The importance of Buddha in India was in being a novel solution to the problem of karma; or, perhaps, in making karma problematic in the first place, by extending it to infinity as fused to the wheel of birth and death, in which all temporary differences in fortune are smoothed out in the vastness of time. Karma ceased to be a conservative preservation-enhancement condition for life in the caste hierarchy and became total and complete, leaving nothing outside of itself. Meanwhile merit gained a referent outside of karma, which is to say--outside of existence--and positioned itself equidistant from all castes.
But the significance of the Buddha in China was very different because it presumed an entire dimension of existence--the karmic--that the Chinese were naive to. Hence he served first and foremost to introduce the very idea of karma, only then introducing it as a problematic, and only then as problematic with a solution. This provided a teleological trajectory to existence (I think this was basically lacking in Chinese thought up until the introduction of Buddhism,) leading to an empty point of transcendence.
But how is nirvana teleological? Its simple: as a point of no return, nirvana is a state in which any permutation of desire (the Buddhist correspondence to our space-time, which was also cashed out in terms of "will" in 19th century Germany) will lead to, even if it takes an infinite amount of time. On the other hand, there is no exit from nirvana So, nirvana is the final state into which all things tend. This could be called teleological because what we're talking about is desire, which desires its end and must be satisfied with nothing, else it would break free of it, and fall back into the desire for things. At the same time, existence becomes an infinite gradient stretching from the fullness of desire (hell, grinding away at itself, whirling in an enclosure that is itself) and nirvana. Merit is simply a position within the gradient.
This is, of course, just one way in which Buddhism can function. Another way is to radically and irreparably decenter desire from objects, invested with fullness, and a subjective position of lack. The void is sealed off in our heart and finds its fullness. Meanwhile Eros, which is neither lack or fullness, ceases to be chained, but becomes the earth. The body moves with the body of the earth; finds this great body in its depth.
Excellent.
ReplyDeleteDesire is hell? Desire is born of negation. By desiring something, one acknowledges a lack or a negation of something. However, as Sartre says, "negation is born in [the consciousness]." The negation itself is something which both originates and remains in the consciousness. Desire is the creation of a negation, or a lack that remains in the self. It is not even a negation which is projected onto other beings, or the objects of desire. Rather, it is a hole, an empty space, that one creates in oneself. The greater the desire, the greater the pain and the greater the hole. What is desire but a projection of that negation onto other objects? What is hate but a projection of the ugliness of our own selves onto others? All ailments originate within the self.
In that case, desire (and hate, for that matter) have relatively little to do with their objects. My desire has relatively little to do with the object that I desire, that object which is disconnected from me and dwells in complete independence of my will. Rather, the desire is an ailment that dwells in my own self, which I may project onto an exterior object.
One must understand that desire is negation, but negation is simply the nihilating of the self.
Nirvana is a detachment. This is not the kind of detachment that the suicidal person shows by deciding to give up. Rather, it is the decision to be honest with oneself. It is the decision to be willfully ignorant.
Sartre says all negation is born in the consciousness. If I think I have $20 in my pocket, then look and find only 10, the only reason I can say "there is NOT $20 in my pocket" is because I thought there was. The negations must cease because they don't reflect the state of affairs.
We must cease these negations, which involves a certain type of passivity or stillness.
Otherwise, we risk falling into the wheel of fortune. The wheel of fortune was a famous stained glass painting somewhere in Europe. At the top, it says "I reign." Further down it is says "I once reigned" at the bottom it says "I have nothing" and further up the other side it says "I will reign."
Every stage of the cycle is full of pain. He who reigns suffers anxiety. It is the fear of losing what one has but also the fear of prolonging it.
He who once reigned has nothing but regret for losing what he had. He who has nothing obviously suffers. But he who will reign soon will do anything to get ahead and suffers the great anxiety of needing more.
Rather, one the inside of the wheel is where we must dwell. We must not engage any of the phases of the cycle. Without desire, we have a certain indifference to which position the wheel is currently occupying.
"Desire is born of negation. By desiring something, one acknowledges a lack or a negation of something. However, as Sartre says, "negation is born in [the consciousness]." The negation itself is something which both originates and remains in the consciousness. Desire is the creation of a negation, or a lack that remains in the self. It is not even a negation which is projected onto other beings, or the objects of desire. Rather, it is a hole, an empty space, that one creates in oneself. The greater the desire, the greater the pain and the greater the hole. What is desire but a projection of that negation onto other objects? "
ReplyDeleteRight. The question then becomes: is consciousness itself a negation of something, or does it found negation in a manner that is otherwise than negative. Is there a founding negation that makes all negations possible, or is it the non-negative condition for the possibility of negation as such. Consciousness is dialectical--it proceeds by opposition; but dialectic only treats of beings, defining them in distinction to what they're not. It cannot touch on being. This is because the nothing remains unthinkable--it distinguishes itself from everything that can be thought. Being becomes unthinkable, since to think of something is also to think of its opposite--to think of it in opposition. Hence being cannot be an identity, totality, or "the thing that is everything" because then it could be defined in opposition to what it is not.
If being and nothingness cannot be placed in opposition, they cannot be made distinct. except, dialectically speaking, they are distinct, or else dialectic could not operate since it always operates between being and nothingness, and requires their distinction. In this, being and nothingness are indistinct (but not identical) and consciousness founds itself in a raw act of repetition. It sets a negation between that which is neither identical or distinct. it creates an opposition, sui generis, from something that is unopposed.
This is what I've referred to as the nothing between. If we think of something that is absolutely self-identical, we think of something that cannot be separated by any relation--including the self-relation. it cannot relate to itself in anyway. It has nothing between itself. But this total lack of relation is, at the same time, radical alienation, or otherness. There is nothing between such absolute others. So the schism of being and nothingness is founded on the schism of identity and otherness. But these, too, blend into each other at the extremity: absolute identity is the same absolute otherness. yet--they are also different, are all the same, are also different, are also the same...unto infinity. consciousness shows itself to not be a negation, but a repetition that proceeds unto infinity.
Yet, consciousness strives to encompass itself--to treat of itself within opposition; to distinguish itself from what it is not. This is an attempt at self-grounding, which would eliminate consciousness's dependence on repetition, closing off repetition--which is multiple and always the repetition of repetition--and creating a singularity. But in doing this, consciousness is transformed into a negation--though this consciousness is always consciousness as it appears within consciousness. In other words, samsara. But what is empirical consciousness a negation of? it is a negation of the body. Yet this negation remains a determinant negation, or in Freudian terms: repression. Repression, in turn, first creates desire out of Eros.