Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Schopenhauer and Buddhism
Hello,
Since I myself "come" from the Kantian philosophies, I was always interested in comparative studies of, especially Arthur Schopenhauer`s works, with Buddhism. In case anyone here is also interested in this, I would like to have a thread here where it can be addressed, so I dare to open one.
Obviously it is a philosophical thread whose puropose should not be to press any line of Buddhist thoughts into the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, nor do so vice versa. As a beginning for everyone interested in this, I recommed to read the following article:
Schopenhauer and Buddhism: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/peter2.htm
Regards
edit:I realized afterwards the topic might not be apropriate here. To the mods: Feel free to move the thread into "Buddhism and the rest of the world", it might be the better place for it.
Since I myself "come" from the Kantian philosophies, I was always interested in comparative studies of, especially Arthur Schopenhauer`s works, with Buddhism. In case anyone here is also interested in this, I would like to have a thread here where it can be addressed, so I dare to open one.
Obviously it is a philosophical thread whose puropose should not be to press any line of Buddhist thoughts into the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, nor do so vice versa. As a beginning for everyone interested in this, I recommed to read the following article:
Schopenhauer and Buddhism: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/peter2.htm
Regards
edit:I realized afterwards the topic might not be apropriate here. To the mods: Feel free to move the thread into "Buddhism and the rest of the world", it might be the better place for it.
0
Comments
Thanks for the read.
_/\_
metta
It is decades since I read any Schoppenhauer and I shall try to catch up. Have you any information on what he might have read about the Dharma by the time of his death in 1861?
It is an interesting fact that so many different mindsets or bodies of opinion find themselves reflecting the Dharma - or in the Dharma. As i encountered Buddhist thought, I was struck by how closely it resembled my own quasi-Sartrian existentialism.
I also find myself wondering whether the philosophical transformations of the 19th century, Schoppenhauer and Nietzsche in particular, were not an interesting preparation for the Turning of the Wheel in the West. I cannot imagine that the Enlightenment theists would have found much in common with 18th century Buddhism. There must have been contact but I find few references.
Perhaps the enquiring mind of Hume or the reasonableness of Locke were already being influenced by growing commerce with the East.
I will check the points your raised later this week, I surely have yet to learn much more about the history of Buddhism, so some responses simply might take longer, but i am glad about every valid point that is raised because it means i learn something while looking after it. Thanks
@simon
I find it similar interesting. About Hume and Locke I can`t say aynthing in that respect. What I do know however, that around 1800 when Schopenhauer was still young, he was already made familar with some Indian thought, as was Goethe afaik, in the literature salon his mother maintained in Weimar by people who had some knowledge. Thus, at least some rudimentary knowledge about Indian thought in general must already have been known to certain circles at that time In Germany, and moreover also England, presumably even before that.
For Schopenhauer, I know that he owned a “Oupnekhat”, that`s a latin translation from a persian tranlation of the Upanishads. Though there is still disput in what he might have been able to understand from such a translation, some agree that he did remarkably well. Though he admired the Upanishads, he never considered himself to be a vedandist or anything else, the highest truth seem to have been for him what he found in Mahayana texts of Buddhism.(especially his view that all true moral behaviour is based on compassion and compassion being a result of recognizing in every living being oneself as will to live, he seems to have found somewhere therein)
I read that he possesed texts of various traditions, in English French and German, an important source for his knowledge about Buddhism seems to have been Isaac Jacob Schmidt. I do not know exactly which texts he possesed, but I will find out and let you know.
Regards
In Parergra and Paralipomena. he references to J. Schmidt’s Geschichte der Ostmongolen (vol. II, p. 203); Spence Hardy’s Manual of Buddhism (II, 276); E. Burnhof’s Introduction a l’histoire du Bouddhism (II, 382); Upham’s “Doctrine of Buddhism” (III, 282) among others.
(source: http://www.sac.org.yu/komunikacija/casopisi/fid/XXIV/d07/html_gb footnote 28 )
PS: It is interesting that you mention existentialism and Sartre. Are you familiar with the works of Nanavira Thera ? I came across his "clearing the path" recently, as far as I could see it, he tried to utilize existentialist thoughts and jargon to better transmit the Buddhadharma in the west.
I can`t say anything for Nietzsche in that regard, since to me it is blatantly obvious that his philosophy is diametrical opposed to Schopenhauer`s, his will to power and his arguments for ignoring of suffering we cause ourselves or others I currently find hard to be found to be reflected in any line of Buddhist thought. But of course, this is a rather simple opinion of mine and could be explored in detail in a seperate thread.
For Schopenhauer, it is widely recognized today that he was the major influence in Germany to spread Buddhism in its early phase. So wether or not people distanced himself later from his interpretation of the dhamma, most people in Germany found to Buddhism thru him before the first Buddhist communities were established.
The prajnaparamita issue seems to be just an alternative translation, considering that the article used called it the 'perfect wisdom' sutra in other places. So, I guess it's no big deal. Still, I would be interested in hearing the etymology behind the two alternatives. Now, the Hinayana-Mahayana issue, I think I might be mistaken. I took the author as lumping in the Theravadans into the Hinayana category. To see why I took issue with this, take a look at this article:
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha140.htm
Now, apparantly, the author of your article did, at least somewhat, correctly designate the sarvastivada school as Hinayana. I guess I'm just not entirely sure why he included the sarvastivans in the article, rather than the Theravada, considering that it is a dead school of buddhism. I guess that's where my confusion is now. But no big deal.
Anyway, I've read the majority of the article, and I imagine I'll probably want to go through it a second time (as I'm not familiar with Schopenhauer). It definitely has some interesting points & offers some surprising parallels, though I do agree that the madhyamika's would be pretty hard on Schopenhauer's reification of the 'Will'. And I guess I would like to read further discussion as to how Schopenhauer defined the term. It seems pretty vague. It also seems strange that he used such an anthropomorphic term and applied it to such vast & impersonal forces on an existential level. Does he address this issue in his writings?
Beyond that, I think if we view his 'will to live' as 'craving for existence/becoming (bhava)', then I think he presents a very important parallel to the second noble truth & resonates with some aspects of the teaching on dependent co-arising.
Lot's of stuff to discuss, but I think I'll finish reading the article first.
take care
_/\_
metta
The will as an ontological term is introduced in his main work,The world as will and represantation I, chapter 2 .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation#Ontology_.28Vol._1.2C_Book_2.29
Crap, I just realized I asked for more reading material.
Anyway, thanks.
_/\_
metta
Would you argue that Schopenhauer's Will, his ding-an-sich, is as close as he can get to an understanding of what Longchenpa calls "Universal Creativity" and Abe sees as "dynamic Sunyatta"?
hmmm, to be honest, i know neither of them. But thanks for the hint. I had a look at the "Universal Creativity", if the text here http://www.thab.us/_jewel/_arc/jewelship.htm is somewhat authentic, i tend to say no, i would not argue for an equation. Schopenhauers will is blind, there is no creative intelligence. it is more that intelligence in human form ought to realize that there is not intelligent creative power but merely an endless stream of willing/wanting/desiring that is behind each phenomena, serves no purpose other then epxressing its will in various forms. But i will have a closer look to both concept in the next days and post my thoughts.
I`m not so confident as you that i am currently able to judge this, Simon
Afaik, Nietzsche broke with the Kantian idea of the thing in itself, also with schopenhauer in that respect. He just took the idea of the will, put it out of it`s metaphyiscal corsett and came up with a will to power, it is more a view of different "power quantas" that do not hold a transcendental oneness as a thing in itself does. Hence his praise of egoism I believe.
To be honest, I think Schopenhauer contradicted himself somehow at the end although he delivered an admirable and very important work in my eyes. Very deep and much of the basis of modern depth psychology. But: As his Evanglist Frauenstätt pointed out, either the thing in itself is the will, then it cannot change. Or it is not, then will is not my nature and it can change. He responded that denying and affirming the will is merely wanting and not wanting, and the he refrained from describing waht it (thing in itself) might be besides will, because it`s obvsiously beyond reach, external (and possibly also internal,) and he was very wary about leaving immanent ground. This does not deny the fact imo, that either his postulate as will as thing in itself is wrong. Or it is right in a sense that it is the most direct character we can get of it, but since it is already representation while we get it thru introspection, it is not it`s true character, merely it`s most immanent attribute within us.
That`s where he hits mysticism and it explains why he admired mystics of all religions until his death, most of all Meister Eckhard and the Upanishads. He frequently adressed that he cannot say more, since his duty as philosopher is to give verifyable claims. As he put it: The philosopher distinguishes himself from the mystic that he raises things from outside, the mystic from inside.
You`re welcome.:) Basically, I think two of the most interesting points are
a) His view of Nirvana:
If nirvana is defined as nothingness, this only
means there is no element of sa.msaara that
could be used to define or construct
nirvaa.na.
b) His view of
prajnaparamita(which is, given the sheer amount of scriputres,
either very vague or essentially expounding its core :
Whatever remains after the Will(12) has vanished
must seem to those who are still filled by it
nothing. But to the man in whom the Will has
turned and negated itself, this world, so real
to us with all its suns and Milky Ways,
is--nothing.
Interesting. I guess though that we are speaking of matters which are beyond range when we start discussing Nirvana and such, so it's difficult to assess the correctness of these statements in regard to Nirvana. And I am wondering to what extent we can directly equate the sunyata doctrine of the prajnaparamita with Nirvana. Now, I will agree with his assessment that emptiness (sunya) is not a mere void, and that those who realize cessation necessarily regard phenomena as fleeting & non-substantial in essence. I just wonder to what extent he actually experienced the cessation of Will/Volition, and whether he contemplated or witnessed the cessation of the other khandas.
Anyway, interesting reading & discussion. A lot of new terms & ideas for my mind to consider.
_/\_
metta
Simon, I found a list of books on Buddhism he recommended his readers in his writings "On Will in nature". You can find it here http://www.payer.de/neobuddhismus/neobud0301.htm. (point 2.4)
The site is in German, let me know if you need any help
cheers
edit: in 2.1 on the same side, you can also find a list of people who found either to Buddhism thru or were strongly influenced by him. It reads like a who is who of the "Buddhist celebreties" in Germany during the initial phase of the rise of Buddhism there, among them.Dahlke, Neumann, Grimm and Nyânatiloka
Actually, imo the differences between him and Buddhism come in the 4th noble truth that points to the eigthfold path. I am not sure he did meditation, i do not believe so. A main difference seems to be that he points to art as temporary salvation, final salvation being the denial of the will. Contemplating on art, music is a thing that he proposed. But also more in general, the "unwillfull" observation of things, e.g. listening to a sound without wanting it to stop or to last, instead merely listening concetrated on sound, or observing an object.
Well, yeah. But his attitude of relinquishment likely brought about a certain degree of cessation. Viewing sounds, sights, etc. in & of themselves does remind me of the 4 foundations of mindfulness (in regards to viewing sensations). And it seems he managed to get close to Right View for a western philosopher. Still, very little parallels with the 8-fold path on the whole.
_/\_
metta
That's just gross. :tongue2:
Do you have any links to his view of asceticism?
_/\_
metta
I will look for comments in his work concerning asceticism and post them here.
From the asceticism thread:
Let me know what you find.
_/\_
"Since in having compassion, life is still affirmed,it cannot lead to final relief. Final Relief is reached, if thru the complete seeing thru of the principle of individuality [principium individuationis] perception is changed in the way that it does not give any more motives, thru which the will comes into act, to the will.The stopping of wanting becomes visible in the life of the ascetics. While his body is healthy, the ascetic voluntarily abandons the satisfaction of his drives (first of all of his sexual drive which is the higest affirmation of the will). With the disappearance of wanting disapears the appearaning world. measured on it (the appearing world), the state in which the ascetic enters is nothing, measured by the standard of the ascetic (who is not that of the nihil negativum [i`d like to add only nihil privatum]) the appearing world shows itself to be meaningless. Positivly defining the state of final relief / perfection is not possible. It is only directly experiancable and can merely open up inderectly thru reasoning, like as it emerges in an inadequate manner from the commentaries of (christian & indian) mystics.
"Da im Mitleid immer noch das Leben bejaht wird, kann es selbst noch nicht zur endgültigen Erlösung führen. Diese wird dann erreicht, wenn kraft der totalen Durchschauung des Individuationsprinzips das Erkennen sich so ändert, dass es dem Willen keine Motive mehr liefert, durch die er zum Wirken kommt. Das Aufhören des Wollens wird im Leben des Asketen sichtbar. Bei gesundem Leibe verzichtet er freiwillig auf die Befriedigung seiner Triebe (voran des Geschlechtstriebs, welcher die höchste Bejahung des Willens ist). Mit dem Wollen verschwindet die erscheinende Welt; gemessen an ihr ist der Zustand, in den der Asket eintritt, »Nichts«, gemessen am Zustand des Asketen (der nicht der des »nihil negativum« ist) erweist sich die erscheinende Welt als bedeutungslos. Positiv angeben kann man den Vollendungszustand nicht, er ist nur unmittelbar erfahrbar und kann durch die Vernunft nur höchst indirekt aus dem erschlossen werden, was aus den Äußerungen (christlicher und indischer) Mystiker auf unangemessene Weise hervorgeht."
extracted from http://www.payer.de/neobuddhismus/neobud0301.htm
Because poverty, austerity and one`s own suffering in multiple forms already are inflicted thru the complete practice of moral virtues, many discard, and perhaps rightly discard, asceticism in the strongest sense, meaning they don`t abandon every belonging, they don´t delibrate seek the unpleasant and the detestable, they don`t inflictit pain to themselves and they don`t fast. They discard the "hair shirt"^1 and mortification as being superfluous. Justice itself gives the hair shirt, which is a constant strain to its owner and human kindness giving away the neccessary is the everlasting fasting. That`s why Buddhaism is free of that specific kind of grim and exaggerated asceticism, is free from mortification/inflicting
pain to oneself, which plays such a big role within Brahaminism. There (within buddhism) celibacy, voluntary poverty, humbleness and obedience of the monks and abstention from food made out of animals as well as from worldliness is enough.
If we gotta analyze that, I think we have first to distingiush between monks and laymen. It is not clear from the passage but I think his quote is related to Buddhist monks. Further, we gotta seperate probably different Buddhist traditions. Afaik, vegeterianism is recommended in some Mahayana writings, whereas the early Buddhist monks and I believe the Theravadin monks still today gotta eat what they are given to by laymen. Same goes for celibacy, that afaik obviously existend among the early monks and still today in Theravadin Sanghas, not sure abot the other traditions. As you see, he already was at least aware of ascesticism in the middle way as distinguished form of the extreme variants. Now, I think these are some small thoughts to begin with, for now I think his understanding of the asceticism of the early Buddhists/Theravadins was not so wrong at all, maybe one of the later, if present here, could say something in regard to that, I don`t know the Vinaya Pitaka in detail.
^1difficult to translate, most probalby is meant the shirt of the (christian) penitent, "härenes Hemd" in German
Many thanks for working on giving us a translation, Fofoo. (BTW, 'hair shirt' is absolutely correct. Ever seen one? Ever worn one? It is horrible)
I think that we may assume that AS had some knowledge of Buddhism, both as theory and as practice. The more I read, the more I am convinced that these ideas were trickling into European consciousness as imperial ambition took Westerners more deeply into the Sub-continent, Burma and beyond. Military and civilian officers, together with traders, must have been increasingly common.
Most commonly, the 'softer' forms of Buddhist monasticism would have been encountered, traditions that eschew asceticism. It is only later, with reports emerging from the North-West Frontier and the high Himalayas, after the Afghan Wars and the cartographic surveys, that the more 'extreme' practices began to intrigue the esotericists. [This is supposition on my part and I have yet to establish clear timelines, although it is an amusing passtime.]
I don't think that it would be pushing the text too far to summarise it as saying that life is hard enough when we practice virtue (his "complete practice of moral virtues" could be seen as pointing towrds the Noble Eightfold Path), so why make it even harder?
I think you summarized it quite nicely. He focused very much on moral, he saw it not as an ends, though for him it was the neccessary means to the end within religions.
Yes, Fofoo, I have worn a hair shirt - for a short time.
I was, however, raised as an atheist. (How can you be "born a Protestant"? Were you baptised in utero LOL?)
oh of course you are right, to be precice, i was born human and bapitsed later
Just to 'situate' myself, once again, I was born into a 'mixed' family: my father was from a rabbinical family which spread out from Hannover in the 18th century. He converted to Catholicism after WW1 and became quite prominent in English Catholicism. His time in Spain in 1936-7 and in London's East End during the Blitz, linked to many other contributory causes, brought him to atheism by the time I was born in 1943. My mother came from a Yorkshire Methodist background but went to an Anglo-Catholic (Church of England 'High') boarding school. She was no longer practising, as far as I can remember, but taught us Bible stories, etc. Religion was seen as a subject for debate rather than for dogma and was a favourite at the dinner-table.
From about the age of 11, I attended a local church ('Low' Anglican) in London and served Mass when in France. Both of these activities had the same effect on my father, although his greater opprobrium was directed at the Catholic activity. The result was that my education in Catholic history, doctrine and attitudes was pursued with ferocity, if mainly from an antagonistic position.
I think the others here do not mind if we distract from the main topic for a few posts
I find it interesting that your father converted to catholicism, afaik most people with jewish background in Germany converted to Protestantism, e.g. Kurt Tucholsky, or Schopenhauer`s father, to contribute something to the thread topic
My religous education was rather shallow, average for my time I would say. I always envyed the catholics for their beautiful churches and the atmosphere at their mass, I further was astonished that they do confession. I felt that they admitted that at least something was wrong with their condition, while the protestants played the ostrich
I, too, love the theatricality of the Mass, although I also find the minimalism of a Protestant service very calming. It's all theatre, isn't it! Even the silence that we keep at a Quaker Meeting has its theatrical aspects.
The influence of Protestantism on German philosophy cannot be overstated. The emphasis on personal responsibility and hard work, linked to social responsibility, led directly to Christian Socialism. And we must also notice that it was German archaeologists and theologians who were giving the world a different form of biblical exegesis.
And we can't ignore Schleiermacher, can we?
I am not sure what you mean with that. Schopenhauer attended lectures by Schleiermacher and first admired him, but he later critized his style of lecture, like all German philosphy of that time he considered it to have little substance while hiding that little bit it had to offer behind a smokescreen of incomprehensable language, finding its heigth in Hegel.
Perhaps you can hint me to some of some of Schleiermacher`s work that cannot be ignored in your opinion.
What I am saying, I suppose, is that there was an enormous intellectual and philosophical ferment in the German states and that it may be impossible to disentangle which, if any, threads are the result of Buddhist thought or arose as intimations of truth floated by.
Friedrich Daniel Ernst SCHLEIERMACHER (1768-1834)
On another note I really like the concept of this thread. I have always been into philosophy and look forward to more heady conversations in the future.
Ghasso :ninja:
Agreed. The ground we share is the ground on which we can stand together to face the vicissitudes of living in samsara.
I am not sure if such a thing as follower of a western philosophy exists, I never met one, very least a "Schopenhauerian" (except maybe houellebecq who claims to be a "schopenhaurian militante", i doubt though he was or is seriously into it). Except for maybe a bit the exestancialists, indian philosophy differs from western imo that it is also practical, somewhere inbetween western religion and philosophy.
Well, the point actually is if a purpose can be found, or that will is solely self purpose. What would a higher purpose of what the world wills be from buddhist perspective? Alas,only possible imo if you turn nirvana into a positive concept, meaning you isolate certain qualities from samsara like happyness, put them into nirvana and postulate that they are unconditioned and endless there.
So you say the difference between schopenauer`s denial of the will (which, i like to add, he did not recommend anyone, considered it for most including himself unpracticable, merely reserved for saints) and nirvana is basically that the letter one is not a not wanting,but more a dispasionate,stoic wanting?
From that perspective you describe it, that well known Zen enlightenment experience makes sense to me for the first time. What else could it be than directly experiencing what`s behind all percieved phenomena? I am not so sure however, that the will calms down in the individuum who realized the same quality that drives him drives everything. there still remains the challenge of colliding wills, and even if all wills would allign and causing no conflicts, the quest for "a higher aim" would remain, except one accepts that will is, nothing else and that is all.
I totally agree that will is the very substance of everything. If we accept that Kamma is the law that rules the world, we admit that world is driven by will.
Then it occurred to me, this Teaching( the one of Uddaka Ràmaputta ) does not lead to giving up, detachment, cessation, appeasement, knowledge enlightenment and extinction. It leads up to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception only, not satisfied I turned away from it.
further:
Then bhikkhus, I a subject of death, knowing the dangers of death was searching the not born noble end of the yoke [1] and attained extinction. I, a subject of decay, knowing the dangers of decay was searching the non-decaying noble end of the yoke and attained extinction. I, a subject of illness, knowing the dangers of illness was searching the not ailing noble end of the yoke and attained extinction. I, a subject of death, knowing the dangers of death was searching the not dying noble end of the yoke and attained extinction. I, a subject of grief, knowing the dangers of grief was searching, the not grieving noble end of the yoke and attained extinction. I, a subject to defiling, knowing its dangers, was searching the not defiling noble end of the yoke and attained extinction. Then knowledge and vision arose to me, my release is unchanged, this is my last birth, there is no more birth [1]
The footnote on mett.lk says on extinction: The not born, not decaying, not ailing, not dying, not grieving, not defiled end of the yoke which is extinction 'ajàtaü,ajaraü, abhyadhiü, amataü, asokam, asankhilitthaü anuttaraü yogakhemaü nibbànaü. It is by realising these things, that the fivefold bhikkhus attained extinction. It's clear that it's to one born that the rest comes, i.e., decay,ailments,death, grief, and defiling. So it is the cause for birth that has to be dispensed. Isn't the desire to be this and that the reason for birth.
It`s interesting how the translations differ, initially i wanted to make a point with the sutta for not wanting, not doing, presenting it as evidence for schopenhaur`s denial of the will, but the english translation says nothing of the like, it merely focuses on the extinction of dukkha ( elements that constitute samsara). Still, the footote gives evidence that the reason for suffering is desire, therfore wanting, will.
Albert Einstein once said :"I do not believe in freedom of will. Schopenhauer's words, "Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants", accompany me in all life situations and console me in my dealings with people, even those that are really painful to me. This recognition of the unfreedom of the will protects me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and judging individuals and losing good humour."
However, Schopenhauer also writes that the will itself is free, rather than humans have free will. He wrote : "The will from which this world originates is ours. It is free". Many have seen in this yet another contradiction in his system, while in fact, he leavesthat open to mysticism and religion, as he repeatedly stated. What`s Buddhism`s answer for the endng o the world [samsara] completely, once and forever, leaving no will, volition, kamma behind that could fuel it?
Arthur Schopenhauer`s philosophy can be summarized as a life denying system. Life is not worth living because it is an endless striving for satisfaction. For every wish we have fullfilled, there are 10 new ones waiting for fullfillment. If wishes are not fulfilled, we suffer. Since all our wishes cannot be fullfilled, we suffer as long as we have them. What drives us is the will (to live), which is blind and has no other goal than striving itself. The world does not strive for a reasonable goal but instead is blindly driven by the will. Schopenhauer claims that the same will is behind the forces of law of nature, like gravity and processes going on in inanimate things, as well as in concious beings. However, concious beings have the ability to recognize things and the higher the conciousness, the more clearly it can be discerned that we are driven by the will. The highest known form of conciosness inhabts human beings. Only human beings can realize the futility of existance and deny what`s driving them, the will (to live). There is a striking similarity with the Buddhist idea that only in the Human realm, escape from Samsara is possible.
Now let`s have a look what Schopenhauer recommends to eliminate the will. In his main work „The world as will and represantion“, he recommends strong ascesis. He says that deliberatly seeking the unpleasant, self-mortification and the avoidance of pleasure breaks the will.He praises christian self-mortification and sees catholizism as a life denying religion, while smashing Judaism, Protestantism and Islam as life affirming and therefore wrong. He rejects the idea from the Genesis, in which God made the world and praised himself saying „Everything was good“ as baseless optimism and claims that only Catholicism and Indian Religions, especially Buddhism are pessimistic and therefore right. Catholicism is pessimistic through the idea of original sin, that we all are born guilty and sinful while Buddhism is pessimistic because it propagates to escape the round of rebirths, also known as Samsara. Although both Religions offer escape, one thru Jesus, the other thru the noble eightfold path, they are pessimistic in their outlook to the world.
For Schopenhauer, suicide is not a denial of the will but an affirmation. A suicidal wants life, he merely does not want it under the circumstances he has. An exception is voluntary starvation, in which the will is denied because no action is taken to prolong life. As long as there is will, there is life, a similar idea to the Buddhist conviction that death is not the end of phenomena, for as long as Karma is there, existance will continue.
Schopenhauer is aware that Buddhism rejects strong ascesis. In „The World as Will and Represantion“ he writes:
„Because poverty, austerity and one`s own suffering in multiple forms already are inflicted thru the complete practice of moral virtues, many discard, and perhaps rightly discard, asceticism in the strongest sense, meaning they don`t abandon every belonging, they don´t delibratly seek the unpleasant and the detestable, they don`t inflict pain to themselves and they don`t fast. They discard the "hair shirt" and mortification as being superfluous. Justice itself gives the hair shirt, which is a constant strain to its owner and human kindness giving away the neccessary is the everlasting fasting. That`s why Buddhism is free of that specific kind of grim and exaggerated asceticism, is free from mortification/inflicting pain to oneself, which plays such a big role within Brahaminism. There (within buddhism) celibacy, voluntary poverty, humbleness and obedience of the monks and abstention from food made out of animals as well as from worldliness is enough.“
The Buddha clearly rejected harsh ascesis as not leading to final deliverance, Nirvana. Although Schopenhauer is aware of it, he seems not to accept the exclusivity of the noble eightfold path, he merely sees what he sees as Buddhist practice as enough. Nevertheless I think that the goals of Schopenhauer and Buddhism are the same. Both want to end worldly activity, Karma, literally action, which can be translated as intention or will, has to be ended if one wants to reach the final Buddhist goal, Nirvana: „"Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known. „(AN 6.63) I therefore think that the end of kamma is an equivalent to the denial of the will.
Good to know that someone else still loves old Freddy. Why do you, Ajani?
Nietzsche a poor bloke who is so frequently misinterpreted and abused - I think it really takes someone who had as difficult a relationship with God as he did to really get the implication of what he was saying. Even my teacher's first impressions of him is that of a Nazist! (And she took Philosophy 101 before in university) - although many of his ideas were later supplemented with Sartre's 'existence precedes essence', he laid the infrastructure of existentialist thought for others to follow. Most interestingly is his ideas of the Superman - to conquer oneself and realise humanity, as a "super"-human apart from the rest who bind themselves by chains and almost innate delusions.
Also, his usage of the "genealogical method" was the basis of much of Foucault's thinking later - and Foucault is my idol! Heh - for my thesis now, as a epistemology student in college, it is Foucault I think who influences my philosophy of knowledge.
Those of us who hold that the 'spiritual' is important must take seriously his critique because it has become the common currency of the dialogue.
To call him a fascist is anachronistic and an historical solecism. Mussolini and Gentile coined the word a couple of decades after Nietzsche's death.
Well, that is one way to look at it - in fact I notice no book of the topic of Nietzsche can ever properly shun away from mentioning this part of the interpretation in their text. Yes, the 'Will to Power' is one hell of a concept so easily quoted and used by a million different people with a million different ideologies - but one must partially blame Nietzsche himself, (who really sucks in organisation skills, but who does rock?), for much of his ideas seem to "go halfway" then stop at a point of extreme danger and fatalism, but it is the further thinking and reflection of that which really makes Nietzsche a genius and a non-fascist. Formulations of his like 'God is Dead' are dangerous to hear, but are key to the later elaborations by existentialist thinkers like Sartre's "Existence precedes Essence' and Nietzsche's own attack on senseless virtue.
We have an idea, but what do we do with it? I think it is not fair to blame Nietzsche for a thought others manipulated into action.
Nietzsche was a complex person with a complex question - existentialist themes, however, were never his invention - rather he was the first best-known person to step out and step into Unreason. We see existentialist themes too in the biblical book of Ecclesiastes - where the author in the end, by his fragile humanity, cannot bear to face the possible truth where he is living a life of emptiness, and instead goes onto a return to God - whether or not he exists or not. It is this inherent weakness to Truth Nietzsche saw in Man, that led him onto the path of no return, to dare walk into the horrible Truth (or rather knowledge, if you should argue that our knowledge of the existence of God is after all only knowledge) and leave his human weakness behind. From there, Nietzsche saw that the long, windy road could only be accomplished by someone who really abandoned all of his humanity (which connotes weakness) to accomplish super-humanity (which connotes the fundamental truth of human existence - existence itself). The Superman Nietzsche really wanted was someone who was more radical than the ascetics of Hinduism; the Buddha during his period of self-torture; the individual who destroys himself - aloof, abandoned, existentialist.
It may indeed be against the teachings of the Buddha, who preached the Middle Path and a concern for others. Yet one cannot discount what Nietzsche said - the implications of his philosophy are great and scary. We cannot attack his framework - every argument he makes is deeply-intriguing. We can only make the choice to think for ourselves which framework we actually want for our own lives, but to me personally, I see where Nietzsche and the Buddha may be similar, and where they may also be different. If not Nietzsche, to say that I follow Sartre would be perhaps a more moderate choice in equal effect - I still find myself an existentialist, as much as I am Buddhist. I guess this should not be the case, given the contradictions, but well, this happens.
Thank you for your commentary on Nietzsche and, particularly, what I have noticed as missing from much analysis of his thought: compassion for the man himself.
It can be argued that the person of the thinker should be irrelevant and I have often been criticised for this insistence of mine: all thoughts and ideas are dependent, contingent and outcomes of multiple causes which meet in this 'thinker', be they poet, dramatist, novelist or philosopher. All 'stand on the shoulders of giants' and some insist on trying to jump even higher. Of these, some land back on safe shoulders, and other crash and burn.
Nietzsche seems to me to be a puzzle if he is considered simply as a philosopher. He was a myth-maker and has become a myth himself.
Joseph Campbell suggested that we are living in a time without its all-encompassing myth similar to 'primitive' cultures. My own analysis suggests that Nietzsche is a prophet of the myth of our age. In many ways, the story he weaves, the particular vision of life, seems to become more persuasive as time goes by.
Ecclesiastes is clearly written during the Exile and its pessimism makes it a perfect progenitor for Nietzsche: the Israelites in exile had no God - He was back in Jerusalem in the Temple (see good old Ezekiel) and they were experiencing the same emptiness as ourselves.
You suggest, as do so many others, that Nietzsche's vision is anti-Dharmic but I would disagree. It is the voice of the first three Noble Truths. Even the Third is there (in essence) in the myth of the "free-wheeling Child".
I still consider myself a bit of an existentialist too, fell wildly in love with their works in my first couple of years of university. I think Kierkegaard's my favourite, even though I was never a Christian.