Dave's posts about ultimate truth made me think and open this thread.  Do Buddhists find Buddha because of their mind set and consciousness when they die?  (I've read Don's replies saying they don't usually)   Do we all call the same universal God different names and are all true?

The pope warned of a moral relativism that is rampant in our culture.  The idea that everyone can be right if we don't harm each other.  The idea that if it feels good, do it.  Kyo has put forth his idea that rather than calling an action good or evil, we should say it is "cosmologically ethical"  or cosmoethical, and spiritually oriented.

So I write this to get a feel from members on the board, what you think;  is truth relative?  Do we all follow our beliefs and have our consciousness make them real for us, or is there a reality out there that is independent of our beliefs?  Is one religion more in tune with that reality?  

Is there, in fact truth at all?

Matthew

Hi Matthew,

My ideas about this subject are that we are consciousness and the development of consciousness is an evolutionary feedback process that apparently is infinite.  Does truth exist?  Absolutely!  So what is truth?  Truth is in the eye of the beholder.  I think it’s as simple as that.

Consider also that as we evolve, learn and give new meaning to ideas, each of us is adding to the collective consciousness and in so doing, we are in essence personalizing the development of collective consciousness. In this way I think all of our truths are valid albeit individualized, yet made (perfected?) in the collective.

Love, Kathy

Quote:

Dave's posts about ultimate truth made me think and open this thread.  Do Buddhists find Buddha because of their mind set and consciousness when they die?  (I've read Don's replies saying they don't usually)   Do we all call the same universal God different names and are all true?

It of course all depends on the individual's definition of God. The definition which we've found to be the most helpful, is :

GOD is the Totality, Essence and Simultaneity of Each & All Beings in the Cosmos.

Buddhists don't usually see Buddha after they die, for two main reasons :

1) Buddhism does not involve the concept of a personal saviour, Buddhism is actually a philosophy, not a religion. Buddha deliberately chose to be impersonal, as he wanted people to focus on the teachings, not himself.

2) Just as when he was intraphysical, the being that incarnated as Buddha does not work in the style of a personal guide or helper (these are the beings who appear to humans who have just passed on, sometimes in the guise of religious figures, if the recently discarnated consciousness required it). Furthermore, the being that was Buddha is currently functioning 'elsewhere', so to speak. His teaching task that invloved the Earthly incarnation is done.

To clarify, many of the gods and goddesses of the many religions on Earth, refer to specific Beings that came to Earth for various agendas, many of these as highly evolved beings (often extraterrestrial), wishing to help humanity's evolution.

For instance, the Japanese goddess "Amaterasu", or "Sun Goddess" was from the Andromeda galaxy. The Greek gods on Mount Olympus, were likewise extraterrestrials.



Quote:

The pope warned of a moral relativism that is rampant in our culture.  The idea that everyone can be right if we don't harm each other.  The idea that if it feels good, do it.

So-called 'Morality' is based on limited human beliefs and is often flawed (to the point of being anti-ethical). Ethics (and on the largest scale, CosmoEthics) represents that which is of the greatest benefit for the beings involved, from all (or the highest) perspectives considered. Naturally, this is not easily resolved* in terms of a concensus in terms of situational specifics, but it is important that the helpful concept of CosmoEthics is recognized and understood by all.

(*The guides & helpers, by nature of being extraphysical and having a higher vantage point, will have a clearer capacity on the most CosmoEthical direction for any given scenario; the more evolved, experienced, or wiser the being(s)/guide(s)/helper(s), the clearer the CosmoEthics of the situation is for them).

The idea that if it 'feels good' it is the right action, is potentially correct, but especially for the more conscientially lucid, mature or evolved individuals, to which 'feels good' equates to 'loving action', 'assistantiality', and 'cosmoethical action'.

(In fact, it might be a good exercise now to ask yourself if you qualify for this particular yardstick).

For the less evolved or mature then, it can be reasonably argued that an immature or misguided form of 'feel good' is still the 'right' action, insofar as the being concerned needs to explore negative karma. (the individual who refrains from doing something only because of fear of punishment, and not because of his own loving intention, is not yet conscientially evolved).

Note that 'right' or 'correct', refers to what is appropriate for the individual based on his personal karma, not necessarily what is the most CosmoEthical direciton possible. It is important to distinguish, and not try to confuse between the two. What is the most CosmoEthical is not always possible or 'correct' for any given individual.

What the individual chooses, is definied as what is 'correct' for him (regardless of how compassionate/helpful/loving, or not, the choice is), because he did indeed chose it. But as is (the equal correctness of) the consequence (legal, karmic, etc) or 'retribution' of the action.

If all are equally 'correct' then, it is intuitively obvious that the next direction of evolution for all beings, would be to move towards CosmoEthics.



Quote:

Kyo has put forth his idea that rather than calling an action good or evil, we should say it is "cosmologically ethical"  or cosmoethical, and spiritually oriented.

The original post referred to is here, titled, "The Myth of 'Right' and 'Wrong'". Could also have been titled, "The Myth of 'Morality'".



Quote:

Is one religion more in tune with that reality?

Certainly, one religion is more in tune with reality that others. But that religion, will differ from individual to individual, because every individual's reality is (rightfully) different.

The evolved beings that introduced the various religions of today, all recognized that humanity at different times, as well as different human souls, would require different religions for different lessons.

The original purpose of Islam (Muslim) was for souls who needed to have the concept of a higher being or God brought to their awareness. The original purpose of Buddhism was for souls who needed to approach human existence and purpose from a philosophical understanding. The original purpose of Christianity was for souls who needed to explore Love at a 'Divine' level, and for this to be brought powerfully into their awareness.



Quote:

is truth relative?[quote] Absolutely (it is Relative). Which is why it the guides & helpers, and organizations such as the International Academy of Consciousness, use terms such as "relative leading edge truths" in discussing their research findings. Because the evolving soul, will have evolving perspectives, and thus evolving truths. And evolution continues, ad infinitum. Forever. [quote] Is one religion more in tune with that reality?

Every consciousness will be experiencing reality from a unique vantage point. There will be points, areas or planes, such as the denser dimensions, eg. physical Earth, in which consciousnesses across vastly different evolutionary levels and perspectives, will experience a consensual, common reality, coexisting together in a democratic way, propitiating meaningful interaction in various common contexts.

This is verily, the purpose for physical incarnation, and for re-incarnation. (See page 67 of 'Retrocognitions').



Quote:

Do we all follow our beliefs and have our consciousness make them real for us, or is there a reality out there that is independent of our beliefs?

Beliefs are limiting. Evolving beings let go of beliefs, and see more clearly from their (rightfully unique) Perspectives. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. There would be no point to Creation, if not for the possibility of an infinitum of unique perpsectives and experiences for (God, that's You).

To ponder if there's a reality out there that's independent of one's perspectives, is like asking of a tree makes a sound if it falls and no one (not even the tree itself) is there to hear it. You see, all Realities, are the perspectives of some Consciousness. That's by definition.



Quote:

Is there, in fact truth at all?

Certainly, just as there is God. Your Truth, is You. Therefore, choose wisely, it is a tremendous responsibility.

wrote on Feb 10^th, 2006 at 2:21pm:

Hi Matthew, My ideas about this subject are that we are consciousness and the development of consciousness is an evolutionary feedback process that apparently is infinite.  Does truth exist?  Absolutely!  So what is truth?  Truth is in the eye of the beholder.  I think it’s as simple as that. Consider also that as we evolve, learn and give new meaning to ideas, each of us is adding to the collective consciousness and in so doing, we are in essence personalizing the development of collective consciousness. In this way I think all of our truths are valid albeit individualized, yet made (perfected?) in the collective. Love, Kathy

Eloquent, succinct and lovingly expressed. :)
Kyo

Kyo, you stated:

"Beliefs are limiting. Evolving beings let go of beliefs, and see more clearly from their (rightfully unique) Perspectives. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. There would be no point to Creation, if not for the possibility of an infinitum of unique perpsectives and experiences for (God, that's You). "

I agree with this statement that we need to let go of certain beliefs, however the nature of consciousness is to believe in something.  If you are speaking of a complete awareness of perception with no preconceived beliefs taking in the entirety of its perception, that is fine - but let's face facts, you and I who are trying to shed hindering belief systems still we have our beliefs.

For example, you Kyo believe not in good or evil but that something is comsoethical or not.  Still, this is a belief.  Indeed, Kyo we could not have an intelligent conversation on the board if we did not share not just our own perceptions, but our own beliefs.  

So how do you rid yourself of all belief systems and stay sane?

Matthew

Here are my thoughts:

When it comes to the nature of that which created the universe and makes the existence of the universe possible, it isn't a matter of opinion. Opinions came about after the creative process started.

Regarding how the creative process unfolded, I figure there are a lot of possibilities. However, I figure the being who got the whole process started had something to say about it. Perhaps this being started the universe with a self correcting program that gets lost for a while, but eventually finds its way back to the source.

I believe that the being who created everything, is also the source of all love and fulfillment. Therefore, if you want to find as much love as possible and to become as fulfilled as possible, think in terms of what the ultimate creator had in mind, by tuning into your own self correcting program.

Some people will contend that the ultimate creator didn't have anything in mind. Only the beings within the ultimate creator's creation have ideas about what is, and what isn't wanted.

My feeling is that everything exists within consciousness, and for whatever reason, unless it limits itself, consciousness has the ability to intuitively understand everything that exists within itself. Therefore, when it comes to the consciousness of the creator of this universe, not only did this consciousness have the ability to be aware of everything that took place within it; it also had the ability to comprehend everything that existed within it.  

I figure the creator of this universe was, is and always will be an infinite expanse of comprehensive awareness and understanding, creative energy, and love.  

Quote:

I agree with this statement that we need to let go of certain beliefs, however the nature of consciousness is to believe in something.  If you are speaking of a complete awareness of perception with no preconceived beliefs taking in the entirety of its perception, that is fine - but let's face facts, you and I who are trying to shed hindering belief systems still we have our beliefs.

Perspectives evolve, and as they do, limiting beliefs that are no longer useful are shed. There is no need to try, because everyone (including the guides & helpers, their guides & helpers, so on, ad infinitum) evolves, and accordingly, their perspective evolves.

In other words, note the usage of the terms "beliefs" and "perspectives". Beliefs have a conotation of dogma, of 'right' and 'wrong' ("that belief turned out wrong") which is unhelpful. Perspectives, on the other hand, is neutral, evolving and alive.

DocM, in case of misunderstanding, please do not mistake my post for a personal one (ie. referring to you, or any individual), nor make yours one.



Quote:

For example, you Kyo believe not in good or evil but that something is comsoethical or not.  Still, this is a belief.  Indeed, Kyo we could not have an intelligent conversation on the board if we did not share not just our own perceptions, but our own beliefs.

Each person perceives, interprets and understands what they will, not necessarily what the author meant. This is important to understand, because it brings self-responsibility into the picture, in addition to helping wash away limiting beliefs about 'right' and 'wrong'.

In addition, it is ok (correct, really) if you prefer to keep usage of the term "beliefs", in ways similar to my usage of the term "perspective". The deliberate difference in my use of "beliefs" and "perspective", is to emphasize a didactic or pedagogical point, not a personal one.

So if it's merely about semantics, it's not worth further discussion, is it? (or so I 'believe', if you wish.)



Quote:

So how do you rid yourself of all belief systems and stay sane?

From the preceeding paragraphs, I hope this has already been addressed. You say "ridding oneself of belief systems", I say "willingess to continually evolve one's perspectives". Sanity is quite a separate matter from such.


Finally, these posts are not about you, nor I.

Rather, what is important and to be emphasized (the crux, really, of my earlier post about 'belie fs & perspectives), is that everyone (I, you, we; this is non-personal) recognize the difference between evolving perspectives, and limiting beliefs. And accordingly, be willing and ever-ready to let go of limiting beliefs (what is a limiting belief for someone, may be a perfectly useful belief for another; everyone's reality & evolution is unique) and old habit patterns from past perspectives, and evolve new perspectives.

wrote on Feb 10^th, 2006 at 3:52pm:

Here are my thoughts: When it comes to the nature of that which created the universe and makes the existence of the universe possible, it isn't a matter of opinion. Opinions came about after the creative process started. Regarding how the creative process unfolded, I figure there are a lot of possibilities. However, I figure the being who got the whole process started had something to say about it. Perhaps this being started the universe with a self correcting program that gets lost for a while, but eventually finds its way back to the source. I believe that the being who created everything, is also the source of all love and fulfillment. Therefore, if you want to find as much love as possible and to become as fulfilled as possible, think in terms of what the ultimate creator had in mind, by tuning into your own self correcting program. Some people will contend that the ultimate creator didn't have anything in mind. Only the beings within the ultimate creator's creation have ideas about what is, and what isn't wanted. My feeling is that everything exists within consciousness, and for whatever reason, unless it limits itself, consciousness has the ability to intuitively understand everything that exists within itself. Therefore, when it comes to the consciousness of the creator of this universe, not only did this consciousness have the ability to be aware of everything that took place within it; it also had the ability to comprehend everything that existed within it.   I figure the creator of this universe was, is and always will be an infinite expanse of comprehensive awareness and understanding, creative energy, and love.

 Nice post Albert!  Very much agree, i believe there is both relative and growing truth (individual perspective) and ultimate, objective type truth...

 Problem is, is that they don't seem to mix, how can one reconcile them?   You can't with your left brain!

 But anyways, i hope some of Don's posts, some of mine, Dave's, and others have shown that beneath individually and collectivelly interpreted beliefs, when you dig deeper and synthesize, there are common principles...   Its like looking at an apple on the table, as you move around you get various perspectives of that apple, you see different parts of it, yet in the ultimate sense, the holistic sense, isn't the apple still an apple no matter how you view it?  The individual perspectives, from the various angles are 'relative truth', that the apple exists is an objective truth (lets not get to metaphysical on this particular point, its just an example ;) ).

 For example, one objective truth which can never be altered by any being in this Universe, and will be a fixed reality until we phase out of this Universe and create our own Universes.... the Law of Like attracts, or begets Like.

  It will work no matter how much you do or don't believe in it, you cannot alter it, you can only comply or not comply with the deeper Law behind, and which allows for or creates the condition of the Law of Like attracts Like...  

 The deeper Law is Love, both the awareness of and active participation in Oneness.  Without an objective reality of Oneness, how could the Law of ever balancing energy/motion exist?

 Yeah, so well many other things and truths, especially more connected to human experiences, are very relative....

 Peace
 

Quote:

Perhaps this being started the universe with a self correcting program that gets lost for a while, but eventually finds its way back to the source.

A limitation or potential misconception accompanying the linguistic conotations and implications of "lost" and "back to Source", is that

1) in the end, individuality is lost, and
2) creation is separate from creator
3) in the end, nothing is gained, just back to square one

None of the above is true, of course. Individuality and Collectively become each other as evolution progresses.

And there's no need to go 'back' to source, because source/creator and being/creation never left each other.

And there is no 'end'; existence and evolution is infinite; with the Creator/God living as Creation/Being every step of the way.



Quote:

I believe that the being who created everything, is also the source of all love and fulfillment.  When it comes to the consciousness of the creator of this universe, not only did this consciousness have the ability to be aware of everything that took place within it; it also had the ability to comprehend everything that existed within it.  I figure the creator of this universe was, is and always will be an infinite expanse of comprehensive awareness and understanding, creative energy, and love.

Absolutely correct, except (it is particularly important to understand) that the Creator now (simultaneously across time) exists *AS* Creation. That is indeed the only way in which the Creator/Creation comprehends or has awareness of everything within Creation. Not 'before', not 'after', for these ideas have no meaning to Creator/Creation, but (simultaneously across time) AS Creation.

Because the Creator *IS* the Creation. Every step of the Infinite way. And with each step, Creator as Creation is fully experiencing, comprehending, enjoying, choosing and creating the infinitum of possibilties, all of which are connected in the Oneness of Creator/Creation, that which is called Love.

That's the Divine Beauty of It All.

I agree with much of what has been said.  But let us take an individual case for learning purposes.  Let us say, a contract killer in a big metropolitan environment can kill at will with no associated feelings of right or wrong.  To his consciousness, it is just part of what he does - a job.  He may have heard of Judeo-christian ethics, but he does not buy into it.  If you ask him his belief and perspective, he may say "killing isn't right or wrong, it just is, like breathing."  He states he does not mourn his killings or grieve and he is quite serious about it - from his point of view.

This person then transitions to the afterlife.  Since it is all about perspective and possibly belief systems, what we are saying is that this individual, if he was otherwise loving to his family and friends, and had his own perspective would not necessarily find himself in a "hell," or anywhere other than where his consciousness would lead him.  His perspective is merely different?  

M

Quote:

I agree with much of what has been said.  But let us take an individual case for learning purposes.  Let us say, a contract killer in a big metropolitan environment can kill at will with no associated feelings of right or wrong.  To his consciousness, it is just part of what he does - a job.  He may have heard of Judeo-christian ethics, but he does not buy into it.  If you ask him his belief and perspective, he may say "killing isn't right or wrong, it just is, like breathing."  He states he does not mourn his killings or grieve and he is quite serious about it - from his point of view. This person then transitions to the afterlife.  Since it is all about perspective and possibly belief systems, what we are saying is that this individual, if he was otherwise loving to his family and friends, and had his own perspective would not necessarily find himself in a "hell," or anywhere other than where his consciousness would lead him.  His perspective is merely different?   M

Correct. In describing his experiene of the afterlife or intermissive period, "hell" and "heaven" are of course, oversimplifications, but useful for describing semi-collective afterlife realities or focus levels, in which consciousnesses may temporary reside in.

First of all, if he was indeed truly loving with his friends and family, it would have been unrealistic to expect him to have free will intention to commit the killings. The actions of being loving to his family & friends, and of cold-blooded killing, is not energetically incompatible. His soul would have undergone considerable soul fragmentation if this were the case, in which case each soul fragment (so to speak) would have their own fragmented karma to work out, a rather messy and unhealthy state to be in.

Second, fine; say this is a theoretical hypothetical scenario in which he had been brainwashed into thinking, or himself truly believed, that it was really justified killing, that he was carrying out "heaven's will", or that it was a necessary sacrifice for his loved ones. (Still, the points mentioned in the preceeding paragraph would inevitably apply, finding their way into his consciousness - even if his incarnated personality was heavily intruded or possessed, his higher self would take full (meta)cognition of what is happening, more about higher self and life review shortly).

In which case, (continuing this highly implausible hypothetical scenario notwithstanding preceeding paragraphs), the *part of him* (or aspect of his consciousness) that sincerely believed that the killings were natural or justified, would not for the moment (newly discarnated) experience the same agony or 'hell' that either the sadistic killer, or the guilt-wracked killer would.

HOWEVER, and this is the biggie, remember that the higher self, that exists above and beyond the incarnated personality, the highest, most lucid and evolving aspect of the soul, can never be fooled, brainwashed, or take a myopic perspective (of say, "indiscriminate killing is natural and good") that the incarnated personality might be prone to, certainly not for very long (evolution ensures this, by definition - Evolution is always towards the CosmoEthical, because as a soul matures, it becomes more aware of the Oneness).

And more relevant to the point, would be the Life Review, and the intensive discussion with the soul that takes place with the soul's guides & helpers, as well as Council of Elders, which is really an advisory panel consisting of the soul's designated (primary) Evolutionary Orientor and (secondary) other Evolutionologists.

During such time, the soul would be priviledged to gain telepathic access to much greater information and perspectives, including all of the impact it had on others during its lifetime.

This includes all the pain and suffering it brought onto others, whether directly or indirectly, whether accidentally or deliberately. It is experienced directly (first person perspective) by the soul during the Life Review, with the assistance of the Evolutionary Orientor and Council of Elders.

Of course, the converse, of all the joy, help, gratitude and love that it gave onto all others during its lifetime, is also experienced fully and directly by the soul.

This is not punishment or reward, of course. It is learning, for the sake of the soul. For all evolving souls naturally want to know themselves, to understand themselves, and to better themselves.

Hence, no action is without consequence. There is no such thing as retribution or punishment, only consequence. Which includes the soul's subsequent desperation to make up for areas in which it deemed itself to have fallen short, as well as to compensate and assist the ones it had harmed, or killed.


All of this still does not nullify or negate what was discussed earlier. Really, there is no right or wrong. Only actions and their consequences. CosmoEthical actions yield cosmoethical consequences. Anti-CosmoEthical actions yield anti-cosmoethical consequences.

But insofar as it is important that people *take self-responsibility* for their actions, it is useful to recognize that what you choose you have to do, is what is *right* for you. (No one can judge what is 'right' or 'wrong' for another being. You cannot judge others, as they cannot judge you. Only you can judge yourself, and decide on what is 'right' for you, to believe, to do, to be.)

This 'rightness' of choice is not necessarily intended to imply that it is cosmoethical, UNLESS THAT IS YOUR INTENTION. To be a CosmoEthical being.

Therefore, what is the RIGHT action from a CosmoEthical perspective, or for a being that wishes to be CosmoEthical, (ie. an evolving being), is simply the action that is CosmoEthical.

If this was what you meant all along, then we've come full circle to a meeting point or common ground - the use of the term "CosmoEthical" being more helpful, universalistic and loving; rather than the terms "right" and "wrong", which is limiting, individualistic and judgemental.

Therefore in a nutshell, if you choose to align yourself with CosmoEthics (a wise choice, or rather, a natural one for all evolving beings), what is 'right' action for you, that is to say, what is ('right' action defined as) in tune or alignment with your true intentions, is the CosmoEthical one.


Although again there are infinite grades and pathways to this (ie. to being CosmoEthical) in any given situation, and every individual will have to choose what is right for himself, in terms of how far he has the capacity to recognize, understand and work with CosmoEthics, in terms of clarity, depth, free will, alternative CosmoEthical possibilities, etc.

This is where (the importance of working collegially and collaboratively with) the guides & helpers come in.

Thank you Justin.

I agree that love is a deeper law.  If you're moved by love, then you're going to be concerned about the happiness of all beings.  If you're concerned about the happiness of all beings, then you'll be attracted to a plan that takes the happiness of all beings into consideration. If love is a key aspect of the source that created all, and if the source has the ability to think individually just like all other spirits do (albeit, to a much larger all-encomposing scale), then it makes sense that it would have a plan in mind that ultimately sees to the happiness of all beings.

It also makes sense that any source/being who has love as a key aspect of its nature, would also respect the individuality and free will of each being it created. However, due to all of the varying influences that can be found within the universe, influences that exist because of the playing out of freewill, it also makes sense that a wise and loving creator would set things up so that beings would have a way of finding there way back home to their source, eventually.

An inner yearning for love and completion that is caused by the fact that the creator's perfection and love already exists within us, would serve the purpose of eventually getting us back on course.

I'm certain that this is something you have already considered.


wrote on Feb 10^th, 2006 at 4:24pm:

Nice post Albert!  Very much agree, i believe there is both relative and growing truth (individual perspective) and ultimate, objective type truth...  Problem is, is that they don't seem to mix, how can one reconcile them?   You can't with your left brain!  But anyways, i hope some of Don's posts, some of mine, Dave's, and others have shown that beneath individually and collectivelly interpreted beliefs, when you dig deeper and synthesize, there are common principles...   Its like looking at an apple on the table, as you move around you get various perspectives of that apple, you see different parts of it, yet in the ultimate sense, the holistic sense, isn't the apple still an apple no matter how you view it?  The individual perspectives, from the various angles are 'relative truth', that the apple exists is an objective truth (lets not get to metaphysical on this particular point, its just an example ;) ).  For example, one objective truth which can never be altered by any being in this Universe, and will be a fixed reality until we phase out of this Universe and create our own Universes.... the Law of Like attracts, or begets Like.   It will work no matter how much you do or don't believe in it, you cannot alter it, you can only comply or not comply with the deeper Law behind, and which allows for or creates the condition of the Law of Like attracts Like...    The deeper Law is Love, both the awareness of and active participation in Oneness.  Without an objective reality of Oneness, how could the Law of ever balancing energy/motion exist?  Yeah, so well many other things and truths, especially more connected to human experiences, are very relative....  Peace

Kyo:

I guess there are three main possibilities (Actually, there are more, but I don't want my post to be too long.).

On the one hand God existed separate from the universe, and used his own being to create the manifested universe.  Despite his creation, he never lost the part of himself that isn't touched by his creation, just as an individual person's/spirit's awareness is never lost/effected no matter how many varying experiences such a spirit goes through.

Part two of this viewpoint is the idea that all of time, no matter how long it goes on for, exists within God, and never limits him. Therefore, it is possible that eventually a spirit will get tired of experiencing various types of reality, and seek to go back to the timeless source of all beauty, love, joy and fulfillment, as opposed to looking towards things that are just reflections of these positive qualities.
.........

-Another viewpoint is that the attributes of God were created along with his creation, even though the energy for the creative aspect already completely existed within him. This viewpoint also contends that a spirit keeps experiencing various types of things endlessly, without ever going back to God fully.

-Another viewpoint is sort of a merger of the first two. A spirit finds its way back to God, but nevertheless, keeps experiencing the creative process throughout eternity. Perhaps partly with the aim of helping more spirits join in the magical party of existence.

It is hard to say for certain which viewpoint is true.
-How much of the creative process does a spirit have to experience before it has had enough?
-Even if God's creative power is infinite, does this mean that each spirit has to be involved with the creative process forever?
-I've had experiences which have told me that time doesn't exist in the linear manner in which it is often conceived. How does one reconcilliate the viewpoint of endless creation, with the viewpoint of there being no such thing as linear time? It seems that if linear time doesn't actually exist, then everything that has been created, no matter how much has been created, was all created in the same moment. Therefore, everything has reached the point of coming back to God. Because I'm taking part in linear time now, it's hard for me to figure out how these two viewpoints mesh.


wrote on Feb 10^th, 2006 at 4:31pm:

A limitation or potential misconception accompanying the linguistic conotations and implications of "lost" and "back to Source", is that 1) in the end, individuality is lost, and 2) creation is separate from creator 3) in the end, nothing is gained, just back to square one None of the above is true, of course. Individuality and Collectively become each other as evolution progresses. And there's no need to go 'back' to source, because source/creator and being/creation never left each other. And there is no 'end'; existence and evolution is infinite; with the Creator/God living as Creation/Being every step of the way. Absolutely correct, except (it is particularly important to understand) that the Creator now (simultaneously across time) exists *AS* Creation. That is indeed the only way in which the Creator/Creation comprehends or has awareness of everything within Creation. Not 'before', not 'after', for these ideas have no meaning to Creator/Creation, but (simultaneously across time) AS Creation. Because the Creator *IS* the Creation. Every step of the Infinite way. And with each step, Creator as Creation is fully experiencing, comprehending, enjoying, choosing and creating the infinitum of possibilties, all of which are connected in the Oneness of Creator/Creation, that which is called Love. That's the Divine Beauty of It All.

Thank you Kyo, yes you and I agree on many fronts here.  One thing that is interesting though is that you take certain things as given: the life review (certain channeled entities and NDEs have documented no life review for them - of course that may be optional), a higher self which can not be fooled (some believe in this, others do not.  The distinguishment from the all that is or God and one's own higer self is unclear).  A council of elders, helpers, guides (again some sources, Robert Bruce among them deny the existence of some of these entities for every personality).  

There is a new age belief system which encompasses much of the beings/processes you describe which is not verified by everyone (if you read the Swedenborg thread and/or his works, his description of the afterlife does differ in a number of important ways).  

I do think its possible that things like the life review and guidance, etc. come in different forms for different souls.  So here, we may again be talking about perspective.  

I also like the idea of divine cosmoethical law or consequence.  I do think that if the contract killer had some loving relationships, part of his inner pscyhe would be torn, knowing the harm he caused directly.  This is well shown on "The Sopranos," with the likeable Tony Soprano being just this sort of vicious killer and also family man.  He ends up passing out frequently from panic attacks due to the internal self conflict (in the show).  

You had mentioned you had changed your mind on demons after speaking with Dave.  I too have learned on the board, and feel that my prior beliefs in ultimate truths may have been wrong.  I am currently embracing a more open understanding of  knowledge and perception that may be separate from the classic accounts of good and evil.  So I thank everyone for there comments on the board.

I'm surprised Don hasn't commented on this thread, but he's been so busy with impressive interesting posts, that I think we can forgive him this time.

Matthew

Regarding the killer, he can lie to himself, but he can't lie to others. When he crosses over he might have a hard time joining a realm of clear minded loving beings. He'd probably end up with other beings who like to play the justification game just as he does. Drug dealers, certain political leaders, certain corporate leaders,...uh, I think I'm going too far here.


wrote on Feb 10^th, 2006 at 4:47pm:

I agree with much of what has been said.  But let us take an individual case for learning purposes.  Let us say, a contract killer in a big metropolitan environment can kill at will with no associated feelings of right or wrong.  To his consciousness, it is just part of what he does - a job.  He may have heard of Judeo-christian ethics, but he does not buy into it.  If you ask him his belief and perspective, he may say "killing isn't right or wrong, it just is, like breathing."  He states he does not mourn his killings or grieve and he is quite serious about it - from his point of view. This person then transitions to the afterlife.  Since it is all about perspective and possibly belief systems, what we are saying is that this individual, if he was otherwise loving to his family and friends, and had his own perspective would not necessarily find himself in a "hell," or anywhere other than where his consciousness would lead him.  His perspective is merely different?   M

Recoverer,

That is interesting.  But the state of his consciousness would determine his perspective and afterlife state.  Again, as Kyo pointed out, if he were somehow self-brainwashed, then the lie to himself might truly not be seen in his deepest belief as a lie.  

Ah well, it is all hypothetical...

Quote:

For example, one objective truth which can never be altered by any being in this Universe, and will be a fixed reality until we phase out of this Universe and create our own Universes.... the Law of Like attracts, or begets Like.   It will work no matter how much you do or don't believe in it, you cannot alter it, you can only comply or not comply with the deeper Law behind, and which allows for or creates the condition of the Law of Like attracts Like...      The deeper Law is Love, both the awareness of and active participation in Oneness.  Without an objective reality of Oneness, how could the Law of ever balancing energy/motion exist?

What is referred to herein, are what has been called the universal principles, or more precisely, the total of 12 Universal Laws :

Law of Manifestation
Law of Reflection
Law of Karma
Law of Permanence
Law of Opposite Expression
Law of Cycles
Law of Thought
Law of Help
Law of Speech
Law of Symbols
Law of Progress
Law of Love

(Click here for more on 12 Universal Laws)


These Universal Laws may be said to be God's living expression throughout Creation, throughout all beings and all levels of the Cosmos.

The figure 12 is of course arbitrary, as are the names by which they are labelled. These 12 names or labels listed above, are only as we of the karmic jurisdiction on Earth, understand or interpret them in human concepts. An extraterrestrial might have 7 Laws instead, or 1000 Laws, but it would not matter - the essence and working of the Universal Laws will exactly be the same, only in iteration or writing, might there be any differences in number or language in which these laws are iterated.

What does this say about Truth then? Would Truth be defined as these 12 Universal Laws?

Every consciousness in the Cosmos, each & every being in Creation, will be design or Divine intention, have a slightly unique experience, understanding and perspective of the 12 Universal Laws. (Do not also forget that individuality and universality are not ever truly separate)

Is this subjectivity within objectivity, objectivity within subjectivity? Chaos within Order, Order within Chaos?

These 12 Universal Laws are really neither objective nor subjective. It is correct that these 12 Universal Laws (in essence, not in english) will be experienced by *all* beings across *all* levels of Creation/the Cosmos across *all* realities, without exception.

Why is this? The answer is simple.

It is God's natural expression, central to which She/He/It experiences Her/Him/ItSelf as each & every consciousness of Creation/the Cosmos. Understand that all Twelve Universal Laws are really just One Law. (But analyzed as 12 aspects of such).

It is as if combined, all Twelve Universal Laws collectively iterate only one thing - Oneness. (It is deliberately meaningful that the final of the 12 Universal Laws is the Law of Love.)

And yet, each and all (of the infinitum of) beings or consciousnesses of God, will experience and enjoy a slightly unique experience, understanding, perspective, and working with this Oneness, and hence of the 12 Universal Laws.

The 12 Universal Laws may be said to be 'absolute' or 'objective' in that it applies to All, but it is only because it is really just One Being experiencing Itself through these Twelve Laws - GOD.

And so as far as Reality is concerned, with all beings being extensions of the One Being, and whose (God = All Beings)'s existence invariably revolves around these 12 Universal Laws, the individual reality of every consciousness is still a relative or subjective one.

The only objectivity or absolute Truth, is Oneness (ie. the Twelve Universal Laws). Within which, there is, by divine design or intention, free will and hence an infinitum of possible or relative realities (which collectively make up the consciousness of GOD, but this is in the form of Creation/the Cosmos, and is hence ItSelf ever-living, ever-dynamic and ever-evolving, ad infinitum. Tis fun being GOD, eh).

DocM:

Perhaps he could get stuck in an isolated state where he experiences his own dream World. But for how long could a spirit be happy with being lost in its own dream World? And why should others take part in it, unless they're like minded? Plus a deluded mind, unless it's dealt with, is liable to end up becomming more and more deluded as time passes by. Who knows what state of mind he might eventually take on. He might not like it.



wrote on Feb 10^th, 2006 at 6:18pm:

Recoverer, That is interesting.  But the state of his consciousness would determine his perspective and afterlife state.  Again, as Kyo pointed out, if he were somehow self-brainwashed, then the lie to himself might truly not be seen in his deepest belief as a lie.   Ah well, it is all hypothetical...

Matthew

Would it be easier to answer your original question if we could answer something more practical?

For instance, did you get into medical school because you maintained a certain GPA and got certain scores on the SAT-type test and schmoozed correctly at the interview and so forth, or did all those incidental things just fall into place because you believed you would get in and your belief created the situation and got you past any possible glitches you may have had in the application?

I don't think this is a trivial question. How DOES reality work? and how can you answer your original question if you don't know this?

Quote:

One thing that is interesting though is that you take certain things as given : There is a new age belief system which encompasses much of the beings/processes you describe which is not verified by everyone.

Simply because these, like everything else, is a relative reality insofar as different souls are concerned. That is to say, not everyone will experience all of these in exactly the same way, and very naturally, some may not experience some of the aforementioned beings/events. It's a matter of what is appropriate or needed by the individual soul.

The beings/events I mentioned and you highlighted, I mention not only because they are indeed experienced, by virtue of usefulness or appropriateness, by a vast majority of human souls (for whom such events have *benefit*... consider this point), but *precisely* because these have benefit or relevance to the discussion (of hypothetical scenario, as well as subject matter being discussed) at hand.

Yourself, and many readers of this forum, have worked as guides & helpers (in past and present, in many ways and on many levels), surely you remember, or intuitively recognize the nature and relevance of these events, and intuitively understand how these work in the scheme of things. If something (eg. life review) is of value or benefit, we as guides & helpers will bring such to the awareness of the soul, of course in varying form, depending on the needs of the soul.

From the perspective of the guides & helpers, this is why much of the discussion as to verification of certain matters (eg. life review, council of elders, etc), is a moot or quite useless one. It's relative and dynamic, not absolute, and it depends on what is appropriate, helpful, or cosmoethical.

And the details really don't matter. From Michael Newton's perspective of research, it did matter. So it does matter, to him or some of his clients. But from our perspective, from the way we work, what is important is the essence, the helpfulness.



Quote:

I do think its possible that things like the life review and guidance, etc. come in different forms for different souls.  So here, we may again be talking about perspective.

Yep, that's what I'm saying. :)



Quote:

I also like the idea of divine cosmoethical law or consequence.  I do think that if the contract killer had some loving relationships, part of his inner pscyhe would be torn, knowing the harm he caused directly.  This is well shown on "The Sopranos," with the likeable Tony Soprano being just this sort of vicious killer and also family man.  He ends up passing out frequently from panic attacks due to the internal self conflict (in the show).

Ah yes, many of these productions include very relevant and educational points, with regard to the human psyche, existence and evolution.

If the individual does not have a balanced functioning psyche that would register compassion, then the individual's soul energies is (verily by such acts or experiences), warped and the soul's evolution, retarded. The karma will have to be worked out and balanced, the outcome of which, the learning of compassion and the helping of others, evolution.

Moreover, you could also see it as, that particular recalcitrant soul's guides & helpers are the *other aspects of that soul* that do recognize the difficulties, inappropriateness or anti-ethics of the situation, and reach out to, and counsel, the recalcitrant aspect of themselves, that is, that individual soul. Afterall, we're all One, aren't we? :)



Thank you too, Matthew, for this engaging conversation and for your amicability.

Matthew,

I just noticed this thread.  I can't remember seeing more thoughful posts on this site in so short a period of time.  Of course, as a Christian, I disagree with some of what is said.  But this site is too saturated with my views right now.  LOL!  So for now I deem it best to set up 2 "straw men" and see how posters respond to THEIR arguments.  I might offer my own responses later.

(1) AN ATHEIST'S RATIONALIZATION FOR MAYHEM

"Morality" and "ethics" are merely code words for the communal desire to impose limits on behavior to prevent rebels from infringing on the freedom, dignity, and happiness of the community.  To the extent that the Golden Rule is embedded in the psyche of the masses, this can be attributed to evolutionary processes designed to promote the survival instinct, including group survival.   Once this evolutionary programing is understood, the "enlightened" maverick is free to violate any rules he pleases, if he is confident he can get away with it.  Nature is governed by the principle of the survival of the fittest.   No one can prove that human interactions should be any different.  So if I want to cheat, rob, and rape, there are no moral absolutes to which I am accountable.  

You may protest, "But what if everyone embraced your brutal outlook?   YOUR world would become a living hell too?"   Our narcissist might reply, "But only a minority will in fact live by my brutal code.   So if power and control over women makes me happy, you have no moral grounds for condemning my abuse of women.  You don't know if I can get away with it or not.  Even if I can't, that is a practical issue, not a moral issue."  

(2) A RAPIST'S POSTMORTEM RATIONALIZATION

Both Robert Monroe and Bruce Moen affirm the principle that "There is no good, there is no evil.  There is only experience."   Consistent with this principle,  Bruce Moen's astral explorations have determined that the only reason souls remain trapped in lower astral planes is their decision to stay there.  True, my inital postmortem locale will be based on the principle like attracts like.  But when I tire of hanging out with my ilk, I  can make new choices and leave.  Or I can benefit from a soul retrieval which can work like a jailbreak. I can ascend to Focus 27 and blissfully remain there as long as I temporarily agree to respect the freedom of others.   I can use the system to rest up for my next incarnation in which I can once again indulge my kinky passions by raping and controlling women.  Or I can find a fulfilling new vice like drug dealing.  And if that's what makes me happy, you have no moral grounds for protest.  

How would you respond to both rationalizations?

Don

P.S. Mark Twain was once asked about his wishes for an afterlife.  He wittily replied, "I'd choose Heaven for the climate and Hell for the company."  

This number of posts from Kyo must be a record.

Truth = Reality (including wider reality).

The closer we are in conformity with Reality, the more truthful we are.  I don't believe Truth as such has an objective existence.

Rob

Thanks, Rob.

I believe that is the general consensus here.  I have found Kyo's replies to be extremely well written and enlightening.  In some ways, they complement the new erudite threads that Don has written.  This is a tremendous growth spurt on the board.  The issues raised are, for me the main reason I came to the board.  

Lucy, I'm not sure what to say.  I think intent is behind results in reality but that there are complex interactions between people whose intentions differ and so I don't know what to say.  I initially went to college and thought I would be a scientist.  As such, I studied biochemistry and by doing so, I took all the required courses for medical school.  I used to laugh at the premedical students at the front of the lecture halls, recording every word, and I would just sit back and try to understand things.  For me, there was no rat race of competition.  Then, after working for some prominent professors at Columbia University, I decided that pure science without application was not for me.  I found scientists who studied minute interactions of carbon atoms or certain molecules.  When their life's work was taken over years, it added up to a lot, but in the short term, the relevance to the human condition seemed small.  That is when I decided to go to medical school (toward the end of college).  I figured that as a physician, everything I did or researched would have an immediate relevance to the human condition.  I therefore had little competition or preparation to do to get in.  

For me, the idea that truth is relative, that good and evil are not real, that there is only a cosmoethical point of view, is new but a bit disappointing.  I still feel that we place ourselves in physcial reality to share some of these common universal laws as "absolute," and because of that, there must be some greater basis for truth and the common experience of good and evil, right and wrong.  I have not been able to make myself more clear on this yet in this thread, but I will when I figure it out.

Best to you all,

Matthew

Hi Matthew,

This thread sure got long fast.  I haven't had time to read all of it yet.  Some good points for sure!

I think it's the relativity of truth that gives meaning to absolute truth... again here I think of the way I understand consciousness as a continual feedback process.

Hi Don,

I'm thinking I spoke to the subjects you bring up on your Fresh Look at Heaven thread on page 6.  I may have time later to add more.

Kathy

Interesting thread-

The one problem I detect is that we live inside a Cosmic Paper Bag, and we're trying to figure out what it looks like from the outside.  You can't get there by deductive logic. However, inductions help.

What we know is that each day is fully and completely determined by the prior day, and in turn it defines the succeeding day. We also know that the elements of the world that continue existence are logically coherent so that none is a negation of its own self.

The chain of causality traces back to a Beginning in which we find two terms, Purusha-Prakriti (Hundu), Specificity-Generalization (Egyptian), Yang-Yin (Taoist), or Void and Uncaused Cause (Christian). (I call this the Primal Dyad, and view it as a Statistical Tendency that projects its own nature.)

Assembling these into a future in which yesterday defines today, and today defines tomorrow,  in every possible manner, can be done only by an iterated complexion (a complexion is the set of all possible subsets. Repeat it over and over). This gives a pencil of worldlines that define a cluster of parallel universes. This is like Hugh Everett's "many worlds interpretation of QM" and was the view of others, such as Archibald Wheeler toward the end of his life.

To the physicist, reality has no purpose except to Be. Morality thus favors the highest type of Be-ing.

Everything is totally determined by material cause and effect linkages. Even the statistical aspects of QM are simply cases that are too complex to analyze, but they do not annul causality. (Einstein was right - 'The Herr Gott does not play dice with the universe") Choice enters when we use Intention to hop to a different worldline, like changing sidewalks while wandering through a city in whic everything has already been laid out. This requires that we maintain a connection with the Ultimate Creative Principle, Higher Self, God Self or whatever you prefer to call it.

Each individual occurs along a specific and unique worldline. That gives individual history.

The entire pencil of worldlines is the Collective Consciousness, or, if you wish, God-Mind, or Buddha-Mind (in the cosmic sense).

The two levels of samadhi thus give participatory awareness of the Cosmic Consciousness in sarvastarka samadhi, and of the Beginning in nirvastarka samadhi.  This can be directly verified, and I suggest that you go there and have a look. You can't "think it", in this case. You have to "do it" to have the perception.

Since you and I evolve along divergent worldlines, Your Truth will have elements that are My Falsehood, while My Truth must have elements Untrue for You. We can agree only by returning to the instant of the initial Beginniing in samadhi, since all else is defined as divergent.

In the same way, morality for You differs a bit from My ideas of the Good. There is no ultimate or archetypal "Good" except that which represents the furtherance of the entire cosmic evolution. Thus, morality, on a human level, must be situational, although it grows together toward a totally common notion as we look farther toward the Oneness in which the Cosmic Consciousness furthers itself.

This thread remnds me, when one opens a can of worms, it takes a bigger can to put them back again.  If we can.

dave

Dave,

Increasingly, modern college courses in ethics have no appeal to students without a constant application to concrete examples.   So I'd be very interested to see how you (or anyone) would respond to the rationalizations of my two "straw men" in reply#20.  Would you find fault with their logic?

Don

Don-

As far as I can tell, the major difference between your perspective and my own is that you view morality as a limitation, blocking us from the unpleasant or inappropriate, while I view it as a facilitation, allowing us to make better choices.  BFD.

As I just was suggesting, your world and mine differ. I live in my own world and interpretation because I have no other choice. This is true in life while I rape the innocent, it is true in death when I merge partially back into the totality of the collective system of all definitions (God-Mind) and when I realize what I have done and seek to repair myself by creating samskaras to ripen as later karmas, and it is still true in the next life when I am being the innocent and others rape me.  (This information is readily available from a review of a few dozen past lives, and can easily be verified.)

The degree to which your worldline and mine overlap might be very small, so the effect of my ignorance on your moral decisions might be slight, or it might be great if we have very similar realities.  You might be experiencing an Earthly Paradise, while I experience a material Hell, and we then carry these ideas into the afterlife.

IOn the more general level, the reality in which we involve with society tends to be socially determined. Wars, Inquisitions and Jihad are among the ways in which we manifest our Higher Moral Awareness. However, if we average everytihg over a long period we discover some real advances in social conditions, such as flush toilets and central heating, as well as a few things that turn out to be dangerous, like pop-top cans and safety razors.  The global tendency is simply pro-life, because that's all we can see to share.

dave

Don,

No one is accepting your challenge as yet.  I think we should address certain topics in morals and ethics on this thread such as: what  compels us to act in a moral or ethical manner, other than random rules of an individual society?  Supposedly, in the afterlife, there is little we can keep to ourselves; thus lying and deception may not exist, depending on the communication methods used (if your thoughts are open to all).  

However, a child may learn from the time they can talk that they may not tell the truth, and "get away with it."  In essence, they may not be getting away, as their conscience/consciousness carries the lie around, and our very natures are dynamic and energetic (for every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction).  Thus, the notion of karma is born.

However, if all but the most basic universal truths are relative, what compels us to "right action?"  One could say, the desire to grow closer to God, would, be the very nature of that desire, lead to cosmoethical action (I now like this term, Kyo).  

I appreciated Kyo, your 12 "laws," that we can see in action in the universe.  I'd be interested if you have expanded on these.  I think we all agree Dave, that our common shared reality has these laws.  Many currently seem immutable.  Those laws come as close to a "truth," as we can right now.

Of course our amazing minds look for exceptions to the rules.  

Matthew

Dave's posts about ultimate truth made me think and open this thread.  Do Buddhists find Buddha because of their mind set and consciousness when they die?
*****************
-I'd like to think so. (Thusly, I can create MY preferred reality! Including coming back HERE, if things are too "pure and holy" on the other side...)

The pope warned of a moral relativism that is rampant in our culture.
*****************
-I somehow think that Pope Rat isn't the man to see, if you're loking for ultimate truth. (Roman amalgamation of Greek paganism and Christianity, weinerschnitzel, sauerkraut and Hitler youth all rolled into one!!!)
(I wonder when he's going to get a propeller, to put on that beanie he wears? Be a nice touch, I'd say...)


Is there, in fact truth at all?
*****************
-What a liberating thought, that there may NOT
be..!

B-man

B-man, can I assume that you would agree with my first "straw man's" position in reply #2?   And what do you think of the second "straw man's" reasoning?

D-man

[quote author=Berserk link=board=afterlife_knowledge;num=1139591891;start=15#29 date=02/11/06 at 20:02:25]B-man, can I assume that you would agree with my first "straw man's" position in reply #2?   And what do you think of the second "straw man's" reasoning?

D-man
*****************
Most people don't approve of murder and rape,
Don.
If the murderer or rapist goes to "his own self-created reality" then perhaps the people he will be murdering and raping, are just SIMULACRA of people created in his own mind... and therefore he might as well be shooting tin cans with a BB gun, right?
At the same time, he's away from other people (who we can assume, would have the power to strike back at him were he to intrude on THEIR self-created reality.)
So, are "absolutes" necessary then? (Unless you assume the afterlife is the same "stuck with each other whether we like it or not" social reality as we have on Earth..?)
LIMITED LINEAR THINKING, Don. (Hey, I'm guilty of it myself most of the time. We're only human, right?)
There may indeed be a "Creator", Don. But if there is, then the only rational reason "he" would have made us, is as "probes" to explore physical reality with (i.e., we are ALL "God".)
The alternative is, that big G. "made humanity because he was lonely" (the silliest idea ever to come from human thought or human pen. A perfect Being could NOT get lonesome... and an IMPERFECT being is not something you should "worship" - i.e., blindly grovel at the feet of.)

B-man

I have never heard that our purpose is to grovel, B-man in any reasonable church or synagogue.  

But let's get the thread on track...what compels us to "right" or cosmoethical action?

Hi Matthew,


Quote:

But let's get the thread on track...what compels us to "right" or cosmoethical action?

What compels one towards cosmoethical action? What else, but Love.

The Love that understands that All the Cosmos (each and *all* beings in Creation) are one with all whom you love; that all beings (including your own soul) are truly, and will always be, God - the One & All whom you love.

What beautiful words these are Kyo. Thank you.

With Love,
Mairlyn ;-)

I agree, as I said before that love and unity are the basis for right action.  But on a practical level, many who are not spiritually advanced need another reason/motivation to act rightly or cosmoethically.  Perhaps that is why the golden rule transcends many cultures and languages.


Matthew

Dear Mairlyn,


Quote:

What beautiful words these are Kyo. Thank you.

As always, whatever one sees in others (whether in words, actions, or in others), whether it be beauty, love, aspirations, it is really one's acknowledgement of the beauty of God (manifested across all forms or beings), and because one has the willingness to acknowledge or connect with this beauty aspect, it can rightfully said that the beauty is actually within the heart of the beholder, of the one whom sees this beauty in others.

As too, with the gratitude. The willingness to experience and gratitude, as with love, is always towards God (not merely to the other person) and really speaks volumes for the self (the grateful person), not the other person. Vibrationally, the thosenes (thoughts, sentiments, energies) of gratitude, is an extension or expression of love, and is vibrationally very close.

Dr Emoto has captured the image (using freeze photography) of a water crystal when human gratitude & love is directed at it here :

http://www.bariumblues.com/conscious_water_crystals.htm

And always, it is the vibrations of the individual expressing the thosenes, whether it be anger, hatred, beauty, gratitude or love, that is the result. Which means the primary karma here is instantaneous - if you are a loving, grateful person that sees beauty in others, it is a direct reflection on yourself, vibrationally, energetically karmically.



Hi Matthew and anyone else interested in the Universal Laws,


Quote:

One could say, the desire to grow closer to God, would, be the very nature of that desire, lead to cosmoethical action (I now like this term, Kyo).

Yes, for evolving beings who love, what's "right" really translates into "what's helpful", and cosmoethics is by definition what is the most helpful direction for (at the theoretical level) the entire cosmos, or (at a practical level) more directly the beings involved in any given situation. And indeed, as you say Matthew, the term itself "cosmoethics" is truly a very helpful, universal, loving concept and terminology to use, free from the limiting conotations of judgement and punishment, of "right" and "wrong".  



Quote:

I appreciated Kyo, your 12 "laws," that we can see in action in the universe.  I'd be interested if you have expanded on these.  I think we all agree Dave, that our common shared reality has these laws.  Many currently seem immutable.  Those laws come as close to a "truth," as we can right now.

Yes, that's pretty much what the 12 Universal Laws are about. There's really no dogma about it - bear in mind that these 12 words (manifestation, reflection, karma, etc) are really just human language iterations of the universal principles. Every being in the universe is really experiencing and expressing him/herself via these universal principles in all activities, by definition.

These are *NOT* rules or laws set out by any single galatic Being or diety, but are in fact principles (12 aspects of a single principle, of Oneness, really) that encompass *ALL* beings in the entirety of their existence, including godlike beings such as the Elohim (who are the 'creators' of a great many galactic races including humanity, as well as this quadrant of the physical universe; of course, they're really the same stuff as us - God).

The Law of Karma, most people are already familiar with. Simply iterated, it is "work", or "action and re-action", with the "re-action" taking primarily two forms - re-action as consequences, and re-action as habit patterns.

For those who wish to peruse the Law of Karma, the following articles are highly recommended :
http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/WayOfKarma/index.htm


The Law of Reflection, is also amongst the most relevant of the Universal Laws with regards to the purpose of physical incarnation. As discussed earlier in this post (the following is one of the aspects of corollaries of the Law of Reflection, or one way to put it) :

When someone says something nasty about you, it doesn't mean you're nasty, it means he's nasty.

When someone says something nice about you, it doesn't mean you're nice, it means he's nice.


Perhaps the most direct work one can do, to better understand, work with, and *LIVE* the Law of Reflection, is by adopting the work of Byron Katie :

http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/main.htm#ByronKatie


As an example, if you are apparently cheated by another, and you say, "He should not cheat me."

Turn it around (Reflection), and you realize, that what your (initially) upset reaction is really teaching you, or what it *really means*, is "I should not cheat him/others", as well as "I should not cheat myself". This is self-responsibility.

So the Law of Reflection states that everything around us, is really to reflect and teach us what is within ourselves, what our intention is really about, by choice, by free will.

Which leads us to another very closely associated Universal Law, that of the Law of Manifestation :
http://infinity.usanethosting.com/ConversationsWithGod_NealeDonaldWalsch.gif

The above words of wisdom were by Neale Donald Walsch, who channeled "Conversation with God" (he was of course channeling guides & helpers, who spoke 'on behalf' of God - all beings in Creation are of course all equally 'ambassadors' of God, or simply put, God in all possible forms).


Now, as to Hilarion's "12 Universal Laws" lecture series. That was... one heck of a lecture. Extraphysical guests from across the galaxy were present (at one point, some of them politely interjected with their comments during the channeling, causing Hilarion to halt mid-sentence during one of the lectures, it was cute).

Jon (C Fox) has made the "12 Universal Laws" lectures conveniently available on a single CD-Rom. It's probably the single most focused piece of metaphysical written (or we should say, spoken) work on the 12 Universal Laws, ever to exist on the face of this Earth.

For those interested in a deeper (*much* deeper) perusal of the Universal Laws, the "Hilarion 12 Universal Laws CD-Rom" is strongly recommended... there's no other expository work on the 12 Universal Laws quite as concise and clear, without the burden of language or concepts cloaked in religion or mysticism.


In addition, Hilarion will continue to refer to, and speak of, these Universal Laws (most notably and relevantly, the Law of Reflection) in the ongoing Hilarion Quarterly Channelings.


Kyo

Kyo,  (reply #35)

Thank you. I could feel the resonance and peace from this post.

From my own experiences: When the dust settles, there is the Knowing that it is all 'Inclusive'. I settle back, smile and just BE.

Thanks again,
Daff

Dear Daff
(and any/all others whom our words might concern),


Thank you, too, for the opportunity to share (it takes two) and possibly be of some service.


Kyo

Matthew

Interesting comments about interactions of intents.

Dave verbalized my thoughts:

"The one problem I detect is that we live inside a Cosmic Paper Bag, and we're trying to figure out what it looks like from the outside.  You can't get there by deductive logic. However, inductions help.
"

We can't develop the meta-language needed to answer your question, Matthew, because we are inside the bag and everything we say about this is in a language that describes things inside the bag.

Whatever made us, made this cosmic bag we live in....made a big carch-22 in the system: you can't get out of the game, you can only talk about it from the inside.

What are we supposed to do with this challenge?

But remember, all the answers posted here or anywhere are in words that are of this world but are attempting to answer questions only known outside of the bag. Maybe you can know an answer, but you can't share that knowing with words. You might describe it with words but not ever completely, because the words are of this world.

Sorta makes me feel like what we do with all these words is just a bunch of mental masturbation!

"On the more general level, the reality in which we involve with society tends to be socially determined. Wars, Inquisitions and Jihad are among the ways in which we manifest our Higher Moral Awareness. However, if we average everytihg over a long period we discover some real advances in social conditions, such as flush toilets and central heating, as well as a few things that turn out to be dangerous, like pop-top cans and safety razors.  The global tendency is simply pro-life, because that's all we can see to share.
"

______________________________________

Do we make progress?

I am not a sports fan (golly how do I survive beantown?) but I have a son and he needs the interaction that sports provide as well as the exercise to help prevent type II diabetes these days. As a parent, I have had to observe many sporting events that I would otherwise have blissfully passed up. I do not enjoy watching the competition. If I could be in the middle of the fray, it might be more fun. Being the wrong gender and age to participate in football and wrestling (well girls wrestle so it's just the age thing there) I have been reduced to many hours of painful observation. I have a very strong kinesthetic sense, always danced, so I find this physically painful at times. What I literally do not understand is the way many people, particularly the males who possibly engaged in these sports at another time in their lives, love watching. What are they getting from watching?
___________________________

Last Friday caught a Nova program that was interesting ...on bog bodies....mummified remains found in bogs and dated to the Iron Age (~700BC to ~400 AD)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bog/iron.html

The deaths appear to have come about by violence, and one possible explanation is that the individuals were human sacrifice. By violent sacrifice. The question was asked, what dwould be gained by performing such violent sacrifice? And one answer was that people get a certain kind of energy from witnessing violence.

That really struck me because I think it is true. And oddly enough, I think it made me see why people enjoy watching the sports. (or playing Grand Theft Auto).

The Celtic peoples who are thought to be responsible for the bog bodies were known to be fierce fighters, described by Roman writers. Somehow we have evolved to see human sacrifice (but not war) as not good for the common good. Something happened. This is a more important social advancement than flush toilets. We learned to get the energy from watching sports rather than watching people hacked in the head by axes.

Yes in the case of the Celts Christianity put a stop to some of the violence (but introduced its own in my opnion). I always felt that Patrick did something to squelsh the druids...don't know what snakes symbolise...but never understood why the Irish celebrate the demise of their native culture, though if Patrick talked them out of creating more bog bodies, welll, maybe that was a good thing for humanity.
____________________________

The answer to the problem of life is Love (PUL) and knowing you create your reality.

We are in a cultural war with a proples I see as stuck in the Iron Age, but with the weapons of the 21sy century. Freedom of the press is something they do not understand. They are willing to practice human sacrifice to prove it.

And political leaders like Bin Laden are willing to exploiut their Iron Age mentality to acquire political power.

How can we use PUL to share with them that they create themselves? You can't answer this with words.

-----------------------------------------
"Do Buddhists find Buddha because of their mind set and consciousness when they die?"

I guess when I go back to this, I think somehow the question is wrong.....you assume something that is inside the box when you ask this, but you want an answer outside the box..oops ..not box, cosmic bag.

 Lucy wrote,
Quote:

Sorta makes me feel like what we do with all these words is just a bunch of mental masturbation!

 Sista, you have no idea!  lol but like the other more infamous act, it sometimes serves a important purpose, yet conversely at some point we all need to eventually get past this stage.

Hi Lucy,

Thoughtful replies.  No, I don't think this is masturbation in this particular thread.  And the coherence of discussion by Kyo, for me transcended merely verbal discussion.  I found his replies quite enlightening.  

I think though we may all be inside a bag trying to talk about the outside, some pioneers have made trips outside of the bag, however brief and have brought back their data.  Sometimes the data does not all agree, but this is what we are truly dealing with here; a verbalized coherent system of the universe will always come up short.  However, the ideas that resonate best with me or you in conjunction with the data brought back by these pioneers (Monroe, Moen, Mediums, Meditators - enough Ms for you?) we get this best overall picture that we can - while incarnate here on earth.  This same picture may be obtained perhaps through yoga, various religions and spiritual experiences of varied kinds.  

For me at least, that is why I am still here.  Lucy, when confronted with inane situations in life, do you not think about them a little differently after immersing yourself in this thought/discussion?  How could you not?  And perhaps your responses and your actions may have differed slightly.  I think the greatest epiphanies come from direct exploration and experience.  These words are inferior to the ineffable experience of knowing the universe is one or the feeling someone has when they contact a departed person.  However they still have their own place.  

Matthew

Epilogue on the 12 Universal Laws discussion :

Clearly, some on this thread are interested in the 12 Universal Laws, while others are not.

If you are, and you find interesting the question, "Who owns these 12 Universal Laws?", then click here for the answer.

OK. I'll take a stab at tying in poster comments with my 2 "straw man" cases in reply #20.  Then I'll share how I might provisionally respond to them.

(1) AN ATHEIST'S RATIONALIZATION FOR MAYHEM

"Morality" and "ethics" are merely code words for the communal desire to impose limits on behavior to prevent rebels from infringing on the freedom, dignity, and happiness of the community.  To the extent that the Golden Rule is embedded in the psyche of the masses, this can be attributed to evolutionary processes designed to promote the survival instinct, including group survival.   Once this evolutionary programing is understood, the "enlightened" maverick is free to violate any rules he pleases, if he is confident he can get away with it.  Nature is governed by the principle of the survival of the fittest.   No one can prove that human interactions should be any different.  So if I want to cheat, rob, and rape, there are no moral absolutes to which I am accountable.  

You may protest, "But what if everyone embraced your brutal outlook?   YOUR world would become a living hell too?"   Our narcissist might reply, "But only a minority will in fact live by my brutal code.   So if power and control over women makes me happy, you have no moral grounds for condemning my abuse of women.  You don't know if I can get away with it or not.  Even if I can't, that is a practical issue, not a moral issue."  
_____________________________

Kyo would apparently advise our atheist: "An immature...form of `feel good' is the right action, insofar as the being concerned needs to explore negative karma." In other words, raping women is right for the atheist if it makes him feel good. Of course, from his perspective, it is Kyo's New Age views that are naively "immature."  If moral relativism is correct, who is to say that our atheist is wrong?  Thus, he might find solace in Kathy's principle, "Truth is in the eye of the beholder."  His truth does not transcend biological evolution, which offers no justification for morality and leaves the door open to the principle that might is right in a world that supports the survival of the fittest.

(2) JOE'S NEW AGE RATIONALIZATIONS FOR RAPE

Both Robert Monroe and Bruce Moen affirm the principle that "There is no good, there is no evil.  There is only experience."   Consistent with this principle,  Bruce Moen's astral explorations have determined that the only reason souls remain trapped in lower astral planes is their decision to stay there.  True, my inital postmortem locale will be based on the principle like attracts like.  But when I tire of hanging out with my ilk, I  can make new choices and leave.  Or I can benefit from a soul retrieval which can work like a jailbreak. I can ascend to Focus 27 and blissfully remain there as long as I temporarily agree to respect the freedom of others.   I can use the system to rest up for my next incarnation in which I can once again indulge my kinky passions by raping and controlling women.  Or I can find a fulfilling new vice like drug dealing.  And if that's what makes me happy, you have no moral grounds for protest.  
_____________________________

Both Kyo and Dave embrace a karmic perspective that is irrelevant to Joe's Moen-Monroe view of reincarnation.  Kyo would apparently remind Joe, our rapist: "The higher self can never be fooled, brain-washed, or take a myopic perspective."  In other words, "Look, Joe, when you die the real you will eventually realize that your lifestyle is wrong."    Kyo would remind Joe of the empathetic past life review that he must eventually endure.  But if Joe utterly lacked empathy in life, why assume that he might emerge from this review an empathetic soul?  Indeed, Howard Storm's NDE and the astral explorations of Bruce Moen and Emanuel Swedenborg all imply that it is almost impossible to retrieve the hellbound.  If they are correct, then their past life reviews of the hellbound evidently do little to change their energetic make-up with its cruel priorities.    

Kyo asks, "What compels us toward cosmoethical action?  What else but Love?  The love that understands that all in the cosmos...are one with all whom you love, that all beings...are truly and always will be God."  Kyo overlooks the obvious question of why Joe should adopt love as a prime motivation.   Why are they stuck in Hell in the first place if they sense the implications of Kyo's New Age theology (God is All That is)?

Moral relativism is an important but difficult issue and I thank Matt for raising it.  Let me take a preliminary stab at responding to my "straw man" cases.   NDEs ovewhelmingly support the view that we are here for two purposes--knowledge and love.  An overview of NDEs leaves he nature of this knowledge rather vague.  Retrievals require certain conditions.  e.g. (1) The retrievee must want to be retreived.  (2) His energetic make-up must be sufficiently transformed for his survival in a higher vibrational frequency.   Put differently, the principle of like attracts like also governs his retrieval in the sense that his essence must now be like his "higher" destination and no longer like his current plane.  On this view, Joe's preconception of the retrieval process is sadly mistaken.  

The moral absolute concept applies to the principles that facilitate a ready state for retrieval and advancement.  Surely one of these absolutes is PUL, so that progress in PUL is decisive.  Many of us have a feel for what PUL is, but PUL also has an elusive aspect.  This might mean that other moral absolutes govern the prospect of retrievals.  For now, I merely want to leave that open.  Another absolute might be a minimal level of spiritual knowledge, the nature of which might be determined through future astral exploration.  

The target for retrieval is always free to thumb his nose at these so-called absolutes.  In that sense, they do not serve as absolutes for him and he is free to insist on his own brand of moral relativism.   But his brand may lead to eventual annihilation or to indefinitely prolonged consignment to a hellish plane of separation from any intimate bonding with God.   For me, one of our most important questions is the correct strategy of discarnate retrievers for influencing the enegetic make-up of denizens of hellish planes.    

Don

As an aside Kyo,

How did you choose your screen name for this, if you don't mind my asking?  When I did a google of your name it came up with a comic strip character of a young teen boy with a mop top described as "the ultimate fighter."  If you don't want to answer, please ignore this post.

Matthew

As an aside, Don (Berserk) clearly has positive intentions in sharing his perspectives, particularly in assisting others on similar Christian religious paths. I will not be directly addressing any of his posts (such as those with mention of 'Kyo' in it), not because of any hard feelings (there are none), but only because I hold a view closely similar to Hilarion's in this regard - we believe in the free will and sharing of perspectives in which each party speaks his/her piece and the others can decide for themselves which points in either or both parties' work, they might personally agree or disagree with; rather than a debatorial, antagonistic or confrontational approach in which two parties insist on mercilessly beating the other one down, on the false assumption that if two people disagree, one of them must be 'wrong'.

I thought I'd mention this because really, the beauty of Creation is verily in "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations". There's really no wrong or right, so I'd encourage everyone to share his/her perspectives freely, without the necessity to 'prove the other person wrong'.




Quote:

As an aside Kyo,  How did you choose your screen name for this, if you don't mind my asking?  When I did a google of your name it came up with a comic strip character of a young teen boy with a mop top described as "the ultimate fighter."  If you don't want to answer, please ignore this post. Matthew

Hello Matthew, not at all. "Kyo Kusanagi" is the name of a character in the arcade game "King of Fighters" from Japan, and became rather popular across Asia. While there have been many incarnations of the game over the years (KOF 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003), some of the usual characters I used in the game, were Kyo, Iori, Benimaru, K' and Ryo. I don't play the game much now (actually no one plays KOF much anymore, naturally since the developers no longer produce new installments of the KOF series since 2003), but when I first started posting on spiritual / new age forums over a decade ago while still as a high school student, notably on the now defunct SpiritWeb.org forums (it was arguably the first massive spiritual / new age forum on the internet), and I had to come up with a nickname, the name "Kyo" popped up. Since then, I've used "Kyo" on the internet for consistency.

^_^
Kyo

What a lovely little title it is, "the light of truth", and indeed it is a light. It will light up your existence with a deeper understanding, and your perception and knowledge of spirit will illuminate your life with a brightness hitherto unknown. Most people are searching for their version of the truth, as they wander through life. It is the subconscious yearning to be reunited with God, that compels an individual to keep on searching. It is the wonder of it all, that glimpse of heaven, that gives the individual the boundless energy to keep on looking. Ultimately, there is only one truth, but while you are still incarnate, you will only ever get an approximate version of it, all in accordance with your standards of acceptance, your level of understanding. What would be the point of knowing a truth, which was totally beyond your comprehension? It would have no practical use whatsoever. Everything that has ever happened to you, all the words you ever spoke, every thought, every deed done, will reflect your truth in the here and now and will have shaped your reality right up to this point.
There are so many people, religious or otherwise, who will insist that they alone know all the answers. They can be very closed off to differing opinions or arguments and are very unbending in their views of the world and spirit. Off course they have a valid point, but that kind of attitude will just not get the job done. It is a type of spiritual snobbery, which you should try to avoid at all costs, if you value your progress. Quite honestly, no religious organisations and faiths, no gurus, cults and all the myriads of colourful sects and spiritual pathways will be in possession of all the facts. If these truths was indeed buried within some religious text or scripture, if it was that self evident and easy to obtain, then the majority of the population would know by now. This media-driven world would see to it, especially if these facts were recoverable without much effort. Since the world is still at war, now more then ever, it is obvious that the truth has so far eluded them. Just the same, it is fair to say, that many of them will have a part of the truth, but that is all. Also, the truths of God are a different kettle of fish compared to the beliefs of man, and that is something to be considered. Never be browbeaten into accepting somebody else's beliefs. This really is counter productive and serves no actual purpose. Believe me when I tell you, that once you pass over to the other side, your ideas of the truth are entirely different to when you was in the flesh. There has to be an augmentation of your awareness to be able to encompass a more accurate version of the truth. Since your journey back to the Godhead is infinite, the ultimate truth is an ideal. You must find your truth's at your own pace, there is no hurry, after all you have got all eternity.

There really are no quick fixes or all encompassing revelations. All truths will speak to your soul and can even be on a level that does not require words. In this world, words are sometimes not equal to the power of emotions to convey a message to it's fullest depth. The most marvelous thing is, that all truths will eventually blend together to form a light that shows you the path back to god. Self examination is a tried and tested method which can show you the way. Most spiritual path's require that you find the time to examine yourself, to find out just where you stand in the scheme of things. Your shortcomings may make themselves known, which can have quite a sobering effect on you, but it is a process worthy of your sincerest efforts, since the results speak for themselves. Open yourself up to the possibility of becoming the best human being you are capable of becoming in this lifetime. This is entirely achievable. Be aware, focus and try to manifest a better reality, help your fellow man, be charitable and you will undeniably find truth. Entities on the other side are aware of your progress and are always ready to assist you. Truth is a fringe benefit for living an altruistic life. Trust in that.

Dear Matthew,

I have finally been able to finish reading this thread and want to thank you for starting it.  I only wish I had more time to reply.

Dear Kyo,

Thank you also for posting so many beautiful insights.  

I have learned much from both of you as always.

Love and blessings,
Kathy

Hi Doc-

I'm still on Lucy's side here. The point I made is that we are utterly and totally unable to "get out of the bag". This is simply because there is no viewpoint from which we can perceive our own selves.

As an example, I am looking outward at what I take to be the everyday world. I do that from a locus called "my viewpoint". The nature of me and that viewpoint are forever subjective. I cann't see myself. This seems to also be the formal consensus of social psychology. Around the late 1800s and early 1900s George Cooley suggested that we use life as a "looking glass", and that we develop a sense of "self" by our reflection in others' eyes. George Herbert Mead suggested that actually it was all done with the symbolic systems we use, because the symbolic system gives us a place to stash the idea of Self while I have a look at it. More recently, Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman proposed a transcendent phenomenology in which we  are self created, yet we still remain at the point of causality, and we acquire our defniition from the milieu of social events and the available roles that we select from them . And if we look back a while Emile Durkheim simply proposed that our nature is part of the "Conscience Collective" and thuis is part of a system of awareness that reflects our specific defiinition back upon us.  In none of these models has anyone been able to locate the "self" as other than a reflexive judgement.

Providing that I am satisfied to be an unknown self, all else can be known. Thus, as you say, my subjective model of my own universe is always a few bricks short.

What we can actually know is abstract information about what is both necessary and sufficient for a world like our to be generated ex nihilo.  This is like saying that the bisector of a parallelogram  creates opposite interior angles equal to a straight angle. This is Not a subjectively participatory awareness of the same type as sensing how you feel about rising gasoline prices. It is purely synthetic, and thus, although it may provide (if carried to the extreme) a valid and complete image, as is said of QM, it is still vicarious, and not direct.

While this type of thinking allows us to describe and speculate, we're still stuck with limited pereption. Using these ideas, if you consider the shape of your own "world space" at the business end of your worldline of manifestation, you'll notice that the historcal past has solidified, much as a crystal coheres, freezing all its relationships into an inert structure. At your sides you are flanked by the immediate conditions of existence, including impulses and tendencies that are sensed as motivating tendencies and forces, like gravity and hunger. In front you have only a sense of incoming data. That side is necessarily undefined because it is perpetually thrust forward into the unknown potential vector mesh of potential relationships and activities not yet realized. That is the subjective-objective interface. It always faces outward, away from you, so you can never get "out of the bag" to have a look at it. That means that we're stuck with syntheses of abstract data.

The yogi solves this by samadhi, becoming one with various levels of this universe, and eventually with the participatory and direct sensation of the "Cosmic Consciousness" (sarvastarka samadhi) which is still a subjective posture. Then the yogi meditates more deeply and reaches the participatory state of nirvastarka samadhi and locates the viewpoint within the nature of the initial creative Oneness, and discoveres that this too is still a subjective perspective. In the end, we are still and forever unable to get past our own subjective being. In fact, the only way out is to create a new universe and look back onto this one, in which case we still are subjectively limited.

The non-yogis actually appear to be destined to pass through the same perigrinations and epiphanies, but in a manner appropriate to their individual lifestyles, and with a degree of awareness limited to their level of spiritual development. To the non-yogi the abolity of the yogi to be in miraculous states seems supernatural and incanny, but that is purely an appearance.

Since nobody can ever get "out of the bag", such speculation is always based on opinion and is of a vicarious nature. According to the late Swami Sivananda, the dedicated yogi typically reaches this conclusion after about 6 months of intensive study. Then, having reached nirvastarka samadhi, the yogi returns to this life and practices being a good guy, or some such thing. Samadhi has only brought a maturity of perception and awareness, but not a view of the "world outside". Rather than creating miracles, samadhi merely points out where to look to find them.

Of course it's fun to play with kundalini, and many Tibetan exercizes mention ways to create and prolong bliss. There's a wonderful Sufi meditation where one enters the chamber of the heart and can bliss out for seemingly hours. The neo-theo-herbalist approach is to take a mind warper and change the location of the seat of awareness, so that new perceptions can be drawn. Then parallax allows analysis when these perceptions are compared to those of the normal state, but it's an external and subjective analysis. Thus these ideas are simply toys.

My fascination is with the topology, a vicarious analysis, of this space, with hopes that I can figure out enough of it to do therapy. It's darn good fun!

dave

Thanks Kathy,

But this post remains a tour de force in good insights from Kyo.  I may have had doubts about Hillarion's channelling, but none about Kyo's beautiful insights and coherent understanding of the universe.  Even Don seems to agree in his own way, that these insights make sense (even if he admits his religious beliefs don't permit him to agree with it).  So I give thanks to Kyo for a beautiful coherent thread with insights and joy.

Sometimes when you encounter a beautiful coherent series of thoughts and statements, it makes one wonder how does our own actions apply to these words?  Do we practice what we preach?  In some ways, without getting to know others from the board on a personal basis, we can't really know; evenso, these posts seem genuine, and like others on the board, sometimes you feel that the words and the person are both loving and genuine.  That is the case, I believe here.

Matthew

Dear Kathy (Lights of Love),

Your posts are always characterized by the beauty of love & wisdom, you're clearly a thoroughly intuitive soul who is aware of the importance of your lightwork in this life and on your contribution to others around you, and I too, thank you for your posts and for your being.


Dear Matthew,

I would like again to say, "Thank you" with a "very much". My gratitude for your sincerity, outspokenness, kind and supportive words, goes beyond personal gratification.

I say this because (for others, eg. some of the readers), the willingness to speak out honestly and intelligently one's opinion on certain matters, will often be of important assistantial value (for others in their own self-learning process) that is usually not directly visible and thus understated.

I say this because (for myself and others in similar roles, as well as for the guides & helprs in general), whilst on the one hand we do not expect, require or hold attachment to any particular outcome, on the other hand because our intention is to assist, and if there are affirmative or positive indications in this regard, such as thanks and appreciation from others, it always goes a long way in giving further support not only in continuing along the successful assistantial path, but indeed to fuel the drive to work even harder, to do more, because of love (from others to self, and from self to others).

I say this because (for yourself, for everyone), the willingness of every individual to experience and exrpress appreciation, gratitude and love, goes a long way in connecting with and helping everyone else. The contribution of each individual through his/her experiences, intentions and thosenes (THOoughts, SENtiments, ENEergie) to the whole, the energetic impact on everyone else both extraphysical and intraphysical, is subject to many interconnective, dynamic, multiplicative and exponential processes, the bottomline being that every moment, every thought, every emotion, every action, every relationship, every life, is a sacred opportunity for the individual, to be respected and cherished.


Thank you, Matthew, and *all*.
Kyo

As an aside Kyo,

How did you choose your screen name for this, if you don't mind my asking?  When I did a google of your name it came up with a comic strip character of a young teen boy with a mop top described as "the ultimate fighter."  If you don't want to answer, please ignore this post.

Matthew
*****************
Hey, Doc...
If Kyo were proclaiming "Jesus is Lord" and spouting traditional 4th-century Roman-cum-Southern Baptist drivel, would you have bothered "putting him on the spot" about his choice of handle..?

B-man

Dave,

You say you can't get out of the bag, so to speak.  Hmmmm....what exactly are you doing with hypnotherapy, but exploring outside of the bag?  When Bruce travels and sees his disk/soul group, isn't that a glimpse outside of the bag?

I do agree that it is hard to see ourselves, other than with sensory data and mirrors.  But the whole nature of our quest are the ineffable defining moments - epiphanies, that let us take a quantum step out of the bag of our present state and, however briefly know the universe.

Matthew

Paranoid Droid-

An example of relative truth is that when I hold up a quarter and proclaim that Heads is showing, you, who see Tails, will disagree from your perspective, but must agree when you consider my viewpoint, which is not the same as yours.

Doc-  One reason that we cannot get out of our subjective state to perceive ourselves objectively is that our perceptions must always be subjective. Hypnosis can strretch the limits of our attention, expand our viewpoint, increase our sensitivity, but it will never give you a direct view of the back of your head, nor can it give a view of the entire universe with yourself included as a resident. To see the entire universe, you have to get outside it, meaning free of all the constraints and alterations of your awareness caused by being here, else you are using flawed means and will get flawed data.

If you were to leave this universe you would lose all means of interaction, whether by touch, sight, smell or whatever, and would be come an isolated solipcist adrift alone, and still unable to have a look at the back of your own head.

In essence this is the Turing problem, that the Turing machine is never able to describe itself.

Although we view ourselves as "objects" we are actually processes supported by the objects through which our nature supports itself by interaction and choice. Without interaction, there is no awareness. That does not mean that we do not have useful information, nor does it mean that we are unable to make choices through exercise of will. What it does mean is that we can see no more than the level of activity shared with others through interaction. Without interaction (as by the impact of reflected photons) we have no means whatsoever of perception, nor of thought.  

Now, let's look at a microphone as it listens to the sounds of a loudspeaker hooked to the same system. The microphone can't really evaluate the nature of the system, because as it begins to interact, all it gets is a squeal. There is no way to reach farther to see the rest. We are in the same situation.

dave

Dave,

I usually agree with you, but I must disagree about being unable to look out of the bag in a few ways.  As you know, objective evidence depends upon the observer.  What we feel is objective and reproducible may change depending on the position and variables of the observer.  There may be then no such thing as ultimate objective evidence.  

We can not see ourselves, but others can evaluate us.  We must talk about our sensory input and commonalities to describe what we say, but that is our nature.  Now, you may say that we can't truly observe outside of the bag, because interacting with each other is part of the observational process.  As you, my friend are fond of saying "BFD."

As spirits, our ultimate nature is pure perception or consciousness, unbound by bodies, egos, etc.  Perhaps defined only by love.  This nature may be appreciated while deep in meditation, or while visiting a forest, or mountain glen, or whatever does it for you (kama sutra, etc).  When one of the first astronauts was orbiting in space (I can't remember who, but he started the Noetic society), he described a feeling like this: his hands were pushing control buttons, but he suddenly felt like he was one with the universe, as if he WAS unified in thought and action with everyone and everything.  This is the epiphany that some like Don may experience in knowing God, and others experience in other ways.

Thus, I think it is a moot point to try to look outside a bag which can't be objectively done.  Objectivity is an illusion.  Subjectivity in terms of pure perception is the highest evolution of our souls.  When achieved, we stop looking for the outside of the bag, because we realize - there is no bag.


Matthew

"So I write this to get a feel from members on the board, what you think;  is truth relative?  Do we all follow our beliefs and have our consciousness make them real for us, or is there a reality out there that is independent of our beliefs?  Is one religion more in tune with that reality?   "


........

"Thus, I think it is a moot point to try to look outside a bag which can't be objectively done.  Objectivity is an illusion.  Subjectivity in terms of pure perception is the highest evolution of our souls.  When achieved, we stop looking for the outside of the bag, because we realize - there is no bag. "
___________


Truth must be an illusion.

Quote:

Thus, I think it is a moot point to try to look outside a bag which can't be objectively done.  Objectivity is an illusion.  Subjectivity in terms of pure perception is the highest evolution of our souls.  When achieved, we stop looking for the outside of the bag, because we realize - there is no bag. Matthew

That's *exactly* how I would have put it, right down to the important last sentence. People get overly caught up with philosophical ideas and debates about "truth", "illusion", "objective" and "subjective".

Really, do any of these really matter? From the perspective of the individual soul, from the perspective of the Cosmos or God? Put in another way, what is it that *really* matters? What is it that we 'should' (ie. would be wiser to) focus our attention on?

The twin goals of existence for all beings, whether human or otherwise, remains as - Evolution (self-growth) and Assistantiality (helping others). It is intuitively obvious that these are certainly not separate goals, but are twin faces of the same coin - the coin of Oneness which recognizes self = others.

This twin-goal of existence, is summed up by the million dollar question which is invariably posed in some manner to every individual after his/her lifetime is over - "What have you learnt, and who have you helped?"

This is the verily the purpose of the existential program (ie. the planned objectives for every incarnated human lifetime, the purpose of one's life), which is worked out collaboratively by one's own soul or higher self, one's guides & helpers, and one's evolutionary orientor and other evolutionologists on the council of elders), whilst differing in details or specifics for every different individual, always revolves around the most productive, feasible and probable paths by which the individual may explore and achieve the maximum level of the twin goals of existence - that of Evolution (of self) and of Assistantiality (for others).


By far the most useful, helpful and productive consciential system by which to approach the spiritual, the philosophical, the metaphysical and the existential, and which is a recommended option for anyone asking themselves "How do I put all of these metaphysical principles into action in my life?", is the work of the International Academy of Consciousness (IAC) :

Click HERE to visit my webpage on the IAC;

or

Click HERE to visit the official website of the IAC.


In addition,  regarding the Hilarion Reading and channelings. It is easy to be suspicious of fraudulence whenever $$$ is involved. But do bear in mind that Jon C Fox is a full time engineer by profession, not a full time professional channeler, and if no nominal fee was required, there would be rampant abuse of this service, and a waste of his personal time.

And as to the validity of the Hilarion entity and channelings, after all that's hypothesized and argued, the bottomline is what you gain out of it, out of the Hilarion channelings, out of the personal Hilarion Reading. And to this, the results speak for themselves, for every individual who has read his channelings, or done the Reading. I've personally facilitated (as middleman for other people, the iteration of questions, the interpretation of Hilarion's words) over a dozen Hilarion Readings, and the relevance, accuracy, wisdom, clarity and quality of Hilarion's words has always been outstanding.

Check out the words of the  Quarterly Hilarion Channelings, and decide if you might ever want a Personal Hilarion Reading done for yourself.


Lastly, regardless of whether you might have resonated with your perception of the International Academy of Consciousness and with Hilarion, the work of Byron Katie, is strongly recommended for *everyone* :

http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/main.htm#ByronKatie

In my opinion, there is no other single work or book, that is as important (nay, vital!) for every individual on the planet to have and to learn, than the incredibly simple yet indescribably enlightening work (a quantum leap in karmic evolution, no less) that Byron Katie has given unto humanity.

OK Doc- I think Kyo put it pretty well that it's a question of emphasis. Obviously a useful insight. The three major emphases here seem to be on living well (Kyo's suggestion) or competent  subjective knowledge (Doc) or limitations of knowledge (Me).

With respect to subjective awareness, what we have is either second hand data, reflections in our surround, or the limited range of sense data and our flawed ability for interpretation, which is wholly dependent upon experience. Even if we go into the deepest trance and locate ourselves at the center of all creativity, we are still looking outward and interpreting.

Perhaps this is a matter in which it makes no pragmatic difference (with which I would concur), but in terms of ultimate objectivity, I'm inclined to argue that we can get no farther than our dreams of how things might be, because we lack direct awareness. This is not a question of utility (as for Kyo) nor for "adequate undrerstanding" by subjective interpretation, in which our subjective role as an unexplained variable has no significant meaning.

As you mentioned previously, Doc, our ideas always are a little bit incomplete. We are denied ultimate understanding because we are denied ultimate perception. (This also goes back to Heisenberg's early ideas of limited accuracy due to interference of the knower and the known.) This level of "un-knowing" due to necessary subjectivity forces us to synthesize reality from sense data.

At this point we have two choices. Science takes abstract concepts (geometry and math etc) and posits similes with experiences, then tests to see whether that makes sense. If we can explain 20-30% of the variance at alpha equals .05 we say that we have learned something. "Observations of conditions XYZ correlate with observations of ABC," which is about as good as it gets for perceptions. This gives a statistical approximation to reality, and not a factual observation.  We cobble these statistics together and we have a sort of reflex plenum within which lies the actual manifold of reality.

The other alternative is that I advocate "go there and look", and in the same way, I go deeply into samadhi, perceive a lot of exotic looking stuff, and I find that my observations of PDQ seem to correlate with experiences of LMN, at least some of the time. I then dream up an image to grasp this in a way that makes sense (to me) with my other percepts. I'm still working on the subjectively defined plenum, not the actual manifold.

This is kinda where the idea of multiple streams of truth seem to point. Like a little hedgehog, bristling with alternative interpretations, all the little estimations point inward to converge on the actuality of a Truth. Yet we can never quite reach it. BFD? Sort of depends, doesn't it?

d

Dave,

Your point is well taken, but I'm not sure where to go with it.  Still you are right the last posts from you, Kyo and myself bring up these complementary streams of thought.

I'd like to move on now in this thread of moral relativism to discuss right action.  What Kyo has labeled cosmoethical action.  When is it necessary to fight for a cause in the physical world?  For those of you who don't know, the Bagavad Gita is an ancient text about the warrior Arjuna, who is about to start a mighty battle.  He looks down at the hordes of his kinsman, and realizes at all the death and carnage that is about to occur, and the grief.  

The god Krishna comes down to him, just as Arjuna is losing heart, and urges him to fight.  The Gita is a dialogue between the lord krishna and Arjuna about the meaning of existence, and the reason Arjuna should fight for his earthly cause.  Many metaphysical concepts are discussed here, and it is worth a read in the English translation.  

World War II was often seen as a war against evil, as the Nazis had exterminated millions and were killing and expanding at an alarming rate.  At the time, it was questioned, how could so many people allow themselves to be exterminated in the gas chambers?  Should they have fought more against the Nazis?

If truth is relative, when are we compelled to fight, and possibly injure or kill another human being?  Of course there are only a few possible answers: never, in defense of life, or for a just cause.  

If you, Kyo were alive during the Nazi regime, would you have taken up arms?  Why or why not?  If I saw that type of injustice or a beating, murder or other brutality going on, I would like to think that I would jump in, and do my best to stop it.  This despite my knowledge that we may all be one, and that there may be no absolute good or evil.

What say you?

Matthew

 Good questions Matthew...  I would agree with the Bhagavad Gita, that its the inner intent, motivation, etc. of the individual and collective consciousness which matters more than the actual physical act...

Physical acts in and of themselves seem to mean little, and isn't what initiates karma.  

 Some cases, you may need to fight, to defend, and if you can do this without anger, without hate, selfishness, or negativity within, then it can be a positive thing...

 But its also relative, and depends on the ideals of the individual and society as a whole, which determines it right action or not.

 For Buddhists Monks in Tibet, it was right for them not to physically fight back, though say if it was a group of Christian and Jewish Americans for example who were being slaughtered, then if they fought, but without the negativity within, then maybe it would have not created negative karma either?

 

Quote:

If truth is relative, when are we compelled to fight, and possibly injure or kill another human being?  Of course there are only a few possible answers: never, in defense of life, or for a just cause.  If you, Kyo were alive during the Nazi regime, would you have taken up arms?  Why or why not?  If I saw that type of injustice or a beating, murder or other brutality going on, I would like to think that I would jump in, and do my best to stop it.  This despite my knowledge that we may all be one, and that there may be no absolute good or evil. What say you? Matthew

Why do you say "despite"? Shouldn't it be "because"? Remember that CosmoEthics takes into consideration ALL beings involved, and in cases of widespread genocide, it is rather obvious which is the cosmoethical side and which is the anti-cosmoethical side.

At the individual level, we can never know for sure what is the single highest cosmoethical action (if there is indeed one; usually there are multiple alternative direcitons of potentially equal value, but depending on future choices for each pathway), but what each individual can do, is to carry out the pathway to which in his awareness, or to the best of his understanding, says that's indeed the cosmoethical direction to take.

The more evolved a being is, the greater the clarity of cosmoethics, and the closer he/she gets to 'true cosmoethics' or theoretical single most cosmoethical action to take in any given scenario. Which is arguably both objective and subjective, because the ultimate 'true cosmoethics' would be closest to, and in that sense dependent on or subjected to the free-will perspectives and views of the highest, most intelligent, most wise, most evolved beings or consciousnesses in the Cosmos. And speaking of this theoretical level of existence, there isn't any end. It's a fact that all beings have their guides & helpers who have their guides & helpers, ad infinitum. Evolution is endless.

So on a pragmatic level of usefulness, of individual self-responsibility, we do think it useful to bother with technicalities of objectivity/subjectivity, rather, it is vital that each and every individual does his/her best to do what's cosmoethical, to the best of his ability.

"But if each physical incarnate individual's understanding of what's cosmoethical in any given situation is so damned myopic, then what's the point of even trying?"

The very point (if he is to evolve), is that the individual does try his best. And moreover (here's the best part), the relationship of every intraphysical incarnate individual to his/her guides & helpers, as well as to all higher guides & helpers in general, is always that of a collegial partnership. So as long as the intraphysical individual is willing to make the conscious effort to work with the guides & helpers, it will be a productive enterprise in which we have, on the one hand, the greater cosmoethical wisdom of the extraphysical guides & helpers, and on the other hand, the physical opportunities on the part of the intraphysical incarnate individual, and combined, a lot can be done in what is surely the positive cosmoethical direction.

This is not just mere conjecture, the (specialized) extraphysical guides & helpers are always monitoring all situations meticulously, with the assistance of advanced extraphysical supercomputers to calculate all possible or probable pathways, and to access the cosmoethical value of each.


Finally, to address your hyopethical scenario question more directly but briefly :


Quote:

If you, Kyo were alive during the Nazi regime, would you have taken up arms?  Why or why not?

If I were indeed present, it would of course depend on my role in that situation. That is to say, as in a hollywood production script, many karmic roles are indeed 'scripted', but it's a dynamic script with the inclusion of free will. For instance, before a lifetime, the souls for some of the roles might carry out a rehearsal, including the ones in opposing militaries, for scenarios in which they would be guided to a planned confrontation with each other, with various possible choices for each individual.

The Germans of course had their share of advanced souls, whom for many were 'tested' or rather given opportunities in which they had to demonstrate the strength of their will, compassion and cosmoethical courage, by either secretly helping those persecuted by the Nazi's, or in various other ways.

Assuming I was a member of the Allied nations against the Nazis, would I have taken up arms against them? The answer would depend on the individual I was incarnated as, his role and opportunities. But the simple answer would be (assuming no other particular pre-planned role for that incarnation), if there was no other way or opportunity in sight to assist the cosmoethics of the situation in a non-violent way (ie. peaceful means or support for the ending an anticosmoethical regime), then the taking up of arms and utilization of violence, would indeed be a cosmoethical step and the karma of the violence (there will be karma for everything, every thought, emotion, action; this is unaviodable), would be mitigated and modified; different from the same amount of violence carried out by say, the Nazi commanders, because the intention was totally different. And for the Nazi commanders vs the ground soldiers, again slightly different. But this process of karma is natural and automatic and not judged.


Matthew, Dave. Back to you.

(We all understand each other's "three major emphases" or "complementary streams of thought". So here on, it's clearly only a matter of further elucidation from the perspectives of the three emphases, and not debatorial. That is good.)


Kyo

Hi Kyo,

I have a question based on your last post.  Actually I’m trying to understand these concepts in terms of consciousness and would appreciate your input.  

I view consciousness as an evolutionary feedback type of process in which consciousness is continually choosing from among the possibilities within consciousness itself (individual / guidance / higher sources, etc.)
I agree there is karma for everything as you mentioned.  I see cause and effect as the feedback process of consciousness where consciousness is continually and automatically grasping itself (the love aspect or cosmoethical aspect or intelligence aspect of like attracts like) to give meaning to itself as evolution or expansion occurs.  Or in other words, consciousness automatically seeks to fulfill itself and therefore karma in all instances is incurred yet is judged only within consciousness itself.  

Well… this sounds like a lot of consciousness.   ::)

Hope I’m making some sense.

Kathy

Hi Kathy,


Quote:

I have a question...

You do? There doesn't seem to be one. Thus, instead of replying any question, I will simply make comments, which may or may not have any relevance to whatever it is you're meditating on.



Quote:

Consciousness automatically seeks to fulfill itself and therefore karma in all instances is incurred yet is judged only within consciousness itself.

Karma is a simple yet complex matter. The aspect in which karma is "judged within consciousness", is not separate from the other aspects of karma which may be seen to be 'objective', or the aspect of karma that has to do with the consequences upon others or the universe.

The aspect of karma in which it is in all instances incurred, can be understood simply as - all actions naturally have consequences, no matter how small or large, no matter how direct or indirect. This is one aspect of karma.

The actions of the individual and their consequences, are evaluated or "judged within consciousness", in terms of what the soul or consciousness seeks for itself (ie. in terms of evolution and assistantiality). Thereafter (as a result of the evaluation by the consciousness), there are consequences, which may be understood as, "Ok, so now I understand more clearly the consequences of my actions on others. Now I understand what it is I wish to explore deeper, that I would like to experience certain situations that give me the opportunities to change certain habit patterns, and so on, in order to be clearer, more loving, be more towards what I truly wish, for myself, for the universe. So this is what I've learn, this is what I still need to learn, and this is what I'm gonna do...")

And then, there is karma in terms of re-action, that is, repeated habit patterns. This is the aspect of karma which keeps many people, particuarly those who have not yet understood or realized the importance of awareness and effort to increase and maintain their levels of consciential lucity and clarity (ie. see the work of Byron Katie), trapped in repeating scenarios of suffering lifetime after lifetime.

For instance, the husband who leaves the tearful wife to go to war only to die on the battlefield. The conflicting feelings of frustration, of abandonment, of duty to brotherhood, of tragedy, of sorrow, of regret, etc. All of these create karma on many levels, including the karma of repeating habit patterns that result in a similar scenario occuring lifetime after lifetime, which is not a punishment ordained by any higher power, but is really a self-causing and self-imposed habit pattern that automatically attracts such situations or scenarios, and within which always holds the solution, the key, the opportunity for the individuals involved, to learn the lessons involved, to see clearly the situation (ie. from viewpoint of love and the Law of Reflection, not from fear and ego; see work of Byron Katie), and thus to break out of the limiting habit patterns that cause the (otherwise) endless suffering.


For those wishing to study the nature of Karma further :
http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/WayOfKarma/index.htm

Thank you Kyo.  I guess my question didn’t get copied from my Word doc.

Would it be fair to say or think of our essence / energy as consciousness that is continually in movement and that the nature of consciousness is intelligence (love in human understanding) that is continually projecting itself outward towards its attraction, yet at the same time… possibly at higher levels is also continually grasping itself back to that which is its original likeness (love) and also is there some sense of both order and also chaos in all of this?

Matthew, I also apologize if I’m taking your thread too far off track, but I know you are interested in these concepts, too.

Kathy

Hi again Kathy,


Quote:

Would it be fair to say or think of our essence / energy as consciousness that is continually in movement and that the nature of consciousness is intelligence (love in human understanding) that is continually projecting itself outward towards its attraction, yet at the same time… possibly at higher levels is also continually grasping itself back to that which is its original likeness (love) and also is there some sense of both order and also chaos in all of this?

It would be interesting if you posed this question to Hilarion; but it'll probably have to be in a personal Reading rather than a generic Quarterly Channeling (ie. Spring Equinox, Summer Solstic, Fall Equionix, Winter Solstice), as the abstract and rather philosophical nature of your question might not be seen as being the most relevant to the concerns of most people.

My comments, which again may not be what you're seeking, in large part because what you're speaking of, goes beyond the available terminology (eg.  you implied essence = energy = consciousness = intelligence = love; hence you appear to be speaking of concepts that these words do not quite precisely refer to, at least from our usage of these words).

The relationship between consciousness and energy/matter is an inseparable, intimate one. Immanent or impersonal, universalistic energy, is modified, transformed and expressed by consciousness, into Consciential, personal, thosenic (thoughts & emotions) energy.

So are we consciousnesses, or are we energy? Ans : We are consciousnesses whose very function manifests as energy. Somewhat analogous to the relationship of Creator & Creation, Soul & Body, Yin & Yang.



Quote:

the nature of consciousness is intelligence (love in human understanding)

From our perspective - The nature of consciousness is to be (beingness), and then to do (doingness). Intelligence is an aspect, function, attribute, or extension of the consciousness, which manifests or takes the form of the mental body, mentalsoma, or mind. Love is the Oneness of All Beings, and in terms of true lovingness from the human perspective, the unconditional acceptance of what is, through the understanding of compassion.

From here, it is apparent, that you (Kathy), are referring to or dealing with concepts that are not exactly synonymous with our ideas whilst using the same terminology.



Quote:

nature of consciousness is intelligence that is continually projecting itself outward towards its attraction, yet at the same time… possibly at higher levels is also continually grasping itself back to that which is its original likeness (love) and also is there some sense of both order and also chaos in all of this?

The Law of Manifestation, the Law of Reflection, the Law of Karma, and the Law of Progress and the Law of Cycles feature prominently here (of course, from a meticulous wholistic view, all 12 Laws feature simultaneously, omnisciently and omnipresently in all aspects of existence).

When you intuitively said, "at higher levels", what you're recognizing, is the Law of Cycles in conjunction with the Law of Progress. That is to say, by consciouness "projecting itself outwards" (Law of Manifestation), of consciousness manifesting itself into energy/matter and various planes of existence, in which the "attraction" you speak of refers its intent to explore itself by manifesting, by going into doingness (Law of Karma), and evolving (Law of Progress) by reflecting (Law of Reflection) from its sojourns it's learnings and insights on its true nature.

After the complete balancing of karma (Law of Karma) on any given aspect of its being, the Law of Cycles dictates that in coming full circle back to origin, there will be a gain or progress in evolutionary terms (Law of Progress), which is what you referred to in "at higher levels is also continually grasping itself back to that which is its original likeness".

So it's not so much that the consciousness grasps back in, but rather that as it balances itself (it's energetic and existential extensions) back full circle at the end of a cycle, it gains permanently in Evolution or progress, thus directly contributing to it's Greater Total Self, or what some call God, The Whole, or The Cosmos.

This is important to appreciate, because otherwise, there would have been no point for it's "outward projection" or manifestation into various planes of existence in the first place, now would there?

As to Order and Chaos, they are inseparable, complementary existential aspects of each other, so whenever one is present, so the other will be. Much like Consciousness & Energy/Matter, Masculine & Feminine, Yin & Yang, Oxidation & Reduction.

Kathy, a personal comment here. From observations of your previous postings, your blog postings, and the nature of your questions here, the overall feel of your energies, it is more than probable that your soul origin, nature, history and purpose, is rather specialized or particular.

If you ever do a Hilarion Reading, I would indeed be interested to hear what he might have to say with regards to your soul's origin, nature and purpose. For instance, your work on Atlantis or during the Atlantean period, the world or planet you were originally from another prior to Earth; the specific nature of some of your non-human guides & helpers; your soul connection to various other-dimensional energies and so on.

Quote:

It would be interesting if you posed this question to Hilarion; but it'll probably have to be in a personal Reading rather than a generic Quarterly Channeling (ie. Spring Equinox, Summer Solstic, Fall Equionix, Winter Solstice), as the abstract and rather philosophical nature of your question might not be seen as being the most relevant to the concerns of most people.   My comments, which again may not be what you're seeking, in large part because what you're speaking of, goes beyond the available terminology (eg.  you implied essence = energy = consciousness = intelligence = love; hence you appear to be speaking of concepts that these words do not quite precisely refer to, at least from our usage of these words).

Yes, it would be interesting to hear what Hilarion may have to say in answer to this question.  I do feel that it may be relevant and helpful to many in some ways.  For example, as evolutionary thought and understanding of our world continues to shift, it may be helpful to consider Consciousness as God = Love = Oneness.  I agree that this concept is probably beyond our current most popular paradigms.  Yet somehow I also feel it is important to find words to express these ideas from a cosmoethical standpoint.  (I like that word, too, Kyo.) :-)


Quote:

The relationship between consciousness and energy/matter is an inseparable, intimate one. Immanent or impersonal, universalistic energy, is modified, transformed and expressed by consciousness, into Consciential, personal, thosenic (thoughts & emotions) energy.     So are we consciousnesses, or are we energy? Ans : We are consciousnesses whose very function manifests as energy. Somewhat analogous to the relationship of Creator & Creation, Soul & Body, Yin & Yang.

Is this to say that consciousness is in its original state has / is substance? Movement?  I agree that all substance contains / is consciousness, which is what I think you’re saying.  I think what I’m trying to do is define consciousness itself better in its original state.  Perhaps I’m asking for that which is difficult for us to conceive of or describe in human terms or maybe I’m not clear on what I’m seeking.  lol :-)


Quote:

The Law of Manifestation, the Law of Reflection, the Law of Karma, and the Law of Progress and the Law of Cycles feature prominently here (of course, from a meticulous holistic view, all 12 Laws feature simultaneously, omnisciently and omnipresently in all aspects of existence). When you intuitively said, "at higher levels", what you're recognizing, is the Law of Cycles in conjunction with the Law of Progress. That is to say, by consciousness "projecting itself outwards" (Law of Manifestation), of consciousness manifesting itself into energy/matter and various planes of existence, in which the "attraction" you speak of refers its intent to explore itself by manifesting, by going into doingness (Law of Karma), and evolving (Law of Progress) by reflecting (Law of Reflection) from its sojourns it's learnings and insights on its true nature.

I like the way you describe this Kyo… especially “its intent to explore itself…”  So intention is also an aspect of consciousness?  For example let me take my understanding of intention a little further and say; an apple seed has the conscious intent to grow into an apple tree and not a peach tree.  And in effect when we humans genetically alter DNA we change the conscious intent and produce a hybrid.  This makes a lot of sense especially in regards to another post of yours that mentions the genetic manipulation of man toward fear and ego.  Clearly we have been playing around with the manipulation of DNA for a very long time.  Which leads me to ask, have we also created consciousness?  I guess at this point I would say yes. And then ask; is there even such a thing as an “original” state of consciousness?      


Quote:

After the complete balancing of karma (Law of Karma) on any given aspect of its being, the Law of Cycles dictates that in coming full circle back to origin, there will be a gain or progress in evolutionary terms (Law of Progress), which is what you referred to in "at higher levels is also continually grasping itself back to that which is its original likeness".

And now my question is back to; what is the original likeness of consciousness?  Haha!  I seem to be confusing myself here, now don’t I?  At least for now I would say, that there is a huge background of energy filled with and not separated from consciousness that is the ground of all being. (God) And that this energy / consciousness is one whole and unbroken movement in which new wholes such as mankind and all other universes are immerging in which consciousness itself is enfolding and unfolding in a continual feedback process where one moment gives rise to the next moment.  But perhaps this original state of consciousness, if it ever did exist, no longer exists because of evolution.  

Anyway, this is something I have been pondering for a while now and there may not be any clear answer or it just occured to me that perhaps the clear answer may be found in the law of attraction… Consciousness is oneness, which was / is its original state and therefore through the feedback (balancing process) its likeness is oneness, and therefore it is continually grasping or attracting perhaps is a better word (its scattered consciousness’?) back to itself as it unfolds.


Quote:

Kathy, a personal comment here. From observations of your previous postings, your blog postings, and the nature of your questions here, the overall feel of your energies, it is more than probable that your soul origin, nature, history and purpose, is rather specialized or particular. If you ever do a Hilarion Reading, I would indeed be interested to hear what he might have to say with regards to your soul's origin, nature and purpose. For instance, your work on Atlantis or during the Atlantean period, the world or planet you were originally from another prior to Earth; the specific nature of some of your non-human guides & helpers; your soul connection to various other-dimensional energies and so on.

Ah yes, this would be interesting I’m sure. It is enough for me to know that I have been blessed, so that I may be a blessing unto the world… just as each of us is in this together, as one.  To me our combined purpose of being here at this particular time is to dissolve fear and in this we each have been blessed in our own individual way, so that we may be a blessing and bring about the salvation that is within us all.

Kathy

One thing I find interesting about this forum is that some people need to think of an afterlife, and be awed by that possibility and not realize that everything on this forum revolves around consciousness, awareness, and perception.

I rarely talk of various levels of heavens and hells in my posts, except to reference maps others have drawn.  Why, you ask?  Because they are, by their very nature arbitrary and beside the point.  Our conscious awareness creates our past/present and future.  If anyone is stuck either earthbound or in a type of hell, it is self-created.  If we can transcend our egos, and focus on our nature as beings of perception (and yes, love), everything else seems moot.

This is why, Kathy you are exploring the original likeness of consciousness.  You are aware of your own nature, and now are going back to the unity and whole to get more answers.  Some may be unavailable to us while incarnate.

This thread, I believe is important because it takes for granted that we are conscious beings, and then gets back to the real world issues.  What is good/evil.  What is right action/wrong action (I was hoping I'd get more replies on that one).  

Some may read this thread and get dizzy, and say "its all intellectual masturbation and talk."  I would disagree.  These issues cut to the heart of our true nature.

Matthew

Doc M said "... everything on this forum revolves around consciousness, awareness, and perception."
I still need the word reminder of "intent" too.

Within my capability I've come to believe that the problem of good/evil is dealt with by setting intent to do no evil--- a morning prayer/affirmation that all I do today cause no harm and be for the good. With my intent so set, I can face daily choices. Or I can't, and then I ask again, for guidance to cause no harm. (or I forget to set my intent---but I'm trying.) OK, so it's all relative to the universal scheme of things, but I still get to set my role in it to the extent I can. What more can we do?

I come to your discussions prewired with alot of misgivings, and when I hear you all talking things out, my errors are gradually replaced by your explanations. Sometimes I can feel the changes happen.  If you all had not spoken so well, and extensively, I /the reader would miss those opportunities for clarification.  Thank you!
bets

Bets,

You are absolutely right.  Intention is key and crucial.  It means direction, and it gives meaning to perception.  

I like your morning prayer.  I may incorporate it into my own scheme.

M

Quote:

This thread, I believe is important because it takes for granted that we are conscious beings, and then gets back to the real world issues.  What is good/evil.  What is right action/wrong action (I was hoping I'd get more replies on that one).

Hi Matthew,

Let me try to get your thread back on track now.

I would say that over the years I have come to think of right action/wrong action as something that is not separate.  Instead I think of these as 'appropriate' action.

I think consciousness; both individual and collective has a sense of appropriateness built into it.  I mentioned earlier that as collective consciousness evolves it seems to become more and more personalized because of the continual feedback in that each of us adds to the meaning of morality with our own individual conscious understanding of this as we experience life.  So perhaps this is how collective consciousness developed appropriateness over the centuries.  As wars were fought, lives lost, pain and suffering experienced and so on consciousness was able to develop this *higher* sense of appropriateness which has added strength energetically.

The reason I say this is because it seems to me that as people become more aware of their true nature, they also seem to be attracted to appropriate behavior.  Appropriate behavior in very simple terms is to not cause harm.  Take anger for example.  Each of us becomes angry from time to time and as humans we need to express our emotions.  We cause ourselves dis-ease when don’t express them, so expressing anger is appropriate behavior.  There are also ways to express anger and not cause harm to another’s emotional stability and as a soul evolves he / she begins to act in ways that are appropriate in that they express anger without causing harm.  

The more aware we become of our true nature, the more we will automatically act with appropriateness because we will have an affinity with appropriateness.

Kathy

This has developed into quite an interesting and broad overview of a lot of related things that hadn't occurred to me when Imentioned morl relativism initially.  Thanks for the stimulating thoughts.

My thinking about propriety is equally relative. The Allies went into battle singing Onward Christian Soldiers, or some such thing, and the Germans went into batle singing Gott Mit Uns.  The Muslim shouts Allahu Akhbar before going Bang for the sake of property rights.

Taking the issue outside of its emotionally loaded context, we have intenton based on available knowledge, and we have the actual results, unavailable until after the fact. This seems to lead to four general cases.

First, to my thinking, the discovery that my efforts at being helpful have caused discomfort to others will generally cause me to revise my activities. I will suffer because I care about others, and to the degree that I love them (meaning, in this case, to the degree to which I share their world empathetically) I will feel pain. This kind of thing seems to be the source of the sorrow people feel when their bodies fall off and they realize that their lifespan has generally screwed up the world for lots of other folks. We feel sorrow because we love and sense our actions to be inferior of our own motives.

Second, to discover that my efforts to cause pain have actually been helpful is potentially an opportunity to feel good because I was unsuccessful.  Again, the reference is love,  and the ability to sense that in spite of failure to cause harm, I was spared the pain of having to deal with empathetic involvement in the pain of those whom I might have harmed.

The third case is the effort to do good, and its attainment. Trivial. Whoopee.

The fourth instance is trying to do harm and succeeding. Until my mind is altered, the usual result is that this sets me apart from others, and forces  me into a new life in which I get to further express my negativity. However, it seems that such lives primarily occur in social conditions that are quite negative, so that I fit in with my own attitude. Thus, I cling to creation of pain and find that I am creating it also for myself.

A variation on the fourth case as well as the second, is retention of the effort to cause pain. This will act negatively on me, and I will tend to choose a rebirth in a place in which my feelings are commonplace. In many cases, experience teaches that we also tend to bring emotional and physical problems into the world as a result. Fortunately, shamanic interventions, such as past life work, meditation, and insight, tend to mediate, so that we can improve, and get rid of the plagues to which our negativity has attached us.

It seems, at least from my perspective, that morality is a very simple matter. We do what we can, and we struggle to perpetually do better, and to avoid harm to others. A very much more concise summary is by Nisargadatta Maharaj, "Don't cheat. Don't hurt." All the rest is discussion.

dave