What about responsibility? Who is ultimately responsible?

Q: Who is ultimately responsible, for taking care of nature, when it comes to different relationships, for everything? Is God responsible, or us?

A: The relationship between man and planet, or man and “nature”, was such that little care was taken by man to ensure the continued balance. Man had grown complacent and had long since removed responsibility for the relationship from self and “given” it some unseen force they call God. But god/God does not exist, and so cannot create more trees or more clean water or more coyotes. Only man and those oversouls responsible for that aspect of nature can. But if the cooperation does not exist, then the relationship shall falter and imbalance may cause a part of nature to “disappear” (become extinct).

More so now does man begin to understand that the interactions must be balanced. That is, if they do not interact with nature in a “responsible” manner that the relationship will fail. That this may result in waters that can no longer support life, or air that must be filtered before breathing, or animals of a type no longer living, is only now beginning to be perceived and understood.

This awareness and understanding comes more from the advancement of the population being mostly 4th cycle, for now does man gain the maturity to perceive that even their own existence on and with the planet and its fellow inhabitants depends on the relationship they develop with same. Because by shifting the responsibility to others, be they neighbours or gods, they deny themselves the ability to interact with that aspect of life that determines most often how their overall future might progress. Also do they deny themselves the possibility of creating a difference in the relationships formed by themselves (man) with the planet and all who inhabit her.

It is not so much that they cause harm, but rather is it merely an example of experiences not taken and opportunities bypassed. Always is it the choice of each fragment as to how and what they will do, but also is it their responsibility as to occurrences caused by their choices. Therefore, if they do not care for the dirty air, yet they choose to do nothing to prevent the air from becoming dirty, then must they hold themselves as accountable for having to endure that which they do not like.

We are not advocating any action in particular, nor do we say that one must choose to protest, or in any way take action. We merely state that you (each of you) are responsible for your own being, and your own reality, and for your own interactions or lack thereof. To worry whether your neighbour recycles or uses chemicals upon their lawn is your choice, but it is not your responsibility, because their choices are their own, just as yours are for you.

All of life—physical, causal, astral, etc.—is based on choice. You can choose any action, reaction, outcome, or path; therefore, when you see one with much money, and another with little, it is all based on choice. Do not place your values upon another, for each person is in charge of their own life, and if they choose to be happy living in a cardboard box, then that is their choice. For you, would you find that a poor choice, but you are not them, and they are not you. Do not deny another their choices and their experiences, for they may find the experience of your position and your “wealth” frightening, not enjoyable.

Each person sets about planning and creating their life, but none can be completely sure as to what might occur. For although you “plan” to attend school to become a doctor of medicine, incidents can occur that may cause you to rethink your choices.

Your world does not consist of only you, but rather do you choose to interact with many others. Their choices, then, may cause you to change your “plan” or to alter your “course” in life. Also is there nature and the planet to consider, for they may, and do, create turbulence and detours within the life. These, too, may cause one to review and/or change the choices. But if the choices change, then how they change is up to you—each of you—for no one else is responsible for you except you.

This is not true for those called children or infants, for in their case are they reliant upon those “older” to care for and nurture and guide them until they are capable of fending for themselves. A child can choose to cross the street, this is true, but without the proper understanding of the dangers and risks involved, do they need to be restrained from making that determination on their own. Better is it if others (mother, father, nanny, uncle, etc.) aid them in making the choice of whether to cross the street, at what point to cross the street, and at what time, for the child is without the proper knowledge to make these choices and so is not entirely responsible. Rather are those who agreed to care for and nurture the child responsible, for the agreement of parent and child is either for birthing and/or nurturing, and if for nurturing, then do they hold ultimate responsibility for the choices directly affecting the health and well-being of that child. However, once the child is capable of and knowledgeable about that aspect of life (whether it be feeding self or street crossing), then does the child assume the responsibility for their choices.

Therefore, if a parent leaves the child, who is not knowledgeable in the ways of finding, obtaining, and fixing food and feeding self, it is the parent who takes the responsibility for any imbalances incurred should the child starve or encounter health problems due to malnourishment, if these were not previously agreed to. However, if the child is sufficiently knowledgeable and capable of seeking, obtaining, and fixing food stuffs and feeding self, and should the child be left for a length of time and malnourishment occurs, it becomes the child’s responsibility, not the parent’s.

These are not man laws, but karmic laws, for man laws are not our concern. We care not if your laws state that one is a child until the age of 21, for one can be a child even at 100. We talk of truths and laws, but the laws are merely those laws of balance, for balance is the fundamental truth of all.

The Tao is not “perfection”, yet it is balanced. Change does not require that one be out of balance with self, but rather does it imply a shifting or growing or new understanding. The Tao constantly changes, but never does it become imbalanced, for the balance and the sentience are primary. They are the essence of the Tao.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s