What's your take on this quote from Marcus Aurelius; "Take away the complaint, 'I have been harmed' and the harm is taken away"?

Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. ~ Shakespeare. It is disturbing but there’s so much truth to it. A man is a terrorist to one group and a hero to another. If one in the group he terrorized, understands the history that went into the making of the hatred behind the harm, he can be more forgiving than those who don’t know or understand why they are being terrorized. It’s said that you can only forgive what you can understand.

My feelings on this are so contradictory that I can’t put them into a concise answer. On the one hand, there is my attitude that governs my perceptions to such a large extent. If I can just change my attitude, what I view as harmful often changes, too.

But, there are some things that are so heinous they defy that simple solution. Let’s try telling 6 million Jews gassed during the Holocaust that they weren’t harmed, or a small tribe in the Amazon who’s hunting grounds have been deforested by clear-cutting.

I wonder if Marcus Aurelius was talking about matters on a person-to-person level? Even then, I can think of wrongs that cannot be taken away by a simple change of attitude. Rape is one.

Yet, I myself learn each and every day that there is much I can do within myself to improve my situation. When I am feeling blue, a simple act of washing the dishes and cleaning the kitchen cabinet can brighten my day.

This idea that Marcus Aurelius has brought forth befuddles me.

@hawaii jake You’ve articulated very well some of my contradictory reactions to the quote and the reasons for them.

The full quote sets a different context to the meaning:

Take away thy opinion, and then there is taken away the complaint, “I have been harmed.” Take away the complaint, “I have been harmed,” and the harm is taken away.

He’s talking about perceived slights, not actual acts of harm.

I think he was making the more general point that we’re defined by our opinions (the quote was in the context of a statement on the nature of opinion). His fundamental belief was that by defining ourselves in terms of our past, we unnecessarily limit ourselves. This isn’t a discussion about how to handle injury; he’s addressing the nature of self.

Marcus Aurelius believed that we’re all one universal being, and that getting caught up in the particular histories and points of view that we think define us as individuals blinds us to this fact. I would have to agree. We give ourselves shape by wearing our history and opinions, but those are only real in a limited sense.

I love this question, and the answers, too!

This evening I learned about a woman who was in a mental hospital for over 40 years – from her 5th year to her 48th. She was diagnosed as epileptic, and was treated for it, but because she had no family, she stayed in the institution. No attempt was made to place her more suitably. Until good, caring people took up the case, she was not even aware that she was being harmed. Is this the kind of thing Aurelius meant?

Denying that a harm was done does not remove the harm done, even if you can coerce the injured party or parties to publicly declare that they suffered no harm.

Even the forgiveness, freely and sincerely offered by the harmed party or parties does not absolve the guilty of their guilt.

From my traditiotion, Tchuvah, or true repentance requires that they apologise, make amends to those hurt and refrain from repeating the harmful or hurtful behaviour. Forgiveness from the injured parties is a bonus, entirely at the discretion of the injured parties.

Repentance is an ongoing process of refraining from harming others and of being a responsible and honourable person. Absolution is not part of the formula, but struggling to maintain ongoing righteous behaviour is expected from the person who aspires to earn forgiveness for the wrongs they can committed. It’s a tough process, there is no instant relief from responsibility for the harm they have done.

Marcus Aurelius might have considered this way too much work!

I took it to mean if you don’t stand up for yourself (complain) nothing will happen. The person who has to address the issue is the who is harmed.

it depends on the level of maturity of the harmed
it could be forgiveness
it could be denial
it could be mazochism

@Harp So in this respect, Marcus Aurelius sounds somewhat similar to Buddhism? Advocating letting go of the individual hurts and opinions?

@janbb Yes, very much so. This reminds me of a verse from a very old Zen text that says “Do not go searching for the truth, just let those cherished opinions go”. To see that which we truly are requires letting go of the picture we have of ourselves. That picture is composed in large part of opinions—our positions on issues, our judgments of what’s good and what’s bad—and memories. We “cherish” these because we see them as fundamental to who we are.

The Buddhist take on this (and I presume Marcus Aurelius would agree) is that while the self so defined is not false, it has only a limited claim to truth. What Zen calls “true self” or “true nature” encompasses this ego self, but isn’t limited as the ego self is. The error lies in not being able to see beyond the opinions and personal history to the entirety of our nature. To do that requires momentarily letting go completely of all that defines us. This doesn’t mean that someone who has realized true nature no longer has opinions or judgments or memories, but they cease to be fooled into thinking this is who they are.

@Harp – unlike the Christian view (see @Dr_Lawrence , above) Aurelius was not speaking about forgiveness. In fact he was not considering the injuring party at all – what he says is, the hurt is as much as you let it become. This may be admirable, but it does not go far enough (at least, not from the Christian point of view). The text about charity comes to mind: “and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.”

@bea2345 I think M.A. would say that charity and forgiveness, while admirable, don’t go far enough. They reduce the perceived gap between self and other, but without actually transcending it. This is why charity and forgiveness can easily be perverted into self-righteousness.

The implications of this principle go far beyond just diminishing one’s sense of injuryl. At the root of all harm is this conviction that the distinction between “me” and “you” is fundamental. See past that, and not only does one’s sense of having been harmed vanish, but so does any inclination to do harm. One simply and naturally treats all as one’s self, without having to try to do so.

@Harp Have I mentioned lately that I lurve you?