Forgiveness, the Holocaust, and Buddhist philosophy in moral healing

¶ … forgive?

The Holocaust museum in Skokie, Illinois carries the motto "Remember the past, transform the future." It does not talk about forgiveness. It talks about using the past to transfer the future into a more constructive and positive experience that uses the lessons of the past to do so.

This essay discusses the concept of 'forgiveness' and goes into when it should and should not be applied.

Forgiveness

Nietzsche made a salient point that forgiveness is like nirvana. In fact, the whole concept of forgiveness reminds me of the Buddhist philosophy. Buddhists believe that life is inevitably one of frustration, disappointment, pain, and suffering. We have our disappointments and hankerings that turn out to be bloated and misplaced. Even desires, when met, turn out to be temporary. Life is one of unceasing travail and loss and many of us are sensitive to the hurt that life throws at us. Part of this hurt consists, to, in hurtful things done to us by others.

How can one let go of this pain?

The first step is to realize that our perception of life is such to our adhesion to desires. Were we to surrender our attachment to perceived needs and material possessions, life may appear to hold less suffering and disappointment than it does.

These desires (tanh?) come in three forms and the Buddha described them as the Three Roots of Evil. They are:

Hatred and intolerance

Ignorance and delusion

Forgiveness and transformation

The Holocaust museum in Skokie, Illinois carries the motto "Remember the past, transform the future." It does not talk about forgiveness. It talks about using the past to transfer the future into a more constructive and positive experiences that uses the lessons of the past to do so.

There are certain groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), that insists on remembering the Holocaust and say "Never Again!" To them, the Holocaust was barbarous; the Nazis can never be forgiven. Their focus is on rooting out and annihilating every last Nazi. Their objective is that whilst the world was silent during the war, it must not and cannot afford to remain silent any longer. To teach a lesson, one must focus on revenge and, yes, the activities of the Nazis were so barbarous that, no, the Jews cannot and must not afford to forgive. Aside from which, forgiveness is unreal.

Certain Holocaust museums, such as the Skokie institution, on the other hand, transfer the emphasis to a different perspective. To them, the past happened, but they use the past to construct a better future. These museums promote the Holocaust in order to teach tolerance to all races and to diffuse prejudice. They accept that this is not so easy, if in fact, impossible to forgive, but that one can, with passage of time, step back, reflect and extract valuable lessons that can help one construct a more optimistic future. The emphasis, in other words is not on revenge and hate. The emphasis rather has turned to scouring the past for nuggets of illumination that can create a more inspirational and happier future. The emphasis is on growth.

Here is the difference: it is recognized that in certain situations, the ability of forgiveness eludes our ability. But dwelling on the hurt is ultimately unhealthy and unhelpful for us. Recognition of the karma and ways to void the impact of the karma seems to be a more facilitative path. We void - but do not forgive -- the past in order to move on with the future. At the same time, the words of "do not forgive the past' does not refer to an obsessive dwelling on the pain but rather acknowledgement that hurt has been so grievous and has impacted so many others that it is impossible to forgive. Accepting the pain, we move on to make sense of the experience and use its lessons for growth.

Other conditions of forgiveness.

The author, James Jacob Liszka quotes the incident of John Plummer who ordered the napalm attack on Trang Rang in June 1972. The pain to the villagers, as documented by the unforgettable picture of a running nine-year-old naked girl screaming from her napalm-inflicted burns was inextinguishable. The scars remain still today. Yet, the perpetrator became a devout Christian who felt intense remorse for his actions. Liszka recounts that when he saw the picture of the victims, "it just knocked me to my knees" (p.195). The images and consequences of his actions troubled him. He began to drink heavily, went through three marriages and two divorces, and became a minister unable to forget his actions. Whenever he saw the picture, John Plummer berated himself: "Look what I did... I did that to her. I'm responsible" (195).

Let us compare this to the example of the Holocaust. In both instances, huge and long-lasting monstrosities were perpetrated against a certain sector of the civilization. The actions of the particular individuals (in the one case, Plummer, in the other reducible to Hitler) had resounding effects with ramifications that will never disappear form the psyche of that particular nation and from affected others and will continue to haunt mankind until the end of time. These are its similarities.

On the other hand, we have a huge difference between Hitler and between Plummer. Hitler went down to his death (suicide in the bunker) in affirmation of his crimes. To him, he was still justified in all that he had done and would, if he were given the chance, have continued conquering the world and perpetrating his mischief still further. John Plummer, on the other hand, regretted his actions and would, if he were only given half a chance, gladly have reversed his life to undo his harm.

What we have here then is a huge distinction between two people: the one who upheld his nefariousness and would never have dreamed of soliciting forgiveness from his victims. The other who sought forgiveness and repentance for the crimes of his past. The one is asking you to forgive him; the other would gladly continue his path of destruction. Should forgiveness be accorded to people such as Plummer who sincerely and ardently regret their actions?

Analysis of Hitler and Plummer can lead us to divide the personality of Plummer into a pre -- and post - Plummer. The pre-Plummer supported certain actions and possessed a certain attitude towards the Asians that caused him to do what he did. The post- Plummer, however, changed these attitudes and actions and adopted different reverse ones so that his future utterly swerved from the past. What we have then is metaphorically speaking two different individuals, two different selves, since the second part of the John Plummer disagreed with the first and, logically enough, the first John Plummer would have disagreed with the second. It may be easier, therefore, for the affected villagers to forgive Plummer since the perpetrator has 'died' and converted into a new person who actively attempts to transform the past. On the other hand, Hitler remained one consistent person. He died extolling the same beliefs, actions, and attitudes that he had upheld his entire grimy life. Hitler has never asked for forgiveness. Do we then attempt to do so?

When is forgiveness possible?

Forgiveness is more possible in certain situations than in others. One is more able to forgive the perpetrator when the hurt and ramifications are less and when fewer people are impacted. One is more able, in other words, to forgive someone who has stolen your candy then to forgive someone who has gassed your husband, parents, children, and best friends. One is also more able to forgive someone who honestly and plaintively begs your forgiveness than to forgive someone who persists in replicating his nefariousness.

Liszka (2002; p.197) enumerates five situations in which forgiveness is possible. They are the following:

1. When the wrongdoer recognizes and acknowledges to herself and others that there actions were wrong

2. When the wrongdoer sees the personhood of the other and acknowledges him to be worthy of respect

3. When the wrongdoer begins to feel empathy for hurt and harm that she has accorded the victim

4. The wrongdoer addresses the attitudes and behavior that have made him commit wrong

5. The offender makes amends for the wrong

John Plummer went through each of these categories. A John Plummer, accordingly, would have, despite his huge ramifications, more easily win our sympathy than the recalcitrant Hitler would.

Forgiveness too may be a wrong term since forgiveness implies turning a complete new page and erasing the hurt from our heart. It may even mean turning towards, hugging and smiling at the perpetrator. Ontologically, this may be impossible. The scars remain physically and psychologically. Generations of people until the end of time have been hurt. The person's actions have furrowed the every soil of the earth and overturned it in a global earthquake. The world can never be the same after that. History has been changed. The persona of the individual, of his family, of the nation has been altered. The hurt is, therefore, so irreversible and entrenched that atonement or forgiveness is literally impossible.

But this does not mean that we should linger on the hurt and continue to carry around blasting the perpetrator and seeking to hurt him in return. A far better, more constructive way may be to acknowledge the hurt and cruel behavior -- acknowledge that an earthquake has occurred -- and turn attention from him to us attempting to see how we can use the past to transform the future.

This reminds me of a psychologist's insight (the name escapes me) who remarked that we have two boxes, that done to us and that which we do ourselves. All the time that our attention is taken up by box #2, "that done to us" we are diverting attention from box #1 "that which we do." We are, in other words, frittering precious moments of our life to focus on the hurt done to us and that deflects us from our mission.

Forgiveness may be nigh impossible -- or at least in certain extreme cases where the hurt lingers on and inescapably affects us and further generations in an irreversible way. Forgiveness is even more difficult to achieve when the perpetrator not only does not seek it but continues his injuries. The best we can do is acknowledging the hurt and seek to move beyond it by practicing the Buddhist attitude of Nirvana. Rising above our hurt, transcending fate, can lodge us securely into our existentialist box of focusing on our lives and, by so doing, transform the past into a more hopeful and constructive future.

Sources

Buddhanet.com The Discourse on Right View http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/r_view/r_view01.htm

Hitchens, C (2007) God is not great: how religion poisons everything New York: Twelve

Liszka, JJ (2002) Moral Competence Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall