Nirvana as Asphyxiation
E. M. Cioran, Drawn and Quartered, tr. R. Howard (New York: Seaver Books, 1983), p. 118:
In the Benares sermon, Buddha cites, among the causes of pain, the thirst to become and the thirst not to become. The first thirst we understand, but why the second? To long for nonbecoming -- is that not to be released? What is meant here is not the goal but the way as such, the pursuit and the attachment to the pursuit. -- Unfortunately, on the way to deliverance only the way is interesting. Deliverance? One does not attain it, one is engulfed in it, smothered in it. Nirvana itself -- an asphyxia! Though the gentlest of all.
(show)
Related Posts (on one page):
- Cioran a Nazi? So What! Sartre Was a Commie
- Nirvana as Asphyxiation
Posted by William F. Vallicella on
Wednesday February 15, 2006 at 11:34am
Not to be difficult or obtuse, but mightn't it be that the problem is that there are aspects of enlightenment that we simply can't elaborate in this way? The problem might resemble trying to explain the beauty of higher mathematics to a toddler. Why imagine that the experience of enlightenment is something that we can represent, in words, to one who hasn't glimpsed it? Can you describe the flavor of guacamole in a way that substitutes for the experience itself? The pleasure of sex?
The initial steps on the path have to come from a sense of dissatisfaction with things as they are, and an awareness of some ineffably "developed" quality in one's teacher, not from reading a verbal spec-sheet of an awakened mind. It's the old problem of the "finger pointing at the moon".
Long after you have successfully forgotten every creature and its works, you will find that a naked knowing and feeling of your own being still remains between you and your God. And believe me, you will not be perfect in love until this, too, is destroyed.
...
Every man has plenty of cause for sorrow but he alone understands the deep universal reason for sorrow who experiences that he is.
...
For as often as he would have a true knowing and a feeling of God in purity of spirit and then feels that he cannot -- for he constantly finds his knowing and feeling as it were occupied and filled with a foul, stinking lump of himself, which must always be hated and despised and forsaken, if he shall be God's perfect disciple, taught by Him alone on the mount of perfection...
If we understand the annihilation of individuality as the annihilation of the sense of separateness, then maybe this annihilation isn't so destructive after all -- maybe all that's lost is an illusion, a misunderstanding.
Very astute comment, Bob. When Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt she became salt, and it it is at least narrowly logically possible that she tasted her new condition.
Seriously, though, what I take you to be suggesting is that becoming one with the Atman is logically compatible with experiencing one's Oneness with Atman. For if what I truly am is Atman -- if that is my true individuality --then Atman experiences itself as Atman while being Atman.
Still, there is a problem. Who is the I that becomes one with Atman? The Atman doesn't need to become one with Atman, and anything distinct from Atman is illusory and so cannot become one with Atman for this reason.
I took Advaita Vedanta very seriously back in the '80s, but now I'm an onto-theological personalist closer to Ramanuja . . .
Henry,
Thanks for the Cloud of Unknowing extracts.
Malcolm,
You know, we are really not that far apart. Your explaining higher math to a child example is exactly what I would use for my own purposes in trying to explain how a divine consciousness is (perhaps just barely) conceivable.
And I am sure we will agree that a balanced life cannot be all thinking or all reading or all blogging or all martial arts or all moneymaking, etc.
But here's the point: everything must submit to philosophical critique, and that includes religion and meditative practices. I don't have the time to explain this properly now. And of course I agree that to do meditation one has to shut off, or try to shut off, the discursive mind.
Certainly everything is susceptible to philosophical critique, just as everything must submit to a child's curious glance, and just as a Cat may look at a King. By all means, let us philosophize, just as we are doing here. And let nothing be exempt.
But my point (actually I just took it up in a post over at my place) is that there may well be occasions when a philosophical critique is unable to determine (and asymptomatically so) the extent to which it necessarily fails to exhaust some area of inquiry.
I just finished the Cloud of Unkowing. I found it interesting and the style charming but lacking depth and practical wisdom. I suspect the author was fairly young when he wote it. It has that 'feel'. I found Ascent of Mt. Carmel much more insightful as a guide to the practice and meaning of the Christian contemplative life. You've probably already read it but if not I recommend it.
"Every man has plenty of cause for sorrow but he alone understands the deep universal reason for sorrow who experiences that he is."
This quote is a good illustration the confusion that can develop when east meets west. I think both Buddhists and Christians would agree with it but for different reasons. For the Christian the emphasis would be on 'experiences'. The Christian problem is that we are self-aware. The knowledge of God's love and glory once we start to experience it, makes us realize how unworthy the self is of the attention we pay to it. We weep because this experience, of self prevents us from giving God the worship, love, attention, etc. His being intrinsically demands.
For the Buddhist the emphasis would be on 'that he is'.
In both cases there is a realization that all is not as it should be, and that the self is the problem. If we fail to probe father than we will make the mistake that the two philosophies are saying the same thing.
I think you are right-on in relation to finding enlightment, experiencing salvation. Bill's point though was elaborating a conception of salvation. This cannot be done without philosophy. I guess the question then becomes, What then is the relation between our conception and the actuality?
I don't have an answer to this. Your post brought it to mind. Some random thoughts though -
To what extent do we need to understand the truth of salvation before we can experience it? You say we need the intellect for our initial growth and I would agree. Even if only a stepping stone, it is one we cannot do without any more than we can become an adult without first being a child.
It seems to me that certain philosophies are as you say operating on the surface of a sphere. A true conception of salvation, even if not able to go beyond itself must at least point beyond itself. This itself eliminates many modern philosophies. I would also add that it should enable us to move beyond itself.
Celinda, your comment makes a lot of sense, but a similar problem exists there: without reaching the end of probing further, how do you know that the two philosophies aren't pointing to the same thing?
You can't rely on what the words say, because even teachers within the same tradition, for example a teacher and his student, use different language. The author of the Cloud of Unknowing used different language from that book to his other book, The Book of Privy Counsel.
As the teachers say, better to become enlightened first, and then say what is true and what is false. You can always decide then that your enlightenment was false. But short of that, you don't have much to go on.
The "Mind" is an aggregate of parts: Volitons, Sensations, Cognitions, etc. The self-schema is a set of affective and cognitice components we have within ourselves that guide a great deal of our behavior. It is one schema among many; though a powerful one. It is a little self inside the sphere of "mind'. We cling to all kinds of volitions. All kinds of motives dominate our minds and run the whole as if it was a singularity, a perfect self consistent monad of sorts. Our self-schema might become dominated by a suicidal wish for instance or a craving for extinction.At this point, suffering occurs within the mind. But when liberated the self-schema is fluid, desires come and go and it moves along as a pluralistic orgy of parts. The values held onto are affirmative and happiness engendering (compassion, acceptance, creativity).
The self made aware through reflection is an abstraction. It is interesting to note because it has powerful and intoxicating effects on the rest of the mind. But the self made aware through reflection is not the whole of the mind but a shadow really. This is evidenced by many studies in objective self-awareness in social psych. Our minds are quite opaque.
Just some thoughts. Help me to expand them or contract them where necessary
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.