I thought this was a good article. He briefly outlines his take on Buddhism and a few other things as relates to Buddhism. Some interesting views.
BUDDHISM
Jul. 10th, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Ok, alot of people are into Buddhism. It's a very cool religion. Unique in many ways. I'll try to give an overview here.
Now, you can take Buddhism in many ways. I will describe the general theology. There are all sorts of different "schools" of Buddhism, different takes on it, different experiences of it and shit. I'll just give a general overview of the theology as I understand it. You can also take Buddhism in it's general exoteric sense too. Basically from people I know who "grew up" Buddhist, they view it in a way similar to most peoples' experience of Christianity. Basically, it's like Christianity, only with reincarnation.
Then there is also the "QiGong" aspect. I don't know alot about this, but it's oriented more towards transcendental QiGong. You want to refine things upward, basically. This is opposed to Taoist QiGong, which is more oriented towards "this life," or embodiment in this world, the "abyss of the five senses," as Blake would say.
So, the basic tenet of Buddhism is that "all experience is suffering." We can almost equate the two terms "experience" and "suffering." I would not do this, although one could make the case that Buddhist Theology does. I would say that once you have achieved "liberation," that you are no longer "suffering" per se. But perhaps this is a matter of semantics, as "suffering" can be construed as a relative term.
Once one has experienced "liberation," one has freed one's self from what Reich would call a "negative libido economy." This means that one has achieved "characterological motility," or has sublimated the "demonic" energy from their libido apparatus or solar body or energetic body or wtf you want to call it. One doesn't have the same character anxiety. Take the parable of the demon that is in the Hell of Starving. He is ravenously hungry for eternity, but his throat is so tiny that he can barely swallow a grain of rice. This is a parable describing Reich's concept of "negative libido economy." The tension continuously increases, and the natural drives are never satisfied. Instead of being satisfied, the energy is bound up or directed back against the self. These blocks can be very pernicious.
I believe this is mainly what the Buddhists are getting at, when they talk about "suffering." Now of course, they place a great emphasis on "process theology" as well. All things are in perpetual flux. Things are always changing. Indeed, there are no "things," there are only "events." Buddhist Theology goes quite far in this direction, which is one of the reasons I think so highly of it. For Buddhist Theology, there is no "a priori metaphysical structure of the universe." There are no "universal truths" or Platonic forms or substances.
Anyway, with regard to the process theology, Buddhists say "all things are constantly changing." Therefore to "compulsively cling" to them is to bring about suffering. "Compulsive clinging" is a big thing in Buddhism. We can see that this "compulsive clinging" is one way of describing the neurotic character traits I described above. When one is "liberated," one no longer clings irrationally to one's rationalizations, ideologies, possessions, etc.
So, like most religions, Buddhism aims at getting the individual past his "neuroses" or spiritual blocks. The method is mainly introspection, I would say. Hatha Yoga is great for his, but I think that's more a Hindu practice. I'm no expert. Hatha Yoga gets right at the places where chronic tension tends to build up in the body. This is where the energy gets blocked, and these blockages are "functionally identical" with the rationalizations, etc which function as defense mechanisms to shield us from reality.
Now one big difference from other religions, which results from the lack of belief in a metaphysical structure to the universe is that there is a big emphasis on dissolving the self. Of course all religions offer "Union with the Entirety." The Buddhist method for this is to dissolve the self. The idea is to passively allow all one's volitional energy to dissipate, until there is none left.
In Greek Paganism, there was also a belief that all existence was suffering. However, the ancient Greeks, you could say, were "into" that. They affirmed life, even as they acknowledged that it was composed of pain. I will do a separate post on THE MYTH OF SISYPHUS in this regard, because it is one of the most misunderstood myths ever. Especially thanks to the dumbass Camus.
The point of the Sisyphus myth is that he was making himself stronger. By pushing the rock up the hill he was quantitatively increasing his volition. This is an extremely important point.
Now, one can take "will" and think of it both qualitatively and quantitatively. Kierkegaard addresses the qualitative aspect. Nietzche can be said to have addressed the quantitative aspect. The qualitative aspect is whether your will or volitional energy is flowing freely, or properly directed outward in the form of primary drives, or whether it is blocked and directed back against the self in the form of perverse or masochistic secondary drives. When the energy is functioning properly, I call this "Qualitative Integrity."
So you have the qualitative aspect, based on whether one is "free" or not. But then there is also the quantitative aspect. Now I'm not suggesting some way to quantify one's will or volitional energy. I'm just saying you can think of it that way. Certainly we all experience a difference when we personally have more "will power" than at other times.
In the Sisyphus Myth, he is not strengthening his muscles or his physical body, but he is growing stronger in volitional energy. He is becoming "more alive." I call this energy The Dionysian. Nietzsche describes it as "that form of strength that can only express itself by overcoming resistance." This is the fundamental "essence" of being or existence: volition, or "will" itself.
We can take note that the symbol of the "stone" can be thought of as representing the "soul" or "individuated consciousness." We see the symbol of the stone used in other places, such as in the New Testament, "Petros," the "Philosopher's Stone," or lapis philosophorum, and also in the myth of Arthur, wherein the sword represents "thought." The thought, being directed at the stone, stabbing into the stone, and Arthur is the "king," because he can draw the sword out. To me, this represents being able to "free" himself from these unconscious, involuntary drives which are directed back against the self. And of course, the "king" is the one who illuminates the crown "chakra." As we see Alchemy is called the "Royal Art."
LOL. Ok, I'm getting pretty far afield. What does all this have to do with Buddhism? Well, a Buddhist would never "affirm" existence the way Sisyphus would do. A Buddhist would do the exact opposite. Of course, first they would "liberate" themselves in the qualitative sense. Then they would go for extinguishment in the quantitative sense, by passively allowing their volitional energy or "will" to be dissipated. After all their "desire" runs it's course, there is no more left and hence they sort of just dissolve as a discrete or individuated entity or first person consciousness, and they dissolve passively into the Entirety.
This differs from Christianity and Hinduism, which I view as being quite similar. I view them as Orphic Transcendentalism. The goal in these religions is mainly to maintain individuated consciousness, but in higher, more refined celestial realms. That's just my own view, of course. They also do offer "Union with the Entirety." But, whatever.
Then there are the Gnostics, which I view as being quite similar to the Buddhists. I am mainly referring to the Gnostics of the ancient world, because I don't know much about present day Gnostic Theology. Gnosis, or Knossos, however you want to spell it, was the same thing as "liberation" in the above sense. I consider it to have a dual meaning, referring to both liberation in individuated consciousness as well as Union with the Entirety. They may have had separate terms for the two, but I don't know of any. But the Gnostic approach was not to passively dissipate "the passions," but to satisfy them aggressively. To discharge all that volitional energy and achieve Gnosis. Of course, there is also the "qualitative" aspect, but once that Gnosis is achieved, then one can go on to achieve further Gnosis by discharging all the drives by fulfilling the passions.
This aggressive fulfillment of "the passions" differs from what Sisyphus is doing, because Sisyphus is increasing them, rather than discharging.
We can also think of quantitatively increasing the drives by blocking and forming neurosis. This can work, and I think this can be thought of as similar to the "alchemical lead." It is dark and heavy energy. This is a key differentiation, which I call the difference between the Demonic and the Dionysian. The Demonic is volitional energy that is directed back against the self, whereas the Dionysian is directed toward seeking resistance in the world "outside" of the self.
In fact, this is what occurs through libido transformation/kundalini/serpens mercurialis, or whatever you want to call it. This "demonic" energy is flipped inside out, so that it no longer is directed back at the self, but directed outward. Of course, the energy is also directed into higher or more refined centers as well, so expansion of consciousness occurs.
Anyway, I wanted to say some shit about Buddhism, because people always ask me about it. Most people view Buddhism as just like the ultimate "social humanist" religion, that you just go around "being nice" to everybody and then "karma," the Great Communist in the Sky will "liberate" you, because you were an obedient little bitch. I disagree with that. If you read the Diamond Sutra over and over again, you will start to get an idea of the logical construct of Buddhist Theology. Just keep reading it. You'll begin to internalize it.
Oh yeah, people always idealize the Dalai Lama too. There is some strange belief that the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the original Gautama Buddha. That is not true, nor does he claim it to be so. He claims to date back to the 1300s. The Dalai Lama is just all right with me. I'm neither for nor against black magic sex orgies, per se. But let's be real. There is no need to idealize the dude.
In my own system, I call for "Ontological Hygiene," which consists of both qualitative and quantitative integrity. I can post on my own system some other time.
http://thehatefulnerd.livejournal.com/
