|
“Of
course not!"
“Then
break the emotional ties. Instead of making others wrong for who they are or what
they do, become the observer and simply say,
‘That’s something I’m simply not willing
to accept in your own life.’
Then allow the other person to be, have,
or do as they will, without trying to fix them,
change anything, or make them wrong.
Who says they’re wrong anyway?
Do you know with absolute certainty that
they’re wrong?”
I
say,
“Well, no, not always with absolute
certainty.”
“Then
you
might be wrong?”
“That’s
possible.”
“Have
you ever been wrong?”
Jokingly,
I say, “Never!” and then add, “Of course!
Everyone has.”
“Well,
when you were wrong, did you know you were
wrong?”
Herbert
looks at me and remains silent.
With nothing to say, I just look back at
him.
I glance at Jazbell.
She smiles and remains silent.
After a very long pause, I reply, “Of
course I didn’t know I was wrong.
That’s the nature of being wrong.”
Herbert
continues, “Thank you for acknowledging that.
The vast majority of people believe that
what they’re doing is right.
They do the best they can within their
own set of beliefs, and they do the best they
can under their present circumstances.”
I
say, “But
some of the things we see others do are so
obviously wrong that they must know they’re
doing wrong.”
“Not
necessarily.
Very few people will do something that
they consider to be wrong without creating in
their minds a justification for their behavior.
Then, to them, what they do becomes OK.
Do you recall Pol Pot, leader of
the Khmer Rouge, a communist guerrilla group in
Cambodia who, in the mid 1970’s, was
responsible for killing about two million
Cambodians?”
“Yes.”
“Even
Pol Pot justified his actions in his own mind
and convinced himself he was doing a good thing.
Researchers have found similar types of
justification from all kinds of people who have
committed terrible acts.
Of course, we have to stop acts of
violence against persons or property, and we
have a social structure designed to do just
that.
For now at least, let’s leave that
aspect of life to others and deal with our own
lives.
On a personal level in our day-to-day
life, our job is to love and accept everyone
else just as they are and just as they aren’t. May I have your permission to make a personal example
involving the two of you?”
I
say, “Yes,” and look at Jazbell.
She also says yes.
Herbert
continues, “I don’t know the nature of your
relationship with each other, so may I assume
you are at least good friends?”
I
answer, “Yes.”
“So,
the next time your friend does something you
think is wrong or that you disapprove of or that
triggers a negative emotion within you, you get
to ask yourself this question, ‘Would I rather
be right or would I rather have our
relationship’?
You’ll have the choice to give up your
judgment or give up your relationship.
And in light of your just-admitted
confession that you might be wrong, which is the
wiser choice?”
I
respond with, “To give up my judgments, of
course, but can’t I have my opinions and still
have the relationship?”
“Well,
if arguing, fighting, disagreeing, disapproving
and feeling resentment are what you want in your
relationship, I suppose you could keep both.
How important is being right, any way?
Is it more important than your
relationship?”
My
defensive mode kicks in and I say, ”But what
if it’s something that involvers an either-or
choice and accepting of one person’s choice
automatically eliminates the other’s
choice?”
Herbert
replies, “Because harmony is job one in any
successful relationship, I suggest you discuss
the matter to see how you can come to a mutually
agreeable resolution.
If that doesn’t
work, bring in
a friend or a professional mediator to assist
you.
An outside person can often give you a
perspective that neither of you could see on
your own.
If that still doesn’t work, ask an
outside professional to act as arbitrator.
Both of you communicate your feelings,
desires and requirements to the arbitrator and
then let him/her make the final decision — a
decision that is a fair and equitable
solution— a decision that is outside the will
of either of one of you.
You’ll both need to agree ahead of time
that the arbitrator’s decision will be final,
that the decision will be accepted by both of
you, and that both of you will let go of any
emotional attachments to the final outcome.
Whenever disagreements or conflicts
arise, the ideal goal is to look for ways to
create harmony.
To the degree that you can set your
personal opinions aside is the degree to which
you can have mastered the Law of Allowing.
It is also the degree to which you can
have a committed, loving, harmonious
relationship.”
Herbert
points toward the window. “Do you see that lamp post over there across the
yard?”
“Yes,”
I respond.
“Do
you have emotional attachment to that post? —
to where it is? — to what it does?”
“No."
“When
you can hold that same attitude for all of your fellow human beings, you’ll have mastered the Law of
Allowing.
Our job is simply to allow all others the
free will choice to be who they are and do
whatever they do.
By giving to others the same thing that
we ask for ourselves, we walk our own talk. We also become the role models and set the example for
others to follow.”
“That
lamp post stands there 24 hours every day, seven
days every week, and at night, shines light on
the surrounding area.
That is its nature.
That is what it is. That is what it does.
If you’re mad, sad angry, jealous,
hateful or hold any other negative emotion
regarding that post, is it going to change what
the post is or what the post does?”
“No.”
“If
you bitch, moan and complain to the lamp post, is it going to change what it is or what it does?"
Again I say, “No.”
“If you bitch, moan and complain to someone
else about the lamp post, is that going
to change what the lamp post is or what it
does?”
“No.”
“The
same is true for our fellow humans. We each are whatever we are, and we do whatever we do.
We cannot change another’s nature, and,
short of violence or threats of violence, we
cannot force them to do other than what they do.
And even if we force them to do other
than they do, they still remain who they are.”
I
ask, “What about using lies and deception?”
"You
can con them, cheat them, lie to them, or otherwise trick them into being or
doing as you would have them be or do, but if you do, you steal their soul, you
steal their freedom, you steal their God-granted right of self
determination." Two things you should know about that:
first, "What you do onto the least of mine, you do onto
me." and second, whatever you put out you'd best be prepared to
receive it back ten times over.
I
say,
“Well, we could murder them.
Then, they would no longer be who they
are.”
Jazbell
adds, “Or we could con them, manipulate them,
teach them illusions while they are still
defenseless, little children and thus, make most
of them into who we want them to be.”
Herbert
laughs and says, “You two make quite a
team.”
“Thanks,”
I say.
Herbert
says, “Stoney,
your statement that if
someone is murdered, they cease to be who they
are is
an assumption on your part.
It assumes that we are our physical
bodies and that who-we-are changes with the death of our physical bodies.
That assumption may or may not be true,
but we’re getting off track here.
We can go into that more later if you
like.”
“Yes,
I would like to talk about that later.”
Herbert
continues,
“Then back to the Law of Allowing.
Our job is to stop fighting the external
world, to stop protesting, to stop arguing, to
stop trying to change someone else’s behavior,
to stop obsessing about what’s wrong in the
out-there world.
And then, regarding our internal world,
our job is to stop obsessing about what we think
is wrong with ourselves."
“Why?”
I ask.
“Because
to fight anything is inadvertently to empower it
and to attract more of it into your life.
Although many people do not believe this,
to bitch, moan and complain is to invite The Universe to send you more to bitch, moan and complain about.”
“So
are you saying that if we want something to be a
certain way in our lives, our very first job is
to go inside ourselves and change our own
thoughts and attitudes?
“Yes!
And you could add beliefs to that,
also.”
“What
about government violence?” Jazbell asks.
Herbert
responds, “Yes, government-sponsored violence
is a major problem.
Actually governments are the
major source of violence in the world today.
Government policies also precipitate and
are the indirect cause of a significant portion
of individual violence.
I
ask, “Why are governments the major source of
violence?”
Herbert
replies, “You’ve probably heard the old
saying, ‘Power corrupts and absolute power
corrupts absolutely.’
Governments become corrupt whenever
there’s no one with the power to stop them.”
There are also several major, false
assumptions which they rely on to justify mass
violence; however, that’s another story for
another time.”
 13-1
Jazbell
looks at me and laughs.
“Herbert, ‘another
story for another time’ is one of
Stoney’s favorite lines!”
I
come back with,
“We can talk more about that at another
time.
Right now I’d like to know more about
how to apply The Law of Allowing to my own
life.”
“And
so you shall,” says Herbert as he continues.
“With regard to the behavior of other
individuals, we simply step back and let them be
who they are and do whatever they do.
While the controversies rage in the world
around us, we quietly apply the three laws of
the universe where the outside world has no
power over us.”
“How
do we do that?"
“That's
what the third universal law is all about.
We’ll get to that in a moment.
Before we do, let’s complete
with the first two principles.”
“OK.
Please proceed.”
“The
traditional way to transcend evil has been to
create an even greater evil, and then apply that
evil in the name of God, good, flag, country, or
the like.
Thus human conflict has grown from fists
to sticks and stones to many times enough
nuclear weapons to destroy every human being on
the face of this Earth. And the cycle is still escalating. Biological warfare could make nuclear weapons look like
child’s play.
In
contrast to that, our goal is to create good and
to be good in the face of evil.
In doing so, we’re also cycle breakers.
We end cycles of conflict when we give
others the free will choice to be who they are,
even when those others, if they were given the
opportunity, would deny those same rights to us.
Like a plant we stop watering, we
withdraw our energy from negative behavior.
We stop fighting what we don’t want
because, as I’ve already said, to fight
anything is to inadvertently empower it and
attract more of it into our lives.
Our
behavior will also serve as a role model for
many who will see us as living examples of the
way they’d like to be, and thus, they’ll
change their own behavior without any
interference from us.”
End
of Chapter 13 -- The
Universal Law of Allowing
|
