Wondering About Forgiveness

[Acim]

Well, Crossfire and I were thinking that compassion is what one feels (empathy, for example) and what one desires (to reduce suffering, for example). Acting on these feelings and desires are what we call the effects of, or acts of compassion.

So looking at compassion that way (as a feeling and desire) I'm now thinking forgiving is acting on my feelings of concern for myself and my desire to alleviate the suffering hatred causes me.

But if you still don't agree, please tell me why.

[emoji4]

I don't strongly disagree. Just that I see forgiveness as preceding plausibly all positive things (like compassion and empathy) in this world. Part of what I've already explained is that forgiveness happens often. Arguably all of the time, but as that is prefaced with 'arguably' then it is plausible there are many instances where forgiveness isn't occurring (yet). I honestly believe forgiveness was provided as THE answer to the perceived problem when it first occurred (read as a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away). The perceived problem being separation from God (or Divine Self). As I truly believe this, then it would mean all 'actions' that occurred after that carried with them the potential to reinforce the error (further separation from God, as if that's possible) or forgiveness, which allows for God (or God's Love) to be fully restored. When that Love is glimpsed at or embraced for say a few moments, then things like compassion, empathy, friendship, marriage, etc. are seemingly all ways in which to live peacefully in a world where God is seemingly nowhere to be found, but the Love is possible to 'act on.'

 

[Spockrates]

I don't strongly disagree. Just that I see forgiveness as preceding plausibly all positive things (like compassion and empathy) in this world. Part of what I've already explained is that forgiveness happens often. Arguably all of the time, but as that is prefaced with 'arguably' then it is plausible there are many instances where forgiveness isn't occurring (yet). I honestly believe forgiveness was provided as THE answer to the perceived problem when it first occurred (read as a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away). The perceived problem being separation from God (or Divine Self). As I truly believe this, then it would mean all 'actions' that occurred after that carried with them the potential to reinforce the error (further separation from God, as if that's possible) or forgiveness, which allows for God (or God's Love) to be fully restored. When that Love is glimpsed at or embraced for say a few moments, then things like compassion, empathy, friendship, marriage, etc. are seemingly all ways in which to live peacefully in a world where God is seemingly nowhere to be found, but the Love is possible to 'act on.'

I think I see. So are you saying it's a kind of chicken or egg question? What came first forgiveness or love?

* * *

I appreciate the Battlestar Galactica reference, by the way. The SyFy channel's version of it is arguably one of the best science-fiction television shows ever produced. It did an excellent job of dealing with controversial ethical issues related to racism, terrorism, torture, religion, war, hatred, love and mercy.

 

[Acim]

I think I see. So are you saying it's a kind of chicken or egg question? What came first forgiveness or love?

The Love comes first. Don't wish to make that intellectual error. The Love supersedes the forgiveness. But compassion and empathy make sense in a place where separation from Self (others) and God is deemed 'reality.' In a place where Love is all there is (i.e. Heaven), I'm thinking compassion and empathy would be meaningless.

I appreciate the Battlestar Galactica reference, by the way.

Seriously? That was a SW reference. How could you not get that?

The SyFy channel's version of it is arguably one of the best science-fiction television shows ever produced. It did an excellent job of dealing with controversial ethical issues of racism, terrorism, torture and war.

Yeah, I liked the newer BSG a lot. I prefer DS9 with how it treated all these things you named. Even better (though, not sci-fi) is 24. That would be my favorite TV show of all time, or so far.

 

[Spockrates]

...

Yeah, I liked the newer BSG a lot. I prefer DS9 with how it treated all these things you named. Even better (though, not sci-fi) is 24. That would be my favorite TV show of all time, or so far.

Yeah, I'm re-watching BSG on Hulu. Never watched 24. I should give it a go. I've binge-watched every episode of each Star Trek series but DS9. I should give it a try.

 

[Acim]

Yeah, I'm re-watching BSG on Hulu. Never watched 24. I should give it a go. I've binge-watched every episode of each Star Trek series but DS9. I should give it a try.

24 is highly addictive. I've seen every episode, but if I watch any season now, I get hooked in. I know broad plot lines, so you'd think I wouldn't get hooked. But the show has so much interesting hooks that are easy to forget about after say a couple years. I watched a season not too long ago and had felt there was a lot there that I didn't remember. I try to compare other shows to it, but 24 wins hands down. It's pacing is unmatched, and its relevance when it was airing was amazing. I think season 1, episode 1, aired a week or two after 9/11. Every season dealt with terrorism and during a period where awareness/fears were stronger than they are now. The show always struck me as very daring in the story it was telling. Better than many action movies I've ever seen.

 

[crossfire]

So the path we've taken in our journey today was prompted by your answer to my question. Is it an act of compassion to forgive oneself?

Your answer was yes, so the inference I drew was that forgiveness is a compassionate act. For if the answer to the question is yes, then forgiving is an action caused by compassion, similar to the way giving to those in need is an act of compassion. In the case of forgiving, one might be said to be giving to oneself. This idea, which I called premise (C) you said was incorrect, and suggested that I was committing the informal logical fallacy of constructing a scarecrow and knocking it down, instead of addressing the true argument.

Now that we are further down the path from where we were earlier, we have determined that rather than an effect if compassion, forgiving is an effect of apathy. For it is caused by non-hate, rather than compassion, and having a lack of both hate and compassion is what apathy is.

So it seems the answer you would now give to the question,

"Is forgiving oneself a compassionate thing for one to do for oneself?"

would be,

"No, forgiving is not a compassionate thing to do, for it has nothing to do with compassion. Forgiving is an apathetic thing one does for herself, for a lack of hate does not compassion make!"

Am I correct in thinking your answer to the question should now be no?

No. You have buried the hatred within your psyche instead of dropping it when you had the chance to. Burying something (like treasure) is a way of holding onto something. Now if you bury something and forget that it is there, it would require some skill in locating it and some effort to dig it up. (compassion) Once you have dug it up, then you may drop it (or transform it into clarity of mind.)

 

[crossfire]

But then again, I still have my doubts. For I just read these words of Buddha:

"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule."

Gautama Buddha (The Dhammapada: The Sayings of the Buddha)

Since the eternal rule is that love and only love causes hatred to cease, and since forgiveness is the skill of ceasing hatred, then shouldn't we infer that forgiveness is an act of compassion?

The word used is not karuna or metta, it is averena, which does not mean, "love, and only love." You stated this yourself in post # 385.

 

[crossfire]

So the path we've taken in our journey today was prompted by your answer to my question. Is it an act of compassion to forgive oneself?

Your answer was yes, so the inference I drew was that forgiveness is a compassionate act. For if the answer to the question is yes, then forgiving is an action caused by compassion, similar to the way giving to those in need is an act of compassion. In the case of forgiving, one might be said to be giving to oneself. This idea, which I called premise (C) you said was incorrect, and suggested that I was committing the informal logical fallacy of constructing a scarecrow and knocking it down, instead of addressing the true argument.

Now that we are further down the path from where we were earlier, we have determined that rather than an effect if compassion, forgiving is an effect of apathy. For it is caused by non-hate, rather than compassion, and having a lack of both hate and compassion is what apathy is.

So it seems the answer you would now give to the question,

"Is forgiving oneself a compassionate thing for one to do for oneself?"

would be,

"No, forgiving is not a compassionate thing to do, for it has nothing to do with compassion. Forgiving is an apathetic thing one does for herself, for a lack of hate does not compassion make!"

Am I correct in thinking your answer to the question should now be no?

Keeping this following post you earlier made in mind: let me now ask you a question:

Yes, but I still wonder if the thoughts you describe are all forgiveness is. 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?

My question to you is this: Would you classify forgiving yourself as a selfish act or as a selfless act?

 

[Spockrates]

Seriously? That was a SW reference. How could you not get that?.

Oops. Yeah. Star Wars. Forgive my mixing sci-fi metaphors .

 

[Spockrates]

The Love comes first. Don't wish to make that intellectual error. The Love supersedes the forgiveness. But compassion and empathy make sense in a place where separation from Self (others) and God is deemed 'reality.' In a place where Love is all there is (i.e. Heaven), I'm thinking compassion and empathy would be meaningless.

So from the Christian perspective that Heaven exists, I see possibilities for compassion to remain:

• While there would be no suffering in Heaven, there would be a desire to enhance the lives of those one knows there, through relationships, et. al.

• While there would be no suffering in Heaven, there might still be suffering and beings capable of suffering on Earth. So those in Heaven might be aware of such suffering, and remembering their suffering in the life before, have empathy for the sufferers. (Revelation has examples of the saints in Heaven praying for the suffering on Earth, for example.)

• It's not impossible that other planets be populated with suffering people that those in Heaven might be sent to as representatives of God, similar to the way angels are described as being sent by God. So opportunities for compassion would remain, I'd such occurs. (Admittedly, this is speculation, though there are references in scripture of the saints being put in positions of authority by God.)

• It's also not impossible that if Hell exists, there might be a way for those in Heaven to alleviate suffering there.

• The same might be true of Purgatoty, for those who believe in it

 

[Spockrates]

24 is highly addictive. I've seen every episode, but if I watch any season now, I get hooked in. I know broad plot lines, so you'd think I wouldn't get hooked. But the show has so much interesting hooks that are easy to forget about after say a couple years. I watched a season not too long ago and had felt there was a lot there that I didn't remember. I try to compare other shows to it, but 24 wins hands down. It's pacing is unmatched, and its relevance when it was airing was amazing. I think season 1, episode 1, aired a week or two after 9/11. Every season dealt with terrorism and during a period where awareness/fears were stronger than they are now. The show always struck me as very daring in the story it was telling. Better than many action movies I've ever seen.

Yeah, I'll have to check it out. I suspect, though that I'll still prefer science fiction. When done well, it has the ability to help me understand different points of view. For example, before watching BSG, I thought of terrorism as a kind of evil and insanity. After watching an episode where humans resorted to becoming suicide bombers because they believed their race was facing extinction and saw no other way to resist, I saw how one might think it rational to commit such an act.

Since it is based in a universe different from our own, good science fiction let's one put one's guard down and see ethical issues from opposing points of view.

 

[Spockrates]

No. You have buried the hatred within your psyche instead of dropping it when you had the chance to. Burying something (like treasure) is a way of holding onto something. Now if you bury something and forget that it is there, it would require some skill in locating it and some effort to dig it up. (compassion) Once you have dug it up, then you may drop it (or transform it into clarity of mind.)

Then is the answer is still, "Yes, forgiveness is an act of compassion"?

 

[Spockrates]

The word used is not karuna or metta, it is averena, which does not mean, "love, and only love." You stated this yourself in post # 385.

What do Buddha's words, "but only by love" mean? Or are you saying the English translation I found is incorrect?

 

[Spockrates]

Keeping this following post you earlier made in mind: let me now ask you a question:

My question to you is this: Would you classify forgiving yourself as a selfish act or as a selfless act?

EDIT: I corrected the typo for (2) below.

I would define a purely selfish act as that which benefits no one but the one acting. I would define a purely selfless act as that which benefits only the one acted upon and not the one acting.

If these definitions are accurate, then I'd say (1) if my forgiving benefits only me, it is purely selfish. (2) If it doesn't benefit me at all and benefits only the one forgiven, then it is purely selfless. (3) If it benefits both, the it is partially selfish, but not purely so, and partially selfless, but not purely so.

So I believe from our discussion we've eliminated (2) as a probability. Since I'm still trying to determine whether (1) or (3) is the truth, my answer to your question is that I don't yet know.

But I can make a guess: It might depend on the circumstances. Let's say my guilt paralyzes me in some way, perhaps leading to profound depression. In such a mental state, I find myself incapable or highly ineffective at committing compassion actions to benefit others. Let's say someone needs my compassion. I desire to act compassionately toward that someone, but find my state of mind prevents me. In such case, being motivated by compassion for another rather than for myself (since I have only loathing for myself) I might forgive myself for the sake of another, so that I might recover for the other's sake and become the compassionate man she needs. In such a case, where forgiveness is an act of compassion, I suppose (3) might be the truth about forgiving.

 

[crossfire]

Then is the answer is still, "Yes, forgiveness is an act of compassion"?

In this specific case, yes it is. That does not mean that all cases of forgiveness are compassionate. (actively skillful)

 

[Spockrates]

In this specific case, yes it is. That does not mean that all cases of forgiveness are compassionate. (actively skillful)

Perhaps. That remains to be determined, I suppose.

 

[crossfire]

What do Buddha's words, "but only by love" mean?

Dhammapada 1:5 Pali:

5. Na hi verena verāni sammantīdha kudācanaṃ 5
Averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano.​

Pali Text Society Pali-English Dictionary

Spoiler: long dictionary definition-click to show

Ca

Ca (indef. enchtic particle) [Vedic ca adv. to rel. pron. *qṷo, idg. *que=Cr. te, Lat. que, Goth. -- h. Cp. ka, ki, ku] 1. Indefinite (after demonstr. pron. in the sense of kiŋ=what about? or how is it? cp. kiŋ)=ever, whoever, what -- ever, etc. [Sk. kaśca, Gr. o(s te, Lat: quisque, Goth. hvazuh] so ca whoever (see below 3), tañ ca pan' amhākaŋ ruccati tena c' amhā attamanā M i.93; yañ ca kho . . . ceteti yañ ca pakappeti . . . whatever he thinks, whatever he intends . . . S ii.65. As a rule the Pali form corresp. to Sk. kaśca is *kascid=koci,& ci (cid) is the regular P. representative of the indefinite ca (cp. cana & api). -- 2. Copulative or disjunctive according to the general context being positive or negative. (a) copulative: and, then, now: tadā ca now then, and then (in historical exposition) J iii.188. Most frequent in connecting two or three words, usually placed after the second, but also after the third: atthaŋ anatthañ ca Dh 256; pubbâparāni ca Dh 352; alaŋ etehi ambehi jambūhi panasehi ca J ii.160. -- In the same sense added to each link of the chain as ca -- ca (cp. Sk. ca -- ca, Gr. te te, Lat. que que; also mixed with constituents of similar pairs as api -- ca, cp. te -- kai): tuyhañ ca tassā ca to you and her (orig. this or whatever to you, whatever to her)=to you as well as to her J i.151. Often with the first member emphasized by eva: c' eva, as well as: hasi c' eva rodi ca he laughed as well as cried J i.167; maŋsena c' eva phalāphalena ca with flesh as well as with all kinds of fruit J iii.127; subhaddako c' eva supesalo ca J iii.82; c' eva apace padūse pi ca waste and even defile ThA 72 (Ap v.40). <-> (b) disjunctive: but (esp. after a negation): yo ca but who Th 1, 401; yadā ca but when (cp. tadā ca) J iii.128. In conditional clauses (cp. 3) combd with sace=but if, on the other hand: sace agāraŋ ajjhāvasati . . . sace ca pabbajati agārā Sn 1003. With neg, na ca=but not: mahatī vata te bondi, na ca paññā tadūpikā (but your wisdom is not in the same proportion) J ii.160. <-> 3. Conditional: if [=Vedic ced, Lat. absque] D i.186,
207; ii.36, 57 (jāti ca not va); M i.91; S iii.66 (rūpañ ca attā abhavissa); A i.58; v.87; J ii.110 (ciram pi kho khadeyya yavaŋ . . . ravamāno ca dūsayi: "he might have caten a long time, if he had not come to harm by his cry," or "but"); iv.487; v.185, 216 (Sakko ca me varaŋ dajjā so ca labbhetha me varo: "if S. will give me a wish, that wish will be granted," or: "whatever wish he will allow, that one will be fulfilled"); vi.206, 208. -- na ca (at the beginning of an interrog. phrase)= if not S i.190 (ahaŋ ca kho . . . pavāremi, na ca me Bhagavā kiñci garahati: if the Bh. will not blame me). For BSk. ca=ced see AvŚ ii.189, n. o.

Basically means "that one."

 

[Spockrates]

I mean, if forgiveness is sometimes an act of compassion and sometimes not, then we are discussing apples and oranges. Rather than carefully considering one forgiveness, we are confusing the two forgivenesses! It would be wise to do our best to differentiate between the two. Otherwise we will, as Socrates said in my earlier quote, contradict one another, and even ourselves!

 

[Spockrates]

Dhammapada 1:5 Pali:

5. Na hi verena verāni sammantīdha kudācanaṃ 5
Averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano.​

Pali Text Society Pali-English Dictionary

Spoiler: long dictionary definition-click to show

Ca

Ca (indef. enchtic particle) [Vedic ca adv. to rel. pron. *qṷo, idg. *que=Cr. te, Lat. que, Goth. -- h. Cp. ka, ki, ku] 1. Indefinite (after demonstr. pron. in the sense of kiŋ=what about? or how is it? cp. kiŋ)=ever, whoever, what -- ever, etc. [Sk. kaśca, Gr. o(s te, Lat: quisque, Goth. hvazuh] so ca whoever (see below 3), tañ ca pan' amhākaŋ ruccati tena c' amhā attamanā M i.93; yañ ca kho . . . ceteti yañ ca pakappeti . . . whatever he thinks, whatever he intends . . . S ii.65. As a rule the Pali form corresp. to Sk. kaśca is *kascid=koci,& ci (cid) is the regular P. representative of the indefinite ca (cp. cana & api). -- 2. Copulative or disjunctive according to the general context being positive or negative. (a) copulative: and, then, now: tadā ca now then, and then (in historical exposition) J iii.188. Most frequent in connecting two or three words, usually placed after the second, but also after the third: atthaŋ anatthañ ca Dh 256; pubbâparāni ca Dh 352; alaŋ etehi ambehi jambūhi panasehi ca J ii.160. -- In the same sense added to each link of the chain as ca -- ca (cp. Sk. ca -- ca, Gr. te te, Lat. que que; also mixed with constituents of similar pairs as api -- ca, cp. te -- kai): tuyhañ ca tassā ca to you and her (orig. this or whatever to you, whatever to her)=to you as well as to her J i.151. Often with the first member emphasized by eva: c' eva, as well as: hasi c' eva rodi ca he laughed as well as cried J i.167; maŋsena c' eva phalāphalena ca with flesh as well as with all kinds of fruit J iii.127; subhaddako c' eva supesalo ca J iii.82; c' eva apace padūse pi ca waste and even defile ThA 72 (Ap v.40). <-> (b) disjunctive: but (esp. after a negation): yo ca but who Th 1, 401; yadā ca but when (cp. tadā ca) J iii.128. In conditional clauses (cp. 3) combd with sace=but if, on the other hand: sace agāraŋ ajjhāvasati . . . sace ca pabbajati agārā Sn 1003. With neg, na ca=but not: mahatī vata te bondi, na ca paññā tadūpikā (but your wisdom is not in the same proportion) J ii.160. <-> 3. Conditional: if [=Vedic ced, Lat. absque] D i.186,
207; ii.36, 57 (jāti ca not va); M i.91; S iii.66 (rūpañ ca attā abhavissa); A i.58; v.87; J ii.110 (ciram pi kho khadeyya yavaŋ . . . ravamāno ca dūsayi: "he might have caten a long time, if he had not come to harm by his cry," or "but"); iv.487; v.185, 216 (Sakko ca me varaŋ dajjā so ca labbhetha me varo: "if S. will give me a wish, that wish will be granted," or: "whatever wish he will allow, that one will be fulfilled"); vi.206, 208. -- na ca (at the beginning of an interrog. phrase)= if not S i.190 (ahaŋ ca kho . . . pavāremi, na ca me Bhagavā kiñci garahati: if the Bh. will not blame me). For BSk. ca=ced see AvŚ ii.189, n. o.

Basically means "that one."

Please translate the entire text I quoted so I might see what you mean.

 

[crossfire]

I mean, if forgiveness is sometimes an act of compassion and sometimes not, then we are discussing apples and oranges. Rather than carefully considering one forgiveness, we are confusing the two forgivenesses! It would be wise to do our best to differentiate between the two. Otherwise we will, as Socrates said in my earlier quote, contradict one another, and even ourselves!

This is what I've been saying! Impermanence will allow hatred to pass away if you don't hold onto it--no real skillfulness (compassion) is needed. If it is buried, it will need skill to find and bring it into consciousness. Anytime you are trying to help someone else drop their hatred, it will require skillfulness (compassion.)