Free yourself from hate

You should practice actions for the action's sake. Often, when you practice an action for the sake of a goal, your goal eludes you. Try to attain happiness and make it your only aim, and you will find yourself in constant sorrow.

From Evola;
>"To feel the need to refer to one's own power at every opportunity is already a sign of fear, inner weakness, and insecurity, which leads them in their desperation to resort to brutal violence, since they possess no inner point of real stability and power."
Power comes from a place of inner calm and stability, not a readiness to inflict great violence. This power is what people are naturally attracted to. Brute force isn't to be admired, especially if one could attain the same result with a more efficient action.

Buddha was an atheist. He's in hell because he failed to hate atheism. You will go to hell also if you fail to hate his philosophy of moral-relativism, admit you are a sinner, and then ask Jesus Christ to save your soul.

White nationalist are trying to free themselves of hate. they can fuck off and live separate from it.

>There is every reason for comparing the Christian and the anarchist because the impulse of both is toward destruction.... "The Christian and anarchist are both decadents, both are only able to act for the purpose of disintegrating, poisoning, degrading, and blood-sucking. They both have the impulse of mortal hatred toward anything that stands up, and is great, and is lasting and shows promise for the future ... Christianity was the vampire of the Imperium Romanum
t. Evola

Attached: 70df7c221418ee55ee724d3850e2862fbab337640524a3837075aa19fab9d127.jpg (250x250, 7K)

why don't they just kill themselves and go off into oblivion since that's what they want anyways?

Because they believe they will reincarnate. The only way they can escape reincarnation is by exhausting all karma.

so they seek eternal death?

Kill the enemy with no emotional content, no need to get your mind clogged with feelings.Emotion is a guiding compass, but if you already know your mission it's obsolete.Do the work, save your country/race, gas the kikes or whatever, just don't wobble.

Well Buddha believes in gods that lived in heaven. He wouldn't be in hell because he didn't do evil. It's not moral-relativism though. There are clear things which are right and wrong. Like killing is wrong, adultery, drugs, lying and stealing. At the time of Buddha they believe in many gods in heaven and demons in hell, but they did not believe in an over-arching god above it all.

well sort of, they want to not exist where there is suffering. But they go to nirvana, which is eternal happiness.

kys poo

Imagine living forever, never dying. No end whatsoever. It just goes on and on forever. Wouldn't you get sick of it after a while? Eventually you would want it to end. Because living forever would eventually become terrible. like imagine living for a million years, there would be nothing left to do. and then realizing that it would never end.

Buddhism basically sounds like a Boomer religion, a theistic rendering of John Lennon's Imagine.

I hate it. But I'd also like to be proven wrong.

I love you. I wish you happiness and freedom from suffering.

Well it's sort of different because it's about freeing yourself from everything. Also Buddhists don't seek to change the world. They believe the world will always be this way and they only seek to escape it.

you will never be accepted poo. GTFO back to your shithole country

hate only exists as a substitute for understanding. Once you understand then you can loathe.

Free yourself with freedom

ah yes the same complacency that has led to this state of the world.

I love my people, my actions are in the name of that....
-user-

Who wants to go off into oblivion? That is the fate of almost everyone. Immortality is attained, not the base state of things. The democratization of the mystery schools has left you confounded. This is the way of sacred kings: transcendence.

Evola (Ea) in Introduction to Magic:
>In any event, not the least reason for this mention is the need to dispel the misunderstanding about reincarnation, a view that, unlike what many contemporary "spiritualists" and Theosophists think, does not correspond at all to an esoteric teaching. That which appears to refer to it in many Eastern and Western texts is only a symbolic and popular way of expressing a doctrine with an altogether different meaning. Generally speaking, it is a contradiction in terms that a "samsaric Self (which for the great majority of cases is what passes for someone's "Self) may reincarnate. It is a contradiction because the relative identity of such a Self consists only in function of a given psychophysical organism, namely in function of a given combination that, once dissolved, will never reappear in the same way. That which continues in a series of existences is not what is produced, but the producing force, namely the subpersonal power mentioned before. In other words: if we were to call A, B, C, etc., the "Selves" that have taken form in various existences of the series, it is not A that reincarnates in B and then in C and so on, but rather it is the force that has acted in A and into which A is dissolved again that manifests itself again in B, and then in C, etc. The continuity falls exclusively on the side of this force that is not a Self nor the living consciousness.

>However, if by virtue of some miraculous operation, A (the Self of a given existence) could see before itself B and C, etc., namely the beings that are its supposed "reincarnations," they would and must appear to it as extraneous, as other people or Selves, distinct from it in space. The plane on which reincarnation may be true is the samsaric plane (the world of the Waters, the Hellenic "cycle of necessity"), and thus it has nothing to do with that of the spiritual personality. Thus, let me say in passing, there are good reasons to be suspicious of any doctrine that gives preeminence to the idea of reincarnation, unless its purpose is only the practical one of creating a background in order to highlight the entirely contrary direction, the one leading to "liberation." I am not denying that there are special experiences that may lend some sort of proof to the doctrine of reincarnation: it is just a matter of interpreting them correctly. Similar experiences have become extremely rare these days, especially in the West, due to the fact that the individual Self has assumed an increasingly rigid form, evermore closing in on itself.

>However, it is possible, thanks to some sudden insight, or through initiatic practices, to remove the limitation and gain a certain awareness of the deeper root of one's own life. Then what arises is the sams&ric consciousness, which may even assume the likeness of a memory; in the deep, subpersonal trunk, there really exists the memory of other existences, of those that, in a discontinuous series of "Selves," arose as ephemeral manifestations of the same, unexhausted trunk. But the only meaning of this is as a temporary removal from the individual consciousness and of a kind of "descent into hell." This corresponds, from case to case, either to a regression or to a certain (albeit virtual) superindividuality. In fact, once the limit of individual consciousness is removed, it would follow that the same consciousness, if awake, would be lost, as when sleeping, and no experience would be possible. Only due to a sort of echo of more ancient states did a samsaric semiconsciousness subsist in the East, which attenuated that feeling of the one and only earthly life of the Self that in the West represents the normal and common view. But if we are not speaking of regressions or fringes of a consciousness that has not been entirely defined and stabilized, samsaric consciousness should be regarded as a form of initiatic consciousness.57 The reader may recall that in the original Buddhist texts, where mention is made of the vision of multiple lives, this recollection is connected in an unequivocal way to stages of high contemplation. It is an experience that presupposes detachment

I’m a (((hate agent))). Honk, honk!

Attached: E22AD218-16D1-48BA-99A6-A32ACAB982FE.jpg (1111x893, 236K)

That sounds (ironically, considering the reputation) quite selfish. Not saying that you should have a utopian heaven-on-earth outlook (which always ends badly), but it just seems to me that Buddhism seems far too dismissive.

Why did God make hate a part of the human experience if hate is inherently bad, and how can anything be an abomination to God without hate in Him? Serious question.

Renewed youth in a child means everything is done for the first time again. First kiss, first scar, first great love, first great loss, first time away from home, first words, all of that.
It's also tremendously conceited to assume that unease with the universe is a problem with the world and not yourself.

>ignorance is bliss
I'd like to but I know too much

god manifest and express in many ways
its a little part of him, you and me
self - understanding and expand all possibilities
and sorry for my bad english

How convenient that nirvana is eternal happiness. Great that you can free yourself from all the bad of being alive while still clinging to the good in it. So much for transcendence.

But love of whites equals hate to the modern Left Wing and the eternal Jewish Masters. How do you square that up with your talk of love?

Been studying Buddhism lately and am considering converting. Seems like a very based religion.

Attached: 1556636639073.jpg (2712x5224, 3.67M)

I'm wary of any philosophy that intends to do away an entire part of the experience of being alive on a cosmic scale, as much as I am wary of one that claims all light and love and happiness is good and all darkness and suffering and hate is evil.
Stoners do this. They want so badly not to experience the "bad," not to be stressed or angry or have any mental burden, that they float around in this haze of detached, pseudoenlightened, hateless, harmless nirvana. And that's bad. And their lives only get back on track when they realize that feeling suffering and negativity is a moral good and necessity.
You can stop hating the chaos and the monsters around you and sit there all happy and fat while the world and everything you live in it burns, or you can hate them intensely with all your heart and work to defeat them.

>he didn't do evil.
He abandoned his family. He denied God. He begged instead of working. He mislead people. He taught moral relativism. Yes, he's in hell.

Moral relativist:
>Because of ignorance and greed, people imagine discrimination where, in reality, there are no discriminations. Inherently, there is no discrimination of right and wrong in human behavior; but people, because of ignorance, imagine such distinctions and judge them as right or wrong.
>In action there is no discrimination between right and wrong, but people make a distinction for their own convenience. Buddha keeps away from these discriminations and looks upon the world as upon a passing cloud. To Buddha every definitive thing is illusion; He knows that whatever the mind grasps and throws away is insubstantial; thus He transcends the pitfalls of images and discriminative thought.

Atheist:
>In this world there are three wrong viewpoints. If one clings to these viewpoints, then all things in this world are but to be denied. First, some say that all human experience is based on destiny; second, some hold that everything is created by God and controlled by His will; third, some say that everything happens by chance without having any cause or condition. If all has been decided by destiny, both good deeds and evil deeds are predetermined, weal and woe are predestined; nothing would exist that has not been foreordained. Then all human plans and efforts for improvement and progress would be in vain and humanity would be without hope. The same is true of the other viewpoints, for, if everything in the last resort is in the hands of an unknowable God, or of blind chance, what hop has humanity except in submission? It is no wonder that people holding these conceptions lose hope and neglect efforts to act wisely and to avoid evil. In fact, these three conceptions or viewpoints are all wrong: everything is a succession of appearances whose source is the accumulation of causes and conditions.

FUCK YOU

Attached: 1546704295020.jpg (640x789, 123K)

how do you solve hatred with loving-kindness when someone just wants to kill you for existing? (i.e. Muslims or Democrats)

Good message OP

You can still protect yourself of course. Definitely use self-defense if you're attacked, but don't hate them.

Shadow integration. The entire indian and abrahamic bullshit is based on being a fragmented gaslighted passive stupid freak.

>babbling nonsense
You're worse than a bot.

ur a fag