Re: REVOLUTION v EVOLUTION - read first

http://my-head.gaia.com — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:37:51 GMT

My own response to Argus's response can be found here

REVOLUTION v EVOLUTION - read first

http://Argusthewatcher.gaia.com — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:10:45 GMT

EVOLUTION v REVOLUTION

“All men are born free and equal in dignity and rights”
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

Meditation, contemplation, deliberation, reflection, action or NON-action ?

The entirety of the Handbook, thus far, and no doubt to be continued to the last word - has been written from the perspective of the third person - and in no way different than the message conveyed to Moses in the form of the 10 commandments or Mohammed and the Qur'an.

The context, therefore, in which all of these documents have and continue to be considered - must be one of - what changes when change changes ? - in consideration of the ever increasing rate at which change changes and the thought that things will never ever be the same again.

By that I mean - all were delivered by a messenger and as such open to interpretation, interpretation of interpretation & interpretation of interpretation of interpretation - by the original receiver of the message and those to whom it was subsequently communicated.

But as I have said elsewhere - Don't KILL the Messenger - because it is the underlying message which each and every one of us 6 billion on earth today have a universal responsibility to understand.

You yourself have written in your Declaration of Sovereignty - that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Is it not the case, however, that rights only - ” follow on “ - ” return “ - ” happen as a reaction to the ACTION of assuming RESPONSIBILITY - in the manner of what goes around comes around ? - I am therefore of a mind that we should consider the responsibilities of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - as a priority from which RIGHTS then follow on.

Equally is it not the case that - Rights speak to the EGO and Revolution - and that Responsibility speaks to the “authentic SELF” and Evolution ?

… or should it be Total Revolution as espoused by Vimala Thakar ?

If as Andrew Cohen has said - human incarnation is not intended to be living to fulfil the desires of ego - but individual responsibility to switch, as a result of the activation of conscious choice, to assuming the burden of positive & qualitative evolution - and that that switch is a big thing - and furthermore that - there is an elegant simplicity to all I'm saying … it's very satisfying … it's very simple really … it's not complicated … it just takes time for people to get it … when you get it it's very simple ….

… I can think of no better simple example of this switch - than that which takes place in joining the ends of a long paper quadrangle to make a mobius strip - the rights switch - creates a band where exterior & interior never ever meet - whereas - the responsibility switch - enmeshes responsibilities & rights, exterior & interior, self & SELF - together in a never ending cycle of events - committed to the qualitative evolution of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

.. it is surely this switch between the perception of rights and responsibilities which must be applied to the whole of your own document and then it would truly become a manifesto of universal parcipitative action rather than the message of a cult committed to the correction of what some might say is the most advanced culture in human history.

I would like you to consider this and then post it with your response - wherever you feel fit throughout your zPod etc.

My very kindest regards

Michael

Gaia: Handbook for the New Paradigm - Final Thought - REVOLUTION v EVOLUTION - read first

Re: REVOLUTION v EVOLUTION - read first

REVOLUTION v EVOLUTION - read first

EVOLUTION v REVOLUTION