Deeper Perception Made Practical

God in Disguise. A Guest Post with the Simplicity Model of Enlightenment by JEFFREY CHAPPELL

Jeffrey Chappell, with Enlightenment dancing in his auric modeling

Jeffrey Chappell, with Enlightenment dancing in his auric modeling

Thanks to my friend JEFFREY CHAPPELL for sharing this article here. You’ll see his blog,, on the short list of blogroll links always here… find it on the right side of your screen.

As I continue my journey as an Enlightenment Coach in the Age of Awakening, as some of you know, I make a distinction between a Householder Model of Enlightenment and a Simplicity Model of Enlightenment (also sometimes called a Renunciate Model of Enlightenment).

  • In the Simplicity Model of Enlightenment, consciousness is what matters most. Hence the suitability for a Renunciate  Lifestyle. Even if a householder lives this way, emphasizing consciousness, this is the traditional model of Enlightenment. And, to many, it is the only model that matters.
  • By contrast, in Householder Enlightenment, the human life matters most. With the sacred and stable Divine connection always available, yet it is usually kept in the background. More like the saying, “God is in the details.”
  • As millions of people move into Enlightenment in this Age of Awakening, it is time for a model of Enlightenment that speaks to our new role in this upgraded planet. Recognizing that is part of my unfolding work as an Enlightenment Coach.

It is always such a delight to hear from “Mr. Enlightenment.” For his guest post below I have added some headings. Otherwise this is pure JEFFREY, a magnificent exponent of the Simplicity Model of Enlightenment.

Enjoy, everyone!

Divinity Lies Within Others, Not Just You

The greeting, “Namaste” has been translated as “I bow to the God within you.”

When you use this salutation, you are acknowledging that there is Divinity in another person.

In disguise.

The disguise is individuality. Individuality comes from being separate from others, and from being incomplete and unbalanced in traits–some in the foreground, others in the background.

Universal God, by contrast, is Being connected with everything, and is complete and balanced in a state of totality. Accordingly, that is what is disguised beneath someone’s individuality.

Disguises We Like. Others That We Don’t Like So Much.

It’s easy to see another person as God in disguise when that person is beloved by you.

  • But then there’s the irritating store clerk.
  • And the coworker who antagonizes you.
  • And the slowpoke driving in front of you.

When you feel irritated, antagonized, and frustrated, how can you deal with it?

Lifting the Disguise

A quick reminder to yourself can help: That person is God in disguise.

Try it next time.

Lifting the disguise changes the complexion of things. It reveals the true Identity, instead of the role being acted in this particular circumstance. And it allows you to sense a compassionate link with the other person, even under challenging conditions.

Answers From Silence says, “You must bless everyone.” And, “I used to ‘sense out’ people when I looked at them. Each person had a different mood and vibe. Now everybody looks and feels the same to me—wonderful.”

But what about people who do truly bad things? How can they be God in disguise?

It can be that the disguise believes in itself and forgets true Identity. And there are degrees of forgetting, even to extremes.

But at the base of all experiencing, pure consciousness is pure consciousness. After that come all of the other levels of consciousness. Even the most forgetful of those couldn’t exist without the foundation of pure consciousness.

A more developed translation of “Namaste” is, “The God in me bows to the God in you.” Which is to say, God is in both places.

Yes, there is one more person who has forgotten true Identity, whose disguise you should lift in order to recognize God.


Share this

Join the Discussion

  1. 1
    Amanda says:

    Thank you for that, Jeffrey. I’m having a week (and perhaps more 🙂 ) of placing myself in relation to this.

    My meditation practice led me to the same place of unity consciousness and I know that this dances beneath and through each one of us, whether we have directly experienced it or not.

    But I also have a strong drive to be here in the world as me and doing well as me.

    For me it is an underlying knowledge abd the wellspring that directs the clearing of my separations.

  2. 2
    Amanda says:

    Thank you for a beautiful and alive description. And Namaste.

  3. 3
    Amanda says:

    I love Rose’s push towards the householder model too. I am here, I have kids, there are human relationships to engage with at human levels.

  4. 4
    Amanda says:

    The point I keep coming back to was made by Jack Kornfield. He was very clear that the bliss of spiritual experience can be hung on to for a long time in order to avoid the messy human things.

    His prescription was to get right back in there and use it to evolve.

    I see a lot of parallels here with Rose’s warnings around spiritual addiction and the healthy push towards living as a human.

  5. 5
    Amanda says:

    I can’t put away my experience and nor do I feel it’s incompatible with evolving at a human level.

    However, I have been a little knocked off balance by a sense that somehow the two are being proposed as opposing models.

    I would like to propose for myself what seems most sensible.

    I get to live ‘both-and’. I genuinely don’t believe that the two models can’t be reconciled.

    To me, a renunciate and householder approach are both part of one thing, and love and support one another.


  6. 6

    AMANDA, these are lovely comments.

    Thank you for bearing with me as I gain more understanding and refinement around The Simplicity Model of Enlightenment and Householder Enlightenment.

    For how I’ll just write that no antagonism is meant. However, I think that humanity is just now on the cusp of a different model for Enlightenment, not so possible in ages past. New possibility opens for us in this new Age of Awakening.

  7. 7

    Also, I have seen some people, among them some of my clients, who have been ripped apart. And why?

    Because they were trying to execute a compromise in ways that cannot work (and are not necessary).

    Yes, more to come on this topic from this Enlightenment Coach. But for today, big namastes to you and JEFFREY.

  8. 8
    Amanda says:

    I hope the new model fits my both-and too! :0)

    I look forward to understanding more.


  9. 9
    David B says:

    Nice, Jeffrey. Thanks.

  10. 10
    David B says:

    Interesting distinction, Rose. I know people who live as householders but are more “in the world but not of it”.

    I’d also note there can be this trend in retirement, to move more into the Simplicity model. Looking forward to your saying more.

  11. 11
    Kira says:

    All of this is fascinating! Love the post, Jeffrey, and love your comments, Amanda! (And David’s and Rose’s as well.)

  12. 12
    Kira says:

    I had an experience during elementary school where I suddenly saw all the people I knew in school as if they were strangers, and I noticed differences in how they looked from how I was used to seeing them. I had the sense that I could decide right then and there whether to see all people as if they were friends or strangers from then on, and I chose to see them as friends.

  13. 13
    Kira says:

    Whether related to that choice or not, I found myself defending drivers my father yelled at in the car, trying to come up with plausible sympathetic reasons why they did the things he was complaining about. And while there are people I’ve met with whom I’d prefer to spend less time than others, I haven’t met anyone I actively dislike; I seem to find something good and interesting about each person I meet.

  14. 14
    Kira says:

    So it would seem that I’ve been seeing the Divine in people for a long time.

    It did take me a while to find it in myself, though. 🙂

  15. 15

    Wow, KIRA, that was quite an Aha!

    Of course, it’s possible to expand that in a way that is even more resourceful, socially and experientially.

    Rather than either-or, you can develop a full repertoire for relating to people.

    Imagine a whole continuum of formal to informal, stranger to friend. You can explore that now, if you wish.

    Free will is the driver of the powerful technology known as “everyday consciousness.”

  16. 16
    Kira says:

    I’m not really quite sure how to describe the differences I saw during that experience. The one difference I remember clearly is that my music teacher had triangular hair that looked odd when I saw her as a stranger; I had never really noticed it before. (I had known her since kindergarten and I was in 3rd or 4th grade or so by the time of the experience.)

    My best explanation so far has been that I’m somehow seeing the good qualities of people on the outside.

  17. 17
    Kira says:

    As for relating to people, I guess I relate to strangers as potential friends (or at least potential friendly acquaintances).

    And that ability to see good in everyone lasted despite my years in middle and high school as a social outcast; my friends, who were also outcasts, used to talk about the popular kids as if they were enemies. I never thought they were truly enemies; I always thought of them as going thru a phase. And by my senior year in high school, I was pretty well accepted by my classmates and even unexpectedly had some fans from lower grades.

  18. 18
    Kira says:

    I feel very blessed to have had that experience.

    And I see you’ve expanded the comment I was replying to! It wasn’t that it felt like an indelible choice; it was more a default choice. I can choose any time to see people whichever way I want, and I do relate on a continuum. I just default to friendly.

    I was a child during the experience, so it seemed more either-or at the time.

  19. 19
    Cynthia says:

    I really loved this post & really loved your comments as well Kira.

    What a beautiful way to see people.

  20. 20
    Jeffrey says:

    And Namaste to Rose, Amanda, David, Kira, and Cynthia, with a special thanks to Rose for sharing this post.

  21. 21
    Jeffrey says:

    Part of that “hanging onto spiritual bliss” happens when people have a peak experience and try to perpetuate it. I think this might relate to what Rose is referring to as spiritual addiction. I wrote more about that here:

  22. 22
    Jeffrey says:

    Some people think that renunciation is a technique for reaching enlightenment. They withdraw from engagement in human activity in order to hone their spirituality. This has variously played out in numerous spiritual traditions.

  23. 23
    Jeffrey says:

    This is another case of confusing the effect with the cause. Renunciation doesn’t get you to enlightenment. Enlightenment brings renunciation with it. But perhaps not in the way that you imagine.

  24. 24
    Jeffrey says:

    The enlightened experience is that your life changes. The change is that it isn’t your life any more. Ownership of this life transfers to Universal Consciousness. That is the renunciation.

  25. 25
    Jeffrey says:

    Nothing else changes, or needs to change, for this to qualify as enlightenment. You will (if you’re not a hermit) still have a full, possibly overcommitted calendar as you move through the challenges and satisfactions of bringing benefits to your fellow human beings on a professional and personal level.

  26. 26
    Jeffrey says:

    None of this is to deny that different personality types exist. One of the simplest dichotomies is extrovert/introvert. That looks to me a lot like householder/renunciate.

  27. 27
    Jeffrey says:

    Maybe some of the ripping apart that Rose speaks of in her clients, and in spiritual seekers through the ages, is when extroverts try to live like introverts. Talk about stress.

  28. 28
    Jeffrey says:

    But enlightenment isn’t introversion. Enlightenment doesn’t depend on any conditions, and therefore it doesn’t tend toward either introverts or extroverts.

    But, of course, both can tend toward it in their own ways. And it’s still “namaste”, either way.

  29. 29

    JEFFREY, thank you so much for these wonderful comments.

    I respect you so much as an Enlightenment Coach (even if you might not use that language), as well as for so many reasons.

    You have reached out in an eloquent way to deal with my preface to your guest post, and I must apologize that what I wrote there may have taken you by surprise or even appalled you.

  30. 30
    Jeffrey says:

    My dear Rose,

    If you want to appall me, you will have to try much harder (humor there). No apologies will ever be necessary from you to me, and I shall hope in the reverse direction either.

    As for surprises, I love those, keep them coming!

    Much mutual respect to you too, and love.

  31. 31

    It has, perhaps, been a while since you have read other comments and posts at this blog concerning alternative ideas about Enlightenment that complement what you experience and teach — but are never meant to disrespect.

    (And thanks for that comment that came in between when I started this on my computer, broke for a couple of sessions and some lunch. Now I’m baaaaaaaaaaack.)

    A new blog post is a’coming, soon as I can write it.

Click here to comment ...

Leave Your Comment