“(Christianity)…It offers purely imaginary causes ("God," "soul," "ego," "spirit," "free will"—or even "unfree"), and purely imaginary effects ("sin," "salvation," "grace,""punishment," "forgiveness of sins"). Intercourse between imaginary beings ("God,""spirits," "souls"); an imaginary natural history (anthropocentric; a total denial of the concept of natural causes); an imaginary psychology (misunderstandings of self, misinterpretations of agreeable or disagreeable general feelings—for example, of the states of the nervus sympathicus with the help of the sign-language of religio-ethical balderdash—, "repentance," "pangs of conscience," "temptation by the devil," "the presence of God"); an imaginary teleology (the "kingdom of God," "the last judgment," "eternal life").—This purely fictitious world, greatly to its disadvantage, is to be differentiated from the world of dreams; the latter at least reflects reality, whereas the former falsifies it, cheapens it and denies it."
There has been an issue at the forefront of my mind for some time now. It involves the supposed contradictions between a few my my important life drivers, Nietzsche and Zen practice.
To start, in my opinion, Zen is just Zazen.
Zazen is perfect. It’s also no-thing. In fact, using the verb "to be" to denote the perfection of no-thing is an absurdity.
Against this ultimate truth or lack of truth, where everything there is cannot be anywhere but where and how it is, any paltry left brain enquiry entirely collapses - I acknowledge this. There is no ideal of Zen to compare anything to. Yet there is a certain utility for creating a new orientation to life.
Also, I am not a Buddhist; I have respect enough for the tradition to acknowledge openly that there are some exoteric moral derivatives (not so much Zen) I do not accept.
Often when I read the words of the Buddha, I can't shake the feeling he would have likewise objected to much of this kind of thing:
"Now I am frail Ananda, old, aged, far gone in years. This is my eightieth birthday, and my life is spent. Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, be a refuge unto yourselves with no other refuge. Let the dhamma be your island; let the dhamma be your refuge, with no other refuge."
It takes the tone of a final somewhat deflated response to yet another in a long annoying line of questioning from one of his followers - from an ape as Nietzsche might have it. That’s my interpretation anyway.
So these days I prefer to identify as nothing. This may seem a haughty and rather ridiculous thing to assert. Please hear me out.
It feels limiting and generally on the nose when I ascribe a label to myself. Have you ever had that feeling when you call yourself something? Even something you do or act as often? It feels contrived, or like a giant game?
So be warned that I look at this subject matter from the perspective of someone who practices primarily, and desires psychological flexibility and freedom above all else - not to be a good “this or that”.
The "Nietzschean outlook" I refer to is primarily his critique of the ascetic ideal, that is his attacks on turning away or inward in the pursuit of the preferable beyond. Arrived at through self-denial of biological drives and instinct. Arousals.
In my reading, Nietzsche believed there was no changing the primordial drives and instincts that a religion like Buddhism asserts lie at the root of our suffering or unease. He was scathing of moral systems that claimed to do so.
Buddhism purports to offer something akin to a change of primordial drives. Or at least our relationship to them. Some more hardcore Buddhists I know believe that such things disappear entirely in an "enlightened" being. When the bikkhu is fully cooked, all these nasty drives disappear. I have never observed this myself, I assume they haven’t either, so for all of us this remains an article of faith.
We can probably all agree that Buddhism offers the potential or possibility for the transcendence of these powerful instinctual drives, at the very least. Or better, a psychic recontextualisation and mastery of them, so they no longer exert the same debilitating power over us. I’m not totally against this case. Drives on their own are not life affirming in the way I value.
In Zen, this outcome doesn’t occur through subversion or hammering them according to a binary morality, but in a radical phenomenological and empirical confrontation with them.
In this confrontation lies the chance to master a type of detachment from them. This is a means to enlightenment, the escape from the intrinsic suffering in the world. Nietzsche was relatively kind in his assessment of Buddhism because of this confrontation with suffering, and a refusal to classify it according to a value system or binary moralism.
Although it should be understood that Buddhism is certainly not free of pulpit-humping finger-waggers. The hardline wielders of moral-condemnation-pointing-sticks are indeed manifest. Like Christianity, it is obvious to me in my interactions with strict Buddhist moralists (who are often Western converts and the most fanatical - interesting to note), that their main aim is still to condemn people, who according to their reckoning and reading of some book, are immoral.
Usually condemning the unread to horrific supernatural tortures and torments. I guess you really should of read that book! “Did you know you’re condemned to eternal torment by the 500 religions you didn’t know about?”
Nietzsche is right that despite their surface ideals, the drive-to-cruelty is alive and well in such people. Buddhism has these elements. But overall he is right, and the practice itself when well understood owes it’s epistemology to a strictly phenomenological outlook and empirical testing.
“The definition of morality: Morality is the idiosyncrasy of decadents having the hidden desire to revenge themselves upon life - and being successful.” - FN
"The question concerning the origin of moral values is for me a question of the very first rank because it is crucial for the future of humanity" - FN
I want to separate out two things here - moral deductions, or "moral wisdom", on the one hand, and rules or morality as they are linked purposefully to practice on the other. For me they are different and Buddhism has many of the latter.
For example - if you want to deepen meditation to profound degrees can you do so with a domineering squawking wife and 10 screaming children in your mud hut? The answer is, of course, that you cannot. So it makes sense that a monk shouldn’t expose himself to the temptations of a buxom wench down at the local watering hole. If he does there is hellfire awaiting him. Yes - hellfire and bamboo sticks prodding him - not just a good time that will distract him from the initially unpleasant task of meditation.
For me, what are now seen as moral absolutes or rules in Buddhism have always also been a tool. Most humans get stuck up in these webs and treat convenient lies as objective truths - not creations of convenience for direction - which is what they are. And this creates psychological problems that are oftern worse than the thing they sought to temper.
I also can't deny that much of what Buddhist wisdom tells us, such as hated only burning up oneself, obsessive thoughts of revenge and other nasty emotions as indeed being biologically and personally diminishing drives, as being experientially true. Really unpleasant biological compulsions to be consumed by.
I can't deny that practice with the observation of the rules and disciplines of Zen makes me physiologically in tune and positive in life in general. I feel better, more positive, relaxed and calm. I can focus with great depth and direct mental energy on my chosen tasks with excellent efficiency and enjoyment.
Lurking always is that which Buddhism would consider harmful - arousal and desire. The ultimate aim is to snuff out their influence.
For my own part - I refuse to accept that arousal and desire need to be snuffed out. They need to be understood and integrated. I believe they need also to be increased in intensity and expression - not diminished.
Though, if I accept the “agreeable” parts of my being, I must also accept the less than stellar elements. The parts that are commonly perceived as unfavourable. Subconscious drives to violence, revenge and envy, for example. As they say, just because I try to forget them doesn't mean they will forget me.
Simply wishing it away with morals, words, values or ethics doesn’t work. Even confronting it head-on with practice doesn't guarantee we won't act out on them. As Nietzsche noticed, such strategies that have failed for Millenia, may even amplify them and create something truly loathesome. The type we all despise.
So, in a way, the promises of ascetic ideals and self-denial are in large part an impossibility.
At least in this lifetime, maybe in lifetime 6 gorillion you have a chance - this data point alone should tell us something about ascetic ideals, should it not?
“Morality is neither rational nor absolute nor natural. World has known many moral systems, each of which advances claims universality; all moral systems are therefore particular, serving a specific purpose for their propagators or creators, and enforcing a certain regime that disciplines human beings for social life by narrowing our perspectives and limiting our horizons.” - FN
I want to propose another solution. Another way.
Is there a balance to be struck?
I believe the dynamic interplay between turning inwards and outwards, through the means of physiological practice and action or do-ing may be complimentary and not adversarial. For a new type of man.
A man who doesn't deny what he is. Doesn't try to hide it with moralistic binaries, nor show any pride in the horrible parts of his nature like many online like to do as a misguided anecdote. Nor pretend that with enough cave sitting it will all just disappear, along with us, into some kind of ether of non-being.
Our job is to transmute these powerful drives.
To use these drives as a powerful processual force through their mastery - the conscious wielding of them for do-ing.
For great self-directed purposes.
Here are the questions I wish to contemplate in the coming weeks:
Is the ascetic ideal of rejecting powerful primordial drives with a moral system the same as changing the primitive reactive tendencies of consciousness with practice?Though, is being lived by them merely another form of self-defeating behaviour?
Is using ancient practice for overcoming or better-wielding primordial drives the same as rejecting their ultimate utility? If they deaden their reactive intensity?
Is the state of nibanna or "cessation" the same as the metaphysical idea of nothingness or turning inward? Is nothingness misunderstood by those who don't practice? Can the experience of nothingness even be called turning away or inward? Has it anything to do with it at all?
Is there a duality between turning inward and outward? Does a barrier even exist? Is this simply another duality to be overcome?
Do we need to choose between this apparent binary? Or is there a middle shuffle between the two, in which both points of view play a part to an ultimate self-defined end?
Some words on meaning…
I contend that Nietzsche (like the Buddha) was one of the greatest psycho-physiologists to ever exist. Considering his time and in the face of millennia of bad habits, the clarity with which he wrote on such matters is nothing short of extraordinary.
In fact, even with all the information available to us at the click of a finger, all the techniques and experiences, many today say they still can’t understand him. Many who say they do understand him also do not.
I constantly tweet about “what is the meaning of all this?” as being completely the wrong question; it can never be answered satisfactorily. And it inherently misses the point of living as a process.
When physiologically and psychologically engaged, there is not even an afterthought of what mean. Nor can there really be a lack of meaning.
Finding an intellectual lack of meaning is a form of finding meaning. It is an important step in a process of self-overcoming.
Nietzsche was the first to tell us that man is the ultimate game player and creator; he creates the meaning he lives by and part of that game is that he is completely unaware that he’s done so.
Meaning is usually inculcated or imposed. It is often derived from errors or mistakes. Misreading of biological process. Or often, malevolent of subversive purposes. Nevertheless, erroneous meaning is better than no meaning at all for the game player.
In Zen practice, we engage in the process of understanding the emptiness of meaning. This type of process leads to a "dark night of the soul" or "nihilism" as Nietzsche would have it.
Nihilism is the experience of the breakdown of imposed meaning and values.
The need to create meaning never departs us however. Self-overcoming then is the process in which the individual begins to create his own meaning after the collapse of that which was imposed, and ensuing Nihilism takes hold. The new man is freed up. Free for self-overcoming and self-creation, free of gutter influences.
He has his own games to play and plots his own course. Not contingent on any cultural, familial or personal hangover.
Significantly, however, he cannot help but do this - there is no other option but to self-overcome after a period of deprogramming or nihilism. It is necessary. The contraction of the self is something that is to be overcome.
This has substantial implications for the way of Buddhism and its practices, which we will plumb into more next week. Clearly, much of what Buddhism comprises is clearing away the deadwood and burdens of extraneous meaning structures - and all of its physiological consequences. To see what is simply there - reality before concept.
At this point, the Nietzschean type might rightly ask - ok, now what? Sitting in my underpants on the side of the road without meaning? Is that my meaning?
Nietzsche tells us of this process:
“From such abysses, from such severe sickness… one must return newborn, having shed one’s skin, more ticklish and malicious, with a more delicate taste for joy, with a tenderer tongue for all good things, with merrier senses, with a second dangerous innocence in joy, more childlike and yet a hundred times subtler than one has ever been before.”
Next week, we will elaborate a little more on the questions above.
In the meantime, to properly Grok next week's Newsletter, it will be worth going through this work - "Faustian Zen for Western Man" that goes into this in more detail - about how I view things. The questions above may begin to make more sense - including the general prescription I offer here at this substack. That can be found here:
Yes, many that studied Nietzsche had no clue of what he was saying.
I was not a big philosophy person but one time I decided to go to a meetup discussion about Nietzsche. Most of the members were well read "deep thinker" types.
I read the sections that we were going to discuss on the train ride to the city. I found a few gems that I felt like were going to be the center of the discussion.
The group focused on the mundane details and did not really grok the points that I and a few others felt were significant.
They went off into tangents about free will and so on...
I felt lost until an older man next to me brought up a good point that rekindled my interest. He said that there is no free will, but there is free won't. The irony is that he was not well read or intellectual like the majority of the group... He was a truck driver! I loved the plain common sense and curiosity he had!
The idea of free won't reminded me of a ted talk about how we really don't decide to, we only decide not to act. This also connects with Ian McGilchrist's books on left vs right brain. The right brain does not control the left, it inhibits it when needed. In fact, the corpus callosum, which links both hemispheres is actually there to communicate inhibitory messages!
"For my own part - I refuse to accept that arousal and desire need to be snuffed out. They need to be understood and integrated. I believe they need also to be increased in intensity and expression - not diminished."
Tantra seems up your alley.