In some schools of thought, there are teachings that equate the self with God. An example of this is the concept in the Indian Vedic teachings that the Atman (the individual self) and Brahman (the ultimate reality) are one. Furthermore, in some Christian denominations, there is a teaching that all people embody the Trinity (the basic teaching of Christianity is that the Trinity is only possible for Christ, and there are various opinions regarding the recognition, denial, and scope of the Trinity). In Buddhism as well, there are ideas and practices aimed at discovering divinity within oneself.

These are, in some ways, universal concepts or, alternatively, the goals of spiritual practice.

First, there is a major distinction in whether the self is considered God, and even if it is, whether it has always been that way or whether it changes.

From here, this is my interpretation, but in this kind of discussion, the idea that the self is God is fundamentally something that everyone is considered to be. The basic concept is from the Indian Vedic teachings: the individual Atman and the ultimate reality Brahman are one. This is not something that changes; it has always been that way, and the basic idea is that we are simply unaware of our true nature. Therefore, based on this concept, even if it has always been the case, we are losing sight of our true nature due to ignorance. This leads us to mistakenly identify ourselves with the ego, which is a focus on material things in the physical realm, as the "Jiva" (a term in Vedic terminology). This is also ignorance, and it leads to the development of a false sense of self.

And what is important here is that the "Jiva" self is a mass of false self-esteem, the embodiment of the ego, and by removing this ignorance, one can understand the Atman and Brahman. When I say "know" here, it means not only knowing through knowledge, but also, when interpreting "knowing" in the context of the Vedic tradition, it also includes the meaning of escaping the cycle of reincarnation and achieving "liberation" (moksha).

Therefore, even if you study and understand these mechanisms, it often does not lead to the "knowing" in the context of Vedanta. However, people who simply study from books often simply understand the framework and mistakenly believe that they "understand."

I have had opportunities to talk to people who have studied Indian philosophy at universities in Japan, but they often seemed to think they understood everything just by intellectually understanding the Vedanta perspective on life and death, without understanding the context. It seems that without learning from a teacher in a proper lineage, there is a tendency to misunderstand things and believe that their understanding is absolute. This is especially noticeable in universities, where people may have a misunderstanding that they are understanding Indian philosophical concepts in a context different from the actual Indian traditions, even if their understanding is superficially correct in terms of the content. In such cases, if the teacher provides such explanations, it is essentially correct, but Indian traditions have different teachings, and there is a tendency for people who have studied in Japanese universities to mistakenly believe that all Vedanta traditions are the same and that they understand everything.

What I wanted to say by giving this example is that understanding Atman and Brahman requires a departure from one's own cognitive awareness as an individual. That is, it requires letting go of the ego. It starts with the awareness of being an ego, and then transcends that sense of self to get closer to the divine consciousness. Without this process, studying Indian philosophy in universities does not lead to a true understanding of Atman and Brahman, but is merely a theoretical understanding.

Indian traditions emphasize the importance of "understanding through the mind," and people may be tempted to think, "Ah, I understand," but in reality, it doesn't end there. Only by actually eliminating the ego, abandoning the concept of self, and experiencing the consciousness of Atman can one truly achieve the state of "knowing" in the sense of Indian traditions. Therefore, studying Indian philosophy in Japanese universities will not lead to a true understanding in the sense of Indian traditions unless these aspects are also involved.

Now, let's go back to the original question of whether the self is God. Indeed, it is actually the case, whether one is aware of it or not. Therefore, it can be said that it is correct. However, whether one can actually become consciously aware of that state is a different matter.

Here is an example. In a certain tradition, it is taught that "humans are God." This is correct in the context of Atman and Brahman, but in reality, it has a large effect of expanding the ego. Therefore, even if it is correct, I think that teaching such things has a greater negative impact. I have observed that people who "know" that "humans are God" tend to become half-hearted in eliminating their own ego, mistakenly believe that they no longer need to eliminate their ego, mistakenly believe that they have already reached a certain level, and their spiritual growth stops. In such cases, I think it is better to live as a human being, let go of the ego, and grow spiritually in a humble way. Indeed, even if it is correct, it seems to be a story that is not beneficial to people. This may be different in a future world where people's consciousness has grown, but at least now, it seems to be a harmful explanation.