Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
It looks like the family never published it.
Where is the Chris McCandless journal? Is it available to read, apart from the "Into the wild book"? - Yahoo! Answers
Now of course not everyone will get this, or want to, and I am certainly not interested in evangalising it or pushing it to anyone. To each in his or her own time - my motivation is only to share it with those who are interested and from whom I can learn. But I am dissappointed by the attitude which says, in a triumphant kind of way, that everything is meaningless, life arose by accident, there is no purpose, and so on. I can't understand why this is a prize or a victory. Yet its exponents always seem to cling so determindely to it. Perhaps it is because they hate anything spiritual. Kind of a phyrric victory I would have thought.
I am one of those people whose attitude 'says, in a triumphant kind of way, that everything is meaningless, life arose by accident, there is no purpose, and so on.' What those people who would claim otherwise fail to understand, is that the realization that the world is essentially absurd is not the end. It is however the neccessary precondition that enables a thinking person, who hasn't the good luck to be blissfully ignorant, to live life for the sake of living life. As Nietzsche said, nihilism is a bridge to something higher. Only when we abolish the fallacious justifications for living can we live life for its own sake. It is a vital affirmation.
On the other hand, what the Buddhists or Brahmans call enlightenment seems to me to be a negation of life, a deliberate effort to not-exist as thoroughly as possible. The repetition of a fixed idea, medititation, is a kind of opiate. If what I prefer is the will to power, the buddhists advocate a will to death, a will to nothingness. Nirvana is to not exist. I see the Buddha in every cow I pass, standing there chewing it's cudd in perfect tranquility.
..what the Buddhists or Brahmans call enlightenment seems to me to be a negation of life, a deliberate effort to not-exist as thoroughly as possible. The repetition of a fixed idea, medititation, is a kind of opiate. If what I prefer is the will to power, the buddhists advocate a will to death, a will to nothingness. Nirvana is to not exist. I see the Buddha in every cow I pass, standing there chewing it's cudd in perfect tranquility
OK apologies for loosing my temper. It is wrong to describe another's views in a dismissive way. There are many people who think that the world exists without cause, meaning or purpose and that religion and spirituality are just a delusion. I will present a different view of the matter. I will engage in reasoned debate but will not respond to comments which I think indicate the speaker has no real interest in the matter. That is all.
Why do both Hume and Nietzsche, in their overzeal to deny God, end up debauching science as well? Because their denial of God is dependent on the denial of any order whatsoever in the universe. Because they knew that science took its origin, and is still based on, a world in which order prevails. If the world is chaos, there can be no order, and hence no laws either of nature or of science. (In our day, however, even the word "chaos" is being redefined, as mathematicians and scientists discern hidden order in chaos.) For the existence of any kind of laws presupposes a Lawgiver, and indeed the originators of modern science-Newton, Descartes, Leibniz, etc.-quite openly expressed their faith in a Divine Lawmaker. In order to deny the latter, Hume, Nietzsche, and those who follow their path must deny the existence of any kind of order at all. But without such order, the whole enterprise of science falls down, for it is then senseless to seek for laws, order or pattern in a disordered world. Nietzsche borders on Orwellian Newspeak in his implied conclusion: "truth is a lie," and falls into the same rut that he so despises in those who confuse mortality and immortality... Yet paradoxically, Nietzsche was also genius enough to recognize that his nihilistic teaching (and Zarathustra's) is a "rebound from 'God is truth' to the fanatical faith 'All is false'."
But is all this true? "By their fruits you shall judge them." Science works-it is the most successful enterprise in the history of humanity. Even chance, even probability, has its laws and is not chaos. In that case, it makes sense to view the world as ordered, a place where laws-laws of science, laws of nature-hold. So it makes sense, in turn, to talk about a Lawgiver-which Newton, Copernicus, et al. had told us right from the very beginning, and which we would never have lost sight of had we not extended our debunking of the Christian conception of God to God Himself. The alternative is to assume that we ourselves project order onto the universe, which is a form of solipsism. In that case, though, the basis for an objective universe and materialism collapses. Even granting the point of solipsism, however, if man finds meaning within himself, where does he dredge up this meaning from? For according to Sufism, God is both Within and Without, so that we approach God even when we go within. God is both transcendent and immanent. Contrary to what Nietzsche thought, He is not just incarnate in Jesus, and not just beyond the universe.
....Nietzsche borders on Orwellian Newspeak in his implied conclusion: "truth is a lie," and falls into the same rut that he so despises in those who confuse mortality and immortality... Yet paradoxically, Nietzsche was also genius enough to recognize that his nihilistic teaching (and Zarathustra's) is a "rebound from 'God is truth' to the fanatical faith 'All is false'."...
If You Meet The Buddha On The Road, Kill Him
I have heard the phrase "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!" many times. Can you explain this?
It actually comes from an old koan attributed to Zen Master Linji, (the founder of the Rinzai sect). It's a simple one:
"If you meet the Buddha, kill him." - Linji
I'm sure you already realize that it's not being literal. The road, the killing, and even the Buddha are symbolic.
The road is generally taken to mean the path to Enlightenment; that might be through meditation, study, prayer, or just some aspect of your way of life. Your life is your "road." That's fairly straightforward as far as metaphors go.
But how do you meet the Buddha on this "road?" Imagine meeting some symbolic Buddha. Would he be a great teacher that you might actually meet and follow in the real world? Could that Buddha be you yourself, having reached Enlightenment? Or maybe you have some idealized image of perfection that equates to your concept of the Buddha or Enlightenment.
Whatever your conception is of the Buddha, it's WRONG! Now kill that image and keep practicing. This all has to do with the idea that reality is an impermanent illusion. If you believe that you have a correct image of what it means to be Enlightened, then you need to throw out (kill) that image and keep meditating.
Most people have heard the first chapter of the Tao, "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." (So if you think you see the real Tao, kill it and move on).
As Nietzsche said, nihilism is a bridge to something higher. Only when we abolish the fallacious justifications for living can we live life for its own sake. It is a vital affirmation.
BrightNoon - one of the first things i think a person realizes with enough introspection and meditation is that there is no purpose per se- and i agree, it is the most liberating realization. it gives one a blank slate to create their own purpose or run through life helter skelter or anything in between or alternate between the two.
but jeeprs, you do see how a person can believe there is no purpose, cause or intention behind the universe and still believe that religion and spirituality are neither meaningless nor delusional, dont you?
Even granting the point of solipsism, however, if man finds meaning within himself, where does he dredge up this meaning from?
refers to the deluded conceptualization of the world through the use of ever-expanding language and concepts, all rooted in the delusion of self; it is intended to elucidate reality although it has the unexpected result of distorting it and\or creating a false perceptual reality.
salima - i believe we all have a philosophy and sense of ethics etc because it goes along with the human form of mind/body. the field of awareness in its pristine formlessness has no need of ethics or philosophy or ego or emotion. it too has no need of purpose and meaning-it simply is. (that's just my guess).
salima - i see awareness and intelligence becoming, and that it is following the best order possible because how could it do otherwise? i basically have a sufi outlook-all there is is as divine as anything could be-meaning would only be what we ascribe to it subjectively from our tiny vantage point. i dont believe there would be any higher meaning or intention above us because those are human things-we got those here. the vast field of potentiality that is aware does not think or act, it only becomes and evolves as it were. that is my take on it-and as you will most likely agree, mystical experience is open to interpretation and some of us are probably closer to the Truth than others-i dont even want to say i think i am right, i am only saying what i have so far come to believe is most likely.