.jpg)
Last year, after almost a decade of being roundly ignored by the Internet, the article was flagged as "sensitive content", fenced behind a warning to visitors, and then a second fence that requires a Google sign-in to pass.
Evidently to shield children from my dangerous advocacy of compassion.
There are times when the irony on this rock gets so thick that one is literally at a loss for words.
Which is why I've haven’t said anything about this until now.
In the article, I point out that I've consistently attracted more mob-borne hatred when advocating for forgiveness than any other topic. By way of example, I cite reactions to a comment I made about Frank Meeink, one-time neo-Nazi who atoned for his hateful conduct and actively defected to the side of kindness and reason. And I wound the thing up with a reference to Angulimala, a figure from the sutras who renounced his career as a serial killer and became a disciple of the Buddha.
I've now re-read Forgiveness half a dozen times, with long periods of reflection between, and still can't find a single line any rational person would call offensive. (It's true I can get, shall we say, "passionate", about certain subjects, nay judgemental in some cases. But unless I'm blind to something, Forgiveness contains no such cases.)
Instead, it appears that someone – or several someones – reported this little-read post from my back-catalogue simply because I advocated mindful compassion toward a repentant Nazi.
More perplexing still, Google also agrees that this is too shocking a contemplation for unsuspecting surfers to stumble across unawares. And much too shocking for kids, under any circumstances.
So, hey. I've been wrong before. If any readers game enough to breech the safety fences could read the text behind them and explain to me where you find offence, I would be sincerely grateful.
Please post your thoughts in the comment section below, if you don't mind. My word that I'll be equanimous toward all, pro- or anti-Ring, that are on-topic and not personally abusive to anyone.
Because I think the Great Sangha needs to start talking about this forgiveness thing.
(Photo courtesy of Damian Gadal and Wikimedia Commons.)
ReplyDelete"...does [owning his sins and reforming himself] somehow excuse the bad things [Meeink] has done in the past?"
To which, my explosive, inflammatory response:
"Yes."
The answer to that is actually no, as you say in a later paragraph:
You can't make amends. What's done is gone. The only thing anybody can do is the same thing that we all must do: be a better person next time.
Owning one's past bad acts and trying to do better is a good thing, but it doesn't excuse the bad things that were done.
I think we have different definitions of "excuse". To my thinking, that's about the attitude of others; a synonym of forgive. If I understand your perspective, "excuse" implies that the misdeeds are erased, or maybe that we give permission to that person to do it again. I would agree that's not the case.
ReplyDeleteAt the bottom of all this is the nature of atonement, which is likewise a very slippery concept. We must atone for willful trespass, but we can't undo it. Judgmental people tend to get hung up on that second fact and insist that wrongdoers do atonement all their lives, but I'd argue that's slavery, not atonement. By definition, atonement has an end -- redemption.
Thanks for the post, Scott!