© Copyright 1995-2023 Brahma Kumaris
World Spiritual University
Continuing our exploration about forgivness, Archbishop Desmond Tutu has given much consideration to this. He suggests that, it is crucial, when a relationship has been damaged or when a potential relationship has been made impossible, that the perpetrator should acknowledge the truth and be ready and willing to apologise: it helps the process of forgiveness and reconciliation immensely. It is never easy. We all know just how difficult it is for most of us to admit that we have been wrong. In almost every language the most difficult words are, "I am sorry."
Perhaps it is not at all surprising that those accused of horrendous deeds almost always try to find ways out of admitting that they were indeed capable of such deeds. They adopt the denial mode, asserting that such-and-such has not happened. When the evidence is incontrovertible they take refuge in feigned ignorance. The Germans claimed they had not known what the Nazis were up to. White South Africans have also tried to find refuge in claims of ignorance. The former apartheid cabinet member, Leon Wessel, was closer to the mark when he said that they had not wanted to know, for there were those who tried to alert them.
Like the three monkeys, they chose neither to hear, nor see, nor speak of evil. When some did own up, they passed the blame to others, "We were carrying out orders," refusing to acknowledge that as morally responsible individuals each person has to take responsibility for carrying out unconscionable orders.
We do not usually rush to expose our vulnerability and our sinfulness. But if the process of forgiveness and healing is to succeed, ultimately acknowledgment by the culprit is indispensable—'not completely so but nearly so. Acknowledgment of the truth and of having wronged someone is important in getting to the root of the breach. If a husband and wife have quarrelled without the wrongdoer acknowledging his or her fault by confessing, so exposing the cause of the rift; if a husband in this situation comes home with a bunch of flowers and the couple pretend all is in order, then they will be in for a rude shock. They have not dealt with their immediate past adequately. They have glossed over their differences, for they have failed to stare truth in the face for fear of a possible bruising confrontation. They will have done what the prophet calls healing the hurt lightly by crying, "Peace, peace where there is no peace." (Jeremiah 6:14 and 8:11) They will have only papered over the cracks and not worked out why they fell out in the first place. All that will happen is that, despite the beautiful flowers, the hurt will fester. One day there will be an awful eruption and they will realize that they had tried to obtain reconciliation on the cheap. True reconciliation is not cheap.
Forgiving and being reconciled are not about pretending that things are other than they are. It is not patting one another on the back and turning a blind eye to the wrong. True reconciliation exposes the awfulness, the abuse, the pain, the degradation, the truth. It could even sometimes make things worse. It is a risky undertaking but in the end it is worthwhile, because in the end dealing with the real situation helps to bring real healing. Spurious reconciliation can bring only spurious healing
If the wrongdoer has come to the point of realising his wrong, then one hopes there will be remorse, or at least some contrition or sorrow. This should lead him to confess the wrong he has done and ask for forgiveness. It obviously requires a fair degree of humility.
(Based on an extract from the book, No Future Without Forgiveness, Archbishop Desmond Tutu)
There are times when the continued reporting of events in the media brings two stories into juxtaposition which may have otherwise been separated. One such case occurred recently. (I am deliberately presenting this in a bare-bones manner.)
There was a report about an event that took place within the capital city of a western country. The situation was such that there was a great deal of tension in the air and nerves were on edge. Within this atmosphere of disquiet, an unarmed individual was hit once with a baton and pushed to the ground. A short while later, the same person collapsed and died. In the days that followed, members of the public and the media expressed outrage. The person who was responsible for the assault was ultimately deemed to have committed the act of ‘unlawful killing’
The second story took place not far from another capital city and involved members of a western country, presumably espousing similar values and laws of justice. The situation was such that there was a great deal of tension in the air and nerves were on edge. Within this atmosphere of disquiet, an unarmed individual was shot twice, collapsed and died. In the days that followed members of the public and the media expressed joy and relief. The person who was responsible for the assault was deemed to have committed the act of ‘lawful killing.’
The first story is, of course, the report of the death of Ian Tomlinson, a homeless newspaper salesman, who collapsed and died on the fringes of the violent demonstrations against the G-20 meeting after being shoved to the ground by an officer in riot gear. The second is the attack by US troops on the compound in Abbotabad, inhabited by Osama Bin Laden, and his death. One death was unintentional; the other intentional.
I mentioned above the supposition that, in both situations, similar values and laws of justice were being advocated. Well, President Barack Obama announced that “justice had been done.” US Attorney General Eric Holder said it was "conducted in a way that was consistent with our law and with our values. Bin Laden's killing was an act of national self-defence". George W Bush described the event as a ‘momentous achievement.’
In the case of Ian Tomlinson, we await the outcome of the judgment on PC Harwood. Regarding the events in Pakistan, while I can understand the reaction of people to the news that someone instrumental for so many acts of violence is dead. However, I find both the apparent inconsistency in judicial law and the implied definitions of justice deeply disturbing. What sort of understanding of the word ‘justice’ supports the killing of another human being? What sort of ‘justice’ has been done where four people, only one of who was armed, are killed in the ‘arrest’ of one individual? What sort of values allow for an armed group to enter another sovereign state, without permission, and kill an unarmed man who happens to be a thorn in their side?
As time passes, the ‘euphoria’ of the masses no longer covers the front pages but is increasingly replaced with questions relating to ethics of such actions, by more measured reflective analysis, by the voice, albeit not very loud, of our inviolable conscience.
“When I forgive, I set myself free and the perpetrator free in spirit.”
In the mid 1990’s I was part of a group of BK prison teachers and we were meeting with Dadi Janki, the Administrative Head of the Brahma Kumaris. To this day I recall her saying a similar thing. Referring to the prisoners, she said, ‘if you are unable to forgive that person, how can they begin to forgive themselves.’
What struck me in the statement was not that it aligned to my thinking – it was beyond my experience at that time. I think what struck me was the significance of what was being said; that I, as an individual, could have a profound impact on the personal healing and transformation of another person just through maintaining a clean, nurturing, supportive attitude that is free from the influence of past actions.
Many times over the years I have returned to this thought, marveling at its simplicity and significance. On one occasion, citing it as an example during a course I was conduction at the Retreat Centre, one woman angrily responded by asking, ‘what right do you have to forgive anyone?’ She was not prepared to see it any other way, implying that only God had a right to forgive.
Language can be so confusing and confronting when the feeling and intention with which it is shared is not explored fully.
From my perspective, the interpretation I give to forgiveness is not the wiping clean the slate, pretending that nothing has happened but the application of a spiritual power; the power to accept, to accommodate, to merge past events such that I remain focused on the person, here in the present. From this place I can begin to forgive the person without condoning the action.
To be aware of my feelings is so important for as my feelings, so I will view the activity and words of others, it is in this manner that I will listen to them and come into connection with them. In a negative context, if I have feelings of discomfort or concern, then I will find that whatever that person says or does will create a misunderstanding. They may be doing something worthwhile, something good but because my feelings are not good I will only find bad intention in their words and activity. Hence the expression, 'as is my vision, so is my world.'
Of course, everyone knows how to get on well with those who get on well with them. It’s all them others!!
To the statement, ‘if I can’t forgive them, how can they begin to forgive themselves?’ If someone has done something wrong then my tendency is to want to point out their fault and correct them. However, what is the impact of verbal teachings? Probably very limited – certainly when someone is giving teachings to me, aimed at changing my behaviour, the ego, where it can, will tend to resist those teachings. Where I am able to express an attitude of forgiveness, it is that which will become the teaching.
Forgiveness doesn’t mean to exonerate their behavior, forgiveness is to give them co-operation and good wishes, loveand respect: this is the method of giving teachings. You become a mirror for their actions and, without saying anything to them, they realise their mistake, perhaps not immediately but as you maintain a consistency in your relationship with them, they will.
This is captured in a very powerful passage, taken from the teachings within the Brahma Kumaris:
‘See the sanskars (behavioural patterns) of others with a merciful vision while not keeping those sanskars in front of you. There shouldn’t be any waste thoughts. If someone were to realize their own mistake, they wouldn’t spread that around but would instead merge it within themselves. If others were to spread the knowledge of that mistake of theirs, they wouldn’t like it. In this way, you should consider the mistake of others to be your own and not spread it around.
You shouldn’t create waste thought but should instead accommodate their mistakes. You should be able to put everything right with the power of love. Whatever you see or hear, merge that completely within yourself. You mustn’t use the power to oppose. Even if you don’t like something, you should still have regard for one another: you shouldn’t cut off someone’s words or ideas at that time.’
Ultimately, it is only a spiritual understanding that will bring us to a point of true forgiveness.
I wrote the original piece in the days following the earthquake in Japan but put it on the shelf for two reasons. One, there was a personal question about appearing insensitive at a time of great trauma experienced across the globe and secondly, I wanted to see if my thoughts were borne out. I believe they probably are!
In recent months, our TV screens have carried imagery of one disaster after another - cars and buildings being washed away by flood waters in Australia, collapsed buildings in central Christchurch, empty hillsides where houses once stood before major mudslides in South America.
Today, nearly three months after the earthquake in Japan and the subsequent tsunami, I was watching again documentary video footage that captured different aspects of the disaster as they unfolded. The images, to my mind, were of a disaster of quite a different magnitude to anything else I had seen.
Yet it is probably true to say that, I (we) have become somewhat desensitized by all the images over the last months and years that are transmitted into our sitting rooms such that we express our shock, reach out with our feelings to those affected …. and soon move on with our own lives. Perhaps, with greater magnitude of disaster, we move on a little less soon but we do move on!
In trying to make sense of what we are experiencing in the world right now both globally and locally, a thought began to form in my mind. While in no way intending to trivialize the experience of those caught up in such natural disasters, I saw similarities in the way we respond to things that take place beyond our immediate boundaries . We listen to reports of another young life lost to knife crime, the shooting of a police officer, the murder of several prostitutes from within a single town and, we express our shock, reach out with our feelings to those affected …. and (soon) move on with our own lives. Once the offender has been sentenced, that’s it, end of story.
However, that is not the case! Whether it’s about natural disasters or about crime, these are not one off ‘stories’ but trilogies. The second book covers the immediate aftermath i.e. the coming to terms with the event (whether of crime or natural disaster) as the victim or as perpetrator while the third book covers the reintegration back into society or reformation of a community/society. Unless we are personally connected to the story, either through knowing one of the characters or by virtue of living in the area, we will close the first book on finishing it and not pick up either the second or third.
In the context of offender management, this truncated interest will actually impact upon many different areas: availability of resources, reporting of success stories, a sense of worth for both offender and those who work with offenders. How many people actually know (or care) what time and attention is given, by numerous agencies and individuals, to addressing offending behaviour or what opportunities are available to those who aspire to something better while incarcerated or working with the Probation Service, or what level of personal growth offenders might experience during their period of punishment and what they may achieve on release?
When resources are at a premium, this surely is a time to be more proactive in sharing best practice with a wider world; expressing the invaluable work that is undertaken within the Criminal Justice System but away from the spotlight; and highlighting the amazing transformations that can take place for individuals when given some focus and direction. When there is a greater level of understanding, by the public, the media, the politicians, the Civil Service et al then misinformation, misrepresentation, and prejudice are reduced, appreciation, cooperation, and respect build up.
This is a time to promote the second and third books in the trilogy. I’d buy them!
© Copyright 1995-2023 Brahma Kumaris
World Spiritual University