Nietzsche's Problem With Buddhism

[camerata]

Nietzsche's Problem with Buddhism

By Sean Harrison Higgins

In the majority of Nietzsche`s work, Buddhism is praised as a more worthwhile religion system than others. In La Gaya Scienza Nietzsche uses Buddhism to explain his philosophy of Gods and men: After the Buddha died his shadow was still visible in a cave for hundreds of years "an enormous gruesome shadow. God is dead; "(La Gaya Scienza p. 463) In the Will to Power, Nietzsche`s unpublished notebooks, Buddhism is compared to Christianity, and considered colder and more realistic ". Yet, Buddhism is also classified as a passive nihilism. Unfortunately this passive nihilism charge is not fleshed out. The Will to Power was an unfinished work, and this concept went to the presses unfinished as well. Through my research in Buddhism and Asian Religions, I have found a possible reason for this charge. It is the Neo-Confucian criticism of Buddhism. This short article will logically explain how the Neo-Confucian critique of Buddhism, describes what Nietzsche possibly meant by passive nihilism ".

The Neo-Confucians had many criticisms of Buddhism, but the main charge against Buddhism was that it did not follow the five relationships of responsibility to society. In Confucianism, every individual was expected to comport to societal and filial responsibility. Buddhism, shirked society`s responsibilities, and advocated abandoning the home in favor of the monastery. To the neo-Confucians this was selfish and destructive to society. Although meditation techniques and mystical practice were adopted by the neo-Confucians from Buddhism and Taoism, they felt that governing statecraft was still the utmost responsibility. Thus, the Neo-Confucians struggled to oust Buddhism from harming the wavering balance on the State and its rectification.

Could Nietzsche`s charge of "passive nihilism" refer to this Buddhist tendency of shirking societal duties? I think so. I believe that the definition of passive nihilism refers to an individual`s internally destructive tendencies, such as selfish withdrawal. An active nihilism would refer to an actively destructive being, fighting wars for religion for example. Buddhism to Nietzsche was a hundred times more peaceful, and a hundred times for contemplative. Yet, something was missing from this compassionate world view. The nihilism of Abrahamic religions, like Christianity and Judaism seems to entwine itself with statecraft, but leads to its misuse. Buddhism to Nietzsche must have been lacking the authoritative stance of proactive engagement with government. Thus, this lack of world-turning statecraft power in historical forms of Buddhism (those that Nietzsche studied) is probably what led him to conclude that it was still a form of nihilism.

Source.

[RY12]

In Germany, or Europe in general, you qualify as a great 'philosopher' if you write anything more abstract than a business report. It is a competition of wittyness and sophistry, with little actual experience to back up the fanciful words. Nietzsche is the idol of depressed teenagers and autonomic, insecure germans , ....he glorified the 'blonde beast'... the argument stops there folks. I have no interest in such a joker, nor his 19th century views on Buddhism, the latter of which requires years of arduous self-reflection and mental concentration, not a few idle strokes of the pen whilst drinking saukerkraut wine in dusseldorfenberg.

[chutai]

Some time ago I came across something written by Sangharakshita of the FWBO , which I found to be interesting.

Buddhism, Neitzsche, and the 'Superman'

[sabaijai]

A parallel between Confucianism and Nietzsche's intentions makes little sense in light of the latter's famed indifference towards social duty. Confucianists believe social duty and tradition are a priori values, Nietzsche did not.

Aside from that, arguments that Buddhist doctrine is neither passive nor nihilist exist in great volume. But it's a convenient epithet, like labelling your spouse or friend 'passive agressive' because they won't argue with you

[Trickcyclist]

'After coming in contact with a religious man I always feel that I must wash my hands.'

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (The Antichrist)

[Nostraforce]

Well Buddhism is nihilist in it's refusal of dogma's. But saying 'Do not believe in dogma's' would be a dogma too so that's why it is a passive nihilism. Nietzsche was opposed to Nihilism in it's pure form by the way, he saw it's destructive potential. But I do not think Nietzsche had a problem with Buddhism. Well you see with buddhism that people can act 'immoral' and still be a faithful buddhist, as Buddhism doesn't give any hard rules about this is moral and that is not. The Buddhist view is that moral behavior flows naturally.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Nostraforce

[PeaceBlondie]

If I am not off topic,

If Nietzsche considered Christianity and Judaism to be warring religions, maybe he was a little German-victim of his time, ignorant of Christian and Jewish pacifisms.

[chutai]

If I am not off topic,

If Nietzsche considered Christianity and Judaism to be warring religions, maybe he was a little German-victim of his time, ignorant of Christian and Jewish pacifisms.

In a similar way that Marx and Engels critique of religion only came from knowledge of the Judeo and Judeo-Christian traditions. Another interesting paper on the subject of Buddhism and Marxism is Victor Gunasekara (The Buddhist Society Of Queensland) paper:

Marxism in a Buddhist Perspective

[Ijustwannateach]

I would have thought that Nietzsche's objections to Buddhism would have revolved around his vision of the independent, imaginative self-creator who 'overcomes' the herd by asserting his individual vision and power. In that sense, Buddhism's focus on the self-apart-from-other as illusory would have been antithetical to his vision.

His main objections both to Christianity and Judaism- as far as I know- were related to their use of non-cooperative power (destroying/persecuting me will make you feel bad about yourself) as being less self-proactive than he felt people should be.

[IMA_FARANG]

In Germany, or Europe in general, you qualify as a great 'philosopher' if you write anything more abstract than a business report. It is a competition of wittyness and sophistry, with little actual experience to back up the fanciful words. Nietzsche is the idol of depressed teenagers and autonomic, insecure germans , ....he glorified the 'blonde beast'... the argument stops there folks. I have no interest in such a joker, nor his 19th century views on Buddhism, the latter of which requires years of arduous self-reflection and mental concentration, not a few idle strokes of the pen whilst drinking saukerkraut wine in dusseldorfenberg.

You need to be careful in seperating what Nietzsche actually said and what others assumed he meant (often for their own reasons). For example your term "blonde beast" is based on your assumption of what he meant by that term, not what he assumed the term meant. Nietzsche is often criticised for refering to Man and Superman...but what he meant by Superman was a man above and outside of the normal human failings...not a Superpower, but one who had gone beyond the normal failings of a human...and therefore was in control of those failings that other men were prone too. I suspect your term 'blonde beast" has more to do with the conditioning of the German 'master race" blonde concept, which Nietzsche neither suppported or endorsed. It was others who twisted his terms to serve their own ends...as in the Nazi party properganda.

But back to the charge of passive nihilism....I would think Buddhisim is just the opposite. It asks people to withdraw from the world, but insists that the true Buddhists has a moral code and a ethic that he/she displays to society by his/her actions. I wouldn't consider that nihilistic at all.

[OxfordWill]

N is no fun at all since he doesn't write clearly and even less is he understood when in translation but the general consensus nowadays is that the problem he had was one of ontology- i.e. the matter at the heart of the conflict is whether or not there is a third thing between or other to "existing" and "not existing".

Buddhists say: Yes.

N says: No.

N says: Enlightenment means you (your will) don't exist, ergo nihilism

Buddhists say: N doesnt understand us or enlightenment

Oxfordwill adds: how can enlightenment be better understood?

Buddhists say: by what is absent (negation)

OW says: and you wonder why nihlism is a charge?

Buddhists say: you dont understand us or enlightenment.

Its tough, but I think I hate N alot more than the people who have tried to explain enlightenment to me.

Edited October 18, 2009 by OxfordWill

[Svenn]

In Germany, or Europe in general, you qualify as a great 'philosopher' if you write anything more abstract than a business report. It is a competition of wittyness and sophistry, with little actual experience to back up the fanciful words. Nietzsche is the idol of depressed teenagers and autonomic, insecure germans , ....he glorified the 'blonde beast'... the argument stops there folks. I have no interest in such a joker, nor his 19th century views on Buddhism, the latter of which requires years of arduous self-reflection and mental concentration, not a few idle strokes of the pen whilst drinking saukerkraut wine in dusseldorfenberg.

You need to be careful in seperating what Nietzsche actually said and what others assumed he meant (often for their own reasons). For example your term "blonde beast" is based on your assumption of what he meant by that term, not what he assumed the term meant.

Assumptions of his assumptions? let's take a look at what he wrote: ...." It is impossible not to recognise at the core of all these aristocratic races the beast of prey; the magnificent blonde beast , avidly rampant for spoil and victory; this hidden core needed an outlet from time to time, the beast must get loose again, must return into the wilderness—the Roman, Arabic, German, and Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Vikings, are all alike in this need."

Would you care to explain what he 'really meant' by this argument ima_farang? He sounds like a bored, insecure lunatic to me.... or a teenager writing a theme song to a Warcraft videogame. Perhaps I am a purest of sorts, but if someone holds them self out as philosopher or teacher, I judge every sentence recorded by them and excuse nothing. This is because we can truly judge if someone has attained what they say they have if they act in accordance with it even in their 'less precise' moments.

the conflict is whether or not there is a third thing between or other to "existing" and "not existing".

Buddhists say: Yes.

N says: No.

Its tough, but I think I hate N alot more than the people who have tried to explain enlightenment to me.

You are a proper Buddhist then if you hate people who've tried to explain enlightenment to you. The texts somewhere state that those who try to speak about the true essence of the buddhadhamma are relegated to hel_l, a sorrowful admission made by D.T. Suzuki, the Zen man who brought most of us Westerners, whether we're aware of it or not, to the understanding of Buddhism we have today.

If I may though, I don't think most Buddhists believe in a third 'thing' per se, rather it is a background, totalistic existence-ness that substantiates this transient, limited reality of being and non-being we perceive with our consciousness:

You cannot describe it, you cannot picture it,

You cannot admire it, you cannot sense it.

It is your true self, it has nowhere to hide.

When the world is destroyed, it will no be destroyed.

(The Gateless Gate, 12th Century)

Edited October 20, 2009 by Svenn

[chutai]

You are a proper Buddhist then if you hate people who've tried to explain enlightenment to you. The texts somewhere state that those who try to speak about the true essence of the buddhadhamma are relegated to hel_l, a sorrowful admission made by D.T. Suzuki, the Zen man who brought most of us Westerners, whether we're aware of it or not, to the understanding of Buddhism we have today.

It's bit limited to suggest that any one book can bring anyone to an understanding of Buddhism. If books alone led to an understanding of Buddhism, then there'd be no need for practice. Only that which is learned from experience is truly realised.

But as for the rest of your post, you seem to be stuck into some kind of groove that is selective concerning what Nietzsche wrote (he was renowned for making a series of unconnected statements).

My humble suggestion is that you go back and read the link provided in my Post #3 -- well at least from about one and a half pages in -- in order to broaden your perspective a little.

[OxfordWill]

I think Chutai is being unnecessarily polite toward N!

[RubbaJohnny]

Interesting thread

I thought the gateless gate is alot older than cite above 12th century

can you quote your source

The zen dhyana masters of Nihong were referring to anciet chinese Daoist texts of Li Erh and the Tao te king

I do not wish to be argumentative this thread is acut above the cheap flight visa and pool bargaining.

I feel a perusal of the Chuang Tzu and analects give a helpful frame to approach German 19th century interest in Orientalism

Siddhartha Gautama born Hindu therefore the Ramayana Uppanishads and vedas de riguer for a sritical analysis

As the forest monk has always known none of this historicism is necessary for enlightenment.

Perhaps immigration may prefer to make merit and oblige visitors do a year at the temple during a 999 day prep like Mt Athos This may deter the unruly. immoral and mercenary.No cash would bypass bhodidharma