Some teachings claim that the self is identical to God. For example, in the Indian Vedic tradition, there is a concept that the individual self (Atman) and the universal Brahman are one. Similarly, some Christian denominations teach that all people embody the Trinity (the basic Christian teaching is that the Trinity is only possible for Christ, and there are various views on whether to recognize the Trinity, and to what extent). In Buddhism, there is also the idea of finding divinity within oneself, and it can be a goal of practice.

These ideas are, in some ways, universal or, alternatively, a goal of spiritual practice.

The fundamental difference lies in whether the self is considered God, and if so, whether it has always been that way or whether it transforms into that state.

From my interpretation, in these kinds of discussions, the idea that the self is God is essentially a belief that everyone is inherently so. The basic concept is from the Indian Vedic tradition: the individual self (Atman) and the universal Brahman are one. This is not something that changes; it has always been that way. The idea is that we are simply unaware of our true nature. Therefore, based on this concept, even if we were inherently so, we are currently unaware of our true nature. This leads us to identify with the "ego" (a term used in the Vedic tradition), which emphasizes material things in the physical realm, and mistakenly believe that this ego is our true self. This is due to ignorance, and it leads to the development of a false sense of self.

Crucially, the "self" as the ego is a collection of false pride and the embodiment of ego. By removing this ignorance, one can understand Atman and Brahman. When we say "know" here, it means not only acquiring knowledge but also, in the context of Vedic traditions, it implies breaking free from the cycle of reincarnation and achieving "liberation" (moksha).

Therefore, even if one studies these concepts, it often doesn't lead to the "knowing" that is central to Vedanta. People who simply study from books often mistakenly believe they "understand" simply by grasping the framework.

I have occasionally had the opportunity to talk to people who studied Indian philosophy at Japanese universities, and I have seen that they often intellectually understand the Vedantic worldview without understanding the context, and mistakenly believe that they have understood everything. It seems that without proper guidance from a teacher within a specific tradition, one can develop a distorted understanding and believe it to be absolute. This is especially evident in universities, where the understanding is often different from the context of Indian traditions, even if it is superficially correct. In such cases, if the teacher presents it that way, it is generally correct. However, different Indian traditions have different teachings, and they are not uniform. Yet, people who have studied at Japanese universities often mistakenly believe that all Indian Vedantic traditions are the same and that they have understood everything.

What I wanted to emphasize by giving these examples is that understanding Atman and Brahman requires a detachment from one's current perception of the self. This means letting go of the ego. It involves starting with the awareness of being an ego and transcending that sense of self to get closer to the divine consciousness. Without this process, studying Indian philosophy at a university does not lead to a true understanding of Atman and Brahman; it remains a purely intellectual exercise.

Indian traditions emphasize the limitations of "intellectual understanding." People may hear this and think, "Ah, I understand," but in reality, it goes beyond that. One must actually eliminate the ego, abandon the concept of self, and experience the consciousness of Atman to truly "know" in the sense of the Indian traditions. Therefore, studying Indian philosophy at a Japanese university will not lead to this kind of understanding unless it is accompanied by these experiences.

Now, let's go back to the original question: is the self God? Indeed, whether we are aware of it or not, it is actually so. Therefore, it is correct to say that. However, whether we can become consciously aware of that is a separate issue.

Here is an example. In a certain school of thought, it is taught that "humans are God." While this may be correct in the context of Atman and Brahman, in reality, it has a significant effect of expanding the ego. Therefore, even if it is technically correct, I think that teaching such things has a greater negative impact. When observed, people who "know" that "humans are God" tend to become half-hearted in eliminating their ego, mistakenly believe that eliminating their ego is no longer necessary, mistakenly believe that they have already reached a certain level, and their spiritual growth stagnates. I think the negative impact is greater. Instead, it is better to live as a human being, to let go of the ego, and to become more humble and achieve spiritual growth. Indeed, even if it is correct, it seems to be a story that is not beneficial to people. Perhaps in the future, in a world where people's consciousness has grown, it will be different, but at least now, it seems to be a harmful explanation.