How Amit Sood escaped his Asian Indian spiritual traditions

Once in a while I enjoy picking up Mindfulness Redesigned for the Twenty-First Century, by Amit Sood, M.D. to remind myself why I liked the book so much when I first read it in 2019. Here's the blog posts I wrote about Sood's book back then.

Mindfulness Redesigned for the Twenty-First Century -- my new favorite book
Dalai Lama isn't big on single-pointed attention
Don't look within for inner peace. Look without.

This morning I re-read the "Guilty and Back" chapter where Sood describes how the traditions he grew up with in India held him back from coming up with the modern approach to meditation and mindfulness that he espouses in his book. 

Here's his story. I shared it in my first post about the book, but if it was worth re-reading for me, I figure that it will be worth re-reading for anyone else who visits this blog.

Feeling Guilty

Challenging an age-old practice was extremely difficult for me. If you understand my background, it will make sense to you.

Meditation practices and teachers are highly respected in Asian Indian families. Many teachers are revered as spiritual leaders of the society. Their images are placed in each room. In daily prayer, people bow to the images, decorate them with flowers, and light incense sticks in front of them. People see their teachers in dreams to solve personal problems. In families with a faith-based practice, these teachers are considered conduits to God. Annoying or disbelieving them or their instructions could be considered worse than heresy.

I have met several teachers who indeed deserve a high pedestal, but some do not. Nevertheless, if a teacher is caught committing nefarious practices, as has happened numerous times, instead of lowering the pedestal, the unsuspecting students often reframe by saying that the teacher is testing their spiritual resolve by creating this drama.

With this cultural perspective etched within me, my guilt, conflict, and anxiety grew along with the doubts I shared in the previous chapter. I felt vulnerable. Will these doubts bring bad luck, illness, or curse to my family? I thought. The scientist in me conflicted with myths and rituals I had learned as a child. A master of overthinking, I did what I do best with such conflicts. I stopped thinking about it and tabled the idea.

Overcoming guilt

I didn't stay put with the idea for very long. My return journey started when I heard about people with no meditation experience who were perceiving the deepest samadhi states as a result of acute stroke. I read about brain tumors and seizures causing sacred visions and spiritual experiences.

Could these states and visions just be a product of our brain's electrical activity? I asked myself. If that is the case, will it be worthwhile to spend my entire life seeking such experiences?

Some neurological disorders can provide "deeply spiritual"
experiences without much "spiritual effort".

Then I read about swamis who had obtained these experiences but were doing very bad things. I heard stories about self-styled gurus who claimed to be adept at awakening people's kundalini (and many of their followers felt their "energy" and saw the "light" with their help) but were nothing but greedy, immoral charlatans. They were illegally usurping money and property, abusing women and children, and committing other unspeakable crimes.

I saw a few of them getting caught, was amazed at how low they could go in trying to defend themselves, and could clearly see the selfish psychopath beneath the long hair and saffron color. My uninformed faith in some of these traditions began to crack. That worked wonders on my guilt. (I should mention that not all swamis are fake. I have personally met several masters of meditation who I deeply respect, who are humble, selfless, and kind, and are truly living each day to help the world.)

Looking deeper

With my blind faith unblinded, the more I studied, the deeper I looked and the more learners I worked with, the more convinced I became that most mindfulness programs in their current form need editing  before they can optimally help twenty-first-century brains.

In our effort to make mindfulness simpler, despite our good intentions we have misrepresented some of its constructs. 

Further, some of the language and philosophy is 2,500 years old. It simply needs to be refreshed. What is old and practiced for thousands of years doesn't always have to be perfect or even right.

After all they anointed cow dung on umbilical cords that caused tetanus, didn't believe in pasteurization, practiced child labor, and bad-mouthed any woman who stepped outside the house to join the workforce. (Unfortunately all of these are still happening in some parts of the world.)

The result of my deeper search was freedom. While I still revere the timeless wisdom of many scriptures, I have largely escaped my childhood blinders, partly because I feel confident in the new tool we now have to study the truth: science.

Using the scientific method polished with common sense I came up with a few key ideas for how to better align our understanding of mindfulness with twenty-first-century challenges so it can better serve resilience.

Few ideas

Here is what I thought was needed:

-- Integrate twenty-first-century neuroscience to help better understand the human condition. Philosophy alone isn't enough.
-- Offer skills that emphasize uplifting emotions and not just attention training.
-- Have more explicit focus on compassion, gratitude and forgiveness.
-- Abbreviate the training time.
-- Offer practices that are shorter and more relevant to people's lives.
-- Enhance focus on relationships to decrease perceived loneliness.
-- Integrate hope, inspiration, and courage in the program.

In addition to above, I felt adding humor to the program (and life) was vital. Fun and laughter are great sources of bonding and inspiration, and if we keep the training and the skills dry, they will remain inaccessible, particularly to the younger generation.

I debated and doubted these thoughts for months but couldn't negate any one of them. As a next step, I considered a three-part solution:

(1) Educate people about their brains, emphasizing how our neural traps generate negative emotions and hurt our attention.
(2) Offer different (briefer and deeper) attention practices that are easier to practice and adopt, that provide uplifting emotions, and that center on relationships.
(3) Return mindfulness to its ecosystem in the company of compassion, gratitude, forgiveness, relationships, hope, inspiration, and courage.

I strongly believed I was moving in the right direction, but received pushback from some old colleagues in the field. Pushbacks often demoralize me and they worked their magic this time also. But each time I saw someone struggling whom I couldn't optimally help, the thoughts creeped up again.

I needed one final push. Then His Holiness the Dalai Lama came to my rescue.

Comments

[UM]

>> Meditation practices and teachers are highly respected in Asian Indian families. Many teachers are revered as spiritual leaders of the society. Their images are placed in each room. In daily prayer, people bow to the images, decorate them with flowers, and light incense sticks in front of them. People see their teachers in dreams to solve personal problems. In families with a faith-based practice, these teachers are considered conduits to God. Annoying or disbelieving them or their instructions could be considered worse than heresy.<<

THIS ...is only superficial pointing at the mental state of mind of the average Indian. If you delve deeper and more detailed into the psychology of the Indian mind, you will find the roots of why they produced all these spiritual traditions.

All creatures have to adapt to the surroundings in order to survive. These adaptations are regional ...and ..to speak with the Dalai lama ..regional "answers" are no good elsewhere or ...Tibetan buddhism cannot survive outside Tibet...

The question arises ..
"Is there an universal teaching and practice needed and possible"??

P.S
Just think for a moment ..what is left in the western society of the influx of mental goods in the seventies? ...the music, the teachings, the food etc?

And what happened with what managed to survive the "alien" souil? ..Like plants, transplanted from one place to the other, they had to adapt to the local "soil" ..so whatever we have in the west is no longer what it used to be, not in its practice, not in is purpose ..they are all copy cats ..imitations of the original ....or a airplane does fly in the air but it is not an bird and will never be one.

WHY ...WHY ...was meditation developed in eastern countries and NOT elsewhere?

Have some coffee.

[UM]

AND ..an indian variation of what the honorable Dalai Lama said about the roots, the soil of their spiritual tradition

In the English translation of the "Anmal Bachan" by Mah. Gharibdas [one of the second generation successors of Swami Ji Mah in Agra] of New Delhi

Q 81
Do the saints appear in all the countries of the world?

A.
In this nine-continents world, the saints mostly preach the souls from Bharatkhand [India] and the souls entitled to progress towards the path of salvation are given birth also in this country.

PS>
I vagely remember somebody said once ..those born in the west and asking for initiation were in their previous life Indians to much attracted to the "wealth" and given the possibility to consume its pleasure before returning home ...hahahaha

[UM]

Just ponder with some coffee at hand ...

- plants cannot move and do not need senses, they are very restricted to their environment, the soil, the climate etc
- animals have an higher degree of freedom. They can and have to roam but only in a restricted territory, they have the survival tools to do so, they have senses and a mind to stir the activity
- humans have an even greater degree of freedom as they can create the circumstances to live in places where they otherwise could not ..BUT ... they are not free...They have to re-created the natural conditions set for humans to survive...as an example ..humans need oxygen ..in order to survive place where there is no oxygen, where they cannot breath, they have to bring it.

It can not said often enough that society and culture is an artificial replica of nature and is governed by the same mechanisms as there are in nature.

The point to make:
As all life forms are de facto restricted to a natural regional, local environment so are also the cultural and social institutions.

The polar bear cannot survive in the amazon forest and the panther not in the artics

Humans are not made for global management. ..if they go on it will become their destruction.

No president, no scholar, no political system, nothing is able to look after the welfare of the world as a whole ...in that sense ..those that think that they could and should save the planet are humans greatest enemies ..they are the builders, the constructors, the architects of a modern ..TOWER of BABYLON

Any individual is equipped ..SOLELY ..with the tools to survive in a given surrounding
He can walk just a given distance a day, his senses are just enough to gather information of his surroundings etc etc ..and than they imagine themselves capable of overseeing, managing, ruling the world.

They think they can but only by EXTENDING their natural tools ..they need others and machines to look beyond their natural reach, they need armies, political systems to act.

Some coffee will make it clear that humans now have overstepped their capacities much more than the Nero's of the past

[Donald]

If the answer lies within then maybe don't ask don't tell

[UM]

@ Donald

Maybe ,.... if a person is "strong" enough ..... he will neither ask nor tell

It needs power to refrain from "telling" when a person, near and dear, is suffering.
Not even Gautama had the courage to remain mum

[Donald]

Um The American Indian lived a life of meditation so one word from the master is like nothing from anyone else

[UM]

@Donald

I have no knowledge of "american Indians" and their way of live.
I have no knowledge of who or what a master is and what they do

I do know that the spoken by one is not the word spoken by another even if it is the same word.

[Trez]

Escaping Indian religions like Gurinder Singh Dhilion The Radha Soami Cult can be so soulful.

This disgused Cult is a parasite to soul enlightenment , the Guru so called Gurinder can be more of a parasite than a god man.

He deliberately leads souls astray away from god and towards his god , Kaal. By giving kaals meditation and doing black magic on his sangat so they start to believe and follow his instructions and call him god
The individual has no freedom here or beyond Gurinder does the same as here his Sangat will do his seva forever more and never see God let alone be with him.

Gurinder Singh Dhillon is a liar and a fraud

Escape this traditional lie and bin this fraud forever

[Donald]

@Um
Now if you can put that lack of knowledge into lack of action that is meditation. Meditation before the white man got here and before you were born. You laughed at me once that'll never happen again

[UM]

@ Donald

I just do not understand what you write. ....in particular the last sentence

[Donald]

Well Um Donald just might be a fake name And it’s not important to me to be understood. That’s Internet jargon and I believe the Internet has ruined modern society. I’m a musician and had I not been one I would’ve been a nuclear scientist and just blown it all up mysteriously like a mystic

[UM]

@ Donald

Allright ...but what about that last sentence?

[Spence Tepper]

Everyone writes their own book, everyone creates their own religion, and their own philosophy. That's because what you choose to believe is filtered through your own mind. Whatever you know came from your own mind.

The mind is its own reality, and that is a derivation of reality, filtered through senses and conceptual thinking.

So whether you think you are adhering to ancient beliefs and practices, or you think you are inventing something new, in all cases you are doing the latter. Moment by moment the human mind tries to reinvent, recreate, re-present what it understands.

And we are all limited to what we understand.

So when it comes to commenting on spiritual or meditation practices, these are filtered by the critic into what they think of them, not what they may actually be.

And even the devout practitioners learn that what they thought their practice was becomes something different as they practice. One day they realize it is quite different, and yet they also see fundamental similarities, concepts that remain true through all practices.

We see our teacher and our practices as we are. The choice to comment itself is a choice that we may one day regret, if only because, as we are developing, we know we will see it differently in time.

So don't take human opinion too seriously. It is a nice reflection on someone's experience, and we've all been there, right? So we can kind of agree, but we also see how limited a set viewpoint, a single opinion about the Teacher or the Path really is.

Reality is much more than that.

Devotion to reality, in whatever form we can embrace, is our closest connection to reality.

And our rejection of one form of reality for another may just be our limitations.

What is most important is that we carry on our practice. That is the vehicle that helps give us a basis to understand, even if we are not yet ready to put a stake in the ground and make a claim. Though so many others do so and several times a day!:)

[Appreciative Reader]

Indeed. Reality is mysterious. It is much too big to fit into the puny confines of our understanding.

For instance, the sacred mantra 'Hubba'. That is now being revealed here, in this forum, for the very first time in the history of the cosmos.

If one is a truly evolved soul, and if one's intentions are pure, and if one's inner faculties have evolved through thousands of births, then, can we remain open to the possibility that intoning the mantra "Hubba" exactly 7,777 times, with perfect concentration, can produce complete clarity into the deepest mystical reality? Can we be open, further, to the possibility that One that is evolved into even more perfect perfection, is able to not only access these realities, but also to access completely knowledge of the inner experiences of every other soul? Finally, are we able to open our puny minds to the possibility that such a one is present right here? Are we able to refrain from shutting our minds to the possibility that Appreciative Reader is able to see into our innermost souls and visions, and the innermost souls and visions of every man and woman and Guru that ever lived?

Or will we continue to cleave to our conditioned and limited understanding that is a product of our completely limited science, and our own limited spiritual experiences and understanding? Do we, or don't we, have the breadth of vision to chant "Hubba Hubba Hubba" seven thousand seven hundred seventy seven times every morning, and "Appreciative Reader, Appreciative Reader" the same number of times every night, and thereby, maybe, open ourselves up to the wider manifestations of what it truly means to be human? Or will be continue to limit ourselves to a very restricted interpretation of science and spirituality, and thereby deny ourselves this wider potentiality?

Hubba Hubba Hubba, Aumm!

[Appreciative Reader]

Ah sorry. Couldn't resist that impulse.

I did say to you I wouldn't, didn't I? Not unless you directly addressed me, and invited my views? And yet I have, twice now. First that thing about the Gaza carnage, and now this.

Sorry, I won't, again. Or at least, will try my bestest best not to.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Appreciative
We each have our practice.
You cannot be expected to do anything more than that, and indeed to embrace it!
Where there is cause for joy in all cases is that in whatever moments of sincerity you applied yourself to actually learning about reality, that is to your credit, and you are closer today, even in darkness, to that door to light.

You may be sad, or angry, or exhausted. What makes this moment, right now, so much better than any moment before, and a cause for personal celebration, is not that you or I have found the truth. We struggle our whole lives in darkness.

But the cause for celebration, even beaten and bruised, tired, even exhausted, like the marathon runner, is that we are further along. And our one weapon of hope against the darkness is our sincere effort to do what we believe and to maintain an appreciative and open mind, not for what we already believe, but for the new things that encourage us to let go and learn.

If you have not found a glorious experience of truth, you have worked through many false ones. You are closer today than ever before.

If you or I cannot make a claim about personal truth with any credulity, or even if we think we can, a claim we may one day regret, still, by faith in the fundamentals, and an open aporeciiative mind for new and old, we are wearing out the old thinking. And so we are, whether we realize it or not, in happiness or gloom, several miles closer to home.

Keep going.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hey, Spence.

-----

"We each have our practice."

Sure, we do.

-----

"You cannot be expected to do anything more than that, and indeed to embrace it!"

Why go on and on and on about it then, if if it is a personal thing that others are not expected to embrace?

But my objection was not to your merely talking about it. As you know, I actually enjoy that kind of thing, most times. What gets my goat is that waffling on. If you'll read my parody comment, then you'll see what I mean, and how it relates to your comment. Anything at all, no matter how nonsensical, can be passed on on terms like those.

-----

"You may be sad, or angry, or exhausted. What makes this moment, right now, so much better than any moment before, and a cause for personal celebration, is not that you or I have found the truth. We struggle our whole lives in darkness."

Fair enough. If your practice has provided succor to you in your times of personal sadness and anger and exhaustion, then I appreciate that, and respect that.

Nevertheless, that's kind of a non sequitur, no? Given that my impatience was with your waffling and your passing things off on grounds that most emphatically don't allow of passing off, much like my parody.

-----

"a claim we may one day regret"

Oh, why?! This I'm genuinely curious about. If you've had an experience, then why would you regret having laid claim to that experience?

-----

"Keep going."

I'd one time, not very long back, told you, for old times' sake, basis my general goodwill towards you basis those old times and our very many past interactions, that I wouldn't address your comments, that I wouldn't contradict you even if I found myself disagreeing with what you say, unless you expressly address me and ask me to. Although I've been remiss on that two times, I'll try not to again.

The waffling gets on my nerves, though. The passing off of on untenable grounds of claims via the waffling makes me ...impatient? irritated? ...But yeah, on the other hand, if I say to you that I won't get in your way when you say things here, then I can hardly presume to dictate to you on what terms you are to do that. I either stand by what I'd told you, or I don't. I think I will, the two recent lapses notwithstanding.

Anyway: No offense intended. Carry on, Spence, by all means. Cheers, old friend.

[Appreciative Reader]

Haha, Spence, it occurs to me that, just maybe, you're a bit mystified about why you're being offered this concession, this carte blanche?

The exchange where I said this to you is fresh in my mind, but, heh, it may not be in yours. So, to refresh your memory, should that be the case, here's the link, that I dug up just now:

https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2025/02/believe-is-a-book-that-claims-religions-are-true-i-doubt-it-can-do-that.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e202c8d3cbf644200c#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e202c8d3cbf644200c"m

Read our entire exchange on that thread, that culminated in that comment of mine.

That's basically me seeing the utter futility of engaging with you, and the realization that, given that futility of it, the pointlessness of it, my stepping out and correcting you every time you spout nonsense is functionally just me being a bit of an ass. And, given that I've long stopped doing that to the comments of so many others, why single you out for criticism of your views, particularly given my complete goodwill towards you basis our long and amicable association here?

And that realization, it is borne of long experience. If cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing that immediately, then here's two ready examples. One would be that thread itself, that I linked, and specifically our whole set of comments to each other there. Another recent example would be our series of comments to each other on the Israel matter, where although you find your POV shown to be wrong, you, while at least after a point you stop trying to spin it, but nor do you take onboard that correction, despite not having any coherent rebuttal to any of it.

So, yeah: Why keep pissing in the wind like this? And why only for you, whom I have every regard for as a person, when I've long stopped doing that for so many others.

----------

So well, that's why that concession. And that carte blanche.

Heh, didn't want to leave you mystified about what I was on about. Read the link, our full exchange there, it's brief enough.

Cheers, Spence. My genuine good wishes.

(And yeah, should you yourself want my engagement on something particular, then just ask, and I'll be happy to.)

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
We are bound to think and behave as we do, as conditioned minds.

What you feel is entirely truthful or false may look exactly the opposite way to someone else, each for their own good reasons.

Our argument earlier had to do with the unknown and how the mind hates it. The unknown is outside of our control by definition. Different people address the unknown in different ways.

The intellectual mind feels the power of knowledge and so wants to know everything. But it may deal with the unknown the way a beautiful man or woman handles a small spot on their clothing. They may try to clean it up, but when it is clear they cannot they move on and ignore it. For them, the spot doesn't even exist. And they may resent anyone else who mentions it.

Is that logical? It is human.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Each for their good reasons", Spence? If that is the case, then surely they can clearly present those good reasons?

Clearly, sans padding, sans waffling, sans misdirection?

If they can, and do, then that presenting of those reasons, and further reasoned discussion around those reasons, that is what makes for healthy rational discourse. Regardless of whether it ends in agreement, it invariably brings both profit and pleasure, and to both parties.

As you could not. And did not. It's a trope, with your comments, that's what always happens. But I presented to concrete examples. I mean, how much clearer can I be than that?

----------

"Our argument earlier had to do with the unknown and how the mind hates it."

There you go, all over again.

That's simply not true, Spence.

I referenced two recent discussions, and linked one of them.

The more recent of the two, that I did not link, had to do with my pointing out two cardinal errors you made in talking about the Palestinians forgiving the carnage authored by Israel.

And the earlier of the two, that I linked, was about my pointing out to you your strawman about science being limited by logic alone, when it is not that sterile strawman but actually the logic-plus-empiricism combo that makes science what it is: that, for instance, enables it to actually rewrite commonly understood logical premises and intuition in exploring, for instance, QM.

Neither of these topics was about "the unknown and how the mind hates it".

----------

There's no need to dig yourself in any further, Spence. I only offered that last comment as explanation for what, it occurred to me, might have mystified you, when I keep telling you I won't interrupt your commenting unless directly asked to. Because while that brief exchange, that I linked to, was clear in my mind, it may not have been in yours. So I just wanted to clearly explain where I was coming from, is all.

All good, Spence. We're not actually disagreeing about anything here, now. All we're doing is agreeing that you're to have free run of this place to say whatever the hell you want to say, undisturbed by me. That I'm happy to engage should you ask me to, but that I'll limit my engagement with what you say only to such times as you do ask me to. So, that's ...good, surely?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR:
Hm.

To claim we are being "scientific" only carries validity, IMHO, if it includes actual disciplined scientific investigation. Otherwise it is just a way to say one is trying to be objective in their opinions. When anyone claims to be scientific, that is a very strong claim. And they must therefore be willing to defend it with facts about their practice of science.

So when anyone comes up short because they aren't actually conducting scientific investigation and collaboration among other practitioners, and tries to claim they don't need to practice science to claim they are scientific, well, that is just their own echo chamber.

Certainly trying to use logic and reason is admirable, but not quite at the level of "science" which includes disciplined investigation, reporting and collaboration, all aiming towards objectivity.

You wrote that anyone can condemn, but only the victim can forgive. I suggested that if only the victim can forgive, aren't they the only ones who can condemn?

I also wrote that, as far as forgiveness is concerned, it is not restricted to anyone actually.
It is everyone's choice to condemn or forgive. And It is a frame of mind anyone can adopt. If you can condemn, you can also forgive. That is always and universally your choice.

It is not even the right of the victim to take the law into their own hands, nor to create laws arbitrarily. Laws have a basis of ethics underneath them, and that is a set of principles that apply equally to all, by definition of 'justice'.

Is it the right of a victim to condemn if all parties concerned are victims?

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".
Gandhi

Justice really is all about creating a society and world where people are not burdened by others, taken advantage of, abused by anyone else. A world where they can climb as high as their capacities allow and are encouraged to do so.

That is actually a very supportive, loving, encouraging world. A world where those who abuse, who cross lines, are not punished. They are simply placed in a situation appropriate for their behavior, which protects others. All of this presumes a platform of hope. That a past abuser can become a non-abuser, and even perhaps a helper. We see that happen a lot. Usually that is from life, sometimes from the help of family or community, combined with a personal decision not to condemn and punish, but to become helpful.

"The arrow you fire at your enemy pierces your own chest"
The Tao.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hahaha, hey, Spence. *Waves*

Ok, let’s play!

----------

“To claim we are being "scientific" only carries validity, IMHO, if it includes actual disciplined scientific investigation. Otherwise it is just a way to say one is trying to be objective in their opinions. When anyone claims to be scientific, that is a very strong claim. And they must therefore be willing to defend it with facts about their practice of science.”

Addressed in full detail, already, in our protracted comment-discussion about a scientific worldview.

Briefly: To assert, basis a scientific worldview, that the sun is not a god, that will take umbrage should human hearts not be cut out for it, is not to do science per se, sure: but it still is very much a scientific worldview.

----------

“So when anyone comes up short because they aren't actually conducting scientific investigation and collaboration among other practitioners, and tries to claim they don't need to practice science to claim they are scientific, well, that is just their own echo chamber.”

Why “coming up short”? You’re not conducting anything now, now as we speak here, that is scientific. Are you “coming up short”?

That’s another piece of Spence-brand misdirection, that coming up short thing.

And what echo chamber? Anyone may choose to inhabit an echo chamber, and if they’re doing that, then sure, they’re doing that. But only if they are in fact doing that.

That’s yet another piece of Original-Spence-brand misdirection, that “echo chamber” thing.

----------

“Certainly trying to use logic and reason is admirable, but not quite at the level of "science" which includes disciplined investigation, reporting and collaboration, all aiming towards objectivity.”

False dichotomy.

Those are two different, separate things. It is nonsensical to compare the two, and to declare on to be the better.

When you’re doing science, you’re doing science. When you’re not, you’re not.

In either case, regardless of whether you’re doing science or not, you can, generally, elect to abide by a scientific worldview.

It is perfectly fine for a plumber, or a poet, or a musician, to live a sane, reasonable life, and abide by a scientific worldview. That does not make them a scientist, but there’s no better or worse about it.

That’s just random nonsense, that better-worse comparison you’ve thrown in there.

----------

“You wrote that anyone can condemn, but only the victim can forgive. I suggested that if only the victim can forgive, aren't they the only ones who can condemn? (...) I also wrote that, as far as forgiveness is concerned, it is not restricted to anyone actually. (...) It is everyone's choice to condemn or forgive. And It is a frame of mind anyone can adopt. If you can condemn, you can also forgive. That is always and universally your choice.”

Already addressed. More than once. Why are you repeating this again now, when it has already been addressed in full detail? This makes no sense, your raising again matters that have already been addressed fully.

Even so, briefly, one more time: The mechanism that operates is very different, in those two things.

Everyone can and should condemn, when they see evil, because only when we recognize that good is good and that evil is evil, that we lay the groundwork for a just world. Otherwise when the Nazis fry Jews in gas chambers, then, if everyone else, instead of condemning that enormity, if everyone else were to simply not engage, because it’s not happening to them: well then, that’s a sure-shot recipe for a vile, evil world.

And justice can be tempered by forgiveness, sure. But forgiveness is NECESSARILY the prerogative of the victim, and no one else. Different mechanism here. Not justice, as in the other case. Go back to the gas chambers: and think of the incoherence of a random observer who has nothing to do with the Jews being killed inside, grandly forgiving the Nazis. Even worse, think of some Nazi themselves forgiving that enormity.

This …this is just …incoherent, Spence.

----------

“It is not even the right of the victim to take the law into their own hands, nor to create laws arbitrarily.”

Strawman.

You’ve made that up out of whole cloth. That bit about taking the law into one’s own hands. And also that bit about arbitrary laws. Just random stuff you’ve made up, for no reason at all that I can see.

Just more Spence-brand misdirection, is all.

----------

“Laws have a basis of ethics underneath them, and that is a set of principles that apply equally to all, by definition of 'justice'.”

In practice, not always. But yeah, sometimes, maybe often, sure.

So? What about it? Looks like just another bit of random misdirection thrown in.

----------

“Is it the right of a victim to condemn if all parties concerned are victims?”

That’s …incoherent, sorry.

Explain yourself clearly, please, Spence. And also, while you’re doing that, please make clear how that applies in context of Israel and Gaza and West Bank.

----------

“"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".
Gandhi”

Spence? Tell me, are you …delusional? Or simply dishonest? Which? …This exact Gandhi quote, I’ve addressed this clearly, two times, in that thread. …And here you are, raising it again, not by saying anything new, but by simply ignoring what I’d said, and resetting the discussion back to where it had started from, as if nothing has been said at all.

Briefly: Gandhi’s non-violence was a noble innovation, true. And yes, it was predicated squarely on forgiveness, as so beautifully underlines by that quote of his. But this forgiveness was noble precisely because it entailed Indians themselves forgiving the British for their decades and centuries of tyranny and oppression. This quote is a noble one, coming as it did from Gandhi. Had that same quote come out from the mouth of, say, Roosevelt, and said in context of India, then it would have been incoherent. And had that same quote come out from the mouth of Churchill, and said in context of India, then it would have been downright vile.

----------

“Justice really is all about creating a society and world where people are not burdened by others, taken advantage of, abused by anyone else.”

And that is possible only when, when abuse does occur, then that is clearly called out. Aka, condemned.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hm. What was that about, then?

Spence steps up and, apparently, invites me to discuss a whole host of issues with him. Which in itself is a bit odd, given he raises two themes, de novo as it were: one of which has already been discussed threadbare, and discussed to its conclusion, years back; and the other also already discussed to quite an extent a week or two back. Still, I play along, and present detailed critiques. After which: crickets.

Pissing in the wind, indeed. I'll know not to waste my time with this nonsense in future.

----------

While I'm here, and in case Spence is reading this:

Have you seen the news, Spence, about Bibi attacking Iran? And about Trump's claim, at such a time, to stand for peace, while asking not the aggressor but Iran to rein in its nuclear program, at gunpoint as it were? Are you able to comprehend that that this "will to peace" is actually a vile threat, delivered by a person that is completely utterly vile, and offered in aid of another man that is the personification of evil? Are you able to see that?

I say this now, because this offers an exact analogy to your own vile ideas on forgiveness. (Either intentionally callous and vile, or else clueless but still functionally vile --- although, if the latter, then you've been amply corrected now, and can no longer pretend to be clueless.)

To obliterate a whole populace like this, to dehumanize them and kill them and displace them like this, and to then talk of their forgiving their oppressors and killers for the sake of peace. And this talk coming not from them but from disinterested onlookers like us. Worse, this talk of forgiveness coming from you, whose sympathies with Israel are crystal clear in every comment of yours.

Can you see how your talk of "forgiveness" is of a piece with Trump's own talk of peace in this situation, while offering every material and moral support to Israel? And just as vile?