I agree with your quotes, but in the context of the subject of this thread, they lose their greater meaning, I will try pick through how each quote deviates from the intended pertinence implied by this thread...
Quote:
“Everything you see and perceive is a reflection of yourself†Siddhartha Gautam Buddha 500 B.C.
Everything, does not then also include particular parts of that "everything" ('something', or the judgement of 'something', isn't a valid substitution into the "everything" referenced by that quoted phrase). Unless you are relating this quote to some kind of Unitarian philosophy (namely that anything, properly understood, is essentially part of the one-good), I think we can dismiss the quote as relating to the subject of this thread, since the basic Buddhist foundation is that life is suffering, so watch the thoughts that regulate, or leave the suffering unconstrained. Blame is only problematic if you expect a thought to deliver some resultant consequence by cosmic collusion with your own thinking, therefore no thought or even judgement is 'criminal' if it has no reasoning or purpose attached to the appearance of a consequence: thus actions are to be rooted into the instantiation of a principle, that must precipitate from a truth of a 'realized self'.
Quote:
"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves." ~ Carl Gustav Jung
'can lead to', does not mean, 'should only be used to [achieve...]'
Quote:
"If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." Herman Hesse
this point is somewhat extrinsic, and very unrelated to this whole thread's topic... Herman is somewhat embellishing on an idea, that already has the parameters sketched out from another quote which is certainly more related to the subject of this thread... so, I will substitute my focus on the more related quote that I found:
"If you hate a person, then you’re defeated by them." ~Conscious
this quote more starkly juxtaposes the truth of self, with the self-defeatism courted within defining a project (role for yourself) that involves opposition... internalizing opposition is to swallow some cognitive dissonance (within spirituality or the realm of deep psychology), that occludes and weighs down thinking that would amount to a fluid and effective treatment of the offending influence being considered. Either you will win or lose, or ideologically fortify yourself to maintain some sort of existential cowardice within a continuing unrealized sense of a self. The only way to win at all, is to win in action or inaction, assured by your own resolute determinations; which by their actualized behavior judges the world into a spiritual death with your victory over it, through your management by the quickening to that death.
When you are rebuked therefore, you might be changed, the rebuke might make room for choices, not ideological thoughts... behavior is not a vessel of judgement, except in some philosophical-objectivist accounting scheme: which is only a narrative of reference over immutable causality,— it is already to presume choice is impossible, displaced by a false-grail of ideological allegiance.