C.G. Jung famously noted that we should not condemn others, lest we project our own unacknowledged darkness into them; he spoke in a spirit inspired by Christ’s injunction to “resist not evil”—similarly, Solzhenitsyn spoke about the line between good and evil that runs within every human heart. It is true that people project into others—and this often has a political dimension—however, “resist not evil” does not mean to do nothing when confronted with evil, nor does it mean that Satanic forces do not exist. If you lived in a small village in early history where a murder was committed it would not help if everyone said: “I’ve searched my heart, found that I too have been tempted to murder and so shall refrain from action against this killer, rather I resolve not to murder anyone.” Question: has this idea about “mending your own heart” become an excuse for cowardice and acquiescence to evil; especially, if, for example, the murderer is popular among some in the village?
The problem arises because the approach is taken too literally; sometimes an overlay is placed on the situation whereby if someone does absolutely nothing the transgressor will be punished by divine intervention—essentially, this is what pacifists hold; as you murder me I know that this murder will lead to your own damnation, either in Hell or through karmic retribution.
What “resist not evil” means is not that you should do nothing when a murder is committed and only look inwards, but rather it is the way in which you act to prosecute murder that should be characterised by internal non-resistance. The ideal should be to achieve non-attached action; there should be no egoistic element involved in the way justice is administered. So “resist not evil” does not mean to recuse yourself when someone aggresses; it means to identify and call out evil in a dispassionate and unattached way.
Projection occurs when people call out perceived evil in an attached way, and you can tell this is so because when they do so they usually become histrionic—especially if you contradict them. As such, unattached action is more associated with redistributive action (masculine) than condemnation (feminine); the more action-orientated the less chance for the ego to interpose. Yet it is not possible to remedy evil without, at minimum, identification of the (ir)responsible parties.
The desire not to project does not mean that there are not substantially evil people or that obtuse evil people should just be allowed to get away with it—even if there is real evil within myself too. My example? I say the way Labour and the Democrats—Joe Biden—carry on is heavily evil and mostly Satanic; not that I think I am wholly good, I am what I am, but I can accurately recognise evil and that is because I know it in myself. Non-dualism is a
radical three-stage process, and this is sometimes quite misunderstood: firstly, there is only the duality (attached action and projection); secondly, all is the one, there is not even an “I” (enlightenment, wholeness and non-duality); thirdly, there is duality again—but I am not attached to the duality, because I engage with the duality from the wholeness (unattached action; neutral identification of evil people and deeds—they are evil but I feel no emotional turmoil about that fact).
People often get stuck in the middle—sometimes purposively, to become saints; and sometimes to avoid the return to duality (cowardice). When people become perversely stuck in non-duality and fail to return to life this is what the Buddhists call “being a stone Buddha”; by which they mean someone with the Buddha’s serene and beneficent indifference to the world but with a hollowness: “They’ve murdered my son but I cannot call them evil, for once a man stood on my toe and I wanted to punch him; it could have killed him.” The full Buddha, however, has returned to duality in a non-attached way, ready to administer justice.