>Every purely moral value system (that of Buddhism, for example) ends in nihilism: this to be expected in Europe.

>Every purely moral value system (that of Buddhism, for example) ends in nihilism: this to be expected in Europe. One still hopes to get along with a moralism without religious background: but that necessarily leads to nihilism.- In religion the constraint is lacking to consider ourselves as value-positing.
Buddhabros… our response?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who cares about Europe?

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's little purely moral to Buddhism, that's my response. Morality is seen as a tool and a crutch at most

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      explain

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Buddhism is Atheist
    lol no buddhism is advaita vedanta for dummies

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't need a neurotic womanly man like Nietzsche pontificate to me how I should admire the sewage for being sewage.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      100% chance Nietzsche could kick your 300lb ass.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    One thing I really don’t like about 20th century people is that they spoke authoritatively about religions they obviously knew really nothing about. Buddhism and Islam for example

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Buddhism is shit because it’s all life denying, it’s the same thing Schopenhauer was on.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Wrong

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >wrong
          >posts an ascetic in ascetic garb

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            He worked as a sesame seed grinder and as the servant of a prostitute, who was also his consort

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Christianity is the only way to disengage from the world but then reengage. All the Eastern stuff, and Schopenhauer, offer a way to disengage but no way to reengage.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          > Christianity is the only way to disengage from the world but then reengage. All the Eastern stuff, and Schopenhauer, offer a way to disengage but no way to reengage.
          >what are the 10 Ox Herding Pictures of Zen (eerily similar to the cycle of “Overgoing” and “Undergoing”, Untergang and Übergang, of Nietzsche’s Zarathustra)?
          >who is the Bodhisattva of Mahayana schools of Buddhism?
          >what is the focus in Tantric/Vajrayana schools of Buddhism on the transmutation of incarnate life, sufferings, and pleasures as opposed to their complete denial?

          Nietzsche had a massive intellect and, as he himself dubbed himself, was a dynamite-like thinker, incredibly engaging and thought-provoking to read, capable of turning our worldview on its head and rethinking long-cherished notions, but as

          [...]
          Schope was relying on translations which among other things rendered dukkha as dolor, "pain," and his entire appreciation of Buddhism is based on assuming it is in agreement with his pessimism and quieting of the will in order to overcome pain. It is less a matter of pain and suffering and more that the elements (dharma) of experience as grasped are in a state of commotion or unrest... one suffers in the sense that this can be experienced as pain if his mind is weak or clouded and sees lasting substance in any of this momentariness to cling to. Nietzsche rejects Schope's Buddhism insofar as it is nihilism to him, but a passive nihilism free of ressentiment. A better understanding of Buddhism, especially through the prajñaparamita literature of Mahayana for which emptiness is the central concept, is not going to come around until well after Nietzsche, e.g. Stcherbatsky, Obermiller, Conze, or through popularizers of Zen like DT Suzuki. (Bataille and Heidegger are thus able to read Zen and Nietzsche and move in that direction somewhat). Certainly any formulation of samsara as not other than nirvana—as is common property of the Mahayana schools—would meet Nietzsche's definition of life affirming. The bodhisattva does will his own eternal return, for the benefit of the world, no matter how long it takes for others to mature.

          notes he (and slightly earlier thinkers like Schopenhauer) were still relying on archaic translations and conceptions of Buddhism into Western thought and language.

          Even Nietzsche’s conception of the eternal return and taking joy in it (amor fati, love of one’s fate) is strangely similar to the Mahayana (and Tantric/Vajrayana, as these are building off of Mahayana) conception of gladly reincarnating indefinitely to aid sentient beings, as well as the supreme enlightenment being even beyond the desire to escape the wheel of life and death.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >gladly reincarnating indefinitely to aid sentient beings
            Bodhisattvas don't reincarnate as samsaric beings indefinitely, postponing enlightenment to aid sentient beings. The goal is to achieve enlightenment as quickly as possible and then benefit beings as a fully enlightened Buddha.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >postponing enlightenment to aid sentient beings.
            >achieve enlightenment as quickly as possible and then benefit beings as a fully enlightened Buddha.
            Sectarian minutiae on par with theological speculation; the point is what the practitioner has vowed, which is to not abandon this world so long as there are sentient beings to liberate. It is like signing a 999-year lease, effectively you are going to do this forever, for many such kalpas. From the Mahayana (and Vajrayana/Esoteric Buddhist) perspective this is a greater goal than the sravaka or pratetkabuddha paths (collectively the "Hinayana", of which contemporary Theravada is a descendant), which are seen as striving for a personal entry into nirvana, that of the arhat, for whom nirvana is separated from samsara. And this would indeed fall under the Nietzschean critique of a passive nihilism (one without ressentiment), but the Mahayana opposes this in identifying samsara and nirvana as interdependencies, or as the same but viewed differently

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Bodhisattvas can vow to never abandon samsara while still aiming to achieve enlightenment because samsara and nirvana are not different. Bodhicitta is not just compassion, the four brahmaviharas belong to the vehicle of gods and men and equivalents can be found in many religions. Bodhicitta is the wish to achieve complete Buddhahood to benefit beings. This is what distinguishes Mahayana from Hinayana.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            well the point i was trying to make is there is the bodhisattva pitaka or those texts which teach a progression of stages (bhumis, paramitas) we might call orthodox or exoteric Mahayana and then you have the Vajrayana collections of tantra and mantra and the like, or esoteric Mahayana, which is about directly ascending to Buddhahood in this body, but in both cases there is no complete cutting off of the world (samsara) where being are born and die for a place where this would not happen (nirvana), as in both forms of Mahayana that concept of escape from life is from their internal perspective, corrected against by the soteriology of the buddha or bodhisattva who vows to liberate.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >about directly ascending to Buddhahood in this body
            That's not really the main point, the goal of Vajrayana is just achieving Buddhahood as quickly as possible through the skillful means of tantric practice. It really makes no difference if you become a Buddha in this life or right after you die and enter the Bardo.
            >there is no complete cutting off of the world (samsara) where being are born and die for a place where this would not happen (nirvana)
            A Mahayana Bodhisattva who has achieved Buddhahood no longer experiences samsaric rebirth. Read the Buddha's description of his enlightenment in the Lalitavistara Sutra.
            https://read.84000.co/translation/toh95.html#UT22084-046-001-chapter-25

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            this is what i meant by sectarian minutiae on par with theological speculation buddhahood in the body vs immediately after death... once the principle is grasped it is no longer necessary. The Buddha no longer experiences samsara in the sense of death and rebirth, sure, but the Buddha still guides sentient beings, how is he to do that if "nirvana" is somewhere else? And so it isn't, not in the sastras nor the sutras.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        This is highly question begging and not an argument at all. Calling something shit because it’s life-denying assumes from the outset the value of life-affirmation, which hold no weight if an opposing system of thought doesn’t hold this view. You are just appealing to intuition which does not work when trying to establish an objective view of the quality of “life”, since no one has access to an objective viewpoint from which to judge their own life, much less “life” in general.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I find this hilarious because while it's completely true, the opposite isn't. Buddhists had centuries of sophisticated critiques of Christian doctrines at the same time that Christian missionaries were trying and failing to convince rice farmers that Buddha was actually a Muslim which meant that he worshiped the evil trinity of Muhammad, Pantagruel, and Apollyon.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Christian missionaries were trying and failing to convince rice farmers that Buddha was actually a Muslim which meant that he worshiped the evil trinity of Muhammad, Pantagruel, and Apollyon.
        source?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I haven't heard that exact one but there are similar kinds of examples given in Lopez, Tales of a Strange Oriental Idol, which collects pre-20th century western writings on Buddhism. One I recall involves local Buddhists somewhere being convinced of something along the lines that Jesus as the missionaries described him is actually a devil-possesed cousin of the Buddha who should therefore be rejected, which is pretty funny. Another is Christian missionaries assuming the Buddha was an African because of the way hair was depicted on the heads of statues as tightly curled—this is actually supposed to represent freshly cut hair because Buddhist ordination involves cutting one's hair.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >this is actually supposed to represent freshly cut hair
            No it's snails

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Buddhism is shit because it’s all life denying, it’s the same thing Schopenhauer was on.

      Schope was relying on translations which among other things rendered dukkha as dolor, "pain," and his entire appreciation of Buddhism is based on assuming it is in agreement with his pessimism and quieting of the will in order to overcome pain. It is less a matter of pain and suffering and more that the elements (dharma) of experience as grasped are in a state of commotion or unrest... one suffers in the sense that this can be experienced as pain if his mind is weak or clouded and sees lasting substance in any of this momentariness to cling to. Nietzsche rejects Schope's Buddhism insofar as it is nihilism to him, but a passive nihilism free of ressentiment. A better understanding of Buddhism, especially through the prajñaparamita literature of Mahayana for which emptiness is the central concept, is not going to come around until well after Nietzsche, e.g. Stcherbatsky, Obermiller, Conze, or through popularizers of Zen like DT Suzuki. (Bataille and Heidegger are thus able to read Zen and Nietzsche and move in that direction somewhat). Certainly any formulation of samsara as not other than nirvana—as is common property of the Mahayana schools—would meet Nietzsche's definition of life affirming. The bodhisattva does will his own eternal return, for the benefit of the world, no matter how long it takes for others to mature.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I dislike Nietzsche. Every argument inevitably draws towards a single question:
    >But what would Nietzsche think?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      As a philologist this is a verbal short hand for "what would a librarian who knows that the Church fricked us over from the rest of the world think?"
      A higher history than all history who has come before!
      Ah who do I sound like?
      Hey are you a Nietzsche reader?
      Well no I just think that uh
      YOU SHOULD READ HIM YOU SOUND JUST LIKE HIM
      wow ok I'll give it a shot hehe
      And thats how you make small friend groups of outsiders in common struggle

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    i doubt you are really at this guy. show your work.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    CHAPTER III
    Buddhism, its defeat; present-day India.
    Pgs. 209
    We had arrived at a time which, according to the Sinhalese computation, would be consistent with the VII century B.C. (1), and according to other Buddhistic calculations, drawn up for northern India, until 543 BC (2). For some time now, very strong ideas had crept into this branch of Hindu science called sankhya philosophy. Two Brahmins, Patandjali and Kapila, had taught that the works ordered by the Vedas were useless in the perfection of creatures, and that, in order to arrive at higher existences, the practice of an individual and arbitrary asceticism was sufficient. By [...]
    Pgs. 210
    [...] this doctrine, one was entitled, without prejudice to the future of the tomb, to despise everything that Brahmanism recommended and to do what it forbade (1). Such a theory could overthrow society. However, since it presented itself only in a purely scientific form and was only used in schools, it remained a major discussion for scholars and did not descend into politics. But, whether the ideas that gave birth to it were something more than the accidental discovery of a researchful mind, or whether very practical men were aware of them, it turned out that a young prince, of the most illustrious origin, belonging to a branch of the solar race, Sakya, son of Cuddodhana, king of Kapilavastu, set out to introduce people to what this doctrine had of LIBERAL.
    He began to teach, like Kapila, that the Vedic works were worthless; he added that it was not through liturgical readings, austeritys and tortures, or through classifications, that it was possible to free oneself from the obstacles of present existence; that, for this, it was necessary to resort only to the observance of moral laws, in which [...]

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the weary nihilism that no longer attacks; its most famous form, Buddhism; a passive nihilism, a sign of weakness. The strength of the spirit may be worn out, exhausted, so that previous goals and values have become incommensurate and no longer are believed; so that the synthesis of values and goals (on which every strong culture rests) dissolves and the individual values war against each other: disintegration—and whatever refreshes, heals, calms, numbs emerges into the foreground in various disguises, religious or moral, or political, or aesthetic, etc.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Agreed that Buddhism has its flaws, but Nietzsche? That man is a walking talking contradiction.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >One still hopes to get along with a moralism without religious background: but that necessarily leads to nihilism
    why

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Pursuit of power LE good
    >but knowledge is beyond power
    >LOL I WAS JUST JOKING BRO DUDE I WAS TROLLING MLG 420 BRO! OFCOURSE KNOWLEDGE matters more than power
    >no wait its actually POWER that decides what KNOWLEDGE is
    >but isn't it knowledge that lays the blueprint to power? After all a thirsty man will never be quenched like a content man, doesn't that demonstrates that the latter has power over the other?
    >....SHUT THE HECK UP FRICK YOU FRICK YOU FRICK YOU I HATE STOCISM I HATE SCHOPENHAUER AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH UBERMECNSCHSHFASGS-ACK

    Nietzsche sisters.. i think its about time we take our meds.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >GOD IS LE DEAD
      >LE POWER LE GOOD
      >So you support slavery, warmongering, murder, rape, theft and everything else civilization should protect us from? What the frick is wrong with you
      >uhm no akhtully what I am saying is that God is dead but so only power matters but with this power we arrive back at morality that will be almost identical to Christian morality trust me bro
      Absolute hack

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >GOD IS LE DEAD
      >LE POWER LE GOOD
      >So you support slavery, warmongering, murder, rape, theft and everything else civilization should protect us from? What the frick is wrong with you
      >uhm no akhtully what I am saying is that God is dead but so only power matters but with this power we arrive back at morality that will be almost identical to Christian morality trust me bro
      Absolute hack

      >hasn't read Nietzsche
      >has hostile opinion on him anyway
      I'll bet you worship a dead rabbi despite being an anti-semite

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Every purely moral value system (that of Buddhism, for example)
    That's just your interpretation, man. Nietzsche was wrong about everything.

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    He was pals with Max Mueller and knew better especially with Gotama being kshatriya caste; it's a bit of posturing in light of "European Buddism" and "White Mandarins" warned of in Beyond Seed & Feed.

    >a moralism without religious background

    Both Buddha & Shankara were revivifying Vedic metaphysics that had stagnated into perfunctory ritual observance (decadence). "Anything rather than nothing" is also a nihilism, which is everything post-schismatic buddhisms and buddhatarians became. There is higher and lower, greater and lesser -- and whatever the apparent 'egalitarianism' of Buddha it belies this fact and variance in aptitude for his teaching. 'Serious' socialists care nothing for equality and all the other canards never mentioned in Marx & Engels & Lenin & Stalin-- this is there advantage:

    >In religion the constraint is lacking to consider ourselves as value-positing.

    And the continued danger of not taking this crisis of values seriously (or seriously-flippantly). To that end 'nice' isn't taking us into an age of space exploration-- which is all the whinging amounts to in the spheres of 'equity' and an endless tab against colonialism to borrow against in handouts to Darwinian lumpenproles.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *