Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Discussion

Nishitani on nihilism: you have to go through it, not around it

I came to the Kyoto School late, through zazen at a small temple near my house. The book that has helped me most this year is Nishitani Keiji's Religion and Nothingness, read slowly in Japanese with the English translation beside it.

Nishitani, who studied with Heidegger in Freiburg before the war, took European nihilism completely seriously. In an earlier book on the self-overcoming of nihilism he read Nietzsche and others as people who had looked into the abyss honestly. He did not think the answer was to retreat to older certainties.

His proposal, as I understand it: nihilism is the experience of relative nothingness, the nothingness that negates meaning and stands opposed to being. It is real and must be lived through. But if one goes all the way through it, one arrives at what Buddhism calls emptiness, śūnyatā, which is not the opposite of being but the field in which both being and nihility appear. From there, things are seen again, as themselves, without the need for a foundation.

I find this persuasive in practice. In sitting, there are periods that feel exactly like nihilism, when nothing has weight. And then sometimes the tea tastes like tea again.

But I am an engineer, and I worry I am turning a philosophical argument into a personal experience. Is Nishitani's "going through" an argument, or only a testimony? I would like to hear from others who have read him, and from those who think nihilism needs no overcoming.

LikeReplyFollow4 replies

Members reply here. Reading is always free.

Sign in to reply

4 replies

  1. Kenneth Leung Chi-ho

    Fellow

    The key distinction you're drawing, Aiko, is between nihility (kyomu) and emptiness (kū). Nishitani insists they are not the same. Nihility is still defined against being; it's the negation of meaning. Emptiness is not a negation of anything; it's the standpoint where the opposition itself is seen through. In that sense, it's an argument as well as a testimony: the claim is that nihilism, taken to its end, undermines its own framework, because it still depends on the idea of substantial being that it denies.

  2. Moon Ha-eun

    Contributor

    Koreans have a word, han, for a grief that accumulates and doesn't resolve. I came to philosophy through han and Schopenhauer, and I distrust overcomings. Schopenhauer looked at the same abyss and didn't come out the other side with tea that tasted of tea. He found consolation in music and in the quieting of the will, but not a return. So my question for Nishitani: is the return guaranteed, or is it something some people are given?

    Helpful · 1
  3. Rin Matsuda

    Contributor

    My grandmother was Jōdo Shinshū and would have said: the return is not achieved, it's received. Shinran thought our own effort could never reach the far shore, and that the realisation of how helpless we are is itself the opening. Nishitani was more Zen than Pure Land, but your experience, Aiko, of the tea "tasting like tea again" sounds to me less like an achievement than a gift. Maybe that answers Moon too: it is given, not guaranteed.

    Helpful · 2
  4. Aiko Tanabe

    Fellow

    Kenneth, thank you, that makes it clearer that there is an argument inside the testimony: nihilism depends on what it negates. Moon, I don't think the return is guaranteed. Nishitani would say it is not a reward for effort. Rin's grandmother's word, "received", may be the honest one. I'll keep sitting, and keep reading him as both an argument and a report.

    Helpful · 3