‘Spirituality’ is making you depressed | JD Salinger

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

All that glitters is not gold. And for Salinger, Buddhism glittered. Hinduism glittered. Orientalist philosophies steeped in the denial of life glittered before him, and when someone has been shattered by the horrors of war, glittering things seem a light in the darkness. But all that glitters is not gold.

[@4give5ess]

It's the denial of illusions, not life, that glitters. We are asleep in perceptual nightmares based on the lie of separation. It's a mistake to conclude from those spiritual teachings that life is to be denied.

[@frncscbtncrt]

The argument in this video is so so wrong. Buddhism is a way of life of interconnectedness, care and love for all other beings, and knowledge of the self. If you dislike Salinger, fair enough, but don’t mix that with a way of life that has given meaning to billions.

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

A philosophy which gives meaning to billions is no argument for it being true. All you need to do is look at religion. Your argument is flawed. Secondly, it is not open to debate that Buddhism considers the world, nature, the cosmos and the human being to be ‘Maya’, meaning illusion. In this, Buddhism, as well as Hinduism, of which it is a bastardisation, is an enemy of life because it sees it as illusory. It dehumanises the human being, denatures nature itself and tells you that you should detach from your very self. Yes. ‘We are one with the mountains’, made up of the same atoms that make them up, and as real as they are. Buddhism preaches what all decadent philosophies preach - that death has more value than life. I spurn such teachings and regard them with the contempt that they deserve. Thanks for contributing.

[@19916718514]

@@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow "Secondly, it is not open to debate that Buddhism considers the world, nature, the cosmos and the human being to be ‘Maya’, meaning illusion". Your whole video is based on the major misunderstanding about the core mainstream buddhist teaching. JD Salinger was a Zen practioner which also belong to the mainstream Mahayana and it doesn't teach this at all. Basic core of buddhism are impermenance, inter-dependentness (emptiness) and non-permanent self. Meaning that the misunderstanding about the nature of the world is what causes us to be grasping which leads to suffering and unsatisfactoriness. However the universe, all living beings are real. It is not an illusion. "It dehumanises the human being, denatures nature itself and tells you that you should detach from your very self.". This is another major misunderstanding of core buddhism philosophy. Buddhism teaches towards non-attachment, not detachment. Meaning non grasping on the misconceptions on the nature of life and removal of greed, hatred and delusions. To live at the present moment and to see clearly, to be equanimous. This is very far from being detached from the world.

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

@@19916718514 You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Take care.

[@19916718514]

@@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow but you are? Curious logic. You are assuming to have all the "facts" ;)

[@carabelly6143]

@@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow you got half of what you said correct, in mi opinion you only neet to see the bigger context then you will understand the other half but you have to look deeper, the villan some times is the saviour and the saviour the villan i guess what im trying to say is that some actions in human development is needed in people don't look deeper i recommend you Rudolph Steiner you might just find the other half.

[@dullknifefactory]

I feel like you don't get Buddhism

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

Do you have any thoughts to back up your feelings, or?

[@dullknifefactory]

@@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow maybe later

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

@@dullknifefactory That's fair enough. Take care for now Happius.

[@YoungAdonise]

@@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow I realized you deeply misunderstood Buddhism from your first reference to it. "how does one reconcile, if at all, the interminable suffering of the world with any meaning? What does one do about suffering? What did Salinger do? Salinger fled into hinduism, into buddhism, into philosophies which preach denial of life." Buddhism does not preach denial and renunciation my friend. In fact, Mahayana Buddhism demands that we be entirely ensconced in the turbid torrent that is life. Detachment is not an apathetic retreat from what is, on the countrary, it is being entirely with what is without conferring / projecting egoic values onto it. It is to attend deeply to the world. For example, in a flower, we see the entire planet, even the entire universe. The sun, the clouds, the rain, the ocean, the streams, the rivers, the mud, the laws of entropy, time, space, it is full of everything but empty of one thing. Independent existence. A flower doesn't arise from itself, it is the result of a litany of cooperating conditions that allow it to be. The falling away of the self is not a falling away of individuality, on the contrary, everything and everyone is more itself, more unique, more special, in the eyes of one who realizes. We are reality having a perspective on itself, how wonderful life is. This is love and beauty. The flower and I, the sunset and I, the trees and I share the same being; we are not two. This is beauty. You and I share the same being, we are not two; this is love. Notice I said we are NOT two, I didn't say we are one. You are your own person, and so am I, nevertheless, we aren't two. How does logic reconcile this? If we refer to the three orders of PascaI, we gain a glimpse as to why logic- the ability to reason- isnt man's greatest ability. Charity, love, the capacity to understand, I mean truly understand, not merely identify experience via the limitied form of attending that is the explicit-words- is man's highest gift. I see you are a very logical man who cares very much for reason, so perhaps Nargarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika translated by Jay L. Garfield will suit you. Perhaps you simply read a few excerpts and opinions on Buddhism and developed such polemic opinions, and this is fine, but I implore you to look deeper, because everything you said at the end of the video is what Buddhism teaches. Enlightenment is not the realization of Nirvana, it is the realization that both Nirvana and "Maya" are empty. Suffering IS the way. Christianity- in its exoteric form- teaches the same. This gets closer to the heart of Buddhism than anything you said in the video. Your video is impregnated with the same prejudice you wish to fight, I hope you'll see that. Buddhism is not a "revoltion and hatred of all that is good and real in the world" it is antithetical to that. It is a loving indifference, (please understand the valence of my words here, if you don't ask me to clarify) or rather, an impersonal love which is not a compensatory assertion of the "I". It is not sectarian; it is not discriminatory. I cannot hate an atheist, a Jew, a Christian, a conservative, progressive, communist, socialist, etc, regardless of our antithetical world views, how could I? You are my being. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to reply. Have a great day my friend!!

[@jinx.rhodes]

I super disagree. Holden (and Salinger) have always stood for grief. Heartbroken at a world of horror and loneliness, he wants so much to help children stay pure and playful for as long as they possibly can. He’s angry at the decay of authenticity, and searches for experiences in adulthood as simplistic and magical as children playing baseball, wandering through museums, and riding carousels. He begrudgingly learns he’ll never again see the world through that lens. He can never get that back. He’s doomed to exist in the false and hateful. He wants so much to keep every kid from feeling the cold death of their childhood, but it’s too late for him. It’s all about grief. And we grieve that which we’ve loved.

[@fredkrissman6527]

Hear hear! Particularly strange to me, is making buddhism a bogeyman... I mean, all philosophies have their pros&cons, but the idea that "life is suffering" is both objectively true, AND not the be-all/end-all of buddhist practice; indeed, far from it!

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

@fredkrissman6527 You think that the idea that life is suffering is objectively true? And therin liees the problem. Life is both suffering and joy, it is both dark and light. They obviously cannot be without each other. But Buddhism diagnoses life as fundamentally composed of suffering. And it may be strange to you. That's no argument. And 'all philosophies have their pros and cons', is just a terrible way to forumlate a position. It's rare to find people that have actually done the reading and know what they're talking about when it comes to Buddhism. And in that, it's like every other religion. Make no mistake; Buddhism is fundamentally nihilistic.

[@Dudenobody]

I love your videos man. I especially loved how you delved into J.D Salinger’s history.

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

Thanks for letting me know, DN. I really appreciate that. 🙌🏼

[@frncscbtncrt]

The title in this video is so wrong.

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

Care to elaborate?

[@illusionistextraordinaire87802]

I really love your videos, This one video even when I love it, I have to disagree on it. "Why so many sad formalities, Why so many pompous letters, With so much of yours and mine" "Mix them up, undress them, until the light of the world Has the oneness of the ocean, A generous, vast wholeness, a crepitant fragrance" Pablo Neruda Neruda, Salinger they are trying to say the same thing.

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

That's a very interesting insight IE. I would say however, that the difference between them is that Neruda is trying to mix up the world in order to let us see things anew, whereas Salinger is telling us to avert our eyes from it, since he believes it all to be Maya.

[@illusionistextraordinaire87802]

@@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow well, Maya can be seen as the false differences we aggrevate so much, That we become ignorant of the cosmic connection that flows uniting us. Salinger tried to train his mind to rise above this egoitistic frame. Freedom from this, that the world so stuck in, Causing war, death and distruction of their times, Is indeed seeing the world anew.

[@NothingHereForYou]

I read this book in high school and I barely remember it, all I remember was feeling that it was pretentious, angsty and he was hypocritical and preachy. I don't even remember what about, kind of reminds me of Frits the Cat movie

[@austinchambers6264]

Your videos are amazing. The concepts are challenging and reasonable. Please continue making videos. Do you have social media for fans to follow you?

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

Thank You Austin. I really do appreciate it. I do have a twitter account. It’s @TheWrittenW0rld Please continue to watch and if you can - please share. Hope you’re well and greetings from London.

[@zorothe9th]

Your videos are academic and educational while not coming off as cold and detached. And your voice is fantastic too. Thanks for the great content

[@capitaldharma]

You point to a key insight about The first Noble Truth towards the end of this video. This Truth says suffering is a fact of life, which you acknowledge, and it is suffering that makes us human and that makes life beautiful. The teaching is not that you should deny life or flee suffering. It’s the opposite. You should go into it and experience it in order to be free. Note that when we study the six realms, it is the human realm that is the only realm where you can gain nirvana. Why is that? The teaching is not to escape into the highest realm of godlike bliss. It is to stay in the human realm and gain insight from suffering. This is the way of the artist. 😊

[@burgerqueen1633]

I'm honestly shocked to see how less views this video has. This channel will blow up soon! really made me think deeply! keep it up ♡

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

And I'm honestly flattered by such a kind reply. Thank You BurgerQueen. It means a lot. - And you can always share it with your friends if you like.😉Have a great evening BQ... And thanks again.

[@burgerqueen1633]

@@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow I already shared with my friends! Will be rooting for your success

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

@@burgerqueen1633 Thank you BurgerQueen… I appreciate it a lot. Take care and watch this space…

[@mondiriu]

But if fiction instructing on what to do or how to live constitutes proselytizing, doesn't all fiction and all criticism of fiction proselytize? From your Hemingway-Faulkner video, "style is morality; style judges". There you argued and even justified the 2 writers' contrasting styles as arising from their contrasting moralities and judgements about the world: the former pithy and laconic, the latter lush and indulgent. But here you have used words such as "denigration", "disparaging", "denunciation", "sermonizing" to characterize what Salinger was doing through his writing, yet your own criticism of his _Catcher in the Rye_ seems to me open to the same charge of preaching since by it you present a disputable worldview, a morality of your own, which you are setting forth as a criterion for good literature: that the writer shouldn't by his writing seek to convert his readers to share his views, either implicitly or explicitly. I think that a very debatable claim as it isn't obvious what the legitimate aims and purposes of literature should be. What a writer ought to do through his writing is purely a matter of subjective preference. And readers, accordingly, are entitled to apply their preferred system of values to a piece of work in judging whether it is good or bad. The whole thing is a dialogue, and this makes critical videos such as yours perfectly acceptable, except for the fact that you've ended up excoriating Salinger for exercising the very prerogative you reserve to yourself. He writes a book to criticize and you make a video criticizing his criticism. Admittedly his worldview was decidedly religious -- which is as contentious as contentious gets -- and yours seems seems not. But the specific nature of the writer's/reader's views don't really matter, the point being that what purpose literature should serve is a contested question on which you've taken a clear side, so that in the final analysis Salinger does not proselytize in _Catcher_ any more than you do here.

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

These are video essays.

[@mondiriu]

Yes, it's clear that's what they are.

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

@@mondiriu Well then it should be clear. Your argument is levied against my proposal that good literature should never proselytise. That's for Literature. This is a completely different medium. I hope you can see what I am driving at...

[@mondiriu]

I get that video essays are not literature (although yours are generally very well done). I'm making a separate point, however, and I feel that you yourself have elsewhere made the same point which is this - in the world of art and literature, one cannot help but infuse his values and philosophy of life into his work. Again, what you said about Hemingway and Faulkner. One's very way of seeing, what interests him, what repulses him, the sorts of real-life characters that intrigue him and he'd like to embody on paper, who'd be the protagonist, who the villain, what stories seem worth telling, and how to tell those stories--all these will inextricably be mixed in with and shaped by his formative experiences and the worldview he's evolved over time, no? Or another way of getting at it: Suppose you wrote a book (if you haven't already); do you think you could write one without the views which you've expressed in this essay, and the values therein embodied, seeping into the work? Do you think you could write a book without breaking neutrality and portraying a vision of the world that some readers might contend with? Because in saying "literature is bad when it denounces the world and men as corrupt", as this video essay does, you at the same time implicitly say, "literature is good when it affirms the world and human instincts". And any book you wrote, because you'd want it to be good, would, I think, more or less do what you implicitly believe good literature should do: affirm the world and human instincts--this would be proselytizing, just on the other side's behalf.

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

I see the point you're making @@mondiriu, but qualify it thus: Proselytisation is about telling the reader what to believe, but a good writer never does that. They lay out the world as they see it, and take the reader on a journey about what they themselves believe. And thank you.

[@thelondonghostwritingcompany]

The author has misunderstood Salinger and Buddhism.

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

How?

[@sunakarakuzus9614]

Amazing tam istedigim konuyu anlatmis🙏😃😃👍

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

Beğendinize Sevindim. Thank You.

[@themaninironmask]

Good point to a certain degree. Some things right, but fundamentally the thesis is wrong.

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

Care to expand?

[@themaninironmask]

@@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow You are mostly right about Salinger's escape from horror, from falsity, and from sin. Because he was incomplete in his religious endeavor. His endeavor and understanding about society and the world is right however, and so is his doctrine of the need to understand and overcome it. If anyone thinks society and mankind are perfectly right as they are, is either severely hypnotized or naive in the extreme. Christ on the other hand did not escape sin, life, or mankind, but overcame it. He faced it all until it broke him; literally. And so also must those who see through it all do as well -and not seclude and condemn or desire to evaporate. However, a seperatness from the world, from secularity. From popular opinion and culture is paramount if one desires to know themselves at all; to see if anything is real inside them, or to discover anything at all worth dying for. This is what Salinger's works are mostly about and in that sense he is above most writers. However, I think I know what frame you are taking (The "religion bad" frame) and so this explanation is more than likely useless.

[@keeszondervrees8787]

Thanks

[@tomahawk5712]

Bravo ! When i hear critics of Schopenhauer 'The world as will and representation' as ending in nihilism and wanting humanity to vanish because there's too much suffering, i remind them of his inspirations of this diagnostic and prescription: hinduism, buddhism and religious ascetism. No procreation, no desire, the obsession with getting rid of suffering for good (sometimes by dying while you're still alive), escaping the world by turning to nothingness, ascetism practices... I really appreciate Schopenhauer, i just prefer Nietzsche's views on suffering and his battle against all forms of nihilism.

[@illusionistextraordinaire87802]

It is only nihilism if you look at it from a shattered perspective, the oriental traditions, teach not the denial of human emotions, but to rise above them.

[@Anarcath]

I LIKED your video before I watched it. I was right.

[@TheWrittenWorldSubscribeNow]

Ha! Well Andrew, you are exactly the kind of supporter I need! Thank You...