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.
Are you a nihilist?
betaboy
Veteran
If you don't believe in rebirth, you certainly are.
Buddhism avoids the extremes of nihilism (once you die, you die) and eternalism (you live forever). Rebirth is the middle path - the process continues (no nihilism) but in different forms (hence, no eternal self that continues). Both extremes are avoided by accepting this idea of rebirth (rather than the hindu idea where a permanent entity, Self, evolves).
Buddhism avoids the extremes of nihilism (once you die, you die) and eternalism (you live forever). Rebirth is the middle path - the process continues (no nihilism) but in different forms (hence, no eternal self that continues). Both extremes are avoided by accepting this idea of rebirth (rather than the hindu idea where a permanent entity, Self, evolves).
1
Comments
So yeah, if ghana bhuti of aol chat legend is right then @betaboy is spot on. I make an appeal to authority for the same reason I would give my degree credentials on a job interview... Just to get in the door.
So why not blow your brains out? You could end suffering with a bullet. The answer is either epicarianism or some kind of Buddhism really focused on the 'now'.
My understanding is that a nihilist doesn't believe in the existence of anything at all.
So someone who doesn't believe in rebirth cannot be a nihilist because he believes that there is a self that dies and is not reborn.
Nagarjuna presented dependent origination to show that the self is a coming together of conditions. The conditions are not the self.
I lose the understanding when I try to go to true self and analyze. I know that whenever a being is there that it must be that there is openness, clarity, and sensitivity. That is always there with a being. But yet none of the three can be pinned down as "I got it". You can say dharmakaya, but if you are misunderstanding dharmakaya then the rug will eventually go out from under you, to your great surprise.
Got the matching sweatshirt? Same time tomorrow . . .
So yes, a nihilist could believe in rebirth though would see no reason or point behind it.
I was thinking that when Nagarjuna spoke about nihilism he was talking about the belief that nothing exists. As in self and form.
http://aporia.byu.edu/pdfs/pianka-colorful_nothing_emptiness_in_the_madyamaka.pdf
The middle way I think is a position in a broader context than just death, rebirth or afterlife.
It is a subtle position on the nature of the phenomenal world. Is it just an illusion and if not, what is it?
Really explaining this subtle point from the perspective of the various Buddhist schools is asked too much for me. (read the paper @robot posted for that!)
If I remember correctly the Madyamika School makes a narrow escape by using a logical trick called non-confirming denial. They deny the intrinsic existence of all phenomena but claim that in doing so they don’t confirm the nihilist position.
From the struggle with this subtle position comes the notion that the four statements are insufficient for expressing the truth. These four statements are:
All things (dharma) exist: affirmation of being, negation of non-being
All things (dharma) do not exist: affirmation of non-being, negation of being
All things (dharma) both exist and do not exist: both affirmation and negation
All things (dharma) neither exist nor do not exist: neither affirmation nor
negation
Languages change, and I think instead of nihilism (generally defined as life is ultimately without meaning or value) we might talk about materialism (everything including the consciousness and self is the result of physical properties and interactions, thus when the brain dies, so does the self).
Frankly, belief in reincarnation to me is the nihilistic viewpoint. See, the entire purpose of the practice then is to escape life and reincarnation by graduating from Samsara. This reality and our lives have no more meaning than a pool of clinging quicksand that keeps sucking us under. Nirvana or Enlightenment is the extinguishing of the self, among other non-definitions. How can an outsider see a religion that seeks to extinguish who you are as anything but nihilistic?
Now, if death is the final end and all you have is this one lifetime, then it doesn't have to be nihilistic. It can mean we have a precious gift called life and not to waste it.
You are certain? You believe in rebirth and have more overt nihilism than is good for grumpy cat. I don't believe in rebirth, nihilist am I? Maybe. Maybe not.
You could do Tonglen but maybe you can wait for your next incarceration . . . ?
No point in trying I take it?
Such are the thoughts of a writer of fantasy worlds. I might turn that into a story.
Count me out.
Are you happy now?
Dogmatic insistence will do that, it will chase people away.
Yes, I agree, and generally I think you can see the middle way as a means of transcending dichotomy and duality. But that doesn't mean the OP description is incorrect.
I'm a nihilist, but nihilism (by the wikipedia definitions) means more than just extinctionalism. It also can entail on or more of the following:
- Life doesn't have a cosmic, or creator-being-created, prepackaged purpose for you. (I believe we have to make up a purpose, the purpose of ending suffering is a man made purpose and I'm content to copy it). I believe in karma-lite (mere cause and effect), not Scholasticist-Certified Karma (TM), which is a near sentient rewarder and punisher that somehow inuits your intention when you stepped on your sleeping cat, (or baby if you think cats are non-sentient automatons) thereby killing it.
- Life has no possibility of ethics. I don't believe this. This is a Christian theological stance that if you don't believe in god, then ethics can't exist because the only ethics they allow are the laws of god. However, I believe rational ethics are a real enough and valid enough thing, even if they are made by humans for some human-made goal. I think this is where calling people unqualified nihilist is dangerous, it implies they are amoral sociopaths.
- The impossibility of knowledge. Wow, by this definition, a lot of Buddhist are hard core nihilists, some percentage of people on Buddhist forums are outright hostile to the idea that there is anything but belief and make believe as a foundation for all human thought as demonstrated by the rabid hostility to anything that smacks of science.
Dictionary nihilism doesn't say much about reincarnation, so it's an abuse of English, bad word choice. A life where I can't remember this one is of no interest to me. A god who created the world but has no further interaction is of no interest to me. Karma that punishes someone who can't remember my life is of no interest to me. It all falls into the category of "Things-in-Buddhism-that-are-as-important-as-the-rule-about-sleeping-in-high-beds"
I think the OP description is incorrect because it asserts that one must accept that rebirth is a fact in order to avoid the wrong view of nihilism.
The OP falsely claims that the belief in rebirth is the Middle Way.
As seeker pointed out Bikkhu Bodhi describes the belief in rebirth as a mundane view which opposes the view of nihilism.
Which is not the Middle Way.
Also, there are countless examples of people who claim to believe in rebirth, yet act in ways which indicate they don't actually believe it. They behave just as morally or immorally as anyone who doesn't believe in rebirth, or they may act worse than average.
The fact is, and this is the core of the topic, religious beliefs don't have much impact on moral behavior.
Looking to the past when considering karma seems more like a Hindu view of karma rather than a Buddhist one.
I believe in everything.... nothing is sacred to me.
^^^The 2 above statements are true, at least in reards to my perspective. So does that make me a Nihlist or Anti-Nihlist?
"Karma is a religious belief and it certainly has a good deal of impact on moral behavior for a lot of people! That is what keeping the precepts are all about.
"Let me rephrase.
"Karma is a religious belief and it certainly has a good deal of impact on moral behavior for a lot of people! That is what keeping the precepts are all about. "
(italics mine)
Well, not for me they're not. I don't follow the precepts because I expect "good Karma" in return. That may (or may not) be the end result - no one knows that for sure one way or the other - but I follow the precepts for my own personal reasons, without the promise of 'reward'.
It seems we can invoke Occams razor here...if I'm to be concerned about future "me's" who won't remember my life or identify with me, or even know if I existed or not, and they are suffering for crimes I am committing now...wouldn't it be simpler to just invoke the principle of compassion and a desire for all beings to be liberated? Why should I care more or less about one specific future person who will suffer for my actions or lack of action now? It would make more sense to do what one can to help people in the future and distant future out of compassion rather than out of some selfish based fear of future justice. (selfish because we identify with that single future poor sorry sot who will inherit our Karma)
Anyhow, a cosmic criminal justice system that punishes an unknowing bystander for crimes of another when they share nothing in common, not a body, nor a self, nor an atman, nor memories... it's just very unfair. But if true, should I care? Should I operate on a precautionary principle and do good/avoid evil on the off chance that the cosmic justice system works like this? Nah, again, good creates good effects now & evil creates evil effects now. That is enough motivation to do good, avoid evil. (or Kusala and akusala)
Although, I do disagree that no one knows for sure one way or the other. Bad actions will always have bad consequences, good actions will always have good consequences. But if you try to go further than that, trying to link some particular action to some particular result, that is when you get into unsure territory IMO. Only a person with the psychic power of a "divine eye" can see those links. That sort of thing is beyond the sight of ordinary people.
They wouldn't like it, cuz there wouldn't be anyone to feel superior over.
What about animals? They just kill each other without any regard! These lowly animals are seriously lacking a moral compass!
But I get it, you are trying to insult me by passive aggressively accusing me of being morally superior. Ok, if that is what floats your boat. I won't hold any ill will against you, that would make bad karma!
:wave:
@TheBeejAbides ..........
They wouldn't like it, cuz there wouldn't be anyone to feel superior over.
What about animals? They just kill each other without any regard! These lowly animals are seriously lacking a moral compass!
But I get it, you are trying to insult me by passive aggressively accusing me of being morally superior. Ok, if that is what floats your boat. I won't hold any ill will against you, that would make bad karma!
Wow, you are morally superior.