Yeah, the first sentence was working with your word, "concept," when you said earlier, "the problem with destroying humanity to help spawn new species is that those new species aren't real, they are only concepts, so such an action would commit the mistake of confusing concepts and reality."

I was trying to make sense of that statement of yours. "Concept" isn't a word I'd have chosen here, since both the future and the abstract collective of a species are in some sense conceptual, but that hardly means they're entirely subjective. Collectives are real and so is the future as a probability. It's not a hallucination or a delusion to say the sun will probably rise again tomorrow. Nor is it a hallucination to say that if we destroy our species, nature will probably evolve others that might suffer less for being less intelligent (assuming human intelligence is a biological anomaly).

Again, my interest is in how enlightenment manifests in social behaviour. There seems to me reason to think that enlightenment has antisocial implications. Social interaction thrives on delusions, so enlightened folks who see through the delusions that sustain mass happiness and functionality tend to be marginalized.

But the hype that surrounds Buddhism--if I could put it that way--is that Buddhist enlightenment is reassuring. It's not that Buddhists ignore tragedy and injustice, as you point out. But I take it that Buddhists are supposed to go with the flow. They're supposed to be at peace with what happens because they're not attached even to their personal interests. Yet Buddhists are also supposed to be driven by compassion.

Are you saying there's no philosophical reason why Buddhists are compassionate, that they just are as a matter of fact, and the only way to understand it is to dive into Buddhist practice? That seems closer to a sales pitch. Why should the connection between enlightenment and compassion be a mystery?