The Difference Between Forgiveness and Reconcilation

Inspired by the opportunity to tell the truth about what Buddhism teaches about forgiveness:

What Brit Hume Forgot to Tell Tiger Woods

I have posted a whole series of articles on the importance and practice of forgiveness in Buddhism:

Yes-Buddhism Teaches Forgiveness!

More Buddhist Forgiveness-Using Tonglen

Buddhist Forgiveness-When We Have Hurt Another-Part 1

Buddhist Forgiveness-When We Have Hurt Another-Part 2

Buddhist Forgiveness-When We Have Hurt Another-Part 3

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

In this post, I want address the issue of reconciliation in Buddhism.  As the article by Thanissaro Bhikkhu that follows explains, there are important differences between the forgiveness and reconciliation. The article also points out how abandoning the idea of right and wrong in the name of a non-dualistic view of morality can lead to real problems and abuse.

The Buddha taught how to use ideas of right and wrong skillfully, like a raft to help us cross the river of suffering.  Total abandonment of the raft of morality occurs when we reach the Unconditioned, that which is beyond all action and reaction, cause and effect—a final good beyond all opposites.

Reconciliation, Right & Wrong

By Thanissaro Bhikkhu

“These two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn’t see his/her transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn’t rightfully pardon another who has confessed his/her transgression. These two are fools.

“These two are wise. Which two? The one who sees his/her transgression as a transgression, and the one who rightfully pardons another who has confessed his/her transgression. These two are wise.

[AN II.21]

“It’s a cause of growth in the Dhamma and Vinaya of the noble ones when, seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future.”

[DN 2]

~ ♥ ~

The Buddha succeeded in establishing a religion that has been a genuine force for peace and harmony, not only because of the high value he placed on these qualities but also because of the precise instructions he gave on how to achieve them through forgiveness and reconciliation. Central to these instructions is his insight that forgiveness is one thing, reconciliation is something else.

The Pali word for forgiveness-khama-also means “the earth.” A mind like the earth is non-reactive and unperturbed. When you forgive me for harming you, you decide not to retaliate, to seek no revenge. You don’t have to like me. You simply unburden yourself of the weight of resentment and cut the cycle of retribution that would otherwise keep us ensnarled in an ugly samsaric wrestling match. This is a gift you can give us both, totally on your own, without my having to know or understand what you’ve done.

Reconciliation — patisaraniya-kamma — means a return to amicability, and that requires more than forgiveness. It requires the reestablishing of trust. If I deny responsibility for my actions, or maintain that I did no wrong, there’s no way we can be reconciled. Similarly, if I insist that your feelings don’t matter, or that you have no right to hold me to your standards of right and wrong, you won’t trust me not to hurt you again. To regain your trust, I have to show my respect for you and for our mutual standards of what is and is not acceptable behavior; to admit that I hurt you and that I was wrong to do so; and to promise to exercise restraint in the future. At the same time, you have to inspire my trust, too, in the respectful way you conduct the process of reconciliation. Only then can our friendship regain a solid footing.

~ ♥ ~

Thus there are right and wrong ways of attempting reconciliation: those that skillfully meet these requirements for reestablishing trust, and those that don’t. To encourage right reconciliation among his followers, the Buddha formulated detailed methods for achieving it, along with a culture of values that encourages putting those methods to use.

The methods are contained in the Pali Vinaya’s instructions for how monks should confess their offenses to one another, how they should seek reconciliation with lay people they have wronged, how they should settle protracted disputes, and how a full split in the Sangha should be healed. Although directed to monks, these instructions embody principles that apply to anyone seeking reconciliation of differences, whether personal or political.

The First Step to Reconciliation

The first step in every case is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing. When a monk confesses an offense, such as having insulted another monk, he first admits to having said the insult. Then he agrees that the insult really was an offense. Finally, he promises to restrain himself from repeating the offense in the future. A monk seeking reconciliation with a lay person follows a similar pattern, with another monk, on friendly terms with the lay person, acting as mediator.

If a dispute has broken the Sangha (community of dharma practitioners) into factions that have both behaved in unseemly ways, then when the factions seek reconciliation they are advised first to clear the air in a procedure called “covering over with grass.” Both sides make a blanket confession of wrongdoing and a promise not to dig up each other’s minor offenses. This frees them to focus on the major wrongdoings, if any, that caused or exacerbated the dispute.

To heal a full split in the Sangha, the two sides are instructed first to inquire into the root intentions on both sides that led to the split, for if those intentions were irredeemably malicious or dishonest, reconciliation is impossible. If the group tries to patch things up without getting to the root of the split, nothing has really been healed. Only when the root intentions have been shown to be reconcilable and the differences resolved can the Sangha perform the brief ceremony that reestablishes harmony.

Pervading these instructions is the realization that genuine reconciliation cannot be based simply on the desire for harmony. It requires a mutual understanding of what actions served to create disharmony, and a promise to try to avoid those actions in the future. This in turn requires a clearly articulated agreement about — and commitment to — mutual standards of right and wrong. Even if the parties to a reconciliation agree to disagree, their agreement needs to distinguish between right and wrong ways of handling their differences.

How a “Non-Dual” vision of Right and Wrong Can lead to Abuse

Yet right and wrong have gotten a bad rap in Western Buddhist circles, largely because of the ways in which we have seen right and wrong abused in our own culture — as when one person tries to impose arbitrary standards or mean-spirited punishments on others, or hypocritically demands that others obey standards that he himself does not.

To avoid these abuses, some people have recommended living by a non-dual vision that transcends attachment to right and wrong. This vision, however, is open to abuse as well. In communities where it is espoused, irresponsible members can use the rhetoric of non-duality and non-attachment to excuse genuinely harmful behavior; their victims are left adrift, with no commonly accepted standards on which to base their appeals for redress. Even the act of forgiveness is suspect in such a context, for what right do the victims have to judge actions as requiring forgiveness or not? All too often, the victims are the ones held at fault for imposing their standards on others and not being able to rise above dualistic views.

This means that right and wrong have not really been transcended in such a community. They’ve simply been realigned: If you can claim a non-dual perspective, you’re in the right no matter what you’ve done. If you complain about another person’s behavior, you’re in the wrong. And because this realignment is not openly acknowledged as such, it creates an atmosphere of hypocrisy in which genuine reconciliation is impossible.

Don’t abandon the Idea of Right and Wrong-Use It Skillfully!

So the solution lies not in abandoning right and wrong, but in learning how to use them wisely. Thus the Buddha backed up his methods for reconciliation with a culture of values whereby right and wrong become aids rather than hindrances to reconciliation. To prevent those in the right from abusing their position, he counseled that they reflect on themselves before they accuse another of wrongdoing.

The checklist of questions he recommended boils down to this: “Am I free from unreconciled offenses of my own? Am I motivated by kindness, rather than vengeance? Am I really clear on our mutual standards?” Only if they can answer “yes” to these questions should they bring up the issue. Furthermore, the Buddha recommended that they determine to speak only words that are true, timely, gentle, to the point, and prompted by kindness. Their motivation should be compassion, solicitude for the welfare of all parties involved, and the desire to see the wrong-doer rehabilitated, together with an overriding desire to hold to fair principles of right and wrong.

To encourage a wrongdoer to see reconciliation as a winning rather than a losing proposition, the Buddha praised the honest acceptance of blame as an honorable rather than a shameful act: not just a means, but the means for progress in spiritual practice. As he told his son, Rahula, the ability to recognize one’s mistakes and admit them to others is the essential factor in achieving purity in thought, word, and deed [MN 61.] Or as he said in the Dhammapada, people who recognize their own mistakes and change their ways “illumine the world like the moon when freed from a cloud” [Dhp 173].

How the Buddha deals with the Problem of Denial

In addition to providing these incentives for honestly admitting misbehavior, the Buddha blocked the paths to denial. Modern sociologists have identified five basic strategies that people use to avoid accepting blame when they’ve caused harm, and it’s noteworthy that the Pali teaching on moral responsibility serves to undercut all five. The strategies are: (1) to deny responsibility, (2) to deny that harm was actually done, (3) to deny the worth of the victim, (4) to attack the accuser, and (5) to claim that they were acting in the service of a higher cause.

The Pali responses to these strategies are: (1) We are always responsible for our conscious choices. (2) We should always put ourselves in the other person’s place. (3) All beings are worthy of respect. (4) We should regard those who point out our faults as if they were pointing out treasure. (Monks, in fact, are required not to show disrespect to people who criticize them, even if they don’t plan to abide by the criticism.) (5) There are no—repeat, no—higher purposes that excuse breaking the basic precepts of ethical behavior.

Forgiveness and Reconciliation—Different but Complementary

In setting out these standards, the Buddha created a context of values that encourages both parties entering into a reconciliation to employ right speech and to engage in the honest, responsible self-reflection basic to all Dhamma practice. In this way, standards of right and wrong behavior, instead of being oppressive or petty, engender deep and long-lasting trust. In addition to creating the external harmony conducive to Dhamma practice, the process of reconciliation thus also becomes an opportunity for inner growth.

The Buddha admitted that not all disputes can be reconciled. There are times when one or both parties are unwilling to exercise the honesty and restraint that true reconciliation requires. Even then, though, forgiveness is still an option. This is why the distinction between reconciliation and forgiveness is so important. It encourages us not to settle for mere forgiveness when the genuine healing of right reconciliation is possible; and it allows us to be generous with our forgiveness even when it is not.”


Thanissaro Bhikkhu (Geoffrey DeGraff) has been a Theravadan monk since 1976. The abbot of Metta Forest Monastery in San Diego County, CA, he is a prolific translator of Pali texts and Thai meditation guides. He is the author, among other books, of Wings to Awakening, Mind Like Fire Unbound, and Meditations.


About Steven Goodheart

"I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them." Spinoza

5 Responses to “The Difference Between Forgiveness and Reconcilation”

  1. Thank you Steve for your post (Namaste),

    I am a seeker, no more, no less…I try to be honest with my thoughts, words, and deeds…sometimes my spoken words do not come out right, but my deeds hopefully speak for themselves…I never deceive. I never act for the sole purpose of causing suffering. Sometimes I am misguided when I try to “wake up” others or “make them understand” and I apologize for my impatience and is arrogance of my own to think i can “make” anyone “get it.” People get “it” in their own time/space, when they are ready, when they ask for understanding.

    I do not attack, i defend…CONSTANTLY…it seems, that has been the major source of conflict in my life…defending…which i am doing less of now, and for the past year…

    So, now I ask continuously what am I defending? is it darkness? is it ego? is it important in the big scheme of things? will this thing i am defending advance the human race? can I let go of it? I am hoping to at least be clear about intentions…i have no malicious intentions, there is no deception…there is total transparency…I AM that I AM and so are we all.

    There is a page called “Meedan” it translates everything (by machine/AI) into Arabic..I posted twice there also, it’s a general site, not particularly spiritual, i read one comment there about biotech I perceive as thoughtful and responded, someone from Meedan sent me a link to a NYT article yesterday about US foreign policy….I have tried to keep a spiritual flavor to my posts…I have a lot of opinions, as do we all…and I try to base those opinions on known facts I can quote. The bottom line though is we all have the same concerns, regardless of where we are…as spiritual people with souls, if what we want is less war, no war, focus on education, healing, spiritual attainment as a HUMAN RACE, all we need to do is focus on those goals…repeating steps 1-5 as needed….

    these steps leading toward unity, one mind, may have some origins in Sufi thought, possibly? I am just getting caught up on reading now!

    Some mutual respect might be restored with our brothers & sisters overseas if they can see us for what we are: human beings like them, struggling to stay on a spiritual path, apart and aside from what our political leaders do, and regardless of what happens “out there” there is a human experience, a shared struggle…the more we are aware of that in every moment of our BEing and DOing the more we can find personal harmony…or something like that.


  2. This was an informative post, and while a Christian, I feel that Mr. Hume might have misspoken, and for that I apologize. I think we can all learn from each other, and I appreciate this lesson in the Buddha’s approach to reconciliation.

    • Thanks, Eli. I meant no blanket condemnation of Christians, believe me! The ignorance and even prejudices of others have always been an opportunity for practitioners of all faiths to say what they really believe and teach.

      And actually, reading all the posts about Hume’s remarks right after he made them, I was surprised at how little some defenders of Buddhism were of the Buddha’s profound teaching on the subject. It was more like, “Yeah, we’ll give the forgiveness ground to the Christians; we Buddhists are all about releasing ego and attaining enlightenment”—as if you could get there without skillful means like forgiveness and reconciliation!

      Anyway, I’m glad Brit Hume made his remarks so I could witness, as my Christian friends like to say! 🙂 And though his remarks seemed to come from that imperial place too many Christians seem to speak from, I have long ago forgiven him.

      With best wishes,

      PS — When I read the Buddha’s teaching on how the Sangha, the community of practitioners, are to deal with reconciliation, I think how helpful these skillful means would be in any church or group of believers, when there’s division or when harm has been done by one group to another. Really helpful ideas, I think.


  1. What Actually Happens Inside Us When We Are Hurt By Another? « Metta Refuge - 2010/06/04

    […] The Difference Between Forgiveness and Reconciliation […]

  2. ø Adultery, Time, & Physics | i love & hate you all - On understanding people. Or at least trying to ø - 2010/01/18

    […] The Difference Between Forgiveness and Reconcilation « Metta Refuge […]

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: