Cultivating Forgiveness

(The following section is complementary to the Forgiveness chapter in the Theory section, presented at https://whatilearnedsofar.com/theory/forgiveness/ which you should probably read first.)

Just about everybody knows that the ability to “let go” of a hurtful past is liberating and, therefore, of the utmost importance. It is similarly recognized that “letting go” can be remarkably difficult (it is outright impossible to “let go” without the necessary know-how). Forgiveness makes it possible to “let go” of the past. 

Therein lies the incentive for making the often-formidable effort required to forgive: Forgiveness is the way out of the prison of past trauma.

The first step in the practice of forgiveness is to focus on this for minute. Make sure you understand that forgiving is “letting go”, it is the way out of a painful trap.

The next step in the forgiveness protocol is a reflection about the misconceptions that tend to get in the way. Even if you are confident in the clarity of your thinking, it is still worth the effort. Reflecting about these concepts that often get confused with forgiveness is a way of “preparing the ground” for the hard work ahead:

— Forgiving is not condoning. Forgiveness applies only to actions that happened in the past and are no longer happening. Condoning is forgiving something that is still happening, that is going on in the present.

— Forgiving is not rewarding the guilty. It is the forgiver who benefits from forgiving, not the person being forgiven. Forgiveness removes the weight of a burdensome past from the forgiver. This letting go of the past is liberating, which is the reward that justifies the effort required to forgive.

— Forgiving is not giving up justice, it is giving up  revenge. Justice is indispensable. It is a necessary part of the fiber of human society. Revenge — the wish to inflict suffering and celebrating it is worthless or worse. Overlooking the distinction – the misguided belief that forgiving incorporates giving up justice is essentially guaranteed to prevent it from happening.

— Forgiving is not forgetting. Forgiving may actually lead to clearer memory of the injurious act, but it makes the memory innocuous and harmless. Forgiving is like taking the batteries out of a child’s noisy toy that tends to annoyingly turn on unexpectedly and startlingly disrupt what you are doing. The toy remains present, but without the batteries it can’t disrupt anything; it is just there.

The third step is to define the act you are trying to forgive — ‘the offense’. Lack of clarity and specificity about the nature of the offense is guaranteed to get in the way of forgiving. Think about filing charges in court. Charges need to be specific; you can’t file charges against someone for being a bad person or for being harmful. Similarly, you can’t meaningfully forgive vague offenses such as “being bad”, “wrong doing” or “hurting”. For forgiveness to take place you have to be able to state (to yourself) precisely what it is that you are trying to forgive. If you don’t know exactly what it is that you are trying to forgive your efforts are unlikely to be fruitful. Be as specific as you can be in defining the offense. The narrower the definition, the more likely you are to succeed in forgiving it. For example, if someone lied to you ten times on ten different occasions, you should try to forgive each instance at a time rather than to trying to forgive the person for being dishonest.

In addition, you can’t meaningfully offer forgiveness if you don’t know who it is that you are trying to forgive. Defining the ‘offense’ will also bring into focus the ‘offender’, the recipient of forgiveness. The recipient will always belong to one of the three categories: Self, Other, or Process. Forgiving the ‘Self’ obviously means forgiving yourself for a specific act you have committed in the past that you regret in the present. Forgiving the ‘Other’ is forgiving someone else for a specific damaging action this person has committed in the past; the negative consequences of the act may (and usually do) linger into the present but the action itself has to be over and done with if it is to be forgiven (otherwise, as discussed above, forgiving becomes condoning, which is to be avoided). Forgiving the ‘Process’ means either forgiving God or, for the godless, forgiving Life for suffering experienced. I will discuss the specific approach to forgiveness in each of these three categories below.

The fourth step is to contemplate the intent behind the offensive action. Briefly, there are two approaches to Intent. One organized Intent into three compartments: positive, negative, and lacking (as in ‘unintentional’). The second approach sees Intent as existing on a continuum with selfishness at one end, selflessness at the other and a fair intent in the middle (for a detailed discussion check out the Intent and Karma chapter in the Theory section http://wp.me/P7aKBB-2E ).

Regardless of how we approach it, the meaning of any and all human behavior is in the intent behind it. Hence, to gain confidence in the accuracy of the understanding of any behavior one must make an effort to decipher the intent. Attribution of intent takes place automatically, subconsciously. This is often unreliable. Pausing to contemplate the intent (i.e., asking ourselves “What was the intent behind this action that I am trying to forgive?”) increases the likelihood of understanding the behavior correctly (bringing the intent into conscious awareness is of the utmost importance in the pursuit of happiness, and it should be developed into a habit by repetition/practice).

Clarifying the nature of the intent is central to the process of forgiveness. Forgiveness is always called for when the intent behind the injurious action is deemed negative (or less-than-fair). The realization that an action, even if it was injurious, was motivated by a positive intent (i.e., fair or better) usually removes the need for forgiveness. Unintentional actions fall in between, and may or may not require forgiveness; injurious actions recognized as unintentional are usually easier to forgive than actions associated with a negative intent.

The fifth step (finally) gets us to the mechanics of generating forgiveness. As mentioned above, the specific approach to generating forgiveness varies, depending on its recipient — ‘Process’, ‘Other’ or ‘Self’.

Let’s start with forgiving the ‘Process’, which comes down to forgiving God or Nature/Life. (It is worth noting that the primary source for guidance about forgiving God is one’s spiritual authority, i.e., your priest, rabbi, imam etc.. The following is but a cursory treatment of this issue.) The notion that God does not make mistakes is central to all major religions. Intense suffering may temporarily obscure this realization; it is, of course, possible to bring it back into conscious awareness by making a deliberate effort. Once it is recalled, the need to forgive disappears. The mantra of forgiving God is “God works in mysterious ways”. It a reminder that God never errs. God is infallible. God’s reasons for inflicting suffering are always mysterious but never mistaken. Holding this in conscious awareness amounts to the realization that the believer, dealing with God inflicted suffering, has nothing to forgive.

From the point of view of forgiving Nature (which here is synonymous with Life) things aren’t all that different. Scientists and practitioners of Mindfulness (who may or may not believe in a God) embrace a similar realization about Nature — Nature doesn’t make mistakes, nature lacks intent, and the laws of nature do not discriminate. The mantra of forgiving Nature is “Apparent flaws in Nature are, in reality, my unmet preferences”.  The forgiver must remember that, while suffering is dreadful, it is not evidence of a flaw in Nature. Nature can harm, but it can’t foul. Where there is no foul there is nothing to forgive.

Forgiving the ‘Other’ is a very different undertaking. The key to forgiving a person who caused you suffering is owning the fact that you could do the very same thing you are trying to forgive. That is, generating the unequivocal realization that you are capable of committing the exact same crime you are trying to forgive. Getting there can be quite challenging. The more heinous the crime the more difficult it usually gets.

A key to achieving this realization is to imagine a scenario, a set of circumstances that (undeniably to yourself), if you found yourself in, you would commit the offense you are trying to forgive.

Invariably, this scenario is going to be negative, perhaps horrific. This underscores an important truth at the foundations of forgiving the ‘Other’: A normal person will cause harm deliberately (i.e., operate with a conscious negative intent) only under the influence of suffering. When this realization is crystal clear it becomes obvious that the cause of your suffering is not the person you are trying to forgive, it is their suffering. In other words, your problem is not with the person that caused your suffering. Had they not been suffering, they wouldn’t have caused you harm, and there would be nothing for you to forgive.

The following is an example from my distant past. A number of years ago something I owned, that had both considerable monetary and sentimental values, was stolen. My first reaction to discovering the loss was pain, which was quickly followed by rage. Intense, mind consuming rage that, in turn, triggered a tsunami of hatred. Thanks to my Mindfulness practice, it didn’t take too long before I was able to recognize that this rage and hatred were salt on the wound; it was making matters much worse. Realizing this brought to focus the incentive to cultivate forgiveness – the first step in the practice, which I promptly started.

Next, I reminded myself (by replaying the logic behind the facts) that the forgiveness I was seeking was neither condoning nor rewarding the crime, nor was it supposed to make me forget about it. Easy. The following steps also didn’t require much effort: The offense was easily defined as the act of thievery; the offender was some person (not God or Life, nor did I blame myself), and his or her intent was doubtlessly negative.

Next came the challenging step — owning the fact that I am capable of doing the same thing, that I could rob someone. My reflexive thought was “No way! I am not a thief! I would never rob anybody!” Persisting in the practice I challenged my sanctimonious conclusion: “What if my children were starving?” “Would I not steal to feed my children, or to pay for a medication any one of them might have needed to survive?” The undeniable answer was that of course I would. Given a horrific-enough set of circumstances, I had to admit to myself, I would steal, probably with little internal debate.

The next thoughts that popped into my mind were “The son of a bitch who robbed me probably doesn’t have children”, “I’m certain he didn’t rob me to feed or to pay for medical treatment for anybody” and “It is most likely that he did it to score some drugs”. With further examination I was able to see that I was missing the point. The point is that under the influence of suffering I could do the same thing. The specific nature of the suffering is irrelevant. My suffering would be seeing my child hungry or sick. To another person it may be the nightmarish suffering of addiction. Suffering makes ordinary human beings (even most decent ones, such as myself…) capable of deliberately inflicting suffering on others. Sufferings breeds suffering. The sameness that we share guarantees that each of us is susceptible.

It is important to remember that there is no forgiveness-switch to find and flick. Forgiving takes a lot of repetition. Each repetition is a step on the road to forgiveness. Indeed, after repeating these steps many times I eventually got there. I forgave the thief. It felt like letting go of something toxic. My loss became a simple fact, without the rage and hatred that made the experience so much worse.

Moreover, this was followed by a strange and unexpected thought that surfaced in my mind — A wish for the thief to be relieved from future suffering… It was in strange contrast to the horrific things I wished for him earlier. As I learned since, this is not a manifestation of achieving an enlightened, evolved state. The reality is much more mundane. Wishing the offender relief from suffering comes from a simple, rational conclusion the mind reaches on its own: Seeing that suffering caused someone to hurt me means that relief from suffering would prevent this person from hurting me (or someone else) in the future. In the years that passed I learned that wishing the offender relief from suffering commonly emerges automatically once forgiveness is achieved. I consider it the brain’s automatic confirmation that, indeed, forgiveness has been achieved.

This is an example of forgiving a minor offense. Unfortunately, real-life injuries (i.e., the kind of injuries encountered routinely in a psychiatric practice) tend to be orders of magnitude greater. But that doesn’t change the practice. The protocol of forgiving is the same regardless of the severity of the offense being forgiven. Moreover, the nature of the trauma does not change the fact that forgiveness is the only way to let go of it and the only way to allow for a healing process to begin.

A closing thought about the practice of forgiving the ‘Other’: The mantra of withholding forgiveness is “I could never have done that” (‘that’ being the offense you are trying to forgive). It is a good idea to scan your thoughts for this message. If it exists, if somewhere in your mind there is the belief that you are not capable of doing that which has been done to you, your mind, perhaps against your wishes, is refusing to forgive.

The mantra of forgiveness is “There but for the grace of God go I” (and per routine, the staunch atheist can replace ‘the grace of God’ with ‘good fortune’, ‘my lucky starts’ etc.). If you understand the relevance of these two mantras to the practice of cultivating forgiveness, you got the point. (If you don’t, re-read the last few paragraphs {go back to the paragraph that begins with “Forgiving the ‘Other’ is a very different undertaking”} Take my word for it — it does make sense.)

And finally, forgiving the ‘Self’. The practice of cultivating self-forgiveness is similar to the practice of  cultivating forgiveness to the ‘Other’, but it is not identical. There is a critical difference between these two undertakings. The first few steps are the same: The practice starts with a few minutes of focusing on the incentive to forgive. Regardless of who the recipient is, forgiving is ‘letting go’ of a painful past, which permits a healing process to take place. Next, you want to make sure there is no confusions about the nature of forgiveness, by reflecting on the difference between forgiving on one hand and condoning, rewarding (more on this point below) and forgetting on the other. This should be followed by defining the offense. Again, regardless of its recipient, the offense needs to be made clear and as specific as possible to promote meaningful forgiveness. Next, reflect on the intent; do your best to recall what your intent was when you took the action you are trying to forgive. Forgiveness is called for when your intent is unacceptable. If you discover that your intent was acceptable than you don’t have to forgive the choice you made (you may have to forgive a shoddy execution, which would change the offense but not the protocol). If you conclude that your intent was unacceptable — self-centered or selfish, move on to identify the nature of the suffering you were dealing with at the time.

As stated above, suffering is the universal cause for normal people to deliberately inflict suffering on others. As discussed above, understanding this is the foundation to forgiving others. However, when it comes to self-forgiveness, focusing on the one’s own suffering (which is guaranteed to have been there) is not enough.

This is the difference between forgiving the self and forgiving the other. To ensure that self-forgiveness does not become a reward (in the form of an automatically letting yourself off the hook or worse, so it doesn’t mutate into a permission to commit any crime with the knowledge that it will subsequently be forgiven) an addition step is called for. This step is a transaction you make with yourself: Self forgiveness is reasonable in exchange for a commitment to do better moving forward. The idea is that in return for your forgiveness you make a specific and clearly defined commitment (to yourself) that makes you a better person moving forward. Self forgiveness is thus earned in exchange for a self improvement. 

As I mentioned above, you want to reflect on the suffering you had experienced leading to committing the act you are trying to forgive. Often this suffering will point to the commitment you should consider making in return for your self- forgiveness. For example, if your suffering originated form a physical source (such as a physical pain or hunger) you might make a commitment to conduct yourself in a specific way (that ensures not harming others) when you experience such pain in the future. Similarly, if your suffering was related to mental pain (such as disappointment or fear) your commitment should be to a specific behavior when you re-experience this suffering again, in the future.

For example, let’s say you regret, and thus are trying to forgive yourself for lying to a friend. It may be that your suffering at the time was fear of the humiliation you expected would follow if your friend discovered the truth. Your commitment might be to pay extra attention for such a feeling (i.e., fear of humiliation) and, should it happen again, to discuss it openly with your friend, instead of covering it up with a lie. By making such a commitment sincerely and seriously you give yourself a chance to become a better friend. In so doing you have earned the right to forgive yourself.

The extent of your forgiveness will mirror the nature of your commitment. I think that we know how serious we are at the time that we make a commitment. We can tell the difference between lip-serving and a sincerely making a commitment. A shallow commitment will render the forgiveness meaningless. If, being honest with yourself, you are unable to make an open-ended commitment to change, it is reasonable to make a time-limited commitment in return for time-limited forgiveness. A sincere, strong commitment will lead a sense of a rightfully earned, solid forgiveness. A forgiveness that can lead to a liberation from the burden of the traumatizing past.