Originally, I thought forgiveness diminishes self-centeredness. But here’s what K said about forgiveness: " So, does not the conscious act of forgiveness, of being hurt, the conscious act, does it not strengthen the entity, the `me’, that is always gathering, always accumulating, comparing, judging, weighing? And can such an entity ever be free, ever know what it is to love, what it is to be compassionate? Please find out for yourself, don’t listen to my words." https://www.jkrishnamurti.org/content/bombay-7th-public-talk-1st-march-1953/forgiveness
Aren’t we surrendering some aspect of the self, when we forgive another?
Doesn’t true ‘forgiveness’ imply seeing that the ‘other’ could not do other than what they do?
And by extension that ‘we’ cannot do other than what we do?
Any conscious act of will, any act where the self is present, reinforces the division, strengthens the self.
Even meditation, if I am present during meditation - if I become an expert meditator, more power to me.
If I have the wonderful wherewithal to find it in myself to forgive - how wonderful I am.
Isn’t I surrendering “some aspect of the self” (like everything else I does) all about I? I just wants to feel good about being I, so I does what serves that desire, whether it be revenge or forgiveness.
Some people get their kicks, their self-esteem, by emulating Jesus.
The message of Jesus is that true forgiveness necessitates that I die. This is not something I can “do” - that would be self killing.
The original/fundamental cause of suffering : knowledge of good and evil, can only truly be answered by the space that embraces all (which appears in my absence)
Only surrendering some aspect of self, means that the self is still acting.
That may be, but it doesn’t matter to the self-centered brain what is true about Jesus or anyone else it chooses to emulate.
You remember someone insulted you and then you forgive them. Both involve recognition.
K talks about no mark left on the brain. If there is no psychological mark as insult there is no need for forgiveness. If there is no mark, the innocent mind does not need to forgive.
Like the story of the Buddha. If someone offers gift of insult and I do not accept it, it remains with that person. There is no mark, no reaction of thought. No need for forgiveness.
It’s the ego that get’s insulted and wants to forgive in return of something else.
Something like the feeling of self-righteousness it gets by occupying the moral high ground.
Perhaps self-righteousness, but forgiveness can also alleviate rumination of discord and conflict.
There is no such thing as forgiveness, only forgetfulness
According to JK, forgiveness as an act of consciousness is not an act of freedom (“So freedom is not possible if there is any form of outward or inward compulsion”). So, what does forgiveness imply? Forgiveness granted not as an act of compulsion implies a break in a relationship—a relationship between a debtor and a creditor; if I grant forgiveness and remain in the relationship, then my forgiveness was an act of consciousness, i.e., I did not truly forgive the debt. But if I die to my debtor, my relationship with my debtor ends, which means that forgiveness takes place automatically, without any effort, not as an act of consciousness.