Schopenhauer: 75% Buddha

Arthur Schopenhauer, 19th-century German philosopher, and Gautama Buddha offer profound insights into the nature of human existence, suffering, and the pursuit of liberation. Schopenhauer’s essay "On the Vanity of Existence" encapsulates his pessimistic view of life as inherently meaningless and driven by insatiable desires. In the Buddha’s first teaching, on the Four Noble Truths, he explains that Desire is the cause of life’s suffering, or dissatisfaction, and how to end suffering: by walking the Noble Eightfold Path and achieving liberation through mindfulness and ethical living. Both thinkers focus on the human condition, particularly the pervasive nature of suffering and the futility of worldly pursuits.

Both Schopenhauer and Buddha place suffering at the heart of human existence, though they articulate it in distinct ways. In "On the Vanity of Existence," Schopenhauer argues that life is characterized by a ceaseless cycle of striving and dissatisfaction. He writes, "The life of man is of no greater duration than the breath of his nostrils," emphasizing the fleeting and ultimately futile nature of human endeavors (Schopenhauer, 1851). For Schopenhauer, suffering arises from the "will," an irrational, blind force that drives all beings to pursue desires that can never be permanently satisfied. The will manifests as an endless yearning—for pleasure, wealth, or power—that leads only to temporary fulfillment, followed by boredom or renewed desire. This cycle renders existence inherently vain, as no achievement or pleasure can provide lasting contentment.

Similarly, Buddha’s First Noble Truth asserts that "life is dukkha" (suffering, dissatisfaction, or unsatisfactoriness). Dukkha encompasses not only physical pain but also the existential unease inherent in impermanent and conditioned existence. In the Dhammapada, Buddha states, "All conditioned things are impermanent—when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering" (Verse 277). Like Schopenhauer, Buddha recognizes that human life is marked by a fundamental dissatisfaction stemming from attachment to transient phenomena. Birth, aging, illness, and death are inevitable, and even moments of pleasure are fleeting, tainted by their impermanence.

However, their explanations of suffering differ in nuance. Schopenhauer’s suffering is metaphysical, rooted in the will as the essence of reality. He views the will as a universal force, manifesting in all beings and driving them toward endless striving. This metaphysical perspective makes suffering an inescapable feature of existence itself, with no external purpose or redemption. Buddha, on the other hand, frames suffering within a psychological and ethical context. Dukkha arises from ignorance (avijja) and craving (tanha), which cause individuals to cling to impermanent things. While Schopenhauer sees suffering as an ontological necessity, Buddha views it as a condition that can be understood and overcome through insight and practice.

Desire plays a central role in both philosophies, serving as the primary source of suffering. For Schopenhauer, the will is the root of all desire, an insatiable force that propels individuals to seek gratification in a world that cannot provide it. In The World as Will and Representation, he argues that "all willing springs from lack, from deficiency, and thus from suffering" (Schopenhauer, 1819). Satisfaction is fleeting because fulfilling one desire leads to either boredom or the emergence of new desires. This endless cycle of wanting and striving renders life a Sisyphean task, where no ultimate fulfillment is possible. Schopenhauer’s view of desire is pessimistic, as he sees no escape from the will within the realm of ordinary existence.

Buddha’s Second Noble Truth similarly identifies craving (tanha) as the cause of suffering. He distinguishes three types of craving: for sensual pleasures, for existence, and for non-existence. Craving leads to attachment, which binds individuals to the cycle of samsara (rebirth), perpetuating suffering across lifetimes. In the Samyutta Nikaya, Buddha explains, "From craving as a condition comes clinging; from clinging as a condition comes becoming" (SN 12.2). Like Schopenhauer, Buddha sees desire as a fundamental obstacle to peace, but he differs in offering a practical solution. The Third Noble Truth asserts that the cessation of craving leads to the cessation of suffering, achievable through the state of nirvana—a liberation from the cycle of desire and rebirth.

The key difference lies in their treatment of desire’s resolution. Schopenhauer’s philosophy is more fatalistic; he suggests that the will can only be temporarily subdued through aesthetic contemplation, asceticism, or compassion, but complete liberation is rare and difficult. Buddha, however, provides a systematic path—the Eightfold Path—to eliminate craving through ethical conduct, mental discipline, and wisdom. While Schopenhauer’s view of desire is tied to a metaphysical force that dominates all existence, Buddha’s approach is pragmatic, emphasizing personal transformation through mindfulness and ethical living.

Schopenhauer and Buddha also diverge in their understanding of reality, which shapes their views on the vanity of existence. Schopenhauer’s philosophy is grounded in his distinction between the world as "will" and the world as "representation." The will is the noumenal reality, the thing-in-itself, while the world of phenomena—space, time, and causality—is a representation shaped by the mind. In "On the Vanity of Existence," Schopenhauer argues that the phenomenal world is illusory in the sense that it is a manifestation of the will, which drives endless striving without purpose. The vanity of existence lies in its lack of ultimate meaning; life is a "business that does not cover its costs" (Schopenhauer, 1851).

Buddha’s teachings also describe the phenomenal world as impermanent and lacking inherent substance, a concept encapsulated in the doctrine of anatta (no-self) and anicca (impermanence). In the Mahayana Sutras, Buddha teaches that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence (shunyata in later Buddhist traditions), existing only in dependence on causes and conditions. This view aligns with Schopenhauer’s notion of the world as representation, as both see the phenomenal world as lacking intrinsic reality. However, Buddha’s framework is soteriological, aimed at liberation through understanding the interdependent nature of reality. By realizing anatta and anicca, one can detach from clinging and achieve nirvana.

Schopenhauer’s view of reality is more static and pessimistic. The will, as the ultimate reality, is eternal and unchanging, offering no possibility of transcendence within its own framework. Liberation, for Schopenhauer, involves denying the will, a process akin to asceticism or mystical experience, but it is not a state of positive fulfillment like nirvana. Buddha’s reality, while impermanent and conditioned, allows for liberation through insight into its true nature. Thus, while both see the world as lacking inherent meaning, Buddha offers a path to transcend this condition, whereas Schopenhauer sees it as an inescapable tragedy.

The most significant divergence between Schopenhauer and Buddha lies in their prescriptions for overcoming the vanity of existence. Schopenhauer proposes two primary means of escaping the will’s tyranny: aesthetic experience and asceticism. In aesthetic contemplation, such as through art or music, the individual temporarily transcends the will by becoming a "pure, will-less subject of knowing" (Schopenhauer, 1819). This state, however, is fleeting. More enduring liberation comes through asceticism, where one denies the will by renouncing desires and worldly attachments. Schopenhauer cites examples from Christian mysticism and Indian ascetic traditions, suggesting that complete denial of the will leads to a state akin to nothingness. However, his pessimism limits the accessibility of this path; it is reserved for rare individuals, and even then, it lacks the positive connotation of Buddhist liberation.

Buddha’s Noble Eightfold Path offers a structured and accessible approach to liberation. Comprising right view, intention, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and concentration, the path integrates ethical conduct, mental discipline, and wisdom to eradicate craving and achieve nirvana. Unlike Schopenhauer’s asceticism, which is extreme and individualistic, Buddha’s path is practical and communal, emphasizing balance (the "Middle Way") between indulgence and extreme self-denial. Nirvana is not nothingness but a state of profound peace, free from suffering and the cycle of rebirth. In the Dhammapada, Buddha describes it as "the highest happiness" (Verse 204), contrasting with Schopenhauer’s more negative conception of liberation.

The similarities and differences between Schopenhauer and Buddha can be partly attributed to their cultural and historical contexts. Schopenhauer wrote in the context of 19th-century Europe, influenced by the Enlightenment, German idealism, and the rediscovery of Indian philosophy through translations of texts like the Upanishads and Buddhist scriptures. His exposure to Eastern thought, particularly Vedanta and Buddhism, shaped his ideas about the will and the illusory nature of the world. However, his philosophy remains rooted in Western individualism and pessimism, reflecting the disillusionment of a post-Romantic era grappling with the decline of religious certainty.

Buddha, living in ancient India, developed his teachings within a vibrant spiritual tradition that included Vedic rituals, Jainism, and other ascetic movements. His rejection of extreme asceticism and emphasis on the Middle Way reflect a practical response to the religious landscape of his time, where extreme practices were common. Buddhism’s focus on community (sangha) and ethical conduct also contrasts with Schopenhauer’s more solitary and metaphysical approach, highlighting the communal orientation of Indian spiritual traditions.

Schopenhauer’s "On the Vanity of Existence" and Buddha’s teachings converge in their recognition of suffering as intrinsic to human life, driven by desire and the impermanence of worldly phenomena. Both view existence as lacking inherent meaning, with Schopenhauer’s will and Buddha’s craving serving as the engines of dissatisfaction. However, their approaches diverge in tone and solution. Schopenhauer’s pessimism leads to a view of life as an unresolvable tragedy, with liberation achievable only through rare and extreme denial of the will. Buddha, in contrast, offers a hopeful and practical path to liberation through the Eightfold Path, emphasizing mindfulness, ethics, and wisdom as means to achieve nirvana.

Schopenhauer’s philosophy resonates with the existential despair of modernity; Buddha’s teachings provide a timeless framework for personal and communal transformation. Their shared insights into the human condition highlight the universality of suffering and the search for meaning, but their differing prescriptions reflect their distinct cultural and philosophical priorities.

Schopenhauer remains the closest Western philosopher to Buddhism, particularly in his view of suffering as driven by desire (the will) and his advocacy of asceticism. The parallels arise partly because Schopenhauer was influenced by translations of Buddhist texts in the 19th century, as well as by broader encounters with Indian philosophy, as was Nietzsche. Perhaps the differences in these philosophies are a result of differences in culture and zeitgeist—Eastern cyclical worldview versus Western linear perspective.

Stoicism and Epicureanism share significant parallels with Buddha’s teachings, particularly in addressing suffering and desire. Founded by Epicurus in the 4th century BC, Epicureanism teaches that the purpose of life is to attain ataraxia (tranquility) and aponia (absence of pain) through simple pleasures, rational understanding, and freedom from fear and desire, aligning with Buddha’s Middle Way and the Second Noble Truth’s identification of craving as suffering’s cause. Both philosophies advocate simplicity to achieve peace, though Epicureanism’s hedonistic pursuit of pleasure diverges from Buddhism’s transcendence of all conditioned states.

Stoicism, founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium in ~300 BC, emphasizes living in accordance with nature, cultivating virtue, akin to Buddha’s Eightfold Path, and achieving eudaimonia (flourishing) through rational self-control. Its concept of apatheia—freedom from destructive passions—mirrors Buddhist non-attachment, promoting equanimity amid life’s impermanence, much like the First Noble Truth’s acknowledgment of dukkha (suffering). Stoics teach that external events—pain, loss, or misfortune—are beyond our control, but we can control our reactions to them. Epictetus writes, “You have power over your mind—not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength” (Enchiridion 1, AD 125). This echoes Buddha’s emphasis on transforming one’s mind to overcome suffering.

Key Stoic thinkers include Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius. The Stoics are my faves among Western philosophers. If you haven’t, I suggest you read or listen to Aurelius’ Meditations, after you read the Dhammapada in less than 30 minutes.