What would you say is a typical Buddhist mentality? Remember this, not everyone who is a Buddhist is a monk living out of the monastery. Buddhist laypersons or common regular people are the largest demographic. 
I for one donât recall any Buddhist ever saying they openly hate people, like you do.
What Buddhists tend to talk about most of the time are tolerance, compassion, comprehension towards others, the need to reach enlightenment and to overcome attachment to wordly things, etc, etc.
1 Like
By your logic a majority of Christians should act like Vatican priests or Benedictine monks.
I think our views resonate in this topic. I substitute the notion of unity for convergence. Instead of an abstract notion that everyone is one and the same thing, I assume each and every one is unique but can share one essential common goal: the preservation of the collective Lebensraum, which is one, and only one, for all of us, regardless whether we are Christians or atheists, liberals or conservatives, anarchists or hierarchists, pantheists or nihilists- the collective well-being is important for us all. As such, the notion of convergence is not aprioristic, something that has always been there but we couldnât bother looking at, itâs something to be built, actively built, through action, not abstraction or wishful thinking.
Technically, all depends on us. The human is the realm of the possible. Theoretically, it would even be possible for men to create a John Lennon utopia on earth. While such is a theoretical possibility, we know it will hardly ever happen, precisely because it would depend on the voluntary choice of all to create such a place, and most laugh at the mere mention of such a thing.
One thing people would have to do is exactly to shift their emphasis from having to being- this is something you know most will never do. They may even come to realize the importance of detachment, but they will not go far enough to simply relinquish all material attachment to things, to money or power. Most have never done such a thing and thereâs no logical reason to believe most will begin to do that overnight. So one important thing I think we must understand is that this detachment and this belief in the interconnectedness of things and people come as natural to many people like you, but to many people these are inconceivable ideas- they prefer to see the world as something âtheirs for the takingâ and also to have a tunnel vision, only for the things that directly interest them (each one in his own box). If we could see the future, if we could travel to the year 3025, we would probably be shocked at two things: a) the technological evolution; b) how humans are still roughly divided into sages and fools, and how the fools are still the majority.
Youâre an exception, Bob, you know that, and you also know that sagesse is learning how to deal with being an exception, with being a voice of reason within a noisy and unthinking crowd.
1 Like
Itâs not that they should act like this or like that. Itâs that if a Christian came here and said, for instance, âI hate all Muslims and want them dead,â everybody would be entitled to ask why he calls himself a Christian when Jesus expressely said we should love each other, etc.
1 Like
Who do I hate exactly?
I donât know if this comes as a shocker to you but Buddhists can have preferences concerning likes and dislikes, amazing I know.
Atheists claim that they and everything else is a misrepresentation of reality,
Donât be surprised.
Psychosis is irrational.
You donât understand consciousness and your relationship to it.Thatâs your problem.
1 Like
Sorry about the delay. My firewall declared ILP to be a security threat.
I think sometimes that you would be better off writing a DM, but you choose to deride what I explain to be my approach to life out in the open and then complain when my critique of what you say is out there too.
Having said that, you didnât tell me what revisions the Buddha would have made. That was my question: What in the eightfold path causes you problems?
I know that the world isnât perfect, but neither was his. Historical and textual evidence suggests that the Buddha faced danger and sought solitude in forests as a spiritual practice and practical protection from hostility or harm. There are accounts of the Buddha encountering hostile individuals during his teachings, sometimes facing insult, ridicule, or threats from those who disagreed with or were angered by his presence or message. The Buddha also had to deal with political and social tensions, such as powerful individuals or groups feeling threatened by his growing influence, making it wise to sometimes retreat or change locations for safety, as well as for the cultivation of solitude
This doesnât have to do with how you live your life, but about the conflicting statements you make. Therefore, the attack falls short. I havenât claimed righteousness, but I have shown a way that I aspire to follow, which you felt you had to criticise. I think your problem is that I retain a certain equanimity in my posts (most of the time) whereas your rage colours many of your answers. I can assure you that if you had desired to DM me, I would have seen this as a desire for a âcloserâ communication and would have been more considerate to your feelings.
Edmund Burke, to whom that âdear old sayingâ is attributed, had a view of human nature that relativised the social contract theories of the Enlightenment in his day. He saw the hierarchy of a state as natural and God-given. The origin of the state, he claimed, lies behind a âsacred veilâ. For him, the state, with its form and structure, flourishes and grows with the structure of society.
Not quite the bedmate of a Marxist, but then again, you also have the idea of a âgrand reckoningâ which is almost apocalyptic. I know that the Buddha warned against the impermanence and the instability of all conditioned existence, urging practitioners to seek emancipation from the temporal world before our inevitable end. Still, Buddhism sees death as part of a cyclical process: death leads to renewal, not to an absolute or final destruction.
Your interpretation of pacifism overlooks the fact that authentic existence necessitates an active, engaged and ethical relationship with the world and other people. According to the Marxist Erich Fromm, social institutions should protect spaces that encourage growth in terms of relatedness, love, solidarity and shared meaning. This may be opposed, but as an expression of human dignity, we must take the risk.
Namaste 
1 Like
Havenât you repeatedly said here that you hate Jews, neolibs and neocons?
Or do you finally admit you only hate what such people represent, ie, an idea in your head?
1 Like
Itâs hard to like those who wish harm on others.
Itâs hard to love those who wish to condemn others. Itâs hard not to hate people for that.
Hi Max,
I think youâre right, but itâs those labels that stop us from seeing what weâre capable of. For a long time, I identified with a particular label, but my interactions with other cultures showed me that this could also be a hindrance. Initially, I considered alternative labels, such as âhumanistâ, but now, when asked, I tell people I am a transcendental universalist because, ultimately, all labels are absurd. I am a human being.
I value cultural diversity and inclusivity, meaning that we all have our own cultural identities, yet we are all part of one humanity. This diversity makes humanity colourful and provides us with a vibrant tapestry of stories that illustrate what I mean by being diverse yet inclusive. Community celebrations that showcase and honour this diversity are powerful examples of how inclusivity and cultural pride can coexist, fostering mutual respect and a sense of belonging. These celebrations create spaces where everyoneâs heritage is valued and, through shared experiences, they build bridges of empathy and unity within the broader human family.
In the modern context, of course, you are probably right. However, I have experienced firsthand how a common goal can bring people together when someone is directing the various groups towards it. It may be a banal example, but when I started as a manager in a care home, the district had a vibrant club and parish life, and many of the residents were from there. Our CEO suggested that we try networking, so I reached out to the local churches and sports and traditional clubs, such as the mining association and rifle clubs. I also contacted various businesses in the district and suggested that we work together to help our senior residents needing care feel part of the community. I held a meeting with these groups, which the press attended, resulting in my speech being printed as a double-sided article.
I then received multiple speaking appointments, including at the immigration integration centre. Wherever I went, there was enthusiasm for integration â not just for seniors and immigrants, but for any group that was segregated in the town. I was awarded the prize for the best contribution to integration that year, and many people wanted to work for me. There was also a reaction against my initiative, but fortunately, it wasnât radical. Some of my loudest Christmas carol singers were my Muslim staff, and our summer celebrations were huge. We were sharing what we had, which is what it is all about. Even local politicians lined up to be photographed with me.
That might have continued even after I retired, but the French company that took over said I had the wrong priorities. They wanted more profit, and we were to reduce our efforts to that.
I may be an exception in some of the places I worked, but there are a lot of exceptions out there. There are people who could start a movement if they put their minds to it. We just have to accept the resistance. Fortunately, even though the company that took that care home over halted the progress we had made, many others seem to have picked up the baton. The local care home where I live has a vibrant interaction with groups in the district, which shows that I was probably just one of many working for integration.
It shows that the competition that individualism tends to perpetuate can be paused for a common goal. When people start witnessing cooperation growing around them, they join in. They even start working together and endorsing each other.
Is that the real you? 
1 Like
Television comedy show gif I believe.
I think what poses politically as being left in my nation is retarded, and what poses politically as being right is equally retarded. Thereâs a reason why I am a communist where I identify with communism. I donât have anything in common with the political parties in my nation or elsewhere in the west at all.
As for the Jews, I am suppose to love a people whose entire religious identity is a religious global government brought about by messianic prophecy that wishes to enslave everyone thereafter? No thanks.
ok, THIS is you, right??
1 Like
Are you not familiar with internet gifs and memes of expression? I know youâre in Europe, butâŚ
Arenât you familiar with the notion of joking? 
1 Like
I would certainly hope so.
Thatâs not the core of the matter here. The problem is, how to reconcile hate [for whatever] with Buddhism?
How to love those that wish to kill, enslave, or ruin you? Thatâs a tall order even for Buddhism, very high expectations of us.