In our essays we have placed consciousness at source-point, always. We have said that every experience is a result of some conscious decision, and that the universe is designed to support free will.

I was thinking about actions and their consequences the other day, and that led me to ethics.

I watched “Family Man” last night, with Nicolas Cage. A girl handed the cashier $1 for a small item and he returned change for $10. The cashier (who was really an angel or something) was talking to Cage at the time, but twice subtly reminded the girl she was being dishonest if she took the money.

The girl eventually did take the extra money and the angel (played by Don Cheadle) said, “You see, I tried. It's that sort of thing that gets the world into trouble.” Cheadle was saying, essentially, “There's only so much to go around and if you take extra from this poor shopkeeper, he will have less. And if everyone else does it, more and more poverty will be created.”

However, as we have remarked before, poverty is created from a consciousness of scarcity, not the other way around. From the standpoint of universal law, the girl who received extra could not have done so unless she was resonating to it.

Now we have to ask, is the girl wrong for accepting extra, knowing that she is shorting someone else? Wouldn't it feel better (and be the greatest good) for her to reconcile fairly with the cashier? After all, to profit at the expense of another may just spread more bad vibes in the world.

Let's look at what could happen as a result.

 

(1) The girl, being in an attitude of abundance, cheerfully accepts the extra money. She is so happy she accepts her good fortune as a child accepts a gift. Later in the day, the shopkeeper realizes his error but says to himself ‘no big deal. It’s Christmas, and I’ll make it up and more tomorrow with some big sales.’

If a child were given something he loved he would accept, even if it were stolen. “Yes,” you say, “but the child doesn't know any better. He is ignorant of the tainted origins of the gift.”

The child doesn't know what tainted or stolen means. “Stolen” has as its root the idea that one can be deprived of something. The child, being connected to source, only knows the truth: the universe is abundant and can supply the needs of everyone. Deprivation, shortage, and scarcity are learned concepts that man has chosen to create in our world.  These ideas are so accepted in the mass consciousness that we have devised much of our ethics and morals around them. But these ideas are in opposition to the flow of universal energy, which is always toward expansion, joy, and prosperity for all.

When the gift is taken from the child and returned to its rightful owner, the child is very upset!

We say, “Well, the child will learn that we are playing a game and there are rules to be followed that make it possible for society to function in an orderly fashion.”

But the child says, “Wait a minute, you don't get it.  I am here to show you that the universe is an abundant place in which all can have what is desired!”

“But you can't have everything you want.”

“Yes I can!”

“If you take more than your fair share you will deprive someone else.”

“No I won't!!” the child says. “That is what I am here to tell you!”

What happens on earth is that the child is (usually) conceptually beaten into submission and incorporates the scarcity memes into his thinking. Now he or she is conforming to the common reality, which makes it easy for him to fit in.

The Japanese have a saying: “The nail that sticks out will be hammered down.” Humans tend to be almost lemming-like in their desire to go along with the crowd. This stems, I think, from a divine impulse toward harmony and cooperation, but it has resulted in the belief in not-enough.

Is it wrong for the girl to take the extra change?

Only if you believe in scarcity.

“Yes,” you say, “But the fact is that the shopkeeper is shorted.  He may have to make 10 sales just to compensate for his loss. If the girl simply points out his error, balance is restored.”

That is true. But it is balance on a lower level of abundance. It is a balance at a lower vibration.

It is true that almost everyone agrees on this balance, but it is really the greatest good for all? Is it better to have society balanced at a level of scarcity, or would it be better to rock the boat a little and try to improve things? (It would be absurd to suggest that taking extra change from a shopkeeper is a good way to secure abundance for all, but just bear with me for a bit).

What society would like is for the girl to feel guilty about HOW she received the extra money. Society would like the shopkeeper to feel bad about his loss, and perhaps, try to retrieve his stolen money.

But if both are in the flow of universal energy, a temporary loss will be ignored. If the shopkeeper looked at the extra change as his gift to the girl, knowing that something good was coming, it would!

“But there IS only so much money in the world. It is a scarce resource! You can't have everyone abundant in a world of scarcity!”

There is never a scarcity of anything. There are only created scarcities.

I'm saying this without any proof of course, based upon my life experience and my understanding of universal principles. While it is true that there is only so much bauxite ore (from which aluminum is made) in the world, substitutes can always be found. New energy sources can be developed which are far more efficient than fossil fuels. All it takes is a change in belief systems from those of not-enough, to abundance. This principle is something you can prove to yourself, in your own life. When more and more people agree that prosperity for all is possible, the world will become less dependent upon scarce fossil fuels. It's true with energy, with money, with anything. More and/or better is always possible because the universe is constantly expanding!

This idea can be likened to a vortex of energy which spins faster and faster, but never goes out of control. It continually attracts more and more energy into it. And the universe has an infinite amount of energy in it.

 

Back to our example.

(2) Most people would say that the girl should return the change and reconcile fairly with the shopkeeper. That what our morals and ethics say is “right.” That's what the authorities enforce. And it is a very simple and elegant solution that could make both parties feel good.

However, and here is the important point, the underlying meme of scarcity is still being reinforced, because both parties agree that money is scarce, and in not taking more than the fair share of it.

I'm not saying the girl who accepts extra change is consciously on a divine mission to better the world,  but IF she is truly in an attitude of abundance, this can only be positively reflected into the world.

 

(3) The girl has a chip on her shoulder and believes the world is a bad place filled with people who take more than their fair share, depriving her. She believes, therefore, that  she has a right to rip others off in return. When the extra change appears, she takes it and runs. The shopkeeper realizes his mistake and is very upset.

 

In the second case, even though good vibes result all around, the meme of scarcity is reinforced. The girl realized that she did a good thing by returning the extra change, for it is wrong to create a shortage. The shopkeeper is happy because he has not lost anything. “Faith in human nature” is restored. Implicit in the return of the money is the belief in scarcity. It is still a good solution, because everyone is happy! It's just that harmony and balance is restored at the lower level.

In the third case, bad vibes result AND scarcity is reinforced.

In case one, the girl is happy and the shopkeeper is happy AND abundance is reinforced. Why is the shopkeeper happy? Because the laws of the universe guarantee that a  truly happy and abundant person will meet up with others of like vibration! So he says to himself, ‘I’ll make some big sales tomorrow.’

In other words, an attitude of abundance must bring prosperity. This may take many forms, but sometimes we are so concerned with hurting others we deny ourselves.  We are so concerned that another  may be harmed that we reinforce  the status quo of scarcity.

“That's crazy!” you say. “You're just arguing for bad and dishonest behavior.”

Well, I admit my example is a little forced, but it is based on personal experience. The movie just reminded me of it.

When I returned home one day from shopping I had an extra fiver in my pocket. The transaction had gone smoothly, the shopkeeper and I chatting merrily. I never did return the change, and I never felt guilty about it. Maybe I was wrong, but it didn't feel wrong! It felt appropriate. A couple of months later I was inspired to go to the grocery store. Fruit pie is one of my addictions, and a local company makes one of the best pies in the world (Achatz). Anyway like I said, I was inspired to go to the store and get a pie. These pies are $14.99 and the total, counting 3 other items, came out to about $12. After I handed my credit card to the cashier I noticed that the price sticker was marked. “$04.99.” I have to admit, I felt a rush of joy in that moment, for it indicated that my guidance system was functioning perfectly, leading to abundance for me. I didn’t point out the error to the cashier either, but she was so happy and animated and laughing as we chatted that I didn’t want to break the good vibe.

Was I wrong? It didn’t feel like it!

 In our vibrational model, the laws of the universe tell us that a person who receives extra change is perfectly matched with the person who is being shorted. The two cannot possibly come together in a co–incident event unless both choose to. If we ask the shopkeeper in our previous example, “Would you rather have given correct change to that girl?” he might readily say “Yes!” thus ‘proving’ that his intent was for an action different than what occurred. But we know that action always follows thought. We know that a fundamental vibrational orientation (belief) in scarcity, for example, will dictate congruent experiences. If we question the shopkeeper closely, we may find that his fundamental belief is ‘I must work hard to keep my head above water,’ and that he has other beliefs like ‘I can’t trust people, they’re always ripping me off.’  Or perhaps, we might discover a belief that ‘it’s good to share with others at Christmastime.’ Perhaps the shopkeeper does not begrudge his extra change. Whatever is the shopkeeper's weltanschauung (and the girl’s) we know that the two are perfectly vibrationally matched, and that what occurred was –– in that particular location in space and time –– vibrationally co–incident. Therefore it was also physically co–incident.

 

What I'm trying to show is that ethics and morals are based upon fundamental beliefs. Beliefs are just choices about how to live life. These choices can change at any time. Mostly when something is accepted as “right” it's because people have been doing it for a long time. But length of time shouldn't be a criterion for appropriateness! The point is, if you feel good about something, no harm can come to you, or another, no matter what someone else's belief system says.

The second point I'm trying to make is that there are no “consequences” for any action.

In other words, if you take $9.23 in change that is freely offered, instead of $0.23, you aren't an evil person. If you give your word and cheerfully break it (for whatever reason, be it a good one or not) the universe isn't going to send out some higher power to thwart you in your future life to make up for what you did. There is no “karma.” That is an old idea which restricts a persons power and puts him or her at effect-point. For now one must spend lifetimes in atonement for some perceived hurtful action against another. But we already know that no one can hurt another. No one can create in another's experience. You are gloriously, and always, at source point regarding everything you do!! And so are all of your fellow creator beings here on earth. And that's a good thing.

The only consequences that follow from any action are those decisions and feelings you have after you have done it.

If the girl in the movie feels guilty about her abundance, she will  attract into her experience something negative. Maybe her purse will be stolen, or she'll lose her credit card or something. Then people can say, “See what happens when you're dishonest?”

But there is no Law of Consequences. There is no Law of Reciprocity. There is no Law of What You Do To Another Will Be Done To You. These laws simply don't exist because they are all violations of the Law of Free Will. The Law of Free Will is higher on the chain of universal principles than even the Law of Vibration and the Law of Attraction, for free will is an inherent property of consciousness itself, and consciousness existed even before the creation of the universe.

A person is always attracting into her experience an exact replica of her broadcast signal to the universe, and is being infallibly matched up to others with a like vibrational signal.

A person who continually breaks his word will get into trouble, of course. But why?

Well, a person who breaks his word is probably operating on some self-limiting idea like, “I have to screw that guy before he screws me,” or something like that. Ideas like this are always based on the scarcity concept, and inevitably attract people and situations which are a match to them. This self limiting thought always leads to a downward spiral, but only because of a person's vibrational orientation, not because society agrees (or some authority figure) proclaims standards of correct conduct.

If you ask me, “Would you rather live in a world of jerks who break their word, or responsible people who honor their commitments?” I'd say, “I already do!” Both worlds exist out there. The world I experience is directly dependent upon the choices I make, which matches me up with people whose vibrational signals are similar to mine. We all live on vibrational islands of our own making, associating with persons of like mind. That’s what the Law of Attraction says.

 

The basis of ethics and morals is the idea that if bad conduct is allowed, it can (besides being injurious to ones self) somehow, like a disease, infect others. Ethics and morals therefore attempt to ensure that people don't  do inappropriate things that can adversely affect others.  But this is backwards. (Another argument for the validity of ethics and morals is that these standards are based upon actions that have been found, over the years, to be beneficial. Not letting milk sit out in the heat, for example, may be codified into a law or ethical stricture. I have no quarrel with that. Such observations have led to the establishment of the scientific method and a rising standard of living for hundreds of millions of people).

 

You have complete control of the vibrational signal you send out to the universe, and you can only rendezvous with those who are resonating as you are!  This is the most important idea I've stated in all of the essays. It's the one thing almost all people find impossible to believe.

But that's only because people do not consider themselves at source-point. Most people do not even recognize that their own self–awareness is spiritually based! Many people firmly believe that their consciousness arises from matter! And that is sad, for it leads to inverted thinking, and actions that bring unwanted experiences.

The little coincidences that occur when millions of people bump up against each other every day are always assigned to probability or luck. And if there is such a thing as chance, then there is a possibility that the actions of those dishonest blokes over there will catch up with me!

However, everything happens as a result of the infallible vibrational physics of this universe. I can make this statement only from my personal experience of course, but I have validated this concept over and over and over again. And I have observed it in others as well. And you can prove the validity of it for yourself.

This principle can be stated differently: the physics of the universe always responds individually to each conscious being, independent of all others. This statement is simply something you will have to prove to yourself, through the application of universal principles in the laboratory of life.

 

If the universe does indeed respond to us individually, then the actions of others need have no effect upon us.  No matter how bad we have messed up our lives, we may immediately begin to better the situation. As I have said over and over in these essays (hopefully not ad nauseum) every conscious being is at source-point. Always. No exception, ever.

To me this is an inspiring idea! My intention in these essays is always to uplift and inspire because I believe that is the quintessential nature of consciousness itself, and the intended experience for all beings who choose to have a physical experience.

To say that a person is always at source-point is sometimes disconcerting, for it can lead to uncomfortable conclusions. Here is a little scenario (a bit unreal, I'll admit) that demonstrates this idea: Joe agrees to sell Pete his last 10 dozen widgets at $1,000 per. Two days before ship date he receives an offer from Jane at $1,250 per. Joe cheerfully ships to Jane, ignoring Pete.

IF Joe looks at Jane's offer as a child would a gift, he suffers no harmful consequences!

How can this be?

It's very likely that Pete will spread the word about Joe's dishonesty, for Pete is a believer in the scarcity concept. He knows firmly that he has been wronged and even sues Pete for breach of contract. Pete's customers are upset and Pete's business in now in turmoil.

But Joe gets off Scott-free, because his vibrational signal is joyful and pure.

Let’s look at this.

First of all, to say that Joe was the cause of Pete's problems is misleading and incorrect. Whether Pete realizes it or not, he is at source-point in his life. He will always receive an appropriate manifestation in response to his vibrational orientation. Pete has had business difficulties for a long time, and firmly believes  in  Murphy’s Law: ‘If something can go wrong, it will.’ For Pete, it did, and almost at the last minute.

It seems a bit unfair to say that Pete gets screwed and Joe walks without any punishment and the whole thing is supported by universal law, does it not? It seems psycho to assert something like that, and it seems the philosophy I've described is just a cold, uncaring way to keep people in their place and maintain the status quo.

I've tried to deal with this question in the essay “To Help Or Not?“ The answer (for me at least) is that every one of us is a powerful, immortal being having a physical experience. We get to decide in every moment the content of our lives. We all start out at birth in the same place: completely aware of our divine nature. We have all chosen the circumstances of our birth, and have molded our beliefs according to those choices. If we have now gotten ourselves to the point where we no longer are aware of our power, we cannot blame it on another. The self-reflexive  nature of consciousness requires sovereignty for the individual (See “The Human Energy Field.”)

We all either know of, or have heard of, guys like Joe. People who seem to skate through life regardless of the perceived honesty or morality of their actions. We all hate guys like Joe (at least I do). We say, “Eventually Joe will get what's coming to him. What goes around, comes around.” We say this because we have observed that unethical people eventually take a fall.

I always used to believe that universal forces will operate to punish Joe and restore balance to the world, because the universe is ultimately a positive place.

But my thinking has changed. I now believe that the true reason for Joe's downfall has nothing to do with the thoughts and actions of others, or universal forces, and is dependent only on Joe's choices.

It is very probable that the continued criticism of his actions will cause Joe to alter his vibrational stance. Joe will begin to see more and more people line up against him and will inevitably go into agreement with them, thus positioning himself for a fall. Joe will crash, not because there is some universal force imposing itself into his experience, but because the content of his vibrational signal will inevitably bring his detractors hurtling into his experience. It is always and only the content of Joe's vibrational signal that determines what happens to him.

When I finally understood this it was a revelation. It seems unreal, wrong even, because we are all in this physical experience together. Nevertheless, when I look back over my life I can see the truth of it.

 

The Law of Consciousness and the Law of Free Will reign supreme.  ALL decisions are supported, and if Joe can maintain his connection with universal energy, which is always positive, he will continue to experience positive things, no matter what he does.

Of course, my example is a little unbalanced and unreal, because no one who is truly connected to Source will continue to operate in such a manner as Joe. People who operate like that are usually disconnected.

The reason I use this example is because it is important to realize that although actions do speak louder than words, doingness is always junior to beingness. Thought is senior to action, for thought precedes action; thought always determines action.

A person who maintains a feeling of joy within him or her can never suffer harmful consequences, no matter the content of his or her actions.

We live in a free will universe and that means, 100%, total, complete and utter free will.  Any decision you make is supported. The universe is set up to give every conscious being total empowerment.

And for me it explains how guys like Joe can get away with murder. Maybe they're just operating on a different set of beliefs than the rest of us!

 

Having said all this, there is an important balancing principle, one that is even senior to free will; and that is love. In other words, senior to the Law of Free Will is the Law of Consciousness. Free Will stems directly from consciousness, but even more intimate to consciousness is the feeling of love. I don't know how else to express this in language, other than to say that the quintessential orientation, or experience, or feeling, of consciousness is a wonderful feeling of well-being, joy, and love.

We have already discussed the idea of free will and love in the essay, “The Creation of a Universe,” so I don't want to get into this in great detail here, other than to say that consciousness has two intimate qualities: the feeling of love, which is how it experiences itself, and the ability to think, choose and decide.

However, awareness existed even before the First Thought, so we have to say that Love is senior to all other principles, laws, and qualities of consciousness. And since consciousness created the universe through thought, love must be the most senior principle in existence!

So it seems that I have contradicted myself and rendered the whole essay irrelevant.  Because, obviously, a person who is connected to source, to the core of who he or she really is, will always feel joyful and loving.

But those feelings may be expressed in an infinite variety of actions.

In other words, it's possible to act in any way at all, and still experience complete connection to source.

That's all I'm trying to say.

For me, it makes the actions and consequences of people like Joe more understandable, for in attempting to figure out Joe’s motivations from his actions (or anyone’s actions), we often get into trouble. We get into trouble because it is never possible  to know utterly the thoughts and  decisions of another! Joe may be resonating completely to well being, even though he acts in ways that are not accepted by the majority’s agreement on proper ethics and conduct.

 

A belief is simply a set of choices one makes about how to live life.  On earth it is frowned upon to go against the majority, but I have found that the more conscious I become, the more individual I become. And at the same time, I become more tolerant of the actions of others. I become more willing to let the Joe's of the world act as they please. I become more understanding of Joe's divine nature and I understand better that he has every right to express himself in any way he chooses.

For me, it is exciting beyond measure to realize how free we all are, how totally and perfectly every one of our decisions is supported by the design of the universe. We designed it that way, as a reflection of ourselves. We are utterly free and joyful beings and we have created a universe whose physics is designed to allow us to experience absolutely anything.

Summary

In this essay, I wanted to make three points: firstly, that there are no consequences to any action other than those dictated by the thoughts, decisions, and feelings of a conscious being.

The second point I wanted to make is that morals and ethics, at least on planet earth, are based around two principles: (1) scarcity and (2) the actions of others can adversely affect you.

I don't believe that either of these principles are in alignment with universal law. A realignment of thought upon these ideas can create a positive impact in your life.

And thirdly, the universe responds to everyone on an individual basis. Hopefully, an understanding of this idea will enable us to be more tolerant of the actions of others, and to realize that their egregious activities  do not have to cascade into our experience.