The justification of human suffering, the denial of one's own responsibility in helping to alleviate it and not to add to it, begins by denying that such suffering is bad, or that it does not exist.

The denial of the distinction between good and evil is a self-defeating proposition. The denial itself is the surest example of the evil that they attempt to deny.

No umvard, I think you didn't think it through enough. There is some part of the world objectively in existence, but to define that already gives it that subjective character.
So in my very subjective opinion, it seems to criticize people who claim to have humility (from their religion) but think that they should change things or people because they're "bad", "uneffective" or "lesser" than what you had in mind. Being, living, and religion should be about letting others live and letting things be. People aren't waiting to be told your "truth" or waiting for your modifications that will make them better. Live in the moment, be happy. That's how the world you're in works like.

He seems to be saying that there is a world, but that its "appearance is only a projection of one's own mind." There are two possibilities: there is a world and we perceive it or there is no world and only projection. If there is indeed a world, then the true world can be known objectively, and he cannot possibly stand by his relativistic stance. In fact, he is saying that he knows the true nature of the world, in contradiction of himself. If there isn't a world, then, I don't even know what to make of that.

He says that "nobody's ego or belief systems are of any value of society at all", but where does that leave him, speaking as he is? A hypocrite.