| Subject: Cultural Myths |
Author:
Sandra Alzona
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06:55:39 06/22/04 Tue
Fwd from CWG [cwg_readers@hotmail.com]:
Your first Cultural Myth is that human beings are
inherently evil. This is the myth of original
sin. The myth holds that not only is your basic
nature evil, you were born that way.
The Second Cultural Myth, arising necessarily out
of the first, is that it is the "fittest" who
survive.
This second myth holds that some of you are
strong and some of you are weak, and that to
survive, you have to be one of the strong. You
will do all that you can to help your fellow man,
but if and when it comes down to your own
survival, you will take care of yourself first.
You will even let others die. Indeed, you will
go further than that. If you think you have to,
in order for you and yours to survive, you will
actually kill others-presumably, the "weak"-
thereby defining you as the "fittest."
Some of you say that this is your basic
instinct. It is called the "survival instinct,"
and it is this cultural myth that has formed much
of your societal ethic, creating many of your
group behaviors.
Yet your "basic instinct" is not survival, but
rather, fairness, oneness, and love. This is the
basic instinct of all sentient beings
everywhere. It is your cellular memory. It is
your inherent nature. Thus is exploded your
first cultural myth. You are not basically evil,
you were not born in "original sin."
If your "basic instinct" was "survival," and if
your basic nature was "evil," you would never
move instinctively to save a child from falling,
a man from drowning or anyone from anything. And
yet, when you act on your basic instincts and
display your basic nature, and don't think about
what you are doing, this is exactly how you
behave, even at your own peril.
Thus, your "basic" instinct cannot be "survival,"
and your basic nature is clearly not "evil."
Your instinct and your nature is to reflect the
essence of Who You Are, which is fairness,
oneness, and love.
Looking at the social implications of this, it is
important to understand the difference
between "fairness" and "equality." It is not a
basic instinct of all sentient beings to seek
equality, or to be equal, indeed, exactly the
opposite is true.
The basic instinct of all living things is to
express uniqueness, not sameness. Creating a
society in which two beings are truly equal is
not only impossible, but undesirable. Societal
mechanisms seeking to produce true equality-in
other words, economic, political, and
social "sameness"-work against, not for, the
grandest idea and the highest purpose-which is
that each being will have the opportunity to
produce the outcome of its grandest desire, and
thus truly re-create itself anew.
Equality of opportunity is what is required for
this, not equality in fact. This is called
fairness. Equality in fact, produced by exterior
forces and laws, would eliminate, not produce,
fairness. It would eliminate the opportunity for
true self-re-creation, which is the highest goal
of enlightened beings everywhere.
And what would create freedom of opportunity?
Systems that would allow society to meet the
basic survival needs of every individual, freeing
all beings to pursue self-development and self-
creation, rather than self-survival. In other
worlds, systems that imitate the true system,
called life, in which survival is guaranteed.
Now, because self-survival is not an issue in
enlightened societies, these societies would
never allow one of its members to suffer if there
were enough for all. In these societies self-
interest and mutual best interest are identical.
Conversations with God Book 3, Chapter 13, Neale
Donald Walsch
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 