Our friend, UG, recently made a comment on a now closed thread which inspired me to ask him how he would differentiate between hatreds. I thought it a worthwhile topic to explore. See the posts here and here.

So that my intention for this post is not misconstrued, I am not posting this to be antagonistic towards another member's personal beliefs, rather I would like to delve into the concept of hatred, which seems to be overly prevalent in our world today, in order to better understand it's source . . . and it's effects.

I will mention, too, that the thread I refer to has been rightly closed as the source material serving as the premise for the topic in the OP has since been debunked.

If UG declines to elaborate to start the ball rolling then feel free to chime in your own personal views.

Executing someone who purposely murdered a whole family simply for being the wrong religion keeps them from doing it again. While one might hate such sick vermin, hatred is not the point.

Executing someone who purposely murdered a whole family simply for being the wrong religion keeps them from doing it again. While one might hate such sick vermin, hatred is not the point.

I take your point and you are right.

But you have skirted the OP's intent.

There seems to be, in today's world, alot of "right" hate ("ours") and "wrong" hate ("theirs"). "Our" hatred towards terrosists is "right".

The terrorists hate towards "us" is wrong and punishable by death to them and their communities.

Really, what's the difference?

If all hatred is the same, then anyone who hates that Norwegian mass murderer is no better than he is.

Dhammapadha 1.5

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

Tell Tibet that. It has not worked out for them.

The fact that people are unable or unwilling to follow the Buddha's teachings is not a Buddhist problem in the same way that Christians who are unable or unwilling to follow the teachings of Christ are a Christian problem. It's good to have something to aspire to even if you don't always get there. If you spend all your life pointing the finger at others you might want to shut the door and spend 5 minutes looking in the mirror.

Some words that you might recognise having been brought up in the west:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

The fact that people are unable or unwilling to follow the Buddha's teachings is not a Buddhist problem in the same way that Christians who are unable or unwilling to follow the teachings of Christ are a Christian problem.

I do not think that the Chinese are Buddhists. The Tibetans are not the problem.

Pacifism did not work out well for the Gays, Jews and Gypsies in World War 2 either.

If you spend all your life pointing the finger at others you might want to shut the door and spend 5 minutes looking in the mirror.

In Outside the Box, that usually means, do what I say, not what I do.

Executing someone who purposely murdered a whole family simply for being the wrong religion keeps them from doing it again. While one might hate such sick vermin, hatred is not the point.

I take your point and you are right.

But you have skirted the OP's intent.

The OP's intent is to imply all hatred is the same. My intent is to demonstrate that this is not true. Charle's Manson's hatred is not the same as the man who is defending his family from criminals.

Executing someone who purposely murdered a whole family simply for being the wrong religion keeps them from doing it again. While one might hate such sick vermin, hatred is not the point.

I take your point and you are right.

But you have skirted the OP's intent.

The OP's intent is to imply all hatred is the same. My intent is to demonstrate that this is not true. Charle's Manson's hatred is not the same as the man who is defending his family.

I disagree.

Firstly because I don't think that the man defending his family neccessarily hates the person/people that he's defending against. As you said earlier....hate has nothing to do with it, it is just a matter of doing what must be done.

I'm not sure Manson was filled with hate either.

Bin Laden may have held a hatred for the West. The people who make hoax reports about Muslims beheading Buddhist boys seem to have a hatred too.

Whose hatred is "worse"? Bin Laden's or the hoaxer's?

I suggest they are the same.

If all hatred is the same, then anyone who hates that Norwegian mass murderer is no better than he is.

wrong.

Firstly, and most obviously, because he acted upon his emotions, but the families of his victims I'm sure will not.

Secondly....was he filled with hate? I don't think so.

The OP's intent is to imply all hatred is the same. My intent is to demonstrate that this is not true. Charle's Manson's hatred is not the same as the man who is defending his family from criminals.

Does the man defending his family hate his attackers?

I would have to define 'hate' first, because if my family was in severe danger from some criminal(s) I would not necessarily hate the person or persons threatening my family, but I most certainly would do my best to destroy the threat, as I would a ravening wolf pack.

I do not think I hate anyone, or any group of people. Or any animals, fish or fowl. But I certainly have aversions. I also have envious feelings, strong dislikes of certain opinions, certain TV programmes and certain attitudes of mind. But hate is too strong a word for any of these.

Does the man defending his family hate his attackers?

IMHO, if he did not hate his attackers, he would likely lose any fight and would be unable to defend his family. However, I am pretty sure that we do not agree on that.

Bin Laden may have held a hatred for the West. The people who make hoax reports about Muslims beheading Buddhist boys seem to have a hatred too.

Whose hatred is "worse"? Bin Laden's or the hoaxer's?

I suggest they are the same.

IMHO, someone who kills innocent people because of hate is much worse than someone who writes nonsense on the Internet, but neither one is making the planet a better place.

The OP's intent is to imply all hatred is the same. My intent is to demonstrate that this is not true. Charle's Manson's hatred is not the same as the man who is defending his family from criminals.

Does the man defending his family hate his attackers?

I would have to define 'hate' first, because if my family was in severe danger from some criminal(s) I would not necessarily hate the person or persons threatening my family, but I most certainly would do my best to destroy the threat, as I would a ravening wolf pack.

I do not think I hate anyone, or any group of people. Or any animals, fish or fowl. But I certainly have aversions. I also have envious feelings, strong dislikes of certain opinions, certain TV programmes and certain attitudes of mind. But hate is too strong a word for any of these.

I would question whether its possible to hate a group of people...or indeed a nation. Even one person you have never met.

I wouldn't be surprised if the families of the victims in Norway felt anger and yes indeed hatred towards the murderer but for me in this instance I feel only sadness.

Also the example of US servicemen returning to Vietnam...they clearly feel no hatred....perhaps nationalism and hatred are too often confused.

Edit: sp

The fact that people are unable or unwilling to follow the Buddha's teachings is not a Buddhist problem in the same way that Christians who are unable or unwilling to follow the teachings of Christ are a Christian problem.

I do not think that the Chinese are Buddhists. The Tibetans are not the problem.

Pacifism did not work out well for the Gays, Jews and Gypsies in World War 2 either.

The Chinese are not on the whole Buddhists; they are Taoists or Confucianists (or nothing).

Whether it works out well is not the point. Christianity teaches that hatred is always wrong; we may not match up with that ideal, but we can at least try not to hate people. I was watching a HardTalk interview the other day with a Zimbabwean white farmer, Ben Freeth, who had been beaten up by Mugabe's thugs. As he was lying bound in the bottom of the truck, with broken bones and wounds all over his body, he claimed that he was able to love his torturers. I believed him; he was certainly being sincere.

So to answer the original question, read several posts by Endure, and you will find that hatred is always wrong; we may hate what someone does, but should not hate the person himself. There is no 'right' hatred or 'wrong' hatred.

I was watching a HardTalk interview the other day with a Zimbabwean white farmer, Ben Freeth, who had been beaten up by Mugabe's thugs. As he was lying bound in the bottom of the truck, with broken bones and wounds all over his body, he claimed that he was able to love his torturers. I believed him...

I will get all kinds of abuse for this, but I don't. I think that he was completely full of s__t.

If Jesus was the son of God or Buddha really gained enlightenment, they might have been capable of loving someone who had just finished torturing them, but a normal human being is simply not capable of it.

Unless, of course, they were happy to be alive.

Happy to be alive is a lot different from "loving" some lowlife who just put out your eyes and broke all your bones.

Dhammapadha 1.5

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

No, it isn't a "law" at all. Someone long ago just made it up and it sounds good. Remember, just because something fits on a bumper sticker or t-shirt doesn't make it right. And that is law eternal!!

Does the man defending his family hate his attackers?

IMHO, if he did not hate his attackers, he would likely lose any fight and would be unable to defend his family. However, I am pretty sure that we do not agree on that.

So, in the recent Kahn vs Judah fight, did Kahn hate Judah and that is why he won? I doubt it. If he had hated his opponant, he would have lost......no doubt about it.

When a local lout tried to molest my 9 year old daughter and I left him in a pool of blood before I called the cops on myself, did I hate him? The answer is no. I did what I needed to do, coldly. He had quite a following of his "gangstas"......but he has not been seen in my neighbourhood for 17 years now. (On top of which, he had to face the justice system (as did I)). I did what I did with no hate.

If you think it takes hate to win a fight......I feel very sorry for you.

I am sure you're not alone though.

Dhammapadha 1.5

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

No, it isn't a "law" at all. Someone long ago just made it up and it sounds good. Remember, just because something fits on a bumper sticker or t-shirt doesn't make it right. And that is law eternal!!

Hmmmm, as you know, you and I share a simmilar attitude towards mumbo jumbo, however, I don't dismiss "words of wisdom" simply because someone made them up......they could very well be true....and in this instance, I think they are worthy of consideration.

Ghandi had quite some success with passive resistance. Persist with love and all but the most mentally ill will eventually come round...it's human nature.

Bin Laden may have held a hatred for the West. The people who make hoax reports about Muslims beheading Buddhist boys seem to have a hatred too.

Whose hatred is "worse"? Bin Laden's or the hoaxer's?

I suggest they are the same.

IMHO, someone who kills innocent people because of hate is much worse than someone who writes nonsense on the Internet, but neither one is making the planet a better place.

What if that nonsense incited hate that resulted in murder? What if the hoaxer was too cowardly to do what he wants, and instead revs people up to do it for him (which I think is probably the case)? Is Hitler innocent because he did not shove anyone into a gas chamber personally?

Does the man defending his family hate his attackers?

IMHO, if he did not hate his attackers, he would likely lose any fight and would be unable to defend his family. However, I am pretty sure that we do not agree on that.

So, in the recent Kahn vs Judah fight, did Kahn hate Judah and that is why he won? I doubt it. If he had hated his opponant, he would have lost......no doubt about it.

When a local lout tried to molest my 9 year old daughter and I left him in a pool of blood before I called the cops on myself, did I hate him? The answer is no. I did what I needed to do, coldly. He had quite a following of his "gangstas"......but he has not been seen in my neighbourhood for 17 years now. (On top of which, he had to face the justice system (as did I)). I did what I did with no hate.

If you think it takes hate to win a fight......I feel very sorry for you.

I am sure you're not alone though.

In sport, as said above, it is not hatred but a determination to dominate.

I played rugby (union) for fifty years, although only high-level rugby for three or four years. We went out on the pitch to win, and to win one had to dominate one's opponents, not allow them to dominate you.

The same would apply to any other aspect of life, in my opinion. One must be prepared to do whatever it takes to protect the things that are important to you - family, culture, hearth and home, whatever. That sometimes requires just a loud voice, sometimes a more solid assault on the attacking entity. But you go in with the absolute certainty of winning and the determination to see that the victory is claimed.

No hatred necessary.

No hatred necessary.

Further to that...hatred is a hindrance to victory.....moral or outright.

I was watching a HardTalk interview the other day with a Zimbabwean white farmer, Ben Freeth, who had been beaten up by Mugabe's thugs. As he was lying bound in the bottom of the truck, with broken bones and wounds all over his body, he claimed that he was able to love his torturers. I believed him...

I will get all kinds of abuse for this, but I don't. I think that he was completely full of s__t.

If Jesus was the son of God or Buddha really gained enlightenment, they might have been capable of loving someone who had just finished torturing them, but a normal human being is simply not capable of it.

I wouldn't abuse you, UG; I never abuse anybody. But I don't think you saw the interview.

I feel very sorry for you.

After reading your posts for all these years, I feel exactly the same about you.

I wouldn't abuse you, UG; I never abuse anybody. But I don't think you saw the interview.

I have no doubt that he was very convincing, but I really doubt that he really "loved" someone who was torturing him - maybe he thought that he should have though.