[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.21 MB, 1464x1986, Nietzsche187a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20030941 No.20030941 [Reply] [Original]

Nietzsche is westernized buddhism.

>> No.20030948

>>20030941
No, Christianity is westernized Buddhism.

>> No.20030950

>>20030941
Nietzsche is the self-conflagration of judeo-christian morality

>> No.20030952

>>20030941
Impressively retarded and ignorant thread

>> No.20030954

cont. Nietzsche misunderstood Buddhism due to learning of it from Schopenhauer's own misinterpretation. Unaware, he created a convergent parallel to Buddhism.

>> No.20030965

>>20030948
Only half correct. Christ indeed was a Buddha. Christianity as we know it today is a bastardized version of Buddhism at best.

>> No.20031097

>>20030965
Buddhism may be superior to modern Christianity but it still suffers from the same error, namely being it's other-worldliness.

>> No.20031141

>>20030941
He makes for a pretty strong stance against Buddhism. It's doubling down in the complete opposite direction - egoism, individuality, attachment, affirmation of the Earth. As someone who likes both, it's created a major internal tension for me. Which is itself not a bad thing in Nietzschean terms - great souls are those with great internal tensions.

>> No.20031174

>>20031097
>it's other-worldliness
I believe that's where Nietzsche's misunderstanding of Buddhism lies. My understanding of Buddhism is opposite. It strikes me as entirely "now" affirming.
>>20031141
On the contrary, I think the two schools of thought are almost perfectly compatible. There might be
>As someone who likes both
Why is that? Trust your intuition, anon. When it clicks, it clicks.

>> No.20031208

>>20030941
Nietzsche neither understood nor wanted to understand Buddhism.

>> No.20031212

>>20030952
only good post in this shithole of a thread

>> No.20031236

>>20031208
He didn't have means of understanding Buddhism in the first place. There were no good sources in the west at the time. He learned about Buddhism from Schopenhauer, whose interpretation was tainted with his life denying philosophy.

>> No.20031251
File: 168 KB, 1188x798, 1593200372014.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20031251

>>20030954
>>20031097
Schope was relying on translations which among other things rendered dukkha as dolor, "pain," and his entire appreciation of Buddhism is based on assuming it is in agreement with his pessimism and quieting of the will in order to overcome pain. It is less a matter of pain and suffering and more that the elements (dharma) of experience as grasped are in a state of commotion or unrest... one suffers in the sense that this can be experienced as pain if his mind is weak or clouded and sees lasting substance in any of this momentariness to cling to. Nietzsche rejects Schope's Buddhism insofar as it is nihilism to him, but a passive nihilism free of ressentiment. A better understanding of Buddhism, especially through the prajñaparamita literature of Mahayana for which emptiness is the central concept, is not going to come around until well after Nietzsche, e.g. Stcherbatsky, Obermiller, Conze, or through popularizers of Zen like DT Suzuki. (Bataille and Heidegger are thus able to read Zen and Nietzsche and move in that direction somewhat). Certainly any formulation of samsara as not other than nirvana—as is common property of the Mahayana schools—would meet Nietzsche's definition of life affirming. The bodhisattva does will his own eternal return, for the benefit of the world, no matter how long it takes for others to mature.

>> No.20031297
File: 3.21 MB, 400x400, 1646456895940.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20031297

>>20030941
Read The Doctrine of Awakening by Julius Evola before making threads about Buddhism.

>> No.20031346

>>20031251
Thanks anon, seriously. You worded it better than I ever could.

>> No.20031359
File: 2.71 MB, 3000x7000, 1612201217607.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20031359

>>20031297
Start with the Jeets. That's all you need

>> No.20031376

>>20030941
Nietzsche failed in his project and was unironically more of a nihilist than Schopenhauer. In fact, Schopenhauer is not truly pessimistic at all once you start reading into his own Platonic views more deeply. Nietzsche, on the other hand, is a huge amoral nihilist.
People need to stop thinking in memes and actually read these works in full.

>> No.20031442

>>20030941
Nietzsche hated buddhism

>> No.20031479

>>20031174
>On the contrary, I think the two schools of thought are almost perfectly compatible.
I don't think so. Partly for the reason I stated. Partly because of Nietzsche's very pointed opposition to Buddhism and anything similar. I still don't understand how it's possible for anyone to miss that, the only things this connection possibly has going for it is Schopenhauer's affinity for Buddhism, and Nietzsche's broad respect for Indian thought. He places Buddhism squarely in the vein of slave morality. How could he not? It's un-individualistic, earth-denying, passive, disengaged, and frequently ascetic.

>Why is that? Trust your intuition, anon
Because of the way it is! I'm not suffering some thought about whether I ought not to like one over the other. I'm talking about actual competing directions in life, which each exemplify. Ambition, struggle, and growth on the one hand, peace and passivity on the other.

>> No.20031484

Buddhism is a life-denying nihilistic philosophy

>> No.20031744

>>20030941
this is probably the single most inaccurate misinterpretation of nietzsche i've ever encountered