The most important type of dukkha, however, is sankhara-dukkha, an existential incompleteness due to spiritual ignorance. This incompleteness arises from being limited to one's own contingent and unenlightened perspective.
The Buddhist response to them both would be that they failed to understand the system fully because they failed to adopt Buddhist practices aimed at enlightenment - at which point they would have developed the capacity to conceive of Nirvana.
"He directly knows nibbana as nibbana. Directly knowing nibbana as nibbana, let him not conceive things about nibbana, let him not conceive things in nibbana, let him not conceive things coming out of nibbana, let him not conceive nibbana as 'mine,' let him not delight in nibbana. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.
For Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, nothingness is what is left when these illusions are removed. This explains their sharply opposed responses to the human condition as they understand it. Schopenhauer and, according to Nietzsche, Buddhism, prescribe a surrender into nothingness that can only be actualized by extinction of the will. Nietzsche, on the other hand, asserts an affirmation of the illusion by becoming the creator of it. His überman, by accepting the groundlessness of his own 'truths'and yet maintaining them and continually creating them - wanting to create them over and over again (as opposed to wanting to escape the cycle) - represents an ideal response to existence.
Buckwheat wrote:For Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, nothingness is what is left when these illusions are removed. This explains their sharply opposed responses to the human condition as they understand it. Schopenhauer and, according to Nietzsche, Buddhism, prescribe a surrender into nothingness that can only be actualized by extinction of the will. Nietzsche, on the other hand, asserts an affirmation of the illusion by becoming the creator of it. His überman, by accepting the groundlessness of his own 'truths'and yet maintaining them and continually creating them - wanting to create them over and over again (as opposed to wanting to escape the cycle) - represents an ideal response to existence.
How does one benefit from maintaining the illusion?
nem wrote:I must say Nietzsche had a profound impact on my life, quite the opposite of the Bhudda.
In 2003, I began a study of Beyond Good and Evil and also Genealogy of Morals. After reading these books several times, I became convinced that 'there is nothing' and that any moral code is simply for the weak. That morality and ideas of good and evil, are part of an effort to keep people like me (like I was) from feeling free to do what we want to do. In a Genealogy of Morals, as I remember it was put forth that 'good' had been defined since the earliest times as whatever the powerful did, and 'bad' was anything that the weak or poor people did who differentiated them from the powerful or rich. In this way, he turned it into a class struggle issue and totally wiped away the idea that there is any real utility to morals, any karma, any effect of deeds. You can make a strong argument for doing almost anything from the standpoint of his teachings.
After becoming indoctrinated in this, I became totally cold, heartless, closeminded and basically did all kinds of immoral things. It was only after the effects harmed other people, and then finally harmed me, that I finally realized that Nietzsche was teaching a doctrine that works in some fantasy, where there are no consequences to our actions, while I live in an experience where the consequences are real and often immediate. The error of his teachings aside, he has to be the most egotistical author to ever touch pen to paper and this alone was almost intolerable and shows his ignorance of the Dhamma. It seemed that perhaps 25% of his words were dedicated to the glorification of the philosopher as a supreme example of human perfection. All this need for self-glorification calls into question the validity of his teaching, as if the content of the teaching alone could not show its worth. As a young 20-something, hearing his teachings without sufficient life experience to know where they lead, I did so many bad things by using his philosophy as an 'out' or 'excuse' to run rampant. I hope this isn't something that people are typically reading, it's interesting but it's a hindrance.
I also did note that everything was very 'Westernized.' I often thought, why is he constantly hacking away the supports of Christianity and Judaism and speaking of Europe? He speaks of a philosophy that would apply to the whole world if true, but it's like he typically forgets any cultures outside the West. He needed to show that everyone else is wrong, in order to make his idea work, not just the Westerners. The Bhudda is not so easy to hack at, because his teaching is good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end with the right wording and phrasing to stand the test. So Nietzsche never seemed to follow down that path too much, a slippery slope for him, he might have fallen in the Dhamma! Would have made my life easier, if he'd thrown all his manuscripts in the trash. But being deluded by his ideas, and coming out of it, is part of my development, so...
“God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. – And we – we still have to vanquish his shadow too.” (The Gay Science, § 108, p. 167.)
“The impulse to desire in this domain nothing but certainties is a religious after-shoot, no more – a hidden and only apparently skeptical species of the ‘metaphysical need...” (Human, All Too Human, § 16, p. 308)
We have absolutely no need of these certainties, regarding the furthest horizon to live a full and excellent human life… What we need, rather, is to become clear in our minds as to the origin of that calamitous weightiness we have for so long accorded to these things, and for that we require a history of the ethical and religious sensations (Human, All Too Human § 16, p. 308).
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos." AN 4.45
The discipline of suffering, of great suffering – do you not know that only this discipline
has created all enhancements of man so far? That tension of the soul in unhappiness
which cultivates its strength, its shudders face to face with great ruin, its inventiveness and
courage in enduring, persevering, interpreting, and exploiting suffering, and whatever has
been granted to it of profundity, secret, mask, spirit, cunning, greatness -- was it not granted
to it through suffering, through the discipline of great suffering? (Beyond Good and Evil, § 225, p. 344)
Indeed, we philosophers and “free spirits” feel, when we hear the news that “the old god
is dead,” as if a new dawn shone on us; our heart over-flows with gratitude, amazement,
premonition, expectation. At long last the horizon appears free to us again, even if it should
not be bright; at long last our ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger;
all the daring of a lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again;
perhaps there has never yet been such an “open sea. (The Gay Science, § 343, p. 280)
Saying Yes to life even in its strangest and hardest problems, the will to life rejoicing over
its own inexhaustibility even in the very sacrifice of its highest types – that is what I called
Dionysian, that is what I guessed to be the bridge to the psychology of the tragic poet. Not
in order to be liberated from terror and pity, not in order to purge oneself of a dangerous
affect by its vehement discharge – Aristotle understood it that way – but in order to be
oneself the eternal joy of becoming, beyond all terror and pity – that joy which included
even joy in destroying. (Twilight of the Idols in The Portable Nietzsche, “What I Owe to the Ancients,” pp. 562-563)
To “give style” to one’s character – a great and rare art! It is practiced by those who survey
all the strengths and weaknesses of their nature and then fit them into an artistic plan until
every one of them appears as art and reason and even weaknesses delight the eye. Here a
large mass of second nature has been added; there a piece of the original nature has been
removed – both times through long practice and daily work at it. …. In the end, when
the work is finished, it becomes evident how the constraint of a single taste governed and
formed everything large and small. Whether this taste was good or bad is less important
than one might suppose, if only it was a single taste! (The Gay Science, § 290, p. 232)
And furthermore, just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma & Vinaya has a single taste: that of release... This is the sixth amazing & astounding quality of this Dhamma & Vinaya because of which, as they see it again & again, the monks take great joy in this Dhamma & Vinaya. ~ Uposatha Sutta
What wealth here is best for man?
What well practiced will happiness bring?
What taste excels all other tastes?
How lived is the life they say is best?
Faith is the wealth here best for man;
Dhamma well practiced shall happiness bring;
Truth indeed all other tastes excels;
Life wisely lived they say is best
~ Alavaka Sutta
Users browsing this forum: BasementBuddhist and 35 guests