Right And Wrong Thinking And Their Results
	A Discussion Of The Stories <  Previous Contents Next  >

These incidents, which are absolutely true, are a practical demonstration of the importance of thought control in all social and business affairs, and they also show what may result from maintaining one's own mind in harmonious conditions, keeping it as closely as possible in the exact and perhaps seemingly narrow way of undoubted and unquestionable right without any attempt either directly or indirectly to influence any one else.

They are illustrations of the action of a power which, though not always recognized, is constantly operating among men; and they show why some persons utterly fail in their attempts, while yet others hinder and even pervert their own efforts. This power lies in the ability to control mental conditions and to establish the right mental state in one's own mind. This state, once established and maintained, works effectually toward the accomplishment of right results in one's own self and in others, and does this without any conscious effort of the person.

The really efficient work for others must follow work with one's own self. Without that all else fails. In neither of these cases cited did the one most interested attempt by any mental procedure, either surreptitious or otherwise, to influence the mind or actions of the other. In each case it was a frank, open, face-to-face transaction. To have done otherwise would have been specially reprehensible, and such a course would bear the same relation to rightful mental action that stealing does to legitimate financial transactions.

It is only a step from attempting to influence another mentally and in the right direction, but without his knowledge, to the attempt to influence him in doubtful or wrong ways. After all, who shall say that his own idea of right is absolutely without flaw, or even what is advisable or best for another? Can one always decide these questions for one's self? How much less, then, for another, especially when the most sincere and earnest convictions of the wisest men so contradict one another! And how shall one know what another wishes unless the wish is expressed? Secretly to influence another against his wishes is to dominate him. Far too often has this under- handed action been used to gain one's own purpose; and yet, many times, this has been done with the sincere conviction that it was a kindness or a duty and therefore was right and just and even praise- worthy. How wisely did Burns sing: --

" When self the wavering balance shakes 'Tis rarely right adjusted."

The thug of India not only believes he is right in strangling his victim, but he also believes, as sincerely and earnestly as any one else believes the contrary, that it is his religious duty and that his action will result in an immense advantage to the one he strangles. He is as sincere in this as most Christians are in their belief about what they ought to do for others, or even in their belief that what the thug does is wrong. Equally sincere are most of those who attempt secret mental influence. But the belief that they are right does not make them so. Right is right, whatever may be the opinion of any one about it; and however conscientious one may be in an erroneous opinion, that conscientiousness does not make that opinion right.

There is only one thing either necessary or advisable, and that is to set one's own mind in order, making it right according as one sees the right, and then to leave the rest to the unrecognized but sure working of correct principles; remembering, of course, that this does not exclude a frank, open discussion of the differences after discord has been dismissed from the mind.

These incidents show the errors contained in two widely accepted opinions of humanity, and an understanding of these errors will greatly assist him who is striving for mental self-control.

The first is the almost universal tendency to lay the blame for one's failures or mistakes at the door of some other person or to charge it to the influence of one's surroundings. The Edenic plea of both Adam and Eve -- Adam because of Eve, Eve because of the serpent (the serpent was not asked to speak for himself) -- has availed to satisfy both men and women ever since the earliest dawn of history; but it has not yet availed, nor will it ever avail to avert the natural consequences of one's own acts.

Often it is enough to silence the average man's conscience when he thinks that he would not have committed the offence if it had not been for attend- ant circumstances. It is thought excuse enough for breaking an engagement to plead bad weather; anything or everything outside the person, trivia or important, is sufficient excuse to justify any failure, any neglect, and very often even an overt act. Though all this is wrong, yet every one is accustomed to these excuses, and most of us have used them in the attempt to satisfy our own compunctions and to effect an escape from difficulties which we have ourselves brought upon our own heads.

It is the mental condition that produces the action in every case, and each person is responsible for his own mental condition. Between the external circumstance and our action is always our own thinking, and it is that thinking and not the external circumstance or condition which decides what our action shall be. If Eve's thinking about the tree and its fruit had been different, -- that is, if she had come to some different conclusion about the questions presented in that connection, -- her action would have been different.

The same is also true of Adam. It was not the ser- pent and it was not the presence and character of the tree, -- though each had a part in the course of events, -- but it was their own final mental conclusion, which decided what their action should be. That mental conclusion was their own, and not another's, and, therefore, no one else but themselves was responsible for their actions. Thus it has always been with every Eve and every Adam. Whether the story of Adam and Eve is accepted as veritable history or considered as a fable, it admirably illustrates a nearly universal defect of humanity.

For the man who owed the note, a lawsuit with the prospect of its attendant evils was all ready to his hand. The same was impending over Smith and the contractor. Had either Smith or the man who owed the note failed to control his thinking, he might have said: "I was not responsible for this trouble. Others began it." In both cases the events as they transpired show that each would have been himself responsible, because it was clearly in his power to avert the disaster. Every man claims praise for the good result as the consequence of his right action. On the same basis, how can he avoid blame if, by his own erroneous thinking, he increases the difficulty and brings about evil results?

This leads to the consideration of a second mistaken but very prevalent opinion, and it also leads to an understanding of the erroneous actions consequent upon that opinion.

A large part of mankind are zealously striving to reform all the rest of the world except themselves. Every one sees how another ought to conduct himself, and each is doing his best to effect the desired reformation in his neighbor, because he believes with the good old Quaker, "All the world is queer except thee and me, and thee is a little queer." We have reformers on all sides trying to persuade men to avoid every evil that afflicts mankind; and we have governments with courts of justice and prisons attempting forcibly to prevent men from doing wrong or to compel them to do right. All these means and Measures no doubt accomplish much good, at least as educators; and the motive behind them all is excellent.

In point of fact, however, no one can reform another, although each can reform himself, and by that reformation may so influence others that they will also reform themselves. The reformation at last is one's own work done by one's own self. Of course there may be and ought to be wise suggestions, assistance, encouragement, advice, counsel, thus giving much help to others in a multitude of ways whenever it is desired; but, notwithstanding all, the essential and only really vital and effective work must be done by one's own self. This is because thinking is the fundamental act without which nothing can be accomplished, and one cannot think with another's mind any more than he can see with another's eyes.

The teacher might have remonstrated with her assistant, but probably it would have had no result except to antagonize and irritate her and intensify the already troublesome conditions. Without any attempt whatever in that direction the effort of the teacher to reform herself wrought wonders in the reformation of her assistant.

The contractor was manifestly blameworthy because he had not done all that he had agreed to do, and he surely needed reforming. The owner of the property by due process of law might have compelled him to complete the work, but there would not have been any reformative result from that action. In any attempt to enforce reform upon the contractor the result attained through the self-reformation of the property owner would have been lost, and in the end both would have been worse off mentally and morally.

In the case of the note it is true that payment might have been avoided by some legal process, questionable or otherwise; but that would have produced various and serious discordant conditions for all concerned, and probably it would have resulted in very serious injury to the borrower. All these probabilities are in sharp and unfavorable contrast with the harmonious results which followed the borrower's reformation of him- self.

The fact is clearly apparent in these and multitudes of other incidents that, whether we intend it or not, our unspoken thoughts influence those with whom we come in contact; and this presents the control of our thinking in a new aspect and gives it an immensely increased value when considered in connection with our relationship to our fellows. Max Muller said: "The only thing of consequence, to my mind, is what we think, what we know, what we believe."

Herein is the secret of the immense influence of good lives. As has been shown so clearly, the kind of life one lives is the product of the kind of thinking one does, and the good thinking sheds itself abroad upon others as the sun radiates light, without any intention or effort. Therefore Jesus said: "Let your light shine." He did not say: "Make it shine." Leave the light alone, but have it, and it will shine of itself. Interference and assistance often hinder. The very best one can do is to be. The measure of the influence of a man, whether preacher or layman, is found in what he is rather than in what he says; perhaps least of all in what he intends.

This explains one great secret of the tremendous power and permanence of the influence of Jesus, the Christ, who not only taught and did right, living the right life, but who also - the under- lying cause of all -- thought right. The results which came to him will also come to us in proportion as we keep ourselves right.

The opinion has generally been held that a person has the right to think what he pleases, but this is not correct. In one sense a man's thoughts are not his own any more than are his words when once uttered. We know the word from the speaker goes out to bless or to curse, and recall is impossible. It is the same with the thought also. As he should not have uttered the wrong word, so he ought not to have allowed the existence of the wrong thought.

In point of fact every thought, whatever its character may be, produces its definite result, not only whether we will or not, but in spite of the will we may exercise to prevent it. "Then every thought of disease, every imagination of fear of distrust or gloomy foreboding, would scatter, and, like contagion, depress the lives of others. Then every sentiment of hate would have in it a little of the real effect of murder, every harsh judgment would carry a vital effect of ill. Every thought of doubt or despair would make it harder for others to bear their burdens and believe in the infinite good."

This is a dark side of the picture, but it is not overdrawn. A man is indeed responsible for his speech and his acts; he is also equally responsible for the thoughts which cause them, and he should guard his thoughts even more carefully than he does his acts. But there is a bright side also. A man can control his thinking much more easily than he can his speaking and acting when his thinking is not first controlled. Better still, he can control that thinking in the right direction, and when this is done, its consequences are so controlled that they need no attention whatever, and there is no further responsibility nor danger.