This is from a Quaker pamphlet called The Seed and the Tree by Daniel A. Seeger.
To develop an effective nonviolent witness it is not enough simply to obey the commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” The emotion of hatred can in its own way be as deadly as the act of killing. We may pretend to ourselves that it does not matter what our emotions are as long as we act rightly, but when the test comes we always betray ourselves, for our thoughts and emotions control our acts. If our minds are full of hatred and condemnation, this ultimately will be expressed in acts of violence and destruction and murder. We will eventually find that we seem to have no other choice.
The avoidance of judgmentalism, a key to the development of a nonviolent character, involves more than eschewing the condemnation and hatred of others. For passing a sentence on others is not the only form of judgmentalism there is; self-congratulation for having found the truth one tries to live by is judgmentalism in another form. A feeling of pride at having come to understandings which are not yet widely grasped is corrupting; it disables us as instruments of Truth. For how can one take credit for the experiences one has been given, the persons one has encountered, the emotional and intellectual makeup one has inherited and been nurtured into, all of which have led one, finally and at last, to grasp, probably imperfectly, some splinter of the truth which has been proclaimed by sages since the beginning of human history? Can we be sure that if we were in another’s shoes we would not have the same opinions and be behaving exactly the same way that he or she is doing?
The sparks of truth we find in others and in ourselves are occasions for joy and for thanksgiving, but no more than we are to condemn those of less perfect understanding are we to congratulate ourselves or each other for superior wisdom. Such an attitude would be fatal to the fabrication of a truly nonviolent witness. It is always the mark of true prophets that they never take personal credit for the wisdom it is given them to speak; they always have a finely developed sense of appreciation for the element of grace which underlies all achievements of insight.
Guilt is another form of judgmentalism which is equally fatal. It is judgmentalism turned inward on ourselves. Often, social-change advocates who are free in their condemnation of others are also mountains of guilt; consequently, their witness, rather than resulting in a clearminded attempt to help a social-change process, is often warped by subliminally generated programs of expiation which are useless.
It is not necessary to feel guilty for not having been tortured. It is not necessary to feel guilty for having been born an American citizen. It is not even necessary to be morosely preoccupied with one’s own past lapses from virtue. As all great spiritual teachers have made clear, one’s soul is inevitably colored by what one thinks. Wherever our thoughts dwell, so do we gradually become. Whether we are preoccupied with the condemnation of others or of ourselves, we dwell in baseness. Our spirits will grow coarse, our hearts stubborn, and we will be overcome with gloom. George Fox and the early Friends preached the good news that we can triumph over sin, but we do not achieve this triumph by brooding over the evils we ourselves have done. Rather, we must turn wholly away from evil, not dwell upon it, and do good.
What, then, are we left with as we choose not to criticize others, congratulate ourselves or feel guilt? We are left with an overwhelming feeling of solidarity, to use a contemporary term, or love, to use a scriptural one. It is not solidarity only with union organizers in Brazil, with peace activists in America, with the Red Guards or the Black Panthers, or with whatever other group may have captured a passing fancy. Indeed, we are no longer the narrow-minded person who thinks and says, “This individual is one of us, this one is not. This one is a stranger.” Rather, we begin to get a glimmer of the whole of humankind as but one family. We begin to approach the unhesitating and unpremeditated solidarity with all huntan beings which is an essential ingredient of a truly nonviolent approach.
Such a love of humanity can be very abstract, and it is not real unless it is given concrete expression in the way we behave toward the specific individual human beings whom life brings across our path. To the extent that we can develop genuine human rapport with priests who have joined guerrilla undergrounds, with the directors of mufti-national corporations, with people who work with us on a day-in, dayout basis, we give concrete expression to the larger principle of human community.
This sense of love of neighbor, of solidarity with all other human beings, is the basis not only of the teachings of Christ, but also of all other great spiritual teachings. For example, the Hasids expressed and practiced the teaching that love arises naturally and inevitably from the recognition that the same Lord lives in everyone. For them, one loves one’s neighbor as oneself because, ultimately, the neighbor was oneself. “He who thrusts away his comrade,” says the Besht, “thrusts himself away. He who thrusts away a particle of the unity, it is as if he thrusts away the whole.” Marcus Aurelius wrote, “It is humankind’s peculiar distinction to love even those who err and go astray. Such a love is born as soon as you realize that they are your brothers and sisters, that they are stumbling in ignorance, and not willfully; that in a short while both of you will be no more; and above all, that you yourself have taken no hurt, in that your own conscience and honor have not been made a jot worse than they were before” (Meditations: Chapter 7, verse 22). In the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred text of Hinduism, we find the passage: “Who burns with the bliss and suffers the sorrow of every creature within his own heart, making his own each bliss and each sorrow: him I hold the highest of all sages.”
Half, we are to love them. Yes – I am at fault too, even when I see the answers clearly – it is what we hate in ourselves that we hate in others isn’t it? Paletiger has painfully put up the reminder. If I were already perfect I guess I’d not be in a human form any more, eh? Nor you.
Hugs to you. I’m pretty sure we are quite alike.
What, then, are we left with as we choose not to criticize others, congratulate ourselves or feel guilt?
————————————————————————————————
It’s just some writing makes me see the green slimy stuff oozing off the paper and reminds me of ghostbusters.
————————————————————————————————
Many thanks, Patty, for illustrating the point made by the original piece, so effectively.
‘He who thrusts away his comrade,” says the Besht, “thrusts himself away.’
He who thrusts away his comrade, thrusts away his own shadow material that he cannot stand to look at or acknowledge exists, but it is okay to condemn it in others.
Much to ponder about in this passage. Thank you.
This is a lovely piece of writing. My experience with with enlightenment was more like a raw state of bliss, and that is how the Buddhist monk described it when he said who needs sex when you are coming all the time. Jesus said that when you come to the fork in the road and make the choice you can’t turn back. When you have caught a glimpse of pure loving ecstasy, you can’t hope to go back to the other fork in the road because you are striving to recapture the bliss of pure love and ecstasy. Most of the saints probably got it, including ‘pauline’ – but what a misunderstood group of poor souls they were.
I see pure love in nearly all of the people who write into this column – people who have caught a glimpse of heaven and want everyone else to follow down that road. That was why jesus was the ‘door’. It is a narrow path, and letting ego interfere will get you slimed everytime. It’s just some writing makes me see the green slimy stuff oozing off the paper and reminds me of ghostbusters.
Did note the byline/author. Thank you for choosing this piece.
Hi all, just a note – I did not write The Seed and the Tree. There is a byline
This is from a Quaker pamphlet called The Seed and the Tree by Daniel A. Seeger.
Eric, Half De Witte:
I bow deeply to both of you for your words with morning. Thank you, thank you. All morning long I’ve contemplated how I’m handling my thoughts and reactions these past two weeks. With Saturn opposed my Chiron exactly now, I find myself revisiting old hurts that do come down to faith or the lack of faith. Your thoughts redirected me past my own tendencies to judge this struggle within me and over-concern my self with outcomes. Thank you, HDW, for reminding me of my role as conduit of grace –through myself *and* to myself. I know this, and yet some days (and weeks and months) I forget.
This is a stimulating piece. It is wrestling somewhat with the issues effectively foreshadowed in ‘The Course in Miracles’ thread of a couple of weeks ago.
The Quaker spiritualities have emerged from the roots of the Anabaptist, Radical Reformers. A useful typology in Christian religious history is one that delineates as a triangulation of tension between the vertices of �Word-Spirit-Church’.
The Roman Catholic hegemony that placed Church as the defining axis of faith, was challenged during The Reformation, as the Reformers cited the Authority of Scripture as taking precedence, whereas The Radical Reformers emphasised the Spirit as the life breathing centrality.
All struggles in this arena have attempted to acknowledge this triangle in some sense, whilst leaning more toward a particular vertex as their kernel of �true’ faith.
Interestingly, coming back to the critique of Paulinist theologies from the Course in Miracles thread, it can be observed that that position is roughly equivalent to the Augustinian position that produced a �two cities’ theology – basically the divinely authorised city of �humilitas’ over against the �superbis’ or hubris city, drowning in base, human pride.
It is interesting that both elements are present in this blog piece. Actually, herein lies a very good opportunity to notice how the teachings of Christ have been appropriated differently by theologians with differing agendas. Happily, it is possible, even today, to develop new theologies from the old sources.
I’m particularly thinking here of Jesus’ proclamation in the Gospels that “narrow is the path to life and few are those who find it, but wide is the path to destruction and many are those who enter by it”. This might naturally suggest the Pauline, and then Augustinian, development of its conceptuality. This would be a two cities model – and this kind of model produces precisely the sorts of bifurcation within culture that have proven so disastrous to human beings.
On the other hand, Jesus also described himself as The Door, as a conduit that presumably leads from a self-contained life then out to the world and then back in waves and cycles, presumably like the rhythmic tide. (That is a wisdom aphorism rather than an apocalyptic one, from Jesus).This particular assignation is conducive to Eric’s piece here. Once one has travelled one’s path and reached a tipping point of enlightenment and understanding, there is a long way to drop – that feels a little like the Luciferic �fall’.
In modern experience, it seems to be less the case that there are two paths that diverge toward heaven or hell, than that there is one path; and, a little like the vision in Milton’s Paradise Lost, it is what we do on that path (where we continue to be enmeshed in, rather than radically separated from, our world – where our collective responsibility is found) that establishes our ultimate worth – our role being to overflow our resources (without depleting our own life – NO GUILT there!) and to support the global/communal, human eschatological project, of which we are ALL a crucial part.
The time has finally come to move from Augustine’s exclusive two cities and to develop the comfort to inhabit the one (inclusive) city, with all the diversity and difference of its myriad inhabitants. Our awareness of our shared, and often problematic history, coupled with our much enhanced contemporary understandings of what constitutes human being, surely means that the old psychological defence mechanism of вЂ?judgmentalism’ is now seen for what it is, rather than as providing evidence of some sort of spiritual corruption – and should be viewed as well past its вЂ?sell by’ date – DO NOT CONSUME.
People who judge others are unwise yes, but they are not unclean or impure. They are suffering their own alienation and excluding their own growth – when Jesus noted, metaphorically, that such a person will not escape from their prison until they have paid the last penny, I really do not feel he was meaning hellfire and torment; rather that the lessons learned about self are so very painful that most will choose to stay in their prison, rather than open the unlocked door of their cell – for it is a self-imposed torture they endure, and they must CHOOSE to end it.