Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Jklint]

What do you think it means?

The Eternal Return is the Hindu idea of Samsara. It is the cycle of birth and rebirth. It is that which the religious person is ever trying to get off of. How do we get off the Wheel of Life? That is the great question of Hinduism and Buddhism.

The idea of Eternal Return or Recurrence in Nietzsche - which is what the question alluded to - has absolutely nothing to do with the Hindu idea of Samsara. Any idea why?

[GaryLouisSmith]

The Eternal Return is the Hindu idea of Samsara. It is the cycle of birth and rebirth. It is that which the religious person is ever trying to get off of. How do we get off the Wheel of Life? That is the great question of Hinduism and Buddhism.

The idea of Eternal Return or Recurrence in Nietzsche - which is what the question alluded to - has absolutely nothing to do with the Hindu idea of Samsara. Any idea why?

All philosophies are related. Of course there is a connection. The Doctrine of the Eternal Return is a riddle. And to answer it you have to consult a trickster god, such as Hermes or Krishna or Jesus. Think again.

[Jklint]

The idea of Eternal Return or Recurrence in Nietzsche - which is what the question alluded to - has absolutely nothing to do with the Hindu idea of Samsara. Any idea why?

All philosophies are related. Of course there is a connection. The Doctrine of the Eternal Return is a riddle. And to answer it you have to consult a trickster god, such as Hermes or Krishna or Jesus. Think again.

Well if there is a connection as you claim then why not tell us what it is because I can't see a single thing connecting it. Maybe you should think again

[GaryLouisSmith]

All philosophies are related. Of course there is a connection. The Doctrine of the Eternal Return is a riddle. And to answer it you have to consult a trickster god, such as Hermes or Krishna or Jesus. Think again.

Well if there is a connection as you claim then why not tell us what it is because I can't see a single thing connecting it. Maybe you should think again

I have written about it extensively, but not on this forum. You could read my website, but I know you won't. Why don't you tell me what you think Nietzsche meant and I will comment on that.

[GaryLouisSmith]

All philosophies are related. Of course there is a connection. The Doctrine of the Eternal Return is a riddle. And to answer it you have to consult a trickster god, such as Hermes or Krishna or Jesus. Think again.

Well if there is a connection as you claim then why not tell us what it is because I can't see a single thing connecting it. Maybe you should think again

Here are some notes on Samsara and the Eternal Return.

First, the Eternal Return is not a scientific theory. It is an ecstatic vision. In a flash he saw the eternal repetition of everything that happened in his life. Remember that Nietzsche’s life was full of pain. He had fits and terrible headaches. He was socially ridiculed. No one read his books. He had a few moments of manic joy, always followed by pain. It was relentless. It is that, that would eternally repeat.

In Sicily he saw the proto-type of his superman playing naked and free on the beach. He was overjoyed. Then he went back to his melancholy room and the pain. Manic joy and pain. That was his repeating repeating repeating life.

Samsara is essentially pain. Even joy is painful. And that too is a vision. How does one escape? The Eternal Form of Life is Pain. It comes ever again.

Nietzsche and a Hindu mystic both meditate on their pain. Both have a vision of its endlessness. Nietzsche learns to say Yes to it. That demon becomes divine liberation for him. As for the Hindu mystic, when he reaches enlightenment and sees the truth of life, he … . He basically goes crazy. Just like Nietzsche.

[Felix]

GaryLouisSmith: Nietzsche and a Hindu mystic both meditate on their pain.

Mystics do not meditate on pain, only emotionally shrivelled up ascetics do that.

GaryLouisSmith: Both have a vision of its endlessness. Nietzsche learns to say Yes to it. That demon becomes divine liberation for him. As for the Hindu mystic, when he reaches enlightenment and sees the truth of life, he.... He basically goes crazy. Just like Nietzsche.

Nietzsche was too self-centered and vain to see "the truth of life," all he could see was the reflection of his own ego. And you have a very odd view of enlightenment.

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith: Nietzsche and a Hindu mystic both meditate on their pain.

Mystics do not meditate on pain, only emotionally shrivelled up ascetics do that.

GaryLouisSmith: Both have a vision of its endlessness. Nietzsche learns to say Yes to it. That demon becomes divine liberation for him. As for the Hindu mystic, when he reaches enlightenment and sees the truth of life, he.... He basically goes crazy. Just like Nietzsche.

Nietzsche was too self-centered and vain to see "the truth of life," all he could see was the reflection of his own ego. And you have a very odd view of enlightenment.

You have a typical Western idea about meditation. If you come here and give a monk three hundred dollars he will teach you anything you want to hear.

[Felix]

GaryLouisSmith: You have a typical Western idea about meditation.

Perhaps your ideas about it are pedantic. You said "Nietzsche and a Hindu mystic both meditate on their pain." If they identify the pain as theirs, they are deluded, and delusion is indeed endless, as you said, as long as one clings to it. It is not pain (or pleasure), but the attachment to it, that is samsara.

If you come here and give a monk three hundred dollars he will teach you anything you want to hear.

Yeah, well, those who are successful at meditation avoid making a career out of it.

[Belindi]

GaryLouisSmith wrote:

You have a typical Western idea about meditation. If you come here and give a monk three hundred dollars he will teach you anything you want to hear.

But what you want to hear is not what teaching is about. A teacher leads but does not indoctrinate.

Philosophy helps the philosopher to navigate among the tricksters without actually becoming one of them. Meditating is not brilliantly ecstatic as you seem to presume, but is got from training which involves learning through disciplined repetition.

The Eternal Return is the Hindu idea of Samsara.

and then you support this by saying all philosophies are related. But A is B is not A is relative to B.

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith: You have a typical Western idea about meditation.

Perhaps your ideas about it are pedantic. You said "Nietzsche and a Hindu mystic both meditate on their pain." If they identify the pain as theirs, they are deluded, and delusion is indeed endless, as you said, as long as one clings to it. It is not pain (or pleasure), but the attachment to it, that is samsara.

If you come here and give a monk three hundred dollars he will teach you anything you want to hear.

Yeah, well, those who are successful at meditation avoid making a career out of it.

Please permit me to characterize this silly non-argument. I said that the Doctrine of the Eternal Return is the Hindu idea of Samsara. Then later I spoke of a Hindu mystic who meditates on the pain of Samsara. Finally I said that Neitzsche and that mystic both eventually go crazy.

Then Felix said that mystics don’t meditate on pain and Nietzsche was self-centered and vain. All that struck me as something a Westerner who meditates might say. In the East, where there are all manner of mystics, you might well find such a mystic as I mentioned. Then I said that if he wanted an Eastern mystic to teach him typical Western meditation, he could certainly find one – for a price. Many monks have been to the West, have read Western books, speak English and their monastery needs the money. I have been with rich, middle-aged Italian women who pay big money to sit at the feet of a rinpoche and listen to him speak platitudes. They of course write it all down and feel blessed. They got their money’s worth even though it was nothing at all.

What I am arguing that that there are or might well be mystics who meditate of Samsara. Why is that such an unbelievable idea? As for him going crazy, there are many mystics who seem crazy. Are they? I think Felix and Belindi might both think they are and also a bit immoral. Was it because he saw Truth and was enlightened? I personally don’t believe in enlightenment. And the Truths I hear spoken don’t really seem true to me.

I still believe that Nietzsche’s Doctrine of the Eternal Return is the same as the Hindu idea of Samsara. If you want to disagree with that, I’m listening, but I see no reason to argue about what a “real” mystic meditates on.

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith wrote:

You have a typical Western idea about meditation. If you come here and give a monk three hundred dollars he will teach you anything you want to hear.

But what you want to hear is not what teaching is about. A teacher leads but does not indoctrinate.

Philosophy helps the philosopher to navigate among the tricksters without actually becoming one of them. Meditating is not brilliantly ecstatic as you seem to presume, but is got from training which involves learning through disciplined repetition.

The Eternal Return is the Hindu idea of Samsara.

and then you support this by saying all philosophies are related. But A is B is not A is relative to B.

Please permit me to characterize this silly non-argument. I said that the Doctrine of the Eternal Return is the Hindu idea of Samsara. Then later I spoke of a Hindu mystic who meditates on the pain of Samsara. Finally I said that Neitzsche and that mystic both eventually go crazy.

Then Felix said that mystics don’t meditate on pain and Nietzsche was self-centered and vain. All that struck me as something a Westerner who meditates might say. In the East, where there are all manner of mystics, you might well find such a mystic as I mentioned. Then I said that if he wanted an Eastern mystic to teach him typical Western meditation, he could certainly find one – for a price. Many monks have been to the West, have read Western books, speak English and their monastery needs the money. I have been with rich, middle-aged Italian women who pay big money to sit at the feet of a rinpoche and listen to him speak platitudes. They of course write it all down and feel blessed. They got their money’s worth even though it was nothing at all.

What I am arguing is that there are or might well be mystics who meditate of Samsara. Why is that such an unbelievable idea? As for him going crazy, there are many mystics who seem crazy. Are they? I think Felix and Belindi might both think they are and also a bit immoral. Was it because he saw Truth and was enlightened? I personally don’t believe in enlightenment. And the Truths I hear spoken don’t really seem true to me.

I still believe that Nietzsche’s Doctrine of the Eternal Return is the same as the Hindu idea of Samsara. If you want to disagree with that, I’m listening, but I see no reason to argue about what a “real” mystic meditates on.

[Belindi]

I'm sure there are charlatans in Kathmandu and elsewhere. I'd not be surprised if some mystics meditate using the idea of Samsara.

Does eternal recurrence include the particular recurrence idea of Golden Age, Silver Age, Brass Age, and Iron Age ? By itself eternal recurrence is a useless idea but if I'd will my life to recur eternally just as it is/was I'd have to regard my life as a very Good Thing. Which I don't. I'd rather aim to stop repeating it just as it is/was. In other words I'd rather aim for better.

Aiming for better (and Nirvana perhaps) is facilitated by throwing out dead ideas. It's the latter I most associate with Nietzsche.

[Jklint]

Well if there is a connection as you claim then why not tell us what it is because I can't see a single thing connecting it. Maybe you should think again

I have written about it extensively, but not on this forum. You could read my website, but I know you won't. Why don't you tell me what you think Nietzsche meant and I will comment on that.

To you ER and Samsara are the same or almost so when in fact they amount to opposites.

1- There is no karma, teleology, or moksha involved in the forever repeatable events of Eternal Recurrence as envisioned by Nietzsche. There is no Purpose to ER as there is in Samsara...a fundamental difference. One is a process, the other an endlessly repeating statistic.

2- Samsara would in itself be an eternal reiteration, including its final resolution, within the context of ER. Having achieved moksha you would continue the same striving for eternity.

3- Within ER the same events apply to the same person in every excruciating detail forever. This cannot be happening if Samsara is to complete itself in moksha. The former is akin to law; the latter is a journey on a path to avoid future journeys.

4- Escape from pain (which you apply as a common motive) has no function in ER because whether you had more or less or none has zero effect on it statistically repeating forever.

There’s much more that can be written but that would amount to wasted energy.

ONE thing they do have in common; both ideas are completely absurd. ER makes sense only as metaphor in relation to N’s concept of Amor Fati and from there to his vision of the Übermensch.

[Felix]

GaryLouisSmith: I still believe that Nietzsche’s Doctrine of the Eternal Return is the same as the Hindu idea of Samsara.

My understanding is that Eternal Recurrence was a thought experiment by Neitzsche: the will and passion for life of his mythical Superman is so great that he can say Yes! to his life, no matter how miserable, even if he had to repeat it eternally (appears that he himself failed miserably at that challenge). If this is a correct representation of his idea (as Bertrand Russell and others have suggested), it is obviously far from the Buddhist conception of Samsara.

GaryLouisSmith: What I am arguing is that there are or might well be mystics who meditate of Samsara. Why is that such an unbelievable idea?

It's believable, but you won't get too far by meditating on what is self-evident. But meditating on what is not self-evident can be very productive.

[Jklint]

Bertrand Russell is the last person I'd trust expounding on Nietzsche. I read the chapter on N in his The History of Western Philosophy. Most of it is misleading and prejudicial as most commentators have acknowledged. Russell is not the man to comment on Nietzsche.