Religion, Morality, CosmoEthics, Reality, Truth.

[Kyo Kusanagi]

From the Afterlife Knowledge Forum *here*.

DocM wrote :

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

I replied :

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.

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.

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'".

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.

is truth relative?

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.

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').

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.

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.



Kathy wrote (in reply to DocM) :

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

(I remarked) Most eloquent, succinct and lovingly expressed.

[A Souls Fury]

Nice Post.. gonna have to read it again..

[CFTraveler]

I second that.  It is the most coherent post about metaphysical 'truths' that I have read in a long time.

[Kyo Kusanagi]

For those interested in the subject matter at hand (Truth - objective vs subjective; the nature of God; relationship between Creator and Creation; the laws of karma and reflection; morality vs cosmoethics, right-wrong vs cosmoethics; dogmatic religion vs new age; etc), the original discussion thread on Afterlife Knowledge Forum grew rather unexpectedly by considerable spurts, primarily because many others made posts on the thread with questions that rather appropriately sought response.

Rather than inappropriately spamming this forum here by repeating all the posts in that thread, those interested can view all the posts at their leisure and convenience from the following url :

http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=afterlife_knowledge;action=display;num=1139591891;start=0#0