FORGIVENESS

Seeings how I can't seem to sleep tonight, I did a little research...

Dukkha (Pāli; Sanskrit: duḥkha; Tibetan sdug bsngal) is a Buddhist term commonly translated as "suffering", "anxiety", "stress", or "unsatisfactoriness".[a] The principle of dukkha is one of the most important concepts in the Buddhist tradition. The Buddha is reputed to have said: "I have taught one thing and one thing only, dukkha and the cessation of dukkha." The classic formulation of these teachings on dukkha is the doctrine of the Four Noble Truths, in which the Truth of Dukkha (Pali: dukkha saccã; Sanskrit: duḥkha-satya) is identified as the first of the four truths.

Dukkha is commonly explained according to three different categories:

1. The obvious physical and mental suffering associated with birth, growing old, illness and dying.
2. The anxiety or stress of trying to hold onto things that are constantly changing.
3. A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance.

Translating the term dukkha[edit]

Contemporary translators of Buddhist texts use a variety of English words to convey the different aspects of dukkha.
Early Western translators of Buddhist texts (prior to the 1970s) typically translated the Pali term dukkha as "suffering", a translation which tended to convey the impression that Buddhism was a pessimistic or world-denying philosophy.[c] Later translators, however, including Walpola Rahula (What Buddha Taught, 1974) and nearly all contemporary translators, have emphasized that "suffering" is too limited a translation for the term dukkha, and have preferred to either leave the term untranslated or to clarify that translation with terms such as anxiety, stress, frustration, unease, unsatisfactoriness, etc.[33][34][35][web 19][h]

For example, Piyadassi Thera states:[web 4]
The word dukkha (or Sanskrit duhkha) is one of those Pali terms that cannot be translated adequately into English, by one word, for no English word covers the same ground as dukkha in Pali. Suffering, ill, anguish, unsatisfactoriness are some favourite render­ings; the words pain, misery, sorrow, conflict, and so forth, are also used. The word dukkha, however, includes all that, and more than that.

Contemporary scholar Rupert Gethin states:[3]
Rich in meaning and nuance, the word duḥkha is one of the basic terms of Buddhist and other Indian religious discourse. Literally 'pain' or 'anguish', in its religious and philosophical contexts duḥkha is, however, suggestive of an underlying sense of 'unsatisfactoriness' or 'unease' that must ultimately mar even our experience of happiness.

Contemporary translator Bhikkhu Bodhi states:[37]
The Pāli word [dukkha] is often translated as suffering, but it means something deeper than pain and misery. It refers to a basic unsatisfactoriness running through our lives, the lives of all but the enlightened. Sometimes this unsatisfactoriness erupts into the open as sorrow, grief, disappointment, or despair; but usually it hovers at the edge of our awareness as a vague unlocalized sense that things are never quite perfect, never fully adequate to our expectations of what they should be.

Many contemporary teachers, scholars, and translators have used the term "unsatisfactoriness" to emphasize the subtlest aspects of dukkha.

For example, contemporary scholar Damien Keown states that in the context of the subtle aspects of dukkha:[41]

[...] the word dukkha has a more abstract and pervasive sense: it suggests that even when life is not painful it can be unsatisfactory and unfulfilling. In this and many other contexts ‘unsatisfactoriness’ captures the meaning of dukkha better than ‘suffering’.

The writer Mark Epstein states:[42] 'A more specific translation [of the term dukkha] would be something on the order of “pervasive unsatisfactoriness.” '
Many translators prefer to leave the term untranslated.[h] For example, scholar and translator Walpola Rahula states:[44]

It is true that the Pali word dukkha (or Sanskrit duḥkha) in ordinary usage means ‘suffering’, ‘pain’, ‘sorrow’ or ‘misery’, as opposed to the word sukha meaning ‘happiness’, ‘comfort’ or ‘ease’. But the term dukkha as the First Noble Truth, which represents the Buddha’s view of life and the world, has a deeper philosophical meaning and connotes enormously wider senses. It is admitted that the term dukkha in the First Noble Truth contains, quite obviously, the ordinary meaning of ‘suffering’, but in addition it also includes deeper ideas such as ‘imperfection’, ‘impermanence’, ‘emptiness’, ‘insubstantiality’. It is difficult therefore to find one word to embrace the whole conception of the term dukkha as the First Noble Truth, and so it is better to leave it untranslated, than to give an inadequate and wrong idea of it by conveniently translating it as ‘suffering’ or ‘pain’.

V-Tog wrote: Out of interest (to anyone who wants to respond)...is it always harder to forgive someone for a wrong that was purposefully committed, as opposed to hurt caused unintentionally/accidentally?

I can say it's harder. " always harder"? no bloody clue... haven't been in all the situations of intentional wrong. I think it's easier or harder to forgive not on intention but attitude and penitence

V-Tog wrote: Out of interest (to anyone who wants to respond)...is it always harder to forgive someone for a wrong that was purposefully committed, as opposed to hurt caused unintentionally/accidentally?

An accident is easy to forgive. It isn't as full of emotion as purposefully.

Purposfully hurt implies: (I'm just thinking out loud) evil, hate, anger, mean, deliberate, malicious, wicked.....

That's a whole lot of emotion directed toward someone. I can avoid a person like that, put distance between us, ignor them, forgive? Best I can do is feel sorry for them and let them lives their misserable lives the way they choose. Not very Jedi of me.

Phortis Nespin wrote: Whyte Horse wrote:

Many people mistranslate dukkha to mean suffering but this is wrong. In the context of forgiveness, it means the dukkha of conditioned states (saṃkhāra-dukkha) - a basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, due to the fact that all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance. On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards.

I bow to your knowledge of Buddhism, as I was raised Catholic and have only recently studied Buddhism, I have a question to expand my knowledge...

Most all of the text I read talk of suffering and also of impermanence, but I have come to understand that if a person does not acknowledge the alleged insult or injury in the first place, as a matter of understanding that life is suffering and that nothing is permanent, then there is no context of forgiving anything or the need to forgive? By eliminating any form of unsatisfactory behavior against us (suffering being the end result of the unsatisfactory behavior against us) then the ego has been suppressed, and the need to forgive, or the concept of being injured or insulted has been wiped away from existence. (So to speak)????

Expectations and personal standards are of the ego and must be eliminated. This is a very difficult concept to grasp when we have spent our whole lives being told to stand up for yourself, fight back, be proud, etc. Maybe not so much to grasp as to eliminate what we have learned. (Uh Oh...Yoda Quote - You Must Unlearn what you have learned).

In the context of Catholicism, life is suffering. In the context of what Jesus said, life is sacrifice. This is a form of weak pessimism wherein you say you're going to die and go to heaven as a reward for sacrificing your happiness/ego in life.

In the context of Jediism, life is temporal(past, present, future). This is much closer to what Buddha said and it implies impermanence without any pessimism. Living in the present requires us to not have future expectations.

If we have no expectations, we can't be wronged. If we can't be wronged, this implies no need for forgiveness. But as Jedi, we are mindful of others and perhaps we would cause someone else to suffer by with-holding forgiveness. So maybe there is a deep philosophical purpose to the notion of "forgive and forget". You forgive the person to alleviate their suffering and then forget you forgave them :lol:

62
The Tao is the center of the universe,
the good man's treasure,
the bad man's refuge. Honors can be bought with fine words,
respect can be won with good deeds;
but the Tao is beyond all value,
and no one can achieve it. Thus, when a new leader is chosen,
don't offer to help him
with your wealth or your expertise.
Offer instead
to teach him about the Tao. Why did the ancient Masters esteem the Tao?
Because, being one with the Tao,
when you seek, you find;
and when you make a mistake, you are forgiven.
That is why everybody loves it.

The Buddha taught that Life is suffering was only to counter the idea that we seem to get that it should be all pleasant. Of course Life isn't ALL suffering ... but when we feel deprived of something we want or something we want to continue, then it needs to be someone's fault. It might be ... but ...

Maybe a form of forgiveness is not seeking revenge or ill will toward the offender? That would be letting go?

I find forgiving people difficult. But I do strive toward that ideal. I find it helpful to first be aware of my feelings of hurt or pain. Sometimes placing myself in the other person's shoes can be helpful. But I find that only time heals the feelings of hurt and pain. And that can take a long time in certain situations, especially if I was hurt by someone intentionally.

I dunno...

I'm reading about an alien world here...

It seems such a big deal to a lot of people, even people I know...

There is too much going on every moment to be thinking about who wronged me and why all the time. If I'm thinking about THAT I'm not thinking about what I'm doing or where I am...if I'm feeling THAT I'm not feeling what I could be about whats going on here and now...I'm missing all the chances we have to be friends ...to enjoy each other...

The past is so distracting. :dry:

The future is so unreliable...

We can learn from these things, but I don't think we should be living them...

I'm guessing you've never been hurt to the core by someone you trusted you deepest feeling and life with? I'n talking about deep soul/herat/core hurt.

I got so depressed I didn't leave my loft for 2 weeks after my first fiance called me up and said she didn't love me anymore.

But I didn't hold it against her...

She may have said "I'll love you forever." and "No matter what we'll always keep going" and the like, but it was ME who built it up that much to myself. How could I blame her for what I did?

I'll admit I felt betrayed at the time and the loss of what I had perceived as her love ached soulfully. But those moments were lived, savored and ended. Those emotions were proper at the time. When it was over it was over. I didn't need to forgive her because I never blamed her. I just felt rotten for a time and like all things, it passed.

Perhaps I'm lucky enough to not feel rotten all the time over such things. Conversely, I'm not ecstatic all the time either. Just sort of...proper. I don't moan over the fact that the eggs don't taste like the bacon I was just eating...I just try to enjoy the eggs if I can. If I can't I get 'um down and move on to the toast...

I've seen in the movies and in books that its easy to hate...but its not. Not for me.

Maybe I haven't suffered enough.