6 ms·

Camus saw the problem (or got close to it) but kept it. He noticed the craving for meaning, noticed the world won't answer it, and then chose to hold on to the

by Viability1936 2mo ago

Camus saw the problem (or got close to it) but kept it. He noticed the craving for meaning, noticed the world won't answer it, and then chose to hold on to the craving anyway and call that defiance freedom. That's just suffering with extra steps and rationalizing it. The buddha didn't offer a "justification for existence." He pointed out that the demand for one is the problem (part of it anyway). You crave meaning, the craving hurts, so abandon the craving (not just for meaning and not by an act of will). Camus couldn't conceive of that, so he made a virtue out of carrying the boulder

halperter 2mo ago
At least for me, the idea of giving up the craving for _everything_ seems to be rather...undesireable. I'd argue that a futile existence, with full knowledge that it is futile but living anyways, is much more "life-affirming" than giving up all desire. I want to feel, to touch, to yearn. Even if those don't mean anything, I think it's much better to do rather than to not do. And I think that humans, more than anything, want to feel alive. That's why we can never abandon that craving, why we must live with it and surpass it rather than retreating from it.
- throwaway17_17 2mo ago
  I wrote the following and then realized it sounds a little pretentious, but I think it get my point across regardless. Also, I’m not a scholar of Buddhism or a practicing Buddhist, so I could be grossly generalizing or misunderstanding what I have read, but I believe I’m not to far off base. I think the Buddhist reply would be that living without craving and without yearning leads to truly being ‘alive’ and enables one to feel, to touch, and to experience the world as it is and in the immeasurably short time a person is alive within it. An existence where the present is experienced and cherished in the moment of having it, while knowing and accepting the inevitability of this moments ending. Such a life, in the Buddhist tradition, embodies the knowing and accepting of the ultimate emptiness of reality and then proceed to live, not in spite of the emptiness, but in the full appreciation of the act of living.
  - halperter 2mo ago
    Huh, haven't looked at it that way. I'm just not sure about the leap from a lack of craving allows us to truly experience the world. As a general rule, I think humans want more. We usually aren't satisfied with "okay enough" and is what led us to do basically everything we have done. Nobody does something if they don't have a motivation to do it. I think that desire is so fundamental to life that to lead life without desire is empty, but I can definitely see how chasing your desires can blind yourself to everything else.
    - estearum 2mo ago
      You can probably fairly trivially prove their claim to yourself with 1-2 months of 10-20min daily of meditation. There's a reason it's often referred to as "waking up." The essential claim is a bit broader than what it seems like you're picking up. It's not craving = blinding. Or rather that's the most extreme end of the spectrum. It's that we are effectively going through life in a dreamlike state. We are so preoccupied with the contents of our mind that we effectively "shut out" nearly everything about the actual world. Actually clearing your mind feels quite nearly identical to the sensation of waking up from sleep into the waking world. A bit of practice meditating, I think you will come to prove them correct. It really is incredible how constantly-full a person's mind is, and the degree to which that distracts them from what's really going on. Note that what Buddhists call suffering or craving is a far, far more expansive set of things than what you would intuitively describe as such. So I think they can mislead into this craving = blindness extremity. It's slightly too broad, but probably closer to say "thinking [preoccupation with the contents of your mind] = distraction [from the real experience of being your mind]"
      - tough 2mo ago
        Thanks for your explanations, It some times feels everyone's reality is mostly their POV from what's going on on their brain. Two person on the same exact physical circumstances can experience the same events in highly different meanings and the "World" remains the same shared constant, but how you "Percieve" such events in the world ain't. or something like that.
- jungturk 2mo ago
  If you substitute "clinging" for "craving" (Burbea's Seeing that Frees expounds on this very clearly) then I think we get a better English interpretation of the material. If the mind's full of clinging (either in demanding what isn't present or refusing to release what was present but which is now leaving the present) then that mind doesn't have any room left to experience aliveness. So (to me) the material doesn't suggest asceticism or abandoning the human sensual potential, it reminds that clinging will sneak in and take over the mental cycles, undermining your ability to live to that potential.
  - Viability1936 2mo ago
    I mean no offense if this the practice you've settled on and it works for your goals in life, but that is absolutely not what the buddha taught. It took me a long time to learn that what burbea was teaching is not 'buddhist' in any sense of the word. 'Meditating' to have pleasant or mind blowing experiences has nothing to do with developing the inability to suffer. Clinging doesn't sneak in and take over the mental cycles, "you" (me and anyone) ARE craving/clinging. Being is fueled by craving. Without it, there is no 'you'. The buddha taught the practice to reliably abandon craving and devlop the right view of existence. It has nothing to do with living up to you potential or anything like that. I've listened to all of burbea's talks and read most of the TSTF, so i know where you're coming from. If it works for what you want, that's great. I would just encourage you look deeper if you think its what the buddha taught. Or really even related to what the buddha taught. It's pretty much the opposite direction
    - EGreg 2mo ago
      Yeah, there are all kinds of spinoffs. How closely does Alan Watts actually teach Buddishm?
      - Viability1936 2mo ago
        He doesn't, really at all. Even in his labeled buddhist lectures. Its more a new age blend of advaita vedanta/hinduisim/zen (kind of), but really kind of just his own creation. I'm the least familiar with actual advaita, but I'd imagine he's doing the same thing there that he's doing with buddhism. I'm very grateful to Alan Watts, because he was sort of an entry point for me, but ultimately he was what he said he was - a spiritual entertainer. Imo it was basically the most interesting form of self help. Not necessarily bad, but certainly not accurate on any of the topics he claimed to be speaking about
throwaway17_17 2mo ago
The way you phrased your second block, particularly your last sentence is exceptional. I’m not sure if I agree with the substance (I’m pretty sure I’m about 90% there), but the phrasing is very emphatic. A lot of discussions I’ve seen, and taken part in, when focusing on Camus and his cadre of fellows lead to a comparison between Buddhist thought and existentialist thought. I tend to side closer to the Buddhist outlook and acceptance of the ground truth of sunyata (often translated ‘emptiness’) versus the more modern tendency toward western Nihilism as a response to the Absurd. The depths of response in people and their dealings with these thoughts and feelings interest me, but I also like to watch people choosing between descriptions of Absurdity to try and make it a completely different concept to the Buddhist ideas. I’m not sure I agree that ‘Camus couldn’t conceive of’ the Buddhist response to the inherent tension arising from craving ultimate meaning where none is possible; however, he and the other existentialists certainly went to great written lengths to seemingly avoid finding the Buddha’s answer.
- Viability1936 2mo ago
  I think there's a lot of comparison between existensialism and buddhism because a few of them seemed to respect the buddh, but also as far as philosophy goes, they were the closest to understanding the problem (similar to how the buddha did) - but the point im trying to make is that that is as far as any of them went. That isn't to say it was intentional or to fault them for it, its only natural. What the buddha figured out goes in the opposite direction of how existence is structured. It's essentially impossible to stumble upon, and definitely impossible to figure out purely through thinking. If ones behavior doesn't change, it remains intellectual. In order to abandon craving, you have to not act on it. Otherwise there's no space between 'you' and 'it' so you could never see it for what it is. That's moreso what i meant by "Camus couldn’t conceive of" - especially in this day and age, you can only get so far without someone else pointing it out. Who would possibly randomly think to just not act on any intention of body, speech, or mind that was rooted in craving? Its in our nature to not do that, so its normal that no one else has gotten there through philosophizing. Shoppenhaur had his whole denial of will thing but he just moved the goalposts and settled on more refined sensuality. I would even be careful about settling that the buddhist outlook is about acceptance of the ground truth of suyata. Most of that idea comes from later traditions. It definitely is mentioned in the pali canon, but not as some universal ground truth - that often leads to a different dressing around the nihilism you mentioned. The buddha said all determined things are subject to change. All determined things are unsatisfactory. All phenomena are not-self. It's not like there is a nature of reality that is empty or something like that. (replying to part of another comment you posted): its not about accepting ultimate reality or accepting anything really - quite the opposite. The buddha over and over again told people not to be content with 'progress' they had make. The goal is the inability to suffer amidst things that cause sufferring. Not to learn how to accept them, or quickly deal with them as they come up, as is commonly taught - its to make it so its impossible to suffer no matter what. That can only be done through seeing the structure of your existence. Then you can't take its determined nature for granted anymore (ie take it personally)
whoisrosh 1mo ago
It was very funny to me to learn Nietzsche's critique of 'Nobel Eight fold path to nirvana' as "passive nihilism", and he unironically goes on to prescribe 'will to power'. All western philosophy suffer this need to meaning, individuality and existence. Even those who accept meaningless universe want you to out and make your own little version of it, whatever it maybe, this want/need becomes the root of suffering. IMO Buddhism is the first and final existential philosophy anyone needs to understand.

halperter 2mo ago

At least for me, the idea of giving up the craving for _everything_ seems to be rather...undesireable. I'd argue that a futile existence, with full knowledge that it is futile but living anyways, is much more "life-affirming" than giving up all desire. I want to feel, to touch, to yearn. Even if those don't mean anything, I think it's much better to do rather than to not do. And I think that humans, more than anything, want to feel alive. That's why we can never abandon that craving, why we must live with it and surpass it rather than retreating from it.

throwaway17_17 2mo ago
I wrote the following and then realized it sounds a little pretentious, but I think it get my point across regardless. Also, I’m not a scholar of Buddhism or a practicing Buddhist, so I could be grossly generalizing or misunderstanding what I have read, but I believe I’m not to far off base. I think the Buddhist reply would be that living without craving and without yearning leads to truly being ‘alive’ and enables one to feel, to touch, and to experience the world as it is and in the immeasurably short time a person is alive within it. An existence where the present is experienced and cherished in the moment of having it, while knowing and accepting the inevitability of this moments ending. Such a life, in the Buddhist tradition, embodies the knowing and accepting of the ultimate emptiness of reality and then proceed to live, not in spite of the emptiness, but in the full appreciation of the act of living.
- halperter 2mo ago
  Huh, haven't looked at it that way. I'm just not sure about the leap from a lack of craving allows us to truly experience the world. As a general rule, I think humans want more. We usually aren't satisfied with "okay enough" and is what led us to do basically everything we have done. Nobody does something if they don't have a motivation to do it. I think that desire is so fundamental to life that to lead life without desire is empty, but I can definitely see how chasing your desires can blind yourself to everything else.
  - estearum 2mo ago
    You can probably fairly trivially prove their claim to yourself with 1-2 months of 10-20min daily of meditation. There's a reason it's often referred to as "waking up." The essential claim is a bit broader than what it seems like you're picking up. It's not craving = blinding. Or rather that's the most extreme end of the spectrum. It's that we are effectively going through life in a dreamlike state. We are so preoccupied with the contents of our mind that we effectively "shut out" nearly everything about the actual world. Actually clearing your mind feels quite nearly identical to the sensation of waking up from sleep into the waking world. A bit of practice meditating, I think you will come to prove them correct. It really is incredible how constantly-full a person's mind is, and the degree to which that distracts them from what's really going on. Note that what Buddhists call suffering or craving is a far, far more expansive set of things than what you would intuitively describe as such. So I think they can mislead into this craving = blindness extremity. It's slightly too broad, but probably closer to say "thinking [preoccupation with the contents of your mind] = distraction [from the real experience of being your mind]"
    - tough 2mo ago
      Thanks for your explanations, It some times feels everyone's reality is mostly their POV from what's going on on their brain. Two person on the same exact physical circumstances can experience the same events in highly different meanings and the "World" remains the same shared constant, but how you "Percieve" such events in the world ain't. or something like that.
jungturk 2mo ago
If you substitute "clinging" for "craving" (Burbea's Seeing that Frees expounds on this very clearly) then I think we get a better English interpretation of the material. If the mind's full of clinging (either in demanding what isn't present or refusing to release what was present but which is now leaving the present) then that mind doesn't have any room left to experience aliveness. So (to me) the material doesn't suggest asceticism or abandoning the human sensual potential, it reminds that clinging will sneak in and take over the mental cycles, undermining your ability to live to that potential.
- Viability1936 2mo ago
  I mean no offense if this the practice you've settled on and it works for your goals in life, but that is absolutely not what the buddha taught. It took me a long time to learn that what burbea was teaching is not 'buddhist' in any sense of the word. 'Meditating' to have pleasant or mind blowing experiences has nothing to do with developing the inability to suffer. Clinging doesn't sneak in and take over the mental cycles, "you" (me and anyone) ARE craving/clinging. Being is fueled by craving. Without it, there is no 'you'. The buddha taught the practice to reliably abandon craving and devlop the right view of existence. It has nothing to do with living up to you potential or anything like that. I've listened to all of burbea's talks and read most of the TSTF, so i know where you're coming from. If it works for what you want, that's great. I would just encourage you look deeper if you think its what the buddha taught. Or really even related to what the buddha taught. It's pretty much the opposite direction
  - EGreg 2mo ago
    Yeah, there are all kinds of spinoffs. How closely does Alan Watts actually teach Buddishm?
    - Viability1936 2mo ago
      He doesn't, really at all. Even in his labeled buddhist lectures. Its more a new age blend of advaita vedanta/hinduisim/zen (kind of), but really kind of just his own creation. I'm the least familiar with actual advaita, but I'd imagine he's doing the same thing there that he's doing with buddhism. I'm very grateful to Alan Watts, because he was sort of an entry point for me, but ultimately he was what he said he was - a spiritual entertainer. Imo it was basically the most interesting form of self help. Not necessarily bad, but certainly not accurate on any of the topics he claimed to be speaking about

throwaway17_17 2mo ago

The way you phrased your second block, particularly your last sentence is exceptional. I’m not sure if I agree with the substance (I’m pretty sure I’m about 90% there), but the phrasing is very emphatic. A lot of discussions I’ve seen, and taken part in, when focusing on Camus and his cadre of fellows lead to a comparison between Buddhist thought and existentialist thought. I tend to side closer to the Buddhist outlook and acceptance of the ground truth of sunyata (often translated ‘emptiness’) versus the more modern tendency toward western Nihilism as a response to the Absurd. The depths of response in people and their dealings with these thoughts and feelings interest me, but I also like to watch people choosing between descriptions of Absurdity to try and make it a completely different concept to the Buddhist ideas. I’m not sure I agree that ‘Camus couldn’t conceive of’ the Buddhist response to the inherent tension arising from craving ultimate meaning where none is possible; however, he and the other existentialists certainly went to great written lengths to seemingly avoid finding the Buddha’s answer.

Viability1936 2mo ago
I think there's a lot of comparison between existensialism and buddhism because a few of them seemed to respect the buddh, but also as far as philosophy goes, they were the closest to understanding the problem (similar to how the buddha did) - but the point im trying to make is that that is as far as any of them went. That isn't to say it was intentional or to fault them for it, its only natural. What the buddha figured out goes in the opposite direction of how existence is structured. It's essentially impossible to stumble upon, and definitely impossible to figure out purely through thinking. If ones behavior doesn't change, it remains intellectual. In order to abandon craving, you have to not act on it. Otherwise there's no space between 'you' and 'it' so you could never see it for what it is. That's moreso what i meant by "Camus couldn’t conceive of" - especially in this day and age, you can only get so far without someone else pointing it out. Who would possibly randomly think to just not act on any intention of body, speech, or mind that was rooted in craving? Its in our nature to not do that, so its normal that no one else has gotten there through philosophizing. Shoppenhaur had his whole denial of will thing but he just moved the goalposts and settled on more refined sensuality. I would even be careful about settling that the buddhist outlook is about acceptance of the ground truth of suyata. Most of that idea comes from later traditions. It definitely is mentioned in the pali canon, but not as some universal ground truth - that often leads to a different dressing around the nihilism you mentioned. The buddha said all determined things are subject to change. All determined things are unsatisfactory. All phenomena are not-self. It's not like there is a nature of reality that is empty or something like that. (replying to part of another comment you posted): its not about accepting ultimate reality or accepting anything really - quite the opposite. The buddha over and over again told people not to be content with 'progress' they had make. The goal is the inability to suffer amidst things that cause sufferring. Not to learn how to accept them, or quickly deal with them as they come up, as is commonly taught - its to make it so its impossible to suffer no matter what. That can only be done through seeing the structure of your existence. Then you can't take its determined nature for granted anymore (ie take it personally)

whoisrosh 1mo ago

It was very funny to me to learn Nietzsche's critique of 'Nobel Eight fold path to nirvana' as "passive nihilism", and he unironically goes on to prescribe 'will to power'. All western philosophy suffer this need to meaning, individuality and existence. Even those who accept meaningless universe want you to out and make your own little version of it, whatever it maybe, this want/need becomes the root of suffering. IMO Buddhism is the first and final existential philosophy anyone needs to understand.