Philosophy: (3 of 3) Postmodernism – and Buddhism

More on Postmodernism (the last of it, thankfully) See here to get started.

Nacho wrote, “I don’t think PoMo is nihilistic, but I also think that Nihilism gets a bad rap. Nihilism about what?”

Good point – The word Nihilism is abused today almost as much as freedom. But I think the case of the Postmodernists (or rather their objectors) is that there is Truth which is independent of our designation of it, and if you reject this completely you’re a nihilist. Buddhists hold, to the best of my knowledge, that there is indeed a Truth independent of our understanding, our language, etc.

Saṃyutta Nikāya II 25ff:

‘…whether there is an arising of Tathāgatas or no arising of Tathāgatas, that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality. A Tathāgata awakens to this and breaks through to it. Having done so, he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it.’ (Bhikkhu Bodhi 2000, p.551)

The Buddha, and Buddhism itself (as its own grand narrative) is not the foundation of Truth (though we often cling to each as if they were) in Buddhism. Yet Buddhism does provide the grand narrative and the Buddha as exemplar, because the Dhamma alone is pretty vague for us normal folk. With these we are moved toward ever more abstract notions of truth, the 8-fold path, the 3 marks of existence, etc. Somewhere along the way we quit grasping to these as if they are true, as if everything else is false. We now see the truth and potential falsehood in everything, including the Buddha’s teachings.

Well, I don’t want to get into it too much now – but look forward to your comments.