We even, at the worst, reach the state for which Buddhism…
““We even, at the worst, reach the state for which Buddhism, in the East presents most ably the case: as in the West, does James Thomson (B.V.) in The City of Dreadful Night ; we come to wish for—or, more truly to think that we wish for "blest Nirvana's sinless stainless Peace" (or some such twaddle—thank God I can't recall Arnold's mawkish and unmanly phrase!) and B.V.'s "Dateless oblivion and divine repose." I insist on the "think that you wish," because, if the real You did really wish the real That, you could never have come to exist at all! ("But I don't exist."—"I know—let's get on!") Note, please, how sophistically unconvincing are the Buddhist theories of how we ever got into this mess. First cause: Ignorance. Way out, then, knowledge. O.K., that implies a knower, a thing known—and so on and so forth, through all the Three Waste Paper Baskets of the Law; analysed, it turns out to be nonsense all dolled up to look like thinking. And there is no genuine explanation of the origin of the Will to be. How different, how simple, how self-evident, is the doctrine of The Book of the Law !””
About This Quote
This interpretation was drafted with AI assistance. It is one reading of the quote, not the author's own explanation.
The passage critiques Buddhist and Western metaphysics, arguing that desire and will are paradoxical and that explanations of existence are circular and unsatisfying.
In simple terms: It questions religious explanations of desire and existence.
Key Takeaway
Recognize the limits of doctrinal explanations.
Themes
philosophy
religion
existentialism
Mood
skeptical
critical
introspective
Type
philosophical
critical
When to use this quote
- personal reflection
- academic study
- spiritual inquiry
- debate on free will
Key Concepts
Buddhism
Western metaphysics
will
ignorance
knowledge
Questions to Reflect On
- How do you reconcile desire with the notion of non‑attachment?
- Can knowledge truly arise without a knower?
A Different Perspective
The argument may oversimplify complex traditions and ignore their nuanced practices.