8

Buddhism is not Nihilism because it does not reject values, morals, and religious truth. Buddhism is not Annihilationism because it establish idea of karma (i.e. inheritance of actions). Actions are not destroyed at death and inherited in next birth. Thus, it is useful to do wholesome deeds and practice Teaching.


8

I believe it all comes down to the way one sees reality. One could argue that as everything has been changing since the beginninless time, everything is "Eternal", it is just changing shapes. I believe the point regarding the middle way is how things exist: Eternalism suggests things exist as they are. The chair is a chair, it has a "chair-nature", it goes ...


7

God's plan implies a working towards some goal, or a rhyme or reason at least. Karma implies no such thing; it simply describes an orderliness to the mental aspect of reality, in the same way that physics does for the physical aspect. Karma is in fact to be abandoned, or risen above, in the end, to the extent that one performs neither wholesome nor ...


6

I think the confusion comes from the fact that Nihilism in philosophy has two meanings. The most used in philosofic discussion is defined as: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nihilism Within this framework nothing has meaning, no wortwhile goals ...


5

There are the five hindrances (also here) to meditation and practice. Your question can be part of restlessness-worry and also doubt. But it sounds to me more like doubt. You can read more from the essay of Ajahn Brahmavamso: Doubt refers to the disturbing inner questions at a time when one should be silently moving deeper. Doubt can question one's own ...


4

(Since the question seems to be referring to Annihilationism and not Nihilism, I suggested an edit to it. I'm responding with this change in mind.) Plainly, Annihilationism assumes a self that is destroyed after death. Buddhism doesn't assume a self. For references, see DN 1, Brahma­jāla-sutta, especially the Annihilationism section and the ending section.


4

It's perfectly normal. The point is to accept that you have little to no control. It leads you to the "I do things carelessly" zone, or even "I don't care" zone. You cared because you thought through permanence, so you're simply crossing an incomfort zone where you have to redefine what is relevant to YOU knowing that you have little to no control. Embrace ...


3

Any sect of Buddhism which emphasises the emptiness of all things probably says that there are no existent wholes but some sects would say that there are conventionally existent wholes. In other words, we can only talk about their existence from a conventional perspective. Here's a nice description which talks about a car's existence and its emptiness ...


3

I feel concern for others, but like my efforts in anything are wasted. Is there any practice I could engage in, to remedy the latter? Act of the betterment of other, but do not be attached to the outcome, as you have to practice equanimity, also as part of the Brahmavihara. Otherwise the practice will become a burden and a stress, than away to unburden ...


3

Because it does not deny or reject conventional reality, and conventional experience. Buddhism reaches emptiness via the dependent origination of apparent objects. It does not negate the conventional existence of them, just examines their absolute or final nature. Because of this acceptance of conventional reality and truth, Buddhism examines causality, ...


3

Your definition of nihilism seems to me to ignore the four noble truths: that suffering (dukkha) exists, and, can cease. You define nihilism as "life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value", however isn't "cessation of dukkha" (i.e. third noble truth) the 'purpose' of Buddhism (see also 'sentient beings')? Nothing Exists Yamaoka ...


3

Nihilism is even worse than eternalism. Because eternalists can still do good deeds and reach heavens. Nihilists are said to be destined for hells. There's also a version of nihilism which is said to be even worse than the Ananthariya Karmas(matricide, patricide etc.). It is called Niyatha Micca Ditti. It is said that they won't be able to escape even when ...


3

If witnessing is you, why do you witness both pleasant and unpleasant experiences? Why can't you limit witnessing to only pleasant experiences? Why does the experience of witnessing arise and cease without your consent? Why is witnessing limited by your senses? Can you witness sights if your eyes go blind or if there is no light? Why do you have to sharpen ...


3

Perhaps it's a bit too frank, I think the OP asked an invalid question. A doctrine of everything doesn't exist cannot be uttered. It's like, a dead man cannot say "I'm dead", or you tell someone in the face "I'm not here". Making up such question is just an indication the questioner trapped by the trick of the mind - we called ...


3

What is the purpose of meditation. Quoting from What is the meditation and what is its purpose? Meditation is when the mind comes back home. When the mind comes back home it can sit by the fire and enjoy its own warmth. It can stop being busy with all kinds of "doing". Meditation is the ultimate "not-doing". Just sit in presence and let ...


2

So can anyone state for us why Buddhism is not Nihilism? One can argue that from the Ego's point of view Buddhism is nihillisim .Because practicing Buddhism fully, inevitably leads to the destruction of the ego.Buddhism helps shatter the ego's solidity.So quite understandably the ego freaks out at some stage of the practice. Fortunately,we're not the ego....


2

Buddhism contains optimism and pessimistic view points on life. On the positive side, there is the celebration of merit (virtue, alms giving, helping one another etc). There are the four sublime states of lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity. But it is a religion which points out that there is a field of unhappiness as well as a field ...


2

Because it offers an escape and the path leading to the escape from the impermanent, the substance less and the sorrowful. Nihilism offers no such escape.


2

I think you should contemplate thus: There were many Buddha's before your current Buddha but their significance and influence has come to an end. My influence on earth is comparatively more insignificant. Any influence or value you bring on the earth has a finite time span. No one is indispensable in the long run. In the grand scheme of things you cannot ...


2

It is only within the narrow focus of the ego that it fears 'nihilism'. Let it be there, and you may reveal that you truly 'do' favor spiritual purposes, and you do maintain an intention for the good; pointlessness cannot lie there. What it is likely to be is fear of boredom. Your mind is looking to cling to something, when you are still capable of letting ...


2

There are conventionally existent objects. Whether you call them wholes or parts does not make a difference, since a part is also a whole and a whole a part. For instance, the petals of a flower are a part of the flower, but a petal is a whole [as a petal]. Whatever is an object found by a conventional valid cognizer (such as the eye-consciousness, the ear-...


2

Anatta doctrine held by some Buddhist, that there ultimately is no-soul or self Correct. and nothing really "exists" Incorrect. Mind & body exist. Five aggregates exist. Nibbana exists. but is empty of inherent existence Empty of 'self' existence. Empty of permanent existence. But exist temporarily. and therefore insubstantial The five ...


2

"Ceasing the will to live" sounds depressingly suicidal. That's not a good description. Dhammapada 203-204 describes Nirvana as the highest bliss. You could say that the craving to enjoy life and, the craving to do or become something in life ceases. When you look at your remaining years of life, and think that "in the next years or decades, I can travel ...


2

No, the will to live does not cease after enlightenment. Firstly, we have to define what it means to have a will-to-live. Arthur Schopenhauer, he been the first who coined this term, defines the will to live as a drive or conscious reason to live this life (not future life), the will to live this life not the will of becoming after death which the Arhat ...


2

You have confused the jhana states to a progression towards enlightenment. This was taught by other teachers before Buddha attained enlightenment and he was not satisfied. From MN26: "In this way did Uddaka Ramaputta, my companion in the holy life, place me in the position of teacher and pay me great honor. But the thought occurred to me, 'This ...


2

I've no formal experience with borderline personality disorder, this answer isn't intended to be relevant to that. I've seen posts on this site where people say, "If you don't believe in rebirth then you believe that death ends everything (and ends suffering). But if you really believed that death ends then why wouldn't you just kill yourself? Therefore you ...


1

Attaining enlightenment is like running out of gas while driving. The car does not stop immediately and the driver has no desire to hit the breaks to forcefully stop it. Just like how the car stops when the momentum runs out, enlightened beings expire when their life runs out naturally.


1

Correct. Other than teaching, generally there would be no reason to continue living (although there could be other compassionate reasons, such as looking after parents).


1

There're many categories of nihilism: metaphysical, epistemological, mereological, existential, moral nihilism, etc. The kind of nihilism the Buddha advises us to avoid is a kind of philosophical materialism which believes that life ends in death and that actions do not bring results in future lives. This type of nihilism is also called the doctrine of non-...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible