|
‘In Nirvana, No Nirvana’ The DRUID, Finn (1940 – ?) A Post-Buddhist Critique of
Doctrinal Machinery I. INTRODUCTION The
project of Buddhism, particularly as it emerged from the teachings of Siddhattha Gotama (the Shakyamuni), begins with suffering
(dukkha) and ends with its cessation. The early framework is
structured, precise, and admirably pragmatic. Yet, as a deeper analysis
reveals, not a spiritual path toward transcendence, but a carefully
engineered apparatus—one that functions less like revelation and more like psychosocial
machinery for managing existential anxiety and behaviour. This
essay is the druid’s exploration of that realization. Drawing from a dialogue
with the modern druidic perspective—grounded in naturalistic skepticism and Pyrrhonian restraint—we uncover not a flaw
in the teaching, but a revelation of its true function: Buddhism, in
both its early and later forms, is not a metaphysical map but a control
mechanism, a domestication system that evolved to maintain internal and
external stability within the human animal. II. THE EMPTY PROMISE: NIRVANA AS RHETORICAL BAIT One of
the earliest cracks in the edifice of Buddhist doctrine appears in the way nirvana
is described—or rather, not described. The Buddha, we are told, refused to
positively define nirvana. Instead, he used negatives: unborn,
unconditioned, unmade, in other words, apophatic guff. In effect, nirvana
is the absence of suffering, not the presence of something else. But
absence of what, exactly? As noted
in our analysis: “The
Buddha provides no structural, experiential, or logical distinction between
death and final nirvana... The distinction is rhetorical, not ontological.” This is
crucial. The notion of parinibbāna—the
final nirvana attained at death—and which is not a state—cannot be verified,
described, or distinguished from simple non-existence. Like Christian
heaven, it functions as bait: a metaphysical carrot to encourage moral
and ascetic discipline, despite offering no verifiable content. Even
worse, as our druidic voice points out: “If the
ended, i.e. the dead, experience nothing, then an individual under
anaesthetic would be in nirvana.” And yet,
this is not what the tradition teaches. Why? Because the equation of nirvana
with non-being would strip the path of its allure. Thus, a myth of
ultimate release is preserved—not for metaphysical reasons, but motivational
ones. III. EXPEDIENT LIES: THE USEFULNESS OF MISDIRECTION The
Shakyamuni is often praised for his use of upāya—expedient
means—teaching not absolute truths but tailored guidance for different minds.
But this, too, can be read not as a mark of enlightened compassion, but as a rhetorical
evasion. As our
dialogue revealed: “The
expedient truth routine was often used by the Shakyamuni to cover over the
fact that he had no answer or that his answer would cause more suffering in
the particular context in which the question was asked.” This
technique shields the teacher from contradiction, while also deflecting epistemic
challenge. The Buddha refuses to answer metaphysical questions about the
Tathāgata after death not because they are dangerous, but because no
coherent answer is available within his framework. This is
not wisdom. It is survival strategy. IV. COMPASSION AS THE FINAL HINDRANCE Compassion—karuṇā—is celebrated in Mahayana
Buddhism as the noblest of motives, the very pulse of the bodhisattva. But in
early Theravāda, this emotion is not exalted;
in fact, it's regarded with suspicion. In our critique: “The
Shakyamuni declared elsewhere that compassion was the final hindrance to
liberation.” This
claim is not hyperbolic. The earliest strata of Buddhism regard any
attachment—even to virtuous states—as fuel for rebirth. Compassion
involves identification, a subtle form of clinging. Thus, paradoxically, compassion
is bondage. This view undermines the ethical facade of Buddhist morality
and reveals its underlying goal: not goodness, but non-engagement. V. UTILITARIAN MORALITY AS DOMESTICATION Here we
come to the most pragmatic layer of the teaching: the ethical code is not
about virtue, justice, or care—but about function. The terms kusala (wholesome, profitable) and akusala (unwholesome, unprofitable) are
operational, not moral. “An act
was kusala, profitable, or not... Both Theravada
and Mahayana eventually became sophisticated human Guide & Control, read:
domestication procedures adapted to local Indian survival needs.” This is
not an indictment. It is recognition. Buddhism, stripped of its metaphysics,
becomes an elegant system or algorithm for behavioral
management. Monks are disciplined, laypeople are pacified, and kings are
supported. The doctrine maintains harmony, much like Stoicism or
Confucianism—but it cloaks this social engineering in the language of
liberation. VI. THE DEATH OF THE SYSTEM Eventually,
all systems exhaust their utility. Buddhism in India—despite its early
vitality—collapsed. It failed to survive not because of philosophical
inadequacy, but because its social and political utility waned. Hindu
devotionalism and the Islamic promise of paradise offered stronger adaptive
mechanisms. The philosophical scaffold, no longer needed, was cast aside. As the
druid observes: “Both
systems died out in India.” What
remains now is not the living path, but the archaeology of doctrine—a
museum of sutras, commentaries, and ritual forms. What is lost is the
original existential urgency—the pressing need to solve the problem of
life. VII. CONCLUSION: FROM DOCTRINE TO MACHINERY The
druid’s minim—“In nirvana, no nirvana”—is
not nihilism. It is clarity. It strips away the mystification surrounding the
teaching and exposes the structure beneath: not a transcendental ladder, but
a finely-tuned machine. Buddhism
does not fail because it lacks truth. But when
one begins to ask not “Is it true?” but “What is it doing?”, a
shift occurs. As we
concluded in our dialogue: “You’re
not just critiquing doctrine—you’re calling out the machinery.” This is
not rejection. It is unmasking. It is the final, lucid kindness of the druid:
to let the fire burn out without illusion, and to walk away without needing
to name what remains. |