Buddha knew all along

[AgarikaJ]

If there is a scale of immorality, I would propose Truman/the Americans with their targeted bombings (nuclear and otherwise) of civilian centers to be on exactly the same lowest of the low denominator with Hitler and his concentration camps or Stalin and his Gulags.

as the logical person you are, to show how you weight your scale in comparison. I'm sure the algorithmic precision will not fail to impress.

On any scale of immorality I might not show too well, as I often struggle to even keep the five precepts, mainly the fourth. But even with the first precept I have my issues (see a recent discussion on the mass killing of insects when operating a vehicle at high speed).

All those things weigh heavily on me, not just from a Kammic point of view.

However, the people I named in my post certainly did kill human beings or at least ordered this misdeed, on a numerologically impressive scale.

But your criticism of such primitive weighing up is well-placed, so it gave me a good reason to scrutinise my own intention when speculating on the deeds of others, however disagreeable and egregiously wrong they seem from the outset.

Because the fallacy this opens one up to is the question coming seemingly naturally: does this make me a 'better' person than them. But this thought itself is, of course, just a reflection of the fettered mind.

Very obviously there is the necessity to be reminded of what the Buddha himself told us, namely that there cannot be any good purpose in spending time on such thoughts -- as you, I, and anybody else will need to live down our own Kammic legacy. Ruminating how much more difficult this would be for Hitler, Mao, Truman or Stalin is just another unwholesome activity leading one deeper in the endless maze of one's own delusions, leading one into feelings of hatred.

What exactly did the Buddha say about this? In any circumstance where one starts to worry about the misdeeds of others, one should reflect and subdue this hatred without further action, see: AN 10.80 (Aghata Sutta)

"There are these ten ways of subduing hatred. Which ten?
[1] "Thinking, 'He has done me harm. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[2] "Thinking, 'He is doing me harm. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[3] "Thinking, 'He is going to do me harm. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[4] "Thinking, 'He has done harm to people who are dear & pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[5] "Thinking, 'He is doing harm to people who are dear & pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[6] "Thinking, 'He is going to do harm to people who are dear & pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[7] "Thinking, 'He has aided people who are not dear or pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[8] "Thinking, 'He is aiding people who are not dear or pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[9] "Thinking, 'He is going to aid people who are not dear or pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[10] "One does not get worked up over impossibilities.
"These are ten ways of subduing hatred."

In the AN 5.161 (Aghatavinaya Sutta):

"When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should direct one's thoughts to the fact of his being the product of his actions: 'This venerable one is the doer of his actions, heir to his actions, born of his actions, related by his actions, and has his actions as his arbitrator. Whatever action he does, for good or for evil, to that will he fall heir.' Thus the hatred for that individual should be subdued.

And lastly in the Dhp I (Yamakavagga):

Much though he recites the sacred texts, but acts not accordingly, that heedless man is like a cowherd who only counts the cows of others — he does not partake of the blessings of the holy life.

[Manopubbangama]

If there is a scale of immorality, I would propose Truman/the Americans with their targeted bombings (nuclear and otherwise) of civilian centers to be on exactly the same lowest of the low denominator with Hitler and his concentration camps or Stalin and his Gulags.

as the logical person you are, to show how you weight your scale in comparison. I'm sure the algorithmic precision will not fail to impress.

On any scale of immorality I might not show too well, as I often struggle to even keep the five precepts, mainly the fourth. But even with the first precept I have my issues (see a recent discussion on the mass killing of insects when operating a vehicle at high speed).

All those things weigh heavily on me, not just from a Kammic point of view.

However, the people I named in my post certainly did kill human beings or at least ordered this misdeed, on a numerologically impressive scale.

But your criticism of such primitive weighing up is well-placed, so it gave me a good reason to scrutinise my own intention when speculating on the deeds of others, however disagreeable and egregiously wrong they seem from the outset.

Because the fallacy this opens one up to is the question coming seemingly naturally: does this make me a 'better' person than them. But this thought itself is, of course, just a reflection of the fettered mind.

Very obviously there is the necessity to be reminded of what the Buddha himself told us, namely that there cannot be any good purpose in spending time on such thoughts -- as you, I, and anybody else will need to live down our own Kammic legacy. Ruminating how much more difficult this would be for Hitler, Mao, Truman or Stalin is just another unwholesome activity leading one deeper in the endless maze of one's own delusions, leading one into feelings of hatred.

What exactly did the Buddha say about this? In any circumstance where one starts to worry about the misdeeds of others, one should reflect and subdue this hatred without further action, see: AN 10.80 (Aghata Sutta)

"There are these ten ways of subduing hatred. Which ten?
[1] "Thinking, 'He has done me harm. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[2] "Thinking, 'He is doing me harm. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[3] "Thinking, 'He is going to do me harm. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[4] "Thinking, 'He has done harm to people who are dear & pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[5] "Thinking, 'He is doing harm to people who are dear & pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[6] "Thinking, 'He is going to do harm to people who are dear & pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[7] "Thinking, 'He has aided people who are not dear or pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[8] "Thinking, 'He is aiding people who are not dear or pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[9] "Thinking, 'He is going to aid people who are not dear or pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[10] "One does not get worked up over impossibilities.
"These are ten ways of subduing hatred."

In the AN 5.161 (Aghatavinaya Sutta):

"When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should direct one's thoughts to the fact of his being the product of his actions: 'This venerable one is the doer of his actions, heir to his actions, born of his actions, related by his actions, and has his actions as his arbitrator. Whatever action he does, for good or for evil, to that will he fall heir.' Thus the hatred for that individual should be subdued.

And lastly in the Dhp I (Yamakavagga):

Much though he recites the sacred texts, but acts not accordingly, that heedless man is like a cowherd who only counts the cows of others — he does not partake of the blessings of the holy life.

There exists in the West, a group of middle class people who, although they had not the aptitude to learn an exacting discipline such as math or engineering, nevertheless went to college and learned a pseudo-science, or social-science that made them capable only of mental-masturbatory self-congratulations and ordering out at restaurants with their parents' credit cards.

While most forms of debate expose the cowardice of angry, emotive individuals who take pot-shots at entire civilizations without exposing from what land they hail (to open themselves up to similar criticism), internet graffiti writing, a.k.a. forums, does not.

The opinions of said unemployables is but farts in the wind, and only truly expose the type of individual posting, which is at least, of a minor value, unlike the content of said post.

Whether one takes refuge in Marx, Mao, or Marcuse or something else and then label it "Buddhism" is not of the meat of what can be deduced.

[AgarikaJ]

There exists in the West, a group of middle class people who, although they had not the aptitude to learn an exacting discipline such as math or engineering, nevertheless went to college and learned a pseudo-science, or social-science that made them capable only of mental-masturbatory self-congratulations and ordering out at restaurants with their parents' credit cards.

While most forms of debate expose the cowardice of angry, emotive individuals who take pot-shots at entire civilizations without exposing from what land they hail (to open themselves up to similar criticism), internet graffiti writing, a.k.a. forums, does not.

The opinions of said unemployables is but farts in the wind, and only truly expose the type of individual posting, which is at least, of a minor value, unlike the content of said post.

Whether one takes refuge in Marx, Mao, or Marcuse or something else and then label it "Buddhism" is not of the meat of what can be deduced.

??

While your previous post was profound, this one has no discerning connection to what I posted, nor does it seemingly express a coherent thought.

Could it be that you copied and pasted the wrong answer under my post?

[polo]

If there is a scale of immorality, I would propose Truman/the Americans with their targeted bombings (nuclear and otherwise) of civilian centers to be on exactly the same lowest of the low denominator with Hitler and his concentration camps or Stalin and his Gulags.

as the logical person you are, to show how you weight your scale in comparison. I'm sure the algorithmic precision will not fail to impress.

On any scale of immorality I might not show too well, as I often struggle to even keep the five precepts, mainly the fourth. But even with the first precept I have my issues (see a recent discussion on the mass killing of insects when operating a vehicle at high speed).

All those things weigh heavily on me, not just from a Kammic point of view.

However, the people I named in my post certainly did kill human beings or at least ordered this misdeed, on a numerologically impressive scale.

But your criticism of such primitive weighing up is well-placed, so it gave me a good reason to scrutinise my own intention when speculating on the deeds of others, however disagreeable and egregiously wrong they seem from the outset.

Because the fallacy this opens one up to is the question coming seemingly naturally: does this make me a 'better' person than them. But this thought itself is, of course, just a reflection of the fettered mind.

Very obviously there is the necessity to be reminded of what the Buddha himself told us, namely that there cannot be any good purpose in spending time on such thoughts -- as you, I, and anybody else will need to live down our own Kammic legacy. Ruminating how much more difficult this would be for Hitler, Mao, Truman or Stalin is just another unwholesome activity leading one deeper in the endless maze of one's own delusions, leading one into feelings of hatred.

What exactly did the Buddha say about this? In any circumstance where one starts to worry about the misdeeds of others, one should reflect and subdue this hatred without further action, see: AN 10.80 (Aghata Sutta)

"There are these ten ways of subduing hatred. Which ten?
[1] "Thinking, 'He has done me harm. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[2] "Thinking, 'He is doing me harm. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[3] "Thinking, 'He is going to do me harm. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[4] "Thinking, 'He has done harm to people who are dear & pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[5] "Thinking, 'He is doing harm to people who are dear & pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[6] "Thinking, 'He is going to do harm to people who are dear & pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[7] "Thinking, 'He has aided people who are not dear or pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[8] "Thinking, 'He is aiding people who are not dear or pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[9] "Thinking, 'He is going to aid people who are not dear or pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[10] "One does not get worked up over impossibilities.
"These are ten ways of subduing hatred."

In the AN 5.161 (Aghatavinaya Sutta):

"When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should direct one's thoughts to the fact of his being the product of his actions: 'This venerable one is the doer of his actions, heir to his actions, born of his actions, related by his actions, and has his actions as his arbitrator. Whatever action he does, for good or for evil, to that will he fall heir.' Thus the hatred for that individual should be subdued.

And lastly in the Dhp I (Yamakavagga):

Much though he recites the sacred texts, but acts not accordingly, that heedless man is like a cowherd who only counts the cows of others — he does not partake of the blessings of the holy life.

Much obliged for what you wrote Agarika. The ten ways of subduing hatred is very interesting. I do agree with you. Have a good day.