oAh Smiiiiiley...ya got me. It was just a rhetorical question
And in the fresh breath of honesty that there is/was no offence and no thing to forgive is KNOWN and experienced within that which is unfolding.
oAh Smiiiiiley...ya got me. It was just a rhetorical question
And then, into my inbox - literally - came an answer from one who does in experience have an awareness, capacity and willingness in exactly this situation - Iyanla VanzantAndy said: I do think compassion transcends blame and pardon, though. And if we can't forgive, then we still hold blame, we still have an offended ego, and well, maybe forgiveness is a test of some sort. Could the rape victim find compassion? Hard questions.
We cannot answer for another, the 'other' is capable of answering for them self, if one will only be willing to receive it, and hear it.What I have learned during my 30-year sojourn through the science of personal and spiritual growth and healing is that forgiveness will cure whatever ails you. The other thing I am totally convinced of is that while forgiveness ain’t easy, it’s the most important inner work you can do within your mind and heart.
FORGIVENESS MEANS . . . accepting what is or what has been and becoming willing to see it differently. You cannot un-hear what you have heard or un-see what you have seen. What you can do is stop believing that what occurred has somehow left you broken, damaged and wounded. Forgiveness results in a shift in your perception and yourself and . . .everyone else. For this reason, forgiveness is an absolutely essential step toward your personal growth, healing and evolution. YOU MUST DO THE WORK!
(This gets into the free will discussion, of course.)Today forgiveness is often prescribed as a therapeutic treatment. When one forgives one's childhood abuser, for example, one does so to be set free, to no longer be under control of the abuser, to no longer be affected by the trauma of the abuse, to no longer carry the burden of hatred and shame. To experience real therapeutic results, however, compassion is required. The superficial ritual of forgiveness leaves in place the fatal belief that the offense was committed deliberately by an evil person.
I would agree with the delineation Andy, it's obstacles to the acceptance that create the separations and distortions of what 'is', and what 'stuff' means about our selves and about others. We are all saint and sinner both and neither - but only by perspective.Sighclone said: If, to simplify, by "forgiveness," we mean "acceptance," I have no argument at all. But if we mean "I am stooping to give you my pardon," then we preserve a holier-than-thou ego -- we preserve our lofty station.
Sighclone wrote:Thanks, Eric for the lovely direct quote summaries from ACIM. You know, we all know how dense that work is; for us to have someone like you extract the elements which relate to our general nondual focus here, is a blessing. I have read Perry's "Return to the Heart of God" for other summaries, but these are splendid. I particularly like the "holy instant" concept -- such a cognitive effort on my part was actually a trigger to a massive kensho six years ago.
I can certainly understand your position on this. Interestingly enough, this is the very same position that many course students often initially find themselves when first reading it. Marrianne Williamson being one of them, as I was too.Starseed wrote:What I find most disappointing in ACIM is the Christian language. That is such a big turn off. And that is why I can't touch this book as there is an instant repusliveness. It is almost as if the book was written only for Christians, and meant to exclude everyone else. In this sense, its message cannot be a universal one, as it is only intended for Christian audiences - and I really mean only, because as a non-Christian I find the religion of Christianity to be so ridiculous and laughable that I can't get near it (though I feel the same way about Hinduism, and to a lesse extent Islam and Buddhism). Now I was not raised in a religious family, both my parents were atheist or agnostic, yet I have been drawn to J Krishnamurti, Tolle, Ramana Maharshi ... perhaps because they use less dogmatic language.
ACIM may have some non-dual teachings, and I can't really judge its content, because I have not read it. But, the Christian language is enough for me to exclude it from my list of books to read.
Starseed wrote:Interestingly, I was moved by my own comments to just read a little bit of ACIM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Christian language is not too heavy, and it seems to be just a shell, while the meaning is totally different. At the same time, it got me depressed after a day, because of the emphasis on separation and the mischiefs of the ego, and all the work to be done. Not that I can say it is wrong, or right, I don't know. Initially, I felt good, then later I realized it fosters an attitude of seeking, and that is precisely what I have decided to drop, so I left the book on the side, and did not continue reading. Seeking seems like the ego's backdoor into spiritual minded people. So many words in the text ... however, the main message I got from my little reading is forgiveness, which I like and found myself applying more and more in the past few days(in my personal interaction with one person), and I think that was enough of a positive message to be reminded of, to have my reading feel worthwile.
The seeker has not found. The object it is seeking is unattainable or so hard to attain that it makes the enterprise masochistic rather than heroic. Inevitably, the seeker is either disillusioned or unable to cope with the world of duality, and is seeking the ultimate release, nirvana, eternal bliss, or at least an escape. But does the seeker ever truly escape duality ? How many have you met in your life that did, and that you can verifiably certify that they did. The answer is obviously: nobody. So what is the point of the spiritual quest. Note, I am not talking about psychology but spirituality. Even what is labeled as spirituality works on the level of the mind, except it is often distorted and spiritualized and idealized (e.g. meditation). Working on psychological problems, knowing yourself better, etc., etc., all those are great things, but I don't call that seeking or spiritual. They are all valid endeavours. The mind needs correction, the mind needs sharpening, the mind needs a mirror to see itself, the mind needs rest, and work on the mind is fine - so is work on the body.beginnersmind wrote: I'm not sure I follow about the "seeking".