💚Join the community, support the channel and get access to bonus content: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy ⌛ Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 6:01 The Binary of Ascetic Ideal and Worldliness 8:33 A Counter-Ideal 12:48 Against Enlightenment

When life exposes me to obstacles, hardships and demanding challenges, I turn to Nietzsche so I do not victimize myself but see these as grateful challenges that make me step up as a person. When I need inner calm, concentration and letting go of banalities and pointless thoughts that occupy my mind, I turn to the Buddha.

After growing up academically competitive, the uncertainty of my current young adulthood (with jobs and stuff) often makes me think: Am I okay? Am I deserving and worthy of life even though I know I’m not that great? This kind of thought eats away at my soul at times. So the message of Nietzsche’s that you carried about “the sacredness of the world” and living “towards life” as opposed to living “away from the world” affected me deeply. My life is imperfect, not anything fancy, and yet worthy of pursuit. I gotta wrap my head around that and carry on.

There’s a great book called ‘Nietzsche and Zen’ by a Dutch philosopher and zen teacher named Andre van der Braak. I highly recommend it.

Thank you for the video :) It was great hearing your own experience with the dilemma of standing with one foot in Buddhism and the other in the Nietzschean worldview! - Many great insights

I am so happy I found you! you have such a beautiful vocabulary and voice. i’m going to watch all of you videos can’t wait!

Insanely good. Can't thank you enought for this brillant exposition.

Nagarjuna has beautiful answer for this , it's called two truths philosophy, one is the ultimate truth and other is conventional truth , conventional truth is reality untill it isn't , when you have to go to ultimate reality ,you have to pass the conventional reality first !

This video came at the right time in my life where I needed to hear a lot of this. synchronicity. Thank you so much for this video

There are few philosophy channels that can explain topics in this good way, it'll be awesome if you create videos about different philosophical schools, hope you rich one million subscribers

Your video made me think of the warning that "faith, without works, is dead." I loved your example of the monastery on the hill and the village below. So many of us try for these extremes, and it is foolhardy! The human being needs to to feel like they are enjoying life and making a difference in the world. Life's higher meaning can be found with family, friends, and community. So, when we cut ourselves off from the community we work against being our truest and best self. Yeah, faith without works is dead. Where the two meet is beautiful; it's love, music, tenderness, growth, all the good stuff. Thank you, James. Love your content!

Wow, your working on the camera skill is a waaay better, I'm glad to see it, man! The information is top notch as always🙌🏻

This is an outstanding message. Thank you.

Wow, I absolutely loved this video! It's so fascinating to see the comparison between Nietzschean spirituality and Buddhist spirituality. The way the video explains the concept of the Dionysian and Apollonian forces is really enlightening. I've always been intrigued by these ideas, and this video did a great job of diving deeper into them. Thank you for this insightful and thought-provoking content!

This is amazing. Thank you for your work and your path… 🦋🕊🌹

Great video truly!

Hello fellow. I listened to this video along with Why it matters:Nietzche. So much in both videos to continue to reflect on. I wanted to voice my appreciation for your critique of enlightenment as a sort of perceived panacea which feeds the process of spiritual bypassing (we all want the easy fix). If I could, I might offer some pushback too, merely from my own experience with Buddhism, meditation, "pursuing enlightenment". I have spent time in seasons of spiritual bypassing, searching for bliss, ignoring the world, and notably I observed my ego growing in unhealthy ways. But these moments moved me towards the present, and I believe were necessary steps in my own respective journey. Where I am currently is closer to an embodiment of Buddhism as an everyday philosophy supplemented with a daily formal practice of meditation,. During everyday life, the philosophy and the practice helps me to have compassion and empathy for myself and others, to monitor my ego with humility, and to be present with reality as it appears alongside the way I perceive. It evolves into a way of being and offers a different operating system for the mind. So what I have been wondering...there are theories and research indicating that we are experiencing a social contagion of narcissism (in the United States) at a broadscale cultural level, the same has been said about anxiety/depression for awhile, and I would also include attachment. When thinking about a "cure" for such a thing, it can be approached at the macro and micro (you had a FANTASTIC quote....which i shall butcher and if you recall, please correct me "in order to create broad cultural change, we have to have a broad understanding of the culture's psychology". On the micro or individual level, a reduction in ego-centrism, increased development of empathy, and the ability to observe automatic mechanisms and the tricks our mind seem to me highly relevant as a possible ingredient of how to heal from this season in human history. But as you have stated, one runs the risk on their path of growth and it seems like Buddhism high risk of spiritual bypassing. So on one hand, could be cure, on other hand, could be poison. So what are your thoughts on the cultural contagion in the form of narcissism mixing alongside a large swathe of the population who grow up and live with insecure attachment styles? My sense is that this issue is but a subplot floating just underneath the leviathan that is our age of Nihilism. All the love brother, hope your new year is off to a good start. j

That was fascinating. It somehow brought Herman Hesse' Narzis and Goldmund to mind....haven't read either Nietzsche or Hesse for at least 35 years. Maybe about time to reacquaint myself after living both sides of the coin for a while...Thanks for the poke in the brain!

Nice presentation, enjoyed it. I've thought of Nietzsche as a mirror to Daoism previously, and more specifically of the Dao being like the "other" to the will to power (as metaphysics and motor of life's becoming, not just in the psychological sense). If you haven't previously done so, I might recommend reading Dewey's two 1934 works, A Common Faith and Art As Experience. You will find there a common "earth"-affirming metaphysics which may interest you, at the least from a perspectivist approach.

What a great video. Thank you.

Brilliant video. I hope you make more Nietzsche videos. I would love to see an analysis on Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Great video, I hope I can share some insights from what I have read. I recently read the book Religion and Nothingness by Keiji Nishitani which talks about very similar topics. He even mentions nihilism. in the book, Nishitani brings us 3 "worldviews", one of fundamentalism, nihilism (nihility), and emptiness. Fundamentalism sees the world as having an essence, as having a "way things are" that one can truly know. Nihilism does the opposite and Nishitani agrees with the view to a stronger extent but still misses something. In nihilism, everything is "annihilated", what one knows is not how it is. As for emptiness, there is 180., where one transcends both fundamentalism and nihilism but come to see that because things lack an essence (nihilism) is why they are (fundamentalism). Emptiness becomes, "because things are empty, they truly are". From this, emptiness becomes world-affirming, it is meant to be indulged in (not is a hedonist way but that world is living). This emptiness does not make a distinction between self and other. However, Nshitani believes that nihilism does and therefore is not a full realization. that is. I think you are right to critique modern spiritualism. This is anecdotal, but from what I have read, modern spiritualism seems to be another form of fundamentalism that I think Nietzche rightfully critiques. However, the more I read about mysticism and Buddhism, the more i realized that it is world-affirming and not negating (despite the ascetic elements) To summarize, Nietzsche has the right approach but maybe not the full picture. To quote Nishitani, "Nietzsche stared into nothingness but he did not state enough to see himself staring back"

The world is a dream- don't let it get you down. Enjoy it. Steep yourself in its beauty, and when that beauty passes let it roll off your back like a duck. But don't take it too seriously. Don't let it get you down. Try. Connect with people. Help people. But don't let it get you down. If you don't let things in the material world gain power over your mind, if you don't let yourself need them, then nothing can ever hurt you. You can still enjoy it. Watch it pass before you like a movie. Help others living in the same movie. But nothing will ever be able to hurt you. This is what The Buddha teaches. And Lao-tzu, and the Roman stoics. Don't rely on anything beyond your control. It does not mean that you can't enjoy it. It does not mean that you can't find purpose in this world. It simply means that you don't rely on it. The Buddha himself rejected asceticism. He rejected worldly consumerism, and he rejected asceticism. He taught a middle path, avoiding the pitfalls of either one. "For one may doubt, first, whether there are any opposites at all."- Nietzsche These words could almost have come out of the mouth of The Buddha himself. For The Buddha, there were no assumptions, no opposites; there is simply pain, and freedom from pain. The Buddha taught us how we can be free from pain. You do not need to have faith in anything- all that matters is the effect it has on your own mind. If you want to risk pain, fine; it does not have to be this way. You do not need to give up engaging with the world; you only need to give up relying upon it. Rely only upon your own heart. Rely only upon your own mind. For this is the only thing that you always have control over. Getting good at gaining control over your own mind takes practice; but this too will come with practice. But your mind will not fail to show up at your wedding; your mind will not fail to repay a debt. This is the only thing we have control over. With practice we can get very good at engaging in the world without relying on it. But first things first. First learn to rely only upon your own mind. With practice, we can be free of pain. It is there for you, if you want it. No one is going to force it upon you. It is your choice. This is what The Buddha teaches. How to free ourself from pain.

It's our lucky day! Thanks James! Pressing play now!

Beautiful, Powerful, And Riveting….this is using philosophy as a Hammer 🔨 pointing out for us to be careful when taking on the vastness of The Buddha. Reminding us to examine The Dharma as a goldsmith does when buying gold. Dionysus and The Buddha are inviting us to - Come See For Ourselves - just what it is live an examined life while dancing, embracing and honoring life in all her majesty .

Good video. The only aspect I feel it is lacking in is a defense of asceticism to the benefit of worldly spirituality, your image of Diogenes at 8:40 had me hoping you would cover it more. I see Diogenes as my spiritual and philosophy inspiration. I have been living various degrees of homeless for a decade and see my lack of material burden and compulsive desires as a great benefit to my spiritual goals of helping others and improving the world. Like Plato talks about in the Republic's cave parable, our desires for food and drink distract us from what's truly good. What that good is by my view is self defined, but a desire to help and love others seems like something we are naturally drawn towards. To gloss over what faith is, my view on the Buddha is that he didn't have faith in the other systems he was exposed to in his life, and instead devised him own system in which he could rationally put faith in and thus got the mental event of "enlightenment", without faith there would be no such enlightenment just a calm mind from mediation and lack of desires. The same thing is in Advita Vedanta, but there they put faith in the experiential mystical state, samadhi, as having broader importance and meaning relating to a eternal soul. These mystical states are likely the same thing Plato talks about, more clearly stated in Neoplatonism, but the feeling of being in that state is quite ecstatic and intense, and something that makes sense to put high value in, it feels as good as DMT for example. Part of my worldly spirituality is faith that I can improve the world, such that others can have these joyful experiences and in general live meaningful and fulfilling lives, free of worry and stress.

love the channel, very balanced and thorough discussions, just discovered it recently. Wondering what your thoughts are on the writing of Herman Hesse, he focused on the topic of enlightenment in many of his works and his view on it seems to have evolved

i’m fascinated by the concepts you discussing this video. Any suggestions on further viewing or reading to expand upon these ideas ?

We fail in this comparison because we lump Buddhism into a single idea(Nietzsche was limited with the translation available at the time - we are not). The answer to this question was what evolved into Tantric practice. Saivism, Vedanta, Yogacara, Chan to Zen... The idea of a duality of non-duality. We cannot see the unity until we practice it. Embrace the return. These things are not understood when sought, but when practised and found. Last one is St. John but it speaks to the same idea - we only see our selves when we act, we only understand our experience in situ. We must become one with the entropy, Pratītyasamutpāda- the Dependent origination of everything - Especially ourselves - The alayavijnana - the storehouse of the preferences we identify as our self - to learn to see the world with a perfected nature - amalavijnana - so living within the world can be a freedom not only a state beyond.

Ultimately Buddhism says Nirvana and Samsara are one. I think I told you about Ramesh in Mumbai, he was also a teacher of Leonard Cohen's, actually his last teacher I believe.. Leonard had been living at the Zen monastery, I think he was even his teachers cook!. Then he left and spent around three years with Ramesh, afterwards he recorded Ten New Songs and returned to the music business. Anyway, Ramesh was a graduate of the London School of Economics and the former General Manager of the Bank of India, not the most otherworldly guru haha The problem with mysticism is by necessity it is initially exclusive, but it should eventually become inclusive. When Buddhism went to China it blended with Taoism and became Zen. In Zen there have been some pretty good examples of a blend ot the transcendental and the earthly, for example the Japanese painter/musician/poet Ikkyu. And in the ten bulls of Zen, the last one, the tenth bull is very unique. He's the laughing Buddha, just like the statues people have in their houses unknowingly. I believe it's based on an old Taoist sage... He carries a wine bottle, drinks with everyone, laughs with everyone.. he's basically Dionysus haha If you can get a copy of Yamada Mumon's commentaries on the ten Ox herding pictures.. but I think a Dzogchen nun actually did some readings of this expensive and difficult to find book on KZfaq, just search Ten Ox herding pictures. Anyway, it's a very interesting insight into the ultimate aims of Zen. Let me also comment on this assault on, or manipulation of the instincts by religion. I had a little insight into this a while back after reading something in Tripura Rahasya, an Advaita Vedanta text published by Ramana Ashram. 109-12. The vasanas not inimical to realisation are not weeded out by the best class of Jnanis because they cannot seek new ones to crowd the old out. Therefore the old ones continue until they are exhausted and thus you find among them some highly irritable, some lustful and others pious and dutiful, and so on. A few important things are clearly implied in this text. Firstly that these vasanas and even things traditionally condemned by religion like lust and irritation are not inimical to enlightenment... as some might suggest. Also, that what religion normally prizes.. piousness., dutifulness.... are also just vasanas (habits) This is why especially in Buddhism young Monks get it drilled into them to be 'pure' and so on, to develop these habits. It's not especially a sign of enlightenment to display those traits, but many confuse the various practices like cultivation of compassion and so on with realisation and the presence of undesirable traits with non-realisation haha

You should check out Tiantai Buddhism as it's an indigenous Chinese school of Buddhism that combines elements of Taoism and Confucianism to Indian Buddhism. It affirms ordinary life more than Indian Buddhism so it's very interesting. However, it is one of the least studied schools of Buddhism in academia, so it might be tougher to do a video on it.

Love this---nice!

I think this is a very good critique of modern day “new age philosophy,” but maybe not so fair of a one to Buddhism. Interesting that you mentioned Taoism near the end, because the whole time I was thinking about Ch’an/Zen and its emphasis on confronting the here and now, the worldly. True, it wasn’t anything close to “Nietzschean,” but I do prefer it to Nietzsche overall though). As others have commented and sort of surprised that you didn’t add actually, Nietzsche’s understanding of Buddhism was pretty limited and even superficial, due to his time and place. I wonder what he would’ve thought about, say, Vajrayana/Tantric Buddhism.

Ouch! This hurts. And I thank you for it.

Subscribed 🙏

I guess it all depends on what pre-thought mind-object the words pointed to in the individual. I always interpreted Buddhism in a way that jived with Nietzsche. Buddhism and it's teachings were a tool for me to get away from my ascetic desires because those were my surface, the ascetic searching for a perfect ideal world is where lots my pain and confusion came from. I viewed Buddhism as a way to get back to the worldly and myself. But I guess that's how it is with every religion and belief system - everyone uses them differently. I like Alan Watts and others interpretation: Enlightenment and many Buddhist ideas were not meant as true ideals but as tricks teachers would play upon the masses in order to discipline their minds and lead them back to the worldly- in other words, the sooner the initiate realizes his search for enlightenment was futile, the sooner he found it. Enlightenment was just a mental tool teachers used to accelerate people towards what would be Nietzsche's conclusion. This is because Nobody, upon first reading Nietzsche will arrive at his conclusions despite reading the same words; as Nietzsche himself says: "Ultimately no one can hear in things―books included―more than he already knows. If you have no access to something from experience, you will have no ear for it."

Based on your videos on topics like this - spirituality, ego, metaphysics, etc - I think you would find value in the work/teachings of Acharya Shunya. She is like a bridge for the Upanishads + Vedic tradition and the ways society and our lives are structured now. What I really appreciate is that she doesn't pathologize or make a scapegoat/demon out of the ego nor does she preach needing to just be positive and stop connecting with/attaching to things in this world. She has a podcast called Shadow to Self and I'm reading her book Sovereign Self right now. Her newest one is called Roar Like the Goddess and especially after watching your vids on feminism I'm eager to read that one! Thanks for your awesome, nuanced, inspiring work!

After reading some Buddhist texts and some stories about Dionysus, I could imagine Dionysus chilling with The Buddha and having some pleasant conversation lol

Fantastic!

I'd like to see the same video with the same question regarding Schopenhauer

As we've seen from many philosophers before, death awaits those that speak of a different way. Many do not want free thinkers to be amongst the workers giving ideas. The ones who categorized or classified the people into groups, even pushing wisdom to the top of a distant hill away from the workers who've been enchanted by the tales. Throwing yourself into a world set on Money is Godly, wisdom, and power is setting yourself up for suffering. From what I've seen the world is ready for the new philosophers. It will be an uphill punching battle against those that want to keep control of the minds and bodies. You spoke of the village life. each has a purpose that contributes to the whole. The world has taken that peaceful meaningful life and made what we have now. a division of all kept apart by fractional differences, and those differences made into mountains for the sake of keeping the divide in place. Thank you for the video.

I'd love to hear your critiques of spiral dynamics/Ken Wilbur

As a Buddhist (And reader of Nietzsche) I would like to add to this (very thoughtful and well-articulated) discussion the little appreciated statement that many in the Mahayana tradition refer to - namely that "enlightenment" is to go beyond BOTH duality AND non-duality - meaning, in short, that overcoming metaphysics MUST ALSO BE an overcoming of the "sickness" of placing (often quite unconsciously) our own EGO in the place of god's absence (i.e. "I know God is dead, i am so clever, I am now a god...") Let's call this Nietzsche's trap (which is also the trappings of the Hinayana). Remember, the Dionysian bliss of drunken revelry is not in fact an "answer" to the chain of dependent causation and is often (though not always) used as a justification for addiction (perhaps not the right word here), or brazenly self-destructive behaviour... The fact that (as per the French Existentialists) one is "free to choose" (even one's own suicide) without guilt is itself a poignant reminder that transcending god (or enlightenment) does not resolve the "problem" of human finitude.... ...forgive this mish-mash response. This was a great video and I recognize your intellectual journey... please continue producing worthwhile content (in an age of trash culture and pornographic ignorance). You are to be commended for your personal journey. Cheers.

It would be interesting to see if you could make anything out of 'Clearing the Path'/'Notes on Dhamma' by Nanavira Thera (which, as far as I'm concerned, is the most significant and important book written in the 20th century). You seem to be plenty capable enough of in the required manner of thinking, that of the existentialist/phenomenologist.

About that first quote , Doesn't most personal truth arise from error ? As in " trial by error " and " learning from your mistakes". Even scientific method is basically ruling out error through test , research,and review. All the other truths are in a sense a bit of faith accepted from on high , whether its from the mouth of experts (of any subject ) or the mouth of those who claim gods ordained wisdom. While some have proven to be more trustworthy than others if Ive got the time and way I prefer the hard knocks 1st hand and lived experience.

Well done. Still have to get that coffee with you down Limerick way

We need to deny the World/Age who called it wisdom to deny life and to try slapping labels & measurements of everything. To embrace Life again and all the potential in it by disregarding and shedding off all the layers of a World that denied and looked away at everything. This has been no easy task we have been in because we must undo ourselves while being surrounded by the dying world trying to cling on to it's power of having everything die

Good question

Thanks for the video. It confirms my affiliation with the view that wisdom is neither in another realm nor in worldly affairs, neither in the world nor in human mind, but rather how to orient us toward being.

Grazie.

For the critique on eastern spirituality/enlightenment, i do get your talking about the Buddha, i havent done much reading on if the Buddha thinks not being an asetic means to turn your back on spiritual life, but in the yogic traditions, it says "enlightenment" is whats on the inside and not the outside and that you can follow the spiritual path while still being a householder. It isnt realistically possible in todays time to go sit in a cave and meditate and be an ascetic, but periods of solitude and then coming back to society is best advised.

Thanks!

I love Nietzche. I was into a type of Spiritual be it was type you were working on yourself and that how I found Nietzche. You could sit on a rock and try to clear your head but if don't ask why you feel the way you do nothing is going change. Without struggle there's no growth. Great job and very enlightening video.

I had a thought - Do you think the lack of the feminine in our society that you touched on in a previous video may a symptom of this lack of a counterpart to something like the Buddha? Symbolically worldliness, nature, community, these things point to the Jungian feminine to me.

Taoism definitely has a healthy attitude to life, accepts and celebrates the world of the opposites and of the earthly. Buddhism definitely was better for its assimilation of Taoism and there are a few examples in Zen of very creative down to earth people.

I was thinking about this but how i got there was through a movie. The tale of princess Kaguya. A studio ghibli movie. I think it is a great movie (my favorite), slow (which i like) and underrated. I HIGHLY reccomend you watch it. I think you will love it all the way through. Again, I HIGHLY recommend the movie. Its not a typical American/western movie. Go into it expecting something different.

This Neitzschean point of view of the Dionysean worldview is echoing the concept of romantic love which is detrimental to the oblivion of religion in modern age

“Nietzsche et le bouddhisme” by Marcel Conche 🙏🏻❤️

To be honest, this episode reminded me of a quote from the novel "Report to Greco" by Kazantzakis. " Each time that a woman goes to bed alone, it's a shame on every man alive." Zorba would like.

Thanks

What do you think of Siddharta from Hermann Hesse?

I feel is much less of a problem than we feel. A faith clung to, as it always was.

The interpretation of Nirvana as isolation from and rejection of the material world is indeed toxic. But it's not the only one. Engaged Buddhism, a view popularized by Thich Nhat Hahn. "Present moment, wonderful moment". You do not leave the world, but learn to love every second of it, avoiding only its pleasures which result in harm to yourself and others. The Buddha rejected ascetiscism and hedonism. The Buddha taught The Middle Way.

Ideal Buddhism I respect, but Lived Buddhism I have much more complicated feelings on. People trained to dissociate from all that could potentially tempt them, in a place where they cannot influence anybody else that could possibly need their help most. Lost in thought, not interacting with anyone but The Self, The Master, or The Congregation... The World and The Multitude turns into a scary monster or a pitiful creation that should be avoided or dismissed. It's no wonder that there is so many Hells according to Buddhism, the entire faith is founded upon denial and avoidance because Siddhartha could not comprehend suffering's necessity. Siddhartha glowed two times in his life, when he was willing to let things finally take their course. The first time he accepted that he could starve to death before his answer would come to him, and the second time he accepted that his followers were going to live without him. The initial appeal of Siddhartha is akin to Aurelius in that we have documented evidence of him avoiding decadence most don't get offered for his entire life. Most people are not prospective kings or emperors but the things we are offered are of relative significance to our wellbeing and the wellbeing of those we care about. These relatively small things are unlikely to be documented so this means that we're only left with the prospectively wealthiest of all when time's river smooths out all the stones. What of Siddhartha's inability to play the stringed instrument? What of Aurelius' allowing a grown man to marry his 13 year old daughter? What could be said of them if they were placed in many uncompromising circumstances that were documented as well as their feats? How much is the layman's love of Siddhartha founded upon respect for rulership and monarchs? Could Siddhartha have found the peace that he attained if he were traumatized his entire life? Surely no child deserves a horrible abuse afflicted upon them because there is nothing equivalent that they could previously do to deserve it... unless we convolute things with reincarnation and previous lives. An awful act is performed upon a child and a person who devoutly believes in the metaphysics of Karma acts with trepidation rather than instantly helping them because their spirit somehow deserves it. Let's assume this child has had no past lives, and past lives don't exist relative to this logic puzzle... how does the person who believes in Karma attain more Good Karma than the person who does not believe in Karma yet helps the child because it is the right thing to do? Also, helping the child relative to the puzzle would be correct. Anyways, point is, this entire Karmic cycle of Samsara thing causes people to idolize people who are wealthy enough to dissociate entirely from society and the world around them, people who have not had any hardships and yet speak as though they know true hardship and how to overcome it. It's... an unhealthy distraction. People need to live amongst others and enact good wherever possible. If everyone were a monk in a temple then nobody would be monks in temples... we'd all probably be dead. Or at least most of us. Where do you draw the line of good? Is most of us dying good, or is most of us living our best lives good? Siddhartha makes sense from a standpoint of him being groomed to sit still and tell others what to do for him. If everybody were like that then nothing would get done... but he had good advice.

curious as to what Buddhism you're addressing here. it appears mostly to be Theravadin which is fine but it seems then to miss out on those blends that came out of china, especially Zen. while i'm not going to praise Zen as better than Theravadin, i do think it finds itself more nestled between the Dionysian and Apollonian (to use Nietzsche's original comparison) in a way Nietzsche wouldn't take too great of a problem with. given that enlightenment loses any and all deification in Zen and is something as attributable to the illiterate as to the literati, it's blend of Buddhist and Taoist doctrine creates a grounded form of presence within the body, experience, and mind. its Taoist roots provide a more earthly connected approach which (while still more ascetic than merely not being Buddhist) demands lived experience in the world and an acceptance and embracing of one's emotions in a way that is more Dionysian. it also still engages with the world in an apollonian, analytic method, but doesn't believe such findings to be ultimate reality. thinking of Nietzsche's 'On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense' and its closeness to a lot of Zen's thoughts on truth. granted, Zen still has some realist seeming tendencies about morality, but the chapter seems to line up pretty nicely with many of their own beliefs and highlights Nietzsche's own desire for a blend of Dionysian and apollonian that i think Zen (and more significantly, Taoism) are able to meet. But given this, I think yes, Theravadin is most certainly not going to gel perfectly with Nietzsche given its fundamentally realist approach to existence. It doesn't run too deeply into the 'neti neti' as those Mahayana descendants do. Therein, as I see mentioned in another comment here regarding Nishitani, we find a direct engagement with the nothingness of all existence, its fundamental emptiness that I take to be one of the striking features of Nietzsche. But, as the other comment mentioned as well, Mahayana based doctrines will still posit some positive from the nothingness, denying its own existence and salvaging conventional reality and meaning from that . Additionally, while Soto Zen can and is often ridiculed for being an ascetic approach, much of early and fundamental Zen (which is Mahayana in case that wasn't clear) argues for existing in the world. With its doctrinal ties to Taoism and the concept of Tao, a fundamental source tissue of existence that is posited as itself empty but thus limitless, Zen ultimately will claim that "this is the buddha and that is the buddha" or, as in a favorite Koan, when asked what is the Buddha, the monk replies "I made a shirt of wild hemp that weighed seven pounds." Everything, so Zen will say, contains Buddha nature in the same way everything contains nothing. But it is a matter of facing the nothing and coming out from it with sense still in order. And after that, existing in it and playing in it as a child might. I think here of the famous Cold Mountain who, between carving poems into rocks and trees, would spend his time accosting the local monks for their stuckup nature, thinking they needed to stay sheltered in a temple when they all already were enlightened. They just lacked the "Self power" (which could easily stand and in as a concept of "Will") to realize it fully. And in an even more Nietzschean manner -- the founder of rinzai Zen, Lin-chi -- is quoted as saying "When you meet the Buddha, Kill the Buddha." There is an almost rabid denial and eradication of any deification in the practice. Plus, enlightenment is found in our living life, engaged in the world that is around us. And it isn't just found through ascetic renunciation. It requires some recognition of our own misled beliefs, but ultimately, ultimate reality lies beyond our grasp in a similar way to the Noumena of Kant. Zen has had several enlightened masters over the centuries, something Theravada denies as possible. Only the Buddha is one capable of enlightenment and we have several kalpa to go before we see another, Theravada would say. But zen and Mahayana traditions more broadly will argue again that enlightenment is something we're constantly steeped in and is something we all already have. It is not something demanding ascetic principles to attain, but is found in the living of life. It is found at the striking of rock on pavement as much as it is in sitting zazen. To that point too though, it seems like you provide a bit of a strawman of Buddhist approaches to enlightenment around 9:20. To the Theravadins even, desiring enlightenment (feeling superior to others for pursuing it would count) is a sure way to not attain it. Not to mention that even in that tradition there is no belief that one is 'above suffering and in bliss' but rather is able to regulate themselves accordingly so as to avoid too much active creation of Karma (which we can take in a non-spiritual way to literally mean action or seed, planting actions which will necessarily have consequences). The portrait you paint as well of the "temple in the mountain, village in the valley" smacks a little of orientalism. Not to accuse you of it, but more so to say that this concept we have in the West is itself a dead concept. It picks out an idealized and deified version of the Eastern monk and philosopher which is not very accurate to the actual living existence of those people, nor the doctrines they set out (re: china and on as outlined above. My Tibetan knowledge is less there, but their Mahayana roots should point to similar things. Theravada is still closer to this concept, but is not exclusively this story). Anyway, a more rigorous approach to "what is buddhism" would reveal more significant and interesting corollaries. My own studies have led me to see more connection between the Mahayana tradition and the German Idealists and Existentialists. This was an interesting take, but I think it fails to recognize several of these interesting overlaps in reverence of Nietzsche. He's a wonderful and unique thinker, but that need not come at the denial of other systems and doctrines as sharing some fundamental similarities. Also I don't understand your issue with Avalokitasvara? She renounces full enlightenment to remain in the world to literally "attend to the cries of the suffering." One married to the ascetic ideals would preference their own enlightenment over those of others, no? Lest the find themselves still attached (which is literally the idea with the Bodhisattva...still attached to the world to bring about wholesale salvation... Arwen literally could be understood as a Bodhisattva, choosing to renounce the peace of the West to guide those still stuck in Middle Earth). Finally, Mahayana fundamentally argues that we are nothing but our connections, which is why all conscious beings being enlightened is the goal. If one is not, then all are not due to their connection to each other. Even inanimate and non-sentient things need to be cared for because they too are connected in this sprawling monistic network between those things we mistakenly attribute separation to. Sorry for the short story. TL;DR: Enjoyed your thoughts, but I think we can complicate the comparison quite a bit by recognizing the breadth of Buddhist practice and thought. Zen and Mahayana in many ways check most of the the boxes you deny Buddhism checks. Would love to hear your thoughts if you read this, but also understand if not. EDIT: You even mention Taoism!! Which is truly one of the most beautiful blends of Dionysus and Apollonian. Can't see why there's no engagement with Zen if there's an awareness of Cook Ting.

Nietzsche would of been a huge Crowley fan.

Your lifelong themes would lend themselves well to introduce the audience to the works of the Greek novelist *_Nikos Kazantzakis_* .

02:14 Indeed, every _mature_ person will notice that the statement is completely unrealistic - the exact opposite can be observed in the lifes of others and in one's own biography - it is delusional idealization that rejects the actual 'dialectic' dynamic of beginning one's life trajectory with one stance - and shifting toward another. The same holds true of Nietzsche, himself who 'declines' from the highest West European, 'enlightened' 'Olympus' to the 'Hades' of _political realism_ and observations of 'vitalism' - e.g. by witnessing *Jacob Burckhardt's philological reflections on the Greek term for 'good' - **_'areté'_** as the source of pre-Christian, **_aristocratic_** morality* (equivalent to a cult of _a competitive 'outstanding' and merit_ ) - at which point, Nietzsche will stop his intellectual contemplation at large and simply retreats into 'pre-rational non-verbality' - and possibly mental illness - while his sister *Elisabeth Förster_constructs_ the chauvinistic ideology of a deluded Nazi Germany, also known as 'Nietzscheanism'. The problem of contrasting Nietzschean _'nihilism'_ with oriental 'emptiness' is that *Dionysos is **_Oriental_* - just like Venus, Aphrodite (Ishtar, Inanna), arguably cultural cross-transfers within vast nomadic and Hellenistic rule, and genuine revelations of *Durga* , _pre-Aryan_ manifest 'consort' of Shiva - *the all-decomposing aspect of **_'transience'_* . Roman authorities complained as such when the cult arrived in idealized rustic - in reality already urban - Italy... I can't recall any academic authority, claiming so, but *one may wonder whether Buddhism is _structurally_ a Reformation of the Vedantic East as it offers little new, but a bookish 'mass monasticism', superceeding the _personal_ ascetism of the Sadhu, yogi or simply _saint_ . In Vedic tradition, *Gods have wrathful emmantions or aspects* - e.g. Kali - that are reminiscent of 'blissfully raging', _decomposing_ Dionysus - it is a _normative_ , 'Puritan' doctrine to reject the instinctive, 'nocturnal' form as demonic, causing the - conscious - 'diurnal' form thereby _to dissolve in irrelevant idealizations, petty rationalizations and a pretentious, profoundly _alienating_ speech. To a Christian - in the informal, _substantial_ characterization - *_all things come from God_* in their utmost origin - and an angelic 'divine economy' is ordered upon 'trajectories', often miniscule and _obscured_ from the simplifying, petty, calculating and often manipulative reasoning of 'civilized' man. *All of Hebrew traditional chronology documents the vanity of secular power as Israel's kings become puppets and the institutionalized temple is razed* - and *it was the tragedy of Friedrich Nietzsche - the finally **_non-verbal_** student of Emerson and his 'transcendentalism' - to mistake all of Christianity as a 'Socratic', **_patrician_** ideology* , an obscure Syrian cult, institutionalized in numerous ecumenical councils to stabilize an 'ecumenical' empire... but overlooking _the living, 'threefold', cosmic 'force'_ , the 'unmoved mover' who had already inspired as Krishna the very Vedic civilization from which Dionysos had sprung: (Krishna 'enlightening' Arjuna) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/lahkjZSBp5-be40.html (Christ Pantocrator) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mpeRZJqrq8jFgIk.html ('Durga', traveling Buddhist Tibet) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/f8BdZZpqqNOUZ3k.html ('The Tyger' William Blake, arranged by John Tavener) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pbV-qLt43MDTiX0.html (Catholic Saturnalia) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/f8h-m7Gfv7vDYIE.html Nietzsche was also not the only one who made *the turn toward a 'monistic realism' as Karl Christian Planck was shun for analyzing the vulgar-Platonism that had usurped Christian tradition after the fall of Constantinople in the 15th century, yet also he was unaware of **_*the cosmic Christ of Maximos Confessor_* who had trusted in *the 'invisible hand' of a 'divine economy'* to the end. Confronting the 'ills' of one's age is the passage-rite of repentance - daring to follow up on 'the passion' of Christ, all-loving 'concordance' will be revealed as _real_ and _lasting_ - e.g. in daily encounters that will be blessed with _the Holy Spirit_ . When modernity is destroyed by it's own corrosive, utopian ambitions and idealizing delusions, _this immanent kingdom of God_ lasts.

Dammit this hit me hard. Right in the chest.

An interesting perspective with which I find myself in sympathy. It fits with my idea of Nietzsche as a sort of Zen Buddhist, for whom “enlightenment” is not some other worldly ideal but this very moment, deeply and fully experienced. The deconstruction of the binary that you do here is replete in Zen teachings. Koan after koan makes the point that Enlightenment or Nirvana are nowhere else, they are not attainable but only realizable, and that the absolute and the relative are one. Form is not different from emptiness, as it says in the Heart Sutra. Nirvana is not different from samsara.

what about epicurius and the ancient greek "hedonism" ? maybe nietzche was borrowing from them

Brave. Irreverent. BRAVO!

Although the metaphor used by Nietzsche is Dionysus (as opposed to the Buddha's way), there is an Indian opposite number to renunciation and the Ascetic Ideal. If there is an Indian dichotomy that mirrors the Schopenhauer-Nietzsche divide, it is that between mainstream Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism and the discipline of Tantra. Mainstream Hinduism and Buddhism - and all of Jainism - are renunciatory and what Nietzsche would call "life-denying". The aim is to get off of the Wheel Of Existence. To be "liberated" from this world, and to reach some isolated, blissful state. Not so Tantra (And here I must draw a distinction between the classical Tantra of medieval India and the Neo-Tantra of Osho and the West. I refer to classical Tantra of Bengal and Rajasthan and Tibet, *not* the libertine sex-cult of popular culture). The Tantric does not seek liberation. S/he does *not* wish to become something other than fully human. The discipline is aimed at allowing us to flourish right here, right now. As in *RIGHT NOW.* This very second. As human beings with all our desires, flaws, and miseries. Dive straight into life *as* a human being - but do so consciously, lovingly, passionately. Don't calm the passions: refine them. In fact, most of Indian thought teaches that Desire is a "bad" thing. Tantra places Desire at the very centre of their worldview. Desire, to the Tantric, is *not* to be "conquered" or "transcended". It is to be cultivated, sharpened, refined, and enhanced. This is ΓΕΝΟΙ ΟΙΟΣ ΕΣΣΙ in an "Indian" context. If Schopenhauer is the "western Buddha", then Nietzsche is the Western Tantric (IMO). Good video. Thanks. 🙂

❤

I thought perhaps Tantric Yoga could bridge the opposites but theres a catch isnt there?. Your not supposed to enjoy it, perhaps even feel anything, otherwise your doing it wrong.

I used to be a devout Catholic. Every Sunday, we were reminded that we could not serve both God and mammon. And the stories of the saints’ works of self-abnegation, fervor for serving others, and constant prayer were far beyond the abilities of most people I knew. I ended up with a worldview that (ironically) made the world completely empty and meaningless. In addition, the majority of the human race was far from this ideal - a fact that made me constantly depressed. Now, as an agnostic, I can see the beauty of the world, and I can regard humanity without (as much) sadness and frustration. I believe now that we can’t separate the spiritual and material world - we have to have one foot in both worlds. If we are to be truly “in the world, but not of the world,” we must be genuinely in the world.

A lot of this video went over my head and I think I'll have to return to it after reading some Nietzche myself. However, something I disagree with is the characterization of Buddha. Among his last steps to attaining Bodhi was the end of his six-years asceticism by a gift of rice pudding from a girl named Sujata. This gift gave him the strength to develop the eightfold middle way. Something that I think is lost on a lot of spiritual seekers is the fact that Shakyamuni, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed were human men; they were not only in the world, they were of the world. Buddha's path began with a rejection of the worldly, then the rejection of the ascetic flagellation, and culminated in his solitary realization.

Video Idea that would garner attention similar to the JP video: Do a piece on Sam Harris being the supposed anti-religion atheist rationalist yet profiting greatly from religiosity. He has made tens of millions from his Waking Up app. While helpful to people who want an introduction to mindfulness and meditation as a means of mood regulation, the app embraces very religious aspects of Buddhism. In your video about "Why People Convert to New Religions" you described a technique whereby evangelists encourage you to go home and pray to god, to ask if Joseph Smith is real. And for the mind that is hungry for answers, there is a significant chance that the answer will manifest, and a true believer will be born. Buddhism, and Sam Harris, have a similar method, but instead of asking for an answer, you're asked instead to accept a paradox. During meditation you are asked to "gaze at the gazer" or "observe the observer" and you are encouraged to come to the realization that there is no self. For some odd reason, this is only something you can grasp in the fleeting moment that you gaze into your nonexistent self, it's not a concrete understanding that you can describe rationally after the fact. I'd argue that this is closer to being a religious method of indoctrination than anything resembling a useful tool to use in real life, but Harris, the ascended egoless prophet, disagrees.

this is truly awesome analysis.. i loved the inclusion of Tolkien

I think Nirvana doesn't have to be exclusive with being successful in life. Übermensch and Nirvana both can be achieved imo, but in a different way.

I have always wondered about the idea of the philosophers and enlightened ones living on the mountaintop with the rest of humanity in the valleys and plains; what good are they to anyone other than themselves? If what they teach and preach is only attainable by the spiritual elite, why bother preaching and teaching at all?

Islam is the true Dionysian space; see Ze'ev Maghen's 'Virtues of the Flesh'. But no-one tempted by the Dharma understands this boldest insight of Nietzsche.

But, the same as the old vantage point has died in a lot of us, this new one will be exhausted and will die, too. And we will have to move to another... and another ...and another. That is not a complaint, only an observation.

Those who cling to their orange garbs and hide in the hilltop monasteries risk becomming the last men. The only reason to retreat into the caves is to emerge amongst men once again and risk the humiliations of humanity. The buddhist paradox of grasping is a insidious one, to aspire to heights is to "fail", since no heights existed in the first place, one can only hope to be awakened by the fall (and i don't mean enlightenment here, just some wordplay).

Why would you not consider lust, rage and murder arising out of purity? This presupposition that it cannot is false. Purity does not arise out of impurity, both arise together. Having and not having arise together. Being in and of the world and being merely Spirit are both wrong. They are one and inseparable. Would you say that this enlightened master is not in the world? I am a father of 7 sons, a husband, a handyman and painter, a mystic and a fool. I already am what you would point to, just like you. Cut, burn and rub all you like. Death and pain are merely a bliss the body can’t endure. Mooji points to this as well. My struggles show me, not what needs to be fixed in the world as I live, breath and immerse myself fully in it, but the mystery of myself. Where is the unconscious mystery? In the world or me? Being responsible for everything this way is awakening. They are not merely instantaneous dear friend, they are simultaneous. Darkness within darkness, the gate to all mystery.

Being so thorough with philosophy but so ignorant of Buddhism philosophy....No to put down Goenka, but his vipassana practice is a simplification... in order to practice awareness, not to extract from it any idea about asceticism.. Have you heard about the three turnings of the wheel of Dharma?, about the 9 yanas?

What Nietzsche saw as distinctive to Dionysian tragic philosophy; the affirmation of transcience and becomng, the denial of true Being; is in fact alredy instantiated, in a more advanced form, as Buddhism. Nietzsche simply failed to see the logical end to which that road eventually led.

I agree that there is much bullshit within the modern new age concept of "Enlightenment" and other related idea's. But I am not about to blame Buddhism or other eastern religions for modern Westerners interpreting these religions in the unsophisticated and ego driven way they often do. Asceticism is a path that all the great world religions offers, but all the great world religions offer paths of ascend to the mountaintop ("Enlightenment") and descent into the world. You mention the Bodhisattva's in this video, though I feel the need to challenge your interpretation of them. You state that they vow not to return to the world until they have reached Enlightenment, which you then define as liberation from Samsara (the wheel of birth and rebirth). That is "an" idea of Enlightenment that some have. But there is another idea of enlightenment which says true Enlightenment is realizing that there is no separateness, and true Maya is nothing other than the belief in this separateness. The Bodhisattva vows to never stop incarnating until all beings are liberated, but of course if there is no separateness between emptiness and form, then there is nothing "bad" or "wrong" in relation to the wheel of life, death, and rebirth. Incarnation or manifestation is the perfect, divine expression of Emptiness, while Emptiness is the perfect, divine source of manifestation. All the non-dual traditions (Jewish Kabbalah, Christian Kabbalah, Islamic Sufism, Neo-Platonism, Vedanta Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism, etc.) teach this. As for Nietzsche; There is extraordinary value in Nietzsche with regards to depth psychology, sociology, aesthetic, epistemology, and all sorts of other subjects. He was the first philosopher I ever read and a few pages in I was in awe and ecstasy, and this passion for the philosophical and the spiritual has stayed with me ever since. With that said, I pray to God that as few people as possible adopt that mans values. His Ubermensch goes back into the world, yes, but I don't know that that is a good thing. The arch enemy of his Ubermensch is empathy. He must rise above such contemptible things like empathy, and once he has overcome the weakness in him that desires to suffer with others who are suffering, he is then liberated enough from "good and evil" to help those weak and botched perish, which is, after-all, the FIRST principle of he and his Superman's humanity. And what a tragedy it has been that these Supermen have only ever appeared as happy accidents, but never as intentionally willed, as bred! If only a Superman can consciously work to breed more Supermen, then there will be enough people with the ruthlessness necessary to help the weak, pitiful, pathetic, botched, suffering mass men right to their mass graves. I wonder if any dedicated disciple of Nietzsche has ever tried that before?

Bruh

Sounds like Tantra

So Sorry My FRIEND, No Story, No Messages, Only Videos

I have a half-baked thought that Jesus is somehow a great example of this. I know that sounds like the opposite of what's being spoken about, but there's a strong theme in his life and teaching of the union of opposites and of worldliness. He was a carpenter for most of his life, he wept when Lazarus died, he resurrected not as pure spirit but as body. He was fully God and fully man, Logos and flux. Even the cross is a kind of symbol of both there union and conflict. Idk just putting it out there.

Beware lest a statue slay you !

The desire for Nirvana is the worst kind of desire according to the Buddha.

All early sects of Buddhism held the Buddha wasnt ascetic but preached a middle path between dionysic ecstasy and self mortification. Schopenhaur also failed to distinguish this and reads ultimate nirvana as the extinction of a species. The Buddhists were neither life afforming nor advocatimg suicide.

There's a concept in Buddhist thought that Buddhism is a finger pointing to the moon, and it implies a warning not to confuse the finger itself with the moon and make the mistake of focusing on the finger and not on the moon. Your understanding of Buddhism is entirely the finger and not the moon. Your description of Buddhism is entirely a description of the finger. But you have also described the finger inaccurately. Buddhism is also known as The Middle Path, because it strikes a balance between asceticism and indulgence. The key to "enlightenment" is not that you go there and stay there, the key is that when you go up the mountain and you find nirvana, you go back down to the village and resume your normal life much the wiser.

Too bad Nietzsche didn’t know of tantra vs suttra, I think he could have f*cked with sth like the diamond approach

Wouldn’t Native American religion fall into this category, considering that they worship the earth?

You seem to totally miss the more subliminal contentions behind nietzsche’s most profound ideas….His main point was not the denial of slave morality or an affirmation of master morality (or affirming ‘this world’, whatever that means)…His primary concern was the qualities that the philosophers of the future need to possess in order to confront and overcome the absurdity and nihilism that comes from existing in an apparently meaningless reality, and these future philosophers would have qualities such as flexibility, intuition, inquisitiveness (they would think for themselves, not like him), innovation, and above all cheerfulness as their greatest qualities for finding their own path (creating their own values)… I recommend you read (or re-read) his later works from the antichrist to ecce homo….

If we dream about people who is carrying wisdom and world together, how we not getting back to enlistment with its delusions? And more: if its not to much to carry? Or you not break your spine with such a weight?