What would it take?

[Spirit of Light]

You might re read what I said in the first place, and
Think about it.

So human nature is to hate? Not agree one bit on that.

 

[Audie]

So human nature is to hate? Not agree one bit on that.

Never mind.

It is not your nature to think very hard, and unlike
your teachers, I wont spoon feed, or care if you
ever move past "facile".

 

[ajay0]

You want to interfere with a basic component of
human nature, with no freakin' idea what the consequences
would be.

Is hatred and passion for destruction a basic component of human nature!

If you say yes, I would feel sorry for your understanding of human nature.

 

[Axe Elf]

I was just wasting a few minutes discussing stuff on here while the wife finished getting ready to go out of town for a family Christmas celebration today. Now that it's 12 hours and 6 pages later, I'm not sure if this is even relevant or interesting to you any more, but I always feel like I owe people a response to any genuine questions.

Okay, so you read this. Any experiential evidence to provide to support that you know? I'm genuinely curious.

Well, the only thing I can know is that I exist. Everything else I "know" I have chosen to believe on either faith in my own personal experiences, faith in the testimony of others regarding their own personal experiences, or faith in the axioms of formal systems of reasoning.

I have had some personal experiences that lead me to believe that God exists (though I would not call them "evidence" in the sense of being objective, measurable, or replicable for the purposes of "proving" that God exists to anyone other than myself), and if God exists, I choose to believe that He would be powerful enough to make the Bible say what He wants it to say about Him. So for me, yes, I have experiential evidence that is connected to believing that what the Bible says about God is true, via believing that a God Who cares about what the Bible says about Him exists.

For others, they may have different reasons for believing that the Bible is true (or false), but the bottom line is that anyone who believes in what the Bible has to say about God has reason to "know" that God hates--to the extent that we can "know" anything (i.e., believe it or have faith in it)--by virtue of the verses I quoted and possibly a few more.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Always good to hear.

 

[Ponder This]

What would it take to end all hatred in the world?

When hate ceases to be useful.

Hatred is to show both in language, body language and thoughts that you do not like other people. races, religions, and all you want is to get rid of it.
Also calling others names because of race, sexuality, what country they come from can be seen as hatred toward other people

If hatred serves a function of separation, people will use it as such.

Why i want all hate to be ended? Because there are no need to hate

'Need' implies being necessary for something. So you when you say 'no need' you must mean hate is not necessary for __(something)__.

All i asked was, What would it take to end hatred? How can that be to promote hate?

If the idea arises within your mind and you cling to it, then you have essentially promoted it.
If a person says, "Don't think of pink elephants" the thought of 'pink elephants' arises within the mind.
So it is with all statements of the form, "(negation) (thing)". By stating, "(negation)(thing)" that thing (which you would have not arise), instead arises.

The concequence of no hate is a better community where people can be good toward each other.
Countries does not make war and no killing based hate toward others
I call that a better community then what we have now

In this case, you say hate is not necessary to a better community.
OR
Are you saying that 'no hate' is necessary to a better community? Hmm.

Ask, instead, what purpose hate serves. If someone does something disrespectful and you do nothing, then you have failed to communicate. Are the emotions that arise within people signals to be ignored?

Is it true that the Buddha used the term "worthless man" in the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta and the term "foolish man" in the Alagaddupama Sutta?
Why would he do this?

And now for a story:

Once upon a time, an experienced climber was leading a group of inexperienced climbers up a mountain face when the harness of one of the inexperienced climbers came loose. The experienced climber saw, in a moment, that the inexperienced climber was about to look down, and knew that on doing so, he would likely suffer vertigo, release his grip on the rope, and fall to his demise.
The experienced climber proceeded to insult the inexperienced climber with every terrible word and racial slur he could think of. In his anger, the inexperienced climber clung tightly to his rope while hurling insults back. Meanwhile, the experienced climber secured the inexperienced climber's harness (thus preventing his potential death). Afterwords, the inexperienced climber thanked the experienced climber.​

'What would it take?' Is hatred this enemy against which you must array an army? Is it a person you can pay to keep quiet if you just have enough money? How did hate get such a high pedestal it takes something to knock it down? It takes nothing, then hatred dissolves on its own. When hatred ceases to provoke a response, the endless karmic chain is broken.

 

[Jumi]

A complete change of culture.

 

[stvdv]

So human nature is to hate? Not agree one bit on that.

I fully agree on this.

It is not your nature to think very hard
and unlike your teachers, I wont spoon feed, or care if you ever move past "facile"

It's a no-brainer to understand that human nature is "not to hate". So I won't spoon feed either.

 

[Spirit of Light]

When hate ceases to be useful.



If hatred serves a function of separation, people will use it as such.



'Need' implies being necessary for something. So you when you say 'no need' you must mean hate is not necessary for __(something)__.



If the idea arises within your mind and you cling to it, then you have essentially promoted it.
If a person says, "Don't think of pink elephants" the thought of 'pink elephants' arises within the mind.
So it is with all statements of the form, "(negation) (thing)". By stating, "(negation)(thing)" that thing (which you would have not arise), instead arises.



In this case, you say hate is not necessary to a better community.
OR
Are you saying that 'no hate' is necessary to a better community? Hmm.

Ask, instead, what purpose hate serves. If someone does something disrespectful and you do nothing, then you have failed to communicate. Are the emotions that arise within people signals to be ignored?

Is it true that the Buddha used the term "worthless man" in the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta and the term "foolish man" in the Alagaddupama Sutta?
Why would he do this?

And now for a story:

Once upon a time, an experienced climber was leading a group of inexperienced climbers up a mountain face when the harness of one of the inexperienced climbers came loose. The experienced climber saw, in a moment, that the inexperienced climber was about to look down, and knew that on doing so, he would likely suffer vertigo, release his grip on the rope, and fall to his demise.
The experienced climber proceeded to insult the inexperienced climber with every terrible word and racial slur he could think of. In his anger, the inexperienced climber clung tightly to his rope while hurling insults back. Meanwhile, the experienced climber secured the inexperienced climber's harness (thus preventing his potential death). Afterwords, the inexperienced climber thanked the experienced climber.​

'What would it take?' Is hatred this enemy against which you must array an army? Is it a person you can pay to keep quiet if you just have enough money? How did hate get such a high pedestal it takes something to knock it down? It takes nothing, then hatred dissolves on its own. When hatred ceases to provoke a response, the endless karmic chain is broken.

Hate will never serve a function, it only creat more hate. commpassion on the other hand creat happiness and joy.

One should not cling to it, if hate arise within, one should find the cause of the rising of the hate, then understand that hate has only purpose to those who has greed and jealosy within, then all of the attachments should be let go of. meaning that if similar happens in future there will not arise hatred, jealosy or greed within.

If someone do something disrespectful to me i dont react to it, because it is them who suffer from not being able to see humans as equal. we do not need to disrespect anyone.

If the buddha said this about someone it was to set an example of how not to do something. he would not call someone headless or foolish to harm them. Buddha has compassion, not hate

The climber may have used harsh words, but if his mind was calm and the words was not meant to har, but to save the person i see the use of it. but not if he was meaning the words.
was his action meant as harmful or saving.

 

[Audie]

When hate ceases to be useful.



If hatred serves a function of separation, people will use it as such.



'Need' implies being necessary for something. So you when you say 'no need' you must mean hate is not necessary for __(something)__.



If the idea arises within your mind and you cling to it, then you have essentially promoted it.
If a person says, "Don't think of pink elephants" the thought of 'pink elephants' arises within the mind.
So it is with all statements of the form, "(negation) (thing)". By stating, "(negation)(thing)" that thing (which you would have not arise), instead arises.



In this case, you say hate is not necessary to a better community.
OR
Are you saying that 'no hate' is necessary to a better community? Hmm.

Ask, instead, what purpose hate serves. If someone does something disrespectful and you do nothing, then you have failed to communicate. Are the emotions that arise within people signals to be ignored?

Is it true that the Buddha used the term "worthless man" in the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta and the term "foolish man" in the Alagaddupama Sutta?
Why would he do this?

And now for a story:

Once upon a time, an experienced climber was leading a group of inexperienced climbers up a mountain face when the harness of one of the inexperienced climbers came loose. The experienced climber saw, in a moment, that the inexperienced climber was about to look down, and knew that on doing so, he would likely suffer vertigo, release his grip on the rope, and fall to his demise.
The experienced climber proceeded to insult the inexperienced climber with every terrible word and racial slur he could think of. In his anger, the inexperienced climber clung tightly to his rope while hurling insults back. Meanwhile, the experienced climber secured the inexperienced climber's harness (thus preventing his potential death). Afterwords, the inexperienced climber thanked the experienced climber.​

'What would it take?' Is hatred this enemy against which you must array an army? Is it a person you can pay to keep quiet if you just have enough money? How did hate get such a high pedestal it takes something to knock it down? It takes nothing, then hatred dissolves on its own. When hatred ceases to provoke a response, the endless karmic chain is broken.

Unlike some others, you may be inclined to
ponder.

Would you say that "hate" is in some way an
absolute, a thing in itself, or, that there is a
sliding scale from, apathetic neutrality through
mild distaste to rabid foaming...?

 

[ajay0]

Unlike some others, you may be inclined to
ponder.

Would you say that "hate" is in some way an
absolute, a thing in itself, or, that there is a
sliding scale from, apathetic neutrality through
mild distaste to rabid foaming...?

I find mosquito bites irritating, but I don't hate them, if that's what you mean.

Amanaki is talking about the hate generated towards people having an another religion, nationality, race , sexuality etc expressed through language and body language, not mere distaste or irritation.

Anything that provokes conflict due to such differences would obviously pose a threat to unity and peace.

 

[ameyAtmA]

If the dharma you follow say this yes then i understand your way of life, Buddha shayamuni did see it differently, so i will not agrue against your path, but just say i see it differently,

Hello Amanaki and all

The message of the Bhagavad Geeta (and Hinduism) is to NOT hate those who insult you, but overall friendliness and selfless action for greater good. In fact it teaches you to rise above hate by transcending the ego.

KRshNa did not ask Arjun to hate the enemy, but to fight injustice for the greater and long-term good under His guidance and support. There is a difference between the 2.

I think people on this thread who are arguing for fighting injustice are not saying do it with hate.

CONTEXT:
Yes, Shri KRshNa did ask Arjun to fight the war to fight injustice for the greater good from the platform of Spirit via trascendence of ego, but without hate, and not turn back. He did this after all His attempts at peaceful settlement were not accepted by Duryodhan.

The Kauravas under leadership of Duryodhan-DuhshAsan and influence of the crooked Shakuni snatched away the PAndava's rights, entire land-property, abused and humiliated their wife and sent them to forest in exile!

It was Arjun's swadharma to fight a war against this injustice being a warrior by profession. It was his duty to protect the family and citizens of the Kingdom they rightfully owned AND most of all to send the correct moral message to the world - for future generations.

Arjun was not fighting the war for himself, or for his ego.

One may argue that it is biologically impossible to fight injustice without first hating the opponent, but KRshNa , in the Geeta, and the upanishads, are asking us to transcend this very biology to rise above it.

BG 11.55 One who carries out all duties for My sake alone (read: for the greater/universal good), who considers Me their highest shelter, and is My devotee, has no worldly attachments, who holds no grudges, hate or enmity (nirvairah:) towards the entire world of living beings (sarvabhUteshu) , that devotee (having such unflinching devotion) reaches Me.

BG 12.17 One who is not too elated [by good happenings], does not lament [when things go bad], does not hate (na dveshTi), does not harbour selfish desires, renounces both auspicious and inauspicious resolves ( => this means do something because it is right, not because it will temporarily benefit an individual), such a devotee, full of devotion to Me, is very dear to Me.

BG 12.18-19 One who views friend and enemy, honour and insult, cold and hot, happiness and sorrow, and all such dualities with an equanimous vision (samah: ), who has given up attachments (things that usually bother the ego), who is equanimous towards criticism ans praise inflicted by others, silent (does not speak unnecessarily), who is satisfied with what is available for protection and survival, who has no [emotional] attachments to their home or property, that balanced devotee (sthirmatirbhakt) is very dear to Me.

|| Shri KRshNarpaNamastu ||

 

[ameyAtmA]

Hatred is to show both in language, body language and thoughts that you do not like other people. races, religions, and all you want is to get rid of it.
Also calling others names because of race, sexuality, what country they come from can be seen as hatred toward other people

Oh! If THIS is your definition of hatred, that is very very easy to not do - piece of cake -- and this kind of hatred is totally unnatural for humans and uncalled for. There may be reasons where something happened in history and an individual erroneously attaches a generalized blame to a group or category.

This did not even occur to me.

I thought you meant anger due to insults and harm caused by others as hatred.

Constructive criticism that is justifiable has to be handled by introspection and improvement, but criticism and bullying motivated by envy and jealousy of the jealous hurts and angers the receiver.

If someone bullies you or tries to show you down and their motivation is jealousy or envy alone, then that can be infuriating, and the Bhagavad Geeta asks us to transcend even that anger, replace it with compassion for the jealous and envious.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Oh! If THIS is your definition of hatred, that is very very easy to not do - piece of cake -- and this kind of hatred is totally unnatural for humans and uncalled for.

This did not even occur to me.

I thought you meant anger towards insults and harm caused by others as hatred.

If someone bullies you or tries to show you down driven by jealousy, then anger rises, and the Bhagavad Geeta asks us to transcend even that anger.

Yes also what you write is hate and should not be acted up on with hatred back toward any living being, Sometimes when i write here i simplify to make it more easy to understand, because if i took everythin that can be seen as hatred then the list would be very long.....

Insulting others is no need to do , and if one get insulted from others there is no need to act upon it, because it only lead to more arguements and suffering. Mind should always be calm and tranquil

 

[Shantanu]

Oh! If THIS is your definition of hatred, that is very very easy to not do - piece of cake -- and this kind of hatred is totally unnatural for humans and uncalled for. There may be reasons where something happened in history and an individual erroneously attaches a generalized blame to a group or category.

This did not even occur to me.

I thought you meant anger due to insults and harm caused by others as hatred.

Constructive criticism that is justifiable has to be handled by introspection and improvement, but criticism and bullying motivated by envy and jealousy of the jealous hurts and angers the receiver.

If someone bullies you or tries to show you down and their motivation is jealousy or envy alone, then that can be infuriating, and the Bhagavad Geeta asks us to transcend even that anger, replace it with compassion for the jealous and envious.

I hate people who lie and deceive to dominate over you: is that a crime?

 

[ameyAtmA]

I hate people who lie and deceive to dominate over you: is that a crime?

No, not at all.
The Gita's challenging verses are not mandatory, but for our long term good. Like a protective shield to try not getting affected and suffer internally because of the emotions triggered by others.

It does not say we should let those people continue to dominate.

My only purpose was to point out msg of the Gita in the right light so others don't misunderstand its overall msg.

 

[Shantanu]

No, not at all.
The Gita's challenging verses are not mandatory, but for our long term good. Like a protective shield to try not getting affected and suffer internally because of the emotions triggered by others.

It does not say we should let those people continue to dominate.

My only purpose was to point out msg of the Gita in the right light so others don't misunderstand its overall msg.

Buddhism and Hinduism are vastly different concepts.

 

[Etritonakin]

Experience -willingness -and a "do-over"

The main problem with humans is that they are human.
Humans are...
1: new
2: inexperienced
3: ignorant
4: animalistic, but with potential to be more
5: temporary

The fact that new humans are born and old humans die constantly means that any permanence is extremely difficult.
Even if everyone of this generation overcame hatred, the next generation might not.

The plan outlined in the bible (which few really understand) allows for billions of humans to love just long enough to gain an experience base.
After they die, those who were called and overcame their animalistic nature and are willing to live by the law of love will be granted immortality first -and those who did not will be separated and purified -or, as it says, they will "be saved, yet so as by fire".
Those unwilling to live correctly for the good of all CAN be completely destroyed, but that is not to say that is what will happen. The unpleasant things spoken of in the bible are actually an ultimatum -and meant to purify -not some worthless cruelty.

When we are made immortal -are willing to live in peace -and understand how, hatred may be overcome and permanent changes will be possible -while allowing for freedom and creation without conflict.

 

[Ponder This]

Unlike some others, you may be inclined to
ponder.

Would you say that "hate" is in some way an
absolute, a thing in itself, or, that there is a
sliding scale from, apathetic neutrality through
mild distaste to rabid foaming...?

Good question.
I think that 'hate' as a disembodied concept might be absolute(?),
but, in any real sense, hate is conditional and often conflated with other things such as frustration, confusion, or fear.
Hate requires something to fuel it or to trigger it, which is why any sort of real absolute hate would be total self-indulgence. Is that possible? Maybe.

Does it exist on a scale? Well, yes, sort of... Someone who is angry might not make that distinction.

Is hate something everyone inherently has inside already? Hate may be a natural response that people have. And there's a certain amount of you glare at me, I glare at you, you glare at me, I glare at you, etc.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Sure there is. Even God hates. Are you suggesting that we LOVE all manner of atrocities?

How do you know "Even God hates"?

 

[Ancient Soul]

Good question.
I think that 'hate' as a disembodied concept might be absolute(?),
but, in any real sense, hate is conditional and often conflated with other things such as frustration, confusion, or fear.
Hate requires something to fuel it or to trigger it, which is why any sort of real absolute hate would be total self-indulgence. Is that possible? Maybe.

Does it exist on a scale? Well, yes, sort of... Someone who is angry might not make that distinction.

Is hate something everyone inherently has inside already? Hate may be a natural response that people have. And there's a certain amount of you glare at me, I glare at you, you glare at me, I glare at you, etc.

OK, so STOP glaring at me like that!!