Can Buddhism explain the following contradiction: Buddhism calls for forgiveness, so the victim will not sue if he treats the persecution of others?

The perpetrators are evil, even if they help the victims to cultivate wisdom, they are still evil. Devadatta, described in Mahayana classics, is regarded as the opponent of the Buddha, aiming to stimulate him to improve his practice, but no one denies that he has fallen into hell.

The Buddha never said no to justice-in fact, the Buddha recognized secular justice, and the law of karma ensured that evil deeds would inevitably have consequences. For example, the central government killed 999 people before digging Moro to become a monk, which is a lot of evil. After he became an arhat, he was beaten black and blue by relatives of people he had killed before. The Buddha did not encourage the relatives of the deceased who beat him to endure the evil deeds of Yang digging Moro to kill his relatives, but thought that Yang digging Moro deserved it.

It should be said that it is a virtue to bear the burden of humiliation. It is the right thing to decide to bear the burden of humiliation only because of the correct support from the bottom of my heart, such as separation, kindness, birth and so on. If it is only because of fear, or even though I have endured persecution on the surface, I am angry and hateful, but it will aggravate my bad karma.

Just revenge is a reasonable behavior, and it is also the embodiment of the law of karma. The Buddha never encouraged patience under any circumstances, but said that forgiveness is the embodiment of truth and goodness-only when you have the virtue of being born, the heart of giving up and the lofty desire can you make real forgiveness and humiliation.