Philosophy Discussion Forums

Eduk -

Basically Buddhism is a kind of reverse engineered nihilism. The problem is Buddhism leads nowhere and nihilism starts from nowhere believing that nowhere is all there is - the nihilist at least has the opportunity to break the delusion of “nothing” whereas the Buddhism essential founds their existence within the delusion.

That’s my take in it anyway. Both views are very much of the same kin in regards to their regard for the “pointlessness” of life and whilst one wishes to “break the cycle” and live in a dream world the other accepts the nightmare. Kind of funny really! Haha!

you forgot to add that that nihilism will have nothing to do with nirvana; something of a contradiction in terms. I think you don't want to allow for the presmise that nirvana is real, because if you did, then you wold not, could not argue against it. It would be like arguing against happiness qua happiness.

Hereandnow wrote: ↑August 31st, 2018, 12:47 pm you forgot to add that that nihilism will have nothing to do with nirvana; something of a contradiction in terms. I think you don't want to allow for the presmise that nirvana is real, because if you did, then you wold not, could not argue against it. It would be like arguing against happiness qua happiness.

I’ve posted elsewhere about the comparison of Buddhist “philosophy” and nihilism. Remember:

The nihilist inhabits life as if it has a truth and therefore sees only falsehood and nothingness, whereas the buddhist inhabits life as a falsehood and therefore sees only truth and meaning. (from the thread bhuddism and nihilism)

I have a serious problem understanding your sentence (see bold.)

No. Talk about what a Buddhist substantively believes would be a performative contradiction as the substance, the Real and final end to which all the talk and yogas are subordinate, is liberation from the self, the hold rationality has on our temporal self. It is a release, and the metaphysics and the logic all fall away when they have brought inquiry to the crucial qualitative leap.
This is all you need to understand. Truth is pragmatic, not representational, which is why I bring up pragmatism so often. Heidegger was a pragmatist, or so it has been argued and I like the arguments. So when such talk about truth and meaning come up, the Zen master doesn't engage. He essentially says, quiet!

Do you have any balsamic and olive oil to throw on that?

Look at me being Zen-like. It’s called “awakening” in all the sects of bhuddism I’m aware of. There is no regard for material being whilst the nihilist has regard, or so it seems only for material value. Both despute the value/existence of each others view.

A person is not born a nihilist. They venture forth and failing presume the universe to be material and meaningless. The bhuddist view is venturing forth not bothering to try and then slowly ambling around pretending to not exist in order to to pretend to exist more ... it is a funny thing.

I don’t much care for Zen masters. Master of pretending? They don’t own that area of human thought. Meditation and altered states of consciousness are way older than any religious institution. Bhuddism has certainly concentrated on the art of meditation more than anything else, but it’s still infused with mysticism, superstition and indoctrinated jargon made to create a sense of “kinship.”

Nirvana, heaven, paradise, elysium, call it what you will. Essentially it’s a human phenomenon and quite special (unique.) Soem only get a glimpse before death and others have more prolonged experiences that direct their lives. What it is is not currently something that can be put into words in any meaningful way - that is where some mystics do a little use in creating an extremely low resolution snippet through the pinhole of human perception.

Of course I’ve nothing to back up my “opinion” so what the hell does it matter. Arguments with no common understanding are fairly pointless and often just ridiculed by rationally minded people.

BG:
Look at me being Zen-like. It’s called “awakening” in all the sects of bhuddism I’m aware of. There is no regard for material being whilst the nihilist has regard, or so it seems only for material value. Both despute the value/existence of each others view.

A person is not born a nihilist. They venture forth and failing presume the universe to be material and meaningless. The bhuddist view is venturing forth not bothering to try and then slowly ambling around pretending to not exist in order to to pretend to exist more ... it is a funny thing.

I don’t much care for Zen masters. Master of pretending? They don’t own that area of human thought. Meditation and altered states of consciousness are way older than any religious institution. Bhuddism has certainly concentrated on the art of meditation more than anything else, but it’s still infused with mysticism, superstition and indoctrinated jargon made to create a sense of “kinship.”

Nirvana, heaven, paradise, elysium, call it what you will. Essentially it’s a human phenomenon and quite special (unique.) Soem only get a glimpse before death and others have more prolonged experiences that direct their lives. What it is is not currently something that can be put into words in any meaningful way - that is where some mystics do a little use in creating an extremely low resolution snippet through the pinhole of human perception.

Of course I’ve nothing to back up my “opinion” so what the hell does it matter. Arguments with no common understanding are fairly pointless and often just ridiculed by rationally minded people.

There is a lot of this I could argue about......but I'm not going to. Look. you're very much on the outside looking in. Don't bother with it.

Not asking for an argument. I’ll bother with what I please thanks very much. What a bizarre thing to say!

As you please. But to call Zen masters, masters of pretending, then, in the very same post call nirvana a "human phenomenon quite special...not something that can be put into words" and then " I've nothing to back this up" ; I mean, it's impossible to follow you, it's not coherent.

Okay, I’ll play your game.

What is it that Zen masters do?

They retreat from that Heideggarian temporal throwness by not giving the mind expression when it insists on wanting, hungering for, and defining and fixing; it rejects, in short, the dogmatics of an attached mind. when it does this, it discovers the eternal present. This is of course a difficult term to discuss, for when one does this with some success, there is, as Kierkegaard put it, a qualitative change in the way we experience things around us, as if we never really truly encountered things at all because we were living in our being-in-the-world, that is, dasein, in time, in the projection from past experience into an unclaimed future. That is what being a conceptual being is, endlessly anticipating, and immediately or reflexively responding, and the "passion" of language is what binds us.
The central premise is that there is an eternal present, where 'eternal' is defined as out of time and time is defined as reason's concepts and their appetitive and emotional attachments being suspended. Think Husserl's epoche, where all presuppositions are put aside and one sees things as they are, before them in full disclosure of the moment. Husserl was no mystic, but he is close on occasion. Eugene Fink is closer.

misspoke. "time and time is defined as reason's concepts and their appetitive and emotional attachments being suspended."
Remove the "being suspended".

Opinion? Or can you quote said Zen masters reciting Heidegger and discussing hermeneutic phenomenology?

No, no. Don't think of it like this.Just attend to the ideas presented. Put the books and posting aside and see the world and ask what could an eternal present be. Is it an idea that has bearing on the world the is existentially witnessed?
I know you like to argue, but this is a practice and understanding must first make discoveries here, in the presence of the world.

So it’s your opinion then. If not then you’re merely saying “I know better than you because I say so and that is an authority you should listen to.”

If it’s your opinion, through personal experience you cannot share, then don’t be ashamed of saying so. I said the same, I just don’t piss around with talk of “nirvana” too much or claim to be a Zen master or privy to what Zen masters think and do.

My view is religious institutions represent something human and quite difficult (maybe impossible) to express in a rational way. Mystical talk is sadly the best most can manage, that and the delusion of believe they understand more than they are willing to admit.

“Eternal present” ... just words. They are part of Heidegger’s hermeneutic scheme you’re so enraptured by. Foucault plays the very same game of pretending to see beyond words and being able express with words what it is liek without words ... it’s incredibly dangerous because most people are only to ready to take up words at face value.

You know I like to argue? Where was the clue? Here:

“Not asking for an argument.”

I prefer the term “discussion”. Argumentation serves a limited purpose and requires constant opposition (useful only if complimented with plain discussion and exploration.)