Download Nietzsche and The Four Noble Truths

Nietzsche and Buddhism: The Overcoming of Suffering
By
Jeanie Stephens
December 17, 2008
Phil 132—Eastern Philosophy
Thomas Louvier
Stephens
-2-
Nietzsche and Buddhism: The Overcoming of Suffering
“The world is full of suffering; it is also full of overcoming it.”
—Helen Keller
After a naval jet malfunctioned and crashed into a home killing his wife, two
children, and mother-in-law in San Diego on December 8, 2008, Dong Yun Yoon
expressed his concern for the jet’s pilot. “Please pray for him not to suffer for this
accident,” Yoon said to reporters at the site of the crash where he lost four members of his
family, including his two children, ages two and fifteen months (CNN). This is a reminder
that for all the accomplishments of mankind, the problem of suffering still proves to be the
biggest challenge people face. While medical science is almost entirely devoted to it’s
alleviation on both the physiological and psychological level, the bulk of philosophy and
religion has also been long preoccupied with the problem of suffering and its solution.
Both western thought and eastern tradition have contributed greatly to the subject, and it is
from these two groups that may be found two distinct approaches to the problem of
suffering, that of Friedrich Nietzsche and that of the Buddhist tradition. These two
approaches are distinct insofar as they differ not only from the widely held Christian view
Stephens
-3of suffering, but also in that they differ from each other. While Nietzsche represents a
western philosophical approach, Buddhism represents an eastern (and primarily) religious
approach. While Nietzsche never denounces Buddhism to the extent he denounces
Christianity, Nietzsche and Buddha differ in how they each attempt to define suffering and
what they see as its cause and solution. A discussion of how they differ may begin with a
look at the First Noble Truth.
The First Noble Truth in Buddhism is that “life is dukkha” (Smith 99). Translated
as suffering, it is to the Buddhist a natural condition of life, and as Nietzsche suggests, it is
not (therefore) interpreted “in terms of sin” (Nietzsche, The Antichrist 23). To live means
to suffer, for the world in which people live is not perfect and neither are people,
themselves. According to this truth, “birth is suffering, ageing is suffering, sickness is
suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and …pain…and despair are suffering, association
with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one
wants is suffering” (Novak 65). Furthermore, there are five skandas, or life components,
which are painful and not limited to physiological suffering, but also include psychological
suffering. These are the body, sensations, thoughts, feelings, and consciousness (Smith
102).
While Nietzsche recognizes the existence of suffering as a hard truth in much the
same way as Buddhism, Nietzsche does not attempt to specify or categorize the various
instances and conditions under which suffering occurs. In fact, what constitutes as
suffering seems to be secondary to the simple acknowledgement that suffering exists and
where this is concerned, Nietzsche applauds Buddhism’s honesty and objectivity. For,
where Christianity threatens to destroy “man’s sense of causality” (Nietzsche, The
Stephens
-4Antichrist 49) by blaming the devil and sin for people’s suffering, Buddhism does not.
Instead of speaking of a “struggle with sin,” Nietzsche observes, the Buddhist speaks of a
“struggle with suffering” (Nietzsche, The Antichrist 20). Buddhism, Nietzsche
further asserts, does not have to justify pain and man’s susceptibility to suffering. “It
simply says, as it simply thinks,” “I suffer” (Nietzsche, The Antichrist 23). Therefore, it
would seem that at least in regards to the first noble truth, Nietzsche’s philosophy does not
differ significantly from the Buddhist’s. Only when one considers that Nietzsche’s view of
suffering may be that it is something which a person lacks, as in lacking good health, does
one consider that there may be a slight differentiation. This differentiation isn’t entirely
evident, however, without a look at what Buddhism and Nietzsche each suggest as to the
cause or origin of suffering.
To the Buddhist, the cause or origin of life’s suffering is tanha, or desire. It can be
defined as the “desire for private fulfillment” as Smith proposes (102) or as the craving and
clinging to all things transient, such as physical objects, ideas, and all objects of perception.
“As a noble truth, the origin of suffering is the craving that produces renewal of being”
(Novak 65). Because the objects of desire are transient, their loss is inevitable and leads to
suffering. The self is also considered an object of attachment, in that the idea of a “self” is
a delusion. As Smith suggests, “When we are selfless, we are free,” (102) and so it follows
that to attain selflessness is to attain freedom, and the freedom from suffering is the goal to
which the Buddhist strives.
Nietzsche asserts that the greatest causes of suffering for the individual are “that
men do not share all knowledge in common, that ultimate insight can never be certain, that
abilities are divided unequally” (Nietzsche, Untimely 212). The primary characteristic one
Stephens
-5may notice about Nietzsche’s causes of suffering are that they are expressed in the
negative; that is, they refer to what men do not have and can not have. In effect, they refer
to that which is lacking. Now, if one refers again to what Buddhism claims to be the origin
of suffering, one notices that it is a result of what is, namely tanha, not what is lacking.
More precisely, Buddhism doesn’t blame suffering on a lack of something, but instead sees
it as the desire for what one lacks and/or cannot have. This is crucial to Buddhism, for
desire is what one needs to overcome if one is to overcome suffering. The self, too, must
be overcome in order to overcome suffering and in this respect, the self seems almost as
much to blame for suffering as desire is to blame. Certainly, this is unexpected considering
the former assertion that Buddhism sees suffering as a natural condition of life. Instead of
placing the blame on something that exists apart from the self, the blame is placed on
something that exists within the self. This can be easily justified, however, when one is
reminded that while the world isn’t perfect, people aren’t perfect either and are just as
much to blame for their suffering as any external condition. It should be noted,
furthermore, that where Nietzsche differs from the Buddhist they are much the same in that
they both see that what people lack, and therefore what people desire, is a state of being.
As Kaufmann points out:
“We have ideals of perfection which we generally find ourselves unable to attain.
We recognize norms and standards of which we usually fall short; we long for a
triumph over old age, suffering, and death; we yearn for perfection and immortality
—and seem incapable of fulfillment. We desire to be “as gods,” but we cannot be
so.” (254)
Stephens
-6These “ontological” privations, as they are, lead to “ontological” interests (Kaufmann 254)
and whereas Nietzsche’s philosophy doesn’t seem to differ too much from Buddhist
tradition in this respect, it does differ in regards to a solution.
The Buddhist’s solution to the problem of suffering has to do with eliminating the
cause or origin of suffering. This means that to overcome suffering, one must first
overcome tanha, or desire, and the attachment and clinging to all things transient. The idea
of the self, which is an illusion, is one such attachment that must be let go if one is to
overcome suffering. To accomplish this goal, Buddhists practice the Eightfold Path. The
goal, life’s goal, is Nirvana, which Buddha characterized as “Bliss, yes bliss, my friends, is
nirvana” (Smith 114).
Nietzsche declared that “Buddhism is not a religion in which perfection is merely
an object of aspiration: perfection is actually normal—” (Nietzsche, The Antichrist 21).
And yet, as just discussed, for the Buddhist to aspire to perfection or desire it would put
him/her at odds with its attainment. Interestingly, Nietzsche proposes a different solution
to suffering and takes his cue from the Greeks. He declared, “To be able to live, the
Greeks had to create gods out of the most profound need” (Kaufmann 130), and to him
they did this best in their tragedies. In his mind, the Greek tragedies represent “a yet
unbroken reply to the vicissitudes of fortune, a triumphant response to suffering, and a
celebration of life” (Kaufmann 130-131), which he describes as “at bottom, in spite of all
the alterations of appearances, indestructible, powerful, and joyous” (Kaufmann 131). For
Nietzsche, “artistic creation is prompted by something which the artist lacks, by suffering
rather than undisturbed good health” (Kaufmann 130). For him, the Greek “has looked
with bold eyes into the dreadful destructive turmoil of so-called world-history as well as
Stephens
-7into the cruelty of nature and, without yielding to a resignation or to ‘a Buddhistic negation
of the will,’ reaffirms life with the creation of works of art” (Kaufmann 131). In “Beyond
Good and Evil,” he furthers the point:
“The discipline of suffering, of great suffering—do you not know that only this
discipline has created all enhancements of man so far? That tension of the soul in
unhappiness which cultivates its strength, its shudders face to face with great ruin,
its inventiveness and courage in enduring, persevering, interpreting, and exploiting
suffering, and whatever has been granted to it of profundity, secret, mask, spirit,
cunning, greatness—was it not granted to it through suffering, through the
discipline of great suffering?” (344; ch. 225)
And so, while the Buddhist seeks a lack of desire in order to attain what is desired,
Nietzsche postulates that the answer to attaining what one lacks is to desire it. He insists,
Kaufmann says, that one must “employ” his impulses and not weaken or destroy them
(225). “He believed that a man without impulses could not do the good or create the
beautiful any more than the castrated man could beget children” (Kaufmann 224).
Central to Nietzsche’s thought is his concept of the “will to power,” which he sees
as the one pervading force. “The will to power is the heir of Dionysus and Apollo. It is a
ceaseless striving, but it has an inherent capacity to give form to itself” (Kaufmann 238). It
is best represented, as Nietzsche sees it, in the creative power of the artist and since it
affirms the ego rather than denying it, it seems to be the complete opposite solution to what
Buddhism teaches. Kaufmann acknowledges this in the following passage:
“It might finally be urged that the conception of happiness as a triumph over
suffering, and especially the idealization of creative power, is characteristic at best
Stephens
-8of western civilization only. While it is impossible to offer any extended discussion
of other civilizations here, Hinduism and Buddhism cannot be ignored entirely: for
on the face of it, the conception of happiness—in the sense here assigned to this
word—as either Nirvana or a union of Atman and Brahma seems the very antithesis
of Nietzsche’s apotheosis of creativity. (276)
When one looks beyond “the face of it,” however, one sees that:
“What the ascetic, including even the Buddha, wants is not power that is of this
world, power over men, or power over many countries, but cosmic power, worldshaking power—power even over the gods.” (277)
However, “the truly powerful need not escape into any Nirvana: they can win triumph in
this world and be creative” (Kaufmann 277). For, “Nirvana is not ultimate happiness but a
substitute desired by some of the weak who are incapable of achieving that state of joyous
power which they, too, would prefer if they had the strength to attain it” (Kaufmann 279).
In conclusion, Nietzsche and Buddhism share fundamental similarities in that they
both acknowledge suffering as a natural part of existence and they both understand that
lack of fulfillment and the desire for fulfillment is what leads to suffering. However, while
Buddhism attempts to overcome suffering by negating the desire for fulfillment, Nietzsche
argues that suffering can be overcome by striving and living to the fullest, by creating,
rather than by destroying the will, by choosing life over the destruction of life.
Furthermore, Nietzsche thinks that even the Buddhist, apart from the very rare exception of
the life-negating Buddhist, is not successful in overcoming the ego and the idea of self.
The Buddhist is not successful, because, the Buddhist still is guided by the will to power in
that ultimately, the Buddhist seeks power over life itself.
Stephens
-9-
Works Cited
Kaufmann, Walter. Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. Princeton,
New Jersey. Princeton University Press. 1974.
Lewis, Jone Johnson. Wisdom Quotes. http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_suffering.html
“Man Who Lost Family When Jet Hit House: I Don’t Blame Pilot.” CNN.com.
10 Dec. 2008. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/09/military.jet.crash/index.html?
iref=newssearch
Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Antichrist. Trans. H.L. Mencken. New York.
Alfred A. Knopf. 1918.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19322/19322-h/19322-h.htm
Beyond Good and Evil. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York.
The Modern Library. 1992.
Untimely Meditations. Trans. R.J. Hollingdale. Cambridge University
Press. 1997.
Novak, Philip. The World’s Wisdom. HarperSanFrancisco. 1995.
Smith, Huston. The World’s Religions. HarperSanFrancisco. 1961.
Stephens
- 10 -