Beyond Points of View

I’m not here to push atheism or theism at anyone. That tug of war is the same trap on both sides. The moment you argue for a god or against one, you’re already caught in the exact bond you think you’re escaping. The mind grabs a position and defends it, and that defense becomes the identity. It doesn’t matter which side you pick, the grip is the same.

Theism and atheism both rest on a stance, a framework for what counts as real, as evidence, as acceptable explanation. Held tightly, either one becomes a cage. Both insist on being right about something, both create a believer, construct an identity, keep attention locked on the concept instead of the seeing. That includes the believer who gets frustrated when someone doesn’t share their language for God and needs the other person to come around before the conversation can continue, the same way it includes the nonbeliever who needs their framework defended against any mention of God at all. That need to be agreed with, on either side, is the same grip wearing different clothes.

None of this smuggles anything in. Using words like awareness, god, consciousness, absolute, or even nothingness doesn’t create a hidden entity. Sages have used every kind of concept for centuries to point to what is, and were understood because what was pointed to was what mattered, not the vocabulary. There isn’t a new better way to talk about this, there’s just whatever resonates for the person hearing it. The word doesn’t create a self, doesn’t resurrect a subject, doesn’t sneak an “I” back in. It’s only the mind that does that, not the language, and the mind is going to do this no matter how carefully crafted the words are. Walking on eggshells about omitting words and nitpicking vocabulary only turns the pointer into another concept to defend instead of something to look through.

If someone uses the word God, that vocabulary can be used. If someone speaks in terms of consciousness or cosmic forces, that works too. The point isn’t to rip their language away or force them into a stance they don’t hold, the point is to show that whatever name they’re using, it’s still just a name. The label doesn’t make the experience real or unreal, it doesn’t elevate it or diminish it. It’s just a word the mind uses to feel like it has a handle on something.

The mistake is thinking the label itself is the truth… using a position to feel secure and keep the “I” alive through the stance being defended. So when you push awareness as a thing, or push awareness as not a thing, you’re still pushing, you’re still defending a stance, you’re still trying to stand somewhere, and that standing is the bond. The whole point is to look directly, without leaning on the concept you prefer. When you look, the position falls away, the name falls away, the argument falls away. What remains doesn’t need a belief system to support it, and it doesn’t collapse if someone uses a different word.

The fight itself is the illusion… the stance is the illusion, and the identity built around it is the illusion. Once that’s seen, you don’t need to win the argument anymore or defend the concept. You don’t need to smuggle the “I” back in through whichever side feels safer. You just see what’s happening, without a believer or a nonbeliever behind it.