best prepare to show these attitudes to others by the silent and private practice of exhibiting them toward ourselves.
The first of these is a calm presumption of inevitable success. This feeling of ultimate assurance would stem from the certainty that there is no force anywhere in the universe capable of preventing pursuit of the program which would do so. A constructive companion-postulate to this conviction would be the stipulation that the strictures of the precepts can be carried out invariably and without exception by anyone, anywhere, at any time and under all conditions, granting the desire to do so, and the willingness to learn how.
Another in this galaxy of new viewpoints might be termed the "good workman" complex. The program would seem to require of participants the quiet competence usually associated with master craftsmen, doing their job well for its own sake without need or thought of approbation. The emphasis would be upon anonymity. Those who seek to further the formula would have a comforting anticipation of ultimate success, the relaxed assurance that openly and easily shares information with others, and a willingness to improve skills. There would be a monumental disinclination to be hurried, or to quit, and an unexcitable thoroughness. There would be no toying with or trivializing of the "tools," these truths.
Many of the basic attitudes of the program are the result of direct, subjective application of the precepts, regarded as specific injunctions that merit unswerving observance. This treatment of them as literal imperatives would permit no temporary suspension, easy rationalization, or neglect, upon weak and specious excuses. They would not be relegated to virtual oblivion by reservation to special or convenient occasions. Ingenuity and zest devoted to honoring, rather than evading, them might show us ways to avoid even indirect condonation of breaches, by refusing to benefit therefrom.
The constructive practicality of approach would be carried out to the full reasonable limits of a common-sense interpretation of the plain meaning of the tenets. For instance, the strictures against force and violence clearly extend also to mental and emotional substitutes for the common, overt, physical forms. Consequently, one ought not to quarrel with anyone, about anything, at any time, under any circumstances. But it is just as clear that one should do nothing that can be remotely construed as even approving such activities; and by simple lateral expansion, one should hardly feel free to indulge in pursuits so provocative to conflict as the making of disparaging comments against other persons, their efforts, or their attributes. By the same token, the direction never to steal is a plain prohibition against theft by such obvious indirection as the giving of false information, or the concealment of facts. The most elementary breadth of application would ban every sort of lying, duplicity, and deception. The willing employer would easily understand the stricture to prevent the use or possession of anything secured through means contrary to it; and he would extend it positively to permit only his employment or enjoyment of those things known definitely to be his own, openly earned through honest effort.
It is a bit embarrassing, and may seem absurd, to mention matters of such rudimentary morality before enlightened, modern adults. It is shameful to have any need to do so. But perhaps our general juvenility in this area is explainable (if not excusable) through our traditional pattern of validating codes of conduct in nebulous metaphysical terms, or of basing moral correction upon the suspect psychological grounds of the preferences of self-admitted superiors-in-some-respect. In any case, the confusion is perpetuated in each generation by the prevalent parental response to childrens' inquiries for the objective basis of morality with an evasion of the issue under the smokescreen of guilty and annoyed irrationalities.
The rationale for pursuing this program should be simple personal preference, based on the sheer fact of its superior productivity. We who accept the remedy would do so on the flat ground that we want to, because we want stability, serenity, and peace. We must share these with others to have them undisturbed ourselves. We are convinced that on net balance, violation of the tenets never produces the security or happiness for which they are ostensibly discarded or abridged, but yields only the contrary—pain, strain, insanity and illness, whether for the person or the group. We recognize in cold reality that the hectic, hurrying, hungry hunt for attention and adulation that is pandemic among us only thrusts away affection, which is our real need. We follow the remedy because nothing else works.
So, another of the preparatory general attitudes is the predication of the practicality, and the practicability, of the tenets. An easy, tacit acceptance of the remedy as believable and useable, coupled with a matter-of-fact assumption that anyone at all has capacity to understand and practice it, helps to inculcate it in the beholder at a sub-verbal, thus sub-arguable, level. The presumption is that the remedy can be and will be applied in everyday life by ordinary people, in a widening range. Advocation of, and acquiescence to, such a prospect can be most effective if conveyed through constant personal display. By silent demonstration, we can reiterate endlessly and unequivocably, a confident conviction that these are the rules that everyone or anyone can and should obey. The insidious current suggestion that this code of morality is indecipherable by and unattainable to ordinary mortals can be offset and overcome by the indisputable fact of one's own performance. Only an undeniable personal exhibition that this is the proper prescription for human conduct at all times and in all places can dispel the decadent notion that the precepts are the province only of special persons, or are for use only on special occasions. The tenor of every act in the presence of others would be that these rules are easy to learn, the habits of conformity easy to acquire, progress under them self-generating, and the process completely self-rewarding. The tone of one's behavior would be that of a person who plays the game of life strictly by the best available rules, so that it will have the only pleasure any game can afford—that of voluntary participation in an enjoyable, mutual endeavor. The theme of one's thinking would be that here is a fundamental formula for human behavior so explosively simple and so limitlessly beneficial that we ought all to feel somewhat silly for not having tried it, on its own merits and under its own criteria, long since. Knowing that universal acceptance is mandatory, but that application is the peculiar personal problem of each individual, we would acknowledge both necessities by beginning each within ourselves to reconstruct, under this historically old, but operationally nascently new blueprint, our outlooks upon, and functional relationships to, ourselves, our fellow men, and the Creating Cosmos.
An initial emphasis upon unspoken adherence to these principles has still another important reason. For the remedy to have any general effect, it must be widely disseminated and intensively employed. Yet, by the word of the tenets themselves, each individual must on his own unweighted initiative embrace them. Also, we know that after the remedy is discovered by a person, it must either grow through regular use or it will wither and die. Further, we are aware that such growth is possible only through the sharing of its truths with others. It is obligatory to communicate it. Yet merely to expound upon or to extoll the "remedy" to others, seriously risks awakening the very sort of confusion and resentment it seeks to allay; or may lead to the worse defects of posturing, posing and hypocrisy in the very name of teachings which most condemn these. The dilemma is resolved by this method of "portraying" both the principles, and one's adherence to them, primarily through personal performance. The best of words are but labels, and labels can lie. But tacit demonstration, if plainly fruitful, will cause others to seek its source; failure, neglect, or negation will have little effect except upon the single person involved—at least insofar as detracting from "the remedy" itself is concerned; and the conduct of non-users can be brought into most vivid contrast, if there is no attack against persons. In this way, the remedy will appear to the beholder on its own merits as the unique recipe for living as a complete human being. Its gift of the first and finest freedom—the privilege of choosing right for the sake of rightness, knowing it for right—will be sought unceasingly, precisely from those who best exemplify it, and can therefore best communicate it. An effortless certainty which honors and appreciates the individuality and integrity of other persons on the sheer ground of their irradicable humanness, without show or hypocrisy, would seem desirable beyond measure to the very ones who most need security and solace. Those who best applied the remedy would most show the qualities it generates, and would be exactly the most likely to give it openly, freely, and unostentatiously to others, while having the greater capacity properly
