What is forgiving according to you? Is it possible for you to forgive? One of the many definitions for 'forgive' in the dictionary is "to cease the feeling of resentment". Is this always possible? And does forgiving mean that you also give up your judgement about a person?
Is it always good to forgive anybody for anything or do you make a decision on a case-by-case basis, some people being more worthy of being forgiven than yet others? And continuing this train of thought, is forgiving yourself usually harder or easier for you than forgiving others?
As per most (or may be all) religions forgiving is a virtue and God always forgives. Going by the definition of God, nothing can adversely affect God so why would He/She/It care either way? Isn't forgiving only applicable when someone is affected in some way? Does forgiving also mean that you don't punish the other person? In that case, why is it that religion talks both about an all-forgiving God and at the same time, going to hell for one's sins?
I would love to hear your take on this subject!
"How did humans get to life?"
9 years ago
23 comments:
This is a complex thread of thought, and has many subtle intricacies involved in it. First of all, the idea of going to hell for your sins is very Christian, and is not part of my belief system. It is characteristic of dualistic religions to have such mandates to control the minds of their followers. I don't know if forgiving means that the other person doesn't suffer the consequences of his/her actions. For instance, let's take the case that I've been unkind to somebody in an unjustified way. If it is because my mood was bad and there were other pressing circumstances that were weighing on my mind that made my mood irritable, will I be on the wrong side irrespective of whether or not the other person forgives me? What if the other person has a psychiatric disorder that compels him/her to harbour feelings of hatred consequent to this? In that case, it is unlikely that he/she will readily forgive me. However, this is unlikely to affect me, unless it is brought to my purview of knowledge that the consequences of my action were so drastic. Unless I were the sort who feels justified about one's actions irrespective of anything (i.e., an egomaniac), I would perhaps feel bad about this, and in that case only, will bear punishment in my own mind. However, what about an egomaniac who is never capable of feeling another person's distress? Will another person's forgiveness affect him? Probably not. He would have to bear consequences of his action irrespective. Forgiveness would only help the person affected.
Taking up your second point about an all-forgiving God. God doesn't punish us, we punish ourselves. You know about the Bhagavad Gita. If we can be detached from our karmas while performing them, we will not bear their fruit. This would even include what would otherwise be called bad karma. If we are detached, our bad karma would not affect us, because we would know that we are but agents in our action, not doers. Since we regard ourselves as doers, we are forced to bear the fruits of our karma, whether good or bad. It may be true that God is all-forgiving, and the reason for that is that God is supposed to be all-understanding. If you understand a situation perfectly, you have no option but to forgive. We are forced not to be able to understand a situation perfectly because our wisdom is often clouded by our prejudices and neuroses. While it may be true that God is all-forgiving, I have heard of an instance when a supposed manifestation of God in human form, namely Adi Shankaracharya, didn't forgive. This was with regard to his mother's cremation. Before taking sannyas, he had promised his mother that he would perform her funeral rites irrespective of who he was or where he was. When he tried to do so, he didn't receive any assistance from the other Brahmins in his neighnourhood, who regarded it as sinful that a sannyasin should perform funeral rites. He was forced to cut his mother's body into pieces because he was unable to carry it on his own and place it on the funeral pyre. This incident left such a deep impact on his mind that he cursed the Malabar Brahmins that they would have to mutilate the bodies of their dead before cremating them. They follow the practice to this day, although they do it as a symbolic gesture, maybe running a knife lightly on the dead flesh before cremating it. The point that I was trying to make, however, is that even highly enlightened beings may not feel compelled to forgive in every situation and circumstance. So if there are situations where we don't feel like forgiving, I think we shouldn't worry too much about it. So, I wouldn't forgive anyone and everyone, but would look at situations and people on a case-by-case basis. I would be more inclined to forgive a best friend for the same thing as against another person, say if he/she slaps me, but may be less inclined to forgive him/her for another thing as against another person, say if he/she lies to me. It is very circumstantial.
There is another subtle point here. Our karmas determine our degree of forgiveness towards a certain act. It is never about the person committing the act, but the estimation of the act in our mind. For instance, a person may be programmed in this lifetime to feel insults very keenly, and not be inclined to forgive them. This could have a karmic connection in the fact that in some previous lifetime(s) of his, he/she may have been the cause of several insults or humiliations to other people, without realizing the gravity of his actions, nor bearing the realization of "I'm not the doer, but only an agent". The word realization is important here - he may have had the notion of the same, having read it from the Bhagavad Gita, but unless there is a realization that one is not the doer, and it is only a theoretical concept in one's mind, karmas will yet continue to bind. He has been programmed not to forgive insults and humiliations easily because his previous karmas have made sure that his degree of suffering on account of them is rather acute.
So, all in all, it quite a complex situation, and the answers depend not only on the situation and the person committing the act, but much more so on the person receiving the act, his previous karmas, and the specific prejudices and neuroses that they impose on his present mind.
In my view, to forget is to forgive - as simple as that.
If 'that incident' is still bothering you then you've not completely forgiven yet. It could be that since you're a good person you choose not to react by not retaliating.
To aid in the forgiving process one might take the help of religion or pure logic - what ever helps you forget is easily :-). And ofcourse it depends on the degree of anger/hurt and the person who has caused it.
My 2 paisa.
Thank you Sumithra for bringing this topic the forefront of our thought, if only for a moment.
In dwelling on forgiveness I find myself contemplating the lifecycle of hurt. Hurt, when inflicted on us from the external world, physically or mentally, (or from within through a chain reaction of thought) causes us to react emotionally. When a man’s leg is severed during the course of a war, the physical pain transformed as a mental pain, collecting various baggage along the way causes a negative emotional reaction in him. A hurtful comment or action directed at us traverses the same route. The mind finding itself in such a state asks the question: "Who is accountable for this?" When it finds this entity it proceeds in its natural course to blame this entity (I or the other). When a bully breaks a young chaps toy train, the bully is blamed by this bawling child for all the misery that has ensued. When a wife finds out that her husband has been cheating on her, she blames him for turning her life upside down. When a tornado tears a person’s home apart and strikes his children dead, he blames 'God'. Having squarely fixed the blame the mind is propelled towards action. Sometimes we find the enemy and sever his throat, or inflict a counter attack of hurt. At other times we reason with ourselves or with the other and try to reach an amicable solution. Sometimes we run out of steam or interest and forget. What we are driving towards is closure - one way or another. This closure, depending on the hurt big or small, is either temporary or permanent. Many a times reminders of this hurt crop up again. The inflicting of a similar hurt, or a reminder of the previous hurt through some medium visual or otherwise causes us to unwittingly reenter the same cycle of hurt from the top, hoping to end the cycle this time around. Forgiveness, in some of its shades of gray finds home in this lifecycle.
But how do we break this cycle and achieve true forgiveness? The true yogi would be eager to ask us to relinquish all worldliness as we know it, and go meditate in the forest. But you and I are not yogis; not yet at the very least, as we have unfinished business with this world.
What then? Day jobs? Not in this lifetime!
There are two ways that I see to achieve true forgiveness. The first is born off the age old adage "To err is human, to forgive divine." As we live our lives we form connections. Slender ropes tie us to the world around us and anchor us as we float through life. We are connected to our body, and when it is hurt we are pained. We are connected to a social structure in which we live, and when it is challenged we are pained. We are connected to our friends and family by bonds of friendship and love, and when this connection is endangered we are pained. We are connected to an image of ourselves and when our ego is hurt we are pained. To truly forgive would be to let go of this connection. (Hopefully without seeking refuge atop a great mountain)
The second, and perhaps more humanly possible approach is to go with the dictionary definition: 'to cease the feeling of resentment'. To get hurt is part of the human condition. Acknowledge it and move on. If we are caught in this cycle of hurt we lose valuable time that could be put to more fulfilling use. Practice the ideal example set by the laughing Buddha. Consume pain but do not produce emotion. "Stuphi, Idiot, Control your emotions!," as my drill instructor once said to me before dangling me in mid air by my ears.
Having dwelled on the ways of achieving true forgiveness I must say that the cycle of hurt does have its practical value. It enables us to live and learn, learn and live.
This is with reference to the anonymous post of Jan 9th. Very insightful comment. We are in fact driving towards closure in the endeavour to forgive.
However, it is possible to become a yogi while living in the world, like butter floating on water. Be in the world, but not of it. Yogis wouldn't ask you to go and meditate in a forest. They would ask you to understand why you want to meditate in a forest. The key here is understanding. The more evolved a person becomes, the more understanding does he become. The more understanding you become, the more forgiving you become.
Yeah, I made a mistake there. I was thinking about it yesterday.
I actually wanted the sentence to be: "The eager yogi would be quick to ask us to relinquish all worldliness as we know it, and go meditate in the forest."
By which I meant: If you have explored the literature on the subject of the 'spiritual quest' and have allowed it to influence your way of thinking, then there can be a tendency for an 'eager yogi' to f**k it all and take up the panacea of renunciation and meditation.
This sentence was meant to poke fun at that thought process. (Of which I have been guilty as well)
eager wanna-be-yogi I guess.
:)
Being forgiving or unforgiving stems from expectations which in turn stems from ego. We as individuals always expect people around us to act in a certain way and when they fail to do so, there is a disappointment that leads to resentment. For example, a mother expects "obedience" from her child and when the expectation is not met, punishes him; a teacher expects "sincerity" from her student and when this is not met, punishes him; a person expects support from a friend and when she finds betrayal instead, rejects the friend, unable to forgive.
As long as we are social animals we will always have expectations and it takes a lot to transcend. Ideally, forgiving is only when one "waives" these expectations. But in everyday life, in most cases, what we were once unforgiving about ceases to be relevant and hence we forget and continue to be "normal" with the other person. I would still not equate this to forgiving. The event ceases to matter to us and that is it. But if it is something grave, and continues to bother one forever, forgiving can never happen in the true sense.
Coming to God: God is but a human, mental construct. He is seen as the sum total of all human ideals. It is precisely our inability to forgive all the time that makes us attribute forgiveness to God. At another level, its just a matter of definitions: since God is anyway not affected by our actions (of irreverence?) He does not bear feelings of resentment which would mean He was eternally forgiving :)
And of course, if at all I could forgive in the true sense of the word, it would most definitely be on a case by case basis. Even God does it that way! Haven't we heard of so many characters in mythology being punished by God?!
Hmmm....Quite a few thoughts on that subject. Let me summarize some points that I thought were key in understanding the depth and breadth of the issues involved, taken from the postings of different people.
Anonymous post of January 6, 2008 6:19 PM:
>Sometimes we run out of steam or interest and forget.
This reminds me of an incident that personally happened to me. We were classmates in a course on Algebraic Geometry. The professor had recommended a textbook that was available in the central library. As I went to the library to take it after the class, I found that one of the students from the class was trying to hide it. When I asked him what he was doing, he hid it somewhere and started walking away. I confronted him and one of his supporters, the person in my class I was talking about. This person, the supporter, supported his friend's action with an air of righteous indignation. I developed a dislike for the supporter ever since, not because of the incident, but because what his righteous indignation about a perfectly illegal act said about him as an individual.
>The inflicting of a similar hurt, or a reminder of the previous hurt through some medium visual or otherwise causes us to unwittingly reenter the same cycle of hurt from the top, hoping to end the cycle this time around.
Once I met him after I had completed college, in Bangalore. I was reminded to keep a distance from him, but otherwise had no hatred, only dislike. In my case, there was no hurt, only an assessment, so the question of forgiveness didn't arise. The point that I'm trying to make here is that in addition to our prejudices and neuroses that we inherit from our previous karmas, we also choose whether or not to allow the issue of forgiveness to become relevant. In this case, it didn't become relevant, and I'm sure it must be the same with most people in similar situations.
January 15, 2008 9:25 PM post of Sindhuja Bhakthavatsalam:
> Being forgiving or unforgiving stems from expectations which in turn stems from ego. We as individuals always expect people around us to act in a certain way and when they fail to do so, there is a disappointment that leads to resentment.
We don't always expect people around us to act in a certain way, we usually expect them to. When they don't, it challenges our set norms of expected behaviour. The lesser the flexibility of our set of norms of ethical/correct behaviour, the greater is the hurt. We have to endeavour to make our norms more accommodating and flexible in order to be at ease with the rest of the world. In my case, this flexibility didn't include tolerating theft and hiding of public resources.
> Ideally, forgiving is only when one "waives" these expectations.
These expectations can be waived with certain individuals.
> Coming to God: God is but a human, mental construct. He is seen as the sum total of all human ideals. It is precisely our inability to forgive all the time that makes us attribute forgiveness to God.
I disagree. God is beyond our ability to construct ideals. The ideals are but approximations to the real thing. Although the existence or non-existence of God is not a matter to be resolved over blog posts, the level of perfection in the design of life and existence is a matter to be concerned about. According to statistical mechanics, constructing a structure like the universe and life on earth out of a mere chance of matter transformations would be equivalent to a tornado passing through a rubbish yard and a Boeing 747 coming out as the final product. I do not readily buy the thing about God being an idealization of our beings. If that were so, where did the Swayambhu statues come from? From our ideals? I don't believe so.
> And of course, if at all I could forgive in the true sense of the word, it would most definitely be on a case by case basis. Even God does it that way! Haven't we heard of so many characters in mythology being punished by God?!
Yes, there is the case of Lord Shiva killing Yamraj in order to save his devotee Markandeya from death, and then resurrecting him in order to allow the established system of justice to continue. In this case, Lord Shiva was acting not out of forgiveness or otherwise, but out of a sheer act of Self-defence, because an attack on a devotee is an act on the Lord Himself. He never felt any resentment against Yamraj, only perfect understanding of the situation and His own role in the same. He resurrected Yamraj because He didn't have anything personal with Yamraj, He only wanted to protect someone He loved. There are several other stories from Hindu mythology.
Right again. I didnt balance the equation up there. Although I did add a corollary at the end:
"I must say that the cycle of hurt does have its practical value. It enables us to live and learn, learn and live." AKA Defence mechanisms.
:)
Thanks Dev, for reading, thinking about, and giving your feedback on my post. I really appreciate it.
I've been meaning to leave a comment on this for so long but have not got a chance at all. Life has been very busy over the past couple of weeks especially, with work, schoolwork, tons of social events and a show to perform in. I'll definitely comment on this soon, but in the meanwhile, here's an article about forgiveness:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14547176
An interesting article on forgiveness and health:
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-forgiveness31dec31,0,539537.story?track=rss
There is so much content here to discuss/address! I'll try to do justice...
Dev: "First of all, the idea of going to hell for your sins is very Christian, and is not part of my belief system."
I am curious to understand the beliefs of a Christian in this regard. Hope to talk to one of my friends who is a devout Catholic to find out. But nonetheless, in Hindu mythology, there have been 'gods' (may be not 'God') who have punished demons or perpetrators of sins. So is this just mythology and do you differentiate between 'gods'(avatars) and 'God'?
Another thing is, if the concept of hell and heaven never existed in the collective consciousness of the Hindu society, how does the linguistic construct of 'Swarg' and 'Narak' exist? Again, do you merely attribute this to mythology?
Regarding analysis of everything based on a Karma driven system, the first thought that comes to mind is that even if 'God' punishes, it may be argued that our past actions led us to warrant punishment by God. So the Karma driven theory would still not contradict the theory that God punishes us. The second thought that comes to my mind is, who in the first place architected the Karma driven system? One could argue that the architect of this system designed this system to make sure one punishes themselves for their wrong-doings, by way of Karma, through the feeling of guilt or shame and the like. So by transitivity, the architect is the punisher. Now is this architect 'God'? To answer that, we'd have to go to the roots and define 'God' whereas, we have been discussing a lot with a certain amount of assumption on the definition of this concept and several others, I guess.
Another independent thought is that the Karmic system you describe is completely deterministic. You mention the following: "It may be true that God is all-forgiving, and the reason for that is that God is supposed to be all-understanding. If you understand a situation perfectly, you have no option but to forgive." This reasoning seems to be based on the idea that at the time anyone does anything (may be a sinful act or a virtuous one), there is enough substantiation for that and it is just the matter of understanding where the doer came from versus not understanding where they came from. Where does free will fit in here? If one believes in free will, didn't the other person have the will to choose to act in manner X or manner Y?
Regarding Sindhu's post: " God is but a human, mental construct. He is seen as the sum total of all human ideals. It is precisely our inability to forgive all the time that makes us attribute forgiveness to God. "
I must say I really like these lines. For one, regardless of what 'God' really is, which may be beyond our ability to define it, the concept that the word 'God' maps to in many people's heads I think is one of being 'that which is ideal'.
Secondly, everything that exists around us is understood by us in terms of *our* mental construct of it. [This does not go to say that there exists nothing outside of our minds- that would make any discussion of anything pointless and although the ontological question exists, we have to make some level of assumption to carry on any meaningful conversation. :) ] But what I am suggesting here is that there may be a map between what is, and what our perception of it in our minds is. And the perception is what we are aware of and ties us to the idea.
So while to some, 'God' may be something all-powerful and undefinable, to others who are more restricted in their dimensions they consider, 'God' may be a sum total of ideals. Yet another thought is, that "with respect to" morality, God is a sum total of human ideals, although there exist other dimensions to God.
To answer some of the other questions I asked myself, I usually find it harder to forgive myself than to forgive other people. And I do forgive on a case-by-case basis and do not really view it as a virtue that should be possessed and demonstrated independent of situations. However, from a practical standpoint, forgiving makes the burden lighter on the person who suffers. I think it goes back to the philosophical question of what a virtue is and what a sin is, and whether these are just concepts introduced by religion, which in reality just guide people to do the "right" things for practical "livability" kinda thing.
Another thing I noticed that no one mentioned is, I tend to forgive only if the other person asks for forgiveness, be it verbally or in action.
@Sumithra:
1. "Another thing is, if the concept of hell and heaven never existed in the collective consciousness of the Hindu society, how does the linguistic construct of 'Swarg' and 'Narak' exist?"
I cannot answer this, but can certainly tell you what a great saint has to say about this. His name was Paramahamsa Yogananda, and according to him, a person of thick, undeveloped consciousness does not really go into a different realm of existence after death, but simply goes into a deep sleep. In this sleep, for as long as he/she is not reborn, he/she suffers intermittent nightmares. These nightmares provide the concept of hell. The other, more "true" realms are all blissful, and so in that sense heavenly.
2. "This reasoning seems to be based on the idea that at the time anyone does anything (may be a sinful act or a virtuous one), there is enough substantiation for that and it is just the matter of understanding where the doer came from versus not understanding where they came from."
That is a plausible argument, but we need to examine here the meaning of forgiving. As you had mentioned, it pertains to giving up the feeling of resentment. It does not prescribe what you do consequent to this giving up. If I were a hangman, for instance, I needn't necessarily harbour a feeling of resentment against the condemned convict. My forgiving a person doesn't absolve him from the consequences of his actions. Forgiving has more to do with one's own self. You can, however, forgive a person irrespective of their seeking forgiveness, because as such, it is for your own benefit, not really for the other person. Forgiveness would not provide justification for an action, because the laws of nature will ensure a reaction in any case, whether by your hands or through somebody else. Forgiveness would make your burden lighter. By forgiving somebody, you're not justifying their action, but only choosing to be at peace with it, whether out of convenience or moving on or out of true understanding - these are situational. I often forgive because I prefer to move on rather than waste mental energy on unproductive thoughts, even if I don't understand the other person's situation. Oftentimes, we forgive because we don't have enough information to make judgements, because we have better things to do than to think about what some idiot did to us, because we forget, and also because we move on with life. We often have neither the patience nor the ability to forgive out of understanding. If forgiving only pertains to giving up resentment, I think we forgive all the time - our brain has a limited capacity to bear grudges.
3. "Another thing I noticed that no one mentioned is, I tend to forgive only if the other person asks for forgiveness, be it verbally or in action."
That's interesting. I usually don't expect people to apologise, and am most surprised when they do. I try to evaluate the situation and program my thoughts so as to make the situation least inconvenient to me irrespective of what the other person says or does. Sometimes it so happens that a person's past actions make any sort of apology unbelievable. I know for a fact that I've apologised to people without meaning it even a single iota, simply because I wanted to get an unpleasant situation out of the way. This usually happens when I get the feeling that it is the other person's ego that is causing the problem, and a simple apology might provide him/her the ego massage that they so sincerely seek. Of course, this is insincere and also dishonest in some sense, but it somehow doesn't go against my ethical framework - I feel that this person is too messed up to warrant mature straightforward behaviour on my part, which would perhaps do them more harm than good, so I don't see any harm in being seemingly manipulative in this situation. Of course, such situations are now relatively rare, because our social interactions and our need for them lessen as we age.
Dev:
Well I had mentioned that one of the dictionary definitions of forgiving is to "cease the feeling of resentment". As per me, it is not just that, but more than that. As you mention, we run out of steam or lose interest or don't want to expend mental energy on something useless and therefore oftentimes forget about someone's behavior/action. But I don't believe that is forgiveness. One of the questions I had asked was, "What is forgiveness according to you?" Guess I didn't totally answer that myself in my post.
I still shy away from defining it, but all I can say is that to me it is not merely forgetting something because we have better things to do and moving on, nor is it the action one takes as a reaction. I guess it takes "understanding" - the thing you mentioned, and so it takes me back to my earlier argument about the doer, in the event of having free will, having had the choice to act in a different way than they did. In this event, what I was suggesting was that it may not be possible for the affected person to substantiate the other's actions, and therefore "understanding" becomes difficult or impossible. :)
A thing of beauty is a joy forever.
How true this seemingly simple statement is.
Reading this entire thread and the different opinions presented, was a joy in itself.
Thank you all.
An enthralled Visitor.
@ sumi - a suggestion - When you give links, it would be so much convenient if you give them as hyper links. ;)
For example:
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-forgiveness31dec31,0,539537.story?trac"> An article on health and forgiveness</a>
would appear as An article on health and forgiveness
good suggestion, i'll keep that in mind. :)
Forgiveness - I would say that my 'feel' about the word is closest to the given dictionary definition to cease the feeling of resentment.
Personally I have harbored feelings of resentment towards others only for very short periods of time. When the feeling of resentment has abated, I don't know whether I have unconsciously forgiven the other person, or have unconsciously empathised with that person and her/his actions.
As the process (of forgiving) has been unconscious, making a decision on a case-by-case basis does not arise. However the resentment lingers for different periods of time for different people. The unforgiving period is longest towards those whom I consider closest.
My resentment usually shows up as fits of extreme rage, which usually subsides with the rage. Probably exhibiting the resentment openly helps in hastening the healing / forgiving process. [Unless you end up hurting the other person, in which case it is your turn to ask forgiveness ;)]
Incidentally, I find it quite easy to ask others for forgiveness, when I find that I have hurt the person.
Is my resentment really short-lived? Surprisingly it doesn't seem to be so. There are occasions when I haven't felt any resentment at the time of the event, but later, much later, some resentment does show up as "what could have been, had not such an event happened". This resentment is directed towards the person who (I considered) caused the event to happen. These are usually long time grudges, which surface when one finds oneself in a depressed mood. Events under this category, are those relating to decisions such as being asked to give up some opportunity, an eg. being asked to study biology when one wanted to study math.
Is it easy to forgive myself? I guess that forgiving oneself is the toughest. As far as forgiveness of self is concerned, it is not resentment that one feels, but a feeling of guilt, for having done/not done something that one feels (s)he should have done/not-done.
My forgiving someone doesn't necessarily mean that I give up judgment of the person; I would still have that person labeled as something in my repertoire of labels.
I am not a religious person, in that I don't have active belief / disbelief where God is concerned, so forgiveness by God is something that I haven't considered.
Thank you for sharing ! keep it comin...
Interesting theme indeed. Lots of interesting ideas too. Deep and personal.
I have some dilemmas about forgiving. I think forgiving others is the same as forgiving myself. If there are aspects for which I can easily forgive myself, it is too easy for me to forgive others who do the same mistakes. I even adore them :) ... I feel connected to them.
But then the dilemma is when it is "something" which I believe I would never do, or rather i believe I can never forgive myself if I did so, then it just confuses the heck out of me! Because if I truly forgive that, then it becomes alright for me to do it. If I wouldnt allow myself to do it, then I truly havent forgiven it - or rather it isnt true that I dont resent it. I am only pretending.
The scariest of all, are things that drive us depressed or psyched up, because we couldnt forgive ourself for something that we do and cant reason ourselves. I believe in this aspect Christians are lucky, the concept of Jesus bearing all their sins and cleansing them, confession, the idea of "born again" are absolutely fantastic. But then in 6th standard I had a serious doubt, if I can do anything and if Jesus would just bear it all and I go free ... :) ... Hindus have to live with Karma and rebirth which is no solution at all emotionally - it is rather disciplinary, but no escaping. Religion has some roles in dealing with forgiveness.
Rationality and compassion based spirituality/humanitarianism does help in certain ways, especially if one applies it to one's own thoughts and actions and extends it outwards.
But by living life, I have learnt that the best workable solution is "Expression." When I have resentment over something, I just write it out (I cant really face people and say it!!! :) ...) in emails, letters, in question forms. "This makes me feel really bad, can you please help me not feel bad and explain this to me, or not do it in my presence because I havent grown up to understand it yet ..." sort of wordings ... It has bombarded several times, worked like magic sometimes, but whatever may be the immediate reaction, I have always seen it went favorably within a month, or at the max 6 months. Well the best thing is that my resentment disappears after expression - the trick has been only learning to express it honestly and softly ... In such cases it is a pretty crazy combination!
So I dont forgive. I just simply tell the concerned party that I am holding resentment and they need to help me overcome it!!! :) ...
Just my verrry long 2 cents! :)
A note of Narak:
Naran + Aham - Naraham - which simply means the heart of a human being.
Aham is heart and Naran is human.
Naraham can be heaven or hell in this sense! :) ...
I hold this opinion that when I hold resentment then I live in hell within me, and when I hold compassion I live in heaven within me ... I havent read this, I have felt this ... :)
hello madura, thanks so much for sharing your thoughts!
'aham' actually means 'I', not heart- in Sanskrit. I am pretty sure... or is there an alternate connotation to the word?
Also, the word for hell in Sanskrit, as far as I know, is 'narakam', and not 'naraham', but anyway, that's just the linguistic aspect of it. :-)
'agam' in thamizh means both 'house' and 'heart'. So may be the word for this in Sanskrit is 'aham' too... (the usual 'g morph' in Thamizh words whose Sanskrit counterparts actually contain an 'h') And anyway, I think its easy to relate Self, House and Heart metaphorically...
Post a Comment