Nietzsche and Buddha continued II

Even just reading the intro to this book there's already so much richness.

Let us examine the following paragraph:
"It does seem to be true, for example, that most people, when they find something has gone wrong, do look for someone to blame quite as soon as they look for a way of putting it right. Equally, people who lack the advantages that others have form intense resentments against the 'privileged', claiming that they (the non-privileged) are being denied their 'rights'. Such movements of the soul are, it would seem, 'natural'; Nietzsche is not in the least disposed to deny that. What he loathes is the way in which such attitudes of vengefulness and ressentiment are used as the linchpins of moral systems."

The main idea contained in these words may be well known to us but the fact remains that Nietzsche was one of the first to put it out there and, by doing this, to go against what was deemed established in his day. It's this kind of philosophical sabotage (of the best kind because it reveals deeper layers of awareness) that bought Nietzsche his ticket into oblivion.

Many things crossed my mind while I was reading the two or three pages surrounding this affirmation.
One of the things is this feeling of fearlessness that Nietzsche exudes so intensely from his work. But I do not think that Nietzsche was fearless by nature. He was much too careful, much to adamant to prove his point time and time again. He was much too insistent of facing the terrible for this thing to have been easy for him. I think he was in fact the opposite. I think he believed himself to have a lot of weakness inside of him and this is another of the reasons why he felt he had to struggle so much against the world, which is another way of saying, against himself.

Even though he has died more than one hundred years ago, Nietzsche is still incredibly contemporary. And the reason for this is that he touched something very deep in our humanity. And he was able to communicate this with words for all of those willing to listen.
Also, things seem not to have changed that much in the intervening one hundred years. Perhaps because these things are difficult to change. Which should mean we should be even more aware of them. Which in turn makes Nietzsche even more relevant.

I love this idea that a reactive social system is not good enough.
It sure seems to be the case still today. Things are ignored until they go wrong. And it ranges from the leaving a dirty tea cup in the sink (until someone complains about it) to not bothering to check a bridge's structure (until it collapses).
Clearly Nietzsche did not approve of this type of behaviour. He would probably call it moral irresponsibility or something like it.
I think in this way he is quite close to Buddhism and the noble eightfold path.
For in Buddhism the noble eightfold path (a title that may seem pompous to some but that, in my opinion, is far, very far from such misconceptions) does not come as a moral reaction to what we see around us. That plays a part, sure enough, but the realisation of the path (ie, we only achieve its deepest, most subtle and most perfect reality) only occurs when we are able to transcend the reactive, survivalist instinct in us. Perhaps more plainly, the noble eightfold path only becomes completely true in connection with the experience of enlightenment.

In fact, the lord Buddha, gave this noble path to us only after he had reached his full enlightenment. Which means that he was no longer bound by all these innate survival reaction games we play.

The difference between the Buddha (one of the many) and Nietzsche is that whilst one was completely released from these human games, the other was still incredibly bound by them and, even with all his clarity, understanding and insight, he could not help but continue to play the "opposition" game.

The image that came to me was that of two men pushing one another. As they battle continues their points of contact with the soil become strengthened. As if pillars grew around their legs, allowing them to push even harder against one another, more and more solidified in their place. This gives them an incredible sense of security. This gives them a feeling of power. This gives them a sense of direction, of righteousness.
But it also traps them.
Even if they've forgotten all about where they stand for such is the focus on the ensuing battle (and they cannot afford to lose a moment of concentration, in fear the other might win).
With the enlightened being the game is a completely different one.
There are no roots to the ground. There is no support apart from freedom itself.
The enlightened being does not have the binding strength of delusion. He or she will see the game for what it is and every effort put into it will be in full knowledge of the conditions. There is no righteous anger to use. There is no drama. There is simply a situation and a personal set of tools that may or may not be suitable for the task at hand.

In any case this was what the Buddha proposed to do and did. To establish a set of guidelines to help humanity reach its fullest potential. Even though one could see this as a set of dogmas (religious, philosophical, psychological, etc), in fact these come into being through the transcendence of dogma itself. More, these are offered to us, never imposed. In this way the Buddha also avoided the dangers of a dominant set of values. Perhaps because he had realised so well that, despite our fundamental common nature, there would always be conceptual divergence among humans.
The problem with Nietzsche is simply that he never did arrive at such a full realisation of our shared being. He certainly came to know it conceptually but he never did reach those same conclusions in a non-conceptual, non-dualistic way. That is the crux. That's where the real transformation occurs. That's where, to use the wise words of a noble buddhist master, "one tastes the chocolate".
Obviously, because Nietzsche never experienced this awakening, he could easily dismiss it. Funnily enough, in doing this, he was having precisely the same attitude that he criticized in his detractors...
But, in this, he is not alone. It's always easier to dismiss (or to fear) what we do not know. Especially, when these things don't seem as easy to obtain as words on paper, or catching a train or watch a film or whatever.
I think most of us, in the west at least (where such concepts of "awakening" are still somewhat alien - and alienating), are somewhat dismissive of these states of being still. Especially because they're so hard to understand and seem to contradict themselves so much.
But, the fact that we still see contradiction where in fact what exists is unity, simply reinstates our ignorance.
And this is something that we should all do well in understand.

Peace