Alfraganus
xalqaro ilmiy jurnal
6
WEST AND EAST DIALOGUE
ABOUT HUMAN INSIDE
Ruzmatova Gulnoz Mirakhrarovna,
Professor of the Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences,
ALFRAGANUS UNIVERSITY non-government higher education institution,
Doctor of Philosophy.
e-mail: ruzmatovagulnoz1968@gmail.com
ORCID: 0000-0001-7046-1732
ANNOTATION:
The article analyzes the work of Arthur Schopenhauer, the theoretical ideas that mo
-
tivated the formation of his worldview based on various sources. It reveals life factors that influenced the
worldview of the thinker, the interaction between Arthur Schopenhauer’s creative activity in his practical life.
In the philosophical views of the thinker, the issue of existence, his ideas about human will are analyzed,
Schopenhauer’s doctrine of morality and attitude to religion are thoroughly covered.
Schopenhauer’s philosophical system can be superficially compared to the «Four Noble Truths» of Bud
-
dhism. According to Schopenhauer, there is no doubt that the whole world, the whole life consists of pain and
suffering. The cause of suffering lies in the mindless, wandering, disordered-chaotic will, which voluntarily and
freely creates and destroys human life, does not give it any meaning. But suffering can be stopped: life can have
meaning, if the mind refuses to serve the will, if it makes «Nothing» its goal, if it becomes absorbed in «Nothing».
Schopenhauer suggests a way to escape suffering and reach Nothingness: suffering and asceticism. Looking
at liberation in the context of Buddhist teachings, it can be said that Schopenhauer’s philosophy is a European
version of nirvana. Schopenhauer promotes Buddhism and calls Indian terms synonymous with his own terms.
As we will see below, the negation of «I» in Schopenhauer is based on a Brahmanic script, not a Buddhist
one. Behind the immanent individuality is the groundless, substantial will, the «thing-in-itself» that «carries
infinite individual possibilities.» In Buddhism, the «I» is disintegrated into a stream of ever-changing elements
that appear and disappear every second.
Alfraganus
xalqaro ilmiy jurnal
7
INTRODUCTION
It is widely believed in Western social thought that
Indian philosophy and religion strongly influenced the
views of Arthur Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer himself
writes in his book «The World as Will and Representa
-
tion» that he is familiar with ancient Indian wisdom. This
is one of the conditions for understanding his views,
while the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and Plato is the
second condition for understanding Schopenhauer.
Schopenhauer makes several references to the Vedas,
Upanishads, Brahmanism and Buddhism, that is, he
freely uses Indian terms in his metaphysics. In fact,
Schopenhauer knew the Upanishads, the Puranas,
and the Bhagavatgita, and was educated in Sankhya,
Vedanta, and Buddhism. But this information does not
fully satisfy him. At the end of the 18th century and the
beginning of the 19th century, in a period when Europe
was discovering the mythology, literature, philosophy,
and religion of ancient India for itself, the first imperfect
translations began to appear. Therefore, Schopenhauer’s
attitude towards ancient Indian thoughts was formed
on the basis of these translations. But it was entirely
impossible to master it.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Particularly, the Russian thinkers I.S. Narskyi [1], P.S.
Gurevich [2], A.N. Kochetov [3, 54], F.I. Sherbatskoi [4],
V.I. Rudoi [5], A.F. Zotov [6], V. Windelband, who shed
light on the works of A. Schopenhauer [7], A. Schweizer
[8] and others, as examples of their works, researches,
pamphlets, and articles. These studies reflect the great
thinker’s worldview, philosophy of existence, doctrine
about man, social and moral heritage. For example, in
A.F. Zotov’s treatise dedicated to Arthur Schopenhauer,
attention is paid to the philosopher’s life, work, and moral
reflections in the depressed psyche.
METHODOLOGY
Scientific and philosophical principles such as struc
-
tural, theoretical-deductive reasoning, analysis and
synthesis, historical and logical, comparative analysis
were used during the research.
RESULTS
Schopenhauer hardly sees the difference between
Buddhism and Brahmanism, he brings them closer to
Christianity [9, 150]. All this is necessary for the thinker to
confirm his main idea: that is, to free man and humanity
from this imagined mortal world, to deny the will of life
underlying it. In Eastern religions, according to Schopen
-
hauer, this was done step by step: the denial of the will
to live - «among many Christians, the life of holy vales
is coveted, among Hindus and Buddhists ... the denial
of the will to pursue life is more common, which means
information is given in Sanskrit sources» [10, 355-359].
Schopenhauer recognizes the practice of piety as the
solution to the problem. The pious way of life in ancient
India was a direct proof of his teachings: «to follow this
life for a long time in spite of difficulties in a nation of
many millions is not a product of free imagination, but of
the essence of humanity. took place» [10, 360]. In this
regard, the promotion of Christianity in present-day India
is unnecessary, and even harmful. «In India, our religion
cannot find its foundation,» writes Schopenhauer, «an
-
cient wisdom cannot be supplanted by the phenomena
of Galileo.» On the contrary, Indian culture is moving
towards Europe. It is making a fundamental revolution
in our mind and thinking» [10, 334]. Schopenhauer
distinguishes Buddhism from Brahmanism through its
attitude to piety. According to him, the full realization of
moral virtues leads to poverty. It leads to self-restraint and
the renunciation of all kinds of sufferings and excesses.
«Haqqaniyyah is a strict rule that teaches constant suf-
Indeed, in «Aphorisms of Life Wisdom» Schopenhauer does not reflect on human compassion and as
-
ceticism. In this treatise, the reader is offered a compromise: Schopenhauer forgets about the high moral
and metaphysical point of view, and argues that it is possible to live happily from an everyday, empirical
position. In his metaphysics, such a possibility turns out to be a lie and a mistake, so Schopenhauer agrees
that the value of the «Aphorism ...» is conditional and nevertheless puts forward his advice.
Schopenhauer’s idea that “will is the sign of totality” emerged as an analysis of the works of Kant and
Fichte. He acquired the idea of the primacy of ideas or phenomena of will from Plato; the overall pessimis
-
tic outlook and the idea of abandonment of will in his works are acquired from Buddhism. The life ideal of
the philosophers is the ascetism in Buddhist fashion. Despite fact that the worldview of Schopenhauer is
heavily influenced by Eastern philosophical traditions, he insists on the independent emergence of his own
philosophical system.
KEY WORDS:
Intention, free will, «The world as will and representation», Buddhism, Hinduism.
Alfraganus
xalqaro ilmiy jurnal
8
fering, philanthropy, self-restraint, and constant fasting.
It is for this reason that Buddhism plays a central role in
Brahmanism, without its exaggerated richness. In other
words, purposefully free from self-torture. He is satisfied
with celibacy, lives a poor life, accepts submissive mo
-
nasticism, does not eat animal flesh, renounces worldly
pleasures» [9, 153].
According to Schopenhauer, a person who follows
one of the Eastern religions has one advantage, that is,
he looks at death calmly. The thought of poverty should
not frighten us. Because when we think about death,
we should think about the time that passed before we
came into the world. The recognition of pre-natal life
by the Indians is their great achievement. If Christians
applied life after death to life before birth, there would
be great light upon light.
The process of death, according to Schopenhauer, is
similar to reawakening after escaping a terrible horror.
That’s why Hindus gave Yama, the god of death, two
faces, one is scary and terrible, and the other is kind and
noble. Schopenhauer finds the idea of the insignificance
of life and death of the individual in the Bhagavad Gita.
Death, flying on the wings of time, reveals that it is a
deceptive mirage, unable to rule from the «office of the
objectified will.» Because it is the empty cloak of the
present and the future Maya, which must exist, it is not
afraid of death, just as the sun is not afraid of darkness.
«It is on this ground,» writes Schopenhauer, «that Kr
-
ishna places the questioner Arjun in the Bhagavatgita»
[10, 276].
Maya and nirvana are the two concepts of Hindu
philosophy, similarly the phrase «Tat tvam asi» (This is
You) in the Upanishads is used a lot by Schopenhauer.
From the first lines of «The world as a will...», the scien
-
tist turns to Indian wisdom. According to him, the world
of events does not exist unconditionally, it depends on
the subject, it is similar to imagination in essence. «The
ancient wisdom of the Indians,» writes Schopenhauer,
«is that the false veil of Maya covers the eyes of those
condemned to death and leads them to an invisible world,
one cannot know whether it exists or not; because it is
like a dream, like sunlight on a grain of sand, which a
traveler thinks is water or a discarded rope is a snake»
[10, 8]. Because of the veil of maya, the thing in itself
appears to the individual as an imaginary phenomenon.
Initially, at the beginning of the treatise, Schopenhauer
refers to the Indians, but later he appropriates these
concepts as his own.
The concept of «Maya» is widely used in ancient In
-
dian philosophy. But the concept of «nirvana» was used
as a synonym for a state that denies the will to live. This
gave Windelband an impression of Schopenhauer as «a
preacher of atheistic Buddhism.» Is Windelband right,
who put Schopenhauer’s teachings on one side and
Buddhism on the other? At first glance, Schopenhauer’s
philosophy appears in the Buddha’s «four noble truths»
as an analogue of Buddhism. F. I. Sherbatskoy expresses
it in the work «Buddhist concept of nirvana» as follows:
1) existence of phenomenal existence (duhkha); 2) the
power that awakens it (samudaya); 3) final extinction
(nirodha); 4) there is a way to get rid of it (marga) [4,
215]. In fact, the four noble truths are given as follows:
suffering exists, suffering has a cause, suffering can be
stopped, and suffering has a way.
In his works, Schopenhauer attaches great impor
-
tance to justifying the situation that «life consists of
suffering». Of course, after all, he is considered «the
founder of pessimism (philosophy of depression) in
Europe», that’s why he talks about suffering. «Every
pleasure and happiness has a negative aspect, and
suffering is positive by its nature» [9, 65], Schopenhauer
insists. When we satisfy some of our needs, we enjoy
and become happy, that is, happiness finds a place in
need, so lack of need leads to suffering. But the satis
-
faction of the need extinguishes the desire, and at the
same time - the pleasure. We are always given a direct
need, which is manifested in suffering. Each achieved
goal is the beginning of the next aspiration, this event
continues forever. In the words of Schopenhauer, we
must be unhappy, and we are.
Why should it be? What is the cause of suffering?
According to Schopenhauer, life depends on the will - it
is hidden in the essence of the universe, it cannot be
known. The will is primary, groundless and uncaused
(«it lies outside the realm of fundamental law and all its
forms»), free from reproduction (it exists as a singularity
outside of space and time), without purpose. «The will
must destroy itself, there is nothing else, because it
is a hungry will. This is where worries, sufferings and
regrets come from» [10, 174]. In man, will is primary,
not thinking. But a person is not a will in itself, but a phe
-
nomenon of will. That is why, like other phenomena, it is
conditioned by the law of foundation and subordinated
to it. Schopenhauer repeats again and again that people
think that they are free in their actions and that they can
choose another life path at any time, but in reality they
play the role that they have chosen once and for all.
Man is like a set clockwork, he does not even know
why he is walking. «From sperm to birth, human time
starts working. Note after note, mile after mile, repeats,
with imperceptible variations, the melody of shame, which
he has played again and again before.’ These words of
Schopenhauer remind us of the cycle of death and life
(sansara), which is constantly rotating without stopping.
«Each individual, each face and path of life,» continues
Schopenhauer, «is a fleeting dream of the infinite spirit
of nature, another fleeting embodiment of the infinite
will to live.» The soul plays with it, brings it down to the
Alfraganus
xalqaro ilmiy jurnal
9
canvas of infinite space and time, preserves it until the
end, and then creates new symbols. That’s when the
terrible side of life appears. For every passing image, for
every miracle, life pays with its infinite suffering with its
will to live, and in the end, bitter death meets it again»
[10, 306].
The tragic situation of man in this world is due to the
fact that the universe consists of will. But life laughs at
him too. According to Schopenhauer, instead of protecting
the tragic honor of the character, it turns it into a point
-
less comedy. Because the will prevails over the mind,
he is afraid of death. The mind knows the true value of
life, so it is not saddened by death. But knowing one’s
identity means separation (objectification) of the will from
itself and serves it. Therefore, «the fear of death ... is
the back of the will to live, from which we are formed»
[9, 83]. Blind will, knowledge reveals the essence of the
phenomenon of isolation. From this comes the mirage of
the will, as if with this event, with this individual, he also
dies. In fact, things retain their timelessness.
Selfishness, striving to satisfy one’s desires by any
means, comes from the primacy of the will. Alienation
from others, striving for life at an instinctive level, un-
der any circumstances, appears as the main source of
suffering in the whole universe. Schopenhauer always
states that «man is such a being that his life consists of
fate and repentance... After all, nothing can be compared
to the fact that life is a mistake and the consequences
of wrong actions» [9, 71] .
Everyone wants to get rid of this situation. Because
suffering is directly related to the will, the only way to get
rid of it is to give up all desires and wishes. Renuncia
-
tion of the will leads to its denial. «Individuality,» writes
Schopenhauer, «is a kind of error and short-sightedness.
Renunciation of it constitutes the purpose of life» [9,
113]. Only after realizing that the will is free from any
phenomenon, after knowing that it is free from multiplic
-
ity, a person understands that he is one with the world.
«The immensity of the world used to make us happy,
but now it is in our hearts: our dependence on it and its
dependence on us disappear» [10, 214]. According to
Schopenhauer, the state of transcendence is beautifully
expressed in the Upanishads in the formula «tat tvam
asi». The one who «can speak with a clear mind and
determination to every creature he encounters as if he
is an equal, he will achieve goodness and truthfulness,
he will have chosen the path of Redemption» [10, 348].
Thus, the goal of life is manifested in the renunciation
of the will. How to get there? A person who is at peace
with the world goes to the path of suffering, in which the
feeling of love for his neighbor awakens in the full sense.
«Whoever performs heroic deeds in the path of love,
the veil of maya weakens, he gets rid of the mirage of
isolation. He sees himself in every person, even in his
opponent, recognizes his personality, understands his
will» [10, 347]. But moral goodness is not an end in itself,
and suffering is the first step towards the realization of
a higher goal.
The next step is the transition from virtue to asceticism.
A person is no longer satisfied only with love, but what
he does to himself, he also does to others. Aversion to
the will to life appears in it, a separation of the essence
from its phenomenon occurs. Asceticism, according to
Schopenhauer’s understanding, consists in the voluntary
renunciation of the will to pleasure and the conscious
choice of a life of hardship and subjugation.
According to Schopenhauer, step-by-step relinquish
-
ment of the will is fully reflected in Indian morality. In
it, «renunciation of selfishness through love for one’s
neighbors, general love directed not only to humanity,
but to all beings, good deeds, daily alms distribution
... unlimited tolerance towards the needy, towards all
evil, how terrible to respond with kindness in spite of ...
abstaining from eating animal flesh, abstaining from all
passionate pursuits, renouncing all possessions, home
and children, going into deep and absolute bliss, by
slowly torturing the div, voluntarily to bring to death...»
[10, 359-360] is mentioned. Choosing voluntary death,
according to Schopenhauer, does not imply suicide, but
is a different form of will. That’s when the art of Maya
emerges, the conflict of will is clearly visible. On the
contrary, voluntary death in such a case destroys not
the event, but the essence of the world, the will.
Therefore, the realization of the highest goal passes
through two stages: noble suffering and asceticism. The
need for these paths can be understood in two ways:
the more common one is complete salvation through
personal suffering, «the will must be broken through
terrible personal suffering before it is completely denied»
[10, 363], since without suffering, even by knowing it one
can renounce the will.
The culmination and culmination of a philosophical
system is complete freedom from the world. According
to Schopenhauer, the whole of existence is manifested
as suffering, empty into «nothing». Acknowledging future
objections, Schopenhauer speaks not about absolute
emptiness, but about relative emptiness. Since we are
at the limit of the world as a will, we cannot talk about its
destruction in a negative way. «According to the opposite
point of view, if it were some kind of sign or essence,
for us it would not be «nothing» but «nothing-being»
[10, 376].
According to Schopenhauer, the condition that leads
to the complete negation of the will cannot be called
knowledge, because it is not in the form of a subject and
an object, but it can be called a unique personal expe
-
rience of each person. This is where Schopenhauer’s
philosophy ends and his mysticism begins. A scientist,
Alfraganus
xalqaro ilmiy jurnal
10
on the other hand, wants to stay within the realm of phi
-
losophy. Schopenhauer’s concept of «nirvana» remained
unchanged. If, in the first volume of «The World as Will
and Imagination», he accuses the Hindu sages of the
doctrine of emptiness, he admits that in his philosophy he
clearly interprets «nothing». In the second volume of his
work, «The World as Will and Imagination», this opinion
changes completely. He acknowledges that Buddhist
ideas about emptiness are in harmony with his views.
«Buddhism calls this «nothingness» nairvana» [9, 132].
Striving to reveal the etymology of the concept of
«Nirvana», Schopenhauer comes to the following con
-
clusion. Buddhism talks about the state of total freedom
and expresses it in negative terms, «nirvana» means
renunciation of this world, sansara. If the concept of
«nirvana» refers to their «nothingness», then samsara
is not composed of any element that defines or indicates
the structure of nirvana. So, according to Schopenhauer,
«nirvana» is synonymous with «nothing».
How correct such an interpretation can be, we will
approach it from the other side, that is, from the point of
view of Buddhism and its philosophy. F. I. Sherbatskoi
offers his above-mentioned view of the «four noble
truths» and adds: «These four truths in their general form
are accepted equally by all Indian systems, in which no
additional or ‘q. These truths change depending on what
meaning is attached to the phenomenon of life (duhkha)
and extinction (nirvana)» [4, 207].
Thus, at first it is necessary to compare Schopen
-
hauer’s concept of «suffering» with a similar concept in
Buddhism. What is the meaning of the concept of «duk
-
kha» in Buddhism, which is translated as «suffering» in
European language? We refer to the latest jobs in this
field. «Duhkha» ideology does not have a meaningful
opposition at the concept level, - writes V.I. Rudoy, -
happiness (sukha) is a specific fixation-settlement of the
psychological life of an individual, but this evidence is
based on its non-permanence, (duhkha) influence lies
within its borders, it is subject to the principle of broad
outlook» [5, 19]. Such an understanding of «duhkha» is
consistent with Schopenhauer’s idea of suffering - «any
state of pleasure or so-called happiness, in essence,
has a negative, not a positive, character» - it confirms
the infinity of suffering and the transience of happiness.
How fundamental is the comparative relationship be
-
tween the concept of «duhkha» and the term «suffering»
in Buddhism, as it is in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Suffering was interpreted in the ancient Torah as God’s
punishment and curse for sin. In the New Torah, on the
contrary, suffering is interpreted as an opportunity for
salvation. This led medieval mystics to see God’s love
for man in suffering. These divine interpretations were
reflected in religious systems and characterized the
«God-human individual» interaction. In the Buddhist
tradition, «duhkha» has a non-divine basis, which is
manifested through the essence of the worldview in the
analysis of the field of empirical existence. In particular,
«suffering plays a different role in the Judeo-Christian
tradition from a functional point of view compared to
«duhkha» in Buddhism» [5, 19]. In this regard, Buddhists
demand a different interpretation of «duhkha» or ask to
abandon this term altogether.
Even though Schopenhauer’s proposal of a form of
«religious behavior without belief in God» is close to Bud
-
dhist views, according to Windelband, the interpretation
of «suffering» is not free from Christian traditions. On the
contrary, it is possible to observe the direct reference to
it. According to him, the upbeat-optimistic spirit of the
Old Torah is denied, and in relation to man, in relation to
his existence, «his life is given as a punishment for sins
and to wash them away.» And Schopenhauer sees the
possibility of salvation in suffering. «It is more correct,»
Schopenhauer continues, contrasting the New Torah with
the Old Torah, «if we see the purpose of our life in labor,
limitations, need, sorrow, death (these (also observed
in Buddhism, Brahmanism and true Christianity), these
are the ones that call us to give up the will to pursue
life» [9, 76]. After all, we can see that Schopenhauer
went in the direction of Western traditions in this matter.
In Buddhism, the interpretation of the concept of
«duhkha» is based on the emergence of the concept of
causality. Denying the concept of the «I» of the individual
as a substantial whole, Buddhism proposes to view the
individual as a systematic system. This system includes
five sub-systems that encompass his entire psychophys
-
ical existence. «The dharmas conditioned by this cause
form the aggregate of matter, the aggregate of feelings,
the aggregate of concepts, the aggregate of formative
factors, and the aggregate of consciousness,» writes
Vasubandhu in his treatise «Abhidkarmakosha» [4, 49].
The person, the soul is actually a collection of elements,
«stream of consciousness», they do not have stability
and substantiality. These elements are connected to
each other through the law of special interdependence.
There is individual subjectivity, thus an irreversible chain
of principles in time, causally conditioned by nature.
«Duhkha» is the flow of conditions conditioned by rea
-
son, since in the field of causal action the «subject» is
interpreted as the absolute sufferer. The patient state
of individual existence is interpreted in Buddhism as
samsara, the endless cycle of existence, the essential
existential characteristic of dukkha.
A parallel line can be drawn between Schopenhau
-
er’s philosophy and Buddhism, and in the thinker’s
teaching, suffering is connected with a desire for a
world subject to the fundamental law. Going beyond its
limits, according to Schopenhauer, leads to seeing our
individuality (uniqueness) from a different angle. There
Alfraganus
xalqaro ilmiy jurnal
11
is great ambiguity in the term «I». «My individual exist
-
ence appears only as a barrier,» writes the scientist,
«this barrier passes between me and the real circle of
knowledge of my existence.» Such an obstacle exists
in the cognitive activity of every individual, it is the self
(individuation) that confuses the desire for life with its
own existence: this is Maya in Brahmanism» [9, 148].
Thirst, thirst for sensory experience, desire for pleas
-
ure, and avoidance of unpleasantness are the causes
of dukkha suffering, born of the egocentric habituation
(skill) of the individual. Schopenhauer’s position is con
-
sistent with this. But at the logical discursive level, thirst
in Buddhism is linked to the fact that dharmas cause an
affective flow. «It is the affects that make living beings
wander in the ocean of samsara» [4, 46], says Vasu
-
bandhu. Schopenhauer, of course, does not engage in
such an analysis of affects, because he does not divide
the person into structures.
In Buddhism, the cessation of suffering, i.e., the
cessation of the influence of causal factors, does not
lead to a radical transformation of the initial state of
samsara. In order for it to pass, there must be a certain
basis in the individual psychophysical structure. The
dharmas that are free from the flow of affectivity appear
as such a basis - «the path of truth and the three paths
of non-conditioning» [4, 48]. Their presence is equally
characteristic of the empirical state of the psyche and
the state of pure wisdom. All dharmas with the «set of
affects» are conditioned by reason, but the dharma of the
«path of truth» («the path to the cessation of suffering»)
is conditioned by reason and is not bound by the flow of
affectivity. Vasubandhu explains that even though the
path manifests itself as an object of desire, even though
the affect is born because of it, they do not «stick» to
the dharma because they do not find it empowering.
The existence of a way out of suffering frees the savior
from egocentric goal-setting. The fourth «noble truth»
thus appears as a driving force to change the state of
consciousness.
Vasubandhu understands the three types of un
-
conditioned as ``akasha’’ and the two types of loss’’ [4,
48]. As a type of non-conditioning, Akasha constitutes
a unique space, a «space of psychic experience» freed
from subjectivity. The content of two types of loss is
«loss caused by knowledge» and «loss not caused
by knowledge». The first one, by multiplying the four
truths, leads to a change in the basic life attitude of the
individual, the closed individual «I» direction turns into
an impersonal existence attitude. The second type of
loss is accomplished by not letting the dharmas spread
with the flow of affectivity. This is pure psychotechnics,
eliminating the foundations of the affective state.
Thus, Buddhism has an ontological basis for freedom
from suffering, while Schopenhauer’s philosophy is an
exception. «There is a paradox here, the will must lose
itself as a kind of immortality, the primary basis of all
existence. But despite this, the task is set: the negation
of the will appears as a deep ontological factor. It affects
the life fate of a person in a decisive and radical way»
[11, 141]. This aspect is Schopenhauer’s most doubtful
point. «Loss should not be related to the objectification
of the will, but should belong to itself» [7, 282], but is it
possible to lose this «thing itself»? Schopenhauer does
not ask such a question, but it is enough to indicate that
it is a necessity.
The difference in views is obvious: the realization of
similar goals (to nirvana in Buddhism, to «nothing» in
Schopenhauer) is based in one case, and in the other
case it is only mentioned. Schopenhauer’s likening of
nothingness to nirvana is, in a sense, pervasive. The
reason for this is that in both cases it cannot be ade-
quately expressed in language. But Buddhism offers a
wide opportunity, because it is a polymorphic structure,
its three levels (doctrinal, logical-discursive and psy
-
chotechnical) are realized as complementary to each
other. Inexpressibility in language does not mean that
it is unattainable, and Schopenhauer limits himself to
the limit of metaphysics: «At the moment of death, it
is decided whether a person throws himself into the
bosom of nature or does not belong to it .. But we don’t
have symbols, concepts, and words for the opposite
situation - because these are exactly what we got from
objectification, so they don’t serve the absolute opposite
situation» [9, 155]. Philosophy must avoid mysticism;
its task is limited to the world.
Schopenhauer confirms this situation to anyone:
«... A philosopher does not have to be a philosopher,
a philosopher does not have to be a philosopher» [10,
356]. In this way, he mitigates the accusation of not
following the direction he proposed, and sometimes
such accusations take a sharp turn. According to A.
Schweizer, «Schopenhauer appears as a European
skeptic» in relation to Indian sages, «he cannot live in
the worldview he created, he does not strive for life, he
values gastronomic delights more than the pain of love.»
, instead of showing mercy to people, they show their
hatred more strongly» [8, 182].
Schweizer sees in this conflict that the development
of the world and the idea of vital negation cannot be re-
alized step by step. Because Schopenhauer «does not
try to connect theory and practice, he refers to doubtful
ideas» [8, 162]. According to Windelband, «the separation
between will and thinking affects the doctrine, which is
reflected both in his personality and in his life» [7, 294].
And Schopenhauer does not seriously pay attention
to the conflict between morality in his works and «the
intellect that wants to get rid of the will, the will that
imposes its «Aphorisms...» on the intellect.» The goal
Alfraganus
xalqaro ilmiy jurnal
12
of philosophy is «to express the essence of the whole
world in concepts in an abstract, general and concrete
form, thinking offers a picture of this perception in stable,
existing concepts» [10, 366].
At this point, we see the difference between Schopen
-
hauer’s views and Buddhist philosophy. Buddhist phi
-
losophy is closely related to religious practices, psycho
-
technics, and yogic methods. The value of philosophical
truth is characterized, on the one hand, by the result of
directly experiencing it, on the other hand, by how much
it can lead to a higher state, that is, it should be ready
for psychotechnics, meditation and religious doctrine.
In general, such a practical direction is characteristic of
Indian metaphysics. The disconnection between thought
and action is characteristic not only of Schopenhauer,
but also of the entire Western philosophical tradition.
Schopenhauer avoided extreme hedonism and
extreme asceticism in behavior, in this sense his life
corresponds to middle Buddhist behavior, but here the
sage-stoic appears as his ideal. After all, the other side
of Schopenhauer cannot give up extreme pessimism.
According to Schopenhauer, Stoic ethics «can be used
for the purpose of liberation - thinking, which is a great
ability of a person worthy of respect and valuable, it frees
a person from suffering» [10, 125]. After all, even if it is
not possible to get rid of all troubles with its help (in this
sense, Schopenhauer puts the mind lower than Indian
wisdom and the image of Christian Redemption), it is
possible to rely on its help in everyday life.
Windelband recognizes the great writing of the
thinker, «he had the ability to translate from the school
language, the principles that he had not discovered with
mastery and high skill» [7, 265]. However, Nietzsche’s
ideas are more valuable. In his Schopenhauer as Ed
-
ucator, Nietzsche writes: «Later, what he learned from
life, books, and various branches of science served as
more vivid means of expression; even Kantian philos
-
ophy became a rhetorical tool to make the image clear
and concise, and Buddhist and Christian mythology
also served this purpose. For him there was only one
problem, but thousands of solutions were mobilized to
solve this single problem» [12, 808].
CONCLUSION
To sum up, in Schopenhauer’s thought, Buddhism
is the reevaluation tool for the European metaphysical
tradition. He wants to withdraw from strict rationality
and present the new content of his metaphysics by
mixing it with the wonderful forms of Eastern wisdom.
For that, he uses Hindu and Buddhist terminology very
plentifully. But this should not mean that Schopenhauer
completely abandoned European traditions and accepted
Buddhism. The compatibility of Schopenhauer’s teaching
with Buddhism must not be understood as overlapping
of the two. Also, these similarities must not be taken to
mean identity.
[1] Narskiy I.S. Artur Shopengauer – teoretik vselenskogo pessimizma // A.Shopengauer. Izbr.
proizv. – M.: Misl, 1992.
[2] Gurevich P.S. Etika A.Shopengauera. – M.: Nauka, 1991.
[3] Kochetov A.N. Buddizm. – M.: Misl, 1983.
[4] Sherbatskoy F.I. Konsepsiya buddiyskoy nirvani // F.I.Sherbatskoy. Izbranniye trudi po
buddizmu. – M.: Misl, 1988.
[5] Rudoy V.I. Vvedeniye v buddiyskuyu filosofiyu // Vasubandxu. Abxidxarmakosha / Ensiklopediya
Abxidxarmi / – M.: Misl, 1990.
[6] Zotov A.F. Sovremennaya zapadnoyevropeyskaya filosofiY. – M.: Nauka, 2002.
[7] Vindelband V. Istoriya novoy filosofii v yeye svyazi s obshey kulturoy i otdelnimi naukami. T.2. –SPb.,
1905.
[8] Shveyser A. Kultura i etika. – M.: Misl, 1992.
[9] Shopengauer A. Sochineniye v chetirex tomax. – T. 3. – M.: Misl, 1990.
[10] Shopengauer A. Mir kak volya i predstavleniye // A.Shopengauer. Sobraniye sochineniya. –T. 1.
–M.: Misl, 1992.
[11] Avtonomova N.S. Rassudok. Razum. Ratsionalnost. – M.:Nauka, 1988.
[12] Nitsshe F. Poln. Sobraniye sochineniya. –T. 2. – M.: Misl, 1909.
[13] Ruzmatova G. Eastern melodies in the text of Plato // International Journal of Recent Technology
and Engineering. Vol. 8, Issue-2S6, July, (2019). – P. 444–448. IJRTE. ISSN: 2277–3878.
[14] Ruzmatova G. Comparativist analysis of Representations about Will in View of Friedrich Nitzsche
and Jalaliddin Rumi // International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, Vol. 24, Issue 04, 2020. ISSN:
1475–7192. – P. 3215–3227.
[15] Rakhimdjanova D.S. Features of the freedom issues in the Plot’s philosophy. International Journal of
Advanced Science and Technology. Vol. 28, No. 16. (2019), pp. 1560–1564. ISSN: 2005–4238 IJAST.
REFERENCES:
