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 believes that the person must first offer him some advantage, and change something in its bearings, before that man can finally deem it worthy to be loved. But then it was never love in the first place, nor a mutual friendship. 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 oneself, 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. 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. 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 the same goes in what way one will treat the fellow man, when there is need to be open-minded and considerate toward two persons at the same time, what is best for them both. There must always exist balance between the love had for oneself and the one 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 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 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 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 however 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 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.
It certainly applies that the man should treat other persons like he wants them to treat him, whether it should be pursued for good thing or avoided bad things, as a mutual experience. It can however 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. So 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 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 life. 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 avarice 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 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 now (in the present time), and for a long time since that time; then that former enemy does no longer possess any bad attitude toward us. He does not despise us in his heart, and he does never mention us in a bad way when talking with other people, and he does not want anything bad to happen to us. Within himself he does not secretly rejoice over the misfortunes that had befallen us, and he does not derive pleasant satisfaction (gloating) over that how bad things had turned out for 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 behavior 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 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 practice; 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 mind that whether we are willing to forgive other people in our hearts if we want the divinity to forgive us everything. It is not about that what someone else is supposed to deserve. 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 both on the scene. And now (in the present time), and ever since that time; then that enemy 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 backs) 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 does never seem 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 seems to give us his attention and say something seemingly positive on our behalf. The former enemy was being sincere is 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 re-appearance 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 re-opens 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, but it is otherwise preferable to come up with no apology than to come up with insincere apology. It can be mentioned that when a scandal or a man’s improper behavior is openly revealed, and then that man does openly come 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 had 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. 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 of the will to sin, and we are no longer being divided/conflicted in our 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 soul and heart and spirit and mind.
We are being so prone to ignorance, foolishness, weaknesses, restrictions, mistakes, and negligence. And yet despite all these things then 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 upon the goodwill of good people in treating us better than we deserve. We rely upon 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 then someone can publicize/advertise a shameful/humiliating incident regarding another person. But we do not choose to watch that shameful incident, and we do not choose to comment on it, and we do not 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 those person were among us and listening to everything. We do not secretly speak something about someone that we would be ashamed of speaking openly in the presence of the person involved. 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 incidents from our past in being publicized, nor do we expect that the divinity will make everyone compassionate and merciful toward us when it happens. But we do rather confirm that the divinity will reward us for our merciful act by making us internally sound when confronting and enduring the humiliating incident, by making us selfless and humble enough to let everything pass over us, 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 it to ourselves, since we have already made peace with our conscience and we do not wish such treatment to anyone. Just like we had been understanding and compassionate and merciful to another person then we manage to see ourselves in the same way from 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.
What if a humiliating incident of another person does involve a crime? We are not being a silent witness of crime that has yet to be exposed/revealed and be judged by the authorities. If a concealed crime has been exposed by someone then it is an evidence (recorded incident) which the authorities should know about and make use of, and belong to their decision-making. This information is being relevant to the people involved (victim, offender, their families, the authority). But what are all these distant spectators and prattlers supposed to do about this information (by watching the humiliating incident)? Or this humiliating incident can involve a past crime which that person has already been convicted of and punished for, so that we do not afterward meddle in something that is supposed to be already resolved. The only thing that we need to know and be on guard about is that when a fickle and unstable person cannot be trusted for a specific position and cannot be trusted for specific persons in its care, since it would be likely to abuse such position and abuse such persons. It is about being on guard regarding the well-being of other people. But we are otherwise not condemning a person for having a criminal history. The divinity gives everyone a chance to be redeemed and to begin a new life. It can of course apply that an worldly/official punishment for a serious crime can never be equal to the harm done to the victim, whether it does involve a permanent loss of life or spiritual wounds left in the victim which it has to live with for the rest of its life. If the worldly authority of men is found lacking then the spiritual authority of the divinity prevails, whether the divinity can make things up to the victim or straighten out things with the offender. Every individual does ultimately have to give account of himself before/to the divinity, and be judged by the divinity, and have to live under its verdicts. Nobody has to give account of himself before/to us and be judged by us, since we should only mind our own debts to the divinity and in what frail position we find ourselves in. We cannot defend and/or justify ourselves, and no man (except Jesus Christ) can defend us and/or justify us. We should choose to remain silent and allow the divinity to speak on our behalf. The divinity searches our hearts and knows what is in our hearts, and the divinity tries our reins and draws out from us our true stance.
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 it from 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, since the 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 tempt us by encouraging 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 mistakes 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 truth/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 another 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 another 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 been prevented all wrong things toward one another, and there would have been no cause/basis for hostility.
Loyalty is all about being faithful to the human spirit, and the moral values it does stand for, since that by doing so then one will be loyal to the good cause, to the benefit of all men. And if one is already loyal to the goodness then one will also be loyal to the scrupulous 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. Therefore should one not be loyal to the person by default, regardless of its opinions and choices, but that person is also subjected to truth and justice. This means that we should heed the human spirit in our own life, and other people should do the same thing in their lives. We are thereby meant to speak the truth and encourage moral values, which apply just as much to ourselves as the people we are speaking to. It is continued to care for the person, even that we can disagree with it and not approve of its conduct. For that we are imperfect, but we believe that the divinity is perfect, always able to improve us as a person, our attitude and choices, regardless of our current location. It should however never be distorted the value of loyalty, by implicating it to selfish men, like when we were once foolish and considered such men to be our friends. It will only make one an accomplice to their error of judgement, vices, and corruption, so it will only lead to crimes and negligence, misfortunes, bad luck, and mishaps. It does never work when a decent man has friendship with wicked men, because they will only drag him down with them, but his presence will never be able to redeem them.
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 necessarily mean that one will be able to befriend that person, trust it, or help it, since that the person can be our enemy, unreliable, or even wicked. It should neither be done more or less than what is necessary in the situation, but it should first be known the person and then adapted to it. This means that we will continue to love the fellow man and wish him no evil, and by doing the decent thing on our behalf, in our own away. It does not guarantee that the recipient will appreciate the good act, or repent of his hostility, since it is depended alone upon his understanding, willingness, and consent. We are not actually beholden to that man, as if we were obligated to share his company, in doing something for him, or by spending more time upon that man than needed. It can rather be said that we are willing welcome the man if he is really sincere on his behalf, and repents of his errors, so he should be given another chance if he is really ready for it. But we do otherwise not need to do anything if the man remains false and unrepentant, since it will either way not lead to anything good, for all the persons 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 loving the person and in doing the right thing, but the person must allow us to intervene on its behalf.
Sincerity is about that what we truly feel about everything, and what we really want to express ourselves about it, according to the truth about us and our position. And it is treated the fellow man according to our real attitude, what is his position in our heart. When we express ourselves a certain way then it is straightforward and simple in itself, but there are no ulterior motives behind it, other than the reasons which we informed of or implied. And similar thing applies when it is sought to accomplish something in deeds, where we are not pretending it for someone else or expecting some kind of advantage in return. But we are truly sincere about that what we are trying to do, for what or whom. If we are truly sincere then we will never marketize our speech and conduct for anyone, like when it is sold one’s conviction to the highest bidder, to receive profit or pleasure in return. It is much more important that we prove ourselves firm and reliable in all things, where all our qualities are held together by virtue, and all compete for the same goal in sight. It should be pointed at the humble truth which needs to be heard, what is the value of the choice in an objective way, rather than by coming up with personal implications, like flatteries or attacks. Frankness is not the same thing as to be outspoken about superficial issues, like when it is judged the person’s outward appearance or meddled with its choices. It should first be understood the person and what it is going through, and next can it be discerned whether one is in position to intervene, to offer advice or rebuke. The self-absorbed man is only concerned about his own desires, presumptions, and impulses, but he is not really looking to the person involved, which he seems to be frank about.
Modesty is about assuming neither more nor less about one’s own importance, what one has hitherto been capable of and deserved, but one only did what was required in the situation. The accomplishment was merely the consequence after one heeded the human spirit and abided by a principle. Even that one has been able to obtain success and prosperity then it does still not change anything, in what way it is beheld oneself or in what way will be treated other people. It should be discerned the difference between modesty and humiliation. Modesty is about submitting oneself to the truth, and what it testifies of in being right in general. It is the moral choice which will affect oneself for the better or worse, but it is not one’s personal involvement which will affect the choice, since the same things will either way happen. The choice is not made right or wrong because of the person that is involved, as if a good man could get away with evil choice or a bad man would still be condemned for a good choice. The man should never humiliate himself for anyone, as if he could appease the hostility of the mind, or the presumptions and whims of other people. It will never lead to anything good, whether in regard to oneself or the persons one is trying to please. It can only be called modesty if it is heeded the human spirit and promoted benefits, so the people involved will improve their choices, and thereby their internal condition.
Courtesy is actually 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 will choose to live, so there are some things that he can keep to himself, while others need the approval of other people. It is thereby allowed the person to make its own choice, and it is then respected its final decision, even it means that the person will remain closed, indifferent, or hostile. 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 will at least acknowledge that the person is 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 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 however an impolite thing when we seek to control or manipulate the person, as if we would force that person to agree with us and do our bidding. It is like we look upon that person as the mere extension or reflection of our own 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 we are alone on the scene, first asking the person something and then immediately heckling over it, as if answering our own question.
A humour is something which is aroused alongside human relations, and personal experience. There must be some kind of material at hand which calls for a humorous response, until the next one will appear later on, as what does befit the moment and the recipient. But it is not like one can seek directly for humour during isolation, through self-centred reasons, and absence of charity. The humour will otherwise miss its mark, becoming too eccentric, predictable, and uninspired, as if there would be no audience involved. Humour is best served with moderation, as one factor of many, and something to spice up the 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 with anything, but constantly lying 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 from within, so that he can rejoice with the people that he loves, and even feel light-hearted while he is all alone. But it is not so if the man has no faith in the goodness and becomes self-centred. For that he will then already 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 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. It is also come up with mockery, where it is imitated the words and behaviour of other people, or ascribed good qualities to men that are obviously 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 one of the worst aspects 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. But if the man had truly been virtuous then he would never have responded in such way (outburst). The subjective humour does always degrade the man, one level below his current intelligence, and then the same thing will repeat itself, until the man becomes utterly mad and stupid.
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 were the same for the 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. But the concept of majority or minority does not really exist, because the human people cannot unite into one life-form, nor can different opinions unite somewhere in the air. It is not the common lot which can unite the human people to the same purpose, in what way people can look like, where they are originated from, or what they can own. The deciding factor does rather consist in this, in what way the man will react to the very same lot. For the man can indeed 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 however 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 soul.
If the man proves to be self-centred then he will look for people that are just like himself, so that they will agree with the presumptions and whims which he has already yielded to from 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, his own selfish desires. It is like the man has already decided everything in advance, and how other people are supposed to be, and next he tries to confirm his own prejudices. It is either overrated or underrated a person because of some superficial issues, and next it is begun to treat it 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, according to his self-absorbed mind. A single quality or defect is somehow meant to be a generalization about all the other factors. The self-centred man does judge the person, not because it been guilty of any actual faults or misdeeds. But it is rather because of that what that person does ‘not’ have, or what it has ‘not’ achieved, so the man does not deem it to be interesting 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, in which do only exist in his own mind. It would correspond to that if a great man would be belittled for not possessing godly powers, 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, but he will judge 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 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 then 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 ideal and perfect (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 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 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 the man does not have any natural relationship with women, because he is covetous, unfaithful, and disrespectful, afraid of genuine love and responsibility. 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. However after the man has become virtuous and free from vices then he will become more tolerant, showing other people understanding and 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 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.
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 come up with a stupid and vainglorious topic, and then presume that the person is dull, because it is 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 expectations of the person, where it is blamed the person for not agreeing with one’s presumptions and whims, even that it 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 both undergone or shared at that time. It can happen that the person reveals its ignorance or inability in specific topics, but it does not mean that the same person is generally so, in every matter. It is rather because that person does find himself in a position which only appeals to its weak factors, but none of its strong factors. For the other people come up with topics that only fits 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 simple answer, while a complicated question will call for a complicated answer. It is the same thing if the question is wise or foolish, but it can never be given a proper answer if the question has been approaching the matter in a wrong way. It is thereby 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 suggestive questions, which have already implied the answer, and only look for confirmation of one’s own presumptions. It is also foolish thing when it is come up with questions only seek 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 the 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 whether it should be spoken the right words, but it can be more prudent to remain silent. For that by doing so then it is not revealed any information or weaknesses, which can be later used against us. It is thereby a fact that we can know the facts, 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. But that person proves to be just as powerless as we are, in the same situation. It should not be tried to convince distant spectators, or men of dissolute living, but only those persons that are able to make a good use of the knowledge, in improving their lot. If the man does feel 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 never before that time, while he is still just as frail as them. It does however not make any sense when the man is still undecided, and not consistent with anything, but he does still the same attempt to convince everyone else about it. It would correspond 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 reasonable and fair, or oppressive and inhumane. 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 an example then 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 will 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 know about it.
It is not like the man can wish it in advance which persons can be his friends or not, when it comes to impress other people or be appreciated by them, but the feeling must always be mutual. For the man can have an initiative in being open for the person and friendly to it, while that person does never have any initiative in speaking to him in turn, but remains indifferent. And exactly the same thing can happen when a specific person is open and friendly to the man, but he does still the same not appreciate it and wants to befriend someone else. This is why the man must adapt to the circumstances, and what other people feel about him, rather than by trying to make other people adapt to his selfish mindset. It can happen that the man does want to impress a specific person, but a feeling of uneasiness comes over him, which quells down his spiritual activity, and blocks all expression. It is like the man is unable to say anything interesting, no matter how hard he tries, and even that other people can say something then the man is still unable to respond to it. What makes such experience strange is that the man was already calm, and not experiencing any troubles in the meantime, so he arrived to the scene like he usually is at all times. But every time the man tries communicate with the person the same uneasiness will unexpectedly come over him, like he has no choice about the matter, and cannot get rid of it. The encounter would never happened any differently, even that the man had been perfect on his behalf or fully prepared, since it is like his own body is refusing to comply. So whatever those reasons might be, the man is unable to fit in with that people in question.
However exactly the opposite thing can apply when the man is near other persons, because it is then like everything happens by it own accord, and comes naturally to him. So the man experiences much creativity in his soul and can easily respond to anything. When it is chosen a friendship with one person above another then it does not need to be rationalized. For that one did simply feel like it and wanted to do it of one’s behalf. It does not need to be explained to the persons that were accepted, or those that were rejected, as if it would call for some kind of confrontation, to gratify one’s guilt or remorse. A confrontation does tend to be superficial and superfluous, because it is spoken directly about human relations, while it does not have any bearings 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. This is why it should never be gratified the mind, by having worries on behalf of someone else, but each person should learn to be contented with its own lot and make the best of it. For that if everyone will behave in such way then nobody will be troubled from within.
If the man is faithful in small matters then he will also be faithful in the greater matters. However if the man is treacherous in small matters then he will also be so in the greater matters. It should first be tested whether the man is 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 honest and reliable. For if the person has already betrayed us once 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. It is a foolish thing to hold unto such friendship, 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 delusions above the given fact, and coveted after 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. The human soil is fertile in those whom love and care for their fellow-man, while the soil is barren in everyone else, whom are self-centred and only care for their own life. This is why we should never sow our effort into a rocky soul, by trying to please people who do not appreciate our company, proud as they are and closed to us in advance. But we should only sow our effort to those persons whom are already open-minded, kind, and humble, since they do already heed the divinity from within and are one of us.
It should be wished other people the best in life, and rejoiced with their happiness, if it has really been deserved through their sense of decency, personal merit, and hard work. It is thereby 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 admired the good qualities in other men, and even rejoiced that they are a better person than oneself, since they will be able to have the best possible life, and make the best of their situation. It is however never implicated such things personally to oneself, as if the good lot of other men is meant to belittle oneself, or their misfortune meant to exalt oneself. We should not seek to get all the attention to ourselves, but we should make way for the better person, whom is able to accomplish the most and bestow most benefits to everyone. But it should never be admired the selfish man for having obtained a good lot through dishonest means, like by being false to other people and exploiting their weakness, 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 make good use of such position and promote benefits to other people.
Envy does not make any sense, because 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 qualities, while he neglects to reach for the same things. However if the man would become virtuous the he would no longer envy other people, because he is experiencing similar things from within, and 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 about the incompetence of the opponent, but nothing about the merit of the victor. And it is exactly the same thing when a selfish man does bully weak people, which are unable or unwilling to defend themselves. It is not because the bully is courageous and strong, but it is because the victim can be cowardly and weak. The wicked man relies upon the weakness of other people, and 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 him. 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 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 within the presence of other people, where one is both able to see the person and have dealings with it. But empathy is not bound to the meantime, whether one is alone or the person involved is absent. It is not enough to think only 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 last, and if anything can be done to help the person. 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. However 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 about his mindset, but nothing to do with the person involved, and what it has been doing at that moment. For the man cannot even see the person nor knows 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 an example then 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 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. That man in question must of course be worthy of her love, by loving that woman in turn and be faithful to her, while everything else is not as important in comparison. This is why the man should never become self-righteous and abandon the woman in question, because he wants her to be with a richer man or someone that can offer her financial security. The man should first consult with the woman, whether she truly loves him in turn and wants to be with him, so it should be respected her decision and abided by it. 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 even have to involve a man at all as a boyfriend/husband.
All men can experience similar things from within themselves, whether it does involve the soul or the physical body, what kind of possibilities or restrictions are bound to it. And a similar thing applies with 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 pain, and many aspects of pleasure, and the same goes about benefits versus maladies, whether it is caused from within or by relations with other people. But no title or shelter is so great in itself that it can safeguard the man from everything, so that he will not need to feel or experience the same things as other people. For an example then 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 subjected to the same human nature, and similar lot 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 decline, and be able to make accomplishments or commit mistakes, knowing also what it feels like. Not all men are given the same opportunities, based upon their origins and choices. 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. For it is only enough to be frail in one factor to invalidate all such claims, because we have yielded to corresponding desires, like avarice and contempt, although the crime was not the same. Jesus Christ said ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone’ (condemn and punish the person for its sins). A similar thing can be said, namely ‘Let him who is without covetousness be the first one to condemn that person for having committed faults through covetousness’. Or, ‘Let him who has done all things through pure intentions be the first one to condemn that person for having committed faults through impure intentions’. For example a specific person did do something improper in the situation (sexual misconduct), and 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 (like ravening wolves). They were being more 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.
It is completely useless 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 pointless to consider what should rather have been done in the past, in evaluating ones past performance. One minor change would not have made any difference, or some kind of confrontation with the person. But only the divinity does possess the power to forgive us our sins, to change us from within, to improve our life, to redeem us and grant us everlasting life. And one’s expression and intervention did only have value while it was able to benefit the person, if the person could actually receive and acknowledge 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, but they are only doing so for their own sake. 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 forgiveness or redemption. It can namely happen that many people do not appreciate the person while it was still alive, where they failed to show it understanding, respect, and support when needed. However after that person is deceased then that people do finally seem to care, but 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 alive, sharing similar position as the deceased person. These persons are also outcasts, neglected and abandoned by the society, and nobody seems to care for. So the circumstances correspond to each other, although the details are not 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, error of judgment, and mistakes, but we should still the same not judge him as person, like it will always be a permanent condition. 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 still the same of greater value that the man involved can understand himself, what has been influencing his attitude for the better or worse, and whether he is adapting to the reality. 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 in the situation. It is however not like one does need to understand everything about the person and its life, like by inquiring too much into its affairs and speak 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 only belong to that person alone, and are its own responsibility.
The virtuous man should not only defend the weak, but he should also teach them to defend themselves. That person will then possess the will and the ability to stand up for itself, regardless of that what enemy could be involved, or what could be used against it. But it is not enough to separate all the bad people from the person, because it will only delay or transfer the same problem, since that person will continue to be just as weak 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. 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. But it does otherwise not work to convert people through only one principle, while they prove to be selfish in all other matters, and listen 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 many principles must exist 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 suffer for doing the right thing.
Now even that one can have a friend then it is still not the same thing as if one would agree with everything which he can say and do, only because of his personal involvement. And the same thing applies about an enemy, where it is not like we are meant to disagree with everything and always oppose him, even before we have listened to that what he has to say. An enemy should still be admired for his truthfulness and virtues, regardless of that how it can affect oneself, since he is following the human spirit in that regard. An honest enemy can become an honest friend, and if the enemy is faithful to his master then he will also become faithful to the next master, after the struggle has ended. But a treacherous friend remains a treacherous enemy, whether it is done openly or in secret. If a man betrays his own friends for the sake of new ones then he will also betray them later on, because he does never appreciate the current friends and does not remain faithful. 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 body and soul, while it words and deeds can always change. 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 bad incidents in the past, because we do not know if he has already repented and become a better person. For the problem can be already solved, because the man in question does no longer repeat the same mistakes, regarding persons sharing a similar position like one once did.
Forgiveness is something which can never exist if everyone is already perfect and worthy to deserve it. That to forgive is to be merciful for free, where it is bestowed as a gift to the transgressor. The transgressor did originally persecute an innocent person, or deal falsely with it, so it was treated the person in a shameful way, even that it did nothing to deserve it. Thereby is the transgressor guilty of a dishonest act, and he deserves to be punished for it, but it does not still mean that it will actually happen, if the victim is willing to forgive him. It is also a fact that we can be guilty from within, for having yielded to evil desires, betrayed an innocent person in our heart, and wishes for evil things to befall other people. But the divinity is still the same able to forgive us, and purify our soul of all corruption. We are not merciful 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 be happy and contented with its life, regardless of one’s personal involvement, like 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. A suffering should never be an end in itself, when it comes to punish the guilty party. But it is all about preventing similar crimes in the future, through rehabilitation or isolation. The divinity does rebuke and chasten those it loves. So the man will learn something from small misfortune, and become more responsible with his life, to avoid a greater misfortune.
It is not enough to 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 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, only so the transgressor can escape from the consequences, what kind of maladies and symptoms are afflicting him. 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 act but not the person, and that person has now separated itself from it. But an unrepentant man will only 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. That to understand the person is not the same thing to justify it, as if there were some good reasons behind its misdeeds or that the person is still the same good in whole. Selfish acts are always done through selfish intentions, regardless of that what person is involved. So there is nothing good about it, and no good things ever come out from it.
The man can forgive his enemies for everything, even that they do never repent of it. But it does still probably only reach to his own life, in promoting good effects to his soul alone. It should first be inquired into the matter, especially what is that person’s attitude toward one, which determined the transgression and will also do 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 person is either 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. But that person will remain false and selfish, unaltered in its attitude and capability. It is not like it can be forgiven people against their own consent, even that they did never ask for forgiveness, nor are willing to receive it. This is why it is not enough to say with oneself that it is forgiven such people, and next continued to have company with them, since they are still just as untrustworthy and hostile. However even that false people are undeserving of 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. 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 evil ends. Mercy does otherwise only lead to benefits, something constructive for the people involved, so long as they are reasonable and decent to some degree. 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. 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 only harm us if we continue to keep company with false men, 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, and all matters in general. But the man should never give in to the self-accusations of the mind, and torment himself about the past faults, since that nothing good will ever come from it. It is because the man is not really helping anyone by tormenting himself, nor is he caring for any person. But the man is too self-absorbed to know otherwise, and only seeks for 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 become a better person. The external incident was merely the consequence, and what other people felt about it, while the original cause was to be found in the mind itself, its selfish desires and delusions. And even that the man will torment himself then the same problem will still remain, where the man is still at square one and likely to repeat the same faults all over again. 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 suffering on his behalf.
Innocence is all about that in being sincere and pure in one’s heart, even before one had actually spoken to the person and done something. It is about unconditional goodwill, where it is only wished the person well, but never any harm or weakness which could be exploited. Innocence is about being free of contempt, for we can indeed prove to be frail and be prone to mistakes, but it has never been done deliberately, nor directed personally against anyone. It should never be attacked people while they live in weakness, nor used it against them, 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 glad and cheerful, even during tribulations and misfortunes. For it is had faith in the divinity that it wishes us all well, and 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 makes us happy for the sake of each other. 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 at first be presumed that we love the person by being worried on its behalf, and tormenting ourselves over its misfortune, as if it were another form of sympathy. It does however not actually help the person, nor makes the misfortune easier for it to endure, because we are either way powerless and just as frail as the person involved. It is only the divinity which can save the person, whether it is healed its body and soul, or bestowed the person with inner strength and wisdom in overcoming all troubles. This is why we can just as well have faith in the divinity, acknowledging its jurisdiction about the matter, while we hold our peace and remain patient, as the only proper thing to do. It can happen that the man has not spoken or done anything wrong, but he is still the same guilty in his attitude, for having yielded to selfish desires and wished for evil things to happen to other persons. For 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 does breed delusions, while avarice and contempt corrupts the man’s heart, so the man has already lost his innocence.
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 other 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 genuinely being concerned for her well-being; 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 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 and saying ‘something’ to get its attention (without meaning it, without conviction); then it is a good 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. And when the man tries to have a right attitude toward a woman he had come across then he can experience sexual thoughts in the meantime, which can seem to shaken his resolve. But he does still never experience it 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 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 presume 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 sexual impulses affecting his body at the same time.
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 the relationship, but no as its actual cause. The mutual unconditional love is supposed to be the basis of their childbearing. So the children came to exist through no other reason than pure love, and they were already loved from the very beginning. However if man does not care for the woman then he will neither care for their child, since he did never want that child to begin with, but only thought about his own selfish needs. A sexual lust is indeed a blind thing in itself, for that man has already planned to seduce the woman even before she had actually said or done anything. For the man does only consider the outward appearance, like gender, beauty, or specific age, but it has nothing to do with the actual person underneath. All the subsequent effort is merely pretence, 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 and done exactly the same thing if another person was involved, because there was still something identical about the outward appearance. The man should not look for beautiful women, but a good woman is the only thing that matters. A beautiful outward appearance is not the same thing as a beautiful soul. But a beautiful soul does always guarantee a natural beauty, a bright and lively face.
A beauty is not really a blessing by default, but it is rather depended upon that in what way the beauty will be used, and how other people will perceive it. An unattractive person does tend to be underrated by other people, while an attractive person does tend to be overrated. But in both cases it is judged the person solely because of its outward appearance. It is however 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. And a beautiful woman will often be unable to have ordinary relationship with other people. Many men will only look upon the beautiful woman with covetous heart, and always seek to flatter her, rather than by being truthful and concerned about her as a person. But there will be fewer men that will want to see the woman as the person she is, and actually care for her like a friend would, when it comes to know and appreciate her soul. 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 even turns to harlotry. But it was because that woman already lacked self-respect, and she was already 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 give her good counsel and support, helping that woman to treat herself with self-respect.
It can be said that those who participate in debauchery are people which seek to use one another, where 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’, adulteress, prostitute). All this outward show and superficial standard does not change the fact that they are guilty of falsity and avarice 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 (the outcasts). The 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’ straight-forward 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 had 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 after 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.
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 blameworthy (outside the ‘norm’) and what the 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 weakness (weak spot) for persons 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 might be claimed 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 a parents decide to give their daughter into marriage as if she was a ‘trading object’, and without that woman having any say in it, and without that woman knowing the man she is getting married to. And a woman can find herself in marriage with a husband that does not love her, and/or that is being neglectful of her and their children, and/or which is being 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.
It is being a self-righteous thing when religions claim that persons married should stay married their entire life-time, regardless of that what kind of relationship it involves and what it is based upon. And it is a self-righteous thing when pre-marital sex in being condemned in all forms, even that it can involve a loving and faithful relationship of persons that will later marry, or while the relationship does last then these persons are staying true to one another and not being with someone else at the same time (If they would have feeling toward someone else then they would first break up this relationship and then be with that someone else). While the relationship does last then these persons are being outspoken about their feelings and they do not go behind each other’s back (adultery in secret). It is the ideal thing that the persons involved have first taken their time to know one another and had a proper space to develop the relationship, before engaging in pre-marital sex or before being married, instead of doing so after a short time and shallow interaction. They are now being true to one another, and they now want to keep being with one another, even that they do not know what will happen in the future, whether that relationship will be able to last or not. That can be called the moderate middle-path, free from the two extremes. If something is being true and righteous then it is also being beneficial and relief-bringing to the internal conditions of the persons involved. But how can it be a righteous thing if the persons involved feel miserable while considering themselves obligated in staying married, or the persons involved experience guilt in having pre-marital sex when their feelings are only being natural? Hence it is a self-righteous thing when something is outwardly supposed to be righteous and exemplary (the mere form of the marriage and in keeping up the appearance), but inwardly nothing good and beneficial comes out of it. It involves the letter of the law being at the expense of the spirit of the law. When people are being self-righteous then they do internally/spiritually ‘stiffen up’ when holding themselves too much back. They consider themselves obligated to pretend to be perfect outwardly, as what they think is to be expected of them or what they are supposed to be (public opinion, demands from ‘God’ in their mind). But all of this involves none-straight ulterior motives, without being in any connection with that what they feel and is to be confessed. It is like they seem to say ‘the right words’ and do ‘the right things’, when they are not feeling ‘the right things’ at the same time. But the moderate middle-path (with the spirit of God behind it) is being fluid/flowing, evaluating and passing verdicts according to the internal activity/condition and stance of the person involved, their experienced circumstances and demands of the situation, their moral choices and consistency.
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 the best? That the man does brighten up and gladdens, and experiences peace and stability, when in the presence of that person. 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’, a none-loving covetous attitude which does feel dead/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 then 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, so that 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 appears to us (feelings, impulses, thoughts, temporary/fleeting personal experience). For example let’s say that we justify the improper feelings and thoughts that we are having toward specific person. Does that mean that criminals can also justify the improper feelings and thoughts they are having when sexually abusing a child or a family member? Such improper feelings and thoughts (sexual immorality) come from the same source. Bad things come from a bad source/cause. It is not a question of that how convincing such temptation (bad experience) can seem to be in belonging to our self. In all cases it should be rejected the evil spirit which is tempting us with this. 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 then the man only experienced goodwill toward the woman and he experienced 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 does experience 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 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 pretence 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. 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. The fore-mentioned example corresponds to 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 the man can experience thoughts about the video game and he cannot stop thinking about it (obsession about character development, that in finishing quests). That does ruin the feeling for the game (story, gameplay) when the man plays it again. It does not mean that this video game is being a bad influence or that the man should abstain from all video games. It can be blamed these thoughts in the meantime for making the man digress from the original experience.
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 matters, and he keeps experiencing sexual thoughts about women that seem to fit his preference. The mind is constantly trying to distract the man from his 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, or the mind can make use of lures of sinful pleasures as something that seems more preferable or comfortable temptation in comparison. The man must be willing to deny his own self every day and be willing to forsake everything that he ‘has’ or experiences within. 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 the man 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 chose to do good today, or I will not chose to resist the evilness today’. Surely the goodness keeps doing good in all matters all the time. Even so the good 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), but if that person later becomes a harlot then it will lose the things which had made it special (spiritual purity). Let’s consider all these people that had been so healthy and beautiful and bright in their youth. How do they now look like after decades of debauchery? 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, and all kinds of disgusting and unrestrained/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 death and suffering, 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 man does nothing through charity. God is charity. The covetous man is being devoid of God in all things. It is better for the man separate that tainted part from himself (covetousness) and go physically 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 well-being at all times is more important than a fleeting/momentary pleasure from a sexually immoral act.
3.3: Of children
The earth was wild in the beginning, but it has now been significantly altered by human intervention, whether it does 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. For that vices promote negligence of his spiritual life, even as when chemical waste is involved. But virtues are like the spiritual and intellectual progress of the human race, which is able to make the best of the situation, and is always superior to all barbarism. The soul of a child is like a perfect earth, because the divinity has already blessed it with innocence and sincerity in all things. The adults should learn from children and grow downward, by becoming humble again in their soul, instead of being so delusional about their own self-importance. It is the role of all parents to appeal to the best side in their children, and cultivate it further, so that all the right things will be able to prevent the wrong things from taking roots. For an example then good parents always there for their child in life, no matter what matter is involved, so it will teach the child to love itself in the same way and the fellow man. 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 in sight. 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 virtuous then it will give a good personal example for the child, revealing what will be capable to the child, and what kind of problems it can overcome. It should however be avoided any negligence and extremes which can contradict to these values. The parents should never be too manipulative or lax in the upbringing of their child. The former will only quell down the child’s understanding and capability, while the latter will leave it uncultivated. The child will thereby either become too repressive, or too undisciplined, but in both cases it is prevented the child from being free in spirit. It is the same thing with material possessions, when the child does either own too much or too little. For that too many possessions will only make the child self-absorbed and indifferent, while too little will only make the child envious and bitter. However if the child would have a moderate proportion then it would be freed from both, and receive most spiritual benefits, since the child does no longer consider possession to be that important. A good parent would 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 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 neglect to teach their children any lessons 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 or insecure in their soul. It is all about preventive measures, while the children are still healthy and strong, because they will then be more fit in confronting and solving challenges in their life. But it should never be neglected 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 and adapt in a proper way. It can happen that parents do not bother to inquire deeper into the affairs of their children, when it comes to read between the lines and notice any signs of personal problems. But the parents can be so self-absorbed that they presume that everything is all right on the surface, as if no problems do ever exist if nobody bothers to ask or reveal the matters. 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 parents do 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. It is true that the parents can fail their children, at least in regard to the spiritual aspect, what kind of good deeds were neglected, even that no evil deeds 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 problems, 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, before its understanding. It is not like the parent can ban this or that, without explaining anything further, as if the child was stranded in foreign country and never understanding the context between anything. Nor should the parent overprotect the child, like by locking the child inside or shielding it 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. Avarice 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 will otherwise put up a mask, by pretending to be obedient while the authority is watching, but the child will continue 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 up avarice 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 allowed and what is forbidden, always in an unconditional way, and the same applies about rewards and punishments. 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 reprimanded the child and held it in check, before the child will cross over to the wrong zone. But it should not be neglected the child and allowed it to cross the boundaries, only so one can follow after the child to the wrong zone. For that by doing so then one is giving 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 done so at the right zone, before the transgression, since it would make the child follow oneself, rather than the other way around. Let’s say that our best friend was contemplating committing a crime, and always talking about it, but one would still the same never do anything about it. But after a long time has passed then our friend decides to commit the crime in question, and then we do finally attempt to dissuade him at the very scene of the crime, in the middle of the execution. This is why preventive measures are the best option, while it is a foolish thing to delay everything and then merely react to the transgression, and the stubborn attitude behind it. If the child does something wrong then it is should be reprimanded the selfish attitude, and the selfish choice, while the parents maintains sobriety and equanimity at the same time. But it should never be directed personally against anyone, nor should it be looked for someone to blame. For the case is not only about that what is right or wrong, but it does also matter in what way the parents will approach it, the expression behind the words. It is a foolish thing when the parent speaks to the child in a loud and a harsh way, because it is preferred external things above the internal conditions of its own child, and its needs. And the parent should never assert about the child in advance, its capability and restrictions, as if the child will never change or always repeat the same mistakes. It can happen that a child does commit a mistake by accident, but 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 behind the wrong act.
There is no one 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 and independent style. This is why the parent should not become too meddlesome, like when the creation is always supposed to be logical, organized, and standard (making it predictable and repetitive). It can happen that the artists enjoys himself what most while he is still creating his masterpiece, but upon completion then the creation is no longer of any value to him. It is the same thing 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 namely those which can be played in many different ways, like a construction set. 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 tasks within the home, but it does not necessarily mean that the same objects can only be used in one way above another. The shape of one object can be identical to another, and become an imaginary replacement. For an example then 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 dominoes, if all the books involved have similar shape, and can actually stay firm in their place. It is exactly the same thing when children use furniture’s and blankets in order to create a tent or a vehicle, so it is all about creativity and improvisation while on the scene.
No material objects will ever make up for absent parents. It is only mutual love which can make the child complete, guiding its premises in all things undertaken. The material objects do not have any merit in themselves alone, but are useless like any other junk. It is always depended upon the human being in giving 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. The material objects should be centred at the human beings, but the human beings should never be centred upon 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 lessons from it, but the toy does never have any value outside it or in the meantime. So if the child does get bored with the toy in question then it will immediately lose its value. It does however not make any sense when parents prefer material objects above the needs of their children, or try to preserve the toys only for the sake of its memories. For an example then the children can throw objects, break something, or make some noise, but the children are of course more important than any of these things in question. This is why parents should never get angry at their children, by screaming at them, shaking or hurting them, or do something which works against the children’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, more than their own lives. Imagine how stupid it would be if the parents would be paid a few dollars for losing their temper, and neglect their children in some way, making the children unhappy. It is exactly the same thing when parents get angry over cheap objects, a mere vanity.