Looking at Buddhism as a lifestyle more than a coherent or logical argument is key to formulating a cohesive response, and as of such, most of the objections we can hold against it are either pragmatically or morally based. A popular response to the Buddha’s teaching is to recognise the 1st Noble Truth as simply ‘life denying’; simply to repress the suffering in our lives by taking a more neutral stance (Seen in the ‘acceptance’ that all is suffering) is detrimental to the human condition. We may attribute this criticism to Nietzsche who, in his book Beyond Good and Evil, asserts that Buddhism is a rejection of life and a negation of the world-affirming view that he defends so stoutly. More simply, the 1st Noble Truth aims to diminish the …show more content…
Our ignorance and ‘clinging’ onto our corporeal states means that we will never be released from this cycle of life and death: only by achieving Nirvana (Nibbāna in Pali), or the ‘blowing out of the flames of desire’ may we escape – I.E. the removal of attachment from one’s body or possessions – the Buddha himself was the first to achieve such a state. Nietzsche proclaims this desire of removal from life is a terrible thing – according to Buddhism, we must aim towards permanently ending our existence by completely giving up on our desires, positive action and domineering attitude. This seems counterintuitive to all of human progress, and seems also to de-value joyful experiences as passing illusions. Taking the Buddhist mindset may then entail worrying situations for human society as a whole, as Nietzsche would claim: the aspect of the denial of life also invalidates Buddhism as a way of life when we take a pragmatic perspective. The nihilistic element that arises from this way of thinking poses a serious