having proved by personal experiment the truth of the first of the two great principles which concern the human machine—namely, that the brain is a servant, not a master, and can be controlled—we may now come to the second. the second is more fundamental than the first, but it can be of no use until the first is understood and put into practice. the human machine is an apparatus of brain and muscle for enabling the ego to develop freely in the universe by which it is surrounded, without friction. its function is to convert the facts of the universe to the best advantage of the ego. the facts of the universe are the material with which it is its business to deal—not the facts of an ideal universe, but the facts of this universe. hence, when friction occurs, when the facts of the universe cease to be of advantage to the ego, the fault is in the machine. it is not the solar system that has gone wrong, but the human machine. second great principle, therefore: 'in case of friction, the machine is always at fault.'

you can control nothing but your own mind. even your two-year-old babe may defy you by the instinctive force of its personality. but your own mind you can control. your own mind is a sacred enclosure into which nothing harmful can enter except by your permission. your own mind has the power to transmute every external phenomenon to its own purposes. if happiness arises from cheerfulness, kindliness, and rectitude (and who will deny it?), what possible combination of circumstances is going to make you unhappy so long as the machine remains in order? if self-development consists in the utilisation of one's environment (not utilisation of somebody else's environment), how can your environment prevent you from developing? you would look rather foolish without it, anyway. in that noddle of yours is everything necessary for development, for the maintaining of dignity, for the achieving of happiness, and you are absolute lord over the noddle, will you but exercise the powers of lordship. why worry about the contents of somebody else's noddle, in which you can be nothing but an intruder, when you may arrive at a better result, with absolute certainty, by confining your activities to your own? 'look within.' 'the kingdom of heaven is within you.' 'oh, yes!' you protest. 'all that's old. epictetus said that. marcus aurelius said that. christ said that.' they did. i admit it readily. but if you were ruffled this morning because your motor-omnibus broke down, and you had to take a cab, then so far as you are concerned these great teachers lived in vain. you, calling yourself a reasonable man, are going about dependent for your happiness, dignity, and growth, upon a thousand things over which you have no control, and the most exquisitely organised machine for ensuring happiness, dignity, and growth, is rusting away inside you. and all because you have a sort of notion that a saying said two thousand years ago cannot be practical.

you remark sagely to your child: 'no, my child, you cannot have that moon, and you will accomplish nothing by crying for it. now, here is this beautiful box of bricks, by means of which you may amuse yourself while learning many wonderful matters and improving your mind. you must try to be content with what you have, and to make the best of it. if you had the moon you wouldn't be any happier.' then you lie awake half the night repining because the last post has brought a letter to the effect that 'the board cannot entertain your application for,' etc. you say the two cases are not alike. they are not. your child has never heard of epictetus. on the other hand, justice is the moon. at your age you surely know that. 'but the directors ought to have granted my application,' you insist. exactly! i agree. but we are not in a universe of oughts. you have a special apparatus within you for dealing with a universe where oughts are flagrantly disregarded. and you are not using it. you are lying awake, keeping your wife awake, injuring your health, injuring hers, losing your dignity and your cheerfulness. why? because you think that these antics and performances will influence the board? because you think that they will put you into a better condition for dealing with your environment to-morrow? not a bit. simply because the machine is at fault.

in certain cases we do make use of our machines (as well as their sad condition of neglect will allow), but in other cases we behave in an extraordinarily irrational manner. thus if we sally out and get caught in a heavy shower we do not, unless very far gone in foolishness, sit down and curse the weather. we put up our umbrella, if we have one, and if not we hurry home. we may grumble, but it is not serious grumbling; we accept the shower as a fact of the universe, and control ourselves. thus also, if by a sudden catastrophe we lose somebody who is important to us, we grieve, but we control ourselves, recognising one of those hazards of destiny from which not even millionaires are exempt. and the result on our ego is usually to improve it in essential respects. but there are other strokes of destiny, other facts of the universe, against which we protest as a child protests when deprived of the moon.

take the case of an individual with an imperfect idea of honesty. now, that individual is the consequence of his father and mother and his environment, and his father and mother of theirs, and so backwards to the single-celled protoplasm. that individual is a result of the cosmic order, the inevitable product of cause and effect. we know that. we must admit that he is just as much a fact of the universe as a shower of rain or a storm at sea that swallows a ship. we freely grant in the abstract that there must be, at the present stage of evolution, a certain number of persons with unfair minds. we are quite ready to contemplate such an individual with philosophy—until it happens that, in the course of the progress of the solar system, he runs up against ourselves. then listen to the outcry! listen to the continual explosions of a righteous man aggrieved! the individual may be our clerk, cashier, son, father, brother, partner, wife, employer. we are ill-used! we are being treated unfairly! we kick; we scream. we nourish the inward sense of grievance that eats the core out of content. we sit down in the rain. we decline to think of umbrellas, or to run to shelter.

we care not that that individual is a fact which the universe has been slowly manufacturing for millions of years. our attitude implies that we want eternity to roll back and begin again, in such wise that we at any rate shall not be disturbed. though we have a machine for the transmutation of facts into food for our growth, we do not dream of using it. but, we say, he is doing us harm! where? in our minds. he has robbed us of our peace, our comfort, our happiness, our good temper. even if he has, we might just as well inveigh against a shower. but has he? what was our brain doing while this naughty person stepped in and robbed us of the only possessions worth having? no, no! it is not that he has done us harm—the one cheerful item in a universe of stony facts is that no one can harm anybody except himself—it is merely that we have been silly, precisely as silly as if we had taken a seat in the rain with a folded umbrella by our side.... the machine is at fault. i fancy we are now obtaining glimpses of what that phrase really means.