Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:55:49 -0600
From: "Daniel J. Dzenkowski" <djdzenko-AT-students.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: FW 347


At 03:02 PM 2/17/00 -0800, you wrote:
>It strikes me that Nietzsche is hopelessly incorrect about the birth of
>Buddhism.  In fact he seems to be giving away a profound ignorance of its
>roots if what you say is correct. 

Perhaps you are reading too much into what I wrote.  Nietzsche was a great
admirer of Schoppenhauer whom understood Buddhism quite well and introduced
it to western philosophy in conjunction with Kant.

  Buddhism, at least Theravada Buddhism, is a solitary
>challenging path of reducing desire not of abandoning will power.  

But what is will power?  Nietzsche thinks that desire is a large part of
the will to power.  The desire to expand and increase the potential of your
life in the real world is the greatest desire and is the will to power.  In
Zarathustra Nietzsche says that everything is will to power.  In addition,
Nietzsche dislikes Buddhism because it attempts to escape the pain of
desire through abandonment of the real world.  Pain is a necessary part of
the world and a method by which one can gain power in life through the
eternal recurrence.  A Buddhist would stop instantly with the eternal
recurrence, because of pain.  I am sure that it is challenging to try and
reduce the pain in your life, but this may be the best part of life and the
Buddhist refuses himself access to it.

 It also seems to me that
>Nietzsche to some extent lived a life similar to that of a Buddhists in that
>he did not appear to pursue comfort.  

This does not mean that he did not avoid suffering.  He has many things to
say about why the Stoics and Epicureans have a sickness of the will.

I think if he would have had better
>information he would have felt differently about Buddhists,  Theravadists at
>least and probably Zen Buddhists as well.

Check out Schoppenhauer's World as Will and you will see that he did.

Cordially,
Dan






	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---