/lit/ - Literature

>>21010347
Lazy citation.

>>21010347
Pretty good quote honestly
I can't wait to see the filth that people are going to reply to this thread with

>>21010354
oh that's not even a Nietzsche quote eh

>>21010347
western and eastern can't co-exist, combine or even understand each other. They are different no matter what you say.

>>21010347
>coalescence of human beings.
This is a Nietzsche quote?

>>21010361
Tepid take. Moldy take. Take it away

>>21010354
>>21010355
>>21010361
>>21010366

>>21010358
>>21010366
Can't find exactly where it's from, but Graham Parkes quotes it at the beginning of his book, and apparently it's from a Kaufmann translation.

>>21010451
>Graham Parkes quotes it at the beginning of his book
ye that's where I got it from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche_and_Asian_Thought

it's actually a pretty interesting read
i'll post some quotes in a bit

>Nietzsche was a proto-Guenonian
holy based...

>It was not in his nihilistic view of Buddhism but in such ideas as amor fati and the Dionysian as the overcoming of nihilism that Nietzsche came closest to Buddhism, and especially to Mahayana.
-Nishitani Keiji

>>21010504
>The relations between Nietzsche's work and Buddhist thinking in general form one of the potentially most fertile fields for future comparative research. His acquaintance with Buddhism appears to have come primarily through Schopenhauer, with little evidence of his having done much independent study. His understanding is thus restricted to early, Hinayana forms of Buddhism, and with respect to the philosophical ideas he found there he was quite ambivalent.

Guenon's original criticism of Buddhism in the First Edition of 'Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines' is also directed towards Hinayana

>>21010347
People think Buddhism is pussy ass shit but Ashoka was the bloodiest of blady basterds, bich

>>21010534
Buddhism is for depressives, for those whose exhaustion has consumed them.

>>21010855
Based, sir.

These are in fact the most typical intellectual procedures of Indian philosophy, and especially of Vedanta, which end up being interpreted as borderline cases or extreme forms of asceticism. This is especially the case with the critique of the phenomenon of the ego which Vedanta undertakes for the purpose of revealing the reality of the Self (atman) concealed by the false appearances of the “I.” In a remarkable passage from On the Genealogy of Morals, after saying that “the ascetics of Vedanta philosophy” dared to deny multiplicity, corporeality, subject and object, and pain itself, Nietzsche continues:
>To renounce belief in one’s ego, to deny one’s own “reality,”—what a triumph! not merely over the senses, over appearance, but a much higher kind of triumph, a violation and cruelty against reason—a voluptuous pleasure that reaches its height when the ascetic self-contempt and self-mockery of reason declares: “there is a realm of truth and being, but reason is excluded from it!”

>>21010347
Asian thought is tribalism.

Tribalism is the ultimate truth.

Now the secret of such success could only lie in a certain ascetic regime patiently adhered to, through all kinds of trials and tribulations, in prehistoric times, and then transmitted unchanged from generation to generation, inculcated by an education from a very early age to the point where it becomes second nature. The Brahmins are supposed to have understood that certain partial renunciations—pertaining to diet, sexual activity, and so on—a certain frugality, a disdain for riches and honors insofar as they conduce to ostentation, represent the price that has to be paid for a monopoly on higher and rarer forms of satisfaction: leisure, the respect of all, study, the power to determine values and direct morality. A note from the spring of 1888 takes up this train of thought:
>The highest caste, as the most accomplished one, has also to represent happiness: thus there is nothing less appropriate than pessimism and anger . . . no rage, no nasty retorts—asceticism only as a means to higher happiness, to the redemption from multiplicity. The highest class has to uphold a happiness, at the price of portraying unconditional obedience, every kind of hardness, selfcontrol, and strictness with oneself—they want to be seen as the most venerable type of human being—also as the one most worthy of admiration: as a result they may need just any kind of happiness.

he austere and imperious Brahmin caste would thus be situated somewhere between the Order of the Jesuits and the Prussian Officer Corps. But, viewed as an individual, the Brahmin bears a strange resemblance to the philosopher of the future, or even to the Ubermensch, as Nietzsche imagines him. Gentle, frugal, self-effacing, he voluntarily lets the Shudra wallow in vulgar pleasures, the Vaishya parade his opulence, and the Kshatriya strut upon the political stage. His sole preoccupation is with justifying the world as it is, with its monstrous incoherence and its apparent injustices, and with inciting others to affirm, according to their power and lucidity, this eternal cosmic order

In short, Buddhism is seen as an individualist reaction taking place in the midst of Brahmanism after the latter had exhausted its secular domination of Indian society. As the inverse of Christianity, it would come not from a revolt from below, from the oppressed classes, but rather from physiological exhaustion, skepticism, and disenchantment on the part of the elites in power, or at least of their more lucid elements. All the traits of the “Indian character” mentioned above, as Nietzsche represents them, are found again in Buddhism, beginning with that of Reizbarkeit, which sums them all up. Buddhism would above all be an expression of the immense lassitude engendered in the higher castes by centuries or even millennia of austerities, of renunciation, of physical and intellectual discipline, by the immensity of sacrifices undertaken for the enjoyment of spiritual power.

Nietzsche thinks Indian history is virtually the history of Indian philosophy; he beats at the German philologists for ignoring Indian philosophy “as an animal [ignores] music”; he sees Schopenhauer as a hero of the spirit whose will should find its end in nirvana.

>>21010588
>
Guenon's main problem with buddhism is it's anti substantialist approach to metaphysics, which destroy the idea of a higher/lower world dichotomy, this is probably the biggest problem Guenon has as a thinker, since this dogmatic approach to substantialism didn't let him understand the philosophical movements of his time, his notions on Kant are abysmal and he never read Hegel or Heidegger, this is important because Buddhism and it's non-substantialist approach to philsophy makes it the perfect eastern tradition to establish a bridge with the weastern philosophical canon, that's why people like Wittgenstein or Heidegger were so interested in Buddhism

Based thread

Nietzsche largely uses Buddhism as a character in the drama of his own philosophy, one with some but not exact correspondence to the actual religion. His Buddhism only comes into play to beat up Christianity, and he considers it beyond good and evil and free of ressentiment, unlike the more moralizing Christianity. But he also considers both to be nihilism. No Buddhist or Christian has ever argued their beliefs are nihilism, but if we follow Nietzsche in centering the definition of nihilism on world- or life-denial, the Christian who wants to escape to heaven and be with God is a nihilist while the Buddhist who believes nirvana is in samsara is not.
>>21011370
Brahmins are priests. It should not be hard for you to read Nietzsche and determine his opinion of priests. Even though he praises the Laws of Manu, it is not because the priest is the ideal human but because he views the doctrines as a sort of societal hygiene, which is again all about the contrast with Christianity and what he considers its slave morality.

>>21011472
>since this dogmatic approach to substantialism didn't let him understand the philosophical movements of his time, his notions on Kant are abysmal and he never read Hegel or Heidegger
You're an idiot, and I doubt you've read any of Guenon's books.
>>21011960
"Priests" are not just one thing. This is you misinterpreting the "priest" as a hypostatic "thing" which can only exist in one possible manner. If you read Nietzsche and dogmatically assume that by "priest" he only possibly means one (negative or good) entity, then off the bat you have not comprehended Nietzsche's strangely fluid and erratic type of thought.

>>21011978
>Nietzsche's strangely fluid and erratic type of thought.
he's pretty consistent about disliking priests for being nihilistic and I don't think you can really carve out an exception for brahmins, who are at the end of the day promising that union with god is superior to being alive in the world, which should be an immediate red flag to you if you've understood Nietzsche. Now, since in historical times the brahmins had not weaponized this doctrine as a means of throwing the bottom of society against its highest point(s), they are a less terrible type of priest—but a priest nonetheless.

>>21011472
>this is important because Buddhism and it's non-substantialist approach to philsophy makes it the perfect eastern tradition to establish a bridge with the weastern philosophical canon
????

I think he's living in New Zealand somewhere, off the map you know?

>>21010347
Was Nietzsche a space taoist?

>>21010361
Weastern. Heh, check, fucking, mate.

>>21012024
Ever?

>>21012012
You still have no clue what you've misunderstood.
>which should be an immediate red flag to you if you've understood Nietzsche
This makes you sound like a redditor or a woman: "bad priest man believes in god, this sets off my bad man alarm!" This is literally the most shallow understanding you could possibly have.

>>21012046
What's the misunderstanding, bro?
No misunderstandings here bro

Eh I reread Genealogy this week and his anti-priestly opinions aren’t really targeted towards Brahmins. He praises them actually.

>>21012046
I mean, you could try reading Nietzsche instead of relying on your preference for reheated Platonism absorbed from tradlarper writers and some secondary sources' takes on Nietzsche's views of Asian religion. There's a very obvious problem he has with theology and with using God as the foundation of your ideas and values. It is in fact so obvious, you'd have to have not read him to miss it.