C T

This thread appreciates all topical feedback that is relevant and meaningful to readers, more so from authentic perspectives, and not simply copy and pasting new age memes that recently occurred. I am thankful that you are participating with genuine interest in sharing your personal thoughts. I dont think Lim was being disingenuous/sarcastic, but the presumption to speak on behalf of TDB was a little off-putting. I do understand why he felt compelled to insert that though.

The cessation of clinging is to be realised, and not the objects of clinging. By pointing out that forgiveness is not something aligned with Buddhist teachings is not clinging to no-forgiveness, nor is it being aversive to forgiveness.

Caution is also good.

Its good you are still reflecting on that. He's a very advanced and well-respected teacher across all the different Himalayan Buddhist lineages. Definitely authentic and unpolluted.

I suppose its the same here where some threads get polluted as well.

I'd much rather head downstream where all the rivers ultimately meet.

There are three ways in which we can experience these two truths: 1. At the stage of ordinary beings, appearances are regarded as inherently real and are perceived with grasping. This is called the incorrect relative. 2. At the stage of noble beings, appearances are seen to be deceptive and illusory, and are perceived without any grasping. This is called the correct relative. 3. At the stage of buddhahood, there are no ordinary appearances or non-appearances whatsoever, and any concerns about grasping or non-grasping no longer applies. This is absolute seeing. To put it another way, the first stage has both appearance and grasping, the middle stage has mere appearance without grasping, and at the final stage there is neither appearance nor grasping. Although we may understand the natural condition of all knowable phenomena in this way, if we do not understand the natural condition of the knowing subject, which is our own mind, all phenomena will remain objects of knowledge and this will not serve as an antidote to mental afflictions. In fact, this realization itself will become a cause for feeling arrogant and conceited, and only serve to reinforce the sense of a personal self. This is why we need to recognize the actual nature of that where realization arise. ~ Patrul Rinpoche ~

I appreciate what is being rationalised above, and I have already mentioned in a few replies that it is fine if one wishes to adopt and apply a concept (or many concepts) that helps to shape one's morality and ethical considerations in the course of one's life. There are many Christian/Hindu/Jain/Sikh/Islamic precepts and philosophical views that are also extremely useful in the quest to achieve various spiritual and mundane goals, but within an emic perspective (of Buddhist philosophy) the idea and usefulness of forgiveness is not stressed anywhere. This does not mean its not helpful as a means to help one cope with life's many sufferings, but in this context, my point is clear - the Buddha did not teach such an approach towards the elimination of suffering. I don't get why this cannot be accepted. By all means, if one finds usefulness in practicing forgiveness do not abandon that path - but its incorrect to attempt any rationalisation that doing so accords with the Dhamma because the nature of forgiveness happens to be one that does not depart from dualistic considerations. In other words, its practice does not ultimately liberate, and therefore it is not taught as a means towards that end. One may adopt the practice of mercy and compassion, but to say that one has the capability to forgive implies a kind of superior thinking that may even be tinged with subtle arrogance, and as for Buddhist practitioners, to hold to the idea that one can be forgiven of wrongdoings then compels other unnecessary and complex considerations to arise, like deference to gods, higher powers, emotional placations, and so on. The teachings are clear that we are heirs to our karma, and that each individual being must take responsibility to work for their own emancipation. Not even buddhas can reduce the ownership of karma by one iota, let alone forgive anyone of their transgressions.

There is no beauty nor ugliness in forgiveness. But you are free to think otherwise, and many do conform with your view. Forgiveness - Its a way of pacifying mental turmoil that is dualistic in nature because it requires some form or other of judgement, and therefore does not accord with the Dhamma. Meditation is fundamental to Buddhism. If you wish to negate its usefulness, its ok, but thats no longer Buddhism. I dont know how else to make this clearer.

The Dalai Lama is free to speak and offer opinions on any subject under the sun, and he does so with much wisdom; however, this has no bearing on the point that forgiveness is not a Buddhist teaching. He often sought to find similarities among the various faiths- thats how he is, amicable, reassuring, and easy-going.

I would suggest listening to the talk by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche to obtain further clarity wrt the point you raised. He is a highly qualified master who accurately explains how to use 'poison' (negative emotions) as the means to transform the mind, from the perspective of Dzogchen of course. Here is a more condensed explanation given by Mingyur Rinpoche -

As mentioned, the right understanding of Dhamma and application of mindful attentiveness and contemplation roots out harmful mental afflictions like hate, jealously and other negative emotions. The Dhammapada verse was very clear on this.

I'm sure such an analogy is absolutely valid for you, and no one should attempt to lessen its validity from your perspective. In Dhamma understanding, the cutting of the root of affliction requires only reflection, attentiveness (mindfulness) and contemplation to remain in place, initially with effort to dispel waverings and later with no effort, where waverings (discursive thoughts) no longer arise. It takes practice to get used to abiding in the calm that follows. Some find it easy and natural, while others may lack confidence in that easeful state. This is understandable because ingrained habitual reactions that tend to override simplicity and resting effortlessly are quite forceful and not easy to cut through. Its not a state that many are familiar with, hence. Those that need support to validate and sustain that intrinsic calm state can then access secondary practices for that purpose, of which forgiveness belongs, and many others that may be equally helpful and valid to suit a particular mindstream. Simply said, relying on these means are helpful but there are also other methods of mind training that bypass the need for such reliance.

Thats the social media version, Jeff. The more authentic translation: Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbour such thoughts do not still their hatred. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbour such thoughts still their hatred. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal. This verse directs contemplation on the pacification of mental turmoil, the way to remove the root cause of affliction. Its not about cultivating forgiveness. Its not helpful to try and merge Christian concepts and work them to fit our own whims.

The view of taking pain as the path to liberation, according to the Bon Buddhist tradition. Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche shares his thoughts on how to directly transform the mind using obstacles as the means.

Forgiveness is predicated on judgement; judgement reinforces dualistic notions - hence, unlike Christianity, there are no exemplary teachings of forgiveness in Buddhism. Please be clear that im not saying its a bad practice. All im saying is that such a practice is nowhere to be found in either the tantric or sutric paths.

The core meaning and application of Tonglen practice is to deconstruct rigid mental constructs guided by the focus to release self-cherishing, which, according to the teachings, is the main cause and effect that perpetuates ignorance. Are there any accounts in the teachings anywhere that explains how buddhas practice forgiveness? I dont think there are any such examples to be found. Since it is not a practice of the buddhas, why is it then suggested by some that it is a good practice for aspiring bodhisattvas? It may be beneficial as an adjunct concept that could help Western mindsets to develop a softer approach to life, but traditionally there are no teachings on forgiveness in the Buddhist path.

You're welcome here anytime, with open heart, to post pertinent Buddhist quotes and points related to the OP, and to conduct relevant discussions. Since you did not intrude, there's nothing to forgive.

Sin and forgiveness are 2 sides of the same coin, not what you alluded to, that letting go and forgiveness are that instead. It is true knowledge that unbinds karma. The Buddha's Teaching is thus: "Please pay attention; take this advice and think it over. If you think it is suitable for you to practise my advice, then try to practise it. You can see the results through your own experience."

Mr Lim would perhaps be interested to open up a thread on practical Buddhism and share the views of Eckhart Tolle, Wayne Dyer and others there. Mr Anand Lim is always welcome to post quotes from authentic Buddhist sources here. Thanks.

In Buddhist view, a wicked man that others might seek to forgive, one who genuinely follows the Buddhadharma will see only the prevalence of ignorance, which, as the root cause or first principle of papa (Skt term to signify the downfall of man), can only be removed thru being made aware by means of receiving wholesome instructions (knowledge, or vidya) and practical applications of said instructions (Dhamma). In Buddhism there is no requirement to pinpoint and analyse exact faults - only that there are wholesome and unwholesome karma, and each individual the sole heir to that. There is no concept of sin in this tradition, therefore it follows that there is no necessity to contemplate notions related to that concept.

I can understand how without sufficient knowledge of Buddhism and karma that one could come to a conclusion such as yours.

I did not say it was. In my experience, I have observed interactions between individuals that adopted it as an artform which can be used as leverage to gain a certain emotional advantage over another. Not saying it is fundamentally a means to that end, but it does happen to be misused frequently.

Not really. Its neither tough, nor its opposite. Its what it is, like gravity - its a good way to learn responsibility while at the same time it helps to cultivate a mindset that reduces susceptibility to emotional blackmail.