Is Buddhism nihilistic?

The case in point is that Buddhism says that life is suffering, and that we should cease to desire anything in life, including life itself, through the noble eightfold path. Also, Arthur Schopenhauer, a well known pessimist and metaphysical nihilist, incorporated many of the teachings of Buddhism into his pessimistic philosophy.

Your thoughts?

This isn't entirely accurate nor is it the correct view of a Buddhist. You see a Buddhist is only trying to minimize the amount of suffering that either is caused by oneself or causing others. The Buddha points out what the cause is, so now the Buddhist has the tool in which to use. In no way is the Buddha saying here is the knife, cut off all the fat and get rid of it all because it all is evil and bad. That is an extremist view of what the Buddha taught. All desire is not equal, all desire does not always end with the amount of suffering that you are prescribing should be abandoned. Such as the desire for enlightenment, or the desire to help world peace come about. Sure even those can be viewed as problematic, but they are far less problematic then other desires.

A person who has a strong desire for life, will ultimately feel very mournful or fearful of losing their life. It is the strong desire for life that might effect how they live their life and the fear creates reoccurring suffering. If you can reduce the strength of the over all desire for your life then in turn the fear will also diminish. This is what the Buddha is trying to point out. The thing he is NOT saying is, give up your desire for living, become a person who loathes living, become anti life, become pessimistic towards life, become bitter towards your life. People take this extreme and come to the conclusion that this is what he wanted you to do. But that is not right, or correct view, yet I see this as the argument all the time.

There is a very fine line between becoming nihilistic and pessimistic with Buddhist thought. If you are the type of person who takes extremes you will fall into this problem often when studying Buddhism. The only way you can pull yourself out is to go back to the middle way, and realize that to be completely desireless is like starving the body of food. Your body needs food but by starving it, it will break. So a little desire is necessary to life itself.

Life is not only suffering; life is also joy.

See that is just the thing, dukkha does not equal suffering. It is a rough translation of dukkha and often taken solely as suffering. The Buddha in no way says life is suffering peroid. Dukkha means unfavorable or inconsistent. What does that mean? Well it means that even if you do something nice it doesn't always result in nice things? We like to believe that it always does but clearly and honestly it doesn't always turn out that way. Be realistic the Buddha says. You can be wildly optimistic towards life but at what point are you kidding yourself? If you are living a life of delusional happiness are you really happy or just fooling yourself? I can see some already wondering if fooling yourself into happiness as being in any way bad. That's my point.

The thing about life being joy, the Buddha never said it can't be. If you believe he missed this or ignored it or dismissed it, then you haven't studied it at all and I would go as far as to conclude that you are taking a second hand account of Buddhist knowledge. What the Buddha DOES mention is that we often times attach ourselves to the joy of life, expecting it to last for ever, or wishing for that joy to always be present but when it fails to, we can't figure out why. He says it is obvious why joy can't last for ever, because it is subject to change, joy is impermenant and thus gives way to lack of joy at times. This isn't being negative or pesimistic in any way, it is being realistic. This is the problems of the emotions. You feel one but ultimately at some point will experience their opposite. You can't have one without the other. People want to ignore this fact and that is why we have problems that we can't figure out.

Friedrich Nietzsche argued that Buddhism, though the least misguided of religions, was nihilistic. He also claimed that Christianity was nihilistic, but unlike Christianity, Buddhism does not create a fictional world to cope with pessimism. Instead, Buddhism teaches people how to accept pessimism without the delusional belief in a supernatural world beyond this one.

The case in point is that Buddhism says that life is suffering, and that we should cease to desire anything in life, including life itself, through the noble eightfold path. Also, Arthur Schopenhauer, a well known pessimist and metaphysical nihilist, incorporated many of the teachings of Buddhism into his pessimistic philosophy.

Your thoughts?

out of context that part of the Buddha's message that he could twist into his own nihilism. It is ridiculous, to the extreme, to call the Buddha nihilistic. To say that is like claiming that because a surgeon cuts open a patient, he believes in stabbing people. The surgeon's cut is only part of the story.

Similarly, what the Buddha taught was that chasing after happiness and fulfillment in a situation that is doomed to death (i.e., biological life), and is subject to relentless change, is to make your happiness dependent on that which is unstable and transitory. All you are doing is setting yourself up for misery.

Now, if all the Buddha offered was a criticism of attachment to temporary life, then Nietzsche might have had a case. What Nietzsche didn't know about was the experience the Buddha offered those who wanted a way out of the futile path. Why didn't Nietzsche know about that? Because it cannot be grasped with the intellect (all Nietzsche seemed to attempt), but can only be known through an inner experience.

The Buddha said, "There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded."

So the Buddha didn't say our only destiny is suffering and death (which would be nihilistic), he said we have a choice, a way out for those who will work to develop the experience in themselves.

Not true at all, not in the least.

I don't really understand how that question relates to the rest of the post from which it was copied? Also if you want me to 'sell' it, I am not going to do that. I am not the least interested in 'evangalising' Buddhism.

and also, despite Neitzche's undoubted brilliance, he really was a tortured soul, and there are those who believe that his absolutely magnificent baroque imagination and the tremendous drama and flights of fancy that he pursued in his thinking was a proximate cause of his collapse into irretreivable insanity. We have had this dialog before, of course, and not everyone agrees with that opinion, but I would like to believe that the occupation of philosophy would at least deliver some measure of detachment and serenity in life. Otherwise, I don't see much use for it.

The only problem I have with Buddhism, if I can even call it a problem is that everything it teaches can be got through secular means. For some this is a no duh statement and others will be slightly insulted by it. What I mean to say is that, sure Buddhism has pointed out some wisdom but it is not wisdom that couldn't have been got unless you were Buddhist. Not a single thing in Buddhism is unique to itself, which is the beauty of it and also it's problem. Why is it a problem? Because it does not provide anything other than what you already have.

If I am feeling upset, well go meditate or reflect on the situation with a calm mind or become less reactionary to that situation.

If I am worried about finances, well go meditate or reflect on the situation with a calm mind or become less reactionary to the issue.

If I am afraid of contracting an illness, well go meditate or reflect on the situation with a calm mind, ect, ect, ect.

If I want to understand the nature of self, well go meditate or reflect on it with a calm mind or become less reactionary to the self.

Where has Buddhism provided the solution that can not be got without it?

The meditation the Buddha taught has nothing to do with "reflection."

Yeah either do I. I guess you are ignoring the "or" between meditate and reflect.

If I don't know what I am talking about, then by all means, educate me then? What is it you are trying to say?

From practicing daily for many years, I acquired new consciousness skills I can't imagine learning without practicing.