GENIUS FORUMS

Both the Existentialist and Buddhist realize there is ultimately no value in anything.

The Existentialist creates his own worldly values.
The Buddhist values nothing.

The Existentialist embraces suffering for a cause.
The Buddhist runs away from every cause to run away from suffering; this is his very starting point and noble truths.

The Existentialist realizes that there is no reason not to enjoy life, laugh, and be happy.
The Buddhist enjoys his emptiness or Nirvana and piety.

The Existentialist embraces life and is active.
The Buddhist denies life and is passive.

The Existentialist aims towards goals in the outside world. (create the future)
The Buddhist aims towards goals in the mind. (contradiction? the mind dies with the body)

You can't claim the Buddhist is non-egotistic -- his whole purpose is to avoid suffering. There is no such thing as "non-egotistic".
Meanwhile the Existentialist realizes suffering is ultimately no better or worse than happiness and actually required for the best happiness.

You can't reconcile Nietzsche and Kierkegaard with Buddha.

Buddhism is the next best thing to suicide.
Existentialism is living to your fullest capacity.

WhorlyWhelk;

I don't know "the Buddhist", but the Buddha did not deny life, nor was he passive. After his awakening, the Buddha taught for 45 years, walking the countryside, meeting and speaking with people, attracting 100s of monks, etc.

clyde

I mean the ideal Buddhist. Realistically this can never be attained, only approached. The Buddha's teaching and participation in life is his weakness and failure to fully perfect his mind and Nirvana.

If an existentialist requires illusions to "enjoy life, laugh, and be happy", then he is just another deluded soul, essentially no different to anyone else. If he doesn't, then he is a sage.

The same applies to Buddhists.

Ideally, rather than trying to conform to a particular school of thought with its own particular tenets and its own particular label, it is better just to think and behave truthfully.

Wisdom is nameless.

-

WhorlyWhelk;

Then it is my opinion that you have profoundly misunderstood the teachings of the Buddha.

Simply stated, the Buddha taught a path to 'awakening' which is seeing reality as it is;
and the Buddha taught how to live in conformity with that realization.

clyde

I must challenge your guys use of "illusions" and "seeing reality as it is". There is no higher more real reality to see. This is it.

Existentialists agree with you on the fundamentals -- life has no meaning, no inherent self, no God -- but disagree on how to react to that. Rather than running away from all illusions to Nirvana their task is to derive meaning or purpose from life and figure out how to act in it.

WhorlyWhelk,

I must challenge your guys use of "illusions" and "seeing reality as it is". There is no higher more real reality to see. This is it.

You mean that I'm still the victim of an illusion? :)

I agree that there is no other Reality apart from the one we see around us. Enlightenment means perceiving the very Reality before us without any distortion or mental projection. It means seeing things as they are. It certainly doesn't mean escaping into some kind of otherworldly reality.

Existentialists agree with you on the fundamentals -- life has no meaning, no inherent self, no God -- but disagree on how to react to that. Rather than running away from all illusions to Nirvana their task is to derive meaning or purpose from life and figure out how to act in it.

Agreed. If a person is running away from life and seeking refuge in Nirvana, then it isn't really Nirvana that he is escaping into. He is simply entering into a fantasy of his own making.

Nirvana cannot be separated from life. Indeed, Nirvana is the very reality of life. All that a sage runs away from - or more accurately, dismantles - is false thinking and deluded concepts. Once he does this successfully, it all becomes Nirvana for him. Wherever he goes is Nirvana.

Given that you have been pressing this point for some time now, I'm curious to know what exactly you mean by "life". What is this "life" that you accuse enlightened people of running away from?

-

YIKES! I agree with David :-)

clyde

David,

I agree that there is no other Reality apart from the one we see around us. Enlightenment means perceiving the very Reality before us without any distortion or mental projection. It means seeing things as they are. It certainly doesn't mean escaping into some kind of otherworldly reality.

Well we all see things as they are -- don't we? Yet we aren't all Enlightened. So I must ask what "distortion or mental projection" means. I can see for example if someone conceived of everyone as an inherent self of their own that this would be delusional. However I don't see how it follows that we shouldn't have a vested interest or emotion in any so called "illusion". After all we are part of the "illusion", which is what I think Enlightened people forget or want to forget.

Agreed. If a person is running away from life and seeking refuge in Nirvana, then it isn't really Nirvana that he is escaping into. He is simply entering into a fantasy of his own making.

Nirvana cannot be separated from life. Indeed, Nirvana is the very reality of life. All that a sage runs away from - or more accurately, dismantles - is false thinking and deluded concepts. Once he does this successfully, it all becomes Nirvana for him. Wherever he goes is Nirvana.

I have pictured Nirvana as a sort of state of being continually conscious of the fundamentals of reality (causality, illusion of self,).

Given that you have been pressing this point for some time now, I'm curious to know what exactly you mean by "life". What is this "life" that you accuse enlightened people of running away from?

I accuse them of running away from reality, the apparent world, by saying that it is meaningless or an illusion and therefore that we shouldn't participate in any part of it/"life" other than perhaps to spread our wisdom and consume food.

The major flaw I see with this is that we are embedded wholly inside the reality that we are deeming meaningless or an illusion. We cannot escape it or transcend it. We can only understand it and play our role within it.

WhorlyWhelk,

DQ: I agree that there is no other Reality apart from the one we see around us. Enlightenment means perceiving the very Reality before us without any distortion or mental projection. It means seeing things as they are. It certainly doesn't mean escaping into some kind of otherworldly reality.

WW: Well we all see things as they are -- don't we? Yet we aren't all Enlightened. So I must ask what "distortion or mental projection" means.

It means conceptually projecting onto our experiences qualities that aren't really there. One example is the belief that things inherently exist. Another example is the belief that the world objectively exists. Another is the belief is that the world is composed of awareness. And so it goes on.

When we project these qualities on our experiences in the belief that they are real, we lose touch with the true nature of things. We lose touch with the formlessness and voidness of Nature.

I can see for example if someone conceived of everyone as an inherent self of their own that this would be delusional. However I don't see how it follows that we shouldn't have a vested interest or emotion in any so called "illusion". After all we are part of the "illusion", which is what I think Enlightened people forget or want to forget.

It depends on how sane you want to be.

Imagine that a person observes a cloud forming in the sky and falls instantly in love with it. He watches it adoringly and derives great happiness from drinking in its existence. Then, as the cloud slowly disintegrates and disappears, he falls into a deep well of despair, and when the cloud finally vanishes, he lets out a great scream of anguish and proceeds to jump off the nearest bridge.

I imagine that you could consider this to be a form of madness, and rightly so. Yet it is essentially no different to that of becoming attached to a woman, or to a family situation, or to worldly achievement. Viewed from the ultimate perspective, all these things are equally as mad.

DQ: Agreed. If a person is running away from life and seeking refuge in Nirvana, then it isn't really Nirvana that he is escaping into. He is simply entering into a fantasy of his own making.

Nirvana cannot be separated from life. Indeed, Nirvana is the very reality of life. All that a sage runs away from - or more accurately, dismantles - is false thinking and deluded concepts. Once he does this successfully, it all becomes Nirvana for him. Wherever he goes is Nirvana.

WW: I have pictured Nirvana as a sort of state of being continually conscious of the fundamentals of reality (causality, illusion of self,).

Well, it means being directly conscious of ultimate reality itself. The things you mention are useful conceptual pointers to ultimate reality, but they are still just pointers, nothing more. It is vitally important that one actually becomes aware of what they are pointing at.

Opening up to Nirvana is cutting edge. It is a living, breathing attainment. It isn't a case of being mindful of a collection of conceptual principles.

DQ: Given that you have been pressing this point for some time now, I'm curious to know what exactly you mean by "life". What is this "life" that you accuse enlightened people of running away from?

WW: I accuse them of running away from reality, the apparent world, by saying that it is meaningless or an illusion and therefore that we shouldn't participate in any part of it/"life" other than perhaps to spread our wisdom and consume food.

I still don't know what you mean by "life". For example, child molestation is a part of life. Do you think it is wrong for an enlightened person to avoid participating in that aspect of life?

The major flaw I see with this is that we are embedded wholly inside the reality that we are deeming meaningless or an illusion. We cannot escape it or transcend it. We can only understand it and play our role within it.

You're misunderstanding if you think I am advocating that the whole of reality is an illusion. From the enlightened perspective, everything is absolutely real. Everything is seen to be a direct manifestation of reality. What is illusory are the false conceptions that are projected onto this reality. While these false conceptions are also direct manifestations of reality, their ability to fool the mind into thinking that reality is something other than what it is makes them undesirable and harmful.

As a crude example, a mirage is a direct manifestation of reality and yet has the power to deceive the mind into believing in something which doesn't really exist - namely, that there is a body of water in the distance. If a person is smart enough to realize that what he is experiencing is in fact a mirage, and not a body of water in the distance, then he is longer being fooled by it. He continues to experience the mirage, but at the same time he sees through it. He has effectively freed himself from the illusion.

-

David,

DQ: When we project these qualities on our experiences in the belief that they are real, we lose touch with the true nature of things. We lose touch with the formlessness and voidness of Nature.

And this is wrong? We evolved to put form on reality for our survival. Perhaps truth isn't the most important thing...? Evolutionarily speaking it definitely isn't.

DQ: Imagine that a person observes a cloud forming in the sky and falls instantly in love with it. He watches it adoringly and derives great happiness from drinking in its existence. Then, as the cloud slowly disintegrates and disappears, he falls into a deep well of despair, and when the cloud finally vanishes, he lets out a great scream of anguish and proceeds to jump off the nearest bridge.

I imagine that you could consider this to be a form of madness, and rightly so. Yet it is essentially no different to that of becoming attached to a woman, or to a family situation, or to worldly achievement. Viewed from the ultimate perspective, all these things are equally as mad.

I understand. The problem is that he derives pleasure from something and doesn't realize that it will quickly dissipate. If he realized the true nature of clouds could he not enjoy them as much or even more, or should he try to detach and be indifferent to them?

DQ: Given that you have been pressing this point for some time now, I'm curious to know what exactly you mean by "life". What is this "life" that you accuse enlightened people of running away from?

WW: I accuse them of running away from reality, the apparent world, by saying that it is meaningless or an illusion and therefore that we shouldn't participate in any part of it/"life" other than perhaps to spread our wisdom and consume food.

DQ: I still don't know what you mean by "life". For example, child molestation is a part of life. Do you think it is wrong for an enlightened person to avoid participating in that aspect of life?

Child molestation is part of life. I would say life is the external world and its goings on. Will you molest a child today? Maybe go swimming? Or running? Or party? Or execute a terrorist act? Interacting with the external world is participating in life. When you have no values you can't rationally participate in life. Enlightened beings realize that ultimately there is no value in life. All they value is perhaps their persistence; the bare minimum and the bare minimum participation in life. Some of you arbitrarily value the promotion of your thought though it is easy to see that if everyone understood it, your goal, you wouldn't need to promote it. In this case everyone would sit around all day very literally in their own little bubble.

In the sense that you value the promotion of wisdom you are close to being Existentialists. In fact, I believe Buddhists are a specialized version of Existentialists.

WW: The major flaw I see with this is that we are embedded wholly inside the reality that we are deeming meaningless or an illusion. We cannot escape it or transcend it. We can only understand it and play our role within it.

DQ: You're misunderstanding if you think I am advocating that the whole of reality is an illusion. From the enlightened perspective, everything is absolutely real. Everything is seen to be a direct manifestation of reality. What is illusory are the false conceptions that are projected onto this reality. While these false conceptions are also direct manifestations of reality, their ability to fool the mind into thinking that reality is something other than what it is makes them undesirable and harmful.

I understand how you throw out the false conceptions that people have, just not how you deem any arbitrary values beyond survival and the survival of wisdom "delusional".

David wrote:If an existentialist requires illusions to "enjoy life, laugh, and be happy", then he is just another deluded soul, essentially no different to anyone else. If he doesn't, then he is a sage.

Yet even the sage is just like everyone else...


Buddhism and existentialism are not mutually exclusive...