Forgiveness

[Pythagoras]

Forgiving doesn't mean you have to ignore the wrong-doing. You can forgive, but at the same time do everything you can do to avoid the same situation in the future as you would have done, if you didn't forgive.
Forgiving doesn't mean you will let yourself to be exploited. It's just a form of understanding and not keeping the negative baggage with you.

I recently completed a paper on forgiveness as it is a topic that has always facinated me. When one observes the positive results that can be attained by acts of imense forgiveness, one can see it's psychological benefit if nothing else. The paper had to be linked to a Biblical narrative and to my surprise finding one in the NT was hard work. The NT narratives have God forgiving but this seems in the main to be his exclusive gift. I ended up using the Joseph narrative as a proto-narrative of the power of forgiveness. I also learnt that the common phrase 'forgive, but never forget ' is askew. True forgiveness is when one remembers, and still forgives. The limited space in which forgiveness fits between Justice and Mercy is complex and yet powerful. The conclusion, to my mind, is that forgiveness benefits the victim more than the perpetrator and is a complex intersubjective tool that avoids the ultimate futility of vengence, a tool without which we would be a poorer society.

In the Joseph narrative, his ultimate act of forgiveness allows for the birth of a nation, and a foundational lesson in good 'politics'.

All that said I do not know how I would react to a major wrong perpetrated against me but I would hope that my higher faculties would win out.

PAX

 

[Syzygy]

Forgiveness is a pretty convenient way to solve problems if you ask me...

 

[B9]

Depends on the problem - if some mad hat militaristic lunatic bombed your country & claimed they were going to destroy your culture & everyone whom belonged to your culture could you forgive that for the sake of convenience?
Some rel;igions would say you ought to - human nature would say - to war with everything we can muster.

I reckon it's a personal thing - I'm OK with forgiveness on a theoretical level but less so on a practical level.

Is it better if you don't forgive to plot & execute a suitable revenge - thoughts?

 

[The_Winner]

Depends on the problem - if some mad hat militaristic lunatic bombed your country & claimed they were going to destroy your culture & everyone whom belonged to your culture could you forgive that for the sake of convenience?
Some rel;igions would say you ought to - human nature would say - to war with everything we can muster.

I reckon it's a personal thing - I'm OK with forgiveness on a theoretical level but less so on a practical level.

Is it better if you don't forgive to plot & execute a suitable revenge - thoughts?

I'm 100% sure it's NOT human nature that would say "to war..", it's the human mind, the ego.
Dalai Lama is a great example of this.

It's not about religion saying you should forgive nor about convenience, it's about coming to understand, that forgiving is the only positive way to solve problems, where forgiving can be used.

Revenge always just creates more negativity.

 

[MrM]

I'm 100% sure it's NOT human nature that would say "to war..", it's the human mind, the ego.

Why do you not consider the human mind or ego to be part of human nature? I can't think of anything that defines my nature more as a human than my mind.

 

[The_Winner]

Why do you not consider the human mind or ego to be part of human nature? I can't think of anything that defines my nature more as a human than my mind.

Don't really want to turn this into semantics. So I'll just try to explain, what I mean.
I believe the real human nature to be much more "higher state of being", than our thinking mind, which of course is a part of humans. But most of humans tend to believe, that the mind is all there is and get lost inside their heads, constantly thinking and identifying themselves with their thinking. Thinking evolved from being a powerful tool into being much more than just a tool.
I believe pure awareness (understanding) of what is, without egos delusions and judgments, cuts through every situation in life, without making one contemplate on if one should forgive or not.

So yes, I consider thinking to be part of human nature, but an inferior part - an overused tool, which leads people to suffering.

 

[IamAnotherYou]

I feel that forgiveness starts with the self because i do not see myself separate from another. If one was to hurt me in any way i know that it was of my creation ...and this person choose to be the character than wanted to fulfill a karmic debt with me.

i forgive myself with self-love because i see how realities are created, how they collide, and how they destruct...only to be reborn into new creation.

If i became aware of a pattern then i would know that there is something I'm not healing...thus re-creating magnetic karmic creations.

Truly Forgiving the Self IS Forgiving the other...that's what being human is for...to learn lessons and grow in spirit to gain the wisdom of the cosmos..

that's the way i see it...I'm sure there are infinitely more different angles on the subject

peace be with you-

 

[MrM]

So yes, I consider thinking to be part of human nature, but an inferior part - an overused tool, which leads people to suffering.

I think you are wrong.

Both in terms of there being something higher than the mind that somehow has a 'pure awareness' that is lessened by interaction with the mind and also in terms of the fact that war and violence are down solely to the ego/mind.

I don't think it is possible to have any pure understanding of something without having knowledge of that thing, which is based in the mind. I reject the idea you can just perceive something and fully understand it without anything more than that.

I am a pacifist. This is a well thought out position that i have in my mind that determines how violent i am likely to be. My decision to be a pacifist is totally down to thoughts i've had in my mind and nothing to do with any 'higher awareness'. If it is true that war and violence are down to the ego/mind it must be just as true (at least in my case) that so is pacifism.

 

[The_Winner]

I don't think it is possible to have any pure understanding of something without having knowledge of that thing, which is based in the mind. I reject the idea you can just perceive something and fully understand it without anything more than that.

I am a pacifist. This is a well thought out position that i have in my mind that determines how violent i am likely to be. My decision to be a pacifist is totally down to thoughts i've had in my mind and nothing to do with any 'higher awareness'. If it is true that war and violence are down to the ego/mind it must be just as true (at least in my case) that so is pacifism.

Of course you can still use your knowledge (use your mind as a tool, but nothing more), while being in this state of higher awareness or how ever one wants to label it.

Yes, pacifism can be a well thought out position, I agree.

But what I meant was, that any kind of violence arises only from our ego/mind, unlike pacifism, which can, but doesn't have to arise from a deeper understanding/awareness of the reality.

Why do I believe this? Because I've seen it to be true.

 

[MrM]

But what I meant was, that any kind of violence arises only from our ego/mind, unlike pacifism, which can, but doesn't have to arise from a deeper understanding/awareness of the reality.

There may be certain kinds of violence that require a mind and an ego, but i disagree that ANY violence is a result of this.

Ants and termites go to war. Dolphins and apes occasionally turn on outsiders and brutally kill them.

 

[The_Winner]

There may be certain kinds of violence that require a mind and an ego, but i disagree that ANY violence is a result of this.

Ants and termites go to war. Dolphins and apes occasionally turn on outsiders and brutally kill them.

I was talking of humans and human minds.

I can't speak for dolphins nor apes, since I'm not exactly sure, how they perceive reality or what's going on inside their brains, but I would guess they could turn violent, when they feel threatened - a basic survival instinct.
Also I'm not sure about this, but I think apes are one of the few animals, who possibly could possess egos (since they are self-aware).

 

[MrM]

I was talking of humans and human minds.

Our minds are not completely different to those of animals, even thoes that are not self aware. We just have extra bits.

I think the point remains valid that if animals without an ego are capable of violence, unless we are completely different to animals (i think we are not) then we are also likely to be so capable.

 

[The_Winner]

I would be very interested in reading an example of egoless violence of a human being.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

'Is' does not imply 'ought', MrM. Just because people have minds that are similar to those of other animals that use violence readily, does not imply we should let ourselves off the hook for doing the same. I think one of the things that makes us human, dare I say more than just another animal, is our ability to see beyond, and even rise above, the base animal nature from whence we came.

I think ethologists (scientists of animal behavior) should be banned from writing treatises in the media about moral and ethical issues facing human society. I pick up strong whiffs of 'We're intractably brutal just like [animal species X], and we're fooling ourselves to think our brutality is abnormal or even changeable' in a lot of their writings. There is a very fine line between tracking the evolutionary roots of human behavior patterns that up until now defied explanation (which is fine), versus using this to rein in human hope (which is a travesty, IMHO).

Bottom line, The Winner, working for world peace and justice is a noble goal, and quite possibly a very achievable one, and let no evolutionary psychologist tell you otherwise.

 

[MrM]

'Is' does not imply 'ought', MrM. Just because people have minds that are similar to those of other animals that use violence readily, does not imply we should let ourselves off the hook for doing the same. I think one of the things that makes us human, dare I say more than just another animal, is our ability to see beyond, and even rise above, the base animal nature from whence we came.

I agree entirely.

My point was not to justify violence. My point was that violence in humans isn't always a conscious ego / mind driven activity.

Although i agree that we should rise above any base animal nature (when such nature is harmful or violent) and can do so if we use our minds properly, i am arguing that it isn't necessarily our ego/mind that these impulses come from every time.

Anyone who's ever been hit by someone and hit back 'without thinking' has arguably experienced this unthinking urge to violence.

But what I meant was, that any kind of violence arises only from our ego/mind,

I don't agree with the idea of the ego/mind as the evil source of all human violence nor do i agree with the implication that violence isn't part of human nature.

I think ethologists (scientists of animal behavior) should be banned from writing treatises in the media about moral and ethical issues facing human society.

Have you ever wondered why some countries (e.g Britain) have such low rates of murder and some countries (e.g Somalia) have such high rates? Is it because more Somalians make the conscious ego driven decision to be bad people than British people? Are Somalians on average just not as good?

An ethologist would tell you the answer is no and point to studies of things like bonobo apes vs chimpanzees. Both very similar species - one lives in an environment with much more plentiful food sources and fewer population based pressures, and experiences much lower rates of 'ape on ape murder' accordingly.

Maybe ethologists do have something useful to contribute?

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I agree entirely.

My point was not to justify violence. My point was that violence in humans isn't always a conscious ego / mind driven activity.

Although i agree that we should rise above any base animal nature (when such nature is harmful or violent) and can do so if we use our minds properly, i am arguing that it isn't necessarily our ego/mind that these impulses come from every time.

Anyone who's ever been hit by someone and hit back 'without thinking' has arguably experienced this unthinking urge to violence.

Ah I see what you mean, now. I'm with you on this. I'm also a pacifist who finds immediate, non-premeditated violence in self-defense ethically justified, on the grounds that it is not freely chosen.

One of the reasons I think a very efficacious, evidence-based system for mediating disputes should be top priority for any human institution that doesn't want to implode, is because giving the ethical green light to violence in self defense is a very slippery slope to okaying the meting out of violence in response to any perceived wrong. The former is fine, but the latter is the Law of Draco, only one step up from the Law of the Jungle. Telling the difference between someone who lashed out because it was all he could do, and someone opportunistically violent who had a nonviolent option but chose against it, is often no easy task, and making a mistake on this can have socially and societally corrosive effects.

As a result, I don't agree with pacifists who oppose all violence in self-defense, but I understand and respect what motivates this stance.

I don't agree with the idea of the ego/mind as the evil source of all human violence nor do i agree with the implication that violence isn't part of human nature.

Not all violence is a result of the ego, but I'd say most of it is. I'm OK with deeming a self-defensive punch as reflexive as a sneeze. But when retaliation is something you have the time to actually think about before you (or someone you care about) loses their life, I have a hard time seeing this as anything but a deliberate choice. Somebody with a strong and unchecked ego is ipso facto giving free rein to their base instinct of self-preservation, rather than reining it in with their rational minds in pursuit of a higher principle.

It strikes me that all exercises for subduing the ego that I've ever heard of involve coming to the realization that like all things you are fleeting, and that striving hard to maintain the wall of separate selfhood that demarcates you from not-you is an exercise in futility. Thus fame, glory, power, and riches far in excess of what you need are sucker's games, and hardly worth ever inflicting deliberate suffering upon others to achieve or maintain; in the end they're NOT maintained, and neither are you. Only the great oneness of which you're a part, abides. And maybe not even that.

And I have a sneaking hunch this is where you and I will part company, MrM. I have a feeling your next argument will be something along the lines of, "If, as I believe, there's no intrinsic meaning or plan to life, and matter is all there is, then why NOT give in to your instincts to give yourself as much props as possible, as a celebration of life?" Whereas I think The Winner and myself are a bit more willing to entertain the possibility that there is a plan or mission to life, and that fulfulling it may be well served by following the words of wise men from across the ages about ego-extinction.

Sorry, I got carried away -- I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I've just given this a lot of thought.

Have you ever wondered why some countries (e.g Britain) have such low rates of murder and some countries (e.g Somalia) have such high rates? Is it because more Somalians make the conscious ego driven decision to be bad people than British people? Are Somalians on average just not as good?

An ethologist would tell you the answer is no and point to studies of things like bonobo apes vs chimpanzees. Both very similar species - one lives in an environment with much more plentiful food sources and fewer population based pressures, and experiences much lower rates of 'ape on ape murder' accordingly.

Maybe ethologists do have something useful to contribute?

Haha touchè!

Even Pope John Paul II agreed with this when he said "You want peace, work for justice." (One form of justice, arguably, being equitable access to and distribution of resources.)

 

[MrM]

In terms of my punching example - i wasn't refering so much as to a life and death situation as a situation where someone hurts you and makes you angry - if you didn't stop to think for many people the impulse would be to hit back even if their life wasn't in danger.

I would certainly agree that in some situations violence in self defence is justified, but my example wasn't specifically about this, it was more the general point that the immediate anger response to someone causing you pain can be to cause them pain back, justified or not, without the ego or complex conscious thought necessarily coming into it.

I agree entirely that restraining this impulse is important and if we all retaliated whenever we were angered or slighted society would quickly devolve into a 'law of the jungle' scenario such as you describe. That or it would be like little kids in the back seat of a long car journey, where one hits the other, and the other hits back a little harder, and so on until someone is crying. I'm just trying to point out this impulse can exist somewhat seperate to the ego / thinking mind. I really wouldn't like to guess what % of violence is deliberately thought out and what % reactionary.

And I have a sneaking hunch this is where you and I will part company, MrM. I have a feeling your next argument will be something along the lines of, "If, as I believe, there's no intrinsic meaning or plan to life, and matter is all there is, then why NOT give in to your instincts to give yourself as much props as possible, as a celebration of life?" Whereas I think The Winner and myself are a bit more willing to entertain the possibility that there is a plan or mission to life, and that fulfulling it may be well served by following the words of wise men from across the ages about ego-extinction.

I wouldn't argue quite as you think;

I would say that given there is no grand external master plan for our lives, the universe and everything, there is nothing MORE important than establishing a reason for existance ourselves.

Given 'ourselves' is plural i think i can make a perfectly good logical argument that controlling those harmful base instincts (usually violence) is a worthwhile thing to do. If you value life (your own and others) as the only thing that can provide meaning, then preserving life is the logical course of action.

If you value a life lived without suffering then seaking to avoid causing unnecessary suffering in others is likewise logical.

I suppose you could see it as a form of 'enlightened hedonism' - seaking pleasure and celebration of life (including through base instincts) where it doesn't prevent others from doing likewise.

I don't see ego extinction comes into it - more like ego direction and control.

Sorry, I got carried away -- I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I've just given this a lot of thought.

No worries, it's an interesting discussion

 

[The_Winner]

Maybe my definition of violence just differs from yours, MrM. As I have already explained in this thread, I think there's a difference between violence (attacking) and self-defense.
Violence to me is a deliberate act of harm to others (in an interest of self-gain).

Just a random extreme example: Someone kills everyone I know and care for. I don't see how wishing him harm would somehow help the situation, but it would probably be the initial reaction of my ego.

I would still be very interested in seeing you describe a situation, which would justify your statement.
Or maybe as I said earlier, you believe some self-defense reactions to be violence, which I don't agree with.


I just now read your new post, before I got to reply to the earlier one, so I'll just go ahead and answer this one too.

the immediate anger response to someone causing you pain can be to cause them pain back, justified or not, without the ego or complex conscious thought necessarily coming into it.

This is what I strongly disagree with. If one has this kind of reaction, it arises from the ego.

I don't see ego extinction comes into it - more like ego direction and control.

I also don't think we can totally extinct our ago, but I believe we can't control it with itself (the mind) either, since that just creates more delusions and suppressions of our emotions.
The only true "controller" of the ego is the understanding of ego for what it is. We come to see it with being aware of it, being mindful. I believe in it, cause I have experienced it.

I haven't really thought of my own meaning of existence lately, but as I was reading your last post, I gave it a thought.
I was actually seeking to end my own suffering at first, but came to realize, that I was actually inflicting unnecessary suffering to others as well (and probably still am to this day, but hopefully less, than before). I'm pretty sure, it wasn't and isn't inside me (my true nature) to create suffering for myself and others, but my ego, which had developed into a big mess over the years.

I believe that as one becomes more mindful of the reality of everything, one starts to see one's own nature much more clear (without judging, labeling and delusions) and from that one becomes more understanding of everyone (and from that also arises true forgiveness).

 

[MrM]

Maybe my definition of violence just differs from yours, MrM. As I have already explained in this thread, I think there's a difference between violence (attacking) and self-defense.
Violence to me is a deliberate act of harm to others (in an interest of self-gain).

I would define violence as something along the lines of "Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing:" (taken from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/violence).

If i need to physically defend myself by attacking someone who is attacking me, i will be trying to cause them damage. If i have skill i may be trying to cause the absolute minimum physical damage necessary to stop them but this is still violence in my mind.

Granted we are straying into semantics here slightly

I also don't think we can totally extinct our ago, but I believe we can't control it with itself (the mind) either, since that just creates more delusions and suppressions of our emotions.

I think we can control the mind with the mind. Self awareness is nothing if not a feedback loop of some kind and meditation (for me at least) involves temporarily altering the nature of the thoughts in my mind to alter my experience of my mind.

I don't agree with this idea the ego or conscious mind are the source of delusions and some 'higher awareness' we have is illusion free. No one understand the universe completely, or even some small % of that. Given we have at best incomplete understandings of any given part of reality i would argue that we are all, in part, deluded. Some of us have models of reality that sinc up better or more usefully with the universe than others, but no one has it perfect.

I don't think the ego causes these delusions and without it we'd all know better. I think delusions are an inescapable reality of not knowing everything perfectly but making an effort anyway.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

MrM, I shouldn't have used the term 'ego extinction' -- that's a loaded term, since extinction implies permanence. It's a good ideal to set one's sights on, but I think a more reasonable short-term goal, as you alluded to, is keeping the ego subordinate to the superego, so that its machinations are always in service to a greater good.