/lit/ - Literature

>>14602576
Salvation is not reconcilable with Will to Power but a Buddhist life is. Buddha was basically the first person to separate the profane and the sacred which only have started looking too extreme now that the rest of the world since the enlightenment have done the same thing. Until then all religions be it pagan or Abrahamic had ways to reach salvation through profane action. Pagan and Abrahamics both had a way to reach salvation through war for example, be it jihad in Islam or cleaning your sins through fighting in the holy land etc. One could even reach salvation by becoming a great poet or king in paganism. The Buddha rejected this but he didn't reject the idea of Will to Power, only that it is not conducive to nibbana.

In Buddhism only understanding and the path is conducive to enlightenment whereas hunting is conducive to filling your belly/freezer, war is conducive to expanding/defending your nation and poetry is conducive to beauty etc but none of them are conducive to salvation. It should also be remembered that the precepts etc in Buddhism are not laws set by a divine monarch in the way the commandments where if you break them it is not up to you whether you get any further toward salvation, only grace and forgiveness; both of which is wholly outside yourself, can get you back on track.

So in a way Will to Power is both reconcilable and not. And ultimately it is silly to demand that action in the world must be connected to salvation. To wish that one is also acting toward enlightenment when one defends ones family against roaming marauders would be a blemish on the concept of duty.