I have started anew mantra lately that I think is wworking,done very slowly."I forgive all my brothers and sisters, I forgive God,I forgive my self". now my bio brother thought this quite egotistical,but I find the effect humbling as I face ,so far just some but working on it,some of the anger[fear]I have for what is realy all creation.I thought I was so full of love and wisdom,this exercise is very revealing for me. Just wanted somewhere to say this, thank you Zoo Fence{been comming a long time,glad i posted].
peace
just a thought i wanted to share
Who forgave whom?
Nice mantra. Keep in mind that when someone states an opinion about another, that opinion usually reflects more about the individual who states it, than an objective factual opinion about the facts. (We cannot see in another what is not already within our own hearts.) Or, we see out there what we are inside.
On a tangent, but in some ways connected. I wonder if anyone has ever followed back to the original text the statement "Jesus died for our sins." I wonder if the word "for" doesn't also mean, in the original, "because of", or "by" our sins. When I consider this, I realize that a whole religion has been based on this one preposition-- that we are "forgiven" for our sins, because of what we did to the one who was pointing out our sins. Kind of paradoxical, no?-- that a religion has evolved because of a horrendous act of cruelty to a kind and profound man. And that the "downtown" religion at least, emphasizes this one event, in preference to all the myriad other events in his life. In other words, because of our continuing, and non-ending, indeed, eternal, "sins" (unkindness, thoughtlessness, cruelty, selfishness, and all the rest), we relentlessly kill, or at best, wish to kill or wish they would disappear, those who suggest that perhaps we are behaving badly, and need to straighten out and fly right? Hmmmmmm, just a thought.
On a tangent, but in some ways connected. I wonder if anyone has ever followed back to the original text the statement "Jesus died for our sins." I wonder if the word "for" doesn't also mean, in the original, "because of", or "by" our sins. When I consider this, I realize that a whole religion has been based on this one preposition-- that we are "forgiven" for our sins, because of what we did to the one who was pointing out our sins. Kind of paradoxical, no?-- that a religion has evolved because of a horrendous act of cruelty to a kind and profound man. And that the "downtown" religion at least, emphasizes this one event, in preference to all the myriad other events in his life. In other words, because of our continuing, and non-ending, indeed, eternal, "sins" (unkindness, thoughtlessness, cruelty, selfishness, and all the rest), we relentlessly kill, or at best, wish to kill or wish they would disappear, those who suggest that perhaps we are behaving badly, and need to straighten out and fly right? Hmmmmmm, just a thought.
Thoughts about forgiveness
Carrying this a little further:
Why is it that we need to forgive? Why is it that we are angry in the first place with, or believe that we are harmed by, whatever, or whoever it is that we need to forgive? (Forgiveness implies that we have been harmed somehow, by something or someone, no?)
I realized in my own personal life that I need to forgive something or someone only if I react to the event with annoyance, disappointment, or anger at someone or something. Otherwise, there is no need for forgiveness, right?
If I follow that anger, disappointment, or annoyance to its source, I realize that there is no external cause for my anger, but that I personally am angered or annoyed because in my own perception something or someone has "failed" me. By that, I must admit, that the "failure" is based on my own personal expectations of something or someone. In most cases, the external event or person has no understanding of my expectations, obviously, nor should that event or person be required to know my expectations, much less live up to them. (They won't, and don't, anyway.)
Thus, I am left with only "me" to deal with. (It always ends up there.) Why are my expectations there in the first place? Who, or what, put them there in the first place. Why is it that I "expect" anything or anyone to fulfill those expectations? Who is it that is expecting? If I follow that string to its end, I end up with a "who" which is nothing more than a bunch of opinions, which I arbitrarily have accumulated over my life time, which are based on random experiences, conditioning, opinions that I have embraced as my own, and that have no basis in fact. They are arbitrary and they are malleable. (If I doubt that, I need only look at my family and friends to see how different some of them are from my own - who's right, who's opinion is more "correct" than the other? None. They are arbitrary. And we each believe those internal opinions within each of us are "me"!) Is this ridiculous, or what?
If I fully understand this, I cannot expect anything anymore, nor can I be angered or disappointed when the world, or another, fails to fulfill my expectations. Indeed, all I can expect is that I will be surprised by every event in my life, because it will more than likely not conform to my expectations, except perhaps through "luck" or coincidence. I realize this is hard to accept, because it implies a lack of control, and lack of power over others, or the world. Nobody wants to admit that perhaps I am powerless. But that said, I suspect that I am.
Lest this be too terrifying a concept, there is a loop hole: to the extent that I no longer consider I to be this bag of flesh and bones, but perhaps embrace a less exclusive, and more inclusive conception of I, then, and only then, perhaps do "others" and "other things" conform to "my" expectations. But that still requires a surrender of some kind. It certainly requires a kind of love which is non-egocentric.
Why is it that we need to forgive? Why is it that we are angry in the first place with, or believe that we are harmed by, whatever, or whoever it is that we need to forgive? (Forgiveness implies that we have been harmed somehow, by something or someone, no?)
I realized in my own personal life that I need to forgive something or someone only if I react to the event with annoyance, disappointment, or anger at someone or something. Otherwise, there is no need for forgiveness, right?
If I follow that anger, disappointment, or annoyance to its source, I realize that there is no external cause for my anger, but that I personally am angered or annoyed because in my own perception something or someone has "failed" me. By that, I must admit, that the "failure" is based on my own personal expectations of something or someone. In most cases, the external event or person has no understanding of my expectations, obviously, nor should that event or person be required to know my expectations, much less live up to them. (They won't, and don't, anyway.)
Thus, I am left with only "me" to deal with. (It always ends up there.) Why are my expectations there in the first place? Who, or what, put them there in the first place. Why is it that I "expect" anything or anyone to fulfill those expectations? Who is it that is expecting? If I follow that string to its end, I end up with a "who" which is nothing more than a bunch of opinions, which I arbitrarily have accumulated over my life time, which are based on random experiences, conditioning, opinions that I have embraced as my own, and that have no basis in fact. They are arbitrary and they are malleable. (If I doubt that, I need only look at my family and friends to see how different some of them are from my own - who's right, who's opinion is more "correct" than the other? None. They are arbitrary. And we each believe those internal opinions within each of us are "me"!) Is this ridiculous, or what?
If I fully understand this, I cannot expect anything anymore, nor can I be angered or disappointed when the world, or another, fails to fulfill my expectations. Indeed, all I can expect is that I will be surprised by every event in my life, because it will more than likely not conform to my expectations, except perhaps through "luck" or coincidence. I realize this is hard to accept, because it implies a lack of control, and lack of power over others, or the world. Nobody wants to admit that perhaps I am powerless. But that said, I suspect that I am.
Lest this be too terrifying a concept, there is a loop hole: to the extent that I no longer consider I to be this bag of flesh and bones, but perhaps embrace a less exclusive, and more inclusive conception of I, then, and only then, perhaps do "others" and "other things" conform to "my" expectations. But that still requires a surrender of some kind. It certainly requires a kind of love which is non-egocentric.
Thanx Anna
AS for the crucifixition {all of this is just for me OK?]the most important part of that is wnen Jesus sain " forgive them Father for they know not what they do."We realy don't know what anything is for . as to the mantra you could change love, accept,or many other words but forgive works for me, it realy means accept and therefore love but in our culture where very little is forgiven, the word forgive works. Back to Jesus, we fixate on the crucifixion, not the resurection,not the message to love one an other , not on the message that violence to others, even in self defence is not the way of Jesus. You know I am going to stip there because if i keep going ther are Christians out there that will want to crucify me. peace
Very nice ending, Miko. I suppose the same could be said of any religious fanatic - which applies to all religions in the end. It is the fanaticism that causes the problems, not the religion nor the believer. Fanaticism can come in all shapes and sizes, doesn't even have to be religious. We can be fanatic about any belief we feel has to be believed by everybody we meet. I have a few friends who are vegetarians who are so fanatic that if I served them meat, they probably would like to crucify me! 
I suppose beliefs are at base the problem; if we truly, truly knew what we believed to be true, knew it to the very base of our bones, there would be no need to convince others of the truth, because we would be certain and sure of its veracity, like knowing the sun comes up in the morning, you know? When you are that certain of something, you don't need to convince others to support your own "belief structure" because you ARE that structure. Perhaps that is why a Zen master can so easily say "is that so?" to everything that occurs to her, because she knows, really knows, what is and what isn't. <Sigh!....nice to be so certain.....> Or perhaps, is it instead, that she knows only that life is sweet, and life is suffering?...whatever life brings us.
-
Guest
Doesn't ACIM say this over and over, the difference between perception and knowledge.When you realy KNOW .I suppose that might be the difference between being enlightened and a fanatic, one KNOWS and knows they know, A fanatic thinks they know and everone else doesn't know and must be convinenced. I was supprised at myself in the earlier post that I pulled up short of statting my thinking about Jesus.Anymore I do not feel I can speak freely.I also don'y feel the need to be areed with either . Thank you, peace.
Exactly, just so. The difference between KNOWING (and therefore BEING) it, and knowing in the intellectual way of "knowing something."
I think perhaps the fanatic is more about trying to convince him or herself, as opposed to others, although it manifests as trying to convince others. We act out, in an effort to create our own reality, upon the outside world, including others, what we are trying to convince ourselves of. (Just goes to show how little we understand the process of creation, which is always, in the end, internal.) Certainly in the early days of my own discovery of something bigger than myself, I was obnoxious and fanatic: I now understand that I was desperately trying to convince myself that what I wanted to KNOW, or to BE, I knew. It took a long time to "become" that, and in the meantime, no doubt, I alienated a lot of folks.
On the other hand, alienation is inevitable, short of being consistently mealy mouthed and pleasant, the bourgeois attempt to "fit in", so whatever we believe, or espouse, is bound to alienate someone, that's the nature of consciousness, it is not a soup, at least when it manifests in human beings in a limited and focused manner.
I am assuming that I am responding to Miko, who in this last post was a guest? If you want your identity to be attached to a post, you need to log in first - it is easy to make that mistake, just type in without logging in. However, in the end, it matters not who says what, just the idea expressed is the point, no?
I think perhaps the fanatic is more about trying to convince him or herself, as opposed to others, although it manifests as trying to convince others. We act out, in an effort to create our own reality, upon the outside world, including others, what we are trying to convince ourselves of. (Just goes to show how little we understand the process of creation, which is always, in the end, internal.) Certainly in the early days of my own discovery of something bigger than myself, I was obnoxious and fanatic: I now understand that I was desperately trying to convince myself that what I wanted to KNOW, or to BE, I knew. It took a long time to "become" that, and in the meantime, no doubt, I alienated a lot of folks.
On the other hand, alienation is inevitable, short of being consistently mealy mouthed and pleasant, the bourgeois attempt to "fit in", so whatever we believe, or espouse, is bound to alienate someone, that's the nature of consciousness, it is not a soup, at least when it manifests in human beings in a limited and focused manner.
I am assuming that I am responding to Miko, who in this last post was a guest? If you want your identity to be attached to a post, you need to log in first - it is easy to make that mistake, just type in without logging in. However, in the end, it matters not who says what, just the idea expressed is the point, no?