Science, Nietzsche and the blind men of Savatthi

The Tittha Sutta (PTS, Udana 66) provides a fine example of what Nietzsche meant when he said “it is possible to conceive of a reality that can be resolved into a plurality of fictions relative to multiple standpoints.”  This is from a section of the Sutta.  The translation is done by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (it is on the Internet).

 "Once, in this same Savatthi, there was a certain king who said to a certain man, 'Gather together all the people in Savatthi who have been blind from birth.'"

"'As you say, your majesty,' the man replied and, rounding up all the people in Savatthi who had been blind from birth, he went to the king and on arrival said, 'Your majesty, the people in Savatthi who have been blind from birth have been gathered together.'

"'Very well then, show the blind people an elephant.'

"'As you say, your majesty,' the man replied and he showed the blind people an elephant. To some of the blind people he showed the head of the elephant, saying, 'This, blind people, is what an elephant is like.' To some of them he showed an ear of the elephant, saying, 'This, blind people, is what an elephant is like.' To some of them he showed a tusk... the trunk... the body... a foot... the hindquarters... the tail... the tuft at the end of the tail, saying, 'This, blind people, is what an elephant is like.'

"Then, having shown the blind people the elephant, the man went to the king and on arrival said, 'Your majesty, the blind people have seen the elephant. May your majesty do what you think it is now time to do.'

"Then the king went to the blind people and on arrival asked them, 'Blind people, have you seen the elephant?'

"'Yes, your majesty. We have seen the elephant.'

"'Now tell me, blind people, what the elephant is like.'

"The blind people who had been shown the head of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a water jar.'

"Those who had been shown the ear of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a winnowing basket.'

"Those who had been shown the tusk of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like an iron rod.'

"Those who had been shown the trunk of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like the pole of a plow.'

"Those who had been shown the body of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a granary.'

"Those who had been shown the foot of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a post.'

"Those who had been shown the hindquarters of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a mortar.'

"Those who had been shown the tail of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a pestle.'

"Those who had been shown the tuft at the end of the tail of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a broom.'

"Saying, 'The elephant is like this, it's not like that. The elephant's not like that, it's like this,' they struck one another with their fists. That gratified the king.

"In the same way, monks, the wanderers of other sects are blind and eyeless. They don't know what is beneficial and what is harmful. They don't know what is the Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma. Not knowing what is beneficial and what is harmful, not knowing what is Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma, they live arguing, quarreling, and disputing, wounding one another with weapons of the mouth, saying, 'The Dhamma is like this, it's not like that. The Dhamma's not like that, it's like this.'"

This story is not so amusing when we see it illustrating the problem with Western science as it looks towards the really, real, or ultimate reality (paramarthasatya).  It is as blind as the blind men in the Sutta, although some of the more doctrinaire friars of science might disagree.  More fundamental to the problem is that science cannot discern where illusion ends and true reality begins (or maybe I should say, where the scaffolding ends and true reality begins).  

Yes science—I admit—has provided us with many useful fictions, but we must keep in mind that it is not in possession of the really, real.  In the dim, lamp light of science, our human world remains nothing more than a fictional construct which in the end signifies nothing if we have not, in this lifetime, passed beyond all fictions. 

Not caring to pass beyond all fictions somewhat describes the ethos of the modern world where science proudly stands as the new Holy See.  Strangely, this ethos is not unlike Nietzsche’s view of life when he says,

 “My philosophy is inverted Platonism: the further a thing is from true being, the purer, the lovelier, the better it is. Living in illusion as the goal”  (from an early sketch for The Birth of Tragedy).

Whether or not we care to admit it, without Buddhism/Platonism, we have doomed ourselves to madness.  While the blind men in the Sutta suffer from an affliction they had no power over, we willingly suffer from an affliction we find too much pleasure in, creating supreme illusions.

 

Comments

[qbrick]

"I could be wrong but from what I know about Nietzsche, "Gegenstück" is not to be translated as counterpart but as opposite."
Gegenstück is best translated with match.

Concerning Buddhism notes in his Zarathustra (if there are any: A typical case of flawed 19th century understanding of Buddhism.

Concerning Antichrist: Amazing how Nietzsche describes Buddhism as hundred times cooler than christendom:
"Der Buddhismus, nochmals gesagt, ist hundertmal kälter, wahrhafter, objektiver. Er hat nicht mehr nötig, sich sein Leiden, seine Schmerzfähigkeit anständig zu machen durch die Interpretation der Sünde, - er sagt bloß, was er denkt, "ich leide"."

[WanderingDude]

So Nietzsche's thoughts on Buddhism are contradicting (I was referring to Ecce Homo, his last book). Somehow this reminds me of the "kill the buddha" saying. :) Also it doesnt seem to me that he ridicules the Buddha in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra". http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm (chapter LXVIII)

I too agree that experiencing the true substance of reality is much more important and exciting than our programmed, mundane habits. I only wanted to point out that maybe "the will to power" is close to the conept of "ekacitta" (perhaps as close as "the world of forms" is).
By the way, a great writer influenced both by mysticism and Nietzsche was Nikos Kazantzakis. I highly recommend this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Saviors_of_God

[fofoo]

Wandering Dude,

Nietzsche did not use the exact phrase "Anti-Buddha", but he wrote:

"ich könnte der Buddha Europas werden: was freilich ein Gegenstück zum indischen wäre"

"I could become the Buddha of Europe what would mean the opposite of the Indian Buddha.

- Nietzsche (Nachlass November 1882—Februar 1883)

I could be wrong but from what I know about Nietzsche, "Gegenstück" is not to be translated as counterpart but as opposite.

You should read the Antichrist. There Nietzsche called Buddhism nihilstic and decadent. See chapter 20+. Nietzsche wanted to overcome Nihilism with "The will to power" and "the reevaluation of all Values"

In "Thus spoke Zarathustra", Nietzsche ridicules Buddha, or to be exact the Mahásatipatthána Sutta according to wikipedia.

ps: English is also not my mother tongue so please forgive my bad english :)

[WanderingDude]

This is a nice post, but I disagree with your interpretation of Nietzsche.

Nietzsche's view of life was all about transcending fictions (morality, religion, logic to name a few). All his thoughts were against the ethos of the modern world.

And he never called himself an anti-Buddha. On the contrary, he called Buddha "the profound physiologist", and said Buddhism is not a religion, but a "hygiene." Buddhist ideas are often reflected in his writings.

(English is not my native language, so I hope this post makes sense)

[fofoo]

“it is possible to conceive of a reality that can be resolved into a plurality of fictions relative to multiple standpoints.”

I believe this is what he later called "Perspectivism". (there are no facts, only interpretations). To me it seems perspectivism is the same than the blind men´s view in the sutta.

Nietzsche believed in "eternal recurrence of the same", a view incompatible with the possibility to escape samsara. He even called himself not only an anti-christ but also an anti-Buddha

Pity Nietzsche who always argued against compassion and then huged are tortured horse`s neck out of compassion during his final breakdown.