Nihilism

[FmAm]

How could something exist? How could morality exist? How could free will exist?

 

Morality implies absolute judgement. It's impossible.

 

Free will implies... well, I can't even imagine how free will could be possible.

 

If there was something, what would it be?

 

What "exists" (maybe) is some kind of automatic, irrational, completely meaningless and impersonal happening. No one is in charge of anything, because there is no one. There's just happening without something happening. Absurd verbs without nouns.

 

Is this nihilism? Maybe. But nihilism does not necessarily imply darkness. It can be neutral.

[Karl]

First you need to accept that you exist, if you don't believe you exist, then why ask?

[FmAm]

What's "me" and how could it exist?

 

There are some kind of feelings, but where's the "feeler" of those feelings? There's just random feelings and sensations.

[Jetsun]

The Tibetans get round this with their concept of dependent origination , which basically says that things exist differently to what the mind commonly perceives in that things can't be found to exist by themselves, therefore they are empty of inherent existence, but can be viewed to exist in dependence on many causes and factors, so dependent existence.

 

Due to the nature of all phenomena being dependent on many causes then the principle of cause and effect is not denied, thereby nihilism is avoided, yet the nature of things as being empty and inherently non-existent is also not denied. 

[Karl]

What's "me" and how could it exist?

 

There are some kind of feelings, but where's the "feeler" of those feelings? There's just random feelings and sensations.

 

You are asking if you exist ? but if you are asking then you must exist. "I think therefore I am".

 

No one can prove to you that you exist if you are determined to believe you do not. If you cannot accept the first premise then there is little point in discussing morality and free will as they are both predicated on your existence.

 

How do you react when you put your hands in a fire, or are threatened with violence ? If your instinct is to withdraw your hand or avoid the violence then you are exhibiting self preservation. That would indicate that there is a self to preserve.

[Karl]

The Tibetans get round this with their concept of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da]dependent origination[/url] , which basically says that things exist differently to what the mind commonly perceives in that things can't be found to exist by themselves, therefore they are empty of inherent existence, but can be viewed to exist in dependence on many causes and factors, so dependent existence.

 

Due to the nature of all phenomena being dependent on many causes then the principle of cause and effect is not denied, thereby nihilism is avoided, yet the nature of things as being empty and inherently non-existent is also not denied.

How does that work out for them ?

It's a catch all isn't it. If you are dead then you don't know if things exist or don't exist. However, if you are stuck with life then real things happen. It's like a dream state. Not dissimilar from the matrix film idea - if you get killed in the matrix then you die because the body cannot live without the brain. In other words it's a real dream. As Morpheus said "what is real, it is your mind that makes it so".

 

For all intents and purposes, somebody believing in dependent origination just has to do what the rest of us do until they expire. Kind of pointless.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Karl

[Jetsun]

How does that work out for them ? It's a catch all isn't it. If you are dead then you don't know if things exist or don't exist. However, if you are stuck with life then real things happen. It's like a dream state. Not dissimilar from the matrix film idea - if you get killed in the matrix then you die because the body cannot live without the brain. In other words it's a real dream. As Morpheus said "what is real, it is your mind that makes it so".

 

I don't think you understand the teaching. They don't deny that things exist, they don't deny there are consequences for actions, like I say there is no denial of cause and effect.

 

All they say is that the way things exist is different from the way the mind habitually and mistakenly thinks things to exist.

 

The mind sees things as existing inherently, by their own power, but the reality is that they exist dependently upon many causes and conditions. Which is why when you examine things closely you can't find anything to exist by itself, examine a car all you find are loads of parts, nothing you can pin down as "car", the same with a person just a load of parts nothing you can pin down as being the person.

 

So to say nothing exists at all is nihilistic and obviously untrue, but to see things as existing dependently avoids that. 

[Karl]

I don't think you understand the teaching. They don't deny that things exist, they don't deny there are consequences for actions, like I say there is no denial of cause and effect.

 

All they say is that the way things exist is different from the way the mind habitually and mistakenly thinks things to exist.

 

The mind sees things as existing inherently, by their own power, but the reality is that they exist dependently upon many causes and conditions. Which is why when you examine things closely you can't find anything to exist by itself, examine a car all you find are loads of parts, nothing you can pin down as "car", the same with a person just a load of parts nothing you can pin down as being the person.

 

So to say nothing exists at all is nihilistic and obviously untrue, but to see things as existing dependently avoids that.

That's just crazy. It's like saying I'm a brain surgeon but never going near a brain to operate on.

 

The machinations of anyone having to think that way must be awful. I can understand that a chair is just a collection of resonant energy, but I see it is a chair and I use it as a chair and call it a chair. Knowing it isn't a chair in its component material is all well and good, but it makes absolutely no difference to anything if you continue to treat it as an independently existing form which you refer to as a chair.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Karl

[FmAm]

You are asking if you exist ? but if you are asking then you must exist. "I think therefore I am". No one can prove to you that you exist if you are determined to believe you do not. If you cannot accept the first premise then there is little point in discussing morality and free will as they are both predicated on your existence. How do you react when you put your hands in a fire, or are threatened with violence ? If your instinct is to withdraw your hand or avoid the violence then you are exhibiting self preservation. That would indicate that there is a self to preserve.

 

Descartes didn't realise that "I think" is a presumption, an axiom. "I" do not think. There's just thoughts. There's no one thinking (creating) those thoughts.

[FmAm]

The Tibetans get round this with their concept of dependent origination , which basically says that things exist differently to what the mind commonly perceives in that things can't be found to exist by themselves, therefore they are empty of inherent existence, but can be viewed to exist in dependence on many causes and factors, so dependent existence.

 

Due to the nature of all phenomena being dependent on many causes then the principle of cause and effect is not denied, thereby nihilism is avoided, yet the nature of things as being empty and inherently non-existent is also not denied. 

 

Sounds like Spinoza to me. Spinoza was a great nihilist.

[Jetsun]

That's just crazy. It's like saying I'm a brain surgeon but never going near a brain to operate on.

 

The machinations of anyone having to think that way must be awful. I can understand that a chair is just a collection of resonant energy, but I see it is a chair and I use it as a chair and call it a chair. Knowing it isn't a chair in its component material is all well and good, but it makes absolutely no difference to anything if you continue to treat it as an independently existing form which you refer to as a chair.

 

Yes you still don't get it.

 

The mind will call something a chair for functional reasons, it helps us navigate reality and discern between two things. This isn't denied. But that is a practical function of the mind which helps us get by, it isn't the actual way things exist.

 

Understanding this teaching has huge implications when you apply it to the way you see yourself and your own ego. The mind creates an illusion you exist as a separate independent entity, but the reality is that you exist in dependence on many causes and factors. To see the reality rather than the illusion means less selfishness, less grasping at life and less grasping at illusions, more realistic outlook with regards to our impact on this world and the environment. Its really a matter of seeing things as they exist or living from a mistaken perspective. 

[Karl]

Yes you still don't get it.

 

The mind will call something a chair for functional reasons, it helps us navigate reality and discern between two things. This isn't denied. But that is a practical function of the mind which helps us get by, it isn't the actual way things exist.

 

Understanding this teaching has huge implications when you apply it to the way you see yourself and your own ego. The mind creates an illusion you exist as a separate independent entity, but the reality is that you exist in dependence on many causes and factors. To see the reality rather than the illusion means less selfishness, less grasping at life and less grasping at illusions, more realistic outlook with regards to our impact on this world and the environment. Its really a matter of seeing things as they exist or living from a mistaken perspective. 

 

You were right the first time. I don't get it. Why not just act according to your own values and then everything else follows. Unless you are getting into a karmic sinfulness, wherein you will be punished for being bad in the next life. Though how anyone can determine morals from that perspective is a big mystery.

 

I can't see how it results in less or more selfishness, as selfishness is, in effect, the action of obtaining the greatest positive feeling whatever that might be. Selfishness would in fact be self preservation for many and so there is a natural tendency to preserve scare resources.

 

Buddhism appears to be pointless. At least Christianity has basic rules which make sense.

[Karl]

Descartes didn't realise that "I think" is a presumption, an axiom. "I" do not think. There's just thoughts. There's no one thinking (creating) those thoughts.

 

Yet thoughts exist and someone is consciously aware of those thoughts. If it's not you, then who is it.

[FmAm]

I think it's not a coincidence that Gorgias, Gautama, Heraclitus, Zeno, Parmenides etc. lived at about the same time.

Edited October 1, 2015 by FmAm

[Seeker of Wisdom]

How could something exist?

Obviously there isn't nothing. You can state with certainty that experience exists. Looking at a chair maybe you can doubt 'chair' and you really should doubt 'looker' - but you can't doubt 'looking'.

 

How could morality exist?

Good question. What about skill? If you want a certain outcome, won't some things be skilful and others unskilful, relative to you at least? Or maybe being nice is just... nice?

 

How could free will exist?

Decision-making occurs. Does whether or not the outcome is determined really matter?

 

What "exists" (maybe) is some kind of automatic, irrational, completely meaningless and impersonal happening. No one is in charge of anything, because there is no one. There's just happening without something happening. Absurd verbs without nouns.

Yeah (except strike out 'without something happening'). Cool, huh?

[Seeker of Wisdom]

[...]Buddhism appears to be pointless. At least Christianity has basic rules which make sense.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I doubt you really grasp Buddhist theory and practice - this is no slight on you, it is very very difficult at first. Looking over how I used to think about (for want of a better word) spirituality and related stuff I can't believe it's the same guy - such is the shift in thought required.

 

Anyway, Buddhism has 'three trainings'.

 

The first is virtue. This is a lot like the Christian 'love thy neighbour' stuff (which you like) but without the baggage of shame, etc. And unlike Christianity, Buddhism says that goodness doesn't come from some outside source, you cultivate it by your own effort, and Buddhism gives you solid tools to do it. Metta practice is just one example. Obviously this isn't pointless.

 

The second is samadhi - which is like concentration, honing your mind, making it stable, pliant, sharp. Obvious benefits. Helps with anxiety, helps with anything you need concentration fo - i.e. much of life - and can be very pleasant.

 

The third is insight. It's harder to explain the point of seeing impermanence and so forth in the radical way we mean here in order to achieve awakening - you've either caught the vipassana virus or you haven't, I guess. But personally I find awakening a very meaningful goal.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Seeker of Wisdom

[Karl]

I'm not sure Christianity suggests that morality is from an external source. It seems to me that it has become perverted into a form of control very much like the modern state where responsibility is deliberately abdicated in return for obedience and heaven.

[Marblehead]

I am, therefore I sometimes think.  Othertimes I am empty-minded.  But even then I still am.

[Tibetan_Ice]

I don't think you understand the teaching. They don't deny that things exist, they don't deny there are consequences for actions, like I say there is no denial of cause and effect.

 

All they say is that the way things exist is different from the way the mind habitually and mistakenly thinks things to exist.

 

The mind sees things as existing inherently, by their own power, but the reality is that they exist dependently upon many causes and conditions. Which is why when you examine things closely you can't find anything to exist by itself, examine a car all you find are loads of parts, nothing you can pin down as "car", the same with a person just a load of parts nothing you can pin down as being the person.

 

So to say nothing exists at all is nihilistic and obviously untrue, but to see things as existing dependently avoids that.

What you have touched upon is Nargajuna's interpretation of Dependent Origination, the chariot example. There is also the Pali version which in my opinion, explains another version of dependent origination in a better way:

Thus one could observe that:

 

1. Due to ignorance (of underlying realities of existence) we process/ferment what comes to our mind.

 

2. This processing/fermentation causes karma to form and mould the status consciousness (vinyana).

 

3. The functioning/existence of the status consciousness has a close association with regards to sustaining life (one's existence).

 

4. "Name" and "Form" describes the non-material and material components of one's existence. "Name" are the constituents one's mind, consciousness and ideas... "Form" (material) are the constituents of the body (made of solids, liquids, gasses...).

 

5. The six sense bases of perception are composed of "Name" (the mind/vinyana...components) and "Form" (the solids, liquids, gasses... components).

 

6, 7. When the six sense bases of perception comes in contact with entities (ex. eye with external world, nose with fragrances,... mind with thoughts/memories...), they generate feelings (in the mind).

 

8. Next we generate/get desires for these feelings.

 

9. These desires makes one "cling onto" them (wanting more...).

 

10, 11. This clinging causes the generation of causations/factors (karma) that causes/leads/drags one into future births, so that such accumulated karma can take effect, can materialise... (The generation of sankhara /karma due to attachments, desires, longings, cravings... or due to the aversions, angers, hates... generated during the cause of such quests/pursuits... will lead one through eternal samsara resulting in the generation of yet further causations/karma, requiring further... Thus bonding one into this eternal journey...)

 

12. Then once one gets into a birth, one undergoes/endures all the sufferings associated with such...

 

1. But again due to our ignorance, we fail to realise the underlying nature/reality of existence. Thus veiled and shadowed by ignorance, we keep on generating the mental fermentations/volitions that keeps one further bonded to samsara...

 

 

Thus the cycle ever so continues for ever and ever unto perpetuity... Thus breaking away from this cycle (by "eradicating"/overcoming ignorance), leads to its cessation (cessation of the perpetual wandering)....

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nidānas

[FmAm]

Buddhist metaphysics sees the fundamental reality as discrete and deterministic. This is a practical way to describe reality, and in the end, its implications don't differ from continuous and indeterministic metaphysics (advaita). In both cases it's impossible to have a conceptual absolute.

 

(However, advaita holds on to a non-conceptual absolute, whereas buddhism doesn't.)

Edited October 3, 2015 by FmAm

[Perceiver]

To the original poster: if there's no purpose to anything, then why havent you killed yourself? Should be just as good as living from your POV. So the things you do are not totally random, it would seem..

[FmAm]

To the original poster: if there's no purpose to anything, then why havent you killed yourself? Should be just as good as living from your POV. So the things you do are not totally random, it would seem..

I'm enjoying my life. But the emotions and the feelings of purpose and will just happen like everything else in the universe. They are not my creation. Nobody's creating them. Even the feeling of identity just happens on its own, without purpose or goal.

[doc benway]

How could something exist? How could morality exist? How could free will exist?

 

Morality implies absolute judgement. It's impossible.

 

Free will implies... well, I can't even imagine how free will could be possible.

 

If there was something, what would it be?

 

What "exists" (maybe) is some kind of automatic, irrational, completely meaningless and impersonal happening. No one is in charge of anything, because there is no one. There's just happening without something happening. Absurd verbs without nouns.

 

Is this nihilism? Maybe. But nihilism does not necessarily imply darkness. It can be neutral.

 

Yes, this is nihilism.

Nihilism has nothing to do with darkness or neutrality - those are related to the thinker.

[doc benway]

To the original poster: if there's no purpose to anything, then why havent you killed yourself? Should be just as good as living from your POV. So the things you do are not totally random, it would seem..

 

Why is it that we jump to the conclusion that without purpose we should commit suicide?

Why not just live?

Take a walk, connect with nature, sit and do nothing, breathe ... these are all good things.

[doc benway]

First you need to accept that you exist, if you don't believe you exist, then why ask?

Why is it necessary to accept anything? In another thread you applauded the Buddha's admonition to question everything. Perhaps starting from a belief in non-existence, an insight or evolution can occur.

 

 

You are asking if you exist ? but if you are asking then you must exist. "I think therefore I am". No one can prove to you that you exist if you are determined to believe you do not. If you cannot accept the first premise then there is little point in discussing morality and free will as they are both predicated on your existence. How do you react when you put your hands in a fire, or are threatened with violence ? If your instinct is to withdraw your hand or avoid the violence then you are exhibiting self preservation. That would indicate that there is a self to preserve.

Withdrawing a hand from the fire implies there is a body to preserve, not a self. 

 

 

How does that work out for them ?

Quite well, actually. 

 

 

For all intents and purposes, somebody believing in dependent origination just has to do what the rest of us do until they expire. Kind of pointless.

So does that make the rest of you pointless as well?

 

 

The machinations of anyone having to think that way must be awful.

It actually doesn't require much in the way of thinking and it's quite liberating.

 

 

I can understand that a chair is just a collection of resonant energy, but I see it is a chair and I use it as a chair and call it a chair. Knowing it isn't a chair in its component material is all well and good, but it makes absolutely no difference to anything if you continue to treat it as an independently existing form which you refer to as a chair.

Chair is just a label. It can be used for many other purposes than simply sitting down. In labeling, we limit our understanding not enhance it. The value isn't in recognizing the lack of inherent existence of a chair, the value is in applying that insight to the "self" that is at the core of human problems and conflict. The chair is just an illustration.

 

Another illustration is a person, any person. I'll pick a woman - one person sees her as their support and source of nurturing, to that person she is mother and makes them feel safe and loved; another person sees her as lover and when in her presence they are sexually charged; to another she may be a boss, a taskmaster, a beast, they may be fearful in her presence... and so on.  Things exist only as they are relationship with other things not in any incontrovertible, inherent, absolute way. 

 

This is a subtle insight that can really paint the world in a different way. And the more different perspectives with which we can see the world, the more likely we are to have a more comprehensive picture. Rather than dismissing alternative perspectives as ridiculous because they don't fit your own limited view, why not open up a little and see if perhaps there is something more to learn out there in the world - 500 million Buddhists can't all be completely wrong. 

 

You were right the first time. I don't get it. Why not just act according to your own values and then everything else follows.

That is the basic message but the point is what are those values? 

 

 

Unless you are getting into a karmic sinfulness, wherein you will be punished for being bad in the next life.

Karma has nothing to do with punishment - that is more a Christian interpretation.

Karma simply means action. The law of karma means that our actions lead to other actions, much like Newton's third law. 

If you do something good for others (or yourself), there's a higher likelihood that good will come of it.

If you do something harmful for others (or yourself), there's a higher likelihood of harm coming from it. 

In Eastern religions, where reincarnation is understood and accepted those consequences are seen to occur in this life and others. Clearly karma transcends a single life - if climate change is real and we do nothing to address it, future generations will be harmed by our actions (or inaction), that is karma. 

 

 

Though how anyone can determine morals from that perspective is a big mystery. I can't see how it results in less or more selfishness, as selfishness is, in effect, the action of obtaining the greatest positive feeling whatever that might be. Selfishness would in fact be self preservation for many and so there is a natural tendency to preserve scare resources. Buddhism appears to be pointless. At least Christianity has basic rules which make sense.

It's not a mystery, it is only a mystery to you because you don't understand it. 

Buddhism is not pointless to Buddhists, only to you.

Christianity may seem pointless to Buddhists... but you may embrace or at least be OK with it.

Yet another example of the principle of dependent origination. 

The meaning is not in the religion it is in the mind of the follower or detractor.

 

 

Yet thoughts exist and someone is consciously aware of those thoughts. If it's not you, then who is it.

Show us a thought - can you hold it in your hand, can you capture it in a box, how long can you hold on to it?

 

Thoughts are completely empty - they are invisible, they come from nowhere and return to nowhere, they are transient dances of disembodied language and memory. If you pay careful attention, you may see that you don't even think. What I mean is, thoughts come and thoughts go but where do they come from? Do you plan the thought, do you consciously sort through a selection and then pick a thought? They simply appear and then, when we tire of ruminating on them or resolve them, they are gone. They may return... Who and what is it that is controlling this? You are welcome to say me but that is nothing more than a gratuitous label. 

So the "self" or the "me" is simply a thought that claims the title of thinker. It's a thought like any other that usurps all others. But find that me, find that self... it's as empty as thought.

 

And yet we can see the manifestation of thought very clearly in our lives whether it be in our choices, art, invention, and so forth.

Clearly, there is awareness and then there is a tendency for us to try and limit, capture, localize, and label that awareness as a "me." That is partly due to the nature of our anatomy and physiology - sensory organs encased in a mobile bag of skin embedded in awareness. 

 

We have the tendency to see something, label it, and then assume we understand it simply because of that label. It is a natural mechanism that is rooted in our survival instinct. But that "understanding" is very limited. Some of us are satisfied with accepting labels and explanations like "me," "self," and so on, but others are motivated somehow to dig deeper or are blessed with a spontaneous insight that paints a different picture. Similarly some folks are satisfied with saying - that is a tree and leaving it at that while others are botanists and arborists who aren't satisfied with that superficial level of understanding. We can choose to brush them off and stick with the status quo or we can open our mind and heart a bit and see if there is something more. If we choose to stay closed, then I would say  what Karl said earlier - it seems kind of pointless....  Spiritual people are those who are not satisfied with the superficial label "me" but prefer to dig deeper.

 

Here's a beautiful quote from one of my favorite teachers, a Christian - a Jesuit in fact:

 

It was lecture time and the Master said, "The genius of a composer is found in the notes of his music - but analyzing the notes will notreveal his genius.

The poet's greatness is contained in his words - yet the study of his words will not disclose his inspiration.

God reveals himself in creation - but scrutinize creation as minutely as you wish, you will not find God, any more than you will find the soul through the careful examination of your body."

At question time someone asked, "How then shall we find God?"

"By looking at creation, not by analyzing it."

"And how is one to look?"

"A peasant sets out to find beauty in the sunset,but all he finds is sun and cloud and sky and earth's horizon - till he understands that beauty is not a 'thing' but a special way of looking.

You will seek for God in vain till you understand that God can't be seen as 'thing'; he needs a special way of looking - similar to that of little children whose sight is undistorted by prefabricated doctrines and beliefs."

- Anthony de Mello