Science of Self-Realization
Either there is nothing but god, or god cannot be omnipresent. God that is not omnipresent is by definition limited. Hence, such god can be discarded as a false image of some natural phenomenon. If you don’t like the word “god,” you can use the catch-all phrase “what is” instead.
After all, what is is necessarily omnipresent. What is can’t be missing somewhere else, and there is no place where what is is not. Hence, omnipresent god is literally what god is and also what god appears as. Translated, what is is literally what what is is and also what what is appears as.
These principles quite visibly apply even when you look at clay pots or water waves. Remove the pot or wave and you are left with clay or water respectively. Remove the respective substrates and you are, at best, left with ideas of pot or wave that still require a substrate, only now, that substrate is your mind, which then requires substrate we call body, and so on and so forth all the way to existence at large.
And, existence at large, i.e. what is, obviously is. By its very nature, because the nature of existence, if it even can be called a nature, is to be. And since there is, non-existence was clearly never an option. Neither in the past, nor in the present or in the future. (Even after you discard the clear logical impossibility of existence of non-existence as just a limitation of human logic and language.)
So, existence, i.e. what is (or god), is omnipresent. That is, not limited in space, time, or form. And all of that is a self-evident obvious fact because existence, i.e. what is, knows. Either by its very nature or as a consequence of its nature that allows knowing to happen somewhere down the line of manifestation of forms. Which, frankly, amounts to the same in the end.
Voila, there’s your argument for existence of god as well as the definition of the word itself. God defined as such is then omnipresent (thus by extension also omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent), is the “ground of being”, is person (or the “ground of personhood”), and thus knowable.
Even, or rather particularly, by science, because self-realization is science. It uses the, surprisingly quite reviled, scientific method which involves hypothesis, some predictions, an experiment you conduct on yourself, and a clear cut result which clarifies the issue.
Hence, anyone who claims that science or experiments cannot reveal the nature of reality does not know what science actually is about. Yes, no one will ever be able to measure self-realization as such (although the indirect effects will be definitely measurable) or observe/induce it as an external party. Yes, self-realization is an inside job. But anyone can replicate this “scientific study” by scientifically looking into the microscope of their being and knowing, thus, demonstrating for themselves to what extent the words match the actual reality.
Likewise, those who claim that self-realization is not reliable, because it’s not possible to measure while it’s exclusively a subjective affair, are equally off. And no, slacking off the experiment and claiming that self-realization can be discarded does not mean you falsified anything. It just means that there was some problem with your experimental setup. Well, only few can replicate a nuclear reactor in their backyard even though it can be done. Self-realization, on the other hand, can be replicated by anyone anywhere and anytime.
And yes, one of the predictions is that you will find not only total lack of value, meaning, or purpose, but also total absence of any intrinsic qualities as well as lack of any fundamental substance or essence. The nature of reality will turn out to be no nature to speak of. (Now, measure that. O_o)
Many assume that it inevitably leads to nihilism, the terrifying abyss of void. But since you will also find perfection (and, even from a purely rational perspective, culmination and logical conclusion of nihilism is the recognition that nihilism, too, cannot have intrinsic value, meaning, or purpose because it’s rooted in a world that nihilism assumes to be without those attributes), in the end, it does not matter that nothing matters. The empty void is full to the brim.
So — in case someone asks about motivations — without doing, everything gets done, as the saying goes. And that’s another aspect of reality I find quite liberating. What’s there not to love? Except ignorance, that is. That one does not mesh well with love. Even though it’s rather hilarious in hindsight, it’s also frustrating and not exactly something one would willingly choose for themselves.
Despite what people say, ignorance ain’t bliss. On the other hand, knowledge of truth, indeed, liberates. So, be ignorant and suffer the consequences, or accept the truth and be free.
Tick. Tack.
