Nietzschean Buddhism: An Experiment

Nietzschean Buddhism: An Experiment

I have long been drawn to Buddhism and to Nietzsche’s ideas. After much thought, I propose a reconciliation; I propose the creation of a Nietzschean Buddhism. How could this be a possibility? After all, the third noble truth of Buddhism is that there is a way out of suffering, and the fourth noble truth gives us the way out. Suffering is optional, as is staying in samsara, the eternal recurrence of rebirth and a life of suffering. How is that reconcilable with Nietzsche, who writes:

You want, if possible—and there is no more insane “if possible”—to abolish suffering.  And we?  It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it—that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible—that makes his destruction desirable  (Beyond Good and Evil, 225).

Yet it is exactly along the lines of the value of suffering that a most fruitful reconciliation is possible. I want to sketch out a way in which Buddhism and Nietzsche’s thought can combine along the lines of the value of suffering, the nature of compassion, the importance of psychology, and the role of mindfulness. I will not address all of these issues here. Those that I don’t will be addressed later.

The defining motivation of Buddhism is to bring an end to suffering. Pain and suffering are separable. Pain gives rise to suffering only in combination with craving and attachment. Humans cannot escape the preconditions of suffering, namely, impermanence, old age, sickness, and death. But we can control whether those give rise to suffering. Such control is not easy, but we have a hypothetical imperative to attempt such control. And that hypothetical imperative is grounded in the desire to end suffering for ourselves and others.

Nietzsche writes that man’s problem, “was not suffering itself, but that there was no answer to the crying question, ‘why do I suffer?’…The meaninglessness of suffering, not suffering itself, was the curse that lay over mankind so far—” (Genealogy of Morals, III 28). With the death of God, nihilism threatens, since the previous way to deal with the meaning of suffering was to attribute it to the sufferer. From the Christian perspective, the meaning of suffering is rooted in sin; from the Buddhist perspective, the meaning of suffering is rooted in one’s craving and attachment. Nietzsche’s response is to offer up an alternative ideal, the affirmation of life, the heart of which is the eternal recurrence.

Out of that mess of controversy, we can extract the core idea that Nietzsche’s response to suffering and its meaning is to invert the value of suffering. Nihilism only threatens if we operate under the assumption that suffering is evil and undesirable, something that must be headed off and removed. But how can we revalue suffering? In the Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism, Bernard Reginster argues that the key is through Nietzsche’s idea of the will to power. According to Reginster, the will to power is constituted by a second-order desire for the overcoming of resistance in the satisfaction of a first-order desire. Importantly the second-order desire is not merely the desire for resistance, but also for that resistance to be overcome. Power is expressed by the overcoming of resistance on the way to achieving another desire. Imagine Goethe writing Faust. Goethe’s greatness, his power, is expressed by his wanting not to merely have written Faust, but to have had it be a great accomplishment involving the overcoming of resistance. Reginster interprets this willing of resistance to a first-order desire’s being satisfied as the willing of suffering. Further, according to Reginster, insofar as the power achieved has value, so too does the suffering, not as a means but as a constituent of the power.

The above is one way that Nietzsche can be viewed as giving reason to value suffering. An important question concerns the extent to which the resistance must be experienced as suffering. I want to leave this question aside for now. Nietzsche also seems to go beyond the valuing of suffering through the valuing of power to a more extreme kind of valuing. He seems to say that the affirmation of life (in his sense) requires that one be capable of desiring to live every moment of one’s life again and again, eternally. And doing that requires valuing the moments of suffering in one’s life, not merely as a means, but for their own sake. One example of this is in the Will to Power, section 1041. One thing we might question is whether affirming life really requires that one affirm every part. Might this not be an instance of the fallacy of division?

More importantly, though, we might wonder whether revaluing suffering so that it is not automatically seen as objectionable implies that no suffering is thereby objectionable. We could, after all, say that suffering has value insofar as power has value and suffering is a necessary constituent of power, without saying that all instances of suffering are constituents of power. And doing so would leave open the value of those “non-power” instances of suffering.

Return to Buddhism for a moment. In Buddhism, it seems that suffering could only have instrumental value, namely, as a means for letting you know you’re still operating with attachment and craving. Certain instances of suffering might be valuable as lessons for ways in which we can improve. But here “improve” means ease the suffering of ourselves and others.

One thing that a skilled Buddhist is good at is recognizing the sources of craving and attachment, the sources of suffering. A skilled Buddhist, in other words, has some degree of control of her suffering. If we combine some aspects of Nietzsche’s revaluation of suffering with this Buddhist control over suffering, then we can be in a position to recognize that there may be times in which suffering is valuable not merely as a means but as a component of something worthwhile, while avoiding those instances of suffering that lack value. That is, combining the two positions gives us a person who is skilled in regard to the value, use, and occurrence of suffering. The goal of life is to live well, but living well does not mean ending suffering and/or removing oneself from samsara. Living well consists, in part, in acts of creation and the achievement of knowledge and wisdom, all of which involve suffering.

Let’s note one complication to this hybrid position before this essay is done. If pain and suffering are separable under Buddhism, then why couldn’t we separate resistance and suffering? That is, resistance would have value because it was a part of power, but that resistance would not amount to suffering because of the Buddhist methodology of removing craving and attachment. Perhaps Nietzsche could respond by saying that in order for true power and creativity to be achieved, a person must engage in the activity of creation to such an extent that they crave the object of creation and are attached to it in such a way that the resistance must amount to suffering. But how true is this?

One thought on “Nietzschean Buddhism: An Experiment

  1. Pretty amazing that you posted this only days ago. I’ve been an on again, off again, practicing Buddhist since 2000. Not always sitting for meditation, but always connected to it. Also very interested in physics since an early age. Only looked at Nietzsche briefly years ago and never really reading him, mostly thinking he was another hack based on the famous “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” phrase that everyone likes to spout. Couple weeks ago was listening to a Fresh Air interview of Brian Greene (who I have read before) talking about his new book. I began to chew on his ideas of multi-verse and infinite space, time, and given enough time, everything will repeat itself. I began to chew on this idea as a thought experiment for the last couple of weeks on how it would square with what I know about Buddhism until I had an AHA! moment a couple of days ago which I labeled “Eternal Recurrence”. What if everything is as simple as the natural cycles we see all around us, only scaled to infinity like physics might be alluding to? Not thinking that it was a real phrase, I googled it and low and behold, landed on a Wiki page talking about this and Nietzsche, and Buddhism. I’m still doing the thought experiment, but this may be my “unifying theory” that fuses my Buddhist and scientific views. What is really scary, and I’m trying to convince myself is completely coincidental, is that years ago I got a Ouroboros tattoo on my arm. Not because of any specific belief at the time, frankly because I liked the image and what it could mean. As I scrolled down the Wiki page, sure enough, there it is as a symbol of Eternal Recurrence. Is this something that I “remember” from a cycle long ago? In a different “universe” where I have existed before? Crazy? I’d argue it’s just as crazy to believe in an old man sitting on a cloud in judgement of everyone down here too. What if Nirvana is the realization of Eternal Recurrence and the comfort, not dread, it brings that all we do will be here again? That by committing yourself to the betterment of yourself and others does lead to eternal happiness, but happiness in the repetition of happiness? But I’m still keeping all these thoughts to myself, except for here. Thanks for the post.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.