…
…
Nice try Cezar but no cigar:
— You see, there is a significant difference between the indian and the greek Buddhism. The first one was caused through a total spiritual exhaustion, and the later only through a partial. The total exhaustion occures if a massive suffering forces people towards pity and so force them to give their energy to the “neighborhood”. The indian suffering->pity->exhaustion->Buddhism came through the wrong climate and the greek came not through suffering but through the unmoderate way of life and the “virtue in itself”.
O- “Greek Buddhism”? There is no such thing. Explain where you get the intuition to connect, of all the possible connectable things to that greek spirit, Buddha to what you know as greek. Why not Daoism or Hinduism? And why so far east? The roots of the Oracle and the bacchae do not necessarly have to come from there and certainly don’t seem to. Phoenicia and the Phrygians, not to mention tyhe Assyrians and babylonians could have had, and seem to have had, much more influence on those greeks than the Buddha, a much later addition.
Now, if your aim is to trace the differences between the greek and indian cultures, then I question the severity of your trace. “The first one was caused through a total spiritual exhaustion.”? And how pray tell do you come to this conclusion because certainly a dozen other conclusions seem more appropiate. For example, could it be that it was not from exhaustion but from rational/mercantile development? Death, disease, war, have been constant in human history. So the question one asks is why all of the sudden this presses more heavily on the human soul. I think that if you look at the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Indian, Hebrew and Greek cultures, you’ll find a relation between tracts about “injustice”, “evil”, as a problem in cultures with a well-developed market and goverment. It isn’t some bleak exhaustion of the spirit, but a development of a high degree of expectation of investment and return, which attenuates the mind to feeol more vividly the lack of equity in human life.
That is just one alternative, but there could be more that could still be entretained.
— But where is the christian “climate” ask perhaps you as one of the perhaps two, three, four? Well, we can feel a bad atmosphere, isnt it? But it isn’t the air that we breathe in, but the air that we breathe out! It comes out of us! We put a bad feeling in this air and so spread it.
Which one feeling is it, ask you now? It is the most dangerous feeling which is bound in the “most spiritual revenge against life” called Christianity. It is the epidemic feeling of suffering which has affected the whole white race which is/was already the most spiritual race ever. It is a social epidemy caused by the religion!
O- How is the Christian “feeling” most dangerous? How then did such thing rise up amid the most bening religion then known? Well, perhaps because the early christians were the opposite of life’s enemies. They were actaully most friendly to the living in the ways that really matter to the greater majority of humanity: The herd. Their care for the sick, infirm and poor- helping where they found Life still battling to be alive-- was evidence of how much they were friends to Life. They want Life and Life more abundantly. Everything else that can be conceived as “Christianity’s” emnity towards Life, will also be found in many other religions Christianity did not invent any loathing of Life. They like any other, simply tried to solve the problem of suffering.
— It is the feeling of pity for the futile!
O- Without pity you would not be here, alive.
I’ve always thought of spiritual exhaustion as a product of loss of hope.
…
“Spiritual exhaustion” amounts to the lack of incentive to live in a principled way which, as one believes, should guide one toward a reward after physical life. “Giving up,” as it were, in following the mores and morals one thinks one should endorse while alive so to secure a spiritual existence after death.
The alternative definition, which calls “spiritual” only another definition for “personality” or “attitude,” one which is free of other worldly beliefs and afterlives, would mean that one becomes disoriented toward one’s originial attitude toward something; I am exhausted because I no longer find this comical, or terrifying, or saddening, or joyful, etc.
The solution, of course, to spiritual exhaustion in the second case is amor fati and the willing, or accepting, of the possibility of the eternal recurrence.
The formula I believe is this: to live aggressively and daringly, even violently, but toward a goal which would work in either case; with or without God.
The essence of my greatness is the ruthless nature of my beliefs and the power of upholding an impossible ideal. I overthrow even supermen. I even seek them out because I can; it is not a question of should I.
To raise hell on earth and destroy everything so that a utopia might finally exist. If I fail…what have I lost? I would do the same every life for the rest of eternity, and would not regret a moment of it.
And Cezar, you are treating the concept of “pity” to simply. It is far more complicated than that and its origins are not in Christianity. It is because Nietzsche capitalized on the Christian orientation of pity that you so easily conclude its genealogy. This is a clumsy mistake. The sentiment of pity is traced back to even the simplest morals in primitive roaming groups, long before organized civilization.