"Hatred is never conquered by hatred. hatred can only be conquered by non-hatred. This is an old rule." I read this in The Gospel of Buddha, by Paul Carus (available online:http://reluctant-messenger.com/wisdom.htm). It is originally for The Dhammapada. Below are several different translations:
That is a strange explanation ... I'll agree it holds for someone who has little scope of philosophy and related introspection - which is indeed the case for many, if not most people. But I certainly wouldn't take such explanations as the one you post as the norm or ideal of human being. To me, this seems more like that some people become (more) decisive when they are provoked, and this greater decisiveness looks like greater analyticity. And yes, people generally seem very reactive, as opposed to pro-active, and unless provoked, they often won't be pro-active. But there is no absolute requirement that one first needs to be provoked, riled up emotionally, before one can be decisive, or analytical.
Do you think that the traditional samurai fought in hate? Or, for that matter, that any of the traditional Eastern martial arts require hatred?
It seems more like unreflected , and a mere reaction, not a response. How do you know it was deliberate? Can you read minds? There's an instructive old story in this regard: A man is rowing a boat on a lake, in mist. Suddenly, another boat hits his boat. The man gets upset and curses the man in the other boat. But as he looks closely, he sees that the other boat is empty and is just drifting in the water. His anger subsides. Often, it's the things we assume about others, that really upset us. Why do you think that the only two options are to manifest an emotion as it presses one to manifest, and to repress it? You seem to be operating out of a false dichotomy. The fact that the hater is the one who is going to experience the consequences of his hatred on his own body and mind, and possessions, reflecting on anger and hatred and changing one's ways may be a good thing. That you feel hate for the religious (or whoever else tries to get you to conform to their ways) suggests that you yourself do not have a life philosophy superior to theirs. Perhaps because we believe that we have free will and are not hellbent on victimizing ourselves ...
No. Anger directed at someone is anger directed at someone. Hate is an extreme dislike towards someone. Both hate, and anger are honest emotions.
Sadly, it does hold for everyone, though not all the time, and to greater degrees in some than others. If you damage the emotional centers of your brain certain simple things become impossible. For example, people with certain types of brain damage can become so indecisive that they cannot select a single product off of a supermarket shelf. Instead they start analyzing and comparing them--all of them--in every conceivable detail, and they are unable to select a "best" choice among, for example, brands of cereal as a result. Again, if you read the literature I referenced (especially the latter two books) you will see that we are all creatures that balance cognitive and emotional reasoning, even the neuroscientists who study these things can't avoid that, and certainly not the philosophers. As for the "ideal", like the man in the supermarket aisle, you would never be able to determine what is "closer to ideal" without the emotional shortcuts we all take to preference certain traits over others.
Did they study everyone, all people? Did they even study a statistically representative sample of the human population, ie. at least 30%? Which, I would say, is a consequence of having lived a life of poorly specified priorities prior to the injury to the brain. Injuries and diseases can expose a person's already existing weak spots. On the other hand, meditators, for example, tend to handle brain injury and disease to the brain better than the average population. Of course, on this, you will likely hear only anecdotal evidence, because there aren't that many experienced meditators who later in life sustained a serious brain injury. - So you might dismiss them on this ground. Whence this dichotomy between "emotional" and "cognitive" reasoning? What justifies it? Other than popular Western tradition? I suppose with a tool like that dichotomy, one can see it everywhere. But that dichotomy doesn't exist in all cultures. For example, in some Eastern cultures, like in Thailand, they have one word - "citta" - that means what we refer to with two words 1. "the mind" and 2. "the heart." They don't have the dichotomy between "emotional" and "cognitive" reasoning. It's not clear how seeing life through that dichotomy is in any way helpful. (Other than in the sense of the benfit received from complying with mainstream culture.) No. In order to specify something as "ideal," it is crucial that one works with a set of standards, related to a goal. That is the only way the concept of "ideal" can make sense at all. If someone has problems deciding what is ideal, this means that they are unclear about their standards and goals.
Traditional samurai weren't anything special, they hated all the time. Fighting doesn't require it, but sometimes it helps with the motivation.
In my experience, anger and hatred are detrimental to myself. They cause weakness and imprecision, lack of clear thinking. Just try to do any serious work while feeling anger or hate.
I think they are fooling themselves if they insist that they can make themselves not hate at will. But that's what beginners do, they adopt an ideology that says one thing is better than another, then they divide their own psyche in an attempt to fulfill that demand.
Please don't lead people astray. Buddhism isn't about using your will to act according to some predefined ideology (except on the most elementary level). It's about being true to yourself. This means if you hate, then hate. If you love, then love.
Oh. You now wish to have a dispute on what is true Buddhism and what isn't, and that it be taken for granted that your understanding of Buddhism is correct, and that everyone who disagrees with you, is wrong? How enlightened.
I didn't say that, only that the use of the will to be something other than what you are only reinforces the illusion of self, rather than transcends it.
when i, as a child, did not get what i wanted, i concocted elaborate fantasies of revenge. i remember my hapless parents tied down to the railroad tracks begging for mercy. good thing i grew up
lol..my granddaughter just made a similar comment.. she is 5yo and she said she hated mommy cause she wouldn't give her what she wanted...
