground in their belief in Tawhid (the oneness of God), the Quran, Muhammad as the final prophet, and the distinction between creator and creation.

In Shia Islam, special leaders who guide the community after the Prophet Muhammad are called Imams, and they are recognized for their spiritual and interpretative authority. However, the Imam is not God himself. It is necessary to distinguish between the high status of prophets, Imams, and saints, and the divinity of the one God.

This requires a comparison of Deva and other entities, and the same caution should be exercised in another form. It is important to distinguish between mediators who hold high religious status and the ultimate reality itself.

Sufism - Fana and Baqa

Sufism is not a single sect, but encompasses diverse practices, ideas, and schools of thought within Islamic mysticism. Fanāʾ represents the disappearance of the ego-centric self and will, while baqāʾ signifies continued existence through God.

The expression "the self disappears" seems similar to Advaita Vedanta. However, in an Islamic context, love for God, remembrance of God, submission to God, and following the Prophet are important. There is a difference between declaring that the self is God ontologically, and having one's ego disappear and living according to God's will.

The discussion surrounding "unity of existence" in Ibn Arabi cannot be simply reduced to a simplistic pantheism. It is an elaborate system concerning the relationship between God's manifestation, divine names, existence, and created beings, and it is not about saying "my ego is Allah."

Classifying Buddhist sects based on "Ultimate Reality and Self."

In Buddhism, the concept of a creator god and the created beings cannot be directly correlated. Therefore, I am translating the question to: "What is the relationship between ultimate truth and empirical self?"

Early Buddhism and Theravada - Anatta (No-Self) and Nirvana.

In early Buddhism and the Theravada tradition, grasping the five aggregates – form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness – as a permanent and controllable self is rejected. The issue lies in realizing impermanence, suffering, and non-self to end attachment, rather than discovering a hidden true soul.

Therefore, the answer to "Is man God?" is not a simple negation, but rather, "First, we must examine the concept of an eternal self or soul that this question presupposes." Nirvana is neither union with a single god nor fusion of all souls.

Middle Observation -- The sky is not a single entity.

Chūkan argues that all things do not have inherent self-nature, but arise and exist through dependent origination. Emptiness is not the only underlying substrate hidden behind phenomena. If emptiness itself were treated as an independent entity, then even it would be empty.

In the Middle View, there is a distinction between the truth that exists in everyday language and agreements, and the ultimate truth that emerges when things are examined to their core. The former is called "conventional truth," and the latter is called "ultimate truth." Together, they are referred to as "the two truths." This is not a separation into two different worlds, but rather a distinction of how we perceive the same reality from different perspectives.

"Everything is one cosmic consciousness." Establish a single entity.

"Everything is emptiness." Deny the independent existence of each being.

Although both may appear non-dual on the surface, their philosophical directions are different. The former sometimes reduces multiplicity to a single substance. The latter deconstructs the concept of substance in relation to both one and many.

Consciousness-Only – "Mind Only" is not my wishful creation.

Yogacara (唯識) meticulously analyzes the objects of experience and the structure of cognition, aiming for a transformation of subject-object duality. If we only consider the terms "唯心" (only mind) and "唯識" (only consciousness), it might appear to be related to the law of attraction, suggesting that "my thoughts create reality."

However, the "my mind" that should be transformed here is not a master who commands desires to the universe. In Yogācāra, the deep layer of consciousness that accumulates traces of experience is called Ālayavijñāna, and the potential power of experiences and actions remaining within it is called seeds. The function of grasping two things as fixed: the observer and the observed, is called "nitai," and this very foundation of cognition itself transforming into wisdom is called "ten'i." This is in a direction opposite to the omnipotence theory of personal thinking.

Tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-nature) – The original nature is not a hidden ego.

The concept of Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-nature describes the potential for all beings to attain Buddhahood, emphasizing their inherently pure aspects. Some scriptures use positive self-language, and the relationship with Atman has been a subject of debate since ancient times.

Comparatively, the psychological function of "possibilities that are inherently present within the depths of everyday personality" appears similar to the Higher Self. However, Buddhahood is not a high-performance personality that guarantees success or the realization of desires. It is the potential to transcend greed, anger, and ignorance, and to realize wisdom and compassion.

Zen - Is enlightenment about "becoming special"?

In Zen, concepts such as zazen (seated meditation), kensho (seeing one's true nature), shushō (practice and enlightenment are inseparable), and "honrai no menmoku" (one's original state before the constructed self-image) are discussed. However, if a sense of "I have attained enlightenment" is strengthened, it can become a new form of identity card.

Zen-like selflessness and the "I am a fully awakened being" attitude of a cult leader are not the same thing. The right to share one's experiences and the right to control another person's body, money, or life are also different. This point will be discussed again in later discussions on cults.

Pure Land Buddhism and True Pure Land Buddhism - "Ordinary People" with Delusions and Afflictions, and Other-Power

In Pure Land Buddhism, the relationship between Amida Buddha's vow and sentient beings is central. Ordinary people who are burdened with delusion and afflictions are called "ordinary people." In particular, in True Pure Land Buddhism, deep reflection on being an independent entity striving for perfection, and trust in reliance on others, become prominent.

This appears similar to "God is God, and man is man," but it does not refer to the relationship between creator and creation. It is also not the same as "abandoning oneself and following a religious leader." Other-power (tariki) is a religious doctrine related to Amida Buddha's Vow, and cannot be directly replaced with unconditional obedience to human leaders.

Tendai and Nichiren: The Interconnectedness of One Mind and the World.

The Lotus Sutra is an important scripture in Mahayana Buddhism that teaches a single path to enlightenment for all people.

In the Tendai school, the concept of "ten realms mutually containing" refers to the idea that ten different states of being, ranging from delusion to enlightenment, each contain all others within themselves. Also, a single vehicle or path that leads everything towards Buddhahood is called "Ejo" (one vehicle).

In the Tendai school, "sho-gekki" represents the idea that all beings are interconnected and inseparable, without hindering or separating from each other. The concept of "ichinen sanzen" illustrates this worldview of mutual presence, where the diverse aspects of the world manifest within a single mental activity. The Nichiren tradition uniquely develops salvation theories related to the Lotus Sutra and ichinen sanzen, as well as chanting "gokaku-do," and the "mappo" era, which represents a time when it becomes difficult to properly practice the teachings of Buddhism.

"一念に世界がある" should not be translated as "My single-mindedness creates any reality I like." The former belongs to the system of interdependent origination, mutual possession of the ten realms, and Buddhist practice. The latter treats personal desires as a causative creative force.

Esoteric Buddhism and the Buddhist path of "Kongōryū" – Resonance with Buddha through "Sōō".

Kongōryū refers to a Buddhist path within Esoteric Buddhism that aims to realize the wisdom of Buddha through practices such as mantras, mudras, visualizations, and rituals.

In Esoteric Buddhism, the three functions of body, speech, and mind are called "Sanmitsu." The practitioner's body, speech, and mind resonate with the Buddha's body, speech, and mind, and are supported by the power of the Buddha. This is what is called Sanmitsu Kaji. And realizing the wisdom of the Buddha while possessing this physical body is called Jikushinnyobutsu (becoming a Buddha in one's own body). Along with Dainichi Nyorai and Hōshin, these are important teachings.

This does not mean that "the human body and personality become gods who do whatever they please." It exists within a practice system that includes the initiation ceremony of kanjō, which is an introduction and transmission ritual; precepts to be observed; rituals; the lineage of teachers passing teachings to disciples (shishi sōseishō); mandalas, which visually represent the Buddhist world; and kantsō, which involves visualizing images in one's mind for deep contemplation. It is also important not to extend the religious relationship with a teacher to encompass the infallibility of all worldly judgments made by that teacher.

Comparison of Various Buddhist Schools

Classifying various schools of Indian thought based on "Pure Spirit, God, and Oneness."

"If we consider 'Indian thought = Vedanta = Brahman and Atman are one,' many schools of thought become invisible."

Darth Vader and mysterious differences and non-differences.

The Bhedābheda (difference and non-difference) philosophies consider that the soul and Brahman are both different and not different at the same time. In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the concept of acintya-bhedābheda (inconceivable difference and non-difference) states that the jiva (individual soul) and the world are the power of Krishna, being one with God yet also distinct from Him.

This is not a "half-and-half" compromise in terms of quantity. It is an assertion that the relationship simultaneously possesses both difference and unity in a way that cannot be fully grasped by human logic alone. Individuality and bhakti remain.

Samkhya - A multitude of pure spirits.

Sāṃkhya distinguishes between puruṣa (Purusha) and prakṛti (Prakriti). Purusha is the observer, pure consciousness, while Prakriti is nature composed of three guṇas.

Purusha is a very close comparative concept to the Nirguna pure spirit. However, unlike Brahman in Advaita Vedanta, there are many Purushas. Liberation does not involve all Purushas merging into one, but rather each Purusha identifying itself with Prakriti and existing independently.

Classical Yoga - Ishvara as a Special Purusha

Classical yoga possesses a pluralistic dualism close to Samkhya, while recognizing Ishvara as a special Purusha. A state of deep stillness and concentration on an object, where one becomes absorbed in it, is called samadhi (三昧). Prayer to Ishvara leads to samadhi, but not all individual Purushas dissolve into Ishvara.

This system breaks down the equation that "the existence of pure mental concepts equals a monistic ideology." This is because there exists a model where multiple pure consciousnesses exist, and even after liberation, they do not integrate into one entity.

Nyaya-Vaisheshika: Numerous Substances and God.

Nyaya-Vaisheshika analyzes the world, individual souls, matter, qualities, relations, etc., as realities. In later theological discussions, God is argued to be the cause and controller of the world order, but individual souls do not merge with God.

Here, correct understanding is important for ending suffering, but it is not pure consciousness monism. "Being philosophical" and "being non-dualistic" are not the same thing.

Meemansa - Focusing on actions and rituals prescribed by God.

The Mimamsa school developed around the Vedic ritual injunctions, language, actions that should be performed, and their norms, focusing on action and consequence. The word "dharma" represents this "that which must be maintained" or "normative principles." While different schools have varying views on God, there is a classical position that does not consider the highest god who creates the world as an essential starting point of the system.

Here, too, preconceived notions such as "believing in the Vedas means believing in a god" and "Orthodox Hinduism equals Brahman monotheism" are dispelled.

Kashmir Shiva Sect - Dynamic Non-Dualism

In the non-dualistic Kashmir Shaivism, ultimate reality is the free and dynamic consciousness of Shiva, and the world is understood as a positive self-manifestation of that consciousness. Liberation is to re-recognize that one's true nature is Shiva.

While it is the same "non-dualism" as Advaita, the center of gravity of the world is different. Instead of explaining the world as a relative superposition due to ignorance, creative manifestation in which a single consciousness freely appears as multiplicity becomes more prominent.

This creativity should not be directly linked to manifestations based on personal desires. The cosmic freedom of Shiva consciousness and the limited desires of an individual are not the same thing.

Shiva Siddhanta - Lord, Soul, and Bondage

Shiva Siddhanta distinguishes between pati (the supreme Shiva), pasu (individual souls), and pasha (bondage). By the grace of God, the soul is liberated from bondage, but in the classical form, the difference between Shiva and the soul remains.

Even within Shaivism, it is different from the Advaita Shiva tradition of Kashmir. Even though the names of the deities are the same, their ontologies are not the same.

Sharkta Tantra: Is the goddess power, the supreme being, or absolute consciousness?

Shakta traditions center around Devī (goddess) and Śakti (power), but they are not monolithic. There are traditions that venerate the goddess as the supreme being, traditions that affirm the world and the body as manifestations of the power of the goddess, and tantric traditions that aim to achieve non-duality between the practitioner and the goddess.

"Goddess = Cosmic Energy," "If you open your femininity, abundance will come." When directly translated into modern language, the rituals, theology, precepts, teacher-student relationships, and liberation theories are lost. Gendered spirituality in the modern era should be investigated not as a direct inheritance from classical Shakta traditions, but as a mixed system of different lineages.

Jainism and Sikhism

Jainism is a pluralistic philosophy that posits the existence of countless jivas, which are purified from karmic matter. Even liberated souls do not merge into one entity. It does not posit a creator god and recognizes numerous individual consciousnesses that have been purified.

Sikhism, centered around Ik Oankar (the One True God), emphasizes the remembrance of God's name, divine grace, service, and community. God is transcendent yet immanent in the world, and human haumai (ego-centric "I" consciousness) hinders connection with God. Classifying it involves a combination of monotheism, divine grace, and transcending ego, but it should not be treated as simply a mixture of Islam, Bhakti, or non-dualistic philosophies.

Comparison of Indian Sects

Large classification of "God, pure spirit, oneness".

Here, I will put the comparison of these sections into a single table. This is not a table to determine "the highest religion." Also, it does not attempt to describe each religion in its entirety with just one line. In cases where there are multiple sects within the same tradition, I have listed representative examples.

"Nirguna/Pure Spirit" will not be judged solely on whether the same words are used. It includes concepts with similar functions, such as existence beyond limitations and trigunas, pure consciousness, and negative theological transcendence. However, Buddhist emptiness is not considered to be pure spirit. In the "Oneness" section, please describe what constitutes oneness and its meaning.

Six things that can be seen from this table:

First, the concept of Nirguna and the idea of Oneness are different. Samkhya and classical Yoga describe Purusha as pure consciousness that transcends the three gunas. However, they do not merge multiple Purushas into one.

Secondly, even if the concept of "oneness" exists, it does not necessarily mean identity between God and humans. In monotheistic religions, there is the uniqueness of God; in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, there is participation in God; in Islam, there is unity within the religious community; and in Tendai Buddhism, there is "so-gek". The meaning of "one" differs depending on the context.

Thirdly, having many gods is not the same as having multiple ultimate realities. There are traditions that recognize many deities while still positing a single supreme being or fundamental source.

Fourthly, denying a creator god is not the same as denying gods or sacred beings. In Buddhism and Jainism, there are also deities that appear, but they are not centered around a single creator god.

Fifthly, recognizing human divinity is not the same as erasing individuality. Participation in God, distraction from God, being a child of God, and the possibility of becoming Buddha are all ways of speaking about divinity and inherent nature, and they treat individuality differently. The concepts of modern Theosophy and contemporary spirituality will be added to the final comparison table after explaining them below.

Sixth, the phrase "I am God" cannot be placed anywhere in the table without additional context. We need to understand what "I" and "God" refer to, what relationship exists between them, what state or ability is being described, and how ethics are considered.

Rephrasing sentences that describe the same "divine human."

In religions, there are strong words that highly value human beings. It is possible to summarize all of these as "humans are gods." However, the moment you do this summarization, the most important difference disappears.

| People are children of God | Parent-child relationship, grace, love, growth | Maintains the parent-child relationship. | | Humans participate in the divine nature | Participation and deification through grace | The self does not possess the essence of God. | | All sentient beings have Buddha-nature | Possibility of enlightenment, inherent purity | Does not simply justify desires and ignorance as being equal to Buddhahood. | | The true nature of oneself is Shiva | A limited subject re-recognizes universal consciousness of Shiva | Does not absolutize all judgments of the limited mind. | | Humans have a divided heart | Recognizes the divine mind of the parent god within humans | There is an examination of desires and fears that hinder division. | | People are children/descendants of God | Living in mutual relationship with the deities of heaven, earth, and gold | It is not a story where one individual creates the world. | | Connecting to the higher self | Assumes a higher self that transcends the everyday self | The definition is fluid and may not be the same as the classical Atman. |

In terms of the strength of expression, "Atman is Brahman" appears to be the most radical. However, psychologically, religions that separate the creator and creation may sometimes provide stronger support for the individual's dignity as a being loved by God. Conversely, people who talk about non-duality may sometimes create strong social hierarchies.

In other words, whether God and humans exist on a level of closeness, how an individual evaluates themselves, and how equal an organization is are not necessarily correlated.

Through this paper, two extremes surrounding the self have become apparent.

Exaggeration of self: "Because I am God, my judgments are specially correct."

Underestimation of self: "I am ignorant and worthless, so I entrust all decisions to the teacher."

The former leads to self-deification, while the latter leads to a relinquishment of agency. However, religious self-understanding is not simply a choice between "erasing oneself" or "expanding into the vastness of the universe."

I do not consider myself to be the center of the universe. However, I will not abandon my own judgment, conscience, bodily self-determination, dignity, and responsibility. I acknowledge that I may make mistakes. However, I do not believe that only leaders are incapable of making mistakes. I see divinity and value in others. However, I do not ignore the realistic differences and boundaries between myself and others.

This "appropriate sense of self" is not simply an advocacy for moderation. It involves simultaneously preventing the absolutization of oneself and avoiding the devaluation of oneself.

The inclusion model of Ramanuja and the relationship between humans and God in Shinshukyo seem interesting because they offer room for considering this issue. They do not eliminate individuals, nor do they treat individuals as independent absolute beings. However, this does not guarantee the organizational soundness of any particular religion. The structure of thought and its actual implementation must be examined separately.

When I watched Kurozumi-kyo, Kinpokyo, and Daibon in short succession, my first question was "How does each of them view God?"

However, as we continue to compare them, the question shifts to "What is a human being?"

• In Kurozumi teachings, humans receive a portion of the divine will.
• In Kimiko teachings, humans stand in harmony with God as children and descendants of God.
• In Taikyo teachings, humans achieve unity with God and undertake the cosmic plan.

All three religions do not completely sever the connection between God and humans. Nevertheless, there are differences in their structures regarding immanence, mutual relationship, unity, and mission.

When placed next to Vedanta, the differences become even more apparent and three-dimensional.

• Shankara argues that Atman and Brahman were originally not two.
• Ramanuja places the real world and souls within one God.
• Madhva maintains the eternal difference between God and the soul.

Furthermore, when looking at Theosophy, the self is reconstructed into an individual who reincarnates and evolves. By tracing the concepts of Oversoul, Monad, Higher Self, and Group Soul, it becomes clear that similar terms from different lineages have converged. When distinguishing between Neo-sort and New Age, it also becomes apparent that "thought creates reality" did not directly originate from Advaita Vedanta.

When we return to the initial question, it becomes clear that the question "Is man God?" itself was too simplistic.

Because, on the side of "god," there was not just one type. We must distinguish between creator gods, supreme personality gods, ultimate realities, divine attributes, celestial beings, incarnations of god, and inherent divinity. The comparison of deities in India showed that even being a member of the pantheon or possessing power does not automatically guarantee self-knowledge, liberation, or ethical completeness.

Section VIII: Summary - What is on the left and right sides of the expression?

"The equation 'human = god' alone tells us very little about that ideology."

This paper first establishes two reference points for this reason. The first is "What is God/the ultimate being?" The second is "What is I/the self?" After examining both sides of the equation, we then sequentially added their relationship, individuality and achievement, desires, experiences and interpretations, authority and organizational power. If these are forced into a single table from the beginning, the differences behind similar words will become invisible again.

The "person" on the left side, is it a personal self, or jiva, or atman, or a divine child who receives enlightenment, or a reincarnating monad, or higher self, or an individual soul belonging to a group soul?

The "God" on the right side, is it the sole God who creates the world? Or is it Brahman, the ultimate reality? Is it a supreme personal god like Narayana? Or is it a Deva within the cycle of reincarnation? Is it Kabbalah's En Sof? Is it Amaterasu Omikami? Is it Tenchi-no-Kami? Is it the universal spirit of all things? Is it an oversoul? Is it cosmic consciousness or Source?

Furthermore, there is also more than one equals sign "=".

• Divinity is inherent.
• God and humans are mutually related.
• God and humans unify.
• Humans and the world are included in God.
• The true self and ultimate reality are non-dualistic.
• God and soul are eternally distinct.

It is not possible to complete these things with just "one" item.

And after understanding the philosophical equation, you must see what that idea actually does in practice.

• Do you see the same divinity in others?
• Do you equate your own desires with divine will?
• Are leaders themselves bound by doctrines?
• Is criticism and departure possible?
• Is power being derived from mystical experiences?
• Are temporary feelings of harmony and unity within the group being presented as proof of a fundamental oneness?
• Has self-transcendence turned into abandonment of one's own subjectivity?

It is not necessarily safe because it is monistic, nor is it dangerous because it is dualistic. "Everyone is God" can lead to both egalitarian thought and spiritual hierarchy. "Abandon the ego" can be used for both compassion and humility, as well as obedience to a leader.

The four distinctions that should be maintained until the end are:

1. [... ]

2. [... ]

3. [... ]

4. [... ]

5. Divinity and the deification of the personal self are not the same.

6. Self-transcendence and the abandonment of subjectivity are not the same.

7. Structural similarity and historical influence are not the same.

8. Deity/spiritual power and self-knowledge/liberation/ethical perfection are not the same.

The problem is not simply asking "Is man God?" It's about what we are calling "man" and what we are calling "God." And it's about how that understanding shapes our views on desire, others, judgment, responsibility, power.

Finding divinity and making oneself a god are two things, and there is a large distance between them that cannot be seen from similar words.

Here, I will temporarily deviate from the main topic of "What is God?" and "What is Self?".

So far, we have mainly been looking at what religions and ideologies are teaching. However, what is taught as doctrine and how that doctrine is actually used to treat people are not the same thing. Before I present my own position, let's shift our perspective from the content of ideology to its practical application.

No matter how beautiful a doctrine may be, if its implementation deprives people of their freedom and judgment, it requires an evaluation separate from the content of the doctrine itself.

The words "divinity," "non-duality," "no-self," and "transcendence of the self" cannot be understood simply as philosophical concepts. It is necessary to examine how these same religious terms are used in relationships between leaders, instructors, representatives, and participants, and how they strengthen the power of some while weakening the agency of others.

For example, even if there is a group that believes in aliens, it is not necessarily dangerous simply because of the unusualness of their beliefs, as long as they are free to ask questions, are not controlled financially or physically, and can leave at any time. Conversely, even if a group uses common and gentle language, it may have organizational problems if it prohibits questions, cuts off relationships with the outside world, and concentrates life decisions on leaders.

Here, we will change the order in which you view things slightly.

Whether the doctrine is unusual or not, it's more important whether one can freely think, refuse, consult, and leave. Then, observe how the doctrine is used to justify centralization of power.

Let's consider the difficult word "cult" after seeing these differences.

"Cult" in Japanese has a strong negative connotation. On the other hand, "cult" in English has been used differently in the history of religious studies. There are also discussions about the boundaries between "sect," "cult," and "new religious movement."

The Japanese term "shinshūkyō" is a relatively descriptive word used in academic research to collectively refer to religious movements that emerged from the late modern period to the present. The phrase "shin kōshūkyō" is widely used in everyday language, but sometimes carries implications of being temporary or dubious. On the other hand, this paper refers to the state where an organization exerts strong control over various aspects of its members' lives, including information, actions, relationships, finances, and even their bodies, as "highly controlling." It is important to note that "being a new religion" and "being highly controlling" are separate concepts. Therefore, in this paper, we primarily use the term "shinshūkyō" for historical categorization.

Religious sociologist Eileen Barker and others have used the term "new religious movement" to avoid making value judgments beforehand. However, questions remain about "what is new" and "what constitutes religion."

In this paper, I do not use the word "cult" to mean a group with strange beliefs.

• I believe in reincarnation.
• I talk about mystical experiences.
• I believe in aliens.
• I have an "apocalyptic" view that the current world is approaching a decisive end or turning point.

From these beliefs alone, it is impossible to determine the danger of an organization. What should be considered are things like coercion, concentration of power, information control, intervention in finances, sexuality, and bodily autonomy, difficulty in leaving, and inability to criticize.

Therefore, in the following text, I will use terms such as "cult-like" or "highly controlling" when necessary, but I will prioritize describing specific characteristics of control rather than using binary labels.

In terms of research, there isn't a single, all-encompassing diagnostic concept. "Thought reform" refers to the restructuring of thinking and identity through environmental and interpersonal processes; "coercive control" refers to continuous coercion such as threats, surveillance, isolation, and resource dominance; and "high-control group" refers to groups that exert strong control over a wide range of life areas, each capturing different aspects. Because each concept has its own scope and criticisms, avoid drawing conclusions based solely on the name, and instead focus on observable behaviors and systems.

It cannot be said that monism leads to equality and safety, while dualism leads to authoritarianism and danger.

Here, we return to the three questions placed in Chapter 2. As a doctrine, are humans and God the same? In practice, are all people treated as those who possess divine dignity? Or only instructors or representatives are practically "the people closest to God," "people who do not make mistakes," and thus are exceptions. These three questions may not have the same answer.

From a monistic perspective, the idea of equality can arise from the concept that "all existence is rooted in the same ultimate reality." However, if someone says, "I am the only person who has completely realized this unity," it also leads to deification and the elevation of oneself as a religious figure.

From a dualistic perspective, an absolute difference can be placed between God and humans. However, at the same time, a power restriction can arise that states, "Before God, both the founder [of a religion] and the believers are the same created and dependent beings."

In order to distinguish between metaphysics and organizational theory, we should use two different maps.

Map of Ideologies Will the difference between God and humans remain? / Will individuality remain? / What is salvation?

Map of Organizations Who decides? / Can it be criticized? / Is it open to outsiders? / Can one leave?

It is impossible to predict the latter only from the former.

Ten Questions to Ask Someone Talking About "Divinity"

Here, we will not evaluate questions related to ontology and questions related to organizations at the same time. We will check them in two separate steps.

The first thing to confirm is what that statement means.

After confirming the meaning, I observe how that word is used in human relationships and organizations.

When you encounter phrases like "You are a god," "I am an awakened one," or "God said so," there is no need to immediately choose between believing and denying. First, break down the content of the statement into five questions.

1. Is "that God" a creator god, an absolute being, the highest personal god, a divine attribute, or the divinity within humans?
2. Is "you" a personal self, a soul, jiva, atman, or a higher self?
3. Is it a proposition about essence, or a proposition about the current state of realization?
4. Is it religious poetry and encouragement, or a literal existential statement?
5. Does it have an influence on psychology and behavior, or is it a causal law that creates the entire external world?

Next, I will confirm your understanding of the connection between ability and power with five questions.

6. Is it a claim of psychic abilities, or a claim of liberation and enlightenment?
7. From the mystical experience, what interpretation led to that conclusion?
8. Is this claim being used for authority or privilege over others?
9. Can mistakes be acknowledged, and external information and criticism be considered?
10. Does this ideology recognize the same divinity, dignity, and freedom in others?

The last question is especially important.

I am God. ↓ Others are also worthy of respect. ↓ Do not manipulate others, but learn together.

In that direction, and...

I am God. ↓ I have completely realized it. ↓ Others are asleep. ↓ Others should follow me.

The direction is completely opposite, even though the starting words are the same.

The conclusion so far is simple.

"God" is not a single type of being. And, divinity, celestial status, spiritual power, ultimate nature, self-knowledge, and ethical authority are not the same thing.

So far, we have been able to consider the content of ideologies and the operation of groups separately. Next, what I am curious about is why two teachings that seem completely opposite can sometimes lead to similar forms of closure.

A. Sanctifying the ego of believers.

You are a god. ↓ You have special powers. ↓ Your intuition is the voice of the universe. ↓ We are a special group that has awakened. ↓ It cannot be understood by people outside our group.

This path can begin with the recovery of self-worth and hope. However, when self-superiority is combined with a sense of collective elitism, external criticism can be blocked off as "jealousy from people of lower dimensions."

B. Destroying the ego of believers.

Discard your ego. ↓ Do not trust your own judgment. ↓ The act of doubting itself is ego. ↓ Only the master knows the truth. ↓ Entrust everything to the master.

This seems to be the opposite of self-confidence. However, the more a leader weakens the judgment of their followers, the more power they gain.

The common point between the two paths is that they both deprive people of their ability to realistically self-assess. On one hand, it's "I am special, so I don't make mistakes." On the other hand, it's "I am immature, so I cannot judge things myself." The conclusion may be different, but in either case, it can lead to a closed mindset where criticism is not accepted.

Here, the aura fusion model serves as a guide once again. Even if participants in gatherings or seminars share similar feelings of excitement, security, and purpose, this does not necessarily mean that it immediately signifies fundamental oneness. In the author's model, we need to distinguish between "local synchronization/fusion occurring at that moment" and "fundamental non-separation while retaining differences." Psychologically, alternative explanations such as group cohesion and emotional contagion can also be considered. The important thing is not to use a strong sense of unity as proof of the correctness of leaders or doctrines.

The teaching of "abandoning the ego" itself is not dangerous. Many traditions, such as Buddhism, yoga, Vedanta, and Christian mysticism, have practices that aim to transcend self-centeredness.

The problem is that the application of the principle becomes asymmetrical.

What should be observed here is the symmetry of doctrine. Does the ethics that the group espouses apply to its leaders as well? Who can correct the mistakes of the leader? Are those in authority not considered to be beings beyond ordinary morality?

"All people have divinity" can be an egalitarian proposition. In some cases, such as in Kurozumi-kyo's concept of "bunshin" or Kinokogyo's concept of "kami no ko," it can lead to the dignity of all and kindness towards others.

However, when the next sentence is added, the structure reverses.

Everyone has divinity. ↓ However, the level of awakening to that divinity differs. ↓ There are those who are awakened and those who are asleep. ↓ The founder is the most awakened. ↓ The judgment of the founder is more correct than that of ordinary people.

Thus, an immeasurable spiritual hierarchy is created from this equal divinity.

教祖: Highest Awakened Being 幹部: High Vibration, Evolved Soul 従順な信者: Growing 疑問を持つ人: Strong Ego 脱会者: Lowered Vibration 批判者: Darkness, Low Dimension, Unawakened

"波動" in this context refers to a metaphor representing spiritual value, not the frequency in physics. Since there are no measurement methods and the leader themselves determine the ranking, spiritual evaluation and actual power mutually support each other cyclically.

In highly controlled groups, criticism may be handled in the following ways:

"Is what the leader says strange?" ↓ "That's your ego." ↓ "You don't understand because you haven't awakened yet." ↓ "External critics are rebelling because they have low vibrations."

In this logic, counter-evidence is transformed into evidence that strengthens the doctrine. If you agree with the leader, then the leader is correct. If you disagree, then those who are not yet awakened are resisting the truth, so the leader is still correct.

The property of being able to consider "what kind of evidence would lead one to admit that it was wrong" regarding a certain claim is called falsifiability. It is not necessary to measure all religious propositions solely by the same standard of falsifiability as natural sciences. However, whether or not it is possible to acknowledge errors and make corrections in real-world matters such as money, health, abuse, and organizational operations is a separate issue.

The important thing is epistemological humility.

• My interpretation of my mystical experience may be incorrect.
• Even leaders can make mistakes.
• The application of doctrines may be subject to revision.
• External criticisms may contain content that is worth considering.

When this space closes, doctrine becomes a self-defense mechanism.

Max Weber's charismatic authority is a type of authority in which legitimacy arises from the devotion to individuals believed to possess extraordinary qualities. The existence of a charismatic leader does not necessarily mean it is a cult. Charisma appears in social movements, religious reforms, and politics as well.

The problem arises when that authority becomes unverifiable, is free from institutional constraints, and expands to encompass all areas of daily life.

Janja Lalich's concept of "bounded choice" is a framework for understanding the process by which, within dedicated groups, members appear to be making choices, but their available information, relationships, meanings, and future visions are narrowed, making it difficult for them to choose anything outside of the group's logic. Her book, "Bounded Choice," does not simply assume that people are "brainwashed weak individuals," but rather examines how dedication, meaning, authority, and systems shape the range of choices available.

The teachings of self-transcendence become dangerous not because they weaken egoism. It is when information, judgment, the body, money, relationships, and even withdrawal are all entrusted to a single leader, and this is defined as "spiritual growth."

The following examples are not suitable for inclusion in the same table as those related to Japanese Shinto, Buddhism, and Confucianism. The first part compares ideas about gods and humans; this section compares mechanisms of high control.

Aum Shinrikyo

Aum Shinrikyo combined vocabulary derived from yoga, Buddhism, and Hinduism, along with concepts such as liberation, devotion to a guru, supernatural abilities, and apocalypticism, in its own unique way. It is important that the religious vocabulary itself was not the cause of violence.

What should be noted is the structure in which the founder is placed as the highest spiritual achiever, the ultimate authority on interpreting doctrines, and the one who determines salvation, placing them above the self-judgment of believers. While followers are required to abandon attachments and their ego, any counterbalancing power that could check the founder's commands has been lost.

There are social psychological studies that deal with the criminal activities of Aum Shinrikyo, and research that analyzes group processes and influences. However, there is also academic criticism against explaining everything solely through "mind control." It is necessary to consider the interaction between doctrines, organizations, isolation, apocalyptic beliefs, and leader power, rather than reducing it to individual weaknesses.

Peoples Temple

Jim Jones' Peoples Temple (People's Temple) had a period in which it advocated for racial integration, social justice, and communal mutual assistance. From there, the concentration of power in the leader increased, hostility towards external criticism grew, intervention in the lives of members intensified, and geographical isolation to Jonestown in Guyana progressed.

The FBI's case files and the Jonestown Institute at San Diego State University preserve not only information about the final event, but also a vast amount of primary source materials and testimonies. This example shows that an egalitarian starting point does not guarantee prevention of power concentration.

Branch Davidians

In the cases of the Branch Davidians and David Koresh, special authority in biblical interpretation, apocalyptic beliefs, communal living, and sexual/familial control were important. At the same time, the 1993 Waco siege and fire have long been subject to debate regarding government tactics and responsibility. Even when examining materials such as the U.S. Department of Justice's investigative report on the incident, it cannot be reduced to a simple narrative of "fanatical group versus righteous government."

From this case, it becomes clear that examining power abuse within a group and critically evaluating the response from the state are separate issues.

Heaven's Gate

Heaven's Gate demonstrates that it is not only the type of cult that stimulates followers' sense of omnipotence, but also something else. The doctrine emphasized transcending the physical body, sexuality, family identity, and earthly personality as lower-level vehicles to transition to a higher state of existence.

Here, we see a self-abandonment type that prioritizes submission to doctrine over bodily autonomy and personal decision-making, rather than an ego-driven type that claims the ability to create anything on Earth. The problem is not only the cosmological strangeness of the beliefs themselves. It is important how much one's judgments about their own body and life are restricted within a closed doctrinal system and in relation to leaders.

Transcending ego and eliminating subjectivity are different things. Not considering oneself the center of the universe does not mean relinquishing one's body, dignity, responsibility, or judgment to others.

The following table is different from the previous comparison table. It is not for determining whether a religious doctrine is true or false, nor is it a "cult" diagnostic tool. This is a set of questions to consider specific group control and power concentration.

Even with the same doctrine, the results can change depending on how it is implemented.

If the teaching of "abandoning desires" applies equally to both leaders and followers, it can become an ethics of self-restraint. However, if only the desires of believers are denied, while the wealth, sexuality, or power of leaders are treated as exceptions, then it becomes a tool of domination.

The teaching that "everyone has divinity" can lead to an egalitarian ideology if it encourages people to see the same dignity in others. However, if only the founder is seen as a completely awakened being and possesses this divinity exclusively, it can result in a spiritual hierarchy.

For those who have read this far, a reasonable question will remain.

I understand that there is a difference. So, in the end, which one is correct?

You can also respond with, "Please think for yourself." It is necessary to be cautious and not easily determine the truth or falsehood of a religion from an external perspective. However, if we only say that, it diminishes the meaning of the long comparison that has been made so far. This paper, even tentatively, needs to provide one answer.

Therefore, finally, using Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, let us connect the gods, souls, religions, mystical experiences, and modern spirituality that have appeared so far.

This is not an attempt to prove that "all religions are actually Advaita." It is also impossible to change Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Seicho-no-Ie, Taikyo Religion, etc., into parts of Advaita against their own understanding. What I am doing here is showing which viewpoint the author adopts as the most consistent standard, and trying to see how far that standard works and where it stops.

When explaining Shankara, the most important thing is not to divide the world into two. Instead, it is to distinguish between the everyday and religious experiences, and the ultimate perspective, regarding the same reality.

In simple terms, it is like this:

In Advaita, the former is called vyāvahārika (vyavaharika), meaning empirical or practical reality, and the latter is called pāramārthika (paramarthika), meaning ultimate reality. This does not mean that two universes exist side by side. It is an asymmetrical relationship where the experiential world depends on Brahman, but Brahman does not depend on any specific form of the experiential world.

Let's consider a pot made of soil. The pot functions as a tool for holding water in reality. If you drop the pot, it will break. In that sense, saying "the pot does not exist" is incorrect. However, even if the shape of the pot breaks, the material, which is the soil, does not disappear completely. The pot depends on the soil, but the soil does not depend on a single form of a pot.

For Shankara, the relationship between the "name and form" of the world and Brahman is similar. In the empirical world, people, gods, religions, souls, bodies, and societies are distinguished from each other and have different functions. However, they are not ultimately independent secondary realities.

Having these two perspectives allows for a significant organization of previous discussions.

The central problem of Advaita Vedanta is not the fact that objects appear in the world. It is mistaking the body, memory, personality, social status, desires, fears, knowledge, and so on as "this is my everything."

The word that explains this confusion is "adhyasa" (adhvāsa), which means superimposition. It involves projecting the changing nature of body and mind onto Atman, and conversely, considering the brightness of consciousness as if it were possessed by the body and mind themselves.

The body ages. ↓ "I myself am weakening, and losing value."

A strong thought arises in the mind. ↓ "This is the true self, or the voice of God, so it cannot be wrong."

Both of them integrate the experiences and the awareness that illuminates those experiences into a single entity.

From here, the phrase "true self" in modern spirituality has two possibilities. If it aims to correct the misunderstanding of thinking that only one's everyday personality is the self, then it approaches Advaita Vedanta. However, if it assumes a "high-performance self" that is more powerful than one's everyday personality and can realize desires, know the future, and manipulate the world, then it may have simply reconstructed the individual ego into a finer and larger form.

If the Higher Self is a word to dissolve identification with the ego, it has a comparative role. If the Higher Self becomes "a cosmic higher personality that will surely fulfill my desires," then it separates from Shankara's Atman. This is because Atman is not an agent for fulfilling personal desires.

Within this framework, a question arises: "Ultimately, if only Brahman exists, are all gods and deities simply false?" However, there is no need to dismiss it so simplistically.

For those who pray, the relationship with God is a reality. Faith in specific deities, rituals, gratitude, and devotion can also help to prepare the mind, weaken self-centeredness, and make one ready for knowledge. Within the realm of experience, distinctions are made between God and humans, teachers and disciples, actions and consequences.

Nevertheless, ultimately, there is no independent second reality other than Brahman. This is the Shankara's answer. It does not treat gods as minor absolute beings competing with the supreme god, nor does it consider them as independent entities existing alongside the ultimate reality.

At the same time, being a divine entity, possessing spiritual abilities, and fulfilling a cosmic role are not the same as enlightenment. Even if deities exist at high levels of the experiential world, as long as they possess names and forms, knowledge, and roles, it cannot be said that non-dual self-realization is complete simply by virtue of those attributes. The same distinction applies when humans claim to be divine entities or higher beings.

Here, let's go back to the words that were at the beginning of the article.

I am God.

If we read it from a Shankaran perspective, this sentence is inaccurate as is. This is because both "I" and "God" contain a mixture of the meaning of the empirical world and the ultimate meaning.

However, it is important to note that the Japanese word "shin" (god) has a specific meaning. In classical Advaita Vedanta, terms like Deva, Ishvara, Atman, and Brahman are not all simply equated with the same concept of "shin."

Devatas are divine beings with specific forms, functions, and powerful forces within the realm of experience. Many of them are understood as Jivas who exist within the framework of karma and reincarnation. At least, simply being a deity does not guarantee liberation (moksha). On the other hand, Ishvara and Bhagavan are personal deities described as rulers of the world of experience, and in Advaita Vedanta, they are understood as Brahman with attributes. Furthermore, the ultimate Atman and Brahman are not powerful beings located somewhere in the world, but rather the fundamental principles of existence and consciousness.

Therefore, when rereading "I am God" from here, it does not mean that an individual possesses powers like Deva or Ishvara. In this paper, I use the word "God," deliberately using a broad term that includes ultimate reality, for comparison with everyday expressions. More precisely, what should be said is: "The true self, which is consciousness, is identical to Brahman, which is ultimate reality."

Therefore, the "I am God" that Advaita recognizes is not a declaration of ability by the personal self. Rather, it refers to the pure consciousness of the self that remains after systematically removing from the word "I" things such as the body, history, desires, fears, spiritual titles, and special missions.

This is more of a movement to "resolve the misunderstanding that I am a small, independent entity" rather than "I expand into the universe."

The two approaches do not proceed in a continuous sequence, but rather move in separate directions.

Even though similar words are used, the direction is opposite.

From the framework of Shankara, when reading Kurozumi-kyo, Kinpokyo, and Daibon, it is possible to consider their positions without equating them with the same Advaita doctrine.

The concept of "bunshin" in Kurozumi-kyo can be a gateway to seeing the divine within humans, as it challenges the notion that personality is all there is. However, "bunshin" is not synonymous with "Atman" either historically or doctrinally. When reinterpreted from an Advaita perspective, "bunshin" can be seen as a clue towards the ultimate self, but it does not mean that a person possessing "bunshin" automatically becomes omnipotent.

The "aiyokakeyo" of the Golden Light religion richly depicts the relationship between God and people in the experiential world. It focuses on relief from relationships, mediation, and difficulties, rather than Advaita's ultimate non-dualism. From a Shankara perspective, this can be understood as being close to the religious relationship between Ishvara and Jiva. However, this does not mean it is inferior or unnecessary. Simply speaking of ultimate knowledge will not immediately help someone who is in difficulty.

The concept of the unity of God and humanity, along with the cosmic principles, aims to implement divine will in the world. From the perspective of Advaita Vedanta, divine will, mission, and global reform are important functions within the realm of experience. However, while it is one thing to cooperate with God to rebuild the world, and another that Atman and Brahman are inherently not two, they are still distinct concepts.

In this interpretation, the differences between the three religions do not disappear. Rather, they remain as three different answers to the question of how to live out divinity in the experiential world. Below that, we can place a non-dualistic foundation upon which all existence depends.

In Advaita Vedanta, Nirguna Brahman, which is not limited by attributes, and Ishvara, which possesses attributes and is described as the lord of the world, an object of prayer and devotion, are distinguished. This distinction should not be taken as a direct equivalent to doctrines in other religions, but rather used as two positions for comparison.

Attributes, appearance, and personality cannot fully capture the ultimate extreme. ↕ It possesses a name, nature, will, and function, and relates to humans as an extreme.

In this context, "guna" does not only refer to the three gunas of Samkhya. It broadly refers to attributes that can be used to describe an entity as "such a thing," including name, nature, will, and function. Also, "equivalent to Ishvara" does not mean that each religion has a creator god called Ishvara. This is for comparison purposes, referring to the aspects related to humans in terms of prayer, devotion, salvation, and guidance.

In this table, it is important to note that just because something can be placed on the right side does not mean that it is ontologically the same as Ishvara. For example, Amitabha Buddha appears similar to a personal god in its function of being an object of salvation and devotion, but it is not the sole God who creates the world from nothing. Conversely, even if we place "infinity," "nothingness," "emptiness," and "unknowability" on the left side, that does not necessarily mean that they are the same as pure consciousness, which is Nirguna Brahman.

In Christianity and Islam, the difference between the creator and the created is not merely an apparent illusion due to ignorance. Love, covenant, grace, obedience, and salvation are possible because of this difference. If we place another impersonal absolute being behind the personal God, that would be a re-arrangement from the Advaita perspective, rather than within the teachings of those religions themselves.

The Kabbalistic concepts of Ein Sof and the Sephirot depict a two-layered model that is closest to this. Ein Sof is described as an infinite being that transcends attributes and limitations, while the Sephirot are explained as God's attributes, realms, stages of self-manifestation, etc. Nevertheless, it cannot be directly replaced with Brahman and the relationship between name and form in a system that includes creation, commandments, prayer, and restoration.

The differences with Buddhism are even greater. The Buddhist concepts of "no-self" (無我) and emptiness (空) do not teach that one can find an eternal Atman within the body or mind. Shankara criticized various schools of Buddhism, establishing self-evident pure consciousness and Brahman. Therefore, if one were to say, "The Buddhist concept of emptiness is actually Brahman, and all Buddhas are Ishvara," it would negate important criticisms from the Buddhist side.

Even with this two-layered model, there is meaning. It allows us to distinguish whether religious language speaks about ultimate realities that transcend concepts, or about concrete aspects related to human beings. For traditions where the existence of "guna" is not explicitly stated, instead of definitively stating that they are "equivalent to nirguna," we can write "unknown, inapplicable, only comparable functionally."

For this reason, Advaita is not a theory that explains all religions from the inside. Rather, it is a comparative language that attempts to identify where two aspects of other religions can be seen from the perspective of Advaita. Other religions have counterarguments that do not fit within its framework.

Theosophical concepts of the Monad and spiritual evolution posit a long self that extends beyond a single lifetime. However, from Shankara's perspective, no matter how many times one is reborn or how much one evolves to higher realms, as long as the identification remains "I am the individual who experiences and grows," it is still the story of Jiva.

Spiritual evolution is not meaningless. Ethics, concentration, discernment, and the reduction of attachment can prepare one for self-knowledge. However, what Shankara calls moksha (liberation) is not that an individual ascends to the very top of the ladder of the universe, but rather that the ignorance which identifies the individual as a separate entity dissolves.

In modern spirituality, concepts like "raising your vibration," "shifting to a higher dimension," and "getting closer to your higher self" also divide into two categories.

• If the heart becomes calm, self-centeredness weakens, and understanding of others deepens, then it has meaning as a form of maturity in the experienced world.
• If one rises to a higher level and develops an awareness that they have become more correct than those below them, then it is simply a new decoration for the ego.

Regarding attraction and reality creation, Shankara's answer is even more clear. The individual Jiva can create subjective content like dreams or imagination, but it is not Ishvara, which projects the entire world. Therefore, he does not believe that individuals have the power to objectively project the universe.

Therefore, the reasoning that "because Atman is Brahman, my thoughts create reality" substitutes the ultimate self with the empirical mind. This is the largest logical leap that this paper has been following.

The aura fusion model that I have been using for some time can also be positioned more easily by using two levels of reality.

People approach each other, and emotions, attention, physical sensations, and the atmosphere of the surroundings influence one another. Some interpret this phenomenon religiously as a contact or fusion of auras. Such events are models of local relationships in experienced reality. There may be aspects that can be explained by psychological concepts such as emotional contagion and synchronization, but there also remain parts that constitute the author's model of spiritual experience.

However, the mixing of two auras and the non-duality of Atman and Brahman are different things.

Aura fusion. Local and relational changes that occur between multiple entities or fields.

Advaita's non-duality. It does not consider pure consciousness and existence as two independent realities from the beginning.

The former has changes such as approaching, receding, strengthening, weakening, and mixing. The latter is not an event where two things merge after the fact.

Therefore, the aura fusion model can remain as a supplementary explanation for the subtle "connections" in the experienced world. However, it does not constitute proof of ultimate oneness. Conversely, due to Advaita's non-duality, we cannot ignore boundaries or local influences with others.

Here, the issue of Part IX comes back again.

Ultimately, if everything is Brahman, then aren't suffering, exploitation, lies, and power imbalances also not truly existent? If one carelessly uses Shankara's two levels of reality, one could say that. However, this is a misuse that conveniently mixes the empirical world with the ultimate perspective.

As long as one has a body, lives with others, and experiences the consequences of actions, ethics and responsibility operate in the realm of experience. Those who say "I am not an actor" or "Good and evil are dualistic," and thereby harm others, while retaining the effects of their words, actions, and benefits within the realm of experience, attempt to eliminate only the aspect of responsibility from that same realm.

The same thing applies to the founder of the religion.

Believer's criticism: "That is ego, so discard it."

Leader's desire: "This is divine will, so obey it."

This is not a non-binary system, but rather a method of using two different criteria.

If Advaita is to be used for the suppression of power, then the leader themselves will be questioned first. Is that person identifying their own personality, desires, judgments, and spiritual experiences with Brahman? Are they exempting only themselves as the possessor of truth? If one sees Atman in others, it should not be possible to deprive others of their dignity, judgment, body, or freedom from interference.

Of course, non-binary ideologies do not automatically create healthy organizations. Therefore, the specific checks in Part IX remain necessary. Metaphysics cannot replace accounting audits, separation of powers, consultation services, or freedom to leave.

Advaita is a powerful unifying principle, but it is not all-encompassing. There are at least five limitations to it.

1. The starting point and basis are unique. Shankara interprets the Upanishads as a means of knowledge, not only proving non-duality with independent reason, but also acknowledging its authority. For those who do not recognize this authority, the same conclusion may not necessarily follow.

2. It conflicts with self-understandings in other religions. The eternal difference between creator and creation, anatman (no-self), emptiness, and the permanence of individual souls cannot be reconciled into Advaita's ultimate conclusion.

3. It does not fully explain the specificity of suffering. Illness, poverty, discrimination, and violence require explanations and responses from medicine, economics, history, law, and politics. They should not be reduced to a single word like "ignorance."

4. It does not guarantee organizational health. Even in organizations that preach non-duality, power concentration and exploitation can occur.

5. The metaphysical truth cannot be proven solely by this article. The proposition that pure consciousness is identical to Brahman cannot be logically determined from a comparison table alone.

Furthermore, there are research-related controversies regarding Shankara's own interpretations and their relationship to later Advaita Vedanta. There remain issues that cannot be easily summarized in a single diagram, such as how the world appears, how Ishvara and Brahman are distinguished, and how liberation knowledge is described.

Therefore, everything cannot be explained by Advaita. What we can do here is to center around Advaita and avoid forcibly equating many concepts, while distinguishing what pertains to the ultimate reality from what pertains to personal god, individual existence, religious experience, and organizational operations.

Finally, I would like to clarify the author's tentative answer.

Among those compared in this paper, I believe that Shankara's Advaita is the framework that most strictly establishes both "humans have divinity" and "the personal self is not God" simultaneously.

The answer is as follows:

In other words, the answer to the question "Am I God?" is: Regarding my individual self, no. However, regarding my true Self, it is identical to Brahman.

This answer does not simply merge everything into one. The prayer of facing God and humanity, the divinity residing in humans, the union of god and human, Buddha-nature, and spiritual growth all have different meanings within their respective experiential worlds. There is no need to make them the same doctrine.

However, at the same time, I see that none of these forms are ultimately independent in themselves. The image of God, religious names, spiritual hierarchies, and even the self-image of "the awakened me" all appear as names and forms. Ultimately, what is asked is not about possessing those forms, but rather, what is the "I" who is experiencing them all.

And when that question is pursued to its ultimate conclusion, Shankara's answer is not to equate the personal self with the ruler of the universe.

You will not become God. What you thought was "you" was only a part of who you are.

From the perspective of this paper, the answer to the question "Am I God?" is as follows:

This personal self is not God. However, the true Self, Atman, is identical to Brahman, which is the ultimate reality.

Or, anyone can say "That is true, but it is not."