Talking to Myself, Nothingness, Nihilism and Whatever Takes My Fancy

Irrespective of Google Stats that tell me that this blog is being read by various unfortunates around the world, I remain convinced that basically, more often than not, I am talking to myself. Which is perfectly OK, as my own words often bring clarity to my own mind. No matter if my blog is otherwise unread or, if read, brings only confusion and the cry "what on earth is he on about" or "why does it matter?" 

So, to soldier on. Waffling, rambling.

Sometimes I think questions are more important than answers. I also think some questions are better than others. Ask "Is there a God?" and immediately many will be engulfed in the conditioning of centuries and thus any "answer" will be virtually pointless and fruitless. So I prefer to ask myself the question:- does our existence have significance? Do we live in a chaos or a cosmos? Such questions, instead of shooting me into an imaginary beyond, set me thinking about my own life, my own experience..........and not about thoughts of Old Men in the Sky, Incarnate Saviours or even the seemingly unanswerable existence of evil and suffering, suffering so terrible at times that thoughts of love and ultimate meaning are swept away no sooner than thought as being ridiculous and unbelievable. 

Not an "Old Man in the Sky", but an old man on the beach

Myself, I would like to think that "all manner of thing shall be well", as Mother Julian of Norwich said,  without the thought at the back of my mind that really I am fooling myself, seeking to cover the unpalatable with a sugar coating of fairy tales.  

Mother Julian of Norwich who said that "all shall be well"

Answering purely for myself and not seeking to convince anyone else, for me the fact that there is indisputably something rather than nothing suggests significance, meaning - and not randomness, insignificance and nihilism. It suggests that we live in a Cosmos and not a chaos. 

Chaos or Cosmos?

Moving on, Buddhism is often painted as being nihilistic, often by those in the West who seek to give a higher value to the Christian Faith, which is deemed as life affirming. Here is the dictionary definition of Nihilism:-

the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.

Nihilism is a Western term, coined by those in the 19th and 20th centuries who gave witness, in various ways, to the so called "death of God". The word is derived from the Latin, nihil, meaning "nothing". 

Buddhism in fact knows nothing of Nihilism. First, according to the authorised Theravada Canon of Scripture (which purports to be the closest we can come to the actual words of the historical Buddha) the two terms rejected as far as ultimate reality is concerned are "eternalism" and "annihilationism". Annihilationism and nihilism would be close bedfellows.

Rather, Buddhism speaks of the Middle Way, the path of Truth (the Dharma) that must be walked. A way that can be lived but as far as words are concerned, is ineffable. Nirvana is often spoken of in the texts in positive terms, and the Udana has the words:- "There is, monks, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned".  That is Theravada, the Southern School.  The Mahayana, the so called Great Vehicle, the Northern School, has the Bodhisattva doctrine, one of the finest and greatest ideals for a human being to aspire to. That is, the ideal to live purely for the sake of others, seeking only their welfare and enlightenment, seeking only to alleviate their suffering, entirely thoughtless of self. Additionally, according to my own understanding, the Mahayana, in ultimately equating Samsara with Nirvana, affirms this world and never rejects or betrays it in favour of some imagined other. (As I see it, such a betrayal of this world, the only one we have ever known, is the bane of so much that passes for "religion", both past and present)

A Bodhisattva, who come in all shapes and sizes

Returning to the question of "suffering", as far as Buddhism is concerned, suffering (dhukka) is life itself. Which possibly is the source of the accusation that Buddhism is a pessimistic religion. The Buddha claimed that he taught "one thing and one thing only, suffering and the ending of suffering". Leaving aside the question as to whether Buddhism (a western term) is a "religion" at all, as I see it, if the Dharma truly teaches the path to the end of suffering then it cannot justly be accused of pessimism. But yes, for  Buddhism, suffering is the whole of life, not merely one side of a coin, the two sides of which would be deemed joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure or, indeed, any other particular duality. This is where I get back to betrayal, of other worlds, of the tendency to try to escape by "leaving behind", rather than seeing with new eyes. Samsara and Nirvana are one. It is a question of understanding, an understanding given in the living and experience of life. As I see it we are always required to look, to look and see prior to reaching conclusions. Alas, we all seem to have our conclusions, our "answers", and from such a positioning and understanding of our "self", we then look. 

The "silence of the Buddha" in respect of many questions, particularly metaphysical questions, is well documented.

 An example here from a Theravada text. A monk (bhikku) is questioning the Buddha concerning the origin of suffering:-

"Is suffering caused by oneself?"

"Do not put it like that Kassapa"

"Then is suffering caused by another?"

"Do not put it like that Kassapa"

"Then is suffering caused both by oneself and another?"

"Do not put it like that Kassapa"

"Then is suffering neither caused by oneself or another?"

"Do not put it like that Kassapa"

"Then there is no suffering?"

"It is not a fact that there is no suffering: there is suffering, Kassapa"

"Then does Master Gotama (the Buddha) neither know nor see suffering?"

"It is not a fact that I neither know nor see suffering: I both know and see suffering, Kassapa"

The conclusion is that we are being asked to "come and see" (for oneself) or in Pali "ehipassiko". The same sort of exchange can be found in the Buddhist texts for much else - life after death, the beginnings of the world, etc etc. 

Kassapa looks for answers

There is no "answer" to suffering except to accept it, to accept the totality, to know it. Full acceptance, paradoxically, can prove to be the catalyst for genuine transformation. After acceptance comes, if need be, diversification. When we drift into diversification prior to genuine acceptance, seeking solutions in creeds and doctrines or in the mere accumulation of knowledge, we risk losing ourselves in a "tangle of views, a thicket of views". After, we can at least attempt Yun-men's appropriate statement, which he said was the teachings of an entire lifetime. D T Suzuki sees all this as getting back to the time before creation, before the words "let there be light" were uttered. 

This leads on into "nothingness", a nothing prior to creation that is potentially all things. Thinking back to my previous blog to the quote concerning T S Eliot,

Eliot feels no compunction in alluding to the Bhagavad Gita in one section of the poem and Dante's Paradiso in the next. He neither asserts the rightness nor wrongness of one set of doctrines in relation to the other, nor does he try to reconcile them. Instead, he claims that prior to the differentiation of various religious paths, there is a universal substratum called Word (logos) of which religions are concretions. This logos is an object both of belief and disbelief. It is an object of belief in that, without prior belief in the logos, any subsequent religious belief is incoherent. It is an object of disbelief in that belief in it is empty, the positive content of actual belief is fully invested in religious doctrine.

Though I wander about, drawing upon diverse sources, my own "concretion" of the "universal substratum" is Pure land Buddhism. Amida, the Buddha of Infinite Light.

Amida looks back, for those who will not make it without help. Some call it "Grace"

Thank you

Postscript for the Classroom:- Wittgenstein, the noted 20th century philosopher, once said "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". Compare and relate such to the "Silence of the Buddha" concerning metaphysical questions. Answers must be short (in keeping with the subject matter)

A second question for the Class:- Here are two quotes drawn from the poetry of two of the 20th centuries most famous poets.....

"We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time." (T S Eliot, lines from "Little Gidding", "Four Quartets")

"For the garden is the only place there is, but you will not find it until you have looked for it everywhere and found nowhere that is not a desert." (W H Auden, lines from "For the Time Being") 

In what sense would you say that these are "Buddhist" quotes? Answers may be as long as you like, a full autobiography would be quite appropriate.