 Thinking is the initial act of all human actions, but external incidents in many cases precede thinking and provoke it. Whenever the external suggestive incident is taken into consideration, the order of occurrence is as follows: -- First. The external incident presents itself. Second. This is followed by thinking of some kind. Third. Some bodily action takes place which is the result of that thinking. Fourth. Then occur the events which follow in their natural order. We see the incident, we think about it, we act; and then follow the events consequent on that action. The factor governing our action and deciding its character is the thinking and not the occurrence. It is an error to believe that the incident is the governing power. We fall into this error because we fail to note the part played by thinking. Suppose a frightened horse has escaped from his driver and is running toward a little child at play in the street. Several persons see the impending accident. One of these, with vivid imagination, but not directing his mental actions at all, pictures to himself all the horrors that may happen and is paralyzed by fear. Another thinks only of himself and his own peril and stands still or removes himself beyond all possible danger. Yet another throws his arms about, gesticulating wildly, perhaps screams. All he does arises from his own mental distraction and adds to the confusion and consternation already in progress. Had another of those present been so absorbed in other affairs that he did not see the runaway horse, he would not have been disturbed by it, nor would he have taken any action in relation to it. Another, seeing exactly the same that the others see, is actuated by an entirely different line of thinking. "Quick as thought," he estimates the distance and speed of the horse, his own possible speed and his distance from the child, decides there is a chance for successful action, springs to the rescue, and snatches the child from danger. In the illustration we have (1) the external suggestive incident of the runaway horse, (2) the thinking of each person, and (3) his consequent bodily action. Although the action in each case was connected with the same incident, yet it took its essential character from the thinking and not from the incident. This is without exception. Between the incident or suggestion and the action is always thinking. Without this thinking there could not be any action. Neither the incident nor any suggestion decides what the action shall be. The thinking does that. This is true of all bodily actions whether great or small, important or trivial, observed or unobserved. In the case under consideration the actions of the persons who were present varied because their thinking varied; the initial difference was in their thinking. Each saw the same thing that the others saw, and if the incident had been the governing and directing power, each would have done the same things that the others did. Had a multitude been present, there would have been as many kinds of action as there were kinds of thinking. Let two persons, walking in a pasture, come unexpectedly upon a group of cattle feeding. One of these persons has followed a course of thinking which has made him a lover of animals, and he is pleased, interested, and views them with delighted attention. The thinking of the other has been habitually turned in the opposite direction. His thoughts about them have been those of fear, and now these recur to his mind, and he is filled with alarm. The actions of the two persons are as different as their thinking. One approaches the cattle with pleasure; the other flies from them in terror. He does not understand that his sense of danger is all because of his own thinking, but believes it is because of the cattle. If the cattle had been the real cause, the other person would have been as fearful as he was. In the same way we attribute the cause of our own faults to others when it is really within ourselves. An extreme illustration, but one which has occurred in actual life and which shows the extent to which the power of thought has been carried, is furnished by the inhabitants of India. The man-eating tiger is an object of the greatest terror to the majority of them, and they go to his jungle only in large numbers and with every kind of weapon at their command. On the other hand, the man, whose thinking relative to the tiger is of a contrary sort, goes into the jungle alone without any weapons and stays there unharmed. If those men who so fear the tiger would practice this man's course of thinking, they, too, would be in the same condition as he is and would be able to do the things which he does. A change of men's thinking would revolutionize the attitude of the race toward animals, and of animals toward the race. Herein is the reason why some people do with impunity what would be impossible for others to do, or what they would be greatly injured by doing. The difference is popularly attributed to temperament, physical conditions, constitutional characteristics, or some other personal peculiarity. It is really due to states of mind -- to thinking --the thinking which each habitually does whether noticed or unnoticed; this is often the result of education or habit, and the right habit can be created by continuous right thinking. It does not need any further discussion to show that our feelings and emotions are not caused, as we ordinarily think, by something external to ourselves; they are caused by our own mental condition. If our thinking had been different, all our succeeding actions would have been different also. This has been recognized by the wise ones here and there all down the stream of time. Shakespeare says:-- " The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings." -- not in things outside of us, whether near or remote, but in our own thinking, therefore in ourselves. More than seven hundred years ago good old St. Bernard said: "Nothing can work me damage except myself; the harm that I sustain I carry about with me and am a real sufferer but by my own fault." In the principles here set forth are both the confirmation and the explanation of his statement. The fault is solely in the thinking. We may change our thinking and thus change both our course and our conditions. The cause of danger from our emotions lies within ourselves; it is useless to try to run away from it because we carry it with us as we run. The recluse carries within his own mind the cause of his difficulties, and this is why monasticism has always been a failure and always will be. It is not the temptation but the man's own thought in connection with it that ruins him. In every instance it is not the external incident but the man's own thinking which directs, controls, and decides what his course shall be. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||