From Aug. 31, 2011.
A reader asks why we seem to have to “earn” our way back to something that is rightfully ours – the Fifth Dimension? To suggest we need to earn a place in heaven sounds like just more religion. If 3D is for the Creator to experience things, then there must be no good or bad.
You’re asking a very interesting question. May I comment please?
It appears, from the testimony of the saints and sages of many eras (Al-Ghazzali, Rumi, Sri Ramakrishna, Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov, Krishna, etc.) that God had a purpose in designing life, followed a Plan, and built in design features and elements, all to achieve that purpose.
We can object to being part of a pre-conceived drama, serving God’s purpose. We can say that we don’t want to be a sock-puppet or a shadow-dancer. But when we learn what that purpose is, what that Plan is, almost anyone who fully understands it drops his or her objections immediately and wants to sign up right away. Said Krishnamurti:
“The really important thing is … the knowledge of God’s plan for men. For God has a plan, and that plan is evolution. When once a man has seen that and really knows it, he cannot help working for it and making himself one with it, because it is so glorious, so beautiful.” (1)
I’ve actually had a brief glimpse of that Plan (2) and it so excited me that I researched for twenty years after trying to put words to it. (3) I can vouch for what Krishnamurti says here that, when once a person sees that Plan and really knows it, he or she cannot help working for it for the rest of his life because it is so glorious.
I’ve discussed that Plan and purpose so many times that I don’t want to review it here. At last I have said it enough times that I don’t feel a need to repeat it. I’m posting a chapter by chapter discussion of it at present on 2012S.
What’s more to the point is that there actually are, if you observe closely, preferred lines of conduct to line up with that purpose/Plan and not-preferred lines of conduct.
To put that another way, we don’t have to “earn” our way back to mergence in God. But God did design the world, I’m persuaded, so that certain lines of conduct would be preferable to achieve the divinely-ordained and divinely-desired result.
Loving everyone without condition is a preferred line of conduct. Hating everyone is a not-preferred line of conduct. If we follow the latter line, natural laws are in place to feed us back the information we need to perhaps change our minds. We don’t have to change our minds but when we get enough hatred coming back at us, we usually do.
Why is any of it important? Because the game of life, the drama of life, was created so that God could know God. And to know God, it appears, we must be like God. And how is God? Apparently all love, all kindness, all compassion, all peace, all equanimity, all inclusiveness.
So therefore to know God, it seems, we also need to be all love, all kindness, etc. We don’t get to vote on that, apparently. That much is already laid down and non-negotiable. Many people have trouble, it appears, accepting that this may be the case. (And I could be wrong.)
At the highest or absolute level, if my understanding is correct, there is no good or evil. At this relative level where you and I exist, there is good and evil. If we attain that highest level of enlightenment, good and evil will be gone.
But so long as things are real, and hunger is real, and people suffer and feel their suffering, so long can it be said, if I’m correct in what I say, that good and evil exist.
So the answer to your question might be: “It depends.”
It depends on where your consciousness functions whether there is good and evil or not.
You’re not talking nonsense [the reader asked if this was the case]. What you’re not doing is distinguishing between levels of reality on which what you say applies and levels of reality on which what you say doesn’t apply. That’s all. Most people also collapse the domains of reality and wonder why what applies on the absolute does not apply on the relative plane.
The answer is that, if we find our consciousness active on the relative plane, rather than the absolute, then we have not yet recast ourselves completely and perfectly in the manner in which God is. If we had, we’d exist on the absolute plane. And as long as we haven’t, different “rules” and conclusions may apply.
That does not mean that the absolute is broke or the relative is bad. It simply means that each has its own character, properties, rules of the road, etc.
That’s my take. I may be right; I may be wrong.
(1) J. Krishnamurti, At the Feet of the Master. Adyar: Theosophical Publishing House, 1974; c1910., 17.
(3) two books are my report on what I saw that day: From Darkness Unto Light, at http://www.angelfire.com/space2/light11/fdl/index100.html and The Purpose of Life is Enlightenment, which starts at http://goldenageofgaia.com/16244-2/the-purpose-of-life-is-enlightenment/ch-1-introduction/