Forgiveness

There is an understanding that needs to take place: that all ''evil'' and ''conflicts'' that we perceive are manifested as a result of misconceptions about the true nature of reality and the true nature of ourselves. And there is also a need to understand and acknowledge the (hypothetical) ''other guy,'' and what he was trying to do; though it may at first appear very much twisted around from what I thought was most conducive to my own goals and ideas, this person thought it worthwhile to do whatever it is that he did.

Simply coming to peace with, and accepting this “terrible” thing that he did while still holding to the idea that ''gosh, that was a rotten thing for him to do, I sure had a right to be angry at him'' is not so much “forgiveness” as it is a lying to oneself, in order to cover up for a mislead picture of reality. Forgiveness isn't about telling myself that what the other person did was wrong, and I’m right, but I’ll do my best to act like it never happened, in order to cultivate peace. It's about seeing the other person for who they truly are, appreciating them, feeling ''unbearable compassion'' and acknowledging them, as well as what they were trying to do.

We are living things, and as living things, our basic basic BASIC (read: ''true'') nature is that which is in accord with the loving nature of the “principle which has no opposite.'' It has no opposite/no conflict, because it is, itself, the cessation of conflicts;'' all things that appear to be in opposition to it are simply misconceptions--they don't exist, except as labels in our own minds. This “principle” can't really be described accurately as ''the greater good'' since ''good'' needs ''bad'' to define it. It simply ''is.''

Suppose a man decides to embrace the idea that ''the expression of hate, through words, actions, thoughts, and motives towards others and my interactions with them, is essential to my own peace and contentment.''

1.) Does that mean HE is evil, or simply mistaken? A fool is still my brother or sister, who simply has been fooled. There is no need, no cause, and no room for condemnation nor contempt.

2.) Alright, so he is my brother, I ought to love him, BUT is his IDEA ''bad/evil?'' Not necessarily…In fact, not at all. If I were in his exact position, I would be in his exact position. His idea may not seem very conducive to bringing real peace and contentment, and it is likely to hurt many people, so it is certainly not conducive to their own goals either; but ''less conducive to the principle which has no opposite'' is as far as it can be labeled. Besides, he wouldn't have thought his actions to be ''more backwards than forward'' or he wouldn't be embracing them in the first place. Yes, he is mistaken. His idea is not ''evil;'' rather, simply one of the many possible courses of action that any of us would have chosen, were we in his exact situation. His basic nature is the same as everyone else's. He just has some misconceptions regarding how to see its realisation.

STOP…

Stop it right there, I'm butting up against the (potentially) controversial idea that there are absolute truths. Example: A wealthy man buys everything he wants, whenever he wants, but after some time, notices that this does not make him happy. At first, he is able to get himself to believe that buying everything he thinks he wants is making him content. After some time with it; however, he sees that he is not happy. At this point, regardless of what he TRIES to believe, he is unhappy. Belief, with emotion, it is a creator of reality and perception. His idea that “my happiness is contingent upon buying things I desire” is broadcasting the “creative blueprint” that “I do not possess contentment, it must be BOUGHT.” This builds a perception and reality for this man that he lacks something, and must continually buy and buy and buy. Belief and emotion create reality and perception; if you choose to not believe this is so, then that will be “true,” but only for you, and only because you believed it. This is the way “it” works, and this is one absolute. For now; hopefully, I have allowed for the feasible conjecture of the existence of absolutes.

ONWARD…

3.) Okay, so, he's mistaken in his thoughts, but not ''evil.'' Okay, okay, okay, so this man's heart is in the right place, but as far as bringing about what would be classically reckoned as the ''greater good,'' he truly doesn't ''get it.'' What about the misconception which allowed such a thought process in his mind, then? Is that ''evil?'' Is a misconception evil? Is it not one of the most natural occurrences in a reality in which we don't know everything, and may not even be ready to accept the things we may or may not yet have the capacity to learn? This man’s actions, thoughts, words, and motives are confined to the scope of what he is able to understand, accept, and perceive, regarding his true nature. Our growth comes from discovering, realising, and accepting more and more of the true nature of ourselves.

Some of the implications of this theoretical man who embraced ''hate'' are

1.) Each person can only conduct himself according to the scope of what he is able to understand, AND ready to accept, regarding his own personally defined PERCEPTION his true nature--you can only act according to what you can and do understand about what your true nature entails.

A. Sort of like saying ''you can't out-think yourself,'' because as soon as you think of something, you're already thinking of it. But you can define the things you think about, and you can think about things you’ve never thought of before.

2.) Our only true ''avenue of progress'' is the ability to discover this true nature; not how rich, strong, popular I can get. Since I'm only ever going to conduct myself according to my understanding, acceptance, and perception of my true nature, my only TRUE [ability/means of significance] is the ability to discover myself; reshaping my understanding, acceptance, and perception of my true nature, according to what I discover.

A. It's an unfolding process, sort of like the game ''warmer or colder.'' There is no ''wrong,'' or ''evil;'' just ''warmer'' or ''colder,'' in relation to how close to accurately understanding and perceiving the true nature I can get. But, given all the strengths and weaknesses I have, I’m doing the best I can do, at all times, and anyone else in my EXACT situation, would be making precisely the same amount of progress. There is no "slacker," because we would be in their exact position, if we were in their exact position. There is only room for understanding and the actions, words, thoughts, and motives of love. This calls for new motivations for everything I do in life.

3.) This chance for significance is made possible because of the fact that we don't already know everything about this true nature, but we get to discover it.

A. Otherwise, we're just doing what's in our nature to do. What's new/special about that?

i. A dog barks. So what? Dogs bark. Does that make one dog MORE of a dog, compared to another dog which does not bark as much? There is no significance in a dog barking, that’s just what they do.

ii. If I only do what’s in my nature to do, what is that? That’s what robots do. If I’m only made into a human, I can only do what a human would do, BUT I CAN uncover a clearer picture of what my true nature is that is YET unknown to me.

a. At some point, the “rat race” was formed, which is simply people allowing themselves to be lead around exclusively by their perceptions of their nature (rather than the other way around, though, that cannot be a means of grading anyone, either, since everyone does the best that anyone could ever do, in that exact spot.), using this as a means of grading, judging and blaming people as good and bad. All the while, we’ve been “rat-racing,” just being what we think we are, judging others as “wrong,” or “bad,” or “not as good as I am,” or “not as correct as I am,” when the more accurate description of the "rat race" is that we are all just dogs, barking, and with each bark, thinking “I am the truest of all dogs because I am barking precisely the way that I do. I do this better than all the others around me.” All ''good'' and ''evil'' labels only exist because we choose to see them as such. We all have fears, we all desire appreciation (which is a form of fear itself; in fact, all attachments to outcomes are fears.), and all this fear can make us exceedingly selfish. If I desire appreciation, that manifests the idea I’m holding to that I don’t have it now, and I need to have it. This creates the reality in which I truly HAVE such a deficit, and the only way to be appreciated more than anyone else is to make myself out to be more “appreciatable” than others around me. This "works" because we’re all thinking the same way: that we’re all separated in the first place. It's not hard to imagine how such a misconception could come about.

It can’t accurately be said that “oh, well, you had EVERY RIGHT to be upset by what he did to you.”

It is UNDERSTANDABLE if someone gets offended, because, obviously, they were operating on some kind of logic to arrive at the conclusion that “this should be upsetting.” But the logical deduction that leads to upset feelings is based on the idea that “I’m RIGHT, and YOU are WRONG because YOU did something WRONG to me,” while turning a blind eye/deaf ear to the equal validity of the other person, who, mislead as they may have been, was simply doing what they thought to be best, as well as simply denying the other person. More separation.

This is how being upset only perpetuates that which really offended me in the first place. That person’s action didn’t offend me, my train of logic, built on a foundation of unclear understanding is what caused me to reason “oh, well, by that logic, I should be hurt and upset by this.” What’s even worse is that it causes me to dwell on that reasoning, rather than looking for solutions, and truly understanding this other person, which would have helped me avoid being “hurt” in the first place. That which truly offends me is my own choosing to be offended, which, in turn, perpetuates the feelings of being offended. (Dr. Wayne Dyer: "That which offends you only weakens you. Being offended creates the same destructive energy that offended you in the first place....")

Free will is a form of ignorance. It exists in those without a comprehensive understanding of their true true true nature. Ignorance is ''bliss." Ignorance is not being a ''robot.''

Then again, all our frustrations come from unfulfilled desires. To act against this true true true nature, even if we only understand a small portion of it, breeds frustrations.

Thank God for frustration; otherwise, we might never be aware that something doesn't "fit." Frustrations aren't the enemy. To those looking for this true true true nature, they are like a glass wall, leaving ''smudges'' everywhere they tried to go previously.

I can't be sure that there is anyone who is not "looking," to some degree, but not everyone sees frustrations/trials of life the same way.