What do we judge ? The fact, the person, the result or both ? What, how, the background, the form ? Under which parameters can be considered just the appreciations according to the site, customs, culture, with the peculiar valuations of each idyosincrasy ?
Are there some method that ensures a fair trial ? Why some wants toughness and others are condescending before the same act ? Why were some people see infration others see innocence ? Who is right ? Who discerns correctly ? Who sees things clearly, without partisan influences and is equitable in the observation and conclusions ?
Everything that happens is exactly what should be at this moment, and based on this premise, what we " see " as punisahble acts, possibly is only a part of a longer plan between an start and an outcome to go to a better context.
Then, we can ensure that the incorrect is really incorrect, and what sometimes can seem unfair is truly unfair according to a larger movie than the simple appreciations of the moment ?
Everyone thinks, everyone criticizes, everyone sees bad things from its perspective, your ideas, criteria, consciousness. How many of these are capable to emit reasonable verdicts, equables ?
The human gender accostumed to move by interests, can be reliable in judging questions that are opposite or move away of your tastes and desires ?
Who don´t preach with the example is not able to judge, only the one that is correct has the moral strength to do it.
Don´t judge and don´t will be judged, is the exponent that we all have to watch over the neatness, and we are all here to correct impurities.
Judging correctly requires three factors : rigor, compassion, and balance between both. If prevail rigor without compassion, in the end it can not be fair.
Judgment represents hiding of mercy. This means that behind the facts there is a purpose that drives to an expansion of consciousness and some changes that provides improvements in the thinking and the action.
No comments:
Post a Comment