Right And Wrong Thinking And Their Results
	Each Is Responsible For Himself <  Previous Contents Next  >

The doctrine that in the present social conditions the innocent very often suffer because of the acts of the vicious and guilty is widely, if not universally, accepted as true, though always accompanied by a keen sense of its injustice. The proposition under present consideration approaches this doctrine from a different point of view. Correct reasoning must rest upon accurate statements of principle, and must be followed out with logical accuracy and in exact compliance with such statements, else the conclusion will be erroneous. The conclusions reached by this exact reasoning may be in direct contradiction to all sense perceptions; they may even be, seemingly, beyond belief; but this does not in any degree affect their accuracy. In every advance made in the interpretation of the principles of truth there has been heard the cry: "This is an hard saying; who can bear it ? "

We have seen that thinking is the first action arising from a person's consciousness of an external incident or condition, and that, whatever its form or intensity, it may be so perfectly under the thinker's control that he may stop it instantly in any stage of its progress, and substitute in its place that which is wholly different in character and tendency. We have seen that in every case the actions which follow take their character from the thinking; therefore those actions, like the thoughts which produce them, are one's own. Thus the resultant actions and conditions are shaped and directed by the person himself. This places the responsibility for all one's actions and conditions, as well as for their consequences, wholly upon the actor himself, and prevents him from justly shifting the responsibility upon any one else.

The fact that men do not control their thinking does not change the basic proposition, nor the reasoning which has been applied to it, nor the conclusions arrived at, and therefore does not shift the responsibility. Men can change their thinking if they choose. Whatever the course pursued, it is one's own act in every case. The man who sees the coming locomotive and does not get out of the way is just as responsible for the events which follow as the man who chooses to throw himself in front of it. Neither of them can rightly charge the blame upon the engineer. What happens to the man is the consequence of his own course, because his own thinking and his consequent acting stood between the sight of the on-rushing engine and the result; had his thinking and actions been different, the results would have been different also.

It may be true that at the time of his thinking the man was ignorant of some essential condition. Ignorance is very often a most important factor in a train of circumstances, but it does not modify the foregoing position, because it still remains that in either condition, with or without the ignorance, the action or the failure to act is the thinker's own.

Even his ignorance is probably the result of his own course at some previous time. The engineer is never held responsible on the ground that the man crossing the track just around the curve did not know the train was coming. The legal maxim, old as law itself, "Ignorance of the law excuses no man," is an illustration of the principle, and it applies here as well as in purely legal affairs. In- deed, it would not apply there if it were not universally true.

Much time and many circumstances may intervene between the thinking and its final and objectionable results; and though that fact may increase the difficulty of discovering the erroneous thought which was really the cause, yet this does not change the principle nor its application, nor does it shift the responsibility. It only emphasizes the necessity for the correct solution of each particular problem at the time it arises.

It may be urged that by the law of heredity the "sins of the fathers are visited upon their children." Let it be granted that this is so, and that the born cripple is not himself the cause of his own suffering, nor that the infant starving because of a drunken parent brought its miseries upon itself -- indeed, let it be granted that a very large share if not all the suffering which comes to children before they have arrived at the age of responsibility is caused by another, and that they are not responsible for it -- yet these facts are exceptions, and the conditions are exceptional. Even if the law of heredity holds, the principle also holds that their condition is the result of thinking, though it may be the thinking of their ancestors.

The thinking of the child begins very early and increases rapidly, and so far as his thinking is his own the responsibility for it is his own also, so that when he has arrived at maturity he is himself responsible for all those sufferings which arise from his erroneous thinking. That he has not been educated in the principles of thought control and is therefore ignorant of them is his misfortune, but it in no way relieves him of his responsibility. Whatever tendencies a man may have had at his birth, it is always within his power afterward to change those tendencies by a change of thinking.

A proof of this position is seen in the fact that most of the really great heroes and reformers of the world have come from what is called "the lower orders." Jesus himself was not an exception. He had few or none of those advantages of association, education, training, and the like, which are sup- posed to aid a man in his career. These were possessed by the scribes, Pharisees, and priests; but those men did not institute any reform, though they were all the time trying to amend the ways of individuals and of society, and were the custodians of the social and moral welfare of their day and time. Jesus had never been taught in the schools; he was not even from "the leading classes of society"; yet he leads the world.

He was not a priest educated in any religion; yet he enunciated principles which are changing and will continue to change the religion and morals of the entire world until it shall conform to his teaching. Is it urged that he possessed supernatural ability? The career of Mahomet was similar in these respects, and did he have the aid of the supernatural? "Out of the ranks" have the great reformers come.

Since the earliest days man has attributed his own errors, failures, disasters, and crimes to what some one else has done or has failed to do. The almost universal desire to throw the blame for one's own conduct upon another seems to be a characteristic of human nature, and this error has provoked a vast amount of wrong thinking by which even the error itself has been maintained and perpetuated.

The suffering of the good wife is very often attributed to the wrong actions of the erring husband; but it was her own thinking which brought her to her present situation. We have seen clearly that it is neither surrounding circumstances nor the acts of another, but our own thinking, which produces both bodily and mental conditions. Her husband may be a drunkard; and years ago she may have thought, as many girls do, that there is no harm in an occasional glass, or even that to take it is a praiseworthy exhibition of manly freedom. She suffers from his neglect or even from his blows because through her erroneous thinking, perhaps only yesterday, perhaps years ago, she placed herself in a position which gave him the opportunity. If she had thought differently, her course would have been different, and the evil that followed would never have resulted.

But the case is even stronger than this. Though the husband has done the worst things possible, yet her suffering is from her own thoughts alone, because that is the order of nature. She had the power to change her thinking and exclude discordant thoughts from her mind about him and his acts, and to have done this would have changed her whole succeeding course and condition, both mentally and physically. The mental pain does not follow unless there is permitted in one's own self the mental cause for it, neither does the physical pain follow the blow unless the mental discord occurs also. This is the ultimate position, and it is the correct one.

Because of lifelong habit, the strong tendency in such cases is to brood over the unfortunate conditions and mentally to blame and to condemn the erring husband and to expect nothing better from him. In this way love soon dies out of the heart, and bitterness takes its place. If, instead, the wife will train herself to keep her mind free from criticism and condemnation, to fill it with thoughts of whatever good she has recognized in her husband, and persistently to hold fast to her faith that he will turn back to the right and assert his manhood, she will not only change her own condition, but in time will reap her reward in the reformation of her husband.

As it was with the teacher in a small thing so will it be with her in large things. The law which governs the falling pebble is the same law which controls the motion of the earth. She should eliminate the discordant thoughts from her own mind and substitute harmonious ones in their places, and in exactly the same degree in which she accomplishes this change in herself will be the change for the better in her husband. An easy task ? No; but was anything worth while ever accomplished without strenuous, persistent effort?

Because few are willing to undertake the mental training necessary to accomplish this result does not change the fact. Electricity is the same today that it has been in all preceding centuries, but it is not the fault of electricity that men have not used it.

The principle here set forth does not in any case exonerate the one who does the wrong. The liar, the thief, the murderer, and every one who does any evil whatsoever is himself wholly responsible for what he does and can in no way escape the consequences of his acts. Whatever responsibility belongs to his victim is no excuse for the one who inflicts the wrong. Each alike ought to avoid his own causative acts, and thus he will avoid their consequences. Each is a sufferer; and his suffering is from his own hand, and upon his own head, and is the consequence of his own acts.

Is this a hard doctrine? No, it is not, because at the same time that it irrevocably fixes the responsibility it shows how the error and the suffering may be avoided. That the principle is unchangeable is its virtue, and not its defect. Twice two is always four, and principle always acts in the same way whether in mathematics or in morals. It only remains for man to recognize the principle and act in compliance with it.

The conditions are the same, even in the supreme illustration of all, which Is here approached with reverence. It is said that the sinless Jesus suffered for the sins of a guilty world, and in one view of the event this is true. In another it is wholly untrue. His whole course, including its culmination, was the result of his own action -- of his own thinking -- indeed, of his own deliberate choice. The temptation in the wilderness indicates clearly that he then recognized the conditions and saw that he might make himself the dictator of the world instead of becoming the victim of the prejudices of men.

His public entry into Jerusalem, only a week before his crucifixion, shows that it was not even then too late to change his course, save himself from the cross, and become the political ruler of Judea and of the world; and some of the recorded events indicate that he understood this clearly, yet he deliberately chose what he would do. Later still, at the time of his arrest, when he directed that all forcible opposition should cease, he showed that he was following the course he had mentally decided upon beforehand; and even then he might have reversed all the subsequent proceedings, for he said to Peter: "Thinkest thou that I cannot pray to my Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" The evidence is incontestable that he could have avoided the crucifixion. Instead, he chose it! Then he was responsible for the consequences. When we think beyond the cross, as we can do now, and think on the tremendous results for good which followed his choice, made with full knowledge of the consequences to himself, we may well be over- whelmed with awe.

This view does not detract in the least from its impressiveness. On the contrary, the fact that it was done with full knowledge of the conditions and of the more immediate results, as well as with the ability to avoid them, and therefore that it was purely voluntary on his part and an act for which, so far as he was concerned, he was himself wholly responsible, only adds to its sublimity and majesty. It was his slayers who knew not what they did, and the true character of their action, in so far as it related to themselves and to their responsibility for it, was not changed by what he did. And yet, the act was not in one slightest degree the less efficacious for the benefit of ignorant, blind, struggling, sinful mankind. He did it for them.

For ages men have been prone to charge their sufferings to "the anger of the gods," or to "the inscrutable purposes of divine Providence," or to "the will of the Lord." It has been demonstrated in the preceding pages that, in each particular case, as well as when viewed from the larger standpoint of the whole, these ills are the results of one's own thinking and consequent doing. Then to charge God with them is wholly false. God did not create our troubles nor did He inflict them upon us, nor did He make our erroneous thinking necessary. It is nothing short of direct blasphemy to charge God with our ills. They are the results of our own wrongdoing. He made each man free to think or not to think as he chooses. God is good; and He is not responsible, either directly or indirectly, for any ill, or evil thing, least of all for the mistakes and sins of mankind, nor for their consequent woes. The briefest consideration of acknowledged psychological principles will refute all such erroneous allegations against a loving Father.

Man is meant for happiness, and that happiness is within his reach. "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" indeed, and man may dwell therein if he will. Joy, pleasure, peace, are all the results of right thinking, and there is no reason why every one may not have them. The truth, the beauty, the grandeur, the inspiration, the unspeakable happiness, are for every man and are obtainable by him. He does not need even to search for bliss; it comes of itself as God made it to come.