“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.” Hillel the Elder is credited with making that statement. Hillel was a famous Jewish religious leader who believed in peace. Hillel lived between 110 BCE and 10 CE and spent the latter part of his life in Jerusalem.
Upon reviewing the list below there is evidence the statement had been around for a while before Hillel uttered it.
I was surprised that twenty one religions adopted a similar theme to the “Golden Rule” plus a few famous philosophers and ethical systems. These were obtained from www.religeoustolerance.org
- Bahá’í Faith:
- “Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.” “Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself.” Baha’u'llah
- “And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.” Epistle to the Son of the Wolf
- Brahmanism: “This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you”. Mahabharata, 5:1517 “
- Buddhism:
- “…a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?” Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
- Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” Udana-Varga 5:18
- Christianity:
- “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
- “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” Luke 6:31, King James Version.
- “…and don’t do what you hate…“, Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
- Confucianism:
- “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you” Analects 15:23
- “Tse-kung asked, ‘Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?’ Confucius replied, ‘It is the word ’shu’ — reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.’” Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
- “Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence.” Mencius VII.A.4
- Ancient Egyptian:
- “Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.” The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 – 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written. 3
- Hinduism:
- This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517
- Humanism:
- “(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity.“
- “(11) Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. ” 4
- “Don’t do things you wouldn’t want to have done to you, British Humanist Society. 3
- Islam: “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” Number 13 of Imam “Al-Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths.” 5
- Jainism:
- “Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so.” Acarangasutra 5.101-2.
- “In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.” Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
- “A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. “Sutrakritanga 1.11.33
- Judaism:
- “…thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”, Leviticus 19:18
- “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary.” Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
- “And what you hate, do not do to any one.” Tobit 4:15 6
- Native American Spirituality:
- “Respect for all life is the foundation.” The Great Law of Peace.
- “All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One.” Black Elk
- “Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself.” Pima proverb.
- Roman Pagan Religion: “The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves.”
- Shinto:
- “The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form“
- “Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God.” Ko-ji-ki Hachiman Kasuga
- Sikhism:
- Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world”. Japji Sahib
- “Don’t create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone.” Guru Arjan Devji 259
- “No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend.” Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299
- Sufism: “The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven’t the will to gladden someone’s heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone’s heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this.” Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.
- Taoism:
- “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien.
- “The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.” Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49
- Unitarian:
“The inherent worth and dignity of every person;”
“Justice, equity and compassion in human relations…. “
“The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;”
“We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.” Unitarian principles. 7,8
- Wicca: “An it harm no one, do what thou wilt” (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One’s will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede
- Yoruba: (Nigeria): “One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.”
- Zoroastrianism:
- “That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself”. Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5
- “Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.“ Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29
Some philosophers’ statements are:
- Epictetus: “What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others.” (circa 100 CE)
- Kant: “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.“
- Plato: “May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me.” (Greece; 4th century BCE)
- Socrates: “Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you.” (Greece; 5th century BCE)
- Seneca: “Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors,” Epistle 47:11 (Rome; 1st century CE)
Examples from moral/ethical systems are:
- Humanism: “…critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled.” Humanist Manifesto II; Ethics section.
- Scientology: “20: Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you.” This is one of the 21 moral precepts that form the moral code explained in L. Ron Hubbard’s booklet “The Way to Happiness.”
I see that you quote the Gospel of Thomas, and you cite that it was “widely accepted by the Early Church.” That is a little bit of a stretch. The Gospel of Thomas was most likely not written by Thomas, nor any of the other apostles. As early as the 4th century, it was being condemned as heresy as that it “corrupts the souls.” Also, as early as the 2nd century, it is said that “there are four pillars of our faith, the Four Gospels.” That doesn’t sound as widespread as many have stated.
Hi Pablo;
I didn’t write that. Most of this is an excerpt from http://www.religeoustolerance.org which I credited above.
However, I have read the Gospel of Thomas and I don’t see it as being anymore heretical as some other things I have read
[...] Here the Blog with all 21 variations on the Golden Rule: [...]
325 CE: The first Council of Nicaea selected the 4 ‘gospels’ that we know as Matthew, Mark, Luke & John to form the New Testament. Why should we trust these religious men’s choice as to what represents the real story of Jesus (if he indeed existed)? Why discount Thomas for example? Didn’t they just go for the four that would form the strongest consensus? Strange that Man edited ‘god’s own’ words with the sole intention of keeping a fractured religion together..
The choice of the 4 Gospel books, was not made on their ability to form a consensus, for a harmony of these is futile. They were in fact never intended to show a “harmony”. What they do portray in common are 4 presentations to our eyes. The common 4 presentations are: 1.The King proclaimed, 2. The Kingdom proclaimed, 3. The Kingdom rejected, 4. The King rejected, and crucified, resurrected and ascended into glory. Yet in their presentations we find 4 different aspects of Christ set forth. In St. Mathew, we see Christ portrayed as The King. In St.Mark we see Christ set forth as The Servant. In St. Luke we see Christ set forth as The Man. And in St.John we see Christ set forth as God Incarnate. These perspectives overlap in all of the 4 accounts, but are dominant as such in the illustrations given here. The reason that they were chosen to be placed in the Christian canon is because the veracity of their authorship was never in doubt. Matthew and John were Apostles of Christ, and eye witnesses. Luke and Mark were contemporaries of St.Paul, and documented their accounts from eye witnesses. The canon of scripture was compiled from documents that were held in common by the various assemblies of Christians. The three documents that many churches also referenced, but are not in the present canon are, The Diddache, The Shepherd of Hermes, and The Epistle of Barnabus. The two most compelling reasons that the books we have were chosen are; firstly, many letters were written in what is known as a pseudopocripha manner. These were written in a way so as to give the impression that another of past and greater authority was the author. This also allowed a degree of anonymity which was desired in a time of persecution. The second is that books that claimed inspired authorship, but varied in their content from the books already authored began to surface. In the end the choice of the canon was made in recognition of two factors. First the attested veracity of their authorship. Second their dispersion and conformity of use among the congregations. We should keep in mind that this cannon is a compilation of “letters” written and copied and dispersed throughout the Christian community world wide. They are letters that most had and held in common and do not exclude others extant at the time from containing sound admonitions. That the Christian Faith had grown into factions as early as the “Acts” era can be documented in St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. And to a great degree we see in his last communications to Timothy a turning by Paul, away from the burden of the ‘Churches’ and toward the idea of admonitions to be taken on an individual rather than a collective perspective. In forming a canon of scripture, I would conclude that the basis of the effort was that of recording those truths for posterity. The books that have been excluded, can easily be researched and read. I found some of them interesting, and informative, and others a little nonsensical, however all will show the divergence of thought that existed at that juncture in history. Interestingly enough, we will find the Golden Rule put forth, or a realized conclusion in all the books in the New Testament Canon. However we should also realize that from the Christian perspective the Golden Rule is two fold. First, love God as He has revealed Himself through Christ, and second, Love thy neighbor as thyself.