Right And Wrong Thinking And Their Results
	The Story Of A Contract <  Previous Contents Next  >

A man whom we will call Smith because that is not his name had a contract with a carpenter to build a house. When the work was about half done, the carpenter came and said that he was in distress because of certain financial obligations which were about to mature, and that he would be greatly accommodated if he could have immediately all the money that would be due him when the house should be completed. Smith had the money in the bank and gave it to him. All went well until the house was very nearly done. Then the carpenter left it and went to other work, much to Smith's disadvantage.

Several weeks passed, and, as there was no indication that anything further would be done on the house, Smith sent to the carpenter and asked when he was going to finish his work. The reply came back that he had done all he intended to do on the house and, besides, he was too mad to talk about it; whereupon Smith got angry, too, but upon consideration he decided to make a practical test of the principles which were so successfully followed by the teacher.

He put out of himself all anger and condemnation of the carpenter, as well as all other discordant thoughts, so that he was able without mental discord to review the whole transaction, his favor to the carpenter, the disadvantage of the delay, and even the rudeness of the reply to his inquiry. Then he went to see the carpenter. When he met him and saw the muscles of his face stiffen and his whole countenance harden as he looked up, even that did not rouse any discordant thinking in Smith's mind, so thoroughly was he under the right mental control. They immediately began talking about the unfinished work, and in less than ten minutes the carpenter, without being requested to do so, offered to go back and finish his job. Smith told him that he might send one of his workmen, but he insisted on going himself. The carpenter went and did all the work required, including some extras which he cheerfully declined to accept pay for.

The effective consideration in this case was the successful effort that Smith made to clear his own mind from discord. As in the case of the teacher, here was also an entire absence of any attempt to influence the carpenter by any mental means whatsoever. No one's rights were assailed or interfered with in the slightest. There was nothing concealed or underhanded. There was no compulsion or attempt at compulsion. All the influence Smith exercised over the carpenter was in a fair, face-to-face, open conversation, with only harmony in his own mind behind his words. The result was much pleasanter and far more successful than any attempt at compulsion could have been.

Indeed, any such attempt, accompanied as it would have been by recrimination and angry words, would have intensified the carpenter's feelings and defeated Smith's object. Where anger has ruled, expensive lawsuits have grown out of incidents of far less importance. It was much cheaper than a lawsuit would have been in the expenditure of both money and energy of every kind, to say nothing of the long train of evils arising from hostile feelings. Nothing is necessary in a dispute except that one of the parties shall put away all discordant thinking.

Perhaps some one may claim inability to do as Smith did under such conditions, and that may be true; but every one can do it on occasions of less importance; and if he does not let any incident slip, but accomplishes the exclusion of his discordant thinking in each one of the smaller affairs, he will soon be able to do the same thing in the gravest and most important situations. As an illustration of how business may be conducted successfully, this incident has its lesson. If this plan were followed by everybody, one large and important class in the community would change its occupation for a more productive one.

The same principle is illustrated in a dispute which occurred over the boundary line between two pieces of property. The owner of one piece claimed that the fence was in the wrong place and should be removed so as to include in his own tract quite a strip of the land of his neighbor. Angry feelings and discordant thinking resulted. A lawsuit grew out of it and dragged along for years. Each asserted that he cared very little for the land, but insisted he was contending for a principle. The quarrel grew and prospered with small prospect of settlement until one of the parties was tired out and sold his land to get rid of the difficulties.

The purchaser was the very reverse of quarrelsome, and all who knew the circumstances wondered that he had bought property encumbered with a lawsuit. His action showed his wisdom. At the first favorable opportunity he approached the claimant and after a few pleasant words asked him where he believed the fence ought to be. The claimant pointed out the place very carefully. When this had been definitely fixed, the new owner said: "If you will move the fence to that place, I will pay half the expense of the removal, since it is a line fence." The claimant was surprised. He had been met by a man who had only harmony in his heart and was overcome by it. The fence continues to stand in its old place, the lawsuit is dismissed, and the two men are fast friends.

Such is the power of non-resistance when combined, as it always should be, with harmonious mental conditions in the mind of one of the parties to a quarrel.