3. Charity

3.1: Human Relations

A charity is not some kind of distant concept which is difficult to foresee. It is actually a synonym for true friendship, both during a time of prosperity and a time of adversity, when its value is truly called for. It does speak most for itself when the man does have a family, because the love is already mutual and something in which can only be felt for in his heart. It is not like the man does need to prove it to himself, or try to arouse love through some clever words, because it is something which the man is supposed to know for himself. The friendship is all about unconditional love, where the love for the person has the most priority, in always coming first before everything else, and is maintained the same at all times. It is appreciated the person most of everything, and where love is the greatest thing to be offered, so it is always continued to love the person with sincere and pure heart. It was first loved the person, and then everything else was made possible in the friendship, what one is willing to do and improve in for that person’s sake. But love for the person should never come after other issues, or be depended upon them. A selfish man presumes that the person must first offer him some advantage and change something in its bearing, before that man can finally deem it worthy to be loved. But then it was never love in the first place. Many people presume that it is enough to obtain friends, while they do not bother to behave like true friends. It is the role of each man to be there for his beloved ones, in discerning their true needs and act accordingly, since if everyone would do so then no person would be neglected in the world. But it can never happen if the man does only gaze upon his enemies and the people which do not appreciate him. The man will otherwise neglect his own family and friends, who do already love the man and accept him. It is like the man would never appreciate the good things he does already possess in his life, while only gazing upon things still outside his reach. Each man would only have a superficial view of the friendship, because he does not care about his current friends while trying to ingratiate himself with new people. The best thing in the universe is to have family to love and rejoice with, so the happiness will indeed come true when it is shared with those one cares for. It can be discovered an inner treasure in the friendship, when the beloved ones are being generous in soul and light-hearted for each other, and arousing good things within each other, and helping to lighten up the mood and the atmosphere. No man is able to steal that treasure from one, but one does willingly share it each time when it is loved someone, by seeking to be lively and supportive in the person’s presence. Friendliness is about experiencing an inner spark, where one is open-minded for the person and showing interest in it, so that both parties can have something common to share.
               Happiness is like a light which no man can get directly into his own heart, when he is only concerned about his selfish needs and how other people should make him happy. The man’s heart is like a mirror, which is able to participate in the light while he is reflecting the light to the heart of other people, when the man does truly care for them and only wishes them to be happy. It feels good when the man wants other people to feel good and he rejoices with their good lot. But the man is unable to contain that light for himself alone as the final destination. It cannot be stiffened up the light into a material object to be owned. If the man does not love himself then it is because he can only see other people with his eyes, while the man is unable to see himself from the outside like an independent person that is moving and interacting. But the man must see himself through the eyes of his beloved ones, and love himself through them. That to love and be loved is the only thing that matters, so that all selfish problems will pale in comparison. A heart full of love will overflow all evil desires when they attempt to infiltrate it, because it was already loved the person even before one was tempted. It will never be done something evil and degrading to oneself, because it is already loved oneself. And it will never be done something evil and degrading to the fellow man, because it is already loved him. There must always exist balance between the love had for oneself and the one had for the fellow man, according to that what is considered to be fair and dignified to our position. So it is never sought to exalt one person at the expense of another. If something is being pure good then it is of the common good.
               If the individual does practice the good thing then he is thereby not practicing the evil thing. If the individual chooses the right thing then he is thereby rejecting all the wrong things. But there is no need to have attention upon both (opposite) things at the same time, that in doing the right thing and that of ‘not’ doing the wrong thing, because the latter does only get in the way. It is only sufficient to keep to the one right course, the straight path ahead, rather than by looking to the left or right, or by being troubled about things outside the path. It should be loved the fellow man as he is, and received him as he his, but it is not necessary to know about all the unethical issues at the same time, as if one were afraid of harming him. For it is through charity that one does carry sincere goodwill for the fellow man, and wishes him no evil, since that evil would contradict the love which is felt for. It does not matter what kind of burdens are carried, or what possessions can be owned, because it only matters who is there for us in life, able to visit us and help us in our hour of need. A charity consist of many virtues which are necessary to make the love complete in itself, what should be considered about the person and its position. It is not sufficient to know only about one virtue, and then presume that it alone can monopolize the human relations, as if charity would only be bound to that factor and to be repeated endlessly. It can be mentioned virtues like sincerity, honesty, understanding, discretion, tolerance, and helpfulness, where such qualities are parts of the same whole, which is charity. It is not like one can neglect sincerity and honesty, what one does really feel about the person, while it is only sought to help the person, by doing all kinds of tasks on its behalf and seeking to gratify its selfish needs.
               The man should not expect that everyone are supposed to love him, and when that expectation fails to realize then he should not complain that nobody does love him. The man who loves nobody does neither appreciate the love of everyone. The only needful thing in the situation is for the man to convince himself to love another person with all his heart. If the man truly loves another person then it will also make him receptive to the love that other people are showing him. Once the man begins to love another person then he also begins to appreciate the love of other persons had for him. He is not being troubled by thoughts/worries of having given a wrong impression and that he could lose the esteem of that person, because he only cares about that what is being best for that person. His own ego and personal involvement does not matter, so long as the divinity is being good to the person and helping that person to have a good life. It is not a question of that how much words and human effort the man can come up with in order to convince other people to love him and accept him in their lives. The man must rather learn to calmly receive the love/goodwill that other people are already showing him and humbly accept the good treatment from their end. That the man is truly noticing the person that he loves and that loves him in turn, instead of him gazing solely upon that what he can say or do to impress that person from his end. The man must learn to say and do nothing in the meantime, while patiently waiting for the ‘digested’ understanding and response of that person, all in its due time, instead of him only noticing himself and what he can say or do in order to force things through. Otherwise the man will overreach himself and do something prematurely against the consent of the person. Those that do already love us will continue to love us after everything. Those that do not already love us will neither love us after everything. If a person ceases to ‘love’ us because of some minor impression or weakness then it means that it did never involve a true love to begin with. Or if a righteous person ceases to love a person that turned out to be wicked; then it is because that wicked person never loved anyone to begin with and it had no redeemable quality calling for love. Hence the original love was being misguided. That to fear and worry over that whether a person likes one, or that to question the person’s motive in its dealings with one, that digresses from that in keeping one’s goodwill the same toward the person. If one does truly care about the person then it should all be oneself for the person and not the person for oneself. Why should one fear and doubt about that in what way the person could see one (as if its attitude could change for the worse), when one is already not doubting the goodwill one has for the person and one does not allow anything to make it cease to be. One is already rightly aligned in the greater matter, while needlessly contemplating about such lesser matter.

It certainly applies that the man should treat other persons like he wants them to treat him, whether it is wanted good things or avoided bad things, as a mutual experience. It can be misunderstood that principle, like when the man goes too far in gratifying his friends and offering them all kinds of service, while expecting the same thing in turn. It is no longer a friendship, but more like a relationship between a master and a servant. It is not really based upon love and respect, but the man is covetous of advantage from his friends and he seeks to earn such advantage through slavish effort. The principle does still continue to apply, in treating other people like one wants to be treated by them. For that a scrupulous man does not want to control other people, nor does he want to be controlled by them. He does not want other people centred upon his life, nor to be centred upon their lives. And the scrupulous man does not want other people to trouble themselves needlessly on his behalf, nor do something undignified with their lives. For the scrupulous man is so humble and discreet that he does not covet any selfish advantage, nor does he yield to the covetousness of other people. It should thereby involve an equality, in treating one another as equals. The man must know himself before it can be known other people, because the same human nature applies in them both, what kind of premises are governing their attitude. But the man does only have himself to blame for being so covetous and self-absorbed, since he has neglected to know the person he has befriended with and its real stance. That to love thy neighbour as thyself does also apply to rebuke and correction. We would want our fellow man to correct us and warn us in time, if we were doing something wrong and about to fall into trouble. If people are being pretentious and trying to exploit us then we should shut our hearts to them and shun their advance, since we would other people to do the same thing to us if we were being pretentious and trying to exploit them. If people are tempting us then we should reject dealings with them, since we would other people to do the same thing to us if we were tempting them. We did not think in such way when we were once being false and selfish, but now when we are being sincere and decent then we understand that other people should have treated us in such way when we were false and selfish. When we do now look back then we understand that things happened as they were meant to happen, that we reaped as we had sown, and that we were all this time under the jurisdiction of the just divinity. When people are being superficial and arrogant and merciless then they subject themselves to/under the same standard. When people condemn us for faults which they themselves possess or which they are no better at; then they only end up condemning themselves. They have ended up being self-condemned hypocrites. We do not need to judge them or to treat them in the same way, because the judgment of God is already upon them and already deciding the matter for us. When we come across our accusers which have been proven to be wrong and we notice that they are cast down in their countenance; then we do not stop to gloat over it or to insult them. We simply choose to move past them and without doing anything further, since we do neither feel the need nor the longing to turn toward them. We do not ask the divinity to make our enemies suffer, nor do we want to make things worse for them in their dejected state. We are simply content that the divinity has managed to humble their pride and arrogance, and dispel their illusions about their own importance and contempt for those living in weakness, and disprove the things they derived false confidence from. It is all about overcoming the wrong attitude they had been having, instead of wanting something bad to happen to their lives or the person underneath.
               It can be discoursed upon forgiveness versus revenge, and that when both of them are being obsolete in the situation. Let’s say that we had an enemy in the past which said and did bad things to us, where these bad things were being great and many. During that time we never had any revenge upon that enemy and it seems like he got away with everything. When we look back then we become resentful over this in our mind. However, for a long time since that time; the former enemy has not been possessing any bad attitude toward us. Now (in the present time) he no longer possess bad attitude toward us. He does not despise us in his heart, and he does not want anything bad to happen to us, and he does never mention us in a bad way when talking with other people. Within himself he does not derive satisfaction over that how bad things had turned out for us, where he does not secretly gloat and rejoice over the misfortunes that had befallen us. Within himself he does not boast of that having gotten the better of us, as if he had managed to get away with everything and that he could continue this insolence endlessly. But that former enemy is having an empty mind and being like a ‘blank page’ toward us. Now even that this former enemy does not approach us to apologize for his past bad behaviour and/or he is not offering to do anything good to make things up to us; then it can still be claimed that it is being needless in the situation. Our former enemy does not need to convince us that he is being repentant and improving, since he has already convinced himself of repentance and improvement (or rather, the divinity has already convinced him within of repentance and improvement). He is no longer our enemy in his heart/attitude, and he is no longer repeating such bad things to other people, those in the same or corresponding position that we were in. That in itself is preferable to that if our former enemy would approach us with a ‘sorry look’ (outward show) and manage to say ‘all the right things’ (apology), when he is really not being sincere in his heart and his bad attitude remains unchanged. He would still be motivated by ill will and covetousness toward other people, and still seek for scapegoats/victims to unleash these things upon, and still treat people in a bad way when an opportunity present itself or his resolve is being tested. If our former enemy has already repented and improved, both in his attitude and in his conduct; then it is an obsolete thing for us to want revenge and/or to consider him being in need of our forgiveness. The goodness has already prevailed within him, and converted him to the goodness. He does not need to say or do anything to make things up to us. Our own lives do not matter. Because our former enemy is now being forgiving to those that did bad things to him and being merciful to people that live in weakness; then the divinity is being forgiving to him for the bad things he did to other people and being merciful to him in his weakness. We should only be mindful of that whether we are willing to forgive other people in our heart if we want the divinity to forgive us everything. It is not about that what someone else is supposed to deserve or not. In the past our former enemy said ugly and despicable things to us. But now that former enemy no longer believes these ugly and despicable things he had said to us. He does no longer notice us in a bad way nor implicate something bad to us. Let’s say that we had another enemy in the past which did us little injury, or he never seemed to say and do anything bad to us openly while we were also on the scene. And now (in the present time) that enemy still seems to speak to us in an open and friendly way when we come across him by some chance. However, that enemy has only been pretending to be so outwardly, while in his heart/attitude he has despised us all this time, and he has ever been secretly slandering us (talking behind our back) and mentioning something humiliating from our past when he is with other people, and rejoicing over all the misfortune that has befallen us, and claiming/asserting bad things about us in advance. That kind of enemy is already being guilty in his attitude and continuing that guilt. It is preferable to have a former enemy which has the right attitude toward us and yet he never seems to give us his attention and he never seems to do anything for us; than to have a secret enemy which has a wrong attitude toward us and yet he seems to give us his attention and say something seemingly positive on our behalf. The former enemy was being sincere in not having an initiative in speaking to us when he did not feel the need or the longing to do it, while the secret enemy was being false in having an initiative in speaking to us when he never cared for us in the first place. The very beginning (attitude) determines the value of everything that comes after (speech and actions). It can be a discreet thing in itself when our former enemy chooses to keep his distance and stay out of our lives, instead of coming over to us that he might obtain forgiveness from us and/or seek to renew relations with us. His reappearance in our lives would otherwise remind us about our bad past life which has taken us so long time to recover from and forget. His presence alone reopens all the spiritual wounds, with all its resentments and regrets. It can be more prudent that the parties involved go their separate ways.
               It is the ideal thing to apologize to a person which one has wronged if one feels like doing it and it is meant every word which is said. It is otherwise preferable to come up with no apology than to come up with an insincere apology. It can be mentioned that when a man’s improper behaviour is openly revealed (scandal), and then he openly comes up with an apology and tells the whole world about it (social media), because the man is afraid of his image in the eyes of other people and he supposes that it is expected of him to come up with an apology when the eyes of the world are watching him. But when it is apologized to a person then it should be done privately/discreetly, between the person which had done wrong and the person which had suffered wrong, and only stay between them two, without involving anyone else (irrelevant people). It should be met with the person face to face and spoken to the person from the heart, instead of writing something from a distance and rehearse a speech prepared in advance. If the man had really repented back then then he would already have apologized to the person he wronged, if he knew who it was and/or had again come across that person and/or would somehow be able to contact that person. But if the man is apologizing to the person only after his wrongdoing has been revealed to the whole world and that he experiences pressure from the world in doing it; then it can be questioned his underlying motive in making an apology. It has more to do with fear of the public opinion and that to not want to lose the respect of other people; than from any genuine feelings of repentance and concern for the victim. Let it be duly noted that the one who is writing this has committed many bad things in the past, and it is to be expected that many people will come forward and mention these bad things after this work has been published. The man who has been writing this has not been seeking all the people that he had wronged and apologize to them, so that his own position is being just as vulnerable as of those he has previously been mentioning (failing to apologize in time). It is more important to be forgiven by the divinity than to be forgiven by the world. The divinity is inside us, while all people are outside us. Only the divinity can open our hearts for the truth, and make us realize our human frailty, and change us within for the better, and make us able to bear spiritual fruit in our lives. Only the divinity can make us spiritually grow away from the wrong things and grow toward the right things instead. Once the divinity does forgive us our sins then we do feel ourselves forgiven. We are being freed from the will to sin, and we are no longer being divided/conflicted in our stance and resolve, and we are no longer being burdened or affected by corruption, and it now comes easy and effortlessly to us in doing the right thing. That to be forgiven everything by the divinity and yet be condemned in everything by the world; that is preferable to that in being forgiven everything by the world and yet being condemned in everything by the divinity. Men look on the outward appearance, but the divinity looks on the heart. It is about coming to terms with our conscience and making peace with our conscience. It is not about convincing everyone about everything that comes up in the mind, or submit to everyone in everything in order to gratify the prejudices of their mind. The divinity is really the first and the only person we need to convince and submit to, because the divinity alone possess the power to decide/do something about it within us. Everyone else are being irrelevant, being stationed outside our heart and soul and spirit and mind.
               We are being so prone to ignorance, foolishness, weaknesses, restrictions, negligence, and mistakes. And yet despite all these things we rely on the divinity to spiritually cover them. We rely on the goodwill of the divinity in treating us better than we deserve, and we rely on the goodwill of good people in treating us better than we deserve. We rely on the divinity working within us in making us open and receptive to the goodness of other people, and we allow that to outweigh all the badness of other people. If we want to be treated in a compassionate and merciful way then we should treat other people in a compassionate and merciful way. For example, someone can publicize/advertise a shameful/humiliating incident regarding another person. But we do not choose to watch that shameful incident (recording), and we do not choose to comment on it, and we do not choose to mention it to anyone at all. We do not speak lightly about the misfortune of other people (indecent prattle), because we are ever being considerate/vigilant as if the person involved was among us and listening to everything. We do not secretly speak something about someone that we would be ashamed of speaking openly in his presence. We treat that humiliating incident as something which had never happened, as something which is not to be held against the person, which is not to be implicated to it. It is like we are spiritually covering the spiritual nakedness of that person. Hence if it ever happens that someone will publicize/advertise shameful incident from our past then we will derive consolation from our merciful act. It is not like we expect that the divinity will reward us for our merciful act by preventing all shameful/humiliating incidents from our past in being publicized, nor do we expect that the divinity will make everyone compassionate and merciful toward us when it finally happens. But we do rather confirm that the divinity will reward us for our merciful act by making us internally sound and stable when confronting and enduring the humiliating incident, by making us selfless and humble enough to let everything pass over us with the time, by helping us to continue to treat ourselves with understanding and in a dignified way. Even if other people keep mentioning the humiliating incident to us then we are still not reminding ourselves of it, since we have already made peace with our conscience and we do not wish such treatment to anyone. Just like we had been compassionate and understanding and merciful to another person then we manage to see ourselves in the same way through the eyes of the divinity. It is only important to know that what the divinity feels about all of this, since the divinity is the supreme judge and its fair verdicts prevail over the verdicts of the many.
               When the mind does mention bad incidents from the past then it is never done through a sense of justice. It is not like the mind is doing it in order to encourage us to repentance and personal improvement. The mind does rather make use of the past in order to belittle us in a personal way and to belittle that what we are now doing (in the present time). When people mention bad incidents from our past then it is sufficient to know that it is originated from their mind, that we might disregard it even as we disregard such things in our own mind. We only need to overcome the devil behind that people, not the people themselves. The mind is in no position to judge anyone for anything, because mind itself is the worst being to have ever existed, guilty of every temptation and wickedness there is. Hence we are not obligated to give account of ourselves before a false and hypocritical being. It is not a question of that whether we committed a fault, but why that phony person should be the one to confront and question us about it. The mind does first encourage us to do a foolish mistake, and next the mind does blame us for having listened to it and how foolish it makes us seem. But even that we dwell on this past incident then we are still yet again listening to the mind, and the mind will yet again encourage us to do foolish mistake next time. All this time the mind was at fault, both before and after the wrong things. All these wrong things were originated from the mind, and we would have been better off if we had never consulted with the mind in the first place. The mind blames us for having done wrong things unintentionally when the mind itself had all this time been intentionally suggesting wrong possibilities to us. The tempter is in no position to blame us for having received of his. It can also be mentioned ‘hindsight’, when the man has already made a mistake and he now knows better afterwards (what should rather have been done in past situation). Originally it did not cross the man’s mind what logical precaution should have been made when dealing with the situation. The mind did know about it, and the mind did deliberately withhold such information from the man during the situation. And afterwards when the man has already made a mistake and the situation has turned out for the worse; then the mind does finally mention the logical precaution which should have been made, when such possibility is no longer true/relevant in the situation because the man is now experiencing different/changed situation with different choices. The mind did originally encourage us to have a wrong attitude toward a specific person and treat it in a wrong way. And next the mind is reminding that person of the wrongs that the mind had encouraged us in committing against it. The mind did originally encourage a specific person to have a wrong attitude toward us and treat us in a wrong way. And next the mind is reminding us of the wrongs that the mind had encouraged that person in committing against us. The mind is like a slanderer going between two persons and seeking to make them see enemies in one another, when that slanderer possesses the greater blame and he is a true enemy to both persons. If both persons had rejected to listen to that slanderer then it would have prevented all wrong things toward one another, and there would have been no cause/basis for hostility.
               When one does reveal a sign of weakness then one should not panic and try to save oneself from it. It should rather be waited within until the divinity will show us mercy within, and waited within for good/decent people to show us mercy on the outside. That the divinity is able to foresee and anticipate everything, that it is able to make us drawn to good people and make good people drawn to us. Hence when we reveal a sign of weakness then there is also a right person at the right time and place. By some luck we come across someone which shows us compassion and understanding and mercy. That we do not find ourselves among false and hypocritical people when we reveal a sign of weakness and are in need of mercy, because the divinity had already drawn us away from them and drawn them away from us. The divinity has already prevented us from having sought bad company of bad people in the first place. (But let it be duly noted that the one writing this has something missing in him and he has proven to be indifferent to many people that he has come across. It was not through any fault of their own, nor because the divinity was telling him that they were being bad people. It was rather because of his lack of feeling and interest and initiative in getting to know new people. He was the one who was being unworthy.) When something is not properly functioning within oneself and one does reveal a sign of weakness; then one should not try to say and/or do something in order to heal oneself. Like when we are being physically sick then we should look for a physician for help in curing that sickness, because that physician possesses the knowledge and the ability and the tools to resolve the matter. It would be absurd if we made all kinds of guesses and tinkered with our body in all sorts of way in order to heal it, since we don’t even know the underlying sickness of these symptoms and we don’t have access to any necessary tool/remedies and we don’t even know how to apply/use the same things. It is exactly the same thing when we are being spiritually sick and only the divinity is capable of healing our soul. We should confirm that it is so and simply wait until the divinity will do something within us. The way of God can work/function in the opposite way to the human understanding and expectations. Let’s say that the man reveals a sign of weakness and he gives bad impression of himself in the eyes of other people. Because of that weakness the people become quick to condemn the man and exclude him from their company. If the man is not a true believer then he will receive this in a bad way, where he will become depressed and resentful that he was not able to fit in with these people. But if the man is a true believer then he will receive this in a good way, because his very weaknesses revealed how superficial and arrogant these people proved to be, which thereby made them unworthy of his attention and effort. Hence the man acknowledges that things were meant to happen in this way, and that these seemingly bad things in small matters turned out to be good things in the greater matters. Or when God wills it so that the man reveals a sign of weakness and he is in need of mercy from other people. Does not this very same weakness remind the man to be merciful toward other persons! When the man had been having it good (continuous prosperity) and everything had been seemingly perfect in his life then he did not consider that something was being wrong and needed to be improved. The man had hitherto been indifferent when coming across people that showed a sign of weakness in a more obvious way and something had not been functioning properly in their lives. But when the man himself reveals a sign of weakness then he does finally open his eyes and lays it to heart that he and other people are undergoing similar bad experience, that he and them are being affected by it in a similar way, and that they are inwardly of similar things. It encourages the man to treat other persons in the same way as he wants to be treated.

Modesty is about assuming neither more nor less about one’s status/position, what one has hitherto been capable of and what it has been calling for. The accomplishment was merely the consequence when one heeded the human spirit and abided by a principle. There are no personal implications to be had from that which became possible to do. One only did what was required/necessary in the situation. Even that one has been able to obtain success then it does still not change anything, in what way it is beheld oneself or in what way it is beheld and treated other people. All this rousing in our mind, which switches from that in esteeming something high or low; is derived from false confidence in our self/ego. Modesty is about submitting oneself to the humble truth, and what it testifies of in being right in general. It is the moral choice which will affect oneself for better or worse, but it is not one’s personal involvement which will affect the choice, since corresponding things will either way happen. The choice is not made right or wrong because of the person that is involved. It is not like we should only notice the person we esteem to be either good or bad, while being totally blind to the morality of the choice that person is now making. Even that a person has hitherto been doing good things then it does still not mean that this person will always do good things. And even that a person has hitherto been doing bad things then it does still not mean that this person will always do bad things. It is not like a seemingly good man can tell himself that because he has done so many good things then he can allow himself to do evil things today and get away with it. And it is not like a bad man can tell himself that because he has done so many bad things then he is being forbidden to do a good thing today and that he will be condemned/punished for the good thing. Loyalty is all about being faithful to the human spirit and the moral values it stands for, where by doing so then one will be loyal to the good cause, to the benefit of all men. And if one is already being loyal to the goodness then one will also work in harmony with good men, because it is shared their aspirations and devotion in serving the greater good. But all men are imperfect and prone to error of judgment, even that they can be faithful in all other factors. One should not be loyal to the person by default, regardless of its opinions and choices, what that person is claiming to be and intending to do. That person is also being subjected to truth and justice. This means that we should heed the human spirit in our life, and other people should heed the human spirit in their lives. We should stay loyal to the human spirit in discerning the intended choices of other people, whether it does fulfill a moral standard or not, and thereby to be approved of or rejected. And other people should stay loyal to the human spirit in discerning our intended choices, whether it does fulfill a moral standard or not, and thereby to be approved of or rejected. It is through the value of the choice whether something is to be approved of or rejected, but not through the person making that choice. What applies to other people applies just as much to ourselves. It is true that we do not have to stay loyal to the foolishness of other people, but it does still apply that we should continue to be concerned for their wellbeing. It is continued to love the person and wish it well, even that we can disagree with it and not approve of its conduct. We are being imperfect as those people are being imperfect, but we believe that the divinity is perfect, always able to improve us as a person, our attitude and choices. It should never be distorted the value of loyalty, by implicating it to fickle and unrestrained men, like when we were once foolish and considered such men to be our friends which we should always stay loyal to. It will only make us an accomplice to their error of judgement, vices, and corruption, so it will only lead to negligence and bad luck, crimes and misfortunes. It does never work out when a decent man has friendship with wicked men, because they will only drag him down with them, while his presence will never be able to redeem them.
               Sincerity applies when everything that we are saying does reflect that what we truly feel about everything, and what we really want to express ourselves about. And it is treated the fellow man according to that what we truly feel about him and what is his real position in our heart. Sometimes the matter in question is not about that what people are willing to do for each other, but rather that it should at least be loved the person with pure heart, as the ideal thing to do. It does not mean that one will be able to befriend that person, trust it, or help it, since that the person can be fickle/unreliable, an enemy, or even wicked. It should neither be done more nor less than what is necessary in the situation, where it should first be known the person and then adapted to it. We continue to convince ourselves in loving the fellow man and wishing him no evil, and by siding with the decent thing on our behalf. It can be kept to that without overreaching ourselves in needless deeds, when a seemingly good deed does not do that person any good because that person refuses to acknowledge it as good and it won’t receive it in a good way. We are not actually beholden to that person, as if we were obligated to have initiative in going over to it and share its company, in saying and doing something for it, or by spending more time upon that person than needed. It can rather be said that we are willing welcome the person if it is really sincere on its behalf, and repents of its errors, so the person should be given another chance if it is really ready for it. But we do otherwise not need to do anything if the person remains false and unrepentant, since it will either way not lead to anything good for those involved. It is thereby a fact that we can love a specific person, and have the right attitude on our behalf, but we are still the same unable to do anything about it in external matters, and need to keep our distance. The charity should be unconditional, where the attitude is maintained the same at all time, regardless of the results. Therefore can we convince ourselves in being decent toward that person in our own way, without following the way of that person. Courtesy is the same thing as acknowledging the free will of the person involved, what that person is able to understand and is willing to do, at least in regard to its own life. The man’s life is his own responsibility and in what way he chooses to live, so there are some things that he can keep to himself when it only involves himself while other matters involving other people requires their consent/approval. It is thereby allowed the person to make its own choice and respected its final decision, even if it means that it is being contrary to one’s expectations. It does not mean that we will have to agree with that person’s opinion, or that we have to comply with it, but we do at least acknowledge that the person is being entitled to its own opinion. It is thereby first acknowledged that fact, and then afterwards will we no longer seek to convince that person about the same matter, nor try to change the decision it has already made. If that person is someone close to us then we will simply change the subject, and concentrate upon something which both parties are interested in and willing to participate in. It is an impolite thing when we seek to control or manipulate the person, as if we were trying to force that person to agree with us. It is like we look upon that person as the mere extension or reflection of our ego, because we could just as well be alone and do exactly the same things without anyone. It should never be spoken and behaved like one is being alone on the scene, when it is asked the person something and then immediately heckled it, as if we were answering our own question.
               Humour is best served with moderation, as one factor of many, and something to spice up human relations in between. But the humour should never monopolize everything, as if all other factors would be centred upon it or be implicated to its foolish notions. A self-made clown is never serious about anything, but constantly lying and bullshitting about wrong possibilities, so it is thereby neglected all intellectual and virtuous pursuits at the same time. It is only the human spirit which is able to make the man glad deep down in his heart, when he rejoices with the people that he loves and even feels light-hearted while he is all alone. But it is not so if the man has no faith in the goodness by becoming self-centred and self-absorbed. For that he will already feel empty in his heart and have a poor spirit, and no temporary laughter will be able to change it, since that jokes can be transient in their nature and only bound to the surface (the gloating face). The subjective humour is mostly bound to lies, sarcasm, and nonsense, where it is laughed at the misfortune of other people or their stupidity, so it is sought to exploit their weakness to make oneself feel good about it. It is also come up with mockery, where it is imitated the improper words and behaviour of other people, or ascribed good qualities to men that are obviously being bad or incompetent. The subjective humour is usually at the expense of someone else, and it is come up with fictional description which does not exist in reality, so it is nothing more than a lie. And the worst aspect about the subjective humour is that it speaks too lightly about evil possibilities, as if every temptation could be mentioned so long as it is done in jest, so the people involved will needlessly become aware of such wickedness and consider it in their lives. A proper humour is all about rejoicing with other people in an innocent way, without any contempt. But the subjective humour does appeal to the man’s ignorance, where it is laughed at things which he does not understand, and fails to consider about other people. The man does not put himself into the position of other people, but he treats them in a superficial way, and only attacks his own understanding of them. And the man laughs at the subjective humour because he is already selfish, and lacks all self-control in his life. If the man had truly been virtuous then he would never have responded in such way (uncontrollable outburst). The subjective humour does always degrade the man, one level below his current intelligence, and the same thing will repeat itself, until the man becomes utterly stupid and mad.

Each individual can speak for himself and give a silent testimony through his deeds. But it should never be generalized about the group, as if everyone was the same for better or worse. The world consists of individuals which are like islands by themselves, regarding their spiritual activity and experience, what has hitherto taken place and been done. The concept of majority or minority does not really exist, because human beings cannot unite and morph into one/single life-form, nor can similar opinions of different people unite somewhere in the air. It is not a common lot on its own which can unite people to the same purpose. The deciding factor does rather consist in this, in what way the man will choose to react to the very same lot. For the man can become aware that he is a spiritual slave, like other people in their hedonic way of life, whom tend to worship their own prosperity and live in error. It does not mean that he should continue to stay with his fellow-slaves, but it is more important that the man can become spiritually free and enlightened. The world has divided the human race into many groups, according to types of delusions and vices, so there is always some weakness or error behind every self-interest group. It would have been better if the man had not belonged to any group at all, but would rather have followed the divinity to salvation, by being pure of heart and sober in his dealings. If the man proves to be self-centred then he will look for people that are just like himself, that they might agree with the presumptions and whims which he has already yielded to within. That man is not actually looking for understanding, when it comes to know himself and other persons, but he does only see his own reflection in other people. It is only noticed that which has been distorted by the implications of his selfish desires. It is like the man has first decided everything in advance, how other people are supposed to be and how they should react to him, and next he tries to confirm his own prejudices. It is either overrated or underrated a person because of some superficial issues, and then it is begun to treat that person accordingly, even before that person has actually said or done anything. The man does not really know that person, but he only sees what he wants to see and hears what he wants to hear. A single quality or defect is somehow meant to be a generalization about all the other factors. The self-centred man does judge/condemn the person, not because the person has been guilty of any actual fault or misdeed. But it is rather because of that what that person does ‘not’ have/possess, or what it has ‘not’ achieved, so the man does not deem the person to be interesting/worthy enough in his eyes. It is thereby overlooked good qualities that exist for real, while the man does rather judge the person for some imaginary things, which do only exist in his own mind. It corresponds to that if a scientist would be belittled for not being an athlete, or if animals upon land would be belittled for not having the same abilities as sea-creatures. Such comparison is of course foolish, and irrelevant to the merit of each case.
               When a selfish man does notice defects in other people then he will receive it into his temper. And he will be unable to contain his contempt for long, and ultimately judge/condemn them in one way or another. But that man’s own selfishness has blinded his eyes, where he is unable to notice his own defects and he does not understand virtues that are being absent from his life. For that man has not heeded the human spirit from within, nor replaced his own defects with virtues. When the man does judge other people for their defects then it is because he does possess corresponding defects, although the details are not precisely the same. Or it can apply that the man does not possess similar defects like the person he is judging, but he has still not accustomed himself to virtue, which is meant to replace that weakness. For example, the man can condemn destitute person for having stolen in order to survive, and yet that man is having his livelihood provided by other’s people time and effort. Or that man does have a job which provides for his livelihood, and yet his job performance is being lazy and sluggish, thereby increasing the burden of his fellow-workers and making his paid share more than what he deserved for doing. The virtuous thing for the man would have been to be hard-working, and making his living in a completely fair and honest way, without condemning those that are having a hard time and under seemingly forcing of circumstance. Or even that the man’s lot in life is not being deal and perfect (by receiving support) then it is not to be held against him so long as the man does not hold anything against those that are also in a vulnerable position and in need of help. That to receive support is not being blameworthy in itself unless the man himself chooses to become superficial about it, if the man is finding fault with persons in the same position as him while trying to justify himself being in a different position. For another example, a man does persecute homosexual people for being different. It can mean that he himself is afraid of being homosexual, because he has already experienced such desires and thoughts from within, so he tries do divert the problem to someone else. Or it can rather apply that this heterosexual man does not have any natural relationship with women, because he is covetous, unfaithful, and disrespectful, afraid of genuine love and responsibility. That man knows nothing about that what good qualities are required to form a healthy relationship with a woman and develop it further (family life). This is why that man is not in any position to judge homosexual persons, because his own life is not perfect, and utterly incapable of offering good personal example. After the man has become virtuous and free from vices then he will become more tolerant, showing other people understanding and of that what they are going through. For the man will remember the time when himself was struggling against similar weaknesses, and how frail his own position was and would still be, if the divinity had not helped him overcome it. Now there is no longer any corruption, which the man would otherwise have implicated to other people, or blamed for his own faults, which he was mostly angry at himself for. Let it be duly noted that it is not claimed that homosexuality is being a vice or corruption, but it is seemingly so in the eyes of the man who is being judgmental. This may be a flawed example, but it can be understood what it is approximately about.
               It is the content of the topic which determines whether one is in position to express oneself about it or not. The topic will either appeal to oneself or not, whether it can be called one’s field of interest, strong factors, sense of decency, personal experience, or conviction. It is the same thing with human relations in general, when it is spoken with people for the first time and tried to get acquainted with them. For there must first exist a proper topic which can appeal to that person, and then that person will be able to respond accordingly. But it is not like one should first come up with a stupid and vainglorious topic, and then assume that the person turns out to be dull when it is either unable or unwilling to participate in it. It is not enough to speak about these or those topics at random, and then judge the person for not showing the same initiative, for not speaking to one in turn. For that one’s needless prattle has created needless expectation of the person, where it is blamed the person for not being receptive to one’s presumptions and whims, even that the person did not do anything wrong. Such a problem would never have existed if one had not begun to prattle in the first place, since it was mostly bound to one’s mindset. One should rather have spoken according to the available material in the situation, where it would either be adapted to the person or the common experience, which was being undergone and shared at that time. It can happen that the person reveals its ignorance or inability in a specific topic, but it does not mean that the same person is generally so, in every matter. It is rather because that person does find itself in a position which only appeals to its weak factors, but to none of its strong factors. For the other people come up with topics that only fit their manner of life, while they are never going over to the fields which that person knows most of.
               A proper curiosity is about asking a right question in order to receive a right answer. A simple question will call for a simple answer, while a complicated question will call for a complicated answer. It is not like a wise question will always guarantee a wise answer, because the person we are asking the question is not being wise enough to answer it in a wise way. And it is not like a foolish question will always guarantee foolish answer, because the person we are asking the question can consider it beneath its dignity to answer it at all. When we pray to the divinity and seek to consult with it in good conscience; then it is within the power of the divinity to give us a wise answer with the time. If we believe in the truth itself and do things through the truth; then it is within the power of the truth to lead us into all the truth. But if we come up with a foolish and impulsive claims then it is not to be expected that the divinity will answer it at all. It can never be given a proper answer if the question has been approaching the matter in a wrong way. It is important to ask in the right direction, by searching for an answer at the right place, and consult with the right person, which is actually able to offer right information. But it is a foolish thing when it is come up with a suggestive question, which has already implied the answer, and it is only looked for confirmation of one’s own presumption. It is also foolish thing when it is come up with a question that only seeks to exclude the wrong things, what should not be done and what kind of misunderstanding should be avoided. For the answer will not change anything in regard to one’s own position, where one is no nearer in discovering a solution. The man should only inquire about knowledge which he is able to do something about, what is within his reach to control and change, in putting that information to good use. The man does not need to know everything in advance, like by being expert in all fields at the same time, even that he can only spend time upon few of them to advance it further. It is only sufficient to keep to the information which is required to complete the goals at hand, what the man is currently working at, in making new accomplishment and discoveries. But the man does not need to know too many things at the same time, because it will only overcomplicate his position and make him distracted with irrelevant issues. The man will otherwise constantly think about problems which belong to someone else, whether it falls under the jurisdiction of the divinity or the choices of another person.
               It is often necessary to keep one’s opinions to oneself, and the reasons behind them. Sometimes the matter is not about that in saying all the right words, but rather to which person it should be directed. When the divinity is involved then we should be willing to confess everything to it. When the devil is involved then we should be determined to say nothing whatsoever to him. When something happens within us and we are being affected by it in some way; then we should first consider whether the human spirit or the mind is involved. If the human spirit is involved then we should open our heart to it and remain attentive for that what it has to say to us. If the mind is involved then we should close our heart to it and keep shunning that which it has to say to us. It can be prudent to remain silent within the presence of hostile person, when that person is asking us improper question merely so that we can be entangled by our own answer and that very answer becomes a new material for the hostile person to attack us with. If we simply remain silent and indifferent to that hostile person then it is not revealed any information or sign of weakness which can later be used against us. That hostile person would either way have twisted everything that we could say to it, by immediately heckling and quibbling and putting its own words into our mouth. But let’s continue to another subject. It can happen that we know the truth about something and what is the right thing to do. But we do still the same try to convince the wrong person, so that information will not obtain any reception. And even that the person might agree with us then it is still not in any position to do anything about it. That person proves to be just as powerless as we are. It should not be tried to convince distant spectators/audience, but only those persons that are ready and able to make a good use of the knowledge, in improving their lot. If the man does feel/experience a specific conviction in his heart then it is most important that he can convince himself about its value, and then act upon it, by applying it to his own life. And after the man has given a good personal example then he can teach other people to do the same thing. But it cannot really be taught anything prior to it, while the man is still being just as susceptible to temptations as other people and still participating in similar errors as them. It does not make any sense when the man is still being undecided and not consistent with anything, but he does still the same attempt to convince everyone else about it. It corresponds to that if the man would create a system and laws for other people to live after, while the man himself has never experienced it of his own accord, whether it does really work or not, whether it is being reasonable and fair or oppressive and inhumane. When discretion is involved then the man cannot expect other people to keep secrets if he is unable to do so even once. If it is revealed a secret to one irrelevant person then it will thereby be revealed to everyone. For example, the man can tell a secret to another person, and he does then ask that same person not to tell anyone else about it, as if the matter would not go any further. But that same person will then do exactly the same thing. For it will reveal the secret to the third person, and the third person to the fourth one, and so forth, until everyone knows about it.
               If the man is being faithful in small matters then he will also be faithful in the greater matters. If the man is being treacherous in small matters then he will also be so in the greater matters. It should first be tested whether the man is being honest and reliable, before it can be acknowledged him as a friend and given him one’s trust. But one should never be too eager to obtain a new friend, and then only afterwards try to find out if he is being honest and reliable. For if the person has already betrayed us during critical moments then it will also do so in the future, when corresponding opportunities will present themselves, since it is still the same person and nothing has changed in the situation. For example, when we experience a time of adversity then a person we had considered our friend is the first one to abandon us and conspire with our enemies against us. And when we again experience a time of prosperity then that person is the first one to come back to us and showing us interest in renewing or continuing the friendship. It is a foolish thing to hold unto such person, as if that person could repent and become a better friend in the future. The person has not changed, but only one’s thoughts about the person. For it has been preferred wishful thinking (excusing thoughts) over the fact, and coveted some kind of advantage from that person, so it is constantly changed one’s mind and tried to hold longer unto that false friend. A friendship must always be mutual before it can lead to constructive reception and benefits. It can be mentioned when a bad friend tries to prolong the friendship by making promises of better conduct (in the future). Such confrontation does tend to be superficial, because it is spoken directly about human relations, while it does not have any bearing upon its actual practice. It does not change the fact how the human relations have hitherto been, and how it will continue to be so in the future. The human relations will remain the same after the confrontation, just like the relations had been before it, what is taking place most of the time.
               It should be wished other people the best in life, and rejoiced with their prosperity, if the good things have really been had through good means of a good heart. It is acknowledged that rewards should be bestowed to those that make their best effort, and whom have been faithful with the responsibility given to them. It is acknowledged the good qualities in other men, and what good things they are being capable of. And it is even rejoiced that those involved are being a better person than one is and able to have a better life. It is never implicated such things personally to oneself, as if the good lot of other men is meant to belittle oneself, or their bad lot meant to exalt oneself. We should not seek to get all the attention to ourselves, but we should be willing to make way for the better person, whom is able to accomplish the most and bestow most benefits to those involved. But it should never be admired the hypocritical man for having obtained a good lot through dishonest means, like by being false to other people and exploiting their weaknesses, by cheating his way through challenges and stealing the credit from someone else, or when he has been exalted because of favouritism or connection with influential people. For such lot is always at the expense of someone else, a worthier person to deserve it, who would otherwise have made a good/better use of such position and promoted benefits to other people. Envy does not make any sense, because the envious man hates people for having a good lot, when that good lot has been caused by their good choices in life. He on the other hand has neglected to make good choices in life and that has prevented him from receiving things in a good way. The envious man hates people for being better than him, while he is doing nothing to improve his own life. It is thereby like the man hates people for their good sense and good qualities, while he neglects to reach for the same things. If the man would become virtuous then he would no longer envy other people, because he is experiencing similar things from within, and he finally knows what it is like. The envious man is not in any way exalted when better persons fall into a misfortune, because he continues to be just as restricted as before, foolish and weak as he is. Let’s say that a mediocre man does witness the foolishness of another person, or he manages to defeat a foolish person in a game. It only means that the person involved is foolish, but it does not make that man any wiser or better. It had everything to do with the incompetence of the opponent, and nothing to do with the merit of the victor. A similar thing applies when a wicked man does bully weak people, which are either unable or unwilling to stand up to him. It is not because the bully is being courageous and strong, but it is because the victim is being cowardly and weak. The wicked man relies upon the weakness of other people, and he tries to exploit it against them, but he does not have any good qualities of his own. The wicked man is full of weaknesses and vices, and can only thrive upon the weaknesses of other people, because they are more afraid than he is being afraid. The wicked man can rejoice over the misfortune of other people, even that he never caused it nor became victorious over them in any way. The person involved was already defeated by its own weaknesses, and then it could easily be overcome by anything from without, as when a carcass draws vultures.

3.2: The Human Frailty

Empathy is something which can only be experienced in the presence of other people, when it is met face to face and interacted with the person. But empathy is not bound to the meantime, when one is all alone or that person is being absent. It is not enough to only think about the person and wish it well, but compassion does call for a real choice, when it comes to be supportive of the person and in treating it in a decent way. It should be shown compassion while the human relations do last and offered help when called for. Then in the meantime it is preserved one’s attitude pure and sincere toward the person, just like what one had originally experienced during the last contact/interaction. But as the man does isolate himself the more then he will become the more distrustful of other people, and even to the point of hating them. It has everything to do with his mindset and what he is alone doing at that moment, while it has nothing to do with the person involved and what it is doing at that moment. For the man cannot even see the person nor know anything more about it, but the man has changed his attitude only because of the corruption taking place in his mind. The man has allowed the mind to become an intercessor between himself and the person, but the man does no longer turn to the person directly, as a primary source about itself. It is still like all delusions are immediately dispelled every time it is met the actual person, where it is no longer held anything against the person, but only wished it well. Charity can only exist between two living beings, and every good deed needs a recipient. It does not matter who does the good deed so long as it can be accomplished, and it does not matter who does help the person so long as it can be delivered from its distress. It should be wishes for that what is best for the person, and what can benefit it the most. For example, if the man does really love a woman then he only wants her to be happy, even that he is not the person who can make her happy, or he is not able to fulfil her needs. It would otherwise involve a selfish love, in wanting that woman to love the man and make him happy, while he is neglecting the woman and what she feels about everything. This is why the man is supposed to be willing to stand aside and allow that woman to be with the man she loves, who can make her most happy and contented with her life. A selfish man wants a woman to make him happy. A self-righteous man wants to be the one who makes the woman happy. But the virtuous man only wants the woman to be happy. It does not have to involve a man at all as a boyfriend/husband.
               It is a human and natural thing to shed tears and mourn for the death of a beloved one. But it is a completely different thing when the man allows thoughts about the deceased person to make him disturbed and tormented over it. (That is to say, when after the initial mourning the man is being regularly/repeatedly distracted by thoughts of the past, as something happening for a long time.) If the man truly loved the beloved one as that beloved one loved him; then he would heed the wishes of the beloved one in only wishing him the best in life. That if the beloved one would now somehow appear to the man then that beloved one would tell him not to feel unhappy on that person’s accord, but that the man should move on with his life and be spiritually free and happy at all times. When an untimely death occurs then one should not seek to justify that it was meant to be, as if God had decided to take that person away in order to spare/safe it from some later evil/misfortune in life. One does simply not know such things. Only God knows the real reasons for that why things turned out in such way. And if a person is feeling grief over the death of a beloved one then a friend of that person should not seek to invent arguments in order to justify that the person should not feel grief, as if such grief was being unnatural and a weak thing to do. It should not be denied the natural feeling, but only the unnatural thoughts which make things extreme. One should beware of all thoughts that try to make one become self-centred and self-absorbed. Like when the mourning for the deceased person is not really about the deceased person, but all about oneself. As if one was mourning that the death of that person was one’s loss, that it denied one some future-good/advantage from that person. The mind does originally make mention of that person as a mere tool to affect one in a selfish way, where it is digressed from the original goodwill one had for the person and instead sought something for oneself (or tried escaping from something) when thinking about the person. Surely if it is looked beyond one’s self and considered the present sleep of that deceased person then there is now nothing evil happening to that person. Hence if one truly loves the person and is concerned for its well-being then one can now be contented in knowing that the deceased person is now in God’s good hands. It is completely pointless to have remorse afterwards, if the person involved is already gone, because it is too late to do anything about it, what kind of choices belonged to that time. It is useless to consider what should rather have been done in the past, in evaluating one’s past performance. One minor change would not have made any difference to the general course (mainstream) of one’s heart. One’s expression and intervention did only have value while it was able to benefit the person, if the person could actually receive it. A similar thing applies if the person is already dead. It cannot be done a good act to a dead person, like when people speak well of the dead and honour all mention of it. It should of course be treated the deceased with respect rather than disrespect, but there is still no advantage to be gained from it, like some kind of self-made forgiveness and redemption. It can namely apply that many people did not appreciate the person while it was still being alive, where they failed to show it understanding and support when needed. But after that person is deceased then that people do finally seem to care, when they are only doing so in order to appease their own impulses, to obtain some kind of self-gratification. It proves to be hypocritical in itself, that it is finally cared for persons that are no longer there. But at the very same time these mournful people are neglecting other persons that are still being alive, sharing similar position as the deceased person had back then. These persons are also being outcasts, neglected and abandoned by the society, which nobody seems to care for and visit in their hour of need/distress. So the circumstances correspond to each other, although the details are not the same.
               All men can experience similar things from within themselves, whether it does involve the spiritual body or the physical body, what kind of possibilities or restrictions are bound to it. And a similar thing applies to external matters, what can be experienced in the environment and during human relations, which can affect the man in one way or another. There exist many aspects of benefit and disruption (spiritual), and there exist many aspects of pleasure and pain (bodily). But no title or shelter is so great in itself that it can safeguard the man from everything, as if he would never need to feel or experience the same things as other people. For example, a rich man cannot buy the privilege in never feeling any pain in his body, nor can he purchase gratification of his guilty conscience. But all of us are subject to the same human nature, and similar experience in this world. It does at least apply to the spiritual law and the physical law, although we can own and do different things in this world. All of us can experience prosperity and adversity, personal improvement and regression/decline, and being driven/carried over to accomplishments and failures. Not only can we do something but we can also know what it feels like afterwards. Not all men are given the same opportunities. But we do still the same admit that we could have experienced the lot of other men, and we would have been just as much affected by its possibilities, uncertainty, and temptations. We can be strong in some factors and weak in others, but we do still the same not judge other people for their weak factors, even that we do not share the same ones. It is only enough to be frail in one factor to invalidate all such claims, because we have yielded to corresponding driving force, like covetousness and contempt, although the bad incident was not the same. Jesus Christ said: ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone’ (condemn and punish the person for its sin). A similar thing can be said, namely: ‘Let him who is without covetousness be the first one to condemn that person for having committed fault through covetousness’. Or: ‘Let him who has done all things through pure intentions be the first one to condemn that person for having committed fault through impure intention’. For example, a specific person did do something improper in the situation (sexual misconduct). Once it has been revealed to everyone then everyone are now condemning that person, and ‘branding’ it as irredeemable, and excluding it in all things for all time. But is a hypocritical thing when the same judgmental people are no better within, because they do also covet persons in their hearts, and they fantasize about persons as sexual objects, and they have sought sexual relations through dishonest means (pretending to care for the person and fool it into complying). They are in no position to condemn the person which did something improper in the situation, because they have been heeding the same devils in their lives. That person took one step further than them in heeding the next devil in the line (escalating sin), and did thereby outwardly commit an improper act of covetousness. These judgmental people may not have committed such thing in deed, and yet they are being no different in their motives and intentions. They were being more crafty/clever in concealing their covetousness from the persons they sought to entice/exploit, and/or they were not being as reckless in their approach for dishonest gain. The ‘how’ was being different, but the ‘why’ and ‘what for’ was being the same.
               If we are going to understand the fellow man then we must first understand the internal causes, which have influenced the man into developing specific attitude and behaviour. The man’s choices do merely reflect that what has already happened from within him, where he has either listened to the sense of the human spirit or the delusions of the mind. It can happen that the man reveals his frailty and error of judgment, but we should still the same not judge him in a personal way, like it will always be a permanent part of him. It is only sufficient to correct his premises and understanding, so the man will be able to learn from his mistakes and do better next time. It is of greater value that the man involved can understand himself, what has been influencing his attitude for better or worse, and whether he is adapting to the reality or not. So the man must find it out for himself what has hitherto been motivating him, in identifying the root of the problem, and ‘how’ it can actually be done the right thing instead of the wrong thing. It is not like one does need to understand everything about the person and its life, like by inquiring too much into its affairs and prattle about it with other people. For it will not matter whether everyone else are able to understand the person involved, while that same person is unable to understand itself. It should only be inquired as much about the person as what is within one’s ability, in doing something about it to help the person, in making a practical use of that same information. It can be continued to do the decent thing on one’s behalf, but it should not be troubled oneself about choices which belong to that person alone and are its own responsibility. The virtuous man should not only stand up for the weak, but he should also teach them to stand up for themselves. That person will then possess the will and the ability to stand up for its conviction, regardless of that what enemy could be involved, or what material could be used against it. It is not enough to separate all the bad people from the weak person, where it will only delay or transfer the same problem, since that person continues to be just as susceptible to temptations as before. It was namely that person’s weakness that was drawing all kinds of bad people to it, but if the weakness is removed then nobody will be able to notice it or do anything about it. While a person is desiring selfish things and intentionally seeking such opportunities; then it exposes that person to the manipulation of bad people (which are being worse than that person and more crafty in the ways of falsehood). The purpose of this work is to bring forth complete knowledge, firmly rooted in moral values, so the man can be instructed to help himself and do everything through right premises. It does otherwise not work to convert people through only one principle, while they prove to be selfish in all other matters, and still listening to delusions most of the time. It could be likened to that if one would pour a glass of water upon a great bonfire, which does not change anything at all. This is why there must exist many principles which can draw strength from each other, and all work for the same noble goal, until the person will no longer be selfish, but actually willing to confront opposition and suffer for doing the right thing.

Now even that one does have a friend then it is still not like one should agree with everything which he can say and do, only because of his personal involvement. And even that one does have an enemy then it is still not like one should disagree with everything which he can say and do, even before one has listened to and noticed what that actually is. It is not like the personal involvement of our enemy does invalidate the truthfulness of every opinion and morality of every choice he makes, when he is drawing from the good source within himself and being consistent with a good conscience common in us all. An enemy should still be commended for his truthfulness and virtues, regardless of that how it can seem to affect oneself, since he is following the human spirit in that regard. A sincere and honest enemy can become a sincere and honest friend. If the enemy is being faithful to his current master then he will also become faithful to the next master, after the struggle has ended and the current master is no more. But a treacherous friend remains a treacherous enemy, whether he is being so openly or in secret. If a man betrays his friends for the sake of new ones then he will also betray them later on, because he does never appreciate the current friends and never remains faithful to the one same thing. It should be cared more for the person as a living being than what can come from it, because the person does possess the same soul and body, while it words and deeds can always change with the time. If the person is able to live on then it can always repent of its errors and improve its choices, but the person will never be able to do so if it is already dead and lost. This is why we should never hate the fellow man because of some unpleasant incidents in the past, because we do not know if he has already repented and become a better person. For the cause of the hatred can be already dead and buried, when the man in question is no longer saying and doing anything to be hated for.
               Forgiveness is something which can never exist if everyone is already being perfect and worthy in deserving it. Something must first be found lacking before something can be done to correct it. Something must first be found bare/exposed before something can be done to cover/shelter it. That to forgive is to be gracious and merciful for free, where it is bestowed as a gift to the transgressor. When it is done something twisted and uneven at the expense of another person; then it calls for countermeasure to straighten and even things out. The transgressor will have to experience/undergo something and render something to the one that had been transgressed. That after something has been returned/restored then it is gone back to the first/original position (zero). This does not only apply to punishment, but it can also apply to mercy, when the transgressed person is willing to forgive and allow things to return to normal (before the transgression), when those involved had the right attitude toward one another and were at peace among themselves. The transgressor is guilty of a wrongful act, and he deserves to be punished for it, but it does still not mean that it will actually happen, if the transgressed person is willing to forgive him. The transgressed person did not choose punishment to even things out, and by doing so the divinity will even things out within the transgressed person by rendering it free blessings. That the merciful person has a spiritual treasure in heaven, a much luck in store when needed, when that person does find itself exposed and in need of mercy. When we are being merciful then it is not because it is wanted something in return, but we do really believe in its value, in benefiting the person involved. It is only wished the person the best, to live in a good way, regardless of one’s personal involvement, as if one’s own life does not matter. It is thereby relinquished all claims in wanting suffering for the person, and not dwelt upon it any longer. The man can forgive his enemies everything, even that they do never repent of anything and never ask for his forgiveness. This forgiveness toward those that are being unreceptive to forgiveness does probably only affect the forgiver, in promoting good effects to his soul alone. The divinity responds to this by pardoning the forgiver of his sins toward other people. The divinity does rebuke and chasten those it loves. It is not a light thing when the believer yields to corruption and invites the enemies of God into his life. That to tolerate the presence of wicked beings is to tolerate further temptations and corruption. God is quick to chasten the believer for such fault that he might not later be condemned with the enemies of God. That to be rebuked and chastened for one’s fault is not the same thing as if one was being rejected and abandoned by God. One can temporarily experience bad effects/consequences following a bad choice; that one might know the difference between good and bad, and become the more determined to reject the bad while sticking to the good. So the believer will learn something from small misfortune and become more responsible with his life to avoid a greater misfortune.
               It is not enough to verbally ask for forgiveness, but the transgressor must first repent in his heart, understand what was wrong about that choice, and how it affected the victim for the worse. The transgressor can next confess the truth about it, assume responsibility of the act, and be willing to improve, so it will no longer be repeated the error against other people. It is thereby asked for forgiveness because the transgressor does really repent in his heart, and he is ready to love and care for other people, at least in his heart, what he feels about them. But the quest for forgiveness should not be done for selfish reasons, which includes that when the transgressor is only fearing for his life and seeking to escape from the consequences. If it is shown mercy to a repentant man then he will improve from it, and do better next time in corresponding situation. So it is like the problem is already solved, because we really hated the evil but not the person being ignorantly manipulated by evil, and that person has now separated itself from (further) evil. But when it is shown mercy to an unrepentant man then he will become even more insolent, as if he could get away with everything, so that nothing good will come from that in continuing dealings with him. It should first be inquired into the matter, what is the transgressor’s attitude toward the one transgressed, which determined the transgression back then and can again so in the future. It is not wanted the transgressor to come up with excuses, in blaming something or someone else for it, but the transgressor is either being repentant or not, sincere or false, honest or dishonest. It cannot be forced forgiveness upon a person that does not even repent of the act itself, which the forgiveness is supposed to reach to. It is not like it can be forgiven people against their consent, even that they did never ask for forgiveness, nor are willing to receive it. It is true that one can be willing to forgive them, and yet it is not the same thing as to expect that same forgiveness to actually reach into their hearts and change them for the better. It is not enough to say with oneself that it is forgiven such people and then continued to associate with them while having different expectation (as if they had already improved in their dealings), since they are still being just as untrustworthy and hostile. However, even that false and treacherous people are not being ready for mercy then it does still not harm oneself to be merciful, as if mercy was too much of an obstacle or heavy burden to carry. At least the forgiveness intended is being stored and waiting to be received in the future if/when the person finally repents. It should never be trusted a wicked man, never sought for his company, nor entrusted a person into his care, since the wicked man would surely abuse his position for wicked ends. Mercy does otherwise only lead to benefits, something constructive for the people involved, while they still retain a sense of decency. Mercy must be put into context of the attitude of the person receiving it. We should beware of coming up with one-sided measure, as if we were already intent on doing something on the scene before arriving on the scene, or by explaining something ‘positive’ about that person in our mind without that person ever being present. That to understand the person is not the same thing as to justify it, as if there were some good reasons behind its misdeeds or something good to be seen about its corruption. Mercy is the virtue of the moderate middle path, but that to go too far and do something reckless digresses from virtue. An improper use of mercy does harm us if we continue to keep company with false and treacherous people, but it does otherwise work to forgive them in our heart while keeping our distance.
               Now just like the man should not judge other people then he should not even judge himself, but he should rather allow the divinity to judge all men in all matters in general. The man should never give in to the self-accusations of the mind and torment himself for past faults, since that nothing good/constructive will ever come from it. It is because the man is not really helping anyone by tormenting himself, where he is not caring for and attending to any person at the same time. The self-tormented man is being too self-absorbed to know otherwise, where he only seeks self-gratification. It is rather important that the man can know himself, when it comes to understand what caused his faults, how it can be prevented, and how he can heed his better nature. The external incident was merely the consequence, and what other people felt/thought about it, while the original cause was to be found in the mind itself. And even that the man does torment himself then the same problem still remains, where the man is still at square one and likely to repeat the same faults all over again. The mind is truly a double-faced hypocrite. In the meantime the mind pretends to be the man’s conscience and tries to create guilt through wrong premises, only so that the man can be tormented by it. The mind accuses the man of everything and seeks to convince man to loathe himself for his past faults. But when it is finally experienced corresponding circumstances with corresponding choices; then the mind encourages the man to repeat the same faults (as what had originally happened). When the moment arrives to make a better choice and treat people in a better way; then the mind becomes again encourager of wrong choice and that in treating people in a worse way. Hence in the meantime the man wasted all his time and effort in giving account of himself before that fake/phony conscience, which was never being genuinely concerned for that which is true and just, which was never trying to help the offender and the victim (to even things out). The self-tormented man hates/despises himself so much that he is unwilling to receive the love of others and he pushes people away. It is only sufficient that the man can love other persons and be there for them in life, even that he is unable to contact the people from the past and make everything up to them. If the man does really understand himself then he will also understand other people, and not wish them to experience self-accusations and self-torment on his behalf.
               Innocence is all about that in being sincere and pure in one’s heart, even before one has actually spoken to a person and done something in relation to it. It is about unconditional goodwill, where it is only wished the person well, but never any harm or vulnerability which could be exploited against it. Innocence is about being free of contempt, for we can indeed prove to be frail and prone to mistakes, but it has never been done deliberately, nor been directed personally against anyone. It should never be attacked people while they are down on the ground (in a weak and exposed state), but everyone should be allowed to maintain their dignity and rise up from the ground. There is nothing as ugly and deformed as the ill will itself, when it is hated human beings because of petty and stupid things, and preferred transient things above a living being. The innocent person should always be light-hearted and carefree, even during tribulations and misfortunes. For it is had faith in the divinity that it wishes us all well, and that it will take care of all the difficult matters in our life, while it is only required that we continue to be spiritually free and love one another. The faith in the divinity makes us free from within, while the love for one another makes us free on the outside. The love for one another brings us spiritual relief in all these experienced circumstances out in the world. We should never become troubled or vexed in our soul, because it will otherwise distract us from loving each other, when it comes to focus upon the person and be there for it in life. It might be presumed that we love the person by being worried on its behalf, and by tormenting ourselves over its misfortune, as if it was another form of sympathy. However, it does not actually help the person, nor make the misfortune easier for it to endure, because we are being powerless in that what happens within the person. It is only the divinity which can save/deliver the person, whether it is purified and healed its spiritual body, or bestowed the person with inner strength and wisdom in overcoming troubles. This is why we can just as well have faith in the divinity, acknowledging its jurisdiction over the matter, while we hold our peace and remain patient, as the only proper thing to do. It can happen that the man is being distracted by his mind, and he can reveal a sign of weakness in the presence of other people. But the man should not fall into the trap by trying to save himself from it. It is only sufficient for the man to receive the love of good persons and allow them to treat him kindly. The man should do nothing in regard to his own life, while he waits for good persons to respond to him with understanding and tolerance. It is like the man is being saved by the goodness that he sees in other persons, when the divinity is working within them and appealing to their sense of decency. It can apply that the man has not openly spoken or done anything wrong, but he is still the same guilty in his attitude, for having yielded to evil desires and wished for evil things to happen to other persons. Within himself, when deliberately consulting with himself regarding his motivation/intention; he keeps telling himself evil things. The man is already covetous and contemptuous in his attitude, ready to commit evil deed if it would seem that he could get away with it, or if nobody would know about it. Therefore does the man possess deliberate will to commit evil, but he is too afraid to commit it in reality, since he would otherwise be punished and suffer loss. Idleness breeds delusions, while covetousness and contempt stains/corrupts the man’s heart, so he has already lost his innocence.

The one who is writing this is in no position to offer advice about intimate/romantic relationship, like ‘how’ it should be formed a relationship and to develop it further. It would be a contradictory and/or hypocritical thing to speak beyond one’s personal experience. The healthy persons do not need a physician, but rather those that are sick. It is not the righteous which are being called to repentance, but rather the sinners. What one has been writing does apply to those that seek intimate relationship through wrong premises, that they might be restrained from doing something improper toward woman and be prevented from forming unhealthy relationship. When sexuality is involved then it should not be headed from one extreme to another. Even that the man does not covet women then it does still not mean that he does covet men instead, because that covetousness is as equally wrong in both cases. For the man can consider it to be an indecent and shameful thing to look upon women with greed, and consider them as some kind of sexual objects to be exploited. So the man does not want to pretend to show the woman interest, nor lie anything to her. That to abstain from sexual relations while maintaining good conscience is preferable to that in becoming successful in sexual relations through false attitude and dealings (which thereby makes it a dishonest gain). If the man does not experience any genuine feelings toward a specific woman, and/or is not being genuinely concerned for her wellbeing; then the man should accept that things are so within and move on with his life, without stopping on the distractions of the mind and without seeking to make that woman stop on himself as distraction. If the man is either unwilling or unable to give that woman what she is looking for and/or what she truly needs; then he should simply stand aside and allow things to resume their natural course in the life of that woman, what time can or will bring forth in her life (a mutual love of someone worthy, a spiritually fulfilling life). If the man cannot approach a specific person and have an initiative in speaking to it; without him becoming false/pretentious and saying ‘something’ to get its attention (without meaning it, without conviction); then it is a sign that he should maintain his distance and do nothing in that regard. The only decent thing that the man can do is to discreetly pray to the divinity that it might bless that person and help it to become happy.
               The man can seek to maintain a right attitude toward a woman he has come across, although his resolve can be somewhat shaken when he experiences sexual thoughts in the meantime. (It is not being all perfect and free from all vulnerability, but the man does still keep trying to reject temptations without giving himself wholly over to them.) However, the man does still never experience any internal conflict when it is finally met the woman and during the human relations, since he does only feel equanimity and continues to do the decent thing. A sexual lust is nothing more than covetousness, but it is not love, a genuine affection for the woman. This is why it should be overcome sexual lust, while there is nothing wrong with a relationship between a man and a woman, so it is about the attitude behind the relationship. It should be shunned sexual lust in all forms, regardless of the gender and the outward appearance and the age, even that the mind is constantly tempting the man with new desires instead of those overcome. The man should not become afraid of unpleasant thoughts and assume that his resolve is the same thing as a repression, and then return back to the original lust for women. But the man should continue to shun temptations in all forms until he does no longer possess the will to sin, and there are no impulses affecting his body at the same time. What can be said about that when the man experiences sexual arousal or hot sensation in his body while thinking about a specific person? What is really happening is that an evil spirit is poking the man’s body with a hot/burning stick, and trying to convince the man about an improper/unfitting course of action solely because of a misleading body sign. As if such irrelevant sign in the body would be telling the man what he should do or should not do, what person to pick or not pick. It has nothing to do with genuine love for another person, and nothing to do with any personal conviction, and nothing to do with that what is being a befitting relationship. When the man allows himself to be swayed by such signs in the body then he is acting like a animal which is being driven by the ‘hit’ of a human driver.
               There is no covetousness in a pure and sincere love, which does both apply to men and women, in what kind of way they should see each other. It is first known the person and whether it does have a special place in one’s heart, before it can be deemed possible to have relationship with it. If a man and a woman love each other then the intimate acts are supposed to be the consequence of that. The mutual unconditional love is meant to be the basis of their childbearing. So that a child came to exist through no other reason than pure love, and the child was already loved from the very beginning. But if the man does not care for the woman then he will neither care for their child. He never wanted that child to begin with, but only cared about his own selfish needs. A sexual lust is indeed a blind thing in itself, for the man has already planned to seduce the woman even before she had actually said or done anything. The man does only consider the outward appearance (body shape, skin colour, or specific age), but it has nothing to do with the actual person underneath. All the subsequent effort is merely pretext, in what way the man does approach the woman, express himself and treat her, since he is only in love with the superficial issue. The man would have said the same impersonal thing if another person was involved, where he is really only listening to himself repeating the same planned speech instead of listening to and responding to that what the person has to say at that moment. The man should not look for beautiful women, but a good woman is the only thing that matters. A beautiful outward appearance does not equal a beautiful soul. But a beautiful soul does always equal a natural beauty, a bright and lively face with clear and soft eyes. An outward beauty is not really a blessing by default, but it is rather depended upon that in what way the beauty will be used, and what the beheld beauty will draw out from the hearts of other people. An attractive person does tend to be overrated by other people, while an unattractive person does tend to be underrated by other people. But in both cases it is judged the person solely because of its outward appearance. It is different when a person does have average looks, because it will avoid both extremes, so that other people will rather evaluate it by personal merit and choices. A beautiful woman will often be unable to have ordinary relations with men she comes across. Many men will look upon the beautiful woman with covetous eyes and always seek to flatter her, rather than by being truthful and concerned about her as a person. The very beauty of the woman keeps drawing unwanted covetous men to her. Covetous men did never care for the woman to begin with, so she should never have looked for kindness at the wrong place, from the unworthy. It is not a coincidence when a woman makes herself too depended upon men and she allows herself to be sexually exploited by many. But it was because that woman already lacked self-respect, and she was already being afflicted by personal problems, which made her needy and lonely in the process. A true man would never seek to exploit the woman in her weakened state, but he would rather seek to help that woman treat herself in a dignified way.
               It can be said that those who participate in debauchery are people which seek to use/exploit one another. They try to hide behind hypocritical rules of conduct and ‘beautify’ their approach, as if their errors were justified in comparison to those they judge harshly for going too far (‘slut’). All this outward show and superficial standard does not change the fact that they are guilty of falsity and covetousness within, the very internal activity and attitude which drives forth all sexual immorality. If these people were truly being virtuous and pure in their intentions then they would not have attended to these debauched gatherings in the first place. Hence they are in no position to judge those which live in weakness, which are being slandered and put to open shame (outcasts). A humble sinner which is being outspoken about his own faults is preferable to a hypocrite (with a seemingly spotless reputation) that seeks to justify himself. The divinity knows the heart of the person and why it did the things it did. A hypocrite condemns a person for being ‘too’ straightforward in its approach for sex, while the hypocrite pretends to be interested in a person for a short time as a ‘minimum’ excuse/waiting before committing sexual act. But all this time the hypocrite has been no different when seeking to gratify his lust, because he had already been intent on doing it before speaking to the person at all. It is only sought to ‘lessen’ or change the superficial aspect of a fundamentally same act. That to seek fornication and fail to become successful in it does not make the man innocent. That to fantasize about sinful things which the man is too afraid to act upon does not make him free of blame. Even that the man has not committed sinful deeds or the same sinful things as other people; then it does still not justify him over them. The ‘secret area’ of the man’s heart and mind does determine the value of the behaviour. If the man experiences sexual urges then it might seem to be a hard/difficult thing to resist when he is trying to do so through none-straight means. Like when the man only looks to himself and how something is supposed to affect him. When the man tries to avoid wrong things only because they would otherwise make him sinful/imperfect (perfectionism). When the man tries to do the right thing only because it is supposed to be expected of him (as if he was under much pressure in hurrying things through), without him actually understanding why it should be done and in discerning the value of the right choice. But if it is taken the love of God into consideration and asked God to found one’s life upon His love; then things begin to go smoothly and easy. Because it is loved and cared about the person then it is never considered anything that might contradict it. That to bend lowly for the love of God is a little thing which yet manages to accomplish more than all the words/arguments and force/effort in the world. A little and gentle breeze blows away the storm in one’s mind and body.
               The one who is writing this does personally experience no bias toward or against homosexuality. It does not change that in what way is noticed the person. It is not held anything against the person. The law of Moses speaks against homosexuality, and Paul the Apostle spoke against homosexuality. And yet we should ultimately look to the personal example of Jesus Christ. A woman was taken in adultery and she was supposed to be punished according to the law of Moses. And yet Jesus Christ told her that He did not condemn her and He told her to sin no more. This means that God’s grace and mercy can ‘override’ that what is deemed to be outside the ‘norm’, where it can softly absorb and cover what that person’s weakness is supposed to call for. It is acknowledged that homosexuality is part of the human nature, a part of the human frailty/weakness, as what applies to those that are being heterosexual. A homosexual person knows with itself that it has a weak spot for those of the same gender, and that it cannot change that what it experiences within (affections, inclinations), and that it seems like that person has no choice in that matter. It can be treaded the moderate middle path by neither justifying nor condemning this internal activity, when a person has no control of that what is happening within and it seems like this matter has already been decided/chosen for it. It is acknowledged how things are within, or what things are had within (feelings, personal experience), and yet it is also acknowledged that the divinity can make us spiritually free and able to treat one another in a decent way. The ultimate goal is to free ourselves from the desires and thoughts of the mind (internally), and to show grace and mercy toward those that live in weakness (externally). It can be supposed that it is the ideal thing for a man and a woman to take their time to know one another and to love one another, and marry and remain faithful/chaste to one another, and to have children and raise their children, and have a ‘healthy’ and complete family life. That all of this might be accomplished without them divorcing. But such is the world we live in that things are far from being ideal. For example, parents decide to hand over their daughter into marriage as if she was a ‘bartering/trading object’, and without that woman having any say in it, and without her knowing the man she is getting married to. And a woman can find herself in marriage where the husband does not love her, and/or that is being neglectful of her and their children, and/or which is being domineering and abusive. Or a person does not control that what kind of feelings it has and what kind of feelings it has for someone, and whereto its heart is inclined and belonging to. That person cannot change that what it is experiencing within, and it cannot force it upon itself to have different feelings than it does. There is need for that in confessing and hearing the truth that the persons involved can move on. Even that things are not being ‘ideal’ and ‘perfect’ and ‘according to the norm’; then it is still a matter of being human and accepting our humanity. It is ultimately a question whether two persons experience genuine love for one another (mutual), and that they are truly there for one another. It is not like it can be said that a type of sexuality is being altogether good or altogether bad. It should be evaluated according to the attitude of those involved and their circumstances and their moral choices. Debauchery and fornication (internally devoid relationship where sexual relation is the only aim, partnering with many people) is being wrong in all cases, whether those involved are being heterosexual or homosexual. A loving and faithful relationship is being right in all cases, whether those involved are being heterosexual or homosexual. Whatever our weaknesses and preferences, or whatever our mixed and tangled personal issues (good things in bad things, bad things in good things); then we rely upon God’s grace and mercy to make up for everything.

Every individual needs to be honest with himself and seek to do things in good conscience, to the best of his knowledge and ability. Does the man really experience genuine love for another person and he only wishes it well? That when the man is in the presence of that person then a ‘sparking life’ is being roused in his heart and spirit, and a smooth easy-going thing is being drawn from his heart and let out to the person? That when in the presence of that person the man brightens up and gladdens, and experiences peace and stabilizing effects come over him? That is something which comes from the human spirit and belongs to it (the divinity). That is something which should be held unto and expanded further. Or does the man experience ‘cold shackling thoughts of death’, an unloving covetous attitude which does feel lifeless? Does the man experience unwanted desires and thoughts (improper affection), when it is like his mind and body is being temporarily grabbed by bad and disruptive state, involving fear and self-constraint and obsession? Does the man experience sexual thoughts about one woman, and then a couple of thoughts later he experiences sexual thoughts about another woman, and so forth? Does the man experience impulses in his body, a burning sensation that comes and goes, where the man is more being concerned in gratifying it than being concerned for the actual person? That is something which comes from the mind and belongs to it (the devil). That is something which should be let go of and allowed to pass over. Every individual should be aware of that what kind of internal activity he is having, in what way such internal activity appears to him, and what is being accompanied by it (beneficial or disruptive effects). It should not be sought to justify that when we are being tempted by the mind, in whatever form such temptations appear to us (impulses, thoughts, temporary/fleeting personal experience). It is not a question of that how near and convincing such temptation can seem to be in belonging to our self. It is something which begins with the presence of an evil spirit, and it ends when that evil spirit departs from us.
               That which is being influenced by God is being good in itself, while that which is being influenced by the devil is being bad in itself. Let’s say that the man comes across a woman, and they talk together and spend some time together. During this incident the man only experienced goodwill toward the woman and peace within himself. That is what originally happened and the man should trust in that what he felt at that time. That is being influenced by God. Now let’s say that in the meantime, after this incident and before the next incident with the woman; then the man experiences sexual thoughts about that woman and he cannot stop thinking about her in that way. Because of these thoughts about the woman then the man’s attitude toward the woman changes and he is now coveting her as some kind of sexual object. That is being influenced by the devil. The man is not being with the woman he is thinking about. He is being all alone with devil. The devil is drawing such distorted image of the woman in the man’s eyes. These sexual thoughts about the woman have in real nothing to do with the woman. It is merely a pretext or tool which the devil makes use of in order to come uninvited into the man’s life. If the man does have such bad attitude (covetousness) when he does next meet the woman and he is looking for an opportunity to seduce/use her; then that ruins the experience with that woman. The man will say and do something amiss because he is no longer drawing from the human spirit. The human spirit will not help the man to deceive and exploit that woman, so it is like the man does no longer experience the right feeling and the right words to say to that woman (because these right words would otherwise have been abused/misused to obtain success in deceiving and exploiting the woman). The woman will notice that something feels off about the man. But if the man had stayed true to his original feelings in the meantime; then he would have maintained the same good attitude toward the woman and they would have continued to have good time together. Hence it is all about the attitude and the approach being good in itself. Covetousness and fornication is being wrong in itself. It does not mean that all sexual relationships are being bad or that the man should abstain from all sexual relationships. Or while the man does have a bad attitude then he is being unworthy of relationship and he should abstain from relationships until his attitude becomes a good one. It can be mentioned that when it is played a role-playing video game which is enjoyed very much and it becomes a desirable thing. But in the meantime one can experience thoughts about the video game and one cannot stop thinking about it (obsession about character development, that in finishing quests). That does ruin the feeling for the game (story, gameplay) when one plays it again. It does not mean that this video game is being a bad influence or that one should abstain from all video games. It can be blamed these thoughts in the meantime for making one digress from the original experience.
               If one does heed the mind (devil) when it turns the attention to that in coveting a specific woman; then one will also later heed the mind when it turns the attention to that in despising that woman. This means that one will swing from covetousness to contempt, and from contempt to covetousness. By having needless expectation of the person then it will later lead to needless disappointment of the person. It does first involve something too much (that to overrate), and afterwards it involves something too little (that to underrate). In both cases it is not received and appreciated things as they really are (the current good attitude, the current good qualities, and the current good choices). By keep thinking about the person then it is kept changing one’s mind/stance about the person, and preferred such illusion over the actual person when it is finally met with it. It might at first seem to involve a ‘love-hate’ relationship, when it did really never involve any genuine love to begin with. It can be called a selfish love, when it is expected something from that person and wanted it to make one feel better about oneself, when one is only concerned about that in making good impression to the person and that in making it take a liking to oneself. When something of this fails to come true then it is immediately held something against that person and turned against it. It corresponds to that when a wicked man attacks and disfigures a woman for having rejected his advances, which proves/confirms that he never loved her to begin with. The charity of God does involve pure and sincere love. That one only possesses goodwill toward the person and one only wants that which is for its wellbeing. That one’s own life is not important, but it is rather important that God bless that person with happiness. To be concerned about that in keep convincing oneself in loving and caring about that person with a pure heart, that one does keep noticing the actual person when it is finally met with it and tried to make the most of the moment together, that one does keep treating the person in a decent and dignified way. This pure and sincere love is maintained the same at all times, just as it has been from the beginning. This pure and sincere love is not being changed by one’s self/ego and how the self/ego can be affected by something. This pure and sincere love is not being changed by one’s needless expectations/desires. Why should one’s life have to be involved in the life of that person, if that person is able to become happy from another source (the blessings of God)? Why should it matter that one should be the one to make that person happy, if that person is able to become happy without one’s involvement? Hence one’s own life does not matter. Nobody does need to be depended upon one’s life for arousal of good things. The grace and mercy of God is able to bestow free blessings to the person.
               Let’s say that the mind is tempting the man with countless thoughts all day long. The mind mentions ‘this’, and if the man manages to withstand this thought/temptation then the mind does mention ‘that’ instead, and so forth. The devil is constantly taking the man to another inner place to test his resolve. The man keeps experiencing unpleasant memories, and he keeps experiencing thoughts that try to create fear about the unknown future, and he keeps experiencing thoughts that try to induce him into a needless inquiry/pursuit of trivial or fictional matter, and he keeps experiencing sexual thoughts about women that seem to fit his preference. The mind is constantly trying to distract the man from a higher calling, when he is participating in a constructive goal. Hence the mind can attack the man in a personal way and seek to undermine that what he is now doing, and the mind can make use of lures of sinful pleasures as something that seems preferable or comfortable temptation in comparison. The man must be willing to deny his self/ego every day and be willing to forsake everything bound to the self/ego. All these selfish things which the man seems to own/possess within himself, which he does still hold unto or cling to. It does not make any sense that the man would be rejecting all these temptations from the mind, which are coming from this same source, and yet decide to stop on temptations that involve fantasizing sexual relations. It is not like the mind would now finally be telling the truth, or that the mind would finally be arousing something which is being good, or that the man would finally decide to be convinced by the mind that this sexual fantasy does belong to the man and that he should justify it being part of himself. Let’s say that the mind/devil keeps tempting the man with specific types of sexual thoughts. The man keeps rejecting these sexual thoughts one hundred times, but when the mind/devil tempts the man with this one hundred and one time then the man finally decides to give up and justify that he does fall under that specific type of sexuality or sexual orientation. The man presumes that because these types of sexual thoughts do not go away or that they keep coming to him; then that must mean that it really belongs to him and that he is being like that. But what really happened was that the mind/devil tempted the man one hundred and one times with this (uncontrollable obsession), and the man finally chose to lose patience in keep withstanding these temptations. Because the evilness does not rest/pause from that in doing evil then the goodness does also not rest/pause from that in overcoming evil with good. It is not like the goodness would say: ‘Because the evilness keeps coming back then I the goodness will not choose to do good today’. Neither would it say: ‘Because the evilness keeps coming back then I the goodness will not choose to resist the evilness today’. Surely the goodness keeps doing good in all matters all the time. Even so the man must continue to withstand temptations at this very moment, on this very day. The man must keep rejecting the mind in all things all the time. Obsession is not the same thing as true love. It is not like the divinity would be constantly obtruding into the man’s mind with unwanted thoughts, and trying to force it upon the man to agree with the unwanted thoughts. That is rather something which does come from the devil and belongs to him.
               If one does seek to become like any other fornicator then one will end up as any other fornicator. A person is being healthy and beautiful and of bright countenance in the beginning (youth). While the person was being sincere and innocent then it had much spiritual treasure in heaven. But if that person chooses to invest its ‘life-currency’ in debauchery and throw its lot with debauched people; then the person will lose the things which had made it special. Let’s consider all these people that had once been so healthy and beautiful and bright in their youth. How do they now look like after decades of debauchery? The body shape remains the same, but the condition and colour of their skin has changed for the worse. Their face looks tired and worn out, and their eyes look mean or dejected, which reflects their poor spirit and emptiness of heart. Hence we should look to the end of things when it comes to discern the value of the beginning. If the man is already being spiritually pure and steadfast then sexual thoughts might seem casual or harmless in the beginning, because he is only experiencing slight aspect (soft thoughts, mere words, mere images) from the perverted devil of all sexual immorality. But if that man yields to corruption and becomes spiritually impure then sexual thoughts will become accompanied by impulses in the body, involving all kinds of disgusting and unrestrained and extreme influence, because that perverted devil of all sexual immorality is revealing further aspects of himself. The darkness might at first seem interesting or mysterious while one is being stationed at the bright side and noticing the darkness far away. Because one is already at the bright side then one can mistakenly think about that distant darkness in a ‘bright way’ (see something beautiful/charming about sinful ways). But once one leaves the bright side and goes over to the dark side; then one will no longer experience anything in a bright way and everything darkens. There is only spiritual death and torment, desperation and madness, chaos and emptiness. It is a disgusting thing when the man allows covetousness to stain/corrupt his attitude/vision of every person he comes across. It is like he cannot look upon a person without implicating it to his covetousness, whether that person is deemed desirable or not, and whether he should try to seduce it or not. That same covetousness contradicts charity in all things, and prevents charity in all things, and quells charity in all things. The covetous man does nothing through charity. God is charity. The covetous man is being devoid of God in all things. It is better for that man to separate that tainted part from himself (covetousness) and go partly dulled/disabled into ‘heaven’; than to hold unto this tainted part and go with his whole body into ‘hell’. The man must separate the tainted part from himself if he is going to save the rest of the body. It is madness to sacrifice the whole body for the sake of one part. The man’s spiritual and physical wellbeing at all times is more important than a fleeting/momentary pleasure from a sexually immoral act.

3.3: Of Children

The earth was all wild in the beginning, but it has now been significantly altered by human intervention, whether it does involve human settlement upon the surface or its effects upon the nature. It does reflect the human heart, what has already happened from within the man himself. The heart and soul of a child is like a perfect earth, because the divinity has already blessed it with sincerity and innocence in all things. The adults should learn from children and grow downward by becoming humble again, instead of being so delusional about their own importance. It is the role of all parents to appeal to the best side in their child, and cultivate it further, so that all the right things will be able to prevent the wrong things from taking roots. For example, good parents are always there for their child in life, no matter what matter is involved, so it will teach the child to love itself and receive the love of others. The parents must show interest in and participate in that what the child is doing, so it will teach the child to be free in spirit and devoted to its goals. The parents must also be ready to satisfy the curiosity of the child, by coming up with simple and comprehensible explanations, so the child will know how to approach all matters in a proper way. Finally, if the parents are being virtuous then it will set a good personal example for the child, revealing what is being possible to the child, what kind of problems and adversity can be overcome in the long run. It should be avoided all negligence and extreme measures which can contradict these values. The parents should never be lax or manipulative in the upbringing of their child. The former will leave uncultivated the child’s understanding and capability, while the latter will quell its natural flow/grow. The child will thereby either become unrestrained or repressed, but in both cases it is prevented the child from being free in spirit. A similar thing applies to material possessions, when the child does either own too little or too much. For that too few possessions will only make the child envious and bitter, while too many possessions will only make the child self-absorbed and indifferent. But if the child has moderate proportion of possessions then it will free the child from both extremes, and actually help the child grow up from possessions, since the child does no longer consider possessions to be that important. A good parent should never try to ascribe its own hobbies and restrictions to the child, by treating the child as the parent wishes it to be or what the child is ‘supposed’ to be. The child should never be moulded into an egoistical reflection of the parent, but the parent must first inquire into that what the child is interested in, and then adapt accordingly.
               It does not make any sense when parents are able to provide food and clothes and shelter for their children, while they totally neglect to teach their children any lesson about the life itself. A spiritual guidance must function alongside the physical aspect, teaching good sense and moral principles to the children, so they will neither feel neglected nor insecure in their soul. It is all about preventive measures, while the children are still being healthy and strong, because they will then be more fit in confronting and solving the challenges ahead. But it should never be neglected the children and only sought to help them after they are deep in trouble, since the children have now already become afflicted and weak from within. The children will otherwise become troubled by many things outside their control, and receive everything too personally, without knowing how to respond in a proper way and adapt. It can happen that a parent does not bother to inquire deeper into the affairs of its child, when it comes to read between the lines and notice signs of personal problems. But the parent can be so self-absorbed that it presumes that everything is all right on the surface, as if no problem ever exists if nobody bothers to ask or mention the matter. It can become the prelude to greater troubles, where the child will later on become rebellious and disorderly, having low self-esteem and doing all kinds of foolish things to get attention. It is like the parent does finally act when it is too late to do anything about it, while preventive measures were needed long time ago, before the problem got worse (escalated). It is true that a parent can fail its child, at least in regard to the spiritual aspect, what kind of good interventions were neglected, even that no evil things were committed directly. It can still the same always be relied upon the divinity as the supreme parent that watches over us all, and is able to help us through any problem, regardless of our current location.
               The right choice must first be understood before the child can become willing enough to act upon it, but it can never be forced willingness upon the child, prior to its understanding. It is not like the parent can forbid this or that, without explaining anything further, as if the child was stranded in foreign country and never understanding the context of anything. Nor should the parent overprotect the child, like when a child is being isolated or shielded from the environment, since the child will otherwise be unable to learn from personal experience. A personal experience can prove better teacher than any clever speeches, because the child will immediately learn from mistakes and adapt to the reality, doing things better each time. The parent’s fear that the child could commit mistakes can make the parent resort to needless measures, where these measures quell the child’s spirit and lead to other kinds of problems. Covetousness for reward and fear of punishment is irrelevant to independent understanding, but it will only get in the way, and make the child insincere toward the authority. The child does put up a mask, by pretending to be obedient while the authority is watching, while the child continues to be selfish and ignorant from within. This is why parental guidance must keep to the merit of each case, and what needs to be explained within it, rather than by arousing covetousness and fear about completely different things. The parents must be trustworthy and reliable authority, which encourages the child to speak the truth, regardless of the consequences, and offering the ultimate refuge for the child. The parents must also be strong and caring authority, which loves the child in an unconditional way, and is ever willing to help the child to do the right thing. But the parents are still willing to rebuke and discipline the child, for its own sake, since the child will at least learn something from it, to its own improvement. The rules are only made coherent through the parents, if they are already coherent with their conviction and principles.
               It must be drawn a clear line what is being allowed and what is being forbidden, and that always in an unconditional way. But it should never be made any compromises or exceptions of the rule, which would otherwise undermine the spirit behind all the rules. It should be warned the child and held it in check while still being stationed at the right zone. But it should not be blundered and shown indifference until finally noticing that the child has crossed the boundaries, only so that one can follow after the child to the wrong zone. For that by doing so then one is setting a bad personal example, because one is now also stationed at the wrong zone with the child, trying to forbid the child to go any further or persuade the child to return. It would have been better if one had taken proper measures at the right zone, because it would have made the child follow one’s right initiative, rather than one to follow the wrong initiative of the child. This applies to the spiritual side, when it comes to that in confessing the truth and abiding by a moral principle. That is the right zone, which should have been clear and defined at the very start/beginning. For another example, let’s say that one’s companion was contemplating committing a crime and always talking about it, but one would still the same never bother to speak against it and try to discourage him from it. After a long time has passed then that companion becomes determined enough in committing the crime question, and then one does finally attempt to dissuade him from it at the very scene of the crime, in the middle of the execution. It is a foolish thing to delay everything and then merely react to the transgression along with the transgressor’s determined/stubborn attitude behind it. Preventive measures would have ended things before they even begun. Even so a child should not be left unchecked/unattended in its disturbed and weakened state, where the child will begin to harbour all kinds of delusions about itself and other people and the world, which when fully nurtured will result in improper and reckless conduct in contrast to transparent facts. But let’s continue to other matters. If a child does something wrong then it is should be reprimanded the selfish choice and the selfish attitude behind it, while the parents maintains sobriety and equanimity at the same time. But it should not be directed personally against anyone, nor should it be looked for someone to blame. It is not only about that what is known to be right or wrong, but also in what way the parents will approach the matter, the expression behind the words and its implication to the child. The parents should never come up with assertions about the child itself, as if the child had permanent bad qualities and restrictions, as if the child would never change for the better or always repeat the same mistakes. It can happen that a child does commit a mistake by accident, where it was never made deliberately nor directed personally against anyone. This is why the child should be pardoned, because that a wrong attitude was absent during the wrong act.
               There is no ultimate way when children make use of toys in order to build or create things. The children can always change it, or break it down and create something else. But the most important thing is the personal experience, the investment in their human creativity. The parent should not interfere in the natural flow of the child and force its view upon the child, like when the creation is always supposed to be logical and organized, standard and squared (thereby making it predictable and repetitive). It can apply that the artist enjoys himself what most while he is still creating his masterpiece, but upon its completion the creation is no longer of any value to him. A similar thing applies when children are creating something, where the path can be more important than the destination, what kind of lessons and personal growth was involved. The best toys are those which can be played in many different ways, like a building block set or a ball. It should be put oneself into children’s position while playing with them, when it comes to observe the environment and what kind of objects can be adapted for new games. The adults have bought various objects for various purpose within the home, but it does not necessarily mean that the objects can only be used in one way. The shape of one object can be identical to another, and become an imaginary replacement. For example, it can not only be used books in order to read the text inside, but it can also be used many books like a building material, when arranging them together. It can be arranged books on the floor in order to create a labyrinth, a tower, or domino. This applies to books that have have similar shape, and can stay firm in their place (tall and wide, hardcovered and thin). It can also be mentioned when children use chairs and blankets in order to create a tent or a vehicle, so it is all about creativity and improvisation on the scene.
               No material object will ever make up for an absent parent. It is only mutual love and understanding which can make the child complete, guiding its premises in all things undertaken. Material objects do not have any merit in themselves alone, where without a human being to handle them they become useless like any other junk. It is always depended upon the human being in bestowing value to the material object, while the person is in need of it, able to make a practical use of it, and needs something to cheer itself up. Material objects should be centred on the human being, but the human being should not be centred on material objects. The material objects are lifeless, and possess no will of their own, so they are always inferior to human beings. Every toy does only have value while the child is playing with it, deriving some kind of fun and/or lesson from it. But the toy does never have any value outside it, or in the meantime when no one is making use of it. So if the child does get bored with the toy in question then the toy will immediately lose its value. It does not make any sense when parents prefer material objects over the internal condition/needs of their child, or try to preserve the toys only for the sake of memories. For example, a child can throw an object, break something, or make some noise, but the child is of course more important than any of these things in question. This is why parents should not get angry at their child, by screaming at it and shaking it, or do something which works against the child’s welfare. For that all these material objects are nothing more than a junk, transient and petty, while the parents are supposed to love their children most of everything. Imagine how stupid it would be if the parents would be paid a few dollars for losing their temper, and neglect their child in some way, thereby making the child unhappy. It is exactly the same thing when parents get angry over cheap objects, a mere vanity.