it sure seems like the oldest breeding program in existence is orchestrated entirely by women, doesn't it? It looks like every government, every state, every organized religion, every patriarchal authority exists first and foremost to gain control over the breeding program by gaining control over women.
a woman's right to choose means a woman's right to choose which man's seed bears fruit. And that could be different from one year to the next, right? I can't help but notice that if women were really liberated, men would have no sexual security, and consequently no emotional security. poor little ego, gonna get fucked over sooner or later. Are we really just worker bees?
Not if we practice tantra, we're not...
it is true, or even possible, that governments exist in order to take control of the human breeding program out of the hands of women and put it in the hands of men? Do governments exist in order to enforce 'Law' - an obligatory morality imposed upon the masses to prevent nature from taking its course? I'm talking about procreation - the fruit of the tree of life.
Ultimately, women are completely in charge of who shows up in the next generation, right? Unless they're enslaved, of course. If women are held hostage, then men are in charge of who shows up in the next generation.
I don't know if its true, but it certainly seems possible that all of man's attempts at controlling the human breeding program end up failing. women are in charge of making babies, and they're gonna choose who they're gonna choose.
its only half the story, i know - it sure seems like women want strong men, and it sure seems like women need strong men. And strong men do what they do - they take charge. So there's a balance that needs to be struck. if enough women choose strong men, then over time they're gonna end up stuck in a patriarchy that abuses them. If women don't choose strong men they end up being taken prisoner by them.
Hell, i don't know where this is going. What i do know is we've got an awful lot of government, an awful lot of abuse, an awful lot of neglect, an awful lot of waste, and an awful lot of damage. Culture as we know it took a wrong turn and now fails us. We're still here, building a new culture up from scratch, and it looks like our gender relations are perhaps the most sensitive, most important, and most neglected cultural relationships we have to forge. And if we're going to build a culture that endures, we need to invest everything we have in forging relations that work, which means going back to the drawing board about how we treat each other, what we do for each other, and how we trust the only significant 'other' that can be said to exist - the other sex.
in a matriarchy, then, maybe they would breed with who they wanted, and chuck him out when he loses to the competition. That's how lions do it, anyway. the age of Aquarius is a safari?
Well, lets look for the middle way. Maybe somewhere between yin and yang we will find a sense of balance, a place of happily choosing commitment spontaneously, over and over again. Perhaps monagamy is not to be enforced through the obligatory moral pressure of the All Seeing Eye but rather, perhaps, monagamy is to be treated as a path of the highest aspirations and fulfilled dreams. Perhaps we are learning to cultivate a tolerance of imperfect and broken, unfixable relationships. And we are at the same time cultivating a tolerance of our own compulsive sexual fascinations as a species. And perhaps, through all this tolerance, we are learning to let go of the old obligation, the 'should' brand of morality, and now we are cultivating a 'may' brand of morality, wherein we are perpetually empowered to act in a manner befitting a heart-centered Christ child, an ignorant bodhisattva immature enough to come back as a human deliberately, out of compassion. To behave in such a way brings great joy, for the freedom to love selflessly is the greatest, the only freedom there ever is. This is freedom from ego.
so perhaps the Aquarian moral ethic will leave behind the vibration of an externally enforced morality with its penchant for punishment, hypocricy, violence, fear, abuse, and ignorance, in order to embrace a deeply compelling inner apiration to feel good. This hunger is satiated through the dhamma, and the absence of suffering so noticeable under vows of sila (morality) feels so good that morality in and of itself is seen to be a cure of great potency and magnitude for a vast array of social and personal disorders.
Morality feels good. Morality carries with it an energetic potency, which is why the truth is fearless and lies are gifts from cowards. And so we perhaps may look forward to an era that is certainly no less moral than our own, and perhaps (if we stop warring for profit) significantly more so, for courage feels better than cowardice, and we yearn to feel good. And the distinguishing characteristic of this new ethic is its inner mandate: In the Aquarian age, we are no longer under perpetual threat of external punishment for our ethical choices (and thus 'kept in line' out of fear) but rather, through witnessing the practice of morality, we discover the fruit of a life with significantly less suffering in it, and adapt via mimicry. We simply like how we feel on the higher ground, and given the choice, we tend to migrate there. You'd be surprised.
Morality has long been enforced, to the detriment of everyone. And now we enter an era where the enforcement of morality has utterly failed, and must be abandoned as a tactic due to its detrimental effects. We must accept a world wherein morality is a always a choice: we always free to choose, and our motivation must be measured and acted upon without the influence of fear obscuring it. When the fear is removed and we are free to choose: it is here that the study of morality begins, and the study of morality leads inevitably to the conclusion that morality noticeably lessens suffering in our lives, in our deaths, and anything beyond. Because unenforced morality is the free choice to love. We just won't do it if we have to, but we will when we want to. We yearn for the freedom to love, and learn what that means in our own way at our own speed. And by golly, we're determined to get what we want.
All this doesn't mean we should be moral. All this means is that 'should' is actually a bad word, and that while life is full of unavoidable suffering, the practice of morality lessens said suffering considerably. This path to happiness might be awkward to market but marketing be damned, the true path out of suffering is sure bet and no army in the world can stop an idea whose time has come: Ethical life lessens suffering.
Not my idea. Buddha's. And Christ's. They agreed, you see. Welcome to the Aquarian Age, where Morality makes us happy, is not enforced through fear, and remains optional - and thus significant.
I'll be damned
