Dear Wayfarer

Thank you very much indeed for your link to the introductory essay on the topic of the Buddhist notion of "emptiness" which I have now read. Unfortunately, I am afraid I have to tell you that it does very little to change my opinion that Buddhism is a fundamentally nihilistic system of thought. Here is a brief explanation of why I think this is so...

I am not a professional expert on Buddhism, though I believe my understanding that the "Four Noble Truths" of the Buddha serve to shape the fundamental thinking of almost all of the different Buddhist schools, sects, traditions is pretty much correct, at least for most reasonable intents and purposes ? (Please let me know if I am mistaken in making this general assumption).

I interpret the "Four Noble Truths" to mean the following:

(1) Suffering exists.

(2) Suffering is caused by desire.

(3) It is possible to eliminate desire and consequently suffering.

(4) The cessation of desire ( and thus suffering) is achieved via the eight-fold path which terminates in nirvana.

To begin with , let's look at the second noble truth, the claim that suffering is caused by desire.

It is true that unsatisfied desires, whether positive or negative, are the source of suffering. In the negative case, if I desire not to be hungry, to feel pain, or to be cold, one could say that my desire is the source of my misery. If I could come to terms with the fact that I am hungry, in pain, or cold, such that I no longer desired the cessation of those feelings, I theoretically might no longer suffer. In the positive case, I might want sex, or money, or power, or expensive consumer good/services, and my inability to attain these things might cause me to suffer. If I didn't want these things in the first place, I could not resent not having them.

But, there are two ways to deal with desire - one way is, as Buddhism suggests, to eliminate it. The other way is to actually achieve what you desire, to get what you want. There are entire moral theories that suppose that desire satisfaction is the principle source of good. So, though desire may be the source of suffering, it may also be the principle source of goodness. How else can we be benevolent to towards others other than by helping them to get the things that they want or ought to want. The kind of benevolent/charitable (compassionate) behaviour Buddhists are taught and encouraged Yet that does indeed seem to be the goal of Buddhism - those who achieve nirvana cease to reincarnate and cease to be. to engage in via the eight-fold path seems to require that they fulfill the desires of others (?) How can the path to enlightenment entail leading others away from enlightenment ? It's contradictory !

Next we have the third noble truth ( and consequently the fourth) which are the beliefs that desire,( and thus suffering), can be altogether eliminated. But to eliminate desire altogether would not merely eliminate suffering, it would eliminate happiness, since happiness is the product of satisfying our desires. In order for it to be possible to eliminate desire, we would have to actively pursue an entirely NEUTRAL mental state. And how could we pursue such a mental state without, on some level, DESIRING that mental state itself ?

More importantly, if we are not desiring anything -if we are in a perpetually neutral mental state, are we really alive in any meaningful sense? Does not life entail pursuits of one kind or another ? The man without any goals or dreams is a man already in the grave. Yet that does indeed seem to be the ultimate goal of Buddhism - those who achieve nirvana cease to reincarnate and cease to be. So the goal of Buddhism does seem to be well and truly non-existence. This leads to a very disturbing contradiction. The point of life, according to Buddhism, is to achieve permanent, eternal death (?)

In which case, doesn't Buddhism imply that we ought not to create life in the first place ? If all beings that are alive are beset with desires and suffering until they achieve nirvana, and most beings never achieve nirvana, isn't creating life an overwhelmingly harmful activity ? Yet Buddhism does not explicitly oppose childbirth anywhere that I can see, and it certainly does not advocate for the humane killing of other beings in order to eliminate the suffering that goes with life for most of them.

But perhaps, in order to achieve permanent death all we have to do is behave benevolently towards other for some length of time. But what meaning does this benevolence have if all of these other beings are themselves best off permanently dead in a state of non-existence ? How else can we be good to someone whose life purpose is not to be happy but to achieve death ?

You may say that I am an ignorant fool who is drawing crude, simplistic conclusions about the complex nature of the concept of Sunyata; that I am one who lacks a fittingly nuanced understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of Voidism and the Buddhist void, but, as an ordinary, non-expert layman of at least average ( I hope) intelligence, I have to tell you, Wayfarer, I sense a definite stench of nihilism about all of this. All human projects are the result of desire, so Buddhism negates all human projects. At the same time, Buddhism maintains that we should behave benevolently ( charitably/compassionately) towards one another, but if benevolence consists of making others happy and happiness for others means achieving their projects and humans having projects is the source of human suffering, then being benevolent under Buddhism consists of preventing people from achieving their rightly considered life purpose, the fulfilment of permanent death. And how could we all simultaneously attempt to achieve permanent death when doing so involves sating one's another's desire that we are all mutually committed to eradicate ? In the end, all of this must be resolved one way or another - the contradiction is too strong.

Either, Buddhism is a nihilist theory in which life's only purpose is its end, or Buddhism is a moral theory of how we should treat one another, in which case Buddhism's methodology for eliminating suffering is not really about desire, but is really about just being nice to other people. In the later case, either Buddhism is mistaken about what suffering is, or Buddhism is mistaken about whether or not it can be eliminated or ought to be eliminated.

In sum, it just doesn't hold together. While desires lead to suffering, they also lead to happiness if we can manage to to achieve them. The entire human project has, for thousands of years, been about improving the quality of the human condition by achieving human goals. Buddhism rejects the very idea that human beings ought to have projects, tasks, dreams or goals that they desire to achieve, and in doing so Buddhism denies the human project " in toto". If that's not nihilism, Wayfarer, then I don't know what is !

Regards

John

My old friend, Paul Spenser, suggested one day that they should set up counselling for the poor to help them deal with their hunger.

Paul's joke was a satire on the hypocrisy of society's obsession with dishing out happiness to everyone, on one hand, and on the other hand, the hugely ineffective ways it can deliver its goal and promise.

Part of your article and criticism of Buddhism reminded me of this: get rid of the desire to get rid of the need and suffering.

My addition to your passionate condemnation of Buddhism is this: Nobody can get rid of any amount of suffering when they are in need. I urge any Buddhist to eliminate the need to breathe via meditation. When they are finished doing that, I invite them to exhale all air from their lungs that they can, and not breathe for ever after that. Since they desire has been eliminated.

Buddha says the desire can't be completely eliminated. I say it can't be eliminated even an iota. At least not via transcendental meditation or via counselling.

I stopped reading after about the second paragraph. In Buddhism it's believed that suffering is caused by ingnorance, John, not desire. Once you understand that you may have a better understanding of emptiness.

In answer to your question, what I mean by "absolute truth" is THE truth. The ONE, unchanging, eternal , absolute truth of God the Father Almighty.

Don't be like Pilate. Don't make the same mistake. I exhort you to realise how much is at stake in Jesus' claim to have brought THE truth to this world; to realise that It is literally a matter of eternal life and death; to realise that YOUR own life is on the line right now as we speak. You are an intelligent man. Pick up the Gospel and read. Do this and THE truth will set you free. — John Gould

I know Augustine wrote he once heard a voice telling him to "take up and read," but doubt I'd react as he did if I were to do so. And I have, in fact, read the Gospels (and heard them recited, for a long time, from the pulpit); even some of those considered non-canonical. But it's been quite some time since I did.

I was once a Catholic, or a kind of Catholic. Never a very good one, I'm afraid, but I retain a sort of fondness for it as I remember it from when I was young. Now, I'm if anything an aspiring Stoic. I find the simplicity of Stoicism attractive and think its conception of the divine less unreasonable than others. It doesn't require a commitment to a transcendent God, which would be unknowable as we cannot know what isn't in the universe though we can know something about what's a part of it, as we are. Nor does it require a belief in the divinity of Jesus and that he was fully God and fully man, whatever that means, which raised so many disputes in the early Church and which I think has never made much sense. What I know of the history of the ancient Western world leads me to believe that institutional Christianity is remarkable indeed, but as a kind of conglomeration or hodgepodge of the beliefs of pagan philosophy and mystery cults, and Judaism.

But I thank you for you kind words.

That is pure "eyewash" and you know full well that it is.

The first of the Buddha's Four Noble Truths is that all existence is "DUKKA" ( "suffering", "anguish", "pain", "unsatisfactoriness").

The second noble truth is that THE CAUSE OF "DUKKA" IS CRAVING (i.e. desire).

Regards

John

I stopped reading after about the second paragraph. In Buddhism it's believed that suffering is caused by ingnorance, John, not desire. Once you understand that you may have a better understanding of emptiness. — praxis

Does ignorance about Buddhism also cause suffering? If you are fine, praxis, then you just proved the Buddha wrong.

Does ignorance about Buddhism also cause suffering? — szardosszemagad

Ignorance about our true nature does, according to Buddhist thought.

If you are fine, praxis, then you just proved the Buddha wrong. — szardosszemagad

I'm not fine because I haven't realized my true nature or emptiness, though I may have an intellectual understanding of it.

Skimming through your post, I believe some of the apparent contradictions you point out can be resolved with a more than surface level investigation of the 4 noble truths.

I agree with some of what you write. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not a Buddhist and don't subscribe to all their beliefs.

Praxis

As this is a philosophy forum, please enlighten us as to what precisely your intellectual understanding of our true human nature might be according to Buddhist thought.

Thanks

John

I didn't say anything about our true human nature. All things are apparently transitory in nature and therefore lack an inherent identity or existence.

Your belief that "ALL things are apparently transitory (fleeting, ephemeral, evanescent) in nature and THEREFORE lack an(y) inherent identity or existence" is a cardinal symptom of NIHILISM and the pervasive realitivism ( moral/ethical, epistemological and metaphysical) and skepticism accompanying it that have now taken a firm hold in contemporary, advanced Industrial Western societies as a result of the crisis of Enlightenment rationalism.

To begin to understand yourself, you must understand , first and foremost that you are a victim of your times - your historical circumstance. That is, you are a victim of the current crisis of rationalism in the West.

Regards

John

Your belief that "ALL things are apparently transitory (fleeting, ephemeral, evanescent) in nature and THEREFORE lack an(y) inherent identity or existence" is a cardinal symptom of NIHILISM and the pervasive realitivism ( moral/ethical, epistemological and metaphysical) and skepticism accompanying it that have now taken a firm hold in contemporary, advanced Industrial Western societies as a result of the crisis of Enlightenment rationalism. — John Gould

It's a simple observation. Can you point out something that is fixed and permanent?

To begin to understand yourself, you must understand , first and foremost that you are a victim of your times - your historical circumstance. That is, you are a victim of the current crisis of rationalism in the West. — John Gould

I am in a sense a product of my culture, as we all are. That doesn't mean that I'm a slave to it. Indeed weren't people more a slave to their culture prior to the enlightenment? We can be the architects of our own development and experience, and perhaps find a way out of this so called iron cage. You, by the way, are in the cage with the rest of us.

More importantly, if we are not desiring anything - if we are in a perpetually neutral mental state, are we really alive in any meaningful sense? Does not life entail pursuits of one kind or another ? — John Gould

Consider these biblical injunctions:

'For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it. '(Matt 16:25)

'Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.' (Matt 19:21)

Do you think they're nihilistic sayings? They're quite close in spirit to the meaning of renunciation in Buddhism, also. Scholars have noted that the original monastic code of Benedictine has many functional similarities with the Buddhist monastic code; despite the differences in doxology, the practical application of both teachings is quite similar.

The word translated as 'desire' from Buddhist texts is tṛṣṇā, which can also be translated as 'thirst' or 'craving'. It is a more than simply craving, although it is also that. It is the deep-rooted sense of un-satisfaction or incompleteness. It is what 'drives the wheel' of birth and death. One meaningful parallel from Western philosophy is Schopenhauer's conception of the Will.

Buddhism rejects the very idea that human beings ought to have projects, tasks, dreams or goals that they desire to achieve, and in doing so Buddhism denies the human project " in toto". If that's not nihilism, Wayfarer, then I don't know what is ! — John Gould

All due respect, your depiction is incorrect. Buddhism is often mistaken for nihilism by its Western interpreters, and indeed there may be a tendency towards nihilism amongst certain Buddhists. But it is definitely not nihilist.

The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed, not towards a new life in some higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the world, namely, Nibbana. In making this statement, however, we must point out that Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute separation between the beyond and the here and now. They have firm roots in the world itself for they aim at the highest realization in this present existence. Along with such spiritual aspirations, Buddhism encourages earnest endeavor to make this world a better place to live in. — Nyanoponika Thera

Buddhism and the God Idea.

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it. '(Matt 16:25)

'Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.' (Matt 19:21)

Do you think they're nihilistic sayings? — Wayfarer

They are not nihilistic. They are just counter-intuitive. Show me two, just two average Americans who have done this and called it the American Dream.

Truth is, American Christians play lip-service to God. If they followed the bible, they would not be the strongest military nation in the world. They would not be the strongest industrialist society. They would not be the technologically most advanced society. The bible in America... is mere lip service. Nothing more, and that is how it should be, actually.

I agree that America has long abandoned the pursuit of any genuinely Christian vision. There is a conspicuous typo in the nation's official motto "In God We Trust". The error is the letter "s" in the word "trust".Here is the correction : "In God We Tru$t". Alternatively, you can correct the motto by, for example, placing the word "Incorporated" after the word "Trust" in the official 1956 motto, like the hard punk band the" Dead Kennedys" did in the early 1980s with their EP entitled : "In God We Trust Incorporated".

I do not agree with you that this is a good thing. I do not think that this " how it should be, actually".

I agree that America has long abandoned the pursuit of any genuinely Christian vision... I do not agree with you that this is a good thing. — John Gould

Well, according to Christianity, you ought to turn your other cheek (to the Indians, to the French, to the Loyalists), and which the Americans never did. If they did, America never would have got off the ground.

According to Christianity, wealthiness is a sin, greed certainly is. The entire capitalist system, which buoyed America head-and-shoulders above the rest of the world was built on cruel, unforgiving, greedy capitalism. This would never have happened if Americans were TRULY Christians.

In fact, Christianity, when obeyed to the letter, is absolutely counter-survivalist UNLESS all people behave the Christian way.

So I have to ask you... when was the time, or time period, do you think, when Americans never frayed form the pursuit of genuinely Christian vision?

Does not life entail pursuits of one kind or another ? The man without any goals or dreams is a man already in the grave. Yet that does indeed seem to be the ultimate goal of Buddhism - those who achieve nirvana cease to reincarnate and cease to be. So the goal of Buddhism does seem to be well and truly non-existence. This leads to a very disturbing contradiction. The point of life, according to Buddhism, is to achieve permanent, eternal death (?) — John Gould

If you'll allow me to chime in with a slight generalization, I've often thought about what's in it for the sage. If we tame our more animal or childlike desires, then (as you ask) what the hell are we still hanging for? If the goal is nothingness, then suicide is the shortest path to that goal. The only goal that seems plausible to me (and which I can even relate to) is the attainment of a narcissistic serenity. In quasi-Hegelian terms, Spirit enjoys itself as Spirit in an orgy of self-loving self-consciousness. Of course this self of the sage or philosopher is white light, a harmonization of all human nature. He is no one and everyone. So harmonized humanity loves itself in and through him. That he is "no one" testifies that only an extremely sublimated or dis-identified narcissism is appropriate here. So the goal is something like an un-death enjoying itself with one foot in the grave and the other in the womb. In my view, there's a tendency to project innocence and purity of imagination on the sage, but I think this desire for innocence is one of the childish attachments that the sage/philosopher moves beyond. This desire for innocence manifests as a disgust for the world as it actually is and conceives of outrage as wisdom itself. On the other hand, a serene affirmation of the world more or less requires that we see how "good" and "evil" are entangled or interdependent. Progress, drama, development, the stuff of life itself all require inequality, variety, difference, confusion, noise, "sin," "evil." (I put these last words in quotes because yanking them out as absolutes is the exactly the view I'm criticizing.)

*