/lit/ - Literature

Do you think there's anything interesting to be learned from a comparative analysis of Nietzsche's philosophy and Buddhist philosophy? They both, in their own way, claim to have uncovered the highest form of life. So, if we compared the two and found some underlying structure that they both shared would we have uncovered a kind of rudimentary structure that existing philosophies of highest life follow? Wouldn't this teach us something about ourselves that neither philosophy alone has?

For instance, in Buddhism, the highest (enlightened) man is untouchable. His "flame is extinguished" and he ceases to exist in the way we do.

In Nietzsche's philosophy, on the other hand, the highest man 'touches' everything (in his domain). Like the enlightened one he too realizes that 'he' IS his entire domain of existence, but instead of chucking the notion of selfhood aside as a myth upon this realization, he embraces it and gains control over it.

Whereas the Buddhist might ask "Who are you" to prompt you to question selfhood Nietzsche might ask "What made you think you were separate in the first place" to prompt you to see that your definition of self and other are wholly dependent on each other.

There seems to be a fundamental relationship between ultimate power and ultimate resignation. Are they both simply different cultural manifestations of the will to power?

Please share your further opinions and critique my own, or critique the premise of the idea as a whole (in the first paragraph).