I believe it is. I want you to try to convince me otherwise.
And just so we don’t have to finagle with frivolous logical fallacies (hey! an alliteration), I’ll set some parameters–i.e. definitions:
[i]Nihilism - A philosophical position, sometimes called an anti-philosophy, which argues that Being, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other.
Buddhist Philosophy - Asserts that all phenomenal existence is transitory and asserts that sorrow is conquered by finding an object of knowledge which is not transient, not ephemeral–but is immutable, permanent, everlasting. Buddhism then teaches that such a quest is bound to fail, causing suffering. It also maintains that the everlasting warring of wills–as well as the differentiation between [/i]something and nothing–ought to be stagnated and repressed from further exertions.
Contingent upon those definition, explain to me why Buddhism doesn’t essentially assert the same thing as nihilism.
It is more a matter of perspective than anything else. In Buddhism, the essential emptiness of everything is seen as a positive, whereas in nihilism it isn’t.
Screw Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein, Buddhists were the first quantum physicists.
I seriously hold Buddhism as a far more sophisticated paradigm than Christianity, and that’s saying a lot. My beef is, if we will eventually become one with Shunyata when we die–which could very well be a positive notion, as you said–then why simply stand idly about during what fleet aggregated moments we have while attempting to attain the good graces of a Karma that may not even exist?
Why not affirm difference, as opposed to indifference, before becoming a rotting carcass?
Well, considering that we, as humans, are mortal, we are also all bound to die sooner or later. Now if a Buddhist is smart and intelligent enough to extrapolate metaphysical ideas that rival theoretical particle physicists–some of which have been suggested as being rather atheistic–then I’m sure said Buddhist would agree upon the epistemological fact that the afterlife is unknowable. Since we neither know whether an afterlife exists or not nor what circumstances can be expected of it, then why take the risk of casting aside the only chance of life that you have in hopes of achieving a nirvana which may also not exist.
To me, nihilism, Buddhism, Christianity and basically all religions strive to become one with the Universe under the assumption that it will quell whatever grievances they may suffer. Why not instead become one without the Universe? Why make the speculation that nirvana is really all that great?
(To be honest, i think I’m treating Buddhism too much as philosophy; I forget its still a religion nonetheless.)
All religions are man made. Man created God in his image. Whether its a buddha, Allah, Krishna or whatever. An afterlife does not compute.
The Earth is aproxx. 4.5 billion years old. Fossils have been found that date back at least 3 billion years, homo sapiens has been around at least 150.000 years, a micro second in the cosmological age.
Did our ancestors also go to heaven? If so, then cro-magnon man should be there as well, after all he was the first human like ancestor. If not, why not? Was he not a creation of God.?
That seems to me quite close to one of the primary insights of Mahayana Buddhism. The Heart Sutra, which is widely recited daily among Buddhist practitioners contains phrases such as “There is no impurity and no purity”, and “(there is) no ignorance, no end of ignorance up to no old age and death, no end of old age and death; no suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path, no wisdom, no attainment, and no non-attainment”
How would one accomplish that without a tangible path to follow though? More ultimate teachings such as are found in The Heart Sutra are typically combined with more accessible teachings for instance on how to lead a good and wholesome life which will lead the practitioner towards greater happiness and strength of character. This is not out of some sense of balance or compromise - that there needs to be some counterbalance to the ultimate ‘nihilistic’ philosophy which would otherwise lead to ennui and despair. The ultimate insights of Buddhism couldn’t be more different than nihilism (in the colloquial use of the term - I know next to nothing about formal nihilistic philosophy). The ultimate teachings such as on shunyata (‘emptiness’) and the provisional teachings such as on karma and reincarnation fully support and compliment each other. Teachings on karma and reincarnation for instance, although difficult to digest for people brought up in a Judeo-Christian or secular culture, are what give people a tangible sense of how to work with their own minds. And although the highest teachings may state that karma or reincarnation are not ultimately true or real, that does not mean that they are untrue in a relative or more limited sense. Keep in mind that according to The Heart Sutra there is also “no consciousness; no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no appearance, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch…”
It is said that when Buddha taught The Heart Sutra to his most advanced disciples many of them had heart attacks. The Heart Sutra certainly doesn’t elicit such a strong response in modern intellectual types such as ourselves (yes, I don’t think the heart attack story is literally true ). Why not? Probably because we are so divorced from such basic and grounded ways of living (what is called ‘path’ in Buddhism - teachings such as the Heart Sutra are called ‘fruitional’) as deep ethical conduct and ‘religious’ ritual that we don’t even have a proper ground to have pulled out from under us. Are we then more advanced than traditional Indian Buddhist practitioners who believe in Gods, karma, and reincarnation? I wonder…
I found an excellent teaching on The Heart Sutra which is far more eloquent than anything I could say. It contains this excellent quote, which seems to sum up the teaching quite well - “…the Buddhist teachings are progressive stages in groundlessness.” From the tone I’m guessing it comes from the American Buddhist nun Pema Chodron, but I could be wrong: purifymind.com/HeartSutraDrfu4.htm
While I’m not a Buddhist, my philosophy is largely informed by Buddhism so my approach to the question would be that you are over-emphasizing ontological being at the expense of existential becoming.
Our ontological being is in constant flux (Whitehead’s fallacy of misplaced concreteness is a Western example of this observation) so this leads to a crisis in language where we discover that we got it wrong. Being is what is in the state of change whereas becoming, the principle of creativity, is the constant factor in our lives. So from an ontologically real perspective, we only have the “now” and have to live in that now as best as possible. However, we also have to recognize that the very thing we recognize as “us” is an empty thing, a construct that we have made to help us actualize our existentially realized selves but it exists only in that capacity. To reify the self as something beyond that and to place undue emphasis on it leads to a collapse of the very thing that allows for it to exist and leads to anomie. So instead we have to strive to reconcile the immanent self of the now with the transcendent self that transcends the now.
The statement that “such a quest is bound to fail” is questionable to me. Perhaps it is an extremely subtle question regarding what exactly “an object of knowledge” is, but certainly Buddhahood has been described as ‘permanent’, ‘solid’, and ‘immutable’, despite the fact that in this context these terms can easily be misunderstood as mistaken reification of conceptual categories and therefore as blatant eternalism which would be anathema to Middle Way (the Centrist position which is neither ‘eternalism’ nor ‘nihilism’) understanding.
I have never heard that conceptual differentiation should be “stagnated and repressed”, which is not to say that the practice has never been taught by a qualified Buddhist teacher. Perhaps it has. These classic verses express a different approach to our habit of falsely imputing reality to mere conceptual constructs:
(from Profound Instruction on the View of the Middle Way, by Ju Mipham)
[i]Within this fundamental nature free from grasping,
All the projections imposed upon phenomena,
Have never arisen and never ceased to be,
And, free from the duality of perceiver and perceived,
One rests in the all-pervading space of equality.
This is beyond any assertions such as ‘is’ or ‘is not.’
And within this inexpressible state of true and natural rest
An experience dawns that is free from the slightest trace of doubt.[/i]
So are you saying that the concepts of Kama and reincarnation serve a (non-teleological) purpose–rather than assert an ontology–much in the same way that Nietzsche’s ‘eternal recurrence’ does?
And what do you mean by ‘path’? Is that to say that there is some predetermined fate by which individuals ought to follow in order to attain ‘salvation’?
Isn’t that just existentialism? To break down ontological forms (such as the transcendent self) and build newer, more personalized ones (such as a newer transcendent self–i.e. the superego or an ideal self–or just settling with the immanent self of the now).
So how does Buddhism propose to reconcile the two ‘selves’? Where, in its utter acknowledgment of the lack of any teleology, does it receive its morality?
First off, the way you should have phrased your opening question is, “Isn’t existentialism just Buddhism then?” Of course the answer is, “no” but there are enough similarities that existentialism is a reasonable cognate in the Western tradition so the vocabulary employed in existentialism is both tempting and useful in our present context.
Now, I think there are a couple of key difference between Buddhism and existentialism. First and most obviously, existentialism stresses one’s ultimate freedom – this is of course incompatible with the notion of karma. Now, karma is often made out to be some bugaboo but it is really just cause-and-effect. We aren’t “doomed to be free” at all, but are rather bound by our actions which stem from our desires/attachments. Furthermore, since the subject/object distinction is thought to be ultimately illusory, one can neither “feel alone” nor “be isolated”.
On the other hand, things like “being in the world” and “existence precedes essence” find themselves quite at home in a Buddhist system.
As for reconciling the two selves, it doesn’t seek to do that at all. Insofar as I understand it, the ontologically realized self has to be ablated first, while the existential self has to be overcome in order to realize Nirvana. Reconciliation doesn’t come into the picture at all. As for morality, since what ultimately binds us is suffering, it follows that promoting either suffering or attachment goes against the Buddhist ideology. Furthermore, since the subject/object distinction is ultimately rejected, doing wrong to another simply doesn’t make sense.
I can’t really say anything about Nietzsche’s ‘eternal recurrence’, but yes I would say provisional Buddhist concepts serve a purpose. I would not say however that they are a corrective. Xunzian points out simply and properly I think how Buddhist morality is integral to its highest philosophical insights: “As for morality, since what ultimately binds us is suffering, it follows that promoting either suffering or attachment goes against the Buddhist ideology. Furthermore, since the subject/object distinction is ultimately rejected, doing wrong to another simply doesn’t make sense.” Additionally, many of the key Buddhist insights and also the general tone and attitude of Buddhist philosophy arise from the discipline of meditation - where the practitioner learns to let go of conceptual overlays to reality (‘primitive beliefs’) without abandoning the clear intelligence with which to probe that reality.
Not fate, but recognition that our thoughts and actions do have consequences. If we would like to travel in a certain direction, we do certain things in order to create the conditions to make it happen. Obviously Buddhism is filled with accounts of sudden enlightenment as well as pithy slogans, koans, and other types of quotes that could make it sound like any person one meets on the street is just as enlightened as the next person. This may be true on one level, but as human creatures the depth of our worldly experience and being is far beyond what we normally think of it as being - so much so that we can often tell something of a person’s mind by how they carry themselves physically. An intellectual understanding of ultimate Buddhist philosophies may hardly affect even the tip of the iceberg. Thus, the ‘path’ of meditation, analysis, ethics, etc… ‘Salvation’ is a tricky concept though. I’m not sure if I associate that word with the goals (itself a tricky word) of Buddhism.
I’m not really trying to argue anything here - I’m just trying to present my understanding of the Buddhist teachings for consideration. I take those teachings quite seriously and try to the extent that I can to live by them.
If Nihilism is true, then every doctrine is Nihilistic. They would all serve as provisional and illusory subjective “purpose”. Meaning would be removed from them because there could be no meaning ever to be had.
I don’t know why–maybe I’m yearning for something different–but I’m finding Buddhist philosophy to be very interesting.
I still have some questions though. Does Buddhism simply presoppose that a ‘persistent being’ exists beyond the confines of our ‘transitory becoming’? Doesn’t that simply mean that the existence precedes essence axiom is somewhat inapplicable with Buddhism. Upon what grounds is that conclusion made?
Does the extending beyond “primitive beliefs” roughly equate to abandoning the will to power? “As for morality, since what ultimately binds us is suffering, it follows that promoting either suffering or attachment goes against the Buddhist ideology. Furthermore, since the subject/object distinction is ultimately rejected, doing wrong to another simply doesn’t make sense.” Can you elaborate on that?
My only issue with existentialism is its whole doctrine on freedom; I for one am a determinist. Is Buddhism’s Karma simply determinism?
Also, do either of you know off hand of any good sites that go in-depth into Buddhist philosophy (not so much the religious aspect)? I’d like to read more on the topic.
I’ll try to say something in response to your other questions and points within the next few days. But in terms of reading I highly recommend “Mind at Ease: Self-Liberation through Mahamudra Meditation” by Traleg Kyabgon. He is a highly trained Tibetan Buddhist scholar and teacher and I have found his books to contain some of the most lucid and intelligent presentations of Buddhism for the lay person. There are many excellent sources of information however, which may be more suited to your own interests and predilections. I would be glad to help you in the future if you are still looking.
Oh, I just realized you said ‘sites’ not books. Shambhala has an excellent article on ‘calm abiding’ meditation by Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche here.
Let me know if you are looking for something more scholarly or from a different angle or different Buddhist tradition. These are simply things I can recommend based on my own experience.
The conclusion is based on human experience, really. So, we know that physical and mental continuity are bullshit, right? For example, the “you” of right now neither resembles the “you” at 14 years of age physically nor mentally. Despite that, we insist both a individuals and as a society that the you of right now is that same individual. So there is an ill-defined “something that gets passed on” that often gets translated as something like “soul” because the western tradition lacks a good cognate and that kinda almost works, but not really. See, the problem with the soul is that is assumes that underneath everything there really is something and that assumption is not shared by Buddhism. At the core of it all, there really isn’t anything at all is the fundamental assumption of Buddhism. Essence is entirely a construct of existence. After all, we are here because we are bound by dukka (suffering). Since we are here we both engage in the construction of the world as well as living in the world itself. But both of those are ultimately fantasies.
I’m not sure on the first part. The will to power is really the will to overcome and Buddhism is ultimately about overcoming everything. Remember: Nietzsche stole shamelessly from Eastern sources while decrying them as flawed. As for the latter, I’d recommend you first check out “The Way of the Bodhisattva” by Shantideva. In Buddhism, attachment is seen as the root of all suffering. So, you have multiple layers of consciousness (how many depends on the particular school) and they are all sorta based on the idea that we are tricking ourselves that reality exists. Here is a quick story that kinda illustrates this point: So, in college I went out with my buddies to a house party. Perfectly standard college activity, right? Only since my dad is an alcoholic, I was able to peg the keg as being O’Doul’s, a non-alcoholic beer, because the hosts were basically fleecing a bunch of rubes. Despite the beer being non-alcoholic, many people at the party were acting drunk including a friend of mine who was “Soooooo wasted man, I had, like, twelve beers. . .” The drunkenness was an illusion but, existence precedes essence, they tricked themselves into believing they were drunk because they were attached to the idea of drunkenness. Does that make sense? With the subject/object distinction, it really depends on how “into” Buddhism you want to get because different schools have different explanations. Given the unabashed Chinese bias to my philosophical leaning, I’ll actually quote a Daoist philosopher on this issue, but given how heavily Zen borrows from Daoism and how compatible the two traditions have become/became/are/were/insert-your-view-here I think the quote is fair:
That depends entirely on which sect you are talking about. Some sects are staunch determinists, wherein every action they take is already the result of past karma, whereas others are incredibly free and people have ultimate control over their destinies through karma though the unenlightened don’t realize it.
The two are sort of inseparable, because of various assumptions that have been made. People talk about it, but it is purely an academic distinction. Given that, if you have access to an academic server, JSTOR isn’t a bad option. Otherwise you can mine the religious material for philosophy and follow up on people that you like. Basically, that means either avoid new-age bookstores entirely or do so but buy the ugliest books you can without any cover jackets and hope for the best. Really, google is your friend. Start flirting with google and wikipedia on Buddhist topics. When there is a topic you find interesting, jot it down. More importantly, when you find a name that seems like they are talking sense, jot it down and follow it up. If they have said one sensible thing, they have probably said others. From there you’ll find other names and other names and before you know it you’ll be talking about various hyper-obscure Buddhist philosophers. That said, e-sangha is probably a good starting place, despite its religious emphasis.
). Why not? Probably because we are so divorced from such basic and grounded ways of living (what is called ‘path’ in Buddhism - teachings such as the Heart Sutra are called ‘fruitional’) as deep ethical conduct and ‘religious’ ritual that we don’t even have a proper ground to have pulled out from under us. Are we then more advanced than traditional Indian Buddhist practitioners who believe in Gods, karma, and reincarnation? I wonder…