[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 20 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6156002 No.6156002 [Reply] [Original]

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).

>> No.6156097

>>6156002
yes

>> No.6156107

>>6156097
Thanks for the bump

>> No.6156164

The main similarity is that both have achieved CHIM ;)

>> No.6156227

This I call knowledge: all that is deep shall rise up - to my height!

Thus spoke Zarathustra

>> No.6156291

>>6156002

Learn how to write a fucken sentence.

>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?

These aren't the only two philosophies that claim to have uncovered the highest form of life. Most religions make truth claims about some sort of transcendence from life, and about the true meaning of things.

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

What do you mean by this?

>> No.6156331

Buddhism and Nietzsche were quite nearly literal polar opposites, philosophically speaking. An interesting comparison however might be between Samkhya-Yoga and Zarathustra

>> No.6156659

>>6156331
Sure but as we all know, conditions are similar at the poles. Opposites are often mirror images of each other in a weird, counterintuitive way.

>> No.6156667

Bertrand Russell does a good illustration of this in his History in the Nietzsche chapter.

>> No.6156672

>>6156291
He means he is no longer willing and, therefore has reach a void state known as nirvana. It isn't possible though. It is contradictory.

Ya'll should read the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita As It Is.

Also Schopenhauer.

>> No.6156689

The ubermensch could easily be seen as a parallel to the buddha

>> No.6156691

>>6156672
To continue, N says we should master this Will and create our own from it, paving the way to the ultimate superman, or ubermench. Schopenhauer basically adhered to Buddhist philosophy, constantly trying to squelch and suppress the Will in order to find ultimate peace of mind and freedom from constant desire (the human condition).

In the teachings of Lord Krishna (the Bhagavad Gita) we are told that extinguishing the Will is impossible, and those chasing this particular endeavor are only partially within the spiritual realm (Brahman). Real salvation comes from aligning your Will with Christ's commandments (from the Vedas) and turning it from ordinary consciousness, to Christ (Krishna) Consciousness. It is the only way.

I'm up for answering questions (as long as they are within my realm of knowledge. I'm a new student of Krishna).

>> No.6156700

>>6156691
>It is the only way.


Only way to what?

>> No.6156706

>>6156700
Happiness and lasting, spiritual transcendence.

>> No.6156720

>>6156667
Bertrand Russell was a genius in his own right, but he and Nietzsche are as different as physics and genetics. You just can't trust a physicist when he talks about genetics like he's an expert, or the other way around.
They think in fundamentally different ways and that causes Russell to dismiss a lot of the really astounding things about Nietzsche as a philosopher.

>>6156672
How is its contradictory?
>>6156689
Buddhism isn't about extinguishing the will, it's about realizing it for what it is. The (buddhist) enlightened individual doesn't overcome the will he recedes away from it. It's always there as long as he's alive though.

I've never researched Krishna because I've seen so many bumper stickers I assumed it was new age teachings, but if you had any introductory recommendations I'd love to read more.

There was one time this crazy (seeming) but pleasant woman approached me and a few friends in a restaurant and started telling us about her life and mentioned her time with a group of Krishnas in the 70's. She looked homeless but before we left the waiter told us she had paid for all our meals (like $60 worth at least). It's off topic, I know, but hell she was a cool lady. I wish I could thank her and tell her I'm sorry treating her like a crazy homeless person.


>>6156659
This is the kind of thought I was having when I wrote the op. They're really trying to do the same thing just in opposite ways.

>> No.6156723

Nietzsche affirms the will, Buddhism denies the will.

>> No.6156776

>>6156720
>How is its contradictory?
my understanding is that "enlightenment" is extinguishing the Will; decimating it and filling its place with void. If there is still Will, has not the quest for enlightenment failed? Quieting the Will is one thing, but that is not nirvana. That is simply learning of an impersonal spiritual entity and attempting to bind to it. Unfortunately, this is only step one (Brahman) in the process to true realization.

You said
>Buddhism isn't about extinguishing the will, it's about realizing it for what it is.

But my understanding of Nirvana is a silenced Will, which is contradictory to what you have said.

As for Krishna Consciousness being "New Age", no, not at all. It is the original system from which all of these "void philosophies" and material mash-ups have stemmed from, dating back 5,000 years to the Bhagavad Gita. Bumper stickers are just a way to spread the idea to the general public. Granted, its modern revival to pop culture DID take place in 1966, but that was thanks to Indian born His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivendanta Swami Prabhupada who had taken instruction from his guru in India to come to the America's to teach the Good Lord's word.

If you are looking for literature to learn more, I would very highly recommend The Science of Self Realization by His Divine Grace as a starting point. It will give you a very clear outlook as to where the Krishna Conscious stand in relation to the other Will-oriented philosophies.

>> No.6156780

>>6156723
>Buddhism denies the will

KEK!!!!!!!!!!!!! TOP KEK!!!!!!

>> No.6156817

>>6156780
I'm well read enough to realize that you're right here, Buddhism doesn't deny the will. But I understand that only superficially.

Can you explain further?

>> No.6156830

>>6156780
>There is nothing but keks and lels, all else is void.

>> No.6156834

>>6156723
The Buddha uses 'karma' to refer to volition.

>> No.6156856
File: 16 KB, 251x400, nietzsche_and_zen_by_andr_233_van_der_braak_2370003861167[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6156856

>In Nietzsche and Zen: Self-Overcoming Without a Self, André van der Braak engages Nietzsche in a dialogue with four representatives of the Buddhist Zen tradition: Nagarjuna (c. 150-250), Linji (d. 860), Dogen (1200-1253), and Nishitani (1900-1990). In doing so, he reveals Nietzsche's thought as a philosophy of continuous self-overcoming, in which even the notion of "self" has been overcome. Van der Braak begins by analyzing Nietzsche's relationship to Buddhism and status as a transcultural thinker, recalling research on Nietzsche and Zen to date and setting out the basic argument of the study. He continues by examining the practices of self-overcoming in Nietzsche and Zen, comparing Nietzsche's radical skepticism with that of Nagarjuna and comparing Nietzsche's approach to truth to Linji's. Nietzsche's methods of self-overcoming are compared to Dogen's zazen, or sitting meditation practice, and Dogen's notion of forgetting the self. These comparisons and others build van der Braak's case for a criticism of Nietzsche informed by the ideas of Zen Buddhism and a criticism of Zen Buddhism seen through the Western lens of Nietzsche.

>> No.6156929

>>6156776
> His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivendanta

be careful. you already talk like a brainwashed hare krsna kid. you will waste many years chanting hare krsna all day and sucking prabhudada's dick in worship unless you distance yourself from it now. the hk mantra reinforces the psyop.

>> No.6156931

IIRC Nietzsche thought Buddhism was nihilistic, but he probably didn't have a good idea of what exactly Buddhism was given the state of 19th century orientalism.

He might have reached different conclusions if he was alive today and had more contemporary scholarship to work with.

>> No.6156958

>>6156931
what. look at any contemporary definition of buddhism, such as dictionary, and you'll find even the whole is in disagreement with the whole of Nietzsche. e.g. Suffering.

>> No.6156961

>>6156929
And what's your personal experience with the movement?

>> No.6157045

>>6156961
Not the guy you're responding to, but I have to say, the divine grace stuff struck me as a little cultish too.

>> No.6157080

>>6156002
OP, I've always been interested in this idea, too.

Like both men journeyed to the same place by different paths.

>> No.6157088 [DELETED] 

Check my 8

>> No.6157094

Spoiler: YOU UNDERSTAND NEITHER OF TWO. STOP.

>> No.6157102

>>6157045
I understand that the way I address Him looks a bit odd, or at least unfamiliar, but as an advocate of Christ, and being much closer to Christ than I am, I must address him in the same way I would Christ. The wisdom comes down a chain of command, and he is higher up than I. He was truly a self-realized soul.

>> No.6157107

>>6157102
and still is might I add, but I am sure he has gone back to Godhead

>> No.6157112

>>6156931
>Buddhism
>nihilistic

Well, I guess I know more about Buddhism than Nietzsche did.

>> No.6157159

>>6157088
Checked man

>>6157102
Doesn't really explain the oddness. Kind of just makes it worse.

>>6157094
Care to enlighten me about where I went wrong or are you just here to tell me I'm wrong.

>> No.6157266

>>6157159
>Doesn't really explain the oddness. Kind of just makes it worse.
LOL. Well, I've done what I can.

>> No.6157299

>>6156291
you're a fucking asshole. stop being a dick to strangers.