Friedrich Nietzsche Buddhism And The Superman

Text-only Preview

Friedrich Nietzsche, Buddhism and the Superman. We will look first at the life and the work of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) and then to proceed at once to one of the central conceptions of his thought, that is to say the conception of the Superman. Then we'll be comparing Nietzsche's thought, especially the idea of the superman with Buddhism as the embodiment, the exemplification, of the higher evolution of man. Friedrich Nietzsche was born in Germany in 1844. His father was a Lutheran minister. It was, in fact, Nietzsche who said that the Lutheran minister was the father of German philosophy; but that's another story. His father died in 1849, when Nietzsche was only four or five, and Nietzsche spent his whole childhood surrounded by his mother, his sister, his grandmother, and two maiden aunts. And he was sent when he was a little older to boarding school, and from there he proceeded to the universities of Bonn and Leipzig where he studied Classical Philology; this was his subject. But for one reason or another he didn't obtain his doctorate, but in spite of that he received a call, at the age of 24, to Basle University to occupy the Chair of Philology. This came about on account of the strong recommendation of the very great scholar and philologist, Ritschl, who had been very much impressed by Nietzsche's work as a student. So there was Nietzsche at Basle University teaching Classical Philology. But he didn't drop his studies, he studied Philosophy, especially Schopenhauer, and he took an interest in music, especially the music of Wagner. And in 1872, when he was still a very young man, he published his first book which carried the title of The Birth of Tragedy. This was a short but very brilliant work of quite exceptional interest. During the next few years he published a number of other important works. But in 1879, when he was only 35, he resigned his University appointment, terminated his academic career, and thereafter he spent most of his active, that is to say his writing, life in Switzerland and in Italy. As one reads the life of Nietzsche, despite his tremendous achievement in the field of philosophy, in the field of thought, quite brilliant, quite exceptional achievements, one cannot help feeling a little sad because Nietzsche's whole life from the time that he left the University was a life of intense, even increasing loneliness. He was completely on his own. There was, apparently, nobody, or at least hardly anybody who understood him or with whom he could be really friends, except in one or two cases just through the medium of correspondence. And he also had to suffer, more and more, very great physical pain. He wasn't a healthy person, and one of the scholars who have written about him has left a very moving, a very touching, portrait of Nietzsche and the way in which he used to live, this very lonely, this very secluded, very isolated life with continual mental and physical suffering. But despite all this, Nietzsche continued to write, and between 1883 and 1885 he wrote Thus Spake Zarathustra which was and is his most famous and most popular work. And he continued writing until 1888, but he continued writing amidst increasing isolation and increasing physical suffering, sometimes quite unbearable physical suffering. Not only that, but there came to him, as a result of his work, hardly any recognition. When he published, for instance, the fourth part of Zarathustra, I believe only a few dozen copies were sold. Nobody seemed to take any notice at all of his writing, of his ideas, and so on. So he had no recognition, or at best just a very tiny, very faint glimmer of recognition, certainly nothing commensurate with the importance of his 1 work. And then in 1889, Nietzsche became insane and he died, still insane, in 1900 at the age of 55. So such was the life, such was the work of Nietzsche. 'The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche' follows. The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Now I have referred already from time to time to Nietzsche's philosophy, but this is really a misnomer. The word 'philosophy' doesn't really apply to Nietzsche's thought, or to his thinking as we perhaps ought to say. Nietzsche elaborated, he excogitated, he struck out as it were a number of ideas, brilliant, illuminating ideas, and these ideas, certainly the leading ideas amongst them, hang together, they belong together. But at the same time, Nietzsche certainly did not aim at elaborating a logically consistent interpretation of the whole of existence, of the whole of experience. He certainly did not aim at building up a system of philosophy. This is, of course, what his great predecessors had done or tried to do. This was what Kant tried to do, what Hegel, Fichte, Schelling and Schopenhauer tried to do, before Nietzsche. But Nietzsche did not attempt to do anything of that sort. He was not a systematic philosopher. He was not a system builder, he did not aspire to erect one gigantic edifice of thought within which everything could be accommodated. That was not his aspiration, that was not his ambition. Indeed Nietzsche was opposed to this sort of approach, to this sort of method. And he went so far as to declare, in one of this works, that 'the will to system is a will to lack of integrity'. This is one of his very iconoclastic thoughts indeed. And this lack or this absence of, or this indifference to, this opposition to system, to system building, is reflected in his works, in his writings, especially in the later ones. With the exception of Thus Spake Zarathustra, all of Nietzsche's later writings are simply strings of aphorisms, short sharp sayings; or rather some are longer and others are shorter. And Nietzsche, we may say, is the master of the aphorism. No one else has been able, it seems, to say so much in so few words, to shed so much light within such a short space as Nietzsche. He is absolutely the master of this particular type of composition, this particular type of literary approach. We might even say that Nietzsche in this field, the field of the aphorism, has absolutely no rival at all, with the possible exception of William Blake, who hasn't left us very many but he has left us a whole series of them in that little work, The Proverbs of Hell, a section of the Marriage of Heaven and Hell. And the Proverbs of Hell, one might say, compares with Nietzsche. They are perhaps even more condensed than Nietzsche himself, but there is only this one work of Blake's in this particular form. As he got older Blake, unlike Nietzsche, tended to become rather more, perhaps we shouldn't use such a disrespectful word, rather more long-winded. He wrote The Proverbs of Hell when he was a comparatively young man. But Nietzsche, as he got older, as he wrote more, became more and more aphoristic, more and more brilliant also, more and more pungent, more and more lambent, more and more lightning-like, and more and more devastating and iconoclastic. So that his aphorisms are very often like thunder-claps or like blows. Now this aphoristic approach on the part of Nietzsche is not accidental. This lack of system, this indifference to system, is not accidental. One might even say that the aphoristic approach is of the essence of Nietzsche's method. He is aphoristic not because he can't be systematic but because he chooses to be aphoristic, because he thinks that this is the right approach. We might even go so far as to say that in this respect Nietzsche is a bit Zen-like. Some of Nietzsche's aphorisms are not unlike, at 2 least in spirit if not in actual content, some of the utterances, some of the sayings of the Zen masters of China and Japan. Each aphorism of Nietzsche penetrates, we may say, deeply into existence, into reality, from a particular point of view, from a particular direction; and each stands as it were on its own merits, on its own feet. The truth of one aphorism is not dependent on the truth of some other aphorism. They are not logically connected in this way. You may recollect that Coleridge said of Kean's acting, 'Seeing him was like reading Shakespeare by flashes of lightning'. And one can say much the same thing of Nietzsche. One can say that reading Nietzsche is rather like trying to make out a landscape, the landscape of existence itself, human existence itself, with the held of flashes of lightning; and these flashes of lightning are the aphorisms. We read an aphorism and for an instant, just by means of those few lines, those few dozen words, it is as though everything was brilliantly illuminated, we see everything clearly from that particular point of view, that particular angle. And then after that, absolute darkness. We read another aphorism and then another flash from another quarter, from another direction, and once again everything is clear, everything is lit up, everything is revealed, but after that, again, darkness. And all these flashes, these aphorisms, show us as it were different pictures. We know, in a sense, in a way, that all the pictures that are revealed to us by these flashes, by these aphorisms, refer to the same landscape, but it is difficult if not impossible to piece them all together as a coherent whole, into one complete, all-embracing picture. And this is very much how it is with Nietzsche. His writings make, we may say, very inspiring reading but they are very difficult indeed to expound systematically. We are now concerned with only one flash, and that one of the brightest of Nietzsche's flashes. Or we might say we are concerned with, at the most, two or three flashes. The 'Superman', the Overman or Übermensch' follows. The 'Superman', the Overman or Übermensch. We are now concerned now with the idea, with Nietzsche's idea of 'the Superman' as well as with the idea of self-overcoming and with the will to power. The word 'Superman' is not a literal translation of Nietzsche's original German term. And the inverted commas also remind us, also warn us that we must not attach to the word or to Nietzsche's idea, Nietzsche's concept, connotations which have gathered around this word 'Superman' in recent decades. The original term, the term used by Nietzsche, the German term, is übermensch, which literally means not 'Superman' but overman; or we might even translate it, not to say paraphrase, as 'over-and-above-man'. In other words, the übermensch, the overman, is the man who stands over and above Man as he exists at present. The overman is what, or who, transcends Man. In fact, we could even speak of the overman as transcendent man. In other words, the overman, what we have been mis-calling 'Superman', the Nietzschean 'Superman' or overman, is not just present-day man writ large, as it were; not just present-day man, present-day humanity in a superlative degree. The overman represents, rather, a completely different type of man. From now onwards I shall speak not of the superman with all its misleading connotations, but of the overman. The word superman, incidentally, as a rendition of Nietzsche's übermensch, was first popularised apparently by George Bernard Shaw. You probably remember there is a play of his called Man and Superman. And since then the term, the word, has become hopelessly vulgarised and hopelessly debased, so that it has come to mean something very far indeed from what Nietzsche meant, from 3 what Nietzsche intended by this expression übermensch or overman. In fact we may say, and it is a very regrettable fact, we may say that after his death the whole thought, the whole way of thinking of Nietzsche was hopelessly corrupted and debased; first of all, as is very well known, at the hands of his sister, and after that at the hands of various people who wanted to try to make out a sort of case for the Nietzschean philosophy or Nietzschean thinking being in accordance with the thinking of the [Third] German Reich, the Nazi régime. And it is only in comparatively recent years that Nietzsche's thinking has been rescued from all these misinterpretations, these perversions, and been at last correctly interpreted, notably by Walter Kaufmann of Princeton University and a few other scholars and commentators. 'Thus spake Zarathustra' follows. Thus Spake Zarathustra. So how did Nietzsche arrive at his concept of the overman? We have to refer to the beginning of Thus Spake Zarathustra, have to refer to the section which is called Zarathustra's Prologue. Zarathustra is, of course, the name of the founder of the ancient Zoroastrian faith. But here, in Nietzsche's work, Zarathustra has very little to do indeed with the historical Spitama Zarathustra. In Thus Spake Zarathustra, the figure of Zarathustra is simply a mouthpiece for Nietzsche's own ideas. There's no connection between those ideas and historical Zoroastrianism. Now Zarathustra's Prologue represents him as coming down from the mountain; and this is of course symbolical and meant to be symbolical. Apparently, we gather, Zarathustra has spent, on the mountain, a period of ten years. He's been thinking, he's been meditating, and now his wisdom has become ripe, is ready to overflow, and he wants to share it with mankind. So he comes down the mountain. And on the way down he meets a saintly hermit, someone who had been living in the forest at the foot of the mountain for years and years together. And the saintly hermit recognises Zarathustra. Apparently he had seen him years earlier on his way up; now he meets him on his way down. And the saintly hermit tries to persuade Zarathustra not to go down amongst men. He says, 'It will be a waste of time, don't trouble yourself. Men are ungrateful. Men are distracted. Don't waste your time going down amongst them'. He says, 'It's much better to be a hermit like me, it's much better to live in the forest with the birds and the beasts. It's much better to live in the forest, ignoring men, forgetting men, simply worshipping God'. But Zarathustra is not to be dissuaded from his mission. He leaves the saintly hermit at his prayers in the forest, and he goes on down the mountain. And as he goes, he says to himself, 'Could it be possible that this old saint in the forest has not yet heard anything of this, that God is dead?' And this, of course, this remark that 'God is dead', represents, constitutes one of Nietzsche's most important insights. 'God is dead'. We've heard a lot about the 'God is dead' or the 'death of God' theology in recent years, in recent decades, but it all started with Nietzsche. He was the first one to see this, to see that God was dead, that he wasn't up there in the heavens any longer. Now this of course means that Nietzsche saw, clearly, what many people don't even seem able to see today, a hundred years afterwards. Nietzsche saw clearly that orthodox Christian teaching, the teaching of the Churches, orthodox Christian theology with its doctrines of a personal God, of a Supreme Being, a Creator, the doctrines of sin and faith, justification and atonement and resurrection, and all the rest, that this whole 4 system is in fact dead, is in fact finished, is in fact irrelevant; and that we are now living not just in the Age of Science and Technology, not just in the Age of Globalisation even, we are living now, though we haven't yet perhaps woken up to the fact, in the Post-Christian Age. The Christian Ages, whether of faith or un-faith, are behind us. So God is dead. And this fact, this statement, gives us also a clue to the sources of Nietzsche's thought regarding the overman. If God is dead, if Christianity is dead, if Christian dogma is dead, if Christian theology is dead, then the Christian view, the Christian conception of Man, is dead as well. The conception of Man as a fallen being, a being who once was disobedient, who sinned, who now needs grace to redeem him, who has to believe, who will be judged, who will be punished perhaps, this sort of concept, this sort of dogma about Man is exploded, is finished, is dead. So one has to get a new conception of Man. Man finds himself, as it were, in a universe without God. He is on his own, he is alone. So Man has to try to understand himself afresh. He can't take ready-made any conception, any idea about himself. He can't simply accept what the Christian tradition tells him about himself. He just finds himself here, here and now, and has to ask himself 'Who am I? What am I?' He finds himself in the midst of the starry universe, he finds himself standing on the Earth, surrounded by other men, with a history behind him, perhaps with a future before him, and he has to ask himself, and ask only himself - nobody else because there's nobody else to tell him - he has to ask himself 'Who am I? What am I?' Now that all the old definitions are gone, Man has to define himself, has to define himself anew, has to discover himself, to know himself. And this in fact is what Zarathustra has already done on the mountain. He has thought, he has meditated perhaps, contemplated perhaps, for ten long years, and now he knows what Man is. And this is the message that he now brings to humanity. This is the insight that he now brings to humanity. So Zarathustra reaches the edge of the forest, he comes to a town on the edge of the forest, he enters the town and there in the town, in the market square, he finds people gathered together. So what are they gathered together for? They certainly haven't gathered together to listen to him. They didn't even know he was coming, they knew nothing about him. They have come to see a travelling tightrope-walker. That's what they are really interested in. But nevertheless, as the tightrope-walker hasn't turned up yet (apparently he's late or something like that), Zarathustra, taking advantage of the opportunity, seizing it with both hands as it were, he speaks to them. And what does he say? Zarathustra says, addressing the people in that market square, addressing if you like all humanity, he says, 'I teach you the 'overman'. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?' 'Man is something to be overcome' follows. Man is something to be overcome. So this is the great insight with which we are concerned; this is the great lightning flash that Zarathustra teaches 'the overman', teaches that man is something that shall be overcome, and asks 'What have you done to overcome him?' That means, of course, to overcome yourself. Other, lesser flashes follow, and the other flashes show us how Nietzsche arrived at the concept of the overman. Nietzsche quite clearly, quite explicitly, arrived at the concept of the overman by consideration of the general nature of the evolutionary process. Zarathustra, in this prologue - or rather Nietzsche 5 - points out that so far in history all beings have created something beyond themselves. They never stopped. They never came to a halt. Every being, every kind of being, has created something beyond itself, has given birth as it were to something higher than itself in the evolutionary scale. And Nietzsche, through the mouth of Zarathustra, says that there is no reason to suppose that this process will stop with man. He says, clearly, explicitly: the ape created man. And in the same way, in an even higher way, an even better way, more glorious way, man himself must now create the overman by overcoming himself. And this means that he must learn to look down on himself, to despise himself, to be dissatisfied and discontented and disgruntled with himself; because it is only when he begins to look down on himself that he can begin to rise above himself and be something higher and greater and nobler than he was. But it is very important to make clear, it is very important to point out that Nietzsche was not a Darwinian in the popular sense of the term. For Nietzsche, the overman is not simply, or will not be simply the latest, the last product of the evolutionary process. It's not that the evolutionary process just goes on and on and on and then up comes the overman. In other words, the overman will not be produced automatically, will not be produced as a result of the general blind function of the evolutionary process. In fact, we find in his writings, in his works, that Nietzsche distinguishes quite sharply between what he calls 'the last man' on the one hand, and the overman himself on the other. And the last man is simply the latest product of the general, the collective evolutionary process of humanity. The last man is not a higher 'type' but will be the product of the individual man's effort to overcome himself, to rise, to soar if you like, above himself. And it is on account of this distinction, this distinction which he makes between the last man on the one hand and the overman on the other, that Nietzsche is able to dissociate himself from superficial 19th century ideas of human progress; ideas to the effect that progress continues indefinitely and man becomes better and better, higher and higher. Nietzsche does not accept that. In other words, man is not becoming better automatically simply by virtue of the passage of time. We have to do something about it. Man isn't becoming better automatically by virtue of the passage of time but he can make himself better if he so chooses. We must confess that Nietzsche isn't very clear at times on this point, or at least not always very explicit, but whereas the lower evolution is collective, the higher evolution is individual. Nietzsche in fact has a sort of vision of man, a sort of picture of man, in his mind. Nietzsche says that he sees man as a rope; a rope, he says, stretched out between the beast on one hand and the overman on the other. And Nietzsche, who is nothing if not graphic, nothing if not imaginative, says that this rope which is stretched between the beast and the overman is stretched over an abyss. It's dangerous to be a man, in other words, or at least it should be dangerous. Man, he points out, is something transitional. He is not only just a rope, he is also a bridge. He's a bridge and not an end; and being a rope as it were, being a bridge as it were, being not an end, he must live for something other than himself. And this something other, for the sake of which man, each and every individual man should and must live, is the overman. Nietzsche, in fact, does not only distinguish between beast and overman, he distinguishes too between man and overman. He distinguishes between man as animal and man as human being; and the distinction for Nietzsche is a very sharp one indeed. He says, in fact, that the majority of men are not men; the majority of men are animals. As we pointed out more than once in the course of these lectures, 6 most people have not yet achieved humanity. According to Nietzsche, the turning point, the great watershed of evolution, of the evolutionary process, is not as between animal and man, it is between man who is still an animal and man who is no longer an animal, man who is truly human. Kaufmann, expounding Nietzsche, says of him, he maintains, in effect, that the gulf which separates Plato from the average man is greater than the cleft between the average man and the chimpanzee. This is Nietzsche's thought. And it's not a view which is very flattering to the average man. The average man doesn't really like to hear that he is lifted very little, if at all, above the animal level, that he falls short of true humanity. This is not the sort of picture of himself that he cares to see, and it is not surprising that when Zarathustra, in the Prologue, spoke to the people in the market place about the overman they just laughed at him. They were much more interested in watching the tightrope-walker. Nietzsche also speaks of what he calls 'prefatory men' and, though he is not very clear on the point, these seems to be intermediate between man on the one hand and 'the overman' on the other; and Nietzsche describes these prefatory men as bent on seeking in all things for that aspect which must be overcome. This is the characteristic of the prefatory men; and he exhorts these prefatory men to live dangerously; not safely, not cosily, not comfortably, not securely, but insecurely, even dangerously. And Nietzsche says, among other things, that the true men, those who are no longer animals, are simply the philosophers, the artists and the saints. And the overman, apparently, is something even higher, even superior to the philosophers, the artists and the saints. But at any rate it is also clear, in Nietzsche's thinking, that man becomes overman by the process of self-overcoming; and it is clear too that philosophers, artists, saints, are overcoming themselves, and to that extent are, in a sense, to some extent overmen. 'Giving style to one's character' follows. Giving style to one's character. Now Nietzsche also speaks of self-overcoming in terms of what he calls 'giving style to one's character'. He complains that most people's characters have no particular style and by giving style to one's character he means not accepting oneself ready-made, just as you come from the factory. Certainly not accepting yourself as badly-made or half-made, as incomplete. By this sort of attitude he means an attitude of treating one's life and one's character as so much raw material. Usually, we think: well, here we are, with such-and-such character, such-and-such temperament, such-and-such characteristics, qualities, and what can I do about it? We think this is something given, we are landed with it for the rest of our lives. That if we, for instance, have a tendency to get angry quickly, then that's that, were landed with it for life. If by nature we are very sensitive, were landed with that for life. If we are shy, we are landed with that for life. Just as we are landed with being tall or short or fat or thin, healthy or unhealthy, and so on. But Nietzsche says, no. As you are now, as you've been handed to yourself by your parents and so on, your education, your general social conditioning, educational conditioning, this is not the finished product, this is just the raw material. This is where you begin, this is where you start. So Nietzsche says in effect that one should work upon oneself, create oneself like a work of art. Just as you can get a great lump of clay - all heavy and sticky and stodgy - and you can get your fingers into it, get your hands into it and start shaping it into 7 something, in the same way you must behave with your own character, with yourself. Just see yourself as this untidy, shapeless, dough-like mass; that's you. And just, as it were, get your fingers, get your hands into yourself and start shaping yourself. Don't think that you're landed with this sort of mass, this sort of stodgy, dough-like stuff or heap for ever, indefinitely. Produce yourself like producing a work of art. Don't be satisfied with yourselves as you are. And in this connection, in connection with this whole idea of giving style to one's character, Nietzsche is very fond of mentioning the great example of Goethe, the great German poet and dramatist and novelist and thinker and scientist and mystic. Nietzsche admired Goethe very much and he admired him most of all for this particular quality. If we read Goethe's life, if we read his conversations, we see that Goethe all the time was trying to make something of himself. He was trying to work upon himself just like he might work upon a poem or a drama or a novel or a scientific treatise, making himself better and clearer and more perfect and more balanced. This is what Goethe was trying to do through the whole of his long life, more than eighty years, and he succeeded. So that when the great Napoleon saw Goethe for the first time, what did he say quite spontaneously, when he was confronted by Goethe? And Goethe after all, politically, was nobody, he was just an ex-minister of a little tiny state in Germany; and there was Napoleon, the conqueror of Europe. But when Napoleon saw Goethe, well, Goethe wasn't impressed by Napoleon particularly, but Napoleon exclaimed of Goethe: 'Look, there's a man'. A very simple exclamation but full of meaning. 'Look, there's a man'. And this is what Goethe made of himself from this sort of bundle of passions and ideas. As a young man he was very turbulent and very wild indeed, quite a rake we are told. But from this rather unpromising raw material, he made of himself a man in the fullest and truest sense. Now we have seen that Nietzsche arrives at the concept of the overman by a consideration of the general nature of the evolutionary process; by realising that all beings have created something beyond themselves and that man is no exception, that man must do likewise, man must do similarly. And the same consideration, we may say, enables Nietzsche to understand the nature of existence itself. Life, he says, is that which must always overcome itself. This is the very nature of life, not just of human existence, but life in general; that it is never satisfied with itself. It always wants to go beyond, always wants to go further. Life is that which must always overcome itself. Life is a process which continually at every stage transcends, goes beyond, goes above itself. 'The will to power' follows. The will to power. The innate urge of life to overcome itself, to transcend itself, is what Nietzsche calls 'the will to power'. This term, like the term superman, has been much misunderstood, much misrepresented. It has been interpreted, needless to say, in the grossest of terms as will to power in the political, not to say even the military, sense. But by Power here, power with a capital 'P', Nietzsche does not mean anything material at all. Power in this sense has nothing to do with brute force, with physical power. It has nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with the state. Nietzsche was against the state because it was collective not individual. Power, in Nietzsche's thought, especially in this expression will to power, means simply a higher, a more abundant 8 degree of being, of life. So that the will to power means the will to a higher degree, a higher mode of being, a more abundant, a fuller, a richer, a nobler, a sublimer, a qualitatively different, a dimensionally different life. Especially it means the will to the production from man of the overman. Nietzsche makes it abundantly clear that this higher degree of being, this higher mode of being, is attainable only to the extent that the lower degree, the lower mode of being is left behind. In fact, Nietzsche emphasises that the lower degree of being, the lower degree or mode of life, has to be negated, even destroyed before the higher can be reached, before it can be attained. This brings us to an extremely important aspect of the will to power, an aspect that is very important, we may say, in Nietzsche's whole thinking. We can call it the iconoclastic aspect. Nietzsche sees, he sees only too well, that man as we know him today, at the present stage of evolutionary process, lives in a certain way, that he thinks in a certain way, that he has certain values, certain notions of good and evil. Nietzsche says, seeing all these things, seeing the way man lives or he thinks, seeing his values, his ideas of good and evil, Nietzsche says quite categorically, quite peremptorily, that they must all be destroyed; otherwise, he says, the overman cannot be created, cannot come, cannot be brought into existence. And Nietzsche, we must be clear, is absolutely ruthless, absolutely uncompromising here. He is for shattering, in his own terms, all the old tablets of the law. In fact he is utterly devastating in the full, the literal sense of that term. He has no time at all, no time whatever for the whole of modern civilisation and culture. No time for it, that is to say, to the extent that it is the product of the average man, sub-human man, and his sub-human requirements. Nietzsche sees quite clearly and he says quite emphatically that it must all go. So this is his ruthless, his uncompromising, his iconoclastic aspect, or the iconoclastic aspect of the will to power. Nietzsche, we may say, is, in fact, the greatest critic of itself that the human race, especially the Western section of the human race, has ever produced. We are accustomed to thinking of the Hebrew prophets, Amos and Jeremiah, and the second Isaiah and so on, as terrible enough; but we may say that the Hebrew prophets are mildness itself compared with Nietzsche. He is absolutely wholesale, absolutely unmitigated in his denunciation of man as we know him, and all his works, all his ways. He says simply of them that they must go, they must be transcended, overcome, otherwise no overman. Because, as we must emphasise, Nietzsche's ultimate aim is not negative at all, it is positive. His ultimate aim is the creation of the overman, and man as we know him at present, have him at present, gets in the way of .the overman.. So man, if the overman is to come, must go. Also, and this is even more important to grasp, when one speaks of negating external values, or negating existing values, existing ways, modes of thought, there is no question of negating something external to oneself. It is not a question of going on negating other people because you think that they are not sufficiently like the overman. Oh no, says Nietzsche, it's yourself that you must negate, it's yourself that you must overcome. It is with oneself that one must be ruthless, with oneself that one must be uncompromising. And Nietzsche speaks - he's very fond of using this sort of language - speaks in terms of warfare and battle. And this sort of language, this sort of terminology has of course been misunderstood. But it is the inner warfare, the inner battle that he speaks about. One must fight with oneself because, as he says in so many words, Who is one's worst enemy? One's worst enemy is oneself. So that's the enemy you really have to overcome, and he who conquers himself has the more 9 glorious victory. Though one may conquer a thousand men, a thousand times in battle, yet he who conquers himself has the more glorious victory, because it's the self, one's own self, one's lower self, oneself as one is here and now, that is the greatest enemy, the greatest obstacle, to the creation of the overman. That quotation, of course, comes from the Dhammapada. Those were the words of the Buddha and with them we come back to Buddhism, back to the Higher Evolution, because it's time that we started making our comparisons. Nietzsche knew something of Buddhism. In his writings there are several references to Buddhism, but he didn't know enough about Buddhism to be in a position to arrive at a balanced judgement about it. In his day very few Buddhist texts had been translated and, though what Nietzsche says about Buddhism is of great interest, it's to some extent based on misinformation and misunderstanding. So I don't propose to say anything about his views, in any case quite incidental, on Buddhism here. 'The Higher Evolution and the Overman' follows. The Higher Evolution and the Overman. Now it's obvious that there is a very great deal of similarity as between the concept of the Higher Evolution and the New Man on the one hand, and Nietzsche's conception of the Overman on the other. Not, of course, that the two are identical. As compared with the ideal, let us say, of Buddhahood, Nietzsche's overman is rather lacking in positive content, and this isn't surprising. After all, Nietzsche's conception of the overman is the product of thought, very brilliant thought, thought of a genius; but still thought, something intellectual, even though intellectual to the point of intuition, even though penetrating to the point of intuition, but still thought - not actual spiritual, not actual transcendental realisation. So for this reason, Nietzsche's conception of the overman is rather lacking in content, especially in positive content. But Nietzsche's main point is that the overman is not man as we know him, that the overman transcends man, goes far beyond man, goes beyond him as man himself transcends the ape. From this it is abundantly clear, starkly clear, we may say, that man is transitional. As we saw in Nietzsche's phrase, man is a rope stretched between the beast and the overman. And this of course brings us back to the subject of the will to power, the will to a higher degree of being achieved through self-overcoming. I am going to suggest that the will to power corresponds in a very general way to The Will to Enlightenment. Both are active. The will to power is a will. The Will to Enlightenment is also a will. And both are concerned with the actual production, not just with thinking about, but with the actual production of the highest realisable ideal. One, of course, is the ideal of the overman. The other, of course, is the ideal of Buddhahood, Enlightenment, Supreme Enlightenment for the sake, for the benefit, of all living beings. And the achievement of both ideals, that of the overman, that of Buddhahood, both require the overcoming of one's lower self or lower selves, overcoming of all lower values, lower evaluations, lower ideas of every kind. So here there's a similarity, here there's a resemblance. At the same time there are differences. The Will to Enlightenment which constitutes the Bodhisattva is more altruistic, more other-regarding, more cosmic. It is the manifestation in the individual, in the Bodhisattva, in fact, of a universal, a cosmic principle; but the will to power is much more individualistic. It is much more concerned with one's own creation of the overman by overcoming 10