• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Wondering About Forgiveness

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Good point! I'd add that if it benefits others, it's in some aspects unselfish.



Did you mean not spreading around the actions hatred produces? Remember what we determined about hatred, earlier: It's a thought one has, not an action one takes. It's the cause, not the effect. So one might spread it within oneself, but it can never be spread around. What is spread around are hatred's results, which are hateful actions, such as the two we discussed--murder and rape.
We also talked about the local collective consciousness becoming contaminated with hatred. Contributing to a culture of hatred is certainly spreading it around.


Or are you saying that the hateful actions one spreads around have the effect of tempting others to have thoughts of hatred, and so hatred is spread around as a result of these hateful actions?
See above comment about the collective/cultural consciousness (Maara {or Māra}--which we discussed earlier.)
 

Spockrates

Wonderer.
We also talked about the local collective consciousness becoming contaminated with hatred. Contributing to a culture of hatred is certainly spreading it around.

See above comment about the collective/cultural consciousness (Maara {or Māra}--which we discussed earlier.)

Are you familiar with the concept of Occam's Razo?
 
Last edited:

Spockrates

Wonderer.

The concept raises the possibility that simpler explanations of a phenomenon might be closer to the truth than more complex ones, though this is not necessarily the case.

It seems to me that people learn to feel hate when they are the victims of hateful actions, and this is to me a simpler explanation, which is easier to prove than the idea that people hate when others connected to a collective consciousness feel hate. (Am I describing Maara correctly?)

So take racism, for example. One might say that a collective consciousness creates racist attitudes. Others might say that the spoken opinions and actions of others creates racist attitudes. While there is scientific evidence supporting the latter, I do not know that there is such evidence supporting the former.

But perhaps there is some subjective, experiential evidence supporting the former? Can you tell me one idea I might have, which is not caused by something someone has said, nor caused by something someone has done?
 

Spockrates

Wonderer.
Or maybe it's unnecessary to make up my mind about Maara. Perhaps I can understand forgiveness even if I have not yet made such a decision about the Maara concept? If so, then I'm willing to save some time and discuss Maara later. But if you think I'll never understand forgiveness without understanding Maara, then I'm willing to talk about it now.
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
The concept raises the possibility that simpler explanations of a phenomenon might be closer to the truth than more complex ones, though this is not necessarily the case.

It seems to me that people learn to feel hate when they are the victims of hateful actions, and this is to me a simpler explanation, which is easier to prove than the idea that people hate when others connected to a collective consciousness feel hate. (Am I describing Maara correctly?)

So take racism, for example. One might say that a collective consciousness creates racist attitudes. Others might say that the spoken opinions and actions of others creates racist attitudes. While there is scientific evidence supporting the latter, I do not know that there is such evidence supporting the former.

But perhaps there is some subjective, experiential evidence supporting the former? Can you tell me one idea I might have, which is not caused by something someone has said, nor caused by something someone has done?
You can easily observe collective consciousness when it comes to mob behavior. These egregors/maaras are not very long lasting and are usually localized to one area. (Although there are instances of mass rioting springing up in multiple places at once.) People under the influence of the mob collective consciousness will do things they normally will not do.

Another example of observed collective consciousness/behavior involves primate behaviour--I'm sure you have heard about one primate learning to separate grain from sand by throwing it in the water, which is much easier than painstakingly picking each kernel out by hand. Other primates learned this behavior, and once a certain percentage of the population learned it, the entire population had suddenly gained this skill.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Or maybe it's unnecessary to make up my mind about Maara. Perhaps I can understand forgiveness even if I have not yet made such a decision about the Maara concept? If so, then I'm willing to save some time and discuss Maara later. But if you think I'll never understand forgiveness without understanding Maara, then I'm willing to talk about it now.
You can understand forgiveness without understanding Maara. (You were the one who originally brought up Māra when you read it in Dhammapada 1, from a portion of that text that I did not cite or quote.)
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
So when I ask if overlooking an offense is something you think only, or also something you do, I'm asking if, for example you'd sue someone who owed you money, or call the police if someone who you invited to your home took something valuable from you. In what way would you overlook these offenses?

It would really be my perception of the offenses, and then forgiving that (as may be desired). In essences, with both the examples you noted, I would honestly be at some wondering how valuable the something actually was for me, and/or is the money worth the hassle of a lawsuit? It is plausible I would rationalize that the other person (apparently) needed/deserved these things more than I did at the moment, and could conceivably filter it as a blessing that I was alleviated of the burden from having to maintain a sense of control over them. Might come across to me as a sacrifice, but not if I'm being honest about the actual value they have for me, which could amount to a decision as simple as, 'am I willing to sacrifice nothingness for peace of mind?' I would actually be a little surprised if this didn't occur to me in some fashion. I realize this reads as either noble on my part or makes me an easy target for thieves / scammer types. But I am saying this is how I would likely process the alleged offenses. And is also related to what I mentioned earlier about not putting one's self in position where forgiveness is seen as necessary.

But, let's pretend I'm not being all noble and instead am really upset that someone is seemingly refusing to pay the money owed to me. Also, for sake of this hypothetical, let's pretend like I won't at any point (before doing something about it) filter it as a blessing, removal of a burden. I'm upset. I want my money back. I'm considering going to their place to take it back forcefully. Screw them. Or I'll take something they have that is about the same value as the money. I'm scheming and coming up with a bunch of scenarios that will alleviate my upset feeling, but dag nabbit, get me back what is mine! And then forgiveness occurs to me. Again, assuming I'm not filtering it the above way, it would very likely be about forgiving my thoughts around retribution/revenge as a viable solution to the perceived error. Likely rendering all schemes and plans I was making as no longer what I wish to pursue. How it would not lead to the above ideas is currently something I wouldn't understand. But as this is hypothetical, I do think forgiveness does enable the solution to present itself in a way that would be 'magical' in that once I go through all of what's in this paragraph, it is conceivable to me that the person would suddenly contact me and say, 'hey, I owe you some money, would today be a good day to bring it by?' Yet, let's say it doesn't go that way. And again, I want that money back. Then non-aggressive means would strike me as loving thing to do, and a lawsuit would be warranted. Would arguably hurt no one (physically) and so, it would then be about me overlooking any hesitations/misgivings I have around what a lawsuit entails for me and the other party.

Similar thing to the second hypothetical where someone took something valuable from me. The forgiveness part could be just overlooking whatever hesitation I have in directly confronting the person and asking for the valuable item back. If you wish to extend the hypothetical beyond that exchange, I'm game. But right about now, I'm feeling like I covered the bases fairly well.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
I guess what is causing doubts is this: The virtues and vices we've considered thus far have these traits in common:

1. They have a virtuous or vice-full thought in the one thinking them.
2. These virtuous or vice-full thoughts cause some virtuous or vice-full action, which effects a person other than the one having the thought.
3. Virtuous actions benefit the one acted upon. Vice-full actions harm the one acted upon.

So in the case forgiveness, premise (2) would be untrue. Wouldn't you agree?

I don't get how you are getting any of this from the words you quoted, or from the thread. Also not sure I understand: The virtues and vices have a virtuous or vice-full thought in the one thinking them. As this strikes me as something you are introducing to help you understand, could you elaborate on a) why you are deciding to invoke these concepts and b) what you mean by this premise from which a conclusion is later drawn?
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
One reason why I wonder is the question I raised in the previous post: Why must forgiveness be the one and only virtue that causes no action to benefit others besides myself? Another reason why is this question I ask myself: Isn't a virtue something that is a selfless, rather than a selfish act?

These are very leading, if not loaded, inquiries.

To me, forgiveness is the one and only (sane) defense that is not a two-edged sword. It is not invoked during perception of errors/wrong doing to cut at a perceived other or at your own self. Anger is a defense mechanism. If invoked, it has full intention of lashing out at others and will cut at the user if not maintaining control. Most, if not all, other defenses are actually ignoring the actual error, and if anything compounding the error exponentially. Forgiveness does cut, in a very real way, at the actual error, but not outwardly. It is a bit like a shield, but a shield (even metaphorically) isn't addressing the actual problem, just seen as a type of protection. To me, forgiveness isn't about protection. I could entertain a discussion where forgiveness appears like ultimate protection, but in reality of Who We Are, protection is wholly unnecessary. It literally is.

From what I understand, theologically speaking, forgiveness leads to miracles. Consistently. Yet, attempting to consciously induce or control miracles is not plausible. Also, helps to understand that miracles are NOT spectacles in the physical world to induce belief (in supernatural). I fully realize that is the most popular understanding of what a miracle is, based on authors of a text who only slightly understood what forgiveness is, after it was repeatedly demonstrated, or conveyed, to them many times over. They instead chose to maintain a position of "I could never do that, but I will praise one who did and speak as if this other person is wondrous, and is deserving of praise, perhaps even idolatry." And yet, the person that is the target of this praise had clearly said, "these things, and more, shall you do."

"These things" that you do, are not the miracle, but because of the 'reality' of where we find ourselves (namely in a physical world), the doing aspect is in essence unavoidable. If only looking with the body's eyes and not at all exercising discernment, then the doing might appear like wondrous things are occurring from one who seemingly understands forgiveness very well. On the other hand, I find it more likely they are taken for granted, as forgiveness is happening a lot of the time. Arguably, it could be happening all the time by everyone else for all you currently know. Yet, when you see a situation where a person had 'every reason to lash out and be angry with another' and they instead are not, or are even appearing at peace with the situation, are you always in a state of wondrous devotion, or just taking it with a grain of salt and moving on with your affairs? If the latter is normative for you, then I would say that is a sign of how easy it is to take the abundance of miracles occurring all around, for granted.

When you, or anyone, speaks about selfless acts compared to selfish acts, I pay close attention to what is being conveyed. Frankly, I don't think those terms are well understood, but also realize they are about all we have to work with. Forgiveness is a realignment of Self value. Positioning Self that Love will be received/shared freely, and thereby strengthening Self. I capitalize Self, because in reality there is no others that are separated from Self. Therefore forgiveness leads to Self Centeredness. Which I realize reads a little like 'being selfish' or full of your self. And selfless prides itself on being concerned with others foremost, though technically not first.

To me, the notions around Self and miracles are why I feel understanding forgiveness, intellectually, is a lifelong process. As those two notions are really not all that well understood by most ancient doctrines and thus trickled down to current fundamentals as seemingly clueless on what they actually mean, it takes greater understanding and/or high level of discernment to reconcile what they mean, and how they possibly relate to forgiveness. IMHO, they are inseparable from what forgiveness is all about.

A third reason is this statement of Jesus:

Luke 6:27-31 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."

I'm thinking that perhaps there can be actions that forgiving thoughts cause, which benefit more than merely the forgiver. Not striking the one who strikes you. Not resisting the one who tries to take something from you. Doing good to those who do evil to you. Isn't possible that these selfless acts might sometimes also be acts of forgiveness?

Yes. As I stated in I think my first post on this thread, it can help in understanding forgiveness to go through the motions as if it is about others (foremost). Thus acts. Or pretending. But if that is all forgiveness ever is for you (anyone), it could hinder the more profound aspect of what forgiveness actually is. In the Jesus quotation above, it really is all about "you" in the message being conveyed. This is observable in every single instance of what is being conveyed. Heck, after typing up that last sentence, I decided to go in and bold all instances of "you" and "your" to make it that much more clear.

It's not like once you start practicing forgiveness in a conscious, daily (or hourly) way that you'll go to some ivory tower and contemplate your navel for the rest of your life. You'll be in the world, and realize you are not of this world. You'll act in much the same way you did before with subtle changes. Perhaps it'll grow to enormous changes, but is really up to you, and can easily be seen as external changes are not really necessary. Plenty of work to do in your own neck of the woods, then thinking you have to lift your cross and go spread some noble message to all the people of the world, as if this is the first time they've ever considered such things. If anything, you might see that silence is golden, and the only one you are sure needs saving is You. I consider it intellectually stimulating and honest to consider the notion that everyone you meet today is already fully aware, fully forgiving, fully saved for all you know. Act like that. And deal with your own self as it relates to how you currently understand forgiveness. Knowing that G has sent you nothing but angels to help you on your path.
 

Spockrates

Wonderer.
You can understand forgiveness without understanding Maara. (You were the one who originally brought up Māra when you read it in Dhammapada 1, from a portion of that text that I did not cite or quote.)

OK, then perhaps we will come back to it, if it becomes necessary. Thanks.

So I think the answer to this question will help me decide the truth about what you propose forgiveness is: We described hatred as having feelings of ill will for a person and desiring to harm a person. Would you say one might have such feelings and desires for oneself? That is, do you think it possible to hate oneself?
 

Spockrates

Wonderer.
It would really be my perception of the offenses, and then forgiving that (as may be desired). In essences, with both the examples you noted, I would honestly be at some wondering how valuable the something actually was for me, and/or is the money worth the hassle of a lawsuit? It is plausible I would rationalize that the other person (apparently) needed/deserved these things more than I did at the moment, and could conceivably filter it as a blessing that I was alleviated of the burden from having to maintain a sense of control over them. Might come across to me as a sacrifice, but not if I'm being honest about the actual value they have for me, which could amount to a decision as simple as, 'am I willing to sacrifice nothingness for peace of mind?' I would actually be a little surprised if this didn't occur to me in some fashion. I realize this reads as either noble on my part or makes me an easy target for thieves / scammer types. But I am saying this is how I would likely process the alleged offenses. And is also related to what I mentioned earlier about not putting one's self in position where forgiveness is seen as necessary.

But, let's pretend I'm not being all noble and instead am really upset that someone is seemingly refusing to pay the money owed to me. Also, for sake of this hypothetical, let's pretend like I won't at any point (before doing something about it) filter it as a blessing, removal of a burden. I'm upset. I want my money back. I'm considering going to their place to take it back forcefully. Screw them. Or I'll take something they have that is about the same value as the money. I'm scheming and coming up with a bunch of scenarios that will alleviate my upset feeling, but dag nabbit, get me back what is mine! And then forgiveness occurs to me. Again, assuming I'm not filtering it the above way, it would very likely be about forgiving my thoughts around retribution/revenge as a viable solution to the perceived error. Likely rendering all schemes and plans I was making as no longer what I wish to pursue. How it would not lead to the above ideas is currently something I wouldn't understand. But as this is hypothetical, I do think forgiveness does enable the solution to present itself in a way that would be 'magical' in that once I go through all of what's in this paragraph, it is conceivable to me that the person would suddenly contact me and say, 'hey, I owe you some money, would today be a good day to bring it by?' Yet, let's say it doesn't go that way. And again, I want that money back. Then non-aggressive means would strike me as loving thing to do, and a lawsuit would be warranted. Would arguably hurt no one (physically) and so, it would then be about me overlooking any hesitations/misgivings I have around what a lawsuit entails for me and the other party.

Similar thing to the second hypothetical where someone took something valuable from me. The forgiveness part could be just overlooking whatever hesitation I have in directly confronting the person and asking for the valuable item back. If you wish to extend the hypothetical beyond that exchange, I'm game. But right about now, I'm feeling like I covered the bases fairly well.

Yes, what you say makes sense, and reminds me of a scene from the musical Les Miserables. The protagonist of the story is homeless and a priest invites him to stay the night in his home. During the night, he steals silver plates and cups from the priest and is caught by police as he leaves the scene of the crime. The police bring him to the priest and ask if the goods were stolen from his home. The priest says the goods were from his home, but not stolen. They were a gift. He then gives the man silver candlesticks to take with him, too.

After the police leave, the man asks why the priest did such a kind thing. The priest said so he would know the forgiveness of God. He said he should sell the silver and use the money to get himself financially secure, and the do his best to help others in need as he had been helped.

The rest of the musical tells the story of how he did just that.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
OK, then perhaps we will come back to it, if it becomes necessary. Thanks.

So I think the answer to this question will help me decide the truth about what you propose forgiveness is: We described hatred as having feelings of ill will for a person and desiring to harm a person. Would you say one might have such feelings and desires for oneself? That is, do you think it possible to hate oneself?
Sure it is. We may repress things we hate about ourselves deep within our unconscious mind, where these things can fester. The Jungian Shadow comes to mind.
 

Spockrates

Wonderer.
I don't get how you are getting any of this from the words you quoted, or from the thread. Also not sure I understand: The virtues and vices have a virtuous or vice-full thought in the one thinking them. As this strikes me as something you are introducing to help you understand, could you elaborate on a) why you are deciding to invoke these concepts and b) what you mean by this premise from which a conclusion is later drawn?

Acim: I was responding to Crossfire and trying to confirm she believed premise (2) to be untrue. So in my discussion with her, she is saying there is no such thing as forgiving words or deeds. Words and deeds we incorrectly assume are forgiving are really just compassionate. The reason why she holds this position is the idea that forgiveness is only removing hatred from one's mind. It is not taking some action to overlook an offense, such as allowing the one who steals from you to keep it as a gift and not pressing charges for the crime.
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Acim: I was responding to Crossfire and trying to confirm he believed premise (2) to be untrue. So in my discussion with him, he is saying there is no such thing as forgiving words or deeds. Words and deeds we incorrectly assume are forgiving are really just compassionate. The reason why he holds this position is the idea that forgiveness is only removing hatred from one's mind. It is not taking some action to overlook an offense, such as allowing the one who steals from you to keep it as a gift and not pressing charges for the crime.
Well, you can forgive a debt, in the legal sense, which is different from the forgiveness that takes place within ones own mind. {btw, I'm a she, not a he. Don't worry, you are forgiven. ;) }
 

Spockrates

Wonderer.
Well, you can forgive a debt, in the legal sense, which is different from the forgiveness that takes place within ones own mind. {btw, I'm a she, not a he. Don't worry, you are forgiven. ;) }

Yes, and thanks for forgiving my gender mistake! [emoji4]

Yes, I understand the word forgive can apply to pardoning a debt or some other offense, and this is not the same as forgiving thoughts.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well, you can forgive a debt, in the legal sense, which is different from the forgiveness that takes place within ones own mind. {btw, I'm a she, not a he. Don't worry, you are forgiven. ;) }
LOL Big thing in my head; She is not a he!
There is something wrong with the Eglish language I suppose because it has no right word for she/he. Some posters have their gender posted on their personal page @Spockrates. She does.
 
Top