Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:41 am

"In what sense is joy deeper than woe ? I think that this song refers to some underlying structure of basic human feeling, maybe will to power. it is as if drive or emotion in the state of joy DEMANDS it's eternity and thus it would be rational for YOU to want woe too, for how many joy would be lost if there were no woe! what do you think?"

I've had a lot of thoughts on this, and in fact I treated it at length in my Dutch videos... Here's some pointers:

In "The Nightwanderer's Song", Zarathustra says:

"Just now hath my world become perfect, midnight is also mid-day,--
Pain is also a joy [Lust], curse is also a blessing, night is also a sun,--go away! or ye will learn that a sage is also a fool." (section 10, Common translation ("The Drunken Song"))

Note that he does _not_ say: "mid-day is also midnight", "joy is also a pain", etc. (By the way, the word translated as "mid-day" is often translated as "noon", as in "the great noon".) Compare:

"It has often been remarked that, while the prephilosophic term for the whole [_to holon_, "the universe"] is 'heaven and earth', the philosophers call it _kosmos_, an ordered composite whose structure is intelligible only to the mind but is not apparent to the eye, which cannot go beyond its two most conspicuous parts. There is 'day and night', and there is 'day', which comprehends both day and night and can no longer be seen." (Benardete, _The Bow and the Lyre_, page 86-7.)

We could also say: there is "night and day", and there is "night", which comprehends both night and day and can no longer be seen. Let's see if we can interpret Zarathustra this way. Joy is deeper than woe because it comprehends both "joy and woe". Pain is also a joy, but joy is not also a pain. The positive comprehends the negative: a curse (negative) is also a blessing (positive). Go away, or you will learn that the fool, not the sage, is the positive one of the two.

"Every basic character trait that is encountered at the bottom of every event, that finds expression in every event, would¹ have to lead the individual who experienced it as his own basic character trait to welcome every moment of universal experience with a sense of triumph. The crucial point would be that one experienced this basic character trait in oneself as good, valuable--with pleasure [Lust]." (WP 55.)

The basic character trait that Nietzsche suggests is the will to power. Pleasure is the feeling of power, and the feeling of power is at bottom the feeling of freedom, the feeling of will (cf. GM 2.18). The pathos of free will to power... Strong passion (cf. EH Z 3).

¹ In order to make pantheism in Nietzsche's sense possible.

By the way, I now think Nietzsche's teaching is not the European form of Buddhism (cf. WP 55), but of Vedanta: the ring of recurrence is the Atman of Vedanta (and the Precious from Tolkien), not the Anatta of Buddhism. Yet the two are one and the same: the ER is a subtle time-fetish, a symbol of the Infinite (Ananta Brahman) beyond it.

There is a joy beyond the "joy and woe" of the ego: the joy of the Self. Compare Z "Despisers of the Body" and BGE 225. The only good reason to be attached to your body is that it makes the "out-of-body experience" of non-attachment possible.

"One will see that in this book pessimism, or to speak more clearly, nihilism, counts as 'truth'. But truth does not count as the supreme value, even less as the supreme power. The will to appearance, to illusion, to deception, to becoming and change (to objective deception) here counts as more profound, primeval, 'metaphysical' than the will to truth, to reality, to being:--the last is itself merely a form of the will to illusion. In the same way, pleasure counts as being more primeval than pain: pain only as conditioned, as a consequence of the will to pleasure (of the will to become, grow, shape, i.e., _to create_: in creation, however, destruction is included). A highest state of affirmation of existence is conceived from which the highest degree of pain cannot be excluded: the _tragic-Dionysian_ state." (WP 853.)

The Reason to be attached is that the truth is pleasurable, in the sense of "pleasure" that comprehends both "pleasure and pain". Nietzsche's glad tidings are that the world is the will to power and nothing besides, i.e., the "will to art, to lie, to flight from 'truth', to _negation_ of 'truth'." (WP 853.) The truth comprehends both "truth and art". Note that BT 18 gives, as its example of a tragic culture, "Buddhist culture" (which Nietzsche in his 1886 copy of the book changed to "Indian (Brahmanic) culture"). Osho spoke of Zorba the Buddha. We should think of Dionysus the Bodhisattva: going down, not out of compassion, but out of conjoylessness!

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2449679#p2449679
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:56 am

[Below is a post I wrote for the Dharmapada forum, but which was rejected there.]

Dear All,

I originally wrote the piece below for the "Buddhism Without Boundaries" forum, but my registration then turned out to be rejected there and its admin referred me to this forum instead. (I hope saying this much doesn't fall under "Disclosure of Internal Private Messages/Off-Site Emails or Any Type of Private Correspondence Without Prior Consent from the Sender" according to this forum's ToS.)

I post the piece below because I think it's a pret-ty good exhibition of my current understanding of Buddhism (I wrote it less than two weeks ago). By the way, I write "I", "me" and the like for the sake of convention/convenience, but it may be more apt to write "he", "him" and the like, as I'm only one illusionary self among countless others.

Kind regards,

one All-in-one in All

::

lisehull wrote:So, as I said, for many of us (including not just me in this forum) it's about being dead, not existing any longer, a body rotting, and so forth. I am skeptical about rebirth, but even if it does happen, who I am now, this body, will no longer exist, will be rotting in a grave, or burned up in a crematorium. I am terrified about this. dwlemen and I are pretty much thinking along the same lines. Telling me I am not a self, empty, etc., doesn't ease the terror.


It's perfectly natural that that doesn't ease the terror. After all, that is exactly the reason for your terror. Your terror is that, unless transhumanism succeeds within your natural lifetime, you will no longer be a self after that lifetime. So telling you that you're already not a self, and have never been a self, cannot ease your terror.

But the fact that you will probably, a hundred years from now, no longer exist already tells us that you don't really exist even now, and have never really existed. All that seems to exist is illusion. Your death only matters to the illusion that is your self, and the illusions that are your loved ones' selves. See through that illusion, and the terror's gone.

Yet the Infinite Void that is behind the illusion, or is the Whole of all illusions, has nevertheless bound itself to your self. It has one of its infinitely many perspectives in you. And the question is: Why? Why would the Godhead Itself want to incarnate as you? What could it accomplish in your shoes, in your body, in your persona (mask)?

That is the question that has led me to this forum. In fact, I should write Me, because I AM the Mind. But this, I only now realize, is itself the answer! Why does the One imagine itself fragmented into all these selves? In order to be conscious of itself. And this is why a full Buddha becomes a Bodhisattva, devotes One's self to enlighten other selves: because the Bliss of Buddhahood exists only in Communication, in making common or sharing the beauty of the illusion.

The values, the hues of this flower-garden only come into their own in the exchange thereof. I show you my flower so that yours may open up as well. The Bliss of Buddhahood is not in any particular flower or number of flowers, but in the inexhaustible flowing forth of such flowers. The soil of this garden never gets depleted; its fountain jumps and dances even in winter, when everything is snow-white and crystalline. This is Nirvana, to not be attached to any particular part of Samsara, but only to the whole. To be sure, flames get blown out in the breeze all the time; but the breeze itself is absolutely warm, and kindles ever new lights in the darkness. Even the darkness itself is a light: a counterlight, without whose contrast the light would be nought. [I might have written more (or deleted or edited some things), but this is when I read the admin's email. In any case, I was about to wrap it up.]
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:04 am

Not a Buddhist per se, but I have a strong inclination for the core principles and philosophies of Buddhism.

I don't get your points clearly and I think your presentation is not 'sharp' and to the point.

By the way, I now think Nietzsche's teaching is not the European form of Buddhism (cf. WP 55), but of Vedanta: the ring of recurrence is the Atman of Vedanta (and the Precious from Tolkien), not the Anatta of Buddhism. Yet the two are one and the same: the ER is a subtle time-fetish, a symbol of the Infinite (Ananta Brahman) beyond it.
No wonder the Buddhist forum rejected your post [views] because Atman of Vedanta and Anatta of Buddhism are very contrasting opposites and they cannot be the same [nor reconciliable] in any sense in accordance to Buddhism.

Besides Nietzsche* is not positive with Buddhism, thus to link Dionysus with the Bodhisattva would be off topic. I believe Nietzsche relied on Schopenhauer's interpretation of Buddhism where he was not very clear on its core principles.

ER seem to have some semblance [it may not be] to 'rebirth' and most advance Buddhists do not believe in rebirth in general.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:20 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Not a Buddhist per se, but I have a strong inclination for the core principles and philosophies of Buddhism.

I don't get your points clearly and I think your presentation is not 'sharp' and to the point.

By the way, I now think Nietzsche's teaching is not the European form of Buddhism (cf. WP 55), but of Vedanta: the ring of recurrence is the Atman of Vedanta (and the Precious from Tolkien), not the Anatta of Buddhism. Yet the two are one and the same: the ER is a subtle time-fetish, a symbol of the Infinite (Ananta Brahman) beyond it.
No wonder the Buddhist forum rejected your post [views] because Atman of Vedanta and Anatta of Buddhism are very contrasting opposites and they cannot be the same [nor reconciliable] in any sense in accordance to Buddhism.


I disagree. Yes, the crucial difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is their (dis)belief in Atman. But does Atman rightly understood really mean the "soul-atom" (to use a term by Nietzsche) that Buddhism rejects? Does not Atman equal Brahman, and is not Brahman, rightly understood, beyond being and non-being? I think Buddhism was really a return to the truth of Hinduism, and _this_ is why the Buddha is rightly considered the ninth mahavatar of Vishnu.


Besides Nietzsche* is not positive with Buddhism, thus to link Dionysus with the Bodhisattva would be off topic. I believe Nietzsche relied on Schopenhauer's interpretation of Buddhism where he was not very clear on its core principles.


Yeah, as far as Nietzsche is wrong, I do not accept him.


ER seem to have some semblance [it may not be] to 'rebirth' and most advance Buddhists do not believe in rebirth in general.


The Buddha did teach reincarnation, "just" not the transmigration of souls...
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:40 am

Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Not a Buddhist per se, but I have a strong inclination for the core principles and philosophies of Buddhism.

I don't get your points clearly and I think your presentation is not 'sharp' and to the point.

By the way, I now think Nietzsche's teaching is not the European form of Buddhism (cf. WP 55), but of Vedanta: the ring of recurrence is the Atman of Vedanta (and the Precious from Tolkien), not the Anatta of Buddhism. Yet the two are one and the same: the ER is a subtle time-fetish, a symbol of the Infinite (Ananta Brahman) beyond it.
No wonder the Buddhist forum rejected your post [views] because Atman of Vedanta and Anatta of Buddhism are very contrasting opposites and they cannot be the same [nor reconciliable] in any sense in accordance to Buddhism.


I disagree. Yes, the crucial difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is their (dis)belief in Atman. But does Atman rightly understood really mean the "soul-atom" (to use a term by Nietzsche) that Buddhism rejects? Does not Atman equal Brahman, and is not Brahman, rightly understood, beyond being and non-being? I think Buddhism was really a return to the truth of Hinduism, and _this_ is why the Buddha is rightly considered the ninth mahavatar of Vishnu.
Nope.
The Principle of Anatta [a subset of Brahman] is a 180 degree paradigm shift from Atman and this why they are going into opposite direction.
Some Hindus may consider the Buddha the ninth mahavatar of Vishnu but they are wrong.
You have to dig deep into Buddhism to understand the very contrasting difference between Brahman and the "nothingness" [sunyata, dependent origination] of Buddhism.

ER seem to have some semblance [it may not be] to 'rebirth' and most advance Buddhists do not believe in rebirth in general.

The Buddha did teach reincarnation, "just" not the transmigration of souls...
The idea of 'rebirth' but it is very contentious within the Buddhist community. However if one take to the ultimate and very subtle nuances of Buddhist philosophy, there is no such thing as rebirth as claimed by certain section of the Buddhist community.

Note there are three main sects within the Buddhist community, i.e. Theravada, Mahayana, & Vajrayana [Tibetan]. There are a lot of contentious issues between these difference sects and I believe Vajrayana [have differences among themselves] deal with the more refined philosophies of Buddhism.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:04 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Not a Buddhist per se, but I have a strong inclination for the core principles and philosophies of Buddhism.

I don't get your points clearly and I think your presentation is not 'sharp' and to the point.

[...]
No wonder the Buddhist forum rejected your post [views] because Atman of Vedanta and Anatta of Buddhism are very contrasting opposites and they cannot be the same [nor reconciliable] in any sense in accordance to Buddhism.


I disagree. Yes, the crucial difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is their (dis)belief in Atman. But does Atman rightly understood really mean the "soul-atom" (to use a term by Nietzsche) that Buddhism rejects? Does not Atman equal Brahman, and is not Brahman, rightly understood, beyond being and non-being? I think Buddhism was really a return to the truth of Hinduism, and _this_ is why the Buddha is rightly considered the ninth mahavatar of Vishnu.
Nope.
The Principle of Anatta [a subset of Brahman] is a 180 degree paradigm shift from Atman and this why they are going into opposite direction.


I disagree that this is necessarily the case. Atman is an elusive principle. As such, it may well be understood as the emptiness or mindstream of Buddhism.


Some Hindus may consider the Buddha the ninth mahavatar of Vishnu but they are wrong.


They are wrong? Who are you to say so? Do you know for sure whether Vishnu exists, and if so, who is his ninth mahavatar?


You have to dig deep into Buddhism to understand the very contrasting difference between Brahman and the "nothingness" [sunyata, dependent origination] of Buddhism.


Don't you also have to dig deep into Hinduism for that?

I'm first and foremost concerned with the truth. I think "nothingness" is the truth, and therefore Brahman, if Hinduism is to be true, must be the same.


ER seem to have some semblance [it may not be] to 'rebirth' and most advance Buddhists do not believe in rebirth in general.

The Buddha did teach reincarnation, "just" not the transmigration of souls...
The idea of 'rebirth' but it is very contentious within the Buddhist community. However if one take to the ultimate and very subtle nuances of Buddhist philosophy, there is no such thing as rebirth as claimed by certain section of the Buddhist community.


Because there is no (transmigratible) soul.
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:19 am

Note there are three main sects within the Buddhist community, i.e. Theravada, Mahayana, & Vajrayana [Tibetan]. There are a lot of contentious issues between these difference sects and I believe Vajrayana [have differences among themselves] deal with the more refined philosophies of Buddhism.

I chose the Dharma Wheel forum (I mistakenly said "Dharmapada" above) instead of the Dhamma Wheel forum because from what I know, Mahayana and Vajrayana seem more in line with my views than Theravada. And of the former two, I at least _used_ to be more attracted to Vajrayana, because it's more tantric and shamanic.

Shamanism, Hinduism, Buddhism--I think these form a single continuum. However, I do think they can exoterically seem to differ and even to contradict each other. How fitting, then, that Vajrayana be called "esoteric Buddhism"! Hell, Bhairava is even sacred to _Jainism_! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhairava
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:23 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Nope.
The Principle of Anatta [a subset of Brahman] is a 180 degree paradigm shift from Atman and this why they are going into opposite direction.

Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:I disagree that this is necessarily the case. Atman is an elusive principle. As such, it may well be understood as the emptiness or mindstream of Buddhism.
My focus at present is elsewhere, so I want to avoid digging into the details re Buddhism.

Note major point and a general view;

Wiki wrote:The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is Ātman (soul, self) in every being, a major point of difference with Buddhism, which does not believe that there is either soul or self.


The point that you mentioned the admin in a Buddhist forum did not welcome your view is one clue you are going in the wrong direction.

If you want to be serious, I suggest you collate all the opinions re atman and anatman [anatta] from all the relevant schools of both Hinduism & Buddhism, and therefrom demonstrate why your view is true.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:50 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Nope.
The Principle of Anatta [a subset of Brahman] is a 180 degree paradigm shift from Atman and this why they are going into opposite direction.

Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:I disagree that this is necessarily the case. Atman is an elusive principle. As such, it may well be understood as the emptiness or mindstream of Buddhism.
My focus at present is elsewhere, so I want to avoid digging into the details re Buddhism.

Note major point and a general view;

Wiki wrote:The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is Ātman (soul, self) in every being, a major point of difference with Buddhism, which does not believe that there is either soul or self.


The point that you mentioned the admin in a Buddhist forum did not welcome your view is one clue you are going in the wrong direction.


Not necessarily. I said the thing about Atman in my OP, which I wrote well after my second post. In the "Buddhism Without Boundaries" forum, I wasn't even accepted as a new user (try registering to see what may have been the basis of their rejection). To be sure, when I then replied to the admin's email by showing him my post (about flowers and all that), he never mailed me again. I then went to the "Dharma Wheel" forum, which was one of his recommendations, and they accepted me as a user but rejected my introductory post (again the flower post). The reason they gave was that I spoke of my attainments, which is explicitly forbidden. I then replied with the following message, to which I again never received a response:


Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:Dear Admin,

Thank you for your message. You were indeed the only staff member to send me feedback.

I'm trying to edit my initial post into accordance with the ToS. Thus I just edited the sentence where I explicitly used the word "attainment":

Original: "I post the piece below because I think it's a pret-ty good exhibition of my current level of attainment (I wrote it less than 48 hours ago)."
Edit: "I post the piece below because I think it's a pret-ty good exhibition of my current understanding of Buddhism (I wrote it less than a week ago)."

I'm at a loss for editing anything else, though. I mean, even when I say "I should write Me [instead of "me"], because I AM the Mind", I'm just trying to communicate my understanding of Buddhism. Even if it's an adequate rendition, I may not at all understand what I'm saying (I may be a monkey with a typewriter, so to say).

I could add qualifiers like "I think" and "in my view", if you want, or write some kind of disclaimer. I don't think wisdom can help implying itself, however. [The ToS reads: "ii) It is strongly recommended that posters do not make claims of higher attainments as it tends to cause disruption. If anyone feels that they have such attainments, they should use that wisdom to help guide the discourses, rather than to draw attention to oneself."]

Please let me know if you think I'm hopeless. :smile:


::

If you want to be serious, I suggest you collate all the opinions re atman and anatman [anatta] from all the relevant schools of both Hinduism & Buddhism, and therefrom demonstrate why your view is true.


Yeah, I'm not really interested in scholarship like you. I'm interested, not in the truth about Hinduism and Buddhism, but in the metaphysical truth--which they both claim to teach. If both their claims are true, what I say about them must be true.

Your approach is quite disrespectful, by the way. Quite arrogant.
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:37 am

Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:
If you want to be serious, I suggest you collate all the opinions re atman and anatman [anatta] from all the relevant schools of both Hinduism & Buddhism, and therefrom demonstrate why your view is true.


Yeah, I'm not really interested in scholarship like you. I'm interested, not in the truth about Hinduism and Buddhism, but in the metaphysical truth--which they both claim to teach. If both their claims are true, what I say about them must be true.

Your approach is quite disrespectful, by the way. Quite arrogant.
English is my second language, thus I may not be very refine in expressing my intents and views. With such limitations, suggest we set aside the feelings and focus on what is critical, i.e. the truth [not The TRUTH].

The point is when we deal with the more refined points of whatever philosophy, we need to have more 'rigor' [Rigor = thoroughness and exhaustiveness––the gold standard for any discussion] in our views.

Another point is the core principles and higher views of Buddhism do not involve metaphysics re the ontological at all while Hinduism does.
The core principle of impermanence within Buddhism cannot accommodate any ontological absolute such a Brahman.

Wiki wrote:In philosophy, the concept of the Absolute is closely related to that of God in monotheism, albeit not necessarily referring to a personal deity.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:26 pm

Wiki wrote:The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is Ātman (soul, self) in every being, a major point of difference with Buddhism, which does not believe that there is either soul or self.

Atman does not literally mean soul, self, as we use it in English. But it means self-valuing, i.e. the process that perpetuates itself through breath (breathing is valuing oxygen).
It is not an "atom" in the sense of solid object.

But Atman is the individual self-valuing.
I.e. that principle that has become the heart of the being of flesh and blood but is still the principle.

From Experience I know what Atman is. Such truths are only comprehensible through practice.
It should speak for itself as these religions aren't fundamentally theories but Methods. At least when approached right.

The point that you mentioned the admin in a Buddhist forum did not welcome your view is one clue you are going in the wrong direction.

If you want to be serious, I suggest you collate all the opinions re atman and anatman [anatta] from all the relevant schools of both Hinduism & Buddhism, and therefrom demonstrate why your view is true.

The difference as outlined by wiki:


" in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle, the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. "

"Anātman, a creation of Brahman which is non-different from Brahman and has no existence apart from Brahman.[5] To comprehend the difference between ātman and anātman is to become liberated."



What is indicated is the difference between the individual working-principle and the universal abstract-principle.
Brahman is the original ground, i.e. the necessity itself that gives rise to the infinite extensions of itself, i.e. all the instances of the working principle.

To become united with the universal principle is to transcend the identification with the particular working principle Atman (which itself was already a form of illumination compared to the belief in a soul-atom, which is the profane and hollow notion of Atman held by the uninitiated), and thus liberate oneself from the wheel of rebirth.

Consequently, one may choose to appear under the limiting laws of the working principle (i.e. as a manifestation of self-valuing logic) in order to represent it in its pure form, i.e. as an extension of its ground which is necessity, i.e. Brahman.



So, continuing on the OP, the Atman requires the self-perpetuating illusion of "self", but it is not itself the illusion. Once the Atman sheds this illusion through illumination, which is to say, destroys itself in the blaze of its own power (the white void) it realizes Anatman, and basically becomes a value-ontologist.

The current form of Odin is in this sense the the ninth Bodhisattva. These times will not find their liberation in Dionysian Anatmanism, but in the Runes, which are the paths of liberated being.

I do not presume to be understood by dogmatists. I would take offence, in fact, if they pretended to.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:17 am

" in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle, the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. "

"Anātman, a creation of Brahman which is non-different from Brahman and has no existence apart from Brahman.[5] To comprehend the difference between ātman and anātman is to become liberated."
Buddhism in its ultimate do not even recognize the "essence" of any thing including the individual. This is in alignment with Hume, Kant and the likes.

Wiki wrote:Bundle theory, originated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes. ... In particular, there is NO substance in which the properties are inherent.


In Buddhism the concept of "anatman" i.e. anatta is merely a negating concept to negate the the idea of 'atman' which is reified, e.g. "I Think therefore I AM"

In Buddhism, the concept of 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' meant the state which is 'empty' of concepts, ideas, or whatever thus no question of 'essence' at all.
This mean one [emerging] is engaging interdependently in the actualization of reality [not in a dualistic reality] thus there is no 'escaping' reality or solipsism as some are attributing to Buddhism.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:51 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
" in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle, the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. "

"Anātman, a creation of Brahman which is non-different from Brahman and has no existence apart from Brahman.[5] To comprehend the difference between ātman and anātman is to become liberated."
Buddhism in its ultimate do not even recognize the "essence" of any thing including the individual. This is in alignment with Hume, Kant and the likes.

I must contend that Buddhism is not a theoretical discipline at heart but a methodical one, and that comparisons with purely metaphysical theorists like Kant and Hume signify the detachment from practice, method, the reality of the White Void, the Boundless Light, which all great mystical (as opposed to logical) schools present as the ultimate ground.
Neither Hume nor Kant seems to have had the experience of Purity. In any case they did not relate to it in their writing.
This is what Buddhism, at heart, is about. The attainment of purity. Why Nietzsche respectfully called it a hygiene.
In philosophy, this is to be compared with Nietzsches "Flux" i.e. will to power.
(think of the wind, not of the sword)

Wiki wrote:Bundle theory, originated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes. ... In particular, there is NO substance in which the properties are inherent.

Still there is a logical step lacking here. By virtue of which quality does the illusion of substance and property come about?
This is my issue with Hume. I find him to make haphazard statements and failing to do background checks.

In Buddhism the concept of "anatman" i.e. anatta is merely a negating concept to negate the the idea of 'atman' which is reified, e.g. "I Think therefore I AM"

Id say this is more or less correct, formally speaking.But in terms of the weight these concepts have, the term "merely" is out of place. They are very sacred and exalted states of consciousness, what these words refer to.
Anatman means the place beyond Atman, where even the Atman dissolves, where at a lower stage of realization, illusion would dissolve into the Atman (breath/be-ing)

In Buddhism, the concept of 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' meant the state which is 'empty' of concepts, ideas, or whatever thus no question of 'essence' at all.

No-thingness, as a great philosopher called it.
But actually, this is the only essence there is.
All false essences dissolve into the one essence of rta.
Or accumulate into the demiurgic falsity of anrta. (e.g. our media world)

This mean one [emerging] is engaging interdependently in the actualization of reality [not in a dualistic reality] thus there is no 'escaping' reality or solipsism as some are attributing to Buddhism.

Correct.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:29 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
" in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle, the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. "

"Anātman, a creation of Brahman which is non-different from Brahman and has no existence apart from Brahman.[5] To comprehend the difference between ātman and anātman is to become liberated."
Buddhism in its ultimate do not even recognize the "essence" of any thing including the individual. This is in alignment with Hume, Kant and the likes.

I must contend that Buddhism is not a theoretical discipline at heart but a methodical one, and that comparisons with purely metaphysical theorists like Kant and Hume signify the detachment from practice, method, the reality of the White Void, the Boundless Light, which all great mystical (as opposed to logical) schools present as the ultimate ground.
Neither Hume nor Kant seems to have had the experience of Purity. In any case they did not relate to it in their writing.
This is what Buddhism, at heart, is about. The attainment of purity. Why Nietzsche respectfully called it a hygiene.
In philosophy, this is to be compared with Nietzsches "Flux" i.e. will to power.
(think of the wind, not of the sword)
I agree Hume and Kant are not into writing about practice.
I agree with Hume's theory of self as bundle without substance but this is a limited perspective.
Kant provided a very solid framework which is parallel to Buddhism but Kant's presentation is a very systematic philosophical framework and organized.

You would be surprised, Buddhism delve into very high philosophical theories which can be more sophisticated than Western Philosophy in some higher levels, especially within Vajrayana. Buddhism advanced from Hinduism [Vedas] which has thousands of years of philosophical deliberations and for Buddhism to stand on its own, it has to come forth with solid philosophical theories [e.g. Madhyamaka] to stand on its own.

But what really stands out for Hinduism and Buddhism is their practices which directly changes the state of one's brain for the better and this has been through thousands of years of trial and error in both theories and practices.

I'll look into Nietzsche's hygiene and find out where this concept stand within Buddhism if any.

Wiki wrote:Bundle theory, originated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes. ... In particular, there is NO substance in which the properties are inherent.

Still there is a logical step lacking here. By virtue of which quality does the illusion of substance and property come about?
This is my issue with Hume. I find him to make haphazard statements and failing to do background checks.
I agree to some extent with Hume but he was not thorough on this issue.

In Buddhism the concept of "anatman" i.e. anatta is merely a negating concept to negate the the idea of 'atman' which is reified, e.g. "I Think therefore I AM"

Id say this is more or less correct, formally speaking.But in terms of the weight these concepts have, the term "merely" is out of place. They are very sacred and exalted states of consciousness, what these words refer to.
Anatman means the place beyond Atman, where even the Atman dissolves, where at a lower stage of realization, illusion would dissolve into the Atman (breath/be-ing)
Maybe you are speaking of Anatman in terms of Hinduism re Brahman.
But as stated above anatta from the Buddhist perspective is merely a negating concept and has no essence nor substance at all.

In Buddhism, the concept of 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' meant the state which is 'empty' of concepts, ideas, or whatever thus no question of 'essence' at all.

No-thingness, as a great philosopher called it.
But actually, this is the only essence there is.
All false essences dissolve into the one essence of rta.
Or accumulate into the demiurgic falsity of anrta. (e.g. our media world)
My view on this is the same as the above. There is no essence at all.
In Hinduism it is the dissolution into one essence of Brahman.
In Buddhism there is no essence at all.

The point with Buddhism is, the moment "essence" arises there is clinging, then attachment leading to sufferings [dukkha].

Note the process of enlightenment in the Ten Bulls, the final image represent enlightenment where the enlightened person engages with society yet there is no essence nor substance to the reality s/he is a part of.

Image
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:48 am

This is what Buddhism, at heart, is about. The attainment of purity. Why Nietzsche respectfully called it a hygiene.
In philosophy, this is to be compared with Nietzsches "Flux" i.e. will to power.
(think of the wind, not of the sword)


I have read a lot of Nietzsche's book but I have admit I do not have a good grasp of the details of his philosophy like I have with Kant.

From a search I noted the following;

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/nietzsche.htm
Nietzsche=s Illnesses, The Portable Nietzsche, pp. 116-17

Stephan Zweig: @No devilish torture is lacking in this dreadful pandemonium of sickness: headaches, deafening, hammering headaches, which knock out the reeling Nietzsche for days and prostrate him on sofa and bed, stomach cramps with bloody vomiting, migraines, fevers, lack of appetite, weariness, hemorrhoids, constipation, chills, night sweat gruesome circle. In addition, there are his >three-quarters blind eyes,= which, at the least exertion, begin immediately to swell and fill with tears and grant the intellectual worker only >an hour and a half of vision a day.= But Nietzsche despises this hygiene of his body and works at his desk for ten hours, and for this excess his overheated brain takes revenge with raging headaches and a nervous overcharge; at night, when the body has long become weary, it does not permit itself to be turned off suddenly, but continues to burrow in visions and ideas until it is forcibly knocked out by opiates. But ever greater quantities are needed (in two months Nietzsche uses up fifty grams of chloral hydrate to purchase this handful of sleep); then the stomach refuses to pay so high a price and rebels. And now vicious circles, spasmodic vomiting, new headaches which require new medicines, an inexorable, insatiable, passionate conflict of the infuriated organs, which throw the thorny ball of suffering to each other as in a mad game. Never a point of rest in this up and down, never an even stretch of contentment or a short month full of comfort and self-forgetfulness.@


Looks like Nietzsche is not practicing what he is talking about.
As I had said somewhere Nietzsche did not have a positive view of Buddhism.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:46 pm

What I understand by "Atman" is basically the Paramatman or the dehin (the "one in the body"):

"The dehin [...] witnesses whatever takes place physically within the range of the senses and sensations of a particular individual's body. It also witnesses the mental world of that individual, its [i.e., the individual's] thoughts or emotions. The apparent self-consciousness of the individual is in fact the dehin's consciousness of the individual. But the dehin only witnesses. It cannot make the individual act, think, or feel in any one way rather than another. From its point of view, all actual events, thoughts and feelings take care of themselves, as it were. They follow their own laws: they are causally related to each other but not to dehin. But it may be misleading to talk here of dehin's 'point of view', since dehin has no point of view of its own: at any particular time it has the point of view of a particular individual. It is proposed as a hypothetical subject only in order to modify the simple, single-bodied subject identity of the individual." (Simon Brodbeck, Introduction to the Mascaró translation of the Bhagavad Gita.)

The self-valuing logic of being led me (back) to this view. Seeing myself as a self-valuing. Note that I've always associated the dehin with Zarathustra's concept of the "Self":

"Behind thy thoughts and feelings, my brother, there is a mighty lord, an unknown sage--it is called Self; it dwelleth in thy body, it is thy body.
There is more sagacity in thy body than in thy best wisdom. And who then knoweth why thy body requireth just thy best wisdom?
Thy Self laugheth at thine ego, and its proud prancings. 'What are these prancings and flights of thought unto me?' it saith to itself. 'A by-way to my purpose. I am the leading-string of the ego, and the prompter of its notions.'
The Self saith unto the ego: 'Feel pain!' And thereupon it suffereth, and thinketh how it may put an end thereto--and for that very purpose it is meant to think.
The Self saith unto the ego: 'Feel pleasure!" Thereupon it rejoiceth, and thinketh how it may ofttimes rejoice--and for that very purpose it is meant to think.
[...]
The creating Self created for itself esteeming and despising, it created for itself joy and woe. The creating body created for itself spirit, as a hand to its will." (Nietzsche, Zarathustra, "The Despisers of the Body", Common trans.)

Now you will see there's a difference between these two conceptions. The dehin's perception is immaculate perception: it only witnesses. The Self's perception is will to power: it prompts the ego with its notions. The self-valuing logic of being, though it is an elaboration of the doctrine of the will to power, seems to make the immaculate view possible again, to lack--as I put it before my recently attained understanding of that logic--the insistence on its being itself a valuation. This is related to the fact that eternal recurrence is not an epistemo-logical necessity for it.

I foresee my near future as contrasting (the Asian form of) Buddhism with the European form of Buddhism, that is, with Nietzsche's teaching. (It may be more accurate to say "Eastern" and "Western form", since Buddhism has certainly conquered quite a bit of (Western) North America, and "East" and "West" are relative.)

The key insight may be that the will is itself a representation (Vorstellung). The will to power is not a being (Sein), but a pathos (Nietzsche, Will to Power 635). Must one, in order not to be a nihilist, insist on the being of the will to power, on Vorstellen's being a Wollen (willing, volition--see http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2577337#p2577337)? What drives me to the truth is my will, but the truth appears to be that there's only bundles of impressions, to speak with Hume:

"[S]cience [in the literal sense of "knowledge"] is the simple realization that whatever is experienced--a self, a world, the law of contradiction, a god or anything else--is nothing apart from its being experienced. When students complain of 'identity crises', I tell them not to worry, since neither they nor anyone else has an identity about which to have a crisis! For science, genuine knowledge of reality, reveals a world of nothing but empty experiences, impressions as Hume called them." (Harry Neumann, Liberalism, "Politics or Nothing!")

As Neumann says elsewhere in the same book, his mock-consolation is precisely the reason behind identity crises... My only problem with Neumann, or my essential problem or the essence of my problem with him, was this:

"[H]ow anyone can experience nihilism as pleasurable is beyond me!" (op.cit., "Reply to Professor Shadia Drury".)

Now since I "crossed the Abyss" of self-valuing, I know how nihilism can be "not unpleasant" (to use Socrates' evaluation of refuting others). See my signature quote:
"The dissolution of the self means a complete identity with the Infinite and therefore with nothing partial. No event can trouble the individual who has perceived this Reality, for there can be no anxiety or fear of death if there is no one there to die, so to speak. The identification with any partial, component thing has been transcended and therefore any occurrence to these things does not disturb the Hermit. It represents equanimity of the mind raised to the highest possible degree." (https://iao131.com/tag/crossing-the-abyss/)
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:44 am

Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:I foresee my near future as contrasting (the Asian form of) Buddhism with the European form of Buddhism, that is, with Nietzsche's teaching. (It may be more accurate to say "Eastern" and "Western form", since Buddhism has certainly conquered quite a bit of (Western) North America, and "East" and "West" are relative.)
You cannot force Nietzsche's teaching as European form of Buddhism when their core principles are not the same [i.e. conflicting] re Atman and Brahman.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:23 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:I foresee my near future as contrasting (the Asian form of) Buddhism with the European form of Buddhism, that is, with Nietzsche's teaching. (It may be more accurate to say "Eastern" and "Western form", since Buddhism has certainly conquered quite a bit of (Western) North America, and "East" and "West" are relative.)
You cannot force Nietzsche's teaching as European form of Buddhism when their core principles are not the same [i.e. conflicting] re Atman and Brahman.


Nietzsche himself called his teaching the European form of Buddhism. The only kind of absolute Atman he teaches is the ring of recurrence. And I'm not even sure the recurrence is necessary for Buddhism to turn into Nietzscheanism. Thus Nietzsche writes:

"Indian Buddhism is not the culmination of a thoroughly moralistic development; its nihilism is therefore full of morality that is not overcome[.]" (Will to Power 1, Kaufmann trans.)

Contrast:

"Nihilism as a symptom that the underprivileged have no comfort left; that they destroy in order to be destroyed; that without morality they no longer have any reason to 'resign themselves'--that they place themselves on the plane of the opposite principle and also will power by compelling the powerful to be their hangmen. This is the European form of Buddhism--doing No after all existence has lost its 'meaning'." (Will to Power 55.)

To be sure, a little further on in the same section, Nietzsche writes:

"What does 'underprivileged' mean? Above all, physiologically--no longer politically. The unhealthiest kind of man in Europe (in all classes) furnishes the soil for this nihilism: they will experience the belief in the eternal recurrence as a curse, struck by which one no longer shrinks from any action; not to be extinguished passively but to extinguish everything that is so aim- and meaningless, although this is a mere convulsion, a blind rage at the insight that everything has been for eternities--even this moment of nihilism and lust for destruction." (Kaufmann trans.)

Is the belief in the eternal recurrence necessary for this active nihilism, or will the belief in "the nothing (the 'meaningless'), eternally" (ibid.) do, even if time be understood as an infinite straight line? In any case, note the word "extinguish": nirvana literally means "extinction". "To extinguish everything" can be understood physically/materially, to destroy as much as possible of the physical structures (people, buildings, etc.) around one; but it can also be understood spiritually, as in "the most spiritual will to power" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil 9), as imposing on people the view that everything is empty, that all there is is "dynamic quanta" of will to power (again Will to Power 635), only self-valuings...

Image
scanned foam, from the English Wikipedia article on śūnyatā
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:51 am

I believe if you want to make room to reconcile Nietzsche and Buddhism you need to avoid the concepts of 'atman' and 'Brahman'.

Here is on pathway of reconciliation between Nietzsche and Buddhism except for the problem of Nihilism.

In his writings, Friedrich Nietzsche consistently criticizes Buddhism, condemning it as a “nihilistic” belief system, and yet he also refers to himself as the “Buddha of Europe.”

On certain points, the thoughts of Nietzsche come very close to articulating some of the same insights voiced by Siddhartha Gautama thousands of years earlier; particularly on topics such as the impermanence of the world and the rejection of substance ontology.

On other points, such as his advocacy of self-assertion and the will-to-life, Nietzsche defines himself in direct opposition to The Buddha.

So, what is the connection between Nietzsche and Buddhism? This complicated and sometimes confusing relationship is explored in close and subtle detail by Antoine Panaïoti in his new book Nietzsche and Buddhist Philosophy.

https://marmysz.wordpress.com/2013/05/2 ... hilosophy/


If you can understand the concept relating to the image below, you will note 'nihilism' has no relevance for Buddhism.
As such one can reconcile the main points between Nietzsche and Buddhism without the need to bring in Atman and Brahman.

Image
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:38 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
This is what Buddhism, at heart, is about. The attainment of purity. Why Nietzsche respectfully called it a hygiene.
In philosophy, this is to be compared with Nietzsches "Flux" i.e. will to power.
(think of the wind, not of the sword)


I have read a lot of Nietzsche's book but I have admit I do not have a good grasp of the details of his philosophy like I have with Kant.

From a search I noted the following;

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/nietzsche.htm
Nietzsche=s Illnesses, The Portable Nietzsche, pp. 116-17

Stephan Zweig: @No devilish torture is lacking in this dreadful pandemonium of sickness: headaches, deafening, hammering headaches, which knock out the reeling Nietzsche for days and prostrate him on sofa and bed, stomach cramps with bloody vomiting, migraines, fevers, lack of appetite, weariness, hemorrhoids, constipation, chills, night sweat gruesome circle. In addition, there are his >three-quarters blind eyes,= which, at the least exertion, begin immediately to swell and fill with tears and grant the intellectual worker only >an hour and a half of vision a day.= But Nietzsche despises this hygiene of his body and works at his desk for ten hours, and for this excess his overheated brain takes revenge with raging headaches and a nervous overcharge; at night, when the body has long become weary, it does not permit itself to be turned off suddenly, but continues to burrow in visions and ideas until it is forcibly knocked out by opiates. But ever greater quantities are needed (in two months Nietzsche uses up fifty grams of chloral hydrate to purchase this handful of sleep); then the stomach refuses to pay so high a price and rebels. And now vicious circles, spasmodic vomiting, new headaches which require new medicines, an inexorable, insatiable, passionate conflict of the infuriated organs, which throw the thorny ball of suffering to each other as in a mad game. Never a point of rest in this up and down, never an even stretch of contentment or a short month full of comfort and self-forgetfulness.@


Looks like Nietzsche is not practicing what he is talking about.
As I had said somewhere Nietzsche did not have a positive view of Buddhism.

Haha. Well, let me tell you then that my neighbour once said that the Buddha was only peeling Potatoes.
I might, following in your footsteps here, say: well, it looks like Buddha did not practice what he was talking about.
It is unwise to believe people when they talk about other people. It is wise to seek direct access to what you are contemplating.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:41 pm

S -
The self-valuing logic of being disclosed to me the opposite: the world is entirely composed of the highest significances and of True Beings. As such, there is no ground to fear or despair, as whatever is lost will re-emerge many-fold.

But this is because I use the Will to Power that I embody and directly experience as myself as a standard for what exists, rather than an Idea.
I argue purely from experience, never from models - I rather arrive at models.

I could only begin to argue from the WtP when I had fully penetrated into its inner logics, which is to say when I had disclosed its heart to be the self-valuing logic of being.

I do not suggest that all should follow me here, on the contrary - I enjoy my exceptional position tremendously. It is a privilege in the truest sense.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:53 pm

Once we reduce our being to nothing, or no-thing, it comes to follow that the universe of which we are part and in which we partake is also nothing.
When we exalt our being to embody the very standard of being, the world of which we are part becomes perplexingly meaningful and promising, not to mention fulfilling* - the idea that meaning is subservient to scarcity disappears, it is shown that ever single quiver of a blade of grass is the dance of a trillion eternal meanings.

It is our notion of meaning; i.e. our meaning of the term meaning, that has depleted man in the west and that reduced him to nothing.
In fact there is nothing besides meaning. To try to state otherwise will logically only result in self-contradicting statements.

E.g. "there is no meaning" is a phrase that is uses different meanings (there, is, no, meaning) in a meaningful structure (grammar) to make the claim that none of these meanings exist. The statement is identical in truth-value to "this sentence is a lie".


*the caveat here is that in order to exalt our being to embody such a standard, it must already be deeply fulfilled.
Thus, the self valuing logic go being as the WtP is a selecting principle as Nietzsche saw it: it simply doesn't hold for all humans. Only for those humans that are true beings; only those that are "animals and gods", and not "persons". Persons don't exist, they are masks, and they dance around a black flame waiting to be consumed.

That is how I see the black and purple Avatar, as the devourer of persons, and the manifestation of self-valuing logic of being, which demands a degree of wildness and rage. Integrity is violence upon violence. And the act of consciousness that reveals Being as a Void is itself the end product of a very violent, forceful process of will to power. I know this from experience, as I would practice 4 hours of martial arts and yoga each day before I would allow myself into my two hours of meditation. Meditation that was always standing.

So of course I look down smilingly on anyone that claims to know what meditation is without having subjected themselves to utterly rigorous physical disciplines. And in the East, this is the commonly held view - one needs tp purify the body in order to know how one is connected to it; one must build this connection; only the consciously developed body truly exists (why the Greeks held Athletics in such high esteem) and only such a body can uphold a truly sound mind.

This doesn't mean one needs to be muscular to think, it means that one must be entirely aware of ones physical form. As such a Chironically afflicted man like Nietzsche can still hold an exceptionally sound mind. He was deeply and acutely aware of the processes that constituted his body and in great part derived his penetrating powers of mind from the conflicts he had to resolve physically. He was as far from lazy as a human being can get - and laziness is truly the great un-earther.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Dec 03, 2017 5:01 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Once we reduce our being to nothing, or no-thing, it comes to follow that the universe of which we are part and in which we partake is also nothing.
When we exalt our being to embody the very standard of being, the world of which we are part becomes perplexingly meaningful and promising, not to mention fulfilling* - the idea that meaning is subservient to scarcity disappears, it is shown that ever single quiver of a blade of grass is the dance of a trillion eternal meanings.
...

In Buddhism, the central core is the Middle Way.

To the typical person, reality is always something and the natural clinging to a thing bring forth inevitable dukkha* [problems to the psyche]. The usual translation of 'suffering' is too limiting.

Without ignoring "things" in reality, Buddhism introduced the concept of 'nothingness' as a counterweight to 'somethingness'.

It is wrong to interpret Buddhism as claiming reality is ultimately and only 'nothingness'.
Reality is both 'somethingness' and 'nothingness' but in a difference senses, thus not contradictory.

The Buddha advocated the Middle Way between 'somethingness' and 'nothingness.'
In this case there is no question of nihilism nor solipsism in Buddhism.

From what I read of Nietzsche as influenced by Schoppenhauer's 'Will", Nietzsche just cannot let go to accept a sense of complete 'nothingness' as a counter to complete 'somethingness.'

Note the following [note sure if it is Fitzgerald's], the gist of this quote reflects Buddhism's Middle Way with the following qualification- in different perspectives.

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. F. Scott Fitzgerald
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/f_sc ... ald_100572


Re the above it should be first-rate wisdom rather than intelligence.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Jakob » Sun Dec 03, 2017 5:55 am

On the one side it inflates the notion of nothingness to become the primal quality or essence of life which after all really does exist so does command a quality in a description of it and so the void becomes charged with super-meaning that aspires to godhood.
On the other hand this is a good thing and it makes yogis and kung fu masters.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5715
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:29 am

Prismatic567 wrote:I believe if you want to make room to reconcile Nietzsche and Buddhism you need to avoid the concepts of 'atman' and 'Brahman'.

Here is on pathway of reconciliation between Nietzsche and Buddhism except for the problem of Nihilism.

In his writings, Friedrich Nietzsche consistently criticizes Buddhism, condemning it as a “nihilistic” belief system, and yet he also refers to himself as the “Buddha of Europe.”

On certain points, the thoughts of Nietzsche come very close to articulating some of the same insights voiced by Siddhartha Gautama thousands of years earlier; particularly on topics such as the impermanence of the world and the rejection of substance ontology.

On other points, such as his advocacy of self-assertion and the will-to-life, Nietzsche defines himself in direct opposition to The Buddha.

So, what is the connection between Nietzsche and Buddhism? This complicated and sometimes confusing relationship is explored in close and subtle detail by Antoine Panaïoti in his new book Nietzsche and Buddhist Philosophy.

https://marmysz.wordpress.com/2013/05/2 ... hilosophy/


If you can understand the concept relating to the image below, you will note 'nihilism' has no relevance for Buddhism.
As such one can reconcile the main points between Nietzsche and Buddhism without the need to bring in Atman and Brahman.

Image


Right before I first read this post of yours, I happened to be reminded of the "three marks of existence":

"1. sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā--'all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent'
2. sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā--'all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory'
3. sabbe dhammā anattā--'all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self' "
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence#Description)

According to this, then, sunyata is nitya and aduhkha, but not atma. I suppose this makes sense, considering the temptation inherent in the notion of a self or god. Thus in Hinduism, Shiva dances on the dwarf of ignorance and on Death, but in Vajrayana Buddhism, it's the wrathful manifestations of Buddhas who dance on the most important Hindu gods, including Shiva. I still think that, originally, Tantric Hinduism--i.e., identification with Shiva and Shakti--served the same purpose as identification with the yidam in Tantric Buddhism, but perhaps the dancing deities need forever be replaced and danced on by new ones. (Note by the way that such wrathful deities go back to before the Rig Veda even, all the way to shamanism: see the book Shamanism and Tantra in the Himalayas. In fact, Brahmanism can be understood as institutionalised shamanism: see http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2655258#p2655258.)
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Next

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users