I am posting this as an initial topic for exploration. I can speak from experience as a person (!) and as a long time meditator and clinical social worker. Finding someone or something to blame when things go wrong is a strong trait in me, although I have learned to check or moderate it a lot.

Now, I believe that blaming is NEVER justified, in the sense that one feels wrath toward the "offender". Blaming harms us. This is not to say that one should not deal with inter-personal problems directly and honestly. We can and we must do that. However, a sincere desire to communicate with, and understand the other person, is much different than "blaming."

To take a concrete example: a judge may send a dangerous person to jail for murder or rape, but the judge is NOT entitled to be wrathful, judgemental or rejecting of the defendant. Your thoughts? Please email your responses to me and I will try to respond, as well as synthesize your responses. Welcome to the group! Bob Riley

Hi Bob,

I totally agree with your example that 'the judge is NOT entitled to be wrathful, judgemental or rejecting of the defendant.' But I agree with it by inserting the attitude of Hate into the words 'wrathful, judgemental and rejecting.'

To me, being wrathful is being angry in hate for whom I am angry with; being judgmental is judging in hate for whom I am judging; and the problem with rejecting is hating who or what I reject. So by being angry in love eliminates the problem of the hatred and allows me to be angry with you in the proper attitude of Love. Loving you means that I can judge you with love and so make the right judgement, having eliminated the hate that causes my judgement to be pre-judiced, biased and damning with hate and so condemnatory. Loving you means I can for now reject you with love; and at another time choose you with love and out of love reject someone else. By making hate the real culprit to be eliminated, I can also genuinely love that judge as myself if he were wrathful, judgemental or rejecting because I can be all those words in love, and therefore his only problem is not who or what he is but the attitude/spirit of hate in which he is anything. Loving myself as all words and their opposites is how I have a genuine and sincere desire to communicate in love with all persons.

By loving who I blame, I eliminate the hatred that is the real problem and so can take the blame and respeonsibility with love and so with love also blame another person as myself if he were to be blamed. So I believe that blaming in hatred of the person to be blamed is NEVER justified, in the sense that one feels wrath with hate toward the "offender". The hate in any blaming is what really is really offensive and is what really harms us.

Here is the same sentiment expressed by Shakespeare:
For wisdom's sake, a word that all men love, Or for Love's sake, a word that loves all men, Or for men's sake, the authors of these women, Or women's sake, by whom we men are men, Let us once lose our [L]oaths to find ourselves, Or else we lose ourselves to keep our [L]oaths. It is religion of Love to be thus forsworn, For Love itself fulfills the Law of Love, And who can sever Love from Love? "
LOVE'S LABOURS LOST, Act 4, Scene 3
Gordon

Gordon wrote a very thoughtful response to my original posting. He had some very good points. I want to agree with most of what he said, yet take issue with this:

So by being angry in love eliminates the problem of the hatred and allows me to be angry with you in the proper attitude of Love. Loving you means that I can judge you with love and so make the right judgement, having eliminated the hate that causes my judgement to be pre-judiced, biased and damning with hate and so condemnatory. Loving you means I can for now reject you with love; and at another time choose you with love and out of love reject someone else. If you love me, how can you reject me? You can point out the harmfulness in my actions, yet not reject me? In the famous temple scene, where Jesus overturned the tables of the moneychangers, was he angry? Look in Matthew, Mark and Luke. No reference to anger (at their harmful behavior). I think he tried to shock them into "waking up" because he loved them, as well as those their practices harmed. In my view, there can be no anger (a form of attack) unless there is personal ad hominem judgement, first. Perhaps I am wrong... Thanks to Gordon for your thoughtful response. Bob

To read the archives of this discussion, go to: http://www.egroups.com/group/divinerelationships/4.html?