Dialogue of Buddha and Nietzsche before God (Bertrand Russell's imaginary exchange)
Berkeley Brett
In chapter 25 (titled "Nietzsche") of philosopher Bertrand Russell's
"A History of Western Philosophy" (1945), we find an imaginary
dialogue between philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche and the
Buddha. Perhaps you'll find it interesting (as I did) ....
=== begin quoted passage ===
[italicized words in the original enclosed in asterisks]
[Bertrand Russell, in his own voice]
The ethical, as opposed to the political, question is one as to
*sympathy*. Sympathy, in the sense of being made unhappy by the
sufferings of others, is to some extent natural to human beings; young
children are troubled when they hear other children crying. But the
development of this feeling is very different in different people.
Some find pleasure in the infliction of torture; others, like Buddha,
feel that they cannot be completely happy so long as any living thing
is suffering. Most people divide mankind emotionally into friends and
enemies, feeling sympathy for the former, but not for the latter. An
ethic such as that of Christianity or Buddhism has its emotional basis
in universal sympathy; Nietzsche's, in a complete absence of sympathy.
(He frequently preaches against sympathy, and in this respect one
feels that he has no difficulty in obeying his own precepts.) The
question is If Buddha and Nietzsche were confronted, could either
produce any argument that ought to appeal to the impartial listener? I
am not thinking of political arguments. We can imagine them appearing
before the Almighty, as in the first chapter of the Book of Job, and
offering advice as to the sort of world He should create. What could
either say?
[Bertrand Russell's imaginary dialogue between Buddha and Nietzsche]
Buddha would open the argument by speaking of the lepers, outcast and
miserable; the poor, toiling with aching limbs and barely kept alive
by scanty nourishment; the wounded in battle, dying in slow agony; the
orphans, ill-treated by cruel guardians; and even the most successful
haunted by the thought of failure and death. From all this load of
sorrow, he would say, a way of salvation must be found, and salvation
can only come through love.
Nietzsche, whom only Omnipotence could restrain from interrupting,
would burst out when his turn came "Good heavens, man, you must learn
to be of tougher fibre. Why go about snivelling because trivial people
suffer? Or, for that matter, because great men suffer? Trivial people
suffer trivially, great men suffer greatly, and great sufferings are
not to be regretted, because they are noble. Your ideal is a purely
negative one, absence of suffering, which can be completely secured by
non-existence. I, on the other hand, have positive ideals I admire
Alcibiades, and the Emperor Frederick II, and Napoleon. For the sake
of such men, any misery is worth while. I appeal to You, Lord, as the
greatest of creative artists, do not let Your artistic impulses be
curbed by the degenerate fear-ridden maunderings of this wretched
psychopath."
Buddha, who in the courts of Heaven has learnt all history since his
death, and has mastered science with delight in the knowledge and
sorrow at the use to which men have put it, replies with calm urbanity
"You are mistaken, Professor Nietzsche, in thinking my ideal a purely
negative one. True, it includes a negative element, the absence of
suffering; but it has in addition quite as much that is positive as is
to be found in your doctrine. Though I have no special admiration for
Alcibiades and Napoleon, I, too, have my heroes my successor Jesus,
because he told men to love their enemies; the men who discovered how
to master the forces of nature and secure food with less labour; the
medical men who have shown how to diminish disease; the poets and
artists and musicians who have caught glimpses of the Divine
beatitude. Love and knowledge and delight in beauty are not negations;
they are enough to fill the lives of the greatest men that have ever
lived."
"All the same," Nietzsche replies, "your world would be insipid. You
should study Heraclitus, whose works survive complete in the celestial
library. Your love is compassion, which is elicited by pain; your
truth, if you are honest, is unpleasant, and only to be known through
suffering; and as to beauty, what is more beautiful than the tiger,
who owes his splendour to his fierceness? No, if the Lord should
decide for your world, I fear we should all die of boredom."
" *You* might," Buddha replies, "because you love pain, and your love
of life is a sham. But those who really love life would be happy as no
one can be happy in the world as it is."
[Bertrand Russell, in his own voice]
For my part, I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him. But I do not
know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used
in a mathematical or a scientific question. I dislike Nietzsche
because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit
into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors,
whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the
ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant
but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts,
but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I
feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world.
His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is
coming rapidly to an end. [conclusion of Chapter 25, titled
"Nietzsche"]
=== end quoted passage ===
from Bertrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy," Chapter 25,
p. 771-3; Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0-671-20158-1, copyright 1945,
renewed 1972.
--
Brett
http://www.100bestwebsites.org/
"The 100 finest sites on the Web, all in one place!"
Widely-watched non-profit ranking of top Internet sites
norbu_...@yahoo.com
> "The 100 finest sites on the Web, all in one place!"
> Widely-watched non-profit ranking of top Internet sites
Freddy didn't understand Zarathustra and Bertie didn't understand
Buddha, so it's all rather comical.
Kind of sad and funny and rather a lesson in hubris.
best wishes,
- n.
Chris Degnen
>
> Hello friends
>
> In chapter 25 (titled "Nietzsche") of philosopher Bertrand Russell's
> "A History of Western Philosophy" (1945), we find an imaginary
> dialogue between philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche and the
> Buddha. Perhaps you'll find it interesting (as I did) ....
Nietzsche and Buddhism are often so diametrically opposed it's
quite interesting to consider why. Nietzsche strives for the heights
while Buddha strives against striving. Nietzsche prizes aesthetic
value while the greatest art for Buddhism is the Dhamma. If
Nietzsche came a cropper while striving he'd probably change his
mind.
"What is essential in art remains its perfection of existence, its
production of perfection and plenitude; art is essentially
affirmation, blessing, deification of existence. ... We possess art
lest we perish of the truth."
- Nietzsche (WP 821-2)
"If elegant ornaments were abolished, the five embellishing colours
disused, and the eyes of (men like) Li Ku glued up, all men would
begin to possess and employ their (natural) power of vision. ... as it
is said, 'The greatest art is like stupidity.'"
- Chuang Tzu (II, iii)
Tang Huyen
Chris Degnen wrote:
> Nietzsche and Buddhism are often so diametrically opposed it's
> quite interesting to consider why. Nietzsche strives for the heights
> while Buddha strives against striving. Nietzsche prizes aesthetic
> value while the greatest art for Buddhism is the Dhamma. If
> Nietzsche came a cropper while striving he'd probably change his
> mind.
>
> "What is essential in art remains its perfection of existence, its
> production of perfection and plenitude; art is essentially
> affirmation, blessing, deification of existence. ... We possess art
> lest we perish of the truth."
> - Nietzsche (WP 821-2)
>
> "If elegant ornaments were abolished, the five embellishing colours
> disused, and the eyes of (men like) Li Ku glued up, all men would
> begin to possess and employ their (natural) power of vision. ... as it
> is said, 'The greatest art is like stupidity.'"
> - Chuang Tzu (II, iii)
There is a strong and consistent opposition between
two mentalities, one of which is Indo-European and
best exemplified in the USA, the other being the
world-renouncing mentality of Stoicism, Daoism and
Buddhism. I know that I am oversimplifying, but here
it goes.
The former is attention-grabbing, object-oriented,
extroverted, and seeks to project itself out into the
world, especially (but not solely) the social world.
The latter steers away from calling attention to itself,
does not base its thinking and acting on objects,
looks into itself for sastisfaction, and refrains from
imposing itself on the outside world.
The former seeks to specify itself and its world more
and more, into further and further details, to determine
and particularise itself and its world further and further,
endlessly. The advertisement machine of the USA with
its mass saturation in the collective (this includes the
political advertisement) and the self-promotion of
Americans in the distributive are the epitome of such an
ideology. The latter knows that some level of
determination, specification and particularisation is
necessary for living, especially social living (the
conventional reality), but once it accepts that, it tries to
back out of it for liberation from it (to reach the
ultimate reality). Daoism rejects knowledge and
understanding, hierarchy and meritocracy, any form of
distinction, social or otherwise, not to go into any
homogeneous blank, but to avoid imposing human
norms and standards on nature.
Philosophically, the contrast is between artificialism
and anti-artificialism. In artifice, God creates the world
by mind, more specifically by language and thought,
and maintains it by mind, more specifically by language
and thought, otherwise it would dissolve into chaos. In
anti-artifice, the world is not created but exists on its
own side and runs itself autonomously without any
need for anthropomorphic intervention, and runs best
without any such anthropomorphic intervention. In
artifice, mind (and not just God's mind) has to retain
control over the world to keep it in order, mind (and
not just God's mind) has to mentate the world to keep
it running. In anti-artifice mind can leave the world to
run itself from its own side, the world runs best that
way, and mind can devote itself to its own business,
which is to calm itself, relax, give up intention and
effort, not put up any resistance (and a concept is
already resistance, and the self or "I" is the biggest
and baddest resistance of all), but simply accept itself
and the world (what happens) intact and unchanged,
i. e., without the imposition of mind. In artifice mind
seeks to impose itself on the world, in anti-artifice
mind refrains from imposing itself on the world and
thus attains to its (mind's) own acme, which is the
self-effacement of mind in favour of what happens.
In artifice the acme of life is the acme of mind, and the
acme of mind is the complete self-fulfilment of mind in
imposing itself on the world without any remainder of
resistance from the world. In anti-artifice the acme of
life is the acme of the self-effacement of mind, and the
acme of the self-effacement of mind opens the door to
grace (or whatever), when mind opens itself up wholly
and puts up no resistance (one shouldn't add anything
here, like "resistance to what happens", because what
happens here is not usual happening but supernatural
happening, grace, which is outside of the norms and
standards of mind). In anti-artifice, the glory of life
occurs when mind abandons itself and its norms and
standards and simply opens up, and what happens then
is mystery, because the norms and standards of mind
are not around to fit it into themselves.
That is at the acme. To get to there, anti-artificialism
may need to use some artifice to get itself used to
opening itself up. The above passage that you quote
from Daoism has many parallels in Buddhism, which
have to be taken in perspective, namely that they teach
temporary and provisional methods to calm the mind
and help it open up. To help the mind open up, it is
sometimes necessary to teach it to narrow itself down
first, and when some control has been attained, it can
then abandon all effort and control and open itself up
all the way, without resistance.
The Buddha says: “the monk cultivates the not grasping
at *the signs of forms perceived through the eyes* (na
caksuso rupani drstva na nimitta-grahi bhavati), the not
grasping at the subsidiary features (nanuvyañjana-grahi).
If he dwells not protecting the eye-faculty, covetousness,
dejection and the bad and unskilful things of the world
will flow into his mind (cittam anusravanti); he practices
protection against them; he protects the eye-faculty; he
keeps in check the eye-faculty.... He cultivates not
grasping at the signs of objects-of-mind cognised by
mind, the not grasping at subsidiary features. If he
dwells not protecting the mind-faculty, covetousness,
dejection and the bad and unskilful things of the world
will flow into his mind; he practices protection against
them; he protects the mind-faculty; he keeps in check
the mind-faculty.... He purifies his mind (cittam
parisodhayati).” Sangha-bheda-vastu, II, 241; SA, 275,
73a-b; Turfanfunde, V, 94, Turfanfunde, IV, 20-21,
Sravaka-bhumi (1), in Annual of the Institute for
Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism, Taisho University,
1981, 23-24.
“Whatever, monk, is form [and the other aggregates],
past, present or future, internal or external, gross or
subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near,
he, thinking of all this form as ‘It is not mine, he is not
me, he is not my self,’ sees it as it is by means of
correct wisdom. Monk, for a man thus knowing, thus
seeing, there are no latencies and thoughts regarding
I-making and mine-making
(ahamkara-mamamkara-mananusaya na hontiti) in this
body with consciousness and *all external signs*.” MN,
III, 18-19 (109), SN, III, 136 (22, 91), SA, 23, 5a.
For the practitioner who meditates this triadic negation
“with regard to the body with consciousness and *all
external signs*, the mind is gone away from thoughts
of I-making and mine-making, has transcended the
aspects thereof, is peaceful and well liberated”
(ahamkara-mamamkara-manapagatam manasam hoti
vidha-samatikkantam santam suvimuttanti). SN, II, 253
(18, 22). The Chinese equivalents, SA, 24, 5b, 199,
51a use a quadriatic negation.
“It has been heard by a certain monk: ‘All things
should not be settled into (sabbe dhamma nalam
abhinivesayati).’ If he has heard: ‘All things should not
be settled into,’ he fully understands the whole Law
(sabbam dhammam abhijanati). Fully understanding it,
he comprehends it. Comprehending it, he views all signs
as other (sabba nimittani aññato passati). He views the
eye as other, he views form as other, he views the eye
consciousness as other, he views the eye contact as
other, he views [feelings] arising from the eye contact
and felt as pleasant, unpleasant, and neither pleasant
nor unpleasant as other. He views mind as other, ... So
knowing, so seeing, in him ignorance is cut and
knowledge arises.” SN, IV, 50 (35, 80).
Notice the expression: this body with consciousness
and all *external signs*. Also: the mind is to be
purified by not grasping at *the signs of forms
perceived through the eyes*, the signs of
objects-of-mind cognised by mind. So the signs are
external to consciousness, and mind is to be purified by
not grasping them, by viewing all of them *as other*
(sabba nimittani aññato passati). Even after dropping
all latencies and thoughts regarding I-making and
mine-making, mind and consciousness yet perceive
those signs.
So the signs exist outside the mind and are
independent of it, and sensation comes from them.
Freedom comes from cognising them without attaching
to them, without settling down into them -- and not
from, say, blocking them out and remaining in a blank,
without sensation.
<<that by which your attention gets drawn
is to the gross, the flashy lights, the cacophany
of noise and yet just beneath the lights and
sounds is that indescribable nuance, that subtle
yet undeniable current by which those lights
and that noise have a field in which to play
upon. you ignore the field in hopes that the
noise and the light will reveal that field.
while you're waiting, have a drink, relax,
someone will be by with some questions
later.>> Jen (buddhapest).
Tang Huyen