Nihilistic Buddhism: just negate everything?

Dhr. Seven, Ashley Wells (ed.), Wisdom Quarterly Wikipedia edit Nihilism in Buddhism

The Nihilist by Paul Merwfart (wiki)

The concept of nihilism was discussed by the Buddha (563-483 BCE), as recorded in the Theravada and Mahayana Threefold Texts (Tri-Piṭaka) [35].

The collection, originally written in the Buddha's language Pali, refers to  the teaching of nihilism as natthikavāda and the nihilist view as a "wrong view" (micchādiṭṭhi) [36].

Various Buddhist sutras describe views held by different groups or schools of wandering ascetics in the Buddha's time, some of which were deemed by him to be morally nihilistic.

The philosophers holding to a "Doctrine of Nihilism" in the Apannaka Sutra are described by the Buddha as "moral nihilists" [37], holding the following wrong views:

• Giving (generosity, letting go) produces no results;
• Good and bad actions (karma) produce no fruit;
• After death, beings are not reborn again into this or any other world;
• There is no one in the world who, by direct knowledge, can confirm that beings are reborn in this or some other world after death.

The Buddha further states that those who hold these pernicious wrong views will fail to see the virtue in skillful (good, wholesome, beneficial) karma -- mental, verbal, bodily conduct -- and the corresponding dangers in misconduct. They will, therefore, tend towards misconduct [37].

Nirvana, nihilism, nothingness?

The culmination of the path that the Buddha taught was nirvana, "a place of no-thingness…non-possession and…non-attachment…[which is] the total end of death and decay" [38].

Ajahn Amaro, an ordained Western (British-American) Buddhist monk of more than 40 years, observes that in English nothingness (shunyata) can sound like nihilism.

However, the word can be emphasized in a different way to become no-thingness (sunnata) indicating that nirvana is not something to find, but rather the reality of not clinging to whatever is experienced [38].

The snake simile

What harm can a snake do, Adam? - Well, Eve...

In the "Snake Simile Discourse" (Alagaddupama Sutra), the Buddha describes how some individuals fear this Teaching (the Buddha Dharma) because of the mistaken belief that a "self" will be destroyed if this Teaching were followed.

The Buddha describes this as an anxiety caused by the wrong view (false belief) in an unchanging, essential, everlasting self (as Cartesians and Brahmins/Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Jains, and other religions take for granted as being unquestionably true).

ALL "things" [that depend on constituents for their existence] are subject to change, so ignorantly taking any impermanent phenomenon to be a "self"  leads to suffering. [Not only are all phenomena impermanent, they are also impersonal and unsatisfactory. These are the Three Marks or Characteristics of all phenomena.]

What about the Higher Self? It's still self.

Nonetheless, the Buddha's critics called him a "nihilist" who taught the annihilation and extermination of a real and existing self, soul, ego, personality, essence, or being. [Or they condescended as if the Buddha were too dumb to know there is self-evidently a self, as Rene Descartes logically concluded while blundering and assuming the "I."]

• Descartes, of course, if famous for deducing, "I think; therefore, I am" when, in strict adherence to the facts at had, all that could logically be concluded was that, "Thinking is happening; therefore, thinking is [happening]." We insert the thinker. It's embedded in our language and thinking -- the assumption that every verb must have an antecedent noun, that if something is being done, someone must be doing it. It's not actually true, and the mindboggling realization of this by direct experience leads to the first stage of enlightenment called stream-entry. This is the unique truth of Buddhism, that all things are impersonal (anatta). Things exist as heaps, amalgamations, illusions dependent on everchanging conditions. No-thing persists except as a stream of those conditions, which are not the "thing" itself. Thich Nhat Hanh puts it poetically in stating that all "flower" things are made of nonflower things. A "flower" seems to exist, but its whole existence depends on nonflower elements like mud, minerals, rain, and so on. A "flower," therefore, is an illusion (a dreamy appearance, a functional coming-together of constituents, elements, factors, limbs, parts, supporting conditions) dependently arisen on the coming together of nonflower things or ingredients. That doesn't much matter, according to the Buddha. What does matter is that the exact same thing can be said of us (I, me, you, they, we). All beings are "things" made nonbeing things -- called the Five Aggregates (form, feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness) clung to as "self." Conventionally, of course we exist, and we are not "things." But ultimately speaking, in the highest sense, there is no self. All phenomena -- all forms, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousnesses, yes, plural -- are impersonal. They are hurtling toward destruction (impermanent). And they are unsatisfactory (disappointing, never able to satisfy, never able to fulfill or quell craving that springs up again and again wherever there is the coming together of ignorance and pleasant things (Wisdom Quarterly).

The Buddha's response to being accused of being a nihilist was that he only teaches the end of suffering. When an individual lets go (is free of) craving and the conceit/pride (mana) of "I am," the heart/mind is liberated.

One no longer comes into any state of "being" [becoming, reappearance] and is no longer reborn again [39] and is freed of all suffering once and for all.

The "Fire Discourse to Vacchagotta" (Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutra) records a conversation between the Buddha and an individual named Vaccha that further elaborates on this:

In the sutra Vaccha asks the Buddha to confirm one of the following, with respect to the existence of a Buddha (or fully enlightened being) after death [40]:

1. After death a fully enlightened one reappears somewhere else?
2. After death a fully enlightened one does not reappear anywhere else?
3. After death a fully enlightened one both does and does not reappear?
4. After death a fully enlightened one neither does nor does not reappear?

To all four questions the Buddha answers that the terms "reappears somewhere else," "does not reappear," "both does and does not reappear," and "neither does nor does not reappear" do not apply.

When Vaccha expresses puzzlement (because of the absolute certainty of the logical assumption that it has to be one of these four propositions), the Buddha asks Vaccha a counter question to the effect of:

Where does fire go when it goes out?

If a fire were to go out right here and someone were to ask you whether the fire went

1. north
2. south
3. east
4. west

when it left here, how would you reply?

Vaccha replies that the question is nonsensical because none of the four propositions apply, for an extinguished fire can only be classified as  having gone "out" [40].

American monk Ven. Ṭhānissaro, a prolific but very misleading translator of Pali language Buddhist texts, elaborates on the classification problem with respect to the Buddha (or any fully enlightened, fully liberated being) and nirvana by stating that any "person who has attained the goal [nirvana] is thus indescribable because [s/he has] abandoned all things by which [he/she] could be described" [41].

The sutras themselves describe the liberated heart/mind as "untraceable" or as "consciousness without feature," making a big distinction between the mind of a liberated being who is alive and the mind of one who is no longer alive [39, 42], calling the first "with remainder" and the second "without remainder."

The first is still reaping the results of former karma; the latter is free of all that, as karmic-those seeds are now on sterile ground where they can never come to fruition and bear their results. One is completely free of all further becoming, of all suffering of any kind. There is no further illusion of "self" and that has been directly verified and realized. The Truth has set the person free; it was all like a dream.

Despite the Buddha's explanations to the contrary, Buddhist practitioners may still, at times, approach Buddhism in a nihilistic manner.

The case of Mr. Jackman

Jackman (Ven. Sumedho) with Ajahn Chah

Ajahn Amaro illustrates this by telling the story of another Western Buddhist monk, Ajahn Sumedho (Robert Karr Jackman), who in his early years took a nihilistic approach to nirvana.

One distinct feature of nirvana in Buddhism is that an individual attaining it is now free of all rebirth.

Ajahn Sumedho, during a conversation with his world-famous teacher Ajahn Chah (shown here), comments that he is "determined above all things to fully realize nirvana in this lifetime…deeply weary of the human condition and…[is] determined not to be born again."

To this Ajahn Chah replies: "What about the rest of us, Sumedho? Don't you care about those who'll be left behind?"

Ajahn Amaro comments that Ajahn Chah could detect that his student had a nihilistic aversion to life rather than true detachment [43] [based on wisdom and an accurate understanding of reality].