This article discusses how transcendental meditation has induced nihilism and reality disconnect upon some of its vulnerable practitioners.
In my ears, this lends cautionary support for Nietzsche's criticism of stoics and Buddhists. I'm not very knowledgeable here, but roughly his argument is that the avoidance of life's suffering is nothing but an escape from life itself. If one engages with the world, one must deal with pain and joy as a consequence.
On more practical terms, it's always good to measure how your inner model corresponds with reality.
I tried Stoicism earnestly for some time, reading Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus. What I found was actually a "nonchalance" enveloping me, where I lost any willpower or determination or urgency to do anything. It sure felt good. But activities and deadlines were slipping. I had to literally talk myself back into caring. I wonder if anyone else had similar experiences. Whenever I raise this point, some one says I did not really get it. Perhaps. But I did try it as per my understanding. It increased equanimity, but decreased my motivation and drive.
(As an aside, "sloth", which is one of the seven deadly sins, was originally "acedia", is a feeling of a lack of concern. [1])
"You can pass your life in an equable flow of happiness, if you can go by the right way, and think and act in the right way."
The "think in the right way" takes just a little practice. The "act in the right way" is the hard part, and the whole thing falls apart, in exactly the way you've noticed, without both. I've yet to achieve both, personally, though simply having "think the right way", with a little moderating wisdom from age, isn't nothing.
I think a trap in general with systems like Stoicism, or Zen Buddhism, or similar, is believing that thinking or knowing is anything more than one maybe-necessary-but-certainly-not-sufficient step.
(frankly, I'm not even sure what "go by the right way" means, yet, and would have to return to the original Greek to figure out whether it's just a summation of the two following ideas, or something separate—however, as I'm still working on "acting", I'll leave that for another day)
[EDIT] For those reading this without having read Meditations, it's heavy on duty and obligation, which is deep in the "doing" side of the above dichotomy. The "think the right way" is largely about ignoring that which one cannot control, but the trouble is that anything in the immediate past becomes "beyond one's control", which is where the parent's slipped-deadlines and such become easy to brush off without the duty-and-obligation and act-the-right-way habits balancing it out. Can absofuckinglutely confirm that if you get very good at the "think the right way" side, and only that side, it gets dangerously easy to not be bothered by failure or inaction.
I don't want to respond with "you were doing it wrong" since I don't know enough about what you did/thought to evaluate that, but my view of Stoicism is that the "nonchalance" should be applied to things that are outside of our control, while we should do everything we can to be virtuous with the things that are inside of our control. E.g If it's raining we shouldn't be tearing our hair out in panic and cursing the weather, but rather deal with it in the ways we can by taking an umbrella with us. I do agree that some Stoic practices (such as the 'view from above') could bring about an attitude of "eh, does it even matter?"
I think it's possible to gain a large deal of motivation and drive from the concepts of virtues and doing everything we can to live virtuously and improve the world accordingly.
Maybe you should have quit your job instead of talking yourself into being motivated again.
Meditations helped teach me how to ignore pain and temporary things in pursuit of the immortal virtuous life of purpose. One that creates long lasting works of art, beautiful memories and a solid reliable character that those I care about can count on.
Stoicism is like a filter. You shake out all the bullshit out of your life and theoretically find the thing that you cannot shake out. That is your true drive.
If you shook the bullshit out of your life and found nothing was left, then perhaps you should consider what is out there that you are attracted to.
AIUI there's nothing wrong from a Stoic perspective with "talking yourself into caring" about stuff, especially as it seems you were just getting into the ideas. Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus did it a lot, and it seems to have worked well for them.
"Nihilism" and "reality disconnect" is just a phase in one's progress through insight meditation; it's not the end goal. Meditation does not teach "avoidance" or even "escape" from suffering; on the contrary, it does teach deep engagement and insight. What looks from some perspectives like an 'escape' from suffering or even from life itself is more properly thought of as a reframing of one's perceptions, that gradually becomes better aligned with their proper nature and therefore less prone to fruitless attachment and craving.
Daniel M. Ingram is especially clear on these issues BTW, and his writings in general are a good introduction to insight meditation as it's actually practiced by those who seek some form of stream entry.
Interesting. I will check this out when I have a chance. I struggled mightily between something like Nietzsche-and-Buddhism as a kid in my 20s. Had to simply put it down one day, but it’s always been on the back burner.
“Mastering the core teachings of Buddha” may be next on my audible... we shall see
FWIW, I don't think MCTB works well in audiobook form. The book is extremely dense and needs to be read in depth, even unpacking the meaning of a single paragraph can take some effort. It's something that you really want to have in written form if at all possible.
Oh good point to know, thanks. Kind of disappointed(and kind of happy to hear it’s worthy of such study) as I have to many textbooks to unpack already. The back burner is going to be burning for a while!
If you're willing to entertain another recommendation, in a different narrative style, look into Dreams of Light by Andrew Holecek.
I've mentioned it so many times in this thread that people will think I get a commission :D But I find it incredibly well written by someone with a very clear mind and a knack for wordplay.
As a Buddhist myself, that's a poor description of Buddhism. The "suffering" the Buddha spoke about is not general pain, it's a more specific ailment. The word he used was "dukkha" which a lot of modern Buddhists argue more directly translated to "unsatisfactoriness", or as I think of it, "wishing that things were different than the way they are."
That's the specific pain the Buddha teaches about and tries to help with—it's not about becoming numb to the world at all. It's simply overcoming the desire for things to be different than the way they actually are. The method, by the way, is to become more aware of the world and your feelings—not less so.
Disclaimer: I'm just a lay student of Buddhism and far from a teacher myself. This is just my understanding from years of reading about it. Not all Buddhists agree with this perspective, but I believe it's the vast majority amongst Theravadans at least.
Your description of dukkha reminds me of a concept in Stoicism. Early Stoics formalized "pneuma" as something of a "natural order" or "holy ghost". The teachings were that one could avoid self-destructive behavior by not fighting an intrinsic flow to the universe.
To frame this with what I saying about Nietzsche- his criticism might have encouraged one to wrestle with natural order. Or perhaps stated that passivity with regard to the state of things is undesirable.
There are also the factors that the person stopped taking her meds and didn't sleep for a long time before the mental break down.
When I was a kid, I thought about nihilism a lot, but I don't think thinking about it brought any adverse effect on my mental development or day-to-day behavior. "What is one life compared to the vast cosmos" I would ask myself such questions and feel very lost, but when lunch time comes, I knew I was hungry and I went to eat.
I suspect that the physiological factors contributes more to such psychosis as described in the article, than the idea of nihilism or Buddhism. The underlying mental condition, sleep deprivation, the vicissitude of her life, the exhaustion from sitting still, the sudden brake on taking meds... One of those would drive some people crazy, and she had them all.
> avoidance of life's suffering is nothing but an escape from life itself
Neither stoicism nor buddhism is avoidance of suffering, but inuring one's self to suffering. Buddhism (particularly the therevada teachings of Goenka) explicitly warns against aversion and craving to sensations (that of suffering/desire/etc.), but encourages a mind of equanimity in the face of either. Stoicism has this similar goal to temper reaction, but lacks an effective practice to reach it.
In my ears, this lends cautionary support for Nietzsche's criticism of stoics and Buddhists. I'm not very knowledgeable here, but roughly his argument is that the avoidance of life's suffering is nothing but an escape from life itself. If one engages with the world, one must deal with pain and joy as a consequence.
On more practical terms, it's always good to measure how your inner model corresponds with reality.