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

Quote:


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:


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:


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


Quote:


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:


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:


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:


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

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

Quote:


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:


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:


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.

Quote:


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:


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.

Quote:



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.

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote: